From the mayor’s office…
The City of Newton today signed an historic contract for all of the City’s electricity customers that is 60 percent from local renewable sources such as solar and wind, significantly reducing the City’s carbon footprint while also cutting the price customers pay.
This is an additional 46 percent above the state mandate for renewables.
Today’s decision makes Newton the community with far and away the highest percentage of additional local renewable electricity of any municipal aggregation program in Massachusetts. Of the 40 cities and towns with municipal aggregation programs that provide electricity from renewable energy sources above the amount mandated by state law, none provide an amount of local renewable electricity comparable to the 60% in Newton Power Choice. The closest is Brookline which will be at 39% in 2019, which includes the 14% state mandate.
Newton Power Choice is a “municipal aggregation” program that allows cities and towns to choose the electricity supplier for electricity customers within its borders, rather than having the local utility — Eversource, in the case of Newton — buy the electricity.
With Newton Power Choice, Eversource will continue to deliver the electricity; customers will continue to contact Eversource if their power goes out; and Eversource will continue to bill them. The difference is that Newton now selects the supplier of the electricity for customers rather than leaving it up to the utility.
“I am proud to announce Newton Power Choice, and proud that we are leading the way by choosing a higher percentage of renewables than any other community in Massachusetts. This is the most significant step we can take to reduce the carbon footprint of Newton,” Mayor Ruthanne Fuller said.
The program will go into effect in March 2019.
The 22-month contract signed by Mayor Fuller today was procured through a competitive bid process. The standard price per kilowatt hour for customers will be 11.34 cents. This compares to Eversource’s winter Basic Service rate (beginning January 1, 2019) for residential customers of 13.70 cents per kilowatt hour.
When this program goes into effect in March 2019, a typical Newton electricity customer (who uses 710 kwh/month) will get a total of 60% renewable energy and will pay $165.89 per month. By contrast, that same customer would pay $182.37 when Eversource’s Basic Service rate goes up in January; this is a savings of $16.48. Further, that customer would receive only the state mandated 14% renewable energy content.
Eversource’s residential customer rate will change again in July 2019, so Newton Power Choice’s electricity customers are guaranteed to pay less only until then. While there is a guarantee of a stable price for 22 months, there is no guarantee of future savings beyond June 2019.
By state law, municipal aggregation programs must use an “opt-out model.” That means customers who take no action will be enrolled automatically in the Newton Power Choice standard program.
Newton electricity customers can opt out of the program entirely if they wish to remain on Eversource Basic Service.
They can also choose from two additional Newton Power Choice options: (1) They can opt up from the standard level to receive 100% renewable electricity for an additional $2.91 per month, or (2) they can opt down from the standard level to receive only the minimum amount of renewable electricity required by state law, thereby saving $3.34 per month, as compared to the standard level, while remaining a participant in Newton Power Choice.
Customers can leave Newton Power Choice without a cancellation fee at any time. At any time, they can also join the program, opt up to 100%, or opt down.
Residents who are currently on Eversource Basic Service will receive a notice in the mail that explains the program and provides pricing information, and City officials will also hold a series of meetings early in the new year to explain the program and answer questions.
About Municipal Aggregation
Newton Power Choice is a “municipal aggregation” program. Approximately 140 cities and towns in Massachusetts have municipal aggregation programs. About 40 of these provide electricity from renewable energy sources above the amount mandated by state law.
Municipal aggregation programs allow cities and towns to aggregate the electricity customers within its borders and source electricity on the customers’ behalf, rather than having the local utility — Eversource, in the case of Newton — choose the electricity supplier.
Under a municipal aggregation program, the city or town can include a higher percentage of renewable energy from sources like solar and wind than a utility like Eversource is required by state law to provide. Under state law, utilities like Eversource and competitive suppliers are currently required to provide 13% of the electricity they supply from renewable sources. This increases to 14% next year and by 2% every year thereafter. Of the 40 cities and towns with municipal aggregation programs that provide electricity from renewable energy sources above the amount mandated by state law, none provide an amount of local renewable electricity comparable to the 60% in Newton Power Choice. The closest is Brookline which will be at 39% in 2019, which includes the 14% state mandate.
The stable price for the 22-month contract term in Newton’s municipal aggregation program is different from Eversource’s Basic Service, which changes every six months for residential and small business customers and every three months for larger business customers. Municipal aggregation contracts are also different from many offers provided directly to consumers by competitive electricity suppliers, which often include prices that rise or vary after an introductory period and may have hefty cancellation fees.
Mayor Fuller wants to thank the City of Newton’s Co-Directors of Sustainability Ann Berwick and William Ferguson for their deep expertise and hard work that led us to today’s decision.
Go to www.newtonpowerchoice.com for additional information.
Congratulations to all involved. This is a great step forward in making Newton greener. I am so grateful to Emily Norton, for bringing this idea to the City 2 years ago, and for hosting several meetings with several of the Councilors and energy providers to help us understand how important and easy this type of program can be.
