Planning the Future Electric Grid: The Need for An Independent Transmission Monitor

Executive Summary

ISO New England, the regional electric grid operator, has estimated that the cost of expanding the transmission system to accommodate New England’s future demand for power will be between $16 billion and $26 billion. The $10 billion separating ISO New England’s high and low estimates is not just due to uncertainty about the future: it is largely due to uncertainty regarding how well the future transmission system will be planned, which will in turn determine the efficiency of that future system and its ultimate cost. Currently, proposals to improve and expand the transmission system are developed according to separate and distinct planning processes. The failure to coordinate these disparate processes threatens the efficiency of the future transmission system and places the region on a path to spend far more than is necessary to build it. An Independent Transmission Monitor (ITM) would look across current transmission planning processes to ensure that future proposed improvements to and expansions of the transmission system are harmonized to maximize system efficiency overall while minimizing their aggregate cost.

Why is an Independent Transmission Monitor Needed?

New England’s peak electricity demand – measured when the region’s demand for electricity is higher than any other time of the year  – is expected to double in the next quarter century.^[1] ISO-New England has estimated that the cost of increasing the capacity of the transmission system to meet that doubled peak will be between $16 billion and $26 billion dollars.^[2] Currently, there are multiple, distinct processes for assessing the current and future needs of the transmission system. They are the Regional System Planning (RSP), Asset Condition Project (ACP), and Local Transmission Service (LTS) planning processes. Unfortunately, there is no coordination among the RSP, ACP, or LTS planning processes—transmission investments approved pursuant to any one of the three planning processes do not account for transmission investments approved pursuant to either of the other two. This lack of coordination is producing a patchwork of transmission system upgrades that fail to take the efficiency of the entire system into account, fail to incorporate available technologies that would enhance the operation of the transmission system, and increase rather than reduce the region’s need for future transmission investments.

The largest share by far of recent investments in transmission infrastructure has been ACPs—projects to repair, upgrade, or replace aging transmission equipment in existing rights of way. Since 2018, $4.1 billion has been spent on ACPs, compared to $2.2 billion spent on reliability projects—projects to build new transmission in new rights of way—developed pursuant to the RSP planning process.^[3] At least $5.4 billion more in ACP investments are projected through 2030—again outpacing planned spending on RSP reliability projects over that period.^[4] The concern regarding the magnitude of ACP investments is not that the region is spending more to upgrade existing transmission instead of building new transmission. Rather, the concern is that despite the eye-watering sums being spent on ACP upgrades they are not being designed to maximize the amount of power that can be carried via transmission lines in existing rights of way. Each ACP that fails to maximize the capacity of existing transmission represents a lost opportunity to prepare New England to meet the projected doubling of the region’s peak demand. Moreover, the failure of ACPs to increase capacity in existing rights of way will require additions of capacity in the form of new transmission in new rights of way, with all the environmental, community, and economic impacts associated with new construction. Building new transmission would cost much more and take much longer to build—five to ten years—than upgrading the region’s existing 9,000 miles of transmission lines.

Why are opportunities to optimize ACPs being missed, and why aren’t necessary increases in capacity being efficiently allocated between transmission in existing and new rights of way? Because RSP and ACP planning processes are separate and siloed: ISO New England is responsible for RSP planning while ACP planning is delegated to the entities that own the regional transmission system. (ISO New England operates but does not own the transmission system.) Moreover, transmission owners have near total discretion in planning ACP projects and are not required to consider cost-effective alternatives to the like-kind replacement of aging transmission equipment. For example, Grid Enhancing Technologies (GETs)—hardware and software solutions that improve the efficiency and capacity of existing transmission—are often overlooked by transmission owners as they plan ACP projects, even though their cost-effectiveness has been well-documented. For example, a $300,000 investment in GETs by the Pennsylvania utility PPL saved approximately $50 million in avoided project costs and an additional $20 million each year in grid congestion charges^[5]. Neither are transmission owners required to consider the installation of high-performance conductors (HPCs)—which can carry up to twice the power carried by conventional transmission lines^[6]—as part of their ACPs. HPCs also avoid many of the costs associated with building new transmission in new rights of way, typically costing less than half the price of new lines for similar capacity increases.^[7]

LTS projects—projects to address reliability concerns within a transmission owner’s service territory–suffer the same deficiencies as ACPs. Transmission owners plan and develop LTS projects to address the needs they identify, entirely at their discretion. And, as with ACPs, transmission owners are not required to consider GETs and HPCs as cost-effective measures to maximize the efficiency of their LTS projects.^[8]

The Role of the Independent Transmission Monitor

The ITM would not be associated with any of the entities—ISO New England or transmission owners—responsible for the RSP, ACP, or LTS planning processes. Further, the ITM’s authority to review proposed transmission projects would extend across the RSP, ACP and LTS planning processes.^[9] The ITM would be responsible for ensuring that transmission projects of every type, size, and scope were designed to include all cost-effective measures to increase the efficiency and capacity of the entire transmission system. The result would be the optimization of transmission in existing rights of way, the minimization of the need for new transmission in new rights of way, the adoption of technologies to enable the efficient routing of power across the entire transmission system, and the development of projects that are fully integrated into a planning process that is comprehensive–and not restricted–in scope.

Next Steps in Developing an ITM

While ISO New England is supportive of an ITM that would respond to the New England states or FERC, it has not taken the initiative to establish one.^[10] Because incumbent transmission owners receive a fixed rate of return on their transmission investments they lack the incentive to support an ITM that would recommend cost-effective alternatives—GETs and HPCs—and other measures that would reduce transmission investments overall. Responsibility for the establishment of an ITM thus lies with the six New England states. Acadia Center believes that an ITM is essential to eliminating the inefficiencies inherent in New England’s disaggregated transmission planning processes and supports the establishment of an ITM with sufficient resources to meet its engineering, financial, and regulatory responsibilities to stakeholders. Acadia Center will work to encourage and support the initiatives of the New England States Committee on Electricity,^[11] state consumer advocates, and other interested stakeholders to establish an ITM, continue to build public awareness regarding the threat that unbounded transmission investments have on energy affordability, and foster consensus regarding the need for transmission planning reform.

Acadia Center Recommendations

Acadia Center is working to raise awareness of the need for an ITM and for public oversight of the billions of dollars in transmission upgrade projects proposed by utilities and transmission owners. We are working to support efforts by states and NESCOE to create an ITM for the ratepayers of New England and to prioritize the creation of an ITM in the region. Acadia Center is working to identify the key components of an effective ITM.  Please contact us at info@acadiacenter.org for more information or visit www.acadiacenter.org.

