New Report Outlines a Road map for Interregional Tx in the Northeast
A new report outlines a high-level road map for cross-border interregional transmission planning in the Northeast, making the case for more coordinated planning processes across sub-regions and regulatory environments.
The analysis, authored by the energy consulting firm Power Advisory, was commissioned by the Northeast Grid Planning Forum. The forum is an initiative of Nergica, a Quebec-based clean energy research organization, and the Acadia Center. (See New Initiative Focuses on Interregional Tx Coordination in the Northeast.)
“Provinces and states could benefit through enhanced coordination and transmission project development that optimizes utilization of existing resources and enables development of new clean energy sources,” Power Advisory wrote.
While studies have shown significant potential for increased interregional transmission throughout the Northeast, “fragmented planning processes and challenges presented by differences in regulatory structures” have limited states and provinces’ ability to fully realize these benefits, the authors wrote.
They emphasized the need to build trust, increase information access and establish mechanisms to facilitate transmission partnerships across regions and borders.
“A collaborative planning framework will require new approaches to sharing information and will require harmonizing planning processes to meet the requirements and planning horizons of each jurisdiction,” Power Advisory wrote. “Transparency and engagement will provide confidence in identified needs among jurisdictions and stakeholders.”
The report highlights several recent larger-scale transmission planning efforts as evidence of growing interest in interregional planning.
In June, the Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission, which includes nine states, issued a request for information (RFI) to identify “potential interregional transmission opportunities … that improve grid reliability, support economic growth and reduce costs for consumers.”
The states asked for input on potential cost allocation methods and wrote that responses to the RFI will “inform potential future solicitations or transmission planning activities.”
International cooperation around transmission planning also has increased. In 2024, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers agreed to reconvene the Northeast International Committee on Energy, directing the committee to establish working groups “to pursue regional collaboration and planning on the topics of transmission, offshore wind supply chain and hard-to-decarbonize sectors.”
In Atlantic Canada, top politicians are eying a massive buildout of offshore wind generation, which would require large-scale interregional transmission developments to move the power to load centers in Canada and New England.
According to a strategic plan published by Nova Scotia, researchers have identified offshore wind sites that could host 62 GW of generation. Nova Scotia has proposed a 5,000-MW first phase of development, requiring an estimated $40 billion in capital investment to build the generation and $20 billion to build the associated transmission.
These recent efforts “indicate recognition by the key jurisdictions that current transmission planning approaches are constrained and insufficient and need to change to realize the benefits of broader regional energy system integration,” Power Advisory wrote.
To select projects, existing regional competitive transmission solicitation processes could be aligned to allow for interregional projects, or new processes could be stood up, the authors wrote.
“The recently established ISO-NE Longer-Term Transmission Planning (LTTP) process provides an instructive model for need identification across a multi-jurisdiction region,” they said.
ISO-NE is evaluating project submissions for the first iteration of its LTTP process, which is focused on increasing transmission capacity in Maine and enabling the interconnection of onshore wind generation. (See ISO-NE Reveals 1st Details of Long-term Transmission Proposals.)
States and provinces also would need to establish cost sharing processes and could take inspiration from Europe’s cross-border cost allocation methodology, the authors wrote.
Cost allocation “should ensure full consideration of all benefits evaluated in each participating jurisdiction,” including “reduced production costs, avoided capacity costs, avoidance of alternative transmission investments, improved transmission system efficiency, reliability and other benefits,” the authors added.
To address the challenges of determining needs, selecting projects and allocating costs across regulatory authorities, states and provinces should establish “a joint coordination agreement” that “formalizes collaboration and provides a clear mandate for agency staff regarding the scope of future work,” Power Advisory concluded.
This could mirror the memorandum of understanding underpinning the Northeast States Collaborative and could lay the groundwork for answering more technical questions related to modeling, information sharing and aligning existing processes, they wrote.
To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.
Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks: Impacts to Affordability and Reliability in the Northeast
Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks Webinar PowerPoint
Report Projects $19.3B in Benefits from New England Efficiency Programs
Projected energy efficiency investments in New England over the next three years will generate an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits, returning $2.93 for every dollar spent, according to new analysis by the Acadia Center.
The report makes the case that states should not reduce efficiency spending when seeking to provide short-term rate relief, calling on lawmakers and officials to look for ways to fund programs more equitably.
The report, which relies on state-reported data on expected spending and benefits, found $6.6 billion in total expected spending across New England over the next three years.
