Congestion Pricing: Unpacking the First Year of Impressive Impact

For too long, traffic congestion has been treated as an unavoidable cost of urban life. Yes, it’s frustrating to be stuck in traffic, yes congestion is dangerous to pedestrians and drivers alike, and yes, traffic jams are concentrated sources of air pollution that disproportionately impact people living in dense urban areas. But decades of experience adding vehicle lanes, hoping that “one more lane will fix it” have amply demonstrated that adding more space for vehicles merely attracts additional traffic rather than resolving the problem. So what can be done? Perhaps having the average driver sit in traffic for 50,100 hours a year is just the price of economic progress.

Over the past year, New York City has demonstrated that ever-increasing traffic congestion is not an inevitability but a choice that can be addressed through smart policy. New York’s congestion pricing system places a modest fee of $9 on drivers entering into Manhattan’s central business district, perhaps the most heavily congested area in the entire country, during certain peak hours. Instead of adding more lanes of traffic, NYC’s plan uses pricing signals to use our existing transportation infrastructure more efficiently.

The results are in from the first year of implementation, and the program is working – resoundingly so.

Year One: NYC’s Congestion Relief Zone is Thriving

As MTA Chief, Policy and External Relations John J. McCarthy has said: “Traffic and pollution are DOWN, business is UP, and every other metric shows congestion relief is WORKING!!”

According to the MTA data:

• Traffic volumes are down: “11% fewer vehicle entries between January and October”
• Buses are more reliable: “Bus speeds in the CRZ increased 2.3% YoY between January and September,” and “Bus ridership increased by 8%
• Emissions have eased: “GHG emissions decreased 6.1% YoY between January and September.”
• Transit funding has increased: “$468M in net revenue raised through October”
• Less vehicle crashes: “a 21% decrease” in crashes involving trucks in the CRZ
• Taxis did not suffer: “Taxi and FHV trips increased 1.4% within the CRZ January through September.”

These results matter, and they are exactly what urban economics theory says should happen when implementing congestion pricing, based in part on what has been affirmatively demonstrated in other similar programs around the globe, such as London.

From Taboo to Textbook: How Congestion Pricing Became the Norm

This is not what the critics of congestion pricing expected.

Critics of the program took one look at the addition of a fee to transportation and assumed drivers would revolt.

And, before its implementation, congestion pricing was treated like a political third rail, from elected officials tiptoeing around it to headlines warnings of mass chaos and lawsuits. Every opposition talking point assumed that once the policy went live, public backlash would force a retreat.

But that didn’t happen. The most inflammatory predictions faded fastest. There was never any sustained objection from commuters, nor a wave of political reversals (although the CRZ fee was reduced from $15 to $9). What once dominated headlines now is approaching an uncontroversial opinion thanks to the growing appreciation for and support of the program’s benefits.

What Arguments Collapsed and Why

Some critiques didn’t just weaken; they were completely disproven.

“This will punish the working class.” This claim assumed that most low-and-moderate-income (LMI) commuters are mostly driving into Manhattan. But, what is true today is that the vast majority of working-class New Yorkers take the train or the bus into the congestion zone in Manhattan. This is the justification that the Trump Administration has given to try and kill congestion pricing.

“Traffic will just move elsewhere.” Spillover was treated as an inevitable outcome. This one is more complicated, with some areas and routes having some months with worse traffic and others with better. The jury is out, but in the region as a whole, traffic is down, not just shifted. In practice, traffic reduction in the core didn’t make other corridors more congested. Travel behavior adjusted by some trips shifting mode, time, or some trips not happening at all. That is the whole point of pricing.

“Negative Economic Impact on Businesses.” According to the NYS governor’s office,” the Manhattan Economy is Thriving: Best Year for Office Leasing in 23 Years; Foot Traffic Up From 2024; Sales Tax Receipts up Over 6%”. The fear that congestion pricing would negatively impact the economy has been completely disproved. More foot traffic has meant that the storefronts are more likely to receive more visitors.

“People won’t tolerate paying to drive.” This argument underestimated how quickly people adapt once rules are clear and consistent. Predictability matters. Once congestion pricing became a stable feature of the system, behavior simply adapted. A recent poll demonstrated that 57 percent of New York City residents now want congestion pricing to continue, a remarkably high level of support for a policy that imposes fees on drivers. Drivers paying the fee recognize the benefits they themselves derive in the form of reduced commute times, thanks to bridges  and tunnels now substantially cleared of once-debilitating traffic and lost time.

