Climate and Affordability Do Go Hand in Hand. So Must Courage.

Acadia Center – Climate, Affordability, and Courage – NYs Climate Act in 2026

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

– President John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1962.

On March 20, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signaled her Administration’s proposal to roll back the state’s landmark Climate Act in critical ways. At a pivotal moment for energy policy and affordability politics nationwide, Hochul argued that changes to the nation-leading law would be necessary to “protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy.”

Climate action and energy affordability indeed must go hand-in-hand. In fact, they already do. But so too must courage: courage to do what is right based on the facts, even though and because it is hard, and even though failure is possible. But more importantly, because we know that if we succeed, the improvements to New Yorkers’ everyday lives will be deep and widespread – for their pocketbooks, their homes, their mobility, their jobs, their health, and their communities. This courage hangs in the balance as the State reaches a key crossroads on climate, energy, and affordability.

The proposed changes to the law would not only back the State away from something because it is perceived – erroneously – as too hard, but would do so without fully trying – with numerous beneficial policies not yet implemented. There are still four and a half years left until the end of 2030, the first major emissions milestone in the Climate Act. Never before in human history have changes to the means of energy production, consumption, and storage been developing so rapidly. Take, for example:

• Pakistan – a nation of considerably less wealth than New York, but with a power grid of comparable size – has developed 43 gigawatts (!) of solar since 2022, saving $12 billion in fossil fuel costs through February 2026 (and counting, with the Strait of Hormuz still closed and fuel commodities spiking).
• Denmark – much wealthier, but still vastly smaller in GDP than New York State – increased its share of battery electric vehicle purchases from a rounding error to more than 90% in just eight years, effectively the same share of EV sales that New York needed (needs) to achieve by 2030.
• California – larger, but similar in many ways to New York from a policy leadership perspective – has made such swift in-roads on battery energy storage that its fleet of grid batteries (12+GW, almost all built in the last five years), is now meeting as much as 43% of peak daily demand.

These examples illustrate the vast, foundational shifts that are actively unfolding in energy markets across the globe. What’s more, there are many new policy tools that can be implemented to counteract the federal headwinds and backfill solutions New York had previously been counting on for 2030, like offshore wind.

The State may feel like its hands are tied given the unprecedented hostility from the Trump Administration, but it should instead be taping up its wrists and putting the gloves on again – the Empire State still has more than a fighter’s chance. Governor Hochul has the chance to lead New York into the next round of this fight and leave her own positive mark on the pressing energy, climate, and affordability debates of the day.

A Brief Journey Back in Time

I directly lived the early arc of the Climate Act while in New York State service, an experience that is and will remain a highlight of my entire career. I started working at NYSERDA less than a month after the Act’s passage, back when the very first offshore wind contracts were awarded to Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind (both projects are moving toward completion but still not operating yet, almost seven years later). And, I concluded my time in New York less than two months after the Climate Action Council’s approval of the Final Scoping Plan.

That was the roadmap. That was the plan. It’s still there as a guide, even though so much has changed since then. Sadly, too little of that thoughtful plan has yet been turned into reality.

I also lived all of the messy middle in between: a pandemic that hit first and hardest in New York City, with an enormous mobilization of State resources to help protect families and communities. As imperfect as the COVID response may have been, playing a small role in that and even just seeing it firsthand is one of my proudest memories of New York State service. That was government and New York State at its best; at the very least, an indicator of what the State could do when much needed to be done by a lot of people in a short amount of time.

Despite the time, focus, and shifts made because of the pandemic, the State team forged ahead with Climate Act planning and implementation. The Herculean task of wrangling numerous State agencies had to pivot on a dime and move to virtual platforms. Tens and tens of Advisory Group meetings. Countless agency coordination and planning meetings. Dozens more Climate Action Council meetings. Hundreds of hours conducting analysis, working with Advisory Group and Council members, drafting recommendations, performing pathways and integration analyses, workshopping and refining work-products, and negotiating final language.

This too was an enormous mobilization of State resources for the good of the people of New York. It should and must not go to waste or have been in vain – it deserves at least as great of a mobilization to try, fail, try, fail, and try again in pursuit of the difficult but important targets in the Climate Act. It’s not just the investment of time and expertise; it’s about what the State will risk missing out on and the signal sent if it chooses to delay.

Yes, the Climate Act’s requirements are unique in their ambition and the level of emissions reductions that they require, making New York’s journey harder than other states. But New York can and should try to go further: because it has a strong foundation (hydro, nuclear, the MTA); because it has the best and most abundant State agency resources; because of the impact of its historic economic activity and emissions; because it is home to Wall Street and the highest nominal GDP per capita of any state. And because what is a state to do if not to live up to its motto (Excelsior, or Ever Upward).

And then, centrally, there are the vast benefits that New York will derive from striving for the deeper ambition in its law. A cap-and-invest program, one example policy core to the fulfillment of the Climate Act, promises to:

• Create 300,500 new jobs, paying 21% above the statewide median income;
• Deliver $6.9 billion in net savings for households earning up to $200,000 (nearly 85% of New Yorkers) – $1,060 per household – over its first decade; and
• Generate $13 billion in annual health benefits by 2035, preventing over 1,000 premature deaths and 137,000 emergency room visits from asthma, among other benefits.

These numbers are staggering – so much so that policymakers must stop and ask what the cost of slowing or inaction is, more so than the cost of acting. New York can’t afford to miss out on this immense positive impact, which will touch every corner of the State – via economic growth, technology adoption, improved air quality, public health savings, enhanced resilience, and beyond.

Having personally worked hard for 3-4 years alongside more than a hundred staffers across agencies in support of the Climate Act and Scoping Plan, I would be deeply saddened to see that valuable work fade away without maximal effort and backing. Not many know that New York had already done a previous climate action plan way back in 2010, which (as I understand it) essentially died on the vine after Governor Paterson left office. New York cannot keep walking itself up to the start line with a solid plan, only to back out of the race at the last minute. Governor Hochul’s opportunity is to pair courage with conviction and make certain that this time is different.

I now work at Acadia Center, a regional research, clean energy, and climate advocacy organization working across the Northeast. This broader perspective underscores three critical points: 1) New York’s actions have wide impact: what New York does in this space matters well beyond the political boundaries of the state, in fact to the whole nation and beyond. It’s leadership ripples outward, but so too does a signal about backtracking; 2) All states are in this together: working cooperatively with similar goals, states can expand markets, reduce costs, and benefit from strategic efforts. New York is already doing this, and it can do more still; and 3) Energy affordability – and the real drivers of cost increases – in the legacy system is shaped by forces well beyond the control of any one state: volatile global fossil fuel markets, failures of incumbent industries to invest in new technologies, financial market practices underpinning utility regulation, and beyond.

And if the State ultimately falls short, the people of New York and its leaders can live with that outcome, knowing the State gave it its all. Throwing in the towel four-plus years early is not exhausting all reasonable efforts.

