Daniel L. Sosland: Arctic Refuge affects people in Connecticut

Acadia Center recently joined more than 240 other organizations in requesting that major insurance companies, including The Hartford and Travelers here in Connecticut, show their solidarity with the Gwich’in Nation, who speak with one voice from Canada to Alaska against oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska. The coastal plain of the refuge is the birthing and nursing grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and known to the Gwich’in people as Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit — the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.

The letter asks 10 of the largest insurance companies to commit to the protection of the Arctic Refuge from the harms of fossil fuel development by announcing policies against insuring drilling projects there.

As a Northeast-based organization with deep Connecticut roots, this may seem like a far step from local concerns, but the issues arising around the protection and sanctity of the Arctic Refuge are ones that should register here. Acadia Center works to advance bold, effective, and equitable clean energy solutions for a livable climate and a stronger, more equitable economy in Connecticut and around the region. Connecticut, often a clean energy leader in the region, is working to build a clean energy system that puts people front and center, shifting conversations to promote equitable and economically beneficial solutions.

What happens in the Arctic impacts us all — even in the Northeast. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. If we allow drilling to happen in the refuge, entire coastal villages will continue to erode into the sea, the melting of permafrost will increasingly make infrastructure insecure or impossible, and food sources will disappear. Already, federal dollars are being spent to relocate villages sliding into the sea.

The sea around our coastline is also rising faster than the global average. Hurricanes are increasing in number and intensity – 2020 saw 30 tropical storms, forcing forecasters to dig deep into the Greek alphabet for names, and we are experiencing more heatwaves. With each passing year, the urgency grows to accelerate progress toward clean energy for people across the Northeast. Yet there is hope and progress. Connecticut is joined by most states in the region with aggressive plans to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Jobs in renewable energy industries such as wind and solar now outnumber jobs in the fossil fuel industry. This is our economic and environmental future. Producing and burning oil from the Arctic Refuge would accelerate climate change not just for Arctic communities, but for the world. And have little to no impact on energy prices.

Recently, Chubb became the first American insurance company to issue a policy stating that they will not underwrite oil and gas projects in the Arctic Refuge. They join 17 insurers and 29 major financial institutions that have restricted support for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge. This list includes five of Canada’s largest banks along with America’s six largest: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions recognize the risks and the reputational consequences they would face should they support the violation of Indigenous Peoples’ human rights and such an important ecosystem.

Acadia Center is proud to have a presence in Connecticut’s vibrant community, and we all want to be proud of our large companies and employers. In solidarity with the Gwich’in Nation, we respectfully urge two of the most important businesses in the state, The Hartford and Travelers, to join colleagues and competitors, and other financial institutions that have taken a stand against financing or insuring oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The human rights of Alaska Indigenous communities, the ecological value of the refuge, and the need to do all we can to avoid the devastating climate impacts are compelling reasons to phase out our addiction to oil and gas. Current and future generations depend on all of us making forward-thinking commitments to human rights and the health of our planet.

Op-ed originally featured in the Hartford Courant. Click here to read it there.

Mass. Stakeholders Debate the Scope of Clean Heat Standard

Massachusetts energy providers, consumers and climate advocates presented contrasting visions of what solutions should be included in a clean heat standard (CHS) that is currently being developed by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as shown by public comments published last week.

“Our top priorities for a CHS for Massachusetts are ensuring adequate equity protections and an electrification-only compliance program, particularly for gas utilities,” wrote a coalition of 37 environmental groups, led by the Conservation Law Foundation, Acadia Center, Green Energy Consumers Alliance and Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast. “Alternative gases are not a long-term solution for the buildings sector, so incentives should not encourage buildout of these wasteful processes in the near term.”

The coalition said that the greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with replacing natural gas with hydrogen and RNG would be marginal, and that a dependence on these fuels would increase the overall costs associated with reaching net-zero emissions.

To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.

Op-Ed: Listen to NJ businesses on heat pump benefits

Gov. Phil Murphy’s recent executive orders set modest 2030 goals for building electrification, goals that will be easier to meet if more homes and businesses install heat pumps for heating and cooling. Some opponents of these goals are now positioning themselves in the public eye as protectors of consumers and the business community. 

Will heat pumps drive up consumers’ monthly energy bills? For many New Jersey households, the answer is a resounding no! A 2021 study from the Acadia Center found that the typical NJ household switching from a gas furnace to an air-source heat pump could save anywhere from $325 to $1,812 per year. Adopters who weatherize their homes and switch from an expensive fuel such as heating oil or propane achieve the most dramatic savings. 

To read the full article, click here.