This Is Exactly What Happened in Other Jurisdictions

The growing political support for congestion pricing matches the experience of other cities around the world that have implemented congestion pricing programs: the public is initially skeptical, but opinion turns around once people see that congestion pricing is delivering real world results.

In London, when congestion charging was introduced in 2003, opposition outweighed support before the program went into effect. Many drivers feared it would hurt businesses or simply fail to reduce traffic. But once the charge was implemented and central London traffic volumes fell by roughly 15–20 percent, with bus speeds improving and travel times becoming more reliable public opinion shifted. Over time, a majority of Londoners came to support keeping the program in place.

A similar pattern unfolded in Stockholm, where congestion pricing was first introduced as a temporary trial in 2006. Support hovered around 40 percent before implementation. After residents experienced noticeable reductions in congestion and improved air quality, support rose sharply, eventually exceeding 60–70 percent. What had been politically contentious became broadly accepted once people saw that the policy worked.

What all of these examples demonstrate is that drivers are actually willing to pay a bit more, once they see that the program is working and providing tangible benefits.

The Real Takeaway: Starting is the Hard Part

Congestion pricing’s first year confirms something known but often underestimated: the hardest part of change is starting. With 2026 now in full swing, let’s take this as a reminder that implementation is a matter of taking the plunge. The political costs of starting something are worth the risk.

Congestion pricing didn’t win because it avoided controversy. It won because it endured it long enough for reality to take over. What was once framed as radical now reads like a case study from an urban economics textbook, but with tangible, real-world – not academic – benefits and impacts on people’s daily lives.

The lesson isn’t that every reform will be painless. It’s that durability comes from follow-through. If you can get to day one, and the policy does what it’s supposed to do, day 365 looks a lot less scary.

The congestion pricing framework that ultimately launched at a $9 charge was not the program’s originally proposed price. Earlier analyses suggested that a $15 charge would deliver greater congestion reduction and generate more revenue to support major transit investments. The difference between $9 and $15 isn’t just arithmetic. It’s the difference between managing congestion and reshaping how people move through the city.

After one year, the most important barrier has already been cleared: implementation. The program works, the public is adjusting, and the direst predictions did not materialize. The political cost of starting has already been paid. Having proven congestion pricing works, the question now is, will policy makers allow it to reach its full potential?

Why New England must say no to new gas pipelines

New England must protect energy affordability by rejecting the pressure campaign to build new interstate gas pipeline capacity, a 15-year-old idea that fails on all the basic economics — before talking about damaging consequences for climate and public health.

The economic case for a pipeline has never been weaker, even after a major winter storm. Consumers will be worse-off financially, and clean energy solutions have never been more cost-effective. To relieve winter energy constraints, the region needs to diversify generation, build out grid connections and storage and invest in efficiency and demand flexibility.

Not double down on costly, volatile fuels we already rely on too much.

There is simply no need for a massive new pipeline. Gas demand in Massachusetts was flat to declining from 2019-2024. And setting aside Connecticut, an outlier on gas demand, regional gas demand has been flat. If anything, the region needs cheaper, more targeted solutions to relieve scarcity on the coldest days of the year.

Elevated oil generation and power prices don’t justify a new pipeline. Gas and power prices jumped significantly across the country (gas futures were up 70% before the cold snap), even in regions without constrained fuel supply.

And frigid conditions exposed the poor reliability of gas equipment. Even on the peak of the most difficult cold day this winter, almost half the capacity keeping New England’s lights on was zero- to low-emissions, when factoring in energy efficiency.

A bill in Massachusetts sought to saddle electric ratepayers with the costs of a new gas pipeline. This would create a long-lasting charge on electric bills negating potential reductions to power supply costs — unthinkable in the current affordability crisis, especially for an asset that would outlive its usefulness before being paid off.

Pipeline companies won’t build without long-term contracts. No entity (utilities, power plants) is willing to contract for new gas supply because they either have enough, or they buy from the spot market. It’s a financial issue: no contracts means no financing, no pipelines .

