Q&A with Acadia Center’s 2025 Fellows

Domingo Cortinez, Roger E. Koontz Fellow in Law and Climate Policy

Who are you?
I’m Domingo Cortinez, a rising second-year student at Yale Law School. I am involved with the Community and Economic Development Clinic, the Yale Environmental Law Students Association, and serve on the executive board of La Sociedad of Latine Law Students.

What brought you to Acadia Center?
I took energy law this past semester and that class really opened my eyes to how much good work there is to be done in the energy space— spanning everything from decarbonization to consumer protection through lower costs and better  reliability. Acadia Center’s leadership in this space made the legal fellowship an incredible opportunity to learn about the intricacies of grid advocacy while contributing to real, tangible improvements to our grid system.

Can you describe the scope of the work you’ve done this summer?
I’ve been doing legal research around creating an independent transmission monitor in New England which would review costs for an increasingly problematic form of transmission investment—asset condition projects. These projects represent a staggering 93% of transmission investment, yet they exploit a massive regulatory loophole that lets utilities skip the competitive oversight required for virtually all other grid investments. My work has involved analyzing federal and state regulatory authority over these transmission investments, examining case law on RTO oversight, and developing structural models for an independent entity that could ensure that these massive investments actually serve consumer interests rather than just utility profits.

What interested you about that particular issue/project?
While transmission is incredibly important for improved reliability and the decarbonization of our grid, the vast majority of current investment is going towards costly rebuilds or rehabs of old lines rather than the bigger and more interconnected projects which New England requires for our future grid. Helping to envision a transmission monitor that would better serve the interests of consumers really peaked my interests—it’s hard to imagine any solution which, if structured correctly, can lead to cheaper energy, a more reliable grid, and a more sustainable future—but this project is helping to do exactly that.

What did you find most challenging about the project?
The most challenging part was simultaneously developing expertise in regulatory law and understanding how the energy industry actually works in the day-to-day—from initial project development through regulatory approval to final construction. Connecting legal concepts to real-world industry practices required mastering two very different fields but finding that nexus between law and practice is exactly what made the research rewarding.

What do you wish people understood about your area of interest/studies?
I wish people understood that energy regulation, while technical, directly determines whether families can afford their electric bills, whether the lights stay on, and whether we can achieve our climate goals. The biggest misconception I see is that environmental and economic interests are at odds, but proper regulation can deliver cheaper energy, better reliability, and faster decarbonization simultaneously. Our current framework just creates these perverse incentives that benefit utilities at the consumers expense, but closing regulatory loopholes can unlock billions in savings while accelerating clean energy. This work matters for everyone’s daily life and our shared future.

How has your experience at Acadia Center transformed your views on a specific energy topic or climate in general?
Before Acadia Center, I thought climate action and consumer affordability were often in tension—that going green meant higher costs for families. My fellowship showed me that the opposite is true when policy is designed correctly, as I saw how proper regulatory oversight could simultaneously lower energy bills, improve reliability, and accelerate decarbonization. My fellowship taught me that the biggest barrier to a clean energy future isn’t cost or technology—it’s poorly designed policies that fail to align environmental and economic interests.

What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned over the course of your fellowship?
The most valuable lesson I’ve learned is just how important it is to structure incentives properly, so that all grid actors are doing what’s good for consumers and the public interest rather than just maximizing their own profits. When incentives are misaligned, you get exactly what we see today—expensive infrastructure rebuilds that benefit utilities financially but don’t serve the broader goals of affordability, reliability, and sustainability.

---

Eres David, Data Analysis Fellow

Who are you?
Hi! I’m Eres David, a rising Junior at Columbia University studying Earth and Environmental Engineering.

What brought you to Acadia Center?
I was introduced to Acadia Center through the Black Girl Environmentalist (BGE) Hazel M. Johnson Fellowship. Through the fellowship, I was able to apply to climate-focused companies and organizations partnered with BGE and in researching my options, Acadia Center really stood out to me!

Please describe the scope of the work you’ve done this summer.
This summer, I evaluated two drivers of rising energy costs in New England: natural gas price volatility and natural gas infrastructure capital investment. My work included analysis of the price of natural gas sold to electricity generators and wholesale electricity prices as well as researching gas infrastructure programs in New England and collecting data on spending and revenue requirements.

What interested you about that particular issue/project?
It was particularly interesting to learn how gas infrastructure replacement and expansion programs use money for spending that contradicts decarbonization goals for several decades, even after the programs have been phased out. Not only could this spending be allocated to renewable energy investments, but these costs also end up being offset by ratepayers and utility customers!

What did you find most challenging about the project?
Finding expenditure data for the gas infrastructure programs was very challenging. A lot of these spending figures were buried in documents and reports that were difficult to find and decipher. I was fortunate to have help from other members of the team to find some of these documents and find the values I needed.

