1-7-15 MASTER Mass Clean Energy Standard

8/10/2019 1-7-15 MASTER Mass Clean Energy Standard

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-7-15-master-mass-clean-energy-standard 1/74

Environmental Business Council of New EnglandEnergy Environment Economy

EBC Climate Change Program

Green House Gas Reductions:The Newly Proposed

Massachusetts Clean EnergyStandard



Introduction

Michael ErnstProgram Chair & Moderator

Director, Regulatory AffairsTetra Tech




Background for Clean Energy Standard

• MA RPS Standard• MA Global Warming Solutions Act

• Greenhouse Gas Target: 80% cut by 2050• Clean Energy & Climate Plan for 2020

• NESCOE Coordinated Regional Procurement• Synapse Large-Scale Hydroelectric Energy Imports

Study for DOER (Dec. 2013)

• MA Clean Energy Resources Bill of 2014• 2400 MW Regional Procurement• Canadian Hydro Focus; Renewable Carve-out?• Refiled for 2015



Background for Clean Energy Standard

• Natural Gas Supply Shortage for ElectricGeneration: $3 Billion for ISO-NE last winter

• New Natural Gas Pipeline Proposals:• Kinder Morgan – new pipeline• Algonquin expansion• Tennesee-Iroquois expansion

• DOER Synapse Low Gas Demand Study

• Cost-effective alternatives

• Federal Auction of Seabed South of Islands:• up to 5000 MW Offshore Wind – 1.29.15



Why EPA Greenhouse Gas Rules?

Our climate is changing with dangerous effects

• Average temperatures have risen since 1901• 7 of top 10 warmest years on record since 1998.• Climate and weather disasters in 2012 cost the

American economy more than $100 billion .

Nationwide, the EPA Clean Power Plan will helpcut carbon pollution from the power sector by30 percent from 2005 levels.

• Power plants are the largest source of carbonpollution in the U.S., accounting for roughlyone- third

of all domestic greenhouse gasemissions.• The proposal will also cut pollution that leads to

soot and smog by over 25 percent in 2030.



Why Greenhouse Gas Rules?Billions of dollars in public health & climate benefits

• Climate & health benefits worth $55-93 billion in 2030

• Reducing exposure to particle pollution and ozone in2030 will avoid a projected• 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths• 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children

• 340 to 3,300 heart attacks• 2,700 to 2,800 hospital admissions• 470,000 to 490,000 missed school and work

days

• Shrinking electricity bills by roughly 8 percent in 2030



States Choose Own Compliance Plan

States will choose by June 1, 2016 (extensions to 2018)how to meet their goal through whatever measures

reflect their own circumstances and policy objectives:• demand-side energy efficiency programs• renewable energy standards• efficiency improvements at plants• co-firing or switching to natural gas• build new Natural Gas Combined-Cycle plants

• transmission efficiency improvements• energy storage technology• coal generation retirements• expanding renewables like wind and solar• new hydroelectric conversions and imports• expanding nuclear

• market-based trading programs• Smart Grid

States may develop a state-only plan or collaborate witheach other to develop plans on a multi-state basis

• Extension to June 1, 2017 for single states or toJune 1, 2018 for multi-state plans



Current Canadian Hydro Sites & Lines



5

a. Northern Pass – Hydro Quebec/Northeast Utilitiesb. Northeast Energy Link – Emera Maine/National Gridc. Green Line – New England ITCd. Bay State Offshore Wind Transmission System – Anbaric Transmissione. Northeast Energy Corridor Maine/New Brunswick/Irving

f. Muskrat Falls/Lower Churchill – Nalcor Energyg. Maine Yankee –Greater Bostonh. Maine –Greater Bostoni. Northern Maine –New Englandj. Plattsburgh NY New Haven VTk. New England Clean Power Link – TDI New England

b

d

ac e

h

i NewBrunswick

Nova Scotia

Québec

NewYork

10

On- and Off-shore Transmission Proposals are Vying to MoveRenewable Energy to New England Load Centers

f

From Newfoundland & Labrador

g

Courtesy of ISO-New England

Representative Projects and Concept Proposals

k

November 2013: Publicly available information



Michael D. Ernst, Esq.Director of Regulatory Affairs

[email protected]



Driving Continued Cost-Effective GHGReductions: The Proposed

Massachusetts Clean EnergyStandard (CES)

David CashCommissioner

Massachusetts Department of EnvironmentalProtection




Driving Continued Cost-EffectiveGHG Reductions:

The Proposed MassachusettsClean Energy Standard (CES)

David W. Cash

CommissionerDepartment of Environmental Protection

January 7, 2015



Energy Dollars Flow Out of MAWe spend $22B per year on energy; 80% leaves MA -- $18B

Oil & Natural Gas- Canada

Oil - Venezuela

Oil & Natural Gas- Middle East

Coal – Colombia

MA Energy Imports2008 $B

Fuel Oil (heating, diesel) $5.0

Gasoline $9.2Jet Fuel $1.4Other Petroleum $0.9

Natural Gas $5.2

Coal $0.3Total $22 B

Per Household Average ~ $4,600 Natural Gas- Caribbean

Natural Gas

- U.S. Gulf Coast

1

Natural Gas- PA,NY



Nation-Leading Emissions Reductions



GWSA GHG Reduction Trajectory



Background - Electricity Used in MA

18

Source: Estimate based on 2012 Massachusetts GHG Emissions Inventory. The calculation assumes that all electricity generated in Massachusettsis delivered to customers in Massachusetts (because Massachusetts imports electricity) and assigns MWh from exporting states and Canada toMassachusetts based on a formula that considers the balance between generation and load in each state.



