Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks: Impacts to Affordability and Reliability in the Northeast
Federal Clean Energy Rollbacks Webinar PowerPoint
Heat pumps could be affordable for most — if rates were fair
Larry Chretien is the executive director of Green Energy Consumers Alliance. Kyle Murray is director of state program implementation and Massachusetts program director for Acadia Center.
Last winter, Massachusetts families found themselves knee deep in an energy affordability crisis.
While massive gas utility spending had quietly caused residential gas delivery charges to creep up 12% to 15% annually for the past decade, ill-timed rate hikes and brutal cold acted as the straw that broke the camel’s back, forcing nearly 27,000 more people to apply for federal energy assistance, an 8% jump over the year before.
And while this crisis hit Bay Staters hard, similar affordability pressures are mounting in cold-weather states across the country.
That’s why it’s encouraging to see that the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities recently approved a first-of-its-kind seasonal discount for households using efficient electric heat pumps in all three of the state’s investor-owned utility territories. The new rate offers a 6 cents/kWh winter discount, resulting in $540 in savings on average each winter – an important step toward making clean heating more affordable.
But a more ambitious proposal for deeper seasonal discounts for heat pumps from the Department of Energy Resources, or DOER, is still on the table.
That proposal, now under review, could serve as a national model for utility regulators, delivering far greater savings for far more residents, especially those switching from gas, oil, or propane, and those struggling most with energy costs.
The fix is straightforward. Heat pumps use electricity to provide clean, efficient heating during the winter, when demand on the grid is well below its summer peak. That means they tap into existing capacity without requiring new infrastructure.
Yet current electric delivery rates don’t reflect this seasonal efficiency. Instead, heat pump households are often overcharged to maintain a grid that was already built, despite putting no additional strain on it.
That’s why DOER has proposed a new set of heat pump rates to correct an outdated pricing structure that overcharges efficient electric homes.
In a recent analysis, Switchbox found that by adopting this “2.0” rate structure, Massachusetts regulators can nearly double the amount of people who can save money by adopting a heat pump, enabling 82% of Massachusetts households to see median savings of $687 per season. For households using methane gas, which heats more than half of Massachusetts homes, 74% of homes would see median savings of $361 per season after upgrading to a heat pump.
The proposed rates level the playing field, making efficient electric heating a cheaper alternative to gas for most Massachusetts homes.
For homes on heating oil or electric resistance, the benefits are even greater. Ninety-one percent of homes relying on heating oil would save an average of $1,071 by upgrading, and every home upgrading from electric resistance would save an average of $1,755.
For low-income residents who spend too much of their paychecks on utilities, this rate is a gamechanger.
Today, 66% of these households pay more than 6% of their income on utilities, even with full participation in existing discount programs. If Massachusetts adopts DOER’s proposed rates and ensures eligible households are auto-enrolled in income-based electricity discounts, that number could shrink to 30%. For the families facing impossible choices between heat, rent, and groceries each winter, this would offer real, measurable relief.
The DPU’s recently-approved seasonal rate discount for heat pumps is an important recognition that clean heating should be cost-competitive. But DOER’s proposal goes further, offering the strongest, most consistent savings across income levels, housing types and heating fuels. It’s the best chance we’ve seen to make clean heating truly affordable for the people who need it most.
Some may wonder: If I don’t own a heat pump, what’s in it for me? First, this proposed heat pump rate won’t impact other residents’ bills — and it may even help bring down electric bills for everyone in the long term. We can pay both Peter and Paul. The proposed rates merely restore fairness while offering an added bonus. By accelerating heat pump adoption, the state can increase electricity demand in a way that smooths out usage and helps bring down average electric rates for everyone. This trend is already underway in states like Maine, where heat pump adoption has exploded, and analysis shows it can have similar results in New Jersey.
While this proposal is rooted in Massachusetts policy, it reflects a broader challenge facing many states working to electrify heating affordably.
To read the full article from Utility Dive, click here.
Op-Ed: How clean energy met the moment in the New England summer of 2025
This summer, New England experienced multiple record-breaking heat waves. In June, Boston had its warmest start to summer on record, and Providence hit 100 degrees for the first time. Globally, the last 10 years have been the hottest ever recorded, and that trend is expected to continue.
Every summer now feels like a new record-breaker; heat is no longer an anomaly but our new reality. This isn’t just about discomfort. Extreme heat is a present and intensifying crisis, straining our health, our infrastructure, and our wallets.
And yet, when the heat was at its worst, it wasn’t fossil fuels that kept the power on: it was clean energy. This summer proved that renewables aren’t just a future promise; they are already delivering reliable, affordable, and resilient power when New England needs it most.
On June 24, when Boston’s heat index was projected to soar as high as 110 degrees, ISO New England, the customer-funded nonprofit responsible for managing the regional transmission grid, issued a series of escalating “power cautions” to prevent blackouts. At stake were rolling outages across the region, which would have put lives at risk, especially for older residents, medically vulnerable populations, and families without access to cooling. In this context, air conditioning is not a luxury, it is a lifesaving necessity.
