THE IMPOSITION OF tariffs on energy imports from Canada jeopardizes both our climate targets and the economic security of millions of residents and businesses across New England and New York.  

President Trump has imposed broad 25 percent tariffs on Canadian imports. It remains unclear whether these tariffs apply to electricity (the Trump administration issued no clarification), an intangible good that has never before been subject to import duties.  

The Northeast has long been a leader in clean energy innovation, setting ambitious goals to transition to a more sustainable, affordable, and reliable power grid. Tariffs of this magnitude on clean Canadian electricity imports are a direct attack on affordability, burdening US consumers with an estimated $400 million in additional costs annually. 

These tariffs will be felt particularly during peak-demand periods, when the Northeast’s reliance on Canadian electricity is most acute. During these hours, tariffs could increase wholesale electricity prices by up to 30 percent. These costs disproportionately affect working families and small businesses that are already struggling with high energy costs. 

At a time when states like Massachusetts and New York are working to expand clean energy infrastructure and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, the artificial price increases from tariffs will drive clean and affordable hydroelectricity from Canada out of energy markets. The result is the opposite effect of what our state policies seek and instead will drive up costs and push the region further into dependence on natural gas and oil. 

Massachusetts alone is expected to see a $200 million increase in electricity if 25 percent tariffs are imposed on Canadian electricity imports.  

Beyond the financial impact, tariffs will undermine the reliability of the Northeast’s power grid. Just this year, during the coldest periods of January and February, Canadian energy exports accounted for 10 percent of New York’s demand and 15 percent in New England, rising to 20 percent during peak-demand hours.  

With the added tariff costs on imports, our region will inevitably rely more heavily on fossil fuel plants that are vulnerable to fuel supply shortages and price spikes during extreme weather events. The energy market works by selecting the least expensive form of energy available to provide the required amount of energy demanded by the market. If tariffs make otherwise affordable Canadian hydroelectricity more expensive than oil and gas, the market will choose those less costly sources. 

Some parts of our region are especially vulnerable. Certain rural areas in Vermont and Northern Maine, which are directly linked to electric grids in Canada and have no viable alternative supply, could be hardest hit. Tariffs could lead to millions of dollars in increased costs annually, exacerbating energy insecurity for residents who already face higher-than-average electricity prices. 

Imposing tariffs on Canadian hydroelectricity is not just bad economics—it’s bad climate policy. With the withdrawal of this affordable, clean energy source, the region will be forced to burn more natural gas and oil, leading to an estimated 10 million additional tons of carbon emissions annually — annual emissions equivalent to those emitted by every car registered in New York City.  

This is a step backward at a time when we should be accelerating our clean energy transition. The Northeast has set aggressive goals to cut emissions and transition to 100 percent clean power, yet these tariffs will make clean energy less competitive, slowing progress toward a carbon-free grid. 

Supporters of these tariffs argue that they will level the playing field for domestic energy producers but, in reality, they will undermine the market forces that are driving innovation and competition in the clean energy sector.  

They completely ignore the interconnected nature of the US-Canadian electricity system, which has historically provided economic, reliability, and environmental benefits to both countries. Just last week, New York State released a report assessing tariff impacts. State agencies conclude that “losing access to Canadian imports during the peak summer cooling months could create significant reliability challenges.” 

New York and New England cannot afford to let anything but the public interest and cost dictate energy policy. These tariffs will raise prices, reduce reliability, and set back the clean energy transition at a time when we need to accelerate progress, not stall it. 

Governors, legislators, and regulators in the Northeast must visibly stand together against these tariffs, advocating for continued access to affordable, clean electricity. Businesses, labor groups, and community organizations must also speak out, making it clear that these policies will harm local economies, cost jobs, and increase energy burdens for working families. 

Joe Curtatone is president if the Alliance for Climate Transition. 

The post Tariffs on Canada threaten our energy future and economic growth appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL ALLIANCE’S recent critique of the state’s pending clean energy legislation regarding battery storage procurement is heavy on alarmism and light on accuracy. As we navigate one of the most critical energy and infrastructure transitions in history, the conversation around costs and benefits must be rooted in facts—not misinformation and back-of-the-envelope calculations designed to undermine progress.

The laughable $500,000 per megawatt-hour figure cited in the op-ed is misleadingly high, at more than double the real cost. Once you realize this first number is grossly inaccurate, the rest of the math falls apart. In addition, storage technologies are projected to become significantly more affordable in the coming years. Early investments in storage will help Massachusetts capitalize on these cost reductions while building a robust, future-ready grid.

The Fiscal Alliance also misrepresents energy storage’s critical role in modernizing our energy grid, saving customers money, and achieving climate goals. The op-ed pushes for transparency in one breath while spreading disinformation with the next. The bill doesn’t direct utilities to buy storage equipment at a fake, inflated price. It calls for a cost-effective contract for storage services. The claim that energy storage is a “tiny bit of storage useless for backing up solar and wind” is factually incorrect and strategically shortsighted.

Here’s why.

Energy storage isn’t just a support mechanism—it’s a cornerstone of a clean energy grid. Storage allows us to capture energy produced by renewables during peak production times and deploy it when demand is highest. This prevents the costly dumping of renewable energy and mitigates grid congestion, which studies by ISO New England, which oversees the region’s power grid, have shown can drive up electricity costs and reduce the value of renewable investments. Without adequate storage, we risk curtailing renewable energy generation, losing both its economic and environmental benefits.

