#

Granite Staters can continue to cook free or fry as the state stays out of the New England anti-gas stove push.

This Monday the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and New York signed on to a letter demanding that the federal government crack down on gas stoves.

The letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission from 11 AGs was led by D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb, who claims that gas stoves put lives at risk and need strict government regulation.

“Gas stoves emit air pollutants that put people – particularly children – at risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses,” Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) said in his letter. “Along with other State AGs, I urge the CPSC to develop uniform performance and ventilation standards for gas stoves and to increase consumer awareness about the health risks these appliances pose.”

Unlike New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul, the AGs aren’t calling for an entire ban on gas stoves or new natural gas hook-ups — yet. Last week the Empire State became the first in the country to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings. The Hochul-backed law bans gas-powered stoves, furnaces and propane heating. All-electric heating and cooking in new buildings shorter than seven stories is mandated by 2026, and 2029 for the rest.

Instead, the AGs want the CPSC to start regulating gas stove ventilation and emissions by creating mandatory standards for these home appliances. The standards for gas stoves are currently voluntary.

“Mandatory performance standards could include, among others, standards for gas stoves to address methane leakage, including automatic shut-off valves, and standards that address the elevated levels of hazardous pollution emissions, including sensors,” Schwalb wrote.

The available data show that the attacks on gas stove use are based on evidence that is dubious at best. As Kimberley Strassel notes at the Wall Street Journal:

One frequently cited study from the Rocky Mountain Institute—claiming to find a link between gas stoves and childhood asthma—was co-authored by two RMI staffers, neither of whom has a science degree. Another favorite study by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity claims gas stoves cause “dangerous levels of indoor air pollution.” It was written by two lawyers, and it cites . . . the RMI study. Ah, science.

When CPSC commissioner Richard Trumka told Bloomberg that banning gas stoves was an option to deal with the home pollution they cause, there was an immediate backlash. CPSC chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric tried walking that statement back, saying there are no plans to ban gas stoves in the works. Hoehn-Saric did say the CPSC is investigating gas stoves.

“CPSC is researching gas emissions in stoves and exploring new ways to address any health risks,” Hoehn-Saric said.

Opponents of a ban were dismissed as rumor-mongering kooks at the time. “You have to laugh at the ‘gas stove ban’ narrative being cooked up by the MAGA GOP,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in February. Around that same time, NHPR broadcast a program claiming “there is no ban in the works… Banning things is about top-down control. It fits nicely into readymade stories about government control or tyranny.”

New York is the first state to pass an outright ban, but activists say it won’t be the last. Massachusetts’ lawmakers are already making the push, in addition to the efforts of their Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell.

Not every state is playing along, however. New Hampshire’s Attorney General John Formella’s signature is absent from the letter. And the Granite State signaled its position on gas stoves when Gov. Chris Sununu signed a law banning local municipalities from restricting gas hookups in new construction.

The 2021 law prohibits all counties, cities, towns, village districts and local land use boards from adopting any rule that prohibits or restricts anyone from “installing a safe and commercially available heating or other energy system of their choice.” 

Sununu has long supported more natural gas in New Hampshire as a way to cut down on high energy prices in the state, telling InDepth NH in December that New Hampshire needs access to natural gas pipelines. 

“What hurts us the most is because we are essentially at the end of the line and farthest away from the source so prices here are higher than the national average,” Sununu said. “At the end of the day, we have to say ‘yes’ to the natural gas.”

A new ship that will function as an at-sea headquarters for the workers maintaining some 200 wind turbines off the New England coast is nearing completion, part of an Eversource project to expand the reach of renewable energy in the region.

The Eco Edison, a 262-foot-long service operations vessel, is more than halfway built at the Edison Chouest Offshore shipyard on the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana. Once launched, the ship will be a floating, year-round home base for 60 of the first American offshore wind turbine technicians. They will work at sea over the life of the wind farms, servicing and maintaining the wind turbines. 

It’s a big step toward Eversource’s renewable energy goals, according to Mike Ausere, Vice President of Business Development at Eversource.

“Offshore wind is a key driver of economic growth, creating well-paying jobs in states across the country and forging a new, domestic supply chain that, together, will position our nation as a global leader in the industries of tomorrow, today,” Ausere said.

The Eco Edison, built by Edison Chouest, is a first-of-its-kind vessel to serve the crews who work on and maintain wind farms. 

The ship will be crewed by around five dozen workers drawn from the northeast region to which it will be providing power. The onboard technicians, who the company says will work two weeks on/two weeks off schedules, will have access to on-ship entertainment and recreation facilities, including a gym and a movie theater.

Eversource partners with Ørsted, a leading offshore power supplier, to bring power from several Northeast wind farms. The two companies are investing hundreds of millions into the new shipbuilding venture to service those projects.

Ausere said the Eco Edison is, as long as the Superdome is tall, able to host 60 wind turbine technicians–all of whom will benefit from the vessel’s state-of-the-art accommodations to keep them safe and well-cared for while at sea; and ready to support the long-term operations and maintenance of Eversource and Ørsted’s portfolio of offshore wind farms.

Eversource’s current lease with Ørsted is for 4,000 megawatts, with the option to double that amount. That means the Ørsted partnership can power up to 2 million homes in New England. Ørsted’s wind farms are currently located in New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut.

Eversource is also working with Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind on wind farm projects off the Massachusetts coast that will generate more power for customers.

The large-scale renewable energy projects represent significant investments and new jobs in a readily growing industry, said David Hardy, the executive vice president, and CEO for America at Ørsted.

