Lawmakers, some renewable advocates urge FERC to reject ISO-NE plan to delay MOPR elimination

Dive Brief:

• ISO New England’s proposal to keep its “minimum offer price rule” until 2025 will hurt the Northeast’s efforts to build renewable energy facilities like offshore wind farms and should be rejected, lawmakers, the Massachusetts attorney general and renewable energy advocates and developers told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Thursday.
• “The primary effect of the MOPR reform delay would be to impede market entry by offshore wind resources,” Conservation Law Foundation, the Acadia Center and other groups said in a joint filing at FERC. “The ISO has presented zero evidence that such a change in the resource mix will reduce reliability, rather than improve it.”
• However, the plan is backed by power plant owners, power suppliers and ISO-NE’s market monitor, and the New England States Committee on Electricity, representing the region’s governors, doesn’t oppose it, according to filings at FERC.

Dive Insight:

ISO-NE started a stakeholder process in May to consider options for eliminating its MOPR, which critics contend impedes state energy goals by preventing state-supported resources from winning capacity bids in the grid operator’s annual capacity auctions.

At the time, ISO-NE supported eliminating the MOPR before the next auction set to be held in February. But in January, the grid operator decided to support a proposal to keep the MOPR for two additional years, with a 700-MW exemption for state-supported resources. In its March 31 proposal, ISO-NE said ending the MOPR immediately could lead to the sudden retirement of power plants, threatening grid reliability in the region.

More than 4,700 MW of nameplate offshore wind, or about 1,310 MW of qualified capacity, is slated to begin operating by 2028, the period that would be covered by auctions affected by ISO-NE’s transition proposal, according to New England For Offshore Wind, an advocacy group. The grid operator’s proposed 700-MW exemption for qualified capacity would keep some offshore projects from winning capacity bids, driving up ratepayer costs, the group told FERC.

Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., urged FERC to reject ISO-NE’s proposal, which they said would hurt New England’s decarbonization efforts and lead to higher electricity prices.

“At the very moment when New England should be fully embracing the transition to renewables and the related socioeconomic opportunities, this decision to undermine state actions and renewable energy deployment is a terrible and ill-timed mistake,” they said in a letter to FERC.

Other parties urging FERC to order ISO-NE to immediately end its MOPR include the Massachusetts attorney general, a group of New England state lawmakers and the American Council on Renewable Energy.

Some renewable energy advocates are reluctantly supporting the proposed transition away from the MOPR.

Rejecting the proposal could lead to an extended stakeholder process, possibly delaying the upcoming capacity auction and other market reforms, Advanced Energy Economy, said in a filing at FERC.

“We believe that approval is the least disruptive path forward for the region given where the process leading to this filing has left us,” the trade group said, noting ISO-NE’s abrupt decision to delay ending the MOPR left stakeholders little time to review the plan.

NESCOE, which has sought to end the MOPR, isn’t opposing the delay in ending it because ISO-NE’s proposal provides “a clear, defined, and expedient path for reforming market mitigation rules with a fixed and near-term end-date,” the organization told FERC.

Potomac Economics, ISO-NE’s market monitor, supported the grid operator’s transition plan, saying it would give ISO-NE time to make other needed market changes such as revising how it accredits capacity and accounts for growing financial risk for power plant owners.

“This will alleviate the adverse economic impacts and risks to reliability of implementing the MOPR changes immediately,” the market monitor said.

Power plant owners and power marketers also support ISO-NE’s plan, which was modeled on proposals from Vistra, Dynegy, Calpine and Nautilus Power.

“This graduated elimination of the MOPR will allow ISO-NE and [New England Power Pool] stakeholders the time to make the wholesale market design changes necessary to avoid the increased risks MOPR elimination creates, including implementation of a new capacity accreditation methodology and day-ahead reserve or call-option products in the day-ahead energy market,” the New England Power Generators Association said in a filing at FERC.