Unpacking the Real Underlying Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

Governor Hochul herself wisely acknowledges that “the Climate Act is not the driver of the high energy prices we are experiencing,” resting her concern on the future costs of compliance. But, to truly solve for affordability and address the looming legacy energy bills coming due, the State must attack the core underlying drivers of energy cost in New York, so many of which are shared in common with other similarly situated states (as Acadia Center has documented in detail). Fossil-based, one-directional energy systems are teetering on the edge of affordability because they suffer from:

• Inefficiency: Combustion-based system loses some 2/3 of energy inputs – 64% lost in New York.
• Inflexibility: Low utilization of the grid and energy systems (55% load factor in NYISO) and a deep, stark absence of energy storage as a buffer at all levels of the system.
• Lack of scale: Insufficient connections and planning between neighboring grid regions.
• Volatile fuel costs: Increasingly globalized fuel supply chains leave all users exposed to swings in fuel prices.
• Under-innovation: Failure to invest in low-cost, advanced technologies (e.g., Grid Enhancing Technologies like real-time weather-based ratings for the capacity of our power lines).
• Cost recovery: Legacy utility business models, funding methods, and rate designs for infrastructure investment and programs.

New York State spends upwards of $75 billion on energy and fuels every year, roughly two thirds of which is spent on fossil fuels from outside the state. (Not all energy from out of state is bad. Electrons, like those from CHPE, are good!) But sending so many dollars out of the economy on fossil fuels that are deeply inefficient and harmful to communities and the environment is a core underlying driver of the State’s energy costs and ‘how we got here.’

Those fossil prices and expenditures are likely to go up in the short-term (and stay there a while) due to impacts from the War in Iran. That affects gasoline, diesel, natural gas, home heating oil – all of it. The juxtaposition of this historic global oil price shock event (potentially the largest energy security crisis in history) with the proposed actions in New York is all the more concerning because of the fossil lock-in premium – it really does seem like a fork in the road moment.

Just how inefficient is New York’s legacy system? Again, some 64% of primary energy used in New York is lost in conversion from primary energy source to useful form (such as space heating or power for an appliance), driven primarily by the losses and inefficiencies of combustion. This exerts a significant economic drag on the state and on household finances. And the State’s aging building stock forces us to waste even more of the MMBtu that do survive the combustion process, from leaky windows, attics, and walls.

On the grid side, the transmission infrastructure built to bring power from generators to local utilities and consumers is only used about 55% of the time, meaning that many billions of dollars in infrastructure paid for by ratepayers sits there idle almost half of the time. Major electric grid investment will need to occur to realize the Climate Act, no doubt about it (especially given the age of New York’s grid). But recent investments by utilities have by and large not been driven by, nor right-sized for, the integrated needs of the climate transition. In fact, it’s often either overbuilding or like-kind replacements with no eye to the future (or worse: locking in more of the past, such as via gas distribution replacements and repairs). We have to invest in and use infrastructure smarter.

Rising utility costs also include major storm damages, worsened by – guess what – the changing climate conditions at the heart of this question. And they also meaningfully include utility profits, with New York utility profits growing considerably in the last several years, despite efforts to better regulate them and in a number of cases substantially trim back their rate increase requests. The parent companies of all major investor-owned utilities in New York have seen double or even triple-digit percentage growth in their annual utility earnings between 2015 and 2025, though this includes revenues and losses from some divisions outside of New York.[i]

At a certain point, we have to fundamentally recognize the inadequacy of and economic harms inflicted by a system like this. (Not utility profits alone, but the broader legacy system rooted in combustion and one-way power flows). Moreover, we simply can’t say ‘this is the best we can come up with; let’s stick with this’ to ride through a period of intense political focus on affordability. This – the legacy system, and all of its knock-on effects – is what is unaffordable, a key part of what is pushing families and businesses to and past their breaking point. Achieving the Climate Act, done right, can and will rid New York of the undue burdens imposed by the legacy systems left by generations before.

State Authority in the Face of Unforeseen Headwinds

The single biggest roadblock to progress for New York not anticipated in the Final Scoping Plan is obviously President Trump, including the outright hostility and vindictiveness his Administration has directly shown to New York and other peer states. There’s no doubt that this opposition, most notably in sectors like offshore wind, has thrown a major wrench in the best laid plans the State had to deliver clean power downstate, 70% renewables by 2030, and deep emissions reductions economywide. Through her personal intervention, Governor Hochul has ensured that New York stood up strongly to the most egregious of those actions.

But New York should reject the defeatist calls that its State laws and its State energy strategy must be dictated and constrained by the actions of such a federal administration. While the federal government can pick and choose what it wants in select areas like leasing in federal waters, those clear jurisdictional boundaries are the exception to the rule.

The reality is that most energy policymaking is left to the states in our system of federalism. Yes, Trump and Congress also rolled back billions in clean energy funding that would have benefitted New York’s quest. But regional, state, and local jurisdictions have significant authority over key sectors and the power to enact policies that move the needle on emissions reductions. From regulating utilities and enforcing renewable energy standards to changing building codes and land use standards and advancing clean transportation solutions, state and local authorities are robust and tested and should be leaned on during this period of faltering federal support. There are back-up options when Plan A (or even B) has encountered an immovable obstacle. The State may have to get creative and work in concert with neighboring states, but other routes still exist to get to New York’s destination without major delay. Governor Hochul can lean even further into the significant powers and authorities she and her executive agencies possess to navigate these headwinds.

Amid forecasts for growing electric demand, grid reliability for New York’s grid has also been cited as a reason to slow/roll back Climate Act efforts. Governor Hochul referenced similar concerns in her messaging, saying: “our electric system operator is projecting potential energy shortages, particularly downstate, that could lead to brownouts and blackouts.” However, these concerns overlook the considerable waste and inefficient consumption that is embedded within current demand levels, and furthermore omits the key reliability contributions that Climate Act-driven infrastructure is expected to play to relieve tight margins: “Once CHPE, Empire Wind, and the Propel NY Public Policy Transmission Project enter service and demonstrate their planned power capabilities, the margins improve substantially,” the NYISO said.

It’s also notable that the near-term reliability needs identified in New York are all based on “a deficiency in transmission security” in particular. And yet, perplexingly, the NYISO is years behind other grid operators in adopting ambient adjusted ratings (AAR) for its transmission lines. These basic ratings for weather conditions, while not even full dynamic line ratings (DLR), would presumably give transmission owners and the NYISO much more granular insights into the true capacities on their lines during seasonal peak conditions. More advanced line ratings may or may not solve the issues on their own. But, if the state’s grid was indeed approaching a period of true reliability risk, one would think the implementation of those solutions would be more of an urgent priority.