Excellent news! I really didn’t imagine this situation in which the status quo of dirtier energy costs more.
Unfortunately I’m not sure that exactly how it works. I think when you switch to a different service provider and break a basic service contract, Eversource will charge you retroactively by the monthly rate which spikes to $0.17/kWh in January and February. That difference looks like it will leave customers making the switch to Newton’s new service with a net loss. I don’t know if Eversource had anything to do with setting the date to March, but it’s ideally timed for them.
Long term and environmentally, this all sounds great. I just fear a lot of people might be surprised by their initial bills.
Many thanks Amy–it is incredibly gratifying to see this concept be made a reality here in Newton — with Newton in the lead, as we should be! Kudos to Mayor Fuller, Sustainability Director Ann Berwick, Energy Manager Bill Ferguson, and the many local residents who spent hours & hours educating fellow residents and advocating for an ambitious renewable energy level, including but not limited to Cory Alperstein, Rachel Adler Golden, Jonathan Klein, Nathan Phillips, Marcia Cooper, Eric Olson, as well as groups such as the Energy Commission, Green Newton, and Mothers Out Front. Especially in the wake of the IPCC report and Friday’s National Climate Assessment the need for urgent action at all levels of government is clearer than ever.
Wonderful, wonderful news! Thank you to everyone who played a role in this, especially Mayor Fuller and all those who spent significant time collecting signatures.
Thank you Councilor Norton, and thanks to all those (right up to Mayor Fuller) who recognized this opportunity and got behind the push to increase renewables at a low rate for a very stable long term. We’ll see about the details when the program goes into effect, but it’s very promising!
Where are the renewable energy facilities that generate this electricity? Scarcely any exist either near to or within Newton ‘load zone’ that can enter into contracts supplying electricity for consumption by Newton ratepayers. Read actual contract, particularly addendum section! Newton ratepayers buying renewable energy certificates are not purchasing the actual electricity generated somewhere from renewable sources.
Larry, here is a summary of the concept I put together at my previous job, maybe this is clearer:
https://www.sierraclub.org/massachusetts/community-choice-energy
Emily,
Why is the City telling Newton ratepayers they’re purchasing renewable electricity when no actual facilities using renewable sources will sell them electricity? RECs are not electricity.
From article link you gave, “a Class 1 REC here in Massachusetts, which is contributing toward renewable projects that would not be built.” That’s misleading in that Solar RECs are in fact such a driver, yet other inexpensive RECs will be sold to ratepayers who are told they’re purchasing renewable electricity (where’s contract for that?!) These cheap RECs are automatically created when actual electricity is credited to firms and individuals who have purchased either certain renewable facilities and /or the electricity from. Why the pretense that this electricity is available for purchase by Newton ratepayers? It is not.
Geoengineering experiments are underway now to block sunlight as we in Newton refuse responsibility for building sun wind water sources of energy. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4?
Our young people are being sacrificed to keep lifestyle only fossil fuel use props up, precariously and not for long. Newton is a community sharing responsibility to protect young people, Our Representatives should be working on that urgently. Coaching helplessness is not “greening anything”.
When will we have time of use or off peak pricing in Newton to incentivize roof top solar AND battery storage? That would much more of an impact in reducing the need for fossil fuel based power generation during peak load times. Why isn’t this in place today? The only explanation I can come up with is that it protects the long term investment made in utilization of fossil fuel based power plants. That isn’t the constituency (power plant investors) we should be protecting.
Larry,
My understanding is that if Newton uses X amount of electricity over the contract period, then 60% of X (if, for example, no one opted out) will be generated from within the New England grid region from one of the Class 1 renewable energy facilities listed here: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/qualified-generation-units
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
This is not to say that the actual electrons flowing from renewable generators can be separated from those from other plants, just like the physical dollars one saves in a bank are unlikely to be the same physical pieces of paper one withdraws later. Electrons like dollars are fungible, so a program like Newton Power Choice and the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard use market mechanisms like RECs to make the transactions and accounting work.
While my family will enthusiastically be opting up to 100% in this program, by no means is this is “enough” action on climate. Our home is shaded, like a majority of homes in Newton, so we can’t put solar panels up. But every suitable school, municipal building, and commercial building should be required or incentivized to install solar and storage. This is not an either/or proposition but both/and. Having walked the walk as a municipality, we are in a better position to be even bolder on our own municipal Climate Action Plan, and to pressure the Governor and Speaker De Leo to show some leadership on clean energy and support the kind of all-hands-on-deck solar buildout that the scale and speed of our climate crisis demands.
This is nice; I support it 100%. But this is not historic, and let’s not pat ourselves on the back. All this proves is that one of the wealthiest cities in the nation can afford to pay extra for renewable energy that has been available to City residents for well over a decade. (Any reduction in rates is because of collective bargaining, not renewable energy).
