Opinion: Only one way for RI to get off fossil fuel roller coaster

As Alex Kuffner reported on April 1 (“Spike in RI electric prices expected,” News), Rhode Islanders will likely pay more for fossil fuel-dominated electricity next winter. We’ve long been at risk for these types of pricing fluctuations because we are far too dependent on a finite and increasingly scarce supply of fossil fuels which our region cannot produce.

That means we are among the most vulnerable to pricing volatility for an energy resource that is extremely sensitive to geopolitical events, natural and man-made disasters, cyberattacks, and even decisions from fossil fuel producers to cut production as occurred during the pandemic to artificially increase commodity prices for oil and natural gas.

But as Rhode Island transitions away from fossil fuels, we will become less vulnerable to pressures well beyond our control.

One way for Rhode Island to get off this fossil fuel roller coaster is to become energy independent by supporting companion bills S2274 and H7277, sponsored by Senate President Dominick Ruggerio and Rep. Deborah Ruggiero, to put our state on a path to 100% renewable electricity.

Environmental advocates have long worried about the intrinsic pricing volatility and air pollution from fossil fuels. And while many skeptics claim renewable energy is more expensive, long-term renewable electricity contracts regularly tell a different story.

For instance, in March 2020, the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission approved a 20-year power purchase agreement from Gravel Pit Solar at 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour — far below average current and projected electric supply rates. Similarly, the 400-megawatt procurement of electricity from the offshore Revolution Wind project came in at a levelized price of just over 7 cents per kilowatt hour for supply. Clean resources like these have zero fuel costs – the sun and wind are free, if we just capture them.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel prices have and always will be volatile. Locking into long-term low-cost renewable energy contracts is the best strategy to protect Rhode Islanders against future spikes. Senate Environment and Agriculture Chairperson Dawn Euer has also introduced bill S2583, which would help meet the 100% renewable goal by requiring Rhode Island to procure up to 600 additional megawatts of offshore wind, which will likely also help lower our average supply prices.

Finally, the lowest-cost way to control energy prices is to invest more in energy efficiency measures that lock in long-term energy savings, both by improving the quality and comfort of individual buildings but also by reducing the aggregate amount of energy required across the state.

Efficiency is simply the most cost-effective fuel we have. That’s why we must remove current state budget proposals that would divert critical energy efficiency funds away from these nation-leading programs. Energy efficiency has long been and will continue to be the lowest-cost and simplest way to reduce our energy insecurity and keep electric rates in check.

Rhode Island proudly proclaims itself as the first state to declare independence from the British crown and celebrates its own Independence Day each May 4. This year, let’s set a goal to also celebrate our independence from polluting fossil fuels by signing these important bills into law.

Read the full OpEd, published in The Providence Journal here.

With Financial Incentives the Future Is Electric

It may seem like a tall order: Make changes to your home to lower your energy bills, remove harmful pollutants from the air you breathe, and help in the global fight against climate change.

But it’s not as hard as it might sound. According to a new report commissioned by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, it’s possible for New Jerseyans to achieve all three.

The report, “The Future Is Electric,” finds consumers could see more than a 50% reduction in their energy bills by installing highly efficient electric heating and cooling systems and weatherizing their houses. That amounts to substantial savings in a household budget. What’s more, transitioning away from burning fossil fuels inside homes would mean cleaner and healthier indoor air, and fewer outdoor emissions contributing to global warming and over 250 premature deaths annually in New Jersey.

Prepared by the Acadia Center, a New England-based climate research and advocacy nonprofit, the report also highlights the need for New Jersey and its utilities to provide more incentives for consumers to invest in efficient electric heating – similar to the popular rebates offered to consumers who buy electric vehicles.

Coincidentally, “The Future Is Electric” was released one day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a dire warning that our rapidly warming climate is wreaking havoc across the planet, and that time is running out to stabilize it. Unless greenhouse gas emissions are quickly and drastically reduced, the panel report said, climate change impacts – including floods, storms, droughts and other extreme weather events – will overwhelm the ability of nature and humanity to adapt.

New Jersey is making progress on reducing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity. The state requires that by 2030, 50% of the electricity we consume will come from in-state and regional solar and wind. The state is also working to reduce the state’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – vehicles and transportation – with generous rebates to buyers of electric vehicles.

One piece of the clean energy puzzle that has gotten considerably less attention is the building sector. Many New Jerseyans don’t realize that houses and buildings are the state’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. When you think about it, it makes sense: Our state has hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings. Each building heated with natural gas, heating oil or propane has its own on-site combustion system, which produces both indoor and outdoor emissions. Polluted air can cause or exacerbate many health conditions, including asthma.

What’s the alternative to fossil fuel systems? Many consumers are turning to a newer technology known as air source heat pumps. “Heat pumps are essentially a super-efficient air conditioner that can work backwards,” explained Amy Boyd, policy director at the Acadia Center. They work by moving heat from outdoor air indoors, and are effective even in cold climates.

Air source heat pumps are far more energy efficient than fossil fuel combustion. By combining heat pump technology with weatherizing “leaky” houses, Boyd said, consumers could see their energy bills cut in half. Heat pumps create no emissions, either indoors or outdoors, so families can breathe cleaner, healthier air. This is especially important in New Jersey’s urban areas, which have the state’s highest levels of air pollution.

So what’s stopping New Jersey consumers from reaping these benefits? Mostly money. Heat pump systems have higher up-front costs, and New Jersey is behind other northeastern states in offering financial incentives to motivate homeowners to make the switch.