What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned over the course of your fellowship or internship?
My experience at Acadia Center has opened my eyes to the vast intricacies of advocating for clean, affordable energy at the regional level. I was unaware of the processes that went into energy policy advocacy and the numerous uses for data like that which I analyzed this summer.

What do you wish people understood about your area of interest/studies?
I wish people understood how important clear, succinct communication is. In order to advocate for clean, affordable energy that is equitably accessible, the research we do and the data we collect has to be “translated” effectively.  Politicians, scientists, community members, and anyone else who affects or is affected by energy policy should be able to easily interpret our findings.

---

Mia Ambroiggio, Environmental Justice and Outreach Fellow

Who are you?
My name is Mia Ambroiggio, and I am currently a summer fellow with Acadia Center. I’m a graduate student at the Yale School of the Environment, pursuing a Master of Environmental Management with a specialization in People, Equity, and the Environment. My interests center on community resilience to climate threats, with a particular focus on coastal and disaster resilience.

What brought you to Acadia Center?
I was placed with Acadia Center through my fellowship program—the Yale Environmental Fellows—and I couldn’t be more excited. With a background in resilience work across government scales in Maine, I recognized energy as a personal knowledge gap. This role with Acadia Center has given me the opportunity to explore the energy space and its connection to resilience in an applied context, while also learning from the deep expertise of Acadia’s staff on the clean energy transition.

Can you explain the scope of the work you’ve done this summer?
This summer, I explored the role of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) in enhancing community resilience, particularly in response to outages caused by extreme weather events. I conducted interviews with municipalities and community organizations across the Northeast to understand the current DER landscape: what projects are completed or underway, useful resources, and common barriers across communities. Insights from these conversations shaped a practical toolkit designed to help communities interested in pursuing DER projects. The toolkit features clear, accessible language, a glossary of DER-related terminology, and a resource directory to help communities find technical assistance, funding, and opportunities for knowledge sharing and collaboration.

What interested you about that particular issue/project?
As climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, this work feels extremely pressing. Ensuring that communities— especially those at heightened risk due to being rural, coastal, or on an island— have the information, funding, and infrastructure to maintain power and critical services during outages or disruptions to the larger grid is incredibly important to the preparedness and health of the community. Additionally, with a background in writing and community engagement, translating jargon-heavy energy topics into plain language so they can reach and resonate with a wider audience is always of interest to me!

What did you find most challenging about the project?
Energy is extremely complex! Although the pursuit of Distributed Energy Resources seems intuitive due to their many benefits, there are many complications that we have created within our larger energy system that inhibits this work, and therefore inhibits community resilience. To successfully achieve clean energy solutions that benefit communities, consistent collaboration and cooperation is needed.

What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned over the course of your fellowship or internship?
Although universal themes emerge in terms of the barriers and benefits of community energy projects, this work is — and should be — deeply place-based. Every community has its own relationship to place, unique challenges, and distinct priorities. While large quantitative datasets are valuable, community-led conversations and relationship-building are essential to ensuring the work remains truly relevant to local needs.

What do you wish people understood about your area of interest/studies?
Community resilience is all-encompassing—from borrowing an egg or a cup of flour from a neighbor to maintaining large-scale energy infrastructure. The strength of a community’s connections—to each other, to local government, and to essential services—ultimately determines how well it can withstand increasing climate risks

Advocacy Win: DPU Halts Gas Line Extension Subsidies, Saving Customers Millions

On August 8th, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) issued Order 20-80-E, closing a decades-old loophole that forced everyday gas customers to subsidize new fossil fuel hookups, costing ratepayers $160 million in 2023 alone ($9,000 per customer). The average cost of adding new customers was rising, specifically, 50 percent between 2020-2021 and another 50 percent in 2022-2023. 

This order was the latest from DPU docket 20-80, the “Future of Gas” docket investigating the future role of natural gas in Massachusetts as the Commonwealth works to achieve its climate mandates and address energy affordability. So far, the DPU has issued a number of impressive orders in this docket that have begun to transform the role of natural gas in Massachusetts and finally curtail its expansion.

This victory is a good example of how coordinated advocacy, grounded in data analysis, can shape precedent-setting regulatory outcomes. In April of this year, Acadia Center and Rewiring America co-authored group coalition comments that were generally supportive of the draft gas line extension policy but also contained specific recommendations for how to make the policy stronger. For example, the draft policy mentioned exception criteria projects would need to meet to receive a line extension subsidy, including one criterion describing how the project must have “….no feasible alternatives to the use of natural gas, including electrification.” In our comments, we argued “feasibility” should be defined as “technical feasibility” (a subtle yet crucial distinction), and the DPU agreed with us in their final decision, limiting allowances to projects that could prove there was no technically feasible alternative to natural gas in their specific building. How do we know we helped shape the outcome? Our letter was cited 18 times throughout the DPU’s decision. 