If the program works as described, I hope other towns and cities will use it as well to shift macroeconomic forces. But we still need to focus on conservation, energy-saving technology, and finding solutions for less prosperous communities and nations.
There is a risk that people who believe they have 100% renewable energy will increase their energy consumption or become lazy about other environmental duties.
Nathan,
Let’s go over contract. Purchasing (cheaply) RECs is not purchasing clean renewable sourced electricity in amounts used by utility account holders. Sham if ratepayers are misled to think otherwise. We don’t have anything like the renewable sources needed for Newton and other towns getting into these ‘greening the grid’ programs. Real hard work and expense to get started on these RE sources! You know that.
What happens if enough cities and towns all aggregated and bought 60% renewable energy, with a phased plan to get to 100%? Would that not create demand that electric supply companies then want to supply? If providing renewable energy becomes profitable by demand created through large scale aggregation, the private sector will develop the renewable energy sources to meet that demand. Newton could spend a bunch of money to create renewable energy here, but it would only be scratching the surface of the global issue. If we set the standard to which other communities strive, and we create RE demand in eastern Mass, it will spread to western Mass, which will then spread to New England, which then spreads to the east coast, which then spreads west. We live in a capitalist society. Create demand, demand drives profit, profit and demand drive supply, supply meets demand. A self-sustaining solution to creating RE. If the utility providers are smart, they will see the trend, and instead of investing billions in new fossil fuel plants, they will start to redirect those investments to make money off of renewable energy supply. This whole process will also promote Li or next gen electricity storage, which will harden the grid, and reduce the off hour demand on fossil fuel, wind, hydro, and/or nuke plants.
The beauty of this approach is that it’s a grass roots movement from the bottom up, instead of federal mandates forcing it from the top down. Those mandate should be happening, but I’m not holding my breath with this president, and we can’t afford to wait him out.
Kudos to the Mayor, her staff, and all of the supporters of this initiative. It’s a step in the right direction.
All,
The demand for new renewable sourced electricity generating facilities doesn’t increase by Newton ratepayers purchasing inexpensive RECs. NSTAR had ‘green’ program for years, wherein suckers like me paid as much as double electricity costs because we were given illusion of actual wind electricity being purchased with our money. We were only buying the RECs and not the wind generated electricity. I wised up to this ‘greenwashing’, after NSTAR ended the program in early 2015. Newton Power Choice sells RECs at far lower cost than NSTAR had. However, this program in my view is also misleading ratepayers to believe their monthly utility bill payments will be purchasing a lot more electricity from renewable source generation.
Simply that RECs are available for purchasing and the electricity is not, can not be justification for ratepayers being led to think RECs are electricity. I do not agree with justification that facility owners who have these RECs to sell are dependent on selling them in order to justify building facilities. So much hoopla about buying these RECs obscures understandings about why ratepayers are being signed into contracts to buy them?
How can we attract enormous investment to build renewable generation capacity at scale necessary to replace precarious shale gas resources Massachusetts has become increasingly dependent on? Answering that question doesn’t seem to matter to anyone involved in Newton Power Choice. Why not? It is the only question that must be answered.
@Lawrence,
I believe our goals are aligned, but how we get there is the debate. We could go down the road of trying to develop enough solar pv, solar dhw, geothermal, etc, to eliminate our dependance on ng, oil, and coal, but cost is real and cost drive the timeline to achieve that goal. I believe you are suggesting a grassroots movement to create enough new RE in Mass to supply the grid. This will be very expensive based on the land area available, and the need to create lots of smaller installs to try and hit those goals. I’m simply saying that aggregation can catch on, grow, create demand, generate profit, drive supply, and address this problem faster and a larger scale than any of us can hope to deliver here locally. That doesn’t mean we should promote and create local RE projects. We should be doing both. Aggregation is another step towards getting us where we need to be.
Government incentives on the RE program are intended to prop up an industry while it gets its legs under itself until it can become independently profitable. This process sometimes works, and sometimes doesn’t. What always works in a capitalist society is supply and demand, and demand starts somewhere. Could Newton be the beginning of a ground swell? Maybe. More likely is that a couple other neighboring communities see the success and mirror it. Then a couple of their neighbors do the same. It’s a simple concept that plays out in free markets globally every day.
Again, we want the same end result. I certainly believe your method to get there has to be part of the solution, but I also believe that aggregation can create enough national demand to get us where we want to be. Also important to note, is that if aggregation spreads enough and demand drives supply, development price will come down and it will be easier and less expensive for us to develop our own RE close to home, and we all win.
Randy,
Community aggregation doesn’t build or direct incentives to building new generation capacity for renewable sources of electricity. Read the contracts signed by Newton and other towns. Investigate. I did over past year. And submitted questions and comments. This is a mess in my opinion.