“This first American service operations vessel represents the ingenuity of businesses like Edison Chouest to build upon their legacy in offshore energy and to supply a cutting-edge vessel that will allow workers to safely and effectively operate offshore,” Hardy said. “The offshore wind energy industry is utilizing the talented and expert Gulf Coast workforce, and we’re proud that this first-of-its-kind vessel will support the production of more American energy, strengthening our national security and powering millions of American homes.” 

Renewable energy currently comprises just over one-fifth of all electricity generation sources in the U.S., according to data from the Department of Energy. Fossil fuels—overwhelmingly coal and natural gas—make up 60 percent of the U.S. energy profile.

Wind, meanwhile, represents nearly half of the total U.S. renewable electricity capture, with 10.2 percent of renewable energy coming from wind farms. Hydroelectric comes in second at 6.2 percent.

Senate Republicans want to help New Hampshire families succeed and stay healthy with a range of proposals as part of their newly unveiled 2023 legislative agenda. It covers taxes, school choice, access to healthcare, and the state’s First-In-The-Nation status. 

 “This year, we are making it our mission to focus on helping our struggling families who are facing rising costs across the board,” Senate President Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) said Wednesday at a State House press conference.” After enduring more than two years of hardships wrought by federal financial mismanagement, it is critical we continue to help our New Hampshire families.”

With the House of Representatives essentially tied between the two parties, the state Senate is likely to play an even larger role than usual in legislating. Bradley, who took over the top spot after the retirement of Chuck Morse, is seen by members of both parties as a savvy political operator who can navigate partisan political waters.

Bradley makes no secret of the fact he is focused on fiscal issues. He touted continued business tax cuts and pledged his party would “never, ever implement income, sales or capital gains tax.” He also said any budget surplus should go to property tax relief and the state’s Rainy Day fund.

While Republicans celebrated the additional cuts in Business Profits Taxes and Business Enterprise Taxes that took effect January 1, Democrats denounced them.

“These tax cuts are being downshifted to towns and WILL come back to hardworking New Hampshire families in the form of sweeping property tax increases across the board,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party communications director Colin Booth on Twitter. “But don’t expect the @NHGOP to take any credit when that happens.”

But state revenue has increased since the business tax cuts have begun phasing in, as has state revenue to cities and towns. In the last budget, the state provided $100 million to local governments to take pressure off property taxes.

Asked for data showing fewer state dollars going to cities and towns as a result of the business tax cuts, Booth declined to respond.

Senate Majority Leader Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) focused on education in her remarks. “We will defend academic opportunities for our students by continuing to support our state’s Education Freedom Account Program and empower parents by providing transparency into their children’s learning environment.”

Carson also touted plans to “reform the state’s bail system,” which will likely undo previous changes that critics say have kept dangerous people on the streets.

“Our comprehensive agenda brings Granite Staters to the forefront. Exactly where they should be,” Carson said.

Senate Democratic Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester) said her conference will announce its agenda next week but previewed its goals of working on issues like property tax relief, access to affordable housing, and, of course, access to abortion up to birth.

“Protecting the civil rights of women should be one of the top priorities of the legislature and the Senate Democrats will never back down from supporting women making their own reproductive healthcare decisions,” Soucy said in a statement.

Democrats in Concord spent Wednesday trying and failing to allow for proxy voting and attendance via online video services like Zoom. Democratic House members have been suing the state for the last two years to allow members to attend sessions and vote remotely. They have yet to prevail in court, and their most recent appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The other Democratic priority on Wednesday was trying to get the rule allowing members to carry concealed weapons in the State House changed. Democrats failed there as well, meaning House members will remain armed if they choose while in session.

The GOP, as part of its agenda, is also pushing for a law to protect New Hampshire’s First-In-The-Nation status in the presidential primary process. The Democratic National Committee announced new rules late last year that would force New Hampshire out of the top spot in the nominating process. Sen. Regina Birdsell (R-Hampstead) said Wednesday she plans to spearhead the effort to fight off any challenge to New Hampshire’s position.

“Unfortunately, we found that our historic tradition has been under attack by those looking to maybe repurpose it for their political gain,” Birdsell said. “Know that we will respond aggressively to anyone that attempts, like the DNC or anyone, who attempts to take that away from us.”

In the worst-case scenario, some Granite Staters could run out of heating oil or electricity this winter as the nation grapples with the current energy crisis, experts warn.

ISO New England, the region’s power grid operator, warned last week the tight supply of natural gas could result in rolling blackouts this winter if the weather turns unusually cold.

“The most challenging aspect of this winter is what’s happening around the world and the extreme volatility in the markets,” said Vamsi Chadalavada, chief operating officer for ISO New England. “If you are in the commercial sector, at what point do you buy fuel?”

Then came a Bloomberg report that New England heating oil suppliers are already seeing supply rationing before the winter heating season starts as supply runs short free to high wholesale prices.

“The facts are this, supplies of heating oil are historically low,” said Michael Ferrante with the Massachusetts Energy Marketers Association.

New England heating oil suppliers are trying to hedge their bets, Ferrante explained. The wholesale market is anticipating higher prices through the next few months at least with prices possibly dropping in early spring. The suppliers are responding by not buying extra oil at the current high prices.

“They’re buying ‘just in time’ inventory, just enough to meet the needs right now,” Ferrante said. But what happens if there is a surge in demand during another blast of brutal arctic cold like in 2018? 

“During the two weeks of Arctic cold, New England generators burned through about 2 million barrels of oil,” noted ISO New England CEO Gordon van Welie in an after-action report. “That’s about 84 million gallons, more than twice as much as all the oil used by New England power plants during the entire year of 2016.”

If there is a surge in demand, larger oil distributors would have more access to the limited supply. But what about small heating oil suppliers around New Hampshire, the one-truck operators? Ferrante conceded they might get left out in the cold.

