Massport to invest $60 million to create electric shore power for growing cruise ship industry

Massport announced plans on Friday to spend $60 million to build an electric power system allowing some specially-equipped cruise ships to plug in and switch off diesel engines while docked.

Kyle Murray, who directs state policy at the Acadia Center, a New England environmental and clean energy nonprofit, says the support marks a shift in statements from policymakers — who once generally only praised the economic boons of shipping in the region.

“(Shipping) has flown under a lot of groups’ radar because it’s so complicated to decarbonize these sectors,” he said.

An ambitious climate bill, passed last week by the Legislature, revised Massport’s charter to require the agency focus on greenhouse gas emissions and impact on local communities.

“That’s a part of their mission going forward,” Murray said. “I think we’re going to see a lot more attention drawn to this this going forward.”

To read the full article from GBH, click here.

New report finds that improved community engagement for clean infrastructure projects is critical to New England’s energy transition

Download the Press Release: EATS Report Press Release

Full Report: The Energy is About to Shift

Webinar: 

Webinar PowerPoint: Energy is About to Shift Webinar

Media Contacts:
Samantha Beairsto
Deputy Director, Communications and Development,
Acadia Center
sbeairsto@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x109

Natalie Volk
Communications Manager
Clean Air Task Force
nvolk@catf.us, 703-785-9580

BOSTON – A new report released today by Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force (CATF) reveals that enhanced community engagement for clean energy infrastructure projects is critical to achieving New England’s 2050 decarbonization goals. The report highlights the opportunity to accelerate the region’s clean energy progress by addressing local concerns and better equipping communities to meaningfully participate in siting and approval processes. Drawing from prominent case studies around the region, the report also identifies promising options for developers, communities, and policymakers to improve project planning and engagement, helping reduce the risk of failures, legal challenges, and delays. Without comprehensive reforms to improve community engagement processes and modernize siting and permitting policies, the region’s clean energy transition risks significant delays and setbacks.

“Our research shows that when community concerns are not taken seriously, community opposition and distrust can grow, leading to extended project timelines, higher costs, and resistance to future clean energy projects,” said Nicole Pavia, Director of Clean Energy Infrastructure Deployment at CATF. “Whether it’s rural, urban, or suburban communities, community engagement isn’t just a box to check — it’s an essential part of New England’s clean energy future. When communities are meaningfully engaged, we see stronger projects that deliver clean energy benefits while fostering trust, local economic growth, and long-term support for future projects.”    

The report includes a comprehensive review of five key studies outlining cost-effective, electrification-focused pathways to decarbonizing New England’s grid and energy systems. The scenarios analyzed reveal that in the 2030s, peak demand for electricity in the region will shift from summer to winter. By 2050, peak demand for electricity is expected to double from 27 gigawatts (GW) to 55 GW, driven largely by the electrification of vehicles and proliferation of heat pumps. To meet the demands of the energy transition, generation capacity in the region will need to more than triple from 43 GW to 145 GW of installed capacity on average, led by increases in solar and offshore wind and aided by transmission system enhancements. Additionally, the report analyzes the diverse portfolio of energy technologies and approaches needed for the future grid – from transmission and generation to energy storage and demand-side resources such as energy efficiency and load flexibility – to maintain reliability, affordability, and resiliency.

“The energy transition will touch all 1,300+ communities in New England, and the region needs a new paradigm for infrastructure siting and engagement that gives those communities a meaningful voice even as the build-out of renewable energy and grid infrastructure accelerates,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center. “The region’s communities and people are at the center of its energy transition just as much as the grid itself is, underscoring the imperative of delivering real community benefits and shifting the environment of engagement toward a virtuous cycle of improved social standing and acceptance.”

The report also examines the challenges and friction points that often hinder positive clean energy development and shape communities’ posture as potential hosts for clean energy projects. Through interviews with stakeholders representing a range of interests – renewable energy developers, state regulators, local community leaders, and more – the report offers a behind-the-scenes look at the real-world factors influencing community support and responses. Case studies highlight key siting and engagement examples in the region, including:

• Vineyard Wind in Massachusetts
• King Pine Wind and Aroostook Renewable Gateway in Maine
• East Eagle Substation and Cranberry Point Energy Storage in Massachusetts
• Johnston Winsor Solar III in Rhode Island
• Twin States Clean Energy Link transmission line between New Hampshire and Vermont

The report outlines actionable options and opportunities state and local governments, project developers, and community stakeholders may take to improve public support for and expedite the deployment of clean energy infrastructure with impactful community benefits. These options are coming into clearer focus as some states in the region have very recently considered and enacted reforms to state siting and permitting laws in 2024, including most notably in Connecticut and in Massachusetts, where lawmakers passed a wide-ranging climate bill anchored around a significant overhaul of the state’s siting and permitting framework.

