ESG & Industry Updates

A groundbreaking report “Avoided Deforestation: A Climate Mitigation Opportunity in New England and New York” was released in September by a Clark University research group. The study measures the levels of climate mitigation that could be achieved in the Northeast if deforestation was prevented.

New England and New York release 4.9 million tons of CO2 equivalent each year due to forest loss, while simultaneously losing approximately 1.2 million metric tons that could have been stored by the forests annually. Massachusetts alone loses an average of 5,000 acres annually (its 1 million acres across the continental United States).

Overall deforestation is equivalent to about 2% of all fossil fuel emissions in New England, so it isn’t a small issue, taking action could have a significant impact on climate projections.

There is a new online mapping tool from the Nature Conservancy that calculates the potential of intact forests across the US, which is allowing land managers and developers to determine the forest areas with the highest carbon stock and sequestration levels so they are able to make development decision with this information in mind.

I wrote an article for Oil & Energy magazine detailing the issues around deforestation and climate mitigation, particularly as the development of solar photovoltaic systems grows in volume. You can read that article in its entirety here:  Conservation Matters: Study shows preserving forests would help slow climate change

The Biden Administation has the ambitious goal of bringing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind online by 2030, and 1.4 of those gigawatts are slated to come from the New England coast. 

The move toward more offshore wind is part of the goal of reducing US carbon emissions in half by 2030, a goal that dovetails nicely with goals set by the New England region's member states on climate action. ISO New England's 2021 outlook report released in April outlines some of the anticipated advances, including both the 1.4 gigawatts of offshore wind, 3.5 gigawatts of solar power, and 800 transmission project to connect clean energy projects by 2030. 

All of the New England region's states have set specific carbon goals that line up with (or exceed in some cases) the Federal Government's goals.  These include:

• Connecticut: zero-carbon electricity by 2040
• Maine: Carbon Neutral by 2045
• Massachusetts: 80% renewable energy by 2050 (more details on MA here: MA Climate Change & Environmental Justice Bill)
• New Hampshire: 25% renewable energy by 2025 (no specific zero carbon goal outlined)
• Vermont: 90% renewable energy by 2050
• Rhode Island: zero-carbon electricity by 2050 

On the wind front specifically, Rhode Island is the only New England state with a currently operational wind farm, but the Vineyard Wind Project set to bring offshore wind online in Massachusetts received federal approval in March, and is projected, upon completion, bring 800 megawatts of power to businesses and homes throughout the state. 

I wrote an article for Oil & Energy Magazine detailing some more of the specific goals for the Wind push - you can read it in its entirety here:  Wind Ho! Biden's Offshore Wind Plan Bolster's New England's Clean Energy Goals 

Friday, March 23rd, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law Senate Bill 9 "An Act Creating a Next Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Change Policy" that includes provisions described as "some of the most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets in the country"

The ultimate goal of the bill is for Massachusetts to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and includes 5 year sublimit goals to that end for impacted sectors (transportation, buildings, etc).

The bill also serves to codify Environmental Justice provisions into Massachusetts law, to both define disparately impacted communities, and provide new tools and protections for those communities going forward. As part of the Environmental Justice approach, $12 million in annual funding was established for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center to create a pathway to clean energy for environmental justice communities, minority and women owned businesses and fossil fuel industry workers. 

The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) is additionally required to balance equity and accessibility as part of their decision making process regarding regulations in addition to safety, system security, and emissions reductions. Lastly, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is expanded to require environmental impact studies for all projects that impact air quality within a mile of Environmental Justice Neighborhoods and evaluate not just the proposed project's impact but the cumulative impact to the area of projects over time. 

Other major takeaways from the bill:

• Utilities - first-time greenhouse gas emissions standard for municipal lighting plants, requiring 50% non-emitting electricity by 2030, 75 percent by 2040 and net-zero by 2050.
• Solar - The bill prioritizes equitable solar program access for low-income neighborhoods. It also provides solar incentives for businesses by exempting them from net metering cap so they can set solar up on business properties to offset electric usage (and cost).
• Wind - utilities will be required to buy an additional 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind 
• Natural Gas - Enhanced pipeline safety goals that require adopting provisions including increased fines for safety violations, and enhanced training/certification requirements for utility contractors. Also sets targets for leak reduction along pipelines. 
• Technology & Other Related Items: Senate Bill 9 also sets benchmarks for clean energy technology - electric vehicles, EV charging stations, anaerobic digesters, solar technology, and energy storage technology. Additionally, on the consumer side there are new regulations set for appliance energy efficiency. 

Obviously, the bill is very comprehensive and there are a lot of details and policy changes involved, some of which we won't know the exact implications of until new projects that are under its scope start rolling out. You can read more on the exact provisions at the Mass.gov website if you are interested in digging into the details, starting with the official press release here: Governor Baker Signs Climate Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Protect Environmental Justice Communities

Central Maine Power's proposal for a 145 mile electricity transmission line through the Western part of the State has cleared the final regulatory hurdle. Central Maine Power (Avangrid) recieved a Presidential Permit from the US Department of Energy for their $950 million dollar "New England Clean Energy Connect" (NECEC) Project to be able to cross the Canadian Border. (As an aside, if you want to read about the project in detail their website is a great resource: NECEC ) 

When completed, the project will run 1,200 megawatts of hydroelectric energy from Hydro-Quebec to Massachusetts. The project is funded by MA ratepayers but arguably will help the entire New England region's grid. 

