Opinion: Offshore wind power will save Rhode Islanders money
Key Points
- A rebuttal to a previous column argues that the Revolution Wind project will save Rhode Island ratepayers money.
- The authors contend that comparing new project costs to market prices from existing power plants is misleading.
- Offshore wind projects in Massachusetts and Connecticut are projected to save customers billions of dollars over time.
- The article disputes claims about offshore wind’s performance, citing high capacity factors for the nearby South Fork Wind project.
In his column, Miles Bidwell (“RI’s offshore wind power is unreliable, raises consumer costs,” Commentary, April 25) purports to explain why offshore wind is a bad deal for Rhode Islanders. Instead, he misdirects and misrepresents – with numerous factual errors. While Mr. Bidwell claims ratepayers will be on the hook for offshore wind costs, the reality is Revolution Wind will save ratepayers hundreds of millions.
First, Mr. Bidwell cites a $39.50/megawatt-hour (MWh) average real-time market price. This is misleading – the full average energy market price in 2025 was twice as high ($77/MWh). Moreover, it’s apples-and-oranges to compare new project costs with market prices from existing power plants built long ago with cheaper inputs and lower inflation. At $98/MWh, Revolution Wind is a bargain, easily cost-competitive with bringing any new power plant online – with full predictability through fixed pricing.
Consumers buy both contracted wind power and market-priced power every day. Savings come from reducing the market clearing-price, set by the most expensive power plant needed to meet demand. Wind adds new, low-cost supply into the market with bids reflecting its free fuel, pushing higher‑cost plants out and suppressing prices.
For example, if Revolution Wind produces 200 MWh in an hour, it costs $19,600. That reduces demand that must be met by other power plants from 20,200 MWh to 20,000 MWh. The increase in low-cost supply “pushes out” the most expensive plants, and the clearing price – paid to all plants – is lowered. Even a $1 reduction across 20,000 MWh yields $20,000 in savings, leaving ratepayers ahead (saving $400). This simplified dynamic happens year-round, with Revolution Wind’s annual output (18% of state load) driving outsized savings for the large majority of power purchased from the market.
The upshot: offshore wind is a huge cost-saver. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey recently announced Vineyard Wind contracts will save customers $1.4 billion over 20 years. Connecticut estimated that Revolution Wind will save $500 million a year by 2028. Other analysis found offshore wind would have saved at least $400 million last year, lowering prices by 11% and insulating against expensive, volatile natural gas (which drove a 67% price increase from 2024-2025). A $40‑versus‑$98 comparison isn’t analysis – it’s misdirection.
Need a news break? Check out the all new PLAY hub with puzzles, games and more!
Mr. Bidwell is also wrong about offshore wind’s performance. Citing a one-third capacity factor is blatantly incorrect – conflating with onshore wind. South Fork Wind, with the same turbines as and directly next to Revolution Wind, averaged a 53% capacity factor in the first half of 2025 (on par with gas) and reached 60% in March 2025.
And, contrary to Mr. Bidwell’s baseless claim that offshore wind would not have operated during the 2025 heatwave, South Fork hit an astounding 87.4% capacity factor during critical evening hours on June 24, alleviating grid strain and providing enormous savings.
Finally, it is inaccurate to claim natural gas should be prioritized as more reliable. From 2023 to 2025, there was a 66% surge in gas power plant costs, and since 2024, 5-to-7 year waiting queues have developed for gas turbines. Local offshore wind will reduce exposure to the volatility of international markets and conflicts, as natural gas prices have increased over 60% since 2024 and are forecast to stay high through at least 2027, depending on the conflict in Iran.
Despite its reputation, under extreme conditions gas is actually notoriously unreliable; while renewables outperformed during Winter Storm Fern by tens of thousands of megawatts, gas and coal experienced high outage and underperformance rates, with gas underperforming between 14,000-21,500 MW by region.
The bottom line: Offshore wind is an invaluable resource for Rhode Island and the Northeast, saving money and reducing reliance on the fuels that drove this affordability crisis. Basic facts must still matter for the region’s energy policy.
Emily Koo, Rhode Island program director, and Anastasiya (Anya) Poplavska are senior policy advocates for the climate and clean energy nonprofit Acadia Center.
To read the op-ed in the Providence Journal, click here.
Why the average Connecticut electric bill could hit $300 this July
The hottest, most humid July in recent memory was in 2013. That year, the average Connecticut household paid about $179 for electricity that month.
This year, if this July rivals 2013 in heat and humidity, that same $179 bill could be almost doubled, $300 or higher, according to a CT Insider data analysis.
On June 24, 2025, as temperatures skyrocketed, ISO New England issued four escalating energy alerts “due to hot, humid weather driving consumer electricity demand to a peak of 26,024 megawatts,” according to a report from the nonprofit Acadia Center. It was the “highest demand that ISO-NE experienced in over a decade.”
