Putting Costs in Context in Connecticut
Media Contacts:
Kate McAuliffe, Senior Policy Advocate, Connecticut
kmcauliffe@acadiacenter.org, 860-246-7121 x202
Noah Berman, Senior Policy Advocate, Utility Innovation Program Manager
nberman@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x107
Executive Summary
- Eversource justifies its solar project cancellation via a misleading focus on comparatively miniscule solar contract costs, ignoring full savings and other larger cost drivers. The utility’s refusal to execute contracts with 54 MW of new solar capacity upends the state’s proper role and conflicts with clear, long-established policy mandates.
- While renewables are often scapegoated as a driver of the Northeast’s high electricity prices, the data shows the opposite is true. The proposed solar capacity from this multi-state RFP is projected to save ratepayers $80 million over twenty years. It is therefore Eversource’s decision not to enter into these contracts that will increase customer costs, not the contracts themselves.
- A recent FERC Order reduced New England transmission owners’ allowed return on equity (ROE) and ordered refunds to ratepayers. Rather than provide ratepayers real relief, Eversource and Avangrid have asked FERC and the U.S. Court of Appeals to stay the $1.5 billion refund decision – including $500+ million dollars due to Connecticut ratepayers.
- Other major drivers of customer costs attributable to Eversource’s transmission and distribution businesses (single-year figures) dwarf the gross costs cited for the solar contracts ($238m over twenty years), including: $300m in transmission re-build expenses in Connecticut; $667m in regional distribution-level profits; and $483m in power supply costs at $155 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
- States with more penetration of renewables have seen smaller electricity price increases over the past twenty years, while states that depend more heavily on natural gas have seen higher electricity price increases. Studies have also consistently shown that renewables save customers money by reducing wholesale electricity prices, especially during extreme weather and global fuel volatility like we’re experiencing today.
On December 18, 2025, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), in collaboration with Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont, announced the selection of 173 MW of new solar projects that will being clean, affordable energy to the region.[1] This regional effort was designed to bring costs down for ratepayers, improve grid reliability, and allow states to take advantage of federal tax credits before their untimely expiration. The three solar projects selected by Connecticut would provide enough electricity to power 12,000 homes, save ratepayers an estimated $80 million over a twenty-year contract period, and contribute to Connecticut’s requirement of achieving a zero-carbon electric sector by 2040.[2]
The future of these projects was called into question on March 27, 2026, when Eversource submitted a letter indicating that it was declining to enter into contracts for its 54 MW share.[3] According to the letter, Eversource made this “difficult” decision in the interest of ratepayer costs, citing the affordability of power purchase agreements (PPAs) and a lack of long-term planning for Connecticut’s renewable portfolio. Eversource’s attempt to ignore estimated savings and opt-out of these contracts is unwarranted and threatens to risk other participating states’ procurements, potentially depriving ratepayers of affordable, clean, locally based and reliable energy.
Unpacking the Double Standard Applied by Eversource
While Eversource’s letter suggests a desire to conduct procurements through a “much-needed affordability lens,” the Company unfortunately does not apply the same level of concern to much larger costs in other areas of customer bills. For starters, as illustrated above, the gross annual costs of the solar projects are miniscule in comparison to other savings opportunities, and that is without the consideration of net benefits from the projects’ price effects in wholesale electricity markets, which outweigh the costs entirely.