I need no help to buy 100% renewable sourced electricity. My Eversource account now shows $4600 credit resulting from contract I signed in December 2014 purchasing all of the electricity from 63 panels at community solar facility in Holliston. Do I mind that my net metering contract with owner of the facility obligated me to pay for so much electricity (which went directly onto grid but is credited to my utility account)? No. I paid much less for that electricity then I could buy it anywhere else. The $4600credit is offsetting entire utility bill and will lower as winter proceeds and home heating is electric, cars and bikes are electric, clothes dryer, etc. Also I reduced number of panels net metered to my account. I’m earning from net metering solar generation on my rooftop also. A few like me are earning very significantly from participating in net metering program and the owner of solar facility was glad for my business. But I had to purchase electricity as it went to grid, so July is jaw dropping purchase. Newton Power Choice is not going to make these jaw drop purchases in July for ratepayers to claim the electricity. To my eyes, the contract is an instrument to purchase dirty electricity for ratepayers at small discount (perhaps). Inexpensive RECs are bundled into aggregate purchasing (to greenwash it?). This is coaching helplessness. Ratepayers will not be participating in purchasing renewable sourced electricity in any significant measure I can lay eyes on. Since last year I have been forthcoming, trying to show the backers of this program how I purchase solar generation electricity at significantly discount! Their lack of interest alarms me. Former head of public utilities under Deval Patrick’s administration is heading up this program now under Mayor Fuller, must know that folks like me with a little initiative can do very well on our own with net metering. But what can we do in aggregate, altogether? That’s what you are asking – as am I! As should everyone be.
Well, so far it appears that Newton ratepayers are only being coached in helplessness – while CO2 in atmosphere is destroying our young people’s future and we do little to stop this. Stop being coached this way – and read the contracts, not the hoopla!
Lawrence,
I’m not coached, I’m informed and educated. If every city and town signed this same contract over the next 5-10 years, what impact do you feel it would have on the development of new renewable energy? Nothing?
CommentYou’ve read contract? I have not yet accessed it as the website is yet to post it. https://masspowerchoice.com/newton
I have read contracts signed by Salem and Lexington, made phone calls and asked questions. My understanding has been and remains now that Newton contract is similar, if not same in regard to lacking information stating it will be an instrument for purchasing electricity for Newton ratepayers from facilities generating renewable sourced electricity. If you have that information, direct me to it!
As you must know (if indeed informed about such vital matters) there are woeful deficiencies today in facilities for generation of renewable sourced electricity in MA. The folks who believe otherwise are not processing what is in front of their eyes. Heat pumps, electric vehicles, other increases in electricity loads, are frightening because shale gas we’re becoming increasingly dependent on – is not reliable! Why don’t more understand that! Same reason more don’t see our young people have no future because we’re using it as our CO2 dump. Addiction to lifestyle only fossil fuel use props up.
I’m getting plenty of coaching from helplessness. You’re not? Great, I’m ready for good coaching.
I find Lawrence’s argument to be very logical here, and I empathize with his frustration in not being heard. Too often, well-intentioned local officials are snookered by private investors who know too well how to unscrupulously make a buck. The deregulation of the MA energy markets was ripe for fraud and misrepresentation by private investors because there’s no way for consumers to differentiate between the products that they receive, and also because many elements of the network cannot physically be opened to competition.
We’ve recently sold our home in Newton and are now fully settled in across the river in Needham – when I initially read this, I was extremely excited and I was planning to pass it along to the Needham Select Board to ask them why Needham hadn’t considered something similar. But just before I hit send, I thankfully read Adam’s comment that this might not be as financially attractive as the city is presenting it, and then I read Lawrence’s explanation that it might not be as environmentally attractive as it’s being presented.
I hope that Newton engages Lawrence on this subject since he seems to have much more pragmatic logistical experience than those that designed the current contract.
Thanks Michael, folks backing Newton Power Choice are well-intentioned, as I learned by attending meetings and discussing program with numbers of them
However, helplessness is the product being pitched, or enormous growth in renewable sourced electricity capacity has surreptitiously crept into NE.
Basic question: are the prices per kilowatt-hours cited (11.34 cents, 13.70 cents) just the generation charge, charge, and exclude the distribution and other per-unit charges? Assuming that is the case, here’s some recent generation charge history for perspective, from my Eversource bills. (Months are the month I got the bill, so there’s a bit of a time lag; my billing period is roughly half the month I get the bill, half the month before.):
March-June 2017: 10.318 cents/kwh
July 2017: 10.598
Aug-Dec 2017: 10.759
Jan 2018: 12.017
Feb-April 2018: 12.888
July 2018: 11.992
Aug-Nov 2018: 11.397
By the way, anyone know why ‘winter’ rates apply from January-June, instead of say, November-March or April?
So it seems that not surprisingly, costs are going up over time, but there would be a lot of factors mixed into the prices utilities are allowed to charge: price of oil (used to generate electricity), weather-induced demand requiring less efficient sources to be brought online, etc.
