Questions remain about proposed sale of Narragansett Electric to Pennsylvania corporation
PROVIDENCE — A couple of months ago, PPL Corporation, the Pennsylvania company that wants to buy National Grid’s electric and gas operations in Rhode Island, released an update to an internally produced climate assessment, which outlined the steps it’s taking to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across its holdings by 2050.
“The transition to a clean energy future offers us an opportunity to rethink how energy is produced, stored, delivered and used,” CEO Vincent Sorgi said when the report, titled “Energy Forward,” was released in November.
Not long afterward, at a hearing before Rhode Island regulators on the proposed $5.3-billion purchase of what’s known as the Narragansett Electric Company, PPL’s would-be president of operations in the Ocean State was asked about the climate report.
“I haven’t studied it,” David J. Bonenberger, currently a PPL vice president, said.
The answer surprised Hank Webster, an environmental advocate who put the question to Bonenberger during hearings in December before the state Division of Public Utilities and Carriers. Webster, Rhode Island director of the Acadia Center, expected the company’s top executives to not only be familiar with what appears to be a major companywide initiative but also to detail how the goals to reduce emissions would be met in Rhode Island.
Here’s what to expect: Gov. Dan McKee set to give first state of the state address Tuesday night
After all, Gov. Dan McKee signed into law in 2021 Rhode Island’s landmark initiative to slash carbon pollution over the next generation. Under the Act on Climate, which sets out a net-zero goal by 2050, greenhouse gas reductions are mandatory and enforceable in Rhode Island for the first time.
So there’s a lot of interest on the part of environmental groups such as the Acadia Center and the Green Energy Consumers Alliance in what PPL, an Allentown-based utility that serves customers in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Virginia, is planning to do to green Rhode Island’s electric and gas systems.
“Climate change is a priority here in the Ocean State and we cannot let it fall off track with the transfer from National Grid to PPL,” Webster said in an email. “PPL knew climate change would be a focus of these hearings, so it was surprising key executives testified they were only vaguely familiar with their own decarbonization report.”
Could the transaction cost ratepayers?
Decarbonization isn’t the only matter that has raised questions about PPL’s bid to buy Narragansett Electric, the dominant electric supplier in Rhode Island and the state’s only distributor of natural gas.
The office of Attorney General Peter Neronha submitted filings from experts who say there’s a risk that Narragansett Electric’s 780,000 customers in Rhode Island could face rate increases to pay for the costs of transferring the utilities to PPL. They say that the financial information provided by PPL as part of the docket is inadequate and unconvincing.
And there are also concerns within the state agency that has approval authority over the transaction.
Environmental and labor groups call on Rhode Island to invest in greener schools
While one employee at the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, deputy administrator John Spirito, is acting as hearing officer in the case and a final decision will be signed off on by Linda George, administrator of the agency, members of the division’s advocacy section and their consultants say that PPL has failed to prove the benefits of the transaction. They estimate the costs that could fall on ratepayers to be in the millions of dollars.
On the eve of the hearings last month, PPL released a list of 17 commitments in response to written testimony filed by the Attorney General’s Office, the division and other intervenors. They ranged from issuing a report on meeting the goals of the Act on Climate within a year of the transaction closing to staffing up its natural gas procurement team with experienced people.
But the list has done little to assuage the concerns. On the first day of hearings, state Rep. David Morales asked the division to delay a decision on the transaction, arguing that PPL hadn’t demonstrated how Rhode Islanders would be protected from potential rate hikes.
“Clearly, this transfer of our utility system in its current form is not in the best interests of the public,” the Providence Democrat said.
With post-hearing memos due next week, the division’s advocacy section, which is tasked with representing the interests of ratepayers, is still recommending denial of the application jointly filed by PPL and National Grid, spokesman Thomas Kogut said.
The position of the Attorney General’s Office hasn’t shifted either.
“We remain significantly concerned about this matter,” spokeswoman Kristy dosReis said.
Environmentalists looking for detailed steps on reducing emissions
When Webster cross-examined Bonenberger, he specifically asked about reducing the carbon footprint of Narragansett Electric’s natural gas system, which is primarily used for heating. The Energy Forward report released by PPL has a lot to say about reducing emissions from electric generation, but not so much about gas.
Here in Rhode Island, there’s been a growing interest in shrinking the carbon footprint of the heating sector by ramping up the installation of electric heat pumps and exploring the use of alternative fuels, such as hydrogen. The focus has been on Aquidneck Island, which experienced a gas outage a few years ago and where National Grid has put forward a solution to a projected shortfall in supplies.
In his answer, Bonenberger didn’t get into specifics. He pointed more generally to the commitment to come up with a plan in response to the Act on Climate if the sale is approved. Doing anything earlier on reducing emissions associated with gas service or other areas within the Rhode Island utility system would be presumptuous, he said.
“We’re not a company that looks to put out headlines with no concrete plan to back up those headlines,” he said.
As far as PPL’s overall support for cutting emissions, CEO Sorgi said there’s no question where the company stands.
“We are absolutely committed to helping the state get to their decarbonization goals,” he testified. “I can tell you that right now.”
U.S. Energy Secretary praises Rhode Island for role in offshore wind power
But Webster says PPL should have filed detailed plans on reducing emissions in Rhode Island months ago.
“Comparatively, National Grid has developed several potential decarbonization pathways, even building a geothermal heating network project in Massachusetts that could serve as a model for changes they implement to Rhode Island,” he wrote. “There’s a demonstrable gap in experience and the Division needs to make PPL work very quickly to close it.”
Kai Salem, policy coordinator with the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, was also left wanting more.
“We would want to see measurable, enforceable commitments that we could count on before deciding whether this is in the public interest,” Salem said in an interview.
When asked about the exchanges regarding the Act on Climate during the hearings, a PPL spokesman said the company is refraining at this time from commenting on the proceedings outside of oral testimony and written filings.
Concerns over clean energy programs
There are also questions about economies of scale and whether Rhode Island would suffer if it’s removed from the National Grid network that also operates electric and gas utilities in Massachusetts and New York, and in which services are shared throughout the three states.
For example, before the deal with PPL was struck, National Grid had filed documents with regulators outlining plans to modernize the electric grid with the aid of smart meters to track consumption and report data to better manage the delivery of power. The move would have been made in conjunction with New York and Massachusetts. The expectation was that Rhode Island would have seen savings by doing it at the same time as the larger states.
When asked about this at the hearings, Sorgi said his company already has experience in implementing smart grid technology in Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Shoring up: Progress made in protecting Rhode Island from climate impacts
“When we look at the estimates for what [National] Grid was planning on deploying there, we can match or exceed the cost estimates for that because we’ve done it and we have the expertise,” he said.
