From stomv, in response to the jconway's contention: “I have had four years of great plans and rhetoric from patrick and four years of him not delivering. Just saying.”
On this, he's delivered in spades.
- We've joined RGGI.
- Executive orders require purchasing of “most efficient” vehicles for gov't, as well as efficient use.
- Green Communities Act.
- Stretch Code.
- RPS standards among the best in the nation.
- Why, just last week they announced they'd used $185M in stimulus funds to leverage $800M worth of energy upgrades to water waste processing facilities around the state — everything from switching to VFD motors to installing solar and wind generation on-site. At least one of the facilities will become a net-zero facility w.r.t. energy.
- “Swap” deal with CSXT for the Boston to Worcester line, allowing for more commuter runs west and, eventually, to the south shore as well.
- MassDOT, which gives the MBTA a fighting chance.
- Bike lanes on bridges formerly controlled by DCR.
He hasn't been perfect, and he doesn't get sole credit for any of these, as no governor is an island. At the same time, he deserves tremendous credit for all of these things, and I'm sure I've forgotten a few. On other issues progress has been slower, but frankly Deval Patrick joins Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Bloomberg as the top three executives who've pushed hardest and accomplished most on green issues. A second (or third!) term allows for keeping the momentum getting even more done by moving “normal”.
Please share widely!
* Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (which Romney had refused to join)
* Efficient vehicles — I couldn’t find exactly what I’m recalling for Patrick nor Romney. Patrick’s EO 484 and 515 touch on it, but don’t seem to be it. Someone should feel free to chime in on this.
* Green Communities Act, which does a whole bunch of small things to encourage communities to enact local policy which makes better use of smart growth, renewable siting, government fleets, and a long list of other things.
* MA Renewable Portfolio Standard requires that more and more of the electricity consumed in MA is new renewables. 5% in 2010, and 1% more each year, indefinitely. Enacted before Patrick got to office, but doubled under his administration from 0.5% growth per year to 1% growth per year.
* MA Stretch Code. The state has a single building code. This is good — 351 different sets of rules on buildings would be a mess. Now, the state has two building codes. Basic, and Stretch. Cities and towns can choose to implement 100% of Stretch or keep Basic. This is brand new; Newton, Cambridge, and Sudbury have implemented Stretch, and dozens of MA communities are expected to enact it in 2010. What does Stretch do? Simply, it requires new construction and major renovations be built with above average energy efficiency — using between 65% and 75% of “normal” energy use. This is part of the Green Communities Act, but so important that I feel it deserves it’s own bullet.
* Wastewater efficiency improvements. Warning: there are some errors in the numbers on the site; still, the message is clear. Patrick has leveraged stimulus money to (a) gain energy improvements in waste water treatment plants, which reduce long term operational cost, resulting in (b) lower carbon footprint and (c) lower water/sewer bills than would exist otherwise.
* MA bought some choo-choo lines. The Globe covered it multiple times too.
* MassDOT, shiny and new.
* Cragie Dam Bridge (pdf) and BU Bridge (pdf). There are others too, but these are the ones which have been “hot” in the past year or so.
<
p>
<
p>P.S. Those EOs (484, 515) contain lots of other cool stuff, ranging from biodiesel to energy star appliances to MA building LEED buildings.
on these topics is so helpful. I know virtually nothing about this stuff, but I do try to learn by reading your contributions here.
We’ve joined RGGI.
More money for electricty for consumers and business in the state. We do want businesses to come here right?
<
p>Executive orders require purchasing of “most efficient” vehicles for gov’t, as well as efficient use.
<
p>Where is this Executive order exactly? What cars? Imports? Police cars?
<
p>Green Communities Act.
<
p>Big deal. There are NO MEMBERS of the Green Community that I know of. Many have applied but the standards are TOO HIGH and most communities will not be able to convince residents it is worth an additional $20-25K to build a house or put an addition on.
<
p>Stretch Code.
Same as above. If R19 insulation is good, why would someone vote to require certified Insulation installers and then have it inspected by certified Insulation inspectors with “air tests” on the entire house costing thousands?
<
p>RPS standards among the best in the nation.
<
p>When did 15% become better than 20% or 23% or 40%????