NE Stakeholders Support Developing Time-varying Rates

STOWE, Vt. — As New England plans how to cope with peak winter electricity demand with a growing reliance on renewables, energy leaders in the region are calling on the states to look at developing time-varying rates to reduce costs and environmental burdens.

Speakers at the 75th New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners Symposium generally agreed on the need to develop rate structures that would better allow customers to respond to market signals, incentivizing them to reduce energy consumption during periods of limited energy supply. The vast majority of customers in the region currently pay flat rates, regardless of the amount of stress on the grid.

In order to accommodate customers with special needs or limited energy-use flexibility, the speakers agreed that if time-varying rates do become the default, customers need to have other options.

“We absolutely have to have an opt-out program where people can opt out if the rates are not working for them,” said Amy Boyd, vice president of climate and clean energy policy at Acadia Center.

To read the full article, click here.

Utility Bills: New Proposal To ‘Eliminate Price Surging’ Gains Momentum — How Much Could You Save?

Utility bills could soon be easier to pay for many New Yorkers. State lawmakers pushed a package of bills through the Senate to address increased costs for ratepayers. Spectrum News NY1 reported that this new measure came from a legislative review by the Senate Investigations Committee into utility price increases over the last year.

State legislatures also want to create minimum standards for payment plans for eligible customers and lower fixed charges from utility companies in New York. According to a report by Acadia Center, New Yorkers pay three times as much in fixed charges as they charge residents in nearby states, per Senate Bill S1303. Fixed charges are flat monthly fees that people pay on their utility bills regardless of the energy they use.

To read the full article, read here.

Lawmakers Eye Raising Offshore Wind Target to Achieve Climate Goals

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, MAY 18, 2023…..With the ball starting to roll on offshore wind development, lawmakers are looking this session to accelerate additional renewable energy capacity and environmental advocates warn they’ll need to pick up the pace to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals.

A handful of bills before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy would allow the state to increase its capacity to bring thousands of megawatts of offshore wind energy onto the grid, coming at a time when Gov. Maura Healey has shown an appetite for significant new development.

The Healey administration announced earlier this month that they want to add up to 3,600 more megawatts to the collection of in-development or under-contract offshore wind projects in the pipeline. That maximum amount would be more than twice as large as the 1,600 megawatts selected in the last procurement round two years ago, according to the Healey administration, on its own would meet about a quarter of the state’s annual electricity demand. However, the upcoming round might backfill some prior wind capacity if some previously approved projects fall through now that developers are warning about changing economic conditions.

“If all goes according to plan with our current set of procurement commitments, which is an open question, Massachusetts will have 3.2 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by around 2030. That means we will have around 20 years to develop and bring online 19.8 gigawatts of offshore wind power,” said Kyle Murray, senior advocate and Massachusetts program director at environmental nonprofit Acadia Center, during a Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy public hearing on Thursday.

“Therefore, it is crucial for our commonwealth to display a commitment to large and long-term clean energy requirements to continue to send a signal to developers that Massachusetts will be a leader in offshore wind,” Murray said.

The offshore wind bill would also remove remuneration to utility companies such as National Grid, which receive up to 2.25 percent of an offshore wind project bid. The payments are intended to offset the risk that utility companies take working with a nascent industry.

“Offshore wind is no longer a far-off proposition here in Massachusetts. Our first wind farm should be operational by the end of this year. Offshore wind will be a large reality in our energy mix going forward,” Murray said. “Therefore, the utilities no longer need this incentive, which is around $168 million for the Vineyard Wind project, simply to bring these contracts onto the books.”

To read the full article from the State House News Service, click here.

Jumpstarting the Clean Heat Standard Process

Clean Heat Standard Momentum 

In the past few years, discussion about implementing a Clean Heat Standard (CHS) has quickly gained steam around the country. In 2021 Colorado passed legislation requiring the development of Clean Heat Plans. Just this week, the Vermont Senate overrode Governor Phil Scott’s veto of a CHS bill, and the House appears to be poised to do the same. In Massachusetts, a CHS was first seriously considered several years ago as the state developed its clean energy and climate plans for 2025 and 2030. Later, as part of its Final Report, the Massachusetts Commission on Clean Heat endorsed developing a CHS. The Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050 later adopted the CHS framework outlined in the Clean Heat Commission’s report. With all this momentum in place, you may be left with one question: what exactly is a Clean Heat Standard? 

What is a Clean Heat Standard? 

As identified by the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) in a paper prepared for the Massachusetts CECP, a CHS is a “credit-based performance standard that would be applied to suppliers of heating energy in Massachusetts, notably gas utilities and providers of heating oil and propane, and possibly electricity suppliers.” These parties would then be obligated to provide gradually increasing amounts of low- or zero-emissions fuel to consumers. The concept is similar to a Renewable Portfolio Standard. In Massachusetts, the goal would be to decarbonize the building sector at the speed and scale necessary to support the state in achieving its building sector emissions reduction target of 47% below 1990 emission levels by 2030 and 93% by 2050. 

