Proposed legislation would have net-effect of dismantling Massachusetts’ climate leadership and nation-leading energy efficiency programs

November 10, 2025

MEDIA CONTACT:
Kyle Murray
Director, State Program Implementation
Massachusetts Program Director
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x106

Click HERE to download the full press release.

New House legislative package would fail to meaningfully address affordability by ignoring true largest energy cost drivers, while undermining its own efforts to make progress on emissions reductions. Bill’s passage threatens to exacerbate current affordability crisis and increase ratepayer exposure to fossil fuel volatility and infrastructure expenses, hamstringing the cheapest- and quickest-to-deploy clean energy resources.

Massachusetts lawmakers must come together to resoundingly reject this bill and chart an updated path forward toward goals for climate, affordability, and economic development.

BOSTON – Today, the House members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy are in the process of releasing a bill that would drastically undermine the Commonwealth’s climate goals and would undermine its own efforts to address the energy affordability issues facing households and businesses. This legislation proposes to cut additional funding from Mass Save, makes climate targets merely advisory, and eliminates the newly-created moderate-income discount rate, among other misguided provisions – on the heels of striking recent electoral victories for clean energy-led affordability in other states around the country. Acadia Center calls on House and Senate lawmakers and the Healey-Driscoll Administration to resoundingly reject the package of proposals and work to fashion a reasonable path forward preserving existing legal mandates and deploying new and enhanced policy solutions to keep Massachusetts a leader on energy affordability and climate progress.

“Proposing to weaken Massachusetts’ climate targets and cut back on money-saving energy efficiency programs is precisely the wrong approach for the moment. Rational, science-backed climate and clean energy targets have made Massachusetts a leader in the nation and spurred enormous investment and job creation in the Commonwealth – helping grow the local economy even as emissions decline,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts Program Director and Director of State Implementation at Acadia Center. “Yes, the state must contend with and adapt to new roadblocks posed by the federal Administration, but if there are concerns about Massachusetts achieving its climate targets, policymakers should redouble efforts to pursue cost-effective pathways to their attainment, not water down the underlying goals. Simply put, weakening targets is essentially granting the state permission to fail, and failure is not acceptable – certainly not five years before a deadline. Acadia Center calls on the Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration to work collaboratively to preserve existing targets and deploy new and enhanced policies, like Mass Save, to keep Massachusetts on the strongest path for affordability, emissions, and economic growth.”

At a time when infrastructure costs and overreliance on volatile fossil fuels are driving electric and gas ratepayer bills ever higher, clean energy programs like Mass Save remain an essential tool to effectively keeping those costs lower. Sadly, with the most recent $500 million cut from Mass Save in January 2025, Massachusetts has already chosen to lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits, 20 trillion British thermal units (TBtus) of energy savings, and 1.8 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions, based on Acadia Center analysis. The House proposal would now propose to almost double those harmful impacts with a further $330M cut in program budgets, threatening $2+ billion in total lost savings, and would further harm the program by imposing unprecedented and arbitrary caps on future three-year program budgets – completely doing away with the long-standing decision to procure energy efficiency as the cost effective resource that it is and can be for the grid. This misguided approach to cost-cutting will immediately backfire, with the consequences of driving up total energy system costs by forcing ratepayers to purchase more costly supply and pay more for transmission and distribution of energy. Yes, Mass Save can be strengthened and program cost recovery can be improved to diversify funding sources, but the program’s successful track-record is undeniable: from 2012-2023, Massachusetts residents received $34 billion in benefits from Mass Save, corresponding to $3.51 in lifetime benefits for every $1 invested in energy efficiency. The program has saved 18 million megawatt-hours (MWhs) of annual electricity consumption, which is more than three times the annual output of the one gigawatt of generation from the retired Brayton Point Coal plant, formerly the largest coal generating plant in New England. This means that even ratepayers who have not participated in the program have seen massive savings.

Though details are still emerging, early reports indicate that the proposed legislation would:

• Make 2030 Mass Save greenhouse gas target merely advisory;
• Cut another $330 million from the 2025-2027 Mass Save plan budget;
• Subject future three-year Mass Save plans to an unprecedented and arbitrary budget cap, completely dismissing the notion of energy efficiency as a cost-effective resource to be procured;
• Remove the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from Mass Save’s cost-effectiveness test;
• Add rebates for natural gas heating systems back into the program;
• Remove demand management, beneficial electrification, and decarbonization from the program;
• Eliminate the newly created moderate-income discount rate;
• Appear to attempt to reverse the Supreme Judicial Court on ENGIE Gas & LNG v. Department of Public Utilities and Conservation Law Foundation v. Department of Public Utilities, which prohibits the Department of Public Utilities from authorizing electric distribution companies to enter into electric ratepayer-backed gas pipeline contracts;
• Decrease the yearly increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from 3% to 1% until 2033; and
• Require the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to direct the utilities to coordinate an initiative to perform a customer bill-impact analysis assessment on costs from any programs associated with greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy, solar, workforce development, or electrification.