But PPL has not made a formal commitment on what the costs could be. The company says it would provide estimates within a year of the transaction closing.
And while it’s true that PPL is considered an industry leader when it comes to the use of smart meters, its programs have not always gone smoothly.
It first rolled out new meters in Pennsylvania two decades ago, but some of the devices failed to provide all the information required by regulators and the company had to replace them, securing permission to do so in 2015. The company’s smart meter proposal in Kentucky was initially rejected by regulators in 2018, who weren’t convinced of the benefits, before a new plan was approved last year.
After 45 years,wind energy might finally give this East Providence site a purpose
Energy efficiency is another area of uncertainty surrounding PPL’s experience. The states where National Grid operates rank high in terms of their policy efforts in conserving energy: Massachusetts is second in the nation, Rhode Island fourth and New York fifth on the most recent scorecard from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. But the states where PPL is active are lower: Pennsylvania is 19th, Virginia 25th and Kentucky 33rd.
PPL says the differences are a function of what regulators in individual states want.
“It’s just different priorities in different jurisdictions,” Bonenberger testified. “We have a track record of meeting all the requirements in any jurisdiction we operate in.”
A decision with big implications for Rhode Islanders
As the hearings wrapped up, Spirito, the division hearing officer, wondered aloud if the standards set by opponents to the sale could be met only by National Grid with its decades of experience in Rhode Island. Some appear to want the company to be forced to continue operating in the state, he said.
He asked the parties involved to address the issue in their post-hearing briefs, which are due Tuesday. Spirito has set a date of Feb. 25 for a decision on the sale.
Under state law, for the application to win approval, PPL must prove that “the facilities for furnishing service to the public will not thereby be diminished” and that the transaction is “consistent with the public interest.” It’s a standard that leaves room for debate.
“The evidence in this record makes it abundantly clear that PPL’s ownership is consistent with the public interest and will not harm the general public,” Jerry Petros, a lawyer for the company, said in the hearings.
Petros pointed specifically to the state’s climate goals, saying that PPL is uniquely positioned to help meet them, through its experience with advanced meters and grid-management tools.
“This is truly a unique opportunity for Rhode Island,” he said.
While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given its approval to the deal, opponents in Rhode Island, including staff with the division, say the risks of the transaction outweigh the potential benefits. That’s not only when it comes to cutting emissions, but also in regard to basic nuts and bolts of utility service, like securing reliable, reasonably priced gas supplies in New England, a market where demand is perpetually high and one in which PPL has no experience.
No matter what happens with the sale, the impacts will be far-reaching. No previous utility case of this magnitude has come up for approval in Rhode Island within our lifetimes, according to Christy Hetherington, chief legal counsel for the division who helped argue the case for the advocacy section.
“The Advocacy Section cannot emphasize enough how this transaction stands to impact all facets of these systems — the reliability of gas and electric delivery to our homes and the costs of these services, costs that will directly impact the rates that the average citizens will have to pay to keep the lights on or to keep warm in the winter,” she said in the hearings.
Read the full article at The Providence Journal here.
As electric rates rise, gas-fired power emerges as both scapegoat and savior
WESTBROOK — In a building bigger than a football field, one of two 185-ton natural gas-fired turbines inside the Westbrook Energy Center is ramping up on a cloudy December afternoon.
A day earlier, the region’s electric grid operator in Massachusetts told the energy trading desk at Calpine Corp. in Houston to start the plant at 2 p.m. the following day and run until midnight.
Calpine is obligated every day to offer up to 550 megawatts of capacity from this plant to a wholesale energy bidding process run by regional grid operator ISO New England. That’s enough electricity to meet the needs of 550,000 homes.
These “day-ahead” bids are meant to assure that on each following day, the region will have enough generating capacity every second of every hour, regardless of weather or demand.
Westbrook doesn’t get selected every day. But when it does, it’s not hyperbole to say the plant is helping to keep the lights on in New England.
Despite its essential role, natural gas is under fire. In mid-November, the Maine Public Utilities Commission directly blamed high wholesale natural gas prices for the more than 80 percent jump in “standard offer” electric supply rates that most Central Maine Power and Versant Power home customers are starting to see in their bills this month.
Even more ominous, ISO New England warned in early December that limited gas pipeline capacity and liquified natural gas deliveries could put the region’s electricity supply in a “precarious position” if there’s an extended cold snap between now and spring.
So as winter deepens, natural gas is a study in contradictions. It seems to be simultaneously keeping the lights on, raising electric bills and contributing to the risk of rolling blackouts.
It’s a confusing set of circumstances for Mainers to pick apart.
Policymakers in Maine and the rest of New England are pushing an urgent transition to renewable energy to fight climate change, largely by encouraging solar and wind power. But despite the growth of renewables, natural gas plants such as the one in Westbrook will still make up half of the region’s generating capacity in 2022.
A look back at ISO New England data on that cloudy December day highlights the enduring role of natural gas. Fifty percent of the 20,913 megawatts of available capacity in the region was gas-fired. Thirty percent came from nuclear power and 6 percent from hydroelectric stations. Other renewables made up just 15 percent, mostly from wind farms.
Even in Maine, where the bulk of the state’s generating capacity is made up of hydro, wind and biomass, natural gas plays an outsize role. Gas plants generated 70 percent of the standard offer supply that the PUC approved for residential customers in CMP’s service area for a period in 2020 and 2021.
But last Tuesday, when morning temperatures in Maine plunged to zero or below, the limitations of gas were on full display.
With gas in short supply or very expensive, oil became the “marginal fuel” on the grid, meaning it was being dispatched to generate the next megawatt of needed power. Gas generation dropped to 42 percent of the fuel mix while oil shot up 16 percent. On this cold day, it was oil that was keeping the lights on.
Maine’s largest power plant, 610-megawatt Wyman Station in Yarmouth, was pressed into service. Wyman rarely runs, but as dawn broke Tuesday, a plume of smoke rose from its 421-foot stack into the frigid air over Casco Bay.
On Saturday morning, another near-zero day with gusty winds, Wyman Station was running again. ISO-New England showed oil contributing 19 percent of generating capacity, with natural gas down to 32 percent.
And therein lies the paradoxical role of gas power and its impact on what Mainers will pay for electricity in the 2020s.
New England is racing to phase out fossil fuels – oil, coal and natural gas – and their climate-changing emissions. Experts call it decarbonization. But the energy sources that will replace them, largely solar and wind, can’t produce power 24/7.
So until economical, long-duration energy storage is developed and sited, existing gas-fired plants such as the Westbrook Energy Center will be needed to some degree.
