For Immediate Release: Statement on Pennsylvania’s RGGI Withdrawal

Press Release

MEDIA CONTACTS
Paola Moncada Tamayo
Senior Policy and Data Analyst
ptamayo@acadiacenter.org; 860-246-7121 x204

Departure from Longstanding, Bipartisan Multistate Program Will Force the State to Miss Out on Nearly $20 Billion in Revenue Over Next 12 Years

Harrisburg, PA (November 14, 2025) — Earlier this week, Governor Josh Shapiro and state legislative leaders announced a budget deal agreement and associated bill (HB416) that will legislatively end Pennsylvania’s participation in a longstanding, 10-bipartisan multi-state program driving affordable energy, energy savings, job creation, and public health. This abandonment of Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will cost the Commonwealth a projected $20 billion in foregone revenue over the coming twelve years, removing the state’s most promising, cost-effective policy lever to reduce harmful emissions from the power section – and leaving Pennsylvania without any meaningful climate and energy affordability policy.

“Instead of allowing the state Supreme Court to rule on RGGI’s legality, Pennsylvania’s elected officials have chosen to abandon the program outright at a time when the program’s benefits are most urgently needed by families and communities,” said Paola Moncado Tamayo, Senior Policy and Data Analyst at Acadia Center. “This is a grave setback for Pennsylvania’s energy, climate, and affordability policies, and it leaves literal billions of dollars in revenues on the table that could have been invested to improve household affordability, reduce energy consumption, improve public-health in polluted communities, and insulate everyday families from rising energy costs driven by data center development in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the PJM region.”

“The value of the RGGI program for both consumers and the environment has been proven year after year – yielding more than twice as many energy bill savings ($20.2b) versus program revenues ($9.7b) to-date – which has helped the ten-state, bipartisan program withstand the test of time and political tumult since its inception in 2008,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs, at Acadia Center. “On the heels of striking recent electoral victories for clean energy-led affordability in other states around the country, including in current RGGI states, Pennsylvania’s leaders have chosen precisely the wrong path and, in so doing, will force PA families and communities to miss out on billions in revenue that could have driven improved affordability, energy efficiency, job creation, public health, and much needed support for the working class.”

Many Billions in Lost Revenue and Benefits

Pennsylvania’s withdrawal carries enormous financial consequences. Based on PA DEP data and RGGI allowance price trajectories, the state has already missed out on more than $5 billion in potential allowance revenue since their projected start in the program in 2022. Other RGGI states have been investing their funds toward reducing energy bills for households, financing energy efficiency upgrades, modernizing the grid, and cutting harmful pollution. The analysis below shows the long-term losses are even more striking. Depending on future allowance prices, Pennsylvania’s departure will effectively forfeit over $20 billion in RGGI proceeds between now and 2037.

These billions of dollars translate into tangible impacts for people across the state:

Public Health: RGGI helps reduce carbon pollution and co-pollutants from power plants, which would mitigate the harmful health impacts of air pollution in Pennsylvania’s communities. RGGI stood to protect the well-being of Pennsylvania’s residents from the devastating health consequences of poor air quality and save hundreds of Pennsylvanian lives. According to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), they projected that from 2020 to 2030 RGGI would prevent 639 premature deaths from respiratory illnesses, reduce hospital visits by 30,000 and deliver over $6 billion in public health benefits this decade.

Economic Prosperity: By joining RGGI, Pennsylvania was poised to reap substantial economic benefits, including program payments totaling approximately $1-2 billion annually, which could be directly invested in projects that benefit Pennsylvanians. This funding would promote job creation, stimulate the state’s economy, and benefit both public health broadly and acute impacts within environmental justice communities. Additionally, the public health improvements from reductions in criteria air pollution as a result of RGGI participation would result in 83,000 avoided lost workdays, according to the analysis by PA DEP.

Clean Air: Remaining a part of RGGI would bolster Pennsylvania’s commitment to environmental sustainability. It enables the state to reduce its carbon emissions, limit climate impacts, and protect the environment for future generations. According to DEP, RGGI could help Pennsylvania avoid between 97 and 225 million tons of carbon pollution by 2030.