It does not appear, however, that the bill would meaningfully address many of the largest real underlying energy cost drivers affecting Massachusetts households and businesses, and in fact would leave customers worse off through greater exposure to their pressures. These energy cost drivers include:

• Gas volatility and fossil fuel costs – impacts on electric and gas as well as transportation budgets
• Gas infrastructure spending – ballooning expenditures on leak prone gas pipe replacements
• Electric transmission costs – skyrocketing Asset Condition Project (ACP) spending, putting upward pressure on highest transmission costs in the nation
• Utility profits from traditional regulation and financing
• Failure to invest sufficiently in cost-reducing technologies like Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs), energy storage, and demand response/Virtual Power Plants; and beyond

There is a large and growing body of evidence supporting the strong continued rationale for keeping Massachusetts’ climate targets on the books and augmenting the set of policy and program levers at the state’s disposal, rather than throwing in the towel five years ahead of a deadline. This evidence includes:

• Total costs of the transition are relatively small and manageable: In analysis undertaken for the Massachusetts Decarbonization Roadmap and Clean Energy and Climate Plans (CECP), findings showed that the total cost increase of a representative mitigation pathway in 2050 ($1.5 billion annual spending) compared to a non-decarbonized reference case in 2050 was actually less than the expected increase in statewide energy costs resulting from population and economic growth ($2.4 billion annual spending).
• Clean energy done right will save households money: The 2025/2030 CECP found that “The increased adoption of electrified transportation and heating systems means that the average Massachusetts household will spend less money on energy every year. Average overall household energy expenditures, which include transportation-related fuel costs (included as “energy” cost in this analysis), are projected to decline 8% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, for an average household savings of $400 per year.”
• Investing in clean energy grows Massachusetts GDP and creates local jobs: Pathways that invest in local energy resources, including renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency, create more jobs and demonstrate greater economic benefits by keeping money local compared to pathways more reliant on imported energy. For example, the “All Options” pathway from the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Study Economic and Health Impacts Report (which emphasized deep electrification and broad renewable electricity buildout) had 17% higher economic “output” (the broadest measure of economic activity) in Massachusetts per dollar invested than the “Pipeline Gas” pathway (which relied heavily on imported alternative fuels).
• The global energy transition continues to accelerate, countering U.S. headwinds: Massachusetts’ 2030 climate targets were enacted in law in 2021, four full years ago. Since then, despite turbulent tailwinds and headwinds at the federal level, the pace of global technology improvement and development has accelerated markedly. Technologies continue to improve in their performance: solar cells are more efficient, battery cells are achieving greater energy densities, and heat pumps are notching even higher coefficients of performance (COP). And costs continue to decline as well: for example, the average price of a lithium-ion battery pack fell 20 percent last year to $115 per kilowatt-hour — the biggest drop since 2017, according to clean energy research firm BloombergNEF. This is part of an even larger drop from $155 to $115/kWh between 2021 and 2024, and further cost declines have materialized since then as well. These are cost reductions that Massachusetts can now take advantage of to reap greater savings and benefits than originally forecast four years ago.

Although recent negative developments at the federal level must be acknowledged, it is still eminently possible for the Commonwealth to adapt to them and forge a modified path forward that keeps climate targets within reach while preserving affordability.

 

Statement on PURA’s Approval of a $66M Rate Increase for United Illuminating Customers

October 30, 2025

Press Release

MEDIA CONTACTS

Kate McAuliffe
Senior Policy Advocate, Connecticut
Kmcauliffe@acadiacenter.org; 860-246-7121 x202

Noah Berman
Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager
nberman@acadiacenter.org; 617-742-0054 x107

Acadia Center raises affordability concerns over PURA’s approval of a significant $66M increase in rates for United Illuminating (UI) electricity customers and calls for sustained implementation of rate reforms

Nonprofit urges PURA to remain focused on affordability and rapidly implement the draft Performance-Based Ratemaking framework to reduce customer costs.”

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), issued a final decision in the United Illuminating (UI) rate case granting the utility a $66 million rate hike.  This increase is $2.3 million larger than a proposal UI had previously said was “just and reasonable.”

In fact, according to Noah Berman, Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager at Acadia Center, “The approved $66M rate increase is more than double what was approved in the draft decision under previous leadership. With the approved rates, the average UI customer can expect an annual bill increase of $120 to $156.”

“Connecticut already has some of the highest electric rates in the country,” noted Kate McAuliffe, Senior Policy Advocate for Connecticut at Acadia Center. “PURA and intervenors have spent the last several years working on tools that the Authority can use to control high rates in the performance-based ratemaking (PBR) docket. We urge PURA to remain focused on affordability and rapidly implement the draft PBR framework to reduce customer costs, make better use of low-cost technologies, and plan the distribution grid in a more integrated way.”

“PURA faces a large body of ongoing casework that intervenors and Authority staff have invested substantial time and effort into,” said Berman. “That the Authority voted to approve an additional $37M in rate increases for UI as compared to the Authority’s prior draft decision is concerning – particularly since $66M is over $2M more than UI itself said was sufficient for it to operate in a filing made only 11 days before the vote.”

