Two New England energy companies in surprising alliance with fossil fuel lobby, undercutting climate targets

Last year, two major energy companies working in Massachusetts joined the ranks of an innocuous sounding group: the Consumer Energy Alliance. The organization calls itself “the voice of the energy consumer,” while espousing the “all-of-the-above” approach to energy — oil, natural gas, wind, and solar.

But, according to financial documents, the alliance was formed and is operated by a fossil fuel lobbying group based in Houston. Its stated purpose includes “the promotion and defense of natural gas.”

In Massachusetts, a state that’s set aggressive climate targets, cooperation and buy-in from utilities is a pillar of how the state plans to get there. That makes it “incredibly troubling” that both Eversource, one of the state’s largest gas and electric utilities, and Avangrid, offshore wind developer and the parent company of Berkshire Gas, became members of the alliance last year, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the advocacy group the Acadia Center.

“At a time when we know we need to be transitioning off of fossil fuels as soon as is practicable, these companies have instead opted to join with a group dedicated to frustrating that aim, and indeed directly at odds with some of the positive initiatives that these companies have been advancing in the Northeast” like geothermal networks, offshore wind transmission, and more, Murray said.

To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.

Planning the Future Electric Grid: The Need for An Independent Transmission Monitor

Executive Summary

ISO New England, the regional electric grid operator, has estimated that the cost of expanding the transmission system to accommodate New England’s future demand for power will be between $16 billion and $26 billion. The $10 billion separating ISO New England’s high and low estimates is not just due to uncertainty about the future: it is largely due to uncertainty regarding how well the future transmission system will be planned, which will in turn determine the efficiency of that future system and its ultimate cost. Currently, proposals to improve and expand the transmission system are developed according to separate and distinct planning processes. The failure to coordinate these disparate processes threatens the efficiency of the future transmission system and places the region on a path to spend far more than is necessary to build it. An Independent Transmission Monitor (ITM) would look across current transmission planning processes to ensure that future proposed improvements to and expansions of the transmission system are harmonized to maximize system efficiency overall while minimizing their aggregate cost.

Why is an Independent Transmission Monitor Needed?

New England’s peak electricity demand – measured when the region’s demand for electricity is higher than any other time of the year  – is expected to double in the next quarter century.^[1] ISO-New England has estimated that the cost of increasing the capacity of the transmission system to meet that doubled peak will be between $16 billion and $26 billion dollars.^[2] Currently, there are multiple, distinct processes for assessing the current and future needs of the transmission system. They are the Regional System Planning (RSP), Asset Condition Project (ACP), and Local Transmission Service (LTS) planning processes. Unfortunately, there is no coordination among the RSP, ACP, or LTS planning processes—transmission investments approved pursuant to any one of the three planning processes do not account for transmission investments approved pursuant to either of the other two. This lack of coordination is producing a patchwork of transmission system upgrades that fail to take the efficiency of the entire system into account, fail to incorporate available technologies that would enhance the operation of the transmission system, and increase rather than reduce the region’s need for future transmission investments.

The largest share by far of recent investments in transmission infrastructure has been ACPs—projects to repair, upgrade, or replace aging transmission equipment in existing rights of way. Since 2018, $4.1 billion has been spent on ACPs, compared to $2.2 billion spent on reliability projects—projects to build new transmission in new rights of way—developed pursuant to the RSP planning process.^[3] At least $5.4 billion more in ACP investments are projected through 2030—again outpacing planned spending on RSP reliability projects over that period.^[4] The concern regarding the magnitude of ACP investments is not that the region is spending more to upgrade existing transmission instead of building new transmission. Rather, the concern is that despite the eye-watering sums being spent on ACP upgrades they are not being designed to maximize the amount of power that can be carried via transmission lines in existing rights of way. Each ACP that fails to maximize the capacity of existing transmission represents a lost opportunity to prepare New England to meet the projected doubling of the region’s peak demand. Moreover, the failure of ACPs to increase capacity in existing rights of way will require additions of capacity in the form of new transmission in new rights of way, with all the environmental, community, and economic impacts associated with new construction. Building new transmission would cost much more and take much longer to build—five to ten years—than upgrading the region’s existing 9,000 miles of transmission lines.