The Electric Power Supply Association also backs ISO-NE’s proposal, partly because it gives the grid operator time to put in place other market reforms, according to comments at FERC.

The trade group for competitive power suppliers noted it supports a New York Independent System Operator proposal to eliminate its MOPR because the New York plan includes related market reforms.

Read the full article in Utility Dive here.

Advocacy groups back Massachusetts climate change bills

(The Center Square) – Calls to adopt swift, sweeping legislation to advance a 2050 net-zero emissions target have been sounded in both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature, and advocates from a number of organizations have backed the plans.

But the aggressive legislative plans, which come a year after Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed a climate change bill, have also prompted pleas to look at the bigger picture and the extent natural gas might play in the decades ahead.

Two companion pieces of legislation – Senate Bill 2819 and House Bill 4515 – would advance offshore wind and clean energy policy across Massachusetts. The bills have been debated this legislative session, most recently amid Senate deliberations held April 14.

On a more granular level, legislative panels have been digging into the nuts and bolts of potential policies that could be enacted in the years ahead with the 2050 benchmark in mind.

While Baker’s bill set the nearly three-decade mark, Massachusetts has a long road ahead in achieving it, said state Sen. Cynthia Creem, D-Newton, who chairs the Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change.

“In my view, reaching net zero-emissions requires that the future of gas is largely a future without gas,” Creem said at a recent committee hearing. “However, Massachusetts is currently doubling down on natural gas.”

At the April 4 hearing, Creem and other senators on the panel took testimony from a range of academians, lobbyists, grassroots organizers and other interested parties. Creem said the multi-faceted issues that feed into net-zero emissions “are incredibly complex.”

Nearly all of the speakers at the committee hearing encouraged lawmakers to double down on net-zero emissions policies in short order.

But John Buonopane, president of the United Steelworkers union, offered his own take on the matter. The USW represents the New England Gas Workers Alliance.

“We strongly believe that natural gas will continue for many years to be an important and necessary resource for the commonwealth’s clean energy future,” Buonopane said. “We know that with appropriate oversight, natural gas can and probably will remain an efficient, affordable and safe energy for residents of the commonwealth for decades to come.”

If state legislation related to net-zero emissions is not methodically carried out, Buonopane said he is concerned workers within the alliance will be negatively impacted – a scenario, he said, that could have ripple effects through the state economy.

“We are talking about good, middle-class jobs that have taken years to reach the level to be considered a good middle-class job,” Buonopane said. “It is a very important part of this I don’t think is getting enough attention.”

But others testified on the state’s race toward net-zero emissions policies.

Amy Boyd is director of policy at the Acadia Center, an organization that advocates for climate change policy by electrifying buildings and transportation.

“We need a real process in how we pay for heat,” Boyd said. “To put it bluntly, we need a lot more innovation here, a lot more change, a lot more process. I think the Legislature can have a strong role in helping us get there.”

Bob Howarth, a biochemistry professor at Cornell University, also spoke to the Senate panel about several issues, including discussion around the natural gas industry’s clean energy strategy. In particular, Howarth said he was concerned with hydrogen.

“There’s no way it should ever go into a pipeline,” Howarth said. “It’s coercive; it’s dangerous. It should not be used for home heating.”

Read the full article in The Center Square here.

House Democrats reverse course and Legislature passes utility accountability bill

A day after delivering a major setback to Democratic Gov. Janet Mills’ plan to hold utility companies more accountable, House Democrats reversed course Wednesday and approved a slightly modified version of the bill.

The legislation would establish key performance measures for electricity providers in areas ranging from reliability to customer relations and impose financial penalties for failing to meet those goals. It also would add whistleblower protections for employees and contractors who report problems with operations. And it would change the way utility companies plan grid upgrades.

Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, had previously criticized the bill, saying utility companies would essentially be allowed to grade their own performance. He railed against the bill as offering “fake accountability.”