On September 10, 2025 – during former Chair Marissa Gillett’s tenure – PURA issued a draft decision in UI’s rate case, which would have granted the utility a $28.6M rate hike. Afterward, UI and other intervenors began settlement talks to determine if a stipulated agreement would be feasible. When those talks failed to reach consensus, UI submitted an Alternative Resolution Position (ARP) stating that a $63.7M rate increase would lead to “a just and reasonable result.” (UI’s Motion to Adopt and Approve the United Illuminating Alternative Resolution Position at 2). On October 28th – after former Chair Gillett’s resignation and recusal from the proceeding – PURA approved a final decision in UI’s rate case, granting UI a $66M rate hike. The approved $66M rate increase is more than double what was approved in the draft decision under previous leadership, and substantially mirrors the positions included in UI’s ARP. With the approved rates, the average UI customer can expect an annual bill increase of $120 to $156.

PBR is a common-sense, alternative utility regulatory framework that ties financial incentives for utilities to measurable performance outcomes rather than simply allowing recovery of costs for capital investments. The Authority was expected to release its final decisions in the three PBR reopeners in mid-October but has delayed the release of those decisions for an indeterminate amount of time. The swift implementation of the framework provided for in the three draft decisions would bring substantial benefits to Connecticut electricity customers by containing the electric utilities’ costs and shifting their incentives to align with the public policy priorities of the state — such as lower electric bills, better reliability, improved resilience during storms, and reduced pollution. A well-designed PBR framework, which PURA still has in its Draft Decisions, can provide meaningful relief to ratepayers, and PURA should consider moving forward with all due haste.

APRIL FOOL’S GOLD: Acadia Center Responds to Latest Fossil Fuel Interest Attacks on Clean Energy Policies in New England

Full Press Release Here

MEDIA CONTACT:
Kyle Murray
Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106

No, it’s not an April Fool’s Day prank: following their easily debunked November energy cost report, fossil fuel-interest think tanks are back with a new round of the same tired and misguided attacks against clean energy policies in New England. Today, the groups – including Americans for Prosperity, the Josiah Bartlet Center for Public Policy, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Maine Policy Institute, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, and Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity – held an online press conference to discuss “the effects of alternative energy mandates on the region’s taxpayers.” Since their last flawed analyses, New Englanders have endured a cold and costly winter when it comes to energy bills. The tally of these costs lays bare the region’s untenable overreliance on fossil fuels, with rising energy burdens driven by natural gas infrastructure, generous utility profits, and the region’s continued fossil fuel investments – all exacerbated by reckless actions from the Trump Administration.

With the costs of New England’s fossil fuel reliance growing, clean energy and energy efficiency now have the potential to deliver even greater benefits to families and businesses across the region, by mitigating and avoiding precisely the kind of price spikes seen this winter. New England wholesale electricity costs exceeded $10 billion in 2024 for the third time in four years, a period that saw natural gas grow to unprecedented levels of overreliance (51% of net energy for load in 2024). One program giving payments to dual-fuel (gas-oil) power plants, the inventoried energy program (IEP), cost ratepayers almost $80 million over just five days this winter. And gas heating customers felt the pain too, with natural gas spiking to an average of almost $17/MMBtu in the month of January (a 120% increase over the prior January), and the region’s growing gas distribution networks pushing up delivery costs to previously unseen levels. Energy efficiency programs like Mass Save, touted as the Boogeyman for rising costs, are actually saving customers money by preventing needless additional expenditures on fossil fuels at such costly rates. For example, Rhode Island’s 2024-2026 energy efficiency plan is helping avoid almost $50m in added costs if load was instead met by purchasing additional electric supply.

Figure 1 and 2: New England Wholesale Electricity Costs and Sources of Grid Electricity (source: ISO-NE)

 

The takeaway for the region remains true: New England has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and revolutionize its energy system with clean energy and localize the job-creation and GDP impact of energy expenditures within the regional economy, rather than export them afar. Right now, the region has almost all its eggs in the fossil fuel basket, and this offers only the false promise of fool’s gold in protecting the region’s consumers from rising energy bills. The region must double down on its climate and clean energy goals to make the broader northeast region energy independent from fossil fuels, reduce consumer price spikes, and mitigate the economic harms of worsening climate change.

It’s time to set the record straight once again:

False claim #1: the region’s aggressive renewable climate energy policies are a major driver of high utility bills in New England.

Don’t let them fool you: New England spends $76b per year on energy, the majority of which still goes to fossil fuels from outside the region (source: EIA data for 2022). Plus, it was very, very cold this winter; the coldest winter since 2014-2015, in fact.[1] According to data compiled by Acadia Center (see figure 3 and 4 below), the average temperature in December 2024 was a full 10°F colder than December 2023. Further, from December 2024 through February 2025, Massachusetts saw 23 days colder than 20°F, compared to only nine such days the year prior. These colder temperatures generally mean that residents are using more energy, driving up bills.

Figures 3 and 4: Quantifying Winter 2024-2025 Cold Intensity (source: Acadia Center)

 

However, due to the Commonwealth’s overreliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels, it also means higher costs for the supply of energy. As America exports more liquefied natural gas (LNG) abroad, domestic gas prices are increasingly tied to the unpredictability of global gas markets, leading to increased price volatility for consumers. By contrast, renewable energy contracts provide a means of locking in affordable prices/rates over a long period of time, helping hedge and insulate the region from the volatile swings in fossil fuel commodity prices seen this winter. Had the Trump Administration not brought offshore wind development to a grinding halt, more high-value offshore wind resources would be available to mitigate winter price spikes and deliver much needed winter resource adequacy in the winters to come.

