Climate and Affordability Do Go Hand in Hand. So Must Courage.
Acadia Center – Climate, Affordability, and Courage – NYs Climate Act in 2026
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
– President John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1962.
On March 20, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signaled her Administration’s proposal to roll back the state’s landmark Climate Act in critical ways. At a pivotal moment for energy policy and affordability politics nationwide, Hochul argued that changes to the nation-leading law would be necessary to “protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy.”
Climate action and energy affordability indeed must go hand-in-hand. In fact, they already do. But so too must courage: courage to do what is right based on the facts, even though and because it is hard, and even though failure is possible. But more importantly, because we know that if we succeed, the improvements to New Yorkers’ everyday lives will be deep and widespread – for their pocketbooks, their homes, their mobility, their jobs, their health, and their communities. This courage hangs in the balance as the State reaches a key crossroads on climate, energy, and affordability.
The proposed changes to the law would not only back the State away from something because it is perceived – erroneously – as too hard, but would do so without fully trying – with numerous beneficial policies not yet implemented. There are still four and a half years left until the end of 2030, the first major emissions milestone in the Climate Act. Never before in human history have changes to the means of energy production, consumption, and storage been developing so rapidly. Take, for example:
- Pakistan – a nation of considerably less wealth than New York, but with a power grid of comparable size – has developed 43 gigawatts (!) of solar since 2022, saving $12 billion in fossil fuel costs through February 2026 (and counting, with the Strait of Hormuz still closed and fuel commodities spiking).
- Denmark – much wealthier, but still vastly smaller in GDP than New York State – increased its share of battery electric vehicle purchases from a rounding error to more than 90% in just eight years, effectively the same share of EV sales that New York needed (needs) to achieve by 2030.
- California – larger, but similar in many ways to New York from a policy leadership perspective – has made such swift in-roads on battery energy storage that its fleet of grid batteries (12+GW, almost all built in the last five years), is now meeting as much as 43% of peak daily demand.
These examples illustrate the vast, foundational shifts that are actively unfolding in energy markets across the globe. What’s more, there are many new policy tools that can be implemented to counteract the federal headwinds and backfill solutions New York had previously been counting on for 2030, like offshore wind.
The State may feel like its hands are tied given the unprecedented hostility from the Trump Administration, but it should instead be taping up its wrists and putting the gloves on again – the Empire State still has more than a fighter’s chance. Governor Hochul has the chance to lead New York into the next round of this fight and leave her own positive mark on the pressing energy, climate, and affordability debates of the day.
A Brief Journey Back in Time
I directly lived the early arc of the Climate Act while in New York State service, an experience that is and will remain a highlight of my entire career. I started working at NYSERDA less than a month after the Act’s passage, back when the very first offshore wind contracts were awarded to Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind (both projects are moving toward completion but still not operating yet, almost seven years later). And, I concluded my time in New York less than two months after the Climate Action Council’s approval of the Final Scoping Plan.
That was the roadmap. That was the plan. It’s still there as a guide, even though so much has changed since then. Sadly, too little of that thoughtful plan has yet been turned into reality.
I also lived all of the messy middle in between: a pandemic that hit first and hardest in New York City, with an enormous mobilization of State resources to help protect families and communities. As imperfect as the COVID response may have been, playing a small role in that and even just seeing it firsthand is one of my proudest memories of New York State service. That was government and New York State at its best; at the very least, an indicator of what the State could do when much needed to be done by a lot of people in a short amount of time.
Despite the time, focus, and shifts made because of the pandemic, the State team forged ahead with Climate Act planning and implementation. The Herculean task of wrangling numerous State agencies had to pivot on a dime and move to virtual platforms. Tens and tens of Advisory Group meetings. Countless agency coordination and planning meetings. Dozens more Climate Action Council meetings. Hundreds of hours conducting analysis, working with Advisory Group and Council members, drafting recommendations, performing pathways and integration analyses, workshopping and refining work-products, and negotiating final language.
This too was an enormous mobilization of State resources for the good of the people of New York. It should and must not go to waste or have been in vain – it deserves at least as great of a mobilization to try, fail, try, fail, and try again in pursuit of the difficult but important targets in the Climate Act. It’s not just the investment of time and expertise; it’s about what the State will risk missing out on and the signal sent if it chooses to delay.
Yes, the Climate Act’s requirements are unique in their ambition and the level of emissions reductions that they require, making New York’s journey harder than other states. But New York can and should try to go further: because it has a strong foundation (hydro, nuclear, the MTA); because it has the best and most abundant State agency resources; because of the impact of its historic economic activity and emissions; because it is home to Wall Street and the highest nominal GDP per capita of any state. And because what is a state to do if not to live up to its motto (Excelsior, or Ever Upward).
And then, centrally, there are the vast benefits that New York will derive from striving for the deeper ambition in its law. A cap-and-invest program, one example policy core to the fulfillment of the Climate Act, promises to:
- Create 300,500 new jobs, paying 21% above the statewide median income;
- Deliver $6.9 billion in net savings for households earning up to $200,000 (nearly 85% of New Yorkers) – $1,060 per household – over its first decade; and
- Generate $13 billion in annual health benefits by 2035, preventing over 1,000 premature deaths and 137,000 emergency room visits from asthma, among other benefits.