If forced, New England ratepayers would pay dearly for a new gas pipeline:

• For the direct delivery costs of a billion-dollar-plus pipeline.
• For the price of the gas supply itself, now forecast to increase 33% year over year (2026-2027).
• For decades of locked-in costs from local distribution pipes.

To read the article from MassLive, click here.

Opinion: CT needs a business model for more affordable and reliable utility service

Connecticut residents are rightly frustrated with their electric bills.

Today, we have cleaner, cheaper, and more flexible energy technologies than ever before. Solar, batteries, energy efficiency, demand response, and advanced grid hardware and software can reduce costs, cut pollution, and improve reliability. Yet they aren’t being implemented as widely or rapidly as they should be, while costs continue to climb.

The reason isn’t a lack of technology. It’s the business model we use to run electric utilities. The major utilities in Connecticut still operate under a “cost-of-service” model. Designed in the early 20th century, it made sense when electricity systems were built around large power plants and analog technology. But today, that same model is holding us back.

There is good news. Connecticut has the solution at its fingertips: performance-based ratemaking. And in fact, this solution is at the finish line and ready for implementation, pending final regulatory approval.

Before explaining what performance-based ratemaking is, it’s important to understand the problem it’s designed to fix. Under cost-of-service regulation, utilities primarily earn profits by investing in capital infrastructure such as poles, wires, and substations. These capital expenditures are called the “rate-base.” Utilities are guaranteed their money back plus some percentage profit on it when invested prudently. Thus, a bigger rate base means more allowed earnings.

There is political and public pressure to keep rates low. However, that pressure collides with the reality that utilities compete for shareholders in financial markets, where investors expect returns. The way for utilities to deliver those returns under a cost-of-service model is not by minimizing total system costs, but by growing the rate base. Consequently, utilities are incentivized to favor the most expensive solution that meets regulatory requirements, rather than the most cost-effective one.

This problem is compounded by a significant information imbalance. Utilities usually control the engineering studies, forecasts, and models that determine what infrastructure is deemed “necessary.” Regulators work diligently, but they are often at the mercy of the studies run and information provided on solutions by the utilities.

Even more troubling is what utilities aren’t rewarded for. They do not earn more for decarbonizing the grid faster than legally required, reducing customer bills, or improving reliability and resilience beyond minimum standards. In short, we are asking utilities to innovate at their own expense.

That’s where performance-based ratemaking, or PBR, comes in.

PBR is a common-sense utility regulatory framework that ties financial incentives for utilities to measurable performance outcomes, rather than simply allowing recovery of costs plus profit for capital investments. Under PBR, a portion of utility earnings can be tied to how well they perform, not just how much they spend. Regulators set clear, measurable goals—such as affordability, emissions reductions, reliability, customer service, and efficient grid utilization—and utilities are rewarded for meeting or exceeding those outcomes. If a utility finds innovative, lower-cost ways to maintain reliability, integrate clean energy, or reduce peak demand, it can share in the savings. If it falls short, its earnings are reduced.

Suddenly, advanced grid software, energy efficiency, and modern power electronics become business opportunities rather than threats. Utilities would be incentivized to use existing infrastructure more efficiently, avoid unnecessary upgrades, and deploy new technologies that lower total system costs. Importantly, PBR is not anti-utility. In fact, it offers something utilities consistently ask for: clearer incentives and a more stable framework for earning returns in a rapidly changing energy system. But it also ensures that those returns are earned by delivering real value to customers.

The regulator in Connecticut, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority  has worked with numerous stakeholders over the past several years to develop a PBR framework. In July and August, three draft decisions were issued by the Regulatory Authority outlining a strong PBR framework. However, with the changeover of commissioners at PURA, the final decisions have been postponed indefinitely from their anticipated October publication dates.

That draft framework, shaped by numerous stakeholders and PURA staff, would make Connecticut a national leader in utility regulation. The technologies for a more affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy future exist. What we need is a regulatory system that rewards utilities for using them and delivering real benefits to customers. Once the new PURA commissioners have reviewed the relevant materials, they should waste no time in making the PBR decisions final—because those decisions do just what is needed: move Connecticut to a business model that aligns utility incentives with improved customer outcomes.

