Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

Today, we’re continuing our coverage of the future of energy in Rhode Island. Since the state burns too much natural gas to reach net-zero by 2050, it’s time to change our relationship to that energy source – but how?

We had Janek Schaller and Juliana Merullo from our Possibly team learn more about the potential solutions to this problem.

Janek Schaller: What’s up, Megan?

Juliana Merullo: Hi there! 

Megan Hall: So, remind me, what’s the problem with natural gas?

Janek Schaller: Well, burning gas to heat homes and generate electricity accounts for about ⅓ of Rhode Island’s carbon emissions. That’s not even counting the gas that leaks without being burned, which warms the planet as well.   

Megan Hall: So where do we go from here?

Juliana Merullo: An excellent question, and one that the stakeholder group organized by the Public Utility Commission, or PUC has been mulling over for more than a year now. 

Megan Hall: What are they trying to figure out?

Janek Schaller: Essentially, the future of natural gas boils down to one main debate: Should we improve our existing gas infrastructure or should we abandon gas pipelines entirely and electrify our heating sector? 

Megan Hall: So What’s the answer? 

Juliana Merullo: They’re not sure yet,  But, we can tell you what we know about those options…

Megan Hall: Let’s hear them!

Janek Schaller: Ok- option number 1 would be to update and improve gas infrastructure across the state. Natural Gas leaks in the United States happen roughly once every forty hours  –so,  the thinking is that if newer equipment can eliminate those leaks, we can keep up with our emissions targets.

Juliana Merullo: There’s one big problem here. If we sink money into improvements to the gas network, we’re more likely to use it for a longer time, and there is no way to reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets if we continue to burn gas to heat our homes. 

Megan Hall: What if we weren’t burning natural gas? 

Juliana Merullo: That’s another idea! We could use those pipelines for an alternative fuel source with less emissions.

Megan Hall: Does that alternative fuel source exist?

Janek Schaller: Not really. … Researchers are looking into blending hydrogen into natural gas pipelines, but as of right now, we don’t have a way to produce hydrogen without also releasing lots of carbon dioxide emissions. 

Juliana Merullo: We might solve that problem someday, but it’s very unlikely to help by 2030, when our first reduction target has to be met.

Janek Schaller: Some people hope that biogas, which is made from decomposing organic matter like manure and sewage, could be a decent substitute for natural gas.

Juliana Merullo: But, unfortunately, it’s not really all that much better than natural gas, and it’s hard to produce it in large quantities.

Megan Hall: What about just abandoning natural gas and the pipelines that get it to our homes? 

Janek Schaller: Some states are already looking into that.  

Megan Hall: What does that process look like? You can’t just turn off the gas supply one day, right?

Juliana Merullo: It wouldn’t be quite that dramatic. Places that have abandoned their gas infrastructure use an approach that’s called “Trimming.”  

Megan Hall: How does that work?

Janek Schaller:  They start by shutting down aging sections of gas infrastructure, block by block. Then, all of the homes and businesses that were connected to those sections get electrified.

Megan Hall: Who has done this so far? 

Juliana Merullo: California, for one! One of its major utility companies is working to retire and dismantle their own infrastructure. 

Megan Hall: Could Rhode Island do this, too?

Janek Schaller: It’s certainly possible! So far, Rhode Island Energy hasn’t expressed much interest in this approach, but they are the main utility for gas AND electric in our state, so in theory, they wouldn’t lose any business by switching people over to electricity. 

Megan Hall: Got it. So what happens next? 

Juliana Merullo: The Public Utility Commission’s stakeholder group is still considering the best approach for reducing our emissions. They’ll report their final recommendations to the legislature in March of 2024

Megan Hall: We’ll definitely stay tuned on that front. Thanks, Janek and Juliana!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Facebook and instagram  at  “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post What does the future of natural gas look like in Rhode Island? Part 2 appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What does the future of natural gas look like in Rhode Island? Part 2 appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

It’s getting colder, and a lot of people are turning on their furnaces. Many of those run on “natural” gas, which is basically methane, a potent greenhouse gas. 