“One thing that states like Massachusetts are doing is putting their money where their climate policy is,” said Boyd. In states that offer substantial rebates, she noted, heat pump systems can be comparable in cost or even cheaper than fossil fuel combustion systems. It’s time for New Jersey to get with the program and support a switch to clean, electrically heated buildings.

The Murphy administration has already committed to producing more electricity with clean, renewable technology and getting more drivers into electric vehicles. The next logical step is to make it affordable for residents to upgrade their homes to safe, efficient, non-polluting heating systems.

One advocate for stronger incentives is state Sen. Andrew Zwicker, who spoke at a briefing on the release of “The Future Is Electric” report.

“New Jersey has to be a leader here,” he said. “If we can provide financial incentives, consumers can have choices” for better health, lower energy bills and fighting climate change.

“This is a key moment, not just in New Jersey’s history or U.S. history, but globally,” Zwicker added. “The IPCC report that just came out makes it clear that global warming is outpacing our ability to cope. The oceans are rising, the forests are burning, and carbon dioxide levels continue their upward march. It’s now a question of are we willing to take this moment and move forward?”

New Jersey’s answer needs to be yes!

Read the full article in The SandPaper here.

RI Attorney General files emergency appeal against sale of Narragansett Electric Company

On Feb. 23, the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers approved the sale of Narragansett Electric Company — National Grid’s electric and gas supplier in Rhode Island — to Pennsylvania-based electric company PPL Electric Utilities. One day later, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha filed an emergency appeal of the decision in the Rhode Island Superior Court  “on the grounds that it does not sufficiently provide assurances that the sale is in the best interests of Rhode Islanders,” according to a Feb. 24 statement.

Following concerns raised by community organizations during the sale’s review process that PPL lacks sufficient experience to further National Grid’s advancements toward green energy and meet state climate goals outlined by the 2021 Act on Climate bill, DPUC approved the $5.3 billion transaction.

Now, as Neronha’s appeal process moves forward, the case has come to represent “one of the first opportunities to uphold the Act on Climate and send some guidance to other state agencies that it is a legal standard that they need to follow,” said Hank Webster, senior policy advocate and Rhode Island director at Acadia Center, a clean energy research and advocacy organization that voiced concerns regarding the sale during the review process.

State climate organizations raise concerns

While upon review DPUC guaranteed that the sale was made in “public interest” — a requirement for the purchase to pass — some environmental groups cited different interpretations of public interest given ongoing climate concerns.

According to Kai Salem ’18, policy coordinator at Green Energy Consumers Alliance, utility companies are essential to the state’s commitment to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030 through the Act on Climate.

Many community advocates who partook in the review process cited PPL’s lack of experience in green energy as a concern with the sale, given that the company currently only operates in states which lack green energy goals comparable to those outlined by the Act on Climate, Salem said.

“The vast majority of electricity and natural gas in our state goes through the utility systems,” Salem said. These companies “are charged by law with administering most of the green energy plans” in the state. If a company fails to meet these policies, it “could really hamper our ability to meet our climate goals.”

National Grid currently operates in Rhode Island, New York and Massachusetts, “three of the top five states nationally for energy efficiency,” Webster said. National Grid’s experience in Rhode Island as well as other states with green energy pathways means that the company has already “lived in that ecosystem” of green energy, he added. Should they maintain control of the state’s power supply, “they can leverage that expertise” to help “decarbonize the utility based systems” in a way PPL cannot.

During the review process, Salem also questioned the company’s ability to meet climate goals without impacting Rhode Island ratepayers. “PPL could gain that experience and expertise,” she explained, but the money necessary to provide it “is going to be charged to Rhode Islanders.”

During the review process, National Grid refuted the claim that the transaction could negatively impact the state’s ratepayers. In its rebuttal, the company stated that, after analyzing the information supplied by PPL, it is “confident that customers of Narragansett will continue to receive safe, reliable and cost-effective electric and gas distribution service.”

In an email to The Herald, Mark Miller, director of communications for PPL, wrote that the company has maintained rates in its present localities that are “31% lower than the average rates in the Mid-Atlantic region” as of the most recent comparison in summer 2021.

Miller also noted that, by investing in the automation of the electrical grid, PPL reduced outages by 30% and incorporated “over 14,600 customer-owned and third party-owned distributed energy resources,” he wrote.

Currently, National Grid is piloting a geothermal network — a project that, according to Webster, would be deeply beneficial to Rhode Island. PPL indicated during the review process that “they have no intention of pursuing that pathway, at least not right now,” which led to concern from local climate activists, he said.

Additionally, PPL would have to continue National Grid’s project of developing technology to blend green hydrogen into distribution heating to help displace natural gas within the Ocean State, Webster said.

Salem also highlighted that Rhode Island has focused on offshore wind power as the main way to reduce carbon emissions, but PPL has no experience with such infrastructure. None of the states in which it currently operates have wind power installations.

In their testimonies during the review process, National Grid and PPL pointed to ongoing collaboration between the two companies as a way PPL will negate concerns regarding its overall experience with green energy. PPL noted that it will leverage the experience “managing energy efficiency programs and programs similar to least-cost procurement in its existing utilities” while taking advantage of the knowledge provided by National Grid employees that will be transferring to PPL.

Miller did not comment on PPL’s ability to meet climate goals.

Bringing the sale to court

Margaret Curran, senior attorney at the Clean Energy and Climate Change Program at the Conservation Law Foundation in Rhode Island, noted that because “utilities are a regulated industry, they come under a number of regulatory requirements” that independent businesses do not, necessitating that the state DPUC approve the sale as within public interest.