Contributing to that need is the reality that always-on options such as Canadian hydro and nuclear power face opposition for a variety of reasons. Exhibit A is the proposed 1,200 megawatts of capacity from Quebec over the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line.
Mainers voted to kill the project in November, in part because of allegations from critics that the line also could carry fossil fuel power. Construction has stopped, and the case is now before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Calpine, incidentally, helped fund the opposition campaign. It did so because NECEC’s power was expected to be less expensive than gas, which meant Westbrook would be dispatched less often by the grid operator.
FUTURE UNCERTAIN FOR GAS
How much gas plants will be needed, and for how long, is unclear and being hotly debated. Two studies done in 2020 show the difference of opinion.
A study commissioned by Calpine concluded that, while gas plants will run fewer hours in the future, they’ll still be essential players for decades. Their main role will be to provide reliability and firm capacity, the ability to start on demand and run as long as required.
Firm capacity will be even more crucial in the years ahead as the region moves to electrify its economy, using renewable energy to run cars and heat buildings. The trend is expected to shift periods of peak electric use from summer to winter, a season when heating demand is high and solar energy is at its low point.
“We think that through 2050, you’ll have to have gas in the resource mix,” said Seth Berend, vice president of power trading at Calpine.
But environmental activists say the imperative of slowing climate change means natural gas must be phased out much sooner.
A study by Acadia Center, a regional environmental group, suggests that gas generating capacity could be cut from nearly half to 10 percent by 2030. To get there, New England will need strategies that include greatly increasing the amount of clean energy generation and storage, as well as more so-called distributed energy resources such as small solar projects built close to where power is needed. The group also calls for halting any investment in new gas infrastructure.
“You can achieve the same goal at a lower cost and with lower impacts,” said Melissa Birchard, the group’s senior regulatory attorney.
One thing is beyond dispute: Natural gas is subject to wild price swings. When that happens, Maine electric rates will go along for the ride.
The past two years illustrate the point. In 2021, standard offer electric rates hit a very low 6.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. This year, they’re above 11 cents.
What happened? Experts blame an unusual confluence of global events last fall.
The pandemic and extreme weather disrupted fossil fuel production in the United States. European tensions with Russia limited gas imports, raising wholesale prices. High prices created incentives for record exports of liquified natural gas, fuel that could have been burned in the United States.
These and other disruptions were occurring just as the Maine PUC was requesting bids for standard offer electricity supply for 2022, in a region with a pipeline system that struggles to keep up with demand during the coldest days. On those days, wholesale gas prices can skyrocket.
“This is why the standard offer rate went up,” said Drew Landry, Maine’s deputy public advocate. “The standard offer suppliers had to build into their calculations the risk that, sometime in January or February, they may have to pay an extreme price. The alternative to paying that price is the lights going out.”
There’s an adage in the utility industry: Most people only think about electricity when they get their monthly bill or if they flip the light switch and nothing happens. For 2022, at least, higher monthly bills will be the price Mainers pay to avoid the second consequence.
In two short decades, natural gas has gone from savior to scapegoat in New England. Its promise as a cleaner-burning fuel has been eclipsed by alarm over the climate-changing contribution of methane, the largest component in natural gas.
In 2000, the region’s generation mix was dominated by nuclear power, oil and coal. Natural gas contributed 15 percent. The nation’s gas pipeline system actually ended in Lewiston.
But public opposition to nuclear power solidified after the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in 1979. A failed effort to build a second reactor at Seabrook, New Hampshire, led its owner to declare bankruptcy in 1988. In 1997, Maine Yankee in Wiscasset shut down, too expensive to repair and maintain. At the same time, pressure was mounting to close highly polluting oil and coal plants.
Where would New England’s electricity come from in the 21st century?
By chance, new gas deposits were discovered in western Canada, off Nova Scotia and in Pennsylvania and New York. Natural gas was hailed as a “bridge” fuel, a source to move America past dirty coal and oil on the way to a renewable-energy future.
Soon, new high-pressure pipelines were being developed – two of them that bisect Maine and went into service in 1999: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline. Complementing the supply was a new liquified natural gas import terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, completed in 2009.
Developers began building power plants near these lines to take advantage of the new supply and the region’s newly deregulated wholesale electricity market. Among the first was the Calpine plant in Westbrook, completed in 2001.
The Westbrook plant was part of a new generation using combined-cycle technology, in which waste heat in the gas turbine exhaust is recovered and sent to the steam turbine, greatly increasing efficiency and reducing airborne emissions.
RELIABLE POWER AT A PRICE
On that cloudy December afternoon, two operators were sitting in the plant’s control room. Monitoring 19 computer screens, the men were confirming that pumps, feed water and other systems were engaged as they prepared to put half the plant’s output on line.
“We never know what we’re going to run tomorrow until we get our day-ahead awards,” said Holly Bragdon, the plant’s manager.
Water must be heated to 2,000 degrees to start the steam turbine, Bragdon explained. Because the plant ran the day before, the system was still hot enough for power to ramp up in one hour. A cold start could take four hours. But newer plants can respond even quicker, illustrating the as-needed, balancing act for gas in a growing mix of intermittent renewable generators.
As the plant came to life, Bragdon received an email from Berend’s team at Calpine’s power trading desk in Houston. It said ISO New England wanted the plant to shut down that night but start both turbines the next day, two hours apart.
Calpine is paid – through ratepayer charges – to offer the plant’s full output every day or face financial penalties. This is how the lights stay on in New England.
But even without Canadian hydro, the plant isn’t needed as much as it used to be.
Federal energy data show that Westbrook ran at 79 percent capacity in 2002. Today, it’s closer to 20 percent. One reason is the once-cheap offshore gas from Nova Scotia has petered out over 20 years. Another is that wind and solar are filling in more hours as their capacities increase.
But solar panels don’t work in the evening or at night. Land-based wind turbines are sluggish on most summer days. Massive offshore wind farms and long-duration storage could change things, but not right away. For instance, the region’s largest battery storage project is scheduled to come on line in Gorham in 2024, rated at 175 megawatts of capacity for two hours.
“There’s still a big need for gas at certain hours,” Berend said.
The problem is, gas in New England is more costly than in other parts of the country. At certain hours of peak winter demand, prices can spike. That’s because the system that brings gas into the region from the south is barely big enough to handle demand from both power plants and the thousands of homes and businesses that have converted from oil to gas since 2000. For perspective, the Sappi paper mill in Skowhegan, which made the switch in 2014, uses enough gas each year to offset up to 4.2 million gallons of industrial-grade oil.