That day, solar panels on homes, schools, businesses, and larger arrays provided up to 22% of the region’s power, nearly double their daily average. This reliable output stabilized the grid and saved customers tens of millions of dollars in a single day. Without solar, electricity prices, which were already climbing, could have spiked even higher.
And it wasn’t just solar: elsewhere in the Northeast offshore wind helped come to the rescue as well, especially in New York, where the South Fork Wind Farm hit an 87% capacity factor during a recent summer heat wave peak. This production drives huge reliability and affordability benefits, making the Trump Administration’s recent actions to halt offshore wind projects all the more shocking and harmful.
Ordinarily, during periods of peak demand, New England relies on “peaker plants” powered by oil, gas, and coal, fuels that are dirtier and more expensive.
These plants drive up energy bills, worsen air pollution, and increase carbon emissions just when we can least afford it. Many are located in New England’s environmental justice communities, where residents already bear disproportionate health burdens from asthma, heart disease, and other pollution-related illnesses. Relying on them during heat emergencies deepens inequity and endangers public health.
What’s more, these fossil facilities are aging and often unreliable due to heightened outage risks correlated to extreme heat conditions, which actually occurred on June 24, with a major unexpected loss of generation in the late afternoon — right as temperatures, demand, and prices soared highest.
It is no surprise that fossil fuel-funded groups are pushing disinformation campaigns that blame renewables for rising energy costs when in fact the reality is the opposite: renewables lower prices over time and reduce dependence on volatile fossil fuels. This summer demonstrated that clean energy can meet demand while maintaining reliability, delivering benefits for both the grid and consumers.
This summer was just a preview of what awaits us.
Extreme heat will only intensify across Massachusetts and New England in the coming years, placing unprecedented strain on the electric grid and putting all our communities’ health at risk, in particular, environmental justice communities, the elderly, and young children. While investments in solar, efficiency, offshore wind, and storage helped us through this year, much more must be done to prepare for future summers.
The progress we have made did not happen by accident. Decades of state-level investment in solar incentives, energy efficiency programs like MassSave, offshore wind projects, and battery storage created the foundation that allowed clean energy to step in when it mattered most and to grow in the future. As the federal government retreats from climate leadership, Massachusetts must continue to lead.
We can build on this success by scaling up what already works. That means expanding offshore wind, putting solar on every viable rooftop, procuring all cost-effective energy efficiency, and modernizing the grid so clean energy can flow where it is needed most. It also means phasing out fossil-fuel peaker plants, which jeopardize public health and impose the greatest costs on our most vulnerable communities.
Last year, the Massachusetts Office of Energy Transformation launched a process to eliminate fossil fuels from peaking power plants and combined heat and power facilities. Expanding access to energy efficiency and clean energy for all households, not just those who can afford it, will lower bills, reduce demand, and strengthen resilience across neighborhoods.
We need our elected officials to continue advocating for and accelerating grid modernization, and fighting back against the disinformation that clouds public debate. We have the tools to lower costs, protect public health, and build a more resilient energy system.
So the question isn’t whether Massachusetts can lead, it’s whether our leaders will ignore the noise and rise to the moment. When the next heat wave hits, it won’t be fossil fuels that save us. It will be the clean energy we choose to invest in today.
Larry Chretien is executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance. Lindsay Griffin is Vote Solar’s regulatory director of the Northeast. Britteny Jenkins is vice president of environmental justice at Conservation Law Foundation. Kyle Murray is the Massachusetts program director at Acadia Center.
To read the article from MassLive, click here.
Q&A with Acadia Center’s 2025 Fellows
Domingo Cortinez, Roger E. Koontz Fellow in Law and Climate Policy
Who are you?
I’m Domingo Cortinez, a rising second-year student at Yale Law School. I am involved with the Community and Economic Development Clinic, the Yale Environmental Law Students Association, and serve on the executive board of La Sociedad of Latine Law Students.
What brought you to Acadia Center?
I took energy law this past semester and that class really opened my eyes to how much good work there is to be done in the energy space— spanning everything from decarbonization to consumer protection through lower costs and better reliability. Acadia Center’s leadership in this space made the legal fellowship an incredible opportunity to learn about the intricacies of grid advocacy while contributing to real, tangible improvements to our grid system.
Can you describe the scope of the work you’ve done this summer?
I’ve been doing legal research around creating an independent transmission monitor in New England which would review costs for an increasingly problematic form of transmission investment—asset condition projects. These projects represent a staggering 93% of transmission investment, yet they exploit a massive regulatory loophole that lets utilities skip the competitive oversight required for virtually all other grid investments. My work has involved analyzing federal and state regulatory authority over these transmission investments, examining case law on RTO oversight, and developing structural models for an independent entity that could ensure that these massive investments actually serve consumer interests rather than just utility profits.
What interested you about that particular issue/project?
