by Eric Richard

The following are notes from Ian Bowles‘ presentation at the MCAN Conference. Ian Bowles is the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for Massachusetts.

At many ways at the federal level, we have a lost decade. But George Bush’s indifference on this issue has unified the Democrats and unleashed the states. In addition, the media has turned on this issues and the IPCC is starting to really have an effect.

We’re the first state to put the energy and environment departments together. One goal was to focus on improving the environmental impact of energy. But, it is also to focus on the positive economic impact that we can get from energy initiatives. This really is an economic opportunity for Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, we inherited a bit of a hole from the previous administration. Governor Romney basically poisoned the well telling business that RGGI was going to mean more cost for them. This got us off to a tough start, but we are now engaging with the businesses to educate them about how this can be an economic opportunity.

The more we can show that what we do saves money and reduces emissions, the more the consensus will grow.

We joined RGGI on Deval’s 10th day in office — this was really his first major policy initiative. We’re ready to move. We’d like to start running our auctions in the 2nd quarter of next year. We are now waiting on the other states to catch up.

We are the first state to require that large developments do an analysis of what they can do to reduce their overall greenhouse gas impacts. This will bring to the fore more green buildings.

We also adopted a biofuels initiative that will require home heating oil to include an increasing percentage of sustainable biofuel.

We instituted a policy that cellulosic ethanol will not be subject to the gas tax. Our hope is that we can start to turn Massachusetts into a center for innovation around cellulosic ethanol.

The way we regulate utilities today encourages them to sell as much electricity as they possible can. Their rate structure means that the more they sell, the more their shareholders make. We need to separate out the incentive for utilities to be real partners in conservation. We’ve got to find ways to make the utility companies full bore partners on efficiency.

The governor has proposed a zero load growth policy which means that we would have to generate any additional energy through conservation/efficiency.

Thew new energy bill passed by the house will free up money for energy efficiency.

We want to install 250 MW of solar in the state in the next 10 years. This will require new solar rebates that we hope to roll out by Jan 1 of next year.

We need to make it easier for towns to build things like windmills. We have to get the regulations out of the way and allow them to move forward. Allow smaller renewable installations should get the same regulatory benefits as large scale energy providers.

Big change in the MA building code. That will have far reaching benefits.

Mitigation is our predominant priority, but we are starting to do some things for adaptation.

The challenge is getting the mainstream business to understand that this is an issue they should be paying attention to. For example, working with the local chambers of commerce and get them on board.

There is great opportunity for municipal leadership.

General Q&A

Q: Since we want to discourage auto transportation and encourage public transportation, shouldn’t we consider a gasoline tax?

A: We are in the midst of a robust debate about the structure of our transportation agencies. We want to first focus on getting efficiencies there. Once we have that, we will come back to this issue.

Q: What plans are there for training inner city workers on renewable energy?

A: Greg Watson is focusing his energy on this specific issue. We’ve had great cooperation with the IBEW and other unions.

Q: Salem Harbor and Brayton Points are some of the dirtiest plans around. When we talk about cap and trade, how can we get rates / ton of emissions that will shut those plants down? And what are we doing to replace that capacity? And what is the role of nuclear energy?

A: One of the benefits of utility deregulation is that now have some of the most efficient power plants in the nation.

Our policy is to review all of these systems. RGGI will put pressure on the plants that are high emitters and the economics will not favor coal.

We have serious reservations about the waste from nuclear plants. On the economic site, nuclear will be able to compete.

Q: The House energy bill includes a provision that might incent coal gasification. What is your position on this?

A: The bill takes the RPS and creates three different categories of energy — two of which are called “renewable”. The “tier 3″ category, which is not called renewable, includes both combined heat and power and coal gasification.

I see this as a real benefit for combined heat and power since it is much cheaper than coal gasification, so, I wouldn’t overreact to that clause.

Q: What can we do to improved commercial investment in renewables?

A: We hope that our new program will change things quite dramatically in the coming months.

Q: You haven’t mentioned advanced metering to allow consumers to manipulate when they use energy. To what degree are you looking at that technology to get residential customers involved in their use of energy?

A: A lot of commercial/industrial users can use things like time-of-day pricing. As home owners, we don’t have the opportunity to participate in similar pricing. This would be a big benefit to residents.

The problem is that the cost of those smart meters remains substantial.

The House bill has a pilot program of smart meters. But, the question is always which rate payers should bear the cost of those smart meters?

The way forward is the pilot program.

Q: Who is pushing for coal gasification?

A: Those who are pushing coal gasification are the generators who want to experiment.

As you think about things to fight against, set priorities. I would focus on bettering the economics for renewables and then let economics work. So, if you can focus on allowing more renewables to get built and improve the economics of them, then you don’t need to fight the battle on non-renewables.

Q: If we are using the casinos to pay for roads, isn’t that counter to the concept of having people drive less?

A: The casino proposal did include LEED certification requirements for the casinos.

This is a debate worth having.

There is a lot to like about pushing the burden of financing transportation onto the users of transportation, but I don’t think that all of this funding could come from these people.

Q: How do you balance the needs of new renewable energy with the costs to the towns of generating this new energy? For example, adding a biomass plant can generate all sorts of additional traffic, congestion, etc. to haul materials to the plant.

A: Our office will look at each case on the merits, so there is not a bias toward renewables over the towns.

Until we make energy efficiency the centerpiece of our policy, there are going to continue to be new pushes for new supply. The best thing we can do is focus on energy efficiency.