Report warns of huge costs from green energy mandates in New England, but critics cry foul

A new report commissioned by seven conservative-leaning organizations and free-market think tanks paints Massachusetts’ and New England’s devotion to renewable energy as failed policy that will cost residents more than $815 billion, won’t meet electricity demand, and result in rolling blackouts.

The nonprofit Acadia Center, which is focused on cutting carbon emissions, said the report presents a “deeply flawed analysis” and a “distorted view of the region’s future energy outlook.”

Job growth from renewable projects that end the region’s reliance on spending billions to import fossil fuels, along with the steep cost of rebuilding areas after natural disasters due to climate change, are reasons cited by the Acadia Center to support a renewable-energy path.

The transition will be expensive, said Acadia, but “using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers.”

To read the full article from Telegram & Gazette, click here.

Report On Costs Stirs Clean Energy Debate

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, NOV. 19, 2024…..New Englanders may experience yearly spikes in their electricity bills compounded by rolling blackouts during the winter as the region continues to embrace renewable energy sources, according to a new report from conservative-leaning think tanks.

The Acadia Center, a Boston-based nonprofit focused on clean energy solutions, rebuked the report, alleging it offers an “inaccurate picture” of infrastructure investments, and overlooks the “enormous” cost ratepayers are currently facing “under today’s fossil grid.”

While the AOER report claims electricity rates will double for New England residents and businesses, the Acadia Center says forecasts produced by Massachusetts energy officials show rates will increase through 2030 and then decrease. The expanded use of electrified transportation and heating systems is also supposed to save Bay State households money, according to the state’s clean energy and climate plan.

“Let’s be candid: there will be significant costs from the energy transition (and significant benefits as well) – Acadia Center has been clear-eyed about this reality and what it means for our public policymaking,” the center said. “However, using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers.”

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

Energy battles intensifying ahead of Trump swearing-in

BOSTON (SHNS) – There is a clean energy bill sitting on Gov. Maura Healey’s desk and Beacon Hill’s calendar for this week includes an array of energy-related events and reports. But there are also mounting indications that the federal government could change course on energy policy under the administration that President-elect Donald Trump is assembling.

“The most difficult thing is going to be continuing to try and meet emissions targets. We know this incoming administration is going to press heavily on oil and natural gas and the expansion of those, so that does obviously present a major challenge going forward as we try to curtail those,” Kyle Murray, senior advocate and Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, said. “Massachusetts is taking some fairly nascent first steps towards limiting the expansion of the gas system in the state, and there are fed efforts that could potentially undermine that work.”

Murray said the incoming Trump administration “could put up some major roadblocks and make life difficult” for renewable energy industries, including offshore wind. But he also noted that many of the large oil and gas companies have already begun to diversify and invest in renewables.

“There’s a world you could envision where those companies are pressing for investment in all of the above — oil, natural gas, offshore wind, solar, all of those things. There is a potential opportunity there,” Murray said. He added, “The energy transition is big business and there’s a lot of money involved in it. So there’s some hope that that train has left the station too much. That being said, there’s always the caveat that you never know.”

To read the full article from WWLP, click here.

Acadia Center Offers Rebuttal to Key Points in Flawed Analysis on New England Energy Policies and Costs

Download Press Release: Acadia Center Offers Rebuttal to Key Points in Flawed Analysis on New England Energy Policies and Costs

MEDIA CONTACT:
Kyle Murray
Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106

Today, a new report entitled “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies” – released by The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Maine Policy Institute, Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Ethan Allen Institute, Yankee Institute, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation – presents a deeply flawed analysis and distorted view of the region’s future energy outlook. The report, which was conducted by Always on Energy Research (AOER) “concludes that if every New England state maintains their green energy mandates, it will double electric rates and cause rolling blackouts in the region.” Always on Energy Research describes itself as “a policy group dedicated to ensuring that every state in America has affordable, reliable energy.” Their staff have current or past affiliations with groups such as the John Locke Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the State Policy Network (SPN), and the Center for the American Experiment.

