A Smarter Way to Pay: Public Financing for Affordable Transmission Development in New England
A Smarter Way to Pay: Public Financing for Affordable Transmission in New England – Report
Legal Pathways to Lowering Transmission Costs in New England Through Public Transmission Financing
Media Contacts
Natalie Volk
Communications Manager, Clean Air Task Force
nvolk@catf.us, 703-785-9580
Conrad Jarzebowski
Senior Director, Communications, Acadia Center
cjarzebowski@acadiacenter.org
New analysis finds public financing could save New England customers billions on grid upgrades
A new study from Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force (CATF) finds that public financing mechanisms could significantly reduce the cost of building and upgrading transmission infrastructure in New England—delivering $9.5 billion in savings for customers while supporting a reliable and clean electricity system.
“New England transmission rates are the highest in the country, placing a growing burden on customers ,” said Nicole Pavia, Director, Clean Energy Infrastructure Deployment at CATF. “They already account for 30% of wholesale electricity costs, and under the current model, customers can pay more than three times the original cost of a transmission project over its lifetime due to conventional financing structures. At the same time, rising electricity demand and the need for new and upgraded grid infrastructure are driving additional system buildout. Meeting these demands while addressing existing energy affordability challenges will require new and innovative solutions.”
New England will need to scale a broad mix of clean energy resources, grid infrastructure, energy efficiency and demand response, and other technologies to meet climate targets, accommodate rising demand from electrification and new industries, and manage winter peaks projected to double over the next 25 years. At the same time, aging infrastructure and growing electricity demand are increasing pressure to expand and modernize the grid.
The report’s analysis, with contributions from Power Advisory and Professor Joshua Macey of Yale University, finds that the current approach to financing—heavily dependent on private equity and debt—is adding avoidable costs for consumers. Public financing approaches, such as the use of tax-exempt public debt and equity, could reduce costs by up to 43% ($8.4 billion) for new transmission projects and up to 34% ($1.1 billion) for upgrades and asset condition projects over 40 years. These savings could be achieved through multiple implementation pathways, including integrating public financing into ISO New England’s transmission planning and procurement processes, as well as leveraging existing state financing authorities.
“Transmission is essential to delivering affordable, reliable, and clean electricity—but how we finance it matters immensely,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center. “Public financing offers a practical way to lower customer costs while still delivering the grid investments the region needs. With the right tools, states across New England can significantly reduce costs for consumers while accelerating grid modernization and the integration of clean energy resources.”
“Transmission costs ultimately flow through to customers, and the cost of capital is a key driver of what customers pay,” said Joshua Macey, Professor of Law at Yale Law School. “In New England, states have a clear opportunity to act—either by expanding existing public financing entities or creating a dedicated transmission financing authority. With the right statutory authority, strong governance, and structure that align with existing cost-recovery frameworks, these approaches can reduce costs for customers while supporting the buildout of critical grid infrastructure.”
Key findings include:
- Transmission costs in New England are the highest in the country: At $25 per megawatt-hour in 2024, transmission rates account for 30% of wholesale energy costs in the region and are more than double those in NYISO, PJM, MISO, and ERCOT.
- Significant investment is needed: To replace aging infrastructure, $11.9 billion in local transmission upgrades and replacements are already proposed, planned, or under construction. In addition, ISO New England estimates that $16 to $26 billion in regional transmission investment will be needed over the next 25 years to ensure reliability, meet growing demand, and achieve decarbonization goals. Every project that moves forward without public financing in place places an unnecessary and undue burden on customers.
- Public financing can deliver substantial savings: For new transmission, these models could deliver up to $8.4 billion in customer savings over 40 years—a 43% reduction compared to business-as-usual financing. For rebuilds and upgrades of existing lines, public financing could deliver $1.1 billion in savings, or a 34% cost reduction, over the same time frame.
- Multiple flexible pathways to implementation: Building on existing state collaboration, public financing can be pursued through a range of near-, medium-, and long-term pathways.
- Flexibility and replicability: Participating states can return most savings to customers while allocating a portion to priorities such as host community benefits or targeted bill relief.
The report also highlights opportunities for states to use public financing to support broader policy goals, including community benefits, regional collaboration, and economic development – informed by direct engagement with New England stakeholders during the report’s development. It provides a roadmap for policymakers and regulators to reduce electricity costs while building the grid needed for the future.
Utilities Oppose Billion-Dollar Customer Refund Order on Rates Deemed “Unjust” by FERC
May 5, 2026
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact:
Conrad Jarzebowski
Senior Director Communications
cjarzebowski@acadiacenter.org
Utilities’ proposal for higher return on investment would increase profits by hundreds of millions during energy affordability crisis
In late March, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) struck down the return on equity (ROE), or allowed profits, that New England’s electric transmission utilities have been earning on their power line investments. FERC found previous rates of return to be “unjust and unreasonable” and required the utilities to refund as much as $1.5 billion in overpayments to New England electricity customers, dating back over ten years. Yesterday, despite this recent reduction, the utilities proposed to FERC that they should receive an even higher new rate of guaranteed return on equity. Rather than adopting the 9.57% rate that FERC had specified, the transmission utilities have now proposed an all-in rate of 11.89%, factoring in incentives. This proposed ROE, if adopted, would result in billions of dollars in additional charges for New England electricity customers over the coming years and decades—significantly increasing the cost of electricity for consumers across the region.
“FERC issued its finding that these returns are unjust and unreasonable after nearly 15 years of litigation any reasonable person would find thorough and fair” said Daniel L. Sosland, President of Acadia Center. “The companies have had their day in court, and the revised level provides a robust incentive while not overburdening New England consumers. Not only have utilities sought to prevent refunds due to customers, but they have proposed an even higher new return on equity that overcompensates them for any underlying risk of their investment. This will only drive up customer costs further during an affordability crisis. Appropriate transmission investments are critical to meeting the region’s future goals, but they must be funded in a manner that provides adequate and not excessive profits and is measured against the low risk in the field.”
The utilities’ aggressive proposal comes on the heels of actions by utility companies Eversource and Avangrid to delay and avoid the payment of their $1.1 billion share of the refund that is due to New England ratepayers. In federal court pleadings seeking a stay, Eversource and Avangrid argue that customers would be harmed by the refunds, either by hypothetical negative credit impacts to the Companies from having to pay, or if the utilities successfully appeal FERC’s decision and customers then have to surrender their recently returned refund. By any reasonable measure, a 9.57% return on approved projects should provide adequate compensation to the Companies.
The fight to reduce the 10.57% return on equity began fourteen years ago, and Acadia Center (then Environment Northeast, or ENE) was at the forefront in seeking FERC review. Last month’s FERC decision was a long time coming, and Acadia Center and its co-complainants stayed the course until the region’s electricity customers were vindicated. Now, the utilities would not only prolong an exhaustive process, but they are seeking higher returns that would translate to even greater burdens on electricity customers. Acadia Center recommends that the court appoint a special master or monitor to place the funds in an interest-earning escrow that would be paid to customers if Eversource and Avangrid lose on appeal, or would go to the utilities if they prevail.
ISO New England, the regional grid operator, has estimated that it will cost between $16 billion and $26 billion to add the transmission capacity the region will need to have in place by 2050. The return on equity proposed by the utilities yesterday would ensure that the cost of that capacity will be millions of dollars more expensive and more profitable to the Companies.
Looking ahead: analysis forthcoming later this month from Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force (CATF) will examine new public financing approaches to transmission investment in New England that could substantially reduce the cost of the region’s needed transmission investment, to the tune of billions of dollars of savings.
Putting Costs in Context in Connecticut
Media Contacts:
Kate McAuliffe, Senior Policy Advocate, Connecticut
kmcauliffe@acadiacenter.org, 860-246-7121 x202
Noah Berman, Senior Policy Advocate, Utility Innovation Program Manager
nberman@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x107
Executive Summary
- Eversource justifies its solar project cancellation via a misleading focus on comparatively miniscule solar contract costs, ignoring full savings and other larger cost drivers. The utility’s refusal to execute contracts with 54 MW of new solar capacity upends the state’s proper role and conflicts with clear, long-established policy mandates.
- While renewables are often scapegoated as a driver of the Northeast’s high electricity prices, the data shows the opposite is true. The proposed solar capacity from this multi-state RFP is projected to save ratepayers $80 million over twenty years. It is therefore Eversource’s decision not to enter into these contracts that will increase customer costs, not the contracts themselves.
- A recent FERC Order reduced New England transmission owners’ allowed return on equity (ROE) and ordered refunds to ratepayers. Rather than provide ratepayers real relief, Eversource and Avangrid have asked FERC and the U.S. Court of Appeals to stay the $1.5 billion refund decision – including $500+ million dollars due to Connecticut ratepayers.