Seeking to lower wholesale prices in New England, industry groups tried for years to expand the gas supply network. Many Maine political leaders were on board with that goal in 2012, when former Gov. Paul LePage and Republicans controlled state government. They wanted Maine electric customers to help subsidize new gas lines in New England, arguing that the cost reduction in power would be worth it. That plan failed to advance, in part because residents and politicians in Massachusetts opposed a major new pipeline, Kinder-Morgan’s Northeast Energy Direct.
Opposition has only hardened since then. Critics have even renamed the fuel, calling it “fossil gas” or “fracked gas,” slang name for the hydrofracturing technology used to extract gas from bedrock formations. Even the idea of extending distribution lines can be met with community resistance, as Summit Natural Gas discovered last year after announcing plans to expand in the midcoast. In March, the company withdrew efforts to build a $90 million pipeline to Rockland.
Based on the deepening opposition, it’s widely assumed that no new gas pipeline infrastructure will be built in the region, according to Matt Kakley, a spokesman for ISO New England. That could make plants such as Westbrook even more valuable to ensure grid reliability during the region’s transition to renewables.
“We see them as important in the short term or even the medium term,” Kakley said. “Down the road it might be storage, but right now, natural gas is playing that role.”
Read the full article at the Portland Press Herald here.
Connecticut targets building emissions, energy equity as it moves to update energy strategy
In September 2021, the state reported that it was no longer on track to meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. Emissions rose 2.7% from 2017 to 2018, the report found based on the latest state data available, off the pace needed to reduce economywide GHG emissions 80% below 2001 levels by 2050.
Although the state’s electricity sector had made strides, the state found that the transportation and building sectors continued to be major sources of climate pollution.
However, the state also abandoned the proposed regional Transportation and Climate Initiative, which was meant to align several states around a transportation emission reduction program. Connecticut’s legislature did not approve the initiative over concerns about high gas prices.
The GHG report and the TCI failures should lend some urgency to the new CES and building code process, said Amy McLean, senior policy advocate and Connecticut director for the Acadia Center.
“We are not on track and you can’t get away from it. We have the data,” McLean said. “The only way we are going to meet our goals is to be bolder in our policies and our legislation and by addressing the transportation and building sectors.”
Lamont’s executive order acknowledges that the state will not meet its 2030 goals unless the legislature “authorizes expanded investment and decarbonization programs,” although it adds that the governor will use executive authority “where appropriate and to the extent possible to address climate mitigation and resilience.”
The order instructs DEEP to identify strategies for more affordable heating and cooling for buildings that also reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as a rewrite of the state’s building codes that consider GHG reductions. Under the order, state facilities will also adopt GHG reduction strategies, including a goal of obtaining 100% zero carbon electricity by 2030 and retrofitting all fossil fuel-based heating and cooling systems by 2023.
The order also calls for a statewide electric bus fleet by 2035, with the cessation of diesel bus purchases by the end of 2023.
The CES will help put some of those goals into action. Under the scoping process announced last week, DEEP will take public comment through March 3 on topics including decarbonization of buildings, decarbonization of industrial thermal processes, updates to the state’s electric vehicle plan and updates to the state’s Integrated Resources Plan. The CES scoping process will also include a focus on equity, in line with Lamont’s goal.
DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes said in a statement that the process “affords us an opportunity to engage with the public on new and existing energy policies needed to provide cleaner, more affordable, and reliable energy options for residents and businesses in the state.”
McLean said she was encouraged by the “depth” of issues laid out in the proceedings, which reflect comments the group has provided to the state. McLean said the state had plenty of opportunity to enact energy efficiency measures, increase public transportation and electrify government vehicles, which would kickstart the state’s goals.
“This is stuff that’s not hard to do, yet there’s not a will to do it,” McLean said. “We have to have the political will on top of good policy in order to make progress.”
Read the full article at Utility Dive here.
First, end ratepayer subsidies for natural gas expansion. Then study the future of gas in Connecticut
You may be surprised to learn that Connecticut natural gas ratepayers are subsidizing the expansion of the natural gas system. Yes, in 2021 as we are trying to stop burning fossil fuels that contribute to climate change, ratepayers’ funds are being used to increase the number of natural gas customers.
The System Expansion Program (SEP) began in 2013 when the Malloy administration and legislature directed the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to develop a ten-year plan to encourage households that used heating oil to convert to natural gas. At the time, it was believed that burning gas instead of oil would reduce emissions (though it turns out that between combustion emissions and methane leaks, gas is not a good climate solution). The conversion program required ratepayer investments in gas pipelines and infrastructure that will lock in the use of natural gas for decades. Meanwhile, the supposed cost benefits to customers have disappeared as gas prices have increased.
In 2020, PURA recognized that the program was not working as intended and asked its office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE) to review the program. In a victory for common sense and a recognition of the facts, EOE’s review concluded that “the program should ‘downsize’ immediately and the System Expansion Program should end at the 10-year mark.”
Among other findings, EOE recognized that:
- The climate justification for the program has diminished: State policy is relying far less now than in 2013 on natural gas as a tool to meet the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act emissions goals, and EOE expects the deemphasis on natural gas to continue.
- The program is unfair to ratepayers: Diverting millions of ratepayer dollars into the program instead of lowering customer bills is “a significant change in the treatment of customers that must be addressed.”
- The evaluation process has been flawed: The criteria for assessing the program were, “far too liberal to provide any meaningful assessment of the program.”
- The program does not meet current needs and priorities: The program is designed in a way that, “does not adequately account for market trends, and cannot respond rapidly to negative trends,” such as changes in the difference between gas and oil prices and increased concern with emissions.
Now that EOE has issued its report on the System Expansion Program, it is up to PURA to enact the recommendations.
There is another problem with the gas expansion program, namely the way it has been marketed to potential new gas customers. In August 2021, Connecticut’s Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel filed a petition to PURA calling for an investigation into Eversource’s gas expansion marketing tactics. According to the Hartford Courant, a South Windsor resident received plainly deceptive materials from Eversource designed to pressure people into signing up for the gas expansion program. “These mailers and high-pressure marketing tactics are nothing short of alarming,” Attorney General William Tong said. PURA agreed to investigate and on Dec. 17, 2021 issued a Notice of Violation against Eversource, along with a $1,797,000 civil penalty.
Connecticut is not the only state to be increasingly wary of investing more in natural gas infrastructure. As a recent RMI study, Overextended: It’s Time to Rethink Subsidized Gas Line Extensions, notes: “A new natural gas customer is added to the system every minute in the United States, and existing gas customers are covering their construction costs through subsidies known as line extension allowances. Each year, these extensions of gas service enable utilities to pass hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to existing customers while expanding the fossil fuel system for decades to come … Utility regulators in every state should reform line extension allowances to eliminate subsidies for gas, align with state climate policies, and reduce the financial burden on existing gas customers.”
