RIDOT presents revised Carbon Reduction Strategy plan

On Nov. 15, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation submitted a revised version of its Carbon Reduction Strategy to the Federal Highway Administration. If the plan is approved, RIDOT is eligible to receive an estimated $35.7 million from the federal government to spend on carbon reduction projects over four years.

While representatives from both the Acadia Center, a non-profit dedicated to climate solutions, and Grow Smart R.I., an organization focused on “neighborhood revitalization, environmental stewardship and economic opportunity,” believe the new plan is more effective, they still share concerns about its ability to help the state meet the goals outlined in the 2021 R.I. Act on Climate.

“Overall, I’m glad to see that RIDOT responded to the public’s demand for more investment in non-car infrastructure,” said Emily Koo ’13, senior policy advocate and R.I. program director of the Acadia Center. “But the core issues of not meeting the Act on Climate targets, nor measuring project level emissions reductions, remain.”

While Acadia was “glad to see that there’s significantly more funding for bike paths, it is still for resurfacing and preservation and maintenance of existing bike paths and not (establishing) new bike infrastructure,” Koo said.

For Koo, RIDOT is “putting the onus of the transportation sector planning and analysis on the state’s 2025 climate strategy.”

To read the entire article from the Brown Daily Herald, click here.

Building Power: Breaking down Rhode Island’s new community electricity programs

This summer, during the hottest July on record, over 1,000 Rhode Islanders had their electricity service shut off. These residents—unable to pay bills 25 percent higher than last summer—were left without AC or electricity for days of extreme heat, causing heat-related illnesses and exacerbating existing health conditions. Facing longer and hotter summers due to climate change, Rhode Islanders, especially those with underlying health conditions, have a dire need for air conditioning. But more AC usage alongside ongoing energy rate hikes means higher bills, and with higher bills comes the risk of shut-offs, leaving vulnerable Rhode Islanders without electricity when it is most critical.

Emily Koo, who was Providence’s Director of Sustainability during much of the development of the PCE program, pointed to the importance of taking control back from the utility:

“Communities are in the driver’s seat here and will continue to pursue the dual goal of lower cost, higher renewables for its customers in its electricity procurement,” she said. “This separation of supply is a great example of removing a responsibility from the utility so that it better aligns with state and community goals to address climate pollution and lower consumer costs.”

Many residents are concerned by the dissonance between the dirty tricks and the purported clean energy goals of the biggest renewable supplier in the country, their potential future supplier. So how and why was such a company chosen? And should it change how we understand municipal aggregation in Rhode Island?

The first question is simpler to answer. Koo put it bluntly: there wasn’t much of a choice. The buying group of municipalities put out a Request for Proposal (RFP), inviting any energy suppliers licensed to work in the region to bid to procure energy for the program; after initial vetting by Good Energy on the financial viability of the proposed suppliers, they were left with bids from two companies. One was NextEra; the other remains confidential.

Ultimately, Jamie Rhodes explains, it came down to a decision between two fundamentally different pricing models. Given the needs of the program—the necessary balance of lower prices and renewable options—Koo told the Indy that the buying group of municipalities decided that, of the two, NextEra best balanced these factors.

Municipal aggregation in Rhode Island is a truly important shift, a step toward enabling Rhode Islanders to have more agency over their energy system, toward acknowledging the power in collectivity. With NextEra in the mix, this program is far from ideal. But it’s what we have, and it’s better than what we had before. The development of local renewables is real and important; the costs of energy remain lower than RI Energy and will hopefully continue to drop.

And as Emily Koo said, these large energy companies, even involved as they are in dirty nationwide politics, “can also be driven to serve the needs of certain communities.”

To read the full article from the Indy, click here.

Boston no longer pursuing inclusion in program to ban fossil fuels in new construction

The city of Boston will no longer be pursuing inclusion in a program that would allow it to ban fossil fuels from new construction.

The program was open to 10 Massachusetts municipalities, and nine of those spots have already been taken. Mayor Michelle Wu told The Boston Globe last week that she had received “clear indications that Boston would not be chosen for the one available spot,” and that it “breaks [her] heart.”

Boston was unlikely to be accepted because it is “electrically similar” to a few other communities that have already been selected, such as Cambridge, Brookline, and Arlington, a spokesperson for the state Department of Energy Resources told the Globe. This means that their infrastructures are of a similar age and face similar demands. The pilot program was designed to collect data from a diverse group of municipalities.

Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the clean energy advocacy group Acadia Center, told the Globe that Boston’s new building code already does a lot to prevent fossil fuel usage in new buildings.

“[The code is] strong and will really help drive down emissions,” he told the paper. “So I still think Boston is going to do some amazing things, but still — I’m a little disappointed.”

