5 ways tariffs on Canada could affect New England energy prices

Brace yourself. If President Trump’s tariffs on imported goods from Canada take hold next month, experts said the cost of energy and, well, pretty much everything else, would almost certainly go up.

The economic effects would be felt all over the country, but they could be most acute for New England, which relies heavily on Canadian energy exports.

“New England, specifically, will be very, very hard hit by these tariffs,” said Dan Sosland, the president the nonprofit Acadia Center.

Trump has threatened a 10% levy on Canadian energy products and 25% for other goods. According to the New England-Canada Business Council, New England imports about $10.2 billion of heating oil, diesel fuel, natural gas and electricity from Canada annually. Given the region’s dependency on our neighbors to the north, Sosland likened the tariffs to building a big, disruptive wall in the middle of somebody’s house.

“It’s unclear what the purpose of that would be,” he said.

“Once energy prices go up, everything is affected by it,” said Sosland of the Acadia Center. “Egg prices go up, housing prices go up, the cost of programs go up. And that starts to have a trickle [down] effect, reducing employment and productivity.”

To read the full article from wbur, click here.

Experts worry about how tariffs would impact Massachusetts residents

President Donald Trump announced plans over the weekend to tax imported goods from Mexico, Canada and China. On Monday night, the administration announced it would delay implementing tariffs on Mexico and Canada , but the taxes would still go into effect on Chinese goods Tuesday. And China responded with its own tariffs on American goods.

Local experts are keeping an eye how these federal trade policies and may affect Massachusetts residents and businesses.

Tariffs could also increase utility costs in Massachusetts. The state gets some of its energy from Canada, and the paused tariffs include a 10% levy on energy imports from the country.

Acadia Center President Dan Sosland said that would have a major impact on gas and electric utility bills, as well as heating oil and gasoline.

“Ninety percent of the jet fuel at Logan Airport comes from Canada. Eighty percent of New England’s gasoline and diesel comes from Canada,” Sosland said. “In addition to electricity across the board in terms of energy burden and inflationary cost around energy, and then that spillover effect into the whole economy really could be quite significant.”

To read the full article from GBH, click here.

Uncertainty Remains Around Energy Tariffs amid Last-minute Deals

As the Trump administration forged last-minute agreements with Canada and Mexico to postpone steep new tariffs, the energy industry fretted about potential fallout for cross-border supply chains and wholesale electricity markets.

Joe LaRusso, manager of the Clean Grid Program at the Acadia Center, a New England-based climate advocacy group, said he does not think tariffs would have a major effect on New England resource mix, but said they would likely lead to an overall increase in electricity prices.

“It’s not good for a region that is already feeling the pinch of a significant energy burden,” LaRusso said, adding that the cost increases would likely be the most pronounced in the winter, when the region relies most heavily on imported electricity. 

To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.

The Northeast Braces for a Possible Power Shock From Trump’s Tariffs

Donald Trump reemphasized on Thursday that he intends to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico beginning February 1, and while that date is rapidly approaching, the details remain sparse. Although the president has suggested the duties will be sweeping, covering everything from cars to lumber to oil, their impact on one key commodity — electricity — is very much in question.

Whether this would produce a noticeable cost increase for consumers would largely depend on the price of natural gas. In 2023, imports to New York from Quebec dropped precipitously because a drought reduced hydropower capacity, but natural gas prices were also especially low, so electricity prices were not significantly higher.

Low natural gas prices are not guaranteed in the long term, of course.

“Natural gas prices are very market driven, and the more we are reliant on natural gas in the northeast, the more demand you put on that supply, the more those prices are going to go up,” Daniel Sosland, president of the New England-based environmental nonprofit the Acadia Center, told me

And if the tariffs remained in effect in 2026, New Yorkers would be hit much harder. That’s when the Champlain Hudson Power Express, a power line that will deliver 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower into New York City, is expected to be completed. The line will supply some 20% of New York City’s electricity demand.

“I don’t know what the point of all this is,” Sosland told me. Electricity trade between the U.S. and Canada brings mutual benefits, he said. “The idea of tariffs and trying to create a fence along the system is going to be very destructive to customer cost, to clean air, to power reliability, because it’s going to foreclose all these other options that are on the table right now that provide benefits on both sides.”

To read the full article from Heatmap, click here.

Environmental groups launch coalition to pressure Hochul on cap-and-invest

A coalition of nearly two dozen environmental and climate change groups are coming together to put pressure on Gov. Kathy Hochul to implement the cap-and-invest program considered necessary for New York to meet its climate goals.

The proposed cap-and-invest program would place a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that major companies could produce in New York. Companies could buy a limited number of allowances to release more emissions, with the money from sales of those allowances going towards resiliency projects. The number of allowances would gradually be reduced over the coming years.

Other groups involved so far include the Association for Energy Affordability, the League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Advocates NY and the Acadia Center.

To read the full article from City & State NY, click here.

Acadia Report Outlines Benefits of Energy-Efficiency Programs

The Acadia Center recently completed an extensive research and analysis effort to better understand the benefits provided by state-level energy-efficiency programs in New England over the 2012-23 time period.