Their analysis and conclusions fail to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, which is also the case for the related “analysis” and messaging put forward by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance in a Commonwealth Beacon OpEd earlier this month – which, based on Acadia Center analysis, overestimated the annual cost of a recently enacted energy storage policy in Massachusetts by more than 25x to 30x, as detailed further below. It is incredibly unfortunate that this report continues to rely upon similar ill-informed assumptions and questionable calculations to vastly inflate the cost of the energy transition by multiple factors.

Breaking Down Misleading Calculations on Energy Storage

The press release for the AOER report states that “the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under these plans exceeds the benefits of doing so, meaning the New England states are imposing a net harm on their economies after accounting for the financial impacts of climate change.” This characterization could not be further from the truth, and in fact fails to recognize the once-in-a-generation opportunity that New England has: to redesign and revolutionize its energy system and localize the job-creation and GDP impact of energy expenditures within the regional economy rather than export them afar.

Furthermore, the AOER analysis ignores the impossibly high cost of business-as-usual. New Englanders withdraw billions of dollars out of the regional economy each year to purchase fossil fuels sourced outside New England. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine alone spend $8.2 billion annually importing fossil fuels. The cost of ignoring the climate crisis is fast becoming incalculable: in 2023 alone, the United States experienced a record-setting 28 separate weather and climate disasters costing at least $1 billion, totaling a cumulative $92.9 billion. The cost of those disasters was also tallied in human lives. This underscores the clear and imminent risk that this region and the nation at large face by not taking the climate crisis seriously. Anything less than urgent action on energy and climate issues is fiscally imprudent and threatens to leave New England families and businesses exposed to both the much larger, hidden costs of unabated climate change as well as the billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure operating today and facing stranded-asset risk.

Let’s be candid: there will be significant costs from the energy transition (and significant benefits as well) – Acadia Center has been clear-eyed about this reality and what it means for our public policymaking. However, using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers. Furthermore, the fact that the region’s GDP has grown while it simultaneously bends the curve on carbon emissions belies the canard that New England state climate policies spell doom for the regional economy. We can address the climate crisis while growing the regional economy and preserving the region’s prosperity. That much has been proved. We look forward to engaging with policymakers and stakeholders constructively on these important public policy debates with a shared set of facts and sound analysis.

Acadia Center presents the following point-by-point rebuttal of several erroneous and misleading claims put forward by the report:

Claim #1 Made by AOER Report: Compliance with the New England Decarbonization Plans would cost $815 billion through 2050

Acadia Center Response #1: The AOER analysis suggests an annual average of $31.3b per year over 26 years (2024-2050). In 2022, the six New England states spent $76b on total energy under the status quo/‘business as usual’ approach. Even if the AOER figures were sound – and they are not – it would be vastly preferable to invest $31.3b per year on clean energy in our region rather than spend the majority of $76b per year on fossil fuels from outside the region, as our current energy system does. In analysis undertaken by Massachusetts, findings showed that the total cost increase of a representative mitigation pathway in 2050 ($1.5 billion annual spending) compared to a non-decarbonized reference case in 2050 was actually less than the expected increase in statewide energy costs resulting from population and economic growth ($2.4 billion annual spending). Finally, the AOER analysis also expressly excludes the impact of federal tax credits, omitting a huge source of likely ‘cost-share’ from the federal government that will make the transition even more affordable for ratepayers.

Claim #2 Made by AOER Report: Residents and businesses can expect electricity rates to double…New England families would see their electric bills increase by an average of $99 per year.

Acadia Center Response #2: Previous extensive modeling conducted by Massachusetts for the Commonwealth’s ‘2050 Decarbonization Roadmap’ and Clean Energy and Climate Plans (CECP) provide evidence for a much different trend for regional energy prices in the coming decades. These studies included granular region-wide energy system modeling to arrive at their results for Massachusetts customers.

