Opinion: An independent transmission monitor could cut ratepayer costs
Energy affordability is in the spotlight, and the public is rightfully demanding answers.
A significant factor increasing bills is the expense of maintaining and upgrading the aging electric power grid. The cost of transmission —the long-distance lines that move electricity across the region from where it is generated to our homes and businesses—has more than doubled since 2005, from 10% to 24% of the average customer bill.
If we’re serious about protecting families and businesses from unnecessary energy costs, Connecticut and New England need an independent entity that scrutinizes transmission projects and ensures they are correctly sized and optimized for actual grid needs. Consumers should be paying for reliability and resilience, not excess infrastructure that pads shareholder profits.
Currently, transmission companies are pouring money into refurbishing and replacing old transmission infrastructure. The annual cost of these local projects, called Asset Condition Projects (ACPs), has skyrocketed regionally from $58 million in 2016 to $1.2 billion in 2024.
In Connecticut, there were 18 ACPs under construction as of October 2025, at an estimated cost of over $1 billion, with 12 more ACPs planned for the future. ACP projects now dwarf investments in other kinds of new transmission, and Connecticut and other New England electric customers are on the hook.
ACPs could strategically increase grid capacity through the use of new technologies and upgrades, but they most often replace existing equipment or make minimal upgrades, failing to optimize the system as a whole. Unoptimized ACPs are a missed opportunity to maximize cost efficiencies in transmission planning. In some cases, ACPs may be overbuilt, and in others a lack of anticipatory investments may prevent the grid from growing to accommodate future electrification or new generation (like renewable energy) in a least-cost manner – leading to unnecessary ratepayer costs.
Oversight of ACP spending has been practically non-existent. ACPs are reviewed by the regional grid operator’s (ISO-NE) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), but they are often submitted to the PAC as little as 90 days before construction is set to begin. That is far too little time to do meaningful review. And, states and stakeholders face a major informational disadvantage to rebut and refine transmission owners’ plans.
Proposed Mass Save cuts are a short-sighted move that will cost ratepayers – and the environment – more in the end
It’s on front pages and in speeches. It’s at dinner tables and in living rooms. The word is “affordability,” and there’s a good reason it’s everywhere. Too many residents of the Commonwealth feel the cost-of-living squeeze and struggle to keep up with tighter family budgets.
Eight out of ten Massachusetts residents are concerned about their utility bills. In fact, energy affordability ranks as the top household concern in the Bay State, where average electricity bills consistently rank among the highest in the country. For families already making trade-offs between groceries, rent, and health care, energy has become another painful expense.
Acadia Center found that energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts delivered $34 billion in lifetime benefits between 2012 and 2023, returning more than $3.50 for every $1 invested. Those savings are more than real—they show up in real-time.
To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.
Massachusetts leaders have plans to reduce utility bills. Does their math add up?
Under pressure for months over skyrocketing heating and electricity charges, Massachusetts House lawmakers last month took steps to check some of the nation’s highest utility bills.
And they’re not modest about the result: a whopping $9 billion in potential savings for ratepayers over the next decade, they claim, with immediate savings on the way.
Don’t cash that check just yet.
“There’s a lot of unpredictability in this business. It can be difficult to anticipate with exact precision what some of these changes might actually do,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the advocacy group the Acadia Center.
To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.
Mass. governor orders state to pursue 15 GW of resources, including storage, VPPs
Massachusetts has some of the highest electricity prices in the country, though the prices are similar to those in the rest of New England and some other states.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, residential customers in Massachusetts paid an average of 30.88 cents/kWh in December, compared with 31.15 cents/kWh in Rhode Island and 34.71 cents/kWh in California.
Healey officials said the new energy resource and storage targets can help to address the region’s affordability issues.
The Acadia Center, which supports clean energy solutions, applauded Healey’s executive order.
