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.
RGGI auction sets new highs, demonstrates need for climate and justice reforms
BOSTON, MA- Today, the states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) announced the results of the program’s record-setting 54th auction. Emissions allowances were sold for $13.00 each, generating $351 million in proceeds for investment in the clean energy economy. Both the allowance price and the auction proceeds establish new record highs for the RGGI program, which has now been in operation for 13 years. Auction 54 also resulted in the release of additional allowances from the Cost Containment Reserve (CCR), undermining the program’s environmental integrity.
Higher RGGI allowance price is good for climate, clean energy investment
The auction clearing price of $13.00 is 39% higher than the clearing price from the previous auction in September, and 75% higher than the clearing price from one year ago. The clearing price represents the price that power plant operators must pay for each ton of CO2 emitted by their fossil-fuel-fired plants. The recent increase in allowance prices means the RGGI program is sending a stronger incentive to produce electricity from carbon-free sources, like wind and solar.
The record-high amount of proceeds generated from Auction 54 is also a boon for the clean energy economy. Since the program launched, the vast majority of RGGI proceeds have been invested in energy efficiency and clean energy projects. Today’s announcement that participating states will be receiving $351 million from the latest auction (bringing the annual total to $926 million) is great news for climate action, the economy, and the growing workforce in energy efficiency and clean energy.
Necessary RGGI Reforms for Environmental Integrity and Justice
Today’s auction results also reveal serious problems that the RGGI states must address with urgency.
Today’s auction clearing price of $13.00 met the Cost Containment Reserve (CCR) trigger price of $13.00, resulting in the addition of 3.9 million allowances to an already oversupplied market, allowing increased emissions from the region’s power plants. Given the desperate need of the RGGI states—many of which are struggling to meet their climate targets—to reduce power sector pollution, allowing additional emissions beyond the cap is unacceptable. Acadia Center and our partners have opposed the use of a CCR and its design since its introduction. As a reiteration of recommendations Acadia Center has made in both of the previous RGGI Program Reviews to preserve the program’s effectiveness and environmental integrity, the RGGI states must either eliminate the CCR or reform it by: 1) significantly increasing the price trigger and 2) withdrawing allowances from future supply, rather than minting new allowances.
Even more importantly, today’s auction results demonstrate the critical and overdue need to ensure that RGGI auction proceeds are invested equitably. The RGGI program imposes no requirements on participating states to guarantee equitable investment, and most of the participating states lack processes to ensure RGGI-funded investments deliver meaningful and proportional benefits in overburdened and underserved communities. As a result, many states invest RGGI proceeds into clean energy projects that, while effective in reducing climate pollution, fail to address the inequities in the clean energy transition. In other cases, RGGI funds are used to fill budget gaps, addressing neither climate nor justice imperatives. At a minimum, the RGGI states must adopt requirements for equitable investment that are consistent with the Jusitce40 Initiative, developed by the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council. If the RGGI states applied this framework to the investment of RGGI proceeds from 2021, they would be investing at least $370 million in disadvantaged communities in one year alone.
The RGGI states are currently in the midst of the Third RGGI Program Review. This presents an ideal opportunity for the states to commit to the reforms described above, along with a suite of additional measures (like a dramatically reduced emissions cap and more inclusive processes) to ensure the program supports a just transition to a carbon-free future. For more information on the Third Program Review and to participate in upcoming meetings, see: https://www.rggi.org/program-overview-and-design/program-review.
Media Contacts:
Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x105
198 Tremont Street, Suite 415, Boston, MA 02111
###
Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future. Acadia Center advocates for an equitable clean energy future for Connecticut, tackling regulatory and legislative energy policy, transportation, energy efficiency, beneficial electrification, utility innovation, and renewable energy.
TCI Is Not Blue-Skying — Compromise And Act
The local survey that was conducted ahead of settling on Newtown’s official branding tagline “Unique By Nature” heard loud and clear that one of the things respondents value most is the environment. That articulation was so pronounced, the lead consultant crunching survey data said Newtowners’ love of nature actually represents the community’s “brand story.”
So it must have been concerning to many about a week and a half ago when Governor Ned Lamont figuratively flipped the off switch on Connecticut’s participation in the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) — although he waffled a day later, agreeing to support participation after throwing the decision-making process back to the General Assembly to sort out.