“The smaller companies might have a more difficult time finding supply,” Ferrante said.

The current average cost of heating oil in New Hampshire is more than $5.60 per gallon. That is expected to climb higher as the weather turns colder in the coming months. With smaller suppliers frozen out of the market, Granite Staters will have a tougher time keeping their homes warm.

Spikes in the cost of natural gas, which provides the fuel for much of New England’s electric grid, have already resulted in the doubling of electricity rates for New Hampshire ratepayers. Those same ratepayers face the prospect of shelling out double for electricity and not being able to buy oil for their furnaces.

Karoline Leavitt, the GOP congressional candidate running neck and neck with incumbent Democrat Rep. Chris Pappas, blames President Joe Biden’s administration for sky-high energy costs.

“As if the $600 being stolen from families every month because of inflation wasn’t bad enough, we are all living a nightmare as we watch our energy bills soar as the weather gets colder,” Leavitt said. “We were informed that this would happen months ago. And rather than develop a solution to solve this crisis, Chris Pappas continued to vote with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden 100 percent of the time, exacerbating this problem to its breaking point. With families being forced to decide between heating and eating, we cannot afford another term of Chris Pappas’ partisan leadership that leaves Granite Staters hanging out to dry.”

GOP U.S. Senate candidate Don Bolduc sees a lack of leadership.

“Less than two years into the Biden presidency, we’re having discussions about rationing here in the United States of America. New Hampshire is facing a major energy crisis all due to Sen. Maggie Hassan and President Biden’s failed leadership. Not only are Granite Staters having to choose between heating and eating, but they also now must worry about energy shortages that could leave them out in the cold with no way to heat their homes. Sen. Hassan has failed New Hampshire,” said campaign spokeswoman Kate Constantini.

Both Hassan and Pappas had been pushing Biden to release more oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Though Biden announced last week he was putting more of the nation’s stockpile on the market, it is unlikely to be enough to counter the high energy prices caused by Russia’s war on Ukraine and the decision by Saudi Arabia to pump less oil to raise prices.

“It’s a short-term Band-Aid, and it doesn’t solve the long-term problem,” said Phil Flynn, an energy market analyst with the PRICE Futures Group.

Ferrante said there is no relief coming in the short term, as the war in Ukraine continues driving the energy market in Europe and beyond.

“There are no guarantees it will get better. It’s a global economy,” Ferrante said. “Prices of crude oil are affected by what’s happening around the world.”

Granite Staters will get help this winter paying for heat and electricity after the legislature passed a $42 million plan to fund energy assistance for the middle class. 

“New Hampshire just delivered the largest energy relief package this state has ever seen, helping families in need this winter – using our state surplus funds,” said Gov. Chris Sununu as he signed a bill passed during the “Veto Day” session Thursday.

Democrats, on the other hand, used the news to repeat the debunked claim that Sununu is responsible for setting the state’s utility rates.

“The legislation the House just passed is critical to helping Granite Staters affected by Governor Sununu’s record electric rate hikes this fall,” said House Democratic Leader David E. Cote (D-Nashua).

Utility rates are set by the independent Public Utilities Commission.

Partisan rancor ahead of the midterm elections was not enough to prevent the legislature from enacting utility relief at a time when energy costs are soaring in New Hampshire and nationwide. The 12-month inflation rate is currently 15.8 percent for electricity and 33 percent for natural gas.

The new law uses surplus New Hampshire state budget funds to expand energy assistance this year, allowing middle-income New Hampshire residents to qualify for aid. Previously, the aid was only available to households earning up to 60 percent of the state median income. Lawmakers expanded eligibility to families earning up to 75 percent of the median, who can now apply for up to $450 in heating assistance and another $200 in electricity assistance.

Sununu originally wanted to use $60 million in surplus funding to send every home $100 in energy assistance, but that plan was rejected by lawmakers who came up with a more targeted proposal.

“That seems like a meaningless political gesture to me,” Rep. Steve Smith (R-Charlestown), said of Sununu’s initial plan.

Instead, lawmakers passed their proposal that will use $25 million on emergency fuel and electric assistance, $10 million on aid for electricity bills, and $7 million on an electric assistance program. The state’s surplus will be at around $120 million after the assistance is paid out.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D-Durham) said the bill is not a long-term solution to high energy prices in New Hampshire, but it will help.

“Maybe it’s just a band-aid, but if you scrape your knee a band-aid helps,” she said.

House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said not only will the bill help people pay for heating this winter, but it does so in a responsible manner.

“The fiscally responsible leadership of the General Court of New Hampshire has produced a budget surplus which allows us to create this one-time emergency relief package that will help offset rising fuel and electric costs this winter,” Packard said. “This bill provides direct relief to those in need and reduces the anticipated burden placed upon municipal welfare programs – a cost that would otherwise be passed along to property owners at the local level. We believe these surplus funds will alleviate some of the financial pressure for NH families who would otherwise not qualify for existing assistance programs. By coming together today, we chose New Hampshire citizens over party politics.

House Majority Leader Rep. Jason Osborne (R-Auburn) blamed President Joe Biden and members of New Hampshire’s federal delegation for making inflation worse.

“Due to no fault of their own, many Granite Staters who have not previously needed assistance may find themselves unable to pay their bills this winter and do not qualify for the federal assistance programs. We want to ensure those people have some help,” Osborne said.

New Hampshire Democrats, however, point the finger of blame for rising utility costs at Sununu.

“New Hampshire has become an outlier in New England with record rate increases because Gov. Sununu has consistently rejected efforts to increase energy efficiency and production of renewable energy,” Cote said. “Granite State families cannot afford the 50 percent increase that will hit them this fall, and this bill provides temporary relief for lower-income households that are ineligible for existing programs.”