On the gas side, existing gas customers pay a disproportionate share of the costs for bringing new customers online. Since 2018, existing gas customers have footed the bill for 80% of all new gas customer connections. And these subsidies – known as line extension allowances – are driving up gas bills for everyone. In 2023 alone, Massachusetts gas customers were charged $160 million to add new customers to the gas system, to the tune of $9,000 per new customer, which is reflected on ratepayer gas bills. The cost of adding new customers is rising as well: the average cost of adding new customers rose 50% between 2020-2021 and again in 2022-2023. In fact, despite an acknowledgement by the state and by utilities that we should be winding the gas system down – not expanding it – the growth of the sprawling pipe network shows no signs of stopping. According to analysis from the Attorney General’s Office in Massachusetts, the path we’re currently on could see the state’s gas rate base – the total value of gas system assets on which utilities are allowed to earn a rate of return – jump from $10 to $20 billion in the span of roughly a decade, when factoring in the cost of new and replaced gas pipes.

Figure 5: Analysis of Growth Trajectory for Gas System Rate Base in MA  (source: Joint Direct Testimony of Brattle Group on behalf of the MA Attorney General’s Office, DPU 24-GSEP-01, Feb. 2025)

False claim #2: state laws requiring net zero by 2050, which are driving up costs for families and businesses.

As we wrote back in November, extensive modeling previously conducted by Massachusetts for the Commonwealth’s ‘2050 Decarbonization Roadmap’ and Clean Energy and Climate Plans (CECP) provide evidence for a much different trajectory for regional energy prices tied to achievement of 2050 climate targets. These studies included granular region-wide energy system modeling to arrive at their results for Massachusetts customers:

• The 2025/2030 CECP found: “The increased adoption of electrified transportation and heating systems means that the average Massachusetts household will spend less money on energy every year. Average overall household energy expenditures, which include transportation-related fuel costs (included as “energy” cost in this analysis), are projected to decline 8% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, for an average household savings of $400 per year.”
• The 2050 CECP found: “the efficiency gains of electrification will result in lower household energy expenditures through 2050 (monthly bills for electricity and fuels). Transportation and household-related electricity and fuel expenditures are projected to decline by roughly 13% between 2030 and 2050, representing an average of nearly $600 (in 2021 dollars) in 2050 compared to 2030.

We also have to remember: pathways that invest in local energy resources, including renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency, create more jobs and demonstrate greater economic benefits by keeping money local compared to pathways more reliant on imported energy. For example, the “All Options” pathway from the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Study Economic and Health Impacts Report  (which emphasized deep electrification and broad renewable electricity buildout) had 17% higher economic “output” (the broadest measure of economic activity) in Massachusetts per dollar invested than the “Pipeline Gas” pathway (which relied heavily on imported alternative fuels). Evidence of these benefits in action is highlighted throughout state clean energy industry reports conducted regularly, such as in Massachusetts, where in 2022, the industry contributed over $14b to Gross State Product, and in Maine, where the clean energy economy now accounts for over 2% of the state’s total workforce, more than 15,000 jobs.

False claim #3: energy efficiency programs are the culprit for rising energy bills this winter.

In response to complaints about energy affordability, some have blamed increased funding of the region’s cost-effective energy efficiency programs. This is no small source of irony – Mass Save®, for example, is a relatively small fraction of bills, but it is the most potent tool available to empower consumers to control their energy costs and protect them from fossil fuel price spikes. The vast majority of the bill for gas customers, around 70-75%, goes toward natural gas costs – relating to gas supply, distribution, and maintenance, compared to just 15-25% going toward energy efficiency. A similar dynamic is true on the electric side, where energy efficiency programs also represent only a small fraction in bills compared to fossil fuel and poles/wires costs: based on a recent bill from an Acadia Center staffer in Massachusetts, efficiency accounts for around 9% of a total National Grid electric bill.

Figure 6: Breakdown of Monthly Gas Bill for Massachusetts Customer in February (source: Eversource)

 

Unlike other energy costs, efficiency is the only investment that is required to pass cost-effectiveness testing. In fact, overall system costs would be billions of dollars greater without the cost reductions secured with efficiency; the more the benefits of improved energy efficiency are reduced, the costlier our energy system becomes.

Figure 7: Benefits of Current Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans by State (source: Acadia Center)

We should be investing even more to give homeowners, renters, and small businesses more tools to control their energy use and utility bills by increasing access to energy efficiency and implementing time-of-use (TOU) rates, plus expanding offerings for demand response and battery storage – which serve as far more cost-effective solutions for peak demand periods than the enormously costly reliability-must-run (RMR) contracts with fossil fuel power plants that ratepayers have had to bear in recent years. Increased oversight and accountability of utility distribution costs can also help drive savings for ratepayers, including via performance-based regulatory approaches to reduce inefficiencies and align incentives.

Looking back over time, the enormous benefits of the region’s energy efficiency benefits are self-evident. They have provided, as recently as 2023, 15% of gross electricity load for the entire region over the course of the year. In this way, energy efficiency helps meet the energy needs of our grid much in the same way as traditional supply resources like gas, oil, and coal. At the end of the day, the lowest-cost source of electricity is the one we never use.

