Turns out that the legislature wrote a pretty tough greenhouse gas law back in 2008. And despite attempts by both Patrick and Baker administrations to squish out of it, the SJC said no way:
For years, environmental groups have argued that both the Patrick and Baker administrations have not done enough to meet the mandates of the state’s 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires the state to cut its greenhouse gases 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
State officials have countered that the law only requires the state Department of Environmental Protection to set emissions targets, not hard caps, and that it gives the agency broad discretion over how to reach them.
In a rebuff to the state, the Supreme Judicial Court sided with the environmental groups and in a unanimous decision ordered the Baker administration to enact specific policies to carry out the required emissions cuts.
via SJC rules that the state failed to issue proper regulations to cut emissions – The Boston Globe.
They have discretion about how to reach the caps, but not whether to reach the caps.
Incidentally the lawsuit was brought on behalf of four high school students, on the grounds that younger people will suffer even more from global warming than older adults. That is entirely appropriate on the merits, but it seems novel that age is a determinant of standing in a case. (Non-lawyer talking here.)
So this is hard to do. We can import tons of Canadian hydro power and probably get it done soon, but hydro is a.) not local, so we don’t get the economic benefits, and b.) not totally clean, since it requires flooding wooded areas that would otherwise continue to sequester carbon, and the methane that rotting matter creates. The Globe editorial folks seem to be suggesting a big import of Canadian hydro in the short term, with increasing carve-outs for cleaner and local offshore wind in the future.
Thanks to the SJC for affirming the rules are hard and fast, like the laws of physics.
That’s my opinion of our political future. The question is, what else should we do?
I’d like to see:
1. A requirement that Hydro Quebec develop a new or join an existing renewable energy certificate organization (such as NEPOOL GIS). Now.
2. Make it clear that HQ can then deliver wind energy over the same DC line and sell the wind RECs to New England utilities. This is pretty obvious now, but make it explicit.
3. Increase the Class 1 RPS requirement growth from 1% per year to 2% per year.
4. Require that municipal light plants in MA comply with RPS. Currently, they’re exempt. Perhaps phase in their requirement over 5 years to reduce any rate shock.
5. A la 83 and 83A, build in a new requirement for long term contract for renewables, and yes, even a specific one for offshore wind.
6. Double down on efforts to electrify heating. Specifically, work on converting folks on fuel oil to electric heat pumps, and of course building envelope retrofits and improvements. The retrofits are a good idea regardless of heating fuel source, because it will cut carbon regardless.
7. Work on EV adoption. As we decarbonize our electric sector, the easiest way to reduce the carbon of transport is through electric vehicles. Yes, I’d like to see average miles per year decline with the help of sidewalks, buses, mixed use development, subways, more housing in downtown urban areas, carpools, telecommuting, ferries, and bike lanes, but the big gains will be in higher mpg autos and converting to EVs.
Does that make sense to convert? Or is that not as much of a benefit?
From a personal standpoint, yes, convert from gas heat to electric heat pump.
From a “carbon reduction per dollar spent” focusing on oil instead of gas makes more sense to me. Part of that is a pure short term carbon calculation. The other is this: we’ve got a bunch of gas infrastructure that can’t be used as anything else, at least not in a 10 year timeframe. We do need to pay for it. If we reduce LDC gas consumption (gas purchased as customers from NGrid, etc) they need to make up the lost revenue immediately. And we are reducing whenever we do an efficiency project — home energy retrofit work. So to the extent that gas demand is flat, great. If it’s increasing, sure, let’s do some nat gas to elec heat pump work now. But if gas demand is declining, it seems to me to be more savvy at going after fuel oil first, so as not to result in an upward gas price push. There’s another benefit too — rural customers are more likely to be oil. Their heating costs per person tend to be higher, and their incomes tend to be lower. There’s both social equity value in helping them first, plus there’s political value.