Collectively, these programs have delivered some $55 billion in benefits to households and businesses across the region, according to the research, providing $3.40 in benefits for every $1 invested.

Simultaneously, the programs play an instrumental role in creating and sustaining about 160,000 energy-efficiency industry jobs in the region and have reduced lifetime carbon emissions at levels equivalent to removing nearly 33 million gasoline-powered cars from the road for one year.

Each New England state operates and administers energy-efficiency programs that leverage surcharges on customer electricity and natural gas bills, combined with other funding sources, to deliver energy-efficiency and electrification improvements to customers, from households and businesses to municipalities.

While these programs have been operating for different lengths of time depending on the state, most programs in New England began operation in the late 1990s or early 2000s.

Click on the links to view the benefits experienced by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

To read the full article from ecoRI, click here.

Here’s how Mass. climate goals might be impacted by Trump’s attack on wind

In the first week of his second term, President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders, including several to do with the environment. One of them, related to wind, will impact Massachusetts’ future clean energy strategy.

As part of his so-called “America First Priorities,” Trump announced he will end leasing to wind farms, which he said “degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers.”

With the Massachusetts Decarbonization Roadmap, the Commonwealth aims to ensure the state reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 and achieves net-zero emissions.

Boston.com sat down with Kyle Murray, state program implementation director at Acadia Center, to hear his thoughts on what Trump’s policies mean for Massachusetts. Murray leads Massachusetts advocacy efforts for Acadia Center, a nonprofit working to cut carbon emissions in the Northeast by at least 50% by 2030.

Boston.com: What have our investments in wind looked like so far, and what’s planned for the future?

Murray: Currently, we don’t have a ton of offshore wind in the Commonwealth, it’s a relatively small part of Massachusetts’ energy mix. We’re currently only getting partial power from the Vineyard Wind project, which is still under construction but will eventually be an 800-megawatt offshore wind farm. But offshore wind was the centerpiece of our future clean energy strategy, and we were setting that up to be the dominant energy source for Massachusetts going forward. The state’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan, the MA Decarbonization Roadmap, they all put offshore as the centerpiece of our strategy.

So what does Trump’s end to leasing for wind farms mean for our decarbonization efforts? 

It’s definitely an enormous setback, I’m not going to lie about that, but the good thing is it doesn’t completely eliminate our offshore wind ambitions. Projects under construction and in operation should still be safe, so Vineyard Wind will be fine. Additionally, projects that are permanent but not yet under construction, are currently safe. Massachusetts has around 2700 megawatts of offshore wind planned that fit into that designation, so all of that should also be safe. But beyond that, any future projects are very unlikely to move forward under the current scheme of things.

What kind of impact will that have on our climate goals more generally?

It’s going to make them significantly harder to hit. Like I said, offshore wind was the centerpiece of our strategy. With the 800 megawatts and potential additional 2700 megawatts, that’s still going to be a decent chunk of our energy, but it won’t be the large piece that it was expected to be. So I think Massachusetts needs to continue to pursue these existing projects and the authority it has on offshore wind, but I think we’ll also need to get a bit creative and double down on alternative non-emitting strategies: solar, hydro, battery storage, energy efficiency. These are all things we really need to start pursuing, because there’s no guarantee that we’re going to be able to get projects in the future. I’m hopeful, with a change in administration or if the administration changes their mind, but I think with an industry of that scale, when there’s uncertainty, it makes production very difficult.

Trump also pulled out of several international treaties and coalitions on climate change, including the Paris Agreement. Can you speak to what kind of impact that might have?

It’s frustrating to see as someone who works in this field, because the United States is not just ceding its status as a climate leader, but also as a climate technology leader. Climate technology is one of the top industries in the world currently, and it’s only growing. What Trump is doing is gifting leadership of that industry and all the money that’s going to come from it to countries like China. It’s incredibly frustrating that for ideological reasons, we are going to lose money on this.

Overall, what effect will these policies have on people’s energy costs?

Simply put, the most likely outcome from all these policies is higher energy costs. Renewables are helping to provide much-needed cost relief for residents, and so these actions by the Trump administration are big complications. Additionally, even though it sounds counterintuitive, the “drill baby drill” attitude on oil and gas actually won’t do anything to bring prices down. If you look at what oil and gas producers are saying, they don’t want to produce any more, they don’t want to drill anymore, they’re good on that. The United States, under the Biden administration, was already producing record highs for oil and gas, and what the oil and gas producers want is not to drill more, but for people to use more of their fuel. I guess you could say the Trump administration is also delivering on that front by attempting to repeal things like energy efficiency policies that save you money. Basically the end result of all of this will likely be you and I being forced to use more energy at higher costs with more money coming out of our wallets.

How is Acadia Center looking at the next four years? Are you mostly thinking about ways to pivot efforts or is there action that can be taken against Trump’s policies?