While transmission is incredibly important for improved reliability and the decarbonization of our grid, the vast majority of current investment is going towards costly rebuilds or rehabs of old lines rather than the bigger and more interconnected projects which New England requires for our future grid. Helping to envision a transmission monitor that would better serve the interests of consumers really peaked my interests—it’s hard to imagine any solution which, if structured correctly, can lead to cheaper energy, a more reliable grid, and a more sustainable future—but this project is helping to do exactly that.
What did you find most challenging about the project?
The most challenging part was simultaneously developing expertise in regulatory law and understanding how the energy industry actually works in the day-to-day—from initial project development through regulatory approval to final construction. Connecting legal concepts to real-world industry practices required mastering two very different fields but finding that nexus between law and practice is exactly what made the research rewarding.
What do you wish people understood about your area of interest/studies?
I wish people understood that energy regulation, while technical, directly determines whether families can afford their electric bills, whether the lights stay on, and whether we can achieve our climate goals. The biggest misconception I see is that environmental and economic interests are at odds, but proper regulation can deliver cheaper energy, better reliability, and faster decarbonization simultaneously. Our current framework just creates these perverse incentives that benefit utilities at the consumers expense, but closing regulatory loopholes can unlock billions in savings while accelerating clean energy. This work matters for everyone’s daily life and our shared future.
How has your experience at Acadia Center transformed your views on a specific energy topic or climate in general?
Before Acadia Center, I thought climate action and consumer affordability were often in tension—that going green meant higher costs for families. My fellowship showed me that the opposite is true when policy is designed correctly, as I saw how proper regulatory oversight could simultaneously lower energy bills, improve reliability, and accelerate decarbonization. My fellowship taught me that the biggest barrier to a clean energy future isn’t cost or technology—it’s poorly designed policies that fail to align environmental and economic interests.
What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned over the course of your fellowship?
The most valuable lesson I’ve learned is just how important it is to structure incentives properly, so that all grid actors are doing what’s good for consumers and the public interest rather than just maximizing their own profits. When incentives are misaligned, you get exactly what we see today—expensive infrastructure rebuilds that benefit utilities financially but don’t serve the broader goals of affordability, reliability, and sustainability.
Eres David, Data Analysis Fellow
Who are you?
Hi! I’m Eres David, a rising Junior at Columbia University studying Earth and Environmental Engineering.
What brought you to Acadia Center?
I was introduced to Acadia Center through the Black Girl Environmentalist (BGE) Hazel M. Johnson Fellowship. Through the fellowship, I was able to apply to climate-focused companies and organizations partnered with BGE and in researching my options, Acadia Center really stood out to me!
Please describe the scope of the work you’ve done this summer.
This summer, I evaluated two drivers of rising energy costs in New England: natural gas price volatility and natural gas infrastructure capital investment. My work included analysis of the price of natural gas sold to electricity generators and wholesale electricity prices as well as researching gas infrastructure programs in New England and collecting data on spending and revenue requirements.
What interested you about that particular issue/project?
It was particularly interesting to learn how gas infrastructure replacement and expansion programs use money for spending that contradicts decarbonization goals for several decades, even after the programs have been phased out. Not only could this spending be allocated to renewable energy investments, but these costs also end up being offset by ratepayers and utility customers!
What did you find most challenging about the project?
Finding expenditure data for the gas infrastructure programs was very challenging. A lot of these spending figures were buried in documents and reports that were difficult to find and decipher. I was fortunate to have help from other members of the team to find some of these documents and find the values I needed.
What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned over the course of your fellowship or internship?
My experience at Acadia Center has opened my eyes to the vast intricacies of advocating for clean, affordable energy at the regional level. I was unaware of the processes that went into energy policy advocacy and the numerous uses for data like that which I analyzed this summer.
What do you wish people understood about your area of interest/studies?
I wish people understood how important clear, succinct communication is. In order to advocate for clean, affordable energy that is equitably accessible, the research we do and the data we collect has to be “translated” effectively. Politicians, scientists, community members, and anyone else who affects or is affected by energy policy should be able to easily interpret our findings.
Mia Ambroiggio, Environmental Justice and Outreach Fellow
Who are you?
My name is Mia Ambroiggio, and I am currently a summer fellow with Acadia Center. I’m a graduate student at the Yale School of the Environment, pursuing a Master of Environmental Management with a specialization in People, Equity, and the Environment. My interests center on community resilience to climate threats, with a particular focus on coastal and disaster resilience.
What brought you to Acadia Center?
I was placed with Acadia Center through my fellowship program—the Yale Environmental Fellows—and I couldn’t be more excited. With a background in resilience work across government scales in Maine, I recognized energy as a personal knowledge gap. This role with Acadia Center has given me the opportunity to explore the energy space and its connection to resilience in an applied context, while also learning from the deep expertise of Acadia’s staff on the clean energy transition.
Can you explain the scope of the work you’ve done this summer?