- Other major drivers of customer costs attributable to Eversource’s transmission and distribution businesses (single-year figures) dwarf the gross costs cited for the solar contracts ($238m over twenty years), including: $300m in transmission re-build expenses in Connecticut; $667m in regional distribution-level profits; and $483m in power supply costs at $155 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
- States with more penetration of renewables have seen smaller electricity price increases over the past twenty years, while states that depend more heavily on natural gas have seen higher electricity price increases. Studies have also consistently shown that renewables save customers money by reducing wholesale electricity prices, especially during extreme weather and global fuel volatility like we’re experiencing today.
On December 18, 2025, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), in collaboration with Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont, announced the selection of 173 MW of new solar projects that will being clean, affordable energy to the region.[1] This regional effort was designed to bring costs down for ratepayers, improve grid reliability, and allow states to take advantage of federal tax credits before their untimely expiration. The three solar projects selected by Connecticut would provide enough electricity to power 12,000 homes, save ratepayers an estimated $80 million over a twenty-year contract period, and contribute to Connecticut’s requirement of achieving a zero-carbon electric sector by 2040.[2]
The future of these projects was called into question on March 27, 2026, when Eversource submitted a letter indicating that it was declining to enter into contracts for its 54 MW share.[3] According to the letter, Eversource made this “difficult” decision in the interest of ratepayer costs, citing the affordability of power purchase agreements (PPAs) and a lack of long-term planning for Connecticut’s renewable portfolio. Eversource’s attempt to ignore estimated savings and opt-out of these contracts is unwarranted and threatens to risk other participating states’ procurements, potentially depriving ratepayers of affordable, clean, locally based and reliable energy.
Unpacking the Double Standard Applied by Eversource
While Eversource’s letter suggests a desire to conduct procurements through a “much-needed affordability lens,” the Company unfortunately does not apply the same level of concern to much larger costs in other areas of customer bills. For starters, as illustrated above, the gross annual costs of the solar projects are miniscule in comparison to other savings opportunities, and that is without the consideration of net benefits from the projects’ price effects in wholesale electricity markets, which outweigh the costs entirely.
Figure 1: Comparison of Solar Procurement Costs/Benefits With Other Major Energy Cost Drivers
In addition, a recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order – issued just eight days before Eversource’s letter refusing to execute the solar contracts – reduced New England transmission owners’ allowed return on equity (ROE) and ordered refunds to ratepayers, concluding the utilities’ rates were “unjust and unreasonable.” Rather than use this opportunity to provide ratepayers real relief, Eversource and Avangrid have asked FERC and the U.S. Court of Appeals to stay the $1.5 billion refund decision.[4],[5] For Connecticut Light and Power ratepayers, the total refund appears to amount to around $507 million, before carrying costs.[6] And yet, Eversource, with Avangrid, has filed a motion to stay its obligation to pay this refund, prolonging litigation that began in 2011 (filed by Acadia Center, then called Environment Northeast, in cases consolidated with ones brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General and others[7]) in order to avoid responsibility for refunding customers. Eversource’s decision not to refund its customers half a billion dollars ordered by its federal regulator is not in keeping with a purported focus on “protect[ing] the interests of customers.[8]
In arguing to stay the refund, Eversource and the other utilities cite “downstream harms to customers, who ultimately bear the increased financing costs resulting from negative credit impacts,” among others (Motion at 4). At best, it is speculative that the resulting 9.57% Return on Equity (ROE) will result in negative credit rating impacts that harm customers; at worst, it is a misleading argument frequently made by utilities to avoid reductions in allowed profits. In practice, even utilities undergoing active bankruptcy filings – a much more perilous financial circumstance than Eversource here faces – have been able to access capital from investors.[9]
Even more glaring, Eversource has not raised any objections to the lack of planning/policy direction when it comes to the oversight and regulation of what are called Asset Condition Projects (ACPs) – a type of transmission project that has until recently received so little regulatory oversight that none has ever been modified or rejected in New England.[10] These projects, which are largely rebuilds of existing assets, are widely acknowledged to be driving substantial cost increases in customers’ transmission bills. In 2025, $300 million dollars’ worth of Eversource ACPs went into service in Connecticut, according to ISO New England’s Asset Condition List. Even though there has been no coherent policy at the state or region level monitoring these assets to ensure the investments are “aligned with state policy and affordability objectives,” as the Company writes in its letter, Eversource does not show similar high-mindedness by reining in its own ACP spending. Rather, from 2022 to 2024, Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders (or ‘profits’) recovered by Eversource’s regional holding company (not the subsidiary in Connecticut) for electric transmission rose from $596.6M to $724.6M, an increase of $128M in two years.[11]
This, compared to an annual gross project cost of $11.9 million ($238m/20 years) for these three solar procurements that Eversource has declined to procure. It is noteworthy that Eversource cites the gross lifetime cost rather than the annual cost or the lifetime net benefits because, on an annual basis, these procurements are a very small amount of money to a very large company – hardly “an unreasonable burden on the respective EDC’s balance sheet.”[12] Nowhere does Eversource mention the net benefits to ratepayers. Indeed, the customer bill benefits cited by DEEP – some $80m in net lifetime ratepayer bill savings from energy sales and the market impacts of lower energy and capacity prices – make it clear that these procurements actually have the overall impact of decreasing customer bills, rather than increasing them.[13] Viewed in this light, it is Eversource’s decision not to enter into these contracts that will increase customer costs, not the contracts themselves.
Eversource claims in their letter that the contract pricing is over-market. However, an examination of Eversource’s recent regulatory filings reveals at least one other power supply contract of similar if not higher levelized cost than the solar PPAs (detailed pricing not yet public). Specifically, in Eversource’s April 30, 2025, FERC Form 1 filing to PURA, the Company identified it had purchased 3,121,301 megawatt-hours (MWh) from Constellation for standard offer service, paid for at $483,497,108 in one year – or approximately $155 per MWh.[14] While these payments were made for a specific supply product different from the solar PPAs (energy and RECs), the total expenditure is vastly larger, and the levelized cost again seems likely to be of similar if not higher cost. In both cases, Eversource passes on 100% of costs to customers, and yet it chose to dispute the vastly smaller (and possibly cheaper) solar contracts – calling into question what standard is being applied, and when.
While renewables are often scapegoated as a driver of the Northeast’s high electricity prices, the data shows the opposite is true. States with more penetration of renewables have seen smaller electricity price increases over the past twenty years, while states that depend more heavily on natural gas have seen higher electricity price increases.[15] Studies have also consistently shown that renewables save customers money by reducing wholesale electricity prices, especially during extreme weather and global fuel volatility like we’re experiencing today.[16]
Cancellations Threaten Bill Increases and Regional Affordability Efforts
With other sources of generation increasingly expensive and volatile, large solar projects like the ones selected in this RFP are an affordability imperative. Expiring federal tax incentives have the potential to reduce project costs by about a third.[17] After the Trump administration cut federal tax credits starting July 2026, DEEP and its regional partners acted fast to procure resources at the lowest possible cost. Abandoning these projects in the name of affordability will raise prices.
Eversource’s justification for pulling out of the contracts is not only flawed, but it also sets a bad precedent and could impact future multi-state procurement efforts. If Eversource is able to walk away from procurements that are clearly in the interest of ratepayers and aligned with state policy mandates, then DEEP’s statutorily provided procurement authority is thrown into question. If this situation holds, the Company, rather than state policymakers, is in the position to pick and choose projects. This simply must not be permitted.
Other states participating in this procurement may now be left in the lurch. It is not clear what will happen to the 54 MW allocated to Eversource, but if there is even a slight delay in these projects being developed (e.g., to realign project financing after a major partner drops out), they will likely miss the deadline for eligibility for the tax credits, scuttling project financing estimates entirely. In a time of rising electricity demand, Eversource’s walking away could block over 100 new, clean MW from coming online, possibly souring other states from wanting to join on similar procurements in the future. This would be deeply unfortunate because multi-state procurements are often the most efficient and lead to the lowest cost projects, plus the ability to share costs. Additionally, because the energy market in New England is regional, if other states choose not to engage with Connecticut because Eversource has shown itself to be an unreliable partner, that hurts all ratepayers in the region.
While Eversource’s assertions about affordability are misleading at best, the Company is correct that Connecticut is several years behind in its development of key planning documents, including the Comprehensive Energy Strategy (CES) and Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). According to Eversource, without these frameworks, they cannot know whether the contracts are “aligned with overall state policy and affordability perspectives.” This is a meritless excuse of massive proportions. Connecticut has long-established and clear policy mandates for the electricity sector, including a binding requirement to be zero-carbon by 2040. DEEP has conducted other zero-carbon procurements, including two in 2023, without similar objections from Eversource.[18] Indeed, according to DEEP, Eversource participated in this procurement and “voiced no concerns or objections at any point of the evaluation and selection process.”[19] Sadly, this suggests that the late protests and refusal to execute contracts was a decision not made in good faith.