Why are opportunities to optimize ACPs being missed, and why aren’t necessary increases in capacity being efficiently allocated between transmission in existing and new rights of way? Because RSP and ACP planning processes are separate and siloed: ISO New England is responsible for RSP planning while ACP planning is delegated to the entities that own the regional transmission system. (ISO New England operates but does not own the transmission system.) Moreover, transmission owners have near total discretion in planning ACP projects and are not required to consider cost-effective alternatives to the like-kind replacement of aging transmission equipment. For example, Grid Enhancing Technologies (GETs)—hardware and software solutions that improve the efficiency and capacity of existing transmission—are often overlooked by transmission owners as they plan ACP projects, even though their cost-effectiveness has been well-documented. For example, a $300,000 investment in GETs by the Pennsylvania utility PPL saved approximately $50 million in avoided project costs and an additional $20 million each year in grid congestion charges^[5]. Neither are transmission owners required to consider the installation of high-performance conductors (HPCs)—which can carry up to twice the power carried by conventional transmission lines^[6]—as part of their ACPs. HPCs also avoid many of the costs associated with building new transmission in new rights of way, typically costing less than half the price of new lines for similar capacity increases.^[7]

LTS projects—projects to address reliability concerns within a transmission owner’s service territory–suffer the same deficiencies as ACPs. Transmission owners plan and develop LTS projects to address the needs they identify, entirely at their discretion. And, as with ACPs, transmission owners are not required to consider GETs and HPCs as cost-effective measures to maximize the efficiency of their LTS projects.^[8]

The Role of the Independent Transmission Monitor

The ITM would not be associated with any of the entities—ISO New England or transmission owners—responsible for the RSP, ACP, or LTS planning processes. Further, the ITM’s authority to review proposed transmission projects would extend across the RSP, ACP and LTS planning processes.^[9] The ITM would be responsible for ensuring that transmission projects of every type, size, and scope were designed to include all cost-effective measures to increase the efficiency and capacity of the entire transmission system. The result would be the optimization of transmission in existing rights of way, the minimization of the need for new transmission in new rights of way, the adoption of technologies to enable the efficient routing of power across the entire transmission system, and the development of projects that are fully integrated into a planning process that is comprehensive–and not restricted–in scope.

Next Steps in Developing an ITM

While ISO New England is supportive of an ITM that would respond to the New England states or FERC, it has not taken the initiative to establish one.^[10] Because incumbent transmission owners receive a fixed rate of return on their transmission investments they lack the incentive to support an ITM that would recommend cost-effective alternatives—GETs and HPCs—and other measures that would reduce transmission investments overall. Responsibility for the establishment of an ITM thus lies with the six New England states. Acadia Center believes that an ITM is essential to eliminating the inefficiencies inherent in New England’s disaggregated transmission planning processes and supports the establishment of an ITM with sufficient resources to meet its engineering, financial, and regulatory responsibilities to stakeholders. Acadia Center will work to encourage and support the initiatives of the New England States Committee on Electricity,^[11] state consumer advocates, and other interested stakeholders to establish an ITM, continue to build public awareness regarding the threat that unbounded transmission investments have on energy affordability, and foster consensus regarding the need for transmission planning reform.

Acadia Center Recommendations

Acadia Center is working to raise awareness of the need for an ITM and for public oversight of the billions of dollars in transmission upgrade projects proposed by utilities and transmission owners. We are working to support efforts by states and NESCOE to create an ITM for the ratepayers of New England and to prioritize the creation of an ITM in the region. Acadia Center is working to identify the key components of an effective ITM.  Please contact us at info@acadiacenter.org for more information or visit www.acadiacenter.org.

[1] “The Energy is About to Shift,” Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force (Dec. 2024), p. 5. https://acadiacenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AC_CATF_EnergyShift_Report_2024_R10-1.pdf

[2] 2050 Transmission Study, ISO New England Inc. (Feb. 2024), p. 16. https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100008/2024_02_14_pac_2050_transmission_study_final.pdf

[3] CT GENERAL STATUTES – SECTION 16A-3A 2025 INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN – Transmission Solutions White Paper (February 26, 2025), pp. 5-6. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/energy/transmission/transmission-white-paper-final.pdf

[4] Id. at p. 6.

