Uh so tonight we have a workshop on the Aquitic Island Natural Gas uh Moratorium on new hookup uh proposal.

Uh that we had a resolution in front of the city council a couple meetings back, and we decided to have this workshop to get some information to the public uh to the council as well.

Um so before we get started, if we can just go just right around the table just to introduce who everyone is so the public knows who's at the table tonight.

We'll start over here with uh Ryan Duffy.

You know, I'm Ryan Duffy.

I'm standing in as acting city manager.

Bill Boardman, City Engineer.

Theresa Crane, Director of Land Sustainability.

Uh Energy.

Council.

Lynn Sagley, Newport City Council.

Uh Charlie Holder, Newport City Council.

Steph Smythe, Newport City Council.

Lori Love, Energy and Environment Commission.

Emily Conklin, Energy and Environment Commission.

Avery Robertson Energy and Environment Commission.

Andy B.

York Energy and Environment Commission.

DD Laurelard Energy and Environmental Commission.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um, so we're gonna get started with uh Avery and uh Emily.

Um then we'll have some other guests that will have a presentation as well.

Great.

Um, thank you all for being here today.

Um my name is Avery Robertson, and I am the chair of Newport's Energy and Environment Commission.

The goal of this workshop today is education and discussion.

Um, there will be not be a vote taken tonight.

Um rather, this is a chance to better understand what a potential moratorium or pause on new natural gas hookups could mean for Newport and Aquinic Island.

What we learn here and what is brought to attention tonight, however, may influence future decisions by our community.

The mission of the Energy and Environment Commission is to serve as the primary advisory board to city staff and city council on all matters relating to energy and the environment and how these relate to city of Newport, its culture, its economy, and its future, with a specific focus on climate change, sustainability, and resiliency.

We're also tasked with educating the citizens of Newport on all related matters.

We appreciate the opportunity to engage in the educational piece of our mission tonight around this topic and the future of natural gas and energy on the island.

Um, so why are we here?

Uh in January 2019, as many of you remember, uh thousands of residents of Aquindic Island were left without heat and power for a week.

The incident which disrupted homes, businesses, and visitors revealed a serious vulnerability in how the island receives its energy when it remains unresolved.

Aquinick Island and specifically Newport sits at the very end of the Algonquin gas pipeline, meaning that any upstream failure can cut off service entirely, as would happen in 2019.

Since then, the island has been searching for long-term solutions to address both this vulnerability and the growing strain on capacity demand from new hookups.

Following the 2019 outage, the Old Mill liquefied natural gas facility opened in Portsmouth.

It was approved as a temporary backup to prevent another crisis, but has operated every winter since due to ongoing capacity constraints.

Last year, state regulators extended its use for another five years while also requiring the utility to explore ways to reduce natural gas demand on the island, including the concept of a moratorium on new gas hookups.

So over this past summer, the Rhode Island Energy Facility Sighting Board held two public hearings and sought public input on this idea.

I attended the Newport one, held at Innovate Newport, and it had pretty sparse showing of less than or about five Newport residents in my attendance from what I account.

Um Portsmouth and Milletown have also since passed resolutions opposing a moratorium, while Newport has postponed its decision pending this workshop.

When we first began discussion around whether to support or oppose this, uh there were questions raised that proved to deserve more engagement.

Uh to our knowledge, this is the first opportunity for a genuine public engagement and community conversation on this topic, at least this year, since the moratorium was introduced.

Um this is not a simple conversation.

There are serious climate and economic concerns, and the decisions we consider today will shape the fabric of our city, our energy system, and our ability to be climate resilient for decades to come.

Part of the complexity in this conversation is even the general understanding of natural gas itself.

Despite its name, natural gas is not exactly natural.

It's uh mostly made of methane, a potential fossil sorry, a potent fossil fuel that actually has a warming potential of 80 times more than carbon dioxide on a shorter time frame.

This means that we are deepening our dependence on natural gas.

That as we are deepening our dependence of natural gas, we may be exacerbating climate change.

Uh the city of Newport has also dedicated millions in funds and adopted policies that call for a transition away from fossil fuels and towards a clean, efficient, and resilient energy future.

Um these were uh mentioned in or outlined in the resolution that um Councillor Smythe first introduced, but I'll repeat them here.

The 2017 comprehensive land use plan requires the city to take local actions to both adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts and identifies its top energy goal to make Newport a leader in energy conservation and renewable energy use.

The 2021 North End Durban Plan recognizes the vulnerability of the island's reliance on a single natural gas pipeline and notes the lack of backup energy or storage capacity and concludes that natural gas is not a long-term solution.

The 2024 strategic plan establishes a resilient infrastructure goal to adapt the city's capital improvement plan to address the impact of climate change.

And the approval of resolution 202502 directs the EEC to develop a 10-year energy and environment plan to encourage energy conservation, support renewable and alternative energy sources, and ensure the city operates in alignment with the Rhode Island 2021 Act on Climate.

Our previous policy statements as a city align us with the Act on Climate and position the city as a leader in sustainability and climate action.

Additionally, our own building code now requires developments to be electric ready, making it easier to electrify.

A gas moratorium alone won't solve all of our challenges, but discussing a solution like this is a part of a holistic response to responding to a changing world.

We can't predict the future, but we can help shape it.

And that starts by being part of the conversation to make sure we're on equal footing and ensure an informed conversation.

We wanted to provide this background.

I'll turn it over to you actually.

Because you want me because then they're going to go into the presentation, right?

Okay.

I'm going to turn it over to uh Emily Conklin, the vice chair of the Energy Environment Commission now.

And you can do this after.

Okay.

Thanks, Avery.

Um, so we had invited uh a few different folks to join us tonight.

And um, though he wasn't able to join us in person, um, Dr.

Murphy from the Brattle group sent us a statement.

So I'm just going to read that in lieu of a presentation from him in person.

And I'm just going to give a little background on him and uh what the Brattle group is before I get into the content.

So Dr.

Murphy is an economist with over 30 years of experience specializing in issues related to energy systems and their transformation in response to climate change.

His work centers on the electricity and gas industries, including the challenges and opportunities facing the electricity sector as it transitions from fossil generation towards greater reliance on intermittent renewable power sources.

Dr.

Murphy also considers issues confronting the national natural gas industry as it transitions to a decarbonized future.

He's led a number of studies investigating long-term strategies for decarbonizing the electric and/or gas sectors or of an entire economy.

And additionally, he has examined the impacts on energy systems and consumers of particular policy decisions, such as increasing a state's renewable portfolio standard requirement, supporting clean um supporting clean generation or transitioning the gas system to a clean future.

With a background in engineering, Dr.

Murphy brings expertise in competitive and regulatory economics, finance, and quantitative modeling to address these questions.

The Brattle group, for whom he works is an economic consulting firm.

They have advised utilities, regulators, and policy makers on complex energy challenges for over 30 years.

And in the past few years, the landscape for natural gas utilities has rapidly evolved as an increasing number of states are pursuing legislative and regulatory mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pursue development of clean energy alternatives, which is why we're all here.

In Rhode Island, Dr.

Murphy provided regulatory and technical advisory assistance to the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources as part of its involvement in the Rhode Island Department of Public Utilities future of gas docket.

He participated in stakeholder and technical committee discussions on behalf of this body, providing critical insights on scope, scenario design, and inputs assumptions used by the utilities independent consultant in their pathway analysis.

I think you get the picture, so I'm going to move on to the statement.

We had sent some questions, and these are in response to those, which we thought would come up because they came up in our commission meeting.

So I'll give those as context.

But he's he starts by saying a primary challenge faced by Rhode Island in achieving its act on climate goals is how to convert existing buildings away from fossil fuels into electricity.

The question of new connections is much smaller in magnitude and easier to address.

New connections commit additional fossil fuel infrastructure within buildings and on the gas distribution system, infrastructure that often has a 50 to 70 year lifespan at a time when fossil fuels must be phased out over the next 10 to 20 years.

If clean electrification is the path to deep decarbonization, and nearly every study of decarbonization pathways, including for Rhode Island has concluded that substantial electrification is necessary to achieve the reductions needed, then it makes little sense to expand the problem of existing gas infrastructure before starting to solve it.