  • The Roadmap found: “Rates increase out to 2030, then decrease in the subsequent 20 years…. After 2030, growth in electricity load, and vehicle electrification in particular, allows for a reduction in the per‐unit cost of wires on the system,” including thanks to flexible EV charging adding load at night and increasing the load factor in all parts of the system.
  • The 2025/2030 CECP found: “The increased adoption of electrified transportation and heating systems means that the average Massachusetts household will spend less money on energy every year. Average overall household energy expenditures, which include transportation-related fuel costs (included as “energy” cost in this analysis), are projected to decline 8% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, for an average household savings of $400 per year.”
  • The 2050 CECP found: “the efficiency gains of electrification will result in lower household energy expenditures through 2050 (monthly bills for electricity and fuels). Transportation and household-related electricity and fuel expenditures are projected to decline by roughly 13% between 2030 and 2050, representing an average of nearly $600 (in 2021 dollars) in 2050 compared to 2030.

Claim #3 Made by AOER Report: The cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under these plans exceeds the benefits of doing so.

Acadia Center Response #3: Pathways that invest in local energy resources, including renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency, create more jobs and demonstrate greater economic benefits by keeping money local compared to pathways more reliant on imported energy. For example, the “All Options” pathway from the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Study Economic and Health Impacts Report  (which emphasized deep electrification and broad renewable electricity buildout) had 17% higher economic “output” (the broadest measure of economic activity) in Massachusetts per dollar invested than the “Pipeline Gas” pathway (which relied heavily on imported alternative fuels). Evidence of these benefits in action is highlighted throughout state clean energy industry reports conducted regularly, such as in Massachusetts, where in 2022, the industry contributed over $14b to Gross State Product, and in Maine, where the clean energy economy now accounts for over 2% of the state’s total workforce, more than 15,000 jobs.

Claim #4 Made by AOER Report: ISO-New England may be unable to coordinate electricity to power the region within 11 years. [Green energy mandates will] cause rolling blackouts in the region.

Acadia Center Response #4: ISO-NE’s own extensive analysis on reliability and resource adequacy have found no such imminent threats to the region’s grid. To the contrary, earlier this year, the largest fossil fuel generating facility in the region (Mystic Generation Station in Everett, MA) was allowed to safely retire without reliability issues, enabled by low-lost local transmission upgrades. Furthermore, findings from ISO-NE’s Probabilistic Energy Adequacy Tool (PEAT) and Regional Energy Shortfall Threshold (REST) workstreams indicate that, in the near-term, the winter energy shortfall risk “appears manageable” over a critical 21-day winter cold-snap period that was the main subject of the analysis. Examination of worst-case scenarios in 2032 indicated an increasing shortfall risk profile in the back half of this decade (2027-2032); however, ISO-NE’s core findings hold true: “Timely additions of behind-the-meter and utility-scale solar, offshore wind, and incremental imports from New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) are critical to mitigate energy shortfall risks that result from significant winter load growth and retirements.” In other words, new clean energy is proving vital for reliability and keeping the grid’s peaks manageable. New procurements of energy storage resources (also the subject of questionable analysis, highlighted further below) will also materially improve the resource adequacy and reliability conditions as those resources come online in the years ahead.

Stepping back, “change” has been the sole constant for electric grids since their inception. For example, the US electric power sector delivered 329 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in 1950 and 4,090 terawatt hours of electricity in 2022: a 12.4x increase. But dramatic growth alone does not account for all the notable changes to the grid. Due to increasing rates of energy efficiency, the nation is producing more goods and providing more services with improved efficiency, constituting a notable decoupling of GDP growth and electricity consumption. In other words, as dramatic as the growth of the electric grid has been over the last 70 years, that growth has been moderated by cost-effective energy efficiency. There are ample more opportunities to realize such savings from energy efficiency in the years ahead.

