Therein lies the rub, if you believe the overwhelming worldwide scientific agreement that global warming is happening and that mankind can reduce the impact, then New England is doing the right thing making the transition now away from fossil fuel power to an expanding mix of renewables (and a nuke) using natural gas as ever decreasing bridge and avoiding the easy path of just piping in more natural gas. Painful as it may be currently, it will be far less painful in doing it later to meet climate agreements. When natural gas is displacing coal, its easy to hold up natural gas as solution to short term CO2 issues as it puts out considerably less CO2 per MWhr but once those coal retirements have occurred, then natural gas plants become the next technology that has to go.
This is indeed to rub. But there are (at least) two paths to solving the problem. And IMO the jury is still out which is the better one.
Path 1 says time is of the essence, and damn the torpedos. This path says that we should adopt new low carbon tech (solar, wind, offshore, batteries, EVs)
as soon as they are barely affordable. Affordability can include a fat govt subsidy, which is deemed affordable by politicians from tax (or borrowing) revenue. This says that society as a whole must bear some burdensome costs to pulling the transition forward. If the threat is existential, or has massive economic costs downstream, it is argued that this approach will save the most money and lives in the long term.
Path 2 says we should do everything we can to engineer solutions, and to get them to scale. Mass adoption will occur only when prices can compete with fossil tech, no govt intervention required. Ofc, the govt role is not to bankroll a trillion $ transition, but to nudge the system towards the proper path by regulations and smaller incentives. If applied consistently (not a talent of some govts) this can provide a level playing field for rapid innovation and competition to occur, and pull the adoption curve forward, at a much lower cost to taxpayers.
Proponents of Path 1 can argue that Path 2 will cost lives (and perhaps money) in the long run.
Proponents of Path 2 can argue that the transition is a marathon and not a sprint, and Path 1 can often end up incompletely solving the problem, while running up a lot of debts, paying for scams and creating opposition. Such that Path 2 might get to a solution faster than Path 1.
Its like
the tortoise and the hare. it is not clear which path will solve the problem first. They correspond to Copenhagen vs Paris. This will only be clear in hindsight.
For some examples... we can look at California and Texas. Both have piles of renewable energy. California build theirs early at ratepayer and taxpayer expense, and with things like mandates for rooftop solar in new construction. And has high electricity rates in many markets. Texas took Path 2. I assume it has some incentives for renewable installation, don't know. These might be streamlined permitting, tax benes or some such?
Will Texas ever blow past California in renewable energy per capita? If so, they will likely do so at lower ratepayer and taxpayer cost. And a future backlash from Cali ratepayers or pols might be part of the problem. Could the Tortoise win the race?
Second example: Germany versus US. Germany launched a VERY expensive energy revolution, and within a few years it became a political football because a small number of (mostly wealthy) rooftop solar owners with very $$$ systems were guaranteed incredible net metering deals for decades into the future. So, keep the deal (and it is a political albatross preventing further investment) or break the contracts, and tick off the green early adopters.
Will the US (Biden and Feds are taking Path 2) get to lower carbon per kWh than Germany at some point in the future? We shall see.
Given the appalling German decision to shutter working Nuke plants, and to continue burning lignite... its hard to argue that their revolution is driven by an optimal scientific process... its political as much as the Biden plan is.
What is my point: New England looks to me like it is taking (and doubling down on) Path 1. With Mass likening itself to 'California East' while having rather different culture, infrastructure and climate. And NE ISO shutting down its nukes (and maybe fossils) before replacements are in place. And the electric ratepayers be damned!
And what is the result... the high kWh costs are a huge impediment to electrification of home heating and EV adoption. If New England is not already above the median CO2 per capita emissions of the US, I think they will be shortly. I think NE ISO is below the median for CO2e/kWh, but all the oil heat and (more in the future) lack of EVs will I fear tip the scales. The solution? MORE Path 1 incentives for heat pumps and EVs in New England to compensate. Will that be affordable at the level needed to move the needle?
20 years ago the mid-Atlantic had almost as much oil heating as southern New England. And with our cheap alternatives, it got almost completely phased out by 2020 without incentives (unless you count fossil incentives). Victory for Path 2 in PA.
www.wmur.com
I think that the current awful state of the energy system in New England, currently blamed on some unique geology or the perfidy of New York state, is just as much due to poor (and perhaps corrupt) grid management and public policy decisions over the last couple decades. This could just be more of the same.