Figure 1: Comparison of Solar Procurement Costs/Benefits With Other Major Energy Cost Drivers
In addition, a recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order – issued just eight days before Eversource’s letter refusing to execute the solar contracts – reduced New England transmission owners’ allowed return on equity (ROE) and ordered refunds to ratepayers, concluding the utilities’ rates were “unjust and unreasonable.” Rather than use this opportunity to provide ratepayers real relief, Eversource and Avangrid have asked FERC and the U.S. Court of Appeals to stay the $1.5 billion refund decision.[4],[5] For Connecticut Light and Power ratepayers, the total refund appears to amount to around $507 million, before carrying costs.[6] And yet, Eversource, with Avangrid, has filed a motion to stay its obligation to pay this refund, prolonging litigation that began in 2011 (filed by Acadia Center, then called Environment Northeast, in cases consolidated with ones brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General and others[7]) in order to avoid responsibility for refunding customers. Eversource’s decision not to refund its customers half a billion dollars ordered by its federal regulator is not in keeping with a purported focus on “protect[ing] the interests of customers.[8]
In arguing to stay the refund, Eversource and the other utilities cite “downstream harms to customers, who ultimately bear the increased financing costs resulting from negative credit impacts,” among others (Motion at 4). At best, it is speculative that the resulting 9.57% Return on Equity (ROE) will result in negative credit rating impacts that harm customers; at worst, it is a misleading argument frequently made by utilities to avoid reductions in allowed profits. In practice, even utilities undergoing active bankruptcy filings – a much more perilous financial circumstance than Eversource here faces – have been able to access capital from investors.[9]
Even more glaring, Eversource has not raised any objections to the lack of planning/policy direction when it comes to the oversight and regulation of what are called Asset Condition Projects (ACPs) – a type of transmission project that has until recently received so little regulatory oversight that none has ever been modified or rejected in New England.[10] These projects, which are largely rebuilds of existing assets, are widely acknowledged to be driving substantial cost increases in customers’ transmission bills. In 2025, $300 million dollars’ worth of Eversource ACPs went into service in Connecticut, according to ISO New England’s Asset Condition List. Even though there has been no coherent policy at the state or region level monitoring these assets to ensure the investments are “aligned with state policy and affordability objectives,” as the Company writes in its letter, Eversource does not show similar high-mindedness by reining in its own ACP spending. Rather, from 2022 to 2024, Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders (or ‘profits’) recovered by Eversource’s regional holding company (not the subsidiary in Connecticut) for electric transmission rose from $596.6M to $724.6M, an increase of $128M in two years.[11]
This, compared to an annual gross project cost of $11.9 million ($238m/20 years) for these three solar procurements that Eversource has declined to procure. It is noteworthy that Eversource cites the gross lifetime cost rather than the annual cost or the lifetime net benefits because, on an annual basis, these procurements are a very small amount of money to a very large company – hardly “an unreasonable burden on the respective EDC’s balance sheet.”[12] Nowhere does Eversource mention the net benefits to ratepayers. Indeed, the customer bill benefits cited by DEEP – some $80m in net lifetime ratepayer bill savings from energy sales and the market impacts of lower energy and capacity prices – make it clear that these procurements actually have the overall impact of decreasing customer bills, rather than increasing them.[13] Viewed in this light, it is Eversource’s decision not to enter into these contracts that will increase customer costs, not the contracts themselves.
Eversource claims in their letter that the contract pricing is over-market. However, an examination of Eversource’s recent regulatory filings reveals at least one other power supply contract of similar if not higher levelized cost than the solar PPAs (detailed pricing not yet public). Specifically, in Eversource’s April 30, 2025, FERC Form 1 filing to PURA, the Company identified it had purchased 3,121,301 megawatt-hours (MWh) from Constellation for standard offer service, paid for at $483,497,108 in one year – or approximately $155 per MWh.[14] While these payments were made for a specific supply product different from the solar PPAs (energy and RECs), the total expenditure is vastly larger, and the levelized cost again seems likely to be of similar if not higher cost. In both cases, Eversource passes on 100% of costs to customers, and yet it chose to dispute the vastly smaller (and possibly cheaper) solar contracts – calling into question what standard is being applied, and when.
While renewables are often scapegoated as a driver of the Northeast’s high electricity prices, the data shows the opposite is true. States with more penetration of renewables have seen smaller electricity price increases over the past twenty years, while states that depend more heavily on natural gas have seen higher electricity price increases.[15] Studies have also consistently shown that renewables save customers money by reducing wholesale electricity prices, especially during extreme weather and global fuel volatility like we’re experiencing today.[16]
Cancellations Threaten Bill Increases and Regional Affordability Efforts
With other sources of generation increasingly expensive and volatile, large solar projects like the ones selected in this RFP are an affordability imperative. Expiring federal tax incentives have the potential to reduce project costs by about a third.[17] After the Trump administration cut federal tax credits starting July 2026, DEEP and its regional partners acted fast to procure resources at the lowest possible cost. Abandoning these projects in the name of affordability will raise prices.
Eversource’s justification for pulling out of the contracts is not only flawed, but it also sets a bad precedent and could impact future multi-state procurement efforts. If Eversource is able to walk away from procurements that are clearly in the interest of ratepayers and aligned with state policy mandates, then DEEP’s statutorily provided procurement authority is thrown into question. If this situation holds, the Company, rather than state policymakers, is in the position to pick and choose projects. This simply must not be permitted.