However, while the basic concepts are simple enough, the actual details of such a program and its implementation are a bit trickier. If properly designed, a CHS could serve as another valuable decarbonization policy tool for cost-effectively electrifying and improving the efficiency of buildings in a state without driving up costs to electric ratepayers. However, if poorly implemented, a CHS could serve to potentially undermine decarbonization goals. One critical area to get right is understanding the actual lifecycle emissions of certain alternative heating fuels, such as biofuels. Vermont’s proposed CHS is extremely friendly to biofuels, but biofuels can produce significant emissions. Another key issue surrounds the future of fossil gas as a heating fuel. Neither the RAP report nor the Massachusetts Clean Heat Commission report for example provide detailed recommendations on how the most complicated (and important) elements of a CHS should be designed. For example, what is the long-term vision to phasing out fossil gas for heating and for the future of the natural gas distribution system? How can a CHS be designed to support achieving that vision? Further, if certain biofuels are deemed eligible within the CHS, what specific methodology should the Commonwealth use to accurately account for lifecycle emissions from these fuels? These are the types of make or break decisions that can cause the policy to sink or swim. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that states looking to adopt a CHS get the details of its proposal correct. 

Acadia Center and Colleague Input 

In Massachusetts, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEP) initiated a stakeholder process in April 2023 regarding the development of a CHS for Massachusetts, to little fanfare or attention. This process included a stakeholder discussion document in which DEP requested information on program design input, recommendations for further input, and suggested topics, locations, and formats for stakeholder meetings and hearings. In response, Acadia Center worked with a number of stakeholders, including Conservation Law Foundation, Green Energy Consumers Alliance, Home Energy Efficiency Team, and Pipe Line Awareness for the Northeast to develop a response document on to which over 35 organizations signed. Acadia Center with our colleagues produced a comprehensive 22-page document responding to the DEP’s questions and outlined our vision for a successful CHS for Massachusetts. These top priorities include a CHS that ensures adequate equity protections and an electrification-only compliance program, particularly for gas utilities.  

On equity and energy justice, the document asks DEP to design the program to focus direct and indirect benefits on customers with the highest energy burdens. We also ask DEP to coordinate closely with the Department of Energy Resources and the Department of Public Utilities on complimentary strategies, including rate design, the Alternative Portfolio Standard, and a managed transition off gas. 

Acadia Center and its colleagues further ask DEP to design the CHS in a manner that best supports the most cost-effective long-term emissions reduction pathway. This concept centers around focusing compliance pathways on non-combustion technologies rather than biofuels or hydrogen blending, particularly for gas. The document asks DEP to utilize the 2025/2030 CECP’s High Electrification Scenario as opposed to the Phased Scenario, as the High Electrification Scenario emphasizes higher levels of near-term full-building electrification and a more rapid phase down of gas heating systems, better positioning the state to achieve 2050 climate goals at similar costs.  

On stakeholder input, we urge DEP to balance different tracks of stakeholder processes for different types of stakeholders. We also urge the development of technical sessions on key design topics, such as coordination with the Mass Save energy efficiency programs, hybrid heating system credits, and calculation of credits by technology. 

While many details remain to be worked out, Acadia Center is encouraged by the positive first steps taken by the Commonwealth. We look forward to working with the Administration as these proposals move forward. 

For more information: 

Kyle Murray, kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext. 106 

The Race for a Renewable Future: How the EU and US Are Tackling Clean Energy

States have long filled a climate gap in the United States and served as leaders in establishing clean energy and emissions goals. Over 30 states and the District of Columbia have clean energy standards in place. Clean energy goals set mandates for clean energy, usually called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or Clean Energy Targets, typically imposed on electricity providers. States differ in what clean energy technologies qualify under their laws. Climate goals, or Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, set goals for the overall emissions in a state – including energy, transportation, and other sectors.  

Northeast states were early leaders in this trend. Connecticut, for example, was one of the first states in the country to set a goal of 80% emissions reductions by 2050 in legislation. Acadia Center monitors the northeast and mid-Atlantic region and has found the following:  

By the end of 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports that 67% of electricity retail sales in the U.S. States fall under legally binding RPSs. 

At the federal level, there is no specific statute setting a national U.S. clean energy standard or climate goal, although legislation passed last year – the Inflation Reduction Act – and nonbinding national targets are designed to produce emission reductions 40-50% below 2005 levels by 2030, in line with aggressive state climate goals. Federal policy is intended to reach commitments in the Paris Climate Accords. 

How do these efforts at the state and federal levels compare to other countries?  