Strategically located energy storage projects also help avoid costly upgrades to transmission and distribution systems, directly saving ratepayers money. The Fiscal Alliance’s failure to acknowledge these grid-wide benefits misses the bigger picture: Storage lowers long-term system costs and increases the reliability of our electricity grid.

Energy storage offers another critical benefit: displacing the state’s aging fleet of fossil-fueled peaker plants, which operate at high costs and emit disproportionately large amounts of greenhouse gases and harmful pollutants. These plants, often located in vulnerable communities that have been suffering for decades under the cloud of the dirtiest power plants, contribute to elevated rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. 

These redline communities are documented to experience more frequent and prolonged power outages due to decades of underinvestment. Again, this adds to health and economic inequities. Transitioning to clean energy storage reduces local air pollution and improves public health—outcomes that should be part of any honest cost-benefit analysis.

Critics conveniently ignore these health and environmental benefits while focusing exclusively on upfront costs. Yet, the avoided health care costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved quality of life for residents far outweigh these initial investments. Massachusetts residents deserve to have all the facts, not just selective numbers designed to provoke fear.

The op-ed’s claim that batteries would leave us “freezing all night” on cold, windless evenings misrepresents the role of storage in addressing winter reliability. New England’s current reliance on fossil-fueled plants for winter energy security comes with significant risks, including price volatility and supply constraints for natural gas.

Accelerating the deployment of energy storage enhances reliability by lessening dependence on these commodities, particularly during extreme weather events. Storage paired with renewables is not a standalone solution but an important piece of the puzzle in creating a diversified energy system that is more affordable for taxpayers.

The Fiscal Alliance is urging transparency about costs—but the conversation must also address the costs of inaction. Failing to invest in clean energy infrastructure will perpetuate reliance on expensive, polluting fossil fuels, leaving taxpayers to bear the financial and human costs of climate disasters, increased health care expenses, and food system disruptions caused by extreme weather. The costs of wildfires, floods, and droughts—all exacerbated by climate change—are already being paid by Massachusetts residents in real dollars and lost jobs. Addressing these challenges proactively through smart investments in clean energy and storage is the fiscally responsible path forward.

Massachusetts has always been a leader in innovation, and this legislation continues that tradition by making strategic investments in storage, renewables, and grid modernization. The benefits of these investments—lower emissions, improved health outcomes, and a more reliable energy system—far outweigh the costs. But to realize these benefits, we must have honest conversations and we must reject misinformation and focus on honest, data-driven solutions.

Francis Pullaro is president of Renew Northeast. Joe Curtatone is president of the Alliance for Climate Transition.

The post Setting the record straight on energy storage and clean energy costs appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AT THIS CRITICAL moment, the Massachusetts Legislature’s failure to pass comprehensive climate legislation and a major economic development bond bill is deeply concerning. It sends a troubling message that urgent climate action can be derailed by inertia and divisive politics, even in states with a history of progressive environmental leadership. This failure undermines our efforts to combat climate change and sends a strong message to presidential candidates that the climate economy can easily be undermined.

Nationally, the upcoming political race will determine the course of our climate future for the next generation. With federal climate policies hanging in the balance and under attack by the Supreme Court, state leadership is crucial. Massachusetts had the opportunity to set an example for other states and the federal government by demonstrating that ambitious climate action is possible and beneficial for the economy and public health. It failed.

The consequences of continued legislative inaction would be dire. They have the potential to set back the development of renewable energy projects by a decade and cause companies willing to invest in Massachusetts to walk away. It will be nearly impossible to meet our 2030 and 2050 emission reduction targets and an equitable net-zero future. Delayed progress on addressing climate will also negatively impact health care, housing, workforce development, and other public policy priorities.

This missed opportunity to pass a consensus climate package that reconciles the differences between the bills passed by the House and Senate is indeed a setback. These bills would improve siting and permitting, accelerate the development of energy storage systems, expedite the adoption of clean energy, modernize our grid infrastructure, increase community engagement, enable the shift to electric transportation, and integrate new heating solutions into our energy delivery systems.

Additionally, efforts to position Massachusetts as a global hub for climate innovation were halted as the climate tech proposal in the Mass Leads Act, Gov. Healey’s economic plan, also failed to emerge from conference committee. These measures enjoy broad support in both the House and Senate and hold the potential to drive forward this burgeoning industry. Continued inaction would have a devastating chilling effect on the state’s climate transition.

On Friday, responding to a call from the governor to get the economic development bill passed, House and Senate leaders announced that they are willing to call a special session of the Legislature to take up the measure.

We must recommit ourselves to moving both initiatives forward with great haste.

The economic potential of these initiatives is enormous. According to an analysis from the UMass Donahue Institute, the proposed climate tech initiative contained in the Mass Leads Act could generate $16.4 billion in economic activity and create 7,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Massachusetts risks falling behind without strategic investments as other states and countries invest billions to attract and grow this sector. Our state has a robust climate tech ecosystem but will lose its competitive edge if we do not invest strategically.

Gov. Healey’s vision for climate tech is about more than just investment. It is about catalyzing growth, promoting entrepreneurship, and positioning Massachusetts as a leader in climate tech innovation.

Massachusetts has a track record of making strategic investments to propel economic activity in key sectors, such as life sciences. This investment will strengthen that legacy. Through the forward-looking work of the Legislature, the administration, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, advocates, and the clean energy and climate tech industries, we have begun to build a world-leading climate economy hub in the Commonwealth. The Mass Leads Act laid out the investments needed to accelerate that project and firmly establish our leadership status while growing our economy. 

