Tag Archives: Goldboro

Weekly News Check-In 2/5/21

banner 13

Welcome back.

The Weymouth compressor station is operating, and local opposition forces are pressing their public awareness campaign. Opponents recently placed 310 elf effigies near the facility – a whimsical elfin gathering signifying the very real presence of 3,100 local children who live or attend school within a mile of this toxic and dangerous facility.

The Keystone XL pipeline cancellation is broadly celebrated across the environmental community, and The Guardian reports that much credit for this and other significant victories rightly belongs to the many indigenous groups in the forefront of these battles. It remains to be seen whether the recent climate-progressive policies of the Biden administration will finally start to carry an appropriate share of this load. Protests against Enbridge’s Line 3 construction in northern Minnesota offer a prime example of indigenous groups and their allies resisting and highlighting a project that has yet to receive appropriate environmental review. Now these protesters have gained the interest of members of Congress and the Biden administration, and the project faces an uncertain future.

The redirection of U.S. climate policy in the past few weeks underscores the importance of national leadership. Unfortunately, Brazil is led by Jair Bolsonaro, whose full-on assault of the Amazon rainforest is leaving that country more and more isolated in a world that increasingly grasps the scale of the trouble we’re in. As was the case with Trump, the damage from Bolsonaro’s policies are both local and global.

We have positive news about clean energy, as the Vineyard Wind project appears to be back on track – and this bodes well for the U.S. offshore wind industry in general. We’re also calling attention to University of New South Wales’ professor Martin Green, who received the prestigious Japan Prize for his work leading pioneering research into solar PV technologies.

Energy efficiency in buildings continues to make news, as Massachusetts’ Governor Baker considers whether to accept or amend the net-zero stretch code option in the state’s ambitious climate bill. He’s being lobbied hard by the building industry, which opposes this critical provision. On the national stage, the Department of Energy reviewed the International Code Council’s proposal to eliminate voting on future energy efficiency codes by municipal officials. But it’s a new administration and a new DOE – and they were not immediately persuaded. We’ll be watching for further developments.

The massive increase in lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles and stationary energy storage appears to have reached critical mass, where the volume of material combined with newly developed recycling techniques have created an emerging circular economy in which recycling can be a profitable business. Of course, lithium and other materials must still be mined because the number of batteries in use is rapidly expanding. But materials from old batteries will increasing make their way back into new batteries, and that’s good news for the environment.

Massachusetts is asking electric utilities to find a way to avoid hitting businesses with huge demand charges when they provide electric vehicle fast-charging stations. Modernizing the demand charge structure would remove a significant barrier to the necessary proliferation of these chargers, which in tern will accelerate the transition away from fuel-burning cars. General Motors placed a big bet on that rapid transition last week, when CEO Mary Barra announced that the company’s entire roster of cars and SUVs will be emissions-free by 2035.

This week’s news on the fossil fuel industry includes a primer on various tricks Big Oil uses to subvert progress on climate action. Now is probably a good time to brush up on that, since the industry is feeling a level of regulatory pressure that was entirely absent during the past four years – and we fully expect their PR fog machine to kick into overdrive.

The proposed Goldboro liquefied natural gas facility in Nova Scotia is intended to export huge volumes of fossil energy to Europe. We peeked inside the natural gas industry for this report. As it happens,  gas first has to get to the facility, and the pipelines don’t yet exist. They’ll certainly face resistance and regulatory hurdles. And wherever pipelines aren’t available, the controversial transport of LNG by rail is one risky alternative under consideration. The Trump administration fast-tracked approval for LNG rail transit, but the Biden administration wants to take another look because public safety wasn’t considered in the original study. Seriously.

Wrapping up, the town of Amherst intends to join a growing number of Massachusetts communities in opposing the proposed biomass generating plant in Springfield. A vote at next week’s town council meeting should make it official. Thank you, Amherst.

button - BEAT News button - BZWI  For even more environmental news, info, and events, check out the latest newsletters from our colleagues at Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) and Berkshire Zero Waste Initiative (BZWI)!

— The NFGiM Team

WEYMOUTH COMPRESSOR STATION

elf watch at Weymouth
Fire-up of Weymouth Compressor Met with Elfin Resistance
By Amneo Centuri, Boston Hassle
January 28, 2021

Local folks on the South Shore held a whimsically grim show of resistance to the toxin spewing, catastrophically explosive, greenhouse gas emitting compressor station force-built in their community with an Elf Gathering on December 20. Residents, including this “natural” gas compressor’s opposition group, the Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station (FRRACS), placed 310 elf effigies in the park, next to the shut-down compressor, to symbolize the 3100 local children who live or go to school within a mile of this immense public health and safety hazard .

As the Weymouth compressor station begins to fire-up operations you can walk the narrow shoreline park at King’s Cove in Weymouth MA, along-side this disastrous facility, greeted by the sprightly faces of elfin dolls and figurines, many homemade, posed playing in the bushes in trees by the hundreds. What is conveyed by these homespun gestures is unmistakable, that children here have been put in horrible peril. This display of elves both cheery and grotesque, merry and mischievous is able to hit a dire tone while being accessible, humorous, poignant and surreal.

Behind these fanciful, frolicsome elves is the plight of local residents, already living with staggering levels of airborne toxins. They are confronted with the long-term risks of developing deadly disease, that can only increase with the compressor’s chemical emissions, as well as the threat of instant death by incineration. Standing there in the park you’d be only mere yards away from the 7,700-horsepower compressor, a massive piece of methane gas infrastructure that if exploded would immediately vaporize you along with everything within 1000 feet, including homes.

“Natural” gas compressors are usually sited in more rural areas away from large numbers of people but a conflate/deflate of data allowed the proponents to wrongly claim this densely populated urban area was rural. This working-class area, The Fore River Basin, is in sight of the Boston skyline, on the Weymouth/Quincy line just south of Dorchester. The Fore River also runs through Braintree and has been a workhorse for industrial coastal Massachusetts. This area hosts many industries including power plants, fuel storage and distribution, a hazmat facility and also pumps the sewerage for 14 other communities. Part of the major metropolitan area of Greater Boston it is adjacent to the more affluent towns just to the south. It’s hard to imagine this huge, loud, odorous hazard ever being sited in one of the quaint, high income, by-the-sea towns or in Boston proper. These elves are the totems of resistance in a sacrifice zone.

This is not a local “nimby” (not in my backyard) issue as it is sometimes reflexively assumed and dismissed. An accident here could paralyze the region’s power, transportation, home heating oil delivery and knockout sewerage treatment causing raw sewerage to be dumped directly into the ocean. Insidiously, the acceptance of the Weymouth compressor siting has also set a dangerous national precedent for the fossil fuel industry’s ability to impose its dangerous infrastructure on large populations of people. It will be easier now that an Overton window has been cracked.

A compressor is the machinery that pressurizes “natural” gas, methane to push it through pipelines, across regions and eventually to storage, market and customers. The Weymouth compressor is the lynchpin in a scheme to pipe fracked methane from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania up to Canada, most likely for export to China and Europe. “Natural” gas is a greenhouse gas, a potent driver of climate change making this compressor a planetary issue, not only because of the volumes of greenhouse gas it will emit but also for the additional infrastructure it will facilitate with more methane put into our atmosphere. The Weymouth compressor enables the expanded and continued use of “natural” gas, expected to operate for the next 40 years. The compressor station was built to accommodate a total of 5 compressors leading to one critique to characterize it, “fully operational, a fossil fueled [planet] destroying deathstar”.

Originally this compressor was justified to meet local energy needs but it has been well documented by the state of Massachusetts that there is no such need. This was confirmed by the market with major energy companies Eversource and National Grid, the biggest corporate customers for the gas, pulling out of the project before construction started. It appears that the Weymouth Compressor was built out of reckless speculative greed. The push to build this methane compressor may have been powered by the great hope of an energy industry destined to go the way of steam power and whale oil. The game seems to be to keep markets expanding, to prolong the use of this dinosaur fuel deep in the 21st century maximizing “natural” gas investments, the old meth-pushers scheme.
» Read article

» More about the Weymouth compressor station

PIPELINES

indigenous KXL protestersBiden killed the Keystone Pipeline. Good, but he doesn’t get a climate pass just yet
Democrats’ climate record is mixed – and it’s largely pressure from Indigenous and environmental groups that’s pushed them to act
By Nick Estes, The Guardian | Opinion
January 28, 2021

Joe Biden scrapping the Keystone XL permit is a huge win for the Indigenous-led climate movement. It not only overturns Trump’s reversal of Obama’s 2015 rejection of the pipeline but is also a major blow to the US fossil fuel industry and the world’s largest energy economy and per-capita carbon polluter.

There is every reason to celebrate the end of a decade-long fight against Keystone XL. Tribal nations and Indigenous movements hope it will be a watershed moment for bolder actions, demanding the same fates for contentious pipeline projects such as Line 3 and the Dakota Access pipeline.

Biden has also vowed to review more than 100 environmental rules and regulations that were weakened or reversed by Trump and to restore Obama-era protections to two Indigenous sacred sites, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, which are also national monuments in Utah. And he issued a “temporary moratorium” on all oil and gas leases in the Arctic national wildlife refuge, sacred territory to many Alaskan Natives.

None of these victories would have been possible without sustained Indigenous resistance and tireless advocacy.

But there is also good reason to be wary of the Biden administration and its parallels with the Obama administration. The overwhelming majority of people appointed to Biden’s climate team come from Obama’s old team. And their current climate actions are focused almost entirely on restoring Obama-era policies.

Biden’s policy catchphrases of “America is back” and “build back better” and his assurance to rich donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” should also be cause for concern. A return to imagined halcyon days of an Obama presidency or to “normalcy”– which for Indigenous peoples in the United States is everyday colonialism – isn’t justice, nor is it the radical departure from the status quo we need to bolster Indigenous rights and combat the climate crisis.

Obama’s record is mixed. While opposing the northern leg of Keystone XL in 2015, Obama had already fast-tracked the construction of the pipeline’s southern leg in 2012, despite massive opposition from Indigenous and environmental groups.

His “all-of-the-above energy strategy” committed to curbing emissions while also promoting US “energy independence” by embracing domestic oil production. Thanks to this policy, the lifting of a four-decade limit on exporting crude oil from the United States, and the fracking revolution, US domestic crude oil production increased by 88% from 2008 to 2016.

Domestic oil pipeline construction also increased – and so, too, did resistance to it. During the protests against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, Obama’s FBI infiltrated the Standing Rock camps. “There’s an obligation for protesters to be peaceful,” he admonished the unarmed Water Protectors at the prayer camps who faced down water cannons in freezing weather, attack dogs, mass arrests and the ritualistic brutality of a heavily militarized small army of police.
» Read article

fresh nutsWhy there’s now a push to secure the future of Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline
Experts say Canada has lessons to learn from Line 5 about dealing with the U.S. on energy projects
By Elise von Scheel, CBC News
February 5, 2021

The cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline by U.S. President Joe Biden brought energy issues and cross-border pipelines to the forefront of Canada-U.S. relations — attention that is now fixed on Enbridge’s Line 5.

Line 5 transports oil and natural gas from Western Canada through the U.S. to refineries in Ontario and Quebec. Enbridge is working to replace a segment of the 68-year-old pipe that run 7.2 kilometres under the Straits of Mackinac, which connects Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

The 1,038-kilometre project, built in 1953, travels from northwestern Wisconsin, across the upper peninsula of Michigan, under the Strait of Mackinac and down through the lower peninsula before crossing back up into Canada, terminating in Sarnia, Ont.

American politicians’ environmental objectives are threatening the future of Line 5, making it the latest project in the spotlight during ongoing discussions about North American energy co-operation.

In November, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer moved to revoke the 1953 permit that allows the crossing under the straits. She gave notice that Enbridge must shut down the pipeline by May 2021, arguing the project presents an “unreasonable risk” of environmental damage to the Great Lakes.

Enbridge has said there is no credible basis to revoke the easement and there have never been any spills in the straits.

At the end of January, Michigan environmental regulators approved several permits Enbridge needs to build a $500-million tunnel to house the pipeline. That project was given the green light by then-Governor Rick Snyder in 2018. The regulator said the proposed tunneling would have minimal impact on water quality in the Great Lakes. However, the company still needs other federal and state approvals before proceeding. The tunnel is scheduled for completion in 2024.

Experts say while Line 5 isn’t a make-or-break project for western oil and gas, the pipeline’s precarious future symbolizes the current state of Canada-U.S. energy relations, instability for investors and the potential issues for oil and gas supply within Canada.
» Read article

» More about pipelines

PROTESTS AND ACTIONS

name that tune
8 protestors, 1 piano at Line 3 blockade near Park Rapids
Many of the protestors traveled from the northeast “to act in solidarity with Anishinaabe peoples here in Minnesota,” according to a news release.
By Shannon M. Geisen, Park Rapids Enterprise
February 4th 2021

Eight self-described “water protectors,” locked to each other with barrels of concrete and a piano, blockaded an Enbridge fueling station Thursday morning.

They were joined by dozens of additional protesters at the worksite.

According to a news release, “As piano music floated through the early morning light, Water Protectors sang and uplifted the Native-led struggle to protect Anishinaabe territory, sacred wild rice and stand with Mother Earth. Line 3 poses a 10 percent expansion of tar sands production; tar sands is the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth.”