A Short-Term Political Decision with Long-Term Costs and Consequences

Legal experts in Pennsylvania characterize the decision as a political concession, rather than a policy-based decision. The withdrawal was part of a broader budget negotiation that also included items like a $50 million cut to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource, and a budget that is already being partially backfilled with oil and gas revenue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a sound legal basis to overturn the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, but Governor Shapiro and legislative leaders decided to let Pennsylvania walk away from the expected proceeds, from the pollution reductions, and from years of hard work put in by stakeholders through the RGGI Working Group. It is especially disappointing for this outcome to occur so late in process and so close to the successful initiation of Pennsylvania’s presence in the program. What’s more, the move comes on the heels of a statewide Democratic sweep in local elections, signaling strong public support for environmental protection and clean-energy progress. Despite this, Pennsylvania is now the only state in the broader Northeast region without a carbon-reduction program or a plan to create one.

No Clear Path Forward for a State-Only Carbon Market

The Shapiro Administration has repeatedly mentioned PACER, a Pennsylvania-specific cap-and-trade program, as a potential alternative. However, no viable legislation or executive action is moving forward, and major energy-market reform packages in the legislature have stalled. Even if PACER were to materialize further, any carbon market will perform substantially better when it’s part of a larger, multi-state system, one major reason why a standalone Pennsylvania program was always a fallback idea. With RGGI repealed and no viable replacement, the state is now moving backward and must start over seemingly from scratch. As a result, no other viable policy options currently exist in Pennsylvania to meaningfully address the impact of climate and energy affordability in the state, certainly not to the same degree as RGGI. Although it may be theoretically possible to develop a Pennsylvania-only program in the future, it is simply far less practical: RGGI is an existing, well-functioning program with all the structures in place to begin addressing power sector emissions immediately, and the powerful benefits of the program are evident across every one of its member states.

Implications for the Region

Finally, Pennsylvania’s withdrawal also carries consequences beyond its state borders. As the largest electricity producer in the Northeast and a major exporter of power, PA’s non-involvement weakens the region’s collective ability to combat climate change and tackle rising energy costs in a coordinated manner. Without the state’s participation, more carbon emissions can flow into neighboring RGGI states, forcing them to work harder and spend more to achieve the same regional results. If both Pennsylvania and Virginia had participated in RGGI auctions in 2022, Pennsylvania alone would have represented 44% of total regional power sector emissions covered under the RGGI program. RGGI works best when its members work together, and Pennsylvania stepping back makes the region’s path to a cleaner, more affordable electric system slower and less certain.

Massachusetts bill would undo climate goals and cut efficiency spending

Massachusetts lawmakers have advanced an energy-affordability bill that opponents say would undo years of work on policies to fight climate change and promote energy efficiency, all without actually saving consumers much money.

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

Top Mass. House Members Seeking Major Rollback of Climate Laws

Top Massachusetts House members are pushing an expansive energy bill that would scale back several major climate initiatives and programs and give the state immunity from legal challenges that result from missing its 2030 climate targets.

While the bill appears to have almost no chance of passing in the Senate, the legislation marks a significant change in the House’s approach to climate and energy policy. The bill has drawn immediate outcry from climate and consumer advocates. And it sets the stage for a high-profile clash between environmental advocates and industry groups that historically have opposed climate policy.

Kyle Murray, the Acadia Center’s Massachusetts program director, said the bill fails to “meaningfully address many of the largest real underlying energy cost drivers,” including gas volatility, spending on gas distribution pipe replacements, electric transmission costs and utility profits.

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

Proposed bill takes aim at the state’s climate goals and Mass Save

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

Proposed legislation would have net-effect of dismantling Massachusetts’ climate leadership and nation-leading energy efficiency programs

November 10, 2025

MEDIA CONTACT:
Kyle Murray
Director, State Program Implementation
Massachusetts Program Director
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x106

Click HERE to download the full press release.

New House legislative package would fail to meaningfully address affordability by ignoring true largest energy cost drivers, while undermining its own efforts to make progress on emissions reductions. Bill’s passage threatens to exacerbate current affordability crisis and increase ratepayer exposure to fossil fuel volatility and infrastructure expenses, hamstringing the cheapest- and quickest-to-deploy clean energy resources.