The bulk of this spending — $4.5 billion — is concentrated in Massachusetts. The state also has the highest per-capita spending, followed by Maine and Rhode Island. New Hampshire has the lowest per- capita expected spending.
Different calculation methodologies make it difficult to compare program benefits among states, Acadia wrote. The group noted that calculations related to the social cost of carbon vary significantly between states, “ranging from a low of $0/short ton in New Hampshire to a high of $415 in Massachusetts.”
Despite these differences, “all states demonstrate a benefits/program budget ratio above 1.0, indicating that $1 invested in energy efficiency programs [generates] more value than the initial investment,” Acadia wrote.
The authors noted that Maine reported a particularly high benefit-to-budget ratio. They wrote that the state stands out for high reported benefits associated with electrification investments and a higher portion of the costs shared by participants in the program. While program participants are responsible for 15 to 35%of overall costs in other New England states, participants are responsible for 48% of costs in Maine.
The report also highlights ISO-NE data showing how the allocation of efficiency investments has changed in recent years. While traditional efficiency upgrades like insulation and appliance upgrades still make up most costs, the percentage of spending dedicated to electrification increased from 6% in 2020 to 30% in 2024.
Acadia also emphasized the climate, public health and employment benefits of efficiency investments, writing that efficiency programs “play an instrumental role in creating and sustaining the over ~161,000 energy efficiency industry jobs in the region that currently exist,” and that planned investments are expected to reduce emissions by about 25.3 million metric tons.
Efficiency improvements also lead to region-wide cost reductions in the ISO-NE wholesale markets, the authors wrote. However, quantifying these effects is made challenging by recent updates to ISO-NE’s load forecasting methodology, which “now omits reporting on annual and peak demand reductions from energy efficiency,” Acadia noted.
To ensure the longevity and maximum effectiveness of efficiency programs, “more focused attention will need to be paid toward how programs are funded, how ambition can be increased cost-effectively, who pays, and over what time period are costs incurred,” the authors wrote.
“New funding concepts and reforms in this arena will ensure that ratepayers continue to benefit greatly from efficiency as an energy resource while perhaps bearing less of a direct responsibility to invest in program budgets exclusively through electric and gas rates,” concludes the report.
To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.
Energy efficiency is reducing Northeast peak demand, electricity bills: Acadia
Energy efficiency efforts in six New England states and New York are saving customers billions of dollars on utility bills and reducing peak demand on the region’s electric grid, according to analysis published Monday by Acadia Center.
Acadia’s report focuses on investment levels and projected benefits from efficiency programs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. And it calls for improvements to efficiency data reporting that could unlock further energy savings.
“It is more important than ever for policymakers, advocates, program administrators, and consumers to understand the value and evolving role of energy efficiency resource acquisition and shape the future trajectories of the programs to meet the emerging needs of the region,” Jamie Dickerson, senior director of climate and clean energy programs at Acadia, said in a statement.
The report examines data in each state’s three-year energy efficiency plan, annual program reports and other filings. Acadia’s analysis shows the seven states are poised to invest almost $10 billion in efficiency overall, with New England programs alone generating an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits. New England and New York expect to realize 700 trillion Btu in lifetime savings across all fuels, including 20 TWh of lifetime electricity savings from efficiency investments in New England.
“Electric savings will help the region continue meeting a substantial portion of annual electric load via energy efficiency,” Acadia said. “Combining both electricity and combustible fuel savings, the New England states are projected to avoid 368 TBtu of lifetime energy use, and this projected total rises to 703 TBtu with the inclusion of New York State.”
Despite the savings, Acadia warned efficiency investment is under pressure.
“State energy efficiency programs make a major contribution to the energy system as a low-cost resource, yet face a pivotal juncture in the northeast region,” Dickerson said. “Consumer affordability is front of mind for consumers and policymakers with rising energy prices. Other energy resources are rising in cost, yet cuts to ratepayer funded programs — which reduce system costs — have been threatened and implemented by leading states.”
Massachusetts will lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits following a February decision to cut $500 million from efficiency program budgets, Acadia said. Similarly, Rhode Island efficiency programs face possible cuts of 30% that would lose the state about $92 million in benefits, according to the report.
Looking ahead, Acadia recommended that the New England states and New York “come together to better standardize metrics utilized for program measurement, evaluation, and reporting.”