The order in DPU 20-80-E is about “Practices for Line Extension Allowances and Contributions in Aid of Construction for Gas Local Distribution Companies.” Put simply, it essentially looks at who should pay the costs associated with expanding gas service into new areas. Because the cost of gas infrastructure is extremely expensive, these costs had previously been borne mostly by existing ratepayers, with the understanding that the addition of the customer would pay for itself in the long term. However, forward-looking projections show this would no longer be the case. 

In practice, prior to this most recent decision, existing gas customers paid a disproportionate share of the costs for bringing new gas customers online. Since 2018, existing gas customers have footed the bill for 80 percent of all new gas customer connections — and these subsidies have driven up gas bills for everyone. In terms of projected future costs, according to a recent earnings report from Eversource, the company projects that its gas distribution costs across New England will increase 83 percent between 2023 and 2029, faster than either its electric transmission or distribution subsidiaries. A separate analysis commissioned by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office corroborated that a potentially vast and rapid gas system build-out – and associated impacts to ratepayer bills – could occur without state intervention. According to the AG’s analysis, the path we’re currently on could see the state’s gas rate base – the total value of gas system assets on which utilities are allowed to earn a rate of return – jump from $10 to $20 billion in a short span of roughly 10 years. 

The old system served as a massive subsidy to natural gas service, and incentivized the expansion of natural gas infrastructure. Massachusetts’ climate plans call for reduced reliance on the natural gas distribution system in the coming years, meaning that the old system of spreading the cost of connecting new gas customers across all customers was directly at odds with our climate plans. Further, with the knowledge that the gas system needs to be wound down, the prior “business as usual” policy would have continued to incentivize gas infrastructure expansion that would end up as stranded costs that all gas customers would be on the hook to pay for far into the future.

While the gas utilities, also known as local distribution companies (LDCs), argued in the docket that existing practices are consistent with state policies, most comments came down on the other side. Thankfully, the DPU overwhelmingly sided with the latter. It ordered the discontinuing of line extension allowances, except in certain instances where alternatives to gas service were simply technically infeasible. Based on the language in the order, we expect proposals for new gas hookups that meet this exception criteria to be very few and far between – for example, potentially some niche industrial customers with no technically viable alternative electric- or propane-based equipment available on the market would meet this exception criteria. 

This decision is crucial because the Commonwealth is already facing concerns about energy affordability. Costs associated with the gas system have steadily been rising, and continuing to subsidize new gas hook-ups would have only worsened the situation. This is one more step in reshaping Massachusetts’ energy system, but the fight isn’t over, and other subsidies and misaligned incentives exist for gas infrastructure. 

Now that the much anticipated decision around line extension allowances has been resolved, attention among advocates will turn towards the Climate Compliance Plans — the five-year strategic documents that local gas distribution companies (LDCs) must submit under the Future of Gas docket, showing how they plan to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) sublimits, prioritize affordability and equity, and use pilot projects, among other requirements. 

Opinion: Utilities count on your boredom to keep electric bills high

Want to know the quickest way to clear a party? Start talking about utility regulation. First, the record scratches, eyes glaze over, conversations die, and suddenly everyone remembers they need to check on their pets. It’s regulatory Kryptonite … so mind-numbingly technical that even policy wonks reach for their phones.

And that’s exactly how utilities like it.

A Message from Acadia Center President, Daniel Sosland on the Passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill”

The so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is a direct attack on our clean energy future, public health, and the citizen input that is essential to a functioning democracy. By slashing clean energy investments and tax credits, it will raise consumer costs—hiking energy bills by $110 next year and $400 annually within five years—while killing jobs in renewable energy and forcing reliance on expensive, volatile fossil fuels. The bill will severely increase risks to the reliability of our power grid by kneecapping the very clean energy resources that are quickest to deploy, most cost effective, and just recently came to the rescue during a historic summer heat wave event. At the same time, it weakens air pollution controls, increasing asthma, heart disease, and premature deaths, all while cutting Medicaid funding, disproportionately harming low-wealth and communities of color. What’s more, it silences the public and limits scrutiny, allowing developers to short-cut environmental reviews and bypass community input while handing millions of acres of public lands to oil and gas companies. This bill isn’t just bad policy—it’s a giveaway to the most powerful at the expense of working families, public health, and the climate. It is a sad day in America when laws are enacted – by a single vote – to override the right to clean air, affordable energy, and a say in our future. Acadia Center is determined to make the case for a clean energy future, support state and community action, rebut false claims and document the damage done to clean air and energy affordability by this regressive legislation.

Cutting energy efficiency and renewables is not the answer to R.I.’s rising energy costs

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.”