Figure 8: Historic Benefits of NE Energy Efficiency Programs, 2012-2023 (source: Acadia Center)

[1] https://www.nbcboston.com/weather/stories-weather/boston-total-snowfall-this-winter/3636399/

Myth Busters!

We’ve all had the experience of reading a news article, blog or social media post and thinking: “But that’s wrong!” or “This is misinterpreting and misusing the research!” Acadia Center would like to set the record straight on some of the common misconceptions about clean energy and energy efficiency.

Myth: 100% clean energy is a pipedream, and we will always need oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels.

Reality: It’s not a question of “if” the world can run on 100% clean energy, but “when.” Renewable electricity is expected to grow globally by 1,200 gigawatts in the next five years, the equivalent of the total electricity capacity of the U.S. By 2050, many countries will achieve 100% renewable energy, and many countries can meet their energy needs with 100% clean energy. It is feasible around the world AND here in the Northeast.

Myth: Renewable energy is too expensive.

Reality: Renewable energy resources are increasingly cost-competitive compared to fossil fuels and getting more so every day; in fact, solar and wind energy are cheaper than gas power plants in many situations. In addition, it is cheaper to build new renewables – without subsidies – than it is to keep existing coal plants running. The costs of renewable energy keep decreasing, while the cost of aging fossil fuel resources keep increasing, and that’s all before you even factor in the social cost of carbon.

Myth: Energy efficiency is a limited resource because we’ve already made most efficiency gains.

Reality: Energy efficiency is a vast resource that can include everything from huge industrial plants to the elevators in your office building to the toaster on your kitchen counter.  We have massive untapped energy efficiency gains yet to come, as well as energy efficiency resources that can be turned on and off, or up and down, to satisfy demand and ensure reliability during extreme events like heat waves.

Myth: Clean energy and energy efficiency only help the wealthy.

Reality: Everyone benefits when we deploy clean energy resources, because the cost of the energy is reduced. Many low- and moderate-income households live in homes that are much less efficient than average, so targeting clean energy and efficiency work in those places make a huge difference in families’ household budgets. Clean energy helps to eliminate local air pollution, which disproportionately harms low-income communities and communities of color.

Myth: Heat pumps are not cost-effective.

Reality:  Whole-home electrification that includes heat pump installations can save energy and money, especially when paired with common-sense weatherization improvements such as better insulation. Further, electricity rates are somewhat sheltered from the wild fluctuations seen in natural gas prices. This winter residents could suffer the most expensive gas prices in years, but as more renewables are added to our grid, electricity prices can remain stable even when gas prices climb. Best of all, heat pumps help avoid the increasing cost and health impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, helping to create the clean energy future all deserve.

Unfortunately, misconceptions of this kind continue in our work, so we’ll continue to counter fiction with facts. Watch for more “Myth Busters” coming soon!

Baker Administration’s Energy Bill Attempts to Harness Winds of Fortune

On October 13th, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker filed legislation that he hopes will provide a massive boost to clean energy in the Commonwealth. The legislation contains a number of reforms to the offshore wind procurement process, but centers primarily around the creation of a new Clean Energy Investment Fund. Located at MassCEC, this fund will be financed with $750 million in COVID-19 funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The Administration hopes that this investment, the “largest investment in the clean energy economy that the Commonwealth has made to date,” will spur the development of a major industry in the state.[1] The Baker administration’s goal seems to be to repeat the success that Massachusetts has had with the life sciences industry, now with the growing clean energy sector. In 2008, then-Governor Patrick signed a $1 billion bond to fund the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center Capital Funding Programs. Thanks to that bill and repeated investments, the life sciences are one of Boston’s most successful industries.[2]

In addition to this substantial investment in clean energy, this legislation also modifies a number of provisions concerning the offshore wind procurement process, which Acadia Center considers to be largely positive. Under current state law, each new bid for long-term offshore wind contracts must be lower than the last accepted bid. Unfortunately, the first bids for offshore wind contracts came in significantly lower than expected. This has made getting each subsequent bid under the cap much more difficult, with the last round of procurement receiving only two bidders.[3] This legislation eliminates the price cap that is currently constraining the industry, which should open the field to many more bidders.

The proposed legislation also eliminates a glaring conflict of interest in the bid selection process. Under current law, the electric distribution companies (EDCs) select the winning contracts from the offshore wind developers, with no protections against the EDCs selecting a bid where they directly partnered with offshore wind developers. This legislation removes this conflict of interest by selecting the Department of Energy Resources as the final arbiter, in consultation with the EDCs. Additionally, this bill implements better flexibility for DOER in selecting a bid to give greater credit to bids that promote economic development, with a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion; benefits to environmental justice communities; and mitigation and avoidance of detrimental environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Acadia Center welcomes these developments.

The bill is not without its deficiencies, however. Chief among Acadia Center’s concerns is the modification to remuneration from a ceiling of 2.75% to a floor of 2.5%, when it should be eliminated entirely. Under current state law, EDCs can receive up to 2.75% of the total contract price for long-term offshore wind contracts as compensation for holding the contract on its books.[4] The proposed legislation sets this payment at 2.5%.The idea when it originally passed in 2016 was that large-scale offshore wind was a brand-new industry in the United States, and the EDCs faced some uncertainty and risk under the contracts. The offshore wind industry in Massachusetts has since proven itself to be a smart investment that will pay dividends for the EDCs, even without remuneration. Remuneration for EDCs with these contracts is no longer necessary and should be eliminated completely.