“Major differences in reporting data persist, and the overall power and impact of energy efficiency in the northeast is limited without that alignment,” according to the report. “With more universal reporting methodologies and benefit cost tests, programs in the region would collectively be more powerful, the ability to understand the value and design of programs would be substantially improved, and new opportunities for states to learn from one another would be unlocked.
To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.
Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast
Report
Acadia Center announces release of new report “Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast.”
Acadia Center’s latest report highlights the essential contributions energy efficiency programs make to stabilizing costs, benefitting ratepayers, and diversifying the energy mix in seven states in the northeast.
Efficiency Ahead further recommends how standardizing metrics by states for program measurement, evaluation, and reporting would increase value.
ROCKPORT, ME – Acadia Center announces its new report: Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast. This new analysis takes a closer look at the most recent energy efficiency plans developed by the six New England states and New York. It examines program investment levels, projected benefits and energy savings, cost-effectiveness levels, the impact of recent proposed funding cuts, and states’ progress relative to their peers on criteria like per-capita investment levels.
“State energy efficiency programs make a major contribution to the energy system as a low-cost resource, yet face a pivotal juncture in the northeast region,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs. “Consumer affordability is front of mind for consumers and policymakers with rising energy prices. Other energy resources are rising in cost, yet cuts to ratepayer funded programs – which reduce system costs – have been threatened and implemented by leading states. It is more important than ever for policymakers, advocates, program administrators, and consumers to understand the value and evolving role of energy efficiency resource acquisition and shape the future trajectories of the programs to meet the emerging needs of the region.”
Each state in the Northeast operates and administers energy efficiency programs funded via electricity and natural gas bills to deliver energy efficiency and electrification improvements to customers. These ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have been and remain the largest source of investment in efficiency and building decarbonization for the region. These state programs have been operating for decades and provide major overall benefits in the form of reduced overall building energy consumption, energy cost savings to residents and businesses, reduced peak demand stress on the region’s electricity grid, and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in addition to significant job creation and economic development increases.
The analysis conducted by Acadia Center in this report draws on publicly available data reported in each state’s three-year energy efficiency plan, annual program reports, and related filings. The analysis in the report yielded the following findings for program activity in the next three years:
- Record-level investments and lifetime benefits: Seven states poised to invest almost $10 billion in efficiency overall, with New England programs alone generating an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits.
- Significant electricity and fuel savings: New England and New York combined are expected to realize 700 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) in lifetime savings across all fuels, including 20 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity savings (lifetime) from efficiency investments in New England—equivalent to 5.2 million homes using natural gas for one year in New England.
- Wide range in per-capita investments by state: Program budgets range from $149 per capita in New York State to $631 per capita in Massachusetts—revealing differences in population, portfolio mixes, cost-effectiveness screening, and overall program ambition.
- Missed benefits from recent budget cuts: Massachusetts will lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits, 20 TBtus of energy savings, and 1.8 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions by cutting $500m in program budgets. Rhode Island too faces cuts of 30% that would lose the state some $92m in benefits.
- Strong ongoing cost-effectiveness: Each dollar spent on efficiency yielding $2.93 in benefits across New England, on average—indicating an opportunity to increase investment levels further and acquire deeper cost-effective savings across the region.
- Major contributions to the region’s grid: Electric savings will help the region continue meeting a substantial portion of annual electric load via energy efficiency (20.6 TWh saved in 2023, or almost 15% of gross load).
While the benefits delivered by these programs are impressive, state program data were not easy to compile, and cross-state comparisons are made quite challenging by significant variations in reporting methodologies and data formatting across states. Cross-state collaboration to enable more uniform reporting would enable stakeholders to better communicate the significant positive benefits these programs are having on a regional scale.
“State energy efficiency programs are well positioned in the coming years to reduce overall building energy consumption, deliver energy cost savings to residents and businesses, reduce peak demand stress on the region’s electricity grid, and deliver reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—all despite the changing overall landscape for efficiency investments and available funding sources,” said Ben Butterworth, Director of Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis at Acadia Center and a lead author on this report. “Looking ahead, improving program design and administration can achieve even larger consumer and system benefits.”