But ISO-NE reported that its power plants were serving approximately 24,020 megawatts of demand, meaning behind-the-meter solar power — energy produced locally and fed back into the grid — “shaved approximately 4,400 megawatts of demand from the gross peak,” according to the Acadia Center.
To read the full article from CT Insider, click here.
New England Supply Challenges Put Pressure on Solar to Continue Growth
By nature, distributed solar is less spectacular, high profile and controversial than the offshore wind farms, nuclear reactors and fossil power plants that define the power industry’s popular narratives.
It is also far more ubiquitous, covering the rooftops of apartments, rural hilltops and empty spaces left by highway spaghetti. Over the past 15 years, this lower profile has helped enable the resource’s steady growth into a network, with major effects on the New England region’s power grid.
BTM solar growth also has brought significant reliability benefits, particularly during periods of extreme heat. This dynamic was on display during a capacity scarcity event on June 24, 2025, during which ISO-NE recorded its highest peak load since 2013. (See Behind-the-meter Solar Shines in ISO-NE Capacity Deficiency Event.)
Without BTM solar, demand would have peaked at about 28,400 MW in the mid-afternoon, instead of about 26,000 around 7 p.m.
Meanwhile, during the June 24, 2025, heat wave, BTM solar suppressed wholesale costs by as much as $19.4 million, according to an Acadia Center analysis.
To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.
Office of Energy Resources Pulls Bids On Energy Efficiency Programs; Gives Rhode Island Energy the Contract
PROVIDENCE — When the General Assembly approved language that would allow the state to put administration of its energy efficiency programs out to bid, advocates had been hopeful.
By statute, Rhode Island’s designated gas and electric monopoly has administered the state’s suite of energy efficiency programs since their inception; first National Grid, then when Pennsylvania-based PPL Corp. bought the assets, Rhode Island Energy took over.
To read the full article from ecoRI, click here.
Eat the Rich Before They Devour the Planet
It took the world’s richest 1% the first 10 days of 2026 to burn through their share of climate-changing emissions. Not to be outdone, the wealthiest 0.1% needed just three days to exhaust their annual carbon budget.
In late March, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) struck down the return on equity (ROE), or allowed profits, that New England’s electric transmission utilities have been earning on their power line investments. The federal agency found previous rates of return to be “unjust and unreasonable” and required the utilities to refund as much as $1.5 billion in overpayments to New England electricity customers dating back more than a decade.
Despite this spring reduction, the utilities recently proposed to FERC that they should receive an even higher new rate of guaranteed return on equity. Rather than adopting the 9.57% rate that FERC had specified, the utilities proposed a rate of 11.39%.
This proposed ROE, if adopted, would result in billions of dollars in additional charges for New England electricity customers that would significantly increase the cost of electricity across the region, according to the Acadia Center.
To read the full article from ecoRI, click here.
The Dirt on Clean Energy’s Slowdown
A few years ago, the country seemed on the cusp of a major energy transition as Biden-era legislation made massive investments in clean energy and other climate programs.
Today, more than a year into the second Trump administration, many of those policies have been reversed.
New England is projected to need a lot more power in the coming years as home heating systems are electrified and electric vehicles become more widespread. But the recent reversals in federal policy—and continued resistance in Concord to expanding support for renewables—have raised the question of where NH and the rest of the region should look for that extra energy.
Some point to last summer, when solar and batteries helped New England meet peak demand on the hottest days and likely saved customers millions, according to an analysis by the Acadia Center, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy solutions.
To read the full article from Business NH Magazine, click here.
How We Unlock the Huge Solar Potential in Massachusetts’s Environmental Justice Communities
Massachusetts has tremendous solar potential in environmental justice neighborhoods: enough to power all of the Commonwealth’s nearly three million homes. Activating this resource is key to fulfilling the state’s decarbonization and affordability goals.
In addition, not only do BTM solar and storage adopters save directly on their bills, but these cost saving benefits flow to all ratepayers because these resources help with lowering peak demand. Addressing the peaks minimizes the need for expensive transmission and distribution investments and reduces wholesale electricity prices.In fact, during a 100oF peak event in June 2025, a study from Acadia Center found, BTM solar saved New England consumers at least $8.2 million on one of the most expensive days of the year for the grid. Those savings are particularly impressive considering how small the BTM solar deployment is across Massachusetts, and makes actualizing the full potential even more appealing.
To read the full article from the Union of Concerned Scientists, click here.