Massachusetts lawmakers must come together to resoundingly reject this bill and chart an updated path forward toward goals for climate, affordability, and economic development.

BOSTON – Today, the House members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy are in the process of releasing a bill that would drastically undermine the Commonwealth’s climate goals and would undermine its own efforts to address the energy affordability issues facing households and businesses. This legislation proposes to cut additional funding from Mass Save, makes climate targets merely advisory, and eliminates the newly-created moderate-income discount rate, among other misguided provisions – on the heels of striking recent electoral victories for clean energy-led affordability in other states around the country. Acadia Center calls on House and Senate lawmakers and the Healey-Driscoll Administration to resoundingly reject the package of proposals and work to fashion a reasonable path forward preserving existing legal mandates and deploying new and enhanced policy solutions to keep Massachusetts a leader on energy affordability and climate progress.

“Proposing to weaken Massachusetts’ climate targets and cut back on money-saving energy efficiency programs is precisely the wrong approach for the moment. Rational, science-backed climate and clean energy targets have made Massachusetts a leader in the nation and spurred enormous investment and job creation in the Commonwealth – helping grow the local economy even as emissions decline,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts Program Director and Director of State Implementation at Acadia Center. “Yes, the state must contend with and adapt to new roadblocks posed by the federal Administration, but if there are concerns about Massachusetts achieving its climate targets, policymakers should redouble efforts to pursue cost-effective pathways to their attainment, not water down the underlying goals. Simply put, weakening targets is essentially granting the state permission to fail, and failure is not acceptable – certainly not five years before a deadline. Acadia Center calls on the Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration to work collaboratively to preserve existing targets and deploy new and enhanced policies, like Mass Save, to keep Massachusetts on the strongest path for affordability, emissions, and economic growth.”

At a time when infrastructure costs and overreliance on volatile fossil fuels are driving electric and gas ratepayer bills ever higher, clean energy programs like Mass Save remain an essential tool to effectively keeping those costs lower. Sadly, with the most recent $500 million cut from Mass Save in January 2025, Massachusetts has already chosen to lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits, 20 trillion British thermal units (TBtus) of energy savings, and 1.8 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions, based on Acadia Center analysis. The House proposal would now propose to almost double those harmful impacts with a further $330M cut in program budgets, threatening $2+ billion in total lost savings, and would further harm the program by imposing unprecedented and arbitrary caps on future three-year program budgets – completely doing away with the long-standing decision to procure energy efficiency as the cost effective resource that it is and can be for the grid. This misguided approach to cost-cutting will immediately backfire, with the consequences of driving up total energy system costs by forcing ratepayers to purchase more costly supply and pay more for transmission and distribution of energy. Yes, Mass Save can be strengthened and program cost recovery can be improved to diversify funding sources, but the program’s successful track-record is undeniable: from 2012-2023, Massachusetts residents received $34 billion in benefits from Mass Save, corresponding to $3.51 in lifetime benefits for every $1 invested in energy efficiency. The program has saved 18 million megawatt-hours (MWhs) of annual electricity consumption, which is more than three times the annual output of the one gigawatt of generation from the retired Brayton Point Coal plant, formerly the largest coal generating plant in New England. This means that even ratepayers who have not participated in the program have seen massive savings.

Though details are still emerging, early reports indicate that the proposed legislation would:

• Make 2030 Mass Save greenhouse gas target merely advisory;
• Cut another $330 million from the 2025-2027 Mass Save plan budget;
• Subject future three-year Mass Save plans to an unprecedented and arbitrary budget cap, completely dismissing the notion of energy efficiency as a cost-effective resource to be procured;
• Remove the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from Mass Save’s cost-effectiveness test;
• Add rebates for natural gas heating systems back into the program;
• Remove demand management, beneficial electrification, and decarbonization from the program;
• Eliminate the newly created moderate-income discount rate;
• Appear to attempt to reverse the Supreme Judicial Court on ENGIE Gas & LNG v. Department of Public Utilities and Conservation Law Foundation v. Department of Public Utilities, which prohibits the Department of Public Utilities from authorizing electric distribution companies to enter into electric ratepayer-backed gas pipeline contracts;
• Decrease the yearly increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from 3% to 1% until 2033; and
• Require the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to direct the utilities to coordinate an initiative to perform a customer bill-impact analysis assessment on costs from any programs associated with greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy, solar, workforce development, or electrification.

