ATTORNEY GENERAL MAURA HEALEY on Thursday said Massachusetts should meet 50 percent or more of its electric power needs with renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. She also clarified her position on building new natural gas pipeline capacity.
Healey’s goals are different than those contained in the Global Warming Solutions Act, which calls for the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Healey said she wanted to broaden the discussion with her new renewable energy goals, and added that the targets are achievable.
“This isn’t just pie in the sky at all,” she said. “It’s common sense.”
Healey made her pitch for renewable energy at a hearing of the Baker administration’s Department of Environmental Protection, which is tasked with deciding how to spend $75 million the state received as part of a multi-billion-dollar nationwide settlement with Volkswagen, Porsche, and Audi related to the sale of diesel vehicles equipped with illegal and undisclosed software that cheated emission tests.
The attorney general said she favored using the money to speed up the transition to electric vehicles. The state’s current goal is 300,000 zero emission vehicles on the road by 2025; currently there are just 11,000. Healey said the state should set its goal higher, and use the VW money to make the transition easier.
She called for faster rollout of the infrastructure for charging electric vehicles and backed a shift to electric buses so that the state’s entire fleet would be electric by 2030. She also said she favored policies that would make electric vehicles available to people at all income levels.
“Let’s make EVs accessible for everyone,” she said, using the abbreviation EV for electric vehicle.
In a brief interview after her talk at the Department of Environmental Protection, Healey was asked whether her opposition to new natural gas pipeline infrastructure could hamper the move toward renewable energy, as pipeline advocates have contended.
“I’ve never said I’m opposed to pipelines. My concern has always been, and you know this is a legal matter, that pipelines should not be passing the buck on to ratepayers. If they think it’s a good investment, if they think it’s a worthy investment, then make the investment and build the pipeline,” she said. “What I’ve said is before you have a conversation about building additional pipelines – which may soon become obsolete as everybody moves toward other forms of energy out there – think about what, if anything, we need to do to grow existing capacity in certain places along existing pipelines. There are some who may want to paint our office as taking that position [being against pipelines], but I’ve been saying we need a robust and varied portfolio. We need hydro. We need our wind. We’ve supported gas.”
The state is currently in the midst of direct procurements of offshore wind and clean energy to help boost the state’s access to renewable energy. Some have questioned whether those procurements are examples of renewable energy developments passing the cost of their projects on to ratepayers rather than simply making the investment themselves.
Healey said she sees a major difference between the clean energy procurements and the push for elecrtric ratepayers to pick up the cost of additional natural gas pipeline capacity. She noted the clean energy procurements were authorized by state law and are in keeping with the state’s long-term energy goals.
“We made a decision here in Massachusetts that we are about a clean energy future,” she said.
Beacon Hill politicians are falling over each other in the mad march to a “clean energy” future. There is a strong possibility that reaching the goals mandated by the Global Warming Solutions Act may not be possible. Studies show that the addition of wind turbines and solar panels to the grid are not reducing carbon emissions as expected. Those goals are achievable only if the grid invests in what ISO-NE calls seasonal energy storage. The technology for seasonal storage is currently non-existent. In the meantime, the mandates for wind and solar, which bypass the ISO-NE competitive wholesale market, are forcing baseload coal and nuclear off the grid in favor the more flexible power from natural gas. The additional capacity from wind and solar has no value unless backed up by additional flexible natural gas capacity. This additional demand for natural gas is only necessary for cold winter days and only for as long a seasonal energy storage is unavailable.
The Global Warming Solutions Act has created a problem that does not respond to market solutions. The need for additional pipelines to service peak winter demand, temporarily until seasonal storage becomes available, is not an attractive investment without additional taxpayer/ratepayer funding. A secondary problem is that the carbon emission reduction goals of the Act are beyond reach as long as natural gas is the primary source of grid balancing power for the variable and intermittent power from wind and solar.
It’s time to face facts and call for a moratorium on additional wind and solar until the availability of seasonal energy storage is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Excellent analysis NortheasternEE ! Lobbyists are stuffing money into the pockets of politicians so that there is no room for common sense and sane energy policies…
Meanwhile – Mr. Mohl, when will you challenge the designation of “Clean Energy”? Wind turbines, for example, are not at all clean and have directly contributed to the degradation of many neighborhoods in Massachusetts – all in violation of both state Nuisance Law and the MassDEP Air Pollution Regulation which that agency refuses to enforce as the wind industry has been allowed to “capture” both our politicians – our local and state agencies charged with protecting public health and safety. A scandal for sure!
It’s a shame the MA AG is taking a pass on MA law. GWSA is what the people of the Commonwealth chose. It should not be her choice. It is about carbon dioxide, a gas those involved with “Clean Power” are neglecting. But our rates will go up. Our consumer advocate seems to be helping that along. Come to think of it, who isn’t?