 Claim #5 Made by AOER Report: Powering New England without interruption during a year in which wind and sunshine are plentiful would require 225 gigawatts (GW) of renewables

Acadia Center Response #5: Acadia Center analysis of five recent leading studies of deep decarbonization in New England identified an average of 150 GW of installed capacity by 2050, including only 95 GW of solar and wind – backed by storage, increased interregional transmission, nuclear capacity, and some remaining combustion resources. See graphic below from the forthcoming Acadia Center analysis, being released in the next week (stay tuned for more).

Claim #6 Made by AOER Report: New England is responsible for less than 0.4% of global emissions; it is unclear just how much cleaner the environment will become in exchange for the costs that have been imposed on the region and its people

Acadia Center Response #6: Given the enormous benefits to be reaped from economic output and avoided health care costs, it would be preferable for the region to pursue a low-carbon economy even if climate change were not a global crisis. But the latter is also true, and so it is doubly important for the region to do its part to participate in coordinated global action to reduce carbon emissions. Even the full U.S. as a whole only represents about 13.5% of global emissions – should the largest economy in the world therefore also cease all climate mitigation activities since it can’t solve the global crisis through its own actions? Clearly not. Finally, again, the region has so many engines of clean economic activity coming out of its universities, research laboratories, startup incubators, and beyond, whose full economic opportunity lies in the much more vast work of decarbonization that must occur outside this region. If New England can help prove the case for the cost-effective application of their technologies here, then the world’s energy markets will be theirs to conquer next – and all global citizens will benefit while the New England economy grows.

Claim #7 Made by AOER Report: Battery systems today run around $500,000 per megawatt hour, which yields a total cost of $10 billion, which equals roughly 17 percent of the current state budget (from Commonwealth Beacon piece).

Acadia Center Response #7: The cost of a four-hour “megapack” battery pack from Tesla is publicly available, and it reveals a dramatically lower cost of approximately $250,000/MWh. A 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC) is also available to battery storage projects of this nature. Furthermore, the legislation in Massachusetts requires utilities to enter into cost-effective long-term contracts for storage services, not to purchase storage systems and pay for them outright in one year. Spreading out the systems’ remaining costs over ten years reveals an annualized cost of approximately $350M, or 3.5% of the $10b price tag found by MFA. (See graphic above for more detail illuminating their substantial overestimate of >25-30X.) Even this still overstates the annual cost that would be borne by ratepayers, since contracts would be for only a portion of the full system costs, and since this analysis says nothing about the savings ratepayers would reap by using storage to mitigate the costly and dirty peaks on the grid today. Their discussion also completely ignores numerous cost-control mechanisms directly embedded in the approval process, including the directive to the D.P.U. to ensure contracts are cost-effective, meaning benefits to ratepayers exceed costs incurred.

Compromise Climate Bill Finally Approved by Mass. Legislature

After nearly two years of debates, negotiations, and last-minute stalling by Republicans in the state House of Representatives, the Massachusetts Legislature has sent a wide-ranging climate bill to the desk of Gov. Maura Healey, who has indicated she will sign the legislation.

Kyle Murray of the Acadia Center said the bill is a “major win for the Commonwealth, for ratepayers, public health, climate resiliency and for our clean energy future,” adding that the gas reforms “will provide the Department of Public Utilities with the needed tools to save ratepayers money on imprudent investments, stranded assets and leaky pipes.”

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

Massachusetts passes bill to speed clean energy and slow gas expansion

Yesterday, Massachusetts lawmakers made major moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the state to clean energy. Legislators approved a long-awaited climate bill that will limit gas pipeline expansion, make it easier to site and build renewables, and allow utilities to use geothermal energy — instead of fossil fuels — to heat and cool homes. Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, is expected to sign it into law in the coming days.