Curran, who voiced environmental concerns in the review process on behalf of CLF, said that DPUC had a “much more lenient” approach to the case than she anticipated.

“It didn’t want to ask a lot of the questions that the Attorney General’s office was arguing were necessary,” she said, including certain financial information and storm response plans.

For Curran, DPUC’s decision to uphold the sale despite widespread public criticism only further demonstrated the current division’s hands-off approach, which she said does not meet the expectations of community stakeholders. “The Hearing Officer seemed to view the Division’s role in overseeing this interaction as very light-touch,” she said, suggesting that the DPUC only worried about the utility being in “good financial order.”

The Climate and Development Lab at Brown University also raised concerns regarding PPL’s knowledge of offshore wind supply, according to J. Timmons Roberts, professor of environmental studies. Roberts alleged that DPUC’s “historical focus is about low rates and reliability above all else.”

In Neronha’s March 23 opening brief to the Superior Court, he alleged that DPUC “expressly denied the statutory command to consider climate impacts of the transaction, as it must in all its decisions, enacted by the legislature in its adoption of the 2021 Act on Climate.”

While we are “confident the Division’s decision will be upheld, we also understand that this is a complex transaction and recognize the Attorney General’s commitment to ensuring Rhode Island customers will not be impacted by it,” wrote Ted Kresse, director of strategic communications at National Grid, in an email to The Herald.

Thomas Kogut, DPUC associate administrator, wrote in an email to The Herald that DPUC is unable to comment on the review process as it falls within its current legal proceedings at the Superior Court.

Setting a precedent for the Act on Climate 

The Act on Climate set legally enforceable emission reduction requirements for state energy companies. But, according to climate activists, even though DPUC’s approval of the purchase came on the condition that PPL would eventually meet these goals, it did not satisfactorily outline steps to do so. That represents a potential limitation of the bill in ensuring that businesses uphold state climate goals prior to gaining control of state energy resources.

According to Webster, the focus on “the company’s willingness to commit to meeting targets without any specifics around how they plan to do that” could set a dangerous precedent for companies entering the review process with promises they might be unable or unwilling to act on later.

During the review process, PPL released a list of seventeen methods to meet state climate goals. The document promises that PPL will “submit a report to the Division within 12 months of the transaction closing on its specific decarbonization goals for Narragansett to support the goals of Rhode Island’s 2021 Act on Climate.” But Webster said their language was too abstract to verify with confidence.

In its rebuttal testimony, National Grid said the Act on Climate does not place any immediate requirements on public utilities and that “compliance with future rules or regulations implementing the 2021 Act should be addressed in a separate forum and not as a condition of approval of the transaction.”

Amid these disagreements on the implementation of the Act on Climate, Curran suggested that businesses within the state might look to the result of the ongoing hearing when interpreting how they will meet the requirements of the bill moving forward. The resistance toward incorporating the Act on Climate in decisions “comes from entrenched economic interests that are fighting pretty hard not to have those changes put into place, because it means they will have to substantially change much of the business that they have been doing,” she said.

“Although it is frustrating that this is happening, it demonstrates the power of the Act on Climate and how important it is to have legally binding climate mandates because it allows us to use the court system to enforce it,” Salem said.

On April 1, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Neronha’s appeal and scheduled a subsequent oral argument held Tuesday, suggesting DPUC failed to “adequately consider the environmental impacts of the transaction in accordance with the 2021 Act on Climate” in its initial approval.

After the oral argument, the Court will provide a final decision and community members will have one more opportunity to contest the sale. According to Curran, both the Attorney General and PPL could decide to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

If the sale moves forward, Curran thinks there is still room for optimism about PPL’s ability to meet climate goals.

“Maybe we will be pleasantly surprised by PPL. They actually have done some interesting work in Pennsylvania and have actually done more work than National Grid in putting up advanced metering functionalities,” she said. “Maybe this is a utility we can work with.”

According to Miller, PPL is “excited about the prospect of serving the energy needs of Rhode Islanders as well as partnering with the State to achieve its decarbonization goals.”

While Webster is less confident about PPL’s ability to meet state climate needs, he noted that the Acadia Center is “committed to help PPL advance the clean energy future.” But first, he added, the organization wants “the state to conduct a thorough review of all the elements of that clean future that we need to address.”

Read the full article in The Brown Daily Herald here.

Grid operator urges slower transition on renewables

THE NEW ENGLAND power grid operator filed a proposal with federal regulators on Monday seeking more time to come up with a system for incorporating clean energy into the region’s electricity markets.

The grid operator, known as ISO-New England, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to put off until 2025 plans to do away with a 2013 pricing rule intended to prevent subsidized clean energy projects from unfairly squeezing other power generators (most of whom burn fossil fuels) out of the market. ISO-New England had previously planned to do away with the pricing rule next year.

In a statement accompanying the filing, ISO-New England said a longer transition period is warranted because it “will create less risk to the region than an immediate market change could evoke.”

Environmental advocates are opposing the move. “This decision throws an unnecessary lifeline to gas generators that could otherwise be priced out of the market by cost-effective clean energy,” said Melissa Birchard, senior regulatory attorney at Acadia Center.

The arcane issue is attracting attention because it is another example of the tension between those eager to abandon fossil fuels in a bid to deal with climate change and those wary of doing so too quickly out of fear of market disruptions.

ISO-New England oversees the region’s wholesale markets for electricity. In one of those markets, the forward capacity market, ISO-New England forecasts how much electricity the region will need three years in the future and then encourages power generators to bid to supply it. Power plant operators use the promise of this future revenue to build, maintain, and operate their plants.

