Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2023. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals. 

The operator of New England’s power grid should establish a new position to engage with low-income and minority communities unfairly burdened by pollution, five Northeast states said last week.

Such a role could serve as a “critical bridge” between ISO New England and the communities it serves as the Northeast looks to transition to cleaner energy resources, officials from Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine and Connecticut said in a letter to the nonprofit grid operator. ISO New England oversees the flow of power in those states and in New Hampshire.

The independent system operator, or ISO, would be the first regional grid operator to establish an executive-level position focused on environmental justice, or the notion that no one should be subject to disproportionate and excessive pollution. The role could be carved out in the grid operator’s budget plan, according to the letter.

“We encourage ISO-NE to be first in this critical area,” state officials said in their letter.

As it evaluates the states’ request, ISO New England has added a “placeholder” in its 2024 budget proposal for an environmental justice position, grid operator spokesperson Mary Cate Mannion said in an email Friday. The grid operator, whose mission is primarily to ensure electric reliability, is eager to continue discussing environmental justice issues with the states, Mannion added.

“The ISO has been actively engaged in developing cost-effective and efficient solutions to ensure a clean and reliable energy future and [is] currently working on several initiatives to facilitate wholesale market participation and delivery of clean energy across the region,” Mannion said in an email.

While ISO New England does not permit or site energy infrastructure, it plays a role in planning where new transmission projects are developed. It also sets rules geared toward promoting reliable and affordable electricity that can influence what types of energy resources are built.

A senior environmental justice official at ISO New England could advise the organization’s board of directors on how its own rules and policies affect historically disadvantaged communities, the states said. The position could also help build relationships with those communities, officials suggested.

“As community engagement and responsibilities grow, this executive position could build out and manage additional team members providing EJ expertise to ISO-NE and enhancing community, government, and industry engagement,” state officials continued.

Signers of the letter include James Van Nostrand, chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; Anthony Roisman, chair of the Vermont Public Utility Commission; Katie Dykes, commissioner at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; Christopher Kearns, acting commissioner in the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources; and Phil Bartlett, chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

Phelps Turner, a senior attorney at the Maine-based Conservation Law Foundation, said that adding an environmental justice perspective to ISO New England’s senior leadership could have implications for electricity costs and the future energy resource mix.

Last year, 45 percent of the energy produced for electricity in the regional grid came from natural gas, according to the grid operator. All of the states signing the letter want to significantly expand renewable energy in New England and reduce the use of fossil fuels for electricity.

“Disproportionate air quality, environmental and human health impacts on low-income communities and communities of color often stem from our over-reliance in the region on fossil fuel-powered generation,” said Turner, who supports the states’ request for an environmental justice role.

“When the market design, as it has, favors fossil fuel generation and fails to create a level playing field for renewable generation, there are negative air quality impacts and resulting negative human health impacts on [nearby] populations,” Turner said.

ISO New England says it is committed to working with the states to meet their clean energy goals and integrate more solar and wind into the energy resource mix. It has also agreed to work with New England states in a joint effort with New Jersey and New York to identify transmission solutions for offshore wind projects.

Northeast grid operator weighs first environmental justice position is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2023. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals. 

Seventeen years after its founding, the nation’s first cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases has become a flashpoint across the eastern United States, with lawmakers in two states vowing to exit the program and environmental advocates calling to reform it.

The debates are raising key questions about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Is it functioning well, and can it do more to slash carbon emissions without driving up energy prices?

The issue is in the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials battle over the state’s potential entrance into RGGI this fall and Virginia’s newly elected governor considers avenues for exiting the program.

Often referred to as a “cap and invest” initiative, RGGI is a cooperative venture of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states that targets carbon dioxide emissions from large power plants. Its current members include Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Vermont, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

Polluters in participating states are required to purchase allowances during quarterly auctions for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The number of allowances available during the auctions declines gradually over time to drive down carbon emissions.

Since the first auction in 2008, power plant emissions in the RGGI region have fallen by about 50%, but observers are divided as to how much those reductions can be attributed to the program itself, rather than market forces — and how best to ensure the trend continues.

“The RGGI program has not been very ambitious … I think because of the fear of high energy costs and the fear of imposing heavy costs on the private sector,” said Timothy Hamilton, an associate professor of economics at the University of Richmond. “We’ve seen big changes in the last 10 or 20 years, but most evidence points to that being primarily driven by natural gas coming online.”

