Fwd: Massachusetts Comprehensive Energy plan

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Katy Eiseman

unread,
Jul 20, 2018, 11:17:09 AM7/20/18
to mass...@googlegroups.com, 350Berkshire Anti-Pipeline, nqpipelineaction
Update below.

Kathryn R. Eiseman
Director, Massachusetts PipeLine Awareness Network
President, Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast, Inc.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amy Boyd <ab...@acadiacenter.org>
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM
Subject: Massachusetts Comprehensive Energy plan
To:

Dear Colleagues:

As you may be aware, MA DOER held meetings this week to present their initial analysis to inform the Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP).  No results were available at the meeting. The consultant performing the analysis is Synapse Energy Analysis (Asa Hopkins and Pat Knight).

 

The initial analysis includes four scenarios, and each scenario includes a set of assumptions for the transportation, electric, and thermal sectors:


  1. Sustained Policies (business as usual; not including current legislative proposals);
  2. High Electrification;
  3. High Renewables; and
  4. Aggressive Policies. 

(the good news is that none of the scenarios include additional natural gas pipeline capacity additions)

 

The deadline for written comments on the analysis is July 31st, which gives us very little time to address some glaring issues with the initial approach.  

During the presentation, DOER and Synapse noted that they are interested in input on their baseline, the assumptions used in the four policy scenarios, along with important drivers and policy pathways to consider. They are also interested in examples of existing analyses that identify impacts of policies they might consider.  

While we look forward to carefully reviewing and commenting on all of the assumptions and scenarios (materials were just posted minutes ago), we wanted to start by flagging one major, high-level problem with the initial analysis: the only lever considered for reducing emissions in the transportation sector is electrification. Even under the Aggressive Policy scenario, there is no consideration of the potential for VMT reduction that could result from increased use of public transit, active mobility, transit-oriented development, congestion pricing, carbon pricing for transportation fuels, or otherwise.

Acadia Center will be working on written comments for submission on the 31st – it would be great to collaborate with you all on this effort. We will follow up with thoughts on individual comments early next week, but please do not hesitate to contact either Jordan or Deborah in the meanwhile if you have any questions or suggestions on substance or process. Please forward this note to other groups/lists who might be interested in weighing in.

 

 

Deborah Donovan

Massachusetts Director & Senior Policy Advocate

Acadia Center

ddon...@acadiacenter.org

Phone: 617-742-0054 x103

www.acadiacenter.org

 

Jordan Stutt

Carbon Programs Director

Acadia Center

jst...@acadiacenter.org

Phone: 617-742-0054 x105

 

 

cid:image007.png@01D1C0F1.35C8D2E0

 

cid:image002.png@01D2F5AE.EDF162E0   cid:image003.png@01D2F5AE.EDF162E0   cid:image004.png@01D2F5AE.EDF162E0  IG_Glyph_Fill

 

 

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Unless otherwise indicated, this message is intended only for the use of individuals or entities to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure as attorney-client, work-product, or otherwise confidential communications such that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited.

 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages