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.
Gov. Mills nominates attorney from Yarmouth as next public advocate
Gov. Janet Mills is nominating William Harwood, an attorney with broad experience working on utility issues, as the state’s next public advocate, the governor’s office said in a news release Wednesday.
If confirmed, Harwood, who currently serves as the senior adviser for regulatory affairs in the governor’s energy office, would represent Maine utility consumers in matters pending before the state Public Utilities Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.
“When it comes to utilities in Maine, few people are more experienced or knowledgeable than Bill Harwood – and no one is better positioned than Bill to stand up for Maine people and hold our utilities accountable to them,” Mills said in a written statement. “Bill’s deep expertise, built over his decades long career, will serve Maine well and will advance our efforts to hold our utilities accountable and deliver reliable service for Maine people.”
As former senior counsel at the Portland-based law firm Verrill Dana, Harwood has represented a wide range of interests over his 40-year career, including consumers, public utilities, renewable energy companies, technology companies, paper mills, and colleges and universities. He has also helped landowners, from blueberry growers to nursing homes, in negotiations with renewable energy developers regarding the siting and benefits of new solar projects.
Harwood, who served as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maine School of Law, also has experience with water utilities, representing consumers in disputes involving charges, supplies and access.
“I am honored to be nominated as Maine’s Public Advocate. If confirmed, I will work hard every day to defend the interests of Maine people,” Harwood said in a written statement. “The bottom-line is that Maine ratepayers deserve reliable service at just and reasonable rates, and I will fight every day to make sure that’s what they are getting.”
The nomination was welcomed by the Acadia Center, a group advocating for a bold response to climate change in the Northeast. Jeff Marks, the group’s Maine director and senior policy advocate, noted Harwood’s experience, skills and temperament.
“The trust he’s earned during his more than four decades of legal and regulatory work will serve him well, especially as the public grows more weary of high-profile controversies in Maine’s utility sector,” Marks said. “We hope Bill will use his leverage to elevate equity concerns in environmental justice, frontline, and other vulnerable communities that are underserved or overburdened by current energy policies, programs and systems due to geography, race, income or other socioeconomic factors.”
Harwood’s nomination is subject to confirmation by the Legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee, as well as the state Senate. It’s unclear when those proceedings would take place, although a confirmation hearing is expected before Jan. 15.
If confirmed, Harwood would replace former Public Advocate Barry Hobbins, who retired from the position in June 2021. Andrew Landry, deputy public advocate, has served as acting public advocate in the interim.
Harwood, a graduate of Harvard University and Fordham University, lives in Yarmouth with his wife, Ellen, and has five grown children.
A Mills spokesperson said Harwood, if confirmed, would earn $93,400 to $140,000 a year.
Read the full article at Press Herald here.
I-Team: Homeowners Experience Long Delays Getting Promised Mass Save Rebates For Heat Pumps
BOSTON (CBS) — John Semas is thrilled with his new energy-efficient heat pumps he installed in his Norfolk home back in 2020. “I love it. It’s a great system,” he said.
Semas says the new system saves him hundreds of dollars a month on his heating and cooling costs.
Michael Kozuch installed heat pumps in his Provincetown condo to help reduce his carbon footprint and to add air conditioning, which he didn’t have before. “It’s extremely efficient. The cooling and heating works perfectly,” Kozuch said.
Heat pumps work by pulling heat from the outside air and using that energy to heat the home. It works in reverse during the summer to pull heat out of the home, keeping the living space cool. It’s all one system and can easily be retrofitted to work with your current heating system, even if you don’t have air conditioning.
Heat pump technology has been around for a while, but in recent years, it’s been improved to pull heat out of the air in colder climates, even when temperatures dip below freezing. The systems use a small amount of electricity to operate.
“A heat pump is probably the biggest thing that consumers can do to help fight the climate crisis,” explained Amy Boyd, Director of Policy at the environmental group Acadia Center, which holds a seat on the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council.
According to Boyd, switching a home from oil heat to full electric using heat pumps is the equivalent of taking 12 cars off the road. That’s why the state set a goal of converting 100,000 homes a year to reduce green-house gas emissions by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
To reach these goals, the state is depending on homeowners getting millions of dollars in rebates offered by Mass Save. It’s a program run by the utilities, but you pay for it.
“It’s money that comes from a portion of the delivery charge on all of our electric and gas bills,” Boyd explained.
But Kozuch spent more than six months trying to get his rebate of $250 for his $3,000 heat pump.
“The rebate was part of the incentive. It helped make that final decision,” said Kozuch. “It’s frustrating.”
Semas’ system was much larger (more than $25,000), so his rebate was also larger. He spent over a year trying to get his money from Mass Save.
“Just shy of $6,000,” Semas said. “It ended up being complete chaos and disorganization.”
That’s a problem, according to Boyd, who explained that Mass Save just submitted a new three-year plan to the state that includes millions in new incentives for heat pumps.
“If it’s proving difficult for people to actually receive rebates, then we need to fix that administrative system,” she said.