Additionally, this year, a historic coalition of stakeholders came together to propose recommendations on essential changes to siting and permitting rules for clean energy projects and infrastructure. We cannot afford to lose momentum on these reforms, new procurement requirements for renewable energy and energy storage systems, and the many other important provisions included in the bills passed by both the House and Senate. 

With federal climate action uncertain, state leadership is more critical than ever. Massachusetts has a history of pioneering environmental policies, from the Green Communities Act to the Global Warming Solutions Act. The state must continue this legacy by taking decisive action on the climate economy. 

The role of state leadership extends beyond policy implementation. It is about setting an example and inspiring other states to follow suit. By passing comprehensive climate legislation, Massachusetts can demonstrate that ambitious climate goals are achievable, can drive economic growth, and improve public health.

The current inaction on the climate bill and the Mass Leads Act is a setback, but it is not the end of the road. Lawmakers must regroup, reassess, and recommit to passing robust climate legislation in the immediate future. Here are some steps that can be taken.

The Legislature should complete its negotiations and suspend the rules to allow for formal votes on both bills in 2024. This is not normal practice in Massachusetts, but we are living in unprecedented times, and the cost of inaction is too high. Citizens and advocacy groups must continue to pressure lawmakers to prioritize climate action and keep the momentum going.

While state legislation is crucial, local governments can also play a significant role. Cities and towns across Massachusetts can adopt their own climate action plans, setting ambitious goals for reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy use. The private sector also has a critical role in addressing climate change. Businesses must be encouraged to adopt sustainable practices and support climate legislation. Collaboration between the public and private sectors can drive innovation and investment in green technologies.

As we continue on this journey of climate innovation and economic transformation, let us not repeat the mistakes of the past, where systemic barriers and inequalities perpetuated injustice. Let us seize this opportunity to build a future where climate action is synonymous with equity, all communities have a seat at the table, and everyone shares prosperity.

The Legislature’s failure to act before the end of formal sessions this year is a stark reminder that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that climate stewardship and the climate economy stay front and center for all future candidates and leaders.

Joe Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council.

The post We’ll pay a steep price if climate bill doesn’t get done appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE INTERSECTION of climate policy, fossil-fuel industry influence, misinformation, and polarization has never been more pronounced than in today’s world. Recent developments, from the rising influence of far-right ideologies to industry misinformation and lobbying efforts, and policy shifts, underscore the complex challenges we face in combating climate change. Understanding the connections between these developments is crucial to navigating the path toward a sustainable future.

The Washington Post’s recent story on how climate policies fuel far-right movements sheds light on a troubling trend. As the United States and countries worldwide strive to implement ambitious climate policies to address the climate crisis, they face opposition from factions that exploit environmental policies to advance narrow, often detrimental agendas. The rise of these far-right narratives is not just a matter of ideology but poses a significant threat to efforts to combat climate change effectively.

These movements, whether abroad or homegrown, directed toward a particular project or technology, are driven by misinformation. Such misinformation and disinformation campaigns are often fueled by vested interests. They are designed to cast doubt on the importance of clean energy sources like solar, wind, and hydropower and the widespread adoption of heat pumps and EVs. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus and public support for these sustainable solutions, these campaigns are gaining traction and spreading confusion and skepticism. 

The implications of this misinformation are profound. According to a Columbia study, these campaigns erode public support for these much-needed projects. The impact is twofold: It hinders the implementation of the target project and erodes public confidence in science-backed solutions and policies. As we stand at a critical juncture in combating climate change, such obstacles directly threaten our ability to meet ambitious climate goals and protect our environment for future generations.

Linked to this ideological battle is the industry’s profound influence on policymaking, as evidenced by Donald Trump’s commitment to roll back environmental advances based on campaign contributions from the oil industry, highlighted in another Washington Post article.

The money flow from vested interests into political campaigns can skew policy decisions, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability. Such influence can impede the implementation of robust climate policies and favor industries that perpetuate the status quo, hindering progress. The politicization of renewable energy initiatives disrupts progress and sends mixed signals to investors and stakeholders, creating uncertainty in the clean energy sector.

The rise of far-right narratives exploiting climate policies underscores the urgency of the 2024 election in shaping a responsible and effective environmental agenda. It is not merely a choice between political parties and ideologies but a critical decision on the future trajectory of climate action, environmental protection, and global cooperation.

The unfortunate reality is that climate policies, which should be a unifying force for the common good, are being weaponized, as evidenced by legislation signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. The law, which goes into effect on July 1, takes references to climate change off the books, bans offshore wind in Florida, and weakens regulations on gas pipelines. While this law is specifically designed to deepen ideological divides and promote harmful agendas, it’s the most vulnerable in society who will bear the brunt of severe weather, sea level rise, and other undeniable impacts of human-caused global warming.

What emerges from these interconnected threads is a stark reality: the fight against climate change is not just about implementing technical solutions but also about navigating political landscapes, countering industry influence and misinformation, and addressing ideological divides. It requires a concerted effort from policymakers, climate economy leaders, environmental advocates, and the public to overcome these challenges and steer toward a sustainable future.

The 2024 election serves as a clarion call for unity, collaboration, and decisive action on climate change. We must overcome partisan divides and prioritize our planet and future generations over short-term political gains.

Our choices at the ballot box will impact our ability to advance renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and build a sustainable future. Voters must be informed about the real issues at stake and the consequences of allowing misinformation to dictate our environmental agenda.