The TCI is a multi-state agreement that would cap transportation pollution, charge wholesale polluters for emissions, and direct the funds to improve transportation and air quality for Connecticut residents. We stand with supporters who believe that TCI is our state’s best opportunity to address climate mitigation and environmental justice challenges with a regional approach.
So now it is on Connecticut lawmakers, positioning them to either take the easy way out and turn their backs, quite literally, on the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we hope to sustain for generations to come. Or, stand with colleagues in other states still supporting the TCI in a way that is meaningful and substantive, even if some compromise is required to get the program endorsement under the governor’s pen for his promised signature.
Just avoid accomplishing that on the backs of state taxpayers and residents who can least afford to underwrite the Connecticut’s involvement.
Following the governor’s announcement, the CT League of Conservation Voters was joined by The Live Green Network, The Nature Conservancy, Radical Advocates for Cross-Cultural Education, Clean Water Action, Transport Hartford/Center for Latino Progress, Operation Fuel, The Acadia Center, Mitchell Environmental Health Associates, Environment Connecticut, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Save the Sound, and ATU Local 1336 — all calling to get Connecticut’s role in TCI solidified.
The aforementioned consortium says Lamont’s decision to withdraw support for the TCI turns a blind eye to the urgency of the climate crisis we all face.
The decision to pause Connecticut’s implementation of TCI also had a domino effect on the region, underscoring the important role our state plays in addressing the climate crisis, the statement relates. It also points out that 24 hours after Lamont abandoned TCI, Massachusetts and Rhode Island backed away from the program as well.
Since we share the belief that inaction is a disservice to all the communities and residents that would have benefited from the pollution reductions and clean transportation investments under the program, perhaps the greatest challenge to state lawmakers now, if it can even be achieved, would be to find a way to keep Connecticut as a recognized environmental leader by continuing its participation in TCI, while crafting a way to equitably distribute the related expense proportionately across all socioeconomic demographics.
We believe Newtown residents care enough about the environment to support making TCI participation a priority in the 2022 General Assembly session — and getting it done before the blue sky over all our heads is permanently compromised by greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the full article in the Newtown Bee here.
Rhode Island Left Without a Plan After CT, MA Abandon Transportation and Climate Initiative
PROVIDENCE, RI – The McKee Administration has announced that recent decisions by Connecticut Governor Lamont and Massachusetts Governor Baker will delay Rhode Island’s pursuit of the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) program. The program, which would limit vehicle pollution over time and direct investments in clean transportation strategies, is a central component of Rhode Island’s strategy to rein in carbon pollution. Without TCI kickstarting efforts, the state will have an even steeper hill to climb as it seeks to achieve legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets set in the Act on Climate.
Rhode Island should apply the program’s central principles of equity, inclusive decision-making, and clean mobility priorities to redress myriad problems inherent with current transportation planning practices. Rhode Island must work with environmental justice communities to advance air quality monitoring programs, provide better mobility options, and pursue strategies that reduce the state’s overdependence on single passenger vehicles.
“We still have to find solutions to several persistent challenges—stubbornly high tailpipe pollution and asthma rates, inadequate bike/pedestrian infrastructure, and underfunded and underutilized public transit. The Act on Climate law is pretty clear that Rhode Island must reduce pollution and without TCI, state agencies are going to have to redouble efforts to do just that.” said Hank Webster, Acadia Center’s Rhode Island Director and member of the Rhode Island’s 2020-2021 Mobility Innovation Working Group.
Media Contacts:
Hank Webster, Rhode Island Director and Senior Policy Advocate
hwebster@acadiacenter.org, 401-239-8500 x402, cell: 401 239-8500
144 Westminster St, Suite 203, Providence, RI 02903
Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x105
Power grid operator needs a makeover
THE LARGEST OFFSHORE wind project in the nation is coming to the waters off Massachusetts, setting our Commonwealth up to be a global leader in clean energy that can deliver on the promise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating good-paying green jobs across the state. But to get there, and to pave the way for more projects like Vineyard Wind to come online, our electrical infrastructure needs to be prepared to handle these significant new sources of clean energy. Currently, an antiquated power grid — the infrastructure at the core of that transition — is threatening our progress in reducing emissions and addressing the climate crisis, just as our transition to clean energy is beginning to gain steam.