The protest was held near the proposed crossing by Line 3 through the Shell River in Hubbard County. Last weekend, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar visited the Mississippi headwaters and the Giniw Collective encampment, one of several along the route.

Many of the protestors traveled from the northeast “to act in solidarity with Anishinaabe peoples here in Minnesota,” the release said.

Tyler Schaeffer said, “I’m profoundly concerned about the future of life on our planet and my deepest desire is for future generations to grow up safe in a world that hasn’t been wrecked by greed and shortsightedness – where water is clean to drink, where we’ve come back to balance and honor the earth as sacred. It’s time we follow the lead and wisdom of indigenous peoples with humility and courage.”
» Read article          

» More about protests and actions

CLIMATE

climate pariah Bolsonaro
Bolsonaro’s Brazil is becoming a climate pariah
Bolsonaro’s Brazil cuts environment funding despite rising forest losses and fires in the Amazon and elsewhere.
By Jan Rocha, Climate News Network
February 1, 2021

At home and abroad, the environmental policies being adopted in President Bolsonaro’s Brazil are leaving the country increasingly isolated, especially now his climate-denying idol Donald Trump has been replaced by the climate-friendly President Biden.

After two years of record deforestation and forest fires, the government’s proposed budget for environment agencies in 2021 is the smallest for 21 years, according to a report by the Climate Observatory, a network of 56 NGOs and other organisations.

The Observatory’s executive secretary, Marcio Astrini, believes this is deliberate: “Bolsonaro has adopted the destruction of the environment as a policy and sabotaged the instruments for protecting our biomass, being directly responsible for the increase in fires, deforestation and national emissions.

“The situation is dramatic, because the federal government, which should be providing solutions to the problem, is today the centre of the problem.”

Greenpeace spokeswoman Luiza Lima says the problem is not, as the government claims, a lack of funds: “Just a small fraction of the amount which has gone to the army to defend the Amazon would provide the minimum needed by environment agencies to fulfil their functions.”

And she recalls the existence of two funds, the Climate Fund and the Amazon Fund, which have been paralysed by the government because of its anti-NGO stance, expressed in Bolsonaro’s phrase: “NGOS are cancers”.

Not only has Bolsonaro attacked NGOs, but he is also accused of deliberately neglecting Brazil’s indigenous peoples, who number almost a million. He has refused to demarcate indigenous areas, even when the lengthy and meticulous process to identify them, involving anthropologists and archeologists, has been concluded.

Invasions of indigenous areas in Bolsonaro’s Brazil increased by 135% in 2019, with 236 known incidents, and it is these invaders, usually wildcat miners, illegal loggers or land grabbers, who have helped to spread the coronavirus. Rates of Covid-19 among indigenous peoples are double those of the population in general, and 48% of those hospitalised for Covid-19 die, according to one of Brazil’s top medical research centres, Fiocruz.

The green light given by the government, aided by the prospect of impunity thanks to a drastic reduction in enforcement, which will be made worse by the budget cuts, caused massive deforestation in some indigenous areas − exactly when the virus was spreading. Indigenous areas are often islands of preservation, surrounded by soy farms and cattle ranches.

This situation led indigenous leaders Raoni Metuktire and Almir Suruí to file a complaint at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, calling for an investigation of Bolsonaro and members of his government for crimes against humanity, because of the persecution of indigenous peoples.
» Read article

» More about climate

CLEAN ENERGY

back on track
Biden administration puts Vineyard Wind energy project back on track
Offshore wind farm proposal’s fate became uncertain after it faced delays under Trump
By Jon Chesto, Boston Globe
February 3, 2021

The long-delayed Vineyard Wind offshore project has been put back on track by the Biden administration.

In one of her first actions as the new director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Amanda Lefton pledged on Wednesday to conduct a “robust and timely” review of Vineyard Wind and essentially resume the permitting process where it left off in December. That’s when the developers of Vineyard Wind withdrew their proposal for a wind farm that could generate 800 megawatts of electricity, enough power for more than 400,000 homes, to be built about 12 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard. Soon after Joe Biden became president last month, the developers rescinded their withdrawal and requested that BOEM resume its review.

Vineyard Wind, a joint venture of Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, was to be the first major offshore wind farm in the United States. It would be financed through contracts with three major Massachusetts electric utilities. But the project ran into delays under the Trump administration, after commercial fishermen raised concerns that the giant turbines would be hazardous to their work.

The developers have changed the turbines they plan to use. The nearly $3 billion project will now include 62 of Boston-based General Electric’s Haliade-X turbines. A spokesman for Vineyard Wind said the project is still on track to obtain financing this year, with a goal of getting built in time to generate power by the end of 2023.

Katie Theoharides, Governor Charlie Baker’s energy secretary, praised the federal agency’s decision to keep the Vineyard Wind project moving along.

“This puts Vineyard Wind, an 800-megawatt project that really kicked off the gold rush for the offshore industry here in the US, once again back in the position to deliver on that promise of clean, affordable energy and jobs here in Massachusetts,” she said. “It’s a very good indictor for all of the projects up and down the eastern seaboard.”

Theoharides said the Baker administration expects Massachusetts will need 15 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2050 to help meet the state’s goal of achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by that date. That’s 10 times the amount of offshore wind power that is under contract today in Massachusetts, including through Vineyard Wind and a similar-sized offshore proposal called Mayflower Wind. The administration and the utilities are authorized to offer contracts for another 1.6 gigawatts.
» Read article

Martin Green
Australia’s Martin Green awarded prestigious Japan Prize for work as ‘Father of solar PV’
By Michael Mazengarb, Renew Economy
February 1, 2021

The University of New South Wales’ professor Martin Green has been awarded the prestigious Japan Prize for his work leading pioneering research into solar PV technologies.

Professor Green was awarded the 2021 Japan Prize in the category of “Resources, Energy, the Environment, and Social Infrastructure”, in recognition the more than four decades of research undertaken at UNSW, that developed technologies now ubiquitous in most commercially available solar panels.

“It’s a privilege to receive this award, which serves as a reminder that the quest for inexpensive, renewable energy is a global quest seeking to sustain the trajectory of human civilisation on our shared planet,” professor Green said in a statement.

“I’d like to pay tribute to the thousands of solar researchers who have worked in the field for many years, including those at UNSW and elsewhere who have helped not just make PERC [solar cells] a reality but solar now the cheapest source of bulk electricity supply.”

Green oversaw the creation of a dedicated solar research group at the University of New South Wales in the 1970s.

The research team, which featured members who would also establish themselves as some of Australia’s leading solar researchers, successfully held the world record for conventional silicon solar cell efficiency for several decades, outperforming much larger international research organisations.

Green’s research group produced the first solar cells with an efficiency above 20 per cent in 1989, and the research team held world silicon solar efficiency record for 30 of the last 38 years.

The research led to dramatic improvements in solar cell designs and has underpinned the progress that has seen solar power rank amongst the cheapest sources of electricity generation in history.

The work has led Green to be dubbed “the father of modern photovoltaics”, with Green beating the likes of Tesla CEO Elon Musk to be awarded another leading technology prize, the Global Energy Prize, in 2018.
» Read article

» More about clean energy

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

net zero makes sense
Baker take note: Net zero buildings make sense

Cities can get high-quality housing at no extra cost
By Meredith Elbaum, CommonWealth Magazine | Opinion
February 3, 2021

THERE HAS BEEN a lot of misinformation flying around regarding Gov. Baker’s veto of groundbreaking climate legislation this month, but nothing has been more egregious than claims that provisions related to building codes in the bill would stall economic progress in Massachusetts.

Now that the bill is back on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk, it’s time to set the record straight.

The fact is, Massachusetts can build residential and commercial buildings more quickly and more affordably when following net zero standards, particularly if these buildings are bypassing polluting gas. According to a review of construction in Massachusetts conducted by Built Environment Plus, our state is already building zero-emissions buildings today at no additional upfront cost. The return on investment for building new zero emissions office buildings can be as little as one year.

These cost-findings were confirmed by the city of Boston, which examined how new affordable housing could be constructed to cleaner, pollution-free standards. In its assessment, the city found that there was little-to-no cost increase for building to zero emission building standards, and that available rebates and incentives could actually make the buildings less expensive to construct. These homes and buildings also then locked in long-term operational savings.

So the good news is, if cities are allowed to adopt net zero stretch codes, Massachusetts will receive higher-quality housing at no extra cost. To increase cost-savings even further, Massachusetts should ensure that no new homes or buildings are connected to the state’s aging and risky gas system. Fossil fuel hookups slow down permitting and the construction process, and according to think tank Rocky Mountain Institute, can cost upwards of $15,000 or more in construction costs, depending on the building type.

The cost-savings associated with going pollution-free should be very encouraging for Baker and the real estate industry as they look for ways to lower up-front costs and build more quickly as we recover from the COVID-19 economic recession.
» Read article
» Read summary of climate bill on Governor Baker’s desk            

Pepper Pike home
DOE, House Energy committee question proposed building energy code changes
Increased involvement by local and state officials led to efficiency gains, prompting pushback from the building industry.
By Alex Ruppenthal, Energy News Network
Photo By AP Photo/Tony Dejak
February 1, 2021

The organization responsible for developing model building energy codes is facing growing pressure to reconsider proposed changes that would limit the role of state and local governments in approving future updates.

More than 200 stakeholders submitted comments ahead of the International Code Council’s Jan. 21 board meeting, with about three-quarters of them opposing a plan to overhaul the process for approving its triennial updates.

Meanwhile, the organization received a letter from the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee requesting answers to several questions related to the proposed changes and the influence of industry groups like the National Association of Home Builders on the process. A U.S. Department of Energy official raised similar questions at the recent meeting.

“We at DOE don’t currently have a comprehensive justification for why it’s needed,” said Jeremy Williams, a program specialist with DOE’s Building Technologies Office. “We’d ask ICC to further demonstrate where exactly the current process fails and how the proposed process would proceed.”

The changes would strip voting rights from thousands of public sector members and leave final say over future energy codes up to a committee made up of building code officials, industry groups and other stakeholders, with some spots for clean energy advocates. Any one stakeholder interest group could not account for more than a third of the committee’s members.

The proposed overhaul was set in motion last fall after industry groups representing homebuilders and developers raised concerns over the recently completed code development cycle, which saw record online voting turnout by state and local government officials, resulting in the code’s biggest efficiency gains in at least a decade.
» Read article            

» More about energy efficiency

ENERGY STORAGE

Li recycling takes off
Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Finally Takes Off in North America and Europe
Li-Cycle, Northvolt, and Ganfeng Lithium are among those building recycling plants, spurred by environmental and supply-chain concerns
By Jean Kumagai, IEEE Spectrum
January 5, 2021

Later this year, the Canadian firm Li-Cycle will begin constructing a US $175 million plant in Rochester, N.Y., on the grounds of what used to be the  Eastman Kodak complex. When completed, it will be the largest lithium-ion battery-recycling plant in North America.

The plant will have an eventual capacity of 25 metric kilotons of input material, recovering 95 percent or more of the cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other valuable elements through the company’s zero-wastewater, zero-emissions process. “We’ll be one of the largest domestic sources of nickel and lithium, as well as the only source of cobalt in the United States,” says Ajay Kochhar, Li-Cycle’s cofounder and CEO.

Founded in late 2016, the company is part of a booming industry focused on preventing tens of thousands of tons of lithium-ion batteries from entering landfills. Of the 180,000 metric tons of Li-ion batteries available for recycling worldwide in 2019, just a little over half were recycled. As lithium-ion battery production soars, so does interest in recycling.

According to London-based Circular Energy Storage, a consultancy that tracks the lithium-ion battery-recycling market, about a hundred companies worldwide recycle lithium-ion batteries or plan to do so soon. The industry is concentrated in China and South Korea, where the vast majority of the batteries are also made, but there are several dozen recycling startups in North America and Europe. In addition to Li-Cycle, that list includes Stockholm-based Northvolt, which is jointly building an EV-battery-recycling plant with Norway’s Hydro, and Tesla alum J.B. Straubel’s Redwood Materials, which has a broader scope of recycling electronic waste.

These startups aim to automate, streamline, and clean up what has been a labor-intensive, inefficient, and dirty process. Traditionally, battery recycling involves either burning them to recover some of the metals, or else grinding the batteries up and treating the resulting “black mass” with solvents.

Battery recycling doesn’t just need to be cleaner—it also needs to be reliably profitable, says Jeff Spangenberger, director of the ReCell Center, a battery-recycling research collaboration supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. “Recycling batteries is better than if we mine new materials and throw the batteries away,” Spangenberger says. “But recycling companies have trouble making profits. We need to make it cost effective, so that people have an incentive to bring their batteries back.”
» Read article

» More about energy storage

CLEAN TRANSPORTATION

demand charge reconsideredMassachusetts asks utilities for ways to avoid bill spikes from EV fast-charging
A new state law requires utilities to propose alternatives to help customers avoid large demand charges that can come with installing electric vehicle fast-chargers.
By Sarah Shemkus, Energy News Network
Photo By Ken Fields via Creative Commons
February 1, 2021

Massachusetts is asking utilities to come up with new ways to tally the bill for customers with electric vehicle fast-charging stations that won’t punish them for drawing electricity in sporadic bursts.