To read the full article from Boston.com, click here.

Boston’s plan to ban fossil fuels in new buildings goes up in smoke

More than three years after introducing her Green New Deal plan for Boston as a mayoral candidate, Mayor Michelle Wu said in an interview last week that the city will not be participating in a state program that will allow 10 communities to ban developers from including fossil fuels in new buildings. The pilot program is the only way for Massachusetts communities to take this step without violating state regulations.

Wu’s decision not to apply for the program came as a surprise to environmental advocates and legislators who have been trying to move the state away from heating and cooling new structures with fossil fuels. Constructing buildings that are only powered by electricity is considered among the low-hanging fruit of plans to decarbonize. Buildings account for roughly 70 percent of Boston’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The adoption of Boston’s new building code already goes a long way toward getting fossil fuels out of new buildings, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the clean energy advocacy group Acadia Center.

The code is “strong and will really help drive down emissions,” he said. “So I still think Boston is going to do some amazing things, but still — I’m a little disappointed.”

To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.

What the Failed Pine Tree Power Proposal in Maine Could Have Accomplished

Maine voters had the chance to make history Tuesday, but instead rejected the contentious Pine Tree Power proposal which, advocates say, had big implications for the rates that Maine electric customers pay and how fast the state transitions to renewable energy sources.

If it had passed, the vote would have replaced the state’s investor-owned electric utilities, Central Maine Power and Versant Power, with a publicly owned alternative named Pine Tree Power, the first of its kind in the US. The move also could have set the stage for other states to follow suit.

The ballot question created a fiery debate, with even environmental nonprofits disagreeing on which option was better.

“The consumer-owned utility model has uncertainty and change attached to it,” said Peter LaFond, senior policy advocate and Maine program director for the nonpartisan Acadia Center.

LaFond, who did not endorse either side, believes the ballot initiative was more of “an indication that change is needed.”

The Pine Tree Power proposal surfaced after strong criticism of Central Maine Power, a corporate-owned utility that consumers say has a history of slow response time to outages and poor billing experiences.

Supporters of the Pine Tree Power initiative said CMP caused roadblocks to renewable power projects. “Things need to be governed differently to move forward into a green energy future that both reduces energy costs and reduces the carbon footprint,” LaFond said.

But the vote isn’t where this issue ends. Residents will still need to remain involved if they want their voice to be heard in the future of Maine’s energy decisions.

“Regardless of the outcome of the vote, things need to change,” LaFond said. “If we’re going to meet consumer, climate and energy goals, we have to move forward with a utility system that’s responsive to those.”

To read the full article from CNET, click here.

Will RIDOT Pay Any Attention to Public Comments About Its Carbon Reduction Strategy?

As transportation produces the most climate change emissions, there is now some federal transportation funding which, in order to obtain, requires the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to file a “carbon reduction strategy” (CRS). So RIDOT drafted a CRS that was open for public comment that had a Nov. 3 deadline for input.

One response was a sign-on letter organized by Acadia Center and a group of “transportation decarbonization” activists that generated 20 signatures from climate, environmental, bike, and transit groups asking for changes in the plan. The letter notes a need to improve its methodology, to better engage stakeholders, to give more priority to implementing the state’s officially adopted transit and bike plans, and, most importantly, to make it more likely to actually meet climate goals. RIDOT is to review the public comments, but it seems they need not make any changes in what they send to the Federal Highway Administration.

To read the full article from ecoRI, click here.

RGGI’s Third Program Review: Charting a Path Towards Zero?

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-invest program among Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector, is currently undergoing its third program review. This means the participating states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts, are collectively examining the successes, impacts, and design of their CO2 budget trading programs, and considering updates to the program design. We see this third program review as a real opportunity to strengthen RGGI in a way that would significantly and equitably drive down power sector emissions and have been following the process closely. We have been told that the process will conclude by the end of the year. 

Speaking of Environmental Justice, in this third program review, RGGI has the opportunity to ensure equity is built into the model rule. Although they have not yet outlined their strategy for including equity, we, along with fellow advocates, have been advocating for RGGI states to incorporate air quality monitoring in their program review. We urge them to prioritize accelerating emission reductions at power plants that pose the most significant respiratory health risks to vulnerable communities. Specifically, we propose a reduction in the MW threshold capacity for power plants covered under RGGI, from 25MW to 15MW. According to the RGGI Report by Acadia Center, 91% of these smaller generating units are situated within a 3-mile radius of an EPA Environmental Justice Socioeconomic Indicators (EJSI) community or a community with a high asthma prevalence. Therefore, their inclusion in the program can contribute to addressing the health disparities caused by these power plants’ proximity to EJSI communities.