The transmission grid is the central artery for our electric power systems, determining where our energy comes from, how much that energy costs, and how it’s distributed. In Massachusetts, our transmission grid and energy markets are managed by an organization called ISO New England, which also serves the other five New England states. To date, ISO-NE’s management has prioritized a continuation of the status quo, setting rules that favor polluting fossil fuel plants and perpetuating barriers that make it difficult to connect Massachusetts consumers with cost-effective clean energy.
To ensure the success of Vineyard Wind and the other large-scale clean energy projects that will follow, we need to change the rules for our grid and invest in a smart and reliable clean energy grid that connects us to cost-effective renewable energy throughout the region and stops standing in the way of our critical emissions reduction goals.
First, we need to change how ISO-NE is governed to improve the organization’s accountability and transparency, prioritize input from states like Massachusetts, and ensure decisions are made with input from a more diverse range of stakeholders. ISO-NE must commit to delivering on the New England states’ climate, environmental justice, and policy commitments in both its mission and in its planning, markets, and decisions.
Second, we must reimagine transmission planning to prioritize cost-effective reliability, reflect the climate-focused decision making already enshrined in law by the New England states, and incorporate environmental justice priorities. This will enable the shift away from fossil fuel power plants that pollute our population centers to large-scale clean generation like wind and solar, together with clean distributed energy, as well as cutting-edge energy storage solutions and resilient microgrids.
A planning process dominated by entrenched interests behind closed doors that gives no meaningful weight to state law and policy will only result in a continuation of the status quo. ISO-NE must bring its planning processes into the 21st century. Planning must incorporate data-driven solutions that identify the timing and location of transmission that will optimize the grid to reach our critical clean energy goals in a cost-effective manner.
Finally, we need to change the old-fashioned assumptions of the energy markets that prohibit clean energy resources from fair competition and give fossil fuels a leg up. Even though every New England state has made commitments to reduce emissions and increase renewable energy procurement, ISO-NE maintains a market with a thumb on the scale for fossil fuels. Reforms should align with states’ climate objectives and remove barriers that stand in the way of allowing renewable energy projects to come online quickly and compete fairly. Although a significant redesign of the ISO-NE markets will take time, it’s necessary to secure the buy-in of all stakeholders, including New Englanders who have been burdened by the current system’s reliance on costly and polluting fossil fuel plants.
With the potential for our state to produce around 800 terawatt hours of energy from offshore wind alone, we’re at an inflection point for clean energy and clean jobs in Massachusetts. There is no doubt that the decisions we make now will determine the fate of our burgeoning clean energy economy and our region’s efforts to cut harmful pollutants. With the passage of the Next Generation Climate Roadmap, we now have the framework to achieve critical climate goals across the Commonwealth. There is a queue of innovative and exciting clean energy projects in the pipeline that will allow us to rapidly increase our renewable energy procurement over the next decade. Now we need a reformed ISO-NE to deliver the modernized grid that will make that innovation possible.
Published in CommonWealth Magazine.
Jennifer Benson is the president of the Alliance for Business Leadership and Amy Boyd is the director of policy at the Acadia Center.
Massachusetts Needs Innovation and Efficiency – So Why Did The DPU Just Kill One of The Best Ideas?
One of the most forward-looking pieces of the Massachusetts 2022-2024 three-year energy efficiency plan now filed at the Department of Public Utilities is the brainchild of the Cape Light Compact – the proposed Cape and Vineyard Electrification Offering (CVEO). The CVEO would result in retrofitted low-income housing that is all-electric, powered by solar panels, and resilient in storms thanks to onsite storage. It’s exactly the sort of thinking that we need to be doing more of – how to make homes healthier and safer, lower carbon pollution, and make communities more resilient. Plus it’s targeted at the households that still have the least access to heat pumps, solar and storage, even with all the programs we have in those areas. So why did the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) just kill it? On November 5, the DPU requested that it be removed from the programs before it can even be considered.
Cape Light Compact (CLC) is a municipal aggregator that provides energy to the citizens of towns on the Cape and Vineyard, as well as administering their electric energy efficiency programs. As a municipal aggregator, CLC is different from the other utility program administrators – and often provides more customized offerings to its customers, including higher incentives (though still cost-effective) that drive, not surprisingly, higher customer participation rates.