As these states and the New England region transitions away from fossil fuels to a decarbonized grid, success will depend on active and meaningful community engagement. Without local buy-in, critical clean energy projects will continue to face significant headwinds and delays, putting the region’s climate goals at risk.

On December 5, Acadia Center and CATF will host a webinar to discuss key findings from the report. Read the full report here and register here.

About Acadia Center 

Acadia Center is a non-profit organization with over 25 years of experience dedicated to advancing transformative clean energy solutions that promote a livable climate and a more equitable economy in the Northeast United States and beyond. Through rigorous data analysis and strategic partnerships, Acadia Center advocates for policies that significantly reduce carbon emissions and address systemic energy challenges. By collaborating with governments, industries, and communities, Acadia Center’s bold strategies help to ensure an inclusive and sustainable energy future for all.

About Clean Air Task Force

Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is a global nonprofit organization working to safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate protection technologies. With 25 years of internationally recognized expertise on climate policy and a fierce commitment to exploring all potential solutions, CATF is a pragmatic, nonideological advocacy group with the bold ideas needed to address climate change. CATF has offices in Boston, Washington D.C., and Brussels, with staff working remotely around the world.

New England states’ renewable energy push blasted as too costly by free-market advocates

Conservative think tanks in New England are taking aim at state energy policies that promote zero-carbon energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

“The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies,” a report released Tuesday by the Denver-based organization Always On Energy Research, and signed onto by free-market advocacy groups in New England, says ratepayers’ bills will double, to $4,610 by 2050, as a result of state policies, or “mandates,” to promote green energy.

Environmental advocates blasted the report, calling it inaccurate and misleading. The Acadia Center, a climate and clean energy advocacy group, said the report “overlooks enormous costs borne by ratepayers under today’s fossil grid.”

The Acadia Center acknowledged the costs of shifting to zero-carbon energy. “Let’s be candid: There will be significant costs from the energy transition (and significant benefits as well),” it said.

But economic growth as carbon emissions decline “belies the canard that New England state climate policies spell doom for the regional economy,” the Acadia Center said.

The report “ignores the impossibly high cost of business-as-usual,” it said. New Englanders withdraw billions of dollars from the region’s economy each year to purchase fossil fuels sourced outside New England. Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine spend $8.2 billion annually importing fossil fuels, the Acadia Center said.

In addition, the cost of ignoring climate-driven storms, heat waves, flooding and other disasters is the loss of human life and billions of dollars in property damage, it said.

To read the full article from the Portland Press Herald, click here.

New report claims New England emissions goals may mean higher electricity costs

MANCHESTER, N.H. — A report from a group of conservative and free market New England think tanks warns that increased use of wind and solar energy could lead to increased electricity costs and rolling blackouts in the region.

The nonprofit Acadia Center, which is focused on clean energy solutions, is rebutting the report, saying it fails to withstand “basic analytical scrutiny.”

To read the full article from WMUR, click here.

Report warns of huge costs from green energy mandates in New England, but critics cry foul

A new report commissioned by seven conservative-leaning organizations and free-market think tanks paints Massachusetts’ and New England’s devotion to renewable energy as failed policy that will cost residents more than $815 billion, won’t meet electricity demand, and result in rolling blackouts.

The nonprofit Acadia Center, which is focused on cutting carbon emissions, said the report presents a “deeply flawed analysis” and a “distorted view of the region’s future energy outlook.”

Job growth from renewable projects that end the region’s reliance on spending billions to import fossil fuels, along with the steep cost of rebuilding areas after natural disasters due to climate change, are reasons cited by the Acadia Center to support a renewable-energy path.

The transition will be expensive, said Acadia, but “using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers.”

To read the full article from Telegram & Gazette, click here.

Report On Costs Stirs Clean Energy Debate

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, NOV. 19, 2024…..New Englanders may experience yearly spikes in their electricity bills compounded by rolling blackouts during the winter as the region continues to embrace renewable energy sources, according to a new report from conservative-leaning think tanks.

