Grid operator urges slower transition on renewables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full article in CommonWealth Magazine here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full article in ecoRI News here.

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

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

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

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

What is a heat pump, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Who is this for?

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

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

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

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

For more information visit Wirecutter to read the full guide. 

 

Legislative committee splits 3 ways on utility accountability bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO CONSENSUS FOUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘ACCOUNTABILITY NOW’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Jersey’s answer needs to be yes.

Read the full article at northjersey.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental advocates said they look forward to seeing those details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full article in The Boston Globe here.

Mass. is drafting a new climate-friendly building code. Here’s what you need to know

In Massachusetts, the statewide building code mandates a set of energy efficiency standards, like, for instance, your walls and windows need to hold in a certain amount of heat. A little over a decade ago, some cities and towns began clamoring for an even more climate-friendly building code to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In response, the Legislature established the so-called “stretch code,” a set of greener efficiency standards that towns could opt into.

Since 2009, when the stretch code was enacted, 299 out of 351 municipalities in the state have adopted it. Fast forward to today, and several cities and towns want an even “stretchier” green code — one that would allow them to ban fossil fuel hookups in new construction projects or major renovations.

Last year, after Gov. Charlie Baker signed the landmark Climate Act of 2021 into law, the state’s Department of Energy Resources (DOER) began designing this new optional building code. It was unclear whether the final version would allow some progressive cities and towns to adopt an all-electric building code, but many environmentalists kept their fingers crossed.

In February, DOER published the long-awaited draft proposal and began soliciting public feedback. Reactions so far have been mixed; many environmentalists want the final code to give towns more flexibility to require all electric construction, while many in the development world are relieved this option was omitted.

Building codes can be a wonky subject. But if you’re concerned about climate change and want to understand a powerful tool Massachusetts has to fight it, here, in simple English, is what you need to know:

Why does the building code matter?

Buildings are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts. Between oil and gas heating, hot water heaters and gas stoves, they’re responsible for about 27% of our annual emissions.

What’s more, DOER estimates that at least a quarter of all the square footage of buildings that will exist in 2050 in Massachusetts hasn’t been constructed yet.

In general, it’s much easier and cheaper to build an eco-friendly home or office building from scratch than to retrofit an existing structure, which is why environmentalists consider new construction the “low hanging fruit” of this decarbonization effort.

But under current Massachusetts law, a city or town is not permitted to mandate all electric construction or ban fossil fuel hookups. Attorney General Maura Healey made that clear in 2020, when she slapped down a Brookline ordinance that would end gas hookups in new homes.

In a letter, Healey explained that while she supported the town’s goal of climate-friendly construction, state law says residents have the right to all utility services (She shot down a second attempt by the town earlier this year.)

As it became clear that individual towns and cities couldn’t create greener building rules on their own, the Legislature decided to step in. Cue the Climate Act of 2021.

What does last year’s climate law do?

As part of a far-reaching climate bill, the Legislature included language directing the Department of Energy Resources to create another set of even greener building codes — what some took to calling the “new stretch code” or the “net zero stretch code,” but what we will continue to refer to as the “stretchier code.”

The goal was to create a legal way for cities and towns to experiment with greener construction, said state Sen. Michael Barrett, one of the bill’s authors. In an email, a spokeswoman for the AG’s office confirmed that a new stretchier code allowing cities to require all-electric construction would be legal.

The entire state, including the building sector, needs to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, Barrett said, “so we need to make sure that new construction over-delivers.”

While climate activists cheered the provision, many in the real estate and development community were not happy. The bill, one prominent real estate group warned, was vague to the point of unworkable, and might increase construction costs during a statewide housing crisis.

In the final version of the law, the department had to design a new stretchier building code that included a definition of a net zero building and net zero performance standards. It does not, to be clear, require cities and towns that adopt this new code to put an all-electric building mandate into place.

What’s in the new stretchier code?

On Feb. 8, the department published a topline summary for the new building code. It’s known officially as the “municipal opt-in specialized stretch energy code,” but we are going to keep calling it the stretchier code.

The proposed stretchier code creates different standards for different types of buildings based on something called the HERS rating, or Home Energy Rating System. HERS is a nationally recognized measurement of a home’s efficiency that’s determined by a professional auditor; the lower the rating, the more energy efficient the home is.

For reference, the average home in Massachusetts has a HERS rating of 51.

In the new stretchier code, towns are given three options for low rise residential homes and buildings:

• For a home that’s all electric, the HERS rating must be 45 or lower.
• For a home that has fossil fuel heating, the HERS rating must be 42 or lower. It also must have solar panels where feasible and be pre-wired to become all electric in the future.
• Homes that are extremely energy efficient and meet the so-called “passive home” standard are automatically compliant if they’re all electric or pre-wired to be all electric in the future.

Homes in all three categories also need the necessary wiring for electric vehicle charging.

