Healey unveils new energy affordability legislation

Gov. Maura Healey unveiled a new energy affordability legislation package on Tuesday, which she said will bring down energy costs by more than $10 billion over the next decade, but consumer advocates and environmentalists criticized the plan, saying it didn’t go far enough to rein in energy companies that pass along gas infrastructure costs to consumers.

Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization dedicated to combatting climate change, said that he applauds Healey for not compromising the green energy transition in the name of energy affordability.

“I appreciate that there are no, what I like to call, ‘false solutions’ in there,” said Murray. “There’s no ‘Hey, let’s pursue a new gas pipeline or at least look at that,’ because we know that probably will do nothing to reduce costs.”

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

Governor Healey Unveils Energy Affordability, Independence & Innovation Act to Save Ratepayers $10 Billion

Leominster — Today, at the Leominster Veterans Memorial Center, Governor Maura Healey filed the Energy Affordability, Independence & Innovation Act to bring down costs for residents and businesses.

The legislation saves customers money, brings more energy into Massachusetts, and increases accountability of the utilities and drives innovation. Key reforms include eliminating and reducing certain charges on the bill, taking steps to create accountability and ensure utilities aren’t passing unnecessary costs onto ratepayers, and reducing barriers to new cutting-edge nuclear technologies. The administration estimates that the bill will save Massachusetts customers approximately $10 billion over 10 years, on top of the $6 billion in savings estimated from her Energy Affordability Agenda announced in March.

Kyle Murray, Massachusetts Program Director and State Program Implementation Director, Acadia Center: 

“After a brutal winter where ratepayers suffered high bills stemming from an overreliance on volatile fossil fuels, the Healey/Driscoll Administration is taking bold steps to deliver affordable and reliable clean energy in the Commonwealth. This creative legislation will help speed up renewable energy production, hedge against fossil fuel volatility, eliminate unnecessary charges, and provide effective oversight of our energy systems. Acadia Center looks forward to working with the Administration and the Legislature to move a bill forward that will help all residents with their energy bills.”

To read the full article from Mass.gov, click here.

Why is your energy bill so high? Blame natural gas volatility and utility profits

This winter, New England residents were battered by persistently high energy bills, especially for natural gas service. In Massachusetts, the state’s energy efficiency program, Mass Save, unfortunately emerged as a convenient scapegoat, despite saving the Commonwealth and ratepayers billions of dollars.

The real culprit for high bills this winter? The cost of natural gas infrastructure, generous utility profits, and the region’s continued fossil fuel investments – which left us ill-equipped to deal with an exceptionally cold winter.

In response to complaints about energy affordability, utilities like Eversource and National Grid have pointed to increased funding of the state’s cost-effective energy efficiency program. This is no small source of irony – Mass Save is a relatively small fraction of bills, but it is the most potent tool available to empower consumers to control their energy costs and protect them from fossil fuel price spikes.

The vast majority of the bill, around 70-75 percent, goes toward natural gas costs – relating to gas supply, distribution, and maintenance – compared to just 15-25 percent going toward energy efficiency. Unlike other energy costs, efficiency is the only investment that is required to pass cost-effectiveness testing. In fact, overall energy system costs would be billions of dollars higher without the cost reductions secured with efficiency. Not nearly enough scrutiny has been given to the investments on which gas utility companies make money.

One of the primary ways an investor-owned gas utility makes a profit is by making a return on investment at a specific rate, approved by the state, on capital investments in gas infrastructure projects: the extensive, multi-billion-dollar pipeline network in place under our streets.

In Eversource territory, for example, this healthy rate of return ranges from around 9.5 percent to 9.9 percent. This generous profit structure incentivizes utilities to pursue costly system upgrades and expansions, which are well-compensated, and to add more customers onto the system despite the misalignment with state goals. The more utilities spend on outdated infrastructure, the more money they make, and the national numbers bear this out: Over the last three years, residential electric rates for investor-owned utilities have risen 49 percent more than inflation. Meanwhile, the rates at publicly-owned electric utilities have increased 44 percent less than inflation.

It should also be noted that existing gas customers pay a disproportionate share of the costs for bringing new gas customers online. Since 2018, existing gas customers have footed the bill for 80 percent of all new gas customer connections. And these subsidies – known as line extension allowances – are driving up gas bills for everyone.

In 2023 alone, Massachusetts gas customers were charged $160 million to add new customers to the gas system, to the tune of $9,000 per new customer, which is reflected on ratepayer gas bills.