Ultimately, I would hope the numbers drive the bus — both the “how much CO2 reduction per dollar of subsidy” and the “how is LDC gas demand forecasts effected.” But from a personal basis, if you believe that you have a personal obligation to cut carbon, then it seems to me you ought to (1) reduce your elec use as much as possible through efficiency, then (2) switch to 100% RE with MassEnergy or somesuch, then (3) do an insulation/air sealing project so that you use less heat and so that (4) switch to air source heat pump and, because you did the home EE work in step 3, can “right size” your equipment to be a bit smaller, thereby costing less up front and using less electricity to operate.
Converting gas heat to heat pump isn’t a high priority right now. Since marginal electricity usage almost always comes from gas power plants, using a heat pump instead of burning gas changes the location at which the gas is burned and potentially changes the amount of gas burned. For GHG release, the location does not matter. At the typical efficiencies of heat pumps and gas power plants, the breakeven point in terms of how much gas is burned is somewhere between 15F and 30F (assuming the alternative is a 98% efficient furnace). Until the marginal electricity production is no longer coming from gas, there isn’t a whole lot of benefit for winter heating. Spring and fall heating is much cleaner with heat pumps, but that is a much smaller heating load. Switching from gas to a heat pump provides less benefit per dollar than many other options, especially if you don’t have forced air heating.
However, everyone who has central air should definitely switch to a heat pump the next time they get a new compressor. The marginal cost is low, and there is a large environmental benefit for about 1/3 of the total seasonal heating load.
Another factor for homes without central air is that if people switch from a gas furnace to a heat pump, they will also have central air. The environmental cost of air conditioning more in the summer might negate the benefits of heating with a heat pump.
and why I wrote
in the order I wrote them. Because if you’ve got 100% RE, switching to an air source heat pump from gas heat does have much more tangible and direct GHG emission reductions.
1. and 2. simply bring HQ into the renewable energy certificate regime. Seems obvious to do.
3. increases demand for renewables by law.
The others explain themselves, mostly …
1 and 2 isn’t just about bringing HQ hydro into the regeme. It’s about setting it up so that HQ can build wind turbines in Quebec and, when the wind is blowing, can fill the DC elec line heading into New England with wind. Use the hydro to true up and firm the wind power. But HQ won’t do it without payment for class 1 RECs, because their hydro is cheaper than their wind. If we want wind too (and we do!) we’ve got to set up the bureaucratic infrastructure.
the issue isn’t addressed in the opinion (which you can read here, since the Globe story unhelpfully doesn’t link to it – wtf). I don’t see any indication that the defendants ever questioned the standing of the various plaintiffs (individual and institutional) to bring the suit.
Of people being able to bring a suit simply because they’re young (or old), and therefore vulnerable to xyz?
Now that it has been quashed, can it be argued that the court’s interference in allowing construction by repeatedly accepting more suits from the Alliance instead of dismissing them as decided means that the projections were unrealistic and should be changed?
Caps must be hard, subsidies must be transparent, benefit must come in a finite and specific amount of time – tough things to ask. So far, the score card is pretty poor on all the above.
The RGGI cap is hard-ish. There is a “steam valve” but we’ve not really come close to using it. Clean Power Plan will seal the valve when the time comes.
The RGGI subsidies are transparent — each state publishes exactly where the money goes, and RGGI reports on all of ’em annually. The clearing price for the allowance is also transparent, as you might expect.
The RGGI benefit comes annually — I’m not really sure where you’re going on the third one. The RGGI revenue is spent by states, and generally in one of three ways: (a) efficiency and other carbon cutting programs, (b) spent out of the general fund, or (c) given back to the ratepayers. Most money and most states use (a); NJ did (b) as did NY a bit but no more, and New Hampshire does (c).
I’m not finding anywhere what are the subsidies in the new House energy bill. How much are tax payers and how much are rate payers on the hook in the new bill?
My comment was on RGGI — an existing multi-state program of which MA is a member. It’s a carbon cap and trade scheme for electricity generators.