These numbers are staggering – so much so that policymakers must stop and ask what the cost of slowing or inaction is, more so than the cost of acting. New York can’t afford to miss out on this immense positive impact, which will touch every corner of the State – via economic growth, technology adoption, improved air quality, public health savings, enhanced resilience, and beyond.
Having personally worked hard for 3-4 years alongside more than a hundred staffers across agencies in support of the Climate Act and Scoping Plan, I would be deeply saddened to see that valuable work fade away without maximal effort and backing. Not many know that New York had already done a previous climate action plan way back in 2010, which (as I understand it) essentially died on the vine after Governor Paterson left office. New York cannot keep walking itself up to the start line with a solid plan, only to back out of the race at the last minute. Governor Hochul’s opportunity is to pair courage with conviction and make certain that this time is different.
I now work at Acadia Center, a regional research, clean energy, and climate advocacy organization working across the Northeast. This broader perspective underscores three critical points: 1) New York’s actions have wide impact: what New York does in this space matters well beyond the political boundaries of the state, in fact to the whole nation and beyond. It’s leadership ripples outward, but so too does a signal about backtracking; 2) All states are in this together: working cooperatively with similar goals, states can expand markets, reduce costs, and benefit from strategic efforts. New York is already doing this, and it can do more still; and 3) Energy affordability – and the real drivers of cost increases – in the legacy system is shaped by forces well beyond the control of any one state: volatile global fossil fuel markets, failures of incumbent industries to invest in new technologies, financial market practices underpinning utility regulation, and beyond.
And if the State ultimately falls short, the people of New York and its leaders can live with that outcome, knowing the State gave it its all. Throwing in the towel four-plus years early is not exhausting all reasonable efforts.
Unpacking the Real Underlying Drivers of Rising Energy Costs
Governor Hochul herself wisely acknowledges that “the Climate Act is not the driver of the high energy prices we are experiencing,” resting her concern on the future costs of compliance. But, to truly solve for affordability and address the looming legacy energy bills coming due, the State must attack the core underlying drivers of energy cost in New York, so many of which are shared in common with other similarly situated states (as Acadia Center has documented in detail). Fossil-based, one-directional energy systems are teetering on the edge of affordability because they suffer from:
- Inefficiency: Combustion-based system loses some 2/3 of energy inputs – 64% lost in New York.
- Inflexibility: Low utilization of the grid and energy systems (55% load factor in NYISO) and a deep, stark absence of energy storage as a buffer at all levels of the system.
- Lack of scale: Insufficient connections and planning between neighboring grid regions.
- Volatile fuel costs: Increasingly globalized fuel supply chains leave all users exposed to swings in fuel prices.
- Under-innovation: Failure to invest in low-cost, advanced technologies (e.g., Grid Enhancing Technologies like real-time weather-based ratings for the capacity of our power lines).
- Cost recovery: Legacy utility business models, funding methods, and rate designs for infrastructure investment and programs.
New York State spends upwards of $75 billion on energy and fuels every year, roughly two thirds of which is spent on fossil fuels from outside the state. (Not all energy from out of state is bad. Electrons, like those from CHPE, are good!) But sending so many dollars out of the economy on fossil fuels that are deeply inefficient and harmful to communities and the environment is a core underlying driver of the State’s energy costs and ‘how we got here.’
Those fossil prices and expenditures are likely to go up in the short-term (and stay there a while) due to impacts from the War in Iran. That affects gasoline, diesel, natural gas, home heating oil – all of it. The juxtaposition of this historic global oil price shock event (potentially the largest energy security crisis in history) with the proposed actions in New York is all the more concerning because of the fossil lock-in premium – it really does seem like a fork in the road moment.
Just how inefficient is New York’s legacy system? Again, some 64% of primary energy used in New York is lost in conversion from primary energy source to useful form (such as space heating or power for an appliance), driven primarily by the losses and inefficiencies of combustion. This exerts a significant economic drag on the state and on household finances. And the State’s aging building stock forces us to waste even more of the MMBtu that do survive the combustion process, from leaky windows, attics, and walls.
On the grid side, the transmission infrastructure built to bring power from generators to local utilities and consumers is only used about 55% of the time, meaning that many billions of dollars in infrastructure paid for by ratepayers sits there idle almost half of the time. Major electric grid investment will need to occur to realize the Climate Act, no doubt about it (especially given the age of New York’s grid). But recent investments by utilities have by and large not been driven by, nor right-sized for, the integrated needs of the climate transition. In fact, it’s often either overbuilding or like-kind replacements with no eye to the future (or worse: locking in more of the past, such as via gas distribution replacements and repairs). We have to invest in and use infrastructure smarter.