“I don’t think I can stress enough how much of a game-changer this legislation is for electric transportation,” said Kevin Miller, director of public policy at charging station company ChargePoint. “This is going to make it easier for everyone in Massachusetts to drive and ride in electric cars and buses.”

The new policy is part of the comprehensive transportation bill signed into law by Gov. Charlie Baker earlier this month. The goal is to smooth the way for the growth of fast-charging infrastructure, which has been slowed in part by the potential to trigger big increases in monthly utility bills.

As Massachusetts works toward the goal of going carbon-neutral by 2050, transportation, which is responsible for around 40% of the state’s carbon emissions, is a major target for action. Electrifying private cars and trucks, fleet vehicles, and public transportation is a central element of the state’s strategy.

The state has set a goal of putting 300,000 electric vehicles in service by 2025, but is still well short of that number. While it is difficult to determine the exact number of electric vehicles on the road right now, it is likely somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 of the more than 5 million vehicles registered in the state.

Many drivers are hesitant to make the leap to an electric car because they worry it won’t be able to drive far enough between charges, a concern known as “range anxiety.”

A possible solution to this barrier is the installation of more direct current (DC) fast chargers, which can power up an electric vehicle to 80% full in 20 minutes. They are generally located in public spots like malls, supermarkets, and interstate service areas, where drivers can power up while they buy their groceries or grab a coffee.

“These stations are vital components of the successful electric vehicle adoption strategy,” Miller said.

At the moment, however, there are just 90 publically available fast-charging stations in the state, offering a total of 345 outlets.

The economics of demand charges partially explain the lag. Demand charges are a component of commercial and industrial electric bills that assesses a fee based on the highest amount of energy used in any 15-minute period throughout the month. They are designed to make sure customers are paying their fair share to keep the grid ready to deliver even in times of high demand.

“The cost of delivering electricity is based on the cost of building systems to meet customers’ maximum demand,” said Kevin Boughan, manager of clean energy strategy and business development for utility Eversource. “That’s why demand charges exist.”

There is widespread agreement, however, that traditional demand charges don’t make sense for fast-charging stations, at least not yet. These stations just aren’t used that often, so demand charges can constitute a disproportionate portion of owners’ bills — as high as 80% to 90% — often making it financially unfeasible to offer fast charging.

“The utilities are operating on an old model that wasn’t designed to fit this use,” said Sarah Krame, associate attorney for the Sierra Club. “Demand charges are a really significant burden on direct-current fast charging site operators.”
» Read article

GM CEO Barra
In a Major Move Away From Fossil Fuels, General Motors Aims to Stop Selling Gasoline Cars and SUVs by 2035
The corporation’s zero emission goal is based on technological advances that have lowered the cost of electric vehicles and policies requiring emissions cuts, analysts say.
By Dan Gearino, InsideClimate News
January 29, 2021

General Motors, the largest U.S. automaker and long a king of gas guzzlers, has a new aspiration: The corporation wants to stop selling gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2035.

The goal, announced on Thursday, is in line with GM’s recent actions indicating a desire to move away from internal combustion engines and invest heavily in electric vehicles, but it’s still a striking change for a company that has built much of its brand image and profits on SUVs like the Chevrolet Suburban and Cadillac Escalade.

GM’s push to eliminate tailpipe emissions is part of a larger plan by the company, also announced on Thursday, to get to carbon neutrality by 2040.

With the new timetable, GM joins Volkswagen as among the largest makers of gasoline vehicles to announce a fundamental shift to cut emissions. Analysts attribute the change to advances in technology that are making EVs more affordable and a global policy trend toward requiring companies to cut emissions.

GM’s announcement is “a big deal in the sense that you have now a single set of planning targets that apply to the entire company, and it’s timed very carefully to resonate with the important political debates that are happening right now,” said David Victor, an international relations professor at the University of California, San Diego and a co-chair of the Brookings Institution’s energy and climate initiative.

It probably is no coincidence, he said, that GM is aspiring to get to zero tailpipe emissions in the same year, 2035, that the Biden administration had identified as a target for several of its climate goals. Also, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order last year saying the state would ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles in 2035.

GM’s 2035 target includes light duty vehicles, which are most of the cars, pickups and SUVs GM sells, but does not include heavy trucks.

GM is indicating that it wants to work with the administration and also wants help from the federal government to make sure the country has the charging infrastructure needed for such a major change, Victor said.
» Read article

» More about clean transportation

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

America misledHow to spot the tricks Big Oil uses to subvert action on climate change
Three ways fossil fuel companies try to trick the public.
By Jariel Arvin, Vox
February 1, 2021

In his first week in office, President Joe Biden committed to an all-of-government approach to tackle climate change, signing executive orders recommitting the US to the Paris climate agreement, pausing new leases for oil and gas companies on federal land, and stating his intention to conserve 30 percent of federal lands by 2030.

Yet while Biden’s climate actions have been lauded by many, there are some, often with connections to the fossil fuel industry, who strongly oppose taking stronger action on climate.

Many such detractors use common oil industry talking points in their arguments — talking points that have been developed in collaboration with PR firms and lobbyists to undercut clean energy policies and prolong dependence on fossil fuels.

A 2019 report by researchers at George Mason, Harvard University, and the University of Bristol describes how the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled the public by funding climate denial research and campaigns, all while knowing for decades that human-induced climate change exists.

Aware of the science but afraid of the impacts it might have on their returns, oil executives funded opposition research that “attacked consensus and exaggerated the uncertainties” on the science of climate change for many years, with the goal of undermining support for climate action.

Their messaging has worked for so long because Big Oil has become really good at stretching the truth.

“What’s really important to keep in mind is that part of the reason that oil and gas propaganda is so effective is that there is always a grain of truth to it,” said Genevieve Guenther, the founder of End Climate Silence, an organization that works to promote accurate media coverage of the climate crisis.

“I call it ‘sort of true,’ where there’s something about the messaging that’s true, but that grain of truth gets developed into a whole tangle of lies that obscure the real story,” she said.

Guenther, originally a professor of Renaissance literature, is also working on a book titled The Language of Climate Change. I spoke with her to get a better understanding of how to recognize — and counter — Big Oil propaganda.

As the Biden administration takes important steps to address the climate emergency, the fossil fuel industry and its allies in the media will be ramping up the misinformation campaign to skew public opinion and get in the way of climate policy. Fox News has already started.

Which is why it’s more important than ever to be aware of the tools oil and gas companies use to cloud the issue.

My conversation with Guenther, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Jariel Arvin: So what are the talking points the oil industry uses to try to convince the public in these PR blitzes?

Genevieve Guenther: People can recognize fossil fuel industry talking points by thinking about what they’re designed to do. In general, fossil fuel talking points are designed to do three things: make people believe that climate action will hurt them, and hurt their pocketbooks in particular; make people think we need fossil fuels; and try to convince us that climate change isn’t such a big deal.
» Read article            
» Read “America Misled”, the 2019 report on industry-funded climate denial

KYRAKATINGO
How U.S. Crude Oil Exports Are Hastening the Demise of the Oil Industry
By Justin Mikulka, DeSmog Blog
January 28, 2021

When Congress lifted the export ban on U.S. crude oil in December of 2015 to allow for exports beginning in 2016, the oil industry celebrated. However, looking back at the impact of lifting the 40-year-old ban, it appears the move has helped hasten the financial demise of the U.S. oil industry — while also increasing the industry’s huge contribution to climate change.

In many ways, the U.S. oil and gas industry’s demise is self-inflicted. When historians look back upon its declines, lifting the export ban will likely mark a turning point where the industry made a huge bet on the profitability of fracking for oil in the U.S. — and subsequently began to dig its own grave.

“Opening the shale revolution to the world through the export ban lifting helped shift the global oil market psychology from supply scarcity to abundance,” Karim Fawaz, director of research and analysis for energy at IHS Markit, told Bloomberg in early 2021. “It unshackled the U.S. industry to keep growing past its domestic refining limitations.”

Now, not only is the U.S. shale oil industry failing financially and facing debts it likely can’t repay, but calls are growing for the new Biden administration to reinstate the crude oil export ban — which President Biden could do immediately under a national emergency declaration.

This would effectively put a limit on the U.S. fracking industry — and be a big step in reducing the industry’s contributions to climate change. It would also restrain the industry from simply producing as much oil as fast as possible, something investors have been lobbying for the last several years. That’s because this approach has led to the loss of over $340 billion since 2010. Investors hope imposing fiscal restraint on the U.S. fracking industry will result in companies producing less oil overall but finally producing some profits.

Lifting the crude oil export ban to allow exports beginning in 2016 unleashed the U.S. fracking industry to produce as much oil as possible because it opened access to global markets with a long list of willing buyers of cheap U.S. crude oil.

It was a seismic change for the U.S. oil industry and built on the excitement of what was being called the fracking miracle; investors continued to lend large sums to the industry to produce record amounts of oil, betting on the promise of future profits to pay back the debt.

The profits never materialized despite the record amounts of oil being produced and now it appears that most of the best U.S. shale oil deposits were drained in that effort.
» Read article

» More about fossil fuel           

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

Goldboro LNG
Pieridae Energy to build Goldboro LNG plant, Nova Scotia
By Bruce Lantz, Resource World
January 29, 2021

Canada’s ability to provide oil and natural gas to its citizens markets abroad is being hindered by the lack of pipeline infrastructure, say industry producers.

“Canada is in the unique position of having abundant natural resources but currently insufficient pipelines and other infrastructure needed to transport Canadian oil and natural gas, and ideally increase exports to the United States and global markets,” said Jay Averill, media relations manager with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

An example of this shortfall is the need for Pieridae Energy Ltd. [PEA-TSX] to import natural gas from the U.S. for its planned $10-billion liquefied natural gas processing facility in Goldboro, Nova Scotia.

While Western Canada features some pipelines in that area, the lack of a pipeline from the West to Eastern Canada means Pieridae must bring product from the U.S. through the Maritimes Northeast Pipeline.

“CAPP is fully supportive of the development of LNG export facilities on Canada’s East Coast,” said Averill. “The LNG industry can become an important source of much-needed jobs in Atlantic Canada, and having the capacity to export LNG off of Canada’s East Coast could offer a future market for Canadian natural gas.”

Averill noted that the total marketable natural gas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin is estimated to be 988 trillion cubic feet (tcf), while the rest of Canada holds 223 tcf, a total of 1,220 tcf which CAPP estimates can meet Canada’s domestic demand for 300 years. [Yikes!!! – blog editor’s comment]

“If Canada is going to succeed at becoming a sought-after global energy supplier, additional infrastructure is essential,” he said.

“Canadian producers are looking to increase market share and Canada has vast resources that can offer an affordable and reliable supply of natural gas, which is among the lowest-emissions, most responsibly produced natural gas in the entire world. Unfortunately, a lack of infrastructure is limiting our ability to get Western Canadian product to our own East Coast. CAPP has been vocal in expressing the great need for increased pipeline capacity and new infrastructure.”
» Blog editor’s note: This article offers a snapshot into the mindset of the natural gas / LNG industry – one that assumes energy reserves must and will be extracted and burned, as demanded by an outdated business model that sacrifices a livable planet for the sake of profit. CAPP’s biggest concern is pipeline capacity. Climate activists know that stopping pipeline construction in Canada, as in the U.S., is critically important.
» Read article

safety unfactored
Regulators Discuss LNG-by-Rail Safety Concerns — After Approving New Rule To Allow Transporting LNG by Rail
By Justin Mikulka, DeSmog Blog
January 26, 2021

New regulations were announced by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in July 2020 allowing the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail.

That same month, PHMSA released the interim report for its LNG-by-rail task force. It concluded: “The task force did not identify any new safety gaps related to the transportation of LNG in tank cars.”

And yet, it stated, “PHMSA and FRA will continue to pursue research and testing efforts designed to reduce the risks inherent in LNG transportation and hazmat transportation more broadly.”

As part of that continued work, this month, PHMSA held public meetings with a committee from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) to discuss the “Safe Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas by Railroad Tank Car.”  (The NAS committee was announced a month before the new LNG-by-rail rule was finalized.) What’s more, earlier this year PHMSA stated that safety wasn’t a pretext for regulation.

The LNG-by-rail regulation fast-tracked by the Trump administration was a gift to the gas and rail industries. The regulation was pushed through without proper safety considerations at a time when there isn’t even any current demand for the moving LNG by rail. The fact that a regulation to move such a dangerous material was approved six months before public meetings began to discuss if moving LNG by rail could be done safely indicates how broken the U.S. regulatory system is — and how it is failing to do its job of protecting the public.

But this is nothing new with PHMSA. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) has been an [advocate] for new pipeline safety regulations from PHMSA for years. Her Congressional testimony on the matter includes her assessment of PHMSA and the U.S. regulatory system.

“The system is fundamentally broken,” Speier testified in 2015. “PHMSA is actually a toothless kitten, a fluffy industry pet that frightens absolutely no one.”
» Read article           
» Related press release: DeFazio and Malinowski Applaud President Biden for Prioritizing Scrutiny of Reckless Trump Rule to Permit LNG Transport by Rail Tank Car       

» More about LNG

BIOMASS

Amherst action on biomassAmherst Town Council asked to oppose Springfield wood-burning plant
By SCOTT MERZBACH, gazettenet.com
February 2, 2021

The Town Council may soon take a stand against the proposed biomass power plant in Springfield.

