34. Question One and the Climate

 

Question One and the Climate

Our motivation for writing the “Energy Matters” column has always been climate change. Period. Mostly, we have tried to address practical issues that might help a typical consumer make rational choices about energy use. For example, we wrote about how heat pumps work and how much money and energy they can save you.  We have tried to stay away from more controversial issues, but the time seems to have come to talk about the NECEC powerline and Question 1 on the November referendum.

A number of good reasons to vote NO on Question 1 are outlined in a Bangor Daily News editorial from October 19th. However, one area about which we have heard little is Question 1’s connection to addressing climate change. Some opponents of the power line claim there are no climate benefits. There are several reasons why this is not true.  

One claim is that Hydro Quebec will be buying fossil energy elsewhere to replace what they are sending into Maine.  There is no evidence that this is true. There was testimony in both Maine and Massachusetts public hearings to this point. The PUC’s of both states investigated this claim and concluded that this is not the case. Even if it were true in the near term the line will serve an important function in decarbonizing New England and Quebec in the longer term.

Another claim is that hydropower is dirtier than coal. We investigated this in a column in early May of this year. In a life cycle analysis Quebec’s hydropower is comparable to wind and solar in CO2 output--about 1/30th that of coal. 

Then there is the question of how much carbon is no longer sequestered by cutting the 1000 or so acres for the corridor itself. If all of this went into the atmosphere it would produce 165,000 tons of CO2. If this sounds like a large number, let’s compare it to the CO2 output of a natural gas plant. A natural gas plant producing the 1200 MW that this line would carry puts out 165,000 tons of CO2 in two weeks, not including the leaked methane from the wells and pipelines. In other words, the powerline recovers that lost carbon in two weeks.

  

Incidentally every year more than 400,000 acres of woods are cut in Maine. This overwhelms the fact that 1000 acres won’t grow back, particularly since CMP is setting aside 4,800 acres of valuable land for permanent conservation and public access as compensation.

Further, we hear very little about long term consequences.  Fossil fuels currently produce 75% of greenhouse gases and supply close to 80% of our energy. To stave off catastrophic climate change we need to replace fossil energy with renewables.This is a difficult but doable task. One essential part of it is maximum electrification. Of course we need to conserve and improve efficiencies, but we can’t “efficiency” our way out of 80% of our energy. That means electric cars, heat pumps, electrified factories, etc., for which we will need more transmission lines, not fewer. The energy must all come from low CO2 sources (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear.) While hydro's total contribution will likely not increase much, it will play an important role because it is highly controllable while wind and solar are intermittent. 

In fact, a paper from MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research from May of this year published in the peer-reviewed international journal “Energy Policy” shows that the hydro reservoirs in Quebec will play an essential role in the deep decarbonization of the Northeast and that two-way power lines like the NECEC are an essential part of it. Hydro functions as a massive storage facility that levels off the fluctuations from wind and solar. When renewables in New England are very productive, power travels north to Quebec and the hydro is turned down, while at night, in low wind, or in high demand situations, the hydro is turned up in response. It eliminates the need for natural gas plants and batteries to supply peak loads.  This is why fossil energy generators, especially gas, are funding a sizable portion of the “Vote yes” campaign. Yes, all ye environmentalists - follow the money!

Approval of Question 1 would make virtually impossible any future transmission line development if it crosses public land anywhere, due to requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. 

Hydropower may not be the most environmentally friendly form of energy, but it is a low carbon source of energy, and it’s there already. Hydro-Quebec has no plans to increase the amount of land flooded by reservoirs. In fact, most of their new build-out is in wind. 

There are a number of other “What about this…” arguments against the powerline. But keep in mind that all actions have impacts. Inaction also has impacts. Optimal solutions will only be found by appropriate measurement and comparison of those impacts, be they environmental, financial, or social.

We used to be on the fence about this question, but now are firmly in the "Vote NO on 1" camp. Why tie our hands when we have an emergency threatening the planet and need every possible tactic we can find?

Paul Stancioff, PhD., is a retired professor of physics at the University of Maine Farmington who dabbles in energy economics on the side. Cynthia Stancioff advocates for climate action and looks for edible mushrooms. Their emails are pauls@maine.edu and cynthia.hoeh@gmail.com .