Massachusetts' most significant political difficulty in achieving the transition away from natural gas is that it has not yet established a clear stranded asset policy for the gas distribution utilities. The Chairman is correct that Massachusetts likely has a (constitutional) requirement to ensure that the utilities receive compensation for their investments. Still, without specificity as to how that will happen, it seems like an empty promise. There will still be undepreciated gas distribution pipeline assets in place in 2050, Massachusetts' target year for decarbonization, but there won't be any gas customers from whom to collect the unrecovered depreciation. Further, as it currently stands, in the name of safety, the gas distribution companies are replacing their existing pipes as quickly as they can, continually adding to the stranded assets (costs) problem.
Massachusetts has no clear gas resource planning agenda that would rein in some of these investments nor incentives to accelerate the weaning of customers off of natural gas. The utility-funded efficiency vehicle, Mass Save, is still a mess, and its most recent incentives and regulations for customers retard electrification.
Given the current federal administration, it is all the more crucial that states get this right. Although the Chairman is well-intentioned, Massachusetts has dithered on its commitments, and the state's progress is floundering.
This interview and what MA has been doing really opened my eyes to what is possible when a state and its voters act for a different, lower cost and GHG emissions-free future.
The investment into shallower depth geothermal for community residential/commercial heating, deciding to stop at a given site when rock strata makes cost impractical and to shift to air source heat pumps at individual bldgs, and providing good, similar jobs to gas industry workers, is just one of the well planned and executed, inspiring efforts by MA.
Also inspiring were multiple mentions by Mr. Van Nostrand of other talented leaders in MA agencies outside the Dept of Public Utilities who with their teams together are making cost-efficient, sustainable progress in MA’s energy transition.
Thanks from CO and the rest of the country to MA Dept of Public Utilities Chairman James Van Nostrand.
This seems to be taking off. In the Berkshires, Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) did a test run with an LDC consultant along the route of a leaky pipeline to see how willing people would be to make the switch. The state has already changed the requirement to provide fossil gas to a requirement to provide heating.
From Don Steinke -- Climate Action of Southwest Washington
Thanks for your recent pods, in particular on James Van Nostrand, Fervor Energy, Big Trucks, and Yimbys. They are relevant to my work.
Thanks also for providing the transcripts.
When Van Nostrand mentioned the lack of transformers, I thought about conservation. With conservation we don't need more transmission, more substations, or transformers.
Excellent update on energy transition positive news in the midst of depressing climate denial fanatics who are willing to sell the future of the world to make a quick buck by burning anything they can sell. It should be named the MASA movement (Make America Stupid Again).
I agree with transitioning away from fossil fuels but I wish they had talked more about costs to the consumer. I live in MA in 1500 Sq 2 bed/1 den and our monthly gas bill in the winter is $400 and electricity is $300 (closer to $500). We keep our place between 64-68F. Both electricity and gas have increase >20% from last year. I worry that the utilities will pass this cost to the consumer and make it even more unaffordable to live here.
Massachusetts' most significant political difficulty in achieving the transition away from natural gas is that it has not yet established a clear stranded asset policy for the gas distribution utilities. The Chairman is correct that Massachusetts likely has a (constitutional) requirement to ensure that the utilities receive compensation for their investments. Still, without specificity as to how that will happen, it seems like an empty promise. There will still be undepreciated gas distribution pipeline assets in place in 2050, Massachusetts' target year for decarbonization, but there won't be any gas customers from whom to collect the unrecovered depreciation. Further, as it currently stands, in the name of safety, the gas distribution companies are replacing their existing pipes as quickly as they can, continually adding to the stranded assets (costs) problem.
Massachusetts has no clear gas resource planning agenda that would rein in some of these investments nor incentives to accelerate the weaning of customers off of natural gas. The utility-funded efficiency vehicle, Mass Save, is still a mess, and its most recent incentives and regulations for customers retard electrification.
Given the current federal administration, it is all the more crucial that states get this right. Although the Chairman is well-intentioned, Massachusetts has dithered on its commitments, and the state's progress is floundering.
Good point. In Washington State, our Cap and Invest program will make gas unaffordable and gas appliances into stranded assets.
This interview and what MA has been doing really opened my eyes to what is possible when a state and its voters act for a different, lower cost and GHG emissions-free future.
The investment into shallower depth geothermal for community residential/commercial heating, deciding to stop at a given site when rock strata makes cost impractical and to shift to air source heat pumps at individual bldgs, and providing good, similar jobs to gas industry workers, is just one of the well planned and executed, inspiring efforts by MA.
Also inspiring were multiple mentions by Mr. Van Nostrand of other talented leaders in MA agencies outside the Dept of Public Utilities who with their teams together are making cost-efficient, sustainable progress in MA’s energy transition.
Thanks from CO and the rest of the country to MA Dept of Public Utilities Chairman James Van Nostrand.
I think Massachusetts DPU is requiring the Local [Gas] Distribution Companies (LDCs) to come up with a solution to this stranded asset problem. Organizations like (HEET.org) are working with the LDCs to try to get them to, instead of replacing leaking gas lines with new ones, transition that right-of-way to distributed (district) ground-source heat pump networks. (https://www.eversource.com/content/residential/about/transmission-distribution/projects/massachusetts-projects/geothermal-pilot-project)
This seems to be taking off. In the Berkshires, Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) did a test run with an LDC consultant along the route of a leaky pipeline to see how willing people would be to make the switch. The state has already changed the requirement to provide fossil gas to a requirement to provide heating.
Thank you, James Van Nostrand. You keep Massachusetts on top!
From Don Steinke -- Climate Action of Southwest Washington
Thanks for your recent pods, in particular on James Van Nostrand, Fervor Energy, Big Trucks, and Yimbys. They are relevant to my work.
Thanks also for providing the transcripts.
When Van Nostrand mentioned the lack of transformers, I thought about conservation. With conservation we don't need more transmission, more substations, or transformers.
The PAE Building in Portland Oregon is the world's largest developer driven net-zero energy building in the world. https://www.pae-engineers.com/about/pae-living-building
Washington might be equal to Massachusetts in leadership . . . except for Initiative 2066 which prevents us from doing what they are doing.
My colleagues are suing to overturn I-2066 based on it being unconstitutional. Our case will be heard in late March and then appealed.
I first became a fan with your Tedx Talk, Climate Change is Simple. I shared its remix many times.
Thanks for being part of the fight!
I might need to add "The Coal Trap" by James Van Nostrand to my reading list. Thanks for the reminder.
Excellent update on energy transition positive news in the midst of depressing climate denial fanatics who are willing to sell the future of the world to make a quick buck by burning anything they can sell. It should be named the MASA movement (Make America Stupid Again).
I agree with transitioning away from fossil fuels but I wish they had talked more about costs to the consumer. I live in MA in 1500 Sq 2 bed/1 den and our monthly gas bill in the winter is $400 and electricity is $300 (closer to $500). We keep our place between 64-68F. Both electricity and gas have increase >20% from last year. I worry that the utilities will pass this cost to the consumer and make it even more unaffordable to live here.
Blue states unite.