The forward capacity market is under stress because states like Massachusetts, operating outside the market, have ordered utilities to purchase offshore wind and hydroelectricity, with their ratepayers picking up the cost of the projects.

The challenge for ISO-New England is how to incorporate these ratepayer-subsidized renewable energy projects into the forward capacity market without undermining it. Letting the renewable energy projects into the market could squeeze out other generators needed for the system’s future reliability. Keeping the renewable energy projects out of the market could mean the market may be procuring more power than it actually needs.

Since 2013, ISO-New England has adopted what it calls a minimum offer price rule – allowing the subsidized projects to bid into the forward capacity market but at their unsubsidized cost. This approach puts all the generators on more equal footing, but it can be inefficient from a market standpoint. Many renewable resources not allowed into the market get built anyway, so consumers end up paying for capacity they don’t really need.

“While there is no evidence that this potential inefficiency has harmed consumers to date, that potential is clearly looming as state procurements ramp up,” ISO said in a statement accompanying its filing with FERC.

Vineyard Wind, the nation’s first industrial-scale offshore wind farm, offers a glimpse of how the existing set of rules are working. Vineyard Wind is scheduled to go live next year with 249 megawatts of qualified capacity, but not all of that capacity has cleared the market under the existing rules. The project has been bidding into the forward capacity market for the past three years — clearing 54 megawatts for 2023-2024, 101 megawatts for 2024-2025, and 156 megawatts for 2025-2026.

The ISO-New England says it intends to come up with better pricing rules by 2025 and in the meantime will grant exemptions from the minimum price rule for 700 megawatts of renewable resources — 300 megawatts next year and 400 megawatts the year after. (The combined 700 megawatts of is a sizable commitment, the equivalent of projects with a nameplate capacity of 2,000 megawatts. Nameplate capacity is the amount of electricity a project can theoretically deliver under optimum weather conditions; the 700 megawatts is the amount of electricity projects could deliver at any given time.)

Officials at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have been pressuring ISO New England to do away with its minimum offer price rule. Their chief complaint is that the rule is too broad, applying to all new resources and not just those resources capable of manipulating market prices.

“The minimum offer price rule appears to act as a barrier to competition, insulating incumbent generators from having to compete with certain new resources that may be able to provide capacity at lower cost,” said FERC commissioners Richard Glick and Allison Clements in a filing in January.

Now FERC will have to decide whether to grant more time to ISO-New England to do away with the minimum price rule or demand swifter action.

Read the full article in CommonWealth Magazine here.

Aquidneck Island Climate Caucus to meet virtually Sunday, marking the first anniversary of Act on Climate

Sunday is the first anniversary of the signing of Rhode Island’s landmark Act on Climate, and the Aquidneck Island Climate Caucus, led by Rep. Lauren H. Carson and Rep. Terri Cortvriend, will mark the occasion with a discussion on decarbonizing buildings.

The virtual event, titled “How can Rhode Island set a path for decarbonizing our buildings?,” is scheduled for Sunday, April 10, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. It will feature Matt Rusteika, director of market transformation for the Building Decarbonization Coalition, and Hank Webster, senior policy analyst for the Acadia Center.

The meeting will be held remotely on Zoom and registration is required. Click here to register. Registrants will be sent the Zoom link on the day of the meeting.

According to a press release sent on behalf of the Climate Caucus, Rhode Island’s Act on Climate has made the state a national leader on climate. The law (2021-H 5445A), sponsored by Representative Carson and cosponsored by Representative Cortvriend, created an enforceable commitment by Rhode Island to reduce all climate emissions from transportation, buildings, heating and electricity in the state to net zero by 2050.

It will be impossible to meet the law’s net-zero target without attending to buildings, which represent 30% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions today, according to the press release. Rusteika and Webster will describe efforts that other states have undertaken to address this problem, including regulatory approaches to phasing out natural gas and policies that contain the cost of the transition.

“Reducing emissions from buildings is a significant challenge for Rhode Island. In the last few days, we’ve learned that emissions overall actually increased 8.2 percent from 2017 to 2018, the most recent year for which we have data, and that home heating was the sector that experienced that greatest increase – a whopping 24.4 percent that year. Some of the reason was an especially cold winter, but there will always be cold winters. What we need is to encourage the adoption of clean, sustainable heating and cooling methods in public, commercial, residential and industrial buildings, but how do we go about that? It’s not a transition that can feasibly happen overnight, particularly in the case of private homes. We expect to have a very enlightening conversation about this Sunday,” said Representative Carson (D-Dist. 75, Newport).

Said Representative Cortvriend (D-Dist. 72, Portsmouth, Middletown), “While the data from 2018 shows how much progress must be made to meet our emissions goals, the technology exists to do it, and there are ways to make it affordable to switch to that technology. Besides reducing emissions, there are many economic benefits to greening our buildings that make it worthwhile to owners. We need to get to work on creating policies that incentivize and encourage this transition.”

Read the full article in What’s Up Newp here.

Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions are Rising in R.I.

PROVIDENCE — Greenhouse gas emissions are trending the wrong way in Rhode Island, and the state may have already failed its first Act on Climate mandate.

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) recently released its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, which combines federal and state data for 2018 — the most recent data available — to give a snapshot of how much carbon the state is releasing into the atmosphere.

The report shows greenhouse gas emissions increased 8.2% statewide in 2018, with almost an additional million metric tons of carbon dioxide released into the air compared to the previous year. The rise puts Rhode Island 1.8% higher than its 1990 baseline emissions. The Act on Climate mandates the state reduce emissions 10 percent below that baseline by 2020.

