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.

An Earth Day Message from Acadia Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myth Busting: Congestion Pricing – Part II

Last July, Acadia Center published a myth busting blog tackling the controversial implementation of congestion pricing in New York City. Congestion is a policy designed to reduce traffic in the most congested areas of cities by charging vehicles a fee to enter designated areas. In New York, the plan imposed a charge on vehicles entering the highly congested lower part of Manhattan below 60^th Street, aiming to cut down on traffic, improve air quality, and drive people toward the readily available public transit network, all while increasing funds for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Now that the policy has been in place for several months, it’s time to review just how effective it has been and what lessons can be learned.

So, has congestion pricing actually alleviated traffic congestion in NYC?

YES! The Congestion Pricing or Central Business District Tolling program, introduced on Jan 5, 2025, has led to noticeable and quantifiable reductions in traffic congestion within lower Manhattan.

Early numbers from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) reported that since congestion pricing began in January 2025, traffic entering Manhattan’s Congestion Relief Zone has significantly declined. Compared to historical averages:

• January 2025 saw 8% fewer daily vehicle entries, totaling 1.27 million fewer vehicles for the month.
• February 2025 saw a 12% drop, or about 2.03 million fewer vehicles.
• March 2025 saw a 13% reduction, with 2.54 million fewer vehicles compared to baseline levels.

These sustained month-to-month reductions in traffic entering lower Manhattan suggest that congestion pricing effectively decreases traffic. Although some worried that congestion pricing would simply shift traffic to other boroughs, data shows that this hasn’t happened, there has been no noticeable increase in traffic in areas like the Bronx or Staten Island according to Streetsblog NYC.

Beyond the raw numbers, commuters and travel services have also reported improved travel speeds and increase public transit ridership. According to Better Cities, the MTA is averaging 448 thousand more public transit riders per day this year, that growth alone is nearly 50% larger than the total daily ridership of DC’s Metro, the second-busiest subway system in the U.S.

The biggest ridership growth has been in bus ridership. Since Bus speeds across the Hudson and east river entrances to Manhattan are faster, ridership has increased service has increased. According to Streetsblog NYC, buses have started to move so much faster in NYC that the MTA has had to modify the bus schedules to reflect earlier arrival times.

Since congestion pricing began in NYC, how much has it raised for the MTA?

On Feb 2025, the MTA released a statement on revenue from congestion pricing:

“Since the first-in-the-nation program began on Sunday, Jan. 5, through Friday, Jan. 31, tolls from the CRZ generated $48.66 million in revenue with a net $37.5 million putting the program on track to generate the $500 million that the MTA initially projected. The MTA will continue to report revenues from this program monthly.”

According to the MTA, revenue generated from the Congestion Relief Zone will fund some of the region’s most important transit capital projects, including:

• Accessibility improvements at over 20 stations
• Modern signal systems on segments of the A/C and B/D/F/M lines for over 1.5 million daily riders
• Hundreds of new electric buses
• Second Ave Subway Phase 2 extension to East Harlem
• Critical projects that keep our system in good working condition, such as structural repairs, power system improvements, and upgrades to bus depots.

Has there been any impact on crime rates on public transit? Has the increased use increased or decreased criminal activity in the city?

Despite the increase in subway ridership, crime on the NYC subway system has declined. According to recent NYPD data reported by AMNY, felony crimes on the subway dropped 15%, in the first quarter of 2025. There were 437 felonies recorded from January through March, compared to 515 during the same period in 2024. The data suggests that increased transit use has not led to more crime, in fact, more eyes on the street may coincide with a safer system overall. On top of that the funds from congestion pricing will likely be used to improve infrastructure and fare gates that will continue to increase safety in the system.

Will the new administration be able to force the end of congestion pricing?

The Trump administration has stated opposition to the Congestion Pricing Program in NYC, with the US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, demanding its termination. However, the MTA has filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s decision. The latest reporting from ABC News mentions that “Hochul and MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber have said they will not turn off the tolls without a court order.”

Powering the Future: Why Transmission Planning in New England Matters for Consumers and Communities

This blog is a follow-up to the Acadia Center and National Resource Defense Council’s joint blog from September 2024, available here.

The New England region needs to plan the power grid of the future and build new transmission lines, which carry power from power plants to our homes, schools, and businesses. New transmission lines will help New England meet peak energy demand—which will double in the next century^[1]—by allowing new clean energy resources to plug in to the grid and delivering low-cost power across the region. The rate of transmission build-out needs to double by 2032 to achieve a clean energy future.^[2]

Not all transmission is created equal, and New England has a problem with too much of the wrong thing: ballooning costs for small, local transmission projects are eclipsing larger, multi-state, high-voltage projects. These small projects slip through regulatory “gaps” and have minimal oversight, costing millions just to maintain the existing system – and with little to no eye toward optimizing rebuilds for the future we need.^[3] In contrast, well-planned, large regional lines can address multiple needs at once, saving consumers money. Maintenance of the existing system is important, but it can’t discourage the region from pursuing larger, multi-value projects (i.e., bringing reliability, economic, and public policy benefits).