The funding of the new trust fund could use improvement as well. While the infusion of $750 million will certainly help jumpstart the industry, the use of ARPA money is concerning. First, the money from ARPA is a one-time source of funding for the Commonwealth. This legislation fails to set up a recurring revenue source, and instead leaves future funding up in the air. Additionally, the money from APRA is time-limited and must be expended by December 31, 2026.[5] These factors leave the future of this new fund uncertain.

Finally, the specific purposes listed for the Fund are somewhat vague and unclear. For example, it is not currently clear if the definition of clean energy technology would include the heat pump industry for home electrification. Given that the administration’s own Clean Energy and Climate Plan calls for the installation of one million heat pumps by 2030, it would be foolish to possibly exclude the heat pump industry because of vague terminology.[6]

Overall, Acadia Center appreciates the work put into this legislation by the Baker administration. We look forward to working with them and the legislature to make this bill as strong as possible to deliver the clean energy future we all deserve.

 

[1] According to Governor Baker’s filing letter with the legislation: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/H4204

[2] See https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/06/15/business/has-boston-become-silicon-valley-biotech/

[3] See https://commonwealthmagazine.org/energy/2-offshore-wind-developers-submit-bids/

[4] See https://commonwealthmagazine.org/energy/dpu-gives-168m-offshore-wind-bonus-to-utilities/

[5] See https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf

[6] See https://www.mass.gov/doc/interim-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030-december-30-2020/download

Connecticut promoted a natural gas plan that was supposed to save taxpayers money. Natural gas prices are now soaring, promising a costly winter

Read the full article in the Hartford Courant here

RGGI Centers Environmental Justice in 3rd Program Review

Environmental justice is taking center stage in the latest Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program review now underway.

…

Justice and equity considerations were among the topics that RGGI sought input on during a public engagement session for the program’s third review since its launch in 2009.

….

While RGGI has delivered many benefits, such as clean air and energy savings, “the program falls short when it comes to ensuring that those benefits are equitably delivered,” Jordan Stutt, carbon programs director at Acadia Center, said during the session.

Read the full article in RTO Insider here

Massachusetts advocates say they’re being ignored in future-of-gas talks

As Massachusetts gas companies start legally mandated investigations into their role in a clean energy future, advocates are concerned that stakeholder voices calling for aggressive decarbonization, environmental justice, and a fair transition for fossil fuel workers are being shut out at a crucial moment in the process.

While the gas companies contend they are committed to soliciting and incorporating stakeholder feedback, advocates say the utilities are failing to fully engage with their concerns. At the same time, the state has rejected advocates’ requests for increased oversight from regulators.

“It’s important for our perspective to be at the center of this and right now it feels like we’re much more of an audience,” said Debbie New, a participant in the Gas Leaks Allies coalition. “When questions about labor, equity, health, or safety are asked, we are told they will consider them later, rather than making them integral to the process.”

In June 2020, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey asked the state’s department of public utilities to open an investigation into the future of the natural gas industry as the state moves toward its goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The department launched the investigation in October of that year with the stated goal of developing “a regulatory and policy roadmap to guide the evolution of the gas distribution industry.”

The first step in Massachusetts’ process required the state’s gas distribution companies to hire consultants to analyze the costs, regulatory implications, and emissions reductions involved in several different decarbonization strategies the state could pursue. These studies, the order specified, should look at the so-called “pathways” laid out in the state’s 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap, as well as any other scenarios deemed appropriate. They should also take into account the input of stakeholders, the state said.

….

That timeline makes right now a very important moment for environmental and public health activists. The report that emerges from the current process will inform the rest of the discussions and decisions throughout the investigation. Therefore, advocates argue, it is essential that there is broad agreement as to the scenarios the consultants model, the data used, and the assumptions made.

“If we are relying on this study, let’s do our homework,” said Amy Boyd, director of policy for climate nonprofit the Acadia Center. “We need to ask the right questions in order to be able to trust the answers at the end of the process.”

Read the full article in Energy News Network here

Supporting Public Health, Transportation Investment and Climate Commitments through TCI-P

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island must not squander their opportunity to deliver the clean air and improved transportation options that residents and businesses deserve. Chronic underinvestment—both in marginalized communities and in alternatives to personal vehicles—has resulted in congested roads, inadequate public transit, and isolated communities. At the same time, the imported fossil fuels used to power vehicles remain the region’s most significant contributor to climate change and a major source of locally harmful air pollution.

Bold action is needed to address these growing challenges. One piece of the solution is the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P), a multi-state effort to reduce tailpipe pollution while funding investment in clean transportation projects. In southern New England, the governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have been working together to implement this program to deliver cleaner air and better transportation options.  States must act with urgency and a commitment to equity in advancing this crucial program.