In fact, New Hampshire currently has the second-lowest electricity rates in New England and historically had lower rates than Massachusetts.

The legislature also failed to override any of Sununu’s eight vetoes.

Squirrels don’t understand Thanksgiving. 

They see us loading our homes full of food for days, and they feel a sense of tribal solidarity. They get that. Then, suddenly, we sit down and EAT IT ALL IN ONE DAY. 

What are we thinking?!!

This really confuses squirrels. How will those tall, furless bipeds survive the winter?!! They just ate all their food! It hasn’t even snowed yet! THEY’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!

Chipmunks, by the way, just hope we all die soon so they can move into the basement. 

Squirrels and chipmunks, not to mention bears, think we’re idiots because they know nothing of markets. If they wandered into a supermarket, they’d think it was a place where humans stored locally gathered food for the winter. The idea of a place where creatures trade money for food, and then more food appears the next day, brought from all over the world, would blow their little minds. 

Although bears are pretty smart, so they might figure this out one day. They can already open car doors. The inevitable next step is driving to the corner store for salmon jerky and a six-pack of honey wheat ale.  

But bears don’t do this yet. Instead, they store fat for a long winter’s nap. Sounds awesome. Unfortunately, humans can’t get through winter by lowering our metabolism and reducing our energy consumption. We increase our energy consumption to stay warm. 

We can hoard food. We could salt meats and store corn like our ancestors did, or fill our garages with canned goods, bottled water and ammo (you know who you are).

But thanks to global trade, we don’t have to do this. We can get bananas from Ecuador, bacon from North Carolina, coffee from Brazil, and crazy snack foods from Japan whenever we want.

What about the other thing that keeps us alive all winter: warmth?

Humans survive long, cold winters by building, then powering and heating, shelters. Mostly we power and heat them by burning things (oil and gas, a tiny bit of coal) or splitting atoms.

Now, New England does not supply its own oil or gas. Like those crazy Japanese snacks, our winter fuels come from far away places where people speak different languages — places like Texas and Louisiana.

One might understand that in a region reliant on importing the fuel that keeps us warm, it’s not a terribly good idea to try to hurt the people who bring us these fuels. 

And yet… 

In Boston, the new mayor has signed an ordinance requiring the city to divest from fossil fuel companies, as if the people who keep Boston habitable during the winter are evildoers. 

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Harvard Faculty Lounge, portrays oil and gas companies as sinister malefactors who prey on Americans for fun and profit. Harvard also has divested from fossil fuels, by the way. 

You wouldn’t know from talk like this that natural gas generated more than 50 percent of New England’s electricity last year, or that Northeastern states consume 86 percent of the nation’s home heating oil. 

Wind and solar power, as nice as they are, generated 6 percent of New England’s electricity last year. They won’t replace oil and gas anytime soon. 

This winter is projected to be mild. ISO New England, the region’s power grid operator, expects energy use to be lower this winter than last, and our power supply to be adequate. 

Still, that prediction came with what is now an annual warning. The winter of 2017-18 brought a cold streak so long that the region came within two days of rolling blackouts. Why? Because we have put unnecessary constraints on our energy supply by blocking new pipelines and scaling back nuclear plants. 

ISO New England has a whole page of its website devoted to explaining how the region is in a dangerous position because of constraints on its natural gas supply.

A study by Carnegie Melon’s Tepper School of Business earlier this year found New England’s artificial constraints on natural gas have caused routine power plant outages and cost the region $1.8 billion during the cold winter of 2014 alone.

“Gas supply issues have affected the ability to generate electricity during times of high demand,” professor and study co-author Jay Apt said at the time. 

They recommended building natural gas storage facilities (with battery storage being another possible option). They didn’t ask the squirrels, but the squirrels would approve.

ISO New England points out that a mild winter is a time to plan for the future — because a cold winter is coming eventually. And if our economy grows, energy demand will grow with it, increasing the need for more reliable supplies. 

Building more base load energy capacity is the way to prepare for the cold winter that we all know is coming eventually. 

Some mammals, though, seem oblivious to the tremendous amount of planning, preparation, and investment it takes for their species to survive New England winters. They say we can do without more base load power and without more reliable access to the fuels that generate the lion’s share of our electricity and heat most of our homes.

The squirrels think they’re nuts.   

New England’s power grid won’t be able to sustain itself through a prolonged cold snap this winter, as fuel for generating electricity and heating homes becomes more expensive and more scarce, the grid’s operators warned Monday. The result could be “controlled power outages” leaving some Granite Staters in the cold and dark.

During a press briefing on the upcoming winter’s outlook, ISO New England president and CEO Gordon van Welie said when temperatures fall to the extreme, the region’s electric generation system relies on liquid natural gas (LNG) and fuel oil to power the grid. 

“In recent years, oil and LNG have filled the gaps when extended periods of very cold weather have constrained natural gas pipeline supplies,” van Welie said. “Higher prices globally for these fuels, as well as pandemic-related supply chain challenges, could limit their availability in New England if needed to produce electricity this winter. The region would be in a precarious position if an extended cold snap were to develop and these fuels were not available.”

So precarious, in fact, they could result in rolling blackouts.

One reason is the limited supply of natural gas via pipelines, which are the safest and most reliable way to move fuel. Policies in the blue states of New York and Massachusetts have all but blocked New England’s access to more of the abundant natural gas available from Pennsylvania, which produces more than a fifth of the nation’s supply.

Another issue is the global energy market, van Welie said, as Europe and Japan become more reliant on LNG. With prices for LNG in Asia and Europe nearly double what it is in New England, it makes sense that most LNG producers are shipping their supplies overseas.

