PEABODY — Residents are calling upon Gov. Charlie Baker to step in as the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) looks to build a peak capacity generator at the Waters River Plant.
According to the Clean Power Coalition, clean energy advocates from across the Commonwealth have stated that Baker is obligated to carry out the Decarbonization Roadmap law, ensure accountability, and intervene in the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) hearing process.
Their argument, advocates say, is that the DPU hearing officer refused to consider essential requirements of the law in reviewing the MMWEC proposal to build Project 2015A, a 55-megawatt capacity resource to provide capacity to 14 municipal light companies (MLPs).
The group is asking Baker to enforce the Decarbonization Roadmap law, claiming that the peaker plant is inconsistent with plans laid out by the roadmap. According to the MMWEC, which is looking to build the plant, the facility — which will run only 239 hours per year — would be in line with the “need for reliability resources and balancing resources as intermittent-renewable-generating resources become the dominant source of electricity for the region,” which is laid out in the roadmap.
In past hearings, citizens and experts raised concerns about the impact of the plant on public health, the environment, and the climate crisis. State Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem) and state Reps. Lori Ehrlich (D-Marblehead) and Sally Kerans (D-Danvers) have said that they want a comprehensive public health and environmental review, with special attention put toward environmental justice communities in the area.
The Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN) and Clean Energy Group (CEG) have also recently released an assessment for energy storage alternatives for the natural-gas- and oil-powered peaker plant proposed by the MMWEC for Peabody. The report investigated the viability of battery technology as a replacement for the proposed fossil fuel peaker plant. The findings were that standalone batteries could provide significant savings in cost to MLPs.
“When accounting for capital, fuel, and operations and maintenance costs, as well as for the expected energy and ancillary services revenue, the net cost of batteries is projected to be significantly lower than that of Project 2015A,” read the assessment.
The report concludes that a battery-storage option for the project is cost-competitive, reduces global and local emissions, reduces noise levels, and alleviates harms on overburdened environmental-justice communities.”
According to its website, MMWEC disputes the claims that batteries are a viable option. During a June 22 public meeting at the Torigian Senior Center, MMWEC outlined the reasons why batteries are not a suitable option. MMWEC said it has reached out to five utility-scale battery manufacturers and developers to review updated battery technologies and their applicability to the Peabody site in delivering the desired capacity hedge that Project 2015A is designed to provide.
“A battery-producing similar capacity will not fit on the Peabody site. MMWEC continued with an analysis to compare a battery installation to Project 2015A, assuming the site was large enough to accommodate a similar-sized utility scale battery,” MMWEC said. “The analysis concludes that Project 2015A would provide capacity at a cost of $4.28 per kw-month for a 30-year period. A similar-sized battery would produce capacity at a cost of $9.24 per kw-month for a 15-year period. While battery costs have declined over the past few years, the degradation characteristics of batteries lead to a shorter useful life and output reduction compared to a simple cycled turbine.”
MMWEC stated at that same meeting that the peaker project would produce fewer emissions than 94 percent of similar resources in the region, thereby improving air quality.
When running, “it will be displacing emissions, resulting in a net reduction of carbon emissions (and that) without the capacity resources, grid reliability is at risk,” the company said. “Over the last 10 years, all of its energy projects have been carbon free. MMWEC is currently developing a 7-megawatt solar project (Project 2020A) on the MMWEC site.”
Other benefits cited by MMWEC include increased stabilization of rates and protection against volatile capacity prices MLPs would be facing if forced to buy capacity on the open market.
“By supporting the capacity requirements, the project allows (MLPs) to pursue additional carbon-free energy resources,” said MMWEC in the presentation.