As many coal plants in the RGGI region have been replaced with natural gas over the last two decades, some are concerned about whether emissions reductions will continue. An analysis of electric power emissions data from the EPA shows that six RGGI states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New York and Vermont — saw an uptick in greenhouse gases from power plants last year relative to both 2020 and 2019.

“The only place where much coal exists at this point is in Maryland,” said Brian Megali, director of clean energy policy at Constellation Energy Corp. “So the opportunity to cut emissions dramatically is diminishing.”

Whether RGGI states should commit to faster emissions reductions is a key focus of an ongoing review of the program, the third since the initiative’s founding.

As part of the review, some environmental advocates have called for incorporating environmental justice principals into the program design, facilitating greater engagement with members of the public and lowering the size threshold for generators that are required to purchase allowances, among other changes. Clean energy advocates also note that several RGGI states have enacted policies to shift toward 100% carbon-free power within the next two to three decades and argue that the program’s framework should reflect those plans.

Still, the review comes as Republican lawmakers in Virginia and Pennsylvania are criticizing what they see as unnecessary costs of RGGI for consumers. Broadly, they say that RGGI acts similarly to a tax, raising costs for consumers, and have questioned its emissions benefits.

Under RGGI, the proceeds from each allowance auction are reinvested into state programs. States have elected to use the money to promote energy efficiency, help with flood control and develop renewable energy projects, among other initiatives.

Raising the price of CO2 allowances would increase the pool of money reinvested into states, while putting fossil fuels at an economic disadvantage relative to renewable energy. But an overly ambitious RGGI framework could also raise electric rates, given that compliance costs may be passed on to consumers, at a time when prices are already elevated, economists say.

“A group of states doesn’t exist in a vacuum. They always have to be cognizant of what the balance is: How far can we go without harming our economies?” said William Shobe, a professor of public policy at the University Virginia who helped design RGGI’s auctions format.

‘Relentless’ fight in Pennsylvania

As states debate what RGGI should look like through the rest of the decade, some lawmakers in Pennsylvania are preparing legal challenges to stay out of it altogether.

Last night, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an order staying publication of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s RGGI regulation until the court issues a further order on the issue. It comes after the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate earlier this week failed to override Wolf’s plan for the state to begin participating in RGGI later this year.

The veto override attempt was the latest effort over the last two years to prevent Pennsylvania — which produces a significant amount of natural gas and some coal — from joining the cap-and-trade program.

“The first word that comes to mind is relentless — and exasperating,” Mark Szybist, a senior attorney in the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the ongoing controversy in Pennsylvania.

RGGI opponents failed to gain enough votes to override Wolf’s veto of a bill that could have effectively prevented Pennsylvania from regulating carbon emissions through RGGI. But the effort is unlikely to end there.

“The next step is to address this issue in the courts,” Erica Clayton Wright, communications director for Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R), said in an email.

If potential legal challenges are unsuccessful, the earliest Pennsylvania could participate in RGGI is the third quarter of this year, Szybist said.

In Virginia, which joined RGGI in 2021, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) and his allies are seeking avenues of their own to pull the state of the initiative, citing concerns about the costs of the program and questioning its emissions benefits.

Last month, the Youngkin administration released an analysis of RGGI, asserting that the initiative amounts to a “carbon tax” and raises costs for Virginians. Although efforts in the Virginia General Assembly to repeal the 2020 law that brought the state into RGGI were unsuccessful earlier this year, other challenges may come up during the special session that began this week, according to the Virginia Conservation Network.

“The governor is still committed to withdrawing from RGGI and has directed staff to begin the regulatory process,” a spokesperson for the Youngkin administration said in an email.

In Pennsylvania, RGGI critics say that participating in the program could spur the handful of remaining coal plants in the state to shut down earlier than expected, destroying the livelihood of workers who are employed in the industry. Pennsylvania would be the first major energy-producing state to take part in the initiative.

Opponents have also questioned whether RGGI is effective at cutting carbon emissions. If Pennsylvania were to join RGGI, power plants in the state might retire or run less often, but similar plants in neighboring states would ultimately make up the difference, Pennsylvania state Sen. Joe Pittman (R) said last week.

“This makes no sense. There is no benefit to the climate. All it does is increase the cost of electricity and greatly diminish our ability to have family sustaining jobs in the Commonwealth,” Pittman, one of the most vocal RGGI critics in the Pennsylvania Senate, said during a March 28 hearing on the initiative.

Nonetheless, coal’s future in Pennsylvania is already in question, with two large coal plants in the state projected to close before the end of the decade.