But Berry said he would support the bill after a relatively minor amendment offered by Rep. Chris Kessler, D-South Portland, requiring the Public Utilities Commission to ensure that public utilities procure goods and services through a competitive bidding process.

“This is not the bill I would have written,” said Berry, who is an organizer of the Our Power campaign to establish a consumer-owned utility through a citizen referendum, “but it’s now a step forward, so today I stand to take one small step with all of you and the state of Maine to vote, ‘yea.’ ”

The measure passed the House in a 77-56 vote.

The Senate approved the House version of the bill without debate Wednesday, meaning it will likely go to the governor’s desk for her signature.

Clean energy advocates applauded the reversal, pointing to a provision that would require integrated grid planning for clean energy projects.

“Legislators snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, and over a turbulent 24 hours of negotiations, rescued the bill and agreed that it was time to hold utilities accountable for their abysmal, but hopefully improving performance,” said Jeff Marks, Maine director and senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center.

“Energy issues are complex and are often held to the end and heavily fought over during the closing days of legislative sessions,” Marks continued. “This bill was no different, but its impact will benefit Maine’s ratepayers while planning the electricity grid for a clean energy future.”

The bill is aimed at the state’s two investor-owned utilities, Spanish-owned Central Maine Power and Canadian-owned Versant, over poor customer service and unreliable performance.

CMP ranked last in a consumer satisfaction survey last year by J.D. Power.

The bill would require quarterly report cards grading 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.

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

The proposal drew extensive public comment at a hearing before the Energy and Utilities Committee, which struggled to reach consensus and instead voted out three different versions of the bill.

Republicans continued to oppose the bill, saying it will lead to increase electricity costs for ratepayers at a time they can ill-afford them amid record high inflation.

While power companies could not recoup fines from ratepayers, any systemwide improvements to avoid future fines could be recouped, including those to accommodate the grid for more solar projects, he said.

“That is going to have a substantial impact on your constituents’ utility bill,” Sen. Trey Stewart said Tuesday, noting how Mainers already are struggling to pay their bills. “They are frustrated about the number at the bottom of their bill and they are looking to us to make sure it doesn’t get unnecessarily larger.”

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here.

Democrats solve intraparty split to advance Janet Mills’ utility accountability measure

AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers advanced a new version of Gov. Janet Mills’ priority utility accountability bill on Wednesday, one day after a previous version failed due to division among Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The bill that passed the House 77-56 on Wednesday will allow the Maine Public Utilities Commission to set service standards for its major utilities, Central Maine Power Co. and Versant Power, and impose penalties if they fail to meet them. It also empowers the commission to work on reliability planning for the state’s power grid and reduce carbon emissions.

Mills put forward legislation earlier this year as a possible compromise between Central Maine Power Co., the embattled utility, and its harshest critics. An amended version of the bill passed the Maine Senate on Tuesday but was rejected by the House as both Republican lawmakers and Democrats who are among the fiercest CMP critics voted against it.

Democrats solved their split on Wednesday to vote for a revised version of the bill. The version that passed both chambers included additional provisions requiring the Public Utilities Commission to look into requiring utilities to use competitive bidding for certain projects and allowing it to audit utilities more frequently.

Among the holdouts on the measure on Tuesday were Reps. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, and Nicole Grohoski, D-Ellsworth. Both have helped lead the public push for a consumer-owned utility in the Legislature. Proponents are now trying to put that issue before voters in a 2023 referendum. Both Berry and Grohoski voted for the latest version.

“This is not the bill I would have written but it is now a step forward,” said Berry, who co-chairs the energy committee and is perhaps Augusta’s most outspoken CMP critic.

Environmental groups that had slammed the Legislature’s failure to pass the bill on Tuesday praised the votes on Wednesday. Jeff Marks, senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center, characterized it as “the most impactful climate and clean energy bill” of the legislative session.

Read the full article in the Bangor Daily News here. 