“Proposals such as developing new natural gas pipeline capacity will only do more to exacerbate the overreliance and overexposure New England ratepayers already face” to the price volatility of fossil fuel-based energy, Jamie Dickerson, senior director of climate and clean energy programs at Acadia Center, said in a statement. The Healey administration has “wisely chosen to keep the focus where it needs to be: on promoting new clean electricity supply, new energy storage, new grid connections, and new demand-side flexibility measures.”
At 10 GW, Dickerson said the proposal “can collectively deliver a clean energy pipeline to meet the reliability needs of the region at far lower cost.”
To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.
Acadia Center Applauds Massachusetts Governor Healey for Timely Executive Order Promoting Cheapest, Fastest-to-Deploy Clean Energy Resources, Inclusion of Supply, Storage, Grid, and Demand-Side Solutions to Drive Energy Affordability
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x102
*Region will enhance affordability and reliability with gigawatt-scale annual deployments
*Demand-side flexibility solutions will help manage peaks, reduce infrastructure costs
*Portfolio of solutions vital to insulate against risk of fuel price shocks from global events
*Gas system investments must pass non-pipeline solutions screening, prove compatibility with least-cost, clean energy pathways for affordability and reliability
WINCHESTER, MA — Today, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and state energy officials announced a timely and important new Executive Order aimed at driving a coordinated, 15 gigawatt (GW) build-out of clean energy resources to meet the pressing affordability and reliability needs of the moment. Coming on the heels of continued hostility and intransigence on energy policy from the federal government, today’s action leans strongly into the substantial legal and policy authorities that states possess to shape their energy future and serve as a bulwark against federal backsliding. And critically, the Executive Order represents a compelling and effective portfolio of solutions to counter the continued misguided pressure campaign to double-down on the Commonwealth’s overreliance on natural gas with more interstate pipeline capacity. Acadia Center applauds the Healey-Driscoll Administration for standing strong against such counterproductive proposals and laying out a ten-year plan that can move the Commonwealth and region more decisively in the direction it needs to go. It is essential that the review of natural gas and oil storage capacity directed by the Executive Order scrutinize all existing and/or newly proposed fossil fuel resources for compatibility and compliance with legally mandated emission reduction pathways, including by applying robust non-pipeline/non-fuel solutions screening and maximizing contributions from demand-side flexibility.
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation at Acadia Center, said, “At a time when some states are backing off of climate commitments and falsely blaming renewables for rising prices, I am proud that Massachusetts stays grounded in reality. I applaud the Healey-Driscoll administration for doubling-down on a strategy that will actually deliver energy independence and affordability to the Commonwealth.”
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center, said, “Recent events unfolding in global energy markets demonstrate all too vividly how susceptible current fossil fuel-based energy systems are to price shock events and extreme volatility in fuel costs. Proposals such as developing new natural gas pipeline capacity will only do more to exacerbate the overreliance and overexposure New England ratepayers already face. The Healey-Driscoll Administration has wisely chosen to keep the focus where it needs to be: on promoting new clean electricity supply, new energy storage, new grid connections, and new demand-side flexibility measures, which – at the scale of 10+ gigawatts – can collectively deliver a clean energy pipeline to meet the reliability needs of the region at far lower cost.”
Acadia Center has previously shared a similar vision about building out a clean energy pipeline for the Northeast region, and the organization is grateful to see this framing mirrored in the Governor’s actions today. The scale of the build-out envisioned in today’s announcement – on the order of 1-2 GW per year for 10 years – would make important strides toward the level of deployment that will ultimately be needed for the region to meet its broader goals for least-cost emissions reductions and preserving reliability. Acadia Center’s prior analysis conducted with Clean Air Task Force (CATF) suggested the region would need to ramp up clean energy deployments toward an average of 4-5 GW of new clean energy per year over the coming two decades years.