“These limitations are in addition to typical logistical challenges, such as inclement weather, that can affect fuel deliveries into the region,” van Welie added. “A national shortage of truck drivers may also affect the speed at which some generators can replenish their fuel supplies, as the trucking system is shared by multiple industries, including commercial and residential heating and electric generation.”

Efforts to address this challenge by either building more power plants or natural gas pipelines have been blocked.

The net result is New Englanders pay some of the highest energy prices in the nation for power from a grid that’s under ever more stress. Five of the top 10 states for highest electricity rates in the continental U.S. are in New England. (Maine is number 11.)

Across the nation, home heating oil prices have risen from an average of $2.55/gal to $3.55/gal today. Propane prices have jumped from $1.88/gal to $2.71/gal in the past year.

New England is expected to see a mild winter during the 2021-22 season. However, according to van Welie, weather is uncertain and extreme cold snaps are not out of the question given climate change. And, he noted, the region came within days of running out of fuel in the winter of 2017-18, he said.

Peter Brandien, ISO New England’s vice president of system operations and market administration, said the COVID-19 pandemic is also playing a role. More people working from home means more power consumption, as more individuals turn a spare bedroom into an office rather than sharing a common space with many other people. And now more businesses have reopened and are using power, too.

“It’s a double whammy,” he said. “We’re trying to get everyone to understand the issues.”

Brendien said ISO New England will be issuing 21-day forecasts for utilities and governments to be able to make better choices about power needs in advance. One emphasis will be urging conservation during extreme weather. Brabdien said people could be encouraged to turn down their thermostats and limit using appliances like washing machines and electric stoves during cold spells. 

If not, controlled power outages are not out of the question.

“We operate in winter very close to the edge here in New England,” van Welie said. “The 15 million people in New England need to understand the precarious position we are in when we have an extended period of extreme cold weather.”

Van Welie acknowledged alternatives to fossil fuels are necessary, but there needs to be a plan in place. Hydroelectric power from Quebec could be part of the solution, but it’s not the complete answer, he said. The region needs to consider investing in a system that allows for up to two weeks of power generation using a source that doesn’t need to be imported. 

A modular nuclear reactor could take care of the problem, he said, but in the current political climate is unlikely to get approved. Green fuels, like green hydrogen, are prohibitively expensive. That means power generators need LNG and oil to bridge the gap, and those power plants need to have a reliable reserve.

“Lots of actions have been attempted over the years. Unfortunately, we still haven’t solved this problem,” van Welie said. “The region needs a more robust solution than what we have.” 

In the politically divided purple state of New Hampshire, getting 22 of the legislature’s 24 state senators to agree on anything is nearly impossible. Maple syrup, the Red Sox, sure. Maybe motherhood and apple pie (depending on where the apples are from)…but a utility company’s natural gas pipeline?

No way.

Except that’s exactly what happened. In May, all but two members of the New Hampshire state Senate—including all 10 Democrats–endorsed Liberty Utilities’ “Granite Bridge” pipeline project. Support from Republicans like Senate President Chuck Morse and Majority Leader Jeb Bradley for this 27-mile natural gas pipeline from Stratham to Manchester is hardly a surprise. But when a liberal environmental activist like Sen. Martha Fuller Clark is on board, that’s definitely news.

“Granite Bridge will make it possible to store and deliver natural gas to a greater number of New Hampshire customers, especially during a cold snap like we experienced this past winter, at a lower cost and with fewer greenhouse gas emissions than home heating oil, the current alternative,” Sen. Clark said in a press release endorsing Granite Bridge. 

Though it’s years away from final approval, the broad, bipartisan support for Granite Bridge stands in stark contrast to the reaction to most of the energy infrastructure projects in the past few months. Even renewable energy projects like Northern Pass (hydro-electric), NextEra (solar) and Spruce Ridge (wind) have been shot down in recent weeks—a fact that makes Liberty’s steady progress on Granite Bridge even more surprising.

It is also a cautionary tale for Green-action groups, showing how they can find themselves fighting alone out on the political fringe. There are still many Public Utility Commission filings, hearing and debates yet to come, but it’s not too early to ask: How did Liberty Utility and Granite Bridge come so far with so little opposition?

IT’S THE WEATHER, STUPID.

 The first thing to remember about New Hampshire and energy policy is this: It’s cold.  Really cold. Too cold, in the opinion of many homeowners, to rely on electricity for heat. In places like Florida, electric heat is fine. But at the border of Canada, many believe…not so much.

The most common home heating fuel is heating oil, used in more than 44 percent of New Hampshire homes. Propane, another carbon-based energy source, heated another 15 percent.

Heating oil is both relatively expensive and emits a relatively high CO2 output. Not only is it used to heat homes, but it also plays a significant role in providing electricity when demand is unusually high.

“During the two weeks of Arctic cold [in 2017], New England generators burned through about 2 million barrels of oil. That’s about 84 million gallons. That’s more than twice as much as all the oil used by New England power plants during the entire year of 2016,” according to ISO New England CEO Gordon van Welie. Even worse, during that cold snap, energy from coal or oil shot up from about 2 percent of New England’s grid total to 33 percent.

All this is bad news for climate activists and energy customers. How can New Hampshire, which has committed to reducing its carbon footprint even as the state’s economy continues to grow, turn this around and still meet its energy needs? One potential solution is natural gas.

While it’s not carbon neutral, burning natural gas for fuel generates less CO2 than any of the carbon-based fuel sources like coal, heating oil or propane. It’s also significantly cheaper to heat your home with natural gas than heating oil.