Overall, skeptics of RGGI tend to focus on the costs of compliance while discounting the benefits, environmental advocates say.

For one thing, the auction proceeds can be used to invest in a variety of energy and climate programs of each state’s choosing. The Wolf administration also expects that participating in RGGI would increase gross state product by nearly $2 billion and bring in more than 30,000 jobs between 2022 and 2030, in part through the money the program would raise.

In addition, analyses have shown improved health outcomes due to reduced soot, particulate matter and other pollutants in RGGI states. A 2020 study from Columbia University researchers estimated that the program had resulted in $191 million to $350 million in avoided health costs between 2009 and 2014, as pollution from power plants that contributes to asthma and other problems decreased.

“We’re not just throwing money away,” Shobe said. “We’re generating benefits — health benefits, productivity benefits — and we’re investing in new technologies for generation that are lower cost.”

Emissions from power plants in RGGI states have also fallen faster than in the United States as a whole since the auctions began in 2008, according to EPA data.

“To the extent that people have looked at it, RGGI has definitely been a significant factor in driving emissions reductions,” said Bruce Ho, a senior advocate in the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Pollution ‘hot spots’ and ‘leakage’?

Regardless of the wrangling in Pennsylvania and Virginia, states that are currently in RGGI aim to complete their review of the program by the end of the year. The updated rules could change how quickly states are required to reduce emissions and add new considerations for equity and environmental justice, according to provisions that are on the table.

During the last program review that concluded in 2017, states agreed to lower the amount of allowances sold during each auction by 3% annually, said Ho of NRDC. Previously, the allowance “cap” had been decreasing by 2.5% annually since 2013, Ho added.

Over the years, states have complied with the cap, suggesting that emissions have trended downward despite some fluctuations in individual states, Ho said. Still, lowering the cap so that there are fewer available allowances would make sense given the need to quickly reduce carbon emissions, he said.

Environmental justice advocates, meanwhile, have pushed for changes through the program review that would benefit historically disadvantaged communities living near power plants. Because RGGI is designed to slash emissions across the entire system, it’s not clear whether pollution has dropped in a way that is equitable or fair, advocates note.

Staci Rubin, vice president of environmental justice at the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, said recently that RGGI should address the threat of “pollution hotspots.”

“Historically, RGGI has reduced emissions, but it hasn’t been that great if you’re a resident living near one of these fossil fuel plants,” Rubin said during a roundtable discussion last month hosted by Raab Associates Ltd.

Others have argued for raising the price of allowances. Allowance prices have more than doubled since 2020, possibly driven by the rise in natural gas prices last year after a period of relatively low gas prices. Even so, the cost of allowances, which came out to $13 per each ton of CO2 emitted during the most recent auction last month, remains much lower than the estimated social cost of carbon.

Intended to measure the economic costs or harms of emitting one ton of carbon dioxide, the social cost of carbon was determined to be $51 by the Biden administration last year, although Republican-led states are trying to block the administration from using the climate metric (Greenwire, March 31).

“The auction prices of allowances under RGGI are simply far too low, a fraction of what has been estimated at the ‘social costs of carbon’ and way too low to drive investments in major transformation that we know now is needed over the next 10-20 years,” J. Timmons Roberts, a professor of environmental studies at Brown University, said in a comment last year to RGGI as part of the program review.

On the other hand, the recent spike in allowance prices has been cited by RGGI critics in Pennsylvania and Virginia as a reason for keeping their respective states out of the program. The Youngkin administration’s RGGI analysis from last month, for example, asserted that allowance prices are “expected to continue increasing,” bolstering the case that the program is a “carbon tax.”

Some of the criticisms facing RGGI in Pennsylvania and Virginia have merit, particularly when it comes to “leakage” of emissions to other states, said Sherman Knight, president and chief commercial officer of Competitive Power Ventures, which owns natural gas and renewable energy projects in the Northeast and Kansas. Specifically, power plants in nearby non-RGGI states may begin to run more frequently if a new state joins, given the cost of compliance with the program, Knight said.

Still, he said the main limitation of RGGI is its regional nature. A better solution would be a national carbon-trading program, but in the absence of that, RGGI is a good solution, Knight said.

“Just like any program, there are small tweaks around the edges,” he said. “The reality is the program that states are participating in works. I just would rather see more states participate than less.”

Reporter Benjamin Storrow contributed.

Does the nation’s first CO2 cap and trade system work? is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2023. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals. 

From rooftop solar incentives to pipelines, the outcome of several gubernatorial elections this November could shift state energy policies for years to come.