<
p>
StateAmountYearOrganization Administering RPS
Arizona0.152025Arizona Corporation Commission
California0.332030California Energy Commission
Colorado0.22020Colorado Public Utilities Commission
Connecticut0.232020Department of Public Utility Control
District of Columbia0.22020DC Public Service Commission
Delaware0.22019Delaware Energy Office
Hawaii0.22020Hawaii Strategic Industries Division
Iowa105 MWIowa Utilities Board
Illinois0.252025Illinois Department of Commerce
Massachusetts0.152020Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources
Maryland0.22022Maryland Public Service Commission
Maine0.42017Maine Public Utilities Commission
Michigan0.12015Michigan Public Service Commission
Minnesota0.252025Minnesota Department of Commerce
Missouri0.152021Missouri Public Service Commission
Montana0.152015Montana Public Service Commission
New Hampshire0.2382025New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning
New Jersey0.2252021New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
New Mexico0.22020New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
Nevada0.22015Public Utilities Commission of Nevada
New York0.242013New York Public Service Commission
North Carolina0.1252021North Carolina Utilities Commission
North Dakota*0.12015North Dakota Public Service Commission
Oregon0.252025Oregon Energy Office
Pennsylvania0.082020Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Rhode Island0.162019Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission
South Dakota*0.12015South Dakota Public Utility Commission
Texas5,880 MW2015Public Utility Commission of Texas
Utah*0.22025Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Vermont*0.12013Vermont Department of Public Service
Virginia*0.122022Virginia Department of Mines, Minterals, and Energy
Washington0.152020Washington Secretary of State
Wisconsin0.12015Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
<
p>Why, just last week they announced they’d used
$185M in stimulus funds to leverage $800M worth of energy upgrades to water waste processing facilities around the state — everything from switching to VFD motors to installing solar and wind generation on-site. At least one of the facilities will become a net-zero facility w.r.t. energy.
<
p>This is Federal money not state. Towns put grant requests in and the Feds pay us…
<
p>
.
<
p>Is Deval going to take credit for he Bank Bailouts next????
<
p>“Swap” deal with CSXT for the Boston to Worcester line, allowing for more commuter runs west and, eventually, to the south shore as well.
MassDOT, which gives the MBTA a fighting chance.
<
p>Has anyone seen anymore trains on the Boston to WOrcester scedule since DEval took over? I haven’t!
<
p>Bike lanes on bridges formerly controlled by DCR.
Now there’s a program to hang your reelection on… WOW!!!
<
p>But be careful of these stories…
<
p>
<
p>And this…
<
p>
or making me want to shove icepicks underneath my fingernails. Keep it up!
In most cases you suggest that the Governor’s initiatives are futile because they will cost people too much, and then you seem to suggest that the state’s RPS goals aren’t aggressive enough. Makes it pretty hard to take your criticisms seriously.
<
p>Personally I will be quite pleased if during this campaign we get to have a serious discussion about how the citizens of Massachusetts should respond to the threat of climate change. So far we have one candidate who seems to take the issue seriously, and one who says its ‘too complicated’.
Mu client didn’t do it, but if he did here are the extenuating circumstances which should lead to a verdict of not guilty.
<
p>I can be critical of an issue and I can also be critical of the reporting of facts which I think are incorrect. I like the Red Sox but if someone says they lost 12-6 when the score was really 18-6, then I can state the person is wrong.
<
p>The original diary said…
<
p>
<
p>And I was pointing out that MA was FAR from being “best in the nation”. Don’t you agree?
<
p>If the Governor (and you) really cared about Energy Conservation, we would put together a truly comprehensive and PRAGMATIC plan which could help people. Instead we have this hodge podge or counter-intuitive steps which end up helping nobody or only rich people. (example – we have a program where MA residents can get solar panel rebates from the state if we put units on our roofs… This sounds good except the rebate you get is very small for residents who n afford the $20K+ish cost of panels but drops as your income level drops however these people cannot afford the $25+ish costs of the panels). Results… how many solar panels on residential roofs will you see on the way home from work tonight. I would be one of those people putting one on my roof but there is no incentive from the state making the ROI even close.
<
p>Want to be in the Green Community and be qualified for $1M in state grants? Sounds great but you have to adopt the Stretch Code which residents abhor since many of them are already ticked at the existing 2007 building codes which came on line not too long ago. People in MA towns hate to get dog licenses and pay $25 and now we are asking for an additional cost of $15-25K for new homes and additions. Just wait and see how many towns officially become Green Community members by year’s end.