Which explains why even progressives like President Obama’s Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz say “Natural gas has shown itself to be an important bridge to a clean energy future.” New Hampshire state senator Clark echoed that sentiment in her statement supporting Granite Bridge:

“Increasing access to natural gas will reduce air emissions and help to fight climate change, as well as lowering our high energy costs in the short term while we work to create an energy future that will rely solely on true renewables, including solar and wind.”

The opportunity to get more New Hampshire households off heating oil and onto natural gas would seem like a win for the green movement. And yet, as Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, “the trouble is there isn’t enough pipeline capacity to bring in natural gas from the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania to New England in times of high demand. Even as America’s natural gas production has soared, the pipeline capacity to get it to where it’s needed hasn’t kept up.”

Holman Jenkins of The Wall Street Journal makes the same point: “New England is in the worst shape [in the nation], having killed multiple projects for new pipelines and even a transmission line to bring hydropower from Canada. Local electric prices are 50% higher than the national average. Every winter, thanks to an overtaxed pipeline network, the six-state region descends into a ‘precarious position,’ according to New England’s grid manager.”

And a 2018 report from ISO-New England is filled with references to “fuel shortages” and “fuel availability” (not to mention the possibility of brown outs and load shedding in harsh winter weather 10 years from now), all of which translates to “customers who need natural gas, but there’s not enough pipeline capacity to get it to them.”

How did New England become America’s energy-grid basket case? “Political obstacles driven by environmental groups,” says Perry.

“THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD”

“There are just so many reasons why a pipeline is just not the right choice.” So says Stephanie Scherr, founder and director of EchoAction.org, a self-described “environmental justice” organization in New Hampshire.  At a public hearing in Epping earlier in the year,  Scherr said “when we choose gas we are complicit in what happens to other people.”

In a statement to NHJournal, The Conservation Law Foundation calls Granite Bridge “a bad deal for New Hampshire residents.”

When asked about the argument made by people like Secretary Moniz and Sen. Clark that natural gas should be a bridge to renewables, Scherr bristles. “I have nothing to say about Senator Clark’s decision. I think it was a most unfortunate decision and we were very disappointed,” Scherr said.

Patricia Martin, EchoAction’s Energy Policy Coordinator, is even more direct. “I am actually quite upset that Liberty lobbyists manipulated these senators into ENDORSING [emphasis in original] the project before they’ve heard any good arguments against it or probing questions about it,” she told NHJournal via email. “Now their egos and reputations will be tied to being named in that press release as endorsing the project.”

EchoAction is part of a broader environmental movement across New England, including the Conservation LAW Foundation, Citizens Climate Lobby and others who oppose virtually all pipelines—period. “They’ve decided to make the perfect the enemy of the good, which is a shame because Granite Bridge can do a lot of good,” a source close to the project told NHJournal.

The strategy is simple: Oppose any expansion of the carbon-energy infrastructure and force New Hampshire to expand renewable energy to meet future needs.

‘I oppose any expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure,” Martin says. “If we want to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to stop expanding its usage as a first step. If you know there’s a stop sign coming up, do you step on the gas and then brake hard at the last moment?”

Echo Action plans to protest outside the New Hampshire Democratic state convention on Saturday, June 23 in response to the Democrats’ lack of fealty to their zero-carbon-infrastructure stance.

The problem is that renewables are nowhere close to covering the region’s energy needs. In a statement, the CLF says of Granite Bridge:

“Rather than lining the pockets of another utility, New Hampshire should support the many small businesses providing low-cost clean technologies like heat pumps for heating and cooling.”

But even if New Hampshire were somehow converted to an “electric heat” state like South Carolina or Virginia (remember the “it gets really cold here” part?), in 2016 the state got a mere 2.3 percent of its electricity from wind—one-tenth the amount of electricity generated from natural gas. While renewables are close to providing 20 percent of total energy consumed in New Hampshire (a figure that excludes nuclear—which makes no sense, but that’s a topic for another day), by far the largest source isn’t wind, solar or geothermal. It’s biomass. Biomass generates three times more electricity than the other three sources combined.

Not to mention the fact that these “many small businesses” all get subsidies for their biomass/electric/wind from current ratepayers, pushing the cost of electricity in one of the most expensive states in the country even higher.

The reality is that New Hampshire businesses and homeowners aren’t going to sit in dark, unelectrified buildings and wait for wind and solar technology to catch up with current demand. The lights are going to come on, the stoves are going to be lit.  Opposing smart pipeline projects won’t stop that from happening. It just means the natural gas will get to New England in dumb ways.

Like tanker ships from Russia.

Earlier this year, the left-leaning Boston Globe  ran an editorial decrying “pipeline absolutism” and urging the region’s environmentalists to end their knee-jerk opposition to all projects.

Their coverage included the story of a Russian tanker bringing liquified natural gas 4,500 miles from the Arctic to Boston because of a lack of pipelines in New England.

“Climate advocates have put short-term tactical victories against fossil fuel infrastructure ahead of strategic progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They’ve obsessed over stopping domestic pipelines, no matter where those pipes go, what they carry, what fuels they displace, and how the ripple effects of those decisions may raise overall global greenhouse gas emissions,” the Globe argued. [emphasis added]

Why would environmentalists support shipping LNG (via diesel-powered tanker) through the pristine Arctic region when there’s plenty of home-grown natural gas in North America? According to the Globe, a lawyer for the anti-pipeline Conservation Law Foundation “shrugged off” the issue of Russian gas being transported to New England.

“On the plus side, though, they didn’t offend Pittsfield or Winthrop, Danvers or Groton, with even an inch of pipeline,” the Globe noted wryly.

A good way to avoid New England NIMBYism. But how is that a smart strategy for the environment?