This summer, I explored the role of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) in enhancing community resilience, particularly in response to outages caused by extreme weather events. I conducted interviews with municipalities and community organizations across the Northeast to understand the current DER landscape: what projects are completed or underway, useful resources, and common barriers across communities. Insights from these conversations shaped a practical toolkit designed to help communities interested in pursuing DER projects. The toolkit features clear, accessible language, a glossary of DER-related terminology, and a resource directory to help communities find technical assistance, funding, and opportunities for knowledge sharing and collaboration.
What interested you about that particular issue/project?
As climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, this work feels extremely pressing. Ensuring that communities— especially those at heightened risk due to being rural, coastal, or on an island— have the information, funding, and infrastructure to maintain power and critical services during outages or disruptions to the larger grid is incredibly important to the preparedness and health of the community. Additionally, with a background in writing and community engagement, translating jargon-heavy energy topics into plain language so they can reach and resonate with a wider audience is always of interest to me!
What did you find most challenging about the project?
Energy is extremely complex! Although the pursuit of Distributed Energy Resources seems intuitive due to their many benefits, there are many complications that we have created within our larger energy system that inhibits this work, and therefore inhibits community resilience. To successfully achieve clean energy solutions that benefit communities, consistent collaboration and cooperation is needed.
What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned over the course of your fellowship or internship?
Although universal themes emerge in terms of the barriers and benefits of community energy projects, this work is — and should be — deeply place-based. Every community has its own relationship to place, unique challenges, and distinct priorities. While large quantitative datasets are valuable, community-led conversations and relationship-building are essential to ensuring the work remains truly relevant to local needs.
What do you wish people understood about your area of interest/studies?
Community resilience is all-encompassing—from borrowing an egg or a cup of flour from a neighbor to maintaining large-scale energy infrastructure. The strength of a community’s connections—to each other, to local government, and to essential services—ultimately determines how well it can withstand increasing climate risks
Advocacy Win: DPU Halts Gas Line Extension Subsidies, Saving Customers Millions
On August 8th, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) issued Order 20-80-E, closing a decades-old loophole that forced everyday gas customers to subsidize new fossil fuel hookups, costing ratepayers $160 million in 2023 alone ($9,000 per customer). The average cost of adding new customers was rising, specifically, 50 percent between 2020-2021 and another 50 percent in 2022-2023.
This order was the latest from DPU docket 20-80, the “Future of Gas” docket investigating the future role of natural gas in Massachusetts as the Commonwealth works to achieve its climate mandates and address energy affordability. So far, the DPU has issued a number of impressive orders in this docket that have begun to transform the role of natural gas in Massachusetts and finally curtail its expansion.
This victory is a good example of how coordinated advocacy, grounded in data analysis, can shape precedent-setting regulatory outcomes. In April of this year, Acadia Center and Rewiring America co-authored group coalition comments that were generally supportive of the draft gas line extension policy but also contained specific recommendations for how to make the policy stronger. For example, the draft policy mentioned exception criteria projects would need to meet to receive a line extension subsidy, including one criterion describing how the project must have “….no feasible alternatives to the use of natural gas, including electrification.” In our comments, we argued “feasibility” should be defined as “technical feasibility” (a subtle yet crucial distinction), and the DPU agreed with us in their final decision, limiting allowances to projects that could prove there was no technically feasible alternative to natural gas in their specific building. How do we know we helped shape the outcome? Our letter was cited 18 times throughout the DPU’s decision.
The order in DPU 20-80-E is about “Practices for Line Extension Allowances and Contributions in Aid of Construction for Gas Local Distribution Companies.” Put simply, it essentially looks at who should pay the costs associated with expanding gas service into new areas. Because the cost of gas infrastructure is extremely expensive, these costs had previously been borne mostly by existing ratepayers, with the understanding that the addition of the customer would pay for itself in the long term. However, forward-looking projections show this would no longer be the case.
In practice, prior to this most recent decision, existing gas customers paid a disproportionate share of the costs for bringing new gas customers online. Since 2018, existing gas customers have footed the bill for 80 percent of all new gas customer connections — and these subsidies have driven up gas bills for everyone. In terms of projected future costs, according to a recent earnings report from Eversource, the company projects that its gas distribution costs across New England will increase 83 percent between 2023 and 2029, faster than either its electric transmission or distribution subsidiaries. A separate analysis commissioned by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office corroborated that a potentially vast and rapid gas system build-out – and associated impacts to ratepayer bills – could occur without state intervention. According to the AG’s analysis, the path we’re currently on could see the state’s gas rate base – the total value of gas system assets on which utilities are allowed to earn a rate of return – jump from $10 to $20 billion in a short span of roughly 10 years.
The old system served as a massive subsidy to natural gas service, and incentivized the expansion of natural gas infrastructure. Massachusetts’ climate plans call for reduced reliance on the natural gas distribution system in the coming years, meaning that the old system of spreading the cost of connecting new gas customers across all customers was directly at odds with our climate plans. Further, with the knowledge that the gas system needs to be wound down, the prior “business as usual” policy would have continued to incentivize gas infrastructure expansion that would end up as stranded costs that all gas customers would be on the hook to pay for far into the future.