Other states participating in this procurement may now be left in the lurch. It is not clear what will happen to the 54 MW allocated to Eversource, but if there is even a slight delay in these projects being developed (e.g., to realign project financing after a major partner drops out), they will likely miss the deadline for eligibility for the tax credits, scuttling project financing estimates entirely. In a time of rising electricity demand, Eversource’s walking away could block over 100 new, clean MW from coming online, possibly souring other states from wanting to join on similar procurements in the future. This would be deeply unfortunate because multi-state procurements are often the most efficient and lead to the lowest cost projects, plus the ability to share costs. Additionally, because the energy market in New England is regional, if other states choose not to engage with Connecticut because Eversource has shown itself to be an unreliable partner, that hurts all ratepayers in the region.
While Eversource’s assertions about affordability are misleading at best, the Company is correct that Connecticut is several years behind in its development of key planning documents, including the Comprehensive Energy Strategy (CES) and Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). According to Eversource, without these frameworks, they cannot know whether the contracts are “aligned with overall state policy and affordability perspectives.” This is a meritless excuse of massive proportions. Connecticut has long-established and clear policy mandates for the electricity sector, including a binding requirement to be zero-carbon by 2040. DEEP has conducted other zero-carbon procurements, including two in 2023, without similar objections from Eversource.[18] Indeed, according to DEEP, Eversource participated in this procurement and “voiced no concerns or objections at any point of the evaluation and selection process.”[19] Sadly, this suggests that the late protests and refusal to execute contracts was a decision not made in good faith.
Conclusion
Large-scale, competitively procured solar projects present a compelling value proposition for Connecticut ratepayers: clean, affordable, and reliable energy that is not subject to the volatility of fossil fuel generation. Connecticut and its regional partners acted quickly to bring these projects online with the added benefit of federal tax credits. At the eleventh hour, and without clear justification or authority, Eversource has put these projects in jeopardy in the misleading name of affordability, while conveniently ignoring or actively blocking other opportunities to provide ratepayer relief. Permitting Eversource to back out of these contracts threatens Connecticut’s ability to procure clean energy resources in the future and will cost ratepayers in the near and long term.
For more information:
• Acadia Center’s Fact Sheet Collection: Energy Cost Drivers
• Op-Ed: An Independent Transmission Monitor Could Cut Ratepayer Costs (CT Mirror)
[1] Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Connecticut and New England Partners Announce Clean Energy Selections, December 18, 2025: https://portal.ct.gov/deep/news-releases/news-releases—2025/connecticut-and-new-england-state-partners-announce-clean-energy-selections
[2] Public Act No. 22-5: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/ACT/PA/PDF/2022PA-00005-R00SB-00010-PA.PDF
[3] Eversource Energy letter regarding 2025 Expedited Zero Carbon Contracts, March 27, 2026: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28029972-letter-response-on-long-term-clean-energy-procurement-in-ct-32726-copy/?mode=document
[4] Howland, Ethan. “Eversource, Avangrid ask FERC to stay $1.5 billion refund decision.” Utility Dive. April 7, 2026: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/eversource-avangrid-ferc-roe-refund-iso-ne/816797/
[5] Howland, Ethan. “New England states urge FERC to advance $1.5B in ratepayer refunds.” Utility Dive . April 21, 2026: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-england-nescoe-ferc-roe-transmission-avangrid-eversource/818040
[6] Calculated based on subsidiary-level obligations identified in Connecticut Light and Power’s FERC Form 1 , Section E ,“ FERC ROE Complaint” and Eversource’s overall estimated obligation identified in the Company’s Motion for a Stay of Retroactive Refund Obligations , FERC Docket Nos. EL11 – 66 – 001, EL11 – 66 – 004, EL11 – 66 – 005 .
[7] ENE (Environment Northeast) v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (docket EL13-33)
[8] Eversource Energy letter regarding 2025 Expedited Zero Carbon Contracts, p. 1
[9] PG&E Corporation – PG&E Completes Initial Stage of Bankruptcy Exit Financing
[10] Though ISO-NE has begun a process to improve ACP oversight by instituting an Asset Condition Project Reviewer, which will hopefully meaningfully increase scrutiny.