Conclusion
Large-scale, competitively procured solar projects present a compelling value proposition for Connecticut ratepayers: clean, affordable, and reliable energy that is not subject to the volatility of fossil fuel generation. Connecticut and its regional partners acted quickly to bring these projects online with the added benefit of federal tax credits. At the eleventh hour, and without clear justification or authority, Eversource has put these projects in jeopardy in the misleading name of affordability, while conveniently ignoring or actively blocking other opportunities to provide ratepayer relief. Permitting Eversource to back out of these contracts threatens Connecticut’s ability to procure clean energy resources in the future and will cost ratepayers in the near and long term.
For more information:
• Acadia Center’s Fact Sheet Collection: Energy Cost Drivers
• Op-Ed: An Independent Transmission Monitor Could Cut Ratepayer Costs (CT Mirror)
[1] Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Connecticut and New England Partners Announce Clean Energy Selections, December 18, 2025: https://portal.ct.gov/deep/news-releases/news-releases—2025/connecticut-and-new-england-state-partners-announce-clean-energy-selections
[2] Public Act No. 22-5: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/ACT/PA/PDF/2022PA-00005-R00SB-00010-PA.PDF
[3] Eversource Energy letter regarding 2025 Expedited Zero Carbon Contracts, March 27, 2026: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28029972-letter-response-on-long-term-clean-energy-procurement-in-ct-32726-copy/?mode=document
[4] Howland, Ethan. “Eversource, Avangrid ask FERC to stay $1.5 billion refund decision.” Utility Dive. April 7, 2026: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/eversource-avangrid-ferc-roe-refund-iso-ne/816797/
[5] Howland, Ethan. “New England states urge FERC to advance $1.5B in ratepayer refunds.” Utility Dive . April 21, 2026: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-england-nescoe-ferc-roe-transmission-avangrid-eversource/818040
[6] Calculated based on subsidiary-level obligations identified in Connecticut Light and Power’s FERC Form 1 , Section E ,“ FERC ROE Complaint” and Eversource’s overall estimated obligation identified in the Company’s Motion for a Stay of Retroactive Refund Obligations , FERC Docket Nos. EL11 – 66 – 001, EL11 – 66 – 004, EL11 – 66 – 005 .
[7] ENE (Environment Northeast) v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (docket EL13-33)
[8] Eversource Energy letter regarding 2025 Expedited Zero Carbon Contracts, p. 1
[9] PG&E Corporation – PG&E Completes Initial Stage of Bankruptcy Exit Financing
[10] Though ISO-NE has begun a process to improve ACP oversight by instituting an Asset Condition Project Reviewer, which will hopefully meaningfully increase scrutiny.
[11] Connecticut Power and Light FERC Form 1, page 43
[12] Eversource Energy letter regarding 2025 Expedited Zero Carbon Contracts, p. 3
[13] Moritz, John. “Eversource backs out of three solar projects supported by state.” Connecticut Mirror . April 8, 2026: https://ctmirror.org/2026/04/08/eversource-backs-out-solar-agreements-deep/
[14] CPL FERC Form 1, page 94
[15] Acadia Center, Renewables Aren’t Behind Energy Cost Increases, Winter 2026: https://acadiacenter.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AC_FactSheet_Renewables_R3.pdf
[16] Id.
[17] Berkeley Lab, Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States, October 2024: https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2024-edition
[18] See DEEP’s 2023 Zero-Carbon Procurement: https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/$EnergyView?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=3&Seq=3 and 2023 Offshore Wind Procurement: https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/$EnergyView?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=2&Seq=4
[19] “Eversource backs out of three solar projects supported by state.” https://ctmirror.org/2026/04/08/eversource-backs-out- solar-agreements-deep/
Acadia Center Applauds Massachusetts Governor Healey for Timely Executive Order Promoting Cheapest, Fastest-to-Deploy Clean Energy Resources, Inclusion of Supply, Storage, Grid, and Demand-Side Solutions to Drive Energy Affordability
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x102
*Region will enhance affordability and reliability with gigawatt-scale annual deployments
*Demand-side flexibility solutions will help manage peaks, reduce infrastructure costs
*Portfolio of solutions vital to insulate against risk of fuel price shocks from global events
*Gas system investments must pass non-pipeline solutions screening, prove compatibility with least-cost, clean energy pathways for affordability and reliability
WINCHESTER, MA — Today, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and state energy officials announced a timely and important new Executive Order aimed at driving a coordinated, 15 gigawatt (GW) build-out of clean energy resources to meet the pressing affordability and reliability needs of the moment. Coming on the heels of continued hostility and intransigence on energy policy from the federal government, today’s action leans strongly into the substantial legal and policy authorities that states possess to shape their energy future and serve as a bulwark against federal backsliding. And critically, the Executive Order represents a compelling and effective portfolio of solutions to counter the continued misguided pressure campaign to double-down on the Commonwealth’s overreliance on natural gas with more interstate pipeline capacity. Acadia Center applauds the Healey-Driscoll Administration for standing strong against such counterproductive proposals and laying out a ten-year plan that can move the Commonwealth and region more decisively in the direction it needs to go. It is essential that the review of natural gas and oil storage capacity directed by the Executive Order scrutinize all existing and/or newly proposed fossil fuel resources for compatibility and compliance with legally mandated emission reduction pathways, including by applying robust non-pipeline/non-fuel solutions screening and maximizing contributions from demand-side flexibility.
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation at Acadia Center, said, “At a time when some states are backing off of climate commitments and falsely blaming renewables for rising prices, I am proud that Massachusetts stays grounded in reality. I applaud the Healey-Driscoll administration for doubling-down on a strategy that will actually deliver energy independence and affordability to the Commonwealth.”
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center, said, “Recent events unfolding in global energy markets demonstrate all too vividly how susceptible current fossil fuel-based energy systems are to price shock events and extreme volatility in fuel costs. Proposals such as developing new natural gas pipeline capacity will only do more to exacerbate the overreliance and overexposure New England ratepayers already face. The Healey-Driscoll Administration has wisely chosen to keep the focus where it needs to be: on promoting new clean electricity supply, new energy storage, new grid connections, and new demand-side flexibility measures, which – at the scale of 10+ gigawatts – can collectively deliver a clean energy pipeline to meet the reliability needs of the region at far lower cost.”
Acadia Center has previously shared a similar vision about building out a clean energy pipeline for the Northeast region, and the organization is grateful to see this framing mirrored in the Governor’s actions today. The scale of the build-out envisioned in today’s announcement – on the order of 1-2 GW per year for 10 years – would make important strides toward the level of deployment that will ultimately be needed for the region to meet its broader goals for least-cost emissions reductions and preserving reliability. Acadia Center’s prior analysis conducted with Clean Air Task Force (CATF) suggested the region would need to ramp up clean energy deployments toward an average of 4-5 GW of new clean energy per year over the coming two decades years.
Mounting evidence makes clear that the fossil fuel alternatives – including adding interstate natural gas pipeline capacity – would come at substantial added costs to ratepayers. Acadia Center recently released analysis breaking down why a new natural gas pipeline would in fact exacerbate rather than relieve energy affordability pressures, including based on the upward pressure on natural gas prices from greater exposure to international fossil fuel commodity markets, such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – see Figure 1 below. This dynamic has sadly become even more acute in recent weeks with the price of oil and natural gas rising substantially in response to the fuel supply chain disruptions in the Middle East (including the world’s single largest LNG facility completely offline in Qatar). Today’s overreliance on fossil fuels – New England spends some $75 billion dollars a year on energy and fuel, two thirds of which is spent on oil and gas from outside the region – will leave families and businesses exposed to these rising costs, but for the actions of policymakers to hasten the clean energy transition.
About the Executive Order
The Governor’s Executive Order contains a number of notable actions, including the following highlights:
Clean energy supply:
- The E.O. directs six and a half (6.5) gigawatts (GW) of new clean supply resources online, under contract, or under development by the end of 2035. This will include four new GW of solar and two-and-a-half GW of “new energy supply” into the New England power grid connecting to Massachusetts customers.
- The E.O. does not specify what will make up the 2.5 GW of new energy supply, but it presumably includes major contributions from northern New England renewable capacity unlocked by the Longer-Term Transmission Planning (LTTP) investment and forthcoming Northern Maine RFP, other potential interregional transmission investments stemming from the Northeast States Collaborative on Interregional Transmission, along with potential Canadian offshore wind supply pursuant to the recently enacted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nova Scotia. It is not clear how/whether other earlier-stage resources mentioned in the E.O., such as new nuclear energy, geothermal resources, or other “non-fossil thermal energy sources” might also fit into this category.