Mounting evidence makes clear that the fossil fuel alternatives – including adding interstate natural gas pipeline capacity – would come at substantial added costs to ratepayers. Acadia Center recently released analysis breaking down why a new natural gas pipeline would in fact exacerbate rather than relieve energy affordability pressures, including based on the upward pressure on natural gas prices from greater exposure to international fossil fuel commodity markets, such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – see Figure 1 below. This dynamic has sadly become even more acute in recent weeks with the price of oil and natural gas rising substantially in response to the fuel supply chain disruptions in the Middle East (including the world’s single largest LNG facility completely offline in Qatar). Today’s overreliance on fossil fuels – New England spends some $75 billion dollars a year on energy and fuel, two thirds of which is spent on oil and gas from outside the region – will leave families and businesses exposed to these rising costs, but for the actions of policymakers to hasten the clean energy transition.
About the Executive Order
The Governor’s Executive Order contains a number of notable actions, including the following highlights:
Clean energy supply:
- The E.O. directs six and a half (6.5) gigawatts (GW) of new clean supply resources online, under contract, or under development by the end of 2035. This will include four new GW of solar and two-and-a-half GW of “new energy supply” into the New England power grid connecting to Massachusetts customers.
- The E.O. does not specify what will make up the 2.5 GW of new energy supply, but it presumably includes major contributions from northern New England renewable capacity unlocked by the Longer-Term Transmission Planning (LTTP) investment and forthcoming Northern Maine RFP, other potential interregional transmission investments stemming from the Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission, along with potential Canadian offshore wind supply pursuant to the recently enacted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nova Scotia. It is not clear how/whether other earlier-stage resources mentioned in the E.O., such as new nuclear energy, geothermal resources, or other “non-fossil thermal energy sources” might also fit into this category.
- The E.O. also establishes an additional goal of five GW of energy storage online or under development within Massachusetts by the end of 2035. This is a new/expanded storage target, on top of the 5 GW Section 83E requirements passed in the Climate Act of 2024.
Clean energy demand:
- To meet the overall 10 GW goal by 2035, the E.O. contemplates deploying three-and-a-half (3.5) new GW from demand management resources, such as virtual power plants, electric vehicle charging management, energy efficiency and demand response programs. This would constitute a major new demand-side portfolio, representing the ability to flex or shift more than 13% of the region’s summer and winter peaks forecast for the mid-2030s (e.g., net summer peak of 26,897 MW in 2034) – on top of existing demand management portfolios from Mass Save and Connected Solutions.
- This amount of flexible demand would also be substantially larger than estimates for growth in winter peak demand driven by heating electrification in Massachusetts (2,167 MW in 2034), demonstrating that electrification of space heating can be effectively managed when paired with smart demand management.
- This investment in flexible demand and virtual power plant capabilities will help directly target the costliest peak periods for the grid and broader energy systems each year. Recent analysis conducted for New York State identified that grid flexibility could reduce future peaks by more than 20% by 2040 – critical when many fixed infrastructure costs are driven by these peaks (e.g., each GW of peak demand is expected to drive $750m to $1.5b in transmission costs in New England).
Gas System Transition:
- The E.O. also directs Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) agencies to “review existing natural gas and oil storage capacity and utilization and coordinate with gas utilities, fossil fuel generation facilities, and other New England states to develop greater clarity on how the Everett Marine Terminal and other fuel storage assets may contribute to meeting regional energy supply needs and maintaining system reliability,” aligned with goals of meeting winter energy needs reliably and affordably.
- The E.O. also directs agencies to identify “identify whether additional, strategically located storage capacity or delivery capabilities could provide reliability and affordability benefits to all ratepayers and align with existing regulations.” Agencies are to propose recommendations to “ensure adequate natural gas and oil storage capacity and delivery capabilities that promote reliability and affordability, avoid unnecessary spending and adding charges to customer bills, and are aligned with existing regulations.”
- Acadia Center is pleased to see that solutions like new interstate gas pipeline capacity are off the table given the focus on avoiding unnecessary spending and adding charges to customer bills and the stated alignment with existing regulations, such as those in force pursuant to the Commonwealth’s legally binding emissions reductions requirements.