Will Taylor is the strategy director, Infrastructure and Resilience at Acadia Center and holds a PhD in Environmental Engineering from the University of Connecticut. He resides in Simsbury. Kate McAuliffe is the Senior Policy Advocate for Connecticut at Acadia Center and holds a master of Environmental Management from the Yale School of the Environment. She resides in Avon.

To read the full article from the Hartford Courant, click here.

Understanding What’s Really Driving Energy Costs

On December 12, an article was published by Robert Rio on the topic of why energy bills are rising but emissions allegedly aren’t falling. The article claims it isn’t anti-clean energy, but poses a series of questions which, knowingly or not, points blame for rising energy bills directly at renewables and clean energy policies. The article goes on to use data cherry-picked from particular days to support the conclusion that emissions are not falling.

Affordability should be at the forefront of energy conversations. However, to address the affordability question successfully, the Commonwealth must take a holistic view of the factors driving affordability. This blog provides answers to some of the questions the article asks and data-driven responses to some of the statements made – demonstrating that, in the face of the many factors which are leading to higher bills, renewables are both helping affordability and reducing emissions.

Instead of misplacing blame on renewables, a better approach to affordability for the Commonwealth would be to focus on the true cost drivers of climbing electric rates, including fossil fuels and volatile supply costs, utility business models and oversight (or a lack thereof), and aging infrastructure in a heavily forested area of the country with storms which are increasing in severity and frequency. The Commonwealth also has an opportunity through it’s recently opened investigation into bill transparency to ensure ratepayers understand the costs and cost savings of charges on their bill, helping to buoy the truth that renewables and energy efficiency improve affordability while also decreasing emissions.[i]

Claim 1: “Absent renewables and storage coming way down in cost—or more supply coming online—bills aren’t going to fundamentally change.”

The article claims that “[a]bsent renewables and storage coming way down in cost—or more supply coming online—bills aren’t going to fundamentally change.” This statement starts in the wrong place and ends with the wrong conclusion.:

• Recent gas and electric rate increases have been driven primarily by non-supply factors such as transmission and distribution (T&D), which are not affected by changes in supply of fuel or power. This trend is true in the northeast and across much of the U.S.[ii]
• Overreliance on a single fuel – natural gas – is driving price increases. New England has expanded interstate gas transmission capacity by over 30% since 2010. At the same time, the consumption of natural gas in New England was only 2.6% higher in 2023 than in 2010—largely due to persistently increasing usage in Connecticut. In Massachusetts, gas usage actually went down nearly 14% from the year of peak usage, 2011, to 2024, the most recent year with data available.[iii]^,[iv] Yet, electricity prices still increased. This is in part due to the export of U.S. natural gas in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe and elsewhere abroad, tying gas prices to global markets, where prices are much higher.[v] LNG exports are expected to continue to rise and, consequently, so are gas prices – and it has increasingly less to do with the supply-demand balance at any given time in the region.[vi]
• Renewables and storage are coming way down in price – fast: Over recent decades, renewables have become considerably cheaper. Between 2000 and 2020, the cost of useful energy from wind, solar, and battery storage decreased by 72%, 90%, and 94%, respectively.^[vii] In fact, prices have declined so quickly that studies incorporating cost projections to model future adoption systematically overestimate the costs of renewable energy because the modelling of price decreases is not able to keep up with how quickly costs are actually going down.[viii]

Figure 1: Historical costs of energy sources. Source: Way et al.[ix]

• And prices continue to drop – for example, between 2023 and 2024, battery equipment costs fell 40%, and they are on track for another substantial decrease in 2025.[x] These dropping costs have translated to electric rates. Over the last twenty some-odd years, there is an observed trend across the country – which holds true in the Northeast – of smaller electric rate increases in states that get a higher percentage of their energy from renewables, regardless of whether those renewables are market-based independent power producers or state procured resources.