More generally, the NYISO’s assessments should be scrutinized in much the same way that NERC’s recent continent-wide reliability forecast has been pressure-tested. For example: are assumptions about likely-to-connect resources sound (and can those generator interconnections be sped up)? Are imports/exports from and to neighboring grid areas adequately factored in? Are assumptions about load growth from data centers well calibrated to factor in attrition, flexible operations, and power usage effectiveness (PUE) increases? And, on the demand side, are all available actions being taken to unlock the enormous potential peak flexibility that exists in New York (including 3 GW during summer peaks as early as 2030), as identified by analysis for agencies on the State’s grid flexibility potential? Hochul can use her bully pulpit and the deep expertise of her agency staff to ask these questions, pressure NYISO processes to enable clean energy and affordability, and safeguard the grid.

Where New York Should Go from Here

The fact of the matter is, there’s a lot that New York is and has been doing under Governor Hochul’s leadership that is right on-point and deserving of praise – especially because of the aforementioned contributions to grid reliability. New York has been making real headway on solar with NY Sun and nation-leading community solar deployments, the nearing completion of the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) transmission line, the indefatigable Sunrise and Empire Wind projects (long may they live), home retrofits under Empower+, interregional transmission leadership, congestion pricing, new commitments under Governor Hochul’s $1 billion Sustainable Future Program, and even the recent efforts to methodically evaluate new generation resources like advanced nuclear in tandem with other states. But more can and must be done – the State needs to double down on this portfolio of activity, not back the pedal off the metal.

This is the positive opportunity Governor Hochul can help the State seize: ensuring the Climate Act transition will drive better energy affordability outcomes for New York families and businesses. To have success, the State will:

• Use less energy than we did before even as we grow electric load, replacing the waste of combustion with electrification (3x more efficient).
• Better utilize the grid, which sits vastly underutilized most days/hours.
• Make the grid wider, to benefit from resource diversity benefits, weather patterns in neighboring grid areas.
• Stabilize supply rates by investing in a diverse set of energy resources with free fuel, price certainty, and rapidly advancing technology platforms.
• Make the grid and customers more resilient to costly outages and extreme weather events.
• Improve how it measures and charges customers for energy use, incentivizes utilities, and invests in resources to reduce expensive peaks.

It’s hard to boil down all the individual steps the State must take to achieve these outcomes (after all, the final Scoping Plan was 445 pages!). But here is a mini blueprint with some of the major new pillars for how Governor Hochul can reclaim leadership in this moment and get New York back on track. Governor Hochul can and should take assurance from the substantive and electoral victories won in Virginia and New Jersey last year, which provide a clear model for what it can look like to ‘tack into’ the winds of affordability with clean energy and cut through the noise with an inspiring message of what can be improved in legacy systems.

New York should:

• Hold the line: Keep current Climate Act targets intact in negotiations this legislative session.
• Initiate a sound, equitable cap and invest program: Not with substantially elevated allowance price parameters, but enough to move the needle and start bringing in revenue for investment and rebates. The State’s own plans circa 2023-2024 are a great place to start – New York can honor the deep agency and stakeholder work that went into that effort, and keep critical protections in place for environmental justice communities and energy workers.
• Provide direct energy bill relief: Continue and strengthen plans to rebate a significant share of cap-and-invest proceeds to families and small businesses, with an emphasis on holding low- and moderate-income (LMI) families harmless and ensuring median households come out better off. Analysis from Resources for the Future (RFF) and the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance (NYC-EJA) shows that through thoughtful rebate design, costs can be addressed and offset: “when cash payments are targeted based on regional energy costs and household income, average fossil fuel cost increases for households that make less than $200,000 a year could be fully covered by program revenues provided to households.”
• Bring other states along with it: There is strength in numbers, and this presents a chance for New York to lead. Washington State is initiating linkage with California and Quebec. Virginia has decided to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which New York still helps anchor. New York can and should work with east coast/mid-Atlantic neighbors to spur action at greater scale and serve as a broader bulwark against Trump. Even if New York cannot fully achieve its own 2030 goals, if it helps get more states and more emissions onto the playing field, it can still indirectly succeed.
• Re-finance the grid: New York should embrace and require the use of more robust public financing for investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities, introducing lower-cost sources of public debt and equity into the conventional utility capital stack. Forthcoming analysis in New England (from Acadia Center and partners) suggests transmission costs could be cut by an enormous 40+%, and there’s no reason why a similar model couldn’t be applied to distribution utility investments too. This could save New York many billions of dollars covering grid upgrades for both traditional needs (reliability, asset condition, compliance) and for reasons related to achieving the Climate Act (e.g., renewable integration). Recent analysis for New York suggests utility pre-tax Return on Equity (ROE) will impose costs of $616 per year on residential gas and electric customers in 2027, and lowering post-tax ROEs by 1 percentage point could save a customer $66 to $97 per year in 2027 and 2030.
• Double-down on energy efficiency: New York has been a leader in energy efficiency, but its program investments have not kept pace with peer states on a per capita basis given the state’s large size and population (it now invests less on a per capita basis, in fact, than New Hampshire, which proposed the complete repeal of its efficiency programs only a few years ago). New York should substantially increase investments in energy efficiency and demand response. Instead of short-term arguments about funding levels for EmPower+, the State should commit to 10x the program’s budget and lay out a multi-year runway to improve the state’s housing stock at the scale needed to realize the Climate Act. With a global oil shock event, we need now more than ever to insulate families from spikes in fossil fuel commodities. But it’s not a matter of putting on a sweater or turning down the thermostat – as Acadia Center has argued for years, energy efficiency and demand flexibility are resources we can procure for our grid much like nuclear or offshore wind, opening up headroom for actual economically productive behavior rather than waste.
• Backfill offshore wind: The loss of many gigawatts of offshore wind capacity that had been counted on to realize 70% by 2030 and broader emissions goals is very tough to recreate. New York’s first and best option is to go all-in on solar and energy storage, again drawing inspiration from the hockey-stick curves we’re seeing today in Pakistan and other parts of the globe. Small to medium-scale distributed energy resources (DER) may present the surest path forward to avoid siting issues and maximize T&D benefits, even though the State should also continue driving utility-scale additions. The indexed nature of those large-scale renewable and storage contracts is poised to play a key, underappreciated role in saving New Yorkers money and reducing costs caused by rising fossil fuel and electricity prices. And the State should indeed pass the ASAP Act this session to bring more low-cost clean energy resources like this online as soon as, well, the name implies. Adding more interregional transmission into the mix, plus more creative pursuits to bring new clean resources forward (Canadian offshore wind? Advanced nuclear? Long-Duration Energy Storage? Great Lakes offshore wind? New York and Pennsylvania enhanced geothermal?) can also help compensate for the delays caused by Trump’s assault on offshore wind, even if those resources may take more time to come online.
• Expand Energy Affordability Program (EAP): While New York has long had programs to provide bill discounts to income eligible households (and despite recent additions intended to broaden enrollment), New York can still go further to implement more granular and more automated low-income discount rates. Similar to multi-tier discount rates now in effect in some neighboring states, New York can more closely cap utility expenses at appropriate levels, such as 2 or 4% of household income for the lowest tier and 6% for other income eligible tiers. This shift is the more just and more reasonable way to ask struggling families to pay their utility bills. These rate discounts could also be paired with seasonal heat pump rates that more fairly allocate distribution costs, reducing operating costs and making heat pumps more accessible to households across the income spectrum.
• Avoid major looming gas distribution costs: States around the Northeast are beginning to grapple seriously with the skyrocketing distribution costs of repairing and replacing the aging, leak-prone natural gas pipes beneath many of our streets. As new analysis shows, New York must contend with this challenge as well, with a cumulative ratepayer price tag (and therefore savings opportunity) that registers in the billions. Specifically, avoiding half of the planned 700 miles of leak-prone gas main replacement in New York City could save residential gas customers between $165 and $301 over the next four years. And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg of what replacement needs may be proposed: accordingto the Future of Heat Initiative, over the last 10 years, the six largest gas utilities in New York grew their gas assets from $17B to over $37B, despite homes using less gas. Avoiding growth like this is one major reason why New York legislators should also enact the NY HEAT Act this session.
• And if you still need help to insulate everyday families from rising costs? The State should move forward with legislative proposals to increase taxes on the wealthiest households. Extending millionaire’s tax proposals to the full state would raise billions more, at least by enough to close current budget gaps and prevent cuts to vital services, and potentially more to pair with energy funding sources to accelerate clean energy and provide rebates/lower taxes for LMI families.