Grid Planning and Investment:
- Section 3 of the E.O. directs a wide range of positive grid-planning and distributed energy resource advancements, including:
- Managing increased DG interconnection requests to maximize IRA tax credit eligibility;
- Developing flexible interconnection programs; investigating the impact of and energy affordability solutions for large commercial customers such as data centers;
- Expediting review of proposals for time-of-use (TOU) rates, DER, energy efficiency, and virtual power plants;
- Proliferating models for community energy resilience hubs such as community microgrids; establishing clean energy ready zones; and
- Examining pathways to lower the cost to ratepayers of transmission infrastructure necessary to meet energy needs in alignment with other states throughout the New England region (more to come on this subject from Acadia Center and partners soon!); among other actions.
Broad Support for Driving Affordability with Clean Energy
Recent polling work demonstrates strong and enduring public support for renewable energy and energy efficiency among New England voters, including accurate beliefs about many of the top underlying drivers of energy cost increases, including utility profits, natural gas infrastructure maintenance, and extreme weather. More information about Acadia Center’s analysis on energy cost drivers can be accessed here.
Acadia Center looks ahead with excitement to the opportunity to help the Commonwealth implement and make good on the provisions of this important executive action in keeping with the imperatives of climate, affordability, equity, safety and reliability, and beyond. The organization looks forward to working with members of the Healey-Driscoll Administration, the Legislature, and beyond.
How Renewable Energy Lowers the Price of Electricity on the Wholesale Market
Renewable energy offers several benefits, from public health to energy independence. One of the most powerful advantages, however, is its ability to lower the price of electricity on the wholesale market. This effect is called price suppression, and it’s why renewable energy is key to energy affordability.
Synapse Energy Economics estimated that between 2014 and 2019, BTM solar reduced wholesale energy market costs in New England by $1.1 billion. Another report from the Acadia Center found that on the highest-peak day of 2025, behind-the-meter solar met around 22% of system load, translating to more than 5,000 MW of distributed solar generation. This had the combined benefit of suppressing demand, preventing blackouts, and saving customers collectively between $8.2 million and potentially $19.4 million in energy costs.
Overall, bringing renewables online stabilizes the clearing price against volatile oil and gas prices, which leads to significant cost savings for ratepayers.
To read the full blog from Green Energy Consumers Alliance, click here.
The Solar Industry Has Been Bogged Down by Red Tape. Digital Tools Are Changing That.
When Paul Dale decided to expand his rooftop solar system in Massachusetts three years ago, he thought it would be a breeze. He already had 22 panels. The addition of eight panels and battery storage would lower his family’s utility bill and boost their energy independence. Dale signed a contract with solar installer Solaris Renewables in January 2023.
Americans’ energy bills are rising at rates not seen in decades, with some community advocacy groups reporting that electricity bills have shot up by an average of 30 percent since 2021. As the Trump administration attempts to keep people hooked on fossil fuels, local leaders are approving multidecade contracts with oil, gas, and even coal companies. These de facto energy monopolies are expected to cost ratepayers millions.
To read the full article from Sierra Club, click here.
As tax-cut ballot battle looms, Healey sees risk. Business leaders see relief.
Markey: Trump’s out of gas on Iran
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey used a stop outside a gas station in Malden last week to take a double-shot at President Donald Trump over rising prices at the pump and the Republican administration’s opposition to alternative energy.
Dan Gatti, a transportation policy expert at the Acadia Center, said the joint U.S./Israeli campaign in Iran and the ongoing war in Ukraine underscore the same problem: The world remains too dependent on fossil fuels.
“Here in New England, we spend $75 billion per year on energy and fuel, most of which is spent on oil and gas, which comes from outside our region,” Gatti said. “When energy prices spike, some politicians reach for gimmicks like cutting energy efficiency programs or asking ratepayers to subsidize more fossil fuel infrastructure. But making consumers pay for gas pipelines will increase costs, not decrease them.”