I must confess that even with an MIT degree, I don’t understand the REC’s vs real electricity argument being made by Larry, though I would like to. My general sense is that if at any point in time, demand for ‘renewable’ electricity is less than capacity of renewable sources, the renewable sources are supplying that much of the demand (though not the literal electrons to those particular customers). But what happens if or when demand for renewable electricity at a point in time is exceeding the current capacity? Obviously no one is doing without the electricity they want to use. So where’s that electricity coming from? Is this the point Larry is making?
Personally, I feel that I’m doing more for carbon reduction by not having a clothes dryer or dishwasher, than whether or not the electricity I use is renewable or not. My November bill is pretty typical, $33.34 total, of which only $13.45 is the supplier (generation) charge, though I should note this is with a gas stove, not electric. (So I can splurge for 100% renewable electricity without it costing very much.)
I wish more attention was paid to consumption reduction, and making existing houses more energy efficient through insulation. Instead people are building bigger and bigger houses! At least for me with an unfinished basement, it’s not difficult to not have a clothes dryer. Merle, the previous owner did not, because I had to put in the circuit for one when I bought the house. When the dryer I had died (it ran but didn’t create heat) I never replaced it, and started using the clotheslines Merle had attached to the joists. It helps to have three of my winter ‘photocoats’, but I really haven’t missed the clothes dryer at all and it must be almost 20 years now.
How much money is the City electing to donate by choosing the higher electric rate?
The schools alone spend $3M on electricity annually and it historically increases each year. So if we’re choosing to pay 10% more for electricity, that amounts to a $300k donation from Newton Public Schools to fund mostly out-of-state energy projects.
For all of the municipal electric bills I’m guessing it adds up to over a million dollar donation.
This looks interesting and timely. I need to do more than just skim it. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/energy/regions-electricity-market-in-trouble/
Adam, you would have been right several years ago, but the state Department of Public Utilities has changed the rules on this. Retroactive billing is now prohibited.
Julia,
You’re correct. I object to equating electricity purchased by Newton ratepayers with RECs written for electricity credited to a renewable source generator. Here is why. If renewable source generator of electricity puts some onto distribution grid. They’re credited for it. Dollar amount appears in their utility account. Of course, generator may transfer the credit to another account via a contract under net metering rules. In that case, money is transferred to generator from whoever buys the credit for electricity, Capitalism! The electricity however is already gone, distributed, consumed. I have $4600 in my Eversource account as a credit for electricity that is long gone. My account is credited for putting it into distribution because I paid generator ‘Clean Energy Collective’ for the credit under net metering contract.
Importantly, the generator of renewable sourced electricity is also credited for generation of renewable sourced electricity whether they put it into a battery, consume it onsite or put it onto grid distribution and receive credit in their account for amount of electricity put onto grid. Or even if they can sell the credit for electricity put onto grid, under rules of net metering. Whatever they do with the electricity, RECs are written as electricity is produced. But credit generated for production is not same as credit for electricity entering grid! It is a REC that has value but only in eyes of buyers. The electricity gets it value from the grid, supplying demand for kWhr. The RECs are not kWhr, they’re meeting another kind of ‘demand’. Far far too little renewable source electricity to go around but generators, whether they put their electricity onto grid distribution or not, have these RECs to sell also. Most solar RECs are expensive, and are not ones involved in this program under discussion. Wind and other sources provide plenty of inexpensive RECs which greenwashers scoop up and sell as you know what, ‘renewable energy.’
Here’s what should be happening in my view. Given that renewable electricity entering grid distribution earns credit, why not make public-owned utility be the holder of credit? We the ratepayers then pay for electricity we consume, returning money to pay for system harvesting renewable sources of electricity. And where does the public owned utility get sums needed to build generation capacity? From our publicly owned government! The only way we’re going to quickly build enough generation capacity to harvest renewable sourced electricity in vast amounts that fossil fuel use generates – is to put our government and our utilities to work in massive Green New Deal! If we wait, for private investment to build up renewable energy then sham shale gas ‘boom’ can collapse before renewable power gets off the runway. We’re tempting fate! Great misfortune and misery could be most likely outcome of not going all out now to build public renewable energy systems! Newton should be a lightning rod for Public Works to build renewable sourced power generation. While we can.
Lawrence does have a point to some extent. It helps to understand what a REC is:
https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs
We have solar panels. For every megawatt-hour we generate, we get a solar rec (SREC). We sell them for $$$. The entity buying them is buying the right to claim the use or production of green energy. So what is the net effect?
While we feel green because we have solar panels on our roof and consume all the power they make, the reality is that, because we’ve sold our RECs, 100% of our power is actually dirty from an accounting point of view. But of course we (and other solar panel owners) don’t feel that way, so it is double dipping to some extent.
I imagine this is likely also the case for the solar panels installed on Newton property in recent years. Somebody else is likely claiming the green power produced by them, even if Newton consumes the power directly.