[11] Connecticut Power and Light FERC Form 1, page 43
[12] Eversource Energy letter regarding 2025 Expedited Zero Carbon Contracts, p. 3
[13] Moritz, John. “Eversource backs out of three solar projects supported by state.” Connecticut Mirror . April 8, 2026: https://ctmirror.org/2026/04/08/eversource-backs-out-solar-agreements-deep/
[14] CPL FERC Form 1, page 94
[15] Acadia Center, Renewables Aren’t Behind Energy Cost Increases, Winter 2026: https://acadiacenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AC_FactSheet_Renewables_R3.pdf
[16] Id.
[17] Berkeley Lab, Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States, October 2024: https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2024-edition
[18] See DEEP’s 2023 Zero-Carbon Procurement: https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/$EnergyView?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=3&Seq=3 and 2023 Offshore Wind Procurement: https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/$EnergyView?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=2&Seq=4
[19] “Eversource backs out of three solar projects supported by state.” https://ctmirror.org/2026/04/08/eversource-backs-out- solar-agreements-deep/
States are cutting their way to higher electricity bills
On April 13, Maryland’s General Assembly passed what its House Speaker called the crown jewel of the 2026 session. The Utility RELIEF Act, its supporters tout, will save the average household at least $150 a year on electricity bills — a number that Democratic leaders in Annapolis were careful to describe as a floor, not a ceiling. Governor Wes Moore signed it the same day.
The reality is that clean energy and affordability are not actually in tension, and the real drivers of high bills are gas prices and utility capex. The Acadia Center’s Kyle Murray, when speaking about this recent trend of cuts to efficiency programs, put it directly:
“The best you could say is that it is going after short-term affordability at the expense of long-term affordability.”
To read the full article from Latitude Media, click here.
AG Campbell: Mass. gas companies need to overhaul their climate plans — or face penalties
As Massachusetts hits a climate crossroads, the state’s top law enforcement official is warning that the gas companies are not on track to meet ambitious climate commitments — and urged regulators to impose penalties if the companies don’t step up their efforts to transition away from planet-warming fossil fuels.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell and her team, along with leading environmental advocacy groups and the Healey administration’s Department of Energy Resources in separate briefs, admonished the utilities in new filings before the Department of Public Utilities, telling the regulators that the state’s five gas companies turned in “completely inadequate” climate compliance plans last year.
“If we can’t get the obligation to serve right,” Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the environmental nonprofit Acadia Center, said in an interview, “we’ve lost the whole game on achieving a managed, timely, and cost-effective gas transition.”
To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.
Why RI now finds itself in the center of the data center debate
The progressive-backed H7270 / S2427, from Rep. June Speakman and Sen. Pam Lauria, would create a special electric rate for all new large-scale energy consumers, including data centers, meant to cover the cost of energy and grid upgrades.
In addition to the direct cost of hooking a data center into the grid, the Speakman-Lauria bill would also ask rate-setters to account for any new large energy customer that “impedes” on state renewable energy goals, including the Act on Climate.
It is supported by the climate advocacy nonprofit Acadia Center and based on model legislation.
To read the full article from the Providence Journal, click here.
Staying the course on New York’s greenhouse reduction goals
While Gov. Kathy Hochul is looking to backtrack on the implementation of New York’s greenhouse gas reduction law from 2019, a former state energy official is calling for New York policymakers to lean into this mission. We talk about implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act with Jamie Dickerson, senior director of Clean Energy and Climate Programs at Acadia Center.
David: Well, I want to start with the crux of the argument from Governor Kathy Hochul, which is essentially that the world has really changed since the adoption of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019. And the governor points to both the increased cost of pretty much everything as well as the hostility of the Trump administration toward pretty much anything related to green energy. And that’s a roadblock you’ve actually acknowledged was not anticipated when the state was crafting its plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the aftermath of adopting this law. How do you think the state should handle all of these variables that have emerged?