[1] “The Energy is About to Shift,” Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force (Dec. 2024), p. 5. https://acadiacenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AC_CATF_EnergyShift_Report_2024_R10-1.pdf

[2] 2050 Transmission Study, ISO New England Inc. (Feb. 2024), p. 16. https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100008/2024_02_14_pac_2050_transmission_study_final.pdf

[3] CT GENERAL STATUTES – SECTION 16A-3A 2025 INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN – Transmission Solutions White Paper (February 26, 2025), pp. 5-6. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/energy/transmission/transmission-white-paper-final.pdf

[4] Id. at p. 6.

[5] “Regulators need to require utilities to use grid-enhancing technologies: FERC’s Clements,” Utility Dive, Nov. 14, 2023) https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-grid-enhancing-technologies-gets-utilities-naruc-ferc-clements/699686/

[6] Emilia Chojkiewicz et al., “2035 and Beyond: The Report—Reconductoring,” GridLab, 2024, p.3. https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GridLab_2035-Reconductoring-Technical-Report.pdf.

[7] Id.

[8] CT GENERAL STATUTES – SECTION 16A-3A 2025 INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN – Transmission Solutions White Paper (February 26, 2025), p. 6. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/energy/transmission/transmission-white-paper-final.pdf

[9] Last December a coalition of electricity consumers filed a Complaint with the Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC) against more than two dozen utilities and all the major grid operators, including ISO New England, asserting that FERC should prohibit transmission owners from independently planning LTS projects and assign LTS planning authority to an ITM. See https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20241219-5368&optimized=false

[10] ISO New England Board of Directors’ Response to 2024 Open Board Meeting Comments (February 5, 2025) p.3 https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100020/iso-board-response-to-2024-open-board-meeting-comments.pdf

[11] Comments on Transmission Planning and Cost Management (March 29, 2023) https://nescoe.com/resource-center/comments-on-transmission-planning-and-cost-management/

Beyond infrastructure: Building a supportive community and policy environment

Introduction to the Energy is About to Shift report

A recent report by Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Acadia Center examines the critical role community engagement will play in the build out of new, clean generation and transmission to meet New England’s 2050 decarbonization goals. This blog is the second in a two-part series, focusing on how to build a supportive, community focused environment for the region’s energy transition. The first blog focused on the clean energy needs of New England’s future grid. To learn more, read the full report, and attend our webinar coming up soon on January 16!

New England’s energy system must undergo an immense transformation to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals. Across the region, most states have adopted targets to reach 80 to 100% emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2050, economy-wide. For this to happen, the region will need to shift away from aging, polluting, unabated fossil fuel infrastructure toward a cleaner, efficient, and electrified grid. This transformation is going to reshape the region’s landscape and require a myriad of communities to host clean energy infrastructure. These communities are at the center of the region’s energy transformation.

For New England to build out its infrastructure at the speed and scale needed to unlock an energy transition, it will take buy-in, acceptance, and trust from the communities that will host these clean energy resources. This will require proactive and meaningful community engagement of the region’s 1,300+ cities and towns, as well as numerous business districts, regional organizing networks, community organizations, and residents so that they can be active participants with a voice in the unfolding transition. This is for good reason, as the stakes in siting, permitting, and grid planning have important repercussions in how land use is prioritized, where clean air is enjoyed, who pays for infrastructure, and how other benefits and burdens are distributed. A community-centered decarbonized grid requires developing a system for engagement designed for the urgency of the climate crisis that values community access and standing in meaningful ways, including by offering communities the tools needed to provide input, express preferences, and participate.

The barriers to community-centered deployment

To date, New England’s track record on community engagement has been lackluster – with a trail of failed projects and lawsuits to show for it. This challenge transcends engagement practices at the individual project level; there are a variety of community-based barriers to energy infrastructure deployment at play. These barriers include policy, process, and institutional capacity challenges; land availability and competing uses of land; and community attitudes toward clean energy deployment. The sections below overview lessons and opportunities for each of these broader challenges, informed by six case studies on various clean energy projects around the region that exemplify project successes, challenges, and failures. To holistically address these challenges, the region’s policies and processes for siting, permitting, and community engagement must be improved and strengthened to unlock a clean energy transition. For more in-depth case studies and recommendations, see our full report.

Policy, process, and capacity challenges

In New England, there is generally a division of siting responsibilities, where smaller-scale generation resources are subject to local government approvals while larger projects and other infrastructure (e.g., substations or transmission and distribution lines) are subject to state-level approvals. Where siting decisions are made at the local level, restrictive permitting and zoning regulations have the potential to slow clean energy development. Local officials, zoning boards, and town councils, when confronted with siting and permitting a new technology, may understandably lack in-house technical capacity, including the funding, staff, and resources needed to fully consider how a project may fit into their communities.

In turn, localities may enact bans, moratoria, or other regulations that effectively limit the ability for communities to develop clean energy. While some moratoria are temporary, allowing cities and towns to update their codes to accommodate the new land use, others are indefinite to effectively prohibit project development. Approval and permitting processes can be time intensive and add great complexity for responsibly developed and well-sited projects, even if those processes are intended to filter out projects evoking legitimate local concern. Finally, a project in compliance with necessary permitting and regulatory requirements may not receive the necessary permits due to shifting regulatory goal posts or local leadership changes.

Where the state has authority over siting decisions, concerns may arise over a lack of opportunity for meaningful community engagement, lengthy and cumbersome review processes, and under-resourced state agencies. However, if well-designed, state siting policies can effectively balance state and local authority to meet state goals and ensure local engagement, as exemplified by recent legislation passed in Massachusetts. The new law consolidates multi-jurisdictional reviews of clean energy projects into a single permit, enhances community reviews to ensure engagement and participation (including via intervenor compensation), and improves transparency via an online clean energy infrastructure dashboard.

Options and opportunities:

Policies and programs to site and permit projects in a timely manner while incorporating meaningful community engagement opportunities include:

• Enacting statewide permitting reforms for clean energy and grid infrastructure that balance urgency and clear, consistent non-discretionary standards with early and robust community engagement.

• Improving siting and permitting processes by creating avenues to expedite approvals, streamline appeals, and increase coordination across state agencies, and between state agencies and local governments.

• Increasing government capacity by hiring staff with technical expertise at permitting entities, providing financial resources for technical consultants, and establishing state-local liaisons to improve coordination and assistance.

• Providing technical support to local governments through financial incentives, educational workshops to local governments, and robust informational resources for community members.

Land use and siting challenges

Where land may theoretically be well-suited for clean energy deployment, project-specific considerations may limit a potential site’s practical feasibility, effectively reducing the amount of land suitable for development. Many factors go into siting a single energy facility. On top of the resource capacity to power energy generation projects (i.e., suitable solar or wind resources), a potential site must also have proximity to transmission or distribution lines, the appropriate landscape and subsurface characteristics, and a large enough parcel size or the ability to aggregate multiple parcels. Even if a site is deemed suitable, it still may face challenges like high land prices, local zoning regulations, landowners uninterested in selling or leasing their land, or opposition from community groups. For transmission projects, developers must secure rights-of-way from all landowners along the proposed route, spanning multiple jurisdictional entities with their own regulations.