New gas connections create even more buildings that are not designed for electrification and will become the difficult retrofits of the future.

Adding new gas connections adds to overall gas system costs, raising costs for existing customers, and possibly creating stranded costs and raising the overall cost of the energy transition.

Do you want me to go through each of these?

It's only 12K.

Oh, perfect.

I feel like I was just talking for 45 minutes.

So it feels um.

So we sent questions that we heard in our commission meetings, and also I think that counselor Smythe heard from constituents and that our common concerns about this topic.

Um, so these are in response to those questions.

So the first being how will this impact older homes that are converting from other fuel sources like heating oil and propane?

And his response to this question was a moratorium on new gas connections would prevent homes currently using heating oil, excuse me, or propane from converting to natural gas.

As a result, they may choose to electrify directly rather than converting to gas or continue for now to use their incumbent fossil fuels.

It's important to note that the Rhode Island Act on Climate requires 45% reduction, greenhouse gas reduction by 2030, 80% reduction by 2040, and net zero by 2050.

Thus, most buildings in Rhode Island must essentially stop using fossil fuels of any kind within the next decade or two, implying that any homes converting to gas now will likely need to do a second conversion to electricity not long after.

The path involving two conversions, first to gas and then again to electrify, would be more costly overall for obvious reasons.

For example, installing just the service line for a new gas customer typically costs 10 to 20,000, a cost that is often not paid directly by the new gas customer.

Most gas companies spread new connection costs across all customers.

On the other hand, a new gas furnace is normally lower cost to install than an electric heat pump, which may also require additional expenditures to improve the building shell, the electrical system, et cetera, which depends on the building.

Thus, converting to gas may appear to be the lower cost option in the near term from the perspective of the new gas customer, but that difference may be offset over the long term by the avoidance of two conversions.

This is to say the economic bias towards gas is partly due to how the costs are incurred over time and allocated among customers, not necessarily a reflection of the overall cost of the strategies.

Gas cost allocation practices are beginning to change in recognition of this.

For example, Massachusetts just ruled that a new gas customer must pay the full cost of the connection themselves.

Also note that low-income customers may need substantial financial assistance to adopt an electric heat pump, even if this is the cheaper long-term strategy.

The next question we asked was about the distribution system.

We got this question about the grid capacity and whether electrification moving towards electrification would require Newport's distribution system to be upgraded in order to accommodate it and who would pay for it.

And in response, Dr.

Murphy said, in the long longer term, many end uses will likely need to be electrified to decarbonize Rhode Island's energy systems, e.g., electrification not just of gas, but also propane heating oil in buildings, EVs for transportation, et cetera.

At some point, this conversion to and growth in electrical demand will likely require upgrades to the electrical distribution system as well as the transmission system and generation throughout the state, though, since electric demand will also increase electricity prices will rise less than overall costs and perhaps not at all.

More importantly, electric distribution capacity is unlikely to be a significant limitation for a number of years because the distribution system, transmission generation, is designed for higher summer peak loads and has significant slack in the winter when most gas demand demand occurs because heating accounts for the large majority of gas use.

The electric system can thus accommodate substantial electrification of gas and other heating fuels before becoming winter peaking and requiring widespread capacity upgrades.

For example, the Massachusetts gas, gas, and electric distribution companies have concluded that non pipeline alternatives with electrifying existing gas customers to avoid replacing leak prone gas pipes, are not expected to major to trigger major electric system upgrades until the electric system transitions to winter peaking, which is not expected to occur until sometime in the mid 2030s.

Since the issue at hand that we're discussing today, is about new glass gas connections rather than widespread conversion of existing gas users to electricity.

While the electricity system benefits from winter slack, the Equidnik Island gas system is already constrained.

And so adding new gas customers is very likely to necessitate gas system upgrades while adding them to the electric system would be unlikely to require electric upgrades anytime soon.

Will the question of will this be used to prevent prevent new development, including affordable housing and businesses?

We need to boost our local economy.

Um we've received, and to which um Dr.

Murphy responded, a new gas moratorium is unlikely to have major effect on new development, though it would likely encourage new buildings to rely on electricity rather than gas.

While every building is, of course, unique for new construction generally, building an energy efficient all-electric building costs about the same, or maybe a few percent more than a conventional fossil fueled building, and electric operating costs are similar, depending in part on whether the electricity provider offers discounted heat pump rates.

Every building must have an electric connection, but the gas connection, which costs 10 to 20,000, can be avoided if the building is all electric.

Some may argue that the developer does not pay for the gas connection since the gas company will connect for free, which is technically true often, but this is not a cost savings.

It just represents a shift of this cost to other gas customers when that new connection cost is added to the gas rate base and recovered from all customers, which we explained earlier.

And so this connected to another question we had asked, which was about um equity.

Um currently heating with electricity is more expensive than gas, so how do we justify asking people to pay more money?

And is this not inequitable?

Um, so going off of what was just said in that question, for a new gas connection, gas and electricity may be more economically comparable if the cost of the gas connection itself is accounted for.

In addition, some utilities are beginning to offer discounted rates for heat pump users that make electrified heating more economical, which is happening in uh Massachusetts right now.

These rates will save heat pump users in Massachusetts.

These rates will are expected to save heat pump users over $500 a year.

Um, and then a big question about uh sorry, is about reliability, which obviously the issue of a gas outage is one of reliability, which is what kicked this all off.

So knowing that we cannot compromise reliability, um there's storms we lose power.

Um, won't this put us at a greater risk of losing heat if we are more reliant on electric?

Um, neither the gas nor electric system is entirely immune from disruption as the 2019 Aquidneck Island gas outage demonstrated.

But the reliability question does not necessarily favor gas.

Most gas heated homes rely on electricity to operate their heating systems.

The controls, thermostat, fans, and pumps are all powered by electricity.

So in most cases, gas heat can be disrupted by either a gas outage or an electric outage, while electric heat is vulnerable only to an electric outage.

Ultimately, reliability and resilience must be designed into whatever energy systems we rely upon, which I think is a great place to turn it over to our presenters from the Conservation Law Foundation.

So I'm just gonna briefly introduce James Crowley, who is a senior attorney for CLF, Rhode Island, um, where he works in the clean energy and climate change programs.

And then we also have Jamie Rhodes, the senior attorney in the clean energy and climate change program and director of clean buildings at the Conservation Law Foundation.

Um, and some may recognize him as he previously represented municipal governments in the creation of energy aggregation programs and nonprofit advocacy groups at the PUC.

Sorry, that the Public Utilities Commission.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone, uh, members of the council.

Thank you for having us.

Uh, I'm James Crowley.

I'm an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation.

Oh.

Yep.

If I get a little closer, that helps.

Okay.

Um, I'm here with my colleague Jamie Rhodes, uh, and we're uh happy to contribute to the conversation, provide any information that we can.

Uh, CLF is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization uh that works to protect the environment throughout New England.

We work a lot on climate policy issues, and that includes promoting clean and equitable heating policy.

As I'll explain, uh we we are in support of the proposed resolution supporting a moratorium on new gas connections.

We've been working on this issue of gas on Aquidneck Island since the outage in 2019 that left thousands of customers without heat in the middle of a cold snap.

At that time, our gas utility company, then uh National Grid solicited comments on different potential policy responses, and both our organization and the city of Newport expressed support for policies that would reduce gas demand on Aquidneck Island over time.

Eventually, the utility company sought a license to operate a liquefied natural gas or LNG facility at Old Mill Lane in Portsmouth to support the gas system on the island and help ensure reliable service in the event of future supply disruptions.

CLF was and is a party in the energy facility sighting board docket uh in which that license was eventually granted, uh, and in which the board is now soliciting opinions on a potential moratorium on new gas connections.

Um we did not oppose uh the licensing of the old mill lane facility.

Uh our position in this docket has been that while the facility may be needed to ensure reliable service in the short term, any new fossil fuel infrastructure that we license uh at this stage has to be considered carefully in the context of the climate crisis and Rhode Island's climate law, which requires us to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

So we ask that the board require Rhode Island Energy uh to put together a plan to reduce gas demand on Aquidneck Island and lessen the time that the old mill lane facility will be needed for.