Rising utility costs also include major storm damages, worsened by – guess what – the changing climate conditions at the heart of this question. And they also meaningfully include utility profits, with New York utility profits growing considerably in the last several years, despite efforts to better regulate them and in a number of cases substantially trim back their rate increase requests. The parent companies of all major investor-owned utilities in New York have seen double or even triple-digit percentage growth in their annual utility earnings between 2015 and 2025, though this includes revenues and losses from some divisions outside of New York.[i]
At a certain point, we have to fundamentally recognize the inadequacy of and economic harms inflicted by a system like this. (Not utility profits alone, but the broader legacy system rooted in combustion and one-way power flows). Moreover, we simply can’t say ‘this is the best we can come up with; let’s stick with this’ to ride through a period of intense political focus on affordability. This – the legacy system, and all of its knock-on effects – is what is unaffordable, a key part of what is pushing families and businesses to and past their breaking point. Achieving the Climate Act, done right, can and will rid New York of the undue burdens imposed by the legacy systems left by generations before.
State Authority in the Face of Unforeseen Headwinds
The single biggest roadblock to progress for New York not anticipated in the Final Scoping Plan is obviously President Trump, including the outright hostility and vindictiveness his Administration has directly shown to New York and other peer states. There’s no doubt that this opposition, most notably in sectors like offshore wind, has thrown a major wrench in the best laid plans the State had to deliver clean power downstate, 70% renewables by 2030, and deep emissions reductions economywide. Through her personal intervention, Governor Hochul has ensured that New York stood up strongly to the most egregious of those actions.
But New York should reject the defeatist calls that its State laws and its State energy strategy must be dictated and constrained by the actions of such a federal administration. While the federal government can pick and choose what it wants in select areas like leasing in federal waters, those clear jurisdictional boundaries are the exception to the rule.
The reality is that most energy policymaking is left to the states in our system of federalism. Yes, Trump and Congress also rolled back billions in clean energy funding that would have benefitted New York’s quest. But regional, state, and local jurisdictions have significant authority over key sectors and the power to enact policies that move the needle on emissions reductions. From regulating utilities and enforcing renewable energy standards to changing building codes and land use standards and advancing clean transportation solutions, state and local authorities are robust and tested and should be leaned on during this period of faltering federal support. There are back-up options when Plan A (or even B) has encountered an immovable obstacle. The State may have to get creative and work in concert with neighboring states, but other routes still exist to get to New York’s destination without major delay. Governor Hochul can lean even further into the significant powers and authorities she and her executive agencies possess to navigate these headwinds.
Amid forecasts for growing electric demand, grid reliability for New York’s grid has also been cited as a reason to slow/roll back Climate Act efforts. Governor Hochul referenced similar concerns in her messaging, saying: “our electric system operator is projecting potential energy shortages, particularly downstate, that could lead to brownouts and blackouts.” However, these concerns overlook the considerable waste and inefficient consumption that is embedded within current demand levels, and furthermore omits the key reliability contributions that Climate Act-driven infrastructure is expected to play to relieve tight margins: “Once CHPE, Empire Wind, and the Propel NY Public Policy Transmission Project enter service and demonstrate their planned power capabilities, the margins improve substantially,” the NYISO said.
It’s also notable that the near-term reliability needs identified in New York are all based on “a deficiency in transmission security” in particular. And yet, perplexingly, the NYISO is years behind other grid operators in adopting ambient adjusted ratings (AAR) for its transmission lines. These basic ratings for weather conditions, while not even full dynamic line ratings (DLR), would presumably give transmission owners and the NYISO much more granular insights into the true capacities on their lines during seasonal peak conditions. More advanced line ratings may or may not solve the issues on their own. But, if the state’s grid was indeed approaching a period of true reliability risk, one would think the implementation of those solutions would be more of an urgent priority.
More generally, the NYISO’s assessments should be scrutinized in much the same way that NERC’s recent continent-wide reliability forecast has been pressure-tested. For example: are assumptions about likely-to-connect resources sound (and can those generator interconnections be sped up)? Are imports/exports from and to neighboring grid areas adequately factored in? Are assumptions about load growth from data centers well calibrated to factor in attrition, flexible operations, and power usage effectiveness (PUE) increases? And, on the demand side, are all available actions being taken to unlock the enormous potential peak flexibility that exists in New York (including 3 GW during summer peaks as early as 2030), as identified by analysis for agencies on the State’s grid flexibility potential? Hochul can use her bully pulpit and the deep expertise of her agency staff to ask these questions, pressure NYISO processes to enable clean energy and affordability, and safeguard the grid.
Where New York Should Go from Here
The fact of the matter is, there’s a lot that New York is and has been doing under Governor Hochul’s leadership that is right on-point and deserving of praise – especially because of the aforementioned contributions to grid reliability. New York has been making real headway on solar with NY Sun and nation-leading community solar deployments, the nearing completion of the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) transmission line, the indefatigable Sunrise and Empire Wind projects (long may they live), home retrofits under Empower+, interregional transmission leadership, congestion pricing, new commitments under Governor Hochul’s $1 billion Sustainable Future Program, and even the recent efforts to methodically evaluate new generation resources like advanced nuclear in tandem with other states. But more can and must be done – the State needs to double down on this portfolio of activity, not back the pedal off the metal.
This is the positive opportunity Governor Hochul can help the State seize: ensuring the Climate Act transition will drive better energy affordability outcomes for New York families and businesses. To have success, the State will:
- Use less energy than we did before even as we grow electric load, replacing the waste of combustion with electrification (3x more efficient).
- Better utilize the grid, which sits vastly underutilized most days/hours.
