The Newton Coalition for Climate Action is pushing for a 53% renewable energy purchase as part of Newton’s Initial municipal aggregation contract.
Letter from the coalition, in part:
Our Coalition recommends that Newton Power Choice, in its initial municipal aggregation contract, set a default percent of Class 1 New England renewables well above both the state mandate of 13% in 2018 and Brookline’s default of 25% above the state mandate set in their 2017 contract. We support a default of 40% above the state mandate in the initial Newton Power Choice contract (a total of 53% Class 1 New England renewable energy). This number is feasible and will meet the newly adopted international carbon roadmap to reduce global warming in time, driven by a simple rule of thumb, or ‘carbon law’, of halving emissions every decade. This will catalyze the necessary disruptive innovation necessary to reduce carbon emissions to a safe level. (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-carbon-law-pathway- halve-emissions.html)
To learn about Newton residents’ willingness to pay a somewhat higher price for this greener electricity, the Coalition asked Green Newton to sponsor a statistically reliable, random, zip-code-based survey. The survey results show strong support for green electricity among Newton residents, even among those who have modest incomes. 87% of respondents would pay more for green electricity, and of these, 78% support a total level of renewables ranging between 50% and 100%. For the average Newton household paying $150 a month for electricity, this would mean an additional cost of $8 per month (based on today’s Class 1 renewable energy prices).
Anyone can sign on as a supporter of the proposal, there’s a form on their website.
These 70 degree days in February are alarming. Investing in renewable energy seems more sensible than extreme.
Future higher costs for green energy as compared to oil and gas are not set in stone. Prices for all types of energy vary, sometimes very unexpectedly. And individual costs vary based on use.
“Municipal distribution of electricity” was a central part of my economic policy when I ran for mayor in 2005. Most people said, “huh”? So I’m happy to say now… “I told ya so”!
13 years ago, except for municipalities that actually owned power plants, there was not a single city or town in Massachusetts that practiced aggregation. Now it’s all the rage. But I think it’s a mistake to put too much emphasis on renewable energy, when the principal purpose of aggregation should be generating money for the city.
“13 years ago, except for municipalities that actually owned power plants, there was not a single city or town in Massachusetts that practiced aggregation.” That is not accurate, all of Cape Cod has been aggregated since 1997 via Cape Light Compact.
“But I think it’s a mistake to put too much emphasis on renewable energy, when the principal purpose of aggregation should be generating money for the city.” Mike you seem to be inferring that aggregation means Newton will be establishing a municipal light plant. That is not what it means; Eversource will still be our basic supplier. Rather, the City will be contracting for electricity on behalf of the residents, and will be requiring more renewable energy than is mandated under state law. Residents are not obligated to join the aggregation, but they will be “opted-in” unless they proactively communicate that they don’t want to be.
@Striar, Cities don’t have the legal right to mark-up (tax) utilities beyond their overhead costs (fees). Let me fix this for you, “the principal purpose of aggregation should be generating COST SAVINGS FOR THE RATEPAYER [money for the city].”
The need to OPT-OUT to pay the optional lower rate will surely disproportionately impact the poorest members of our community. Electing to pay more for an essential utility for political action purposes should only be a voluntary OPT-IN choice.
Municipal aggregation IS municipal distribution of electricity. The EXACT same thing I proposed in the 2005 mayoral election. At that time my proposal was for the city to purchase electricity in bulk, distribute it to homeowners at a discount, and make a profit through that process. I have NEVER proposed or suggested a “municipal light plant.” Glad to share some old campaign literature to clear up where this idea actually came from…
Regarding the Cape Light Compact, my recollection is that the power plant located along the canal that serves much of the lower Cape was a municipal [or government owned] plant until the early 2000’s, when it was sold to a private company that subsequently went bankrupt.
Ann Berwick (Director of Sustainability) gave a great overview of Newton Power Choice at the Auburndale Community Library last night, and will be doing lots of information sessions throughout the city in the months ahead. I recommend trying to catch one if you can.
@David M – the state requires that municipal aggregation programs be ‘opt out’. If we want to do aggregation in Newton, it’s not possible to make it an ‘opt in’ program.