At least half a dozen races for governor in 2022 are considered tossups, according to early polls and analyses.

They include races in battleground states like Nevada and Michigan, where incumbent governors seeking to reduce carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors are facing tough reelection campaigns. In other states, such as Arizona, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, a handful of candidates are vying for an open seat.

Nationally, incoming governors could help shape the energy sector by influencing how to spend federal dollars in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which includes money for power lines, public transit, highways and other programs. In many states, governors are also responsible for key appointments, including directors of state energy offices and public utility regulators.

“Over the last decade, we’ve seen the majority of substantive action on climate policy happen at the state level,” said Jared Leopold, former communications director at the Democratic Governors Association and co-founder of Evergreen Action. “Governors elections are as important as any election in determining the fate of the planet.”

So far, Republican candidates in gubernatorial races have generally sought to tie high energy prices to policies supported by the Biden administration and their Democratic allies. Some have pledged to expand natural gas extraction and pipeline industries if elected governor.

In Texas, for example, incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott (R) used his Jan 10 reelection campaign in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley to tout the state’s ability to attract businesses as well as jobs created by the oil and gas sector.

“We cannot allow promoters of the Green New Deal to destroy those high-paying jobs,” he said. “One of the reasons I’m running for reelection is to secure the future of energy jobs in Texas.”

Abbott’s main Democratic challenger, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, is hoping to use last year’s electric grid crisis in Texas to win votes. O’Rourke has blamed Abbott and the Republican-controlled Legislature for failing to fix the Texas grid after previous winter storms and saddling consumers with higher bills after the one last year.

“Our governor could not keep the lights on,” O’Rourke said during a campaign event streamed on Zoom.

Ahead of a busy election year, here’s a look at how upcoming races in four key states could transform the energy sector:

Pennsylvania: Shale gas and a ‘false choice’

No energy issue has dominated the political discourse in Pennsylvania perhaps as much as the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multistate carbon-trading program.

Term-limited Gov. Tom Wolf (D) signed an executive order in 2019 to bring the Keystone State into RGGI, which covers 11 states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Pennsylvania is the second largest energy producer and fourth biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the country, and the state’s entrance into the program has been closely watched — and hotly contested by allies of Pennsylvania’s natural gas and coal industries.

Ahead of the November gubernatorial race, most of the dozen Republican candidates vying for control of the governor’s mansion have said they would immediately take Pennsylvania out of RGGI through executive action. One candidate, current Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman, has championed efforts in the Pennsylvania Senate to withdraw from the program.

Presumptive Democratic nominee and current Attorney General Josh Shapiro has tiptoed around the carbon-trading initiative. Broadly, RGGI charges power plants in participating states for the greenhouse gas emissions that they emit, and states can then reinvest the proceeds in climate and clean energy initiatives.

In a widely shared statement last year, Shapiro questioned whether RGGI presented a “false choice” between retaining jobs and addressing the climate crisis, although he stopped short of saying whether he would have Pennsylvania exit the program if elected.

“We need to take real action to address climate change, protect and create energy jobs, and ensure Pennsylvania has reliable, affordable, and clean power for the long term,” Shapiro said in a statement. “As governor, I will implement an energy strategy which passes that test, and it’s not clear to me that RGGI does.”

While environmental groups were disappointed by the statement, some observers viewed it mostly as a ploy to court support from labor unions.

“He was suggesting without saying that he doesn’t necessarily support going into RGGI, particularly through the regulatory review process,” said David Zambito, chair of the Utility & Energy Practice Group at Cozen O’Connor in Pennsylvania. “Now that it appears he’s got the nomination, he’s swinging back to say he does support RGGI.”

In December, Shapiro’s office signed off on the Wolf administration’s plan to bring Pennsylvania into RGGI, despite claims from Corman and other Republicans that he could have intervened.

But lawsuits challenging the state’s participation in the program are expected to follow, meaning the issue will still be up for debate later this year, said Mark Szybist, a senior attorney in the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“Whether Pennsylvania participates in RGGI and how, both will be open questions during the election,” Szybist said.

In addition to opposing RGGI, Republican candidates have stressed the need to take full advantage of the state’s energy resources and criticized the Wolf administration for not doing enough to support oil and gas extraction. During the first Republican debate this month, gubernatorial candidate and Pittsburgh-based attorney Jason Richey called for building a pipeline network from western and northeastern Pennsylvania to Philadelphia, for export “around the world.”

“We need to unleash our energy,” Richey said.