Maine Voices: Time is now for utility accountability, modernized energy grid

Now is the time to hold Central Maine Power and Versant – Maine’s investor-owned utilities –accountable for poor performance, and it’s long past time to modernize our electrical grid to meet Maine’s climate and energy independence needs. Mainers are counting on their elected leaders to stand up for them as corporations fail to put the needs of customers first. Never has that been more clear than it is now, as people across Maine struggle with spiking energy costs.

Fortunately, Maine lawmakers have an opportunity to make progress on both fronts by passing an amended version of L.D. 1959, the governor’s utility accountability bill. I was pleased to introduce L.D. 1959 as the lead sponsor, and I knew that we could strengthen this bill through the legislative process to a point where it was deserving of strong support – and that’s exactly what has happened.

Maine people have every right to expect much better service than they’ve been getting in recent years. According to J.D. Power, CMP ranked dead last for customer service among the nation’s largest 145 electric utilities, and Versant tied for fourth worst with the notorious Pacific Gas & Electric. It’s unacceptable. Maine people deserve reliable service, accurate bills and utility companies that are supporting our clean-energy goals.

Personally, I support the concept of a consumer-owned utility and hope that Mainers get a chance to vote on a referendum to shift our investor-owned utilities to a consumer-owned model. But that’s a long-term solution. What lawmakers have before them now is a bill to provide accountability for utilities, starting immediately, regardless of who owns them.

L.D. 1959 sends a clear message to our utilities: Improve your performance, get fined or be replaced.

The amended bill requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish standards in critical areas, such as reliability and customer service. The bill sets mandatory financial penalties and doubles the penalties the PUC can impose, with forced sale as the ultimate penalty for a failing utility. The bill also expands and strengthens whistleblower protections. Maine’s Public Advocate has said that even one or two whistleblower reports could result in major benefits for Maine ratepayers.

The other big part of this bill involves integrated grid planning, which holds the potential to save ratepayers millions of dollars. Maine needs a holistic grid plan as we move to use more renewable and independent energy sources. A stakeholder group last year identified grid planning as a top priority. Right now, the utilities do grid planning on their own. This means utilities do all of their planning behind closed doors, with no public involvement and no mandate to consider what’s best for ratepayers. That has to end.

We know that planning matters. A pilot project in Boothbay is projected to save $18.7 million over a 10-year period. If similar planning were applied to CMP’s grid, it could save ratepayers nearly $1 billion over time.

L.D. 1959 has earned the support of groups including the Acadia Center, the Conservation Law Foundation, Maine Conservation Voters, The Nature Conservancy in Maine and the Natural Resources Council of Maine. The version of the bill coming before the Legislature is the product of hard work and thoughtful compromise. I am proud to sponsor this bill, and I’ll be just as proud to join my colleagues in voting for it in the Senate chamber.

With L.D. 1959, lawmakers have a chance to make significant progress in holding Maine’s utilities accountable and taking big strides in modernizing our electrical grid for the clean-energy future. We owe it to Maine ratepayers to act now.

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here.

Democratic split threatens to kill Janet Mills’ utility accountability proposal

AUGUSTA, Maine – A split among Democrats in the Maine House of Representatives led the chamber to reject a bill from Gov. Janet Mills on Tuesday aimed at enshrining penalties for Maine’s largest utilities if they fail to meet certain service standards.

Mills initially put the legislation forward this year as a possible compromise that could bridge the divide between allies of Central Maine Power Co. and its harshest critics. Its failure renders it unlikely that the Legislature will take major steps to address the unpopular utility in 2022.

On the House floor Tuesday, several lawmakers argued that the Democratic governor’s bill did not go far enough to ensure CMP and Versant Power would be held accountable for the quality and costs of service. Lawmakers voted to table it after rejecting a version that easily passed the Senate earlier in the day.