The Amherst League of Women Voters is asking councilors to adopt a resolution at their Feb. 8 meeting protesting the wood-burning power plant being developed by Palmer Renewable Energy.

The resolution states that the opposition would be due to “the irreparable harm it would cause to the environment and human health.” It also calls for the state to not offer subsidies or other incentives to support such power plants, and for legislators to pass legislation permanently banning large-scale wood biomass power plants in Massachusetts.

Though the company has the phrase “renewable energy” in its title, the local League of Women voters chapter is making the case that the power plant would increase hazardous pollution in the region and emit more carbon dioxide than coal burning.

League member Martha Hanner wrote in an email the resolution is important because, if constructed, the plant would release significant amounts of respirable particulates and potentially harm mature forests that sequester carbon dioxide.

“Massachusetts is poised to become either a good example in the fight to control CO2 emissions or a very bad example,” Hanner wrote.

Endorsed unanimously by the town’s Energy and Climate Action Committee, the resolution comes as Gov. Charlie Baker has put forward regulations that would allow the plant to receive renewable energy credits under the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards.
» Read article

» More about biomass

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


» Learn more about Pipeline projects
» Learn more about other proposed energy infrastructure
» Sign up for the NFGiM Newsletter for events, news and actions you can take
» DONATE to help keep our efforts going!

Weekly News Check-In 1/15/21

banner 09

Welcome back.

The fate of Massachusetts’ ambitious climate roadmap legislation generated plenty of drama this week, amid speculation that Governor Charlie Baker might veto the state’s first major revamp of its emissions reduction program in a dozen years. He did. We gathered news including why he did, why he should have signed it, and speculation on what could happen next.

Opponents of the Weymouth compressor station have long argued that the facility – if allowed to operate – should use electric motor drive to power the compressor. Compressor stations are typically located far from population centers, where the emissions from natural gas turbines don’t immediately impact human health. Now the MA-DEP has rejected a petition for Enbridge to use electric motor drive instead of a polluting gas turbine in Weymouth. The logic for the decision is stunning.

Protesters are actively resisting Enbridge’s Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline in Minnesota, and Sunrise-CT is standing out against the proposed natural gas generating plant in Killingly.

Related to all of the above, we found a thoughtful essay that considers how to make the green energy transition equitable – avoiding the trap of repeating, with green infrastructure, the same injustices that defined the fossil energy era.

In case anyone reading this newsletter isn’t sufficiently freaked out about the climate, a group of seventeen prominent scientists published a paper intended to wake people up to the “ghastly future” we’re sleepwalking into. Theirs is a call for mass mobilization at a World War II level of urgency. It’s also an appeal to their colleagues to step out of the lab and join the fray – challenging the scientist’s traditional dispassionate role.

Despite clear urgency, clean energy faces a thicket of outdated and cumbersome regulations that slow connection to the U.S. grid. Progress for energy efficiency in buildings also faces obstruction – primarily from the powerful National Association of Home Builders and other industry groups. There’s an effort underway to strip energy code voting rights from municipal officials. This follows a very successful drive in 2019 to recruit climate-aware voters, who forged a meaningful increase in building efficiency for the upcoming revision of residential and commercial building codes. This effort to disenfranchise municipal officials is seen by energy advocates as direct industry blowback. The building lobby’s reflexive objection to better efficiency may have influenced Governor Baker’s veto of the climate roadmap bill.

Massachusetts proposes to clean up its transportation sector by eliminating sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, joining California in this nation-leading goal. Meanwhile, the EV sector is abuzz with news about advances in solid-state batteries, and your future vehicle may double as battery storage for your home and the grid.

We found an excellent opinion piece from Utility Dive, arguing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission needs to make fundamental changes in how it considers energy infrastructure projects – explaining critical flaws in its “public need” evaluation, on which recent pipelines were justified.

Our wrap-up brings us full circle, because the fortunes of the liquefied natural gas industry directly impact the Weymouth compressor station – intended to push fracked gas from the Marcellus shale play north to Canada for eventual export through the proposed Goldboro LNG facility in Nova Scotia. While Pieridae Energy has brought man-camp trailers to the construction site, the company still lacks the necessary investment to proceed. Completion is years away and not yet guaranteed.

button - BEAT News button - BZWI  For even more environmental news, info, and events, check out the latest newsletters from our colleagues at Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) and Berkshire Zero Waste Initiative (BZWI)!

— The NFGiM Team

LEGISLATIVE NEWS

call for action not answered
Reluctantly, governor vetoes Mass. climate change bill, but it may soon be back on his desk
By Matt Stout and David Abel, Boston Globe
January 14, 2021

Governor Charlie Baker vetoed a far-reaching package of climate change and energy legislation Thursday, rejecting — perhaps temporarily — a bill that would have set the state on a path to in effect eliminate its carbon emissions over the next three decades.

The move disappointed but didn’t surprise lawmakers and advocates, who had feared the Republican governor would veto the bill, despite having laid out his own ambitious plan to achieve zero emissions on a net basis by 2050.

The legislation, considered the state’s most sweeping measure to address climate change since the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act in 2008, would have required the state to reduce its emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by the end of the decade.

In a letter to the Legislature, Baker said he shared lawmakers’ goals but differed with them “on how these goals should best be achieved.”

“Reluctantly, I cannot sign this legislation as currently written,” he wrote.

Baker could only sign or veto the 57-page bill, since lawmakers passed and sent it to him one day before their two-year legislative session ended last week.

With more time, Baker said, he would have returned the bill to lawmakers with proposed amendments.

His five-page letter cited a list of reasons why he refused to sign the bill. He said it would have countered a recently enacted law that seeks to promote affordable housing; lacked provisions to help fortify the state against rising seas and other impacts of climate change; would potentially harm regional efforts to procure clean energy; and was not supported by scientific analysis.

He also cited the uncertain consequences of the bill on the state’s economy as it emerges from the pandemic. “As we are all learning what the future will hold, I have concerns about the impacts portions of this bill will have for large sectors of the economy,” Baker said.

But his veto may be short-lived. Democratic leaders in the Legislature have vowed to rush the bill back to Baker’s desk, potentially within days, quickly reviving a package free of the parliamentary limits that Baker suggested had tied his hands.
» Read article           

Vineyard Wind 1
Mariano ready to refile accord on climate, emissions
By Matt Murphy, WWLP Channel 22 News
January 13, 2021

As Gov. Charlie Baker weighs a possible veto of climate legislation on his desk, House Speaker Ronald Mariano is preparing to refile the bill in its entirety on Thursday should the governor reject the bill as passed, according to the speaker’s office.

The step is intended to send a message to Baker that House Democrats stand behind the proposal, which would require Massachusetts to go carbon-neutral by 2050 and set a series of interim benchmarks intended to keep Massachusetts on the path.

The bill would also direct utilities to purchase more offshore wind power, set efficiency standards for appliances and increase the amount of renewable sources that feed the state’s electricity supply to 40 percent by 2030.

“This is meant to send a strong message to people supportive of the bill to stand firm, and that there’s not a lot of appetite for changes,” said someone close to the speaker, who asked to speak anonymously. Mariano also intends to approach Senate President Karen Spilka on Wednesday to discuss his plan.

Both the House and Senate unanimously passed the climate legislation on Monday, Jan. 4, a day before the Legislature brought its two-year session to a close.
» Read article             

they made me do itReal estate groups push for veto of climate bill, saying it could thwart economic recovery
Developers worry that rules allowing towns to adopt “net zero” building requirements could drive up costs and drive away business
By Jon Chesto, Boston Globe
January 12, 2021

A business-backed lobbying push over one controversial provision could end up sinking a far-reaching climate and energy bill that the Massachusetts Legislature passed on the penultimate day of its two-year session.

The point of contention: one sentence in the 57-page bill that would allow cities and towns to adopt rules requiring new buildings to be “net zero,” presumably with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

The climate bill’s success, seemingly assured just over a week ago, now hangs in the balance. Environmental advocates are increasingly jittery that months of work could be in jeopardy. Governor Charlie Baker has until the end of the day Thursday to decide whether the concern over net-zero buildings and any other issues outweigh all the bill’s potential benefits, such as sparking more offshore wind and solar projects.

The Legislature didn’t end up passing the bill until roughly one day before the two-year session ended last week. For that reason, Baker cannot send the bill back with amendments. He can either sign it or reject it by either explicitly vetoing it or not signing it, a “pocket veto.”

Among the groups calling for a veto: development lobbyist NAIOP Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts. Among those urging support: environment-focused nonprofits such as Ceres and RENEW Northeast, and a coalition of municipal leaders in 17 cities and towns in Greater Boston.

For some in the business community, the debate mirrors one that played out during the past year or so over banning new natural-gas hookups in several cities and towns. Those efforts hit a big setback in July when Attorney General Maura Healey ruled that a ban in Brookline was preempted by state law.

While advocates for builders and developers support most aspects of the climate bill, they worry this net-zero building provision in particular could derail the state’s economic recovery by creating a new source of construction costs and delays.
» Read article           

Emily Reichert PhDA letter to Gov. Baker: Sign the climate bill
By Tim Cronin | Emily Reichert, Boston Business Journal / Opinion
January 11, 2021

Comprehensive climate action remains a collaborative process. We need investors to support the entrepreneurs who are developing new technologies. We need business leaders who are eager to test, deploy and believe in climate-tech solutions. And we also need policymakers who are willing to implement smart, ambitious policies to support them. 

This is how we build a just and sustainable future for all citizens of the commonwealth. This, Gov. Baker, is why you need to sign the climate bill. 

The act creating a next-generation roadmap for Massachusetts climate policy is the first major legislative update of climate policy in Massachusetts in over a decade. In the midst of the pandemic’s devastation, and a growing economic downturn, this bill comes just in time to bolster our recovery efforts. Like the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, Senate Bill 2995’s mix of ambitious climate goals and 21st century energy solutions is the foundation we need to unleash a new era of economic prosperity in our Massachusetts.

The bill plays to our competitive strengths in areas like energy efficiency and clean technology. We’ve consistently ranked top in the nation for energy efficiency, with that sector representing our fastest job growth in recent years. This bill modernizes our energy efficiency standards, collectively saving businesses and residents $160 million annually and creating tens of thousands of jobs over the coming decade. Similarly, Massachusetts has emerged as a regional and national hub for cleantech incubators, like Greentown Labs. SB2995 will make Massachusetts the first in the nation to set numerical benchmarks for the adoption of clean technology. Meaning businesses can invest in climate tech, with a clearer understanding of the future market for solutions like electric vehicles, charging stations, solar tech, energy storage and heat pumps in Massachusetts.

The climate bill advances markets toward other landmark technology needed to tackle the climate crisis. It nearly doubles the state’s offshore wind capacity over the coming decade, getting us to 5,600 megawatts and creating green jobs in the process. We will also see new incentives to build out the state’s renewable hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure, as well as pilot programs to transition the state’s largest utilities toward renewable thermal technology.

By signing the bill, you will signal to investors that Massachusetts is open for business and fully committed to the kind of climate investments the 21st century demands of us. Importantly, this bill ensures that we go beyond just setting a goal of net zero emissions reductions by 2050. It puts us on the economically prudent path towards a 50 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2030, with a specific focus on emissions reductions in every sector of the economy. We uniquely have the opportunity to lead the research, development, and deployment of new clean technology in the commonwealth, creating companies and jobs here.
» Read article          

» More about legislation             

WEYMOUTH COMPRESSOR STATION

petition denied
Petition for electric compressor station motor rejected
By Ed Baker, The Patriot Ledger
January 13, 2021

WEYMOUTH — The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection denied a citizens group petition to have an electric powered turbine at a compressor station in the Fore River Basin.

DEP presiding officer Jane Rothchild said federal regulations don’t support a “wholesale replacement” of the gas turbine by Algonquin Gas Transmission, the Enbridge subsidiary that runs the compressor station. 

“A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a combustion turbine is a different design than an electric motor drive,” said the ruling on Tuesday. “The equipment in a combustion turbine is different than the equipment in an electric motor drive, and an electric motor drive cannot run on natural gas.”

Rothchild further stated an electric motor drive “is not a pollution-controlled technology that can be applied to the proposed source.”

“Installing an electric motor drive would require additional infrastructure and improvements, including a half-mile of underground high voltage transmission line,” she stated. “Mass DEP took a hard look at the design elements and properly determined that the use of colocating natural gas is integral to the design of the facility.”

Rothchild’s ruling upholds the DEP’s previous determination that an electric motor drive is not the best available control technology to reduce nitrogen oxide and pollutant emissions at the compressor station.
» Blog editor’s note: It is absurd to conclude that a zero-emissions electric motor drive system “is not the best available control technology to reduce nitrogen oxide and pollutant emissions at the compressor station.” Ms. Rothchild’s prior comment gets to the heart of the matter: “Installing an electric motor drive would require additional infrastructure and improvements, including a half-mile of underground high voltage transmission line…”. Yes – it’s an additional investment. It should have been part of the original design because of this facility’s close proximity to an already environmentally burdened community. But it’s clearly not money Enbridge cares to spend. Sadly, the Baker administration has chosen not to defend the public health interest of its Weymouth constituents.
» Read article        

» More about the Weymouth compressor         

PROTESTS AND ACTIONS

school strike for climate
Protests Today, Saturday Against Proposed Killingly Gas Plant
By Public News Service
January 13, 2021

HARTFORD, Conn. – Opponents of the proposed Killingly natural-gas power plant are ramping up public pressure, with a protest today in Hartford and another on Saturday in New Haven.