Ultimately, the climate doesn’t care what path we choose politically. It’s already happening – Phoenix experienced a once in 4,000-year heat wave in recent weeks. Historic floods in Hawaii caused major evacuations and power outages. Massive wildfires have burned vast swaths of grazing lands in Nebraska, endangering cattle producers’ plans for production increases that could help ease record-high U.S. ​beef prices. (Climate and affordability already going hand-in-hand.) More evidence mounts about the direct drag on household finances that climate change is already causing, and more concerns emerge about the systemic risks to insurance and housing markets from climate change.

If we think today’s affordability politics are tough, ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet’ if the climate is allowed to worsen through policy inaction and delay. New York saw what happened with Superstorm Sandy. New York has seen dramatic damages from severe storms upstate. How much more climate chaos can we handle? Not just for our political debates, but for our communities, our economies, and our future?

One thing that remains clear to me is that New York’s dedicated public servants have the capacity to deliver on the complicated but critical work of standing up new major programs like cap-and-invest. If any state can navigate this transition, it is New York State, thanks to the brilliant, hard-working, and passionate public servants working to bring the state into a brighter energy future – reliable, affordable, and clean. This legislative session, a recommitment to the Climate Act, much like congestion pricing, is still possible and can resolidify New York on its journey toward leadership on climate, protection of communities, and economic prosperity for families and businesses. Governor Hochul has the chance to make this recommitment part of her lasting legacy and safeguard the many improvements to New Yorkers’ quality of life promised by the Climate Act.

So, may the Climate Act remain intact through this difficult year and continue to, as President Kennedy put it 60 years ago, serve to organize and measure the best of New York’s energies and skills in the coming years. This challenge – driving down both emissions and energy bills – is one that we should be willing to accept, unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

---

[i] The figure above, Utility Earnings by Year, reports available data for major utility parent companies from 2015 to 2025 (company acquisitions affect the availability of data for certain years). Despite some variation in the reporting by each company, the values shown above generally reflect “Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Common Shareholders,” so as to provide as close of an apples-to-apple comparison. However, different parent companies have different subsidiaries, including by both geography and vertical (e.g., distribution, transmission, renewables, etc.), which makes each company’s situation unique and in most cases broader than just activity in New York State. Using ‘Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders’ excludes (does not depict) additional profits that are shared with preferred stock shareholders, which in at least one case (National Grid) amount to hundreds of millions of dollars almost annually. Specific sources include: Avangrid (example Form 10K); National Grid (annual reports for US/subsidiaries); Consolidated Edison (selected SEC filings); and National Fuel Gas (selected SEC filings).

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.

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?

Why New England must say no to new gas pipelines

New England must protect energy affordability by rejecting the pressure campaign to build new interstate gas pipeline capacity, a 15-year-old idea that fails on all the basic economics — before talking about damaging consequences for climate and public health.

The economic case for a pipeline has never been weaker, even after a major winter storm. Consumers will be worse-off financially, and clean energy solutions have never been more cost-effective. To relieve winter energy constraints, the region needs to diversify generation, build out grid connections and storage and invest in efficiency and demand flexibility.

Not double down on costly, volatile fuels we already rely on too much.

There is simply no need for a massive new pipeline. Gas demand in Massachusetts was flat to declining from 2019-2024. And setting aside Connecticut, an outlier on gas demand, regional gas demand has been flat. If anything, the region needs cheaper, more targeted solutions to relieve scarcity on the coldest days of the year.

Elevated oil generation and power prices don’t justify a new pipeline. Gas and power prices jumped significantly across the country (gas futures were up 70% before the cold snap), even in regions without constrained fuel supply.

And frigid conditions exposed the poor reliability of gas equipment. Even on the peak of the most difficult cold day this winter, almost half the capacity keeping New England’s lights on was zero- to low-emissions, when factoring in energy efficiency.

A bill in Massachusetts sought to saddle electric ratepayers with the costs of a new gas pipeline. This would create a long-lasting charge on electric bills negating potential reductions to power supply costs — unthinkable in the current affordability crisis, especially for an asset that would outlive its usefulness before being paid off.

Pipeline companies won’t build without long-term contracts. No entity (utilities, power plants) is willing to contract for new gas supply because they either have enough, or they buy from the spot market. It’s a financial issue: no contracts means no financing, no pipelines .

If forced, New England ratepayers would pay dearly for a new gas pipeline:

• For the direct delivery costs of a billion-dollar-plus pipeline.
• For the price of the gas supply itself, now forecast to increase 33% year over year (2026-2027).
• For decades of locked-in costs from local distribution pipes.

To read the article from MassLive, click here.

Opinion: CT needs a business model for more affordable and reliable utility service

Connecticut residents are rightly frustrated with their electric bills.

Today, we have cleaner, cheaper, and more flexible energy technologies than ever before. Solar, batteries, energy efficiency, demand response, and advanced grid hardware and software can reduce costs, cut pollution, and improve reliability. Yet they aren’t being implemented as widely or rapidly as they should be, while costs continue to climb.

The reason isn’t a lack of technology. It’s the business model we use to run electric utilities. The major utilities in Connecticut still operate under a “cost-of-service” model. Designed in the early 20th century, it made sense when electricity systems were built around large power plants and analog technology. But today, that same model is holding us back.

There is good news. Connecticut has the solution at its fingertips: performance-based ratemaking. And in fact, this solution is at the finish line and ready for implementation, pending final regulatory approval.

Before explaining what performance-based ratemaking is, it’s important to understand the problem it’s designed to fix. Under cost-of-service regulation, utilities primarily earn profits by investing in capital infrastructure such as poles, wires, and substations. These capital expenditures are called the “rate-base.” Utilities are guaranteed their money back plus some percentage profit on it when invested prudently. Thus, a bigger rate base means more allowed earnings.

