Newport Officials Lukewarm on Proposed Moratorium on New Natural Gas Hookups

NEWPORT, R.I. — After rejections from Middletown and Portsmouth, city officials are skeptical of a proposed Aquidneck Island-wide ban on new natural gas hookups.

On Wednesday, City Council members and members of the city’s Energy and Environment Commission held an information workshop at City Hall. The goal was to become informed on the pros and cons of an island-wide moratorium as proposed by the state Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB).

Environmental groups — the Conservation Law Foundation, Acadia Center, and Green Energy Consumers Alliance — were on hand to answer questions, along with an attorney representing Rhode Island Energy.

To read the full article from ecoRI, click here.

Statement on PURA’s Approval of a $66M Rate Increase for United Illuminating Customers

October 30, 2025

Press Release

MEDIA CONTACTS

Kate McAuliffe
Senior Policy Advocate, Connecticut
Kmcauliffe@acadiacenter.org; 860-246-7121 x202

Noah Berman
Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager
nberman@acadiacenter.org; 617-742-0054 x107

Acadia Center raises affordability concerns over PURA’s approval of a significant $66M increase in rates for United Illuminating (UI) electricity customers and calls for sustained implementation of rate reforms

Nonprofit urges PURA to remain focused on affordability and rapidly implement the draft Performance-Based Ratemaking framework to reduce customer costs.”

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), issued a final decision in the United Illuminating (UI) rate case granting the utility a $66 million rate hike.  This increase is $2.3 million larger than a proposal UI had previously said was “just and reasonable.”

In fact, according to Noah Berman, Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager at Acadia Center, “The approved $66M rate increase is more than double what was approved in the draft decision under previous leadership. With the approved rates, the average UI customer can expect an annual bill increase of $120 to $156.”

“Connecticut already has some of the highest electric rates in the country,” noted Kate McAuliffe, Senior Policy Advocate for Connecticut at Acadia Center. “PURA and intervenors have spent the last several years working on tools that the Authority can use to control high rates in the performance-based ratemaking (PBR) docket. We urge PURA to remain focused on affordability and rapidly implement the draft PBR framework to reduce customer costs, make better use of low-cost technologies, and plan the distribution grid in a more integrated way.”

“PURA faces a large body of ongoing casework that intervenors and Authority staff have invested substantial time and effort into,” said Berman. “That the Authority voted to approve an additional $37M in rate increases for UI as compared to the Authority’s prior draft decision is concerning – particularly since $66M is over $2M more than UI itself said was sufficient for it to operate in a filing made only 11 days before the vote.”

On September 10, 2025 – during former Chair Marissa Gillett’s tenure – PURA issued a draft decision in UI’s rate case, which would have granted the utility a $28.6M rate hike. Afterward, UI and other intervenors began settlement talks to determine if a stipulated agreement would be feasible. When those talks failed to reach consensus, UI submitted an Alternative Resolution Position (ARP) stating that a $63.7M rate increase would lead to “a just and reasonable result.” (UI’s Motion to Adopt and Approve the United Illuminating Alternative Resolution Position at 2). On October 28th – after former Chair Gillett’s resignation and recusal from the proceeding – PURA approved a final decision in UI’s rate case, granting UI a $66M rate hike. The approved $66M rate increase is more than double what was approved in the draft decision under previous leadership, and substantially mirrors the positions included in UI’s ARP. With the approved rates, the average UI customer can expect an annual bill increase of $120 to $156.

PBR is a common-sense, alternative utility regulatory framework that ties financial incentives for utilities to measurable performance outcomes rather than simply allowing recovery of costs for capital investments. The Authority was expected to release its final decisions in the three PBR reopeners in mid-October but has delayed the release of those decisions for an indeterminate amount of time. The swift implementation of the framework provided for in the three draft decisions would bring substantial benefits to Connecticut electricity customers by containing the electric utilities’ costs and shifting their incentives to align with the public policy priorities of the state — such as lower electric bills, better reliability, improved resilience during storms, and reduced pollution. A well-designed PBR framework, which PURA still has in its Draft Decisions, can provide meaningful relief to ratepayers, and PURA should consider moving forward with all due haste.