By contrast, Shapiro has pledged to establish a target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economywide by 2050 and 30% renewable power by 2030. Meanwhile, his record as attorney general offers some clues as to how he would oversee the state’s sizable gas industry if elected.

In 2020, Shapiro’s office released a report on unconventional oil and gas drilling — i.e., fracking — that claimed to uncover the “systematic failure” of the state in protecting consumers from oil and gas pollution. If elected, Shapiro has said he would adopt the recommendations of the report, which include expanding the buffer zone between drilling operations and homes from 500 to 2,500 feet, requiring companies to publicly disclose chemicals they use in drilling and fracking operations, and regulating “gathering lines” that are used to transport natural gas.

“He’s signaled there’s an opening for new laws holding corporate polluters accountable, so I’m hopeful that he acts on that,” said Alex Bomstein, a senior litigation attorney at the Clean Air Council.

Industry critics slammed the 2020 report following its release. Still, while the Marcellus Shale Coalition called the report’s findings inaccurate and politically motivated, the group said it has and will continue to work with governors on both sides of the aisle.

Arizona

Republicans have retained control of Arizona’s governorship since 2009. But the state went blue in 2020’s presidential election, with Joe Biden defeating former President Trump in the state by about 10,400 votes.

With Gov. Doug Ducey (R) barred from running again due to term limits, Democrats see an opportunity to regain control of the governorship. Either way, the next governor could influence regional energy issues and the state’s policies on renewables, considering Arizona ranks second in the nation for solar power potential.

Still, the executive branch hasn’t played as prominent a role on energy policy as the Arizona Corporation Commission, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government.

The commission has the ability to set electric and energy policies, and it has long considered potential policies to encourage electric utilities to transition to clean energy. In a highly anticipated, 3-2 vote last month, the commission rejected a plan that would have established a target of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2070 for the state’s regulated, investor-owned utilities.

Nonetheless, clean energy advocates say they hope that the commission will introduce other initiatives in the coming months to promote a transition to renewable energy, and that whoever is elected governor will support those efforts. In addition, while the commission’s members are elected, governors can appoint new members if someone steps down before the end of their term, said Ellen Zuckerman, co-director of the utility program at the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.

“There’s definitely an interplay there, no question,” Zuckerman said.

On the Democratic side, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has emerged as the leading candidate for Arizona’s next governor, although state Rep. Aaron Lieberman (D-Phoenix) and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection chief of staff Marco López have also declared their candidacy. A handful of candidates, meanwhile, are competing for the Republican nomination, with former TV news anchor Kari Lake considered a front-runner following an endorsement from Trump.

Other than potentially wading into Arizona Corporation Commission debates, one step the next governor could take would be to reinstate the state’s energy office. The office was eliminated by the Ducey administration, said Bob Burns, a former Republican member of the Arizona Corporation Commission.

“Maybe the other candidates would come up with an idea to have some form of energy represented in their Cabinet, but I haven’t heard any discussions on that at this point,” Burns said.

The next governor also could take a more active role in discussions among several Western states about the establishment of a potential regional transmission organization. Such an organization could help coordinate and accelerate the development of renewable energy resources and transmission lines throughout the West, RTO backers say.

While Nevada and Colorado have enacted legislation to encourage the development of an RTO, Arizona has not taken any similar steps under Ducey’s leadership.

“It [would] … make a clear statement that the West is open for business with a modern and robust electric grid,” Steve Zylstra, president and CEO of the Arizona Technology Council, said in a statement.

Southern wild card?

In Georgia and Florida, clean energy will take a back seat to issues like voting rights, critical race theory, and social and economic issues in closely watched governors races this year. But in both states, Republican contenders have voiced support for clean energy investments and jobs, even as they’ve railed against Biden’s efforts to address climate change.

The winner of an expected bitter GOP primary in Georgia will likely face Democrat Stacey Abrams, who currently is running unopposed.

On the Republican side, former U.S. Sen. David Perdue is aiming to unseat Gov. Brian Kemp, who has been a public advocate for electric vehicles. In his January State of the State address, Kemp referenced California-based electric truck maker Rivian, which said in December that it would build a $5 billion factory on a 2,000-acre site in what’s being billed as the largest economic development project in Georgia history.

“My administration’s more recent emphasis on innovation and development in the electric mobility ecosystem has equipped our state with a new tool in the tool box to deliver big wins for hardworking Georgians,” Kemp said about Rivian in his address. Kemp’s proposed budget also includes $125 million for land and training costs for Rivian, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

Jobs tied to clean energy have been a common theme for Kemp, as multiple companies expanded their manufacturing base in Georgia in recent years. Leopold of Evergreen Action noted that Kemp “has been to a number of EV battery plant openings and solar field openings.”