Conflicting tensions around how land is used, and the conversion of land from one use type to another, create additional friction around clean energy development. Land is a finite resource, and competing land use interests, such as agriculture, conservation, industry, and urban development further restrict the availability of sites for clean energy infrastructure. In New England, concerns around conversion of agricultural and forested land are particularly prevalent.

Options and opportunities:

Policy and programmatic solutions for addressing land use challenges of clean energy projects include:

• Integrating clean energy into land use planning to provide opportunities for self-determination, align development with the long-term goals of the community, and reflect the tradeoffs of siting energy resources.

• Prioritizing low-impact development and account for cumulative impacts through incentives and state review processes.

• Balancing farmland and wildlife protections with energy deployment by providing developers with best management practices to minimize impacts to wildlife and agricultural lands, or through the adoption of mitigation hierarchies.

Social barriers and historical impacts

Clean energy infrastructure is bound to have some impacts, both positive and negative, on a community; but failures to communicate these impacts and procedurally address community concerns can exacerbate tensions.  Furthermore, community opposition to a project can galvanize longer-term community attitudes and even build local level organizing networks that may engage on future nearby siting matters, potentially in an unconstructive posture. Failure to address community concerns is both an acute challenge for individual projects and a chronic challenge the region must find systematic ways to address.

Lack of information, misinformation, and poor engagement practices on behalf of developers can further increase opposition from communities. A 2022 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that 30% of opposition to renewable energy projects in the United States stemmed from a lack of procedural equity, meaning the process of community engagement, such as the community’s ability to influence project outcomes, was inadequate.

A failure to diversify the region’s energy mix has perpetuated its reliance on fossil fuels and contributed to chronic fuel shortages, high electricity rates, and risk of winter energy shortfalls, contributing to distrust of energy projects generally. Decades of investment in fossil fuels resulted in heavily polluting infrastructure with real impacts on the health and well-being of communities, especially marginalized and disadvantaged communities. This legacy has created baseline sentiments of public and community-group distrust in institutions like ISO-NE, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and transmission owners, and some project proponents. These sentiments of distrust can be difficult to repair and can make future developments additionally challenging.

Options and opportunities:

Ways to rectify past procedural equity issues and galvanize more community support for projects include:

• Facilitating proactive developer communication and engagement with communities that convey positive and negative impacts of proposed infrastructure development, as well as opportunities to mitigate impacts.

• Delivering meaningful benefits for communities through a community-led process that not only informs the structure of community benefits program but also incorporates community input into the design of the project itself.

• Modifying permitting standards and processes to account for cumulative impacts of projects to limit further burden on communities that have historically housed energy or other industrial infrastructure.

A community-centered energy transition

In New England, “the energy is about to shift” has a dual meaning: the region’s physical energy systems must rapidly shift from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy, and the region’s policies and processes for siting, permitting, and community engagement must also shift to be improved and strengthened commensurate with the task ahead. For all the infrastructure build-out that must occur to unlock New England’s energy transition, none of it will be possible at scale and on time without genuine buy-in, acceptance, and trust from the people whose communities will host the many clean energy resources that must be sited and constructed.

Wins and Impacts in 2024

In 2024, Acadia Center’s work drove monumental change in the clean energy space. Through legislation, advocacy, research, and more, Acadia Center staff have been tirelessly breaking down barriers to create a clean and equitable future for all. As we celebrate the accomplishments of the past year, we are also looking forward to tackling the ongoing clean energy and climate challenges in 2025. With a new administration presenting both opportunities and challenges to the sector, Acadia Center is committed to advancing bold solutions that will drive progress. Explore our Wins and Impacts webpage for a comprehensive list of accomplishments here and check out what our staff has to say about this year’s monumental achievements below!

Building to 2050: Clean energy infrastructure to power New England’s communities

A new report by Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Acadia Center examines the critical role community engagement will play in the build out of new, clean generation and transmission to meet New England’s 2050 decarbonization goals. This blog is the first of a two-part series, focusing on the clean energy infrastructure needs of New England’s future grid. The second blog will examine how to build a supportive, community-focused environment for the region’s energy transition. To learn more, read the full report or attend our webinar.

New England has set itself apart as a region committed to climate action. Today, that commitment to spur clean energy development and combat climate change is reflected in the laws and policies of most New England states, which generally target 80 to 100% emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2050, economy-wide.

To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieve these climate targets, the region’s energy systems are now entering a pivotal phase of transformation. The shift from aging, polluting fossil fuel infrastructure toward a cleaner, efficient, and electrified future is underway, gathering momentum that will reshape the region’s energy landscape. For this progress to succeed, policymakers, developers, and communities must collaborate closely to ensure a rapid, responsible, and inclusive transition. Meeting increased electricity demand while achieving decarbonization goals will require substantial clean infrastructure deployment that meaningfully reflects community priorities and input every step of the way – including to promote solutions that will help keep the scale of the build-out more manageable, such as energy efficiency and grid-enhancing technologies.

A clean grid is central to New England’s decarbonization

An increasingly decarbonized grid – the network connecting power generation, transmission lines, and local utility wires to homes and businesses – is at the center of New England’s journey to address climate change and will be the primary means by which the region reduces emissions. The report includes a comprehensive review of five key studies outlining cost-effective, electrification-focused pathways to decarbonizing New England’s grid and energy systems. The scenarios analyzed reveal rapidly increasing electricity demand in the region, with peak demand shifting from summer to winter by the 2030s. By 2050, peak demand in New England is modeled to double on average from roughly 27 gigawatts (GW) to 55 GW, driven primarily by the electrification of vehicles and proliferation of heat pumps.

In response, over the next 25 years, New England states will likely need to more than triple electric generation capacity in the region by adding over 100 GW of clean energy resources, while expanding the grid with 18 GW of new interregional transmission.

Additional pressures complicate the transition, including a rise in conflicts around proposed renewable projects, inadequate community engagement, and limited land availability, among other challenges. New England will need to address these barriers and make significant investments over the next two decades to right-size the grid, make it less carbon intensive, and make it more reliable and resilient.

This investment in clean energy resources is essential to meeting the region’s rapidly rising electricity demand. In our newly published report, The Energy Is About to Shift, Acadia Center and CATF describe and analyze the many components of this unfolding transition for New England, aiming to better understand the implications of the transition on infrastructure siting and community engagement. This includes a quantitative literature review of electrification-focused, cost-effective 2050 decarbonization pathways from five prominent recent studies.

