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.

In reliably-blue Massachusetts, leaders and advocates prepare to fight Trump on transgender rights, climate efforts

Hours after returning to the presidency, President Trump began signing a suite of executive orders Monday aimed at fulfilling campaign promises and jolting US policy rightward on issues from the economy to the environment.

“The inflation crisis was caused by lots of overspending and escalating energy prices,” Trump said at his swearing-in ceremony, adding, “We have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have — the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth — and we are going to use it.”

“We are not going to do the wind thing,” Trump said.

Kyle Murray, the director of the state program implementation at the Acadia Center, a clean energy research nonprofit in Boston, said Trump’s plan to not issue federal leases for wind energy will have a big impact on Massachusetts’ plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“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.

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

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

Heat pumps are designed to operate when it’s still cold out. Really cold out.

Two years ago, the mercury dipped well below zero, significantly colder than this week. The Globe reached out to heat pump owners to see how their systems fared in the bitter cold in February 2023. Here’s what we found.

Greenhouse gases produced by heating buildings, including homes, account for about a third of Massachusetts’ climate-warming emissions.

Ben Butterworth, the director of climate, energy, and equity analysis at the clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said he wasn’t surprised that heat pumps performed well. “After years of falsely being told that heat pumps weren’t suitable for extreme cold, I do think this moment was critical for instilling confidence in heat pump users,” he said. “Continued reliance on fossil fuels to heat our buildings is simply incompatible with the state’s climate targets.”

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

FERC Sides with New England Developers on Interconnection Complaint

New England transmission owners no longer can require interconnection customers to pay operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for required system upgrades.

Joe LaRusso, manager of the Clean Grid Program at the Acadia Center, wrote on social media that “FERC has broomed away a significant obstacle to interconnection that was unique to New England.”

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

More heat pumps and help for renters: What’s in the new Mass Save plan

In a new plan, leaders of Mass Save pledged big changes to the statewide program that provides rebates to residents to make their homes and businesses more energy efficient.

Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a climate advocacy and research group, called the plan “innovative.”

“The plan includes record-breaking numbers all around that will keep Massachusetts a leader in progress on climate,” he wrote in an email.

Murray added it would help many residents — including renters and those with lower incomes — save money and reduce their homes’ climate footprints.

While the Healey administration is not expecting Mass Save alone to shoulder the 2030 goal, it did ask the utilities to estimate what it would cost to cut 2.2 million metric tons, or half the total state goal, by 2027.

The answer: at least $16.3 billion.

Murray of the Acadia Center said that’s too much to put on the backs of ratepayers.

“We have likely hit close to the maximum output of the current funding model,” he said in an email. “It is of the utmost importance that the Commonwealth make finding outside funding for the programs a top priority.”

To read the full article from wbur, click here.

State lawmakers pass bill that could change the way millions of Americans heat and cool their homes: ‘The gas system is not here forever’

Massachusetts lawmakers just approved a bill that will make it easier and quicker to build renewable energy projects across the state, while putting new limits on natural gas growth, reported Canary Media.

The new law creates a one-stop approval process for clean energy projects through the Energy Facilities Siting Board, removing red tape that often slows construction. It also sets time limits on legal challenges to renewable projects, capping them at 15 months to prevent lengthy delays.

Kyle Murray, director at the Acadia Center, added:

“I think this DPU takes that mission seriously. And so I’m confident they will take these updated provisions seriously.”

To read the full article from The Cool Down, click here.

Massachusetts shifts gears: New Mass Save plan targets rental units for green upgrades

A few months back, Frank Hays found himself in what he calls a “landlord’s plumbing nightmare.” At both of the rental properties he owns in Worcester, and even at his own home in Framingham, things just kept going wrong. Water heaters? Busted. Heating system? Down. Appliances? Shot.

Kyle Murray, of the Acadia Center, said there are some efforts underway by advocacy groups and the utilities to identify other funding, but that largely, the shortfall isn’t being addressed.

“We’re pushing these programs as far as they can go on current budgets,” he said. “We really need to be finding alternative sources of significant funding for the program that doesn’t put it again on the back of ratepayers.”

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