At 2 p.m. today, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is scheduled to be a featured speaker at the Hartford protest, where there will also be a symbolic “die-in” on the back steps of the Capitol building.

Gov. Ned Lamont has said he wants the state to be carbon-neutral by 2040, so rally organizer Sena Wazer, co-director of the group Sunrise Connecticut and a junior at the University of Connecticut, said she thinks Lamont should intervene to deny final approvals for the plant.

“And it’s really just to show the governor the really disastrous effects that climate change is going to have on our future,” she said, “especially as young people.”

A second protest is planned for 11:30 a.m. Saturday at the New Haven Green.

The state has said the plant would be a source of “bridge fuel” for times when energy from wind or solar isn’t sufficient. The Governor’s Council on Climate Change is supposed to release its final report by the end of the month. If approved, the Killingly plant would go online in 2024 and generate 650 megawatts of power. The Sierra Club estimates it could dump 2 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year.

Angel Serrano, a community organizer for the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said the state never will reach its decarbonization goals if it keeps green-lighting new fossil-fuel infrastructure.
» Read article        

honor treaties
As Enbridge Races to Build Line 3 Pipeline, Resistance Ramps Up in the Courts and On the Ground
By Dana Drugmand, DeSmog Blog
January 8, 2021

On January 2, 2021, during the first weekend of the New Year, dozens of water protectors gathered to demonstrate and pray along Great River Road near Palisade, Minnesota. They joined in song, protesting a controversial tar sands oil pipeline called Line 3, which is currently being constructed through northern Minnesota and traditional Anishinaabe lands. Ojibwe tribes have helped spearhead the opposition to this pipeline, alongside Indigenous and environmental groups.

A clash with police hours later resulted in the arrest of 14 demonstrators. As one water protector, Shanai Matteson, described the confrontation: “There were more police, and fewer Water Protectors, in an unreasonable show of force by officers … who escalated the situation.”

This Indigenous-led resistance to the Line 3 pipeline is reminiscent of Standing Rock in North Dakota, where, since 2015, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has led fellow Native and non-Native water protectors in taking a stand against the Dakota Access pipeline, which ultimately went into operation in 2017. Both of these battles over new tar sands pipelines also have featured direct action demonstrations and legal challenges, all with significant stakes for Native rights and sovereignty, the integrity of impacted water bodies and land, and the global climate.

In Minnesota, the fight over Line 3 has dragged on for over six years. Now, with the Canadian-based energy pipeline giant Enbridge Corporation commencing construction, opponents are continuing their resistance on the ground and in the courts.

Pipeline opponents have been battling Enbridge since the company first proposed the Line 3 project in 2014. Enbridge has pitched it as a replacement of an older, corroding pipe built in the 1960s, though the new pipeline will be larger and much of it traverses through a different area compared to the older pipeline. Opponents therefore describe it as a new pipeline rather than a replacement. This new Line 3 project would nearly double the capacity to carry heavy crude, almost a million barrels per day, from the Alberta tar sands fields in Hardisty to the end point over a thousand miles away in Superior, Wisconsin.

The majority of the nearly $3 billion U.S. portion of the pipeline, around 337 miles of it, would run through Minnesota. State regulators like the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission have issued key permits for the pipeline, despite expert studies — including a review by the Minnesota Department of Commerce — showing the project is unnecessary and would have harmful and costly impacts, particularly to the environment and to tribal communities.

According to a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued by the state last year, the social cost of the project over a 30-year life cycle is estimated at $287 billion — far greater than the roughly $2 billion Enbridge says will flow to the Minnesota economy during construction. This “social cost” is based on the social cost of carbon, or an estimate of societal damages occurring from carbon emissions that drive the climate crisis.
» Read article           

» More about protests and actions            

GREENING THE ECONOMY

justice first
Justice First: How to Make the Clean Energy Transition Equitable
Switching to renewables won’t solve the inequities already baked into our system, says energy and environmental law expert Shalanda Baker. We need a different approach.
By Tara Lohan, The Revelator
January 11, 2021

When Shalanda Baker stopped in Oaxaca, Mexico in 2009 to brush up on her Spanish before heading to Colombia, she didn’t realize it would be a life-changing event. She’d just left her job at a corporate law firm with the hope of lending her expertise to communities fighting coal mines or other dirty energy projects in South America.

But in Oaxaca she met Indigenous community members fighting a different type of energy project: large-scale wind development. “Their struggles echoed the stories of countless communities around the world affected by oil and gas development: dispossession, displacement, environmental harm, unfair contracts, racism and a litany of concerns about impact to culture and community,” she writes in her new book Revolutionary Power: An Activist’s Guide to the Energy Transition.

And she realized that in the pursuit of clean energy and climate solutions, we were on course to replicate many of the same injustices of the fossil fuel economy.

“I knew, in that moment, that this tension — between Indigenous rights and clean energy, between the rush to avert catastrophic climate change and social justice — would form the foundation of my work as an activist and scholar. It would also become my life’s work,” she writes.
» Read article          

» More about greening the economy            

CLIMATE

dire assessment
With Dire Assessment, Scientists Warn Humanity in Denial of Looming ‘Collapse of Civilization as We Know It’
“We aim to provide leaders with a realistic ‘cold shower’ of the state of the planet that is essential for planning to avoid a ghastly future.”
By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams
January 13, 2021

In an example to the rest of the scientific community and an effort to wake up people—particularly policymakers—worldwide, 17 scientists penned a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the planet and what the future could hold due to biodiversity loss, climate disruption, human consumption, and population growth.

“Ours is not a call to surrender—we aim to provide leaders with a realistic ‘cold shower’ of the state of the planet that is essential for planning to avoid a ghastly future,” according to the perspective paper, co-authored by experts across Australia, Mexico, and the United States, and published in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Co-author Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology—who has raised alarm about overpopulation for decades—told Common Dreams his colleagues “are all scared” about what’s to come.

“Scientists have to learn to be communicators,” said Ehrlich, citing James Hansen’s warning about the consequences of “scientific reticence.” Hansen, a professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to Congress about the climate crisis in 1988.

Ehrlich was straightforward about how “extremely dangerous things are” now and the necessity of a “World War II-type mobilization” to prevent predictions detailed in the paper: “a ghastly future of mass extinction, declining health, and climate-disruption upheavals (including looming massive migrations), and resource conflicts.”

“What we are saying might not be popular, and indeed is frightening. But we need to be candid, accurate, and honest if humanity is to understand the enormity of the challenges we face in creating a sustainable future,” said co-author Daniel T. Blumstein of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a statement about the paper.

“By scientists’ telling it like it is, we hope to empower politicians to work to represent their citizen, not corporate, constituents,” he said in an email to Common Dreams.
» Read article          
» Read the scientists’ perspective article         

» More about climate          

CLEAN ENERGY

FERC 2003
Report: Renewables Are Suffering From Broken US Transmission Policy
Interconnection backlogs and excessive upgrade costs require ground-up reform to solve, grid advocates say.
By Jeff St. John, GreenTech Media
January 12, 2021

Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, has a simple explanation for why U.S. transmission grid policy has stalled the growth of wind and solar power. 

“If you talk to a developer, they will say [that] the grid operators and transmission owners are woefully slow and unpredictable in terms of what it costs to connect, and the process is extremely frustrating,” he said in a Monday interview.  

“If you talk to the grid operators, they’ll say, ‘Renewables developers keep throwing in different projects, [so] I have to study each of them — and when I give them an answer, they drop out of the queue and I have to go back and study everything else.’” 

“They’re both right — and it’s because we have a systemic problem,” said Gramlich, co-author of a new report, Disconnected: The Need for a New Generator Interconnection Policy. Despite incremental attempts by the country’s major interstate transmission operators to solve these problems, Gramlich and his colleagues felt they “had to point out how everybody’s working in a fundamentally broken system.”

These observations are backed up by a rising tide of evidence from clean-energy advocates and academic research indicating that attempts to decarbonize the U.S. electricity system may be stymied by a lack of transmission to carry wind and solar power from where it’s most cheaply generated to where it’s most needed. 

The fundamental disconnect stems from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 2003, created in the same year, which allows independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to hold developers of new generation facilities responsible for the costs of upgrades needed to interconnect their projects to the transmission grid. 

The purpose was to avoid cost-sharing structures to force the cost of connecting new generators onto the broad base of utilities and customers. That made sense when the primary new resource being added to the grid was large-scale natural-gas generators that could be sited at the most advantageous interconnection locations.

But it has become a major problem as wind and solar projects, which tend to be most productive in far-away locations, have come to make up about 90 percent of new interconnection requests in the queues of the ISOs and RTOs that manage the transmission networks that provide electricity to about two-thirds of the country’s population.
» Read article           

» More about clean energy               

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

ICC cuts out stakeholders
Cities, states would lose voice on model energy code updates under proposal
The International Code Council is set to consider a proposal that would strip public sector members of their voting rights on updates to influential model building energy code.
By Alex Ruppenthal, Energy News Network
January 13, 2021

Months after record participation by state and local governments helped pass one of the most ambitious building energy code updates in years, the organization that oversees the process is taking steps that would sideline thousands of public sector members from voting on future updates.

Energy efficiency advocates say the proposed changes would give outsized influence to the National Association of Home Builders and other industry groups and make it more difficult to incorporate stricter efficiency requirements into future model energy codes.

“This could potentially strip out the public sector voice in the process, or at least reduce it greatly, which is concerning because it’s supposed to be a code enforced by public officials for health and safety, among other reasons,” said Kathryn Wright, building energy program director with the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, which opposes the changes. 

The International Code Council, a nonprofit that oversees the development of building energy codes, is considering changes this month that would put decisions on future energy codes in the hands of a committee comprised of code officials, industry groups and other stakeholders, including some representing clean energy groups.

The proposed overhaul is in response to concerns raised by industry groups representing homebuilders and developers over the recently completed code development process during which a record number of state and local government officials cast votes, helping win approval for a slate of efficiency-boosting changes.

Lauren Urbanek, a senior energy policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the code council’s proposal “a thinly veiled attempt to prevent clean energy progress from happening in the future.”
» Read article           

» More about energy efficiency           

CLEAN TRANSPORTATION

electric cars MA
Gasoline Car Sales to End by 2035 in Massachusetts
Charging stations will need to become as common as gas stations
By Maxine Joselow, E&E News, in Scientific American
January 8, 2021

Massachusetts plans to phase out sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, speeding down the same road as California.

While many climate hawks have their eyes trained on the federal government, the proposal last week from Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) heralds significant climate action at the state level.

“I’m really excited to see Gov. Baker moving forward to address global warming pollution from cars and get more zero-emission vehicles on the road,” said Morgan Folger, director of the Zero Carbon Campaign at Environment America.

“Transportation is one of the largest sources of global warming pollution in Massachusetts, and, in particular, gas-powered cars are a big chunk,” Folger added. “So phasing out gas-powered cars in the state could make a big dent.”

Baker issued the proposal as part of his interim Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030, which outlines how the state can reduce carbon emissions 45% below 1990 levels by 2030—an interim target on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Transportation accounts for 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, according to the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Passenger cars alone are responsible for roughly 27% of all carbon pollution.

“There is no way we can achieve our net-zero 2050 target without urgent action in the transportation sector. And helping people get out of polluting vehicles and into clean vehicles is the fastest way to get there,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon programs director at the Acadia Center, a clean energy-focused nonprofit with offices in Boston.

Stutt said he thinks Massachusetts can reach 100% electric vehicle sales within 15 years if the state addresses two overarching challenges: a lack of point-of-sale incentives for EV drivers and a dearth of EV charging infrastructure.
» Read article           

solid state game changer
Toyota’s Solid-State Battery Prototype Could Be an EV Game Changer
New technology brings electric cars closer to the convenience of their gas-powered counterparts.
By Aaron Gold, MotorTrend
December 14, 2020

Imagine an electric car battery that provides more than 300 miles of range, charges in approximately ten minutes, requires no bulky heating and cooling systems, maintains 80 percent of its charge capacity for 800 cycles (about 240,000 miles), and isn’t prone to spontaneous combustion. Such is the promise of the solid-state car battery, a holy grail that automakers and manufacturers are racing to find. Now, Toyota announced it’ll have a running prototype with a solid-state battery ready by next year.

Before you yawn and click the back button on your browser, consider the implications of this technology. Range and charge times are the biggest barriers to EV adoption, and while a ten-minute charge is still quite a bit longer than it takes to fill a gas tank with liquid fuel, it’s a lot better than having to make lunch plans while your car recharges. A compact fast-charging battery could be the EV equivalent of the electric starter, as it would allow battery-powered electric cars to conquer internal-combustion power once and for all.

Toyota is far from the sole entrant in this race, nor is it the only company making headlines. Last week, a California company called QuantumScape, which has a strategic partnership with Volkswagen, announced promising test results for its own solid-state cell. Toyota’s announcement of its upcoming Euro-market electric SUV included the note that the company plans to have solid-state battery technology in its production vehicles by 2025.