Figure 2: Change in Electricity Prices vs. Change in Renewable Penetrations. Source: EIA[xi]

• The cost of developing renewables in the northeast is higher than in other parts of the country and the world, but the bulk of those costs are “soft costs” associated with non-equipment/non-technology factors such as permitting, interconnection, red tape associated with other bureaucratic approvals, and beyond – all of which can and should be addressed by policy reforms. At the same time, however, every generation resource – including natural gas and nuclear – has been exposed to rising costs from inflation and supply chain disruptions over the last three to five years.
• Bills may not “fundamentally change” due only to clean resources – but the prices would be even worse without renewables. Recent price increases are real and having very significant impacts on energy burdened families. And it may be that bills won’t fundamentally change (though it is not clear what exactly a “fundamental change” would look like) without putting more affordability tools in place beyond clean energy resources. However, it is critical for the public understanding of energy that cost increases be appropriately and accurately attributed. There are a number of electricity cost drivers, including volatile fossil fuel costs, utility business models that incentivize the implementation of expensive grid solutions, aging infrastructure in need of replacement, and elevated storm response costs due to increasingly severe and frequent storms in the Northeast. As examples, 1) nearly half of transformers in the United States are approaching their end of life, indicating the age of the electric grid, and 2) in Massachusetts, where National Grid historically budgeted for 4 major storms a year, there were between 9 and 14 a year from 2020-2022, leading to over $100 million more in spending than was budgeted for storm response costs.[xii]
• On the contrary, renewables have in fact been helping to mitigate rate increases. If solar and storage are deployed at a rate that meets policy projections, the difference in deployment between 2025 and 2030 levels will reduce New England energy costs by $684 million annually, with over $313 million in annual savings for Massachusetts customers alone – not accounting the $432-721 million in benefits from avoided greenhouse gas emissions.[xiii] In Vermont, a battery lease program already helps customers ride through blackouts and saves customers millions annually, and adding 3.5 GW of offshore wind could have provided Massachusetts customers net savings of $105 – $212 million if online in Winter 2024/25.[xiv]^{, [xv]}
• So, while bills may not fundamentally change much without further action to bring them down – the reality is that bills are not rising even more because renewables are helping to keep costs down, despite short-term natural gas cost increases.

Claim 2: “If higher bills were clearly delivering lower emissions, the tradeoff might be easier to explain.”

The article also claims that emissions aren’t decreasing. Specifically, it notes that “If higher bills were clearly delivering lower emissions, the [cost] tradeoff might be easier to explain.” There are two major flaws with this claim: the data shows that renewable energy is both helping to combat rising prices, as discussed above, and clearly lowering emissions. As seen in the Annual Emissions plot below, New England’s grid emissions of all types, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, are all down in the past decade (especially considering the dip in generation and emissions during COVID).[xvi]

Figure 3: Annual Emissions in New England. Source: ISO New England.[xvii]

Similarly, in Massachusetts, emissions across all sectors, and in the electric sector specifically, are down substantially since the early 2000s (see Figure 4).[xviii] This highlights how, while we may have days where the resource mix is more or less polluting in Massachusetts, overall, renewable deployment is leading to cleaner air for the state, in addition to helping increase energy affordability.

Figure 4: Massachusetts Gross Emissions by Year. Source: MA Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs.[xix]

The data presented thus far in terms of renewable affordability and emissions lead directly to the first question posed in “Why Your Energy Bill Is Rising — But Emissions Aren’t Falling” that Acadia Center will address.

Question 1: When will renewable energy pay off?

The article questions when the payoff of renewables will be seen. The answer is clear: right now. Renewables are currently helping to deliver cheaper electricity prices and reducing emissions, even in the face of numerous other factors that are increasing electric bills. New major influxes of clean energy will provide further assistance as well, such as the $50 million in annual bill savings expected for Massachusetts residents thanks to the hydroelectric power now beginning to flow over the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission line from Quebec.

We are also seeing a tremendous payoff from energy efficiency. Ratepayers in Massachusetts have saved from the Mass Save program, even if they’ve never utilized the program themselves. When electricity prices rise during heatwaves or cold snaps, energy efficiency mitigates price swings by reducing the demand for electricity that would otherwise be needed. Thanks to the efficiency program, Massachusetts’ electricity demand is 27.7% lower than it would have been absent the existence of the program. This means billions in lifetime savings on avoided supply and infrastructure costs. In total, Mass Save provides $2.69 of value for each $1 invested.[xx] While the article questions whether that value is inflated, even if benefits were half of what they have been found to be, the program would still have an impressive return on investment.

Question 2: “How do we reduce skyrocketing winter emissions before reliable, affordable alternatives are in place?”