The permit was the last major hurdle outstanding for the project, but more obstacles have popped up. As crews prepared to go to work when the DOE permit was granted, a judge granted an injunction to stop work for 30 days as outstanding filings are adjudicated regarding a separate permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Work is stopped as the court process moves on, but Maine Central Power is confident the project will continue. 

Upon completion, estimates say the project will reduce regional carbon emissions by 3-3.6 million metric tons per year (the equivalent of removing 700,000 cars from the road) Another portion of the project involves $200 million in upgrades to the Maine power grid, and a $250 million high voltage converter station in Lewiston that will direct current into alternating current to feed the regional grid. 

I wrote a piece for Oil & Energy Magazine on the Central Maine project, you can read it in its entirety here: Central Maine Power Line Stalled Again

Last week Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker vetoed a bill that committed Massachusetts to reducing carbon emissions to 85% of 1990 levels over the next 3 decades, with the goal being a 100% reduction versus 1990 levels. Included as well are interim 5 year goals, one of which is a 50% reduction by 2030. The ultimate goal of the bill is requiring Massachusetts to become carbon neutral by 2050 - which is a goal Baker has publicly endorsed throughout his tenure.

The issue with the particular bill seems to have been a lack of time for amendments, and concern that by allowing cities and towns to declare their own goals (i.e. similar to the "no new carbon based power/heat" rule in Brookline previously -  this rule was ultimately struck down) it could delay some of the housing access goals set previously by both the Administration and the legislature. 

The other major sticking point is the bill would require more off shore wind production to meet stated goals... and as we know, contention about offshore wind farms is a standing headline in MA, particularly along the Cape & Islands. 

This Monday, the MA legislature refiled the bill and it appears as though this time around, they may have a veto-proof majority. It's unclear whether amendments suggested will be considered prior to voting, and no vote has been scheduled as of this morning - so this is definitely one to watch. 

For more specifics on the bill, and its refiling this week in the MA legislature you can follow the developing story on WBUR here: State Legislature Files Climate Bill, Again 

Controversy is brewing on the issue, of all things, of wood pellets. 

Here in New England, wood pellet stoves have been around forever, and we saw a noticeable uptick in usage when energy prices were high several years ago, as wood stoves offered an additional, lower cost way to keep the thermostat a little lower than you otherwise could. A 40lb bag of pellets runs you about 5 bucks at a home improvement store and will heat for approximately 24 hours, give or take. Plus you get that nice old timey fireplace smell, good stuff. 

So what's the issue with them anyway? The issue is less with residential use and more with biomass generated electricity. Wood pellets are designated biomass by US and International policy - they are designated as a renewable resource because (obviously) trees are regrown. A focus of the growth of wood pellets has been the designation that they are a carbon-neutral heating source. But are they really? 

Scientists in both Europe and the US are arguing that the actual burning of the pellets is more carbon intensive than coal, and that the length of the cycle to replace and regrow the source trees for the pellets ought to be considered - after all, it can take decades for full regrowth, which slows the ability of replanted trees to absorb the carbon. They also argue that the carbon neutrality fails to take into account the transportation impact of Europe's usage. Europe is a major user of pellets, and because of the lack of suitable forestry, they import them, largely from the Southeastern US.  

Why are they such heavy users when they lack the natural resources? Because ten years ago, the European Commission issued a Renewable Energy Directive to its member countries that 20 percent of their energy should come from renewable sources by 2020. The burning of biomass such as wood pellets was one way to meet that goal. Indeed, carbon emissions from burning wood are not counted toward a nation’s emissions output, due to a controversial provision of the Kyoto Protocol.

This faulty logic has led to massive renewable energy subsidies for biomass under the EU Renewable Energy Directive program. With that said, a number of countries have embraced biomass electricity, which scientists argue is actually speeding up climate change, pollution and forest destruction. Currently, biomass represents nearly 60 percent of the EU’s renewable energy total.

Because of the subsidies, it's beneficial for EU nations to import the pellets, and the demand on producers in the US has resulted in deforestration, which scientists warn could make the impact of extreme weather conditions far more severe since forests play a critical role in slowing flooding and erosion, in addition to their obvious role in absorbing atmospheric carbon.

Biomass plants have come under criticism because of all these factors by both scientists and environmentalists, and both legislators and the community seem to be coming to agreement that biomass electricity plants may not be the best way to renewable energy. This year we are seeing permits for new facilities being turned down everywhere from the Netherlands to Virginia. 

I wrote an article for Oil & Energy Magazine that goes into the specifics of the objections to wood pellets & biomass produced electricity. You can read that article in its entirety here: Are Wood Pellets Speeding Up Climate Change?