MEDIA CONTACT
Jamie Dickerson
Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org; 401-276-0600 x102
Shave the Peak End-of-Summer Trend
This summer, we collected data every day from ISO-New England, the nonprofit Independent System Operator responsible for ensuring reliable electricity delivery across the six New England states. We tracked the forecasted high temperature, the forecasted and actual peak load, the time of said peak, the peak price of electricity and its timing, the CO2 emissions at peak, the output of behind the meter (BTM) solar and its timing, and whether or not we sent out a Shave the Peak notification to our subscribers who receive alerts on when and how to reduce electricity use during times of high stress on the grid. Stay tuned to find out how many Shave the Peak alerts we sent out this summer!
We’ve pulled together some statistics from this past summer (June-August) that highlight how much power demand can vary in the warmer months and how much that demand influences both electricity prices and pollution levels. By sharing these insights, we hope our followers can take these trends and turn them into action and, ultimately… You guessed it, Shave the Peak.
For example, on the highest-peak day of June 24, solar played a critical role in the grid’s resilience during that time. According to the Acadia Center, behind-the-meter solar met around 22% of system load, translating to more than 5,000 MW of distributed solar generation. This helped suppress demand, prevented blackouts, and saved customers collectively between $8.2 million and potentially $19.4 million in energy costs.
To read the full article from Green Energy Consumers Alliance, click here.
Advocates sound alarm over state’s proposed multi-million-dollar budget cuts: ‘It’s a retreat’
In an effort to mitigate rising power bills, the state of Rhode Island is cutting funding to recent energy-efficiency programs. However, critics believe it could cost the state millions, while only saving households around $2 a month.
Why is cutting energy-efficiency funding in Rhode Island concerning?
Advocates at the climate action nonprofit Acadia Center view the cuts as short-sighted, prioritizing short-term, small financial gains for the average customer over meaningful long-term cost reductions.
“Energy efficiency is a tool for suppressing supply costs, for suppressing infrastructure costs in the long-term,” explained Emily Koo, Acadia Center’s program director for Rhode Island.
To read the full article from The Cool Down, click here.
Plymouth residents likely face even higher utility bills this winter
Before autumn turns to winter, Beacon Hill lawmakers still have work to do if they hope to ease potentially higher utility bills, especially for customers served by Eversource.
According to state data, Eversource provides natural gas to about 640,000 customers in 121 Massachusetts cities and towns, including Plymouth. The utility recently filed a winter gas rate adjustment request with the Department of Public Utilities, which includes both standard supply cost changes and increases tied to maintenance and infrastructure.
“Mass Save doesn’t seem impressive on its face,” said Kyle Murray, state program implementation director at Acadia Center. “If we don’t continue to do this, you’re asking constituents 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now to bear significantly higher costs.”
To read the full article from the Plymouth Independent, click here.
Advocates Defend Energy Efficiency Programs in Massachusetts
Climate and consumer advocates called on Massachusetts lawmakers to preserve the state’s energy efficiency programs as legislators work to develop an energy affordability bill in response to high gas and electricity costs over the past winter.
Advocates have expressed concerns that lawmakers may roll back efficiency spending to provide short-term relief to ratepayers. They defended the state’s Mass Save efficiency program at a hearing held by the legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (TUE) on Sept. 25.
Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at the Acadia Center, emphasized the region-wide wholesale markets price suppression benefits of these investments.
He pointed to the ISO-NE capacity scarcity event June 24, when locational marginal prices spiked to $1,110/MWh between 6 and 7 p.m., and highlighted an Acadia analysis estimating that demand reductions associated with behind-the-meter solar saved the region $19.4 million during the day. (See Extreme Heat Triggers Capacity Deficiency in New England) and Behind-the-meter Solar Shines in ISO-NE Capacity Deficiency Event.)
“ISO-NE does not similarly track the impact of energy efficiency. However, make no mistake: But for those critical investments we have made in energy efficiency over the years, those price spikes would have been dramatically worse,” Murray said.
Rep. Jeffrey Turco (D) appeared more skeptical about efficiency investments, saying that “to the consumer, we keep hearing that we’re saving $3.41 for every dollar invested, but the cost of electricity is going up every year, and it’s by design.”
Increasing the cost of electricity in the short term in pursuit of long-term benefits causes consumer frustration “because the utility keeps going up, and despite saying, ‘Yes, we’re saving you money,’ the proof is not in the pudding on a monthly basis,” Turco said.
In response, Murray said, “One of the most difficult challenges of energy efficiency is that it’s difficult to prove a negative.” He stressed that while the value of efficiency can be hard to quantify precisely, “if we don’t continue to do this, you’re asking constituents in five, 10, 15, 20 years to bear significantly higher costs.”
To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.
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.
To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.