The review finds the region will have to significantly increase clean energy deployment – by an order of magnitude – between now and 2050 to keep pace with growing peak demand and annual load, driven by electrification of heating and transportation (see Table 1, below).

Takeaways and lessons learned

A survey of the electrification-focused scenarios within the five studies shows significant increases are needed in renewable generation, transmission, and energy storage for New England to decarbonize its grid.

• Significant additional clean capacity is needed: As shown in Table 1, multiple deep decarbonization studies project a substantial increase in clean energy generation capacity by 2050 to support a highly electrified future. Total installed capacity in the region is expected to increase by nearly 3.4x between today and 2050 to 145 GW.

Table 1: 2020 vs. 2050 Summary of Key Energy System Changes in New England Based on 5-Study Electrification-focused Decarbonization Pathway Literature Review

• Offshore wind and solar will be critical to the resource mix: Solar and offshore wind dominate generation capacity in 2050, representing on average 39% and 28% of modeled capacity, respectively. Solar is anticipated to have the highest installed capacity of all resources (51 GW), and most of it (71%) is projected by models to be utility-scale (though reality may see a greater tilt toward distributed solar adoption). By that time, 36 GW of offshore wind capacity is projected to drive the lion’s share (49%) of annual generation due to its high capacity factor.

• Significant inter- and intraregional transmission expansion is crucial:  Proactively planned and optimized buildout of transmission capacity will be key to minimizing costs and maximizing resiliency, enabling integration of more clean energy and balancing variable and clean dispatchable generation across a broader region. Across the five studies, transmission expansion between New England and Canada is expected to increase by 3.5 GW on average, or 110%, by 2050. In one of the prominent studies examined, even more transmission capacity expansion is modeled, both within New England (12.0 GW to 35.3 GW) and between New England and New York (2.0 GW to 12.2 GW) by 2050.

• The region can get more out of what is already built: given the magnitude of the potential build-out, the region can and should focus first on upgrading existing infrastructure wherever possible, such as by rebuilding and upgrading transmission and distribution lines in existing rights of way (ROW), bringing offshore wind transmission onshore at decommissioned fossil fuel plant connection points, and by deploying technologies like high performance conductors and other grid-enhancing technologies (GETs).
• A diverse portfolio of clean energy resources – supply and demand – is the key: New England will need to deploy a diverse portfolio of clean energy resources, including both supply- and demand-side solutions, to support resource adequacy, affordability, grid flexibility, stability, and resilience. This portfolio should include utility-scale and distributed solar, offshore and onshore wind, battery storage, existing nuclear capacity, transmission expansion, advanced transmission technologies, and emerging clean firm, dispatchable generation technologies. On the demand side, energy efficiency, demand response, and aggregated resources will become increasingly important as competitive grid resources that can be deployed to shift the entire demand curve down and shape demand during peak periods, including via aggregations of electric vehicles or electric hot water heaters. A varied energy mix will help mitigate land-use impacts and allow the region to lean into different resources during different times of year (e.g., offshore wind in winter, solar in summer), preventing overbuild.

• Some combustion resources will remain on the system: All studies found some lingering reliance on fuel combustion (e.g., natural gas, green hydrogen, biomethane) in 2050 to support grid reliability and resource adequacy while minimizing system cost. Continuing need for firm and dispatchable resources highlights an opportunity to plan for and integrate clean firm technologies that can substitute fossil combustion and help the region fully zero-out its electric sector emissions.

Picking up the pace 

The region has roughly two decades to procure and build the clean energy infrastructure additions needed by 2050. This is a huge physical transition for the region’s energy system, which must rapidly shift from fossil fuels to clean, reliable energy. In order to meet annual deployment needs, up to 5 GW of new clean capacity must be sited, permitted, interconnected, and commissioned every year for the next twenty years, and interregional transmission capacity must simultaneously increase by a factor of four.

Building out this infrastructure will be transformative, especially for the increasing number of communities across the region hosting clean energy projects. The next blog in this series will discuss how we go beyond infrastructure to build a supportive community-focused environment for the region’s energy transition.

To learn more about New England’s clean energy infrastructure of the future, we invite you to attend our first of two webinars, register here.  

To read our full report, “The Energy is About to Shift: Pathways to a Community-Centered, Resilient, and Decarbonized Grid,” download a copy here.

For more information on the studies examined for this report:

Table 4: Overview of Five Economy-Wide Decarbonization Studies and Selected Scenarios of Focus for Literature Review

Meet Anya Poplavska – Acadia Center’s Transmission Advocacy Fellow

What’s your name and title at Acadia Center?

My name is Anya Poplavska, and I’m currently a Transmission Advocacy Fellow working at Acadia Center.

So – you’re a fellow? How does that work?

I’m funded to work at Acadia Center for a year through an innovative program that RMI (the Rocky Mountain Institute) has started to train more advocates in the transmission space. Unfortunately, there’s a shortage of professionals ready to hit the ground running on transmission advocacy, given it’s a pretty thorny topic – which is why the fellowship was created. I spend 80% of my time at Acadia Center, in a full-time capacity like any other employee, and I spend the other 20% of my time getting training from RMI on transmission topics. This includes peer learning with the other fellows, readings, lectures, mentorship, and more. It’s a comprehensive and helpful program – I feel grateful that my day-to-day job consists of learning as much as I can.

What is transmission in the context of clean energy? Why is it important?

Simply put, transmission is how power flows from point A to point B. Think about how you can flip on a light switch or charge your devices by plugging them into an outlet at home – that power was originally generated elsewhere and was delivered to your home. ‘Transmission’ is how that energy gets delivered to you, with lines that run at high voltages and typically long distances to carry power from an energy source to your home. Transmission is critical to keep the lights on – without it, we can’t get power from point A to point B. Transmission is also an important tool for renewables – think of transmission as a highway; the more capacity we open and the better we plan it, the more we can get clean energy resources plugged into this ‘highway’ of power lines. Transmission, for this reason, can typically help decrease prices if planned and invested in prudently – it allows more resource competition, which is critical at a time where clean energy resources are encountering years-long wait times to get plugged into our grid.

What projects are you working on now? What does a typical day look like for you as a fellow?

One of my favorite things about working at Acadia Center is the variety of my day-to-day work! On the state level, I’m advancing intervenor compensation legislation and a bill to deploy Grid Enhancing Technologies (GETs) on transmission lines. Intervenor compensation helps underrepresented groups participate in utility proceedings, while GETs improve the efficiency of existing transmission lines. This work involves drafting legislation, research, writing, and many meetings. On the regional transmission level, I’m involved in New England’s “Longer Term Transmission Planning Process,” which is focused on soliciting proposals for new transmission projects. We’re preparing to submit comments on a Request for Proposals process, we’re always reading and updating our advocacy positions as the process moves along, and we work with other advocates. Additionally, I track the federal “Order 1920”, which mandates transmission planning in every region – so I attend many meetings on this topic to see how compliance is happening with this Order, and provide our feedback to represent the public interest. Beyond this, I’m working on Acadia’s internship program to promote diversity, reading a LOT about transmission, and doing other projects, like researching Community Benefits Agreements.