“The Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration are taking tangible steps to drive the Commonwealth’s clean energy future forward in the wake of the federal Election outcome,” the Acadia Center said in a press release following the vote. Massachusetts is the first state to take action on climate since Trump’s re-election; the new federal landscape could spur more state lawmakers to try and advance climate legislation.

In 2021, the DPU updated its mission to include promoting equity and greenhouse gas emission reductions, in addition to safety, security, reliability, and affordability. ​

“I think this DPU takes that mission seriously. And so I’m confident they will take these updated provisions seriously,” said Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at the Acadia Center.

To read the full article from Canary Media, click here.

After drawn-out battle, sweeping climate bill passes Mass. Legislature

A wide-ranging climate bill, including provisions to curb natural gas and speed up permitting for more green energy, is heading to Governor Maura Healey for signing after passing through the House on Thursday afternoon.

The bill’s passage arrived later than planned, several months after the close of the formal legislative session, but it is a shot in the arm to environmental advocates who have feared a breakdown for climate progress in the wake of the presidential election.

“It was a bitter fight at every step of the way,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the advocacy group the Acadia Center. “And yet, at the end of the day, we got a pretty ambitious climate bill out of it.”

To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.

Acadia Center Applauds Massachusetts Lawmakers and Governor Healey for Passage of Vital Climate Bill, Inclusion of Key Provisions Regarding Siting, Gas Reform, and More

For Immediate Release
November 14, 2024

MEDIA CONTACTS:
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x102.

Download Press Release: Acadia Center Press Release 2024 MA Climate Bill

BOSTON — Today, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted a momentous piece of climate legislation that reforms the siting and permitting of clean energy projects, limits natural gas expansion, sets ambitious electric vehicle charging standards, makes needed changes to clean energy procurement, and contains many other reforms that will help drive the Commonwealth forward on decarbonization. Acadia Center applauds the Legislature and the Governor for the leadership demonstrated in shepherding this impactful package of laws to enactment, and urges the Governor to sign this critical legislation as soon as possible. Through the bill package, the Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration are taking tangible steps to drive the Commonwealth’s clean energy future forward in the wake of the federal Election outcome.

Acadia Center is proud to have played an advocacy role in helping build support for a strong package while simultaneously holding the line on the need for a broader bill rather than a narrow package focused only on siting/permitting. The organization stands ready and willing to work with agencies and stakeholders to implement the legislation’s directives, with an emphasis on protecting those who may be most affected by these elements of the broader energy and climate transition. This includes low-income and environmental justice communities, as well as the Commonwealth’s important gas workforce, all of whom deserve a just and equitable transition through the subsequent steps that will now unfold. With these protections identified and prioritized, Acadia Center believes this legislation presents bold yet thoughtful and common-sense changes that will maintain the Commonwealth’s leadership on climate.

Daniel Sosland, President at Acadia Center, said, “The climate crisis has shown itself to be unrelenting in 2024, leaving no room for inaction on policy at the local and state level. Thankfully, legislative leaders in Massachusetts answered the call, ensuring that the Commonwealth will remain a leader on clean energy and retain the momentum of reforms in key areas like infrastructure siting, gas system transition, and beyond. Acadia Center congratulates Chairs Michael Barrett and Jeffrey Roy, along with Governor Maura Healey, for reaching this week’s historic agreement, and we applaud the persistence and creativity shown in working towards a strong final package after the formal end of session. As the focus now shifts to implementation and regulatory action, residents and businesses across the Commonwealth—and even around the region—will begin to see tangible, quality-of-life benefits flowing from improvements to affordability, energy security, grid strengthening, extreme weather resilience, air quality and public health, and job creation and economic development.”

Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation at Acadia Center, said, “Today’s agreement is a major win for the Commonwealth, for ratepayers, public health, climate resiliency, and for our clean energy future. These improvements to modernize siting and permitting processes will help deliver the infrastructure necessary for our electrified and zero-emission future in a way that preserves meaningful community standing and input. Further, the common-sense provisions to limit the growth of the sprawling natural gas system will provide the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) with the needed tools to save ratepayers money on imprudent investments, stranded assets, and leaky pipes. Both branches deserve tremendous credit for a visionary agreement that charts a responsible path forward.