While the gas utilities, also known as local distribution companies (LDCs), argued in the docket that existing practices are consistent with state policies, most comments came down on the other side. Thankfully, the DPU overwhelmingly sided with the latter. It ordered the discontinuing of line extension allowances, except in certain instances where alternatives to gas service were simply technically infeasible. Based on the language in the order, we expect proposals for new gas hookups that meet this exception criteria to be very few and far between – for example, potentially some niche industrial customers with no technically viable alternative electric- or propane-based equipment available on the market would meet this exception criteria.
This decision is crucial because the Commonwealth is already facing concerns about energy affordability. Costs associated with the gas system have steadily been rising, and continuing to subsidize new gas hook-ups would have only worsened the situation. This is one more step in reshaping Massachusetts’ energy system, but the fight isn’t over, and other subsidies and misaligned incentives exist for gas infrastructure.
Now that the much anticipated decision around line extension allowances has been resolved, attention among advocates will turn towards the Climate Compliance Plans — the five-year strategic documents that local gas distribution companies (LDCs) must submit under the Future of Gas docket, showing how they plan to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) sublimits, prioritize affordability and equity, and use pilot projects, among other requirements.
Opinion: Utilities count on your boredom to keep electric bills high
Want to know the quickest way to clear a party? Start talking about utility regulation. First, the record scratches, eyes glaze over, conversations die, and suddenly everyone remembers they need to check on their pets. It’s regulatory Kryptonite … so mind-numbingly technical that even policy wonks reach for their phones.
And that’s exactly how utilities like it.
Maybe you’ve seen and promptly forgotten a confusing and uninteresting public notice about “Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) implementation frameworks.” Well, the companies sending you those painful monthly electric bills don’t think those frameworks are boring — and they are busy trying to shape a system they hope will lock in their profits for years to come. They’re betting millions of your dollars that this is all so impenetrable that you’ll leave the decision-making to them.
Connecticut rate-payers face some of the highest electricity costs in the nation. Yet when the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”) opens regulatory cases about fundamentally restructuring how our utilities get paid, proceedings that could determine whether your bills go up or down for the next decade, the hearing rooms are practically empty … except for utility lawyers, of course (and a few advocates like us).
The great regulatory reveal
Here’s what’s happening behind all the technical jargon: Connecticut is considering revising the way utilities make a profit to incentivize them to spend less money (or at least spend it more where it counts). Instead of the traditional model where utilities get paid based on how much of your money they spend (yes, you read that right — they literally make profit from spending your money), performance-based regulation ties their compensation to actual, specific results.
Right now, utilities in Connecticut (and across most of the country) operate under what’s called a “cost-plus” model. They spend money on grid infrastructure — think wires, poles, and substations — then get to charge you for it, plus a guaranteed profit margin. It’s like someone giving you a credit card and promising they’ll pay your bill and give you a 10% tip on whatever you spend, regardless of what you buy or how much it costs. Who wouldn’t max out that card?
Performance-based regulation flips this script. Instead of rewarding utilities for spending, it rewards them for delivering actual value: reliable service, faster storm restoration, meeting clean energy goals, and, crucially, keeping costs reasonable.
If this idea sounds obvious, that’s because every company that isn’t a monopoly utility makes a profit when it delivers value. It’s what a competitive market yields naturally.
Why ‘it’ll never work’ is the real problem
The real barrier isn’t technical – it is psychological. We’ve become too comfortable accepting a system that doesn’t work for anyone except utilities. For too long, the energy sector has operated under the assumption that monopolistic structures and guaranteed profits are just how things have to be, as if sky-high electric bills and utility monopolies are like gravity — natural laws we have to accept, rather than policy choices we can change.
This comfort with dysfunction has real costs. While we’ve debated incremental tweaks around the edges, utilities have continued collecting guaranteed returns regardless of performance, and ratepayers have continued footing the bill for inefficiency. The longer we accept “that’s just how it has always been done” as a valid response to systemic problems, the more entrenched these issues become.
But those of us who came of age watching entire industries transform overnight know better.
We’re the voice that refuses to accept “that’s just how it’s always been done” as a valid answer to systemic problems. We’ve seen Uber disrupt taxis, Netflix kill Blockbuster, and solar prices plummet by 90% in a decade. For us, it’s obvious: industries only seem “unchangeable” until they change completely.
The truth is, resistance to change has become the energy sector’s most expensive luxury and ratepayers — all of us who depend on electricity — are footing the bill. But we don’t have to be paying for nothing to change, and we shouldn’t be. When incumbents shrug off innovative regulatory approaches, they’re not making a prediction; they’re making a choice: to protect a system that keeps utility profits sky high (and growing!) while everyone else pays through the nose.