Purdue has been an outspoken critic of the infrastructure bill’s climate change provisions. He also would likely support SK Battery, Rivian and other emerging clean energy businesses if elected governor, observers said.

On the Democratic side, Abrams’ push for social and economic equality could aid Biden’s energy policies in the Peach State. Abrams has widespread support from clean energy advocates and was recently named to the board of Heliogen, a California-based solar company.

Abrams was the minority leader of Georgia’s House of Representatives and made history when she became the first Black woman to be nominated by a major party to the governor’s office. She acknowledged that Kemp was governor in 2018 but did not concede to him, instead giving a fiery speech that railed against Georgia’s election system, calling for voter reform. Abrams then launched the voting rights group Fair Fight, which became a force in the most recent presidential election and in Georgia’s battleground U.S. Senate races.

During the race, environmentalists are likely to push for more aggressive clean energy policies, such as calling on the state’s electric companies to use more renewables or to operate on 100 percent clean energy in the future. Such efforts are not expected to gain traction in the GOP-controlled Legislature.

It remains unclear whether the governor and lawmakers will be asked to step in to help deal with the rising costs at the Plant Vogtle nuclear project, which currently has a price tag of roughly $28 billion.

Further south, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has advocated for Everglades restoration, preserving the state’s pristine coastline from sea-level rise and investing in transportation electrification, all the while avoiding use of the term “climate change.”

In November, he’ll face a yet-to-be-determined Democratic nominee. The growing field is currently led by Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, former Florida Gov. and current U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist, and state Sen. Annette Taddeo.

Major energy policy in Florida is left to the Legislature, which is heavily financed by campaign contributions from the state’s investor-owned utilities. But a Democratic governor could veto any efforts from the GOP-controlled Legislature to thwart renewable energy growth, or they could support efforts that would speed up the energy transition.

Another Southern state could offer a preview of what’s to come as campaigns heat up this year, according to some observers.

Leading up to Virginia’s gubernatorial race last November, then-candidate and now-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) did not make energy and climate issues the focus of his campaign, said J.R. Tolbert, vice president of strategy at Advanced Energy Economy. Only after he was elected did he announce his intent to pull Virginia out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. “It’s one more reminder of how important these elections are,” Tolbert said.

Also, Youngkin’s opposition to “mandates” during the campaign last year — be they energy mandates or mask mandates to address the coronavirus pandemic — could set the tone for GOP candidates this year, said Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center, a conservative Michigan-based think tank.

“I think the issues you saw happen in Virginia in November and also in New Jersey have kind of shaken everything up,” Hayes said, referring to the gubernatorial race last year in the Garden State. “Youngkin being elected in Virginia kind of threw everything into a tizzy.”

Reporter Mike Lee contributed.

How governors races may change energy, from EVs to renewables is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2021. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals. 

A fight over the future of natural gas is simmering in Nevada, highlighting questions about equity and energy costs that could cloud efforts to decarbonize the buildings sector.

Nevada is one of at least seven states this year where lawmakers are considering proposals to phase out or reduce the use of natural gas in homes and businesses, according to a tally by the American Gas Association. A state lawmaker, Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen (D), is set to introduce legislation that would set emissions reduction targets for buildings over the next 30 years, to ultimately achieve a 95% decrease in emissions from buildings by 2050. Under the plan, energy efficiency measures and electrification would be the primary means for decarbonization.

While it’s unclear if the bill will pass, Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) backed a climate strategy last year that called for switching from gas-powered to all-electric buildings. The Nevada debate is also showcasing how gas ban proposals nationally can face resistance not just from gas utilities, but from business and union groups in states with Democratic-controlled legislatures.

Supporters say the measure provides a framework for the state to plan a gradual, cost-effective transition away from natural gas that protects ratepayers from potential so-called stranded assets — such as new gas infrastructure that could be of little value in the future. They say the proposal is a natural step for Nevada to move toward its commitment to “zero or near-zero” greenhouse gas emissions economywide by 2050, as the state pledged to do under a bill passed in 2019.

“Responsible energy planning isn’t just a necessity, it’s an unparalleled opportunity to create good jobs, diversify our economy, and lead the nation in renewable energy innovation,” Cohen said in a statement. “In a legislative session full of economic challenges and tough choices, this one is easy: let’s make sure we’re getting the best returns on our energy investments in the years to come.”