Acadia Center and other advocates were initially deeply troubled when the legislature failed to come to an accord on a climate omnibus before the July 31st deadline for formal sessions. However, we were encouraged by information that the conference committee remained hard at work. Today’s outcome shows that faith has been rewarded with a powerful and balanced bill.

In the legislative agreement reached, the Legislature and Governor came together on a number of directives that will now shape the Commonwealth’s decarbonization pathways, including the following highlights:

  • Siting and Permitting:
    • Expands/updates Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) authority, including setting a fixed time limit on decision appeals;
    • Ensures a smoother path to approval for clean energy projects with a streamlined process;
    • Adds a significant definition for cumulative impact analysis; and
    • Creates an EFSB and DPU Intervenor Support Fund to provide citizens resources to intervene in these proceedings.
  • Gas System Transition:
    • Reforms the state’s Gas System Enhancement Plan (GSEP) process to allow for the retirement of pipes instead of simple repair or replacement.
    • Ends the unilateral obligation to provide gas service and allows for alternatives to be considered;
    • Allows the DPU to consider emissions when reviewing petitions to expand gas company territory;
    • Changes the legal definition of a natural gas utility to give them license to deliver geothermal power, a possible first step in changing the business model of natural gas utilities; and
    • Requires gas utilities to quantify the costs of potential stranded assets and the benefits of avoiding exposure to such assets.
  • Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs) and Advanced Transmission Technologies (ATTs)
    • Includes suite of provisions to advance the adoption of GETs and ATTs such as dynamic line ratings (DLR) on the Massachusetts power grid
    • Incorporates ATTs/GETs into updated definition for transmission/distribution infrastructure under revised siting and permitting/EFSB regime
    • Requires utilities to conduct analyses and develop timetables for the adoption of cost-effective GETs/ATT investments, and permits them to propose performance incentive mechanisms (PIMs) to reward progress on these investments.
    • Incorporates ATTs/GETs into the prudence requirement utilities must meet for all Electric Sector Modernization Plan (ESMP) investments
    • Directs the DPU and DOER to initiate an independent investigation of GETs/ATTs to monitor industry developments and clarify open jurisdictional questions.
  • Procurement of Energy Storage, Offshore Wind, and Nuclear:
    • Includes language promoting the development of battery storage facilities;
    • Tweaks the current regulatory process for procuring offshore wind;
    • Allows the state to negotiate power contracts lasting 30 years instead of the current 20 years for offshore wind and battery storage projects;
    • Redefines clean energy under Massachusetts law to include power from existing New England nuclear plants – Millstone, based in Waterford, Connecticut, and Seabrook Station, in Seabrook, New Hampshire; and
    • Extends renewable energy eligibility to fusion energy if and when it becomes a reality.
  • EV Charging:
    • Sets EV charger efficiency standards;
    • Makes significant changes to the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council (EVICC), including adding responsibilities for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles providing overall EV leadership/direction;
    • Requires the DPU to investigate pole-mounted chargers to implement them more broadly; and
    • Removes barriers to EV chargers in condo associations.
  • MassPort Charter:
    • Changes the MassPort charter to require consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental justice.

While this legislation takes a number of meaningful steps forward, unfortunately the branches were unable to come to a compromise on some key issues that were in either the House or Senate versions of the bill.

  • Other important climate/environment elements not included:
    • Retail electric supplier ban as a measure for consumer protection
    • Expansion of the state’s bottle deposit law
    • Commuter rail electrification
  • Removing biomass from the Municipal Light Plant Clean Energy Standard

Acadia Center looks ahead with excitement to the opportunity to carry this important work forward and implement the provisions of this historic legislation in keeping with the imperatives of climate, affordability, equity, safety and reliability, and beyond. The organization offers its gratitude to legislative and executive branch officials for their leadership in reaching this important conclusion.