On the other hand, the return on investment for installing our panels several years ago, absent any incentives or credits, would have been over 20 years. Absent tax credits and SRECS we probably wouldn’t have gotten the panels and we wouldn’t be making green power. With RECs and tax credits, the panels pay off in less than 5 years. The existence of the RECS nudges green power into existence by making it more profitable, and while RECS purchased today fund existing green power, the ongoing demand for REC funds ongoing expansion of capacity that isn’t naturally as profitable as needed.
So for me, if I wanted to be as green as possible, I’d keep my RECs and not sell them, but I’ll leave that for the last 10 years of life when the special SREC program in place when we got them closes. Solar in New England is rough compared to lower states (cloudy short days), but where it really helps is during hot summer mid-days when panels do a significant amount of work to trim peak demand and keep dirty/new plants offline.
Jack,
RECs are created when renewable sourced electricity is generated. Whether that electricity is put onto grid distribution or not. The REC for producing it is simply value someone places on it. Solar RECs are valued high because there is so much demand among buyers. Big sin jar for generators of CO2 pollution. If you put solar electricity onto grid, how is it dirty because of demand for RECs? If you use it in your home, how is it dirty? Carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels is destroying young people’s future. Put solar electricity on grid and you are helping young people. Use solar electricity in your home and you are helping young people. Door is open for us to go help them. I outlined in remarks previously today how Green New Deal could painlessly be put on the table and enacted. Young people are asking for help. We can help them.
Nathan,
Was my reply to you helpful? I’m not here to make case against program, although I raise objections here and elsewhere to information it aims to present.
Do you not agree that renewable sourced electricity is distinguished (from fossil fuel sourced) by an earned credit for putting renewable electricity onto grid (or grid storage)? On demand generation (fossil fuel) would not ordinarily require this accounting step. The program under discussion isn’t holding such ‘earned credit’ for Newton ratepayers. Even if such amounts of electricity were made available, the program would not be obtaining and holding for ratepayers the enormous value of so much electricity!
The bottleneck to ‘greening grid’ is not families like yours purchasing bundled inexpensive RECs with their dirty electricity. It’s the abysmal volunteer rate for community public service folks to get our political representatives focused on what we want. Just Public Works! A door remains wide open to building generation facilities for renewable electricity. As much as we can use. How does it work? Because electricity once put onto grid or grid storage will earn credit backed up by consumers paying their electricity bill. The initial large bonds to underwrite construction and other necessary infrastructure will be paid by consumers over time (fuel is free sun-wind-water) and also provide for maintaining systems. We’ll pay our government back. Community service folks are ‘frontline’ for bringing our ‘demand’ for this Green New Deal to elected representatives on Beacon Hill and in DC.
We’re running out of time. You know that. It’s going to be Great Misfortune for our families if we block each other from employing simple basic economics of ‘earned credit’ – same as money. And such low hanging fruit! There are plenty of harder, and yes – actually terrifyingly costly efforts that can not be put off indefinitely. Such as adaptation to climate change impacts already put into our families future as it is.
We need the Green New Deal to restore the dignity and pride in civic community family lives. We’re floundering now, sacrificing young people’s future by using our sham shale gas energy system that is only putting worsening disasters into our path. A rejuvenated economy operating with an energy abundance would be a paradise of opportunities for our young people.
We need to come together. Everyone who cares about this community and about serving it. We have got to get bonds written for Public Works we the people will pay for as electricity consumers in an invigorated postCarbon economy. God we pray.
@Lawrence – “If you put solar electricity onto grid, how is it dirty because of demand for RECs?
Imagine you and I live in a two person town will a coal plant. I have solar panels and you do not. My solar panels produce just enough electricity to meet my needs and your demand is met by the coal plant. But now I sell you my SRECS. Basically I’m selling you the right to claim my green electrons and consequently I’m the one considered to have drawn the power from the coal plant, not you. At least that’s how I think this all works.
I’m sorry. Jack
Doesn’t make sense to me that buying a REC influences consumption of electricity from coal plant. It’s dirty electricity whether I buy your REC or not. You on the other hand consume the electricity from solar generation. It’s clean.
Door remains wide open to building RE. As much as we need. Because electricity put onto grid or grid storage earns credit backed up by ratepayers. Bonds underwrite construction and other necessary infrastructure will be paid over time. #sunwindwater is free. We’ll pay gov’t back. We need community service to convey our urgent demand for Public Works to Beacon Hill and in DC. We’re going to see sham shale gas system go down hard if we keep buying electricity it makes.
@Lawrence — Circling back to our little hypothetical 2 person town, I only bought my solar panels because you promised to buy my RECS. Without that promise from you, I wouldn’t see them as economically enough to buy, and instead our little town would instead have 2x the coal-fired power demand.
Now of course, once I’ve bought my panels, you could say you don’t want my RECS, and our town wouldn’t be any less green because the panels are there making power, but then the next person moving in doesn’t go for solar and then coal demand rises then.
In my particular real-world case, the promise of future SRECS was essentially half the incentive for putting them in place.