- Make the grid wider, to benefit from resource diversity benefits, weather patterns in neighboring grid areas.
- Stabilize supply rates by investing in a diverse set of energy resources with free fuel, price certainty, and rapidly advancing technology platforms.
- Make the grid and customers more resilient to costly outages and extreme weather events.
- Improve how it measures and charges customers for energy use, incentivizes utilities, and invests in resources to reduce expensive peaks.
It’s hard to boil down all the individual steps the State must take to achieve these outcomes (after all, the final Scoping Plan was 445 pages!). But here is a mini blueprint with some of the major new pillars for how Governor Hochul can reclaim leadership in this moment and get New York back on track. Governor Hochul can and should take assurance from the substantive and electoral victories won in Virginia and New Jersey last year, which provide a clear model for what it can look like to ‘tack into’ the winds of affordability with clean energy and cut through the noise with an inspiring message of what can be improved in legacy systems.
New York should:
- Hold the line: Keep current Climate Act targets intact in negotiations this legislative session.
- Initiate a sound, equitable cap and invest program: Not with substantially elevated allowance price parameters, but enough to move the needle and start bringing in revenue for investment and rebates. The State’s own plans circa 2023-2024 are a great place to start – New York can honor the deep agency and stakeholder work that went into that effort, and keep critical protections in place for environmental justice communities and energy workers.
- Provide direct energy bill relief: Continue and strengthen plans to rebate a significant share of cap-and-invest proceeds to families and small businesses, with an emphasis on holding low- and moderate-income (LMI) families harmless and ensuring median households come out better off. Analysis from Resources for the Future (RFF) and the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance (NYC-EJA) shows that through thoughtful rebate design, costs can be addressed and offset: “when cash payments are targeted based on regional energy costs and household income, average fossil fuel cost increases for households that make less than $200,000 a year could be fully covered by program revenues provided to households.”
- Bring other states along with it: There is strength in numbers, and this presents a chance for New York to lead. Washington State is initiating linkage with California and Quebec. Virginia has decided to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which New York still helps anchor. New York can and should work with east coast/mid-Atlantic neighbors to spur action at greater scale and serve as a broader bulwark against Trump. Even if New York cannot fully achieve its own 2030 goals, if it helps get more states and more emissions onto the playing field, it can still indirectly succeed.
- Re-finance the grid: New York should embrace and require the use of more robust public financing for investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities, introducing lower-cost sources of public debt and equity into the conventional utility capital stack. Forthcoming analysis in New England (from Acadia Center and partners) suggests transmission costs could be cut by an enormous 40+%, and there’s no reason why a similar model couldn’t be applied to distribution utility investments too. This could save New York many billions of dollars covering grid upgrades for both traditional needs (reliability, asset condition, compliance) and for reasons related to achieving the Climate Act (e.g., renewable integration). Recent analysis for New York suggests utility pre-tax Return on Equity (ROE) will impose costs of $616 per year on residential gas and electric customers in 2027, and lowering post-tax ROEs by 1 percentage point could save a customer $66 to $97 per year in 2027 and 2030.
- Double-down on energy efficiency: New York has been a leader in energy efficiency, but its program investments have not kept pace with peer states on a per capita basis given the state’s large size and population (it now invests less on a per capita basis, in fact, than New Hampshire, which proposed the complete repeal of its efficiency programs only a few years ago). New York should substantially increase investments in energy efficiency and demand response. Instead of short-term arguments about funding levels for EmPower+, the State should commit to 10x the program’s budget and lay out a multi-year runway to improve the state’s housing stock at the scale needed to realize the Climate Act. With a global oil shock event, we need now more than ever to insulate families from spikes in fossil fuel commodities. But it’s not a matter of putting on a sweater or turning down the thermostat – as Acadia Center has argued for years, energy efficiency and demand flexibility are resources we can procure for our grid much like nuclear or offshore wind, opening up headroom for actual economically productive behavior rather than waste.
- Backfill offshore wind: The loss of many gigawatts of offshore wind capacity that had been counted on to realize 70% by 2030 and broader emissions goals is very tough to recreate. New York’s first and best option is to go all-in on solar and energy storage, again drawing inspiration from the hockey-stick curves we’re seeing today in Pakistan and other parts of the globe. Small to medium-scale distributed energy resources (DER) may present the surest path forward to avoid siting issues and maximize T&D benefits, even though the State should also continue driving utility-scale additions. The indexed nature of those large-scale renewable and storage contracts is poised to play a key, underappreciated role in saving New Yorkers money and reducing costs caused by rising fossil fuel and electricity prices. And the State should indeed pass the ASAP Act this session to bring more low-cost clean energy resources like this online as soon as, well, the name implies. Adding more interregional transmission into the mix, plus more creative pursuits to bring new clean resources forward (Canadian offshore wind? Advanced nuclear? Long-Duration Energy Storage? Great Lakes offshore wind? New York and Pennsylvania enhanced geothermal?) can also help compensate for the delays caused by Trump’s assault on offshore wind, even if those resources may take more time to come online.