As we move forward, we must remain vigilant against misinformation, confront it head-on, bridge ideological gaps, uphold the integrity of climate science, and prioritize evidence-based policymaking. Collaboration between governments, businesses, advocacy groups, and communities will drive meaningful change and ensure climate policies serve the common good rather than narrow interests.

The urgency of the climate crisis demands decisive action and a unified approach. By understanding the interconnectedness of these developments and working together toward shared goals, we can build a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world for generations to come.

Joe Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council.

The post Misinformation threatening efforts to address climate change appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

A RECENT COMMENTARY,  “Decarbonization road map has some gaping holes” by Arnold J. Wallenstein, argues that Massachusetts must scale back its efforts to decarbonize its energy system. Unfortunately, the piece relies upon incomplete assumptions while making glaring omissions about the viability of clean energy. It glosses over the health, climate, and economic burdens imposed by our current outdated energy system, and it ignores that the transition to clean energy is well underway both regionally and nationally.

The energy system in Massachusetts is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Nearly 50 percent of our electricity is produced by fossil gas. Over 80 percent of our homes and businesses are heated by fossil fuels. And fossil fuels do not produce a reliable system. Whenever a winter storm or a hot summer day arrives, we all cringe in anticipation of whether the power will stay on. Fossil fuels are expensive, too. Electricity rates just increased by 64% percent  in some areas of the state. Other states, such as New Hampshire, saw increases as high as 112 percent. Volatile energy prices come baked into the cake with fossil fuels, as anyone purchasing heating oil or propane this winter knows from seeing prices double.

Additionally, fossil fuels cause poor indoor air quality, damaging the health of the most vulnerable among us – children and the elderly – particularly those in lower income communities and communities of color. That’s not even counting their contribution to catastrophic climate change. And we’re shipping billions of dollars out of state each year for the privilege of unreliability, volatile prices, health problems, and climate destruction.

The good news is that clean energy technologies are market ready, cost-effective, local, healthier, cheaper to operate, and more reliable. For these reasons, the movement towards a wholesale turnover in power generation and heating and consumption technologies is well underway in our region.

Fortunately, Gov. Maura Healey understands the importance of addressing our existential climate threat – for instance, rising oceans and storm damage are a serious concern for Massachusetts – and seizing the economic opportunities presented by localizing our energy production sector, particularly for moderate- and low- income households. In her inauguration speech, she committed at least 1 percent of the state budget to environmental and energy agencies, and she has now followed through with $534 million in her first budget. She promised to triple the budget for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and to create a Green Bank to foster investment in resilient infrastructure. She has talked about an investment in the climate economy similar to the $1 billion investment former governor Deval Patrick once made in the growing biotech industry. Former governor Charlie Baker sought to make a similar investment during his final year in office.

Healey also pledged to double offshore wind and solar targets, quadruple energy storage deployment, and put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. Importantly, Massachusetts’ neighbors are, in some cases, making more aggressive commitments, like Rhode Island’s mandate to have 100 percent renewables by 2033, or New Jersey’s brand-new commitment to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. Wallenstein fails to make reference to these goals – including, most importantly, the governor’s urgency to tackle these issues. Recycling 10-year-old talking points to turn the clock back 10 years is not a vision for the future.

Across the country, renewables accounted for 22 percent of the total electricity generation in 2022 and are projected to rise to 24 percent in 2023. From Q3 2020 through Q2 of 2022, the US added 63.2 gigawatts of new wind and solar power generating capacity against only 10.4 gigawatts for gas (and none for coal). And with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, tax incentives are now in place to drastically increase the pace of renewable energy adoption. In fact, it is now less expensive to operate solar and wind electricity generation than most fossil fuels.

This makes sense as wind and/or solar energy are already the cheapest power source for two-thirds of the people in the world, including the US (and New England), where solar is our cheapest power source. All grid-scale clean energy projects enter our power grid via a competitive bidding process, one in which clean energy generators are forced to increase their bid prices to keep fossil fuel operators competitive. There are no “undisclosed” costs. Once clean operators deliver their projects, they will supply electricity for fixed rates.

Wallenstein included numerous false statements about the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap in his piece. While there are too many falsehoods to dissect each one in detail, one particularly egregious statement in his piece stood out: “Unbelievably, there is no cost analysis to be found in the 2050 Decarbonization Road Map.” In-depth cost analysis is actually one of the central pillars upon which the Roadmap was built. In fact, Section 5.6 of the Energy Pathways to Deep Decarbonization portion of the Roadmap is quite simply titled “Cost.”

The sophisticated modeling that is core to the Roadmap examined the costs of nine different paths, and specifically answers the question: “Under the most likely assumptions, what is the least-cost deployment of energy system technologies that achieves deep decarbonization?” The most cost-effective pathway shows that, by 2050, fossil fuel generation accounts for less than 1 percent of electricity supplied to Massachusetts while over 90 percent of building space and water heating utilize consumer and climate friendly electric heat pumps. Reading the Roadmap closely, for 0.25 percent of the state’s total annual economic output we can take the most cost-effective path to net zero emissions instead of just watching the world burn.

Massachusetts also has among the greatest offshore wind power potential of any state in the nation. According to the National Research Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts can produce 1,050 terawatt hours (TWh) per year of electricity. That far exceeds both Massachusetts’ current consumption of 56 TWh per year and the laboratory’s projection of future needs after widespread electrification of 140 TWh. The business case for embracing our most affordable and most plentiful local resources is fairly obvious.