<
p>Not at the expense of furthering climate change, if it even drives up the price of electricity (which remains unclear over a long time frame). Before RGGI, New England had rates higher than just about everywhere but CA and HI. It’s not at all clear that RGGI has had a significant impact on electricity rates. In fact, I’ve seen no evidence that it has (feel free to show some).
<
p>Bottom line: RGGI is good for environmental and climate change issues, and it’s not the only regional greenhouse gas initiative. The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord includes the US states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. Observers of the Accord are Indiana, Ohio, and South Dakota. The Western Climate Initiative includes the U.S. states of Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. The observers are Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming, the province of Saskatchewan, and the Mexican states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Tamaulipas.
<
p>So look — that’s actually the a major chunk of North America: 23 US states are members (11 observers inc. D.C.), 7 Canadian provinces are members (4 are observers), and 6 Mexican states are observers. This suggestion that RGGI will preclude businesses from locating in MA isn’t based on reality.
<
p>
<
p>As I wrote, I didn’t find it after about 5 minutes of looking. IIRC, the order was for all vehicles, with the obvious caveat that the vehicle had to be appropriate for the job. If you need an industrial sized pickup to do a job, you get an efficient industrial sized pickup that can do the job. If you need a police cruiser capable of acceleration, handling, and crash characteristics as well as a substantial back seat and trunk, you get a vehicle that can do that and is also efficient within it’s class. This isn’t hard. It’s a continuation of Romney’s policy in fact.
<
p>
<
p>To qualify, a community needs to “check off” a relatively long series of boxes. No community had them all checked off — so it will take some time for each city or town to alter it’s zoning, purchasing policies, and other laws and regulations to qualify. That’s the point. It isn’t easy… and though it’s 1.5 years since it’s been signed, between then and now regulatory agencies needed to figure out exactly what details would be necessary; that took on the order of a year. This is a new program, and communities are striving to quality. That’s evidence that it’s good.
<
p>P.S. Your $20-$25k is nonsense, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. The marginal increase in capital cost to qualify for HERS ratings of 65-75 is nowhere near your claim, and it is made up in energy savings on the order of years, not decades. Simply put, you’re spewing FUD on this one.
<
p>
<
p>R19 isn’t good enough. The problem is that a homeowner — even an inspector — can’t possibly tell if the home is built to be high performing. That cut in the stone to run the oil/gas pipe — is it tight, or is it excessively large and then padded out with foam? Same goes for the exhaust vents, the rough ins for the windows, etc. How about the knee walls and other areas — are they airtight? Insulated? Nobody knows after the house is built, and that’s the problem. Is the AHU or furnace or boiler too large? How about once other upgrades take place post-purchase? The homeowner naturally would want them to be efficient, but is neither knowledgeable enough to require it nor capable of ensuring that it got done even if requested. The Stretch Code means people will get the work they should have been getting this whole time — not a half-assed effort which is just enough to satisfy the building inspector because, after all, home builders don’t pay the heat bill and are therefore interested in doing just enough, not enough.
<
p>
<
p>It is better than nearly all standards. I’ve got the viewgraphs to prove it since I prepared a 1.5 hour academic lecture on exactly this topic. Here’s why:
1. The 2020 point is actually pretty high; only 8 states are higher*.
2. Unlike many other states with aggressive RPS requirements, MA goes up by 1% per year — not a big jump followed by a number of years of 0% increase. This is important because it ensures gradual, constant compliance. I expect states like NY, D.C, MD, FL, NC, MI, MN, WI, NV, NM, CO, MT, CA, HI, OR, and WA to all struggle because they have larger steps followed by years of 0% increases. I expect that on the due-date, a number of utilities will have failed to expand their portfolio by enough, furthermore the new demand for renewable will cause a price surge. Slow but steady wins the race, and MA got it right.
3. Massachusetts is the only state to require the RPS to grow by 1% per year indefinitely; if the lege does nothing it keeps getting bigger. This is quite clever because it requires a majority to derail further growth. In all other states, after their final jump (be it 2012, ’14, ’15, ’19, ’20, ’25, or ’30) their RPS is constant, requiring an act of the legislature to improve it.