Can you tell us more about what programs Acadia Center is working on regarding Transmission?

Acadia Center’s Communities and Clean Grid project engages municipalities, keeping them informed about decisions and ongoing discussions at the Independent System Operator (ISO) in New England, which manages transmission and wholesale energy markets. We also participate in ISO stakeholder meetings and serve as a voting member on key issues. Additionally, The Acadia Center, along with Nergica, is working with stakeholders on the Northeast Grid Planning Forum to enhance coordination between the eastern U.S. and Canadian grids, aiming for a collaborative energy system (including interregional transmission) that empowers both regions.

What got you interested in this work?

I was born in Kyiv, Ukraine, and raised in California as a first-generation Ukrainian-American. While growing up in the U.S., I was aware of the privileges I had, but also saw the environmental damage in Ukraine, from Chernobyl’s legacy to pollution near my grandmother’s home. These experiences sparked my passion for environmental protection. I also recognized that marginalized communities in the U.S. face similar environmental harms, typically stemming from polluting fossil fuel sources more likely to be sited where they live. It even goes deeper, where gentrification and inequalities between different communities can even explain things like variations in tree canopy density. Overall, my memories of growing up in California – ones that came at a sharp contrast to my experiences in Ukraine – have made me passionate about ensuring our domestic environmental action is equitable and protects vulnerable communities. I started doing environmental activism when I was 14, I spent all of college trying a myriad of different environmental internships, and post-graduation I landed at the U.S. Department of Energy working on equitable access to clean energy. I’m particularly drawn to clean energy within the climate space for its potential to create wealth and independence for communities—and I generally find it fascinating!

Which issues do you feel are most important to the clean energy transition?

I will always beat the drum of centering equity in conversations regarding clean energy. To explain why, I think it’s important to put the clean energy transition into context – we’re dealing with a monumental shift in the way we consume energy and the way we plan our future. I think of it as akin to the industrial revolution, honestly. When we can so drastically change the way we do things, we should get it right and ensure that communities are front and center in the decision-making process, that they own clean energy sources, and that they financially + materially benefit from what happens. I will say, this same issue is what makes transmission a sticky issue. Transmission happens at such a large scale, and there’s a lot of technocratic discussions that are decentered from people’s day to day lives – which is ironic, because we all do pay for transmission at the end of the day through our utility bills! So I do think it’s important that we build more transmission – research shows that the benefits of tax credits stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act won’t be realized without MASSIVE amounts of new transmission – but I think we do need to do a better job of communicating how clean energy and transmission affects communities + their lives. We also see massive backlash from communities when it comes to siting transmission and clean energy generally – I think all this ties together and truly is the barrier to us pushing these beneficial technologies and transmission forward.

What advice do you have for any other folks/young people hoping to get into the climate/clean energy space generally?

Honestly, I would say to not get discouraged – I feel like it’s hard to know how much opportunity there is in the climate field until you’ve dipped your toe in – I can’t tell you how many jobs I’m seeing pop up due to large influxes in government funding, private capital, philanthropy, etc. I would encourage people to follow what they’re passionate about and to be strategic about the future; i.e., ask yourself, what will be booming 10 years from now? Personally, I think clean energy will continue to grow and be an essential field. Trust that what you’re pursuing is a valuable skill, even if it doesn’t feel that way in this moment or if people tell you there’s not many ‘jobs in the climate space’ (which I think is untrue).

GridTECH Connect Forum Northeast 2024: Connecticut State Policy Spotlight

Acadia Center was invited to participate and present at GridTECH Connect Forum Northeast in Newport, Rhode Island, on October 28 – 30. GridTECH Connect Forum is a conference focused on distributed energy resources and utility-scale interconnection, renewable energy development, clean energy policy, utility regulation, and more. The conference facilitated conversations on innovative solutions, forward-thinking policy, and clean energy programs that are helping the Northeast reach ambitious clean energy goals. Speakers and workshops during the event highlighted key challenges and obstacles on the path to phasing out fossil fuels and transforming and modernizing the grid while providing a unique opportunity to advance the critical issue of grid interconnection.

In the Northeast, obstacles remain in place on the path to meeting clean energy targets. The region must continue to work collaboratively on grid modernization and distributed energy resources, policy and regulatory processes, and bold solutions that align with an equitable clean energy economy.

Acadia Center’s Climate and Energy Justice Policy Associate, Jayson Velazquez, presented a state policy spotlight on Connecticut to a diverse array of stakeholders ranging from electric utilities and grid operators to project developers, policymakers and policy advocates from the region. Jayson shared policy progress over recent years, including present and future opportunities in Connecticut’s clean energy transition.

Here are some key takeaways from the conference and key points from the Connecticut state policy spotlight:

Energy Affordability and Equity: Connecticut residents face some of the highest costs for electricity in the country and over 400,000 households in Connecticut face unaffordable energy costs. Energy burden for households with an income 0-60% of the state median income experience an energy burden well above 6%. If the energy burden of these households were reduced to 6%, residents would be saving hundreds of millions of dollars on energy. Recent rate increases, which can be better understood here, have brought high energy costs, the Public Benefits Charge, and the affordability of the state’s clean energy transition to the forefront of media.

Energy Efficiency: The Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board approved the 2025 – 2027 Conservation and Load Management plan which has a total budget of $706M. This is a slight decrease in the available budget despite rising operation costs and increased residential and income-eligible program demand. There are opportunities with incoming federal funding to provide pathways for energy efficiency and electrification. However, it is critical to continue balancing traditional energy efficiency measures with electrification, and electrification with weatherization.

Utility Innovation and Accountability: Connecticut and the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), under the leadership of Chair Marissa Gillett, have become innovative leaders in recent years on utility regulation. Many of the recent advances can be attributed to the 2019 Equitable Modern Grid Framework, which comprised almost a dozen proceedings focused on updating grid infrastructure, planning processes, communications, and data management systems to improve grid readiness for advanced energy technologies. The Equitable Modern Grid Framework also included battery storage incentive programs, plans for advanced metering infrastructure and smart meter deployment, updated low-income discount rates, and the Innovative Energy Solutions program to support pilot projects from both utilities and third parties. Recently, the focus has been largely on the Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) proceeding, which was initiated by the Take Back Our Grid Act in 2020. More on Connecticut’s PBR proceeding, which is now moving into the Integrated Distribution System Planning framework, can be found here. Other notable advancements from PURA include upstanding a Stakeholder Compensation Program that provides funding opportunities for organizations who might have had barriers to participating in PURA proceedings. Senate Bill 7 from 2023, prohibited the recovery through customer rates advertising, lobbying, charitable, investor-related, and trade association expenses used to influence public opinion.

