A landmark study just out from the highly respected Acadia Center reveals a startling truth about the future of the ISO-New England power grid. Entitled “The Declining Role of Natural Gas Power in New England,” the Acadia study uses the energy industry’s own numbers and projections to analyze future demand for, and use of, fossil gas to generate electricity in the New England states.
Here’s the main takeaway: “[U]nder current plans and laws, New England’s reliance on natural gas to fuel power plants could drop from 45% to approximately 10% of its electricity needs in 2030, making any investment in new gas pipelines or plants unnecessary and therefore costly.”
Acadia analyzed two scenarios for the future New England’s electrical grid. The first is a “Business as Usual” model in which the members of ISO-New England – including big utilities like Eversource and National Grid – continued to build out all of the new gas-fired electrical plants, pipelines and compressor stations they’re planning across the region. The second, which Acadia calls the “No New Gas” model, looks at what happens to costs, energy supplies and environmental impacts if development of new gas infrastructure is simply halted. That halt would include planned projects such as the gas-fired Killingly electrical plant in Connecticut – and some projects on which work is already under way, such as the Weymouth compressor station and the deceptively-named 261 Upgrade Project in western Massachusetts.
Under either scenario, gas use goes down quickly in coming decades. Under either scenario, renewables surge and New Englanders end up saving money in the long run. But there are two big differences:
● Under “Business as Usual,” utilities end up building infrastructure projects that become stranded assets – capital investments that ratepayers must pay off even though they are no longer in use.
● Under “No New Gas,” investment in new energy sources is fully realized; the resulting jobs creation stays local; and the region reduces its CO2 emissions by 26 million metric tons compared to emissions under “Business as Usual.”
Acadia Senior Policy Analyst Taylor Binnington dug deeper into the findings on a recent podcast, detailing the positive impacts of a hard break from gas for ratepayers, the environment and the job market.
What does all this mean for policymakers, businesses and the public? The Acadia study offers three recommendations:
Construction of new gas plants should be opposed under all circumstances, since additional fossil gas generating capacity is unnecessary. New gas plants may be unable to sell their electricity, potentially leaving stranded costs for ratepayers to cover.
Gas delivered to power generators in New England via expanded or upgraded pipelines would not be used enough to justify their investment costs. States should strongly consider whether new gas projects should proceed if they are misaligned with public policy.
Renewable electricity will play a huge role in helping states meet their carbon reduction goals. If ISO-NE’s markets continue to work against public policy goals, states should follow Connecticut’s lead and hold the ISO accountable – or find ways to work around it.
It’s been clear for some time now that, when it comes phasing out fossil fuel use in New England, the right thing to do is also the smart thing to do – and even the most affordable thing to do. The hard part now is to get the industry, its regulators and its customers to look at the evidence. The new study from Acadia helps us do just that.