[5] “Regulators need to require utilities to use grid-enhancing technologies: FERC’s Clements,” Utility Dive, Nov. 14, 2023) https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-grid-enhancing-technologies-gets-utilities-naruc-ferc-clements/699686/

[6] Emilia Chojkiewicz et al., “2035 and Beyond: The Report—Reconductoring,” GridLab, 2024, p.3. https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GridLab_2035-Reconductoring-Technical-Report.pdf.

[7] Id.

[8] CT GENERAL STATUTES – SECTION 16A-3A 2025 INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN – Transmission Solutions White Paper (February 26, 2025), p. 6. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/energy/transmission/transmission-white-paper-final.pdf

[9] Last December a coalition of electricity consumers filed a Complaint with the Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC) against more than two dozen utilities and all the major grid operators, including ISO New England, asserting that FERC should prohibit transmission owners from independently planning LTS projects and assign LTS planning authority to an ITM. See https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20241219-5368&optimized=false

[10] ISO New England Board of Directors’ Response to 2024 Open Board Meeting Comments (February 5, 2025) p.3 https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100020/iso-board-response-to-2024-open-board-meeting-comments.pdf

[11] Comments on Transmission Planning and Cost Management (March 29, 2023) https://nescoe.com/resource-center/comments-on-transmission-planning-and-cost-management/

Massachusetts-based company launches program to fund community solar projects

With the federal dollars for renewable energy slowing to a trickle or stopping altogether, a Cambridge-based company is looking to provide funding for community solar projects in underserved areas through a new renewable energy credit (REC) program.

With uncertainty surrounding federal funding, programs like Solstice’s renewable energy credits could help bridge the gap for organizations trying to find the money to launch renewable energy projects, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization dedicated to combatting climate change. Solar developers and organizations working to adopt solar use a variety of different funding mechanisms and that extra $50,000 to $160,000 can put a project over the top, especially for smaller organizations, he added.

“We need to be creative in this environment about how we fund projects, and this seems like it could be promising,” said Murray.

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

Transforming Connecticut’s Grid: A Smarter Approach to Clean Energy Planning

In November, Vote Solar collaborated with partners, Acadia Center, Save the Sound, and Conservation Law Foundation, to submit comments to Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) regarding the future of our electric grid planning. And I know, utility commissions are not a kitchen table topic, but their decisions—like setting energy prices—have real impacts on your household budget and Connecticut’s clean energy future.

To read the full article from Vote Solar, click here.

The $500 million cut to Mass Save budget is ‘short-sighted,’ climate activists say

After gas bills spiked across Massachusetts, state officials are reducing the proposed budget for the Mass Save energy efficiency program by $500 million – a move environmentalists call “short-sighted” and argue will increase costs for residents in the long run.

The Department of Public Utilities approved a budget of $4.5 billion for Mass Save – which helps homes and businesses become more energy efficient through projects paid for by a surcharge on electricity and gas bills – for the next three years, after originally proposing a $5 billion budget. The reduction is expected to save residents and businesses about 25 percent on their gas bills and 15 percent on their electric bills, though exact amounts will vary, according to DPU officials.

“This plan, as ambitious as it is, actually only gets us to about half or less than half of the greenhouse gas reduction that we need to have according to our clean energy and climate plan,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization dedicated to combatting climate. “Even this plan is a compromise in itself.”

The sticker shock of the high gas bills is partly due to an unseasonably cold winter and the fact that Mass Save only increases its rate once every three years, Murray said. The increase in the Mass Save budget barely keeps up with inflation, he added, noting that the cuts were “disappointing” and “short-sighted.” (In the previous three-year plan, the program had a budget of $3.94 billion.)

Several environmental and climate leaders, including Murray, have advocated for alternative ways of funding the program but acknowledge the challenge of funding the program through the Legislature, particularly in an environment where federal funding for climate projects is at risk.