The Acadia Center, a Boston-based nonprofit focused on clean energy solutions, rebuked the report, alleging it offers an “inaccurate picture” of infrastructure investments, and overlooks the “enormous” cost ratepayers are currently facing “under today’s fossil grid.”

While the AOER report claims electricity rates will double for New England residents and businesses, the Acadia Center says forecasts produced by Massachusetts energy officials show rates will increase through 2030 and then decrease. The expanded use of electrified transportation and heating systems is also supposed to save Bay State households money, according to the state’s clean energy and climate plan.

“Let’s be candid: there will be significant costs from the energy transition (and significant benefits as well) – Acadia Center has been clear-eyed about this reality and what it means for our public policymaking,” the center said. “However, using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers.”

To read the full article from State House News, click here.

Energy battles intensifying ahead of Trump swearing-in

BOSTON (SHNS) – There is a clean energy bill sitting on Gov. Maura Healey’s desk and Beacon Hill’s calendar for this week includes an array of energy-related events and reports. But there are also mounting indications that the federal government could change course on energy policy under the administration that President-elect Donald Trump is assembling.

“The most difficult thing is going to be continuing to try and meet emissions targets. We know this incoming administration is going to press heavily on oil and natural gas and the expansion of those, so that does obviously present a major challenge going forward as we try to curtail those,” Kyle Murray, senior advocate and Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, said. “Massachusetts is taking some fairly nascent first steps towards limiting the expansion of the gas system in the state, and there are fed efforts that could potentially undermine that work.”

Murray said the incoming Trump administration “could put up some major roadblocks and make life difficult” for renewable energy industries, including offshore wind. But he also noted that many of the large oil and gas companies have already begun to diversify and invest in renewables.

“There’s a world you could envision where those companies are pressing for investment in all of the above — oil, natural gas, offshore wind, solar, all of those things. There is a potential opportunity there,” Murray said. He added, “The energy transition is big business and there’s a lot of money involved in it. So there’s some hope that that train has left the station too much. That being said, there’s always the caveat that you never know.”

To read the full article from WWLP, click here.

Acadia Center Offers Rebuttal to Key Points in Flawed Analysis on New England Energy Policies and Costs

Download Press Release: Acadia Center Offers Rebuttal to Key Points in Flawed Analysis on New England Energy Policies and Costs

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

Today, a new report entitled “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies” – released by The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Maine Policy Institute, Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Ethan Allen Institute, Yankee Institute, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation – presents a deeply flawed analysis and distorted view of the region’s future energy outlook. The report, which was conducted by Always on Energy Research (AOER) “concludes that if every New England state maintains their green energy mandates, it will double electric rates and cause rolling blackouts in the region.” Always on Energy Research describes itself as “a policy group dedicated to ensuring that every state in America has affordable, reliable energy.” Their staff have current or past affiliations with groups such as the John Locke Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the State Policy Network (SPN), and the Center for the American Experiment.

Their analysis and conclusions fail to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, which is also the case for the related “analysis” and messaging put forward by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance in a Commonwealth Beacon OpEd earlier this month – which, based on Acadia Center analysis, overestimated the annual cost of a recently enacted energy storage policy in Massachusetts by more than 25x to 30x, as detailed further below. It is incredibly unfortunate that this report continues to rely upon similar ill-informed assumptions and questionable calculations to vastly inflate the cost of the energy transition by multiple factors.

Breaking Down Misleading Calculations on Energy Storage

The press release for the AOER report states that “the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under these plans exceeds the benefits of doing so, meaning the New England states are imposing a net harm on their economies after accounting for the financial impacts of climate change.” This characterization could not be further from the truth, and in fact fails to recognize the once-in-a-generation opportunity that New England has: to redesign and revolutionize its energy system and localize the job-creation and GDP impact of energy expenditures within the regional economy rather than export them afar.

Furthermore, the AOER analysis ignores the impossibly high cost of business-as-usual. New Englanders withdraw billions of dollars out of the regional economy each year to purchase fossil fuels sourced outside New England. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine alone spend $8.2 billion annually importing fossil fuels. The cost of ignoring the climate crisis is fast becoming incalculable: in 2023 alone, the United States experienced a record-setting 28 separate weather and climate disasters costing at least $1 billion, totaling a cumulative $92.9 billion. The cost of those disasters was also tallied in human lives. This underscores the clear and imminent risk that this region and the nation at large face by not taking the climate crisis seriously. Anything less than urgent action on energy and climate issues is fiscally imprudent and threatens to leave New England families and businesses exposed to both the much larger, hidden costs of unabated climate change as well as the billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure operating today and facing stranded-asset risk.

