By Martyn Roetter
National Grid is a major gas and electric utility in Massachusetts. One might expect such a large and important business to want to align its business plans with the directions the Commonwealth has outlined as future energy policy, but that’s not been the case. Over the past few years the actions, plans and announced intentions of National Grid have been in flagrant violation of the Commonwealth’s policies and laws aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
National Grid’s GHG emissions remain a significant contributor to climate warming, which is fostering increasingly frequent and intensive devastating climate events, as we have seen and felt so dramatically this summer. These emissions are also harmful to the health of our population and disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities in Environmental Justice neighborhoods. Yet National Grid has been pursuing an absurd marketing campaign trumpeting the alleged merits of a “fossil free” Clean Energy Vision[1] as if “fossil-free” were a synonym for “emissions-free”. To that end, it announced a long-term plan for the leaky pipelines through which it now delivers the notorious greenhouse gas methane to residential and commercial buildings. According to this plan, National Grid will increasingly replace harmful methane over time with a mix of green hydrogen and “renewable” methane, and a target of 100% replacement by 2050, mostly (70-80%) “renewable” methane[2].
The problem with the National Grid plan? It completely ignores the results of independent analyses both local[3] and worldwide[4] (over three dozen analyses in in all) demonstrating that combustion of these gases will fall far short of reducing the emissions for which National Grid is responsible and will impose increasing financial burdens on ratepayers.
The motivation for this behavior is obvious and understandable. It reflects a determination to perpetuate the company’s traditional “gas through leaky pipelines” business model that guarantees it an attractive rate of return on its investments in pipelines. The alternative strategy for National Grid would involve a difficult transition to another business model focused predominantly on the supply of clean electricity, requiring the retirement of its pipelines over a few decades. Nevertheless, the path to a “Clean Energy Electricity-based Economy” is the only one that will meet goals for emissions reductions.
Has National Grid chosen for itself the role of a leader in energy transformation? Clearly not.
Instead, National Grid has so far elected to be an accomplice in the efforts of the global fossil fuel industry to convince us that there are alternatives or major complements to the solution of electrification with names such as “The Hydrogen Economy” and “renewable” methane. This industry is also touting the unproven capabilities of technologies with only marginal impact on mitigating emissions such as carbon capture, to justify not only the continuation of existing polluting facilities but also the introduction of new ones. The company is playing a magician’s game of distraction—causing us to pay attention to shiny, unproven ideas diverting our focus from proven solutions, while they continue to pump poisonous gases into our atmosphere .
Recently National Grid announced that it will soon have a new President, as reported in The Boston Globe and elsewhere[5]. The new President will be Lisa Wieland, who has an impressive record as Chief Executive of Massport. She embarked on an effort to reach net-zero for carbon emissions across Massport’s facilities by 2031, which is an encouraging sign for how she may view and tackle the task of leading National Grid New England. In this role, she will report directly to chief executive John Pettigrew, who is based in the United Kingdom, National Grid’s home country. Interestingly he is pursuing a strategy of divesting this utility’s gas business in its home base to focus on the supply of electricity[6].
However, the Globe article also quoted Lisa Wieland as saying she is particularly intrigued by the opportunity at National Grid to help the state meet its ambitious climate goals, notably for reducing carbon emissions: “National Grid is leading the energy transformation, and that’s a very exciting place to be.” Indeed, it might be “an exciting place to be” were it true.
But so far, not only is National Grid not leading the energy transformation, but its actions and announced plans if enacted will block and frustrate the Commonwealth’s ability to meet its established goals for reductions in emissions[7]. National Grid’s emissions, if they continue as the company proposes at an unacceptably high level, will eliminate the possibility for the Commonwealth to meet its Net Zero targets by 2050, while continuing to adversely impact the health of the Commonwealth’s residents by increasing the incidence of respiratory diseases such as asthma[8].
National Grid should be embarking on a decades-long strategic retirement plan for its pipelines while building up its ability to deliver clean electricity to make the transition to a Clean Energy Economy.
The questions we should all be asking are whether the new CEO of National Grid New England will transform the direction of this major utility. Or will she let it continue along its current path, defying the mountain of disqualifying evidence about the gases National Grid now delivers and plans to deliver in the future? Will she continue to argue that methane (natural or renewable) is complementary to clean electricity as a solution for reducing emissions and hydrogen is a significant “fossil-free” gas—that can also make a significant contribution in the long term to reducing harmful emissions from its operations? Will she follow the example of the other major gas and electricity utility in Massachusetts (Eversource) and take National Grid out of the gas industry’s lobbying group, the American Gas Association (AGA) which is a major source of disinformation about the pollution produced by methane and other combustible gases?
We should insist upon openness, transparency, and credible justification from National Grid about its actions and plans. We should explain patiently, persistently and unwaveringly why National Grid must abandon its commitment to the Path of Perpetual Pollution. It must stop ignoring and rejecting scientific, engineering and economic evidence that proves that the path it is currently pursuing is hostile to the public interest and its obligations as a public utility operating with the privilege of monopoly franchises. Its new leadership must rise to the challenge of building a minimum emission, clean electricity-based energy economy.
______
This article was written with assistance from Michael McCord.
[1] https://www.nationalgridus.com/News/2022/04/National-Grid-Announces-Historic-Fossil-Free-Plan,-Launching-Bold-Clean-Energy-Vision-for-Massachusetts-and-New-York/
[2] https://www.nationalgridus.com/News/2022/05/National-Grid-Seeks-Renewable-Natural-Gas-and-Hydrogen-Supply/
[3] https://www.gastransitionallies.org/hydrogen-report
[4]http://www.janrosenow.com/uploads/4/7/1/2/4712328/is_heating_homes_with_hydrogen_all_but_a_pipe_dream_final.pdf
[5] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/08/03/business/lisa-wieland-leaving-massport/?p1=BGSearch_Overlay_Results
[6] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uks-national-grid-sell-further-20-stake-gas-unit-2023-07-19/
[7] https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2050