Uh that plan is the subject of a separate docket before the Public Utilities Commission.

Uh I'll also mention that we're separately involved in the PUC's future of gas docket, uh, in which the commission is considering the future of the state's gas distribution system in light of the Act on Climate Law.

Uh, we're still waiting on a final report, but one thing that's become very clear in the course of that docket is that any pathway to net zero by 2050 is going to involve substantially decreasing our reliance on the gas system and relying pretty heavily on uh electrifying heating in the state.

In other words, we know that we have to move away from gas.

Uh what I'd like to do in the few minutes that I have left here uh is to talk about the context in which Newport is thinking about a potential moratorium.

The main thing that I'd like to emphasize is that we are beginning a transition in how we heat our homes and businesses.

This is driven partially by climate policy, uh, but importantly, it is also being driven by changes in technology and economics.

In other words, this is something that is going to happen over the coming years and decades with or without climate policy action.

Uh it's change to the system is inevitable.

Right now, electric heat pumps make up a small but growing part of the heating market.

Uh, they are getting cheaper over time and they're getting better over time in terms of their functionality and the services that they offer to consumers.

At the same time, gas prices are trending higher.

Uh, in the future of gas docket that I just mentioned, there was modeling of the monthly cost of heating with gas and heating with an electric heat pump over time.

Uh, in every scenario, the modeling shows that in terms of your monthly energy bills, it's going to become cheaper to heat with a heat pump sometime in the early 2030s, uh, and that the difference in price is going to grow pretty sharply from there.

Gas prices are going to keep increasing uh at uh a pretty quick pace from there.

Uh in other words, we aren't that far from a time when consumers are going to be consistently choosing heat pumps over gas purely based on cost and functionality.

And as customers flee the gas system, the cost of the gas system per customer is only going to rise more quickly.

Uh so the cost of the if you you imagine that the cost of the system as a whole, the cost of maintaining that system uh stays the same, uh, but is spread out over fewer and fewer customers as customers uh transition off of the system.

Uh the cost per customer goes up and up and up.

Uh and this is what people uh often refer to as the uh the death spiral of the gas system.

Uh people leave the system, therefore the system gets more expensive, therefore more people leave the system, and you you have a cycle.

Um and that's that's the cycle that we're headed for.

So once you acknowledge that this transition is going to happen, uh, what you have to do is decide whether you want to uh let it happen passively or manage it actively.

Uh Newport and the rest of Aquidneck Island has a chance to uh control its destiny and get ahead of the changes that are coming.

Um and uh a moratorium is a policy that can has the potential to protect residents from sharply rising costs.

Um that I just described happening uh and facing customers of the gas system as it declines in the coming decades.

I'll I'll close with a few key points that I want to leave you with on the potential moratorium.

Uh firstly, as I said, uh we do need to transition away from fossil fuels for environmental and public health reasons.

Getting away from gas reduces greenhouse gas emissions, uh, and it also lowers risks for health conditions like asthma.

Uh there is no way to achieve the emissions reductions that we need and meet the goals of our climate law without substantial heating electrification.

Uh it's going to be a real policy challenge to convert uh existing homes and businesses in Rhode Island in the time frame that we have.

But one basic thing that we can do is stop adding to the problem.

Every new home or business that's hooked up to the gas system today is a home or business that needs to be converted again in the next decade or two.

There's no reason to pay to convert each of these buildings twice.

Uh and the phrase that we often use in this context is if you're in a hole, stop digging.

Uh what I just said is really relevant to the whole state and beyond Rhode Island, but this problem is particularly acute on Aquidneck Island because of the vulnerabilities affecting the reliability of gas service here.

Uh the old mill lane facility helps to back up gas service, but it cannot provide service to the whole island.

Rhode Island Energy uh indicated in that energy facility siding board docket that in the event of a total supply disruption on a very cold day, the old mill lane facility will only be able to maintain service for a little more than half of the 12,000 gas customers on the island.

A supply disruption on any day colder than 35 degrees would lead to some customers losing service, even at the current number of customers.

So that's not including new people added to the system.

Uh so each new gas customer on the island represents one additional customer left without heat in that scenario.

Uh, and reducing gas demand actually has the effect of protecting existing gas customers by making their service more reliable.

Uh thirdly, as I explained, this transition is going to happen.

Uh gas prices are going to increase dramatically over the next decade and beyond.

And the ways in which we heat our homes and businesses are going to change.

Newport and the rest of Aquidneck Island has the chance to be a leader in the transition and to protect its residents from those rising costs.

Uh and finally, I do just want to note that there is some nuance to what a moratorium could look like.

Uh if this is something that the EFSB moves forward with, I think it's going to look very closely at how to implement a moratorium and questions like when it goes into effect and if there need to be exemptions for certain types of businesses, uh things like that.

Uh it can also be done in conduct conjunction with targeted programs that lower the cost of electrification for consumers and eventually eliminate the need for the old mill lane facility.

Uh so I think that's something to keep in mind that any moratorium can and I think will be designed thoughtfully.

Uh so that's uh that that's all for me.

Thanks again for your time.

Thank you.

No, that's it from us in terms of what we prepared.

So if we want to have obviously questions from council and commission.

Uh before we uh turn it over to uh council questions, uh Stephanie Smith, would you like to uh read Ellen's letter?

Yep.

Um Counselor Pennick could not be here tonight, but she did send me a statement that she wanted me to read um that she co-sponsored this resolution with me because our gas system is under significant strain and continuing to add new hookups without addressing existing needs only compounds the problem.

This moratorium is about being responsible stewards of our community's resources and taking the time to assess repair and plan so that our systems are safe, reliable, and sustainable for the long term.

It's about putting residents first and making sure we're investing wisely in the future of our city.

To counselor Pennick, this means protecting our neighborhoods from service disruptions, costly repairs, and the long-term consequences of overburden infrastructure, ensuring that our community remains safe, strong, and well served for years to come.

Uh do we have a zero representative from Rhode Island Energy?

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that in case there's any questions or you don't have anything you want to know.

The question of a moratorium, as Mr.

Crowley said, came up.

And I'm sorry, I should introduce myself.

My name is Steve Boyogen.

I'm an attorney with Robinson and Cole, and I represent Rhode Island Energy.

And uh before the PUC with respect to a docket open to explore non-infrastructure solutions to the uh capacity constraint here.

Um the question of moratorium was raised in the context of the EFSB proceedings.

It was a company's position that it would be inappropriate for the EFSB to impose a moratorium without first asking Aquidneck Island how it felt about it.

Um ultimately the EFSB agreed with that, and that is why they've solicited your opinion tonight.

Um there are certain things I might be able to answer for you tonight.

Um obviously some of the questions are highly technical.

I might defer those to engineers.

Primarily, I'm here to hear what you all have to say and what your concerns and questions are.

I can certainly bring them back to the company and have them try to address those.

Um, but like I said, I was involved in the dockets throughout, and um there might be things I can address for you if you have particular questions.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um so for this workshop, again, and I know um Avery mentioned it at the beginning.

No, we're not taking your vote tonight or anything like that.

We're just here to gather information to listen uh be able to ask some questions.

Um I'm sure there are people that have their uh predisposed ideas or thoughts on on this uh subject.

Um, but like again, it would be it would be remiss if if us as a council did not take this opportunity.

So that's why we're here tonight again.

So to get information and to be able to just listen a little bit.

So um, counselor uh Council Warwick, did you want to ask a question or make a statement?

Certainly.

So I just want to start by thanking uh my colleagues for servicing this idea and also recommending that we look at this through a workshop rather than just a council resolution vote.

Obviously, this is a much more in-depth topic than uh just a traditional council resolution.

So Steph and Alan wanna recognize you both for that.

Uh my question is for uh our council here from Rhode Island Energy.

I know you know what it's like to sit on our side of the desk, so we appreciate uh your time this evening.

Are is a moratorium being considered in any other communities in Rhode Island right now?

At this time, no.

Um there I should say there are things about Aquidneck Island that are unique in terms of its gas supply.

Um there are things about Aquidneck Island that are very typical.

The rest of the state of Rhode Island is similarly serviced by LNG.