Acadia Center has enthusiastically supported CLC’s proposed CVEO since it was first presented to the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council in 2018. It’s exactly what the efficiency programs should be doing to address the intersectional crises of climate, affordable housing, spiking fossil fuel prices, resiliency, and the fact that low- and moderate-income customers aren’t reaping the benefits of solar and storage, despite the SMART program’s best intentions. But the DPU decided on November 5th that it’s just not possible under existing law. Why?
Through the CVEO, CLC proposed to weatherize and install heat pumps, solar PV, and energy storage in 250 low- and moderate-income homes, heated with oil, propane, or electric resistance heat. The offering combined the existing statewide incentives for weatherization, heat pumps with controls, and demand response through thermostats, with an innovative way to pre-pay existing incentives for energy storage and a third-party ownership model for storage and PV that leverages outside incentive funding to offset the overall ratepayer impact. In other words, it takes the programs the Department has already approved and stretches them farther and deeper to truly serve the best interests of customers of the Cape and Vineyard. Homes would be warm, free of combustion byproducts, cheaper for residents to operate, and resilient in the face of increasing storms and outages – all within the cost-effectiveness screening of the efficiency programs.
The DPU has already approved incentives for use of energy storage for demand reduction, including allowing 5-year contracts for daily dispatch incentives (i.e., beyond the length of the 3-year plans). But the CVEO’s twist on this idea to pre-pay 10 years of incentives to enable the purchase of a new energy storage system (which would also provide resiliency benefits to the residents) went too far for the DPU – mostly because resiliency benefits are outside the scope of the energy efficiency plans.
The Green Communities Act was amended in 2018 to include “programs that result in customers switching to renewable energy sources or other clean energy technologies;” as one of the types of offerings that could be included in the 3-year plans. Despite that amendment, the DPU held that energy efficiency funds cannot be used to pay for solar. Because the CVEO proposed to use energy efficiency funds to essentially operate a power purchase agreement with the 3rd party solar developer, the DPU determined that it was just too close to using EE dollars to fund solar panels for its comfort. But what about the comfort of the residents who would benefit from this program? What about the benefit to communities by lowering of emissions with the switch to clean energy sources? What about the recently changed DPU mandate requiring them to factor equity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their decisions?
The DPU’s statement that “[it] agrees that facilitating low-income customer access to solar PV while electrifying heating is consistent with Commonwealth policy but doing so requires the intersection of multiple programs” is fairly telling. At the moment, our regulatory system just wasn’t set up to allow this kind of innovation. There are too many silos for money – efficiency, SMART tariff, net metering, demand response, developer funds, and investment tax credits – where the streams cannot be combined. Even though all the money comes from the same place and goes to fund programs that help the same people – Massachusetts ratepayers.
That’s a problem. But Acadia Center has a solution.
Acadia Center’s new report Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation (RESPECT) takes on some of these regulatory silos and proposes a new way of looking at planning for the future of our grid and consumers. Under RESPECT, regulators could encourage innovative solutions that take on multiple problems and make something even greater than its component parts for the ratepayers. Rather than being bound by the solutions of the past, innovative programs like CVEO could become a guiding example for how to think differently.
We need to do better for the ratepayers of Massachusetts. We need to be able to use programs that we have, bend them slightly, and feed two birds with one scone. Otherwise, we have no hope of being able to take on the climate crisis with all we’ve got.
Governor Baker balks at transportation and climate program
BOSTON, MA – Today, Governor Baker announced that Massachusetts would no longer be pursuing participation in the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) program. The program, which would place a declining limit on vehicle pollution and direct proceeds to an array of clean transportation investments, had become a central component of Massachusetts’ strategy to rein in transportation pollution. Now, without that program on the horizon, the Commonwealth will have an even steeper hill to climb as it seeks to achieve its legally binding emissions targets.
While the reversal on TCI is frustrating, stakeholder input on the program should continue to inform the Commonwealth’s next steps. For example, advocates and legislators called on the Baker administration to invest at least 70% of the TCI proceeds in overburdened and underserved communities, with representatives from those communities empowered to influence investment decisions. That commitment to equitable investment in our transportation system must be incorporated into the Baker administration’s planning. Similarly, Massachusetts committed through the TCI process to work with environmental justice communities to advance air quality monitoring programs; that vital work must go on, and the Commonwealth must find a new source of adequate funding.