Among the states beginning to act is Massachusetts, where the advisory council that oversees Mass Save, the state’s energy efficiency program, is seriously questioning the continuation of incentives for the conversion of home heating systems from oil to gas. Critics of Mass Save point out that heating with natural gas will still produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and lock in the emissions for decades. And who designed the Mass Save program? Gas utilities, among others.
Meanwhile the State of Maryland’s People’s Counsel recently wrote that Maryland gas utilities are continuing to expand their distribution infrastructure despite the growing danger of climate change. Why? Because it benefits shareholders. But the problem goes deeper than that. As Maryland and other states transition away from fossil fuels, ratepayers will still be paying for the investments gas companies are making right now. The question is, who will bear the unrecovered costs of obsolete infrastructure, ratepayers or shareholders? The question has not been answered in Maryland, but given the efforts of gas utilities to expand, it is reasonable to assume that they are counting on ratepayers.
In Connecticut, we need to ask the following question: who will pay for gas infrastructure that becomes obsolete as the state transitions away from burning fossil fuels?
One of the best ways to address the question would be to open a Future of Gas docket at PURA, similar to what the Department of Public Utilities did in Massachusetts. Initiated by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, Docket 20-80 is considering what an orderly decrease in the use of natural gas for heating would look like, what alternatives exist for heating buildings, how much ratepayer money should utilities spend on repairing and replacing leaking pipelines that may be phased out, and how should remaining gas ratepayers be protected from the costs of maintaining a distribution system that has fewer and fewer customers.
Gov. Ned Lamont’s recent Executive Order No. 21-3 suggests that Connecticut needs to look squarely at the future of natural gas. “GHG emissions from buildings have increased instead of being on track to achieve the roughly one-third reduction in such emissions needed to achieve the GWSA 2030 target, [and] a new Comprehensive Energy Strategy is needed that identifies the best clean, affordable and resilient heating and cooling options for buildings, and reconsiders the natural gas expansion program recommended in the 2013 Comprehensive Energy Strategy.”
Governor, push to completely end the current natural gas expansion program that is expensive, unfair to ratepayers, and inconsistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Then join with Attorney General Tong to request that PURA open a docket that explores the future of gas. Ratepayers, voters, and future generations will thank you.
Peter Millman is a member of Beyond Gas CT, a coalition that includes the Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club CT, Acadia Center, The Nature Conservancy, Save the Sound, CT Citizen Action Group, and People’s Action for Clean Energy.
Read the full article at CT Mirror here.
Going Green: 9 Experts Tips For an Eco-Friendly Holiday Season and New Year
While the holidays have been coined the best time of the year, it’s also the most wasteful. In fact, between Thanksgiving and the New Year, Americans create 25% more waste than any other time of the year. As you wrap up the holiday season and prepare for the year ahead, we thought who better to ask for advice on how to be more eco-friendly during the holiday season and beyond than those that know sustainability and the environment best. From Eugene, OR to Toronto, ON, experts across North America shared simple yet impactful ways that you can be more green. Whether it’s finally replacing your windows to reduce heat loss or swapping out household cleaning products for environmentally-friendly options, there are so many ways you can become more eco-conscious at home during the holiday season and into the New Year.
1. Decorate your home sustainably
Instead of putting up a real tree that will die, consider making a “Green Tree” – i.e., sustainable tree – this year. Get creative and make an upcycled tree from repurposed materials. – Cinder Garden Designs
2. Ditch traditional cards for an eco-conscious option
There is no time like the holidays to start being more eco-conscious. Instead of mailing those holiday greeting cards, email them. This will reduce your carbon footprint and produce less physical waste. – Environmental Volunteers
3. Put community solar in the stocking instead of coal this year
Groups like Groundswell can give you a cost-effective share in community solar while providing benefits to your community. For lower-income households, Grid Alternatives has great options to take advantage of the sun. And for others who fall outside of the five states that Groundswell works in, there are many local groups as well as national ones, like national group Arcadia, that can connect you and your loved ones to clean energy gifts perfect for the stocking this year. – Acadia Center
4. Reduce your heat and cooling losses for an eco-conscious New Year
Green habits to adopt for the new year should include reducing your heat or cooling losses. Start small by putting in well-fitted insulating shades or drapes, and ensuring the drafts of outside air are blocked with proper-fitting door gaskets. Next level planning would include making sure all your windows are double-paned with high r-value windows for your climate. And if you’re building an addition to your home, or a new home or out-building, leave behind traditional wood stick framing and look at sustainable ICCF (insulating composite concrete forms) wall block construction for high energy reductions at a competitive price. – Faswall
5. Upcycle old holiday cards into handmade gift tags
Cut out the festive designs on past years’ holiday cards, put your festive creativity to work, and attach them to your gifts! Be sure to avoid or craft over any spots where the cards had writing on them. – bare market
6. Shop local and remember to buy quality over quantity
Besides supporting your community and finding unique gifts and fresh, seasonal, organic produce, you’re avoiding adding to the mass supply chain and transportation emissions when you shop locally. Everything we buy ends up somewhere, whether that’s biodegrading in the ground or sitting in a landfill for literal decades. Where you can, try to opt for vintage or antique gifts. Otherwise, make an effort to buy useful things that will last a long time but can easily be repurposed or biodegrade at the end of their life cycles. – Aurora Sustainability
7. Gift our planet this holiday season by using natural odor eliminators
You can clean your air and save by using eco-friendly natural, unscented, reusable, and chemical-free deodorizers. In addition, you will be helping fight climate change by reducing your carbon footprint. – NoOdor.com
8. Think practically to help reduce post-holiday waste
Reduce post-holiday waste by giving gifts that are consumable or that the recipient can use in their everyday life. We’ve all gotten cheap “throwaway” gifts that people give when they feel compelled to give something, and oftentimes those gifts that are cheap, break easily or can’t be used, so they end up in the trash. Instead, give gifts like coffee or tea (things that can be used up) or practical items that can be used every day. Your gift recipients will think of you every time they use their gift, and you won’t contribute more to landfill waste. – Creative Green Living
9. Ditch the plastic and think reusable this year
Marley’s Monsters UNpaper® towels and Washable Sponges are not only great for gifting but also great for cleaning up during and after holiday parties. Give the gift of sustainability with reusables that can be used over and over again, save money, and the environment. – Marley’s Monsters
Originally published on Redfin.