- Expand Energy Affordability Program (EAP): While New York has long had programs to provide bill discounts to income eligible households (and despite recent additions intended to broaden enrollment), New York can still go further to implement more granular and more automated low-income discount rates. Similar to multi-tier discount rates now in effect in some neighboring states, New York can more closely cap utility expenses at appropriate levels, such as 2 or 4% of household income for the lowest tier and 6% for other income eligible tiers. This shift is the more just and more reasonable way to ask struggling families to pay their utility bills. These rate discounts could also be paired with seasonal heat pump rates that more fairly allocate distribution costs, reducing operating costs and making heat pumps more accessible to households across the income spectrum.
- Avoid major looming gas distribution costs: States around the Northeast are beginning to grapple seriously with the skyrocketing distribution costs of repairing and replacing the aging, leak-prone natural gas pipes beneath many of our streets. As new analysis shows, New York must contend with this challenge as well, with a cumulative ratepayer price tag (and therefore savings opportunity) that registers in the billions. Specifically, avoiding half of the planned 700 miles of leak-prone gas main replacement in New York City could save residential gas customers between $165 and $301 over the next four years. And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg of what replacement needs may be proposed: accordingto the Future of Heat Initiative, over the last 10 years, the six largest gas utilities in New York grew their gas assets from $17B to over $37B, despite homes using less gas. Avoiding growth like this is one major reason why New York legislators should also enact the NY HEAT Act this session.
- And if you still need help to insulate everyday families from rising costs? The State should move forward with legislative proposals to increase taxes on the wealthiest households. Extending millionaire’s tax proposals to the full state would raise billions more, at least by enough to close current budget gaps and prevent cuts to vital services, and potentially more to pair with energy funding sources to accelerate clean energy and provide rebates/lower taxes for LMI families.
Ultimately, the climate doesn’t care what path we choose politically. It’s already happening – Phoenix experienced a once in 4,000-year heat wave in recent weeks. Historic floods in Hawaii caused major evacuations and power outages. Massive wildfires have burned vast swaths of grazing lands in Nebraska, endangering cattle producers’ plans for production increases that could help ease record-high U.S. beef prices. (Climate and affordability already going hand-in-hand.) More evidence mounts about the direct drag on household finances that climate change is already causing, and more concerns emerge about the systemic risks to insurance and housing markets from climate change.
If we think today’s affordability politics are tough, ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet’ if the climate is allowed to worsen through policy inaction and delay. New York saw what happened with Superstorm Sandy. New York has seen dramatic damages from severe storms upstate. How much more climate chaos can we handle? Not just for our political debates, but for our communities, our economies, and our future?
One thing that remains clear to me is that New York’s dedicated public servants have the capacity to deliver on the complicated but critical work of standing up new major programs like cap-and-invest. If any state can navigate this transition, it is New York State, thanks to the brilliant, hard-working, and passionate public servants working to bring the state into a brighter energy future – reliable, affordable, and clean. This legislative session, a recommitment to the Climate Act, much like congestion pricing, is still possible and can resolidify New York on its journey toward leadership on climate, protection of communities, and economic prosperity for families and businesses. Governor Hochul has the chance to make this recommitment part of her lasting legacy and safeguard the many improvements to New Yorkers’ quality of life promised by the Climate Act.
So, may the Climate Act remain intact through this difficult year and continue to, as President Kennedy put it 60 years ago, serve to organize and measure the best of New York’s energies and skills in the coming years. This challenge – driving down both emissions and energy bills – is one that we should be willing to accept, unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
[i] The figure above, Utility Earnings by Year, reports available data for major utility parent companies from 2015 to 2025 (company acquisitions affect the availability of data for certain years). Despite some variation in the reporting by each company, the values shown above generally reflect “Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Common Shareholders,” so as to provide as close of an apples-to-apple comparison. However, different parent companies have different subsidiaries, including by both geography and vertical (e.g., distribution, transmission, renewables, etc.), which makes each company’s situation unique and in most cases broader than just activity in New York State. Using ‘Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders’ excludes (does not depict) additional profits that are shared with preferred stock shareholders, which in at least one case (National Grid) amount to hundreds of millions of dollars almost annually. Specific sources include: Avangrid (example Form 10K); National Grid (annual reports for US/subsidiaries); Consolidated Edison (selected SEC filings); and National Fuel Gas (selected SEC filings).
The affordability crunch is pushing Democrats to scale back climate ambitions
The Democratic Party’s embrace of affordability politics is pushing what remains of U.S. climate policy to the brink.
In a bid to quickly lower electricity costs, a growing number of Democratic-governed states are pulling money away from programs to save power and boost renewable energy, often by cutting charges on utility bills or redirecting those funds toward customer rebates.
Limiting those programs will have “compounding costs,” said Emily Koo, a senior policy advocate and Rhode Island program director for the Acadia Center, a climate advocacy group based in the Northeast. Energy efficiency spending already has to pass a cost-benefits test, she said, and renewables are the only way to break the state’s costly dependence on gas, which drives up electricity bills every winter.
“It does feel like pulling the rug out,” she said. “What I see the state doing is just kinda giving in and acquiescing [to Trump’s rollbacks], and delivering more blows to the clean energy economy.”
To read the full article from Politico, click here.
Opinion: An independent transmission monitor could cut ratepayer costs
Energy affordability is in the spotlight, and the public is rightfully demanding answers.