- The E.O. also establishes an additional goal of five GW of energy storage online or under development within Massachusetts by the end of 2035. This is a new/expanded storage target, on top of the 5 GW Section 83E requirements passed in the Climate Act of 2024.
Clean energy demand:
- To meet the overall 10 GW goal by 2035, the E.O. contemplates deploying three-and-a-half (3.5) new GW from demand management resources, such as virtual power plants, electric vehicle charging management, energy efficiency and demand response programs. This would constitute a major new demand-side portfolio, representing the ability to flex or shift more than 13% of the region’s summer and winter peaks forecast for the mid-2030s (e.g., net summer peak of 26,897 MW in 2034) – on top of existing demand management portfolios from Mass Save and Connected Solutions.
- This amount of flexible demand would also be substantially larger than estimates for growth in winter peak demand driven by heating electrification in Massachusetts (2,167 MW in 2034), demonstrating that electrification of space heating can be effectively managed when paired with smart demand management.
- This investment in flexible demand and virtual power plant capabilities will help directly target the costliest peak periods for the grid and broader energy systems each year. Recent analysis conducted for New York State identified that grid flexibility could reduce future peaks by more than 20% by 2040 – critical when many fixed infrastructure costs are driven by these peaks (e.g., each GW of peak demand is expected to drive $750m to $1.5b in transmission costs in New England).
Gas System Transition:
- The E.O. also directs Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) agencies to “review existing natural gas and oil storage capacity and utilization and coordinate with gas utilities, fossil fuel generation facilities, and other New England states to develop greater clarity on how the Everett Marine Terminal and other fuel storage assets may contribute to meeting regional energy supply needs and maintaining system reliability,” aligned with goals of meeting winter energy needs reliably and affordably.
- The E.O. also directs agencies to identify “identify whether additional, strategically located storage capacity or delivery capabilities could provide reliability and affordability benefits to all ratepayers and align with existing regulations.” Agencies are to propose recommendations to “ensure adequate natural gas and oil storage capacity and delivery capabilities that promote reliability and affordability, avoid unnecessary spending and adding charges to customer bills, and are aligned with existing regulations.”
- Acadia Center is pleased to see that solutions like new interstate gas pipeline capacity are off the table given the focus on avoiding unnecessary spending and adding charges to customer bills and the stated alignment with existing regulations, such as those in force pursuant to the Commonwealth’s legally binding emissions reductions requirements.
Grid Planning and Investment:
- Section 3 of the E.O. directs a wide range of positive grid-planning and distributed energy resource advancements, including:
- Managing increased DG interconnection requests to maximize IRA tax credit eligibility;
- Developing flexible interconnection programs; investigating the impact of and energy affordability solutions for large commercial customers such as data centers;
- Expediting review of proposals for time-of-use (TOU) rates, DER, energy efficiency, and virtual power plants;
- Proliferating models for community energy resilience hubs such as community microgrids; establishing clean energy ready zones; and
- Examining pathways to lower the cost to ratepayers of transmission infrastructure necessary to meet energy needs in alignment with other states throughout the New England region (more to come on this subject from Acadia Center and partners soon!); among other actions.
Broad Support for Driving Affordability with Clean Energy
Recent polling work demonstrates strong and enduring public support for renewable energy and energy efficiency among New England voters, including accurate beliefs about many of the top underlying drivers of energy cost increases, including utility profits, natural gas infrastructure maintenance, and extreme weather. More information about Acadia Center’s analysis on energy cost drivers can be accessed here.
Acadia Center looks ahead with excitement to the opportunity to help the Commonwealth implement and make good on the provisions of this important executive action in keeping with the imperatives of climate, affordability, equity, safety and reliability, and beyond. The organization looks forward to working with members of the Healey-Driscoll Administration, the Legislature, and beyond.
Acadia Center Applauds Massachusetts House Lawmakers for Robust and Improved Energy Affordability Legislation, But Reinforces Grave Concerns about Devastating Proposed Cuts to Energy Efficiency Under Mass Save
Acadia Center Press Release HWM Energy Affordability Bill
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Kyle Murray, Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x102
BOSTON — On February 24, 2026, the House Committee on Ways and Means released legislation now being voted on today that would enact a series of common-sense and practical reforms to help deliver energy affordability and clean energy to the Commonwealth. Acadia Center applauds the work that the Committee has done and appreciates its willingness to incorporate feedback from stakeholders since the prior version of the bill released last fall. Unfortunately, the legislation undermines its own aims in part by proposing devastating, billion-dollar cuts to the Commonwealth’s energy efficiency program, Mass Save. Policymakers in the House, Senate, and Executive Branch must come together to reject and replace these draconian cuts with a set of solutions and reforms that keeps Mass Save on a sound, stable, and sustainable trajectory to deliver energy and bill savings to customers well into the future. With the energy efficiency cuts removed or substantially modified, the legislative package promises to help the Commonwealth take meaningful action on energy affordability and a cleaner, more dynamic grid.
“Energy affordability and clean energy are not at odds – fundamentally, the same solutions needed to address underlying drivers of energy costs are those that will make the grid cleaner, more flexible, and more efficient,” said Kyle Murray, Director of State Program Implementation and Massachusetts Program Director. “The House has advanced a promising updated package of policy reforms that better recognizes this reality, but more work must be done to rectify the major remaining red-flag and remove arbitrary and counterproductive cuts to energy efficiency, which should remain the anchor of the Commonwealth’s energy affordability strategy. Failing to do so will make this package a net-loser for families, who will be left paying dearly for more expensive conventional fuel and infrastructure.”
Defending the Merits of Mass Save and Energy Efficiency
It is vital that the House and Senate work together to deliver a revised package that removes the proposed $1 billion cut to the Commonwealth’s nation-leading Mass Save energy efficiency programs. Yes, Mass Save can and should be improved and strengthened in a number of key ways. But, an arbitrary and hugely significant budget cut in the middle of a three-year planning cycle is not a sound and practical way to go about realizing any such improvements for customers and ratepayers. If the cuts were to go forward as proposed, the whole program would essentially grind to a halt, leading to massive job losses and threatening the program’s ongoing operation even in future programming cycles.
The track-record of success and impact for Mass Save is clear, and the program must be safeguarded:
- Energy Efficiency is Affordable and Cost-Effective: Massachusetts by statute has a responsibility to invest in all cost-effective energy efficiency. Cutting an arbitrary $1 billion in program funding runs counter to that responsibility and will result in customers paying for more expensive (less cost-effective) conventional sources of energy and infrastructure. Were the legislature to advance an additional $1B in cuts to Mass Save, on top of the $500M in previous program cuts, it would result in a devastating estimated loss of $4.5B in total benefits and savings for ratepayers. The Commonwealth has strong cost-effectiveness guardrails in place already, ensuring that even if/as program budgets grow, ratepayers can be confident that their energy bills will be lower, not higher, as a result of cost-effective efficiency investments.
- Mass Save Delivers A Strong Payback on Investment: Under the current three-year plan, Mass Save is poised to drive $12.1 billion in lifetime benefits in the form of direct bill savings, avoided fuel and infrastructure costs, price suppression effects in the wholesale market, jobs created, and beyond. This translates to a resoundingly positive return on investment for the Commonwealth, earning $2.91 in benefits for the economy for every $1 in program budget spent. Mass Save’s portfolio will mean more than 8 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and 167 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) of fuels that ratepayers will not have to pay for in the coming years.
- Shining a Light on Enormous Costs Avoided: While they don’t clearly show up as savings on customer bills, energy efficiency investments under Mass Save have prevented customers from having to pay many billions of dollars in more expensive fuel and infrastructure costs. Without the energy efficiency programs in place, the Commonwealth’s electric demand would be around 27.7% higher, resulting in billions of additional costs for supply and infrastructure. Specifically, Mass Save investments made between 2016 and 2024 meant that ratepayers avoided paying around $16.1 billion in electric and gas supply and infrastructure costs alone. The investment in efficiency during this period was around $8.4 billion.
- EE Doesn’t Need T&D: Unlike power and gas that customers purchase from traditional sources, energy efficiency occurs at the point of demand, resulting in MWh and MMBtu saved that do not need to be delivered via transmission and distribution (T&D), whose infrastructure costs – poles, wires, and pipes – have been increasing dramatically in recent years. A typical Massachusetts residential electric customer pays on the order of $0.15 per kWh on transmission and distribution right now. Every kWh generated by a traditional power plant must flow through T&D to get to end-use customers, therefore incurring/requiring those substantial delivery costs. Energy efficiency, by contrast, is relatively much cheaper than conventional fuel and infrastructure payments, with recent analysis finding a median cost of only $21 per MWh nationally. While Massachusetts has somewhat higher program costs due to two decades of prior investment in the lowest-hanging savings, Mass Save is still acquiring savings at a cost competitive with electric supply rates, before factoring in delivery costs that traditional supply must incur and which energy efficiency avoids.