There is political and public pressure to keep rates low. However, that pressure collides with the reality that utilities compete for shareholders in financial markets, where investors expect returns. The way for utilities to deliver those returns under a cost-of-service model is not by minimizing total system costs, but by growing the rate base. Consequently, utilities are incentivized to favor the most expensive solution that meets regulatory requirements, rather than the most cost-effective one.

This problem is compounded by a significant information imbalance. Utilities usually control the engineering studies, forecasts, and models that determine what infrastructure is deemed “necessary.” Regulators work diligently, but they are often at the mercy of the studies run and information provided on solutions by the utilities.

Even more troubling is what utilities aren’t rewarded for. They do not earn more for decarbonizing the grid faster than legally required, reducing customer bills, or improving reliability and resilience beyond minimum standards. In short, we are asking utilities to innovate at their own expense.

That’s where performance-based ratemaking, or PBR, comes in.

PBR is a common-sense utility regulatory framework that ties financial incentives for utilities to measurable performance outcomes, rather than simply allowing recovery of costs plus profit for capital investments. Under PBR, a portion of utility earnings can be tied to how well they perform, not just how much they spend. Regulators set clear, measurable goals—such as affordability, emissions reductions, reliability, customer service, and efficient grid utilization—and utilities are rewarded for meeting or exceeding those outcomes. If a utility finds innovative, lower-cost ways to maintain reliability, integrate clean energy, or reduce peak demand, it can share in the savings. If it falls short, its earnings are reduced.

Suddenly, advanced grid software, energy efficiency, and modern power electronics become business opportunities rather than threats. Utilities would be incentivized to use existing infrastructure more efficiently, avoid unnecessary upgrades, and deploy new technologies that lower total system costs. Importantly, PBR is not anti-utility. In fact, it offers something utilities consistently ask for: clearer incentives and a more stable framework for earning returns in a rapidly changing energy system. But it also ensures that those returns are earned by delivering real value to customers.

The regulator in Connecticut, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority  has worked with numerous stakeholders over the past several years to develop a PBR framework. In July and August, three draft decisions were issued by the Regulatory Authority outlining a strong PBR framework. However, with the changeover of commissioners at PURA, the final decisions have been postponed indefinitely from their anticipated October publication dates.

That draft framework, shaped by numerous stakeholders and PURA staff, would make Connecticut a national leader in utility regulation. The technologies for a more affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy future exist. What we need is a regulatory system that rewards utilities for using them and delivering real benefits to customers. Once the new PURA commissioners have reviewed the relevant materials, they should waste no time in making the PBR decisions final—because those decisions do just what is needed: move Connecticut to a business model that aligns utility incentives with improved customer outcomes.

Will Taylor is the strategy director, Infrastructure and Resilience at Acadia Center and holds a PhD in Environmental Engineering from the University of Connecticut. He resides in Simsbury. Kate McAuliffe is the Senior Policy Advocate for Connecticut at Acadia Center and holds a master of Environmental Management from the Yale School of the Environment. She resides in Avon.

To read the full article from the Hartford Courant, click here.

Understanding What’s Really Driving Energy Costs

On December 12, an article was published by Robert Rio on the topic of why energy bills are rising but emissions allegedly aren’t falling. The article claims it isn’t anti-clean energy, but poses a series of questions which, knowingly or not, points blame for rising energy bills directly at renewables and clean energy policies. The article goes on to use data cherry-picked from particular days to support the conclusion that emissions are not falling.

Affordability should be at the forefront of energy conversations. However, to address the affordability question successfully, the Commonwealth must take a holistic view of the factors driving affordability. This blog provides answers to some of the questions the article asks and data-driven responses to some of the statements made – demonstrating that, in the face of the many factors which are leading to higher bills, renewables are both helping affordability and reducing emissions.

Instead of misplacing blame on renewables, a better approach to affordability for the Commonwealth would be to focus on the true cost drivers of climbing electric rates, including fossil fuels and volatile supply costs, utility business models and oversight (or a lack thereof), and aging infrastructure in a heavily forested area of the country with storms which are increasing in severity and frequency. The Commonwealth also has an opportunity through it’s recently opened investigation into bill transparency to ensure ratepayers understand the costs and cost savings of charges on their bill, helping to buoy the truth that renewables and energy efficiency improve affordability while also decreasing emissions.[i]

Claim 1: “Absent renewables and storage coming way down in cost—or more supply coming online—bills aren’t going to fundamentally change.”

The article claims that “[a]bsent renewables and storage coming way down in cost—or more supply coming online—bills aren’t going to fundamentally change.” This statement starts in the wrong place and ends with the wrong conclusion.:

• Recent gas and electric rate increases have been driven primarily by non-supply factors such as transmission and distribution (T&D), which are not affected by changes in supply of fuel or power. This trend is true in the northeast and across much of the U.S.[ii]
• Overreliance on a single fuel – natural gas – is driving price increases. New England has expanded interstate gas transmission capacity by over 30% since 2010. At the same time, the consumption of natural gas in New England was only 2.6% higher in 2023 than in 2010—largely due to persistently increasing usage in Connecticut. In Massachusetts, gas usage actually went down nearly 14% from the year of peak usage, 2011, to 2024, the most recent year with data available.[iii]^,[iv] Yet, electricity prices still increased. This is in part due to the export of U.S. natural gas in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe and elsewhere abroad, tying gas prices to global markets, where prices are much higher.[v] LNG exports are expected to continue to rise and, consequently, so are gas prices – and it has increasingly less to do with the supply-demand balance at any given time in the region.[vi]
• Renewables and storage are coming way down in price – fast: Over recent decades, renewables have become considerably cheaper. Between 2000 and 2020, the cost of useful energy from wind, solar, and battery storage decreased by 72%, 90%, and 94%, respectively.^[vii] In fact, prices have declined so quickly that studies incorporating cost projections to model future adoption systematically overestimate the costs of renewable energy because the modelling of price decreases is not able to keep up with how quickly costs are actually going down.[viii]

Figure 1: Historical costs of energy sources. Source: Way et al.[ix]

• And prices continue to drop – for example, between 2023 and 2024, battery equipment costs fell 40%, and they are on track for another substantial decrease in 2025.[x] These dropping costs have translated to electric rates. Over the last twenty some-odd years, there is an observed trend across the country – which holds true in the Northeast – of smaller electric rate increases in states that get a higher percentage of their energy from renewables, regardless of whether those renewables are market-based independent power producers or state procured resources.