A significant factor increasing bills is the expense of maintaining and upgrading the aging electric power grid. The cost of transmission —the long-distance lines that move electricity across the region from where it is generated to our homes and businesses—has more than doubled since 2005, from 10% to 24% of the average customer bill.
If we’re serious about protecting families and businesses from unnecessary energy costs, Connecticut and New England need an independent entity that scrutinizes transmission projects and ensures they are correctly sized and optimized for actual grid needs. Consumers should be paying for reliability and resilience, not excess infrastructure that pads shareholder profits.
Currently, transmission companies are pouring money into refurbishing and replacing old transmission infrastructure. The annual cost of these local projects, called Asset Condition Projects (ACPs), has skyrocketed regionally from $58 million in 2016 to $1.2 billion in 2024.
In Connecticut, there were 18 ACPs under construction as of October 2025, at an estimated cost of over $1 billion, with 12 more ACPs planned for the future. ACP projects now dwarf investments in other kinds of new transmission, and Connecticut and other New England electric customers are on the hook.
ACPs could strategically increase grid capacity through the use of new technologies and upgrades, but they most often replace existing equipment or make minimal upgrades, failing to optimize the system as a whole. Unoptimized ACPs are a missed opportunity to maximize cost efficiencies in transmission planning. In some cases, ACPs may be overbuilt, and in others a lack of anticipatory investments may prevent the grid from growing to accommodate future electrification or new generation (like renewable energy) in a least-cost manner – leading to unnecessary ratepayer costs.
Oversight of ACP spending has been practically non-existent. ACPs are reviewed by the regional grid operator’s (ISO-NE) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), but they are often submitted to the PAC as little as 90 days before construction is set to begin. That is far too little time to do meaningful review. And, states and stakeholders face a major informational disadvantage to rebut and refine transmission owners’ plans.
Proposed Mass Save cuts are a short-sighted move that will cost ratepayers – and the environment – more in the end
It’s on front pages and in speeches. It’s at dinner tables and in living rooms. The word is “affordability,” and there’s a good reason it’s everywhere. Too many residents of the Commonwealth feel the cost-of-living squeeze and struggle to keep up with tighter family budgets.
Eight out of ten Massachusetts residents are concerned about their utility bills. In fact, energy affordability ranks as the top household concern in the Bay State, where average electricity bills consistently rank among the highest in the country. For families already making trade-offs between groceries, rent, and health care, energy has become another painful expense.
Acadia Center found that energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts delivered $34 billion in lifetime benefits between 2012 and 2023, returning more than $3.50 for every $1 invested. Those savings are more than real—they show up in real-time.
To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.
Massachusetts leaders have plans to reduce utility bills. Does their math add up?
Under pressure for months over skyrocketing heating and electricity charges, Massachusetts House lawmakers last month took steps to check some of the nation’s highest utility bills.
And they’re not modest about the result: a whopping $9 billion in potential savings for ratepayers over the next decade, they claim, with immediate savings on the way.
Don’t cash that check just yet.
“There’s a lot of unpredictability in this business. It can be difficult to anticipate with exact precision what some of these changes might actually do,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the advocacy group the Acadia Center.
To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.
Mass. governor orders state to pursue 15 GW of resources, including storage, VPPs
Massachusetts has some of the highest electricity prices in the country, though the prices are similar to those in the rest of New England and some other states.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, residential customers in Massachusetts paid an average of 30.88 cents/kWh in December, compared with 31.15 cents/kWh in Rhode Island and 34.71 cents/kWh in California.
Healey officials said the new energy resource and storage targets can help to address the region’s affordability issues.
The Acadia Center, which supports clean energy solutions, applauded Healey’s executive order.
“Proposals such as developing new natural gas pipeline capacity will only do more to exacerbate the overreliance and overexposure New England ratepayers already face” to the price volatility of fossil fuel-based energy, Jamie Dickerson, senior director of climate and clean energy programs at Acadia Center, said in a statement. The Healey administration has “wisely chosen to keep the focus where it needs to be: on promoting new clean electricity supply, new energy storage, new grid connections, and new demand-side flexibility measures.”
At 10 GW, Dickerson said the proposal “can collectively deliver a clean energy pipeline to meet the reliability needs of the region at far lower cost.”
To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.
Acadia Center Applauds Massachusetts Governor Healey for Timely Executive Order Promoting Cheapest, Fastest-to-Deploy Clean Energy Resources, Inclusion of Supply, Storage, Grid, and Demand-Side Solutions to Drive Energy Affordability
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x102
*Region will enhance affordability and reliability with gigawatt-scale annual deployments
*Demand-side flexibility solutions will help manage peaks, reduce infrastructure costs
*Portfolio of solutions vital to insulate against risk of fuel price shocks from global events
*Gas system investments must pass non-pipeline solutions screening, prove compatibility with least-cost, clean energy pathways for affordability and reliability
WINCHESTER, MA — Today, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and state energy officials announced a timely and important new Executive Order aimed at driving a coordinated, 15 gigawatt (GW) build-out of clean energy resources to meet the pressing affordability and reliability needs of the moment. Coming on the heels of continued hostility and intransigence on energy policy from the federal government, today’s action leans strongly into the substantial legal and policy authorities that states possess to shape their energy future and serve as a bulwark against federal backsliding. And critically, the Executive Order represents a compelling and effective portfolio of solutions to counter the continued misguided pressure campaign to double-down on the Commonwealth’s overreliance on natural gas with more interstate pipeline capacity. Acadia Center applauds the Healey-Driscoll Administration for standing strong against such counterproductive proposals and laying out a ten-year plan that can move the Commonwealth and region more decisively in the direction it needs to go. It is essential that the review of natural gas and oil storage capacity directed by the Executive Order scrutinize all existing and/or newly proposed fossil fuel resources for compatibility and compliance with legally mandated emission reduction pathways, including by applying robust non-pipeline/non-fuel solutions screening and maximizing contributions from demand-side flexibility.