The article goes on to question how we can reduce skyrocketing winter emissions before reliable, affordable alternatives to expensive fossil fuels are in place. First, it should be pointed out that “skyrocketing winter emissions” is misleading – as annual emissions have been substantially reduced in recent years (see plots in previous sections). Putting that aside, the answer to the question does not have to be exclusive of reliable, affordable alternatives – in fact, it depends on them. Mass Save will continue to provide additional savings to ratepayers by reducing electricity demand, so long as it is fully funded. Renewables – which improve affordability and are rapidly declining in cost – are also the quickest energy resources to build (see below plot).[xxi] Therefore, building more renewables and energy storage (particularly to align production with winter peaks) should be a focus for grid reliability, reducing energy costs, and decreasing emissions. By adding storage, clean energy can more effectively shave peak demand, reducing the need for expensive, dirty, fossil-fuel peaker plants and expensive infrastructure upgrades that would otherwise be needed to accommodate only a few peak usage hours a year.

Figure 5: Average U.S. Power Plant Development Timeline by Technology. Source: SEIA.[xxii]

Conversely, things are getting worse for fossil fuel powered energy. It now takes at least six years to bring a gas-fired power plant online, and since 2022 the full-scope cost of a combined-cycle gas turbine plant has more than tripled.[xxiii]

Additional solutions to help reduce costs are to implement new technologies, such as grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) and virtual power plants. GETs are advanced hardware and software – such as dynamic line ratings, power flow control devices, and advanced sensors – that increase the usable capacity and efficiency of existing grid infrastructure. Their implementation can cost less than 5% of the annual congestion costs they help eliminate, and they are often cheaper than traditional poles and wires solutions.[xxiv]

Virtual power plants are networks of distributed energy resources – such as rooftop solar, batteries, electric vehicles, and smart appliances – coordinated through software to operate as a single power plant. Like grid enhancing technologies, they are often cheaper to install than “traditional” alternatives: 40-60% cheaper than generation and storage alternatives. They also can be implemented in as little as 6-12 months, helping to avoid multi-year transmission upgrades.

Question 3: How much more can people take?

Lastly, the article inquires about how much cost households and businesses can absorb before public support erodes.

The short answer: not much.

Between 2022 and 2024, investor-owned-utility (IOU) residential electricity rates increased 49% more than inflation.[xxv] Looking at the bigger picture of household economics, between 2001 and 2024, median wages – adjusted for a minimum quality of life – decreased by 4%.[xxvi] Part of the reason for that decrease is skyrocketing costs, including costs driven by emissions, to which fossil fuel-based energy generation is a large contributor. For example, fossil fuels pollute the air and environment, leading to increased medical costs and excess deaths due to pollution.[xxvii]^{, [xxviii]} They also emit greenhouse gases which worsen climate change, leading to increased storm response and restoration costs.[xxix] Insurance premiums also suffer: the average US homeowner’s insurance premiums increased 8.7% faster than inflation from 2018–2022, with sharp spikes in climate-exposed regions.[xxx] In fact, households are already paying between $400 and $900 annually due to climate-driven costs – and that is likely an underestimation, as the analysis only considered a subset of all fossil-fuel related costs.[xxxi]

Such findings place an added emphasis on the importance of clean, affordable energy and programs like Mass Save. Not only can energy efficiency and renewables help keep electric costs lower, but they also have the added benefit of mitigating these “hidden” costs of fossil fuels, which people pay without considering them part of their household energy budget. Accordingly, Acadia Center believes policymakers and energy bills should be more transparent to ratepayers across the state how renewables are saving them money. This aligns well with a recent investigation launched by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) regarding utility bill design, “increasing transparency for ratepayers when they receive their bills[,] and creating more consistency across companies.”[xxxii]

This investigation and subsequent outcomes will provide an opportunity for increased transparency regarding utility bill costs and benefits. For instance, while energy efficiency programs and renewables have some cost associated with them, they avoid other substantial costs – including millions in fuel costs daily during extreme weather.[xxxiii] The avoided costs due to these programs should be visibly included on bills, particularly if the costs of the same programs are included, either as individual line items or under a bucketed cost category (e.g., public benefits charges). Making avoided costs visible will help ratepayers understand both the costs and cost savings from the programs they are paying for, help mitigate any erosion in public support, and help improve understanding of the truth: renewables are decreasing emissions, improving local public health, and increasing electric bill affordability (by avoiding additional costs).