Let’s be candid: there will be significant costs from the energy transition (and significant benefits as well) – Acadia Center has been clear-eyed about this reality and what it means for our public policymaking. However, using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers. Furthermore, the fact that the region’s GDP has grown while it simultaneously bends the curve on carbon emissions belies the canard that New England state climate policies spell doom for the regional economy. We can address the climate crisis while growing the regional economy and preserving the region’s prosperity. That much has been proved. We look forward to engaging with policymakers and stakeholders constructively on these important public policy debates with a shared set of facts and sound analysis.

Acadia Center presents the following point-by-point rebuttal of several erroneous and misleading claims put forward by the report:

Claim #1 Made by AOER Report: Compliance with the New England Decarbonization Plans would cost $815 billion through 2050

Acadia Center Response #1: The AOER analysis suggests an annual average of $31.3b per year over 26 years (2024-2050). In 2022, the six New England states spent $76b on total energy under the status quo/‘business as usual’ approach. Even if the AOER figures were sound – and they are not – it would be vastly preferable to invest $31.3b per year on clean energy in our region rather than spend the majority of $76b per year on fossil fuels from outside the region, as our current energy system does. In analysis undertaken by Massachusetts, 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). Finally, the AOER analysis also expressly excludes the impact of federal tax credits, omitting a huge source of likely ‘cost-share’ from the federal government that will make the transition even more affordable for ratepayers.

Claim #2 Made by AOER Report: Residents and businesses can expect electricity rates to double…New England families would see their electric bills increase by an average of $99 per year.

Acadia Center Response #2: Previous extensive modeling conducted by Massachusetts for the Commonwealth’s ‘2050 Decarbonization Roadmap’ and Clean Energy and Climate Plans (CECP) provide evidence for a much different trend for regional energy prices in the coming decades. These studies included granular region-wide energy system modeling to arrive at their results for Massachusetts customers.

• The Roadmap found: “Rates increase out to 2030, then decrease in the subsequent 20 years…. After 2030, growth in electricity load, and vehicle electrification in particular, allows for a reduction in the per‐unit cost of wires on the system,” including thanks to flexible EV charging adding load at night and increasing the load factor in all parts of the system.
• 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.

Claim #3 Made by AOER Report: The cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under these plans exceeds the benefits of doing so.

Acadia Center Response #3: 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.

Claim #4 Made by AOER Report: ISO-New England may be unable to coordinate electricity to power the region within 11 years. [Green energy mandates will] cause rolling blackouts in the region.

Acadia Center Response #4: ISO-NE’s own extensive analysis on reliability and resource adequacy have found no such imminent threats to the region’s grid. To the contrary, earlier this year, the largest fossil fuel generating facility in the region (Mystic Generation Station in Everett, MA) was allowed to safely retire without reliability issues, enabled by low-lost local transmission upgrades. Furthermore, findings from ISO-NE’s Probabilistic Energy Adequacy Tool (PEAT) and Regional Energy Shortfall Threshold (REST) workstreams indicate that, in the near-term, the winter energy shortfall risk “appears manageable” over a critical 21-day winter cold-snap period that was the main subject of the analysis. Examination of worst-case scenarios in 2032 indicated an increasing shortfall risk profile in the back half of this decade (2027-2032); however, ISO-NE’s core findings hold true: “Timely additions of behind-the-meter and utility-scale solar, offshore wind, and incremental imports from New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) are critical to mitigate energy shortfall risks that result from significant winter load growth and retirements.” In other words, new clean energy is proving vital for reliability and keeping the grid’s peaks manageable. New procurements of energy storage resources (also the subject of questionable analysis, highlighted further below) will also materially improve the resource adequacy and reliability conditions as those resources come online in the years ahead.

Stepping back, “change” has been the sole constant for electric grids since their inception. For example, the US electric power sector delivered 329 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in 1950 and 4,090 terawatt hours of electricity in 2022: a 12.4x increase. But dramatic growth alone does not account for all the notable changes to the grid. Due to increasing rates of energy efficiency, the nation is producing more goods and providing more services with improved efficiency, constituting a notable decoupling of GDP growth and electricity consumption. In other words, as dramatic as the growth of the electric grid has been over the last 70 years, that growth has been moderated by cost-effective energy efficiency. There are ample more opportunities to realize such savings from energy efficiency in the years ahead.