Wallenstein’s piece also trotted out an old canard about how the sun doesn’t always shine or the wind doesn’t blow as an argument to hold on to our dirty fossil fuel system. However, his piece curiously ignores clean energy options that balance wind and solar, such as the increasing prevalence of battery storage. California increased its battery storage capacity from 0.25 gigawatts to 3.2 gigawatts from 2020 to 2022, and that new storage played a critical role in keeping the state’s power on during this past summer’s extreme heat waves. Massachusetts is seeing storage projects move forward: Eversource has installed a 25 megawatt battery in Provincetown, designed to improve power reliability for the Outer Cape.

Long-duration batteries are just around the corner. Somerville-based Form Energy is opening a factory space in West Virginia that in 2024 will start producing 100-hour, 500 megawatt batteries that rely on iron – the most abundant metal on earth. This doesn’t even touch on other options, like better coordinating our grid with clean energy from neighboring systems. There are clean energy answers for how to improve reliability that don’t require an endless reliance on climate-destroying fossil fuels.

And let’s be clear: our fossil fuel-based system is not exactly reliable. At the end of 2022, New England suffered a two-day cold snap that left hundreds of thousands without power, since dubbed “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” The cause of the outages was predominantly a failure of fossil fuel operators to fire on demand. New England’s own grid operator issues annual winter outage warnings and insists significant investment must be made to improve the reliability of its own system. At the most recent such proclamation, Rebecca Tepper, now Massachusetts’ secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said, “We are overly dependent on natural gas. And the region is at risk any time that we have some kind of disruption on that system.”

Everyone involved agrees we will need to spend money to improve our energy system, particularly the grid that distributes that power. The question is where we are going to spend those citizen dollars. We can spend them on leveraging clean and affordable energy from local sources rather than subsidize expensive, unhealthy and not-too-reliable fossil fuel infrastructure. It seems like an easy choice.

It took decades to build our reliance on fossil fuels and it will take some time to wean off of it. Fully modernizing our system with clean electricity and converting our transportation and building heating/cooling systems to clean energy will not happen overnight. Eventually existing fossil fuel companies will need to find new ways to earn revenue. We invite them to join the momentum heading in that direction. Massachusetts’ most important goal now is to unite towards modernizing its energy system to benefit all the people of the state, not cling on to an increasingly outdated system that no longer can meet the needs of the public.

Joe Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council, Daniel Sosland is president of Acadia Center, and Larry Chretien is executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance.

The post Correcting the record on decarbonization appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MASSACHUSETTS’ INEVITABLE march toward becoming a wind energy powerhouse suffered a setback recently when the news broke that Avangrid had filed to terminate its contracts to build the 1.2-gigawatt Commonwealth Wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. This past week the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities rejected Avangrid’s bid and it’s claim that it couldn’t deliver the project with the current contract pricing because of current economic conditions. The agency said  the company must honor its existing power purchase agreements with the state’s leading electric utilities.

Expect more chapters in this drama before it’s resolved. Yet it’s indicative of very little other than a single project that ran into an unexpected set of hurdles due to timing. The sky is not falling and the outlook for offshore wind remains strong.

First off, Avangrid had been sounding the alarm about this project in recent months, citing rising supply chain costs and interest rates. In order to avoid these sorts of pitfalls, New York and New Jersey are looking to build inflation adjusters into their offshore contracts. Massachusetts would do well to follow their example. Also, the Commonwealth Wind project was awarded while the Bay State still had its offshore wind project price cap in place. That’s now been eliminated with the passage of the recent state climate bill, meaning that future wind farm bids can more accurately account for their project costs rather than seek to conform to an extremely restrictive state formula.

Simply put, Commonwealth Wind is likely to be a learning exercise for all involved about the potential pitfalls of these projects. We need to learn the lessons fast, however,  if Massachusetts doesn’t want to fall further behind New York and New Jersey, which each have an impressive number of projects in their pipelines. Yet if everyone–developers, utilities, and the state–applies  the lessons from this experience, there’s no reason it should be repeated.

That includes Avangrid. The first instinct many have in these types of situations is to point fingers and assign blame, but in the better part of three decades of public service I never encountered a school, municipal, or housing construction project that didn’t run into some type of unforeseen setback. That’s par for the course, especially when you’re talking about projects that take years to complete.

The full Green Line extension  of the MBTA just opened in December, but in 2015 that project was running way over budget and needed a massive overhaul in order to see it through to completion. Ultimately it came in under budget with the revised plan, meaning the cities of Somerville and Cambridge got their money back, but there were serious questions at that time about whether the project would happen. Fortunately, the state and Gov. Charlie Baker were committed to GLX and all the parties involved worked together to make sure it happened.

We’re in the same position with offshore wind. Faced with the existential threat of climate change, we have to clean up our energy supply. Fortunately, Massachusetts happens to be sitting on the largest potential supply of offshore wind power in the nation. We’re like Texas before the oil boom. We have a massive reservoir of clean, affordable, local energy right off our eastern shore.

Vineyard Wind, the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm in the US, is due to start generating power in 2023. Everyone is going to be pretty excited when that happens, and Avangrid is in charge of that project, too. It’s important to remember progress isn’t always linear, but we are headed toward the right destination.

Also, once we achieve a more critical mass from offshore wind and solar energy production (hopefully by the end of this decade), firms like Credit Suisse are projecting extremely favorable consumer energy prices. That is something we all should appreciate given the recent spike in electricity and home heating prices due to the high cost of natural gas. No longer will turmoil in Eastern Europe or the Middle East turn into an energy crisis here in the Northeast. This is how we achieve true energy independence.