Figure 2: Change in Electricity Prices vs. Change in Renewable Penetrations. Source: EIA[xi]

• The cost of developing renewables in the northeast is higher than in other parts of the country and the world, but the bulk of those costs are “soft costs” associated with non-equipment/non-technology factors such as permitting, interconnection, red tape associated with other bureaucratic approvals, and beyond – all of which can and should be addressed by policy reforms. At the same time, however, every generation resource – including natural gas and nuclear – has been exposed to rising costs from inflation and supply chain disruptions over the last three to five years.
• Bills may not “fundamentally change” due only to clean resources – but the prices would be even worse without renewables. Recent price increases are real and having very significant impacts on energy burdened families. And it may be that bills won’t fundamentally change (though it is not clear what exactly a “fundamental change” would look like) without putting more affordability tools in place beyond clean energy resources. However, it is critical for the public understanding of energy that cost increases be appropriately and accurately attributed. There are a number of electricity cost drivers, including volatile fossil fuel costs, utility business models that incentivize the implementation of expensive grid solutions, aging infrastructure in need of replacement, and elevated storm response costs due to increasingly severe and frequent storms in the Northeast. As examples, 1) nearly half of transformers in the United States are approaching their end of life, indicating the age of the electric grid, and 2) in Massachusetts, where National Grid historically budgeted for 4 major storms a year, there were between 9 and 14 a year from 2020-2022, leading to over $100 million more in spending than was budgeted for storm response costs.[xii]
• On the contrary, renewables have in fact been helping to mitigate rate increases. If solar and storage are deployed at a rate that meets policy projections, the difference in deployment between 2025 and 2030 levels will reduce New England energy costs by $684 million annually, with over $313 million in annual savings for Massachusetts customers alone – not accounting the $432-721 million in benefits from avoided greenhouse gas emissions.[xiii] In Vermont, a battery lease program already helps customers ride through blackouts and saves customers millions annually, and adding 3.5 GW of offshore wind could have provided Massachusetts customers net savings of $105 – $212 million if online in Winter 2024/25.[xiv]^{, [xv]}
• So, while bills may not fundamentally change much without further action to bring them down – the reality is that bills are not rising even more because renewables are helping to keep costs down, despite short-term natural gas cost increases.

Claim 2: “If higher bills were clearly delivering lower emissions, the tradeoff might be easier to explain.”

The article also claims that emissions aren’t decreasing. Specifically, it notes that “If higher bills were clearly delivering lower emissions, the [cost] tradeoff might be easier to explain.” There are two major flaws with this claim: the data shows that renewable energy is both helping to combat rising prices, as discussed above, and clearly lowering emissions. As seen in the Annual Emissions plot below, New England’s grid emissions of all types, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, are all down in the past decade (especially considering the dip in generation and emissions during COVID).[xvi]

Figure 3: Annual Emissions in New England. Source: ISO New England.[xvii]

Similarly, in Massachusetts, emissions across all sectors, and in the electric sector specifically, are down substantially since the early 2000s (see Figure 4).[xviii] This highlights how, while we may have days where the resource mix is more or less polluting in Massachusetts, overall, renewable deployment is leading to cleaner air for the state, in addition to helping increase energy affordability.

Figure 4: Massachusetts Gross Emissions by Year. Source: MA Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs.[xix]

The data presented thus far in terms of renewable affordability and emissions lead directly to the first question posed in “Why Your Energy Bill Is Rising — But Emissions Aren’t Falling” that Acadia Center will address.

Question 1: When will renewable energy pay off?

The article questions when the payoff of renewables will be seen. The answer is clear: right now. Renewables are currently helping to deliver cheaper electricity prices and reducing emissions, even in the face of numerous other factors that are increasing electric bills. New major influxes of clean energy will provide further assistance as well, such as the $50 million in annual bill savings expected for Massachusetts residents thanks to the hydroelectric power now beginning to flow over the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission line from Quebec.

We are also seeing a tremendous payoff from energy efficiency. Ratepayers in Massachusetts have saved from the Mass Save program, even if they’ve never utilized the program themselves. When electricity prices rise during heatwaves or cold snaps, energy efficiency mitigates price swings by reducing the demand for electricity that would otherwise be needed. Thanks to the efficiency program, Massachusetts’ electricity demand is 27.7% lower than it would have been absent the existence of the program. This means billions in lifetime savings on avoided supply and infrastructure costs. In total, Mass Save provides $2.69 of value for each $1 invested.[xx] While the article questions whether that value is inflated, even if benefits were half of what they have been found to be, the program would still have an impressive return on investment.

Question 2: “How do we reduce skyrocketing winter emissions before reliable, affordable alternatives are in place?”

The article goes on to question how we can reduce skyrocketing winter emissions before reliable, affordable alternatives to expensive fossil fuels are in place. First, it should be pointed out that “skyrocketing winter emissions” is misleading – as annual emissions have been substantially reduced in recent years (see plots in previous sections). Putting that aside, the answer to the question does not have to be exclusive of reliable, affordable alternatives – in fact, it depends on them. Mass Save will continue to provide additional savings to ratepayers by reducing electricity demand, so long as it is fully funded. Renewables – which improve affordability and are rapidly declining in cost – are also the quickest energy resources to build (see below plot).[xxi] Therefore, building more renewables and energy storage (particularly to align production with winter peaks) should be a focus for grid reliability, reducing energy costs, and decreasing emissions. By adding storage, clean energy can more effectively shave peak demand, reducing the need for expensive, dirty, fossil-fuel peaker plants and expensive infrastructure upgrades that would otherwise be needed to accommodate only a few peak usage hours a year.

Figure 5: Average U.S. Power Plant Development Timeline by Technology. Source: SEIA.[xxii]

Conversely, things are getting worse for fossil fuel powered energy. It now takes at least six years to bring a gas-fired power plant online, and since 2022 the full-scope cost of a combined-cycle gas turbine plant has more than tripled.[xxiii]

Additional solutions to help reduce costs are to implement new technologies, such as grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) and virtual power plants. GETs are advanced hardware and software – such as dynamic line ratings, power flow control devices, and advanced sensors – that increase the usable capacity and efficiency of existing grid infrastructure. Their implementation can cost less than 5% of the annual congestion costs they help eliminate, and they are often cheaper than traditional poles and wires solutions.[xxiv]

Virtual power plants are networks of distributed energy resources – such as rooftop solar, batteries, electric vehicles, and smart appliances – coordinated through software to operate as a single power plant. Like grid enhancing technologies, they are often cheaper to install than “traditional” alternatives: 40-60% cheaper than generation and storage alternatives. They also can be implemented in as little as 6-12 months, helping to avoid multi-year transmission upgrades.

Question 3: How much more can people take?

Lastly, the article inquires about how much cost households and businesses can absorb before public support erodes.

The short answer: not much.