Um there is a facility at Exeter that supplies most of Western Rhode Island's distribution system on very cold days.

There was a tank in Cumberland.

The tank is no longer there, but it has a capability that is very similar to old Mill Lane.

Um in fact, Aquidneck Island had a peak shaving facility at one time or another, going back all the way to the 60s.

Um LNG and what they call on system assets are very typical to support a gas distribution system in cold weather.

And for that reason, because we have them elsewhere in the state, we are not looking at a moratorium anywhere else.

Thank you.

And has the the U.S.

Navy weighed in at all on this?

I know they're one of the largest consumers of natural gas um on the island.

Is there any contemplation of you know them reducing their demand on our system?

Um, or have they not been approached on this?

Yeah, as far as I know, um, and this came up in the context of the FSB docket, there are requires pending requests for additional gas supply.

Thank you.

Um question has to do with basically the the political climate out there.

Um with the non-support of solar and wind by the current administration.

Um it's is talking about a moratorium on gas a good idea at this point when we are not using other types of we would not be using other types of energy that um you know we are we leaving ourselves vulnerable by having a moratorium.

Um that's not a question I can I can personally address, but I can certainly try to refer that to the right person at the company.

Um I can say that for the for context for the discussion, the company performs annually a five-year forecast of demand, including at each take station, which is where the transmission system connects with the distribution system.

Our forecasted growth for Aquidneck Island, all of which is fed by the Portsmouth Take Station, Old Mill Lane, is.25% a year.

So a five year forecast of 1.25%.

It is not terribly significant growth.

So in terms of alternative energy sources, we're not seeing in our forecast at least that there's some kind of shortage of energy supply here.

If that growth is coming from people, either new construction or conversions from oil or propane.

Again, it's it's relatively modest.

I can't speak to the electric side.

I don't know what their forecasts show.

The newer developments that are happening in Newport, are they using the air pumps and gas, or how how are the newer uh developments providing energy?

I would not be able to speak to any particular, but I can certainly take that question down.

I can tell you when there is a significant uh addition to the gas system contemplated.

It doesn't happen by surprise.

That is a request that comes to the company.

Initially, it's evaluated to make sure that that the local infrastructure, when I mean local, I mean very local.

The the pipes in those streets is capable or of handling that additional demand.

Once you get over a certain threshold, um, which is not all that high, it's then sent to uh different department gas control.

And if it's significant load to gas procurement.

Um so any new load coming on goes through like three layers of review if there's any inkling that it would have any significant impact on gas reliability.

I can tell you, for example, right now, um, because I checked today.

Do we have any pending requests like that?

And there is one.

Um, it's a significant manufacturer in the marine trades that's asked to convert from propane to gas and the company's evaluating that load and how that would be treated.

I can't say for sure.

I I mean, just driving down here tonight on West Main, I see a large housing development.

I can't tell you whether that's a combination of heat pump or gas.

Um, the other question, well, concern that other people have brought up to me is that there could be an overload of electricity for the system, particularly if you're talking about AI, um, a lot of charging stations, um, the electric pumps.

I mean, are we would we be relying too much on electric energy if we were to have a moratorium on gas?

I think I would put it this way.

The question of moratorium is somewhat divorced from the question of reliability on the gas side.

The gas system with old millane in place will be no more or less reliable because of a moratorium.

Um on the electric side, like I said, the forecasted growth in gas demand is 1.25% over five years.

The electric system in Aquidneck Island has plenty of headroom for that.

Um, if you were talking about wide-scale electrification of the entire island, all energy uses, that would be a significant increase, right?

That's something that would have to go be studied by engineers.

But how much impact do you uh car charging stations have on the load in on Aquidneck Island?

Uh again, I think on an individual basis, nothing that the engineers would be concerned about.

But if you're talking about on a larger basis, how many would you need to add to to trip the need for additional infrastructure?

I'd have to defer to engineers on that.

And okay, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

I wonder if some of these questions also would be well addressed, potentially by CLF and also maybe by the city because I know that the code now is for electrification, uh, electric ready in the city.

And so Councillor Segley's question about um uh construction, the impact on construction might be better not to put you on the spot, better answer by the city there.

Yeah, these questions are open to anyone.

Yeah, they're open to anyone.

Sorry.

Teresa Kreen, Director of Resilience Sustainability.

Um yeah, as of August of 2025, our building code has now been updated in the state of Rhode Island to require any new construction be electric ready.

It does not mandate electric only.

Um so that's an important nuance and distinction there.

Um following up on your question, Counselor Segley, we can certainly pull um data from our OpenGov software for building permits to identify the demand or the um the you know permits that have pulled that identify the um fuel source for new developments.

We also have uh looked into a little bit what data we have available from our camera or our property um data to identify the fuel source for all parcels across the city.

That information is available from Rhode Island Energy.

We do not have that currently accessible in our parcel database, but we can certainly um look into that if that data is is needed.

And I think as part of our comprehensive plan that just um kicked off recently, we have a whole chapter on energy, and I have the 2017 energy chapter pulled up now to think about how we the city wants to move forward um in you know alignment with the state's act on climate um and these targets that have been talked about tonight in the context of um you know how we evolve as a city in our energy use, and I like to say, you know, the greenest unit of energy is the one you don't use.

So how do we also promote weatherization and more energy efficiency programs?

Um not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I think those all of that package is important for us to consider um what is our overall footprint look like with all sources and um and where the data is going to come from so we can make informed decisions.

Thank you.

How much do you think of an impact Newport saying yes to a moratorium would have on this moratorium on this uh on Rhode Island Energy are not prepared to answer that question.

We don't have because two of the three have said no.

So I'm I'm just wondering, you know, what our voice really means.

No, come on up.

Um I I guess first uh I just want to go back to one of the other questions about um uh offshore wind and solar and things like that.

And I would refer back to the comments that Dr.

Murphy put in.

Um right now, uh as he mentioned, we it's it's uh a summer peaking system.

So the the kind of infrastructure is designed to be able to handle the uh the highest possible amount of electricity that we're using uh at any time of the year.

And right now, that's you know, think of the hottest day in July or August where everybody's running their air conditioners.

Um so when you add heat pumps onto the system, you're not you're not affecting that peak because at least right now, because you know, you're just adding to the winter load, and we will eventually get to a point where the peak is now in the winter because everybody has heat pumps, but that's a bit far off, and you know, we'll have some lead time and know that um that needs to be added to the system.

Um I think in in terms of uh I guess I um what precedent this would set or or what message it would send, I think that um it uh it kind of shows the the direction that things are heading.

And I think that uh Newport, as I as I mentioned when I spoke earlier, um Newport and the rest of Aquidnik Island could be in a place where uh their uh uh you your residents are sort of ahead of the curve in terms of where this is going uh with the pricing.

Um I think uh a lot of customers are at risk of being caught with those high, much higher gas prices uh in a decade, two decades time.

Uh so I I think um that's kind of what I'm thinking about in terms of where it where it's setting up the utility consumers.

If I could just an additional question, uh I'm a big believer in electrification, right?

My wife and I have an electric vehicle.

Uh we opt to purchase our power that's produced by renewable energy sources.

Um Chair of Providence Water oversaw the transition of that utility entirely to renewable energy generated on site.

Um my question is if many of the trends that we're talking about that will ultimately tip the affordability scale on on gas or requisite on a larger movement of adoption towards electricity.

Why is it that one of the communities in the state, that being this community that already struggles with one of the largest gaps in affordability in the state is the only one that's being asked to consider this moratorium.

If this really is an issue that would be moved substantively through statewide action, why is this not being considered as legislation in the General Assembly for a statewide moratorium rather than just on this community?

Because when I look at um a potential increase or differential for an all-electric user versus uh a household with gas of nearly a 30% higher energy bill, what I'm trying to reconcile with is somebody who represents this community specifically is why our residents or new residents coming to a community strand on housing should be asked to shoulder that higher burden if we're really banking on this whole thing working based on a more broad-based adoption of electricity.

Sure.

Um that that's a great question.

I uh I guess first I would note that um Aquidneck Island is uh perhaps ahead on this, but I think this is something that is going to be looked at statewide within a few years' time.

Um we're gonna have to stop growing the system at some point.