The TCI program was never intended to be a comprehensive solution to the Commonwealth’s long list of transportation woes. Stubbornly high tailpipe emissions, congested roads, underfunded public transit, and cities with dangerously poor air quality can’t be solved by any single policy. But TCI would have provided a much needed shot in the arm. Now, Massachusetts has one less tool in its bag to meet its climate targets and deliver the clean air and equitable transportation system that the Commonwealth’s residents deserve.
Media Contacts:
Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x105
198 Tremont Street, Suite 415, Boston, MA 02111
###
Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future. Acadia Center advocates for an equitable clean energy future for Connecticut, tackling regulatory and legislative energy policy, transportation, energy efficiency, beneficial electrification, utility innovation, and renewable energy.
FERC and ISO-NE: Help or Hindrance to Reaching State Clean Energy Goals?
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency that regulates energy markets and electric transmission lines, has a big impact on whether New England can effectively fight climate change. FERC’s control over energy markets and transmission influences New England’s ability to eliminate dirty power plants from communities that have suffered the health impacts of pollution for too long, and to replace those dirty plants with climate-safe energy and green jobs. That’s why Acadia Center is recommending that FERC adopt new rules for transmission planning that will help support New England’s climate and equity goals instead of standing in the way.
FERC can empower New England by helping to create a strong inter-state transmission grid that brings clean, affordable energy to homes and businesses, along with good-paying green energy jobs for New England’s communities. The transmission grid is the central artery for transmitting electric power, determining where energy comes from, how much that energy costs, and to whom it can be delivered. The region needs transmission lines that bring clean energy to homes and businesses to replace the energy from dirty fossil fuel-fired power plants that now pollute population centers across the region. Because transmission lines link multiple states, FERC has federal authority over planning and regulating these lines, though the states retain control over siting.
Given the significant role FERC plays, Acadia Center is encouraged that FERC has launched a new forum to reconsider how it plans electric transmission, including the role that states should play in determining what transmission is needed for the clean energy transition. In this new proceeding, entitled “Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection,” FERC is taking input on what policies it can adopt to help states and regions better integrate important public policy – including decarbonization laws and environmental equity – into transmission planning. With input from Acadia Center and others, FERC can help change the course of history across the country and here in the northeast.
Bringing new large-scale clean energy to homes and businesses across New England isn’t the only benefit of better planning. Planning improved transmission will help communities across New England withstand the increasingly frequent storms and volatile weather patterns the climate crisis is already bringing, while integrating flexible and lower-cost solutions like rooftop solar and battery storage into the energy system.
Acadia Center is working with partners across New England and around the country to help FERC develop new rules governing what the transmission grid of the future should look like. On October 12, Acadia Center and its partners submitted opening comments outlining what’s going wrong, what’s going right, and what needs to be improved.
Part of what needs to change is ISO-New England (ISO-NE). ISO-NE is the regional organization that FERC has designated to manage New England’s energy markets and transmission system. Right now, ISO-NE doesn’t consider state climate goals in its energy markets or its transmission planning, and that’s a huge obstacle to the clean energy transition. It is critical that ISO-NE take input early and often from both states and stakeholders in all regional planning, otherwise the region will fail to meet its critical clean energy goals.
Acadia Center has cried foul on ISO-NE before, New England Governors’ Energy Vision: Shifting Power on the Regional Electricity Grid arguing that ISO-NE is hanging onto the dirty fuels of the past. To their credit, the New England Governors have also started to object to ISO-NE’s backward-looking practices, demanding that ISO-NE conduct a study that shows what the energy system will look like in 2050 with state decarbonization goals as a guiding factor.
Acadia Center strongly supports the New England states in their efforts to press ISO-NE for policy accountability, including incorporating state decarbonization goals into transmission planning and regional energy markets. Without these changes, ISO-NE will continue to support dirty gas plants and entrenched interests over the new wind, solar, and storage solutions that should be leading the way. So far, ISO-NE continues to make its decisions behind closed doors, relying mostly on input from entrenched interests including the dirty fuel companies themselves. ISO-NE gives short shrift to the communities that are impacted by its decisions. As Acadia Center has argued before, this needs to change.