- Million-Dollar-per-Hour Savings: Mass Save is the anchor of the region’s strong energy efficiency portfolio, which has been bearing fruit for the regional grid during periods of severe weather stress. At 1pm on January 25, the grid hit a seasonal peak of 20,157 MW. That and the following day, day-ahead market prices exceeded $520/MWh around 6pm in the evening. Based on the region’s latest capacity auction, energy efficiency was passively reducing demand by 2,081 MW at this time. With a $520/MWh cost at the January 26 peak, energy efficiency was generating over $1.08 million in wholesale market savings during that hour alone. When factoring in efficiency’s contributions, almost half the capacity keeping New England’s lights on was zero- to low-emissions, even on the peak of this winter’s most difficult day.
- The Savings Numbers Don’t Add Up: The legislation states that the mid-term modification to the budget of Mass Save shall focus on marketing, advertising, and administrative budgets. However, there simply is not anywhere near $1 billion going to those areas. For the entire 2025-2027 plan term, the planned spend on marketing and advertising amounts to $195,156,662. For program planning and administration, it is $245,851,611. This totals $441,008,273, well-short of the purported $1,000,000,000. However, it is important to note that, given the timing of this legislation, the impacts from will largely be felt in the final year of the current plan, 2027. The total planned spend on marketing, advertising, and program administration during this period is just $148,063,135. The vast majority of spending for the program during this period would go toward incentives for ratepayers. What this $1 billion reduction would therefore mean is deep cuts to energy efficiency incentives and slashed customer access, effectively shutting down many parts of the program and harming one of our best tools to deliver affordable energy bills and achieve our climate goals.
Other Bright-Spots Abound
Besides the energy efficiency cuts outlined above and a few more minor provisions of concern (listed further below), the legislative package does contain a number of important, valuable, and – in some cases – cutting-edge policies that stand to meaningfully advance the Commonwealth’s agenda for energy affordability and clean energy.
- Renewable Energy and Energy Storage
- Expanded clean energy procurement authority
- Statewide energy storage incentive program
- Offshore wind pre-development
- Adding Virtual Power Plants (VPP) to Electric Sector Modernization Plans (ESMP), via load management and VPP plan
- Expediting Permitting, Siting, and Interconnection
- Surplus interconnection and flexible interconnection programs
- Smart solar permitting platform
- Balcony solar
- Transmission lines on state highway Rights-of-Way (ROW)
- Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) interconnection
- Thermal energy networks (TEN) and buildings
- TEN labor standards
- Authorizes gas companies to develop geothermal for single customers
- Just transition plans
- Bill Transparency, Cost Scrutiny, and Consumer Protections
- Competitive electric supply reforms
- Asset condition project permitting at DPU for large local transmission upgrades
- Utility management audits
- Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) discount rates
- Customer bill assessment dashboard
- Solar consumer protections
- Basic service procurement terms
- Default budget billing for residential gas customers
Other provisions of concern or with key outstanding questions include:
- Net metering – arbitrary reduction in compensation for certain projects, with no opportunity for locational or temporal value/compensation
- Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) contracts – onsite use or technical infeasibility should be a requirement before use of gas distribution pipes
- Mass Save Program Review by Office of Inspector General (OIG) – potentially redundant and unnecessary given recency of Auditor’s report
- Mass Save income eligibility review – returns more red tape that will add friction for moderate income participants
Once more, Acadia Center applauds the House for legislation that would deliver many innovative energy affordability ideas to the Commonwealth. The organization looks forward to working with the House and Senate to remove the proposed cuts to Mass Save and support delivering cost-effective energy efficiency to ratepayers.
Acadia Center Responds to Severe Clean Energy Rollbacks in Governor McKee’s FY 2027 Budget Proposal (RI)
MEDIA CONTACT:
Emily Koo
Senior Policy Advocate & Rhode Island Program Director
ekoo@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 ext.402
Acadia Center Responds to Severe Clean Energy Rollbacks in Governor McKee’s FY 2027 Budget Proposal (RI)
**Cutting clean energy doesn’t protect ratepayers; it protects an outdated energy system and keeps us dependent on dirty, expensive fossil fuels.
**Renewables and efficiency drive down supply and delivery costs, helping hedge against volatile gas spikes and rein in transmission, distribution costs.
PROVIDENCE – On January 15, 2026, the Administration of Governor Daniel McKee released its proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 budget for the state of Rhode Island, including a sweeping set of rollbacks to foundational clean energy and climate policies that have made Rhode Island a leader among U.S. states historically. Now, Rhode Island is at risk of moving from leader to laggard by succumbing to the faulty, short-sighted logic of energy austerity – cutting critical programs and policies in the name of energy affordability, when in fact those very programs represent some of the most potent tools for the state to take control of its energy future and keep near- and long-term system costs manageable.
“To tackle energy costs, Rhode Island must do everything within its power to bring more local clean energy online and build a stable energy future,” said Emily Koo, Rhode Island Program Director at Acadia Center. “The Governor’s budget proposal locks Rhode Island into an outdated energy system and strips us of our most potent tools to address skyrocketing energy costs.”
At a moment when federal clean energy support is eroding, Rhode Island should be doubling down on the tools still firmly within the state’s control. Instead, Governor McKee’s FY 2027 budget sadly mirrors the short-sighted policies of the Trump administration, cutting renewables and energy efficiency and delivering what would be a major blow to Rhode Island’s clean energy economy. The Governor’s budget proposal disregards a primary reason for the clean energy transition: to shield residents from volatile gas prices and keep at least $2.7 billion per year in fossil fuel spending in the local economy rather than sending it out of state.[i]
Acadia Center will be joining clean energy advocates for a press event in response to Governor McKee’s FY 2027 budget proposal on Wednesday, February 11th at 3 PM in the Rhode Island State House Library. Members of the media, legislature, and broader public are invited to attend. More information about the event, “Clean Energy is Affordable Energy”, is located at https://actionnetwork.org/events/clean-energy-is-affordable-energy/.
The FY 2027 McKee budget includes the following misguided provisions, which should be opposed and modified by legislators and stakeholders:
- Levies a substantial and punitive “grid access fee” (monthly, in perpetuity) and lowers compensation rates for large renewable energy projects (1 MW or greater), signaling that Rhode Island is closed for clean energy business. The retroactive nature of the changes (on both existing and new net metering systems) would send a severe chilling effect to the industry at large, implying that Rhode Island’s public policies are not predictable and reliable enough to earn the confidence of investors.
- Solar developers are required to pay for infrastructure upgrades and are financed based on the laws in place at the time of interconnection. Solar industry leaders are concerned this provision will drive RI’s solar industry out of the state.
- A range of virtual net metering customers, including municipalities, housing authorities, colleges and universities, and hospitals, would lose substantial value in pre-negotiated discounted electricity.
- There are sound, data-driven ways to reform incentive and compensation structures over time, but this proposal takes a cudgel to foundational programs. Instead, a thorough, methodical, and stakeholder-informed process before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) should determine how Rhode Island’s renewable policies can and should evolve to best serve ratepayer interests and preserve a stable project investment environment to attract new clean power to the state.
- Delays and weakens Rhode Island’s nation-leading Renewable Energy Standard (RES), prolonging our dependence on dirty, expensive fossil fuels.
- The rapidly transitioning electricity sector has been a lynchpin to achieving the state’s emission reduction mandates. Unlike the transportation and heating sectors, the electricity sector – driven by the RES and accompanying procurement efforts – has been largely on track.
- Delaying the 100% RES from 2033 to 2050 will prolong the state’s exposure to costly, volatile natural gas, defer and divert major job creation opportunities, and jeopardize Rhode Island’s ability to meet its economy-wide emission reduction targets.
- Rhode Island has the ability to achieve the existing RES target, including through joint supply procurements of affordable clean energy. Rhode Island was notably absent from a recent multi-state procurement of 173 MW of new solar generation (CT, ME, MA, VT).[ii]
- Caps Rhode Island’s cost-effective energy efficiency programs at $75 million per year – a stunning 24% below planned 2026 investment levels and 48% below the average of the past five years (both adjusted for inflation).