Offshore Wind: In 2019, Connecticut authorized the procurement of up to 2,000 MW of offshore wind energy by 2030, equivalent to 30% of the state load and the largest authorization of any state in the region at the time. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) estimated an additional 3,745 to 5,710 MW of offshore wind would be needed to meet the state’s 2040 zero carbon goals. In 2023, Connecticut saw the termination of the Power Purchase Agreement from Avangrid for the Park City Wind Project. In 2024, intended multi-state offshore wind procurement efforts between Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have not yet produced the intended outcomes. There have been no new offshore wind commitments from Connecticut despite ongoing discussions across the region.

Federal Funding Awards: Connecticut, in collaboration with states in the region and on its own, has been awarded a substantial amount of federal funding for clean energy projects. In a joint effort, Connecticut and states in the Northeast received a combined $450M Department of Energy award to fund a multi-state heat pump deployment effort. Connecticut and Northeast states were also awarded a $389M Department of Energy award through the Grid Innovation Program (GRIP) to fund regional electric infrastructure through Power Up New England. On transportation, Connecticut and other states were awarded $250M to fund medium- and heavy-duty electric charging stations along a multi-state I-95 corridor. Under the leadership of DEEP, the Lamont Administration, and key clean energy stakeholders, Connecticut has also been awarded $62.45M to upstand Solar for All, and an additional $100M split across Home Energy Rebates and Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate Programs.

Looking Ahead and Upcoming Priorities: As the 2025 legislative session approaches, key priorities to further Connecticut’s clean energy transition include increased energy efficiency funding, pursuing a future of gas and affordable head proceeding, grid enhancing technologies, advanced transmission technologies, and non-pipeline alternatives.

Acadia Center would like to thank GridTECH Connect Forum Northeast for the opportunity to share policy knowledge and expertise with conference attendees. A special thank you to Katie Kuzma and the conference planning team for support and assistance with logistics.

To view the full presentation, click here.

A Statement on the Impact of the Election on Clean Energy and Climate Progress

To the Acadia Center Community,

Over the past few days, myself and the Acadia Center team, alongside the nation, have begun to process the vastly different political landscape we’ll be working in for the next four years. The severe threats a changing climate poses to our economic security, quality of life, and safety are not bound by political elections. Climate is science, and as we look to the future, Acadia Center is redoubled in its determination to reduce emissions, encourage clean energy, and prioritize public health.

The work Acadia Center does advocating for multi-state efforts to accelerate progress, working with diverse partners at the regional, state, and local levels, and implementing a clean, safe and economically prosperous climate future for all, will be one of the most important bulwarks to keep progress moving and minimize possible damage. States, regions, and cities have the ability– and responsibility – to strengthen their longstanding commitment to climate leadership in the next four years.

With the likely shift in the national approach to climate and energy, several trends have emerged, presenting both challenges and critical motivators for Acadia Center’s mission.

The scale of potential damage is large. Analysts from CarbonBrief report that a shift in administration could result in an additional 4 billion tons of U.S. emissions by 2030—equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the EU and Japan. This increase could cause global climate damages worth more than $900 billion, according to the latest U.S. government valuations.

The new administration could interfere with federal agencies like the EPA and NOAA. This would leave enormous gaps in the data we rely on to understand emissions trends and weather impacts. While it’s unclear how quickly this could unfold, Acadia Center remains vigilant in tracking these developments and the potential impact on our efforts.

The role of state, regional, and municipal climate action is indispensable. These jurisdictions have significant authority over key sectors and can enact policies that move the needle on emissions reductions. From regulating utilities to enforcing renewable energy standards and advancing clean transportation solutions, state and local leadership will be crucial in filling the gaps that may arise if national support falters. Acadia Center’s long-standing focus on empowering states and localities will be more important than ever.

Let us keep in mind that the clean energy future is happening. Clean energy markets are growing rapidly, driven by technological advances, cost competitiveness, and the increasing recognition of climate-related risks by the business community. In fact, renewables now comprise over 30% of U.S. utility-scale electrical generating capacity. Clean energy is building the jobs of the future, from brand new electric vehicle manufacturing plants, to battery storage, to training electricians in home installations. The economics alone should dictate that clean energy – from solar and batteries to EVs and transmission – should be an essential centerpiece of an energy abundance and energy security agenda – offering the most affordable, scalable, and resilient energy that our evolving economy needs. These developments provide a foundation of success as we look toward the future, underscoring the need for continued collaboration between industry, government, and civil society.

In the face of these challenges and opportunities, I am reminded that meaningful progress often requires resilience and cooperation. Acadia Center is here to drive these efforts.

For 25 years, Acadia Center has crafted ambitious but practical solutions, offered credible information, and shown how clean energy and climate action are the pathways to a healthier, more stable, and resilient economic future. Thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to the work ahead with purpose and determination.

Sincerely,

Dan Sosland

President, Acadia Center

Office of Energy Transformation Represents a Visionary Step Forward for Massachusetts

Navigating the phase-out of the sprawling natural gas system is a massive and complex undertaking, filled with thorny questions that could likely be the subject of years-long proceedings. To address this task (among other energy transition priorities), Massachusetts recently created the first-ever Office of Energy Transformation (OET), tasked with a duty “to accelerate the energy transformation, with a focus on gas-to-electric transition, electric grid readiness, and an affordable and just transition for workers, businesses, and communities.”  This office is intended to provide leadership in strategic planning, roadmap development, and stakeholder engagement to advance the transformation of the state’s energy system. Put simply, the OET is tasked with navigating those incredibly complicated questions that surround the transition, like how to decarbonize the peak and how to finance the transition. It will function as an invaluable connective tissue between the various branches of government and stakeholders.

A key component of the OET will be the Energy Transformation Advisory Board (ETAB), a board filled with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders that includes labor, environmental justice, utilities, building owners, finance, and others. This board will be crucial to guide and advise on the work of the OET. Acadia Center, which is a member of this board, recently attended the kick-off meeting for this board and was heartened by the impressive breadth of knowledge in the room and the resources that the Healey-Driscoll administration is devoting to the effort.