Acadia Center Releases Findings on Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Offering Insights into the Allocation of Program Proceeds and Equity Investments

Full Report: Acadia Center RGGI Funds in Action

For Immediate Release
For Release: November 13, 2024
Media Contact:
Paola Moncada Tamayo
Policy Analyst
860-246-7121 x204; 305-504-9720 cell

Program model demonstrates continued impact and the importance of regional, multi-state action and cooperation in wake of federal election outcome.

RGGI Improves Reporting Related to Proceeds Investments Benefiting Environmental Justice Communities but Still Leaves Room for Improved Transparency and More Rapid, Equitable Investment of Program Funds.

Boston, MA – As participating states continue to undertake the Third Program Review of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Acadia Center today released a report titled RGGI Funds in Action: Insights into the Allocation of RGGI Proceeds, analyzing the investment of RGGI proceeds to date and offering recommendations for improving the process by which future funds are invested. In the wake of the federal election results, the report highlights the continued importance of cooperation at the sub-national level and validates the ongoing benefits that RGGI investments are driving, representing a model for durable multi-state collaboration. The report also examines in detail the first-ever data released jointly by the RGGI states on progress regarding the distribution of investments – totaling 30% – benefitting underserved and environmental justice (EJ) communities, demonstrating some progress but important remaining work to increase equity and improve transparency.

“This report provides more evidence for what Acadia Center has long believed to be true: regional and multi-state action on climate can have real impact. This is more important now than ever. The report’s analysis also shows that the benefits of the RGGI program extend far beyond power plant emissions reductions through the reinvestment of program proceeds into efforts driving clean energy, saving energy, and easing energy burdens,” said Daniel Sosland, President of Acadia Center. “Even as RGGI continues to drive significant benefits, there are still significant improvements to be made to drive greater equity and transparency in the investment of program proceeds. Acadia Center commends the RGGI States for new reporting in this regard and encourages them to go even further to maximize program impact and make a strong case for continued multi-state and regional action.”

“The most recent 2022 RGGI Proceeds Report released by RGGI Inc. in summer of 2024 made a significant advancement in transparency by providing a breakdown of investments directed toward EJ communities for the first time,” said Ben Butterworth, Director, Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis, at Acadia Center. “Based on the summation of individual state reporting, the RGGI, Inc. report estimates that EJ and equity investments totaled approximately 30% of all RGGI proceeds invested by participating states in 2022. Acadia Center has been calling on RGGI, Inc. to include this data for several years, and we commend RGGI, Inc., and the RGGI states on this initial effort to present this critical data, which can help inform and set the stage for continued equitable investment strategies across the region.”

Notwithstanding this improvement in high-level reporting of RGGI proceeds investments directed at EJ communities, the Acadia Center Report also found that both RGGI, Inc., and the RGGI-participating states can improve the quality of RGGI proceeds investment reporting. In the future, more granular data should include a clear breakdown of who is receiving the proceeds, how funds are being allocated, and what measurable outcomes are being achieved for EJ communities and households across all participating states.

“The aggregated data on EJ investments lack granularity, including a breakout of EJ investment at the individual state level to determine whether each state’s approach aligns with the broader goals of EJ and effective use of proceeds,” pointed out Paola Tamayo, Policy Analyst, and primary analyst of the report. “We encourage RGGI, Inc., to build on its progress by providing more specific information on the categories for EJ funding, which will require the provision of more granular data from state agencies and program administrators responsible for allocating and deploying proceeds investments.”

Acadia Center recommends four key actions that should be taken by RGGI-participating states:

• Establish a requirement that a minimum of 40%-50% of RGGI proceeds are invested in EJ and other underserved communities, setting a value that does not change even if other RGGI funds are raided/diverted.