Um and the reason that Aquidneck Island is a little ahead on this is uh the gas pipeline issues that we talked about before.

Um we had the the 2019 outage and we're still left in a place there there's sort of two separate concerns.

One is that um uh as demand grows on, you know, if if we assume there's no moratorium and no other policies to try to to stem the growth of demand, um uh we could get to a point where there's a risk that the the one pipeline into the island isn't capable of uh providing all the uh the gas that's needed at uh the time of greatest demand, and there's also the risk that there could be another interruption of supply, like we saw in 2019.

Um the the old mill lane facility helps to deal with a lot of that.

Um, but as I mentioned before, um even that facility, if we were to see uh some kind of event where there's a total supply disruption, that can't keep everybody's gas on.

Um so I guess that that's that's why uh Aquidneck Island is the focus here.

Um and one thing I would note is that uh I think as I mentioned, there's this separate public utilities commission docket looking at uh kind of uh demand gas demand reduction plan for Aquidneck Island.

So uh if the the state were to move forward with the moratorium, it could be done in conjunction with these programs.

So if we know right now that uh you know there's there's a high cost to installing a heat pump, there can be programs that you know defray that cost uh and and those can be targeted in a way that that helps deal with those issues.

Thanks for that that explanation, but I want to kind of narrow this down a bit further based on recent developments, right?

We we've heard from representative from Rhode Island Energy that the expected growth here is not expected to strain the system beyond what it can currently handle.

And if it were to uh that they have mechanisms in place to guard against that, um we know that both of our neighboring communities, sportsmith and middle town have declined to endorse this concept.

And so I guess what I wrestle with is you know, while I personally may be somebody who believes very deeply in this, what answer do I give to a family in this community that's facing rising housing costs to um people who are looking to make sure they can live within the community that they serve here, facing an additional 30% cost to their cost of living here with their utilities to carry the burden that the rest of this island and that the rest of the state has not yet, I guess come to terms with addressing why is it that Newport, which is a community that struggles with affordability, should be the tip of a sphere on an issue that really is one statewide.

Sure.

Um beyond just aspiration, which well, I may share.

That's that's what I have to reconcile is why is it that working class families in this community should be the tip of the spear for an effort that statewide probably needs to be addressed?

Right.

Um first, I I would distinguish between the kind of overall growth in the load here versus uh the risk of some kind of supply interruption.

So uh it might be the case that with the old mill lane facility, uh Rhode Island Energy feels very comfortable that they can handle that additional load.

Um, but that that doesn't enter the answer the question of uh or or solve the issue of what happens in the event of supply of a supply disruption.

So um uh dealing with demand on the island, including potentially a moratorium, uh has has the effect of of limiting that risk.

Um two other things I would mention.

First is that as I said, um we are uh headed for a place and not or we're headed to um a situation not that far from now where um gas is going to be more expensive and uh Newport is Newport and uh other communities on Equidnik Island are potentially better off if they have more customers who have already switched to what is by then the cheaper fuel.

Um and but that said, uh that uh costs today are obviously very important.

And uh I think that that's what um those accompanying demand uh demand side programs can help to address.

Thank you.

Yep.

Oh okay, thank you.

Um I I do think that it's is really important for us to have this workshop to discuss the pros and cons of of whether or not if Newport opposes the moratorium or supports it, um, I think it's important to be able to give our residents different options uh for energy sources.

One of the major concerns that I'm hearing though is how would this impact our already taxed infrastructure issues?

How adding if if we didn't have the moratorium and we had new hookups, what is that going to do to our our infrastructure?

What would new piping do to to an already problematic system?

Um, but also we're at the end of this pipeline.

So adding new hookups, how does that make us more vulnerable to any disruptions?

Is there anybody from the the city or we can um we have um city engineer and deputy public services director Bill Boardman here to speak on the impact of city streets and the how the physical alteration permit process works for any line work with natural gas.

But your other part, the second part of your question, I don't think the city is uh prepared to speak to.

I don't know if you want to talk about the um physical alteration permit process of how that works, we can have yeah, I think that would be helpful.

Good evening.

Uh again, Bill Boardman, city engineer and uh deputy director.

So we presently have uh a physical alteration permit process by which contractors uh can come to the city, ask permission to excavate within our city right away, whether it's put in a new gas line, water, sewer, um, driveway, etc.

And uh presently uh Redon Energy does come to us for such requests.

And uh typically uh we have on average uh we approve about 160 physical alteration permits from Run Energy every year.

Uh obviously it does fluctuate, but that's uh what we've received.

Uh so far uh in 2025, we have requests for 58 gas services.

And um four of which were in moratorium roads.

We call it moratorium, but really it's uh those roads that were paved within the last five years and require uh the contractor in this case round energy to pave extra space uh to make the road a little bit better than and just a bunch of cuts.

Uh this compares this for gas services within these uh moratorium roadways, uh that compares to uh two um requests in this moratorium roads for water and sewer and electric.

And as you go down uh back in history, 24, 23, uh etc.

It's about 60 on average uh gas services, new gas services.

Um the impact to the roadway when we pave a road, we expect that pavement to last somewhere between 20 to 25 years.

Obviously, every time the road is cut, it takes another cut.

It's a thousand death by a thousand cuts.

And again, you know, uh if you look at the 60 year uh for these new services, how does that compare to 160?

Well, that's you know, another hundred that is just for maintenance, valve repair, uh gas leak detection and replacement and repairs, um, new uh services to relay an existing gas service.

Um and that 160 compares to over maybe around 360 cuts in our room.

So, yes, it's uh it's a major player in our permit system, our physical alteration permits, but by you know by far they're not the only.

So out of the 360, round energy represents 160, and 60 of that is probably new services.

Um so we're still gonna get the cuts.

Who who pays for you know if if a new hookup needs to go in and the street needs to be ripped up and and redone and who who pays for all of that?

Excellent question.

So the the contractor or the owner, I should say, pays for the installation of the service, a temporary repair, and then a permanent repair.

Uh we also partner with round energy.

So on the flip side of that, we have uh a good working relationship with Run Energy.

And every year we get together, uh the group of us and talk about what we want to do this year, next year, next 10 years, uh what we want to do.

And they compare uh what they have for projects, what gas mains they want to replace compared to what roadways we need to replace and where we find common ground.

For example, Poplar Street, they wanted to replace the main and with that all the services of the new house of the houses.

We also wanted to reconstruct that roadway.

So we pushed up our project to meet with their project.

And when they got done, instead of them spending money to replace the pavement, we took that money from them.

All right.

And use that with our other monies to reconstruct the sidewalks and reconstruct the entire roadway.

And so that is a very beneficial partnership that we have with energy.

Okay.

And then I guess the second part of the question was um you know if there's an influx in new hookups, how vulnerable would that make us being at the end of the pipeline and and what kind of service disruptions would we be able to somewhat predict over the next five, 10 years or so.

Right sounds like a Rollin Energy question speak to that um just for context the pipeline you're talking about it's not operated by Rhode Island Energy.

It's operated by Algonquin gas tech uh transmission which is a subsidiary of a company called Enbridge.

That's the pipe that comes under the Sicana River about which there's been much discussion over the years.

They have in the works a reinforcement project that would go upstream um Equidnik Island is served by what's called the G2 lateral the G lateral comes off the pipe where it goes through Barville and northeastern Rhode Island.

It splits into a lateral that goes to the Cape and Southeast Mass and then one that comes to Aquidank Island.

The disruption that was uh felt here in 2019 had to do with a number of different upstream issues convergence of factors on a particular day there is no way to say to you like here's here's the prediction of pipeline disruption um by and large that is something that just doesn't occur.

We plan for it notwithstanding that the island is what we would call a single feed system.

There are only three single feed systems in the state McQuick island is by far the largest of them.

The other ones are manageable meaning manageable if there was an outage it is an isolated incident it can be addressed very quickly with 1300 gas customers the need for redundancy is magnified which is the reason the company pushed for a backup facility at Old Mill Lane.

Okay thank you.

Council uh Council Borbaugh Bill that was uh an interesting stat on the 60 cuts per year for hookups um I'm curious of those cuts how many are for new construction projects and how many are for retrofits on I know just on average what would you guess?