When the I-Team reached out to Mass Save, a spokesperson said the following:
Energy efficiency is the most valuable tool that customers have to save money and reduce energy use, and we’re committed to providing an even more robust array of solutions while helping the Commonwealth achieve its goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 through our recently filed 2022-2024 plan. This plan also reflects the Mass Save Sponsor’s ongoing effort to improve the customer experience, including significant investments to promote heat pump adoption by raising customer awareness and understanding of clean technologies, offering one-on-one technical consultations, introducing helpful heat pump resources like our Heating Comparison Calculator, and building a residential Heat Pump Installer Network that will connect customers with qualified contractors who are experienced and trained to design heat pump systems.
Semas said that his customer experience was terrible, and he didn’t get all of his money until the I-Team reached out to Mass Save. “To think a homeowner can just carry that cost until someone from the news gets involved is not realistic,” he said.
So far, Mass Save is way behind on its goal of converting 100,000 homes a year.
The Massachusetts Attorney General tells us they also received a number of complaints about the Mass Save program.
The state is expected to approve Mass Save’s new three-year plan in January.
Read the full article at CBS Boston here.
Carbon prices, long in the dumps, surge in U.S. and Europe
Emission allowances in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program covering power plants in the Northeast, closed at a record-high $13 per ton at auction last week. In California, current allowances at an auction last month reached $28.60 per ton, up from $17 a ton at the end of 2019. European emissions allowances, which traded for less than $10 a ton as recently as 2017, are now flirting with $90 per ton.
The rally reflects local market conditions and program designs, but there are common threads. All three programs instituted reforms in recent years aimed at tackling persistently low prices. Investor participation in each market has also risen, helping drive demand for new credits.
Most importantly: The rally reflects markets’ growing realization that climate policy is here to stay, said Michael Mehling, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Carbon credits bought today are likely cheaper than those bought in coming years, as governments look to slash emissions and move to limit the supply of future allowances.
“It’s funny when prices are so low people would say the E.U. has a binding [emissions] target, but the market discounted it,” Mehling said. “After a decade or more of complaining about low prices, the debate is shifting to about high prices.”
Europe and the U.S. are in dramatically different places when it comes to their respective carbon markets. Limited gas supplies in Europe have driven up electricity prices and resulted in increased coal output. That, in turn, has fed demand for carbon allowances.
The sharp runup in European prices may have unintended consequences for emissions, Mehling said.
In Spain, the government intervened to cap energy prices and provide subsidies to low-income consumers. Industrial facilities are spending a growing portion of their budgets on carbon allowances, instead of investing in new equipment that might otherwise reduce emissions. More broadly, the rally has prompted debate over whether governments should intervene to stem an increase in carbon prices.
All those moves could have the effect of blunting the effectiveness of a high carbon price, which is intended to drive emission reductions.
“If we’re serious about the commitments we’ve adopted at the state and federal level, we have to be willing to stomach high prices if that is one of our policy tools,” Mehling said.
Carbon markets in America are much more limited, in both price and scope. RGGI covers power plants in 11 Northeastern states. $13 per ton is more than double the price of RGGI allowances in early 2020 but is unlikely to substantially alter power plant dispatch or make a discernible difference in electricity prices, said Paul Hibbard, a former Massachusetts utility regulator who tracks the industry at the Analysis Group.
California’s program, the Western Climate Initiative, also includes other sectors of the economy like transportation and industry. WCI’s wider reach and higher prices have the potential to drive more reductions, but also more opposition from consumers concerned about higher prices.
One contributing factor to the rally in allowance prices in both American markets is looming program reviews, analysts said. Regulators on both the East and West coasts will need to reduce the emission caps in WCI and RGGI if states are to meet their climate goals, analysts said.
In RGGI’s case, the level of state ambition has been dialed up significantly since the program’s last program review was completed in 2017. Massachusetts; New York; Rhode Island; and Virginia, RGGI’s newest member, have enacted laws requiring their states to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury.
“So many of the states have ambitious and mandatory climate targets, and there is a very clear gulf between the ambition of those targets and the ambition of the RGGI program, as represented by the cap,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon program director at the Acadia Center, an environmental group.
Debate over lowering the cap will come as Pennsylvania contemplates joining RGGI. Gov. Tom Wolf (D) is pushing to join the program over the objections of the Republican-led Legislature. Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a candidate running to replace Wolf in 2022, has also raised doubts about RGGI.
The election of Glenn Youngkin (R) as Virginia’s governor also adds a new element to the debate over the program’s emission cap. Youngkin, speaking yesterday to the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, pledged to withdraw Virginia from the program via executive order.
“RGGI describes itself as a regional market for carbon, but it is really a carbon tax that is fully passed on to ratepayers. It’s a bad deal for Virginians. It’s a bad deal for Virginia businesses,” the governor-elect said, according to the Virginia Mercury. “I promised to lower the cost of living in Virginia, and this is just the beginning.”
Youngkin may face a challenge withdrawing from RGGI without the approval of the Democratically controlled Senate. But the coming fight illustrates the challenge facing carbon bulls.
Read the full article at Climatewire here.
Follow us