• Clearly articulate how EJ communities are being defined across all RGGI states and identify in greater detail how these definitions inform which investments are considered as equity and EJ-related.

• Invest in energy efficiency and other clean energy measures as soon as possible to avoid lengthy gaps between auctions and committed/realized investments, address existing energy burdens, and lock-in higher lifetime energy and emissions savings.

• Enhance transparency by publishing detailed breakdowns of proceed allocations going toward EJ and equity priorities for each state, including low-income households. This should be done from both RGGI, Inc.’s reports and state agencies’ reports on RGGI spending.

“Acadia Center’s report highlights how strategic and transparent management of RGGI proceeds is crucial to maximizing the program’s impact on emissions reductions and delivering benefits to underserved communities,” noted Dr. Mark Mitchell, Emeritus Professor of Climate, Energy, and Environmental Health Equity at George Mason University. “Implementing the recommended actions will enhance the effectiveness of the RGGI programs and promote greater accountability, transparency, and community engagement in the allocation of proceeds, building trust in the program and future policies that may emulate elements of the RGGI model.”

Larry Chretien, Executive Director of Green Energy Consumers Alliance, added, “We’ve known from the start that RGGI benefits everyone in the participating states. But there’s always room for improvement, and the Acadia Center report shows us how RGGI can do a better job of cleaning the air in EJ communities. This is an important contribution to the public’s review of RGGI.”

States should look to redouble their efforts in the wake of the election to continue strengthening RGGI while improving the program’s investments to benefit all residents. Acadia Center looks forward to working with the states, RGGI, Inc., and many partners in the coming months to finalize a strong Third Program Review and build on these improvements in the equity and transparency of program investments and reporting.

Additional facts about the benefits of the RGGI program:

1. Significant Emission Reductions: Since its inception, RGGI has successfully helped reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector by nearly 50%, which is 10% more than the 40 states that have not consistently implemented a price on greenhouse gas emissions (Acadia Center’s 2023 report).

2. Economic Benefits: RGGI has generated over $8.3 billion in auction proceeds that states have invested in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other programs. These investments help create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and reduce energy costs for consumers. (RGGI Inc’s website).

3. Job Creation: RGGI investments have been associated with the creation of thousands of jobs in the clean energy sector. Since its inception, RGGI has created approximately 48,000 job-years (Analysis Group report).

4. Consumer Savings: Programs funded by RGGI proceeds have led to significant energy savings for consumers. In 2022, RGGI investments in energy efficiency are projected to save participants over $1.5 billion on energy bills (RGGI Inc’s most recent proceeds report).

5. Environmental Justice Focus: RGGI states are increasingly directing funds to support environmental justice initiatives. In 2022, 30% of the total RGGI proceeds were reported to be allocated to these initiatives (RGGI Inc’s most recent proceeds report).

###

Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future.

acadiacenter.org

As Rhode Island considers future of gas, advocates call for ‘realism’ on cost, availability of RNG

As a state committee studies ways to wean Rhode Island off of natural gas, several of its members want the group’s final report to dismiss one potential pathway as wholly unrealistic.

Switching to renewable natural gas or other alternative fuels appears to be neither a feasible nor a financially viable solution at this time, say multiple stakeholders who have commented on a draft outline of a report a consulting group prepared for Rhode Island regulators.

Ben Butterworth, director of climate, energy and equity analysis for the nonprofit Acadia Center, told ENN his organization would like to see Rhode Island prioritize much of what is in the Massachusetts strategy: a focus on electrification and energy efficiency, disincentivizing further expansion of the gas system, and pilot programs focused on the strategic decommissioning of the gas system.

The PUC must also consider how to fund the transition, Butterworth noted. Vermont and Massachusetts are pursuing a clean heat standard as a funding mechanism for climate goals, while New York is pursuing a cap-and-invest approach.

“Finding that mechanism is critical, and the report should include at least those options,” Butterworth said.

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