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

Energy efficiency program skimmed to deliver utility rate relief

New RI report takes step towards reducing energy usage, emissions of large buildings

A new report by the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources is hoping to create an inventory of large buildings and their energy sources to assess how the Ocean State can lower emissions.

The report, titled the “Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council Report on Building Energy Benchmarking and Performance Standards,” was released on Feb. 10. When creating the report, the OER consulted over 13 government agencies, labs and utilities organizations, among other groups.

Kislak and Emily Koo, senior policy advocate and Rhode Island program director at Acadia Center, shared similar concerns. But both affirmed that despite financial uncertainty, progress is still possible.

“I fully anticipate that whatever plan we make will take into account available funding sources,” Kislak said.

“I don’t think (financial uncertainty) should, in any way, impact our commitment to tracking our own energy usage and reducing building emissions in the state,” Koo added.

To read the full article from the Brown Daily Herald, click here.

Progressives Say They Want Clean Energy. They Held Up This Hydro Project for Years.

On a bright, sunny Monday in the summer of 2016, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker sat outside the Bay State’s gold-domed statehouse to sign a bill designed to ensure that “Massachusetts and New England can remain a leader in clean and renewable energy production.” The bill sought to curtail the region’s carbon emissions without driving up electricity bills. To that end, the Baker administration was authorized to coordinate the purchase of clean electricity generated from, among other potential sources, wind turbines planned for the shallow water off the state’s southern coast and hydropower generated by dammed rivers in Canada. But because Massachusetts did not share a border with Canada, the new hydropower would have to travel through a neighboring state. And that, many quickly realized, would add several complications.

The concessions had a powerful political impact, inducing the Conservation Law Foundation and the Acadia Center, both leading environmental groups, to endorse the venture. It gave Mills cover to come out publicly in support as well, her endorsement helping to convince the state’s Public Utility Commission to grant the project a certificate of public convenience and necessity in April. By then it seemed as though the whole thing was settled.

To read the full article from Politico, click here.

Mass. residents will see lower gas bills for March and April, regulators say

State regulators are forcing natural gas companies to temporarily reduce total gas bills by at least 5% next month after public outcry over skyrocketing rates from Eversource, National Grid and other companies.

Experts and advocates say a “perfect storm” this winter caused the dramatic spikes. That includes a colder winter, economic pressures for volatile fossil fuel sources and a gas pipeline system within a monopoly of utility companies. And most of the cost comes down to the utilities’ delivery charges.

The GSEP was created in 2014 to accelerate the replacement of leak-prone gas pipes.

“That was a safety issue as well as a climate issue. So [the state] determined it was worth repairing or replacing,” said Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at Acadia Center.

Costs have mushroomed, even as gas leaks continue, and Murray says it could cost a total of $40 billion by 2039 to completely address.

Part of consumers’ bills also fund the Mass Save program, which offers rebates and incentives for residents to make their homes more energy efficient. The program’s costs continue to rise: it’s about to enter its next three-year cycle, and has asked the Department of Public Utilities to allocate $5 billion — a jump of $1 billion over the prior cycle. Those costs go back to ratepayers, too.

“It’s still awaiting approval of the DPU. And you know, that is a big jump,” said Murray, who added it’s keeping with inflation.

To read the full article from GBH, click here.

Another year, another decarbonization bill. And more angst about a deadline.

A new report commissioned by the Rhode Island General Assembly offers a laundry list of problems — and up to $1.4 million in annual costs —  preventing the state from collecting energy and emissions information from large privately owned buildings.

Yet the city of Providence has already managed to pull off its own version of a building energy benchmarking program, with one half-time employee and a $28,000 city budget, according to information from Priscilla de la Cruz, city sustainability director.

The OER estimated an initial $600,000 cost to expand an energy benchmarking program beyond state-owned buildings, rising to $1.4 million for technical support to implement performance standards around emissions.

Emily Koo, senior policy director and Rhode Island program director at Acadia Center, was unconvinced the problems were as big, or costly, as the report suggested.

 “Providence has already done the work to stand this kind of program up,” said Koo, who previously worked as the city’s sustainability director. “This is the absolute lowest-hanging fruit.”

To read the full article from the Rhode Island Current, click here.