Stakeholder Comments

• 125 attended meeting and 60 written comments were received.• Key themes included:

– Stringency: Many comments expressed support for the need totransition to 100% clean energy to address climate change.

– Clean Energy: Many comments supported limiting eligibility to RPS-

eligible renewable energy, or at least excluding certain technologies(nuclear and large hydro). Some stakeholders supported broadeligibility, including eligibility for existing nuclear generators andimported hydroelectricity.

– Applicability: Key issue is inclusion of municipal utilities; somestakeholders support broad applicability but some municipal utilitiesquestion MassDEP authority to require compliance with CES.

• Comments are posted on line and discussed in Technical SupportDocument published with proposed regulation

20



CES Energy Transition: 2020 - 2050

21

• Standard includes RPS-eligible MWh and additional clean energy• Proposed 2020 standard of 45% is consistent with anticipated increases in imported Canadian

hydroelectricity• Proposal includes adjustment process to ensure progress toward 100% clean energy by 2050.• Graphic shows one possible scenario for illustrative purposes only



CES Proposal – Key Concepts

• Share of sales structure, with use of GIScertificates for compliance (like RPS, but with“CECs”).

• Point of regulation is electricity sales, includingmunicipal utilities.• Drives Innovation: Clean energy includes any

technology that meets 50%-below-natural gasemissions threshold: – All RPS-eligible renewable energy – New hydro and nuclear facilities are likely eligible – Carbon capture and sequestration eligible depending

on emissions.22



Compliance

• The proposed regulation would: – Require entities to demonstrate the use of clean energy for a

specified percent of retail electricity sales each year – Adjust the initial standard for municipal utilities to address the

fact that municipal utilities are not required to comply with RPS – Count RPS compliance toward CES compliance (so the CES

percentage would exceed the RPS percentage for each year) – Require the use of GIS certificates to demonstrate compliance

(like RPS)

– Allow banking, with CEC creation beginning in 2018 and 2019for use in complying with 2020 and 2021 standards – Allow compliance through alternative compliance payments

(ACPs):• Rate = 50% of RPS ACP rate

• Funds deposited in Clean Energy Expendable Trust for use toaddress climate mitigation and adaptation23



Eligible Generators

• The proposed regulation would: – Qualify clean energy generators based on a generic 50%-below-

natural-gas threshold – Require clean energy generators that are RPS-eligible to qualify

through DOER (not DEP) – Limit eligibility to generators that commenced operation after 2010 – For projects outside the ISO-NE control area ( enhance competition ):

• Include capacity commitment requirements identical to RPS• Include projects in adjacent control areas, and other control areas if

power is imported to ISO-NE or an adjacent control area through adedicated transmission line

• Require the use of transmission capacity that commenced operationafter 2010

– Require MassDEP to complete a study in 2016 of options forincluding existing (pre-2010) generators in the CES

24



Public Hearing Process

• Comments must be submitted by February 20 inaccordance with public hearing notice: – Email to [email protected] – Oral testimony at public hearings February 9-10 – US Mail

• All comments welcome; specific areas for comment areidentified in Technical Support Document (TSD) – Proposed regulation, TSD, hearing notice, and other documents

available on MassDEP CES web site:

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/climate-energy/climate/ghg/ces.html

• MassDEP staff contact: Will Space (617-292-5610 [email protected])

25

mailto:[email protected]






mailto:[email protected]



Yearly and Cumulative Wind Capacity(Installed and Pipeline)

27



Source: Electric Drive Transportation Association,2014



MA Clean Energy Sector Growth

2013 Massachusetts Clean Energy Industry Reporthttp://www.masscec.com/content/2013-clean-energy-industry-report 29



2007

Executive Office of Energyand Environmental Affairs

http://www.mass.gov/doer



2008





2009





2010





2011





2012





2013





Thanks

38



Priorities• Excellence in permitting, compliance and

enforcement• Climate Change and the Clean Energy

Economy

• Solid Waste and Recycling • Sustainable Water Management Initiative • Cutting-Edge Information Technology

• Regulatory Reform



Focus on Environment and Economy

d b f



Faster and more certain permitting is better forbusiness

d i i i i b f



Faster and more certain permitting is better forbusiness



Brownfields re-development: iconic

Provided by MassDevelopm ent and avai lable a tht tp: / /www.massdevelopment .com/f inancing/special ty- loan- programs/brownfields-redevelopment-fund/