The race to develop a solid-state battery for electric vehicles is on, and if Toyota’s plans to produce a running prototype in 2021 come to fruition, then we could very well be looking at the dominant automotive technology of the future within the next year.
» Read article           

V2G2021 Outlook: The future of electric vehicle charging is bidirectional — but the future isn’t here yet
Within a few years, cars may be able to power homes, participate in energy markets and help businesses lower power bills, experts say.
By Robert Walton, Utility Dive
January 12, 2021

Electric vehicles are growing in popularity, and utilities are preparing for a future where their value goes far beyond transportation.

As more EVs hit the road, there are growing questions about how utilities will manage their charging needs. Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) has estimated that electrifying all of the roughly 251 million light duty vehicles on U.S roads today would increase annual electricity demand by about 25% — and that doesn’t include medium and heavy-duty applications like freight and public transit along with a host of other applications.

While the transition to a fully electric fleet could take decades to achieve, the near-term implications for grid management as more and more EVs hit the road are significant.

Along with adding demand, EVs are increasingly seen as potential grid assets: aligning their charging needs with times of higher renewables production and lower grid stress can help decarbonize transportation and operate electric systems more efficiently. Managed charging, through time-of-use rates and demand response programs, is known as vehicle-grid integration and is already the subject of utility programs around the country.

This approach to managing EV demand — largely reliant on unidirectional power flows that adjust how and when chargers are pulling energy from the grid — is sometimes referred to as level 1 integration (V1G). But there is also interest in using the energy in EV batteries to serve other loads, with what are known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capabilities.

While those capabilities are utilized in parts of Europe and Asia, experts say the United States is still years away from widespread use of V2G. There are a few utilities rolling out pilot programs to test the capabilities, including Duke Energy in North Carolina, but there are still safety and engineering concerns to be addressed, technical problems to solve and business cases to study.

“It can be pretty complicated to make it all work. I’ve read hundreds of technical papers on these topics and I just don’t think the value proposition of V2G is at all clear,” said Chris Nelder, a manager with RMI’s mobility practice. 

That said, there is a growing consensus that millions of vehicle batteries will one day serve as energy resources beyond V1G managed charging, to power buildings and microgrids and feed energy back into the bulk power system.
» Read article           

» More about clean transportation      

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

reboot FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission needs a reboot
By Ashish Solanki, Utility Dive / Opinion
January 8, 2021

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency within the Department of Energy responsible for regulating the interstate transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas, needs a massive revamp. The incoming Biden Administration would do well to look for new leadership.

The need for a different approach is especially evident when it comes to gas pipeline approvals. FERC is neglecting to analyze significant energy market changes and continuing to rely on a flawed assumption that the mere existence of a contract to supply gas implies “public need” for a pipeline.

FERC has not only failed to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, but also has continued to make costly and environmentally harmful decisions. Three major pipeline projects — the Constitution, Northeast Supply Enhancement Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline — were scrapped in 2020 after being approved by the commission. These fiascos could have been avoided if FERC had analyzed the energy market’s needs more efficiently.

The U.S. energy market has undergone significant changes since FERC last updated its guidelines for approving pipelines in 1999. When the guidelines were adopted, natural gas was seen as a relatively scarce resource. The commission’s decisions were made with the goal of increasing the availability and supply of the gas; very few large-scale energy alternatives to natural gas existed.

During the last decade, however, excessive production of natural gas has created a surplus that has vastly exceeded demand. At the same time, renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies have gained momentum, and the renewable energy industry has grown considerably. Renewables are competing directly with the natural gas industry for cheaper and more efficient energy production. This has changed the calculation of necessity for natural gas project proposals.
Ashish Solanki is an Energy Finance Research Associate at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
» Read article           

» More about FERC        

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

still not financed
LNG prices skyrocket, but fresh delays mean Canadian projects will miss the boom
The only LNG export facility even under construction in Canada is years away from completion
By Geoffrey Morgan, The Financial Post
January 14, 2021

Canadian natural gas producers are watching with envy as liquefied natural gas prices in Europe and Asia hit new records this month while Canada’s only under-construction export facility is years away from completion and the COVID-19 pandemic has dealt fresh delays to other proponents.

“I won’t hide the fact that COVID has had an impact on the overall development timeline,” GNL Quebec acting president Tony Le Verger said in an interview of his company’s proposed $9-billion Energie Saguenay LNG export project in northern Quebec.

Less than a year ago, at the beginning of March 2020, GNL Quebec confirmed it had lost a major potential investor in the LNG export facility when Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. pulled out of the proposed terminal amid concerns about political risk following rail blockades.

Then, two weeks later, at the beginning of March 2020, the spread of the coronavirus sent natural gas and LNG prices crashing as economies around the world closed down for months. This led Quebec regulators to question whether GNL Quebec’s plans remained viable and the pandemic also delayed regulatory hearings for Energie Saguenay.

While the commodity price has skyrocketed globally, the Canadian export project closest to completion, LNG Canada, isn’t expected to be in service until 2023 at the earliest, which means Canadian producers will largely miss out on the current boom.

Alfred Sorensen, president and CEO of Calgary-based Pieridae Energy Ltd., has been trying to secure financing for an LNG terminal called Goldboro in Nova Scotia [emphasis added] and described 2020 as “a perfect storm,” that has frustrated his company’s capital-raising efforts.

“We had a scenario where gas built up coming into winter, there was no winter in Europe, then COVID-19 came and gas got destroyed,” Sorensen said, adding that he hasn’t been able to travel to meet potential investors in the project through 2020 but is still hopeful he’ll be able to engage investors this year.

“To do the kind of deals we’re going to do, we’re going to have to see how we can go to places. I don’t think that’s going to occur for the next three or four months,” Sorensen said, adding he’s looking to raise $1 billion in the first half of this year.

Sorensen said the company’s new engineering and construction contractor, Virginia-based Bechtel Corp., is due to send the company a preliminary all-in cost estimate for the project by the end of March. The company hopes to make a decision on pre-construction work by the end of June.
» Blog editor’s note: the proposed (and still un-financed) Goldboro LNG terminal is the intended destination for a substantial portion of fracked natural gas to be pumped north from the Weymouth compressor station.
» Read article           

» More about LNG             

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


» Learn more about Pipeline projects
» Learn more about other proposed energy infrastructure
» Sign up for the NFGiM Newsletter for events, news and actions you can take
» DONATE to help keep our efforts going!

Weekly News Check-In 11/20/20

banner 03

Welcome back.

Two pending Weymouth compressor station issues include the need for more detail in the town’s emergency evacuation plan, and the town council’s desire for legal clarification of what exactly Mayor Robert Hedlund agreed to in his recent settlement with Enbridge. It’s worth jumping from here to a story about mounting international resistance to the proposed Goldboro liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Nova Scotia. Recall that we expect a significant percentage of the natural gas pushed north from the Weymouth compressor station to end up at this facility, for export to Europe.

Closer to home, Eversource is attempting to cut costs on their planned Ashland pipeline upgrade, hoping to avoid removing the existing pipe by making individual easement agreements with landowners.

News about other pipelines includes a big win for the Great Lakes, as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer cancelled Enbridge’s permit to operate Line 5, a pair of oil and natural gas pipelines under the Straits of Mackinac, a narrow waterway connecting Lakes Michigan and Huron. The decades-old pipelines have posed an incalculable risk to this critical freshwater ecosystem, and will be decommissioned in 2021. We also found a revealing study showing which banks are the biggest financiers of the beleaguered Mountain Valley Pipeline.

Young climate activists are turning up the heat on President-elect Biden. Recent protests were sparked by Mr. Biden’s selection of advisers with deep knowledge of climate-related agencies, but who are also past recipients of fossil fuel money. 

The divestment movement celebrated the announcement that 47 faith institutions from 21 countries are turning away from fossil fuels. This is the largest-ever joint divestment by religious leaders in history.

Mayors from Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia unveiled last week the “Marshall Plan for Middle America.” The $60 billion strategy envisions a greener, more sustainable economy, and aims to expedite the transition away from that region’s reliance on coal mining and fracking.

A couple of new climate studies address the limits of solar geoengineering, and also explain why hurricanes generated over warm oceans don’t dissipate as quickly after making landfall as they used to when water surface temperatures were cooler.

In clean energy, the American west is hatching plans for a green hydrogen future in its power sector. The scheme involves solar- and wind-powered electrolyzers, underground storage for the hydrogen they produce, and co-located power plants built to run on either natural gas or hydrogen – replacing existing coal plants. The dual-fuel power plants invite some skepticism, especially those sited in arid locations, because producing hydrogen through electrolysis requires lots of water…. A cynic might see some room for long-term commitments to natural gas.

The Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), expected to boost clean transportation, is dealing with new fuel cost projections based on pandemic-related affects to that sector. Meanwhile, planners continue to address challenges related to the buildout of EV charging infrastructure, and the usual suspects are out with another bogus report claiming electric vehicles pollute as much as conventional cars.

Anticipating that Richard Glick will soon be Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman, this article describes his top priorities under the Biden administration.

We end with a reality check for anyone lulled by Mitt Romney’s recent adult-in-the-room performances calling out Trump administration lunacies. At the same time he acknowledges Biden’s electoral win, he’s out there drumming up support for the fossil fuel industry, which he apparently wants to shield from the new president and his climate plans. And of course, we have a story about the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to bidding for drilling leases.

button - BEAT News button - BZWI  For even more environmental news, info, and events, check out the latest newsletters from our colleagues at Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) and Berkshire Zero Waste Initiative (BZWI)!

— The NFGiM Team

 

WEYMOUTH COMPRESSOR STATION

school evacuation not considered
Forum urged for compressor evacuation zone plan
By Ed Baker, Wicked Local Weymouth
November 12, 2020

A major gas leak or explosion at the compressor station in the Fore River Basin would require an evacuation of residents within a one-mile radius of the facility, 

Weymouth District 1 Councilor Rebecca Haugh said during a Town Council meeting, Nov. 9. She said the evacuation zone would include “ a good portion of North Weymouth and Idlewell.

“We are exceptionally unique here due to the sheer volume of people who live in proximity to the site,” she said.

The evacuation zone is detailed in a 1,110-page town summary, and the area includes Wessagusset Primary School, Elden Johnson Early Childhood Center, businesses, and daycare centers.

School Committee Chairwoman Lisa Belmarsh stated an evacuation of the Johnson Early Childhood Center would be more complicated because school buses would not proceed to the building during a crisis.  

 “This school is also located on the current evacuation route for the whole area as detailed in this emergency plan making their exit even more complicated where buses will not be able to reach the school,” she stated in a letter to the council.

Belmarsh stated an evacuation plan for Johnson must consider that the school has wheelchair-bound or medically fragile students.

The School Committee reviewed the emergency response plan during a Nov. 5  meeting.

Belmarsh stated there was no mention of the schools in the evacuation plan, and committee members agreed to express their concerns in a letter to the council that will be discussed during a Nov. 19 meeting.   

Haugh said committee members indicated a need for the emergency response plan to be discussed in a virtual forum with residents to address concerns.
» Read article     

Weymouth town council seeks advice
Weymouth councilors want review of impact of compressor deal
By Jessica Trufant, The Patriot Ledger
November 10, 2020

WEYMOUTH — Members of town council want legal advice on whether an agreement that Mayor Robert Hedlund struck with energy giant Enbridge limits their ability to fight the newly-constructed natural gas compressor station on the banks of the Fore River.

Town Council on Monday night voted to ask Attorney General Maura Healey’s office and the Office of the Inspector General for legal guidance on whether the host community agreement Hedlund signed with Enbridge legally prohibits councilors from opposing the station publicly or in court.

“The mayor made a call and it was his call to make. Whether or not we are tied by that decision, I don’t believe that we are,” At-Large Councilor Jane Hackett said.

The controversial compressor station project will help Enbridge expand its natural gas pipelines from New Jersey into Canada. It has been a point of contention for years among neighbors and some local, state and federal officials who say it presents serious health and safety risks and has no benefit for the residents of Weymouth, Quincy, Braintree, Hingham and surrounding communities.

The deal provides the town with $10 million upfront and potentially $28 million in tax revenue over the next 35 years. In exchange for the money, Hedlund agreed to drop any outstanding lawsuits the town has against Enbridge regarding the Atlantic Bridge project, which the compressor station is part of.
» Read article     

» More about the Weymouth compressor         

 

ASHLAND PIPELINE

Town Manager Michael Herbert
Eversource makes new pitch for Ashland pipeline replacement: easement agreements with all property owners
By Cesareo Contreras, MetroWest Daily News
November 14, 2020

When town officials learned this summer that a Land Court judge ruled in their favor in the case of Eversource Energy’s plan to replace an old transfer line that runs through Hopkinton and Ashland, they were elated. 

At issue was whether the company was legally able to leave a decommissioned 1950s 6-inch-wide pipeline in place as it installed new 12-inch pipeline alongside it.  

The town argued — and in July, a state Land Court judge agreed — that the company could not pursue this option because an order of taking document granting Eversource rights to the easement, as well as a written agreement between previous property owners on the easement, state that only one pipeline can be in the ground at a time. 