Plus, we don’t have to accept other “business-as-usual” approaches to paying for energy infrastructure. Forthcoming research from Acadia Center and other partners will examine, for example, how a greater use of public financing sources has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of electric transmission infrastructure build-out (stay tuned for more).

Even More Data

For more information on: 1) gas cost drivers, 2) gas volatility explained; 3) electricity cost drivers, and 4) how renewables affect energy costs, see the linked Acadia Center fact sheets.

 

[i] DPU Opens Investigation to Review All Charges on Utility Bills | Mass.gov

[ii] Retail Electricity Price and Cost Trends – 2024 Update | LBNL & NREL

[iii] Natural Gas Consumption | EIA.gov

[iv] Massachusetts Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) | EIA.gov

[v] Short Term Energy Outlook: November, 2025 | EIA.gov

[vi] Short Term Energy Outlook: December, 2025 | EIA.gov

[vii] Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition | Way et al.

[viii] Are we too pessimistic? Cost projections for solar photovoltaics, wind power, and batteries are over-estimating actual costs globally | ScienceDirect

[ix] Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition | Way et al.

[x] Batteries now cheap enough to make dispatchable solar economically feasible | PV Magazine International

[xi] Generation over 1MW data: Form 923 Power Plant Operations Report | EIA; Generation under 1MW data: Electric Power Monthly – Table 1.17.B | EIA; cost data: Electricity Sales Data |EIA

[xii] National Grid wants to raise electric rates to pay for storm damage from 2 years ago | CBS Boston

[xiii] Powered Up: Evaluating the Year-Round Benefits of Solar and Storage in Massachusetts | Synapse

[xiv] A $55/month Tesla Powerwall lease program in Vermont just got a lot bigger | electrek ; Green Mountain Power Kept 1,100 Homes Lit Up During Storm Outage | Greentech Media.

[xv] Value of Wind in Winter 2024/25 | RENEW Northeast & Daymark

[xvi] Environmental and Emissions Reports | ISO New England

[xvii] Environmental and Emissions Reports | ISO New England

[xviii] Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Metrics | Mass.gov

[xix] Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Metrics | Mass.gov

[xx] Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast | Acadia Center

[xxi] We Need Solar and Storage to Address the Energy Emergency | SEIA

[xxii] We Need Solar and Storage to Address the Energy Emergency | SEIA

[xxiii] The gas turbine crunch: Why supply won’t meet demand | Infrastructure Investor

[xxiv] Building a Better Grid: How Grid-Enhancing Technologies Complement Transmission Buildouts | The Brattle Group

[xxv] Rate of Return Equals Cost of Capital: A Simple, Fair Formula to Stop Investor-Owned Utilities From Overcharging the Public | American Economic Liberties Project

[xxvi] Minimal Quality of Life – The true cost of economic well-being | LISEP Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity

[xxvii] Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

[xxviii] The Costs of Inaction: The Economic Burden of Fossil Fuels and Climate Change on Health in the United States | Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health; Natural Resources Defense Council; Wisconsin Health Professionals for Climate Action

[xxix] Time Series – U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | Climate Central; Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world | Carbon Brief

[xxx] FIO data reveals sharp rise in homeowners premiums in climate-exposed ZIP codes | Insurance Business

[xxxi] Who Bears the Burden of Climate Action? Working Paper 34525 | National Bureau of Economic Research

[xxxii] DPU Opens Investigation to Review All Charges on Utility Bills | Mass.gov

[xxxiii] Grid Action Report – June Heat Wave | Acadia Center

Acadia Center’s Presentation at the New England Restructuring Roundtable

Acadia Center’s Presentation at the New England Restructuring Roundtable 2025

House climate bill is a big step backward

Massachusetts is known as a leader in clean energy and climate action. Our policies have lowered emissions, created jobs, and helped families save money on energy. But a bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives on Beacon Hill threatens to undo that progress and would be a damaging mistake for our state.

This bill, proposed by Rep. Mark Cusack, the co-chair of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, is essentially a fossil fuel industry wish list. It rolls back the Commonwealth’s enforceable 2030 climate targets, weakens the Mass Save energy efficiency program, eliminates efforts designed to make energy efficiency more affordable for working families, and even resurrects the disastrous “pipeline tax” that would allow utilities to charge residents for unnecessary gas infrastructure. In short, it hands fossil fuel companies a gift while leaving Massachusetts households to foot the bill.

