Thread by @jglarusso

1. Make no mistake—what follows is not an endorsement of any specific project, least of all N. Pass (may it R.I.P.).
__________

Isn’t it true—to borrow a phrase—that all energy siting projects that end unhappily end unhappily after their own fashion?

bit.ly/30cuenu

2. That said, here in New England the distinguishing feature of *all* public debates over siting energy assets (whether they’re clean energy or FF assets) is the gulf that separates the three northern New England states from the three southern New England states.

3. I’m not saying anything new. Anyone who knows NE well knows that the cultures, economies, and relative prosperity of the no. and so. states are different. Anyone who knows NE well knows there are two distinct NE’s.

That dichotomy is also true w/respect to energy projects: ...

4. ...by & large, energy projects proposed for the no. are intended to move clean energy so., whereas energy projects proposed for the so. are intended to move FF energy no.

The common justification for energy projects in both no. & so., however, is support of the electric grid.

5. The FF moved no. by projects in the so. is natural gas. The early justification for bringing new natural gas capacity into the region was to displace coal and oil generation, and it has. In 2018 gas produced 49% of NE electricity, oil 1.1% & coal 1%.

bit.ly/2Wigt7T

6. Even so—even though gas has triumphed over coal and oil generation—the current justification proponents of new gas pipelines in so. NE put forward is that gas remains *scarce*, at least seasonally in winter when gas is used for heating in addition to generating electricity.

7. It’s during winter cold snaps that NE most frequently resorts to its remaining oil and coal generation. Why? Because there is only so much gas that can be brought into NE: regional gas capacity *is* finite. When we're using gas to heat NE's buildings—when demand is high—oil...

8. … & coal gen make up the difference. It’s at these time that the grid becomes both dirtier and more expensive.

Is still more gas the solution? It can’t be if the region is going to meet its climate action goals, & there *is* general consensus on those goals here in NE: ...

9. …VT, NH, ME, MA, & RI have each set a 2050 goal of reducing their GHG emission 80% from 1990 levels; CT requires an 80% reduction from 2001 GHG levels by 2050.

There is also general consensus on the strategy needed to meet those goals: heating & transportation must be ...

10. ... electrified, and the grid must be decarbonized.

Despite this consensus NE appears to be vexed by a seemingly imponderable question. If the south discontinues the expansion of natural gas capacity, can the region’s climate goals be met absent ...

11. ... the development of projects in the north to bring more clean energy (primarily wind and hydro) south? Or, put another way, is there a common set of project-based values to which the entire region can subscribe to attain the region’s shared climate goals?

12. What would such project-based values look like?

They would have to be based, first, on our acknowledgment that climate change threatens the character, if not the habitability, of the places here in NE where each of us lives.

13. Second, it requires our acknowledgement that an energy transition is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change—the electrification of heating and transportation, and the decarbonization of the electric grid.

14. Third, it requires our acknowledgement that the energy transition will require the construction of infrastructure to support the development and delivery of clean power to displace fossil fuel generation.

15. Finally, we must acknowledge that those infrastructure projects will have significant associated impacts on the *places* where they’re sited, & the *people* who live and/or recreate there.

If that is our common understanding, then the following questions become relevant:...

16. ... “What are the impacts associated with *this* particular project?”; “To what extent would the project mitigate the effects of climate change?” (I.e. “What are the potential impacts of *not* building this project?”); ”If the project is meritorious, to what extent can ...

17. ...project impacts on the landscape or seascape be mitigated while leaving the economics of the project intact?” (E.g. “How much cable s/b buried and where?”); “What portion of project revenue can be directed to impacted communities to support *local* infrastructure ...

18. ... and *local* institutions?”

Certainly, there are other questions in this vein, but the questions above suggest a project-based means of balancing local impacts and the climate actions that must be implemented across NE, here inside the @isonewengland control area.

19. If when we evaluate proposed projects we fail to consider that every one of us is similarly situated—that climate change is in everyone’s back yard & that we must shoulder that burden together—we’ll continue working against & not w/ each other on regional climate action. ###