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation at Acadia Center, said, “At a time when some states are backing off of climate commitments and falsely blaming renewables for rising prices, I am proud that Massachusetts stays grounded in reality. I applaud the Healey-Driscoll administration for doubling-down on a strategy that will actually deliver energy independence and affordability to the Commonwealth.”
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center, said, “Recent events unfolding in global energy markets demonstrate all too vividly how susceptible current fossil fuel-based energy systems are to price shock events and extreme volatility in fuel costs. Proposals such as developing new natural gas pipeline capacity will only do more to exacerbate the overreliance and overexposure New England ratepayers already face. The Healey-Driscoll Administration has wisely chosen to keep the focus where it needs to be: on promoting new clean electricity supply, new energy storage, new grid connections, and new demand-side flexibility measures, which – at the scale of 10+ gigawatts – can collectively deliver a clean energy pipeline to meet the reliability needs of the region at far lower cost.”
Acadia Center has previously shared a similar vision about building out a clean energy pipeline for the Northeast region, and the organization is grateful to see this framing mirrored in the Governor’s actions today. The scale of the build-out envisioned in today’s announcement – on the order of 1-2 GW per year for 10 years – would make important strides toward the level of deployment that will ultimately be needed for the region to meet its broader goals for least-cost emissions reductions and preserving reliability. Acadia Center’s prior analysis conducted with Clean Air Task Force (CATF) suggested the region would need to ramp up clean energy deployments toward an average of 4-5 GW of new clean energy per year over the coming two decades years.
Mounting evidence makes clear that the fossil fuel alternatives – including adding interstate natural gas pipeline capacity – would come at substantial added costs to ratepayers. Acadia Center recently released analysis breaking down why a new natural gas pipeline would in fact exacerbate rather than relieve energy affordability pressures, including based on the upward pressure on natural gas prices from greater exposure to international fossil fuel commodity markets, such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – see Figure 1 below. This dynamic has sadly become even more acute in recent weeks with the price of oil and natural gas rising substantially in response to the fuel supply chain disruptions in the Middle East (including the world’s single largest LNG facility completely offline in Qatar). Today’s overreliance on fossil fuels – New England spends some $75 billion dollars a year on energy and fuel, two thirds of which is spent on oil and gas from outside the region – will leave families and businesses exposed to these rising costs, but for the actions of policymakers to hasten the clean energy transition.
About the Executive Order
The Governor’s Executive Order contains a number of notable actions, including the following highlights:
Clean energy supply:
- The E.O. directs six and a half (6.5) gigawatts (GW) of new clean supply resources online, under contract, or under development by the end of 2035. This will include four new GW of solar and two-and-a-half GW of “new energy supply” into the New England power grid connecting to Massachusetts customers.
- The E.O. does not specify what will make up the 2.5 GW of new energy supply, but it presumably includes major contributions from northern New England renewable capacity unlocked by the Longer-Term Transmission Planning (LTTP) investment and forthcoming Northern Maine RFP, other potential interregional transmission investments stemming from the Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission, along with potential Canadian offshore wind supply pursuant to the recently enacted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nova Scotia. It is not clear how/whether other earlier-stage resources mentioned in the E.O., such as new nuclear energy, geothermal resources, or other “non-fossil thermal energy sources” might also fit into this category.
- The E.O. also establishes an additional goal of five GW of energy storage online or under development within Massachusetts by the end of 2035. This is a new/expanded storage target, on top of the 5 GW Section 83E requirements passed in the Climate Act of 2024.
Clean energy demand:
- To meet the overall 10 GW goal by 2035, the E.O. contemplates deploying three-and-a-half (3.5) new GW from demand management resources, such as virtual power plants, electric vehicle charging management, energy efficiency and demand response programs. This would constitute a major new demand-side portfolio, representing the ability to flex or shift more than 13% of the region’s summer and winter peaks forecast for the mid-2030s (e.g., net summer peak of 26,897 MW in 2034) – on top of existing demand management portfolios from Mass Save and Connected Solutions.
- This amount of flexible demand would also be substantially larger than estimates for growth in winter peak demand driven by heating electrification in Massachusetts (2,167 MW in 2034), demonstrating that electrification of space heating can be effectively managed when paired with smart demand management.