Connecticut and Maine team up to fast-track renewables

Maine and Connecticut are considering working together to build renewable-energy projects faster, a strategy that could be repeated throughout the region as states with ambitious emissions-reduction goals race to take advantage of federal tax credits before they disappear.

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

CT needs to plan for its energy future, but the view is cloudy

Connecticut, along with the rest of New England, has long recognized that its energy future lies in cleaning up the electricity sources in its power grid.

Another policy aspect involves what the state might do legislatively. Unlike most of its neighbors, Connecticut has kept caps on the amount of solar allowed, only loosening some of them in the last few years.

It’s also an open question whether state money would be authorized to make up some of the tax credit shortfall, or whether the state might do as Canada already does and establish an infrastructure bank to leverage private and public money into the financing pipeline, or create a Transmission Infrastructure Accelerator like California recently enacted to access low-cost public financing for such projects as a way to save money overall. The northeast-based advocacy group Acadia Center is helping the six New England states explore financing models.

To read the full article from CT Mirror, click here

Pipeline Expansion Highlights Key Questions About Gas in New England

A relatively small project aiming to increase gas pipeline capacity into New England is raising larger underlying questions about how the region will balance gas reliability and affordability with longer-term efforts to transition away from natural gas.

In joint comments submitted earlier in October, the Acadia Center and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) wrote that the DPU must consider how the contracts “will impact not only Eversource customers, but also other gas customers, including National Grid and Unitil, whose contracts with Constellation mirror [Eversource’s].”

Climate and consumer advocates have argued that Massachusetts must be careful not to make long-term investments in the gas system that end up becoming stranded assets. Some advocates see the 10-year duration of Eversource’s proposed Algonquin expansion contracts as reflecting uncertainty about long-term gas demand on the distribution system.

Joe LaRusso, senior advocate at the Acadia Center, said he is skeptical that gas utilities will experience enough new demand to support a “a substantial increase in gas capacity into the region.”

He added that pipeline companies looking to build major new projects “can’t find the off-takers for this stuff; they can’t get it built.”

Acadia and CLF’s comments on Eversource’s contracts with Enbridge focus on Eversource’s underlying assumptions about its forecasted gas demand between 2029 and 2039. The groups highlight data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicating that overall residential, commercial and industrial gas demand in Massachusetts declined between 2019 and 2024.

They wrote that Eversource has provided “no basis to determine what their gas requirement will be over the term of the proposed contracts,” nor data on how “declines in statewide gas consumption in those sectors might ultimately influence either their overall consumption or their design day supply.”

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

New Report Outlines a Road map for Interregional Tx in the Northeast

A new report outlines a high-level road map for cross-border interregional transmission planning in the Northeast, making the case for more coordinated planning processes across sub-regions and regulatory environments.

The analysis, authored by the energy consulting firm Power Advisory, was commissioned by the Northeast Grid Planning Forum. The forum is an initiative of Nergica, a Quebec-based clean energy research organization, and the Acadia Center. (See New Initiative Focuses on Interregional Tx Coordination in the Northeast.)

“Provinces and states could benefit through enhanced coordination and transmission project development that optimizes utilization of existing resources and enables development of new clean energy sources,” Power Advisory wrote.

While studies have shown significant potential for increased interregional transmission throughout the Northeast, “fragmented planning processes and challenges presented by differences in regulatory structures” have limited states and provinces’ ability to fully realize these benefits, the authors wrote.

They emphasized the need to build trust, increase information access and establish mechanisms to facilitate transmission partnerships across regions and borders.

“A collaborative planning framework will require new approaches to sharing information and will require harmonizing planning processes to meet the requirements and planning horizons of each jurisdiction,” Power Advisory wrote. “Transparency and engagement will provide confidence in identified needs among jurisdictions and stakeholders.”