Jamie: Yeah, it’s a great question. I mean, I think it’s fair to say back in 2019, no one was thinking that this transition would be easy. But I don’t think anyone could have predicted it would be as hard as it has proven to been, not only for New York but for the rest of the region working on these policies. And it is a balancing act. There haven’t undoubtedly been been headwinds that New York State has faced. No one could have predicted the pandemic, the impacts to supply chain disruptions and inflation and then the second Trump administration. At the same time, I do think in fairness, there have been tailwinds that, you know, folks working on decarbonization have have benefited from broadly and speaking on a global level. And we’ve seen continued cost declines in in lots of renewable energy technologies that are going to be core to the achievement of the long term goals, battery storage chief among them coming to mind right now. And you know, there was the Inflation Reduction Act for three years. And so I do think, you know, there have been headwinds and tailwinds. But fundamentally, as I said, as I wrote in the piece that I did, never before in human history really have we seen such dramatic advancements in the means of both producing, consuming and storing and transmitting energy as we have seen in the past five years. So that is a major tailwind that we do need to consider.
Achieving Climate Goals While Improving Energy Affordability with Cap-and-Invest
David: Well, one of the changes that the governor is looking to make is the timeline for implementing rules and regulations that would help us achieve the greenhouse gas reductions in a law. The governor has argued that right now is not the appropriate time. And when I say right now, I mean we’re already a couple years behind schedule and she’s looking to push that effective date back to 2030. Do you think these rules and regulations can be implemented in a way that they are both environmentally effective and also not a drain on people’s resources?
Jamie: I do think so. And you know, for me through the crux of how I’m approaching this question is that bring making progress on climate and improving energy affordability don’t have to be at odds. And in fact, I think when they’re done right, it can and will be mutually supportive in the vast majority of, of circumstances. We’re talking really about the very same set of solutions that get at the core drivers, both of emissions and the core drivers of, of rising energy costs, which in this case I think is, you know, fossil fuel commodity costs and their volatility, legacy infrastructure costs for T&D, both gas and electric, and a variety of other factors that are driving cost increases recently. So for me, I, you know, I think it both, the both end can be achieved both for New York and for other neighboring states. And in this case, it’s, I think it’s really important to remind ourselves that even though we’re talking about climate and emissions reductions, what that will deliver is improvements that families and businesses feel in their daily lives from their housing, their transportation, how abundant and efficient and affordable it all is, giving them relief on their bills, less exposure to those volatile prices. I think that control aspect for New York shift from really being on the receiving end of the global energy geopolitics that we’re seeing right now to to being in the driver’s seat. So that’s I think the the opportunity to thread this really difficult needle right now.
David: Well, that potential outcome that you just framed is quite different than the one highlighted by the Governor who sites a report from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, your former employer, which estimates that the implementation of rules and regulations related to this law would ultimately cost New Yorkers thousands of dollars in terms of showing their work. There’s a couple page memo that they back this up with. What do you think of that scenario that they laid out and does that represent a good faith implementation of the law?
Jamie: I think, I think that analysis, obviously, you know, I can’t speak for the agency anymore since I’m not there, but from, from what I could tell, that was purposely intended to depict what I would call one side of the riverbank, so to speak, sort of a the strictest implementation realities. But I think what I would point to as like the most illustrative analysis of the path forward for New York State is the very, very extensive analysis and stakeholder engagement that the agencies conducted in 2023 and 2024, which is really around maybe a middle of the river, you know, reasonable but ambitious and affordability centered cap and invest program, which I think at the time and I think it still is fair to say is the case, would be the most cost effective way to meet the state’s targets. I don’t know if this is lost to history, but the in between the draft scoping plan that the state finished up in, I guess it was 2021 and the final scoping plan that was finalized in late 2022. Cap and invest. The addition thereof was the primary addition, not the only, but one of the biggest additions to that final plan. And that was because of the recognition about how critical it would be as a cost effective way to ensure the, the achievement of the of the targets. And, you know, basically making the ability to make real progress in a in a in a relatively short time frame.
David: Well, before we move on, let me reintroduce you for listeners just joining us, this is WCNY is the Capital Press Room. I’m David Lombardo and we’re speaking with Jamie Dickerson, the former Chief of Staff for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and now the Senior Director for Climate and Clean Energy Programs at the Acadia Center.
Exploring CLCPA Implementation Flexibility and Untapped Policy Levers.
David: How much flexibility is there in terms of implementing this law? Because that’s one of the other critiques about the assessment by the Hope administration is that it assumes a very aggressive kind of worst case scenario of how to implement this law. And I wonder if the state’s hands really are tied to that degree and whether we’re not necessarily also accounting for the positive side of things because that’s something that’s been highlighted in the past in discussions with the Hope administration, which always highlights say this is title benefits of something. It didn’t feel like that was necessarily part of this analysis.