Right.

So I do not track that information and so I I can't speak to you know how that's broken down.

I do collect very limited information as whether it's just is it gas is water um and we get a short description new service the relay and existing service or gas main is very limited information give any insights I think we could go back and look at fine historical parcel data to see where the fuel source changed from oil to gas or propane to gas through our we'd have to you know ask Rhode Island Energy for data or look into our property tax um data through the camera system.

Yeah and I did talk contact the tax assessor to see if we have access to that information and we could track that over time to show those um changes over time and quantify sort of where when where and when those happened I think that'd be helpful just from my own logic just talking openly here the way I look at this I see how as we're barreling down West Main Road we see a brand new construction site with a new building that has lots of new units in it if we can build more efficiently with electricity if that longer term to your point is going to be the more effective way to get people ahead of the curve that makes sense to me where I have a bit of a challenge is that when I think about Newport given our experience looking at housing in our community what we're dealing with is a lot of retrofit.

And what I experienced when I called RISE you know a few months ago and I said hey you know here's the deal I'm lucky enough to already have gas but I want to convert to electricity they said it's not going to work right you live in historic house um we cannot get the envelope to the point where heat pumps are going to be able to support this thank goodness you're connected to gas already that is more efficient.

I think about Newport and I think about when we are looking at the building that's happening here how much of this is retrofit versus how much of this is new construction that data would be helpful to me as a policymaker and figure out my position because we know that the retrofit is not something that is economically feasible.

We know that our residents are already struggling with the rising cost of energy, but also uh the efficiency uh modifications they need to make.

And so a moratorium in my eyes on residents that are already struggling to figure out how they adapt to energy costs, is something that I as a policymaker have a hard time placing uniquely on our community's residents as a burden, even if more globally as a policymaker, that's the direction we need to go.

And so I do differentiate a little bit between what we require within developed areas in our community that need to continue being middle class, working class neighborhoods versus how we look at, for example, development in an area like the north end, um, but specifically on those bridge realignment parcels and what we might strive for in making sure that any new development that happens there doesn't put online the additional burden that uh my colleague here notes is something we need to be thinking about.

Um speaking of the of the north end, would a moratorium negatively impact any commercial growth?

Does anybody did you want to, yeah.

We had a moratorium in the north end and it impacted the growth and didn't have to do with gas hookups, but it had to do with any construction.

Yeah, this is a uh moment again.

My name's Jamie Rhodes.

Um, I'm the director of clean buildings for the Conservation Law Foundation.

And while I can't necessarily answer that question on the commercial growth side of it, um, except in the like the hypothetical side of it is that the same um the same questions come up if for new construction, new construction commercial, new construction residential.

What's the best fit um in that in in that scenario?

And a lot of it, especially in the commercial sector, depends on what are you doing?

Like what is your commercial operations?

If it's a retail store, well, then a heat pump is just as easy to install and operate commercially.

If you are saying uh building a new I don't know, concrete factory just to go to as far on the other side of it, well, then maybe we don't have the electrification effort or the electrification technology available for industrial processes uh to do that.

Um, which also gets to the question that the that you just raised of that's I think that's a good call for why the moratorium, like if there is one, to design it in a way that works.

Perhaps a moratorium looks one way for new construction and say, well, that's a once again, I'm talking hypothetical because there's no real moratorium on there.

Um, but a communication from this from the city to the EFSB is saying, well, if you're considering this, the type of moratorium that might work for us might say, new construction, we can begin with all electric because that's already our building code, all electric ready.

So a moratorium for that can go into effect tomorrow without actually impacting um current existing operations.

But then a moratorium for retrofits, say, well, maybe we need to phase that in over three years.

And maybe the phase in is going to be contingent upon uh sufficient uh state funding or utility funding and um federal funding, though let's not wait for hell to freeze over.

Um, but that's say that this needs to be contingent upon money being available so that we're able to bring down the cost of retrofits.

And so I think that's one of the important considerations here is that opposing a moratorium is to say, well, if one comes, then we're we're subject to whatever you tell us it's going to be, as opposed to uh a proactive communication saying, we hear you, I understand the long-term policy efforts.

So if we are to do one, we would like it to look like this.

This is what we think is probably the best direction for our community to adopt and adapt to a changing environment here.

And the same thing goes for the commercial sectors, like if we're talking small retail, we can do it in one way.

If we're talking food service and preparation, um, I know there's a lot of strong feelings about can you do as much good food service on electric?

I like to argue yes.

Other people disagree, I think that's fair.

Um, and so it can be phased in differently depending on both the uses of the property as well as the availability of additional funds to be able to once again bring that cost into the equitable fact, uh, equitable level.

Um, and then just the last point I wanted to bring on on that point is I think when we're doing that cost comparison, um, one thing to make it to so that we're actually comparing to apples to apples in some way is that to really consider what is the cost of the subsidization that exists for those new lines.

So right now, if it as the the friend from the Bravo group said, if a new of a new gas connection costs 10,000, um, well, right now it's not actually a fair comparison if the customer is not the one paying for it, but we all pay that $10,000.

Plus, we pay the return on equity that the company earns for that.

Then we're going to pay for the removal of those gas, uh gas connections at the time when we're phasing out the system.

So this is continuing to add.

The issue here is that it's not felt individually by one person.

It's all of us are having to pay into that system without much say over whether it happens or not.

As opposed if we were able to remove that subsidy and say, well, look, it's a risk to put in new lines, so that risk should fall on that customer uh alone.

And then they go, well, that makes the question of is this electric or is this gas?

The math that look a little bit different, which is also why we saw Massachusetts move to get rid of the subsidization of the social subsidization of new hookups.

So yeah.

That was excellent.

Question on that last point.

Yeah.

Right.

Uh as somebody's been through PC processes on a couple other utilities, right?

Um what how much additional cost is it per year in terms of rate payer rates?

It's being driven by new utility hookups specifically for gas.

Well, that's a that's a great math problem.

I think I know the data sets, but I'd have to do that.

It's probably part of the docket request, I would assume that goes in that incorporates some level of cost allowance for uh new utility hookups as part of the overall rate request for any rates.

I'll hand it off to I'm gonna have to check on this, I believe.

Okay.

Um, which is an annual filing, but I'm not personally familiar with how that's accounted for in there.

Thank you.

Um at this side, do we have any questions from the public or any statements?

Oh, yeah, come on.

What anything you can sing or yeah, because come up to the public, please.

I just want to make an address if you don't mind.

Martha Klein, Norfolk, Connecticut.

And I drove here from Connecticut because I want to talk about air pollution and human health.

I'm a registered nurse with a background in public health, over 30 years of experience, but really how I heard about this meeting is because I'm the beyond gas lead volunteer for Sierra Club Connecticut.

So I've been involved in this issue for over a decade.

Um natural gas is a marketing term.

Um it's methane.

You've already heard that.

It's a greenhouse gas with 80 to 100 times the power of carbon dioxide to trap heat in the atmosphere.

80% of all domestically drilled methane, domestically, like in the US, is obtained by fracking, which has major upstream effects, uh, and contains trace elements from the drilling slurry, including carcinogens like benzene and naturally occurring radioactive materials or norms.

Um burning methane produces air pollution, it's a fossil fuel.

It does produce less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, half as much carbon as uh coal, a third as much carbon um as oil.

Um, but it definitely produces a lot of air pollution and emissions, and one of the worst ones is the methane it produces that is really dangerous for the climate.

Here's the health part.

The second leasing leading cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular heart disease is air pollution, second leading cause.

First cause, hypertension, high blood pressure.

So there's real, you know, air pollution is invisible, and we often don't think about the impacts that it has on people's health.

In other countries, when a child dies of asthma, depending on where they live, that death may be recorded by the coroner as industrial pollution being caused by industrial pollution.

You you won't see coroners do that in the United States of America.

There are two things definitively we can say about gas pans on gas moratoriums on new hookups, which is what you were here to talk about, uh regarding health.

Gas moratoriums lead to fewer cases of asthma and other negative health consequences.

That's primarily related to that there's fewer nitrogen oxides or NOx in those buildings or residences when you're not burning uh methane.