<
p>For those 3 reasons, I’d argue that MA’s RPS is among the best in the country. It’s reasonably aggressive, it’s constant growth ensures compliance and more stable pricing, and that it doesn’t expire means a greater likelihood of even higher RPS standards in the long run.
<
p>I am so glad you asked 🙂
<
p>
<
p>Yes, but it is coordinated by the state, and the state determines which grant applications (and, to some extent, what criteria) get selected. To argue that the state has nothing to do with this is nonsense. A different administration could have easily emphasized lots of other criteria in giving out the money; the Patrick administration emphasized energy efficiency, renewable energy, and using multipliers to get more bang for the buck — and worked with the munis to create applications which got the most bang for that buck.
<
p>
<
p>That’s because you haven’t been looking. Check out Metrowest Daily News: More Commuter Trains to Worcester-Boston Line or TransBlog.state.ma.us: Through the development of this agreement, the MBTA has already been able to add five Framingham-Boston commuter trains to Worcester on CSX Transportation’s Boston line. I called
a buddy of mine who works with the MBTA: he confirmed it.
<
p>If five trains are added to the Worcester-Boston line and JohnD doesn’t see them, do they carry any passengers?
<
p>
<
p>No, it’s not something to “hang [one’s] reelection on”, nor did anyone suggest that it was. Thanks for the strawman. It was one component of a long list of items in which the Patrick administration has made improvements on environmental issues in the Commonwealth. And, it is.
<
p>
<
p>As for your final two comments: those are economic issues. While important, they have nothing to do with my post.
<
p>
<
p>* This data from a presentation given Feb 2009; it’s possible that any number of states have beefed up their RPS since then, though I doubt very many have.
RGGI – The types of movement to laws/rules of curtailing pollution are good as long as they don’t negatively impact the economy AND are effective cntrols on pollution. Summary, they must be pragmatic.
<
p>Exective order – would be good to have since it is being touted as a good thing. PS If it’s a It’s a continuation of Romney’s policy in fact., then shouldn’t Romey get th credit not Deval?
<
p>Green Communities – not buying it. I want to see results. I have met with the state officials numerous times to get our town approved. We have 4 out of 5 boxes checked and the Stretch code is a killer. We are all stuck at this point. Town meeting must approve the fifth box and as of now all towns can’t get pst it. I predict the “more affluent” towns will get it passed but tha vast majority will fail. THis needs to be addressed by Deval/Ian!
<
p>Strectch – The 2009 code an be enforced with great results. This goes too far. I want Geothermal… but the average citizen wants the government to stop telling them what to do.
<
p>RPS – I’m not impressed by what we are promising after 2020 either . Who cares today. How have we done so far. Are we really getting 5% of our production of energy from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. This is our current commitment…
<
p>1.0% of sales by 12/31/2003
1.5% of sales by 12/31/2004
2.0% of sales by 12/31/2005
2.5% of sales by 12/31/2006
3.0% of sales by 12/31/2007
3.5% of sales by 12/31/2008
4.0% of sales by 12/31/2009
5.0% of sales by 12/31/2010 *
6.0% of sales by 12/31/2011
7.0% of sales by 12/31/2012
8.0% of sales by 12/31/2013
9.0% of sales by 12/31/2014
10.0% of sales by 12/31/2015
11.0% of sales by 12/31/2016
12.0% of sales by 12/31/2017
13.0% of sales by 12/31/2018
14.0% of sales by 12/31/2019
15.0% of sales by 12/31/2020, and an additional 1% of sales each year thereafter, with no stated expiration date
<
p>Federal money “coordinated”by the state. Are we suppose to be impressed that the Governor is “gating” who gets the money ergo he’s a rocket scientists and deserves our vote?
<
p>I admire yo trying to make a mountain of accomplishments out of a mole hill of bureaucracy but it ain’t working for me.
because you don’t want it to. That’s easy enough.
<
p>RGGI: Let’s face it, you got nothing. It’s a good thing, and it’s something that the majority of the USA and Canada’s population’s state/provincial government support. But I’m sure they will all note your suggestion that “it must be pragmatic.” Forgive me for being flippant; you just can’t seem to bring yourself to say “Oh. Well, in that case, great!”