Acadia Center is asking FERC to implement reforms that cement the requirement to take state input early on in all regional energy planning, and to help states meet their policy goals, not hinder them. Acadia Center is also asking FERC to instruct ISO-NE to weigh community input and environmental justice, so that New England’s energy systems start to serve the people who rely on them.
The bottom line is that regional energy planning must reflect the policy of the states that make up the region and must protect the interests of the people who live there. Regional energy planners can’t do an end run around democratically determined state policies by hiding behind FERC-delegated federal authorities. FERC should unambiguously direct all its planning organizations across the country, including ISO-NE, to work with the states for the benefit of our communities.
Another benefit of the changes Acadia Center recommends is that through increased coordination and improved planning of both the energy markets and transmission systems, the region can avoid wasting time and money on projects like Northern Pass or NECEC, only for those projects to be canceled. The region should be working toward energy solutions that benefit everyone. This should include energy markets that let clean energy compete on a level playing field, so that states can rely on the markets instead of going it alone when they’re in search of clean energy. It should also include a transmission infrastructure that meets multiple states’ needs and provides benefits for communities across the region, not just in one area.
Acadia Center looks forward to providing more feedback to FERC on what needs to change and working with state leaders to ensure that clean energy and equity no longer take a back seat in New England’s energy planning, including on the transmission grid and in energy markets. As the states work hard to address the climate crisis, it’s time for ISO-NE and FERC to stop standing in the way and start treating the states like real partners.
Governor Lamont strikes out on climate
HARTFORD, CT- Despite overwhelming support from Connecticut voters, Governor Lamont announced Tuesday that he is no longer backing the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P). In his remarks, Governor Lamont cited high gasoline prices as his reason for changing course on TCI-P, stating that this is “not the year” for climate action.
In September, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) released the dire warning that Connecticut is not on track to meet its 2030 and 2050 GHG targets and is failing to meet the goals laid out in the 2008 Global Solutions Warming Act. The primary culprit behind Connecticut’s climate failure is the transportation sector, which now accounts for more climate pollution than Connecticut’s electricity and residential sectors combined. Governor Lamont had previously pointed to TCI-P as a central component of his plan to reduce transportation pollution; apparently, he now thinks we can wait. We won’t.
Acadia Center and our partners in the Connecticut’s Transportation Future coalition have worked tirelessly over the last few years to build support for action on transportation pollution through TCI-P. “Businesses, mayors, community leaders, and public health professionals have come out in support of the program and its economic, public health, and climate benefits,” said Amy McLean, Acadia Center’s Connecticut Director and Senior Policy Advocate. Environmental justice leaders have worked closely with state agencies and the legislature to center equity and transportation justice in Connecticut’s implementation of the TCI-P. “While Governor Lamont appears content to press pause on that important work, we are committed to moving it forward,” said McLean.
“The climate and public health damages from transportation pollution aren’t going away, and the longer we wait, the costlier they get,” said Jordan Stutt, Acadia Center’s Carbon Programs Director. “By delaying action for another year, Governor Lamont is deepening our debt to the next generation.”
Media Contacts:
Amy McLean, Connecticut Director and Senior Policy Advocate
amcleansalls@acadiacenter.org, 860-246-7121 x204, cell: 860 478-9125
21 Oak Street, Suite 202, Hartford, CT 06106
Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x105
###
Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future. Acadia Center advocates for an equitable clean energy future for Connecticut, tackling regulatory and legislative energy policy, transportation, energy efficiency, beneficial electrification, utility innovation, and renewable energy.
Introducing RESPECT: Acadia Center’s Proposal to Transform Utility Planning
RESPECT proposes a modernized framework for how utilities make investments and decisions, so that we can build the energy systems necessary at the speed required to address the climate crisis. RESPECT imagines a world where investments in our energy systems are aligned with state goals to address climate pollution, further environmental justice, and lower consumer costs. By proposing two simple, but far-reaching reforms, RESPECT avoids conflicts of interest and redirects the focus of energy system planning towards benefits for consumers and addressing the climate crisis.
Join the authors for an in-depth look at this new framework.
Acadia Center intends the RESPECT report to spark a discussion about how to ensure that utility investments and decision-making are aligned with state policy goals and welcomes the opportunity to share these ideas with you.
View the webinar on Acadia Center’s RESPECT proposal here.
Follow us