The report highlights several recent larger-scale transmission planning efforts as evidence of growing interest in interregional planning.

In June, the Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission, which includes nine states, issued a request for information (RFI) to identify “potential interregional transmission opportunities … that improve grid reliability, support economic growth and reduce costs for consumers.”

The states asked for input on potential cost allocation methods and wrote that responses to the RFI will “inform potential future solicitations or transmission planning activities.”

International cooperation around transmission planning also has increased. In 2024, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers agreed to reconvene the Northeast International Committee on Energy, directing the committee to establish working groups “to pursue regional collaboration and planning on the topics of transmission, offshore wind supply chain and hard-to-decarbonize sectors.”

In Atlantic Canada, top politicians are eying a massive buildout of offshore wind generation, which would require large-scale interregional transmission developments to move the power to load centers in Canada and New England.

According to a strategic plan published by Nova Scotia, researchers have identified offshore wind sites that could host 62 GW of generation. Nova Scotia has proposed a 5,000-MW first phase of development, requiring an estimated $40 billion in capital investment to build the generation and $20 billion to build the associated transmission.

These recent efforts “indicate recognition by the key jurisdictions that current transmission planning approaches are constrained and insufficient and need to change to realize the benefits of broader regional energy system integration,” Power Advisory wrote.

To select projects, existing regional competitive transmission solicitation processes could be aligned to allow for interregional projects, or new processes could be stood up, the authors wrote.

“The recently established ISO-NE Longer-Term Transmission Planning (LTTP) process provides an instructive model for need identification across a multi-jurisdiction region,” they said.

ISO-NE is evaluating project submissions for the first iteration of its LTTP process, which is focused on increasing transmission capacity in Maine and enabling the interconnection of onshore wind generation. (See ISO-NE Reveals 1st Details of Long-term Transmission Proposals.)

States and provinces also would need to establish cost sharing processes and could take inspiration from Europe’s cross-border cost allocation methodology, the authors wrote.

Cost allocation “should ensure full consideration of all benefits evaluated in each participating jurisdiction,” including “reduced production costs, avoided capacity costs, avoidance of alternative transmission investments, improved transmission system efficiency, reliability and other benefits,” the authors added.

To address the challenges of determining needs, selecting projects and allocating costs across regulatory authorities, states and provinces should establish “a joint coordination agreement” that “formalizes collaboration and provides a clear mandate for agency staff regarding the scope of future work,” Power Advisory concluded.

This could mirror the memorandum of understanding underpinning the Northeast States Collaborative and could lay the groundwork for answering more technical questions related to modeling, information sharing and aligning existing processes, they wrote.

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

Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks: Impacts to Affordability and Reliability in the Northeast

Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks Webinar PowerPoint

Report Projects $19.3B in Benefits from New England Efficiency Programs

Projected energy efficiency investments in New England over the next three years will generate an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits, returning $2.93 for every dollar spent, according to new analysis by the Acadia Center.

The report makes the case that states should not reduce efficiency spending when seeking to provide short-term rate relief, calling on lawmakers and officials to look for ways to fund programs more equitably.

The report, which relies on state-reported data on expected spending and benefits, found $6.6 billion in total expected spending across New England over the next three years.

The bulk of this spending — $4.5 billion — is concentrated in Massachusetts. The state also has the highest per-capita spending, followed by Maine and Rhode Island. New Hampshire has the lowest per- capita expected spending.

Different calculation methodologies make it difficult to compare program benefits among states, Acadia wrote. The group noted that calculations related to the social cost of carbon vary significantly between states, “ranging from a low of $0/short ton in New Hampshire to a high of $415 in Massachusetts.”

Despite these differences, “all states demonstrate a benefits/program budget ratio above 1.0, indicating that $1 invested in energy efficiency programs [generates] more value than the initial investment,” Acadia wrote.