<
p>EO: A continuation of an EO still deserves credit, and as you’ll note, I extended credit to both Romney and Patrick. Forgive me for being flippant; you just can’t seem to bring yourself to say “Oh. Well, in that case, great!”
<
p>RE: Green Communities. For Pete’s sake, the requirements have been out for what, six months? I don’t know about yours, but my town will “process” the painting of a crosswalk to be 18 months of meetings. It’s going to take time for communities to check all the boxes, but the fact that a number of them are striving to do just that is proof that it’s good legislation because it’s helping communities move in the right direction. Forgive me for being flippant; you just can’t seem to bring yourself to say “Oh. Well, in that case, great!”
<
p>RE: Stretch. The 2009 guide (based on 2007 ASHRAE for commercial, HERS of 100 for residential) simply can’t assure clients that they’re getting a high quality building. It does nothing to help with massive leaks in the building envelope, oversizing of systems, and the like. You say it goes too far. Precisely where does it go too far? Which portion? Do tell. Forgive me for being flippant; you just can’t seem to bring yourself to say “Oh. Well, in that case, great!”
<
p>RE: RPS. “Are we really getting 5% of our production of energy from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal”
<
p>Yes. Forgive me for being flippant; you just can’t seem to bring yourself to say “Oh. Well, in that case, great!”
<
p>RE: Stimulus. Yes, you ought be impressed that the governor’s administration is managing the stimulus money in a way that (a) gets the money spent quickly, (b) lowers future operating costs for the plants, and (c) cuts carbon. Forgive me for being flippant; you just can’t seem to bring yourself to say “Oh. Well, in that case, great!”
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I don’t admire your refusal to give any credit to about a dozen polices, laws, orders, and expenditures in which Patrick’s administration played a role and were each positive steps toward a more sustainable environment in Massachusetts. I also don’t admire your refusal to provide any specific critiques in any one of the items I mentioned. You’re behaving no differently than the Republicans in Washington — you refuse to admit to good policy, refuse to credit a Democrat who moves it along, refuse to acknowledge when you’re off-the-cuff remarks are flat out wrong, and refuse to provide proposals of your own or specific critiques based on facts.
<
p>Face it, it was never going to “work for you” because you’d either find fault for going too far (Stretch code) or not far enough (RPS).
You made your points about the Gov’s accomplishments and they are mostly meaningless and very UNDERimpressive. I was simply poking holes in some of the things you tried. George Bush is widely regarded for his work with “No Child Left Behind”. Maybe it is in the “viewpoint” of the person supporting and the people on the loyal opposition. Many were very critical that it wasn’t funded enough.
<
p>Let’s talk in December and see who in “reality” is on board with the Green Community. As I said, I am the Chair of our town energy committee and have met numerous times with the state. We have been accepted into the program and our only sticy point is the Stretch code requirement. Unless that changes, I see very few towns making it in. If that changes, we have a story. Sorry you are ignoring that fact.
What exactly IS your relationship to the Baker campaign?
<
p>It’s possible that your talk of making suggestions to Charlie is just that, but if it isn’t you should disclose, especially when attacking his potential opponent:
<
p>
I’d be willing to bet that cities/towns representing 400,000 people (not including Boston) have implemented Stretch by Dec 31 2010. Newton, Cambridge, and Sudbury alone get you to 200k. I’d expect almost all inner suburbs to implement it (a significant subset of Waltham, Brookline, Somerville, Quincy, Lexington, Arlington, Lincoln, Wellesley, etc), and maybe another 100k from C&I and Western Mass communities.
<
p>That’s 7% of the state by population, implementing something in a 12 month window — include Boston (which I expect will do it) and you’re 1,000,000 people. That is substantial.
<
p>
<
p>I think other things will roadblock becoming a GC. Renewable siting by right in general will need 2/3s due to zoning, and will find lots of BANANAs and NIMBYs. Expedited permitting will be hit or miss. Purchasing only fuel efficient vehicles is tough when CIPs can pick up cheap used Crown Vics very cheaply — so cheaply that total lifetime cost may be cheaper than fuel efficient vehicles. Furthermore, establishing a plan for a 20% energy reduction over a 5 year span is easy if your buildings aren’t operating well now, but quite difficult if they are. Different communities will find some of those easy, and others quite a challenge. That’s the point. Given how little hub-bub the Stretch generated in Newton or Cambridge — where there is real development that takes place including multistory commercial, retail, residential, and non-profit — I don’t really see major opposition in most places happening. On 495? Yeah, maybe. The rest of the state? I don’t see it.