It also means jobs. According to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, the state already has more than 14,000 jobs in the clean energy sector. That number will rise dramatically as we increase local energy production and build out the grid to transmit and store it. Governor Baker just awarded $180 million in funds for port facilities and infrastructure to support this new industry.

So, while it is disappointing to see Commonwealth Wind embroiled in contractual upheaval, nothing has changed about the opportunity offshore wind presents for Massachusetts. We are blessed with an abundant, untapped natural resource. We need to learn from this episode, make sure future projects don’t suffer the same fate, and harness the wind blowing just off our coast.

Clean energy remains the future we’re moving toward and the 2020s still profile as a propulsive decade for establishing this industry in the Bay State.

Joseph Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council and the former mayor of Somerville.

The post Sky is not falling with offshore wind appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AMERICANS CAN FINALLY breathe clean air and a sigh of relief as we see the path ahead to our clean energy future. For decades, the prospects for a livable future looked dim as we fought an uphill battle to make sure the United States would fully embrace climate action and clean energy. Congress has been holding hearings on climate change since at least the 1960s, Exxon was secretly studying its dangerous effect on the climate since at least the 1970s, and the Waxman-Markey climate legislation passed the House of Representatives in the late 2000s before dying in the Senate. But finally, Congress has taken a meaningful step toward a clean, green future. The clear and present danger of climate change is more visible and visceral than ever, but the Inflation Reduction Act represents a major victory over the physical and political machinery that created the climate crisis.

While the new law is not a panacea, it puts us unquestionably on the road to a sustainable society. It will take time to get us there, but the federal legislation lays the foundation for a domestic clean energy revolution in Massachusetts and across the nation. This revolution will be built around domestic manufacturing, lower-cost clean energy, and public financing for projects in communities like Brockton and Lawrence.

The Inflation Reduction Act will unleash dramatic advances in how we power our communities and how we build new economic opportunity in this country. It’s like the telecommunications revolution Congress enabled in the 1990s—everyone didn’t buy a cell phone at once, but that began the tectonic change in what a phone could be, and now it’s rare to find an American without one.

The same scenario is ready to unfold with clean energy. The new law makes it easier to build new offshore wind and solar power, as well as the energy storage necessary to operate a reliable, affordable, clean system. Along the way, we will create good-paying, clean energy jobs in communities like Chelsea and Springfield to power that future.

This bill gives the energy industry the tools it needs to make sound investments in the clean technology that can protect public health and lower costs for everyday consumers, rather than waste money on outdated fossil fuel technology that is destined to become a stranded asset. Every year, climate change will bring new record-breaking heat, storms, floods, and drought. As a result, every energy asset we build must be built with the future of our planet in mind.

The $369 billion in total climate and clean energy spending will open the door to a new era where climate response becomes the engine driving our economy. The Inflation Reduction Act contains revolutionary funding for residential energy improvements, clean energy manufacturing tax credits, and rebates for electric vehicles and energy-efficient technology.

States across the region are moving alongside federal action. Massachusetts just passed a sweeping climate bill that will serve as a climate economy blueprint for other states. Rhode Island passed a bill committing to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2033. Connecticut and New York are both set to not just meet, but exceed their 2040 clean electricity targets.

The promise of the Inflation Reduction Act depends on whether we can deliver on the state, regional, and local levels. We have to turn these historic federal resources into the climate-friendly future we want and need.

Finally, we must be deliberate in building a more diverse, equitable and inclusive future through this work. Unlike previous economic booms, we cannot decarbonize the wealthiest half of our society, help out executives’ stock portfolios, and declare the job done. Climate response requires a whole-of-society effort and the benefits of action must accrue to all—especially those that are on the front lines of the climate crisis.

To ensure the broadest possible adoption and to repair historic harms in our environmental justice communities, the law opens up tax credits to smaller operators and communities that often have found themselves last in line when it comes to new clean technology. It contains $27 billion for a first-of-its-kind national climate bank effort, modeled on Sen. Ed Markey’s National Climate Bank Act, which is targeted specifically toward unlocking investments and building wealth in disadvantaged communities. It also provides historic levels of funding for an environmental justice mapping tool, local air monitoring provisions, and grants to reduce pollution from transportation. We are writing full participation into the law rather than leaving it to chance.

It’s not just that we’re trying to do the right thing when it comes to climate, we’re also trying to do it the right way so that progress becomes a palpable positive force in people’s lives. So, get ready, because the climate economy is about to unleash a wave of innovation, opportunity, and equity—right here in Massachusetts.

Ed Markey is a US senator from Massachusetts and Joe Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council and the former mayor of Somerville.

The post Federal funds, used wisely, can tackle climate change appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MASSACHUSETTS FINDS itself at a moment of choosing when it comes to embracing clean energy. The state boasts the best wind corridor in the nation and has the potential to unleash a nearly sevenfold increase in the amount of solar energy it generates. The Bay State has an enviable bounty of clean energy resources, which are essential for successful climate action and represent a jobs driver in the coming decades. Gov. Charlie Baker has requested $1.2 billion in Recovery Act  funds be put toward climate resiliency and growing out the state’s clean energy industry. He’s hoping to make Massachusetts a national and world leader in renewable energy, following the same path it took more than a decade ago in capturing the life sciences industry.

However, the Massachusetts Legislature has yet to embrace the governor’s urgency on dedicating these funds. Both the House and Senate are filled with members who have run and been elected on climate action platforms. This is the kind of issue that often goes unaddressed due to a lack of funding, but thanks to a budget surplus and billions in ARPA funds the state actually has the money to support its climate aspirations. We could go another decade before Massachusetts again occupies such an opportune spot to make these crucial investments, and our climate doesn’t have that kind of time to waste. It begs the question: what will it take for a blue state to go green?