I think a little bit of both. We’re trying to focus our areas on where we can be most effective. We do a lot at the state and the regional level, but we’re also trying to identify those pressure points federally, where we can be most effective. We saw during the first Trump administration that they can actually be susceptible to public pressure on certain issues; they reversed course on a number of things. That’s why I say these are the executive orders that are in place right now. I don’t know what a year from will look like, or what three years from now will look like, because they might reverse course on some of these things if there’s a huge public outcry.

Similarly, how would you advise other people, especially ones who are particularly concerned about climate change, to think about the next four years?

These actions definitely are a huge disappointment, and they’re going to make meeting our climate goals very difficult. My advice to people is don’t be silent and don’t give up hope. Every little bit of greenhouse gas reduction that we can do is a little bit climate change that is mitigated. Maybe that storm that was going to flood a city actually gets diverted, and it doesn’t happen. Every little bit we can do matters. And your voice matters. I think it’s also important to understand that there are a lot more people who care about this stuff and are in favor than are against it. You are in the majority here, people who care about climate are in the majority.

To read the full article from Boston.com, click here.

Trump’s order blocking wind power could risk Maine clean energy plans

Hours into his new term, President Donald Trump hit the pause button on American wind power development, fulfilling a commitment he made after railing against wind energy on the campaign trail.

The move may hobble Maine’s plan to meet ambitious clean electricity targets.

Kyle Murray, with clean energy and climate nonprofit Acadia Center, said Trump’s order will allow permitted wind projects in Massachusetts and elsewhere to move ahead.

But if the administration maintains an anti-wind stance, it will likely challenge Maine’s plans, Murray added. And while he believes wind power is still viable, interrupting development may require New England states to redouble efforts in other areas to expand clean energy and lower greenhouse gas pollution, he said.

“We also need to focus on solar, energy efficiency, those types of things that can really help us meet our climate goals as well,” Murray said.

The Maine Governor’s Energy Office said it is reviewing Trump’s executive orders, but it will be years before the planned floating research array is ready to apply for federal permits.

To read the full article from Maine Public, click here.

White Paper – Strategic Implications of U.S. LNG Exports

The United States is the world’s leading producer of natural gas and largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Over the past decade, affordable U.S. LNG exports have facilitated a global shift from coal and mitigated the geopolitical risks of fossil fuel imports from Russia and the Middle East. Today, U.S. LNG plays a critical role in diversifying global energy supplies and reducing reliance on adversarial energy suppliers. However, rising global dependence on natural gas is creating new vulnerabilities, including pricing fluctuations, shipping route bottlenecks, and inherent health, safety, and environmental hazards. The U.S. also faces geopolitical challenges related to the LNG trade, including China’s stockpiling and resale of cheap U.S. LNG exports to advance its renewable energy industry and expand its global influence.

In an ideal scenario, the international community would align around a shared vision of gas production and consumption to facilitate the transition from coal to renewable energy. Instead, the U.S. LNG industry’s plans for rapid growth are increasingly disconnected from international partners and global gas demand, which is expected to peak as early as 2030. With U.S. LNG exports poised to double by 2028, further gas infrastructure expansion could lock in long-term global dependency at a time when energy systems must evolve. To foster a sustainable and secure energy future, U.S. energy policies must stabilize domestic demand for LNG, improve methane tracking and reduction, pursue comprehensive energy partnerships, invest in renewable energy projects, and develop a long-term strategy for LNG supply.

The switch to renewable energy may provide a more direct pathway to reducing New England’s dependence on LNG imports. A 2020 analysis by the New England-based nonprofit Acadia Center determined that current legislation and plans for renewable energy deployment in New England would reduce the region’s reliance on natural gas for electricity generation from 45 percent in 2020 to 10 percent by 2030.[208] Switching to renewable energy would lower New England’s gas demand enough to eliminate the region’s need for LNG imports

To read the full white paper from the American Security Project, click here.

Trump signed a slew of executive orders on Day 1. What are they, and how might they affect New England?

President Donald Trump began his promised flurry of executive action on Day 1. With his first batch of memoranda and orders, Trump repealed dozens of former president Joe Biden’s actions, withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accords, put a temporary freeze on new federal regulations, and commanded federal law enforcement to end all cases and investigations of any Trump supporters, among other actions.

He said during his inauguration speech that the US will, “drill, baby, drill,” a phrase first used in 2008 to mean increasing domestic oil production.

Kyle Murray, director of the State Program Implementation at the Acadia Center, a clean energy research nonprofit in Boston, said that Trump’s plan to cut off new federal leases for wind energy will have a big impact on Massachusetts’ plans to reach net zero.

“The inability to secure those leases will make things incredibly difficult for the Commonwealth to meet its clean energy goals in the long term,” Murray said.

The president has repeatedly and falsely blamed the offshore wind industry for whale deaths and said during his inauguration speech that his administration would “end the ‘Green New Deal,’” referring to policies to accelerate the energy transition.

Still, Murray said that Massachusetts can respond to the slow-down in offshore wind development by ramping up solar development and accelerating the state’s energy efficiency goals.

“Offshore wind, while it was the centerpiece of our strategy, is not the only source of clean energy,” Murray said.

To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.