THE GRANITE BRIDGE PROJECT

Enter Liberty Utilities and Granite Bridge. On paper, it appears to be a no-brainer. Taking advantage of the state’s “Energy Infrastructure Corridor” program, the pipeline’s 27 miles are mostly located in the Route 101 right-of-way and buried underground, thus avoiding many of the NIMBY issues that have plagued other projects.

And the pipeline will serve a densely populated area from Stratham to Manchester, where natural gas demand is going to climb with or without a new pipeline. Liberty currently serves 90,000 customers from Laconia to Nashua with a single pipeline that is nearing capacity. And that’s a problem.

“Look at what’s happened in California when you refuse to invest in infrastructure,” former New Hampshire Speaker of the House Bill O’Brien told NHJournal. “Energy, water, whatever. You can refuse to build it, but demand is going to rise. In California, they’ve got water shortages, brownouts—it’s a disaster. New Hampshire environmentalists should learn that lesson and support the right projects, not just oppose everything,” the Republican said.

And Granite Bridge also fits in with the new 10-year Energy Strategy released by Gov. Chris Sununu, which prioritizes lower rates for businesses and consumers. The project also includes a large LNG tank in an abandoned quarry near Epping. According to John Shore, senior manager of marketing and communications for Liberty Utilities, this approach will let Liberty to buy natural gas during the summer when prices tend to be low, store it, then use that cheap, stored gas to save customers money in the winter when prices inevitably spike.

“We know the price patterns in the industry and, with this storage capacity, we can use that knowledge to save our customers money,” Shore told NHJournal. If the Granite Bridge pipeline had been in place starting in 2013, this “buy gas when it’s cheap” strategy would have saved Liberty Utilities customers more than $100 million by now, according to Shore. It also provides a cushion against price instability in the natural gas market for Liberty’s customers.

Plus, Liberty is putting the LNG tank in an old quarry, where it’s both safer and out of sight.

Lower CO2 emissions, lower prices, more price stability and all hidden underground on a highway right of way.  And green activists at CLF and Echo Action are against it? To the average New Hampshire consumer, ratepayer and voter—this opposition makes little sense.

By opposing projects that have a demonstrable environmental benefit in the name of still-unavailable levels or wind and solar, the anti-pipeline forces have pushed themselves to the political fringe.

And once they’ve marginalized themselves as the “We’d rather see tankers from Russia than a pipeline from Pennsylvania” movement, how much clout with they have in Concord? Won’t it be easier for utility companies to convince lawmakers to shrug off their objections, the way the New England CLF attorney “shrugged off” the impact of their anti-pipeline stance on the pristine Arctic environment?

Granite Bridge could be a turning point for the region’s environmental stakeholders, a path for the energy and environmental movements to find common ground going forward—avoiding clearly-unpopular projects like Kinder Morgan while supporting “win/win” infrastructure proposals.

Or it could be a breaking point, driving moderate voices away from the Granite State’s environmental movement.

As first exclusively reported here at NHJournal, Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed two energy bills this morning that would have put upward pressure on energy prices in the Granite State.

“Senate Bills 365 and 446 combined would cost New Hampshire electric ratepayers approximately $100 million over the next three years,” Sununu said in his veto message.  “New Hampshire has some of the highest electric rates in the country, placing financial strain on the elderly, those on fixed incomes and the business community.  These bills send our state in exactly the wrong direction.”

SB 446 raises the limit on “net metering” of power from solar generators covered by a state buy-back mandate from one megawatt to five.  “While I agree that expanding net metering could be a benefit to our state, Senate Bill 446 would cost ratepayers at least $5 to 10 million annually and is a handout to large scale energy developers. These immense projects should use incentives already available and compete on their own merits,” Sununu said.

The other bill vetoed by Gov. Sununu Tuesday morning,  SB 365, requires utilities to buy the entire output from a group of older biomass generators at above-market rates. “It would cost New Hampshire ratepayers approximately $25 million a year over the next 3 years, on top of the subsidy for these plants that already became law last year through Senate Bill 129,” Gov. Sununu said.  “It harms our most vulnerable ratepayers and our job creators for the benefit of a select few.”

“Consistent with our state’s 10 Year Energy Strategy, I am committed to working to encourage and advance renewable energy generation and fuel diversity without unjustly burdening the ratepayers of New Hampshire,” Sununu said.

Given that both of these bills passed the New Hampshire legislature with large, bipartisan majorities,  there was some question about whether Gov. Sununu–who is up fo re-election this November–would veto them or let them become law without his signature.  For Republicans in states carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016 (like New Hampshire), the current political environment is challenging.  Vetoing bills with a green/progressive constituency carries risk, particularly given the political turmoil of the Trump era and its impact on the Republican Party’s standing.

At the same time, the Cook Political Report just revised their analysis of the NH Governor’s race from “Leans Republican” to Likely Republican.” Sununu is one of the five most popular governors in the US and he’s taken steps–like signing the transgender bill two weeks ago–to show he’s not a movement ideologue.  As Saint Anselm College political science professor Christopher Galdieri said when he signed the transgender rights bill, “He feels like he is comfortably ahead enough that he can afford to lose a few social conservative votes.”

By vetoing these energy-subsidy bills, Sununu is both advancing his administration’s pro-ratepayer approach to energy policy and reminding a traditional Republican constituency–businesses–that he’s an ally.

The only question remaining is what Sununu will do about a third bill, SB 577, which extends existing (and expensive) subsidies to the Burgess BioPower plant in Berlin. Unlike the other two subsidy bills, this one has a strong constituency of hundreds of jobs directly tied to the facility and powerful political interests like Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley.