The European Union (EU) and the United States are both taking steps to transition towards cleaner energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. However, there are some notable differences in their approaches. 

The goal set by the EU would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To achieve this, the EU has implemented a variety of policies and initiatives to support renewable energy, such as the Renewable Energy Directive, which sets binding targets for renewable energy use, and the European Green Deal, which aims to make the EU’s economy sustainable. The EU also has a carbon pricing system in place, the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which covers energy and industrial sectors and provides a financial incentive for companies to reduce their emissions. 

In March 2023, the European Union agreed to double its renewable energy targets by 2030, a significant increase from its previous target of 32%. The new goal is for 65% of the EU’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030, with further targets for energy efficiency and electrification of transport. 

The US federal government has also recently made progress on climate policy. President Biden’s American Jobs Plan includes significant funding for clean energy and infrastructure, and he has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, similar to the EU 2030 goal. The Biden administration has also rejoined the Paris Agreement and has set emissions reduction targets for the US. 

However, there are still significant challenges facing both the EU and the US in their clean energy transitions. In the EU, some member states remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and there is resistance to phasing out these industries. In the US, there is political polarization on climate policy, with some states and industries opposing regulations and incentives for clean energy. 

Overall, while there are differences in the approaches taken by the EU and the US, both are making progress in transitioning to cleaner energy sources. The EU’s ambitious targets and policy framework provide a solid foundation for its efforts, while the US has made considerable progress at the state level and is now beginning to pursue more ambitious national policies. By continuing to work towards their goals, both the EU and the US can make significant contributions to global efforts to combat climate change. 

NESEA 2023 Building Energy Boston: Scalable Climate Solutions in Built Environment

Acadia Center recently participated in the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)’s annual BuildingEnergy Boston Conference that occurred on March 28 – 29, 2023. With over 45 presentations from experts across the fields, the NESEA BuildingEnergy Boston conference has again drawn attention to the climate and clean energy implications in the design and construction sector in buildings. Our Environmental Justice & Outreach Manager, Joy Yakie served as a member of the 2023 Content Committee and curated two of the presentations at the conference. She found that the highlight of the conference was summarized by the two keynote addresses on the Net-Zero Building Revolution and Why We Stopped Doing Deep Energy Retrofits. The conference opened more dialogue on how solutions can be scaled up to ensure sustainable practices in the design and construction space.

Dividing her time at the conference, Joy supported two of the presentations she reviewed weeks leading up to the conference. Both presentations, Commitment to Learning: A Case Study of Three Public Schools and Addressing Racism and Subtle Acts of Exclusion in the Workplace, shared broader knowledge on sustainable practices in building public schools and how to handle microaggressions in the design and construction workplace respectively. The Case Study of Three Public Schools was presented by architects from HMFH, a leading design firm in the design and construction space that champions sustainability in their building design and construction. The buildings used for the case study on public schools were situated in Taunton, Westborough, and Dighton MA.

Joy also supported the presentation by the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Director, Fatou Nije-Jallow, MHA,  from The New England Center for Children, expounding on subtle acts of exclusion in the workplace and the examples of well-crafted responses that foster inclusivity in the workplace.

Acadia Center is proud to work with our partners and other stakeholders in the building sector. We are a part of the ongoing conversations and will ensure that the success of our work reflects net-zero emissions from this sector in the near decade.

NESEA is planning its Building Energy NYC conference scheduled for October 12, 2023. Visit https://nesea.org/conference/buildingenergy-nyc for more information to participate and support.

For more information:

Joy Yakie, Environmental Justice & Outreach Manager, jyakie@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x110

Massachusetts prepares to launch new electric vehicle rebates early this summer

New electric vehicle rebates are expected to become available in Massachusetts in early summer, some nine months after lawmakers passed a bill calling for the incentives’ immediate implementation.

The state has said funding and logistical obstacles have delayed the launch of the new provisions, which will add higher incentives for low-income car buyers, create a rebate for the purchase of used electric vehicles, and establish a system for providing rebates at the point of sale, lowering the upfront cost of the vehicle.

Advocates have been understanding of the complications with rolling out these provisions but are eager for the new components to take effect.

“I am sympathetic, but if we want to hit not our climate goals — our climate requirements — we really need these coming online as soon as possible,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at climate nonprofit the Acadia Center.

Though the law authorizing the program was passed in August 2022, the legislature didn’t provide any additional funding until November.

“The administration was a bit handcuffed in that they couldn’t set up a program they weren’t sure they’d have the money for,” Murray said.

Still, Murray is confident that the combination of public sentiment, state incentives, and federal tax credits will soon make a measurable difference.

“We’re definitely going to see it really start to tick up,” he said.

To read the full article from Energy News Network, click here.