The New England states realized the importance of large regional transmission, coming together with the regional grid operator, ISO New England (ISO-NE), to create the new “Longer-Term Transmission Planning Process”^[4], or LTTP. This process is well underway, and ISO-NE just issued in late March 2025 its first solicitation^[5] for transmission solutions that will unlock renewable energy in northern Maine and fix longstanding bottlenecks between northern and southern New England. In Northern Maine, there is critical renewable capacity from onshore wind and solar waiting to be unbottled from existing transmission constraints – which would provide reliable, affordable renewable energy that would flow to ratepayers in Maine and the rest of the region.

A winning project will be selected based on its “benefit to cost” ratio, which must be greater than 1—in other words, benefits must outweigh costs to New England residents. The good news: the six states have already agreed on a means of sharing costs of any LTTP transmission investments based on load allocation, making it a valuable deal for any individual state. Proposals will be published in November 2025, and the ISO and states will move forward with a final selection by September 2026^[6]. The ISO and New England states are showing strong leadership, sprinting ahead of other regions to achieve state goals and build transmission that will benefit the region for generations to come.

Transmission projects need meaningful community engagement

Like any big infrastructure project, transmission lines need to consult and engage with the communities they pass through. Insufficient community engagement can exacerbate environmental justice harms and community impacts and cause projects to fail: analysis from the Niskanen Center and the Clean Air Task Force shows that local opposition has contributed to nearly 1/3 of U.S. transmission projects being delayed and/or cancelled.^[7] And, 15% of counties nationwide have passed bans, moratoria, or other regulations that effectively limit clean energy;^[8] clearly, with these sentiments on the rise, both transmission and other energy infrastructure projects are at-risk without meaningful plans to address community sentiment and preferences. New England is not immune to these trends: community opposition arose as an acute challenge during the last major procurement for new transmission lines in the region (Massachusetts’ 83D procurement in 2018)^[9]. Simply put, projects will not be successful without top-notch community engagement.

While ISO-NE’s solicitation states that it will evaluate and credit applicants who submit a community engagement plan, the RFP falls short by not requiring all applicants to submit such a plan. The ISO should solicit projects that are following best practices for community engagement. There are already examples for New England: the Northern Plains Connector project worked with local community foundations to create a community-led philanthropic distribution process^[10], and the Vineyard Wind project hired a trusted translator who spoke fluent Portuguese to communicate with the affected community.^[11]Without requiring projects to submit robust community engagement plans, the LTTP process risks falling short of its important and meaningful transmission goals.

Other Considerations

Additionally, other important elements are included within the LTTP RFP but could be bolstered, like provisions for grid-enhancing technologies and using existing rights of way. Grid-enhancing technologies encompass multiple software and hardware technologies, but currently the RFP only specifies dynamic line ratings. Grid-enhancing technologies are low-cost and high-efficiency technologies that can make existing and new transmission lines more efficient; including them and incentivizing them more, as well as integrating them with forward-looking weather projections, would make this process even more beneficial for ratepayers. There’s a similar line of thinking for rights of way – utilizing existing rights of way like highways or existing transmission corridors can streamline new transmission permitting, and the RFP could be strengthened by showing in Part 2 that project applicants will be evaluated favorably if they can show the use of an existing right of way (with a potentially faster in-service date).

Conclusion

In sum, the LTTP process is important and is worth paying attention to for the region as it moves along. Bids for the LTTP RFP will be submitted by September 2025, and a summary of the bids will be posted publicly by November 2025. It will be critical for stakeholders to pay attention to the bids selected and see how these hopefully multi-value, robust transmission proposals create a resilient and affordable energy future for the Northeast.

[1] The Energy is About to Shift – Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force Report. The Energy is About to Shift – Acadia Center

[2] Princeton University, Zero Lab Analysis – Electricity Transmission is Key to Unlock the Full Potential of the IRA. Sept 2022. REPEAT_IRA_Transmission_2022-09-22.pdf

[3] Claire Wayner, Kaja Rebane, and Chaz Teplin, Mind the Regulatory Gap: How to Enhance Local Transmission Oversight, RMI, 2024, https://rmi.org/insight/mind-the-regulatory-gap

[4] Lang-Ree, Claire and Poplavska, Anya, Bridging the Gap: New England’s Transmission Planning and Order 1920. New England’s Transmission Planning Opportunity, September 2024

[5] https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100021/2025lttprfp_postingannouncement.pdf

[6] Note that some potential flexibility is allocated before and after depending on 1) the number of proposals received and 2) what proposal the states prefer

[7] A closer look at the role of litigation and opposition in transmission projects undergoing federal permitting – Niskanen Center; this analysis examined 37 total projects nationwide according to key criteria

[8] Weise, E., Beard, S., Bhat, S., Radilla, R., Procell, C., & Zaiets, K. (2024, February 27). US counties are blocking the future of renewable energy: These maps, graphics, show how. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/02/04/us-renew able-energy-grid-maps-graphics/72042529007/

[9] 83D – Massachusetts Clean Energy

[10] Community Benefits Snapshot: North Plains Connector Transmission Line Community Engagement and Benefits | World Resources Institute

[11] Who is Vineyard Power? — Vineyard Power

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