The cost of adding new customers is rising as well. The average cost of adding new customers rose 50 percent between 2020-2021 and again in 2022-2023. In fact, despite an acknowledgement by the state and by utilities that we should be winding the gas system down – not expanding it – the growth of the sprawling pipe network shows no signs of stopping.

According to a recent earnings report from Eversource, for example, the company projects that its gas distribution costs across New England will increase 83 percent between 2023 and 2029, faster than either their electric transmission or distribution subsidiaries. Given the rapid pace of electrification and related system needs, this discrepancy between what utilities have committed to, and what’s actually happening, is noteworthy.

A separate analysis commissioned by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office corroborated that a potentially vast and rapid gas system build-out – and associated impacts to ratepayer bills – could occur without state intervention. According to the AG’s analysis, the path we’re currently on could see the state’s gas rate base – the total value of gas system assets on which utilities are allowed to earn a rate of return – jump from $10 to $20 billion in a short span of roughly 10 years.

In multiple sectors of the economy, Massachusetts and the rest of the region remain frustratingly over-reliant on natural gas. In 2023, about half of Massachusetts households used natural gas for home heating, and the Commonwealth – as part of ISO-New England’s regional grid – relied on gas for roughly 55 percent of the power produced in 2024.

What this means is that when it gets cold in the winter, costs can shoot up dramatically due to the volatility of natural gas prices. And, as America exports more liquefied natural gas (LNG) abroad, domestic gas prices are increasingly tied to the unpredictability of global gas markets.

It was very, very cold this winter; the coldest winter since 2014-2015, in fact. According to data compiled by Acadia Center, the average temperature in December 2024 was a full 10°F colder than December 2023. Further, from December 2024 through February 2025, Massachusetts saw 23 days colder than 20°F, compared to only nine such days the year prior.

These colder temperatures generally mean that residents are using more energy, driving up bills. However, due to the Commonwealth’s overreliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels, it also means higher costs for the supply of energy. For example, the region endured a whopping $4 billion in wholesale electricity market costs this winter, per ISO-New England (a roughly $2 billion increase from last year), making it the costliest winter since 2014-2015.

One small ISO-New England program giving payments to dual-fuel (gas-oil) power plants, the inventoried energy program (IEP), cost almost $80 million over just five days. Can anyone really look at the region’s exposure to such volatile, concentrated costs and conclude that the region should invest less in energy efficiency, rather than more? Other barriers to offshore wind and local clean energy will only increase this unhealthy reliance on natural gas further.

If Massachusetts wants to take steps to lower energy bills in the long-term, we should not shy away from renewables and energy efficiency. Instead, we should embrace those clean resources, take steps to end our overreliance on natural gas and fossil fuels, and reduce business-as-usual utility profits.

Kyle Murray is director of state program implementation at Acadia Center, a nonprofit climate advocacy organization. 

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

Massachusetts Lawmakers Focusing on Energy Affordability in 2025

In the wake of skyrocketing energy costs over the past winter and the loss of federal support for state clean energy initiatives, Massachusetts policymakers are facing difficult questions about balancing decarbonization with energy affordability in the state’s 2025/26 legislative session.

While lawmakers and advocates are quick to support the idea of energy affordability, in practice, the concept can motivate widely ranging policies with varying effects on decarbonization efforts.

Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at the Acadia Center, said he would like to see the energy affordability bill include limits on utilities’ return on equity (ROE), potentially restricting ROE to an average of the surrounding Northeast states.

“Our position has long been that utility return on equity is really inflated and could serve to come down a few points,” Murray said, while also acknowledging that passing ROE reforms would be challenging due to the complexity of utility ratemaking and likely opposition from investor-owned utilities.

Murray also said he hopes lawmakers will consider changing the funding mechanism for some programs currently funded through volumetric charges in electricity and gas rates. He said funding programs like low-income discounts, Mass Save and renewable energy charges through fixed bill charges or through the tax base could save most ratepayers money.

He also expressed interest in legislation limiting the expansion of the state’s gas network, a priority shared by Mass Power Forward, a large coalition of climate and environmental justice groups.

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

Utility companies target heat pump incentives for cuts to pare back Mass Save budget

After state officials reduced Mass Save’s proposed budget by $500 million in February, the utility companies that run the energy efficiency program have proposed a new pared down compliance plan with the largest cuts coming to incentives for heat pumps and a program that provides a one-stop shop for residents looking to weatherize and invest in electrification upgrades.