According to the Department of Energy Resources, implementing this new stretchier code will save builders, homeowners and renters a total of $21 billion in construction and heating or operating costs. What’s more, it could cut 500,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and 694,000 tons by 2035.

The department wanted “to explore and understand the least-cost path to decarbonizing our buildings so that we can maintain a vibrant economy, meet our state’s needs for new and affordable housing, while also addressing our climate mandates,” said Maggie McCarey, director of the department’s energy efficiency division during a presentation about the new code last month.

The ‘net zero’ sticking point

“Net zero” has come up a few times in this discussion, and the casual definition seems clear: A building, on the whole, can’t add carbon to the atmosphere. But there’s no actual federal or international standard that Massachusetts could follow.

Think about it like this: Can a house with natural gas heating and solar panels be considered net zero?

And “fully electric” is another sticky term: Does the house need to generate all or some of its own electricity on site, or can it be fully electric and get all of its power from the grid? What if the grid isn’t fully carbon-free yet?

You see how this gets complicated.

DOER’s presentation included a slide that said net zero construction “does not necessitate onsite or offsite renewables, nor the assumption that an individual building is net-zero energy” because “a building becomes net zero energy when MA electric grid is net zero.”

If you’re confused, you’re not alone.

The department did not make anyone available for an interview to help clarify this point, but energy experts that WBUR spoke with think DOER is saying that homes that meet the standards of the new stretchier code are to be considered net zero.

Why are environmentalists concerned?

After publishing the draft proposal, DOER held five public meetings to solicit feedback. During at least one of those meetings, the comments were overwhelmingly critical and fell along three lines of argument.

First, it was evident that many hoped DOER would provide a legal avenue for cities and towns to ban new fossil fuel hookups, which it expressly did not do. One speaker called it “a slap in the face.”

State Rep. Tommy Vitolo suggested the new code require a home be all electric if it can be constructed at the same price as a gas powered one. Or that it allow gas heating only if all-electric construction isn’t feasible.

Second, many also raised questions about the definition of “net zero,” namely, that the presentation didn’t seem to include a succinct and workable one.

Ben Butterworth, senior manager of climate and energy analysis at the nonprofit Acadia Center, said he understands why many environmentalists were upset. DOER is “kind of putting their thumb on the scale to push developers toward building all electric,” but they’re “not explicitly making the requirement,” he said. And that’s not what people were hoping for.

Finally, another area of contention was whether cities and towns that adopt the stretchier code have the necessary leeway to try different things.

State Sen. Michael Barrett, one of the chief architects of the Climate Act and a strong proponent of decarbonization, told WBUR that the Legislature’s intent was to allow so-called “vanguard communities” like Brookline, Lexington and Arlington to take the lead and experiment.

Hypothetically speaking, maybe Brookline votes to ban all fossil fuel hookups in new construction right away, while Lexington attempts to phase it in more slowly or allow bigger carve outs for exceptions. And maybe Arlington allows natural gas stoves, but not home heating.

There’s nothing in the Climate Act that says municipalities must adopt all electric building requirements, he said, but it was supposed to give them that option.

“An absolutely rigid commitment to standardization violates the kind of experimentation that we need to do in this era of climate change,” he added.

Why are some developers concerned?

Anastasia Nicolaou, vice president of policy and public affairs at NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents commercial developers in the state, said she was relieved to see that the proposal did not allow towns to require all-electric construction. She was also pleased to see it didn’t provide an infinite number of pathways for towns that want to experiment, because, as she explained, developers don’t like operating in a world with that level of uncertainty.

Still, she remained concerned about the lack of details in the proposal and the timeline it sets forward. According to DOER, the rules will be finalized at the end of this year and ready for adoption next year.

Nicolaou added that while NAIOP and many developers it represents are supportive of decarbonization efforts, they’re concerned it’s all happening too quickly. It’s hard to not know what many cities and towns might adopt as their new building code a year from now, she said.

So where does this leave us?

The public has until Friday, March 18 at 5 p.m. to submit comments about the new stretchier code.

After this window closes, DOER will consider the feedback and write a comprehensive draft of the new building code. The public will once again have a chance to provide feedback, and DOER aims to publish the final code by the end of the year.

Read the full article in WBUR News here.

Doudera’s equity and environmental justice work progresses

An affirmative vote on March 16 from the Maine Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee has advanced a bill, LD 2018, to implement recommendations regarding the inclusion of equity considerations in regulatory decision making. The groundwork for this legislation was laid last session by Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-Camden) with her bill, now Public Law 2021, Chapter 279: An Act to Require Consideration of Climate Impacts by the Public Utilities Commission and to Incorporate Equity Considerations in Decision Making by State Agencies.

LD 2018 establishes definitions for “environmental justice” and “front line communities,” and sets methods to incorporate the weighing of equity decisions in deliberations at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Public Utilities Commission. The measure comes from a report written by the Governor’s Office of Policy, Innovation and the Future, based on dozens of conversations about environmental and climate justice in Maine, as well as three public forums that drew participation from people across the state who represented environmental justice; climate action; public health; tribal nations; members of low-income communities; younger and older Mainers and representatives from state and quasi-state agencies.