To read the full article from MassLive, click here.
Ratepayer revolt: Has the affordability debate soured Mass. on climate commitments?
When House Democrats first floated a plan to take the teeth out of the state’s next big deadline for slashing greenhouse gas emissions, Gov. Maura Healey did not have much to say about it.
Instead, she wanted to talk about reducing household electricity and gas costs.
“The conversation has changed. A lot of people are less likely to bring up climate on their own,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts state director for the Acadia Center, a climate advocacy organization. “Affordability, as anyone who pays attention to this stuff can see, has become the name of the game.”
Murray, the Acadia Center leader, said energy affordability is an important topic that deserves legislative attention. But the problem, he thinks, comes when policymakers “assign blame” for high costs and in doing so target programs that are only one factor among many.
He argued the Mass Save cut pursued by the House would “utterly devastate and probably break the program.”
To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.
Congestion Pricing: Unpacking the First Year of Impressive Impact
For too long, traffic congestion has been treated as an unavoidable cost of urban life. Yes, it’s frustrating to be stuck in traffic, yes congestion is dangerous to pedestrians and drivers alike, and yes, traffic jams are concentrated sources of air pollution that disproportionately impact people living in dense urban areas. But decades of experience adding vehicle lanes, hoping that “one more lane will fix it” have amply demonstrated that adding more space for vehicles merely attracts additional traffic rather than resolving the problem. So what can be done? Perhaps having the average driver sit in traffic for 50,100 hours a year is just the price of economic progress.
Over the past year, New York City has demonstrated that ever-increasing traffic congestion is not an inevitability but a choice that can be addressed through smart policy. New York’s congestion pricing system places a modest fee of $9 on drivers entering into Manhattan’s central business district, perhaps the most heavily congested area in the entire country, during certain peak hours. Instead of adding more lanes of traffic, NYC’s plan uses pricing signals to use our existing transportation infrastructure more efficiently.
The results are in from the first year of implementation, and the program is working – resoundingly so.
Year One: NYC’s Congestion Relief Zone is Thriving
As MTA Chief, Policy and External Relations John J. McCarthy has said: “Traffic and pollution are DOWN, business is UP, and every other metric shows congestion relief is WORKING!!”
According to the MTA data:
- Traffic volumes are down: “11% fewer vehicle entries between January and October”
- Buses are more reliable: “Bus speeds in the CRZ increased 2.3% YoY between January and September,” and “Bus ridership increased by 8%
- Emissions have eased: “GHG emissions decreased 6.1% YoY between January and September.”
- Transit funding has increased: “$468M in net revenue raised through October”
- Less vehicle crashes: “a 21% decrease” in crashes involving trucks in the CRZ
- Taxis did not suffer: “Taxi and FHV trips increased 1.4% within the CRZ January through September.”
These results matter, and they are exactly what urban economics theory says should happen when implementing congestion pricing, based in part on what has been affirmatively demonstrated in other similar programs around the globe, such as London.
From Taboo to Textbook: How Congestion Pricing Became the Norm
This is not what the critics of congestion pricing expected.
Critics of the program took one look at the addition of a fee to transportation and assumed drivers would revolt.
And, before its implementation, congestion pricing was treated like a political third rail, from elected officials tiptoeing around it to headlines warnings of mass chaos and lawsuits. Every opposition talking point assumed that once the policy went live, public backlash would force a retreat.
But that didn’t happen. The most inflammatory predictions faded fastest. There was never any sustained objection from commuters, nor a wave of political reversals (although the CRZ fee was reduced from $15 to $9). What once dominated headlines now is approaching an uncontroversial opinion thanks to the growing appreciation for and support of the program’s benefits.
What Arguments Collapsed and Why
Some critiques didn’t just weaken; they were completely disproven.