“These cuts represent some of the best options of bad options,” said Kyle Murray, a member of the council and the Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization dedicated to combating climate change.

The Mass Save program – which helps homes and businesses become more energy efficient and reduces greenhouse gas emissions – is funded through a surcharge on electricity and gas bills. After gas bills spiked across the state due to an unusually cold winter and the increase in the Mass Save surcharge, the DPU decreased the budget for the program from the proposed $5 million to $4.5 million. The DPU directed that the cut come from programming for the residential sector.

Environmentalist advocates including Murray called the move “short-sighted,” saying that the cut will result in increased costs for residents in the long run.

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

What’s that charge for? We’re breaking down your utility bills

Many of us saw crazy high home-heating bills this winter. Massachusetts energy bills were already among the highest in the country.

Now, as we approach the hottest months of the year, we know many of you are paying close attention to your utility bills. Do you ever look at those bills and wonder what all those charges are?

“I think people really want to know what goes into their bills,” said Kyle Murray, Director of State Program Implementation for the Acadia Center–a non-profit focused on renewable energy.

Murray agreed to sit down with Kavanaugh and go line by line through some energy bills, breaking them down, dissecting each of the charges.

Electric Bill Itemization

The first charge listed on an electric bill is the Customer Charge.

“That is basically the charge of meters,” said Murray. And the cost for utility companies to read those meters, fixed usually at $10 a month.

The Distribution Charge is the cost of carrying power from substations to your home.

“The stuff that’s in state that’s carrying it from substation to your home. Think those smaller poles and wires,” said Murray.

Murray says think of the Transmission Charge as the cost of big towers carrying power across the region.

Not to be confused with the Transition Charge which allows utilities to recover assets stranded after energy restructuring decades ago. Oddly, that can appear as a negative charge.

The Energy Efficiency Charge funds the Mass Save program–funding rebates and incentives to make homes more efficient. Murray says that has benefitted ratepayers whether they use the program or not.

“Because of the fact that Mass Save has been such a successful program, I believe the numbers around, we’ve reduced our energy build out that we would have had to do by about 20%. So that’s a lot of savings that are delivered, even if you’ve never used the program at all,” Murray said.

Next is the Renewable Energy charge.

“So, the renewable energy charge goes to a trust fund that funds the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. And they are focused on clean energy innovations,” said Murray.

Don’t have solar? You still have two charges associated with it.

The Net Meter Recovery Charge –goes to homes with solar power producing more energy than they consume

The Distributed Solar Charge–provides consumers with incentives to install solar on their homes.

“It is efficiency measures for your home,’ Murray said. “It’s not generation side for your homes.”

And the Electric Vehicle Charge funds the state’s electric vehicle program.

The Ratepayer Debate

“I couldn’t believe that I’m getting charged for electric cars and solar panels, which I don’t have neither one of them,” said Massachusetts ratepayer Carmen Lopez.

Lopez echoes a sentiment of some ratepayers and that of the conservative non-profit, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which advocates for government and fiscal transparency and accountability.

“I would slash them [charges] all,” said Paul Craney, the executive director of the alliance. “I mean as a consumer if you want to pay for these projects, you certainly can but a lot of people don’t want to play for these projects.

Craney said the markets should decide whoever can produce the best product at the cheapest cost and consumers should choose what they want.

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance blames high energy bills in part on the state’s push for electric energy.

“It all comes back to a bill, a law that was passed in Massachusetts, the Global Warming Solutions Act,” Craney said. “And so, as ratepayers, people who pay these bills, we are now starting to fund these mandates. We’re just in the beginning phase of how expensive this is going to become on the ratepayers.”

Craney argues natural gas is a more reliable energy source, and often a cheaper one.

Murray, with the Acadia Center, disputes that.

“No, it’s not always the cheapest. And in many cases investing in renewables such as solar or wind or hydro come in significantly cheaper at those moments and that’s why it’s really important to have a mix of fuels rather than just going all in on natural gas which is what we kind of did in the past,” Murray said. “You’re subject to the whims of the market when if production is down, prices can spike. Or if demand goes up, prices spike. So, this ends up with the consumer not necessarily knowing what their bill is going to look like due to things that are largely out of their control and largely out Massachusetts’ control too.”

But Murray says there should be a conversation about what programs fall to the ratepayer in their monthly utility bill.