In June, city and town leaders from all around the state, including Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell, made it abundantly clear to the Legislature that this money can have far more impact if it’s spent sooner rather than later. At their core, clean energy investments are a massive jobs program. The effort to decarbonize every sector of our society is giving rise to a diverse climate economy, which will require significant workforce training for projects taking place all over the Commonwealth.

Offshore wind gets the bulk of the attention because Massachusetts is a potential titan in that industry, but solar energy, energy storage, a wholesale upgrade of our electric grid, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, clean transit, and zero-carbon construction are important elements in building out the climate economy. If we play it right, this could  be the next wave of blue and white collar jobs in the state.

And the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center exists for the purpose of making the targeted investments that build out the entire ecosystem needed for this new economy. Every part of the state can prosper from this as every part of the state must be involved in the overall decarbonization effort. If it doesn’t reach the street you live on, the job will remain undone. Full participation is required. Local officials understand that, and they want the state to invest this money so they can get busy participating. We have the money and the mechanism to distribute it.

On top of that, New England just got a real-time lesson from New Hampshire and Maine on how energy prices are affected by global markets, inflation, and the volatility of fossil fuel prices. Electric rates in New Hampshire have doubled due to a steep increase in the price of fossil gas while Maine is reducing its electric prices 2.7 percent  thanks to lower generation costs associated with renewable energy. This is what happens when we leverage the natural resources around us rather than rely on fossil fuels that are inextricably tied to volatile global markets. We’re also seeing reports out of Texas, where they produce tons of gas and oil, about how wind and solar power have saved them during their brutal June heatwave. We need to produce enough clean energy to stabilize prices, provide needed resiliency, and put us on the track to true energy independence.

Finally, clean energy investment would be a proactive response to other pressing issues taking place in our society. Our nation is currently battling high inflation and there is a well-documented history of inflation creating a drag on the economy even after it goes down. Massachusetts has the opportunity to bolster itself against that by embracing an industry that can deliver tens of thousands of good paying jobs during a time where much of the rest of the country may be facing a recession economy.

Additionally, the Supreme Court just disabled the Environment Protection Agency’s ability to halt climate change and to ensure clean air and water.

Help is not coming from above. States have to move swiftly to fill that vacuum. This only underscores the absolute need to move away from fossil fuel-fired energy facilities altogether. We should be focused on making clean energy investments so we can close down our polluting and climate-ravaging infrastructure rather than worrying about how we regulate it.

The Legislature has a chance to play the hero here. It has the money to make generational climate investments and put the Commonwealth on track for a thriving economic future. This is the moment it can turn the vision of being a sustainable state into a reality. The only regret we’ll have later is if we don’t act decisively in this moment.

Joseph Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council and the former mayor of Somerville.

The post What will it take for blue Mass. to go green? appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

LAST TUESDAY’S stunning rebuke by Maine voters of a utility transmission project has dramatic implications for Massachusetts’ clean energy and climate strategy. The so-called New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line would have delivered low carbon electricity from Canadian hydroelectric plants, and has been a key pillar of the Baker administration’s plan for meeting the Bay State’s ambitious climate targets.

At best, the project is now in limbo; at worst, Massachusetts will need to fill that clean energy void with other resources. A diversified strategy that puts eggs in many baskets will be the only viable path forward. That includes offshore wind, solar, battery storage, green hydrogen, and geothermal power. Hydroelectric and pumped storage, generated locally or imported, also should not be forgotten as they already play an important role in many Massachusetts communities, like Holyoke, which derives 52 percent of its electric power from hydro sources.

The Maine vote is particularly striking as it coincides with the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, where advocates are trying to convince world leaders that 100 percent clean energy is at our fingertips if we have the initiative to grasp them.

Fortunately, there are several near- and long-term moves Massachusetts can make to help reach its 2030 and 2050 goals. Three key near-term steps are needed to build momentum in the areas of solar, offshore wind, and energy efficiency.

First, the Department of Public Utilities can issue two long-awaited decisions: one to expand our successful solar energy program (aka SMART) and the other to redefine the way we plan and pay for the utility upgrades needed to interconnect solar to the grid. Both decisions have been in the works for some time and the delays are endangering progress on clean energy deployment as real projects can only wait so long to move forward.

Second, the Legislature can advance our offshore wind strategy by improving the way we solicit new projects. Both House Speaker Ron Mariano and Gov. Charlie Baker have laid out proposals that will fuel this emerging industry. However, the Legislature should take additional action before it adjourns later this month as a show of our enduring commitment to clean offshore wind. A faster project selection process, economic opportunities for underserved populations, and reduced costs to ratepayers need to be added to make Massachusetts competitive with other Atlantic seaboard states racing into this market.

Third, we need to adopt the essential energy efficiency plans currently under review by the Department of Public Utilities. These efficiency plans make up the award winning MassSAVE programs and have the potential to take our efficiency efforts to the next level by adopting a more holistic approach to energy use and consumption. By incorporating explicit equity elements, the plans will ensure that efficiency savings flow to underrepresented communities, which have historically been left behind by such efforts. Programs that incorporate energy storage and heat pump technology address an increasingly interconnected energy system. These proposals represent the next generation of efficiency and should be approved.