The way I have seen this overcome before is the current Stretch code becomes the new State Building Code for the entire State thereby eliminating the need for each town to adopt it. THen a new Stretch code is defined above and beyond the existing “bar”.
<
p>I disagree with your prediction though. I also will not judge the “acceptance” by how many people but by how many towns. Having a city like Boston or Cambridge adopt a building code when most of the “building” is already done doesn’t count. Take a town like mine where the population has almost doubled in 15 years and is expected to increase the same amount over the next 15 years. That’s a lot of building and a lot of additions. How many vacant lots or empty build-able lots are either in Cambridge, Somerville or Quincy? I agree that the “better off” towns like Lexington, Lincoln, Wellesley… may adopt it because the residents have upfront money to outlay for Geothermal systems… and can reap the rewards and tax breaks with the savings in latter years.
<
p>My $15-25K number came directly from the Town Building Inspector. He just recently attended a meeting of the Central MA Building Inspectors and that numbers was “agreed to” at that meeting.
<
p>Number of towns is a terrible metric — the amount of towns is not correlated with the number of square feet of new or majorly renovated space. And it’s that bold part that matters.
<
p>
<
p>I think you’re wrong, for two reasons:
1. There’s plenty of new construction going on in Boston and Cambridge. They’re big places, and everything from new three deckers and 3-5 story condos to larger buildings do take place. A single new 15 story building in Boston (think Waterfront) or in Cambridge results in more new square feet than most MA towns gain in a year from all new construction combined.
<
p>2. Major renovations are also included. This has an enormous impact. How often do you think commercial space in the Boston and Cambridge larger buildings gets turned over? It’s actually quite frequent — and it’s what my wife does for a living, so I’m pretty familiar.
<
p>The population of a city is a much better approximation for the number of square feet of new or (majorly) renovated space than the number of towns. Much better. If you can come up with an even better metric that’s easily obtainable, I’m all ears.
<
p>
<
p>Dude, you’re obsessed with geothermal. It will be very rare that new construction or major renovation that is in compliance with the Stretch Code will include geothermal. It’s an option, to be sure… but it won’t be the way small residential gets there most of the time (they’ll use formulaic compliance to approximate HERS), and it’s not the way renovations will get there either (they’ll use efficient lighting, right-sizing HVAC, and envelope improvements). Your obsession with geothermal may also explain…
<
p>
<
p>Agreed upon by whom? It’s certainly not a number that LEED folks — be they AIA architects, engineers, or builders — agree upon, and they’re the ones who are actually building these projects.
<
p>The fact is that the upfront difference in price will vary quite a bit based on a number of factors. The long term savings will also vary, but be rather substantial. Throwing around a single number pulled out of thin air “agreed to” at a meeting is asinine even if we were only talking about a single building type (say a 2k-3k square foot single detached home). The fact is we’re talking about everything from an addition or upgrade to a single system within a home (windows, heat, whatev) to a renovation of 100,000 square feet of commercial skyscraper space to the construction of a new strip mall. Throwing around a single number based on “agreed to” by a room full of people and then reported to you second hand is not reality based.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Indeed. I’m curious to see how this plays out. The base code is improved every 1-3 years for different components. Will the Stretch code be ratcheted up too? If the Stretch becomes the new Base, does that mean all towns who implemented Stretch will have to vote again to implement “Stretcher”? The upshot is, the more cities and towns who implement Stretch, the more reps and senators who will be willing to make Stretch the base since, after all, their districts are already complying with it.
Actually, geothermal is something that is worth at least looking into for buildings that are doing parking lot renovation anyway.
I was just using it as an example. Having said that, I think geothermal is awesome and has many “residential” applications besides commercial such as parking lots.
In your commentary on this.
<
p>I’m former chair of the energy committee in our town. We won’t become a Green Community because our municipal utility doesn’t pay into MRET, and would rather keep said dues ‘in-house’. Aside from that, the GCA requirements aren’t a big deal. We have the stretch code coming up at our Town Meeting; we’ll see what the “average citizen” in our town will say.