So, what do we do about these emissions?  We had Janek Schaller and Juliana Merullo, from our Possibly team, look into this tricky question.

Janek Schaller: Hey, Megan!

Juliana Merullo: Hiya! 

Megan Hall: First off, why are we concerned about using natural gas?

Janek Schaller: Natural gas is used for both heating and electricity generation, and burning it is responsible for about ⅓ of all US emissions.    

Megan Hall: Is Rhode Island doing anything to reduce those emissions?

Juliana Merullo: In fact, we have to! The 2021 Act on Climate requires the state to get to net-zero by the year 2050, so we’ll have to rethink our relationship with natural gas if we want to meet that target.

Megan Hall: So who’s responsible for figuring out what changes need to be made?

Janek Schaller:  This is another job for our friends at the Public Utility Commission…

Megan Hall: Remind me who they are…?

Janek Schaller: The Public Utility Commission, or PUC,  regulates the utility companies in each state and assesses the rates they charge consumers for water, electricity, and gas.

Megan Hall: Gas, as in natural gas?

Juliana Merullo: Exactly – so you can start to see how the utilities tie in to this. To meet the state’s emission goals, utility companies will need to make changes to the way they operate. And THOSE changes may affect the cost of energy. 

Megan Hall: Which is where the PUC comes into play–

Janek Schaller: Right. One of their jobs is deciding whether utility companies are making “prudent investments.” 

Megan Hall: What does that mean?

Juliana Merullo: That’s a really important question. We spoke with Todd Bianco, the Chief Economic and Policy Analyst for Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission, to get a better idea:

Todd Bianco: “The issue of prudence often comes to what a reasonable company would have done to serve its customers.”

Janek Schaller: Todd says if a utility can provide compelling evidence that a new investment – like repairs to its natural gas lines – would help them better serve their customers, then the PUC will let them increase their prices. 

Juliana Merullo: In this case, the most piece of evidence is that Act on Climate that Rhode Island passed in 2021. It mandated emissions reductions for Rhode Island’s gas sector. 

Janek Schaller: In other words, our state law has now officially made it “prudent” to reconsider our use of natural gas. 

Megan Hall: Got it. So what does the future of gas look like, according to the Public Utilities Commission?

Juliana Merullo: Right now, they are still gathering information, since this is a pretty contentious issue.  

Janek Schaller: Before making a final call, the PUC has decided to organize a stakeholder group to get more input on how best to decarbonize the gas sector. Todd says this buys everyone a little time. 

Todd Bianco:“It would be too early for folks to begin to settle their differences. No one should feel the pressure that they need to begin to compromise on what they want yet.”

Megan Hall: But how long is this process going to take? I mean, we don’t have a lot of time when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. 

Janek Schaller: Todd says getting more opinions is a crucial part of the process. And besides, the biggest issue has already been resolved.

Megan Hall: And what would that be?

Juliana Merullo: Whether or not we have to transition to renewable energy at all. As Todd puts it,

Todd Bianco: “The question of is it prudent to eliminate emissions from the gas system has been answered already by the legislature: it is prudent and not only is it prudent, it must be done.”

Megan Hall: So what happens once the stakeholder group has done its thing? 

Juliana Merullo: While they may not reach complete consensus, the group will eventually share their findings with the Public Utilities Commission, who will ultimately decide which course of action to take.  

Janek Schaller: Those recommendations will largely be based on which approaches will create the most benefit for consumers while also minimizing cost for the utility, all while getting us to the emissions targets laid out in state law. We’ll have more on what those options might look like in a later episode. 

Megan Hall: Keep us posted – thanks, Janek and Juliana!

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on Facebook and Instagram- at  “ask possibly”

Possibly is a co-production of The Public’s Radio, Brown University’s Institute for Environment and Society and Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative.

The post What does the Future of Natural Gas Look Like in Rhode Island? Part 1 appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What does the Future of Natural Gas Look Like in Rhode Island? Part 1 appeared first on Possibly.