How New England bungled its plan to transition to renewable energy
Earlier this year, Massachusetts passed a landmark law as part of a push towards decarbonization that requires the state to cut emissions in half by 2030.
But the state’s plan to meet this ambitious goal hit a snag this fall, when residents in Maine voted down a regional clean energy project, arguing it would irreversibly damage their own natural resources in order to deliver hydropower somewhere else.
“This project was poorly designed from the beginning,” said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). “The developer failed almost every step of the way to involve the public and to provide Maine with meaningful benefits.”
Proposed in 2017, the New England Clean Energy Connect project intended to transport 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower through western Maine. But in a 60% to 40% referendum split this November, Maine residents voted to reject the transmission line.
Environmentalist groups in Maine – as well as Indigenous groups in Canada – argued the plan would put New England on a path to decarbonization that omits voices of the most affected communities.
Initially, the project proposed running the utility through New Hampshire. When that failed, an above-ground route through Maine was chosen as an alternative to Vermont’s buried power lines.
“It is undeniably one of the shortest routes,” said Greg Cunningham of the Conservation Law Foundation, noting that the lower cost of the route through Maine appealed to developers. “If a project developer is pursuing a project on the cheap, it ought to be a red flag.”
Under this plan, environmental groups like Sierra Club, NRCM and Conservation Law Foundation expressed concern about the power lines cutting through Maine’s North Woods.
“The fact that the biggest utility in the state of Maine proposes to stretch transmission lines over an iconic natural resource like the Kennebec gorge, and in doing so, permanently damage both the visual and ecological attributes of the gorge is just foolish and avoidable,” Cunningham said. While running the transmission line over the Kennebec gorge was initially considered and later scrapped, the project’s updated approach is to bury a portion of transmission lines by drilling under the river instead.
Estimated at about $1bn, the project is funded by the Canadian utility company Hydro-Quebec and Central Maine Power, a subsidiary of energy company Avangrid, which services 3.3 million customers across New England and New York. A coalition of First Nation tribes in Quebec filed a lawsuit to stop construction of the hydropower line from the Quebec side.
“The truth is that most of the power generated by [Hydro-Quebec] is generated and transmitted on our ancestral land without consent or compensation,” wrote Lucien Wabanonik, a spokesperson for the coalition and a member of the Anishnabeg tribe.
A spokesperson from Clean Energy Matters, a political action committee funded by Avangrid, disputed the claim that the public input was not sought out by developers. “There was a tremendous amount of public input in the regulatory approval process,” said Chris Glynn.
Although the construction is suspended, it’s not necessarily the end for the transmission line. Roughly 40% of the work has been completed already, with 124 miles (200km) of right-of-way trees and vegetation cut and transmission structures erected along the project route. Avangrid has maintained that the NECEC will bring cleaner air and lower energy prices to New England. Earlier this month, a district judge denied Avangrid and its subsidiary CMP’s motion to delay the referendum decision. An appeal to the Maine supreme court is expected in the coming months.
From the time the project was first introduced, both sides campaigned heavily for voter support. The initiative was endorsed by Maine and Massachusetts’ governors and their predecessors, and had appeal across party lines. The project is also seemingly welcomed by the federal government, with the energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, urging voters to support the transmission line.
Certain environmental groups were less keen on downright opposing the project, seeing it as a crucial first step away from fossil fuels. “New England has a natural gas problem,” Jeff Marks, of the local non-profit Acadia Center, said. “Most of our electricity is still generated by fossil fuels, so getting clean energy from a variety of sources is certainly going to be a priority.”
Both supporters and opponents of the transmission line flooded local radio with ads, spending more than $60m to sway voters, according to Maine Public Radio. Two Texas-based fossil fuel companies with operations in Maine were the largest donors to the opposition campaign. Having oil companies fighting the project has further complicated the question for the voters of Maine.
Although Cunningham, from the Conservation Law Foundation, saw several flaws in the way the hydropower initiative was rolled out, he was not surprised by the way oil and gas companies funded the opposition. “The reality borne out by the NECEC project is that big oil and gas companies are doing anything and everything they can to hinder if not kill progress,” Cunningham said. “These companies feel an existential threat to their investments and we’re going to see that at every turn.”
Read the full article at The Guardian here.
Drafty homes drive up energy bills. Maine volunteers are using a simple technique to insulate some of them
Inside an old church basement in Norway, Sharon Harrison stretches a wide, thin sheet of polymer over a rectangular wooden frame. She’s one of a few dozen volunteers inside the church — building the frames and covering them in shrink wrap and foam.
The end result: window inserts that will eventually fit snugly into the drafty windows in her house in Waterford, built back in 1798. She already added some inserts a few years ago.
“And I do not want to replace the windows. I love the old, gravy glass,” Harrison said. “So this was a good alternative to keeping our house from being drafty. It really has made a difference.”
A big difference. It’s warmer inside, and Harrison said her fuel bill has fallen by a third.
“The first year we moved in the house, without these, we were just going through so much fuel. It was ridiculous,” Harrison said. “And there’s been a couple occasions when I’ve taken one out of a window, and you cannot believe the cold difference behind that. It really stopped the drafts.”
Harrison is building these inserts through a program called WindowDressers, through which residents from communities across Northern New England come together in churches and town halls to tape and wrap the frames together. The Norway event was organized by a local group, the Center for an Ecology-Based Economy. By using volunteers, prices stay relatively cheap — around $40 per insert. And they’re free for low-income households.
But while advocates tout this low-cost solution as a way to both reduce bills and cut carbon as part of the state’s plans to move away from fossil fuels, they say tackling Maine’s old, drafty housing stock will require a lot more investment in the years ahead.
“We’ve seen that about 96% of units in Maine, were built before the state even adopted a statewide building energy code, in 2008,” said Jeff Marks, a senior policy advocate and Maine Director for the Acadia Center, a climate advocacy organization.
Marks said that while weatherizing those hundreds of thousands of older homes is a huge challenge, it can make a substantial difference — particularly for low-income residents, who spend nearly a fifth of their income on energy alone.
A 2019 report from the Maine Office of the Public Advocate shows the average home energy burden for low income households compared to all households in the state.
“And really, the electrification of homes, with energy efficient heat pumps, are really the next steps. And are the types of investments that Maine really needs to increase over the coming years,” he said.
Some view Maine as a pioneer, as some of the first weatherization programs were created here in the 1970s.
In the decades since, MaineHousing has used funding from the federal Weatherization Assistance Program to seal cracks, close drafts and insulate hundreds of homes a year for low-income residents eligible for heating assistance. More recently, Efficiency Maine has also offered weatherization rebates: up to $3,500 for any resident, and up to $9,600 for those with low-to-moderate incomes.