“We can’t keep putting programs on the backs of rate payers. It’s just not sustainable in the long-term,” Murray said. “I think additionally we can start looking at what goes into the bill and determining should this be volumetric or should this maybe be a fixed charge or should it altogether maybe be removed from the bill, and put into the tax base somewhere.”

To read the full article from Boston 25 News, click here.

An Earth Day Message from Acadia Center

Since its creation in 1970, Earth Day has been a time to celebrate the earth and take action to sustain and protect it. The creation of the conservation movement in the United States is credited to a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who founded the US Forest Service, established over 200 million acres of public lands including 150 million acres of national forests, created national monuments like the Grand Canyon, and advanced sustainability as a concept for resource management. Bipartisanship was a hallmark of Earth Day’s creation, and bipartisanship marked the numerous foundational advances made in 1970: the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and passage of the Clean Air Act and soon after the Clean Water Act, which improved the health and quality of life of all Americans.

The community of conservation, environmental, clean energy, climate and environmental justice organizations has made outsized contributions to the quality of American life. They are supported by tens of millions of Americans in all 50 states who seek clean water, clean air and a safe and healthy future. The vast majority of Americans embrace the consumer and air quality benefits of modern clean energy technology: 66% of Americans support moving to a 100% renewable energy future and 74% support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Clean air, clean water, safe and clean housing, good transportation options and a future not blithely tossed to the risks of a rapidly changing climate, are in the interest of people no matter their politics.

The original Earth Day arose from being witness to the damage a fossil fuel economy poses to human health and the environment: massive oil spills off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, toxic air pollution damaging the health of people, and the Cuyahoga River on fire in Cleveland in 1969. Fast forward from 1970 to now, scientific ingenuity – based in U.S. research institutions and the business sector, supported by vital government research and development support – has spearheaded technology improvements in clean energy that offer consumers, utility ratepayers, communities, homeowners and businesses, a vast array of affordable, cost-effective low and non-polluting options. They will move forward because they make economic and common sense.

On this Earth Day, Acadia Center is re-doubled in its commitment to offer effective, fact-based clean energy solutions that will improve the lives and pocketbooks of all. We celebrate the nation’s conservation, clean energy, environmental protection and environmental justice organizations diligently working to improve the lives of all – and exercising their rights to free expression that the U.S. Constitution guarantees us. We celebrate the many dedicated federal energy and environmental workforces across agencies like EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy Health and Human Services (HHS), and many others, who are now under attack, diminishing the nation’s capacity to provide programs and information critical to the public good.

Acadia Center, its staff and board, are proud of the work we do and the efforts we contribute to make energy and transportation systems cleaner more affordable, and available to all. We are proud of being part of the nation’s conservation, environmental, climate and environmental justice advocacy community. We celebrate Earth Day, thank our supporters and donors whose partnership is a source of strength, and honor the work of all who have fought for and are fighting for a healthier, vibrant future for all.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s big question on climate

Consumer shock at high energy bills this frigid winter sent Gov. Maura Healey and Massachusetts policymakers scrambling to ease the burden.

State regulators cut by $500 million the proposed budget for MassSave, an energy efficiency program for consumers interested in help buying heat pumps and electric vehicle equipment. Utility companies agreed to lower residential bills by 10 percent in March and April, with eyes on still getting their money through bills later in the year, when heating bills are typically lower.

The Acadia Center, a nonprofit supportive of clean energy and backed by foundations like the Barr Foundation and the Merck Family Fund, named for the heir to the pharmaceutical fortune, hit back at the report, saying the groups relied on “questionable” calculations that “vastly” inflate the cost of the clean energy transition. The report also “ignores the impossibly high cost of business-as-usual,” the Acadia Center said. “New Englanders withdraw billions of dollars out of the regional economy each year to purchase fossil fuels sourced outside New England.”

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

Massachusetts heat pump owners could pay less for electricity next winter

Nearly 3 million Massachusetts households will have the chance to start saving money on heating next winter under new seasonal heat-pump rates from the state’s three major electric utilities.

In the winter, though, average demand is much lower, so the strain on the grid is much lighter. During these months, the delivery charge doesn’t properly reflect the actual costs of keeping the grid running, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for clean energy nonprofit Acadia Center.

Households that operate heat pumps in the winter are ​“not actually putting much stress on the system at all,” he said. ​“They really shouldn’t have to pay as much as they are.”