But Southwest Gas, the utility that services the majority of homes and businesses in the state, plans to oppose the bill, and real estate and minority business groups are also raising concerns. Echoing arguments made in statehouses and cities around the country that have considered similar gas transition measures, opponents say that limiting the ability of new businesses and homes to connect to the gas system will drive up energy costs and hurt small businesses.

Under the plan, gas providers would need to decrease emissions 2.5% by the end of 2022 relative to 2016 levels and continue reducing emissions every two years thereafter. To achieve the initial 2.5% reduction, Southwest Gas estimates that it would need to electrify over 120,000 homes and businesses by the end of next year, which could drive up rates for customers still in the system, said Scott Leedom, the utility’s director of public affairs.

“The legislation would eliminate consumer energy choice and eliminate the smallest utility bill to replace it with an all-electric bill that would typically be the highest,” Leedom said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council — which helped craft the bill along with the Nevada Conservation League and Cohen — argues that the measure would actually lower energy costs by ensuring that ratepayers don’t foot the bill for new, costly gas projects.

The bill also directs the state Public Utilities Commission to assess strategies for minimizing impacts on low-income customers and managing workforce changes that could result from reduced gas use. The PUC would prepare a report in 2022 recommending policies for easing the transition, the bill states.

“What this bill does is give the commission more tools to scrutinize gas investments,” said Dylan Sullivan, a senior scientist with NRDC in Reno, Nev. “We’re at risk of gas utilities wasting ratepayer money and making the transition problem more difficult.”

A ‘job killer’?

Backers of the Nevada bill say the evidence in favor of all-electric buildings is significant and is supported by state reports.

Last year, the Nevada Climate Initiative — a division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources — released a report supported by the governor on potential policies the state could pursue to meet its climate goals, which included a transition from gas to all-electric buildings (Energywire, Dec. 3, 2020).

A separate report from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection also said last year that the state could provide incentives for new construction and existing buildings “to switch from fossil fuels to all electric,” to reduce emissions from buildings.

“The fact that [electrification] is prevalent in each of those reports shows a real commitment from the governor to invest in those proposals to make sure we’re moving forward and reaching our greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals,” said Paul Selberg, executive director of the Nevada Conservation League.

Some national studies have also found that connecting heating systems and appliances to the electric grid could be a cost-effective way to decarbonize buildings. A major report released in December from Princeton University, for example, said that electrification of buildings must increase dramatically this decade if the United States is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 (Energywire, Dec. 16, 2020).

Others who support the bill say it could boost jobs and the economy. Unlike some other states considering building electrification, such as Colorado and California, Nevada has no significant gas reserves, but it does have solar and geothermal resources and a growing clean energy economy.

The gas industry counters that electrification is prohibitively expensive. It has instead promoted low-carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas and “green” hydrogen. But it’s not clear whether large quantities of those fuels could be safely mixed into gas pipelines at a reasonable cost, and few utilities are currently planning RNG or hydrogen investments that would substantially reduce emissions.

Other skeptics, like the local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, disagree that the plan would create jobs. The bill could effectively end the gas industry in the state and drive up energy costs in the process, said Danny Thompson, a consultant for IBEW Local 1245 and two local chapters of the International Union of Operating Engineers, a union within the AFL-CIO.

“We’re looking at this as a job killer,” Thompson said.

Some Democrats in the Legislature may oppose the measure, as well. During a recent committee meeting on the state’s climate change strategy, Democratic Assemblywoman Daniele Monroe-Moreno questioned the idea of getting rid of gas stoves, saying she wasn’t ready to give hers up “just yet.”

For now, the NRDC and other groups supporting the bill are meeting with different groups and individuals about the proposal, Sullivan said.

Cohen, the bill sponsor, said she is hopeful that lawmakers will support the bill, given that the Legislature unanimously approved a 50% renewable energy standard during the last session.

“I’m working hard to do that outreach and listen to all perspectives about this energy transition,” Cohen said in a statement.

Fight over natural gas ban roils Nevada is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2021. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals. 

More than 100 cities, counties and states around the country have enacted ordinances restricting renewable energy projects, according to a new report.

The trend — documented in an analysis from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law — could impede ambitions to reach 100% clean power, analysts say.

The ordinances include quotas on the number of permitted wind turbines, height limits on turbines, and outright bans or moratoriums on solar or wind farms, said the report from the Sabin Center.