“That’s anywhere from a third, to maybe as much as 90% of a typical project cost,” said Efficiency Maine Executive Director Michael Stoddard. “It makes a huge difference. And I think that’s a big — that financial incentive really helps people take that action.”
Altogether, the two agencies’ efforts combined weatherized about 2,000 Maine homes this year.
But in order for the state to reach its climate goal of weatherizing 35,000 homes by 2030, that rate will need to nearly double.
State officials say two recent investments have them feeling optimistic they can get there. Earlier this year, the Mills Administration allocated $25 million in federal stimulus money to Efficiency Maine, which the agency estimates will weatherize about 3,500 homes.
And the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed last month contained $3.5 billion for home weatherization nationally — about ten times the program’s annual funding level.
“But we have to remember, these are one-time influxes of cash into the state,” said the Acadia Center’s Jeff Marks. He notes that while the increased attention and funding on weatherization are good steps from state officials, he’d like to see more sustainable funding sources over the long term, such as a fee on heating fuels.
“So the money coming in from the federal government, as well as state money, and Efficiency Maine programs, are good. They’re solid,” Marks said. “But it’s not nearly enough to do everything that we need to do to reach our energy goals.”
And some advocates said that even with funding, doubling the rate of weatherization will also require bolstering the state’s workforce in a tight labor market, which could be a challenge, even with new job training programs.
Back in the church basement in Norway, Jim Gibson of Fryeburg sticks long strips of foam on to the sides of a wooden window insert — it’s one small step that Gibson says he can take to reduce carbon emissions.
“And it doesn’t seem that our politicians are moving too fast in that realm,” Gibson said. “So as I say, I feel as though, one window at a time, I’m trying to make a difference.”
Read the full article at Maine Public here.
Groups urge bigger targets, more equity as RGGI states consider changes
As the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, undergoes a thorough review by participating states, environmental advocates are demanding more ambitious emission reduction targets and a mandate for equitable distribution of the revenues.
This is the third time since RGGI’s kickoff in 2009 that the states have reviewed the cap-and-invest program. With climate change predictions looking more dire than ever, advocates say it’s time to seriously ramp up the program’s carbon emission reduction targets.
“In both of the previous program reviews, the states lowered the emissions cap and improved the program,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon program director at the Acadia Center. “But neither of those reviews delivered sufficient levels of improvement. We would like to see it decrease more rapidly, and ultimately get us to zero emissions.”
Under RGGI, the participating states set a regional limit on the amount of carbon pollution that power plants are allowed to emit, and sell emission “allowances” up to that limit at quarterly auctions. The cap declines over time, gradually bringing down emissions.
The proceeds from the auctions are shared by the states. So far, the program has raised more than $4.7 billion, most of which has been invested in energy efficiency and clean energy projects.
The participating states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. Pennsylvania is in the process of formulating rules that will allow it to join.
Power plant emissions across those states are down by more than half, although there is disagreement as to how much of that reduction was driven by sharp declines in the price of natural gas and renewable energy rather than RGGI.
“So far, RGGI has had pretty low auction prices,” said Kenneth Gillingham, an economics professor specializing in environmental and energy issues at Yale University. “It’s a nudge. It has reduced emissions, but I don’t think it’s a dramatic effect.”
The 2021 cap under RGGI is 119.8 million short tons. It declines by 3.655 million tons every year through 2030 and is currently supposed to hold steady after that at approximately 86.9 million tons.
But environmental advocates say that schedule is too meager, especially given the aggressive greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals set by many of the participating states.
“The RGGI states should evaluate cap levels that are, at a minimum, consistent with these state goals to maintain their position as national leaders in decarbonizing electricity generation,” said Drew Stilson, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund, in written comments submitted during a program review stakeholder meeting last month.
Acadia is also calling for the elimination or redesign of RGGI’s so-called “cost containment reserve.” Under that mechanism, if auction prices reach a certain level, additional carbon allowances beyond the cap are released from the reserve.
Stutt says it is “unacceptable” to allow for that additional polluting. He noted that at the last RGGI auction, held earlier this month, the allowances sold for $13 each, a record high and a stronger incentive for the market to generate electricity from clean sources. But because that sum also matched the trigger price for the cost containment reserve, an additional 3.9 million allowances were released.
“We contend that if the cost containment reserve is maintained, the price triggers must be significantly higher than they are,” Stutt said. “Carbon prices are still very low compared to other programs across the globe.”
Gillingham said the reserve is intended to act as a backstop to prevent the RGGI program from becoming too expensive for ratepayers — “if it raises rates too much, it might not last.” But he agreed that a trigger price of $13 is too low “if the goal of the policy is really to ensure that it’s reducing emissions in a substantial way.”
Advocates are also hoping the states will take a serious look at whether the program is adequately benefiting the communities that are most impacted by air pollution. RGGI has so far deferred to individual states as to how to spend their share of the auction proceeds. But advocates are seeking a requirement that states allocate a minimum of perhaps 40% of proceeds to environmental justice communities.
“It’s frustrating that we haven’t seen progress on this yet,” Stutt said. “I think it would be inexcusable for the states to forego this opportunity to build equity into the program.”
The Northeast Regional members of the Climate Justice Alliance are urging the states to collect data identifying where emissions reductions are happening, and whether the program is improving or worsening air quality in environmental justice communities.
States are “certainly paying more lip service” to equity issues this time around, said Basav Sen, a climate policy expert at the Institute for Policy Studies, which is a member of the alliance. “But the primary problem with the way they approach equity is that they view it as something to address after the emissions have occurred. And those emissions happen in an inequitable way.”
In addition to tightening the emissions cap and boosting the trigger price for the reserve, Sen said the program should also stop allowing emitters to store allowances for future use.
“It makes the cap completely meaningless,” he said. “They should just expire. It’s supposedly a way to allow polluters to reduce emissions in the most cost-efficient way possible. But honestly, we are way past the point of worrying about costs for polluters. We are too far into the climate crisis for that.” The review process will continue throughout next year, with a draft of the updated model rule expected next fall.
Read the full article at Energy News Network here.
Opinion: Youngkin’s withdrawal from a regional climate agreement would cost Virginians
Virginia Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin’s recent announcement to undo Virginia’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative law via executive action is an opportunity: Richmond’s policymakers can now look with fresh eyes at that program’s major investments all across the commonwealth.