<
p>stomv hit the nail on the head for the need for performance measurement. It’s called quality assurance. It’s quite possible to build a structure with high R materials, etc., that performs poorly. I’ve owned enough houses and been involved with enough municipal construction and renovation projects to have a handle on the relatively low level of consistency with it comes to building energy performance and design. Every contractor has a different approach and set of design assumptions (half of which are wrong or outdated).
<
p>Your phone has much better energy design and optimization than your house or high school.
<
p>The stretch code is about consumer protection.
<
p>
Unfortunately, I can’t comment until they release the details. The announcement letter is usually hyperbole and you can’t judge the program until you see the details. Most of these programs take money from our utilities and then create grants to achieve the State’s goals. THe utilities don’t give a rat’s ass about any of it, they are mandated to do these things. We have to remember that they are “in business” to SELL ELECTRICITY/GAS so why would they sincerely want to help you reduce how much you buy??????
<
p>
<
p>If you mean protecting us from ourselves, then yes I agree… right up there with eliminating trans fats, smoking, porn, fast foods, drinking alcohol, freedom of speech and all sorts of other freedoms we have.
Protection from market failure: information asymmetry, etc.
<
p>I have done enough work with contractors to state with confidence that it’s very difficult to verify quality of work when it comes to energy performance.
<
p>I’m all for preserving our freedoms, but not when the result is obvious and repeated market failure. And the solutions generally have positive cashflow impacts for the property owner.
<
p>What’s not pragmatic about a cap-n-trade system like RGGI? It’s been widely studied and is well understood to be the ‘least-cost system’ for implementing pollution reduction. simple as that.
<
p>15% over ten years (Massachusetts) is almost as good as 33% over twenty years (California) but certainly not as good as 40% over 7 years (Maine).
<
p>But Maine has a smaller population, (40th in population) so total capacity is smaller… So Massachusetts will spend more for our 15% than Maine will for their 40%. In fact, of the states that are larger, in population, than Massachusetts (15th in pop) only New Jersey (22.5% by 2021, 11th in pop), Illinois (25% by 2020, 5th in pop) New York (24% by 2013, 3rd in pop) and California (33% by 2030,1st in pop) attempt better.
<
p>
<
p>Charlie Baker, by his own admission, is too stupid to parse this phrase…
JohnD lanced you.
<
p>Maine’s 30% number includes pre-existing hydro. So does NY — but other states don’t, and they shouldn’t. To fairly compare, you’ve got to back out Quebec hydro and Niagra, amongst others. Still other states remove nuclear from numerator and denominator, yet other states only use IOUs but not Munis or coops, and still others provide multipliers for certain kinds of renewables, or renewables sited in-state, and indeed others have sub-requirements such as 0.1% solar, 0.2% swine waste, 900,000 MWh poultry waste, etc, and some states their RPS is a suggestion/goal, not an actionable requirement. To do a fair comparison, you’ve got to compare apples to apples, and figure out how much new renewable energy each state is actually requiring in any given year.
<
p>Maine got 25.6% of it’s electricity from large hydro in 2006 according to EIA. So, you’ve got to subtract 25.6% from that 30% to fairly compare, and suddenly they’re at… 4.4%. Pre-existing biomass accounted for nearly 25%, and suddenly you’re at… success! Without doing a damn thing.
<
p>Their 1999 RPS law requires 10% by 2017, and that doesn’t include the large hydro or the pre-existing biomass. That is the RPS number that you should use, not the 30% (which isn’t technically an RPS law anyway).
<
p>
<
p>It’s easy to play fast and loose with facts and analysis like JohnD has done when you already have zero credibility on the subject, and you know that when you burden an honest person with the bullhockey that the other person will indeed clean it up, as I have yet again on this thread.