The authors noted that Maine reported a particularly high benefit-to-budget ratio. They wrote that the state stands out for high reported benefits associated with electrification investments and a higher portion of the costs shared by participants in the program. While program participants are responsible for 15 to 35%of overall costs in other New England states, participants are responsible for 48% of costs in Maine.

The report also highlights ISO-NE data showing how the allocation of efficiency investments has changed in recent years. While traditional efficiency upgrades like insulation and appliance upgrades still make up most costs, the percentage of spending dedicated to electrification increased from 6% in 2020 to 30% in 2024.

Acadia also emphasized the climate, public health and employment benefits of efficiency investments, writing that efficiency programs “play an instrumental role in creating and sustaining the over ~161,000 energy efficiency industry jobs in the region that currently exist,” and that planned investments are expected to reduce emissions by about 25.3 million metric tons.

Efficiency improvements also lead to region-wide cost reductions in the ISO-NE wholesale markets, the authors wrote. However, quantifying these effects is made challenging by recent updates to ISO-NE’s load forecasting methodology, which “now omits reporting on annual and peak demand reductions from energy efficiency,” Acadia noted.

To ensure the longevity and maximum effectiveness of efficiency programs, “more focused attention will need to be paid toward how programs are funded, how ambition can be increased cost-effectively, who pays, and over what time period are costs incurred,” the authors wrote.

“New funding concepts and reforms in this arena will ensure that ratepayers continue to benefit greatly from efficiency as an energy resource while perhaps bearing less of a direct responsibility to invest in program budgets exclusively through electric and gas rates,” concludes the report.

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

Energy efficiency is reducing Northeast peak demand, electricity bills: Acadia

Energy efficiency efforts in six New England states and New York are saving customers billions of dollars on utility bills and reducing peak demand on the region’s electric grid, according to analysis published Monday by Acadia Center.

Acadia’s report focuses on investment levels and projected benefits from efficiency programs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. And it calls for improvements to efficiency data reporting that could unlock further energy savings.

“It is more important than ever for policymakers, advocates, program administrators, and consumers to understand the value and evolving role of energy efficiency resource acquisition and shape the future trajectories of the programs to meet the emerging needs of the region,” Jamie Dickerson, senior director of climate and clean energy programs at Acadia, said in a statement.

The report examines data in each state’s three-year energy efficiency plan, annual program reports and other filings. Acadia’s analysis shows the seven states are poised to invest almost $10 billion in efficiency overall, with New England programs alone generating an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits. New England and New York expect to realize 700 trillion Btu in lifetime savings across all fuels, including 20 TWh of lifetime electricity savings from efficiency investments in New England.

“Electric savings will help the region continue meeting a substantial portion of annual electric load via energy efficiency,” Acadia said. “Combining both electricity and combustible fuel savings, the New England states are projected to avoid 368 TBtu of lifetime energy use, and this projected total rises to 703 TBtu with the inclusion of New York State.”

Despite the savings, Acadia warned efficiency investment is under pressure.

“State energy efficiency programs make a major contribution to the energy system as a low-cost resource, yet face a pivotal juncture in the northeast region,” Dickerson said. “Consumer affordability is front of mind for consumers and policymakers with rising energy prices. Other energy resources are rising in cost, yet cuts to ratepayer funded programs — which reduce system costs — have been threatened and implemented by leading states.”

Massachusetts will lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits following a February decision to cut $500 million from efficiency program budgets, Acadia said. Similarly, Rhode Island efficiency programs face possible cuts of 30% that would lose the state about $92 million in benefits, according to the report.

Looking ahead, Acadia recommended that the New England states and New York “come together to better standardize metrics utilized for program measurement, evaluation, and reporting.”

“Major differences in reporting data persist, and the overall power and impact of energy efficiency in the northeast is limited without that alignment,” according to the report. “With more universal reporting methodologies and benefit cost tests, programs in the region would collectively be more powerful, the ability to understand the value and design of programs would be substantially improved, and new opportunities for states to learn from one another would be unlocked.