 Claim #5 Made by AOER Report: Powering New England without interruption during a year in which wind and sunshine are plentiful would require 225 gigawatts (GW) of renewables

Acadia Center Response #5: Acadia Center analysis of five recent leading studies of deep decarbonization in New England identified an average of 150 GW of installed capacity by 2050, including only 95 GW of solar and wind – backed by storage, increased interregional transmission, nuclear capacity, and some remaining combustion resources. See graphic below from the forthcoming Acadia Center analysis, being released in the next week (stay tuned for more).

Claim #6 Made by AOER Report: New England is responsible for less than 0.4% of global emissions; it is unclear just how much cleaner the environment will become in exchange for the costs that have been imposed on the region and its people

Acadia Center Response #6: Given the enormous benefits to be reaped from economic output and avoided health care costs, it would be preferable for the region to pursue a low-carbon economy even if climate change were not a global crisis. But the latter is also true, and so it is doubly important for the region to do its part to participate in coordinated global action to reduce carbon emissions. Even the full U.S. as a whole only represents about 13.5% of global emissions – should the largest economy in the world therefore also cease all climate mitigation activities since it can’t solve the global crisis through its own actions? Clearly not. Finally, again, the region has so many engines of clean economic activity coming out of its universities, research laboratories, startup incubators, and beyond, whose full economic opportunity lies in the much more vast work of decarbonization that must occur outside this region. If New England can help prove the case for the cost-effective application of their technologies here, then the world’s energy markets will be theirs to conquer next – and all global citizens will benefit while the New England economy grows.

Claim #7 Made by AOER Report: Battery systems today run around $500,000 per megawatt hour, which yields a total cost of $10 billion, which equals roughly 17 percent of the current state budget (from Commonwealth Beacon piece).

Acadia Center Response #7: The cost of a four-hour “megapack” battery pack from Tesla is publicly available, and it reveals a dramatically lower cost of approximately $250,000/MWh. A 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC) is also available to battery storage projects of this nature. Furthermore, the legislation in Massachusetts requires utilities to enter into cost-effective long-term contracts for storage services, not to purchase storage systems and pay for them outright in one year. Spreading out the systems’ remaining costs over ten years reveals an annualized cost of approximately $350M, or 3.5% of the $10b price tag found by MFA. (See graphic above for more detail illuminating their substantial overestimate of >25-30X.) Even this still overstates the annual cost that would be borne by ratepayers, since contracts would be for only a portion of the full system costs, and since this analysis says nothing about the savings ratepayers would reap by using storage to mitigate the costly and dirty peaks on the grid today. Their discussion also completely ignores numerous cost-control mechanisms directly embedded in the approval process, including the directive to the D.P.U. to ensure contracts are cost-effective, meaning benefits to ratepayers exceed costs incurred.

Compromise Climate Bill Finally Approved by Mass. Legislature

After nearly two years of debates, negotiations, and last-minute stalling by Republicans in the state House of Representatives, the Massachusetts Legislature has sent a wide-ranging climate bill to the desk of Gov. Maura Healey, who has indicated she will sign the legislation.

Kyle Murray of the Acadia Center said the bill is a “major win for the Commonwealth, for ratepayers, public health, climate resiliency and for our clean energy future,” adding that the gas reforms “will provide the Department of Public Utilities with the needed tools to save ratepayers money on imprudent investments, stranded assets and leaky pipes.”

To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.

Massachusetts passes bill to speed clean energy and slow gas expansion

Yesterday, Massachusetts lawmakers made major moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the state to clean energy. Legislators approved a long-awaited climate bill that will limit gas pipeline expansion, make it easier to site and build renewables, and allow utilities to use geothermal energy — instead of fossil fuels — to heat and cool homes. Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, is expected to sign it into law in the coming days.

“The Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration are taking tangible steps to drive the Commonwealth’s clean energy future forward in the wake of the federal Election outcome,” the Acadia Center said in a press release following the vote. Massachusetts is the first state to take action on climate since Trump’s re-election; the new federal landscape could spur more state lawmakers to try and advance climate legislation.

In 2021, the DPU updated its mission to include promoting equity and greenhouse gas emission reductions, in addition to safety, security, reliability, and affordability. ​

“I think this DPU takes that mission seriously. And so I’m confident they will take these updated provisions seriously,” said Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at the Acadia Center.

To read the full article from Canary Media, click here.