- Because of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency, Rhode Island’s electric load is 5% lower than it was in 2005, rather than 15% higher.[iii]
- In addition to directly lowering energy bills, energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce energy costs for all consumers, support the local economy, and combat climate change.[iv]
- In the 2026 program cycle, Acadia Center amplified the compounding costs of decreased investments in energy efficiency, which will lead to major reductions in a wide range of benefits, energy savings, and jobs.[v] Indeed, the significant drop-off in annual efficiency investments (shown below) during a period of high inflation for the economy suggests that budget cuts to-date contributed to the increasing energy bills borne by ratepayers.
- The budget’s proposed bond for energy efficiency is neither an assured nor consistent source of funding, nor is it close to the magnitude needed to restore funding levels.
Figure 1. Proposed Cuts Would Continue Damaging Reductions in Energy Efficiency Funding
Figure 2. Energy Efficiency Funding Has Generated Deep Energy Savings for Rhode Island
In addition, the Governor’s budget proposal:
- Slashes support for municipalities, businesses and residents to access financial and technical assistance for clean energy projects such as energy efficiency, solar, or electric vehicles.
Undoing the baseline of the 2025 Climate Strategy before it begins:
The Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council (EC4)’s 2025 Climate Action Strategy is built on a clear baseline of existing policies, including the 100% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) by 2033 and existing state energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Yet the Governor’s proposed budget would dismantle these very policies – undermining the foundation of the state’s recently released climate strategy before it can be implemented.
Eliminating these core electric-sector strategies would force Rhode Island to rely more heavily on transportation and building emissions reductions – sectors already facing significant uncertainty. Scaling those strategies fast enough to meet the 2030 climate targets in just four years would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. Rather than advancing solutions, the Governor’s budget proposal rolls back the baseline assumptions on which the climate strategy depends.
Clean energy is stable, affordable energy:
In simplest terms, some components of the energy transition will cost money (e.g., electric generation buildout) and some will save money and increase in-region economic activity (e.g., reduced reliance on fossil fuel imports for heating and transportation). It is a glaring omission to report the costs of clean energy while ignoring all of the cost savings, one of the primary reasons for undertaking the energy transition in the first place. Cutting clean energy is not fiscal prudence – it is a costly step backward.
- Renewables in our regional grid – such as offshore wind, large-scale solar, and batteries – lower wholesale electricity prices for everyone.[vi],[vii]
- Energy efficiency, behind-the-meter solar, and storage reduce how much power we need during expensive peak hours. Lower overall and peak demand means less exposure to volatile gas prices, less strain on the grid, and fewer costly infrastructure upgrades. This helps reduce the largest (and growing) components of energy bills: supply costs and delivery costs.[viii],[ix]
- Delaying Rhode Island’s nation-leading Renewable Energy Standard (RES) will simply prolong and worsen the state’s exposure to and overreliance on natural gas, sending Rhode Islanders’ hard-earned dollars out of the state and regional economy.
- States with more renewables have seen smaller electricity price increases. States that invested early and heavily in wind, solar, and storage have had slower electricity price growth over the past 20 years. States that depend heavily on natural gas for power generation, especially the Northeast, have higher electricity prices.[x]
- Renewable energy costs have fallen dramatically – and gas costs are going up.[xi]
- Solar and storage are among the fastest, most affordable ways to add new power.[xii] As electricity demand rises from electrification and AI-driven growth, Rhode Island cannot afford to sideline the very resources that can be built quickly and locally and will deliver inexpensive energy.
Solutions to tackle energy costs
Cutting renewables and energy efficiency is not the answer to Rhode Island’s rising energy costs. Governor McKee and the General Assembly have a unique opportunity to meet the moment and stand up to Trump, by asserting Rhode Island’s commitment to clean energy. There is much within Rhode Island’s state powers, short of slashing the state’s renewable energy targets, and rolling back renewable and energy efficiency programs.
Reduce dependence on volatile gas supply to help stabilize energy bills
- In addition to fighting the Trump administration’s obstruction of offshore wind, the state of Rhode Island has much within its control and should be doing everything within its power to bring more local clean energy online. A more balanced generation mix will reduce exposure to fuel price volatility and spread risk across more hours, decreasing prices.[xiii],[xiv]
- Move away from gas supply expansion as a cost-control strategy. Gas supply has increased in the region, but prices remain high, and are expected to continue increasing, due to global LNG markets.[xv]
- The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects gas prices will increase 33% or more in 2026.
- Leverage municipal aggregation to secure more stable and transparent energy pricing than third-party suppliers.
- Invest in statewide virtual power plants to unlock additional demand response that can be called upon to reduce load in times of grid stress, decreasing prices for everyone.
- Coordinate with neighboring states to unlock the most affordable clean energy resources through, for example, joint supply procurements.
- Increase regional and inter-regional transmission capacity so power can move more easily from where it’s generated to where it’s needed – lowering supply costs and improving reliability.
Rein in rising transmission and distribution costs
- Enable state siting boards to add scrutiny and suggest cost-saving measures of transmission upgrades and construction.
- Expand stakeholder participation in regulatory proceedings.
- Provide intervenor compensation so organizations or impacted individuals can hire experts and challenge Rhode Island Energy’s assumptions
- Limit categories of spending a large investor-owned utility may recover from ratepayers, such as lobbying or charitable spending; cap the allowable increase in annual spending on Infrastructure, Safety, and Reliability proceedings
For more information on energy cost drivers in the northeast, visit Acadia Center’s website here.
About Acadia Center
Acadia Center is a non-profit organization with over 25 years of experience dedicated to advancing transformative clean energy solutions that promote a livable climate and a more equitable economy at the state, regional and community levels primarily in the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada. Through rigorous data analysis and strategic partnerships, Acadia Center advocates for policies that significantly reduce carbon emissions and address systemic energy challenges. By collaborating with stakeholders, government, business, and communities, Acadia Center pursues ambitious but pragmatic strategies that help to ensure an inclusive and sustainable energy future for all.
[i] US Energy Information Administration | SEDS Database (2023)
[ii] Connecticut and New England State Partners Announce Clean Energy Selections | CT DEEP
[iii] 2025 Annual Report | Rhode Island Energy Efficiency Council
[iv] 2025 Annual Report | Rhode Island Energy Efficiency Council
[v] Energy Efficiency Action Alert | Acadia Center
[vi] Powered Up: Evaluating the Year-Round Benefits of Solar and Storage in Massachusetts | SEIA and Synapse
[vii] Value of Wind in Winter 2024/25 | RENEW and Daymark Energy Advisors
[viii] Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans Are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast | Acadia Center
[ix] Grid Action Report – June Heat Wave | Acadia Center
[x] Renewables Aren’t Behind Energy Cost Increases | Acadia Center
[xi] Renewables Aren’t Behind Energy Cost Increases | Acadia Center
[xii] Report: Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 | IRENA
[xiii] Natural Gas Price Volatility in New England | Acadia Center
[xiv] How Do Renewables Lower the Cost of Electricity? | The Climate Reality Project
[xv] Five Ways Natural Gas Is Driving Costs up for Heating Customers | Acadia Center
Acadia Center Rebuts Repeated Flawed Analyses Claiming Renewable Energy Will Drive Up Costs for New England
MEDIA CONTACT:
Kyle Murray
Director, State Program Implementation
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 ext.106
ACADIA CENTER Rebuts Repeated Flawed Analyses Claiming Renewable Energy Will Drive Up Costs for New England
**Analytical methods fail to withstand basic scrutiny, present deeply inaccurate picture of region’s energy infrastructure pathways
**Misleading analysis grossly inflates the cost of clean energy, selectively ignores fuel savings, and proposes highly unrealistic alternative scenarios
Released on January 13, a new report entitled “Alternatives to New England’s Energy Affordability Crisis” – released by The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Maine Policy Institute, Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Yankee Institute, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation – presents a deeply flawed analysis and distorted view of New England’s future energy outlook. The report, which was conducted by Always on Energy Research (AOER), concludes that, “…meeting these decarbonization and electrification policies would nearly cost New England electricity customers an additional $815 billion through 2050, compared to the cost of operating the current electric grid, and make the region more vulnerable to rolling blackouts.” Always on Energy Research (AOER) has current or past affiliations with groups such as the John Locke Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Independence Institute, and the Center for the American Experiment.
AOER’s report fails to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, which is also the case for the related “analysis” and “modeling.” It is incredibly unfortunate that this report continues to rely upon repeated, ill-informed assumptions and questionable calculations to vastly inflate the cost of the energy transition by multiple factors. The recent AOER report functionally serves as an addendum to their error-ridden 2024 AOER report titled, “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies”, which Acadia Center thoroughly debunked in a 2024 press release responding to the report. The recently released report recycles many of the same inaccurate claims.
Acadia Center presents the following point-by-point rebuttal of several erroneous and misleading claims put forward by the 2026 AOER report:
Claim #1 Made by AOER Report: The report models a single “Renewables Scenario” that makes the claim that 231 GW of installed capacity[1] in New England by 2050 will be necessary if the region aims to provide the most “economically efficient mix of renewables buildout” to support electrification of the building heating and transportation sectors at scale.