Environmental groups had largely backed the bill, which would have enabled the Maine Public Utilities Commission to penalize utilities if they did not meet certain standards. The amended version that passed the Senate also would have required the commission to adopt plans for the state’s power grid to improve reliability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It had received pushback on several fronts, however, with progressives saying the state needed to be more aggressive. Among the skeptics were chief proponents of a plan to buy out Maine’s major utilities and replace them with a consumer-owned entity. A referendum aiming to do that failed to get enough signatures to make the ballot this year.

The Mills-backed bill was opposed by CMP and Versant, who argued in testimony earlier this year that their service quality improved and they did not need to be subject to possible penalties. The legislative committee that deals with energy issues ultimately advanced three different versions on the bill.

The criticism before it was shot down in the House on Tuesday came from all sides. Rep. Nathan Wadsworth, R-Hiram, expressed concern that that bill would drive up electricity rates. Rep. Nicole Grohoski, D-Ellsworth, of the consumer-owned utility faction, characterized it as “merely lipstick” with “no teeth.”

“I will not go home to my constituents and say that I supported this bill and that they can look forward to better than worst-in-the-nation service and high rates because that would be a false promise,” she said.

Proponents of the bill had argued it was a positive step even if not perfect, with Rep. Ralph Tucker, D-Brunswick, arguing lawmakers could “walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Environmental groups expressed frustration with the vote late Tuesday. Jeff Marks, Senior Policy Advocate at the Acadia Center, said it was “unacceptable” for lawmakers to leave town without taking action to regulate the utilities sector.

“After years of last-place customer service evaluations, billing snafus, and other calamities, legislators failed to put teeth into utilities’ performance and hold them accountable, not just for reliability and affordability, but for the very future of the electricity grid,” he said.

Read the full article in Bangor Daily News here.

Senator Markey blasts “minimizing our potential for renewables” or MOPR rule in New England

“We cannot simply accept the promise of a future with clean energy, we need a plan for clean energy today,” said US Senator Ed Markey at a press conference in Holyoke, Massachusetts, outside the headquarters of grid operator ISO-New England.

Senator Markey challenged ISO-NE for proposing to delay the elimination of a rule that “puts fossil fuel generation ahead of cleaner, cheaper alternatives.” The rule is called the minimum offer price rule, or MOPR, but it “actually stands for something else,” Markey said. “It stands for minimizing our potential for renewables, in Massachusetts and all across New England.”

Senator Markey joined with Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to send a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, asking the commission to use its existing regulatory authority to reject ISO-NE’s proposal to extend the MOPR rule.

Senator Markey said MOPR sets an “artificially high price” to participate in wholesale electricity auctions “that prevents lower cost providers” of renewables and storage from “out-competing the more expensive fossil fuel power generators.”

The Senator noted that the International Panel on Climate Change has called for peak global emissions no later than 2025, followed by rapid reductions. “Current policies put our warming trends closer to three degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit, that’s the difference between a 95 degree day and a 101 degree day. But ISO New England says we have to go slow. The difference is this: you have to think about manageable oceans, or 11 feet of sea level rise by the end of this century.”

The letter by the three Senators says that “three New England natural gas plant operators” developed the proposal to keep the MOPR rule for another two years.

“Our energy system is not is not an old boys club and shouldn’t be run like one,” said Amy Boyd, policy director at the nonprofit Acadia Center, speaking after Senator Markey. “We need a modern approach to regional energy management that at a bare minimum gives new clean energy the same access to the capacity market that fossil fuels receive.”

The Alliance of Business Leadership’s president Jen Benson also spoke at the press conference, saying “When you lower the cost of energy, families have more dollars to put into the economy and so do businesses.”

Senator Markey appealed to state pride in his speech, saying “We’re not just the Bay State, we’re the brain state. We have to be leading on these issues, not a laggard.”  He noted that Massachusetts now gets 20% of its electricity from solar.

Read the full article in PV Magazine here. 

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.