What’s really at stake
Performance-based regulation isn’t just regulatory housekeeping. Done right, it could be the key to breaking Connecticut’s cycle of ever-increasing electric bills. Done wrong, it could lock in the current system where utility shareholders get richer while ratepayers get poorer. The grid will require significant investment in the coming decades, of course, so it is vital that the public’s money be invested as prudently as possible.
Literally, only utilities are happy with increases in electric and gas bills right now. Families are choosing between air conditioning and groceries. Small businesses are closing because they can’t afford to pay their electric bills. So why aren’t we throwing everything we have at fixing this problem?
The framework being developed now will determine whether your utility gets rewarded for efficiency or excess, for innovation or inertia, for serving customers or enriching shareholders. This is the rare regulatory moment where the wonky details will make a big difference to your wallet and your future.
Time to crash the party
The window for action is opening: PURA is expected to issue their proposed final decisions in the PBR proceeding this July. Organizations such as Vote Solar, Acadia Center, and a growing coalition of advocates are fighting for performance standards that matter and translating gate-keeping utility-speak into plain English so you can join the fight.
We’re demanding that any new regulatory framework serves the people paying the bills, not just the companies sending them. We’re fighting for faster power restoration after storms, real progress on clean energy goals, and incentives for utilities to keep your bills affordable for you rather than profitable for them.
But your electric bill depends on someone showing up who represents your interests. The utilities are certainly showing up … and they have teams of lawyers that your money pays for whose job is to protect their interests, not your pocketbook.
Luckily, PURA provides equitable opportunities for advocates and rate-payers to weigh in on these critical decisions. Keep your eyes open for ways to get involved when these decisions drop. Whether that means submitting comments supporting provisions to lower your bills or voicing concerns about proposals designed more for utility shareholders than rate-payers, your input matters. It may seem like it doesn’t, but we promise: it actually does.
Younger generations will be the ones living with the consequences of today’s energy decisions. Climate change isn’t a distant threat for us — it’s the backdrop of our entire adult lives. Energy affordability isn’t an abstract policy debate either — it can be the difference between saving for a house or paying rent forever.
Connecticut rate-payers deserve a voice in how their utilities get regulated and compensated. Don’t let the utilities’ strategy of “boredom-by-design” win by default, especially when PURA is actively creating space for you to be heard.
Your future electric bills are counting on it. Because the most expensive conversation is the one you’re not part of.
To read this article from CT Post, click here.
A Message from Acadia Center President, Daniel Sosland on the Passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill”
The so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is a direct attack on our clean energy future, public health, and the citizen input that is essential to a functioning democracy. By slashing clean energy investments and tax credits, it will raise consumer costs—hiking energy bills by $110 next year and $400 annually within five years—while killing jobs in renewable energy and forcing reliance on expensive, volatile fossil fuels. The bill will severely increase risks to the reliability of our power grid by kneecapping the very clean energy resources that are quickest to deploy, most cost effective, and just recently came to the rescue during a historic summer heat wave event. At the same time, it weakens air pollution controls, increasing asthma, heart disease, and premature deaths, all while cutting Medicaid funding, disproportionately harming low-wealth and communities of color. What’s more, it silences the public and limits scrutiny, allowing developers to short-cut environmental reviews and bypass community input while handing millions of acres of public lands to oil and gas companies. This bill isn’t just bad policy—it’s a giveaway to the most powerful at the expense of working families, public health, and the climate. It is a sad day in America when laws are enacted – by a single vote – to override the right to clean air, affordable energy, and a say in our future. Acadia Center is determined to make the case for a clean energy future, support state and community action, rebut false claims and document the damage done to clean air and energy affordability by this regressive legislation.
Cutting energy efficiency and renewables is not the answer to R.I.’s rising energy costs
Rhode Islanders felt the sting of high energy costs this winter as colder-than-usual temperatures drove up utility bills. This surge in costs has brought the energy affordability crisis front and center.
Some are pointing fingers at energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, but that’s like blaming your seat belt for a car crash. These are the very tools that help protect us: they lower energy bills over time and reduce our dependence on polluting, price-volatile fossil fuels. Cutting these programs would be a costly mistake in the long run as each dollar invested has brought back $3 in value. We need smart investments, not shortsighted cuts.
Our nation-leading energy efficiency programs have lowered Rhode Islanders’ monthly bills significantly by providing families with energy-saving measures like home insulation, programmable thermostats, and modern heating/cooling systems.
Energy efficiency not only cuts carbon pollution, it also improves the comfort of our homes. And by reducing how much energy we use, energy efficiency investments have saved us all money.
Building out more renewable energy in the state and region slowly but surely divorces our bill from polluting, price-volatile fossil gas, more commonly called natural gas.
Right now, New England generates roughly 50 percent of its electricity from gas. That’s gas we must purchase from a global market, which means prices can fluctuate wildly because of events outside of our control (like Russia’s war on Ukraine). Gas companies want you to think that the solution to these cost issues is to commit billions of our hard-earned dollars into their businesses — because they profit from fracking gas and building pipelines to then ship it into our region.