“This will punish the working class.” This claim assumed that most low-and-moderate-income (LMI) commuters are mostly driving into Manhattan. But, what is true today is that the vast majority of working-class New Yorkers take the train or the bus into the congestion zone in Manhattan. This is the justification that the Trump Administration has given to try and kill congestion pricing.
“Traffic will just move elsewhere.” Spillover was treated as an inevitable outcome. This one is more complicated, with some areas and routes having some months with worse traffic and others with better. The jury is out, but in the region as a whole, traffic is down, not just shifted. In practice, traffic reduction in the core didn’t make other corridors more congested. Travel behavior adjusted by some trips shifting mode, time, or some trips not happening at all. That is the whole point of pricing.
“Negative Economic Impact on Businesses.” According to the NYS governor’s office,” the Manhattan Economy is Thriving: Best Year for Office Leasing in 23 Years; Foot Traffic Up From 2024; Sales Tax Receipts up Over 6%”. The fear that congestion pricing would negatively impact the economy has been completely disproved. More foot traffic has meant that the storefronts are more likely to receive more visitors.
“People won’t tolerate paying to drive.” This argument underestimated how quickly people adapt once rules are clear and consistent. Predictability matters. Once congestion pricing became a stable feature of the system, behavior simply adapted. A recent poll demonstrated that 57 percent of New York City residents now want congestion pricing to continue, a remarkably high level of support for a policy that imposes fees on drivers. Drivers paying the fee recognize the benefits they themselves derive in the form of reduced commute times, thanks to bridges and tunnels now substantially cleared of once-debilitating traffic and lost time.
This Is Exactly What Happened in Other Jurisdictions
The growing political support for congestion pricing matches the experience of other cities around the world that have implemented congestion pricing programs: the public is initially skeptical, but opinion turns around once people see that congestion pricing is delivering real world results.
In London, when congestion charging was introduced in 2003, opposition outweighed support before the program went into effect. Many drivers feared it would hurt businesses or simply fail to reduce traffic. But once the charge was implemented and central London traffic volumes fell by roughly 15–20 percent, with bus speeds improving and travel times becoming more reliable public opinion shifted. Over time, a majority of Londoners came to support keeping the program in place.
A similar pattern unfolded in Stockholm, where congestion pricing was first introduced as a temporary trial in 2006. Support hovered around 40 percent before implementation. After residents experienced noticeable reductions in congestion and improved air quality, support rose sharply, eventually exceeding 60–70 percent. What had been politically contentious became broadly accepted once people saw that the policy worked.
What all of these examples demonstrate is that drivers are actually willing to pay a bit more, once they see that the program is working and providing tangible benefits.
The Real Takeaway: Starting is the Hard Part
Congestion pricing’s first year confirms something known but often underestimated: the hardest part of change is starting. With 2026 now in full swing, let’s take this as a reminder that implementation is a matter of taking the plunge. The political costs of starting something are worth the risk.
Congestion pricing didn’t win because it avoided controversy. It won because it endured it long enough for reality to take over. What was once framed as radical now reads like a case study from an urban economics textbook, but with tangible, real-world – not academic – benefits and impacts on people’s daily lives.
The lesson isn’t that every reform will be painless. It’s that durability comes from follow-through. If you can get to day one, and the policy does what it’s supposed to do, day 365 looks a lot less scary.
The congestion pricing framework that ultimately launched at a $9 charge was not the program’s originally proposed price. Earlier analyses suggested that a $15 charge would deliver greater congestion reduction and generate more revenue to support major transit investments. The difference between $9 and $15 isn’t just arithmetic. It’s the difference between managing congestion and reshaping how people move through the city.
After one year, the most important barrier has already been cleared: implementation. The program works, the public is adjusting, and the direst predictions did not materialize. The political cost of starting has already been paid. Having proven congestion pricing works, the question now is, will policy makers allow it to reach its full potential?