Utilities Oppose Billion-Dollar Customer Refund Order on Rates Deemed “Unjust” by FERC
May 5, 2026
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact:
Conrad Jarzebowski
Senior Director Communications
cjarzebowski@acadiacenter.org
Utilities’ proposal for higher return on investment would increase profits by hundreds of millions during energy affordability crisis
In late March, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) struck down the return on equity (ROE), or allowed profits, that New England’s electric transmission utilities have been earning on their power line investments. FERC found previous rates of return to be “unjust and unreasonable” and required the utilities to refund as much as $1.5 billion in overpayments to New England electricity customers, dating back over ten years. Yesterday, despite this recent reduction, the utilities proposed to FERC that they should receive an even higher new rate of guaranteed return on equity. Rather than adopting the 9.57% rate that FERC had specified, the transmission utilities have now proposed an all-in rate of 11.89%, factoring in incentives. This proposed ROE, if adopted, would result in billions of dollars in additional charges for New England electricity customers over the coming years and decades—significantly increasing the cost of electricity for consumers across the region.
“FERC issued its finding that these returns are unjust and unreasonable after nearly 15 years of litigation any reasonable person would find thorough and fair” said Daniel L. Sosland, President of Acadia Center. “The companies have had their day in court, and the revised level provides a robust incentive while not overburdening New England consumers. Not only have utilities sought to prevent refunds due to customers, but they have proposed an even higher new return on equity that overcompensates them for any underlying risk of their investment. This will only drive up customer costs further during an affordability crisis. Appropriate transmission investments are critical to meeting the region’s future goals, but they must be funded in a manner that provides adequate and not excessive profits and is measured against the low risk in the field.”
The utilities’ aggressive proposal comes on the heels of actions by utility companies Eversource and Avangrid to delay and avoid the payment of their $1.1 billion share of the refund that is due to New England ratepayers. In federal court pleadings seeking a stay, Eversource and Avangrid argue that customers would be harmed by the refunds, either by hypothetical negative credit impacts to the Companies from having to pay, or if the utilities successfully appeal FERC’s decision and customers then have to surrender their recently returned refund. By any reasonable measure, a 9.57% return on approved projects should provide adequate compensation to the Companies.
The fight to reduce the 10.57% return on equity began fourteen years ago, and Acadia Center (then Environment Northeast, or ENE) was at the forefront in seeking FERC review. Last month’s FERC decision was a long time coming, and Acadia Center and its co-complainants stayed the course until the region’s electricity customers were vindicated. Now, the utilities would not only prolong an exhaustive process, but they are seeking higher returns that would translate to even greater burdens on electricity customers. Acadia Center recommends that the court appoint a special master or monitor to place the funds in an interest-earning escrow that would be paid to customers if Eversource and Avangrid lose on appeal, or would go to the utilities if they prevail.
ISO New England, the regional grid operator, has estimated that it will cost between $16 billion and $26 billion to add the transmission capacity the region will need to have in place by 2050. The return on equity proposed by the utilities yesterday would ensure that the cost of that capacity will be millions of dollars more expensive and more profitable to the Companies.
Looking ahead: analysis forthcoming later this month from Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force (CATF) will examine new public financing approaches to transmission investment in New England that could substantially reduce the cost of the region’s needed transmission investment, to the tune of billions of dollars of savings.
Dirty fuel powered Massachusetts electric heat pump surge this winter
NEEDHAM, Mass. — Massachusetts has spent years encouraging homeowners to switch to electric heat, arguing that heat pumps are a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. But during this winter’s prolonged cold snap, the electricity powering many of those systems came increasingly from oil-fired power plants, highlighting the challenges facing New England’s energy transition and the limits of the regional grid.
Clean energy advocates, however, said the system performed as designed.
“It was an example of the system working exactly as it should have,” said Joe LaRusso, senior advocate at the Acadia Center, a nonprofit that promotes cleaner energy across New England.
LaRusso acknowledged that oil remains part of the region’s backup strategy during extreme conditions, but said it should be viewed in a longer-term context.
“We’re in a transitional phase, and we are not going to be able to snap our fingers and make oil go away,” he said. “Last year in 2025, oil generation accounted for 1% of all of the electricity that was generated here in the region.”
LaRusso also argued the grid still has the capacity to absorb more electric heating demand. He noted that New England’s peak winter electricity record was set in 2002 and has not yet been surpassed.
For now, this winter’s cold snap offered a reminder that the region’s shift to cleaner heating is colliding with the limits of its current electric system.
To read the full article from wcvb, click here.
$1.4B saved: Massachusetts locks in cheaper offshore wind power
Massachusetts has activated long-term contracts for Vineyard Wind, the state’s first utility-scale offshore wind project. Officials say the move will stabilize prices for 20 years and cut a projected $1.4 billion from customer electricity bills over that period.
Offshore wind is especially valuable in New England because it tends to produce the most electricity when the grid needs it most – during winter months, when demand spikes and natural gas prices can surge.
That dynamic showed up during a week-long deep freeze earlier this year. According to a report from the Acadia Center, wind generation reached near-record levels during the cold snap, helping ease grid pressure.
The same report estimates offshore wind could have saved New England ratepayers at least $400 million during the winter of 2024–25 by lowering wholesale electricity prices by 11% and reducing reliance on volatile natural gas markets.
To read the full article from Electrek, click here.