Earlier this month, Donna Sharkey, the presiding Energy Facilities Siting Board officer on the case, reopened the case, exclusively to discuss this new development. The board, an independent state agency tasked with reviewing large-scale energy projects, has been deliberating the project behind closed doors since the summer of 2019. 

Instead of fighting the Land Court decision, Eversource is looking to come to an agreement over easement rights with more than 80 Ashland property owners (of which the town is one) in its effort to replace an old 3.7-mile transfer line. Should it get approval of the Siting Board, the company could potentially be able to continue the project without having to remove the old pipeline.
» Read article     

» More about the Ashland pipeline        

 

PIPELINES

Line 5 shut down
‘This Is a Really, Really Big Deal’: Michigan Gov. Moves to Shut Down Line 5 Pipeline to Protect Great Lakes
Enbridge has imposed on the people of Michigan an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes that could devastate our economy and way of life.”
By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams
November 13, 2020

Environmental and Indigenous activists celebrated Friday after Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer took action to shut down the decades-old Enbridge Line 5 oil and natural gas pipelines that run under the Straits of Mackinac, narrow waterways that connect Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—two of the Great Lakes.

Citing the threat to the Great Lakes as well as “persistent and incurable violations” by Enbridge, Whitmer and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Director Dan Eichinger informed the Canadian fossil fuel giant that a 1953 easement allowing it to operate the pipelines is being revoked and terminated.

The move, which Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel asked the Ingham County Circuit Court to validate, gives Enbridge until May 2021 to stop operating the twin pipelines, “allowing for an orderly transition that protects Michigan’s energy needs over the coming months,” according to a statement from the governor’s office.

The Great Lakes collectively contain about a fifth of the world’s surface fresh water. As Whitmer explained Friday, “Here in Michigan, the Great Lakes define our borders, but they also define who we are as people.”

“Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect our Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water and good jobs,” the governor said. “They have repeatedly violated the terms of the 1953 easement by ignoring structural problems that put our Great Lakes and our families at risk.”

“Most importantly, Enbridge has imposed on the people of Michigan an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes that could devastate our economy and way of life,” she added. “That’s why we’re taking action now, and why I will continue to hold accountable anyone who threatens our Great Lakes and fresh water.”

MLive noted that the state attorney general’s new filing “is in addition to Nessel’s lawsuit filed in 2019 seeking the shutdown of Line 5, which remains pending in the same court.” Nessel said Friday that Whitmer and Eichinger “are making another clear statement that Line 5 poses a great risk to our state, and it must be removed from our public waterways.”

The “bombshell news,” as one Michigan reporter called it, elicited applause from environmentalists and Indigenous leaders within and beyond the state.
» Read article      

MVP money pipeline
Top US banks still propping up Mountain Valley fracked-gas pipeline boondoggle

By David Turnbull, Oil Change International
November 12, 2020

After years of delays, permit rejections, public pressure, and changing winds for energy policy with a Biden Administration in the offing, eight main street U.S. banks have substantially increased their investment in the troubled Mountain Valley fracked gas pipeline project, updated analysis by Oil Change International revealed today.

Eight of the leading personal banking services in the United States continue to account for the bulk of the project’s top ten investors, and they have significantly increased their funding for the project since May of 2017. Through bonds, loans and revolving credit, these banks have more than tripled their financing from $1.25 billion to $9.5 billion, more than enough needed to cover the costs of the pipeline, including the cost of planned capacity expansion and a new proposed extension, today’s analysis finds.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline project had originally been set to end construction in late 2018, but has been delayed until at least mid-2021, thanks to staunch public opposition, permit denials, and construction delays. Just this week, a federal court stayed two critical permits, stopping construction across streams and wetlands while a legal challenge is considered. Meanwhile, the cost — considered the highest per-mile of any gas pipeline in the country — continues to grow to nearly $6 billion for the original 301-mile project segment. What’s more, the project has added a new 75-mile segment — the Southgate Extension — which would cost an additional $468 million and add significant carbon impacts to the project.

“The Mountain Valley Pipeline has always been a climate disaster and a risky investment for banks at the same time. Our analysis shows that instead of listening to their customers who are demanding they get out of the fossil fuel business, these banks are doubling down on their dirty and fraught investments in a project that will either help to cook our planet if built or turn into a stranded asset if logic prevails,” said Kyle Gracey, researcher with Oil Change International and author of the updated analysis.

The key consumer banks financing the project include JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, TD, PNC, Union Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and U.S. Bank.
» Read article      
» Read the analysis       

» More about pipelines            

 

PROTESTS AND ACTIONS

twelve years
Climate activists ramp up pressure on Biden with protest outside Democratic headquarters
Climate groups plan to camp in Washington DC in protest of Biden’s hires of key staff with connections to the oil and gas industry
By Emily Holden, The Guardian
November 19, 2020

Progressive climate activists plan to occupy the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington DC today in protest of Joe Biden’s early hires of key staff with connections to the oil and gas industry.

They hope to send the president-elect the message that they helped him win and expect him to follow through with his commitments for significant and justice-focused climate action, including as he makes decisions about his cabinet, which will have a substantial role in carrying out his plan.

The groups – which include the US Climate Action Network, the youth-led Sunrise Movement, the Climate Justice Alliance and the Indigenous Environmental Network – will camp overnight on the sidewalks around the building, despite chilly temperatures.

They will hold a rally this afternoon with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, who co-sponsored a proposal for a Green New Deal. Other members of Congress scheduled to speak include Ilhan Omar and Ro Khanna, and recently elected Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. The participants said they will take steps to maintain distance to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

The action is an early sign that environmental advocates who supported Biden and worked to oust president Donald Trump intend to keep pressure on the administration.
» Read article        

youth 4 climate
Young Climate Leaders Launch Mock COP26 To Push for Climate Ambition
By Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch
November 19, 2020

The official 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) to discuss the international response to the climate crisis has been delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic. But young people aren’t letting that stop them from taking action.

A group of 18 student staff members and 216 volunteers from 118 countries is launching an event today called Mock COP26, a two-week, virtual conference that will conclude with a statement addressed to world leaders with suggestions for the official COP26.

“We decided we had to do something because we are in a climate emergency,” co-organizer 21-year-old Dom Jaramillo of Ecuador told BBC News. “We want to raise ambitions and show world leaders how a COP should be run. We are not the leaders of the future. We are the leaders of today.”

COP26, which was supposed to take place this November, was billed as the most important international climate crisis since the Paris agreement was reached in 2015. Each participating country was supposed to come to the table with more ambitious plans for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. However, it was pushed back a full year to November of 2021.
» Read article      
» Watch the MOCK COP launch film            

» More about protests and actions            

 

DIVESTMENT

faith institutions divest
Dozens of Faith Institutions Announce Divestment From Fossil Fuels
By Julia Conley, Common Dreams
November 17, 2020

Climate action campaigners applauded Monday after 47 faith institutions from 21 countries announced they would divest from fossil fuels, marking the largest-ever joint divestment by religious leaders in history.

Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, gave credit to campaigners in the fossil fuel divestment movement, who in recent years have pressured banks, universities, and other entities to cut financial ties with the fossil fuel sector in an effort to help mitigate the planetary emergency.

“While government leaders cling to the economic models of yesterday, faith leaders are looking ahead to the energy future we share,” said 350.org, noting that the G20 summit is set to begin this coming weekend under Saudi Arabia’s leadership, two months after G20 energy ministers released a statement rubber-stamping fossil fuel bailouts amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“With renewables now growing at a faster pace than fossil fuels,” the group noted, “institutional investors are increasingly moving toward sustainable investments in the clean energy economy. Faith investors help lead this movement, constituting the single-largest source of divestment in the world, making up one-third of all commitments. To date, nearly 400 religious institutions have committed to divest.”

The institutions which announced their divestment include the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union, Irish religious order the Sisters of Our Lady Apostles, the American Jewish World Service, and the Claretian Missionaries in Sri Lanka. Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish organizations joined the coalition.
» Read article       

» More about divestment           

 

GREENING THE ECONOMY

Appalachia greening
Mayors unveil $60B plan to support Midwest energy transition
By Chris Teale, Utility Dive
November 16, 2020

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and other mayors from Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia unveiled last week the “Marshall Plan for Middle America,” a $60 billion blueprint to help the region transition away from fossil fuels toward a greener, more sustainable economy.

The nonpartisan plan from academics and policy researchers calls for federal and private funds to provide $15 billion in block grants to local governments for retrofits and conversions to make buildings more energy efficient; $15 billion in low-interest loans for clean energy production; $15 billion in tax incentives for manufacturers to develop clean energy equipment; and $15 billion in workforce development funds to help further understanding of clean energy. The plan comes as the Ohio Valley region is projected to lose 100,000 jobs in the next few years with the decline of the fossil fuel industry.

Officials involved in the plan said the affected cities have taken local action by adopting climate action plans, divesting from fossil fuels and pooling procurement of renewable energy, but federal help is needed, especially for jurisdictions in the rural and suburban parts of Appalachia that struggle economically.
» Read article       

beyond electric bugs
Ohio startup to reuse battery cells aims to spark economic growth in Appalachia
Growth of the electric vehicle market and increasing demand for battery storage are likely to propel growth.
By Kathiann M. Kowalski, Energy News Network
Photo By Robert Studzinski / Courtesy
November 16, 2020

Years ago, Roger Wilkens converted a 1973 Volkswagen Beetle to run on electricity. But eventually, the bank of lead-acid cells in the car, dubbed the Electric Blue Bugaloo, could no longer move it forward.

That problem, Wilkens said, served as inspiration for an Appalachian Ohio startup that plans to recycle lithium-ion battery cells for reuse in other applications. He expects a growing need for such recycling as more and more electric cars are on the roads. 

Wilkens is now the executive director of the Re-POWER Second Life Battery Network of the Athens Energy Institute, which aims to collect and test used lithium-ion batteries for repackaging into new battery packs. The Glouster-based project is an offshoot of the Center for the Creation of Cooperation, which he also heads and whose activities include helping consumers organize renewable energy cooperatives.

The batteries for many laptops, portable medical devices, and even electric vehicles are actually packs with anywhere from a few to hundreds of lithium-ion cells. 

“When one cell goes bad, typically the whole battery pack is discarded,” Wilkens said. But other cells in the battery pack may still be useful.
» Read article       

» More about greening the economy          

 

CLIMATE

stratocumulus
Solar Geoengineering Might Not Work if We Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Study Finds
By Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch
November 17, 2020

Now, a new study has shown that at least one popular global cooling strategy is unlikely to work if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

“I think the paper provides yet another argument for why solar geoengineering can’t be a ‘get out-of-jail-free’ card that lets us off the hook for the need to cut our CO2 emissions; we can’t just burn all the fossil fuels in the ground and solve the problem with solar geoengineering,” Cornell University senior research associate Dr. Doug MacMartin, who was not a part of the study, told The Independent.

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Monday, looked at one of the most popular solar geoengineering ideas: releasing reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s light and thereby cool temperatures. The use of these particles, called aerosols, would be a way to artificially replicate the cooling that happens after volcanic eruptions.

But the solar geoengineering might not compensate for another consequence of greenhouse gas emissions — the thinning and eventual disappearance of certain clouds.
» Read article      

slow fade
In a Warming World, Hurricanes Weaken More Slowly After They Hit Land
Scientists say global warming is likely to fuel more intense storms. But earlier projections of an overall drop in the number of storms are not holding up.
By Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News
November 15, 2020

Hurricanes are not just intensifying faster and dropping more rain. Because of global warming, their destructive power persists longer after reaching land, increasing risks to communities farther inland that may be unprepared for devastating winds and flooding.

That shift was underlined last  week by an analysis of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between 1967 and 2018. The study, published Nov. 11 in Nature, showed that, in the second half of the study period, hurricanes weakened almost twice as slowly after hitting land. “As the world continues to warm, the destructive power of hurricanes will extend progressively farther inland,” the researchers wrote in their report.

Scientists have known for some time that, as global temperatures warm, hurricanes are intensifying, and are more likely to stall and produce rain.

But Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and a climate researcher with the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, said the new analysis found that with warming, hurricanes also take longer to decay after landfall, something researchers had not studied before. “It was thought that a warming world has had no pronounced effect on landfalling hurricanes,” Chakraborty said. “We show, not so, unfortunately.”

Tropical storms and hurricanes are the costliest climate-linked natural disasters. Since 2000, the damage from such extreme storms has added up to $831 billion, about 60 percent of the total caused by climate-related extremes tracked by a federal disaster database.
» Read article      
» Obtain the study        

» More about climate      

 

CLEAN ENERGY

green hydrogen out west
How to Build a Green Hydrogen Economy for the US West
The Intermountain and ACES projects may be the start of a regionwide green hydrogen generation and transmission network.
Jeff St. John, GreenTech Media
November 17, 2020

Out in Utah, a coal-fired power plant supplying electricity to Los Angeles is being outfitted with natural-gas-fired turbines that will eventually be able to run on hydrogen, created via electrolysis with wind and solar power and stored in massive underground caverns for use when that clean energy isn’t available for the grid. 

This billion-dollar-plus project could eventually expand to more renewable-powered electrolyzers, storage and generators to supply dispatchable power for the greater Western U.S. grid. It could also grow to include hydrogen pipelines to augment and replace the natural gas used for heating and industry or supply hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle fleets across the region. 