Acadia Center Response #1: The modeled level of renewables buildout in the AOER Report diverges sharply from every other reputable study that has modeled deep decarbonization pathways in New England. Yes, there will need to be significant buildout of wind, solar and battery storage to achieve the levels of building and transportation electrification needed by 2050, but the AOER Report overstates the level of installed capacity needed in New England in 2050 by a factor of at least 1.5X and up to 1.8X,[2] based on a literature review conducted by Acadia Center and Clean Air Task Force that examined five of the most prominent and well respected deep decarbonization studies for the region. As one example, the High Electrification Scenario analyzed by Energy and Environment Economics (E3) in the Massachusetts “Future of Gas” Proceeding (D.P.U. 20-80) found a 2050 capacity buildout of 127 GW to support widespread electrification in the building and transportation sectors, in sharp contrast to the 231 GW of buildout claimed in AOER’s report (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Installed New England Capacity by Resource Type: 2020 vs. MA DPU 20-80 High Electrification Scenario (2050) vs. Always on Energy Renewables Scenario (2050)
As illustrated in Table 1 below, the AOER report modeled 2.2X the amount of solar capacity in 2050 relative to the E3 study, 3.2X for battery storage, 2.7X for offshore wind, and 3.4X for onshore wind and, simultaneously, makes no attempt to explain why their modeled capacity levels are so high relative to other studies.
Table 1. Installed New England Capacity by Resource Type in 2050: MA DPU 20-80 High Electrification Scenario vs. Always on Energy Renewables Scenario
In ISO New England’s (ISO-NE’s) 2024 report, titled Economic Planning for the Clean Energy Transition, they estimated New England would need an additional 97 GW of solar, wind, and battery storage combined by 2050 to achieve state electrification goals – a far cry from the approximately 183 GW of additional capacity of those resources modeled by AOER in their report. Acadia Center would provide a detailed critique of the AOER’s proprietary capacity expansion model that produced these results, but that’s not possible given the limited details the report provides on the model. Capacity expansion models are used to determine the optimal mix of new and retiring resources over a long-term planning horizon, typically identifying least-cost portfolios of generation and storage while meeting policy constraints, but the specific policy constraints and assumptions underpinning AOER’s modeling are not clear enough to meaningfully evaluate why their results are so different from other industry leading studies. AOER’s overestimate in needed capacity buildout by 2050 in the Renewables Scenario ties directly to Claim #2 below related to their estimated cost associated with that scenario.
Claim #2 Made by AOER Report: Compliance with the New England Decarbonization Plans would cost $815 billion through 2050.
Acadia Center Response #2: AOER’s overestimated need for renewable buildouts paired with unrealistic cost and technology development assumptions lead to wildly inflated costs for the renewable scenario analyzed – so miscalculated that the analysis is essentially unusable.
Study Ignores Declining Cost of Renewables Over Time: While fossil fuel and nuclear costs have been largely flat (or increased) in recent years and decades, the costs of renewables and battery storage have quickly and substantially declined. Between 2000 and 2020, the cost of useful energy from wind, solar, and battery storage decreased by 72%, 90%, and 94% (See Figure 2 below), respectively. 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. 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. These dropping costs will likely continue and are unaccounted for in the report. Notably, historically these cost decreases have mitigated electric rate increases. Over the last 20+ years (2001-2024), 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. Furthermore, the study’s assumption that today’s gas costs will stay static into the future ignores forecasts about expected gas price increases – including new projections from the U.S. EIA that gas commodity costs will increase roughly 33% year-over-year between 2026 and 2027.
Figure 2: Historical Useful Energy Costs of Energy Resources (1880-2020) Source: Way et al., 2022
On the contrary, the report understates the cost of nuclear by using overnight (immediate/short-term) capital costs to estimate project costs. Using overnight capital costs to compare nuclear to renewables is misleading because it ignores interest during construction, which is much larger for long-lead nuclear projects than for fast-built wind and solar, meaning the true up-front cost of nuclear projects is understated by the metric. Studies have shown that interest during construction can add upwards of 40% to the up-front cost of nuclear projects.
- Additional unaccounted-for costs: Another glaring omission is the social cost of carbon.[3]While the social cost can be ignored in a report, it cannot be ignored by families facing rising costs due to fossil fuel emissions in their daily lives. Emissions from fossil fuels lead to increasing costs for families: medical costs, storm repair costs passed onto them by utilities, insurance costs, and more. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that households are already paying between $400 and $900 annually due to climate-driven costs, and the authors of that study concede to only have calculated a subset of all costs. Furthermore, another recent study finds that temperature changes alone cut US incomes by 12%, on average, between 2000 and 2019.
- Even ignoring all of the bad assumptions: In total, the AOER analysis suggests an annual average electric system cost passed onto consumers of $31.3b per year over 26 years (2024-2050). In 2023, the six New England states spent roughly $75b on total energy under the status quo/‘business as usual’ approach. Even if the AOER figures were sound – and they are not – it would be vastly preferable to invest $31.3b per year on clean energy in our region rather than spend the majority of $75b per year on fossil fuels from outside the region, as our current energy system does. In analysis undertaken by Massachusetts, findings showed that the total cost increase of a representative mitigation pathway in 2050 ($1.5 billion annual spending) compared to a non-decarbonized reference case in 2050 was actually less than the expected increase in statewide energy costs resulting from population and economic growth ($2.4 billion annual spending).
Claim #3 Made by AOER Report: The AOER Report only focuses on additional generation and transmission costs associated with building and operating electricity generation portfolios – one piece of the overall energy transition puzzle.
Acadia Center Response #3: In the simplest terms, some components of the energy transition will cost money (e.g., electric generation buildout) and some will save money and increase in-region economic activity (e.g., reduced reliance on fossil fuel imports for heating and transportation). The AOER Report fails to quantify three categories of major cost savings:
- 1) Reduced use of fossil fuels for building heating
- 2) Reduced fossil fuel use for transportation and
- 3) Reduced investment in the gas distribution system.
Buried on page 45 of the AOER Report, the authors admit calculating anything on the savings side of the ledger is simply “out of scope” for the report, stating “Quantifying….the fuel savings of electrification is outside the scope of this analysis. For example, there would be fuel savings from electrifying home heating and transportation, as New England households would no longer need to purchase natural gas, fuel oil, or propane for home heating or gasoline or diesel fuel for transportation.” It is a glaring omission to (inaccurately) report electricity system costs of the energy transition while ignoring all the cost savings, one of the primary reasons for undertaking the energy transition in the first place. In direct contrast to the AOER report claim, a more comprehensive study on future state-level household energy expenditures conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) found that the decrease in household spending on fossil fuels (for both heating and transportation) will more than offset the increased per-household electricity spending as we transition to an electrified economy over the next 25 years.
New Englanders withdraw billions of dollars out of the regional economy each year to purchase fossil fuels sourced outside New England. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine alone spend $8.2 billion annually importing fossil fuels. Let’s be candid: there will be significant costs from the energy transition (and significant benefits as well) – Acadia Center has been clear-eyed about this reality and what it means for our public policymaking. However, using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers.
Claim #4 Made by AOER Report: The AOER analysis relies on small modular reactors (SMRs) as a key decarbonization strategy despite the technology not being commercialized and ignores more market-ready solutions.
Acadia Center Response #4: Small modular reactors (SMRs) are advanced, small-scale nuclear fission reactors designed with factory built, modular components that theoretically offer the potential for lower upfront cost, faster deployment and enhanced safety relative to the type of nuclear power plants currently in operation in the U.S. today, known as light water reactors. As the AOER report notes, “…no SMRs have been installed anywhere in the United States on a commercial basis to date.” While assuming technological advancement and deployment of currently not yet commercially available technologies can make sense in certain instances when it comes to energy system modeling spanning a time horizon of decades, a core problem with the AOER report is that it only includes one non-commercialized technology (SMRs) that fits their narrative in their modeling, while conveniently failing to model other emerging technologies that would lower the estimated cost of the Renewables Scenario.
For example, advancements in long-duration battery storage, automated electric vehicle (EV) load shifting and electric vehicle-to-grid bidirectional charging are all promising technologies that will play a lynchpin role in helping the region manage peak demand on the grid in the coming decades, and, as a result, significantly drive down costs associated with investment in electric system generation, transmission and distribution. In other words, we need to build less if technologies like long-duration storage can help us reduce peak demand. For example, a 2024 study from researchers at UMass Lowell estimated that incorporating long-duration energy storage into the technology mix results in a modeled 55% reduction in overall electric system costs in New England.