To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.

Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast

Report

FAQs

Acadia Center announces release of new report “Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast.”

Acadia Center’s latest report highlights the essential contributions energy efficiency programs make to stabilizing costs, benefitting ratepayers, and diversifying the energy mix in seven states in the northeast.

Efficiency Ahead further recommends how standardizing metrics by states for program measurement, evaluation, and reporting would increase value.

ROCKPORT, ME – Acadia Center announces its new report: Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast. This new analysis takes a closer look at the most recent energy efficiency plans developed by the six New England states and New York. It examines program investment levels, projected benefits and energy savings, cost-effectiveness levels, the impact of recent proposed funding cuts, and states’ progress relative to their peers on criteria like per-capita investment levels.

“State energy efficiency programs make a major contribution to the energy system as a low-cost resource, yet face a pivotal juncture in the northeast region,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs. “Consumer affordability is front of mind for consumers and policymakers with rising energy prices. Other energy resources are rising in cost, yet cuts to ratepayer funded programs – which reduce system costs – have been threatened and implemented by leading states. It is more important than ever for policymakers, advocates, program administrators, and consumers to understand the value and evolving role of energy efficiency resource acquisition and shape the future trajectories of the programs to meet the emerging needs of the region.”

Each state in the Northeast operates and administers energy efficiency programs funded via electricity and natural gas bills to deliver energy efficiency and electrification improvements to customers. These ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have been and remain the largest source of investment in efficiency and building decarbonization for the region. These state programs have been operating for decades and provide major overall benefits in the form of reduced overall building energy consumption, energy cost savings to residents and businesses, reduced peak demand stress on the region’s electricity grid, and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in addition to significant job creation and economic development increases.

The analysis conducted by Acadia Center in this report draws on publicly available data reported in each state’s three-year energy efficiency plan, annual program reports, and related filings. The analysis in the report yielded the following findings for program activity in the next three years:

• Record-level investments and lifetime benefits: Seven states poised to invest almost $10 billion in efficiency overall, with New England programs alone generating an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits. 
• Significant electricity and fuel savings: New England and New York combined are expected to realize 700 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) in lifetime savings across all fuels, including 20 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity savings (lifetime) from efficiency investments in New England—equivalent to 5.2 million homes using natural gas for one year in New England. 
• Wide range in per-capita investments by state: Program budgets range from $149 per capita in New York State to $631 per capita in Massachusetts—revealing differences in population, portfolio mixes, cost-effectiveness screening, and overall program ambition.
• Missed benefits from recent budget cuts: Massachusetts will lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits, 20 TBtus of energy savings, and 1.8 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions by cutting $500m in program budgets. Rhode Island too faces cuts of 30% that would lose the state some $92m in benefits.
• Strong ongoing cost-effectiveness: Each dollar spent on efficiency yielding $2.93 in benefits across New England, on average—indicating an opportunity to increase investment levels further and acquire deeper cost-effective savings across the region.
• Major contributions to the region’s grid: Electric savings will help the region continue meeting a substantial portion of annual electric load via energy efficiency (20.6 TWh saved in 2023, or almost 15% of gross load).

While the benefits delivered by these programs are impressive, state program data were not easy to compile, and cross-state comparisons are made quite challenging by significant variations in reporting methodologies and data formatting across states. Cross-state collaboration to enable more uniform reporting would enable stakeholders to better communicate the significant positive benefits these programs are having on a regional scale.

“State energy efficiency programs are well positioned in the coming years to reduce overall building energy consumption, deliver energy cost savings to residents and businesses, reduce peak demand stress on the region’s electricity grid, and deliver reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—all despite the changing overall landscape for efficiency investments and available funding sources,” said Ben Butterworth, Director of Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis at Acadia Center and a lead author on this report. “Looking ahead, improving program design and administration can achieve even larger consumer and system benefits.”

MEDIA CONTACT
Jamie Dickerson
Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org; 401-276-0600 x102