Megan: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall. 

Today, we’re traveling to Block Island, the vacation spot off the southern coast of Rhode Island. 

Block Island is also famous for its offshore wind farm- the first of its kind in the entire nation. 

What did it take to make this project possible? And is it a success? 

We had Janek Schaller and Juliana Merullo from our Possibly Team, look into this!

Janek: How’s it going, Megan?

Juliana: Hiya! 

Megan: So what’s the deal with Block Island’s wind farm?

Janek: The wind farm off block island is relatively small– it only has five turbines. But it provides more than enough power for the island’s one thousand residents.

Megan: How did Rhode Island end up with the nation’s first off-shore wind farm?

Janek: Well, the whole story starts way back in 2006, when then-Governor Carcieri announced a plan to generate fifteen percent of Rhode Island’s electricity through wind energy. 

Juliana: In response, the state started looking into contracts with energy companies to finance, build, and operate off-shore wind farms. 

Janek: A brand-new company, Deepwater Wind, eventually won approval for the project and made a deal with the state’s electricity provider – National Grid – to connect the wind farm with the grid on the mainland. 

Megan: Sounds pretty straightforward–

Janek: But it wasn’t. The committee that regulates how electricity is produced and distributed in Rhode Island decided that the agreement between Deepwater Wind and National Grid wasn’t “commercially reasonable.” 

Juliana: This vague wording made it hard to determine which parts of the proposal actually needed to be adjusted. It stopped the project in its tracks. 

Megan: How did they fix the problem?

Juliana: This is gonna sound crazy, but the state actually passed a law that changed the definition of “commercially reasonable” to force the commission to basically accept the original contract.. 

Megan: Wow, did it work?

Janek: It did. The commission authorized the agreement, and the State Supreme Court approved the project in 2011.

Juliana: Before starting construction, Deepwater Wind also conducted extensive research on the potential impacts of the wind farm on marine life. They found that the turbines wouldn’t cause any major disruptions.

Janek: The project was completed in 2016 and ended up costing nearly $300 million dollars.7

Megan: That’s a lot of money.

Juliana: It definitely is, but the state believed that the upfront costs were justified by the long-term savings Block Islanders would see on their electricity bills. 

Janek: Before the wind turbines, the island wasn’t connected to the electrical grid, and residents had to use diesel generators for their power. 

Juliana: People on Block Island often paid nearly three times as much for electricity compared to folks in the rest of the state. 

Janek: After the wind farm was installed, Block Island shut down its diesel generators and connected to the state’s electric grid. 

Megan: Did that make their electricity less expensive?

Juliana: Yes – residents now pay about half as much for their electricity as they did before the wind farm went in. 

Janek: Also, before the wind turbines, the island burned about a million gallons of diesel fuel every year to keep its generators going.  

Juliana: Now that the generators are shut down, Block Island isn’t pumping 40,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the ocean air each year. 

Janek: Coincidently, that’s about the same amount of emissions produced by my whole university!

Megan: That sounds like a big success to me!

Juliana: It’s certainly significant, but it’s important to note that this is really just a trial run. The Block Island site was designed to test the waters, so to speak, for larger projects which will bring their own unique challenges.

Janek: Right now, RI is planning to build another facility in the near future, generating thirteen times more electricity than the Block Island Wind farm.

Juliana: Even more powerful wind projects are planned in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. 

Janek: The era of offshore wind in New England is beginning, and it started right here in Rhode Island. 

Megan: Got it. Thanks, Janek and Juliana! 

That’s it for today. For more information, or to ask a question about the way your choices affect our planet, go to the public’s radio dot org slash possibly. Or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. 

You can also follow us on facebook and twitter- at “ask possibly” 

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Brown’s Climate Solutions Initiative, and the Public’s Radio.

The post How did Rhode Island get the first offshore wind farm in the country? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post How did Rhode Island get the first offshore wind farm in the country? appeared first on Possibly.