Work under the purview of the Office and ETAB will also be conducted in subgroups that focus on three priority issues. These issues are:

• Transitioning Away from Reliance on the Everett Marine Terminal LNG Facility,
• Decarbonizing the Peak, and
• Establishing Alternative Mechanisms to Finance the Finance/Fund EDC Distribution System Infrastructure Upgrades

Acadia Center appreciates that the OET has chosen three exceptionally complex topics that are worthy of extended consideration and debate. The Everett Marine Terminal is one of the longest-operating LNG facilities in the United States, and its supposed purpose is to provide gas system stability on the coldest few days of the year or if the energy supply is disrupted. However, Acadia Center analysis has called into question how necessary this facility is, how fully alternative solutions have been explored, and how much its continued operations should cost ratepayers. Next, peaker plants are power plant facilities that only operate when there is significant demand on the electric system that cannot be met with normal supply. These are facilities that often only run for a few days every year. Unfortunately, they are also some of the most polluting facilities, spewing emissions into already overburdened communities. Figuring out how to retire these facilities through the use of creative solutions such as demand response and battery storage would be of incredible benefit to the Commonwealth. Finally, identifying how to fully finance the electric infrastructure needed as we rapidly electrify our transportation systems and buildings and decarbonize our electric supply remains an unsolved question. Currently, much of these costs are borne by ratepayers, through electric bills. However, in the long-term, that approach simply may not be sustainable for ratepayers at least under current rate design and cost recovery paradigms.  These three workstreams, while seemingly disparate, are closely tied together by nature of the fact that they span all sectors of the economy.

Next Steps

While it is still quite early in the process, Acadia Center is optimistic that this new office and its stakeholder engagement apparatus will be able to tackle the enormous task it has before it. As other states in the region navigate the difficult questions posed by phasing out fossil gas systems, they should look to Massachusetts as a model. Acadia Center believes that other states would benefit from setting up similar infrastructure to deal with these weighty questions.

Additionally, the OET should eventually broaden its subgroups to include other pressing concerns, such as an evaluation of the potential for stranded assets, reforms to performance-based ratemaking, or a reassessment of gas utility tariffs, policies, and practices on new and existing customer connections.

Energy Affordability, Rate Increases, and Regulatory Solutions in Connecticut

Ratepayers in Connecticut pay among the highest electricity rates in the country, and many low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents struggle to pay their energy bills. According to a 2023 report from Operation Fuel, which, among other services, provides emergency utility bill assistance to households across Connecticut, over 400,000 households in the state face unaffordable home energy costs.¹ Energy burden—the percentage of household income spent on energy costs—is generally considered high when energy expenditures account for 6% of household income. Energy burden is severe when 10% or more is allocated to energy costs. Urban and rural households in Connecticut with an income of 0-30% of the state median income (SMI) experience a 19% energy burden on average. LMI households in Connecticut are currently paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for energy than they would if their energy burden was reduced to 6% of household income.

This past summer, Connecticut residents experienced two significant rate increases, including an $800 million increase for Eversource customers in July. The Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (“OCC”) published a Frequently Asked Questions document² that provides detailed, evidence-based information explaining what is behind the rate changes. 80% of the $800M rate increase was the result of expenses related to the Millstone nuclear power plant, expenses that the Connecticut state legislature—not the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”)—voted to approve. The remaining 20% was set to recover the cost of unpaid electric bills during the state’s COVID-era moratorium on shutoffs. The shut-off moratorium was in place for four years for customers with a financial or medical hardship designation on their accounts, which are income-based or for people with life-threatening or serious medical conditions. The OCC shared that only half of the residents eligible for a financial hardship designation actually benefited from it. The second rate increase Connecticut residents experienced took place in September and stemmed cost recovery on programs such as the Innovative Energy Solutions program and the Connecticut Electric Vehicle Charging Program.

Unfortunately, these costs are categorized on utility bills under the label of Public Benefits Charges, a large catch-all category that helps to fund a wide range of beneficial programs for Connecticut ratepayers, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and bill assistance programs. These programs provide significant benefits to Connecticut residents. Although these programs have been pointed to as the cause of the recent rate increase, they are not the true reason why rates have gone up. Because the Millstone plant costs and the COVID-related uncollectible expenses are included in Public Benefits Charges, opponents have unfairly attacked all Public Benefit Charges as harmful and overly expensive for Connecticut ratepayers. Moreover, Eversource requested recovery for the expenses over a 10-month period despite recommendations by stakeholders, including PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, to extend the cost recovery period to reduce the risk of near-term rate shock.

In light of the recent rate increases, energy burden and affordability are increasingly important issues for Connecticut to address. Energy equity and affordability means avoiding, mitigating, and remediating social, economic, and health burdens stemming from the energy system, while ensuring equitable participation in—and an opportunity to benefit from—the clean energy transition. As Connecticut moves to a decarbonized, increasingly electrified energy system, PURA should strengthen its focus on energy equity and justice in their proceedings, including through updates to the agency’s statutory mandate. To fully consider energy burden in the context of Connecticut’s clean energy transition, PURA should also holistically review and plan for the future of the state’s gas sector.

PURA, under the direction of Chairman Gillett, is already starting to make progress on this front. For example, PURA’s Performance-Based Regulation proceeding could help to create a new framework for regulating utilities that more explicitly centers equity and affordability, among other issues. PURA recently established a low-income discount rate which should be helpful for residents dealing with high energy burdens. PURA also established a Stakeholder Group Compensation Program³ to support underrepresented organizations who might have not had access or legal support to adequately participate in PURA proceedings.

To further strengthen Connecticut’s focus on energy justice and affordability, Acadia Center recommends the following additional activities:

1. Open an Energy Equity and Justice Proceeding: Despite PURA’s critical role and impact on environmental justice communities, accessibility of regulatory processes is limited. A dedicated Energy Equity and Justice Proceeding should be established to fully address these important, interrelated issues, which would include:

1. Review and analysis of existing energy burdens;
2. Consideration of contributing factors such as housing quality, pre-weatherization needs;
3. Review of and improvements to income-eligible utility discount programs;
4. Optimal rate design to promote affordability and electrification in LMI households; and
5. Other avenues for operationalizing procedural, distributive, contextual, and corrective equity⁴ in PURA proceedings and other forums in Connecticut’s acceleration towards renewable energy in alignment with the Global Warming Solutions Act⁵ (“GWSA”).

2. Open a Proceeding on the Future of Gas and Affordable Heat: As Connecticut seeks to meet the emissions reductions targets of the GWSA. a Future of Gas and Affordable Heat considering the role of gas distribution companies should (1) examine the gas distribution industry and regulatory and policy changes needed to support the achievement of Connecticut’s mandated GHG emission limits; (2) implement lesson learned from other Future of Gas proceedings around the region, including but not limited to Massachusetts and Rhode Island, so as to promote regional consistency and minimize rework and inefficiencies for Connecticut; and (3) determine what near- and long-term adjustments are necessary to maintain a safe and reliable gas distribution system, minimize stranded costs, conduct joint electric- and gas-system planning, and protect consumer interests as the state transitions from fossil fuels to a clean, increasingly electrified, and decarbonized energy future by 2050.