Jamie: Yeah. I mean on the flexibility question, the CLCPA is it’s very lengthy law. At the same time though, it really is not hugely prescriptive on the path forward for the achievement of the critical like 20-30 and 2050 emissions milestones. There are some sub goals around you know 70 by 3000 by 40 in terms of renewable energy and 0 emissions electricity. But by and large the the decisions on the exact pathway of decarbonization that the state would take would be left to the regular regulation rule making process that agencies would would initiate after the scoping plan. So that’s really where we’re still at right now. Obviously some years have elapsed, we still are you know whatever 4 1/2 years away from the end of 20-30. But what we’re talking about again with cap and invest as it’s sort of example policy, that’s a that’s a market based policy and it’s not a command and control thou shalt, you know, mandate approach. It’s activating the market and getting the right market signals. Well, that actually has some tried and true cost containment and affordability mechanisms built right into that mechanism. So I honestly think cap and invest can be as much of an energy affordability policy as it can and will be an emissions reduction policy.
David: Throughout this debate, the governor has stressed her environmental bona fides, pointed to the amount of investment in clean energy under her watch. At the same time, though, environmentalists who have been critical of a potential delay of the state’s climate law have argued that there have been missed opportunities. When you look at the landscape, do you feel like there are levers at the state’s disposal that have either not been pulled or maybe not completely utilized?
Jamie: It’s a great question. I actually do think the governor and her agency teams deserve fair credit for all the hard work they’ve put into, again, not only stand up to Trump, but to make real progress where it’s been possible in the last few years. The Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission project just energized recently, for example, distributed solar has been a bright spot for the state’s progress. And so it’s challenging as things seem right now. Imagine if those important infrastructure priorities had not been prioritized by the hopeful administration in the last few years. So I do think the fact of the matter is there’s a lot that New York is and has been doing under Oakland leadership that’s really right on point and deserving of praise. I do think at the same time, energy policy making is always evolving. And even in the last few years, my eyes, I think have been opened up to not only sort of the inefficiencies that do exist still in the legacy system, which was something my piece touched on, but also the new policy levers that we could actually activate to get at some of those inefficiencies. You know, one that, you know, New York actually does have a leg up with the existence of NIPA in terms of having an agency that effectuates sort of a public power mandate authority. But one of the policies I highlighted in my piece was on public financing for grid investments basically to reduce the cost of capital that investor owned utilities have been currently using to to finance the grid upgrades both traditional and new using. And again using that lower cost of capital to drive really substantial like on the order of 30 to 40% savings for for ratepayers which ultimately will amount to billions of dollars. So I don’t think the hope administration has been ignoring some of those new tools. I just think the new tools are are actually making themselves known in real time. So that’s again my posture We have we can those news, those new tools and those new levers can be pulled now.
The Need for Regional Climate Collaboration Amidst Transition Challenges
David: Another, the concern that the Hope administration has raised is that New York is kind of out front, in front of everyone else. We’re doing this alone. We’re treading into frontier that no one else has gone, and maybe there’s a reason for that. At the same time, though, you’ve argued that this is an opportunity to find new partners and to work in a collaborative approach regionally. What would that look like?
Jamie: Yeah, absolutely. I mean I do think there is so much strength in numbers in a situation like we have right now at the federal level and all states are in this together, especially the neighboring states of the Northeast region that share economies, they share transportation corridors, they they share similar policies already. What it might look like honestly, is what multi state collaboration has been going on the longest in the energy and emission space in the Northeast, which is the Reggie program, which I’m sure you and your viewers know about, but there’s so much.
David: Foundation initiative, correct?
Jamie: And that’s the, that’s basically the analog for capital invest for the power sector that’s existed for, you know, more than 15 years at this point. And again, just last year, New York and the other Reggie states recommitted to continuing that program through 2037 with a pretty ambitious decline in emissions reductions. And also since then we’ve had Virginia with the election of Governor Spanberger indicate that they are going to be actually rejoining that that that coalition as well, which is a bipartisan coalition still. So I think that can be replicated in other sectors whether it’s on true sort of carbon markets or on just plain old sort of infrastructure funding, but also policy making that can stand state lines and again be really help the the overall regional market evolve and grow in sync rather than sort of on a piecemeal basis.