- This investment in flexible demand and virtual power plant capabilities will help directly target the costliest peak periods for the grid and broader energy systems each year. Recent analysis conducted for New York State identified that grid flexibility could reduce future peaks by more than 20% by 2040 – critical when many fixed infrastructure costs are driven by these peaks (e.g., each GW of peak demand is expected to drive $750m to $1.5b in transmission costs in New England).
Gas System Transition:
- The E.O. also directs Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) agencies to “review existing natural gas and oil storage capacity and utilization and coordinate with gas utilities, fossil fuel generation facilities, and other New England states to develop greater clarity on how the Everett Marine Terminal and other fuel storage assets may contribute to meeting regional energy supply needs and maintaining system reliability,” aligned with goals of meeting winter energy needs reliably and affordably.
- The E.O. also directs agencies to identify “identify whether additional, strategically located storage capacity or delivery capabilities could provide reliability and affordability benefits to all ratepayers and align with existing regulations.” Agencies are to propose recommendations to “ensure adequate natural gas and oil storage capacity and delivery capabilities that promote reliability and affordability, avoid unnecessary spending and adding charges to customer bills, and are aligned with existing regulations.”
- Acadia Center is pleased to see that solutions like new interstate gas pipeline capacity are off the table given the focus on avoiding unnecessary spending and adding charges to customer bills and the stated alignment with existing regulations, such as those in force pursuant to the Commonwealth’s legally binding emissions reductions requirements.
Grid Planning and Investment:
- Section 3 of the E.O. directs a wide range of positive grid-planning and distributed energy resource advancements, including:
- Managing increased DG interconnection requests to maximize IRA tax credit eligibility;
- Developing flexible interconnection programs; investigating the impact of and energy affordability solutions for large commercial customers such as data centers;
- Expediting review of proposals for time-of-use (TOU) rates, DER, energy efficiency, and virtual power plants;
- Proliferating models for community energy resilience hubs such as community microgrids; establishing clean energy ready zones; and
- Examining pathways to lower the cost to ratepayers of transmission infrastructure necessary to meet energy needs in alignment with other states throughout the New England region (more to come on this subject from Acadia Center and partners soon!); among other actions.
Broad Support for Driving Affordability with Clean Energy
Recent polling work demonstrates strong and enduring public support for renewable energy and energy efficiency among New England voters, including accurate beliefs about many of the top underlying drivers of energy cost increases, including utility profits, natural gas infrastructure maintenance, and extreme weather. More information about Acadia Center’s analysis on energy cost drivers can be accessed here.
Acadia Center looks ahead with excitement to the opportunity to help the Commonwealth implement and make good on the provisions of this important executive action in keeping with the imperatives of climate, affordability, equity, safety and reliability, and beyond. The organization looks forward to working with members of the Healey-Driscoll Administration, the Legislature, and beyond.
How Renewable Energy Lowers the Price of Electricity on the Wholesale Market
Renewable energy offers several benefits, from public health to energy independence. One of the most powerful advantages, however, is its ability to lower the price of electricity on the wholesale market. This effect is called price suppression, and it’s why renewable energy is key to energy affordability.
Synapse Energy Economics estimated that between 2014 and 2019, BTM solar reduced wholesale energy market costs in New England by $1.1 billion. Another report from the Acadia Center found that on the highest-peak day of 2025, behind-the-meter solar met around 22% of system load, translating to more than 5,000 MW of distributed solar generation. This had the combined benefit of suppressing demand, preventing blackouts, and saving customers collectively between $8.2 million and potentially $19.4 million in energy costs.
Overall, bringing renewables online stabilizes the clearing price against volatile oil and gas prices, which leads to significant cost savings for ratepayers.
To read the full blog from Green Energy Consumers Alliance, click here.
The Solar Industry Has Been Bogged Down by Red Tape. Digital Tools Are Changing That.
When Paul Dale decided to expand his rooftop solar system in Massachusetts three years ago, he thought it would be a breeze. He already had 22 panels. The addition of eight panels and battery storage would lower his family’s utility bill and boost their energy independence. Dale signed a contract with solar installer Solaris Renewables in January 2023.
Americans’ energy bills are rising at rates not seen in decades, with some community advocacy groups reporting that electricity bills have shot up by an average of 30 percent since 2021. As the Trump administration attempts to keep people hooked on fossil fuels, local leaders are approving multidecade contracts with oil, gas, and even coal companies. These de facto energy monopolies are expected to cost ratepayers millions.
To read the full article from Sierra Club, click here.
As tax-cut ballot battle looms, Healey sees risk. Business leaders see relief.
Markey: Trump’s out of gas on Iran
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey used a stop outside a gas station in Malden last week to take a double-shot at President Donald Trump over rising prices at the pump and the Republican administration’s opposition to alternative energy.
Dan Gatti, a transportation policy expert at the Acadia Center, said the joint U.S./Israeli campaign in Iran and the ongoing war in Ukraine underscore the same problem: The world remains too dependent on fossil fuels.
“Here in New England, we spend $75 billion per year on energy and fuel, most of which is spent on oil and gas, which comes from outside our region,” Gatti said. “When energy prices spike, some politicians reach for gimmicks like cutting energy efficiency programs or asking ratepayers to subsidize more fossil fuel infrastructure. But making consumers pay for gas pipelines will increase costs, not decrease them.”
To read the full article from MassLive, click here.