But reducing statewide emissions is a slow ship to turn. The data on emissions derived from federal agencies has a three-year lag, meaning if Rhode Island fails its first Act on Climate reduction goal in 2020, state officials won’t learn about it or be able to change course until 2023.

And that time delay is the rub. When the Act on Climate passed, the two most recently released reports showed the state had emissions below its 1990 levels. In fact, in 2016, the state had already exceeded its first Act on Climate goal, with emissions 11.7% below 1990 levels. But since then the state has trended in the wrong direction.

“Following the Act on Climate there was really this strong message of increased urgency, and this data reinforces that message,” said Terry Gray, DEM’s acting director.

Emissions from vehicles, electricity consumption, heating, and industry all saw increases between 2017 and 2018, according to DEM’s analysis. Officials stressed it was part of a regional trend; Connecticut reported a 2.7% increase in its 2018 emissions, and Massachusetts reported a 0.68% increase in its 2018 emissions.

While the Act on Climate sets mandates for the state, it did not provide a path forward to reduce emissions. Additional efforts to reduce emissions via legislation have since stalled. The Transportation & Climate Initiative died last year after two out of the four jurisdictional areas — Massachusetts and Connecticut — announced the compact would not be approved in their respective states. Rhode Island officials have no alternative plan to reduce transportation emissions.

In the wake of the new data, environmental groups are calling for the General Assembly to pass a number of environmental bills that have been filed.

“Passing 100% Renewable Energy Standard by 2030, offshore wind legislation and the Electric Transportation Act would reverse the trend and help us meet our Act on Climate goals,” said Kai Salem, policy coordinator for the Green Energy Consumers Alliance.

The legislature is debating potential legislation that could increase the amount of money steered toward renewable energy projects. The 100% Renewable Energy Standard would require companies to offset all electricity they sell to Rhode Island consumers by 2030. Additional bills would expand the state’s offshore wind capacity by 600 megawatts. But nothing so far has made it to Gov. Dan McKee’s desk.

“The inventory underscores the need for this year’s statewide Climate Plan to include bold and dramatic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every sector,” said Hank Webster, Rhode Island director at the Acadia Center.

DEM officials said they expect the impact of the pandemic to show in 2020 data when it comes out next year.

“We’re just going to have to take it year by year with the information as it comes out,” Gray said.

A detailed analysis of the state’s 2019 greenhouse gas inventory is expected to be released in December. The state is also expected to publish its 2022 update to its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan by the end of this year.

Read the full article in ecoRI News here.

A Heat Pump Might Be Right for Your Home. Here’s Everything to Know.

Heat pumps are good for your wallet—and the world.

They’re the cheapest and most efficient way to handle both heating and cooling for your home, no matter where you live. They’re also better for the environment. In fact, most experts agree they’re one of the best ways for homeowners to reduce their carbon footprint and reap the benefits of a greener future without sacrificing comfort. In other words, they’re a win-win.“We’ve come to see climate solutions like paper straws as being something worse than what we’re used to. But there are some places where everyone benefits, and I think heat pumps are a good example of that,” said Alexander Gard-Murray, PhD, a political economist at Brown University and co-author of 3H Hybrid Heat Homes: An Incentive Program to Electrify Space Heating and Reduce Energy Bills in American Homes. “They’re quieter. They offer more control. And at the same time, they’re going to reduce our energy demand and our greenhouse gas emissions. So it’s not just savings. It’s a quality-of-life improvement.”

But it can still feel daunting to pick the heat pump that’s right for you, or even to know where to start looking. We can help.

What is a heat pump, anyway?

“A heat pump is probably the biggest thing that consumers can do to help fight the climate crisis,” said Amy Boyd, director of policy for the Acadia Center, a regional research and advocacy organization focusing on clean-energy policy in the Northeast. Heat pumps also happen to rank among the quietest and most comfortable options available for home heating and cooling.

Heat pumps are essentially two-way air conditioners. In the summertime, they work like any other AC unit, removing heat from the air inside and pushing cooled air back into the room. In the cooler months, they do the opposite, drawing heat energy from the air outside and moving it into your home to warm things up. The process is especially efficient, using half as much energy on average than other electric home-heating sources. Or, as David Yuill of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln told us, “You put in a watt of electricity and get four watts out of it. It’s like magic.”

Unlike magic, however, there’s actually a very simple explanation for this result: Heat pumps have only to move heat, instead of generating it by combusting a fuel source. Even the most efficient gas-powered furnace or boiler never converts 100% of its fuel into heat; it’s always going to lose something in the conversion process. A good electric-resistance heater gives you 100% efficiency, but it still has to burn watts to produce that heat, whereas a heat pump just moves the heat. A heat pump can save you, on average, nearly $1,000 (6,200 kWh) a year compared with oil heat, or about $500 (3,000 kWh) compared with electrical heating, according to the US Department of Energy.

In states where the energy grid is increasingly reliant on renewables, electric heat pumps also emit less carbon than other heating and cooling options, all while providing two to five times more heating energy than the energy you put into it, on average. As a result, a heat pump is an environmentally friendly HVAC system that’s good for your wallet, as well. Most heat pumps also use inverter technology, which lets the compressor run at more nuanced and variable speeds, so you’re using only the exact amount of energy necessary to maintain comfort.

Who is this for?