David: Right now, New York is in the process of implementing other green initiatives. One that comes to mind is the rollout of a mandate for the adoption of 0 emission school buses. And I think that has generated a lot of skepticism about green energy mandates in general because the pitch at the time was, hey, if we mandate this, the technology will become cheaper and we’re also going to see environmental benefits. It’s going to be the greatest thing since, you know, sliced bread. How should New Yorkers think about this evolving space and the idea to be flexible if, for example, burdens do pop up and costs don’t necessarily change the way we might expect?
Jamie: I mean, it’s a great question. I do think you have to observe that really the legacy system that the CLCPA is trying to move away from, that energy system is shaped by forces that are really well beyond the control of anyone state in terms of the fuel markets, the sort of the investment decisions or lack thereof of incumbent industries, financial market practices, things like that. And when it comes to the sort of the influx of new technologies, new solutions, those are happening at a global level as well. And obviously states like New York are trying to bring supply chains to their state. They’re trying to work with communities to actually make the procurement and investments of those of those technologies. Honestly, one helpful framing for me is that we’re in the mid transition and I think it is fair to recognize that it is and going and is going to be messy to some extent. It’s not going to be a straight line from A to B. There will be steps forward, some steps backward learnings, lessons learned along the way for sure. You mentioned school buses, which is like seems like one of the most common sense opportunities to bring, you know, air pollution benefits to communities that currently, you know, rely on diesel school buses. And it might take some creative policy making if the if the dollars and cents don’t work out on sort of a apples to apples basis, just bus for bus, the state and and its agencies can work to actually set up ways for those buses to be assets for the grid during the summertime, you know, when they’re when they’re not taking kids to and from school. So I think we have to be creative both on a policy and a technology level. And and that’s going to be the way to ride through this mid transition.
Ensuring Policy Flexibility to Absorb Shocks in Climate Implementation
David: Well, finally, let’s say the status quo is maintained and the state focuses on implementing the greenhouse gas reduction goals. Rules and regulations take effect. For example, is there flexibility in the system, in the law, in the rules and regulations to respond to adverse consequences, to respond to costs that maybe don’t decrease as projected or environmental benefits that don’t necessarily realize or other variables? I mean, do we have enough flexibility built in or is that part of the conversation that we should have right now, maybe to give policy makers a little more confidence that they should maintain the trajectory that the law requires?
Jamie: Yeah. I mean, I do think there is existing flexibility that the policy makers and agencies can exercise in implementing the rule. And I do think honestly the path forward is really moving forward with a plan that swiftly initiates the implementation of the key programming and regulations that New York has contemplated, like CAP and invest. And doing so will allow New York to ensure that it makes progress and stays on that positive path to really improve the everyday lives of New Yorkers. So just to give you one example of that flexibility that I think not a lot of people appreciate and I sort of when it does its long term contracting for large scale renewable energy projects, they have shifted to a contracting structure known as an index wreck. And that’s basically directly intended to do what you said, which is allow projects to absorb some of the volatility and also insulate ratepayers from the risk of energy market volatility. And basically make sure that if energy market revenues dramatically shoot up, then the state is actually going to have to pay way less and actually might, might get some money back from the markets and from the developers. So there again, there are creative policy mechanisms that the state has already implemented. And I’m sure there are more, more, more models like that that can be added as well to, to make sure that on route from the path from where we are today to the, you know, existing milestones in the law, we’ll have that flexibility to absorb to shocks and disruptions along the way.
To listen to the full interview from the Capitol Pressroom, click here.
As energy costs rise, some states back off ambitious climate goals
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Seven years ago, New York lawmakers set ambitious goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions with clarion calls about saving the future. Now, with slow progress made and political realities shifting, Gov. Kathy Hochul is seeking a delay, saying she wants to save consumers money.
Massachusetts and New Jersey are among the states looking at lowering charges on utility bills that help fund efficiency programs.
“It is hard to talk about climate at times, because everyone is very laser-focused on affordability and customer bills,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the Acadia Center. “So climate, while still important, is getting kind of pushed aside, unfortunately.”
To read the full article from the Associated Press, click here.
Gasoline price spike bears down on Massachusetts
We probably don’t need to tell you: Gasoline prices are way up in Massachusetts, as in the rest of the country, as war between the US and Iran continues to disrupt critical global energy supplies.