At a moment when President Trump is dismantling federal climate policy, this bill would do the work for him. It would abandon our 2030 emissions targets, gut our most effective programs, and lock Massachusetts into the very fossil fuel dependence that has driven today’s affordability crisis. It would cede our hard-earned reputation as a clean energy innovator and put our economy, our health, and our climate at risk.

Our lawmakers must be clear on what’s really driving high energy costs: it’s not clean energy. It’s fossil fuels, gas infrastructure, and aging transmission systems.

In 2023 alone, Massachusetts consumers spent $20 billion on energy in their homes and businesses. Programs like Mass Save delivered over $34 billion in savings between 2012 and 2023 and generated more than $3 for every $1 invested. The program is the only tool we have that actively reduces energy burden for all of us, including low- and moderate-income households that are hardest hit by rising energy costs.

Mass Save has weatherized 350,000 homes (including 70,000 low-income homes), created nearly 76,000 jobs, and saved the equivalent output of five power plants. Even if you’ve never used it directly, you’ve benefited from lower wholesale energy prices because your neighbors did. These are real savings in people’s wallets.

By rolling back these programs and weakening enforceable climate targets, House members would lock the state into an outdated, expensive fossil fuel system. Weakening the 2030 climate target removes enforceable benchmarks that ensure our government takes the action we demand.

Without those benchmarks, Massachusetts risks falling behind while other states, and the world, invest in the clean energy technologies of the future. Communities that are already most vulnerable to pollution and climate impacts—low-income and environmental justice communities—will feel the consequences first.

The House also risks undermining the thriving clean energy economy Massachusetts has built.

Our clean energy sector supports more than 115,000 workers, there are over 7,500 energy businesses statewide, and the clean energy industry has added more than $15.9 billion to the state’s economy since 2012. Clean energy is not just good for our planet; it’s good for our wallets. Weakening climate laws now would send a chilling signal to investors, slow innovation, and damage our long-term economic growth, not to mention dirty the clean air and water we deserve.

This bill tells the rest of the nation that when federal leadership falters, Massachusetts folds. It tells clean energy workers that their jobs don’t matter. It tells communities on the front lines of climate and pollution that their health is negotiable.

But that’s not who we are. Massachusetts became a clean energy and climate leader by setting ambitious goals. We still have five years to hit our 2030 targets. Our legislators must reject this fossil fuel gift and recommit to a future built on affordability, innovation, and climate responsibility. A vote for this bill is a vote to cede our leadership to the Trump administration and the fossil fuel lobby. A vote against it is a vote for Massachusetts – to protect our progress, our economy, and our environment.

The choice is simple: Massachusetts can lead, or we can go back. The people of Massachusetts deserve leadership.

Cindy Luppi is the national field director for Clean Water Action. Kyle Murray is director of state program implementation at Acadia Center. Caitlin Peale Sloan is Conservation Law Foundation’s vice president for Massachusetts. John Walkey is director of climate justice and waterfront initiatives at GreenRoots.

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

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.

In California, utilities like SDG&E and PG&E offer specialized electric rates for homes with heat pumps, which, paired with high-efficiency equipment, can drive significant energy bill savings, up to $670 annually on average for single-family homes statewide.

In Maine, Central Maine Power and Versant Power offer heat pump-specific rates to support year-round electric heating. In Vermont, utilities like Green Mountain Power offer tiered rebates based on heat pump performance and provide additional incentives for customers who participate in demand management programs, effectively lowering upfront costs while rewarding efficient energy use.

As more states scale up residential electrification, Massachusetts’ 2.0 proposal offers a model for how rate design can accelerate heat pump adoption while protecting affordability.

Massachusetts has committed to an ambitious goal to ensure heat pumps make up 90% of new heating equipment sales by 2040. But if Massachusetts’s electric rates aren’t fair for everyone, the benefits of efficient electric equipment will be lost.

DOER’s proposed rates offer a clear next step to lower energy burdens while helping Massachusetts meet its clean heat goals. The Healey administration has a rare chance to lead on fairer rate reform and make the clean heat transition more affordable, setting a precedent other states could follow. It should seize it.

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.

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