Between 2022 and 2024, investor-owned-utility (IOU) residential electricity rates increased 49% more than inflation.[xxv] Looking at the bigger picture of household economics, between 2001 and 2024, median wages – adjusted for a minimum quality of life – decreased by 4%.[xxvi] Part of the reason for that decrease is skyrocketing costs, including costs driven by emissions, to which fossil fuel-based energy generation is a large contributor. For example, fossil fuels pollute the air and environment, leading to increased medical costs and excess deaths due to pollution.[xxvii]^{, [xxviii]} They also emit greenhouse gases which worsen climate change, leading to increased storm response and restoration costs.[xxix] Insurance premiums also suffer: the average US homeowner’s insurance premiums increased 8.7% faster than inflation from 2018–2022, with sharp spikes in climate-exposed regions.[xxx] In fact, households are already paying between $400 and $900 annually due to climate-driven costs – and that is likely an underestimation, as the analysis only considered a subset of all fossil-fuel related costs.[xxxi]

Such findings place an added emphasis on the importance of clean, affordable energy and programs like Mass Save. Not only can energy efficiency and renewables help keep electric costs lower, but they also have the added benefit of mitigating these “hidden” costs of fossil fuels, which people pay without considering them part of their household energy budget. Accordingly, Acadia Center believes policymakers and energy bills should be more transparent to ratepayers across the state how renewables are saving them money. This aligns well with a recent investigation launched by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) regarding utility bill design, “increasing transparency for ratepayers when they receive their bills[,] and creating more consistency across companies.”[xxxii]

This investigation and subsequent outcomes will provide an opportunity for increased transparency regarding utility bill costs and benefits. For instance, while energy efficiency programs and renewables have some cost associated with them, they avoid other substantial costs – including millions in fuel costs daily during extreme weather.[xxxiii] The avoided costs due to these programs should be visibly included on bills, particularly if the costs of the same programs are included, either as individual line items or under a bucketed cost category (e.g., public benefits charges). Making avoided costs visible will help ratepayers understand both the costs and cost savings from the programs they are paying for, help mitigate any erosion in public support, and help improve understanding of the truth: renewables are decreasing emissions, improving local public health, and increasing electric bill affordability (by avoiding additional costs).

Plus, we don’t have to accept other “business-as-usual” approaches to paying for energy infrastructure. Forthcoming research from Acadia Center and other partners will examine, for example, how a greater use of public financing sources has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of electric transmission infrastructure build-out (stay tuned for more).

Even More Data

For more information on: 1) gas cost drivers, 2) gas volatility explained; 3) electricity cost drivers, and 4) how renewables affect energy costs, see the linked Acadia Center fact sheets.

 

[i] DPU Opens Investigation to Review All Charges on Utility Bills | Mass.gov

[ii] Retail Electricity Price and Cost Trends – 2024 Update | LBNL & NREL

[iii] Natural Gas Consumption | EIA.gov

[iv] Massachusetts Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) | EIA.gov

[v] Short Term Energy Outlook: November, 2025 | EIA.gov

[vi] Short Term Energy Outlook: December, 2025 | EIA.gov

[vii] Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition | Way et al.

[viii] Are we too pessimistic? Cost projections for solar photovoltaics, wind power, and batteries are over-estimating actual costs globally | ScienceDirect

[ix] Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition | Way et al.

[x] Batteries now cheap enough to make dispatchable solar economically feasible | PV Magazine International

[xi] Generation over 1MW data: Form 923 Power Plant Operations Report | EIA; Generation under 1MW data: Electric Power Monthly – Table 1.17.B | EIA; cost data: Electricity Sales Data |EIA

[xii] National Grid wants to raise electric rates to pay for storm damage from 2 years ago | CBS Boston

[xiii] Powered Up: Evaluating the Year-Round Benefits of Solar and Storage in Massachusetts | Synapse

[xiv] A $55/month Tesla Powerwall lease program in Vermont just got a lot bigger | electrek ; Green Mountain Power Kept 1,100 Homes Lit Up During Storm Outage | Greentech Media.

[xv] Value of Wind in Winter 2024/25 | RENEW Northeast & Daymark

[xvi] Environmental and Emissions Reports | ISO New England

[xvii] Environmental and Emissions Reports | ISO New England

[xviii] Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Metrics | Mass.gov

[xix] Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Metrics | Mass.gov

[xx] Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast | Acadia Center

[xxi] We Need Solar and Storage to Address the Energy Emergency | SEIA

[xxii] We Need Solar and Storage to Address the Energy Emergency | SEIA

[xxiii] The gas turbine crunch: Why supply won’t meet demand | Infrastructure Investor

[xxiv] Building a Better Grid: How Grid-Enhancing Technologies Complement Transmission Buildouts | The Brattle Group

[xxv] Rate of Return Equals Cost of Capital: A Simple, Fair Formula to Stop Investor-Owned Utilities From Overcharging the Public | American Economic Liberties Project

[xxvi] Minimal Quality of Life – The true cost of economic well-being | LISEP Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity

[xxvii] Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

[xxviii] The Costs of Inaction: The Economic Burden of Fossil Fuels and Climate Change on Health in the United States | Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health; Natural Resources Defense Council; Wisconsin Health Professionals for Climate Action

[xxix] Time Series – U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | Climate Central; Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world | Carbon Brief

[xxx] FIO data reveals sharp rise in homeowners premiums in climate-exposed ZIP codes | Insurance Business

[xxxi] Who Bears the Burden of Climate Action? Working Paper 34525 | National Bureau of Economic Research

[xxxii] DPU Opens Investigation to Review All Charges on Utility Bills | Mass.gov

[xxxiii] Grid Action Report – June Heat Wave | Acadia Center

Acadia Center’s Presentation at the New England Restructuring Roundtable

Acadia Center’s Presentation at the New England Restructuring Roundtable 2025

House climate bill is a big step backward

Massachusetts is known as a leader in clean energy and climate action. Our policies have lowered emissions, created jobs, and helped families save money on energy. But a bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives on Beacon Hill threatens to undo that progress and would be a damaging mistake for our state.

This bill, proposed by Rep. Mark Cusack, the co-chair of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, is essentially a fossil fuel industry wish list. It rolls back the Commonwealth’s enforceable 2030 climate targets, weakens the Mass Save energy efficiency program, eliminates efforts designed to make energy efficiency more affordable for working families, and even resurrects the disastrous “pipeline tax” that would allow utilities to charge residents for unnecessary gas infrastructure. In short, it hands fossil fuel companies a gift while leaving Massachusetts households to foot the bill.

At a moment when President Trump is dismantling federal climate policy, this bill would do the work for him. It would abandon our 2030 emissions targets, gut our most effective programs, and lock Massachusetts into the very fossil fuel dependence that has driven today’s affordability crisis. It would cede our hard-earned reputation as a clean energy innovator and put our economy, our health, and our climate at risk.

Our lawmakers must be clear on what’s really driving high energy costs: it’s not clean energy. It’s fossil fuels, gas infrastructure, and aging transmission systems.

In 2023 alone, Massachusetts consumers spent $20 billion on energy in their homes and businesses. Programs like Mass Save delivered over $34 billion in savings between 2012 and 2023 and generated more than $3 for every $1 invested. The program is the only tool we have that actively reduces energy burden for all of us, including low- and moderate-income households that are hardest hit by rising energy costs.