To read the full blog from Green Energy Consumers Alliance, click here.

Go solar: How social movements influence and help grow emerging industries like green energy

As Margaret Mead allegedly said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Not the only thing, perhaps, but there’s growing evidence that social movements — groups of dedicated actors that aim to promote shared social or cultural goals — can have an impact on promoting new firms and industries.

IESE Business School’s Desirée Pacheco and Theodore A. Khoury of Portland State University examine the role of social movements in the development of solar energy in the United States. Specifically, they look at how social movements can successfully create an environment in which firms feel encouraged to enter the market, and in which circumstances they have the most clout.

As countries increasingly accept the need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy sources, the environmental benefits of solar energy become ever clearer. Despite this, not all economies have rushed to embrace solar in a timely fashion, leaving much of the groundwork to be covered by social movements.

In the U.S., tech-focused social movements, such as Acadia Center in Maine or the Energy Trust of Oregon, have lobbied for its adoption in several ways, including:

• awareness campaigns
• training and educational programs
• supporting good ideas, fighting misinformation and finding common ground
• pushing for regulatory reform
• managing programs for swapping or upgrading

All these initiatives help a new industry come across as viable and legitimate. They clarify the unknowns in a firm’s offering, push for legal frameworks that make room for them, and target potential customers.

In the case of solar energy in the U.S., state-level laws define many residents’ attitudes toward the industry. Pacheco and Khoury’s research shows that it is precisely where the regional ecology is least supportive of solar offerings that social movements can make a larger difference.

To read the full article in Forbes India, click here.

RIDOT’s carbon reduction strategy draws backlash from advocates for focus on highways

On Oct. 3, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation published its Carbon Reduction Strategy and opened the document’s public comment period, which is scheduled to close Friday. The plan, which is required for states to receive funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s Carbon Reduction Program, is due Nov. 15.

Emily Koo ’13, senior policy advocate and Rhode Island program director for Acadia Center, said the state needs a much more aggressive push toward shifting modes of transportation and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled in order to achieve its Act on Climate targets, which call to reduce emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2040 and to net-zero by 2050.

“There is a glaring disconnect between the scale of emission reduction needed to move the needle and the investments proposed in RIDOT’s Carbon Reduction Strategy,” Koo wrote in an email to The Herald.

The Transit Master Plan, also published in 2020 by multiple state transportation agencies, strives to improve mobility for residents by enhancing the state’s public transit network, including rail and bus routes.

Sweeping expansions and improvements proposed in the plan have not come to fruition — instead, RIPTA faces a potential budget cliff as soon as the 2025 fiscal year.

“In the absence of project-level emissions reductions analysis (or public engagement), we must assume that RIDOT’s process for identifying and prioritizing projects and strategies is based solely on ‘RIDOT’s internal priorities and logistical capacities’ — in other words, the way things have always been done,” Koo wrote.

RIDOT held a stakeholder workshop in Sept. 2023 to identify strategies and priorities while crafting the strategy. Grow Smart R.I. and Acadia Center each had one representative at the workshop.

To read the full article from the Brown Daily Herald, click here.

Critics say RIDOT’s carbon reduction plan stuck in slow lane

Roughly half of Rhode Islanders would have to stop driving their cars to get the state to invest substantially in other modes of transit like buses, trains, and more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.

That is not going to happen, Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) officials made clear at the Transportation Advisory Committee’s (TAC) at its Oct. 26 meeting with climate and transit activists to review the state’s preliminary Carbon Reduction Plan.

The plan includes $7.1 million toward bike path maintenance and $600,000 for sidewalks. But it lacks a commitment to conduct an emissions reduction analysis, said Emily Koo, senior policy director and Rhode Island program director for the Maine-based Acadia Center, who attended the Oct. 26 meeting.

“It is complex, of course, to understand how different projects would reduce emissions, but there needs to be some effort to do that,” she said in an interview.

Koo questioned the methodology behind how RIDOT measures cost-effectiveness of certain strategies.

On page 25 of the draft plan, Koo pointed out a table which compares categories of emissions reduction strategies like electric buses and “pedestrian investment.” The comparison, based on the state’s 2021 Clean Transportation and Mobility Innovation Report, offers gradients of cost-effectiveness with one, two or three plus signs, or an “NA.”

“It’s very hard to understand how you would use that to weigh projects in any way,” Koo said. “So bicycle investments have three plus signs for health benefits and traffic improvements have three for jobs. Which do you prioritize?”

Flaherty and Koo also remain uneasy on whether RIDOT will truly incorporate public comment into its final report to the Federal Highway Administration.

To read the full article from the Rhode Island Current, click here.