stomv proposes a grand energy bargain for MA:
I could imagine a great compromise.
Governor Baker, you want your large hydro? You got it. We’ll build the transmission and bring in 2 GW straight to Boston (where the price impact will be greatest).
In return, we also want to ratchet up our RPS requirements, take another shot at 83/83A long term off-shore wind contracting, will continue to ratchet up energy efficiency programs, want to ratchet up the stretch code and the “base” building code, and want to change the formula for gas leak prioritization so that National Grid et al have to fix far more leaks a year.
But Baker only gets one thing, you say? The idea is to balance the energy imported from Canadian hydro with an equal amount of incremental RE [renewable energy], EE [energy efficiency], and gas-leak-savings.
This great compromise would do wonders for reducing emissions (GHG and SOx, NOx, Hg, etc), would be an economic benefit to MA, would suppress wholesale electric prices, and would obviate any need for an additional gas pipeline in New England.
Sounds good to me. More pie for everyone.
Trickle up says
It’s a regional market, and energy inefficiencies in Maine and New Hampshire create regional demand for electricity and gas.
Massachusetts has a preeminent role to play in regional energy matters by virtue of demographics and geography. Pipelines and power lines that bring energy into New England are regional projects with regional costs and benefits.
A grand bargain should use these projects as bargaining chips with recalcitrant Maine and New Hampshire.
stomv says
both for electricity and natural gas. But, it’s also true that ME and NH combine for less than 18% of New England’s population. ME and NH are doing more than many states across the country (ACEEE ranks them 16 and 22 nationwide), and I’d love for them to do more. Still, that Maine and New Hampshire are in the 2nd quartile rather than the 1st isn’t a reason for MA to not move forward.
Trickle up says
These states are lagging their peers and increasing everyone’s energy costs. Regardless of size, they represent the lowest-hanging fruit for efficiency. All they have to do is match what we and Vermont have done for years! for goodness sakes.
This waste is on the margin and the demand-reduction-induced price effects could be meaningful.
BTW: My argument is not “don’t move forward.” It is “define ‘forward’ to include fixing this botched savings opportunity.”
stomv says
We can cajole and encourage, but we can’t require Maine and New Hampshire to improve from the second quartile to the first on matters of energy efficiency. We ought not delay or be distracted by the laggards.
And, given their relative size, we’d likely get more DRIPE from improving our own (already very strong) energy efficiency policies than what we’d get from ME and NH. Hell, if the MA government were going to exert influence, we’d be better off exerting influence on Connecticut, which has a population of about a million people more than NH and ME combined.