The newest passenger boat for Maine's Casco Bay Lines will be running a diesel-electric hybrid propulsion engine. The hybrid will be handling the Portland to Peaks Island run, fully on electricity. The diesel engine will function as a backup, or be engaged for trips longer than the normal run. This assigned route is approximately 2.5 miles, which should allow the ferry to travel one way, charge at docking (~10-15 minutes) and run the return trip on electricity as well. 

If you aren't familiar, Casco Bay Line's ferry runs all year round and carries over a million passengers, 30,000 vehicles, and 5,300 tons of freight in a given year, so they are a critical part of transportation in Maine,. The ferry functions as a vital link between the islands & main lands that allows for commuting to school, work, and postage services. 

The project is being funded in part by a Federal Grant as part of the Federal Transit Administrations Ferry Grant Program. Vessels essentially hit a point where maintenance becomes cost prohibitive (after about 30 years of operation), and the grant for this particular ferry project will replace one such vessel. The replacement with a hybrid is projected to eliminate up to 800 metric tons of carbon emissions annually. The new vessel should be completed and in operation by the end of 2022. 

I wrote an article for Oil & Energy this month about the Casco Bay project, as well as the Federal Fund Grant generally. You can read that article in its entirety here: A Ferry Different Approach

Even as Coronavirus disrupts business as usual, talks regarding the TCI (Transportation Climate Initiative) continue via video conference and email amongst the involved 12 States & Washington DC. 

The TCI is a cap and invest system to curb emissions, with some estimates putting the reduction of carbon emissions at up to 3 times as much as we have achieved with the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initialtive) enacted 10 years ago. (For a quick review of what the TCI entails and how it works, go here:  What's the TCI & How Does It Work?) 

The pandemic has caused adjusted timelines for the initiative. Current adjusted timelines for the TCI put the final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the fall of this year, and it appears states planning on joining are looking at a launch date of January 2022.

As discussed prior, the impact of the TCI would be a tax of 5-17 cents per gallon, and as expected, its looking like 17 will be the number. At that level, transportation emissions, (which comprise 40% of greenhouse gas in the region) would drop by 25% by 2032. (As an aside - without the TCI being passed, emissions are expected to drop in that category by 19% based on efficiencies, etc - not including any pandemic induced curbing of emissions). 

While we are seeing lower fuel prices, which would generally make passing the TCI or similar plans involving gas taxes more viable politically, on the other side of the equation there is legitimate concern that the economic impacts of COVID-19 make the timing of any tax increases tone deaf (at best), especially in the face of the unemployment levels we are seeing. 

We wrote an article for the July issue of Oil & Energy detailing the progress being made on the TCI regional talks, as well as some of the details in contention. You can read that article here:  TCI Moves Forward  

Local farms in Massachusetts are producing their own renewable energy, and they're doing it while diverting food waste and dropping their carbon footprint at the same time. How? By utliizing anaerobic digesters, produced by Vanguard Renewables.

The simplified version is that the process takes the potential energy in both food waste and organic waste (like cow manure) and converts it into biogas that is used to reduce energy costs, reduce methane emissions,eliminate food waste, generate heat, and offset carbon emissions. 

Massachusetts implemented a ban in 2014 on disposal of commercial organic wastes by businesses that dispose of more than a ton of organic waste per week. Prior to the ban, this type of waste was the second highest contributor to landfills, so the State mandated that instead of being disposed of, they had to be recycled.

The solution that arose in the form of waste to power anaerobic digesters is pretty ideal - it allows not just farms to upcycle their waste, but also helps food processors, supermarkets, and even fast food restaurants by opening up an avenue for food related industries to dispose of waste economically and in a way that is hugely beneficial from an environmental standpoint. 

I wrote an article for Oil & Energy online that goes more in depth into how the process works and the benefits - you can read that article in its entirety here: Farm to Grid 

For more in depth info on how waste-to-power works, and to view some of the currently operating facilites, check out Vanguard Renewables site. 

You may have been hearing about the Transportation & Climate Initiative (TCI) on the news recently - in particular, you have probably been hearing about the implications the TCI would have on the gas tax. (That goes double for those of you in Massachusetts, where gas taxes were a major point of contention in the prior few election cycles)

The TCI is a cap-and-trade system for incentivizing development of fuel efficient technologies, while simultaneously putting a "cap" on emissions and a price on carbon offsets to reach those caps, where needed. 

So if it goes into effect, what happens? What you have probably mostly heard about is that depending on which option the TCI takes officially (25%, 22.5%, or 20% reduction in emissions by 2032) the gas tax you pay at the pump would go up 5, 9, or 17 cents per gallon (estimated). 

But there is a lot more to the program and it's goals than just an at the pump tax, in fact, that's not even the main part of the program. The main portion of the Initiative is the emissions cap and the corollary carbon allowances that would be required for transportation companies to offset their fuel's carbon dioxide production. Carbon allowances can be both auctioned and traded, and money from their sales would go to member states for further transportation emission reduction measures. 

There is a lot involved in the program, some of which is relatively complex. I wrote an article for Oil & Energy Magazine this past month that runs through the basic framework of the program, what the estimated goals are for both emission reductions and revenue generation, and what impacts are projected for consumers.

You can read that article here: TCI: What's Under the Hood?