Almost any homeowner could potentially benefit from a heat pump. Consider the case of Mike Ritter, who moved into a 100-year-old two-family home in Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood with his family in 2016. Ritter knew the boiler was running on fumes even before he bought the house, and he knew they’d have to replace it soon enough. After getting a few quotes from contractors, he was left with two options: He could spend $6,000 to install a new fossil-fuel-based gas tank in the basement, or he could get a heat pump. Although the overall cost of the heat pump looked to be about five times higher on paper, the heat pump also came with a $6,000 rebate and a seven-year, zero-interest loan to cover the rest of the cost, thanks to Massachusetts’s statewide incentive program to encourage heat pump conversion.

Once he did the math—comparing the soaring costs of natural gas with those of electricity, as well as factoring in the environmental impact, alongside the monthly payments—the choice was clear.

“Honestly, we were shocked that we could do it,” said Ritter, a freelance photographer, after four years of heat pump ownership. “We don’t make doctor or lawyer money, and we wouldn’t have expected to be the kind of people with central heating and cooling in their house. But there’s a million ways you can spread out the costs and get rebates and get energy credits. It’s not much more than what you’re already spending on energy right now.”

Despite all the benefits, there are nearly twice as many Americans buying one-way ACs or other inefficient systems than there are buying heat pumps each year, according to Alexander Gard-Murray’s research. After all, when your old system fails, it’s logical to simply replace what was there before, as the Ritters might have. We hope this guide can help you plan and budget for a true upgrade. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck with another inefficient, carbon-intensive HVAC for the next decade. And that’s not good for anyone.

For more information visit Wirecutter to read the full guide. 

 

Legislative committee splits 3 ways on utility accountability bill

The failure last week of a legislative committee to agree on the shape of utility reform leaves it to the full Legislature to find a compromise on a high-profile energy bill next month.

In early February, Gov. Janet Mills introduced a bill designed to crack down on electric utility performance issues by using the threat of steep financial penalties or even a forced sale of assets to another company or a consumer-owned entity.

The proposal emerged as an alternative to an ongoing campaign to replace Maine’s two investor-owned utilities – Central Maine Power and Versant Power – with a statewide, consumer-owned power company.

It came after the consumer campaign acknowledged that it wasn’t able to gather enough signatures for a ballot initiative in 2022 and said it would continue to collect names for a 2023 attempt.

The bill offered by Mills would require quarterly report cards that grade utilities’ ability to meet minimum standards for customer service, complaints, reliability and power restoration. It would impose a fine of $1 million or 10 percent of annual revenue for multiple failing report cards. Continued failure could trigger a forced sale to another power company or a consumer-owned utility.

The bill also would add more protection for whistleblowers who report illegal or improper behavior by a utility, authorize the Maine Public Utilities Commission to audit utilities’ financial information and require utilities to submit regular plans to address the impact of climate change on their infrastructure.

But the bill, L.D. 1959, was criticized by both utilities and their foes at a public hearing before the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee in late February. Nearly a dozen people spoke in favor of the bill, and more than 40 spoke against it.

Power companies said new standards and penalties aren’t necessary because their service and accountability have improved recently. Opponents said the bill doesn’t go far enough to rein in power companies owned by foreign conglomerates.

NO CONSENSUS FOUND

Those divisions carried over last week at a marathon work session in the legislative committee, where lawmakers sought a path to a consensus bill that would provide direction to the full Legislature. They didn’t find one.

After a late-afternoon meeting that saw lawmakers proposing scores of complex amendments, the 13-member committee ended its work with a three-way, divided report: An amended version of Mills’ bill attracted five votes; a version favored by supporters of a consumer-owned utility got four votes; and a competing version introduced by Republicans garnered two votes. Not all members were present Friday.

The amendment summaries were still being drafted Monday and were not available.

The next step is for the committee and its legislative analysts to clarify the specific language in those amendments and prepare them for consideration by the full Legislature. That’s expected to happen over the next two weeks.

Following the work session, Our Power, the interest group promoting the consumer-owned utility campaign, urged lawmakers to embrace the amendment it favors. That’s the one presented by the committee’s co-chair, Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, a longtime CMP critic and advocate of consumer-owned power. His version also won the support of one Republican.

Among other things, the amendment would require a periodic franchise renewal process for CMP and Versant, with competition for monopoly privileges, competitive bidding for utility spending to keep rates down, audits of report card data submitted by the utilities and strong penalties for a finding of utility misbehavior by state regulators.

“While it does not require the replacement of CMP and Versant by a low-cost, locally controlled utility, the bipartisan amendment does put forward actual accountability measures,” said Andrew Blunt, the interim executive director of Our Power. “We urge policymakers to support the bipartisan amendment, and we also urge Mainers to continue pushing for the consumer-owned utility referendum since no amount of regulation can fix the poor service and high costs baked into CMP and Versant’s DNA.”

‘ACCOUNTABILITY NOW’

But Berry’s amended bill stands little chance of making it through the full Legislature and would face a likely veto from Mills if it did, said Sen. Mark Lawrence, D-York. The committee’s co-chair, Lawrence is pushing for a middle-of-the-road version of the governor’s bill presented by Sen. Stacey Brenner, D-Cumberland, as amended by Sen. Eloise Vitelli, D-Arrowsic, the Senate majority leader.

Lawrence, a veteran lawmaker and former Senate president, said the so-called Vitelli amendment is the best bet to increase accountability for customers now. He said he plans to move the bill for a vote in the Senate next month, where it will first be taken up.

In Lawrence’s view, Our Power doesn’t want utilities to improve their performance because that would blunt the justification for consumer ownership. But even if their campaign is successful, he said, litigation will tie up any takeover for years.

“We need to achieve accountability now,” Lawrence said. “That’s what customers want.”