Multiple sources close to the governor and familiar with his thinking believe Sununu will likely let SB 577 become law without his signature, as he did with last year’s expensive energy-subsidies bill, SB 129. This will placate the Burgess backers–the most passionate supporters of these bills–and make it less likely they will mount a successful veto override.

For opponents of “picking winners and losers,” as the Sununu administration’s 10-Year Energy Strategy puts it, these vetoes are two-thirds of a loaf. But after last year’s legislation and in the current political climate, free market energy advocates will take it.

The Analysis Group just released their review of the effects of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and they give it an A+.  They claim greenhouse gas emissions are falling, the state economies are growing, and renewable energy is on the rise.  RGGI must be working, right?

Only if you grade on a curve.  When you check the math, you’ll find that RGGI has no impact on emissions, has had minimal impact on improving energy efficiency, and done very little to increase wind and solar power generation.

What RGGI has done is put upward pressure on electricity rates which, in turn, has driven energy intensive businesses out of the RGGI region—along with the good-paying jobs those businesses supply.  In New Hampshire, for example, the loss of these high-wage jobs has reduced real medium household income by almost $2,000 a year, while increasing electric rates.

How can the facts be so far from the Analysis Group’s reporting? Let’s check their assumptions.

RGGI works by forcing power plants to pay for emission allowances in quarterly auctions.  The one point we all agree on is the cost of those allowances gets passed on to electric distributors and then onto ratepayers.  Between 2015 and 2017, those auctions collected about $900 million dollars—once again, all from the pockets of customers.

In their report, the Analysis Group (a paid consultant for RGGI, Inc.) assumes $800 million of that money is invested in local economies where it is leveraged by indirect and induced affects into $1.4 billion of economic impact.  But they’re using gross figures, not net.  They don’t account for the economic impact of that $800 million if it had been saved or spent by the electric customers themselves.  If the $800 million had been dropped into the economy from the sky, their analysis would be accurate. But it didn’t. The money came directly from local businesses and consumers in RGGI states who would have spent, saved or invested it themselves, thereby adding to economic growth.

That net number, alleged RGGI growth minus the loss of economic activity from ratepayers and customers, is nowhere to be found.

The other assumption is the RGGI invested revenue more than offsets the costs leading to electric bill savings, thus justifying the $1.4 billion impact estimate.  They assume energy efficiency investments should lead to lower demand, and lower demand should result in lower electric prices.

The problem with this assumption is lower electric demand can actually lead to lower power plant operating efficiencies.  For example, coal-fired power plants pay a higher RGGI allowance because they release about twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas for each unit of electricity produced. These power plants were designed to run almost all the time.  An analysis of power plants in two RGGI states shows operating hours fall as the plants are less competitive, the plants stop and start more often, and efficiency has fallen 16 percent The result is higher costs and emissions.

Furthermore, energy efficiency doesn’t show up in a state-by-state analysis of energy intensity.  Energy Intensity measures the amount of electricity needed to support a dollar’s worth of economic production.  Between 2007 and 2015, energy intensity only improved 9.6 percent in RGGI states. In comparable states outside the RGGI agreement but with similar energy policies, it improved by 11.5 percent.  Electric demand has fallen in RGGI states, but the reduction can be traced to lower industrial demand from companies that left the region, taking jobs and $30 billion of business revenue with them.  Similarly, the comparison states created twice the amount of new in-state wind and solar generation as the RGGI states.

Even if you assume that RGGI spending is the engine behind improved energy efficiency or expanded renewables, there’s still a math problem: Relatively little of the RGGI tax revenue has been spent on energy.   For example, the New Hampshire program spends only 25 percent of revenue on energy efficiency with the rest given as electric customer rebates.  Connecticut and New York have re-directed large sums to their general funds, and Delaware simply hasn’t spent most of the money.   It’s hard to credit progress to dollars still sitting in the bank.

The Analysis Group also stated the RGGI states saved a billion dollars in fuel purchases thanks to lower energy generation.  Unfortunately, while these states generated less energy, that doesn’t mean they used less.  Instead, their imports of out-of-region electricity doubled from 7 percent to 14 percent between 2007 and 2015.  And less energy generated also means less energy to sell. As a result, New Hampshire has lost about half a billion dollars of electricity exports to other New England states. That means lost revenue and lost jobs.

When I began my independent analysis, “A Review of the Regional Greenhouse Initiative’, published in the peer reviewed winter 2018 Cato Journal, I expected to find some emissions savings for RGGI states as compared to other, comparable states.  I expected the debate would be over how big those savings were and whether they would be worth the price of distorting the energy market.

Instead, I found essentially no emissions savings can be attributed to RGGI.

The RGGI emission reductions were duplicated in the comparison states—and across the US.  Emissions cuts have come primarily from lower coal use.  I found 70 percent of the emission savings came from coal’s inability to compete with lower cost natural gas.  The other 30 percent can be attributed to US Environmental Protection Agency regulations that required expensive pollution controls be added to coal-fired power plants.  It just wasn’t worth investing in older, smaller power plants and, as a result, emissions fell.

The RGGI program is being extended from 2020 to 2030 with another 30 percent emission reduction goal, and up to six times higher allowance cost planned.  New Hampshire already met the 2030 emissions goal in 2016.  The RGGI program hurts New Hampshire’s economy with lost business, lost high paying jobs, lost income, and lost tax revenue.  After a decade there is no apparent environmental benefit from RGGI, and there has been a minimal impact on energy efficiency, and wind power.

New Hampshire’s elected officials should consider the impact on local businesses and residents, already burdened by the 3rd highest energy costs in the US, and ask themselves if it’s time to issue RGGI a failing grade and get out.