“The virtual public forums were extremely well-attended and showed us how important this work is to a wide cross section of the people of Maine,” said Doudera. “For too long, vulnerable voices have been left out of the critical decisions that impact neighborhoods, and it’s time we listen to everyone.”

The Camden legislator said she is pleased with the progress of LD 2018 thus far. “The public hearing on March 14 was very positive. Not only does the bill take the important step of defining in statute what we mean when we say, ‘environmental justice’ and ‘front line communities,’ but it will make PUC proceedings more accessible to everyday Mainers. It also requires our DEP to adopt rules ensuring that folks in impacted communities are provided with fair and equitable access to the department’s decision-making processes.”

Doudera said it was especially gratifying to work closely with people from her district on the bill. “Jessica Scott, a new Camden resident and senior climate advisor at GOPIF, did an incredible job — she managed the forums and wrote the 24-page report. Acadia Center, based in Rockport, reached out with the initial idea for the bill back in late 2020, and Dan Sosland, Jeff Marks and I worked with other environmental groups to get it passed and signed into law.”

Doudera noted that LD 2018 faces further votes in the Legislature before going to Governor Mills’ desk.

“I’m very grateful for all of the support this work has received and hope it continues going forward,” she said. “No matter what happens, I’m happy that I stepped up to sponsor the legislation and put in the time necessary to get this far, because the path has led to some amazing conversations and outcomes, and it is important, gratifying work.”

Doudera (D-Camden) is serving her second term in the Maine Legislature, representing the towns of Camden, Islesboro, and Rockport. She is a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and chairs the legislative Gun Safety Caucus. You can reach her at victoria.doudera@legislature.maine.gov.

Read the full article in The Camden Herald here. 

Direct-To-Consumer EV Enthusiasts Try Again

Supporters of legalizing direct-to-consumer sales of certain electric vehicles in Connecticut made their case before the legislature’s Transportation Committee Monday, arguing it was time to pass a long-debated exception for companies like Tesla or Rivian.

Connecticut law requires auto manufacturers to sell vehicles through franchise dealerships. For years, electric-only manufacturers like Tesla and, more recently, Rivian and Lucid have sought an exemption. The bill has stalled in the past under lobbying efforts by Connecticut dealerships.

During a public hearing on this year’s bill, supporters often presented the policy as an economic boon and a step towards increasing consumer uptake of electric vehicles and reducing the environmental impact of Connecticut commuters.

“It’s very clear from my research that every car that’s electric instead of gasoline will improve our air quality,” Ken Gillingham, a Yale economics professor, told lawmakers. Gillingham disputed the dire economic impact which state auto dealers have predicted if an exception is made for strictly EV companies.

Amy McLean, Connecticut director of the Acadia Center, said that auto dealers have not suffered job losses in other states which have allowed direct-to-consumer exceptions. Connecticut should amend its “regressive and restrictive” EV sales policies, she said.

“To be quite honest, this bill’s time has come,” McLean said. “How much longer are we going to wait for us to able to move the ball forward, look at the face of what it is in our future, and be brave enough to do the right thing on this bill?”

But while proponents contended the policy’s time had come, others wondered if its time had already passed. Increasingly, traditional automobile companies offer their own electric vehicle models. Chip Gengras, president of Gengras Motor Cars, pointed to electric products manufactured by Ford, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

“If you take just those three brands, they will outsell Tesla in 2022,” Gengras said. “The game has changed significantly and all the OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] are involved.”

Wayne Weikel, director of state affairs at the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said every auto manufacturer would like to sell electric vehicles to Connecticut consumers. Lucid, Rivian and Tesla were only unique in the sense that they wanted a carve-out in state law in order to do so, he said.

“You would think that there is some law in Connecticut that is prohibiting these companies from selling their products in your state. There is no such law,” Weikel said. “They could already be selling here. All they have to do is follow the same rules on auto distribution that every other automaker is required by law to follow.”

Even one of the bill’s legislative proponents, Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, remarked on the changing nature of the electric vehicle market. Industry trends will impact the necessity for both direct sales and traditional dealers as the increasing number of electric vehicles change the types of support consumers need, Steinberg said.

“I have seen with each passing year, that the facts on the ground have changed, the landscape on the ground is evolving even more rapidly than some would’ve thought even as recently as a couple years ago,” Steinberg said.

Daniel Witt, director of state and local public policy for Lucid Motors, questioned whether the committee felt it could afford to wait for dealers and traditional manufacturers to change their business models. Last year the vast majority of vehicles sold by dealers were internal combustion models and dealerships were profitable, he said.

“We need to ask ourselves whether or not the presence of these EV companies is really the straw that’s going to break the camel’s back,” Witt said. “We would submit to you that the historical record both in the last 10 years and certainly more recent would strongly seem to suggest that everyone will be fine.”

Read the full article at CTNewsJunkie here.