It does not appear, however, that the bill would meaningfully address many of the largest real underlying energy cost drivers affecting Massachusetts households and businesses, and in fact would leave customers worse off through greater exposure to their pressures. These energy cost drivers include:

• Gas volatility and fossil fuel costs – impacts on electric and gas as well as transportation budgets
• Gas infrastructure spending – ballooning expenditures on leak prone gas pipe replacements
• Electric transmission costs – skyrocketing Asset Condition Project (ACP) spending, putting upward pressure on highest transmission costs in the nation
• Utility profits from traditional regulation and financing
• Failure to invest sufficiently in cost-reducing technologies like Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs), energy storage, and demand response/Virtual Power Plants; and beyond

There is a large and growing body of evidence supporting the strong continued rationale for keeping Massachusetts’ climate targets on the books and augmenting the set of policy and program levers at the state’s disposal, rather than throwing in the towel five years ahead of a deadline. This evidence includes:

• Total costs of the transition are relatively small and manageable: In analysis undertaken for the Massachusetts Decarbonization Roadmap and Clean Energy and Climate Plans (CECP), findings showed that the total cost increase of a representative mitigation pathway in 2050 ($1.5 billion annual spending) compared to a non-decarbonized reference case in 2050 was actually less than the expected increase in statewide energy costs resulting from population and economic growth ($2.4 billion annual spending).
• Clean energy done right will save households money: The 2025/2030 CECP found that “The increased adoption of electrified transportation and heating systems means that the average Massachusetts household will spend less money on energy every year. Average overall household energy expenditures, which include transportation-related fuel costs (included as “energy” cost in this analysis), are projected to decline 8% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, for an average household savings of $400 per year.”
• Investing in clean energy grows Massachusetts GDP and creates local jobs: Pathways that invest in local energy resources, including renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency, create more jobs and demonstrate greater economic benefits by keeping money local compared to pathways more reliant on imported energy. For example, the “All Options” pathway from the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Study Economic and Health Impacts Report (which emphasized deep electrification and broad renewable electricity buildout) had 17% higher economic “output” (the broadest measure of economic activity) in Massachusetts per dollar invested than the “Pipeline Gas” pathway (which relied heavily on imported alternative fuels).
• The global energy transition continues to accelerate, countering U.S. headwinds: Massachusetts’ 2030 climate targets were enacted in law in 2021, four full years ago. Since then, despite turbulent tailwinds and headwinds at the federal level, the pace of global technology improvement and development has accelerated markedly. Technologies continue to improve in their performance: solar cells are more efficient, battery cells are achieving greater energy densities, and heat pumps are notching even higher coefficients of performance (COP). And costs continue to decline as well: for example, the average price of a lithium-ion battery pack fell 20 percent last year to $115 per kilowatt-hour — the biggest drop since 2017, according to clean energy research firm BloombergNEF. This is part of an even larger drop from $155 to $115/kWh between 2021 and 2024, and further cost declines have materialized since then as well. These are cost reductions that Massachusetts can now take advantage of to reap greater savings and benefits than originally forecast four years ago.

Although recent negative developments at the federal level must be acknowledged, it is still eminently possible for the Commonwealth to adapt to them and forge a modified path forward that keeps climate targets within reach while preserving affordability.

 

‘We will fill the State House’: Advocates gird for a showdown over House plan to dial back climate commitments

Any Democrat in Massachusetts eyeing ways to slow down the state’s ambitious commitments to move away from planet-warming fossil fuels knows they’re asking for trouble with environmental advocates.

That’s exactly what’s already playing out as a key member of the House prepares to advance a plan to ease 2030 climate targets and cut the budget for the state’s energy efficiency program.

Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the nonprofit group Acadia Center, said in a statement that while the state must adapt to new roadblocks posed by the federal government, policymakers should “redouble efforts” to meet the climate targets.

“Simply put, weakening targets is essentially granting the state permission to fail, and failure is not acceptable – certainly not five years before a deadline,” he said.

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

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