<
p>Really. Of all things energy, I know more about RPS than most things. MA’s RPS law is much more effective than Maine’s: it’s more aggressive, and it lasts longer. The only states which have similarly effective RPS requirements, IMO, are CT, NH, and IL. CA and HI have bigger numbers at 2020/2025/2030, but their large leaps from year to year (CA: 20% to 33% from 2020-2021, HI: 15% to 25% from 2020-2021, 25% to 40% from 2029-2030) almost guarantee failure, even if it would be otherwise attainable with full effort. California’s RPS goes from 7% in 2009 to 20% in 2010. Think they’ll get there? Here’s a hint: in 2007, they had 13.7% non-large hydro. I’ll be shocked if they show 20%. It’s too big a leap in one go. No sense in creating a policy which isn’t going to get done, or one which is so jarring from year to year that you’re creating multiple shocks to the jobs sectors and electricity costs. Slow and steady is good; moderate and steady is better. Fast and jerky — methinks it’s not better than moderate and steady, hence my claim about MA having one of the best RPS requirements.
I know you’re the smartest person in the world on RPS because you implied it, but for a person with zero credibility like me, where is that fact supported?
<
p>I have my people checking your other gobbley-gook numbers!
<
p>I am not, and I did not. I do know lots of things about energy, and within the field of energy, I know more about RPS than other things. That’s what I wrote, and that’s exactly what I mean. Let me ask you something — have I written a single thing about RPS that is wrong?
<
p>
<
p>Go to the EOEEA page on RPS compliance, and check out the latest report, 2007. The requirement requirement was 3%: 1,529,359 MWh. The actual generated was 1,599,533 MWh. In 2007, the requirement was exceeded and, as I’m sure you know, RPS allows for ‘banking’ of surplus, so some was banked to be applied to a future year. In fact, for the 2007 report, there was a total of 81 GWh banked.
<
p>Where’s the 2008 report? Dunno. I’ve been told it’s coming very soon. Because the DOER does very careful audits of the power company’s renewable compliance, it does take them a while to bring the report public, which explains the delay of about a year. (the 2007 report was published in Dec ’08).
<
p>Because RPS allows for purchasing of renewable across state lines (as long as it’s not double counted), you can’t simply look up the amount of renewable produced in MA in 2008 that qualifies for RPS (renewables minus large hydro plus improvements in the efficiency of large hydro) which is somewhat less than 2250 GWh and divide it by the total generated 42500 GWh. After all, NSTAR uses wind power from upstate NY and Kibby ME for it’s MA customers, and some power generated in MA is used for compliance in CT and RI (but not double counted in MA). What we do know is that the cost of compliance (the RECs) comes in lower than the penalty for non-compliance, so we do expect that there will be compliance. This expectation isn’t in a vacuum; it’s exactly how the RPS has played out in most states where the year-on-year increase is on the order of 1%.
<
p>Remember: the goal of RPS is not to ensure that the amount of renewable generation in Massachusetts increases with time — rather, the goal is to ensure that the percent of renewable consumption in Massachusetts increases with time. This makes sense: why require a mediocre wind turbine in MA if we can get a higher utilization factor over the state line? RPS is de facto regional, since the ISO is regional. If the most cost-efficient renewable supply can be built in MA, great. If across state lines, that’s cool too, precisely because the RECs are never double counted.
<
p>P.S.
<
p>Your “people”? Good grief. What a goon.
JohnD… aka the GOON!
But this is a family blog. 🙂
Nice attack, especially given stomv keeps providing facts and arguments and you keep providing insults and assertions.
<
p>I know unemployment can be emotionally draining, but why take it out on BMG?
Gee, I was under the impression life was great for him and would never be unemployed himself. He says so himself all the time:(
Yet he futzes away his day on the opposition’s website when he could be out in front of customers closing business. I’m in sales and if he worked for me, I would probably look for a hungrier, younger salesperson or more experienced salesperson with a work ethic to replace him. I’ve met a lot of lazy salespeople in my lifetime…
<
p>Only those who fear math fear the word ‘some’…
<
p>
<
p>What does that have to do with Deval Patricks environmental record? Companies move all the time. So they move from Massachusetts to Ohio? Yawn.
<
p>
Here’s a link to the new MassDOT organizational structure.
<
p>Please note, throughout, the reference to ‘organization’. Now, substitute the word ‘authority’ – look familiar?
<
p>Yes, we’ve created a NEW quasi-independent authority, not AGENCY, blending the various transportation agencies into a seperate single entity governed by an independent board…how has our experience with this been in the past?
<
p>The Governor’s budget also proposes shifting the funding for the ‘organization’ away from appropriation in the budget and into bonds, grants and fund money – not budget lines.
<
p>Based on past practice, I have profound reservations about this.