Mass Save has weatherized 350,000 homes (including 70,000 low-income homes), created nearly 76,000 jobs, and saved the equivalent output of five power plants. Even if you’ve never used it directly, you’ve benefited from lower wholesale energy prices because your neighbors did. These are real savings in people’s wallets.

By rolling back these programs and weakening enforceable climate targets, House members would lock the state into an outdated, expensive fossil fuel system. Weakening the 2030 climate target removes enforceable benchmarks that ensure our government takes the action we demand.

Without those benchmarks, Massachusetts risks falling behind while other states, and the world, invest in the clean energy technologies of the future. Communities that are already most vulnerable to pollution and climate impacts—low-income and environmental justice communities—will feel the consequences first.

The House also risks undermining the thriving clean energy economy Massachusetts has built.

Our clean energy sector supports more than 115,000 workers, there are over 7,500 energy businesses statewide, and the clean energy industry has added more than $15.9 billion to the state’s economy since 2012. Clean energy is not just good for our planet; it’s good for our wallets. Weakening climate laws now would send a chilling signal to investors, slow innovation, and damage our long-term economic growth, not to mention dirty the clean air and water we deserve.

This bill tells the rest of the nation that when federal leadership falters, Massachusetts folds. It tells clean energy workers that their jobs don’t matter. It tells communities on the front lines of climate and pollution that their health is negotiable.

But that’s not who we are. Massachusetts became a clean energy and climate leader by setting ambitious goals. We still have five years to hit our 2030 targets. Our legislators must reject this fossil fuel gift and recommit to a future built on affordability, innovation, and climate responsibility. A vote for this bill is a vote to cede our leadership to the Trump administration and the fossil fuel lobby. A vote against it is a vote for Massachusetts – to protect our progress, our economy, and our environment.

The choice is simple: Massachusetts can lead, or we can go back. The people of Massachusetts deserve leadership.

Cindy Luppi is the national field director for Clean Water Action. Kyle Murray is director of state program implementation at Acadia Center. Caitlin Peale Sloan is Conservation Law Foundation’s vice president for Massachusetts. John Walkey is director of climate justice and waterfront initiatives at GreenRoots.

To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.

Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks: Impacts to Affordability and Reliability in the Northeast

Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks Webinar PowerPoint

Heat pumps could be affordable for most — if rates were fair

Larry Chretien is the executive director of Green Energy Consumers Alliance. Kyle Murray is director of state program implementation and Massachusetts program director for Acadia Center.

Last winter, Massachusetts families found themselves knee deep in an energy affordability crisis.

While massive gas utility spending had quietly caused residential gas delivery charges to creep up 12% to 15% annually for the past decade, ill-timed rate hikes and brutal cold acted as the straw that broke the camel’s back, forcing nearly 27,000 more people to apply for federal energy assistance, an 8% jump over the year before.

And while this crisis hit Bay Staters hard, similar affordability pressures are mounting in cold-weather states across the country.

That’s why it’s encouraging to see that the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities recently approved a first-of-its-kind seasonal discount for households using efficient electric heat pumps in all three of the state’s investor-owned utility territories. The new rate offers a 6 cents/kWh winter discount, resulting in $540 in savings on average each winter – an important step toward making clean heating more affordable.

But a more ambitious proposal for deeper seasonal discounts for heat pumps from the Department of Energy Resources, or DOER, is still on the table.

That proposal, now under review, could serve as a national model for utility regulators, delivering far greater savings for far more residents, especially those switching from gas, oil, or propane, and those struggling most with energy costs.

The fix is straightforward. Heat pumps use electricity to provide clean, efficient heating during the winter, when demand on the grid is well below its summer peak. That means they tap into existing capacity without requiring new infrastructure.

Yet current electric delivery rates don’t reflect this seasonal efficiency. Instead, heat pump households are often overcharged to maintain a grid that was already built, despite putting no additional strain on it.

That’s why DOER has proposed a new set of heat pump rates to correct an outdated pricing structure that overcharges efficient electric homes.

In a recent analysis, Switchbox found that by adopting this “2.0” rate structure, Massachusetts regulators can nearly double the amount of people who can save money by adopting a heat pump, enabling 82% of Massachusetts households to see median savings of $687 per season. For households using methane gas, which heats more than half of Massachusetts homes, 74% of homes would see median savings of $361 per season after upgrading to a heat pump.

The proposed rates level the playing field, making efficient electric heating a cheaper alternative to gas for most Massachusetts homes.

For homes on heating oil or electric resistance, the benefits are even greater. Ninety-one percent of homes relying on heating oil would save an average of $1,071 by upgrading, and every home upgrading from electric resistance would save an average of $1,755.

For low-income residents who spend too much of their paychecks on utilities, this rate is a gamechanger.

Today, 66% of these households pay more than 6% of their income on utilities, even with full participation in existing discount programs. If Massachusetts adopts DOER’s proposed rates and ensures eligible households are auto-enrolled in income-based electricity discounts, that number could shrink to 30%. For the families facing impossible choices between heat, rent, and groceries each winter, this would offer real, measurable relief.

The DPU’s recently-approved seasonal rate discount for heat pumps is an important recognition that clean heating should be cost-competitive. But DOER’s proposal goes further, offering the strongest, most consistent savings across income levels, housing types and heating fuels. It’s the best chance we’ve seen to make clean heating truly affordable for the people who need it most.

Some may wonder: If I don’t own a heat pump, what’s in it for me? First, this proposed heat pump rate won’t impact other residents’ bills — and it may even help bring down electric bills for everyone in the long term. We can pay both Peter and Paul. The proposed rates merely restore fairness while offering an added bonus. By accelerating heat pump adoption, the state can increase electricity demand in a way that smooths out usage and helps bring down average electric rates for everyone. This trend is already underway in states like Maine, where heat pump adoption has exploded, and analysis shows it can have similar results in New Jersey.

While this proposal is rooted in Massachusetts policy, it reflects a broader challenge facing many states working to electrify heating affordably.

In California, utilities like SDG&E and PG&E offer specialized electric rates for homes with heat pumps, which, paired with high-efficiency equipment, can drive significant energy bill savings, up to $670 annually on average for single-family homes statewide.

In Maine, Central Maine Power and Versant Power offer heat pump-specific rates to support year-round electric heating. In Vermont, utilities like Green Mountain Power offer tiered rebates based on heat pump performance and provide additional incentives for customers who participate in demand management programs, effectively lowering upfront costs while rewarding efficient energy use.

As more states scale up residential electrification, Massachusetts’ 2.0 proposal offers a model for how rate design can accelerate heat pump adoption while protecting affordability.

Massachusetts has committed to an ambitious goal to ensure heat pumps make up 90% of new heating equipment sales by 2040. But if Massachusetts’s electric rates aren’t fair for everyone, the benefits of efficient electric equipment will be lost.

DOER’s proposed rates offer a clear next step to lower energy burdens while helping Massachusetts meet its clean heat goals. The Healey administration has a rare chance to lead on fairer rate reform and make the clean heat transition more affordable, setting a precedent other states could follow. It should seize it.

To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.