RECS are more of a pay it back / pay it forward mechanism. I think the point you are making is that Newton’s move to this doesn’t directly and immediately spin up renewable supplies, but I think it does make a difference in the long run.
Lawrence,
I’ve read enough of your comments to determine our desired outcome is the same. We both want to transition off of fossil fuels as soon as possible to varying forms of renewable energy. Where we differ is how we get there. Let’s focus on solar for now. You stated above, “Solar RECs are valued high because there is so much demand among buyers.” I think this means you recognize that a strong REC market, does create demand for RECs, which creates demand for solar projects. I recognize that the act of buying RECs does not mean I have green energy flowing into my home, but it does have market influences that drive up REC prices, which then creates demand for RECs, which leads to more solar development. Large scale solar installs have massive finance packages that include private and public funds. Banks and investors analyze the stability and profitability of developments to determine if they should invest. A strong REC market, with favorable REC prices, yields a more attractive investment, which in turn helps solar developments get financed. Promoting the purchase of RECs, even though it’s not resulting in actual green electrons flowing into our homes, does have a direct impact on the development of new renewable energy. If everyone stopped buying RECs, new RE development would become scarce.
Again, sticking with solar for now. I completely agree that we should be developing new solar projects as large as possible, and as fast as possible. Let’s just look at Massachusetts for now. In 2016, we consumed about 13,332MW of electricity. There are a bunch of variables, but for arguments sake, let’s assume 2.5 acres of solar equals 1 MW output. That means we would need over 33,330 acres of solar pv just to cover our current electricity consumption. That’s three times the land area of Newton, if it were devoid of trees, houses, etc, and that only covers current electricity consumption. Heating, domestic hot water, vehicles, planes, etc all amount to a little over a quadrillion BTUs of consumption in Massachusetts. If we converted everything we have to consume electricity, factored in the estimated efficiency of each use, and then created the solar to power it, by my math we would need about 150,000 acres of solar, and some serious batter storage capacity to cover us when the sun goes down.
We could get some bond bills going and have government lead the development of new RE, but I’m not comfortable with government leading the charge from a development standpoint. Quite frankly, they can’t complete something of this scale, as quickly as we need it, and it always costs more when the government is in charge. I’m way more comfortable in the government to create carbon taxes, mandates, and streamlining permitting, to help facilitate new RE development. We need to do more on this front. Mayor Fuller’s actions, in a time of inaction or insufficient action, will create more demand for RECs, and will hopefully get other communities to follow suit. If this does create a ground swell of communities, the market impacts will be tangible, and they will result in new RE development. Credit where credit is due. That said, we should also be developing solar as much as possible like Newton has already done with rooftop solar, solar carports, and the large ground mount system at the old dump on Rumford. Solar on homes should become the norm. New homes should be required to orient their roofs for solar. Give builders a break on property taxes if they put solar on a new home. Six month break on property tax while you’re building and selling a home if you have solar installed. Include solar development on special permits. Promote geothermal where appropriate and cost effective. There are tons of ways in which Newton can help set the standard and move the needle. We should be exploring and exploiting them all, and one of them was municipal aggregation with a high green energy kicker.
Once again, kudos to Mayor Fuller, her staff, and all of the volunteers that worked so hard, for so long, to make this happen.
Randy you are absolutely right – more communities following Newton’s lead will help send a message to our state legislature, particularly House members under Speaker Robert DeLeo, that cities and towns want more clean energy, not more fossil fuel energy such as fracked gas, which is what we are largely reliant on now. To her credit our own State Rep. Kay Khan led the fight in the House last session to increase the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which sets a mandate on investor owned utilities on how much renewable energy they are required to purchase. She was able to win a small increase but nowhere near what is necessary, unfortunately due to the opposition of Speaker DeLeo and other House leaders. Interestingly Speaker DeLeo represents Winthrop which is the single more vulnerable community in Mass. to sea level rise.
Julia – definitely read the article! Noteworthy is that our electric grid operator thinks we should put a price on carbon pollution.
Jack,
Thanks for that, incentives do matter. SRECs are not significant part of bundled RECs the Newton ratepayers will be signed up to purchase with the mainly shale gas generation electricity supplied. The price of SRECs is far too high due to demand, held high in part by the cap placed on large solar projects in MA. Inexpensive RECs available to buy, do represent small incentive to generators of electricity from non solar sources. Generating electricity by burning methane from trash, a kind of necessary evil, should be given incentive but burning forest wood to get electricity? A bad idea to give incentive for that.
Non solar generators hate that solar generation is rewarded with huge SREC value while the selling point for other RECs is so little and hunt for buyers has led to massive obnoxious greenwashing efforts. I get that. But greenwashing ‘community aggregation’ to get ratepayers to buy bundled non solar RECs in a more fluid and more remunerative fashion, has a fatal flaw I am here to address. Delay. Delay to build just public works to render electricity from free fuel that is sun, wind and water. Today many young people call this delay, ‘Predatory Delay’. They’re correct. It is predatory on their future, and on vulnerable people already impacted by effects of our needless use of shale gas for electricity generation.