Rhode Island doesn’t need more gas. What we do need are renewable alternatives that provide more predictable and stable pricing and to build out our clean energy economy, including battery storage for long-term reliability.
As energy costs rise, Rhode Islanders deserve to have confidence that every dollar spent on the energy system is to our benefit. The good news is, there are proposed laws that can help. These bills would help make the state’s energy system work for its customers by reigning in utility overspending, deploying modern and efficient technology to get the most out of our existing grid, and making sure community members are involved in making decisions.
H5818 and S593 would restrict Rhode Island Energy from using customer dollars on lobbying expenses and shareholder benefits, and cap how much Rhode Island Energy can add to our bills each year for infrastructure costs. H5573 and S862 would give our energy siting board the ability to scrutinize transmission spending and support modern, low-cost technologies that can move more energy for every dollar we pay.
Finally, H5815 and S378 would provide resources for Rhode Island communities to directly participate and stand up for themselves when faced with proposed utility or other energy-related projects. We all deserve the ability to speak up and be heard when a new, polluting propane terminal or gas power plant is built in our neighborhood.
Unfortunately, there isn’t one silver bullet solution to cutting our energy bills. We need to make smart, strategic decisions that help Rhode Islanders cut energy demand and upgrade us to price-stable clean energy that is available right here in our state and region. But gas companies don’t want that future for us. They are driven by their profits and not our ability to pay the bills. That’s why they are pushing so hard to convince us that chopping programs like energy efficiency — which have provided significant cost savings and other benefits to Rhode Islanders — and relying even more on volatile out-of-state energy sources is the answer.
Before brashly believing their disinformation, let us take a more thoughtful approach. One that’s driven by what our families and businesses want — not one that parrots the talking points of fossil fuel companies and utilities driven by their bottom line.
Rhode Islanders have the right to efficient, modern energy systems that cut bills and pollution — and we won’t give up on strategies that help make an affordable, sustainable energy future a reality.
Emily Koo is senior policy advocate and Rhode Island Program Director at Acadia Center and Jamie Rhodes is a senior attorney and the Director of Clean Buildings for the Conservation Law Foundation.
To read the article from the Boston Globe, click here.
Ray of Hope for Diversity and Inclusion in Environmental Careers
Acadia Center will serve as a host organization for a fellow from the Environmental Fellows Program (EFP) this summer, affiliated with Yale University. To kick off the fellowship and internship program, the annual New Horizons conference opens a unique opportunity for mentors and supervisors from host organizations to meet with incoming fellows and interns in their organizations. Acadia Center was represented by two staff members at the conference: myself, Joy Yakie, Environmental Justice and Outreach Manager; and Paola Moncada Tamayo, Senior Policy and Data Analyst. Also present at the conference were alumni of the fellowship program, professionals at different levels of careers in the conservation and environmental sectors, academics, students, vendors, and others. The sessions at the conference offered insights on how mentors could support fellows, as well as peer-to-peer learning opportunities among mentors from host sites.
This year, the New Horizons conference presented an opportunity to take a pulse check on environmental progress in the past year. From keynote presentations, plenary sessions, workshops, and flash talks, speakers delved fully into the progress and challenges of the last few years in environment and conservation. Two of my favorite sessions included a panel session that provided insight on the environmental movement and another session that explored current and future directions of energy policy and practice by looking at the gaps and shortcomings of the previous years and the work that lies ahead. Speakers for both sessions were former top government advisors and current professors in energy, environment, and climate from the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, the Yale School of Environment, and other institutions.
The Environmental Fellows Program (for master’s and doctoral students) and Yale Conservation Scholars – Early Leadership Initiative (targeted towards undergraduate students) are programs administered through the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Sustainability (JEDSI) at the Yale School of the Environment. These programs, put in place in 2016, resulted from the support of various foundations to see diversity in the environmental sector following a deep-dive report by Professor Dorceta Taylor in 2014 on the lack of diversity observed in conservation and environmental non-profits, government agencies, and foundations. Today, with diversity in the environmental sector still lacking and its value contested, the New Horizons convening brought a ray of hope by gathering like-minded stakeholders on the importance of diversity in the environment.
Acadia Center believes in diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ), and continues to ensure that those values are incorporated in our programs and organizational objectives. It understands that a climate-safe and clean energy future is only possible when all communities are represented in the planning and decision-making process; hence, Acadia Center’s continued support for diversity and inclusion in the programs that bring about such representation. In addition to hosting a fellow from the Environmental Fellows program, we are also partnering with the Black Girl Environmentalist initiative to support a pipeline of environmental professionals of color. Acadia Center is confident that these initiatives will lead to a more diverse environmental and climate policy arena that fosters equity and inclusion.
Why is your energy bill so high? Blame natural gas volatility and utility profits
This winter, New England residents were battered by persistently high energy bills, especially for natural gas service. In Massachusetts, the state’s energy efficiency program, Mass Save, unfortunately emerged as a convenient scapegoat, despite saving the Commonwealth and ratepayers billions of dollars.