That’s the vision of the Western Green Hydrogen Initiative (WGHI), a group representing 11 Western states, two Canadian provinces and key green hydrogen industry players including Mitsubishi and utilities Dominion Energy and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. WGHI launched Tuesday to align state and federal efforts to create “a regional green hydrogen strategy,” including “a large-scale, long-duration renewable energy storage regional reserve.”
» Read article      

UK incinerator
Net zero target impossible without waste sector overhaul, say campaigners
By Caitlin Tilley, DeSmog UK
November 17, 2020

Environmentalists are calling on the government to reassess its support for a large expansion of waste incinerators in the coming decade and bring in a law that would require the waste sector to decarbonise by 2035.

A coalition of 20 organisations, 29 MPs and councillors and 6 campaigners have written to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, urging him to rethink the UK’s growing reliance on “energy-from-waste” plants, which they argue is hindering the transition to a “circular economy”.

Written by Extinction Rebellion’s Zero Waste group, signatories of the letter include Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Climate Coalition, as well as Labour MPs  Diane Abbott MP, John McDonnell MP and Richard Burgon MP have also signed.

Signatory Green Party Baroness Jenny Jones told DeSmog: “As restrictions have been placed on sending rubbish to landfill, our waste has been diverted into newly built incinerators, rather than creating a circular economy. The research behind this letter was a first rate demolition of the Energy from Waste industry.”

“We desperately need a moratorium on new incinerators and to work towards materials being part of a closed loop, where everything possible gets reused,” she added.

The letter claims the UK’s energy-from-waste (EfW) capacity is set to expand by 20 million tonnes by 2030, “more than doubling current capacity and locking the country into an additional 10 million tonnes of fossil-derived CO2 emissions per year, primarily from burning plastics”. This development involves a proposed new EfW plant in Edmonton, London, which has been criticised by Extinction Rebellion.

It argues for an overhaul of the waste and resource sector, to facilitate the transition towards a circular economy and the achievement of the Paris Agreement commitments.
» Read article      
» Read the letter       

» More about clean energy           

 

CLEAN TRANSPORTATION

TCI tradeoff
Study points to greater gas price impacts from transportation pact

By Matt Murphy, State House News Service, in Berkshire Eagle
November 19, 2020

A new study of the cap-and-trade program under development by Northeast states to reduce carbon emissions from cars and trucks found that the program could be more than twice as expensive for drivers than previously estimated, with the pandemic potentially playing a major role in how effective the Transportation Climate Initiative will be.

The Center for State Policy Analysis (CSPA) at Tufts University concluded that TCI would help reduce carbon emissions across the region and generate significant revenue for participating states to invest in clean energy alternatives and public health.

The tradeoff, however, would be increases in gasoline and diesel prices from as little at 3 cents to as much as 47 cents per gallon in 2022, according to the report released Thursday. The wide range takes in account a variety of factors, including how aggressively states try to reduce emissions and the health of the economy as it recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gov. Charlie Baker, who has been leading the push to establish the regional TCI program, said this week that cooperating states were taking a new look at the framework of the program in light of the pandemic and how business restrictions have impacted travel.

“I’m still very much a fan, but as I said yesterday in answer to another question, there’s a lot that’s changed about transportation generally over the course of the past eight months, and that stuff’s got to get baked into the way people model what this would mean and how it would work going forward for them,” Baker said Wednesday.

In December 2019, TCI states released their own study that estimated the cap-and-trade program would add between 5 cents and 17 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline depending on whether the coalition set a target of a 20 percent, 22 percent or 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2032.
» Read article      

total cost of electrification
Cutting the Total Cost of Electrification for EV Bus and Truck Fleets
New funding, strategies for charging, operations and risk management, are needed to hit multi-billion dollar EV fleet goals, report says.
By Jeff St. John, GreenTech Media
November 18, 2020

Electric trucks and buses may be approaching cost parity with their fossil-fueled counterparts, and they’re certainly cheaper to fuel over the long run — and that’s not counting their carbon and pollution emissions benefits. 

But that’s just a slice of the costs of switching bus and truck fleets from fossil fuels to batteries. Unexpected costs and bottlenecks in charging infrastructure, fleet operations and maintenance, and permitting and financing weigh on cities and states mandating electric bus fleets, or private companies with large-scale delivery truck electrification goals. 

Solving for this “total cost of electrification” equation will be a critical step in pushing EV trucks and buses from the margins to the mainstream in the coming decade, according to a report released Wednesday by Environmental Defense Fund, MJ Bradley and Vivid Economics. 

“We’re seeing the technology increasingly ready, and capital increasingly eager to invest in sustainability” via fleet electrification, Andy Darrell, EDF’s chief of global energy and finance strategy, said in an interview. “And yet the deployment, especially in the medium and heavy-duty sector, might not be moving as quickly as we’d like to achieve big climate goals.”
» Read article      
» Read the Environmental Defense Fund report     

CEI attack on EVs
Climate Deniers Are Claiming EVs Are Bad for the Environment — Again. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.
By Dana Drugmand, DeSmog Blog
November 17, 2020

A new paper published Tuesday, November 17, by the conservative think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), raises environmental concerns with electric vehicles in what appears to be the latest attempt by organizations associated with fossil fuel funding to pump the brakes on the transportation sector’s transition away from petroleum and towards cleaner electricity.

In the U.S., the transportation sector is the largest contributor to planet-warming emissions. Climate and energy policy experts say electrifying vehicles is necessary to mitigate these emissions.

In fact, scientists recently warned that if the country has any hope of reaching the Paris climate targets of limiting warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), 90 percent of all light-duty cars on the road must be electric by 2050.

But the Competitive Enterprise Institute — a longtime disseminator of disinformation on climate science and supported by petroleum funding sources including the oil giant ExxonMobil and petrochemical billionaire Koch foundations — dismisses this imperative and instead tries to portray electrified transport as environmentally problematic in a paper titled, “Would More Electric Vehicles Be Good for the Environment?”

“This is a grab bag of old and misleading claims about EVs [electric vehicles],” said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer in the clean transportation program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If you want to answer this question [posed by the report’s title], you have to also look at the question of what are the impacts of the current gasoline and diesel transport system, and this report just ignores that.”
» Read article      

» More about clean transportation            

 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Richard Glick prioritiesGlick vows to prioritize transmission, reassess capacity markets if named FERC Chair
By Catherine Morehouse, Utility Dive
November 18, 2020

Glick has been a vocal opponent of many of the commission’s actions over the past few years, particularly rules like the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) expansion in the PJM Interconnection, which he sees as directly impeding on state resource decisions. The rule effectively raises the floor price for all state-subsidized resources bidding into the grid operator’s capacity market, a change that was roundly criticized by the renewables industry as well as some states within the market.

“I just don’t think it’s sustainable,” said Glick. Though he believes regional transmission organizations provide “significant benefits, especially in terms of integrating massive amounts of new renewable resources at a relatively cost effective basis,” he fears policies like the MOPR could continue to drive states away from organized markets. Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland have all threatened to exit the PJM capacity market because of their frustration with the MOPR rule.

“The last thing we all want to see is … RTOs be pulled apart,” he said. “But that’s what’s going to happen if we continue to block the state programs. The states are going to say ‘Why should I allow my utilities to participate?'”

For him, the solution is reassessing what the organized wholesale markets need in order to prevent further conflict between state clean energy policies and RTO operations.
» Read article       

» More about FERC             

 

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

coal MittPoliticians Try to Rally Support for Coal Despite Economics and Biden Presidential Win
By Justin Mikulka, DeSmog Blog
November 12, 2020

The election results are a stark reminder of just how divided the country remains on many issues. However, in the days since the results were announced November 7, two senators from both parties are finding common ground in a familiar space: opposition to the Green New Deal and support for a dying coal industry.

Both Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) immediately took to CNN and Fox News in the days after the election was called to try and rally support for the fossil fuel industry in the wake of Joe Biden’s election as president — a success which brings with it the promise of strong climate action.

But their comments also come on the heels of yet another coal plant closure in the U.S. and as the world’s largest coal producer, Peabody Energy, warns of going bankrupt for the second time in five years.

Romney told CNN on November 8 that “I want to make sure that we conservatives keep on fighting to make sure we don’t have a Green New Deal, we don’t get rid of gas and coal.”

Meanwhile, Manchin went on Fox News on November 9 to also criticize the Green New Deal, saying, “That’s not who we are as a Democratic Party.” 

“We’re going to use fossil in its cleanest fashion,” he added. Manchin’s unwavering support for the coal industry is well documented and unsurprising as he ran a coal company prior to being elected to the Senate.

Manchin in his comments also echoed Romney’s call to not get rid of gas and coal, telling Fox News, “You have to have energy independence in this country. You can’t eliminate certain things.”

The Green New Deal does not mention coal specifically but it does call for the elimination of carbon emissions in the U.S. power sector by 2030, which would effectively require the elimination of coal. International climate scientists agree that global coal use must effectively be phased out by mid-century to avoid the worst effects of climate breakdown. The move by Manchin and Romney to immediately attack the Green New Deal after the election, however, is disingenuous. President-elect Biden has been clear throughout his campaign that “The Green New Deal is not my plan.”

That said, Biden’s own climate plan is widely considered the most ambitious offered by any elected president. It also stands in dramatic contrast to the lack of any climate plan from the Trump administration.
» Read article        

call for nominations
Trump Administration, in Late Push, Moves to Sell Oil Rights in Arctic Refuge
The lease sales could occur just before Inauguration Day, leaving the administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr. to try to reverse them after the fact.
By Henry Fountain, New York Times
November 16, 2020

In a last-minute push to achieve its long-sought goal of allowing oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, the Trump administration on Monday announced that it would begin the formal process of selling leases to oil companies.

That sets up a potential sale of leases just before Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, leaving the new administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has opposed drilling in the refuge, to try to stop the them after the fact.

“The Trump administration is trying a ‘Hail Mary’ pass,” said Jenny Rowland-Shea, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal group in Washington. “They know that what they’ve put out there is rushed and legally dubious.”

The Federal Register on Monday posted a “call for nominations” from the Bureau of Land Management, to be officially published Tuesday, relating to lease sales in about 1.5 million acres of the refuge along the coast of the Arctic Ocean. A call for nominations is essentially a request to oil companies to specify which tracts of land they would be interested in exploring and potentially drilling for oil and gas.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said it welcomed the move. In a statement, the organization said that development in the refuge was “long overdue and will create good-paying jobs and provide a new revenue stream for the state — which is why a majority of Alaskans support it.”

The call for nominations will allow 30 days for comments, after which the bureau, part of the Interior Department, could issue a final notice of sales to occur as soon as 30 days later. That means the sales could be held a few days before Inauguration Day.

Normally the bureau would take time to review the comments and determine which tracts to sell before issuing the final notice of sale, a process that can take several months. In this case, however, the bureau could decide to offer all of the acreage and issue the notice immediately.

There was no immediate response to emailed requests for comment from the Interior Department or the Bureau of Land Management office in Alaska.

Any sales would then be subject to review by agencies in the Biden administration, including the bureau and the Justice Department, a process that could take a month or two. That could allow the Biden White House to refuse to issue the leases, perhaps by claiming that the scientific underpinnings of the plan to allow drilling in the refuge were flawed, as environmental groups have claimed.
» Read article        

» More about fossil fuel       

 

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

Goldboro LNG opposed
Proposed $10B liquefied natural gas project in Guysborough County pressing forward

Project faces opposition from international group of environmentalists
By Tom Ayers, CBC News
October 2, 2020

An estimated $10-billion liquefied natural gas project proposed for Guysborough County is slowly pressing ahead, despite opposition from an international group of environmentalists.

This week, Pieridae Energy said it expects to have detailed design and costs for the Goldboro LNG plant by next spring, and it awarded a contract to Black Diamond Group of Calgary for construction of a camp that would house up to 5,000 workers who will build the Goldboro LNG plant, if it goes ahead.

That deal includes hiring Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw companies to provide catering and cleaning services at the camp.

However, also this week, a gathering of international environmental groups asked the German government to withdraw a loan guarantee backing the plant.

Ken Summers of the Nova Scotia Fracking Resource and Action Coalition said the proposal should be scrapped because LNG plants are notoriously large polluters.

“If this project were to go ahead, Nova Scotia’s greenhouse gas emission targets would be gone out the window,” he said.

Nova Scotia’s emission targets have been met since they were first set a decade ago, Summers said, but an LNG plant would reverse any gains in greenhouse gas emissions.

“If this project were to come online, we would vastly increase them,” he said. 

The province’s cap-and-trade system allows large emitters to acquire emission capacity from other companies that are below their targets, but Summers said he doesn’t know how an LNG plant would fit into Nova Scotia’s plans.

“There are no offsets available for a company the size of Pieridae, as a new emitter,” he said. “It’s just not possible.
» Blog editor’s note: Goldboro LNG is expected to be a major destination for fracked gas from the controversial Weymouth compressor station.
» Read article        

» More about liquefied natural gas       

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


» Learn more about Pipeline projects
» Learn more about other proposed energy infrastructure
» Sign up for the NFGiM Newsletter for events, news and actions you can take
» DONATE to help keep our efforts going!