CERP




GHG Reductions



Hibbard




• Consumers save in electricity market due to reduced LMPs and lower demand, but bear thecost of on-site renewable and EE installations/programs

• Fossil suppliers lose revenues due to reduced LMPs and lower demand, but new renewablesuppliers gain revenues and REC APS payments

• Construction and installation expenditures provide positive local economic impacts

RGGI: Driving New England Clean Energy



RGGI: Driving New England Clean EnergyInvestment

State Cumulative RGGIProceed

Investments (2009-2011)

Millions of Dollars

Connecticut $53.8Maine $18.4

Massachusetts $150.4

New Hampshire $31.6

Rhode Island $7.3Vermont $7.0

New EnglandTotal

$268.4

88%

6%2% 3% 1%

New EnglandRGGI Investments by Category

Cumulative-to-Date

Energy Efficiency

Clean & Renewable Energy

GHG Abatement & Climate Change Adaptation

Administration

RGGI, Inc.

Analysis Group Report Conclusion



50

Analysis Group Report ConclusionRGGI Delivers Results: Savings, Value, Jobs

$1.6BILLION

In net economicbenefit to the region 1

$1.3BILLIONIn energy bill savings

across the region 1

16THOUSAND

Job-years created 1

$765MILLION

Kept in region

(avoided fuel costs)1

1Source: Analysis Group (2011)



Energy Efficiency Investments & Benefits

52

$2,800

$542

$5,639

$8,980

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

Residential Low Income Comm'l & Industr Statewide 3-Year Total

M i l l i o n s

Budget, E&GBenefits, E&G

Adding Renewables to the Mix Can Lower



Adding Renewables to the Mix Can LowerPrices

53



54Source: ISO-New England

The Current System is Inefficient

~6,000 MW

Energy Efficiency Programs Have Reduced GHG Emissions



Energy Efficiency Programs Have Reduced GHG EmissionsWhile Reducing Costs and Improving Reliability

A v oi d e d

C a p a c i t y :

~2 , 0 0 0 MW

No newEE

New EEonly inyears 1-3

New EE in years1-10



Pros and Cons of the proposed Clean

Energy Standard (CES)

David O’Connor Senior Vice President for Energy

and Clean TechnologyML Strategies




Nalcor Energy Overview

January 2015



Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

59

• Primary generator ofelectricity in NL.

• Installed generating capacity – 1,637 MW; 80% is clean,hydroelectric generation.

• Operating independentpower system for over 50years.

• Sound capital investment planand asset managementstrategy.



Churchill Falls : 5,428 MW

60



Churchill Falls

61

• 11 turbines with rated capacityof 5,428 MW.

• 2nd largest undergroundpowerhouse in the world.

• Largest hydro facility in AtlanticCanada.• Majority of power sold to

Hydro-Quebec to 2041.• Recall power used in Labrador

and sold in export markets innortheast.



Lower Churchill Hydro Development

62

Interconnecting Transmission Lines between Muskrat Falls, Gull Island, andChurchill Falls

2250 MW/ 12 TW-h/yr

Reservoir length – 232 kmFlood area – 85 km 2 (33 miles 2)

A dam and powerhouse atGull Island

Two dams and powerhouse atMuskrat Falls

824 MW/ 5 TW-h/yr

Reservoir length - 60 kmFlood area – 41 km 2 (16 miles 2)



Muskrat Falls : 824 MW

63



MF Spillway Formwork

65



HVac Transmission Line Construction

66



Gull Island : 2,250 MW

67



Delivering Hydropower to



Delivering Hydropower toMassachusetts

69

• Join forces with wind powergenerating facilities

• Compete for and win longterm contracts to deliverpower to MA

• Finance and construct newgenerating capacity at GullIsland

• And a new transmission lonefrom Labrador to NewEngland

• Deliver competitive, stable,reliable power for many years



Pros and Cons of the proposed CleanEnergy Standard (CES)

Ian SpringsteelDirector, Regulatory Policy for Clean Energy

National Grid

Environmental Business Council of New England

Energy Environment Economy



Pros and Cons of the proposed CleanEnergy Standard (CES)

Sean MahoneyExecutive Vice President

Conservation Law Foundation



Panel Discussion:



a e scuss o :How to Achieve Statutory Greenhouse

Gas Reductions Cost-EffectivelyModerator: Michael Ernst, Tetra Tech

Panelists:• David Cash , MassDEP• David O’Connor , ML Strategies• Ian Springsteel , National Grid• Sean Mahoney , CLF



Networking Break



Networking Break



Continued Discussion:



How to Achieve Statutory GreenhouseGas Reductions Cost-Effectively

Moderator: Ruth Silman, Nixon Peabody LLP

Panelists:• Will Space , MassDEP• Bob Rio , Associated Industries of MA• Francis Pullaro , RENEW Northeast

• Sandi Hennequin , NEPGA

E i l B i C il f N E l d

1-7-15 MASTER Mass Clean Energy Standard

Documents

Transcript of 1-7-15 MASTER Mass Clean Energy Standard