RIGHT NOW, New England’s energy future sits at a crossroads.
The New England states have made some of the most ambitious clean energy and carbon emission reduction goals in the entire country. Despite these commitments, the truth is there is simply not enough clean energy generation capacity available right now – or in the near future, for that matter.
Cost-effective, large-scale wind power is going to be critically important to fulfilling the promise of New England’s renewable energy future and much of the best sources of such power are beyond our borders in eastern Canada. In 2016, Canada commissioned 21 new wind power projects, generating 702 megawatts in newly installed capacity and bringing the country to a grand total of nearly 12,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity, enough to power 3 million households.
From 2012 to 2016, the rate of this installed capacity has grown by 18 percent each year. In fact, Canada has generated more wind energy over the past 11 years than any other form of electricity generation. The reason for this growth is simple: high wind speeds coupled with proximity to major energy markets means lower costs compared to other forms of clean power.
Getting these projects financed out of the development phase and brought within reach of New England customers and communities will require two things: a long-term contract for their output and large-scale new transmission. With Massachusetts on the precipice of one of the largest electric power procurements in its history, the Commonwealth has an opportunity to deliver both of those things.
Of course, the solution here can’t be to rob Peter to pay Paul. In other words, we cannot take clean energy generation already in operation from Canada for the benefit of New England which, in turn, will force Canadian communities to use traditional fuels to compensate for their newfound loss of power. In that case, all you’ve done is redirect the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from one region to another, keeping the net carbon emission output the same as before.
That kind of energy displacement, also called leakage, undermines the overarching goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. What we need is a solution that can strike the right balance: leveraging the vast Canadian energy potential to curb carbon emissions in New England and meet our regional renewable energy goals, without resulting in leakage on either side of the border. Minimizing higher emissions caused by leakage is a guideline underscored in Massachusetts’ revised Global Warming Solutions Act. New wind power from nearby Canada, coupled with a responsibly-developed transmission system to deliver it, meets this challenge. [National Grid’s proposal for the Massachusetts clean energy procurement would deliver 1,200 megawatts of wind power from Canada.]
The Commonwealth’s historic upcoming electric power purchase is also an important opportunity to help Massachusetts businesses. General Electric, a key employer in the Commonwealth who recently moved its headquarters to Boston, is a major supplier of high-value components, such as high-voltage direct-current converter stations and wind turbines. Creating a win-win means contracting with projects that are partnering with Massachusetts-based companies, like GE, so that the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake will stay right here, in the Commonwealth.
Spurring new sources of cost-effective wind power represents New England’s biggest and best opportunity to make meaningful progress toward a cleaner environment for future generations. This goal has increasingly become essential as the specter of climate change looms over the horizon. Achieving this transformation requires bold action, and by looking to the north we can work together to make it happen.
Will Hazelip is vice president for business development at National Grid Ventures. National Grid’s proposal for the Massachusetts clean energy procurement calls for the importation of 1,200 megawatts of wind power from Canada.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
The Global Warming Solutions Act needs to be repealed. It is the primary cause of rate increases, the early retirement of coal and nuclear power, the need for new pipelines to Pennsylvania, the need for leftover Quebec Hydro power, and now leftover wind power from Canada,
ISO-NE is telling us that the transition to a “clean energy” future is not possible without grid scale energy storage, which does not exist and may never exist. In the meantime we are giving up local reliable power generation, sold economically through the wholesale market administered by ISO-NE, for intermittent and variable power from far away, bought with out of market Power Purchase Agreements at above market prices to be backed up by natural gas piped in just in time all the way from Pennsylvania.
Tell Beacon Hill to stop. We are headed for skyrocketing rates, blackouts from an unstable grid, and job losses galore.
I am still trying to understand how the proposed Cape Wind project was such a dire environmental disaster but wind power in Canada is not. Personally, I suspect some sort of snow job by our Northern neighbors.
You are a lobbyist
As the number wind turbines connected to a system is increased, the number of times strong winds generate more power that exceeds demand becomes a serious problem. Since the excess power cannot be easily stored, grid operators are forced to order wind power curtailments.
Our Northern neighbors are anxious to find places to dump this extra power to avoid costly curtailments. While this is beneficial to Canada, it is not beneficial to us. The supply of leftover power from Canada cannot be dispatched, and the only way our grid can use it is by curtailing conventional power already dispatched in real time to make room. The result of this practice is that we pay twice for the imported power. We pay the Canadians, and we pay local power stations to be ready whenever we need them for backup firming. Furthermore, there is little to no carbon avoidance, since fossil fuel power plants ramping up and down to balance variable power from wind burns fuel at about twice needed for baseload power production.
Wind power, whether from Canada, offshore, or onshore from Maine is increasing the cost of electricity for nothing in return!
My point was ironic, not asking for a technical explanation.
Hydro is arguably the only “clean” system supply source that is both stable and amenable to aligning with demand.
That and battery storage for solar and wind generated power pose all manner of new environmental and other issues no one is discussing.
OK! I worry a little bit about importing power from Hydro Quebec. We have a common demand fluctuation for electricity with Quebec. When demand peaks, will Quebec curtail our supply to satisfy their needs?
Depending on contract language, we could just get leftover hydro which will be no better than wind.
With all due respect, you are confusing timely supply viability given demand needs with contractual agreements. After all, there are plenty of ways to manage hydro power generation, even given similar demand needs.
That and it must be noted that hydro is but part of a matrix of supply sources as opposed to an all resolving single supply solution.
Huh? Grid-scale storage may never exist? It is not only in service but thanks to Mr. Musk is now deployed at a bigger capacity than we have ever seen! This trend will only continue, even if batteries may not even be the eventual front-runner form of storage.
The only snow job here is by NortheasternEE!
You are counting your chickens long before your eggs are hatched!