Many of the measures are zoning restrictions, such as stringent setbacks that require projects to be sited a certain distance from other properties — limits that ultimately make renewable energy development difficult or impossible, the report said. Some of the laws were crafted to block a particular proposal and succeeded at doing so.

While the report does not discuss whether the measures could hamper President Biden’s clean energy plans, local and state opposition could impede his administration’s goal of 100% carbon-free electricity nationwide by 2035, said Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the Brookings Institution, who was not involved in the analysis.

Most analysts say that a massive build-out of solar and wind farms, as well as transmission lines, will be necessary to achieve that 2035 target.

“Given that we are going to have to build a lot of renewable generation and transmission, we need to think about how to get the public onboard — these concerns aren’t going to go away on their own,” Gross said in an email.

The authors did not make specific recommendations about local ordinances or particular projects. But the states included in the analysis show that resistance from neighbors and local residents to renewable energy proposals is happening nationwide, said Hillary Aidun, a climate law fellow at the Sabin Center and a coordinating editor of the report.

In some — but not all — cases, pro-fossil-fuel groups have started or supported opposition campaigns that led to restrictive new ordinances or project cancellations.

That was the case with the Wind Catcher project, a proposed 2,000-megawatt wind farm in Oklahoma that faced opposition from groups including Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political action committee funded by the Koch brothers, the report said. The multistate project ultimately did not move forward after the Public Utility Commission of Texas rejected an application from project developer American Electric Power Co., citing risks to ratepayers (Energywire, July 27, 2018).

Those who are in favor of renewable proposals are often less likely to speak out, Aidun said.

“We’ve found that although local opponents are often well organized and resourced, there are also often people in communities who would welcome renewable energy facilities, either because they’re concerned about climate change or are interested in the benefits that renewable energy could bring to local residents,” she said.

One ally of renewable energy projects in some states has been farmers. In some cases, farmers have supported projects because of the opportunity to boost their income through leases with project developers, she said.

Aidun has provided legal representation to farmers, community groups and others who support renewable energy projects in their communities through the Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative, a joint project of the Sabin Center and the law firm Arnold & Porter.

“We often see this false dichotomy between renewable energy and agriculture, because a lot of these facilities are sited on farmland,” she said. “The farmers I work with see this as a way to support them and their family and to support local agriculture.”

The New York model

Despite the challenges that can impede large-scale solar or wind projects, the report also identifies policies that can make it easier to build renewable energy.

Last year, for example, New York passed the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act, which created a new framework to expedite the siting of solar and wind projects, the report said.

The law created the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, which aims to override or challenge local ordinances that are “unreasonably burdensome” in light of the state’s clean energy targets and the environmental benefits of projects.

That could be a game changer for building solar, wind and transmission projects, said Cullen Howe, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York.

“It seems to me that striking down a law that says, ‘You can’t have any solar here ever,’ would be a law that would likely not withstand,” said Howe.

New York’s approach has had critics, however. Elected officials and community groups in rural upstate New York, where many projects would be located, have said that large wind farms can be eyesores that negatively affect property values and ecological resources (Energywire, April 3, 2020).

The state’s renewable energy goals are also more ambitious than in many other places, with the Empire State aiming to obtain 70% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2030. Nonetheless, New York’s siting policy for renewables could serve as a model for states dealing with local restrictions hindering efforts to reach clean energy goals, Howe said.

“The hope is that this new process will speed up the development of these projects, and we’ll get them built and interconnected in time for us to meet those very ambitious goals,” he said.

Some environmental groups say that the transition to decarbonization should not be limited to utility-scale projects in order to minimize potential conflicts. The Center for Biological Diversity, for example, is focused on moving beyond the “flawed utility-centric paradigm” and supporting acceleration of community solar and energy justice strategies, said Jean Su, the organization’s energy justice director.

“Fundamentally, there need not be a conflict between reaching 100% renewables and protecting our lands and communities,” Su said in a statement.

While more renewable energy of some kind will be needed to decarbonize the power grid, that doesn’t mean local concerns should be ignored, or that solar and wind is appropriate for all locations, said Gross of the Brookings Institution. But her own research on siting challenges has found that local concerns can sometimes be assuaged through consultation with communities and transparency, Gross said.

One solution the Biden administration could consider is to develop renewable energy corridors deemed acceptable for solar and wind and fast-track proposals in those areas, Gross said. That could increase public acceptance of renewables, limit ecological impacts and speed up permitting, she added.

“I hope one of the things we put some work into is thinking about where we want these facilities to go and where we don’t,” Gross said.

Analysts: Local renewable fights threaten 100% clean power is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.