3. Review and update PURA’s mandate to include emissions, equity, and environmental justice responsibilities: Legislators should amend PURA’s statutory mandate to include climate and equity responsibilities and add a requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the GWSA. PURA and other agencies should have a legislative mandate not only to do all that it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to prioritize the reduction of greenhouse gases and other pollutants in environmental justice communities, as well as to alleviate disproportionate environmental burdens. These new responsibilities would allow for targeted reforms that are not considered today. Instead of choosing the cheapest solution in the moment, PURA can be empowered to choose the best solution for both today and tomorrow’s ratepayers.

Current and upcoming Dockets to watch:

• Performance-Based Regulation Framework for the Electric Distribution Companies (Docket No. 21-05-15)
• Equity, Accessibility, and Stakeholder engagement (Docket No. 24-09-07)

1 Mapping Household Cost Burdens: A Study of Energy, Transportation, Water, and Housing Affordability In Connecticut. By Justine Sears and Leslie Badger (VEIC), produced for Operation Fuel (2023). https://operationfuel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/VEIC-affordability-study-May-2023.pdf

2 Office of Consumer Counsel Frequently Asked Questions: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/occ/occ-ram-qa-final-09042024.pdf

3 PURA Stakeholder Compensation Program: https://portal.ct.gov/pura/public-participation/stakeholder-group-compensation-program#:~:text=The%20Stakeholder%20Group%20Compensation%20Program,cases%2C%20or%20small%20business%20customers.

4 ACEEE’s Energy Equity Topic Page: https://www.aceee.org/topic/energy-equity

5 An Act Concerning Connecticut Global Warming Solutions: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/act/pa/2008pa-00098-r00hb-05600-pa.htm

Moving Towards a Clean Energy Future: The Crucial Role of State and Local Leadership

With the federal election looming, Acadia Center has often been asked how a new administration might impact the fight for a sustainable and clean energy future. Over the past four years, huge strides have been made at the federal level thanks to efforts like the Inflation Reduction Act, which made unprecedented progress on a federal level towards the clean energy future we all strive for. Will a new federal administration halt all the progress that has been made?

Luckily, Acadia Center knows that real power for change also lies in the hands of state and local governments. The work at this level is vital, and only through state and local action can aggressive 2030 climate goals be met. Acadia Center plays a critical role in advocating for transformative change through state and regional legislation, consumer-focused climate advocacy, and coalition building.

The Steady Impact of Local and State Legislation

Local and state governments are often the most effective drivers of clean energy policy. State governments have a duty to respond to local conditions swiftly and accurately, and often have more legal authority than the federal government when it comes to implementing change within their district. This allows them to implement bold measures to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy, regardless of the direction of federal policies.

Acadia Center understands that local action is key. By working directly with state lawmakers, it helps craft policies that not only protect the environment but also benefit consumers and spur economic growth. States like Massachusetts and New York have demonstrated that setting ambitious renewable energy targets and creating energy efficiency programs can serve both environmental and economic goals. These state-led efforts are critical for energy independence, and Acadia Center’s research and advocacy provide the data policymakers need to make informed decisions.

By focusing on state and local initiatives, Acadia Center ensures that policies are tailored to the specific needs of each region, creating more consumer-focused solutions that align with local conditions. This also allows communities across all socioeconomic levels to benefit, ensuring a just and equitable transition to clean energy.

Balancing Federal Leadership with Sub-National Action

While federal leadership plays a vital role in clean energy, state and local governments have increasingly shown that they have many of the necessary tools to push progress forward.. Pro-climate administrations at the federal level can provide critical funding and guidance, as we’ve seen under the current administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. This legislation empowers states by allocating significant funding for clean energy but leaves them in control of how those resources are spent, recognizing that local governments are best equipped to design policies that meet their unique needs.

However, even when federal leadership falters—as it did when the previous administration pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement—states continued to meet emissions reduction targets. By sticking to the climate goals set out by international agreements, many states have not only maintained momentum but have also served as a counterbalance to regressive federal policies. The steady, consumer-focused work of states during such times shows how essential sub-national governments are in driving the clean energy transition.

Climate Advocacy: Mobilizing Communities and Supporting Local Action

Effective climate action begins with the community, and grassroots advocacy plays a pivotal role in influencing policy. Acadia Center’s climate advocacy efforts help amplify community voices, mobilizing public pressure to prioritize environmental issues. This community-based approach highlights the urgency of local action in response to the specific impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events that disproportionately affect the Northeast.

By tailoring climate solutions to the unique challenges of individual states, Acadia Center helps foster a sense of ownership among local communities. Residents become active participants in the transition to clean energy, making climate policies not only more effective but also more sustainable.

Coalition Building: Strengthening Local Initiatives

Coalition building is one of the most powerful tools in advancing clean energy initiatives. By forming alliances with like-minded organizations, businesses, and community groups, Acadia Center has amplified the effectiveness of state and local policies. These coalitions serve as a unified front against entrenched interests, providing strength in numbers to push for systemic change.

At the state and regional levels, where competing interests often make energy policy complex, Acadia Center’s ability to facilitate dialogue and consensus-building ensures that clean energy initiatives remain resilient and adaptable. This collaborative, inclusive approach strengthens the long-term sustainability of clean energy efforts, ensuring they endure political and economic shifts.

Local and Regional Actions Lead the Way

Real momentum for clean energy often comes from local and state actions. Sub-national governments have shown that by prioritizing innovation and community engagement, they can lead the transition to a low-carbon economy. Programs like utility rate design, energy efficiency initiatives, and cap-and-trade agreements such as RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) have proven highly effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean technologies.

The flexibility of state-level actions allows for a diversity of solutions that match local conditions and needs. This bottom-up approach to clean energy policy accelerates progress and provides a model for other regions to follow.

Conclusion

State and local leadership is essential in the fight against climate change. By advancing consumer-focused policies, fostering coalitions, and acting steadily even when federal leadership is absent, sub-national governments continue to lead the way toward a clean energy future.

When it comes to the 2024 election, if the administration that is elected is hostile to clean energy efforts, the need for states to step up to meet ambitious climate goals will be greater than ever. Acadia Center remain a key player in this movement, ensuring that state and local actions are not only bold but also equitable and effective. In this scenario, the collective work of state and local governments will be critical in achieving a sustainable and resilient energy system that benefits both current and future generations.

If an administration who understands the importance of the climate goals we’ve set in place is elected, they will serve as an effective partner for state and local action. Acadia Center will continue to partner with both federal and local governments in the case, advocating for clean energy solutions that benefit all.

The path forward lies in empowering local communities, supporting innovative and consumer-focused policies, and ensuring that state and local leaders continue to advocate for transformative change.