The real culprit for high bills this winter? The cost of natural gas infrastructure, generous utility profits, and the region’s continued fossil fuel investments – which left us ill-equipped to deal with an exceptionally cold winter.
In response to complaints about energy affordability, utilities like Eversource and National Grid have pointed to increased funding of the state’s cost-effective energy efficiency program. This is no small source of irony – Mass Save is a relatively small fraction of bills, but it is the most potent tool available to empower consumers to control their energy costs and protect them from fossil fuel price spikes.
The vast majority of the bill, around 70-75 percent, goes toward natural gas costs – relating to gas supply, distribution, and maintenance – compared to just 15-25 percent going toward energy efficiency. Unlike other energy costs, efficiency is the only investment that is required to pass cost-effectiveness testing. In fact, overall energy system costs would be billions of dollars higher without the cost reductions secured with efficiency. Not nearly enough scrutiny has been given to the investments on which gas utility companies make money.
One of the primary ways an investor-owned gas utility makes a profit is by making a return on investment at a specific rate, approved by the state, on capital investments in gas infrastructure projects: the extensive, multi-billion-dollar pipeline network in place under our streets.
In Eversource territory, for example, this healthy rate of return ranges from around 9.5 percent to 9.9 percent. This generous profit structure incentivizes utilities to pursue costly system upgrades and expansions, which are well-compensated, and to add more customers onto the system despite the misalignment with state goals. The more utilities spend on outdated infrastructure, the more money they make, and the national numbers bear this out: Over the last three years, residential electric rates for investor-owned utilities have risen 49 percent more than inflation. Meanwhile, the rates at publicly-owned electric utilities have increased 44 percent less than inflation.
It should also be noted that existing gas customers pay a disproportionate share of the costs for bringing new gas customers online. Since 2018, existing gas customers have footed the bill for 80 percent of all new gas customer connections. And these subsidies – known as line extension allowances – are driving up gas bills for everyone.
In 2023 alone, Massachusetts gas customers were charged $160 million to add new customers to the gas system, to the tune of $9,000 per new customer, which is reflected on ratepayer gas bills.
The cost of adding new customers is rising as well. The average cost of adding new customers rose 50 percent between 2020-2021 and again in 2022-2023. In fact, despite an acknowledgement by the state and by utilities that we should be winding the gas system down – not expanding it – the growth of the sprawling pipe network shows no signs of stopping.
According to a recent earnings report from Eversource, for example, the company projects that its gas distribution costs across New England will increase 83 percent between 2023 and 2029, faster than either their electric transmission or distribution subsidiaries. Given the rapid pace of electrification and related system needs, this discrepancy between what utilities have committed to, and what’s actually happening, is noteworthy.
A separate analysis commissioned by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office corroborated that a potentially vast and rapid gas system build-out – and associated impacts to ratepayer bills – could occur without state intervention. According to the AG’s analysis, the path we’re currently on could see the state’s gas rate base – the total value of gas system assets on which utilities are allowed to earn a rate of return – jump from $10 to $20 billion in a short span of roughly 10 years.
In multiple sectors of the economy, Massachusetts and the rest of the region remain frustratingly over-reliant on natural gas. In 2023, about half of Massachusetts households used natural gas for home heating, and the Commonwealth – as part of ISO-New England’s regional grid – relied on gas for roughly 55 percent of the power produced in 2024.
What this means is that when it gets cold in the winter, costs can shoot up dramatically due to the volatility of natural gas prices. And, as America exports more liquefied natural gas (LNG) abroad, domestic gas prices are increasingly tied to the unpredictability of global gas markets.
It was very, very cold this winter; the coldest winter since 2014-2015, in fact. According to data compiled by Acadia Center, the average temperature in December 2024 was a full 10°F colder than December 2023. Further, from December 2024 through February 2025, Massachusetts saw 23 days colder than 20°F, compared to only nine such days the year prior.
These colder temperatures generally mean that residents are using more energy, driving up bills. However, due to the Commonwealth’s overreliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels, it also means higher costs for the supply of energy. For example, the region endured a whopping $4 billion in wholesale electricity market costs this winter, per ISO-New England (a roughly $2 billion increase from last year), making it the costliest winter since 2014-2015.
One small ISO-New England program giving payments to dual-fuel (gas-oil) power plants, the inventoried energy program (IEP), cost almost $80 million over just five days. Can anyone really look at the region’s exposure to such volatile, concentrated costs and conclude that the region should invest less in energy efficiency, rather than more? Other barriers to offshore wind and local clean energy will only increase this unhealthy reliance on natural gas further.
If Massachusetts wants to take steps to lower energy bills in the long-term, we should not shy away from renewables and energy efficiency. Instead, we should embrace those clean resources, take steps to end our overreliance on natural gas and fossil fuels, and reduce business-as-usual utility profits.
Kyle Murray is director of state program implementation at Acadia Center, a nonprofit climate advocacy organization.
To read the full article in Commonwealth Beacon, click here.