The Republican version was presented by Sen. Trey Stewart, R-Aroostook.

Democratic control of the Legislature and governor’s office suggest that final debate will revolve around some form of the Berry or Vitelli amendments. And Jeff Marks, Maine director for the environmental advocacy group Acadia Center, expects some compromise to emerge. He considers Lawrence and Vitelli to be pragmatists who will be able to move Mills’ bill through the Senate.

It would then remain to be seen how the bill fares in the House, where opinions may be more divided. But in an era of record high energy prices and public discontent, Marks said there’s pressure to do something before the legislative session ends.

“I don’t think any lawmaker wants to leave Augusta with headlines that read, ‘Legislature fails to hold utilities accountable,’ ” he said.

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here.

Opinion: New Jersey’s energy future must — and will be — electric

It may seem like a tall order: Make changes to your home to lower your energy bills, remove harmful pollutants from the air you breathe and help in the global fight against climate change.

But it’s not as hard as it might sound.

According to a new report commissioned by New Jersey Conservation Foundation, it’s possible for New Jersey residents to achieve all three. The report, “The Future Is Electric,” finds that consumers could see more than a 50% reduction in their energy bills by installing highly efficient electric heating and cooling systems and weatherizing their houses. That amounts to substantial savings in a household budget.

What’s more, transitioning away from burning fossil fuels inside homes would mean cleaner and healthier indoor air, and fewer outdoor emissions contributing to global warming and over 250 premature deaths annually in New Jersey.

Prepared by the Acadia Center, a New England-based climate research and advocacy nonprofit, the report also highlights the need for New Jersey and its utilities to provide more incentives for consumers to invest in efficient electric heating — similar to the popular rebates offered to consumers who buy electric vehicles.

Coincidentally, “The Future Is Electric” was released one day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a dire warning that our rapidly warming climate is wreaking havoc across the planet, and that time is running out to stabilize it.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions are quickly and drastically reduced, the IPCC report said, climate change impacts — including floods, storms, droughts and other extreme weather events — will overwhelm the ability of nature and humanity to adapt.

New Jersey is making progress on reducing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity. This state we’re in requires that by 2030, 50% of the electricity we consume will come from in-state and regional solar and wind.

The state is also working to reduce the state’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions — vehicles and transportation — with generous rebates to buyers of electric vehicles.

One piece of the clean energy puzzle that has gotten considerably less attention is the building sector. Many New Jersey residents don’t realize that houses and buildings are the state’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

When you think about it, it makes sense: Our state has hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings. Each building heated with natural gas, heating oil or propane has its own on-site combustion system, which produces both indoor and outdoor emissions. Polluted air can cause or exacerbate many health conditions, including asthma.

What’s the alternative to fossil fuel systems? Many consumers are turning to a newer technology known as air source heat pumps.

“Heat pumps are essentially a super-efficient air conditioner that can work backwards,” explained Amy Boyd, policy director at the Acadia Center. They work by moving heat from outdoor air indoors, and are effective even in cold climates.

Air source heat pumps are far more energy efficient than fossil fuel combustion. By combining heat pump technology with weatherizing “leaky” houses, Boyd said, consumers could see their energy bills cut in half.

Heat pumps create no emissions, either indoors or outdoors, so families can breathe cleaner, healthier air. This is especially important in New Jersey’s urban areas, which have the state’s highest levels of air pollution.

So what’s stopping New Jersey consumers from reaping these benefits? Mostly money.

Heat pump systems have higher up-front costs, and New Jersey is behind other northeastern states in offering financial incentives to motivate homeowners to make the switch.

“One thing that states like Massachusetts are doing is putting their money where their climate policy is,” said Boyd.

In states that offer substantial rebates, Boyd noted, heat pump systems can be comparable in cost or even cheaper than fossil fuel combustion systems.

It’s time for New Jersey to get with the program and support a switch to clean, electrically-heated buildings.

The Murphy administration has already committed to producing more electricity with clean, renewable technology — and getting more drivers in electric vehicles. The next logical step is to make it affordable for residents to upgrade their homes to safe, efficient, non-polluting heating systems.

One advocate for stronger incentives is State Sen. Andrew Zwicker, who spoke at a briefing on the release of “The Future Is Electric” report.

“New Jersey has to be a leader here,” Zwicker said. “If we can provide financial incentives, consumers can have choices” for better health, lower energy bills and fighting climate change.

“This is a key moment, not just in New Jersey’s history or U.S. history, but globally,” Zwicker added. “The IPCC report that just came out makes it clear that global warming is outpacing our ability to cope. The oceans are rising, the forests are burning, and carbon dioxide levels continue their upward march. It’s now a question of, are we willing to take this moment and move forward?”

New Jersey’s answer needs to be yes.

Read the full article at northjersey.com.

Massport has a $1 billion plan to cut climate pollution. Critics say it’s nowhere near enough.

In one of the state’s largest efforts to curb carbon emissions, the Massachusetts Port Authority unveiled plans Thursday to spend $1 billion over the coming decade to reduce its contribution to the pollution that causes climate change.

The officials who operate Logan International Airport, Flynn Cruiseport, and the Paul W. Conley Terminal — among other airports and institutions — released what they’re calling a roadmap to effectively eliminate emissions under their control by 2031, the 75th anniversary of the authority’s founding.

“This is a real plan, tied to real actions, without smoke and mirrors,” said Lisa Wieland, the chief executive of Massport. “This isn’t going to be easy … but we need to reduce the impact on the communities that surround us. The cost of doing nothing isn’t an option.”