How bad? Try a 50-cent increase in a month. Average regular gas prices in Massachusetts are now $3.97 per gallon, up sharply from $3.47 a month earlier – and $2.96 a year ago, according to AAA.
Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation in Massachusetts for the environmental nonprofit Acadia Center, said that the seemingly sudden collective lightbulb going off about the case for renewables to insulate us from fossil fuel volatility is like deja vu (with the caveat, he added, that this particular snag with the Strait of Hormuz could also choke off key shipping routes important for clean energy sources, too).
“I urge the governor to keep making that case that this is the affordability path forward: by pursuing renewables and energy efficiency,” Murray said.
To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.
As Smithfield moves to ban data centers, Smith Hill is still debating how to define them
There’s no concrete proposal yet for a data center in Smithfield.
But there is a ghost town.
A 2010 inventory of Smithfield’s historic sites described a settlement known as Hanton City, located near Fidelity Investments’ corporate campus, like this: “Was a late 17th C. farming village, now just ruins. Some is protected and some is private. Large undeveloped tract of land.”
That constraint reemerged during a testimony near the end of the night. Emily Koo, Rhode Island program director for the Acadia Center, spoke in support of Speakman’s bill, arguing a 20-megawatt threshold would more comfortably fit the tiniest state than Kennedy’s 50-megawatt benchmark.
Rep. Tina Spears, a Charlestown Democrat, asked Koo why the Acadia Center, a clean energy and climate policy nonprofit, didn’t take a more hardline stance.
“We just heard Rhode Island Energy talk about supply issues,” Spears said. “So I’m a little surprised that Acadia just isn’t coming out in opposition to the bill, to the expansion of data centers.”
Koo replied that the Acadia Center was only asked to examine best practices for guardrails but will share a more formal position.
To read the full article from Rhode Island Current, click here.
Northeast States Set Big Climate Goals. Now Those Plans Are in Trouble.
Several years ago, in a burst of climate optimism, Democratic-led states across the Northeast adopted some of the world’s most ambitious policies to shift away from fossil fuels and cut planet-warming emissions.
But today, many of those states are scaling back or rethinking their climate plans as they miss emissions targets, struggle with soaring electricity bills and confront the Trump administration’s hostility to renewable energy.
Then Mr. Trump returned to office and sought to block offshore wind, a technology he detests. While four offshore wind projects are still under construction, it is unclear if more can be built. New York’s climate plan calls for 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, enough to power 6 million homes. Currently, only 1,800 megawatts are set to come online.
“That was a huge setback,” said Kyle Murray, the director of state program implementation at Acadia Center, a clean energy advocacy group. “Offshore wind was the primary strategy that states like Massachusetts were going to pursue for its electricity future, and now it’s shut down.”
Environmentalists have opposed many of these changes, arguing that expensive natural gas is the biggest reason for high energy prices in the region, and the quicker utilities can get off gas, the better. That means doubling down on efficiency and conservation measures, solar power and batteries while investing less in extending gas pipelines to new homes, they say.
“We could cut all these clean energy programs now and save a little on bills, but we’re still going to be in a constant cycle of natural gas costs going up unless we figure out how to break the cycle,” said Mr. Murray of Acadia Center.
To read the full article from the New York Times, click here.
Data Center Interest, Opposition on the Rise in New England
While the data center boom has yet to have a major impact on the New England grid, increased interest from data center developers is fueling concern about potential effects on energy affordability and long-term resource adequacy.
Affordability concerns have dominated energy policy discussions in New England since consumers were hit with price spikes in the winter of 2024/25. Costs remained high over the past winter, which was the most expensive winter in the history of ISO-NE’s wholesale markets. (See 2025/26 Most Expensive Winter in History of ISO-NE Markets.)
“Everybody is acutely aware that we are already in this affordability crunch,” said Noah Berman, senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center. With the potential for data center demand on the horizon, “legislators are thinking about this … and are trying to get out ahead of it.”
In PJM, the data center boom has contributed to a rapid increase in forecast demand and skyrocketing capacity prices in recent capacity auctions. (See PJM Capacity Prices Hit $329/MW-day Price Cap.) Nationally, data center demand also drove increased coal-fired generation and overall power sector emissions in 2025.
“People are seeing what’s happening in PJM … in PJM [data centers] are absolutely causing price spikes,” Berman said.
To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.