The second thing we can say definitively is that bans, gas bans lead to cleaner air.

Um the positive effects of doing gas bans, gas moratoriums is related to the fewer toxic emissions in buildings when you are using electricity for heating and cooking.

Um, but you need to do that efficiently, and again, I don't need to repeat that.

We've heard all about why that has to be done in an efficient way.

Uh um gas stores are um gas stoves are related to estimated to be related to up to 13% of uh United States cases of asthma.

So this is a really really significant issue for human health.

I also just wanted to comment just because I've heard so many interesting things tonight, that the issue of cost on gas mortarums on new buildings could very well be exaggerated, if not actually a red herring.

Remember that in a new construction, yes, your electricity bill is now higher.

You're not paying for fossil fuels.

And everybody I know in New England pays much more, at least in the winter months, for their oil or gas bill than they pay for their uh electricity.

So increases in electric bill, but huge declines in your winter fossil fuel bills.

Um and reliability also came up, and I just want to remind people there's approximately 50 years left of proven stores of methane that can be drilled and obtained in our country.

And our country is the biggest uh crew um driller and exporter of methane on the planet.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

I appreciate it.

Ms.

Klein, thank you so much for taking the trip down.

Is there anybody else over there?

Yeah.

So I'll state your name and address, please.

Terry Cortran, 46 Mary Lane in Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

And I'm the state rep for District 72.

And I just want to point to the L and G facility that we've heard about, because that is in my district.

So on behalf of the residents that live around the LNG facility, I want you all to think about your decision.

And I realize the other two communities that I represent did not support the moratorium.

But and I know that having a moratorium won't necessarily make that LNG facility go away.

But for my constituents, anything we can do to start reducing the gas need for gas so that one day, hopefully we can get rid of that LNG, the need for that LNG facility, because I don't think I heard you speak about your constituents.

I don't think you would like that facility in one of your neighborhoods either.

So I encourage you all to drive by Old Mill Lane someday.

Uh it used to be a grass field with a couple of pipes, and now it's an industrial facility.

I know Rhode Island Energy has done a lot to try to make it less obtrusive to the neighbors, but nevertheless, you should drive by and take a look because it wasn't there before, and there's quite a bit of equipment there now to facilitate the whole island's use of gas.

Thank you so much for coming down to the council.

We appreciate it and for all your partnership on all the different legislative initiatives we've had.

Um is there a proposal that'll be coming forth at the state level for a moratorium on gas hookups, or is this something that's just targeted our community right now?

I'm gonna talk to my colleagues about that right after this meeting because I think it's a fair point.

Thank you.

And I think we should hear more when the future of gas docket comes out, which I think is in a couple of weeks, and the act on climate, the report that's gonna give the state direction on how to go.

I'm hoping that's gonna address this issue too, but that is coming within the next weeks or months by the end of the calendar year.

So I would look to that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

Um, Terry, I I have that was actually one of my questions was about the O Mill Lane facility, and I know that that that facility is going to be bearing the burden of the energy reliability impact um of Aquidneck Island.

And what how does that impact the neighborhood and the environment?

What what are your constituents' um concerns for how that's going to impact their overall health?

They talk about just their quality of life.

Um, you know, the view shed, the lights, the sound.

Um, I know Rhode Island Energy has done a lot to address some of those concerns, but Mr.

McDonald, um, I'm sure Rhode Island Energy knows who he is been because he goes to all of the docket items regarding Old Mill Lane, because he lives right across the street from it, and he is impacted and uh speaks passionately about how this has affected their quality of life in that neighborhood.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Yeah, please.

Can I um I know that we've talked a little bit about the state level?

Um I just was wondering if um maybe Jamie or one of you from CLF could just um I was in like I know the EC4 is considering a lot of things like uh the clean heat standard and um other like considerations and I don't know if like just to contextualize like what the state is considering or the EC4, like what the future of that could look like at state policy level.

Yes, yes, yes, yeah.

Hi.

Thank you for hosting for just an introduction.

My name is Tina Munter, and I'm the Rhode Island policy advocate at a nonprofit Green Energy Consumers Alliance.

Um, and I will talk briefly about the climate action strategy, but first I wanted to um kind of go back to a point that you had made earlier, asking about you know, is a moratorium being considered in other communities in Rhode Island?

If not, you know, why is that so?

And uh one policy that myself and my colleagues here have advocated for in the past is an all-electric buildings mandate, which we have pursued legislatively, and that would just require that all new construction built after a certain date is must be built all electric.

However, we haven't yet seen success um with that policy.

However, as was pointed out earlier, the current building code does require electric ready new construction.

So that kind of you know takes that first step of just making sure that all new construction at least has the ability to go all electric without you know additional costs by the same homeowner or a different homeowner if they wish to switch from a gas appliance to an electric appliance.

Um as Avery had mentioned, the state is currently writing their climate action strategy, which is a plan required under the climate law, the act on climate, um, and that is due in the end of December of this year.

Um the EC4 or the Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council is a group of about 13 agency heads in the state that is kind of charged with writing that plan, and they are working with a few consultants, but primarily E3, which is also the consultant that has been working on the state's uh future of gas docket at the public utilities commission.

But specifically, the climate action strategy is meant to kind of look into policies or potential programs that would ensure Rhode Island can actually meet the Act on Climate Mandates, but specifically that 2030 mandate while also keeping in mind the 2040 and the 2050 emissions reductions mandates.

And um, if you guys are around on Friday, midday, they're doing another informational session about what that might include and costs to rate pairs specifically about the potential decarbonization strategies that could be pursued by the state as a whole.

Um but from what stakeholders and the public has seen from initial um you know presentation materials about what the consultant team has modeled, is that certain policies like a clean heat standard or an all-electric buildings act or building performance standards that focuses specifically on the building sector can drive down emissions and they can have very strong equity components, which is very critical, you know, not only for Newport, but across the state as a whole, to ensure that as the state pursues decarbonization throughout all sectors, we're bringing all folks along in the transition, and that costs aren't spiraling out of control the way they might in the scenario that James had described earlier, where you know when there's unmanaged transition off of the gas system, the costs for the system remain the same, but they're spread over fewer and fewer customers, meaning those who are unable to transition, you know, whether someone is a renter and their landlord doesn't choose to, you know, transition to electrification, or they can't afford to make those upfront investments in electric technologies.

Um we don't want them to be left paying those higher and higher costs.

So the strategies and the climate action strategy will be very critical to pursuing decarbonization throughout the state.

But Newport, you know, has the opportunity to kind of come out in front and say, as a town, we recognize the importance of um, you know, a moratorium on new gas connections and what that means in terms of kind of cutting off the expansion of the gas distribution system, which the state is working hard to you know figure out how to move away from.

This may not be for you, but a naive question.

Look, I grew up, my grandfather built hydroelectric dams as an engineer, so big fan fan of um non-fossil fuel energy.

But when we look at the energy that's consumed in Rhode Island on an electricity basis, what is the primary source of that electricity?

Is it the offshore wind?

Is it solar?

Um, or is it fossil fuel generated electricity?

I might ask my call, yeah, James.

Uh I believe right now uh natural gas is the biggest thing in the mix.

But um I I would note that uh even with that being the case, even with renewables kind of slowly coming into the mix, it's already a lot cleaner to heat with the heat pump.

Um and it's only gonna get cleaner as the grid uh gets cleaner.

And of course, in Rhode Island we have our 100% renewable uh electricity by 2033 standard.

Um but yeah, right now it's primarily fossil fuels.

Thank you.

I can actually answer that because I assume we wouldn't put those Newland as a whole, it's about 50% methane gas burning, and then about 30 to 35% of the nuclear power plan in my state that powers all of New England.

Um state has slight variations, so like in my state, it's almost 16% methane burning provides our electricity.

I did look at uh Rhode Island not too long ago, and it wasn't that different, it was similar about you know 55 to 60 methane um Rhode Island is actually more and then you're important in energy from us.

Um Rhode Island is actually more, and then you're importing energy from us.

You guys don't produce all of the thank you.

Any uh further questions or comments from the public?

Yes, sir.

Stay your name and address, please.

Uh Doug Stevenson, uh resident of Newport on Nine Dixon Street.