TCI-P also has the support of the region’s residents. Recent polling of Republican, Independent and Democratic voters from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island found that 70% of the region’s residents support participation in TCI-P. That level of popular support combined with program’s substantial benefits begs the question: what’s holding up the process?  In short, misinformation from Koch-funded networks and the fossil fuel industry have caused temporary delays, but state legislators in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island still have an opportunity to act.

Tackling Shared Challenges in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island

Due to the regional nature of transportation pollution—both vehicle tailpipes and the pollution they emit cross state lines—regional collaboration to confront this challenge is critical. A regional solution is also well suited to address the similar issues that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are facing. In all three states, TCI-P will improve poor air quality, provide much-needed funds for clean transportation investment, and help the states meet their climate requirements.

Public Health

Transportation pollution causes poor air quality and results in substantial healthcare costs for individuals and the broader public health system. While some of the region’s air pollution comes from upwind states, much it comes from cars, trucks and buses that operate locally, causing significant harm to communities near highways, cities, and ports. Despite the fact that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are home to just 3.5% of the country’s population, five of the top 20 Asthma Capitals in the country are located here: New Haven, CT (#5), Worcester, MA (#11), Springfield, MA (#12), Hartford, CT (#17), and Boston, MA (#18) have some of the highest rates of asthma prevalence, emergency department visits due to asthma, and asthma-related fatalities. Making matters worse, that pollution disproportionately harms communities of color: Asian American, African American and Latino residents in Massachusetts are exposed to 36%, 34%, and 28% more particulate matter from transportation, respectively, than white residents.

Fixing the costly and inequitable burdens of transportation pollution will require multiple strategies, but TCI-P will help. Analysis of TCI-P from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health finds that the program will result in over $1 billion in annual health benefits across the three states by 2032 (annual health benefits by state: Massachusetts, $710 million; Connecticut, $360 million; and RI, $100 million). By delivering cleaner air and making walking and biking safer and more accessible, TCI-P will help the region’s residents thrive.

Clean Transportation Investment

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have all developed robust plans for clean transportation investment. All three plans, designed with significant stakeholder input, are organized around the need to meet climate targets, improve mobility options for all residents, and invest in a resilient and modern transportation system. The specific ideas proposed in these plans include affordable, reliable, electrified public transit, better walking and biking infrastructure, expanded broadband internet, equitable EV incentive programs, and more. In addition to improving air quality and mobility choices, these investments would create much-needed jobs in growing sectors of the economy.

TCI-P would provide an important new source of funding for these investments while supporting the states’ efforts to secure matching federal funds. Over the program’s first 10 years, the three states are projected to receive over $3 billion in proceeds for clean transportation investment (projected proceeds by state: Massachusetts, $1.8 billion; Connecticut, $1 billion; and RI, $249 million). As described by the authors of Rhode Island’s Clean Transportation and Mobility Innovation Report, “this new funding is integral to the full realization of the recommendations made by the Mobility Innovation Working Group”.

Meeting Climate Commitments

Vehicle tailpipes are the largest source of climate pollution in the region by a wide margin. In Connecticut, the transportation sector accounts for more climate pollution than the electricity and residential sectors combined. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all have binding, economy-wide climate targets in place, but states will fail to achieve those targets without bold action to reduce pollution from the transportation sector. As stated by Commissioner Dykes of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, “we know that we will not be able to meet the legislatively mandated targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030, unless we have a tool that’s as impactful as [TCI-P].”

TCI-P will help participating states achieve their climate commitments by establishing an ambitious yet achievable glide path for transportation decarbonization and by funding investments in clean transportation. The longer we delay action to reduce transportation pollution, the more dramatic—and expensive—the necessary measures will be.

Opposition from Koch-Funded Networks and the Fossil Fuel Industry

Despite broad support for TCI-P, the program does have opposition. In some cases, that opposition stems from genuine concerns around how TCI-P will ensure equitable outcomes for environmental justice communities and other overburdened and underserved populations. Acadia Center has expressed similar concerns and is currently working to advance TCI-P provisions and other policies to secure cleaner air, better transportation options, and more oversight for the communities marginalized by our transportation system.

The loudest opposition to TCI-P, however, comes from two small but vocal camps: organizations with close ties to the Koch network’s dark money, and those who profit more directly from our continued reliance on gasoline and diesel fuels.

Coordinated Opposition

The Yankee Institute in Connecticut and the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity are members of the State Policy Network (SPN), a network of conservative think tanks backed by Koch-funded foundations working to “oppose climate change regulations, lower wages, cut taxes and business regulations, tighten voter restrictions, privatize education, and hide the identities of political donors.” The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, an organization notoriously adverse to donor transparency, works closely with these SPN groups to oppose clean energy and climate policies. Joining these groups is the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, a trade association representing some of the region’s gas stations, which is trying to preserve the region’s costly dependence on gasoline and diesel fuels by delaying the transition to a clean transportation future.

Misinformation Campaigns

All of these groups rely on scare tactics and disinformation campaigns to block climate action and slow investment in clean transportation. From a stubborn reliance on long-debunked, inflated cost projections (hint: anyone still citing the Tufts CSPA study, whose author acknowledged its inaccuracies, or its 38 cents/gallon price tag is resorting to willful misinformation for lack of better arguments) to a dogmatic refusal to acknowledge TCI-P’s public health, economic, and transportation benefits, these opponents rarely address the details of the actual program that the states are planning to implement.

