MASSACHUSETTS MUST CONVERT some of its existing fossil fuel infrastructure to renewable energy resources to meet its mandate of net zero emissions by 2050, according to a new report by the non-profit environmental consulting group Applied Economics Clinic.
The report, prepared by the clinic on behalf of the Massachusetts Clean Peak Coalition, argues that one important way to meet the state’s climate goals is by replacing existing fossil fuel-fired “peaker plants” with clean energy resources. The Massachusetts Clean Peak Coalition includes several climate groups across the state like Berkshire Environmental Action Team, Slingshot, Massachusetts Climate Action Network, and Clean Energy Group.
Peaker plants operate for less than 15% of the year and are called into action only when there is a particularly high demand on the electrical grid. Otherwise, peaker plants – which typically run on natural gas and use oil as a backup – remain idle. The plants’ rapid ramp-up and shutoffs can make them less efficient at controlling pollution output and make them “dirtier” than non-peaker plants. There are 32 peaker plants in Massachusetts, and the report pinpoints six peaker plants that might be good candidates for conversion.
Advocates for converting peaker plants argue that the facilities release a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollutants for the limited amount of energy they provide.
“Peaker plants are the low-hanging fruit of the energy transition,” said Mireille Bejjani, the co-executive director of Slingshot, one of the climate groups behind the report. “They’re the easiest to replace because they run so infrequently, and they are the worst offenders with the dirtiest per unit of energy produced.”
Massachusetts is already looking into decarbonizing peaker plants. A working group housed under the Office of Energy Transformation is studying how to reduce the state’s reliance on and eliminate fossil fuels from peaker plants.
“We need to start thinking now about how we are going to be less reliant on fossil fuel-fired peaking plants so as not to be in a situation where we find ourselves more reliant on them,” said Melissa Lavinson, the executive director of the Office of Energy Transformation. “It’s imperative that we get going now to understand this so that we’re in a good position when we do see a shift.”
The report, said Lavinson, identifies facilities that have already gone through the green transition and and can serve as models for future decarbonization projects.
“We don’t have to start from step zero,” said Lavinson. “We can skip to step 2, 3, 4 because we’ve already identified some commonalities and some things to that will work.”
Several peaker plant operators are participating in the state’s working group to provide a perspective on what challenges they face when trying to decarbonize their facilities. Lavinson said that the group is aiming to have recommendations by the end of the year on how the state can step in with policy and economic incentives to help peaker plant operators explore alternatives to fossil fuels.
Any effort to replace peaker plants will have to be done with the assurance that there is enough electricity to meet everyone’s needs and ensure reliability, said Lavinson.
There is a peaker plant in West Springfield, Massachusetts that is currently undergoing a decarbonization effort which many are looking to as an initial case study.
The plant, owned by Cogentrix, was retired in June 2022 and is set to be converted to a battery storage facility with 45 megawatts of storage. The facility is expected to open in 2025, though an exact date has not been set. Congentrix has previously indicated that it hopes to install solar panels. The company has also retired two other peaker plants they owned in Berkshire Country.
Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association, said that much of the work around converting peaker plants is still in a preliminary phase. None of the converted plants detailed in the report – including the battery storage facility in West Springfield – are up and running yet. He said that the type of green conversion of peaker plants studied in the report has not been stress tested at scale.
Dolan called the case studies are good first step in decarbonizing fossil-fuel infrastructure but said we shouldn’t rush into a solution that is as yet untested.
“We can’t get reliability wrong,” said Dolan. “When the lights go out, you have consequences so that has to be the place where we start. There are also other constraints around making sure that the cost of this can be borne by the population – that this is an economic project because of its importance societally.”
Fossil fuel-fired power plants release harmful pollutants into the air and emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas partly responsible for climate change. The report said that many of these power plants are sited in communities with lower income levels, higher poverty rates, and higher shares of BIPOC populations. This puts these populations at a higher risk of negative health outcomes from emissions that can travel up to three-mile radius around a power plant.
The report argues that there are benefits to converting existing fossil-fuel power plants to clean energy resources as opposed to simply starting anew with a clean energy facility. It allows companies to repurpose existing infrastructure and reduces the build-out for electric systems. It can save energy developers the time and money it takes to get an energy facility connected to the grid and prevent aging fossil fuel plants from becoming stranded assets. It also prevents new undeveloped sites from being disturbed and avoids the environmental impacts typically associated with a new facility.
Rosemary Wessel, the founder of No Fracked Gas in Mass, a program of the Berkshire Environmental Action Team, which also is in the coalition that produced the report, argued that clean energy facilities like battery storage have the capacity to meet the needs of the grid in a more efficient and less polluting way. But, owners of these plants take on a certain amount of risk when they choose to convert the peaker plants because it’s a new energy model.
“Owners of peaker plants have said that raising the capital for the transformation isn’t the problem,” said Wessel. “It’s whether they find a business model that works that continues to generate revenue for 10 years into the future. Some companies seem more willing to take the risk of trying it. They would have to operate with a lesser degree of certainty than they otherwise would.”
Part of the pitch of converting peaker plants as low-hanging fruit is as a way to keep Massachusetts on par with what other states are doing to decarbonize their grids.
“A lot of our state leaders are positioning the state as a climate leader and they can only keep saying that if it continues to be true,” said Bejjani. “Continuing to monitor how other states like New York and California, which are often our competitors, are a step or two ahead of us and what steps we to take to catch up is important. We know [converting peaker plants] works and if Massachusetts wants to keep being a leader, it better hurry and catch up.”
The post Replacing fossil fuel-fired “peaker plants” can help Massachusetts meet climate goals, according to new report appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.