Gas utilities’ climate plans are ‘critically flawed,’ state officials and advocates say

Massachusetts officials and environmental advocates didn't mince words this week when they responded to climate plans put forward by the state's five gas utilities.

The Department of Energy Resources called the plans "inactionable and unenforceable" in a brief filed with the state Department of Public Utilities, and said they won't help the state reduce its reliance on natural gas.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the plans were "a clumsy attempt to circumvent clear instructions" to spell out a plan for reducing emissions that contribute to climate change.

And the Conservation Law Foundation said the plans "are riddled with egregious omissions" and "designed to fail."

The utilities filed the "climate compliance plans" last year in response to a 2023 state order requiring detailed descriptions of how the companies will help Massachusetts wean itself off natural gas in a cost-effective and fair way. By mid-century, regulators said, the state must decommission most of its 21,000 miles of gas pipeline and heat the majority of homes and businesses with electricity.

The goal is a pillar of the state’s effort to drastically reduce its climate-warming emissions.

The Attorney General's office, the state Department of Energy Resources and several environmental advocacy groups filed official responses to the companies' plans this week — and made their frustrations obvious.

They criticized the companies' proposals for summarizing actions that are already underway, instead of proposing new efforts, and said if they're approved by state regulators, these plans could lead to an expansion of the underground pipeline network and increase statewide gas consumption.

" The gas companies' plans are to continue to pour customer money into those gas pipelines that we aren't going to need in 10 to 20 years," said Jocelyn Lee, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. "Not only is that irresponsible, but it's also the opposite of what the regulator ordered the companies to do."

Lee and others called on the Department of Public Utilities to reject the compliance plans and send the gas companies back to the drawing board.

These plans are so central to the state's ability to meet its emissions reduction goals and prevent energy bills from getting even more expensive, that if the companies don't come back with better plans, the Attorney General's office suggested imposing financial penalties.

"As the state’s Ratepayer Advocate, I will continue to prioritize affordability, as we work to transition to a clean energy future," Campbell said in a statement.

The state's two largest gas utilities pushed back on the characterization of their plans as deficient.

"Addressing affordability while maintaining reliability for customers and supporting the state’s decarbonization goals is a delicate balancing act, and our Climate Compliance Plan is strategically aimed at advancing those sometimes-disparate objectives." William Hinkle, an Eversource spokesperson, wrote in an email.

Hinkle said the utility cannot force customers to stop using natural gas, especially without feasible or affordable alternatives.

"The availability of essential utility services and the opportunity to choose a service type, including gas service for heating needs, is a fundamental right that homes and businesses possess in Massachusetts," he said.

Brendan Moss, a spokesperson for National Grid, also defended the company's plan. In an email, he wrote that it "intended to support emissions reductions while enabling efficient investment, optimizing the use of existing energy infrastructure, and maintaining safe and reliable service for customers during the transition."

While the gas companies said they tried to strike a balance between their interests and the state's goals, Kyle Murray, author of the nonprofit Acadia Center's brief, said the plans fell short.

"These plans are supposed to serve as the roadmap for how we are going to meet our emission reduction targets and wind down the gas system in an orderly manner," he said. "The department laid out a set of requirements of what it expected from the gas companies in their plans and as I and others argue in our briefs, they simply did not meet what the department asked them to do."

For example, the Department of Public Utilities asked the companies to model how their plans would reduce planet-warming emissions from two sources: leaky pipelines and gas burned in buildings for heat and cooking.

According to the briefs, the companies did not do this. What's more, four of the five gas companies indicated they expect to see gas usage rise in the next decade.

Advocates also slammed the companies for failing to spell out what their plans would cost, or how they would impact consumers’ bills. And they criticized the companies’ emphasis on energy efficiency initiatives and repairing leaky pipes as the basis of their plans to reduce emissions.

"If the gas companies continue to plan business as usual, people are likely to face even higher gas bills than they already do today," Lee of the Conservation Law Foundation said. "We're saying it's time for them to start putting customer interests above their shareholders."

Some other major sticking points for state officials and advocates included the framework the gas companies proposed for assessing whether a leaky stretch of pipe should be fixed or decommissioned; whether gas utilities can retire a stretch of pipeline without buy-in from all affected households; and whether the companies should continue to explore alternative fuels like renewable natural gas and hydrogen.

The fight over the utilities' climate compliance plans is far from over.

The companies have until early next month to file their responses to these criticisms, and it could be several more months until the Department of Public Utilities issues a final order.