Beyond the immediate steps above, Massachusetts should set a 100 percent clean energy target to put the state on track to realize the Climate Roadmap passed by the Legislature and signed by Baker earlier this year. Only with a bold, big picture commitment that gets Massachusetts to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 (or sooner) will the Bay State put itself on track to hit all of its climate targets. Rhode Island must also pursue its goal of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

The referendum in Maine is proof that we all must start having honest conversations about the massive infrastructure investments needed to make a clean energy transition possible. This means more substations, power lines, and construction across the region. We must — and we will — protect environmental justice communities, and we must engage a broad set of stakeholders along the way. But we cannot shy away from the hard siting choices that lie ahead. For instance, Maine’s iconic coastline communities and its fabled backwoods could be devastated by rising oceans and wildfires if our region, nation, and planet fail to avert our worsening climate crisis. That also hangs in the balance on these decisions.

Finally, we must be having a parallel reckoning on equity issues and environmental justice. Climate response opens up a new economic frontier, but it is imperative we make sure we build a diverse cleantech economy that prioritizes jobs and workforce development in underserved communities. Past economic booms have skipped or redlined low-income communities and communities of color. That pattern must be broken. Even worse, those booms have burdened those communities with harmful infrastructure that has had an insidious effect on the health of nearby residents. Climate action marks a chance to undo much of that harm.

As the world looks to COP26 for leadership, we shouldn’t lose an opportunity to demonstrate what that leadership looks like here at home.

Jeremy McDiarmid is vice president for policy, Peter Rothstein is the president, and Joe Curtatone is the mayor of Somerviile and the president-elect of the Northeast Clean Energy Council.

The post What’s next after stunning Maine rebuke appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

WHILE CONTINUING TO contend with the evolving challenges of the pandemic, we must return attention to a crisis that long predated COVID-19 – homelessness in our region.

This crisis is made worse by a lack of affordable housing and high demand for it. This is a combustible formula that threatens our regional economic growth and drives greater inequity into our communities. And when we examine data more closely, we see it is our veterans whom are often left behind.

Want to buy a home in Metro Boston? According to FortuneBuilders.com, you better have saved your money. Metro Boston is the 7th most expensive market in the country. Rent, instead? Good luck. Metro Boston is 3rd on the list of the most expensive home rental regions in the country.

As a result, middle-class earners are squeezed and see their economic mobility limited. And for those in lower income brackets, they are forced day by day to walk across an economic tight rope as high rents force families to sacrifice elsewhere, including forgoing food and health care. When rent consumes more than 30 percent of your income, even a small increase in housing costs can push families on the street. Surely this is not their American Dream.

To make matters worse, a recent trend in homelessness data indicates the housing problem is affecting our veterans at higher rates than the rest of the country. Our veterans deserve better. We as a society and public policy planners have let them down.

Massachusetts is home to more than 300,000 veterans. Compared to other states, our veteran population is older, more educated, and less likely to be chronically unemployed. However, this does not mean all veterans in the Commonwealth are succeeding.

Specifically, the intersection of two data points reveals a negative trend foreshadowing deeper problems. While the rate of veteran homelessness in Massachusetts is decreasing, it is doing so at a slower rate than the rest of the country. And, during the past decade, general population homelessness in our state has swelled 22 percent while the nation’s total declined by 12 percent.

Anxiety around housing adds instability to the lives of veterans and their families. Without a strong commitment to growing our volume of affordable housing, too many veterans and their families will be left out in the cold. Instability breeds isolation, mental health issues, and increases the risk of job loss.

At the same time, for veterans with PTSD, other mental health conditions, or a substance use disorder, services that aim to restore their independence are undercut by a dearth of affordable housing. Even when insured with housing vouchers from the VA, the high cost of housing is often too great a burden.

This cycle plays out across the state and beyond. Every day in the US, 20 veterans commit suicide.

The academic journal Addiction found that this risk increases among veterans who have both substance use and mental health conditions, which often intersect with being unhoused. This research underscores the need for treatment that simultaneously addresses both conditions – in the behavioral health field referred to as co-occurring disorders. Nearly half of the returning veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated by the VA for symptoms of mental illness. We need to treat the whole person and the whole vet, that means making sure all their needs from health care to housing are met.

Fortunately, we know what works. The City of Somerville and Volunteers of America of Massachusetts have partnered since 2012 to support veterans in crisis. The Massachusetts Bay Veterans Center is a critical service in our city. The center provides transitional housing for veterans experiencing homelessness. Safely housed, veterans begin their recovery through an array of services. Volunteers of America’s integrated behavioral health model addresses both substance use and mental health needs, as well as the social determinants of health that are inextricably intertwined.

This type of model serves the whole person, is successful, and should be expanded. Central to this success is the integration of behavioral health with housing, job training, and case management along with co-occurring treatment. The missing piece to this coherent strategy is simply greater volume of affordable housing for veterans, especially those that continue to receive behavioral health treatment and long-term case management.

We need an expansion of these services, augmented by a set of affordable providers, which would offset the intensive costs of co-occurring treatment, along with forward thinking housing programs, such as the 100 Homes program that we implemented in Somerville in which the city buys existing housing units and makes them permanently affordable. 100 Homes should one day evolve into the 2,000 Homes program. However, for veterans currently living in crisis, they can’t wait until we get there.

Until then, we know effective services providing tools to regain independence and achieve true potential are possible. For us to meet our true potential as a state, safe and affordable housing must be woven into public policy to ensure our most vulnerable are protected.

Joseph Curtatone is mayor of Somerville. Charles Gagnon is president and CEO of Volunteers of America of Massachusetts.

The post Veterans facing homelessness deserve more appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.