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

Environmental Justice in an Era of Federal Rollbacks: What States Can Do

Recently, environmental injustice and energy inequity issues have gained greater mainstream attention across the U.S. This is partly due to the efforts of the Trump Administration to dismantle the recent momentum of environmental justice policy in the last few years and the longer legacy of environmental justice from decades prior. Under the Biden Administration, many significant strides were made on environmental justice policy. Some of those commitments included instituting the first White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council in 2021, revamping the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council (IAC), and introducing Justice40—an initiative aimed at supporting disadvantaged communities by directing 40 percent of overall climate and clean energy investment by the federal government to those communities; amongst other initiatives. Today, these programs to advance environmental justice at the federal level have been halted, along with many related vital funding priorities.

When the federal administration changed on January 20, 2025, many anticipated the nation’s climate and clean energy progress would be threatened. However, the swiftness of the rollback on energy equity and environmental justice was not as widely predicted. Three successive executive orders (E.O.) have already been issued dismantling the environmental justice and energy equity progress of the Biden Administration and prior administrations, including:

• O. 14148: “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”
• O. 14173: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and
• O. 14151: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”

E.O. 14148 revokes the previous administration’s E.O. 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” and E.O. 14096, “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment for Environmental Justice for All,” among other revocations. These changes abruptly stopped significant commitments that had been propelling environmental justice and energy equity leadership within federal agencies. These halted activities include several prominent environmental justice-oriented policies and programs to alleviate energy burdens, broaden access to clean energy measures, and ensure environmental justice.

These efforts to uproot environmental justice and equity are perhaps only one front among a more extensive set of issues facing the fight for a clean energy future. The single largest federal investment for climate and clean energy, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed into law by the previous administration and Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the adoption of clean energy, has also endured attacks. Many investments provided through the IRA law were initially halted via an immediate funding freeze directed by the President and advanced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – but now seem to be trickling funding out following court decisions.

With mandates removed from federal agencies through multiple executive orders and downsizing, efforts to promote energy equity, environmental justice, and climate solutions rely heavily on state actions and commitments. Greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution issues do not cease to exist because they are not being addressed at the federal level; quite the opposite. A lack of federal leadership may slow progress, but states and regions must step up to the plate and commit to providing equitable and just solutions to climate and environmental justice within their jurisdiction. States can still take executive action and strengthen legislative authority to redouble commitments to environmental justice and lower energy costs for communities facing injustice and consumers in general. As an example of where states can take action, a recent Acadia Center report in collaboration with New York’s We Act for Environmental Justice details the excess energy burdens borne by over 2 million households in New York while outlining energy affordability programs that could address those burdens. Every state could codify similar energy burden protections for low- and moderate-income (LMI) households and enact new measures to alleviate pressure from rising utility bills.

There are many ways for states to step up and fill the gaps created by federal rollbacks on energy equity and environmental justice. These include:

• Commit to equitable funding allocation to address inequities: The Justice40 initiative instituted by the Biden Administration prioritized clean energy investments funding for disadvantaged communities nationwide. States can adopt this initiative and tailor it to meet the challenges of communities faced with pollution and other barriers to clean energy provision. For instance, states can pass legislation codifying environmental justice definitions into law that adopt similar language from the Justice40 executive order and allocate resources to create databases that emulate resources states have relied on at the federal level during the past administration(s).
• Environmental Justice Leadership and Advisory Group: Though federal leadership and vision for environmental justice are now lacking, states can continue seeking and implementing effective environmental justice leadership in their agencies and across programs. Last year, Acadia Center outlined the various equity advisory boards across the Northeast states, with the main limitation of these advisory forums identified to be a lack of mandate to execute equitable climate plans. Across the agencies, each state must work to ensure that the advisory boards are not only in place but are mandated to implement their recommendations.
• Consideration of cumulative impact and underlying equity issues: Historically, environmental justice and many frontline communities are hosts to energy infrastructure, transmission, and transportation infrastructure. Considering their exposure to various sources of pollution, state agencies across the region must establish siting and permitting mandates that consider the cumulative impact of pollution on these communities while ensuring equity, engagement, and transparency in the siting of infrastructures. Mandating community benefit plans in the regulatory or policy space for extensive energy infrastructure and codifying past federal directives into law would be essential in integrating equitable guidelines in the siting and permitting process.

In the months ahead, environmental justice and climate policy can progress if states embrace the opportunity to recommit to climate, clean energy, and environmental justice. Acadia Center has long been committed to working at the local and regional levels to shape, propose, and advocate for local, state, and regional actions that will build a cleaner, healthier, and more just economic future for all.