Youngkin’s stated reason to remove Virginia from the long-standing program (RGGI, pronounced “Reggie”) is to protect Virginia ratepayers from cost-of-living expenses. Focusing on pocketbook issues is always a laudable goal. And ratepayer cost concerns are real: Virginia has high electric rates that burden not just families but also our regional competitiveness. Our state’s rates are higher than not just every single one of our four regulated neighbors, but federal data shows Virginia rates are higher than nearly every single Southern state. As a result of these high rates, Virginians pay among the highest monthly electric bills in the nation. That cost will shoot up even further this winter when fossil fuel prices skyrocket.
But to protect Virginians from cost increases, Youngkin (R) should consider that RGGI does precisely that, by design: It both reduces the cost of living for our lower-income residents and funds mitigation of far costlier sea-level rise. Indeed, many of Youngkin’s own goals — to address sea-level rise, reduce emissions and lower the cost of living — are all advanced by the RGGI program. Its proven record of delivering value is why RGGI was hailed as a “real bipartisan, common-sense solution” by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R).
Here are the facts: RGGI is the multistate, market-based “cap-and-invest” program to lower carbon emissions, the main driver of costly climate change and sea-level rise across Hampton Roads. RGGI lowers emissions by holding power plants accountable for paying for their smokestack pollution, which RGGI also requires must decline over time; states invest those proceeds in common-sense, cost-lowering infrastructure improvements across their economies, such as boosting energy efficiency to lower electric bills.
Virginia joined RGGI precisely because of the program’s proven record of decreasing energy costs and slashing air pollution: RGGI-state emissions are just half of what they were at the program’s start more than a decade ago. As for costs, RGGI-state electricity prices have fallen over time, and RGGI-funded efficiency investments lower monthly bills, delivering $1.2 billion in bill savings thus far, with $13 billion more expected. It’s not surprising, then, that RGGI-state economies have grown faster than the rest of the country.
Here in Virginia, large polluters have already paid more than $200 million in RGGI proceeds for two crucial investments. First, RGGI investment in Virginia’s Community Flood Preparedness Fund goes to tackle the worsening sea-level rise across Hampton Roads and flooding statewide. RGGI already funded Virginia Beach with $3 million to mitigate the much higher costs of sea-level rise. Del. Will Morefield (R-Tazewell) also proposed using RGGI investments to help Virginians hit by extreme-weather flooding in far Southwest Virginia. Second, RGGI investment goes to bill-lowering energy efficiency improvements for the hard-working Virginia families that need them most. In the Albemarle County region alone, RGGI investments will slash the energy costs for more than 350 extremely low-income families, with relief to hundreds more families to come. Leaving RGGI would defund these very real investments in Virginia and Virginians.
More important, doing so would overlook the ripe opportunities right at hand to deliver progress and lower the electric bills of Virginia ratepayers.
Youngkin can lead in Richmond with real, bipartisan solutions here. He could provide relief from Virginia’s high electric rates if he worked with both legislative chambers on common-sense energy measures. To name just two major cost-of-living reforms: Youngkin and the legislature can first boost our economy’s lagging energy efficiency performance by ensuring state-regulated monopolies fully unlock those proven but still-latent Virginia resources. That reform will lower bills and the need to pay for costlier new electricity generation. And they could work together to rid Virginia’s code of the slew of monopoly-friendly “rate adjustment” accounting gimmicks that raise ratepayer costs by artificially inflating, month after month, Virginia electric bills. Virginia law has so many of those “rate adjustment” gimmicks, in fact, that there is even one in Virginia’s RGGI law (the only RGGI state to include one), unnecessarily padding electric utility profits on the backs of Virginia families.
So if Youngkin strikes anything from law, it should be those kinds of unnecessary cost burdens on Virginia ratepayers. Because one thing is certain: If Youngkin works on real solutions to lower both the cost of living and emissions, his first year in office will set a problem-solving leadership example to the nation, by delivering bipartisan progress in a narrowly divided state, that further strengthens Virginia’s economic resilience.
Read the full article at The Washington Post here.
Maine doesn’t have enough money to meet EV goals, a new report says
A new report from Gov. Janet Mills’ administration recommended new strategies to accelerate electric vehicle use, but it foreshadowed difficult conversations by saying Maine needs more money to meet ambitious climate goals.
The new clean transportation roadmap, required under an executive order by the Democratic governor in April, says Maine has made progress since 2019 by increasing battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles by 90 percent to 5,577 vehicles and public charging stations by 65 percent to 265 locations.
But more work needs to be done and thorny political questions about how to generate more money for the initiatives must be answered before decreasing the amount of fossil-fuel emissions in Maine’s transportation sector, which produces more than half of those emissions. The state needs 219,000 light-duty EVs on the road by 2030 to meet a goal of curbing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent.
The roadmap comes after a national study released in February concluded that Maine needed to accelerate its plans to get more electric vehicles on the road as the state relies heavily on the emerging vehicles to meet its climate goals. That same month, President Joe Biden made electric vehicles the centerpiece of his climate plan with a goal to convert about 645,000 postal trucks and passenger vehicles to all-electric and incentivize American companies to build a network of 500,000 charging stations.
The Mills administration said the state has limited funding to reach its goals, including only $19 million to expand charging infrastructure through 2025 through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. If the state alone funded new charging stations, it would need $7.7 million next year and $17.6 million in 2025, and it falls short on having those amounts.
Meeting overall clean energy goals also requires regional cooperation, experts said, and that has been hard to come by. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker recently pulled out of the Transportation Climate Initiative, a multi-state pact to reduce carbon emissions, citing a lack of buy-in among other states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, according to WBUR.
The pact is currently “frozen by political inertia throughout New England,” said Jeff Marks, Maine director of the Acadia Center, which was spearheading that project, which Mills never actively joined amid concerns that any funding solution could fall hard on rural Mainers.
“The clean transportation roadmap is a good start, but it will need political, technology and financial capital to move it forward in the right direction,” Marks said.
The Mills administration’s plan could still be controversial. The report opens the door to new funding methods that could be politically unpalatable, noting the state could generate more money to fund key initiatives by increasing the gas tax or adding a vehicle-miles-traveled tax, though it does not endorse any particular one.
Tackling transportation energy issues is important to Maine, Marks said. It is among the top 10 states in money spent per capita on energy, with the highest proportion going to transportation. The volatility in gasoline and diesel fuel prices due to global, national and regional constraints brings additional economic uncertainty to Mainers, he said.
Maine spends more than $4 billion annually to import fossil fuels, Dan Burgess, director of the governor’s energy office, said.
“The clean transportation roadmap offers options for how Maine can keep more of that money at home and create long-term climate and economic benefits to the state,” Burgess said.
Read the full article at Bangor Daily News here.
Follow us