Um heard a lot of discussion and I I just I'm not hearing a very clear explanation as to why the moratorium is really being suggested.

What problem are we truly trying to solve?

I'm hearing a lot of discussion of climate change and other things that maybe that's not just no Newport's burden to carry.

But what was the real objective here for the uh moratorium?

Um, I'm not hearing that it would have or will perhaps relieve any service disruption like occurred in 2019 because that was caused by uh low pressure lines and not necessarily uh demand on the system.

And I'm not hearing that the demand is going to be increasing substantially over the next few years.

So I'm really not hearing what is the purpose for this more moratorium.

Perhaps that could be described a little more detail.

Thank you.

I don't do you guys want to because it was up to I know the resolution was with you guys.

So if James would like to speak about that, of course, you you are welcome.

I think from our perspective as a commission, um, this came across into our attention um because of the renewal process for Old Mill Lane and the discussion from um during that renewal process of a moratorium as one potential um solution to look towards non-infrastructure um options.

So when they're exploring that, the EFSB, the citing board um asked for input on the more on the concept of a moratorium on new natural gas hookups.

And in that um call, that's when we learned about that.

And so that's where we came into this to say, you know, what our opinion in exploring this would be.

And if you want to talk about the situation.

Yeah, just to um as as I as I mentioned before, um, this uh a moratorium and uh other uh types of policies that could reduce gas demand on the island would have the effect of limiting the vulnerability in the event that there is a future supply disruption.

Uh every you know, one fewer customer relying on gas is one fewer customer that would be left without heat uh in in that scenario where we have another disruption in the future.

Um and that that uh would what you described uh is is correct that uh in in the context of that um docket.

Well, we talked about um potential demand side measures to reduce the need for the old millane facility.

Of course, the people who live close to that would like it to be retired as soon as possible.

So the idea is if we implement these policies and reduce demand, we can bring that date forward when we're able to retire that facility.

Um and I believe it was the commission that actually uh uh brought up uh the idea of uh a moratorium, and I think used the metaphor that if we're bailing water out of a boat, but there's still a hole in the bow and water coming in, it's you know, we're um not necessarily uh gonna be reducing reducing the demand.

So uh the idea really is that if you if you limit new growth onto the system and you have these other policies that are bringing down demand, not just getting people on heat pumps, but energy efficiency, demand response, things like that, you reduce demand over time, and uh you can retire that facility sooner.

I also think could I sorry, Andy.

Um I just wanted also to say that um we are thinking about this in the context of the act on climate, which obviously, you know, electrification and those targets that we talked about before are the law, and there is a component to that law that will allow um folks to take litigative action if that law is not followed.

So I think you know, we're we're thinking about this in that context of how we grow towards electrification, yes, in response to uh the climate crisis.

Um and I also think um the reason that we wanted to bring this up, and we're grateful to have this workshop today, um, is it's not necessarily acutely resolving a problem right now, but we are, as Jamie said earlier, um allowing ourselves a seat at the table to discuss what our future looks like and therefore make this work for Newport and um if we if that is a moratorium, what do those tur terms look like?

And I think that's why we're we're at this literal table today.

Sorry, Andy, please.

I see Mr.

Stevenson standing up, and I may have the same question.

Like I guess we're just uh I'm also curious where the source of the moratorium concept started.

Is it from the EFSB trying to be responsive to citizens that have come to them and saying, hey, what can we do about this?

Is and they they created that the letter that came to the three communities here on Aquidneck Island is that where did where did the source and concept come from?

Sure.

Um well, I think uh kind of um I I would say probably anyone who works in uh kind of climate policy arena hears it suggested in different places at different times.

It's kind of a common potential policy uh idea for uh reducing uh thermal emissions.

Um I I think in the context of the energy facility sighting board docket, uh there were a few parties to the docket and other commenters that mentioned it, including CLF at earlier stages, uh maybe also the attorney general's office.

I think the media center was involved.

Uh uh, but it was mentioned by parties, and uh as I said, I think the uh the the board really sort of pushed the parties for their uh thoughts on it towards the end of the docket because they were uh as the board was being pressed to consider these other uh demand reduction policies, they had that concern of what if we approve these, but people keep getting added onto the system and they kind of cancel each other out.

Um, and I I just find, and I I know I've said this in our own commission that the term moratorium is a tricky term because it's hard to understand, and even you've said there is could be variations on what moratorium means, which then of course throws in everybody until I think about what those might be and how we should think about them in the context of this decision.

And without knowing that, it's just only a single word on the and we're asked to respond to only a single thing, moratorium.

I I would say that um I I think that the uh I I don't speak for the board, but I expect that they would be very open to uh any kind of feedback that includes uh something like, you know, we're we're potentially so you know, we're supportive of this, but uh you know, we want to make sure it's designed carefully and we want there to be further process on it.

Um and I I very much expect that that if if they were to uh move forward with this, it would not be just a black and white, you know, no new gas connections as of tomorrow.

Um there could be, I'm sure there would be uh exploration of you know how you know when should it be rolled in?

Are there certain types of customers that uh maybe need gas and we want to exclude from this or push their date back?

I mean, there's um I I expect that there would be lots of lots of process in designing what it would look like.

Hi, Linda Stevenson, nine Dixon Street.

Um I appreciate the workshop.

I think it's always important to have debate on a topic, especially something as um important as this.

Um I do have to say, I think it's a little bit of a swing and a miss though.

What we're hearing here is pretty much one side.

I don't see experts from the other side offering a lot of statistics on you know what caused the the gas problem.

Is that something that's gonna happen again?

I appreciate their attorney here, but he's not an expert on the actual gas situation.

And I think that's unfortunate because I don't think we're getting a full picture, and I feel upset about that.

Um let's talk about reliability for just a minute.

I've had gas in at least four different homes in four different states.

I have never gone without gas, including in 2019 when we had the gas problem here.

My house was not affected.

A lot of people were not affected.

It was the only people that had the old gas meters, as I was told by one of the gas officials that went down the street.

So the gas has always been reliable, whether I was in New York City, here where you know, Massachusetts, all the different houses I had, I had gas.

How many times did I lose electricity?

Every single house I lost electricity, whether it be a storm, whether it be a crash, whether it be whatever fluke, every single house that I lived in, I've lost electricity.

Sometimes up to more than a week.

And let me tell you, when I lost electricity, I was darn happy that we had gas.

We still had heat from our fireplace, and we still had cooking.

We had friends over who didn't have gas, and we were providing soup and meals on top of the stove.

So as far as reliability, I think that is really something in a new England climate to take into consideration.

I also was at a zoning meeting about a year ago where they were asked to put in um more EV chargers than what they had proposed when they did some renovations.

And the engineer for the hotel said not possible.

The infrastructure could not handle that amount.

And I want to say the amount was like 10.

And they were offering four.

So when you're talking about, you know, your infrastructure for gas has to be updated.

I think you're going to see your infrastructure for electricity is also going to be updated and need a lot of help in regards to you know handling all the electric things that are coming down the pike here, be it AI, etc.

Um, it's also a known fact, as Councillor Camp Savorgan had mentioned, electric heat pumps are not the answer for everybody here in Newport.

They're first of all, they're not as efficient in severe cold weather.

So that's a problem as well.

Um and lastly, we're in America.

Let's give people a choice.

I I moved from oil to gas thinking that was a cleaner option.

Why are you going to ask through the gas?

Why not start with the oil people and say, hey, you know what?

We're going to phase out oil furnaces.

If you know, if pollution, if green climate is really what you want to, you know, change.

And lastly, keep in mind China is putting a coal plant online once a week for calendar year 2025.

So all of this not going to matter at all.

Thank you.

Uh, any further comment or questions from the public?

Anything from our council or missions?

No?

All right.

Well, um, I appreciate everyone coming tonight.

Um, whether or not, I mean, I I thought it was very informative.

I get it, get a lot of information.

And uh, you know, I I speak for my constituents, which is the you know the city of Newport and the people that that I talk to.

Uh, so when this when this does come up in front of the council, we'll have um uh really robust discussion, I'm sure, amongst the uh the council.

So uh thank you for tonight, and we'll see you guys next time.