Offering No Solutions

Perhaps most frustratingly, the opposition offers no solutions to the climate crisis, to our underfunded and outdated transportation infrastructure, or to the devastating public health impacts from tailpipe pollution. Rather than addressing avoidable deaths from local tailpipe pollution, creating better transit options, reducing traffic, and investing in transportation infrastructure, they ask residents to be content with the status quo, point fingers at other states, hope to be rescued by the federal government, and demand inaction from state policy makers. Unfortunately, too many state legislators have been willing to oblige while parroting the opposition’s misinformation.

What’s Next for TCI-P?

Clean air, new jobs, and better transportation options are still within our grasp. The governors of all three southern New England states are supporting the TCI program; now it is the legislatures’ responsibility to act, not only to authorize TCI-P participation, but to codify provisions to ensure the program prioritizes the needs of overburdened and underserved communities across the region.

In Connecticut, the legislature must pass TCI-P legislation through a special session this fall that enables participation in the program and establishes important equity and environmental justice provisions.

In Rhode Island, the Senate passed TCI-P legislation in 2021, but the full legislature will need to move the bill forward in 2022 to enable participation.

In Massachusetts, the legislature has already granted the Governor authority to implement TCI-P, and new legislation has been filed that would strengthen existing provisions to benefit overburdened and underserved communities.

Through the passage of these important bills, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island will be advancing meaningful action to address climate change and help every community thrive.

 

For More Information:

Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director, jstutt@acadiacenter.org, (617) 742 0054 x105

 

State Legislatures 101: A Comparison of Northeast States

Anyone who follows politics is familiar with the national Congress, and the various dramas and frustrations of passing laws at the national level. Yet many of us are not familiar with how our own state legislature operates, even though it passes laws that affect every aspect of local life. In our federal system, each state has wide latitude to create its own procedures. Despite a shared history and some of the oldest legislatures of the United States (legacies of the original British colonies), each New England state has its own unique quirks.

 

Massachusetts

Massachusetts is unique among New England states for having the only full-time legislature in the region. This session is the 192^nd “General Court” of the legislature – the term “General Court” grew out of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony General Court of 1629, when leaders met to pass laws and also decide legal cases. Unlike the national Congress, where Senators and Representatives serve longer terms of different lengths, legislative sessions in Massachusetts are two years for all legislators. There are no term limits except for certain positions, such as Speaker of the House. According to our Massachusetts state lead Kyle Murray, who worked for 9 years in the office of Senator Pacheco, this is intended to help retain institutional knowledge, as term limits and frequent turnover could eliminate experienced legislators. The first year of the session is largely dedicated to hearings, and most bills are passed in the second year of the session, often in a flurry of activity on the last few days.

 

Connecticut

Connecticut’s legislators also serve 2-year terms, but unlike Massachusetts, the legislature is in session for only half the year. Sessions are held from January to June in odd-numbered years, and from February to May in even-numbered years. According to Connecticut state lead Amy McLean, this part-term legislative schedule is a vestige of the early days of the Connecticut colony, when most members were directly involved in agriculture and were only able to be away from their farms during the winter and early spring. Although legislators are technically part-time, they are contacted by constituents year-round. As Amy says, being an elected official in the Connecticut legislature is really a “full-time job with part-time pay.” During the summer and fall, Acadia Center and other advocates prepare intensively for the next session that begins in the winter by meeting with legislators, hammering out coalition priorities and strategizing which bills to introduce in the next session.

 

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s calendar is very similar to Connecticut’s: a six-month session starting in January each year, with the occasional special session to deal with urgent issues. As a part-time legislature the Rhode Island General Assembly conducts most official business in the evenings, enabling legislators to also hold jobs during the day. However, as with any political position, the work of a legislator extends well beyond hearings and votes and requires engagement with citizens and advocates (like Acadia Center) on a year-round basis.

The passage of bills through the General Assembly is complex: unlike the Joint Committee structure of most legislatures, House and Senate committees in Rhode Island function separately, which means two versions of each legislative proposal advance independently through each chamber. State lead Hank Webster works to coordinate policy development across both chambers, with Acadia Center’s priority bills often passing through the  Environment and Natural Resources Committee or Corporations Committee in the House, and the Environment and Agriculture Committee and Commerce Committee in the Senate.

 

Maine

Founded in 1832, the Maine legislature follows a 2-year schedule and is also in session only during the winter and spring months. In the Maine legislature, members of both Houses are elected for two-year terms and are limited to four consecutive terms.  During the first regular session, a legislator may submit legislation on any topic. In the second year, the Constitution of Maine limits bills to those proposed by the Governor, emergency, directed-study, and direct initiative bills.

A part-time legislative system, (also known as a traditional or citizen legislature) leads to a different profile of legislators than in states with a full-time system. Having a job separate from being a legislator can be helpful in terms of grounding legislators in real-world issues. According to our Maine state lead Jeff Marks, the Maine legislature is very diverse in terms of occupations, from fishermen to small business owners to lawyers, as well as retirees with a range of experiences. As with other states, the part-time structure limits who can be a legislator, because people who have full-time, year-round jobs or who cannot support themselves on a part-time salary may choose not to be legislators.