But Newton Power Choice is viewed (inaccurately) as selling electricity that is high percentage- much higher than mandated – of renewable sourced electricity. How do I know it can not? Reading published contracts for other towns (where is Newton contract?) I saw evidently no ‘instrument’ to purchase from renewable sourced generation. Electricity of that type (intermittent variable sources) put onto grid or grid solar earns credit. If you look at electricity needed by all the towns signed into contracts purportedly for such renewable sourced electricity provisioning, and then reckon how much earned credit ($ amount) appears as this much electricity (hypothetically) is put onto grid! Good grief! It is nonsense to believe the firm(s) behind these contracts are taking ‘ownership’ of the earned credit value of enormous quantities of renewable sourced electricity. Even if the actual generation of such electricity quantities were ongoing or likely to be in today’s economy.
The ‘earned credit’ as I pointed out in previous posting, is transferred from renewable source generators to buyers of the earned credit. Actual electricity has already gone into distribution, it’s gone. How do we get around this requirement to purchase the electricity on generation in amounts that sun wind and water will provide. I used low interest HELOC to satisfy my contract obligation to buy earned credit for huge July solar production from Holliston generation. What kind of credit instrument would all ratepayers in Massachusetts use? There isn’t one. No firm is going to do this!
The door is wide open to forming public works utility that will value consumption and charge ratepayers for that. The production which indeed must meet consumption, doesn’t have to be transferred to another owner in such massive value that no firm(s) can buy it for ratepayers. No. Not if public owns the generation then we don’t have to transfer earned credit. The fuel is free and we just charge for consumption, in order to pay back our government bonds that built public works. This is too simple for today’s world. But if we don’t end our current dependence on shale gas power as quickly as possible – Great Misfortune will be laid at our feet.
Again, community service people are vital link to elected officials on Beacon Hill and in DC. All of us today, we’re responsible for the cap on large solar projects and our own increasing reliance on shale gas. We need Green New Deal now.
Randy, Emily
You make interesting references and allude to much that matters for discussion. I am objecting to bundled RECs from mainly if not entirely non solar facilities being used to give dirty electricity the appearance of renewable sourced electricity. This is awful in several respects. But mainly I am objecting on grounds that this Newton Power Choice program represents ‘predatory delay’ for young people and the vulnerable impacted today by our continued unnecessary use of shale gas generation of electricity. I have been forthcoming over the period for public discussion abut the process. Yet the hyperbole and hypothetical nature of the discussions was in my view, counterproductive.
I have presented reasons why ratepayers (public) must build and see to the operation of massive power generation facility and do it very soon. See my analysis of the earned credit for putting intermittent variable sourced electricity onto grid or grid storage. There are not credit instruments to manage such vast quantities of earned credit! It would be an ‘albatross’ to try to set up and to regulate. We the consumers of electricity should, in my analysis, proceed immediately to building Just Public Works that public will underwrite with bonds until consumption pays our government back and meanwhile keeps our system up and running. Alacrity more than accounting is what’s needed now. Young people are counting on Green New Deal now (not next whenever) to rejuvenate economy and to pay for damage on way now from carbon pollution they’ve done little or nothing to cause. You know that.
Here is a good link that provides background on “RECS” and particularly SRECS:
https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/solar-fred-info-recs-green-tags-oh-my/
Jack,
Ummm, link you gave seems to be writings of stark lunatic.
“When you sell your SRECs, you are selling the “environmental benefit” of your solar panels to someone else, like the utility, who by law needs clean power. Think Vampire. You’re selling the “green soul” of your solar panels. Your panels become the Solar Undead.”
Focusing on RECs and the ‘good’ done by consumers of dirty electricity paying incentives to generators of renewable sourced electricity should not overlook Elephant in the room that is the horrible externalities involved in consumption of electricity from shale gas source. Merrimack Valley is but tip of iceberg of rotten pipeline safety from fracking wells to consumers. The impacts of shale hydrofracturing industry are terrible, with lasting impacts on many unfortunate communities, and here in shale gas dependent NorthEast are threatening economic disaster as the promised reserves of gas are not backed up by independent analysis. The climate effects are global and catastrophic. None of the costs of these externalities involved in consumption of this dirty electricity under Newton Power Choice are going to be paid by ratepayers. Business as usual.
Door is wide open to building all the renewable sourced electricity we can use! Now. We can build it now. Our government only needs to authorize bonds to allow construction and we the people as consumers will pay back our government and keep the system up. Who does not need CO2 free electricity from free sun wind water? We must rejuvenate economy in order to pay for adaptation to woeful impacts of carbon pollution already in atmosphere. Our promises to young people are on the line, and they have promises to keep also. Are we going to be the domino that falls!