When fully implemented, the plan would mean a reduction of about 110,000 metric tons of carbon emissions a year, the equivalent of removing roughly 24,000 cars from the road.

Environmental advocates praised Massport for being among the largest state agencies to release a plan that seriously grapples with what it can do to substantially reduce its contribution to climate change.

“This is the kind of analysis and planning that all public and quasi-public entities should be doing,” said Elizabeth Turnbull Henry, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts.

She said she hoped Massport would become “a laboratory for climate innovation.”

“Massport could be one of the best places in the world to pilot technologies to transform aviation and other hard-to-decarbonize transportation sectors,” she said.

Yet critics noted that Massport’s plan relies heavily on carbon offsets to achieve so-called net-zero emissions in the near term and only addresses the pollution under Massport’s direct control — not the much larger sources of greenhouse gases, such as the planes that fly in and out of Logan or the cruise and cargo ships that dock at its terminals.

Under the plan, which remains more of a sketch than a blueprint, just 12.5 percent of Massport’s emissions would be subject to reductions. Of that pollution, 40 percent would require offsets to achieve net zero. That means the authority will have to purchase pollution credits or invest in programs that reduce emissions elsewhere.

Massport officials said they intend to stop producing emissions entirely by 2040, meaning the authority would no longer require offsets to be carbon neutral.

Some state officials and environmental advocates said they were skeptical of Massport’s plan, noting that the quasi-public agency is obligated under the state’s new climate law to effectively eliminate its emissions by 2050.

“The effort lacks imagination,” said state Senator Mike Barrett, a Lexington Democrat and one of the authors of the climate law that took effect last year. “So far, there’s no indication [Massport is] hungry to move into the vanguard, become a role model.”

Massport’s plan, which must be approved by its board, hinges on significant changes to how the agency heats its terminals at Logan and other buildings, produces hot water, and otherwise uses energy.

That includes updating its gas-powered central heating plant at Logan; replacing its large fleet of diesel trucks, shuttle buses, and other ground-support equipment with those that draw power from electricity; installing energy-efficient lighting across all its facilities; and generating more power from on-site renewable energy sources, such as solar panels.

Those changes will impose significant costs as the agency continues to suffer from the pandemic and faces an uncertain future. Last fiscal year, as passenger traffic at Logan plummeted and few cruise ships visited Boston, Massport earned little more than $650 million in revenue — a decline of more than a quarter from before the pandemic.

“It will be more of a challenge,” said Jennifer Mehigan, a spokeswoman for Massport, noting that this fiscal year’s projections for passenger traffic at Logan are about 40 percent lower than in 2019 — and that was before the war in Ukraine led to a surge in fuel costs.

The plan remains a broad outline and doesn’t specify how it will achieve its goals, such as generating carbon-free heat across Logan’s sprawling terminals. Given that many decisions have yet to be made, environmental advocates said it was difficult to assess whether Massport’s plan was sufficient to live up to Wieland’s promises.

“The content we have seen to date is not a clear plan, so I have reservations on what emissions reductions they will actually achieve,” said Kyle Murray, a senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center, an environmental advocacy group in Boston.

He urged Massport officials to be more ambitious and do more as soon as possible to create their own renewable energy and storage technology, sign power purchase agreements with producers of clean energy, and accelerate programs to replace fossil fuels with electricity.

A plan that relies on fewer offsets over the coming decade would be more credible, Murray and others said.

“The devil will be in the details where offsets are concerned,” said Cammy Peterson, director of clean energy at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, noting it’s often hard to accurately measure the benefits of offsets compared with actual reductions.

Others said they hope officials will do more to consider how to reduce the 87.5 percent of its emissions that aren’t included in its plans.

For example, Massport could do more to compel vendors at the airport and elsewhere to reduce their emissions; invest more in developing so-called sustainable aviation fuels; make it easier to get to their terminals on public transportation or in shared rides; and provide incentives for the speedier electrification of the taxi and ride-for-hire industry.

Massport officials said they plan to do all those things, including taking other steps to reduce their overall emissions, such as enabling cruise ships to draw power from shore rather than from their idling engines, which is a large source of emissions.

“We have high-level pathways,” Wieland said. “The details still have to be worked out.”

Environmental advocates said they look forward to seeing those details.

“Our major concern is that Massport’s focus is exceedingly narrow here,” said Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston. “This is less a plan and more a plan for a plan. Massport could do a lot more to reduce emissions than what’s laid out.”

Chris Marchi, vice president of East Boston group Airport Impact Relief, Inc., urged Massport officials to limit the growth of Logan — and its other airports in Worcester and at the Hanscom Air Force Base — as well as discourage visits by single-occupancy vehicles by raising fees.

If passenger traffic resumes the steady increases that occurred before the pandemic, the proposed emissions cuts could be moot if emissions increase in other ways, he said.

“As much as it is an admirable goal to reach zero emissions, these efforts are more green-washing than they are serious responses,” Marchi said.

At a Massport board meeting on Thursday morning, in which officials explained their plan to reduce emissions, several board members raised concerns that it doesn’t do enough to reduce the authority’s overall pollution.

“As someone who lives almost a stone’s throw from the airport, I’m concerned, as is the community in which I live, about the overall impacts of Massport on the community,” said John Nucci, a former city councilor from East Boston who serves on Massport’s board. “I don’t want to see a situation where people who live around the airport have to wait until Massport has spent $1 billion … before that overall impact gets substantially reduced.”

Wieland responded by noting that the plan remains “aspirational.”

“We have a lot of work left to do,” she said.

Read the full article in The Boston Globe here.