[1] This total installed capacity figure includes generation, battery storage, and New England-Canada transmission capacity.
[2] The 231 GW of total New England capacity in 205o is 1.5X greater than the 5-study average of modeled 2050 capacity found in Acadia Center’s lit review and 1.8X greater than two of the five studies examined.
[3] The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a dollar estimate of the long-term economic damages from emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, including impacts on health, property, agriculture, and productivity, used by governments for cost-benefit analysis of climate policies to weigh the costs of regulations against their climate benefits, reflecting the societal cost of climate pollution
For Immediate Release: Statement on Pennsylvania’s RGGI Withdrawal
MEDIA CONTACTS
Paola Moncada Tamayo
Senior Policy and Data Analyst
ptamayo@acadiacenter.org; 860-246-7121 x204
Departure from Longstanding, Bipartisan Multistate Program Will Force the State to Miss Out on Nearly $20 Billion in Revenue Over Next 12 Years
Harrisburg, PA (November 14, 2025) — Earlier this week, Governor Josh Shapiro and state legislative leaders announced a budget deal agreement and associated bill (HB416) that will legislatively end Pennsylvania’s participation in a longstanding, 10-bipartisan multi-state program driving affordable energy, energy savings, job creation, and public health. This abandonment of Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will cost the Commonwealth a projected $20 billion in foregone revenue over the coming twelve years, removing the state’s most promising, cost-effective policy lever to reduce harmful emissions from the power section – and leaving Pennsylvania without any meaningful climate and energy affordability policy.
“Instead of allowing the state Supreme Court to rule on RGGI’s legality, Pennsylvania’s elected officials have chosen to abandon the program outright at a time when the program’s benefits are most urgently needed by families and communities,” said Paola Moncado Tamayo, Senior Policy and Data Analyst at Acadia Center. “This is a grave setback for Pennsylvania’s energy, climate, and affordability policies, and it leaves literal billions of dollars in revenues on the table that could have been invested to improve household affordability, reduce energy consumption, improve public-health in polluted communities, and insulate everyday families from rising energy costs driven by data center development in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the PJM region.”
“The value of the RGGI program for both consumers and the environment has been proven year after year – yielding more than twice as many energy bill savings ($20.2b) versus program revenues ($9.7b) to-date – which has helped the ten-state, bipartisan program withstand the test of time and political tumult since its inception in 2008,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs, at Acadia Center. “On the heels of striking recent electoral victories for clean energy-led affordability in other states around the country, including in current RGGI states, Pennsylvania’s leaders have chosen precisely the wrong path and, in so doing, will force PA families and communities to miss out on billions in revenue that could have driven improved affordability, energy efficiency, job creation, public health, and much needed support for the working class.”
Many Billions in Lost Revenue and Benefits
Pennsylvania’s withdrawal carries enormous financial consequences. Based on PA DEP data and RGGI allowance price trajectories, the state has already missed out on more than $5 billion in potential allowance revenue since their projected start in the program in 2022. Other RGGI states have been investing their funds toward reducing energy bills for households, financing energy efficiency upgrades, modernizing the grid, and cutting harmful pollution. The analysis below shows the long-term losses are even more striking. Depending on future allowance prices, Pennsylvania’s departure will effectively forfeit over $20 billion in RGGI proceeds between now and 2037.
These billions of dollars translate into tangible impacts for people across the state:
Public Health: RGGI helps reduce carbon pollution and co-pollutants from power plants, which would mitigate the harmful health impacts of air pollution in Pennsylvania’s communities. RGGI stood to protect the well-being of Pennsylvania’s residents from the devastating health consequences of poor air quality and save hundreds of Pennsylvanian lives. According to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), they projected that from 2020 to 2030 RGGI would prevent 639 premature deaths from respiratory illnesses, reduce hospital visits by 30,000 and deliver over $6 billion in public health benefits this decade.
Economic Prosperity: By joining RGGI, Pennsylvania was poised to reap substantial economic benefits, including program payments totaling approximately $1-2 billion annually, which could be directly invested in projects that benefit Pennsylvanians. This funding would promote job creation, stimulate the state’s economy, and benefit both public health broadly and acute impacts within environmental justice communities. Additionally, the public health improvements from reductions in criteria air pollution as a result of RGGI participation would result in 83,000 avoided lost workdays, according to the analysis by PA DEP.
Clean Air: Remaining a part of RGGI would bolster Pennsylvania’s commitment to environmental sustainability. It enables the state to reduce its carbon emissions, limit climate impacts, and protect the environment for future generations. According to DEP, RGGI could help Pennsylvania avoid between 97 and 225 million tons of carbon pollution by 2030.
A Short-Term Political Decision with Long-Term Costs and Consequences
Legal experts in Pennsylvania characterize the decision as a political concession, rather than a policy-based decision. The withdrawal was part of a broader budget negotiation that also included items like a $50 million cut to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource, and a budget that is already being partially backfilled with oil and gas revenue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a sound legal basis to overturn the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, but Governor Shapiro and legislative leaders decided to let Pennsylvania walk away from the expected proceeds, from the pollution reductions, and from years of hard work put in by stakeholders through the RGGI Working Group. It is especially disappointing for this outcome to occur so late in process and so close to the successful initiation of Pennsylvania’s presence in the program. What’s more, the move comes on the heels of a statewide Democratic sweep in local elections, signaling strong public support for environmental protection and clean-energy progress. Despite this, Pennsylvania is now the only state in the broader Northeast region without a carbon-reduction program or a plan to create one.
No Clear Path Forward for a State-Only Carbon Market
The Shapiro Administration has repeatedly mentioned PACER, a Pennsylvania-specific cap-and-trade program, as a potential alternative. However, no viable legislation or executive action is moving forward, and major energy-market reform packages in the legislature have stalled. Even if PACER were to materialize further, any carbon market will perform substantially better when it’s part of a larger, multi-state system, one major reason why a standalone Pennsylvania program was always a fallback idea. With RGGI repealed and no viable replacement, the state is now moving backward and must start over seemingly from scratch. As a result, no other viable policy options currently exist in Pennsylvania to meaningfully address the impact of climate and energy affordability in the state, certainly not to the same degree as RGGI. Although it may be theoretically possible to develop a Pennsylvania-only program in the future, it is simply far less practical: RGGI is an existing, well-functioning program with all the structures in place to begin addressing power sector emissions immediately, and the powerful benefits of the program are evident across every one of its member states.
Implications for the Region
Finally, Pennsylvania’s withdrawal also carries consequences beyond its state borders. As the largest electricity producer in the Northeast and a major exporter of power, PA’s non-involvement weakens the region’s collective ability to combat climate change and tackle rising energy costs in a coordinated manner. Without the state’s participation, more carbon emissions can flow into neighboring RGGI states, forcing them to work harder and spend more to achieve the same regional results. If both Pennsylvania and Virginia had participated in RGGI auctions in 2022, Pennsylvania alone would have represented 44% of total regional power sector emissions covered under the RGGI program. RGGI works best when its members work together, and Pennsylvania stepping back makes the region’s path to a cleaner, more affordable electric system slower and less certain.
Proposed legislation would have net-effect of dismantling Massachusetts’ climate leadership and nation-leading energy efficiency programs
November 10, 2025
MEDIA CONTACT:
Kyle Murray
Director, State Program Implementation
Massachusetts Program Director
kmurray@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x106
Click HERE to download the full press release.
New House legislative package would fail to meaningfully address affordability by ignoring true largest energy cost drivers, while undermining its own efforts to make progress on emissions reductions. Bill’s passage threatens to exacerbate current affordability crisis and increase ratepayer exposure to fossil fuel volatility and infrastructure expenses, hamstringing the cheapest- and quickest-to-deploy clean energy resources.
Massachusetts lawmakers must come together to resoundingly reject this bill and chart an updated path forward toward goals for climate, affordability, and economic development.
BOSTON – Today, the House members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy are in the process of releasing a bill that would drastically undermine the Commonwealth’s climate goals and would undermine its own efforts to address the energy affordability issues facing households and businesses. This legislation proposes to cut additional funding from Mass Save, makes climate targets merely advisory, and eliminates the newly-created moderate-income discount rate, among other misguided provisions – on the heels of striking recent electoral victories for clean energy-led affordability in other states around the country. Acadia Center calls on House and Senate lawmakers and the Healey-Driscoll Administration to resoundingly reject the package of proposals and work to fashion a reasonable path forward preserving existing legal mandates and deploying new and enhanced policy solutions to keep Massachusetts a leader on energy affordability and climate progress.
“Proposing to weaken Massachusetts’ climate targets and cut back on money-saving energy efficiency programs is precisely the wrong approach for the moment. Rational, science-backed climate and clean energy targets have made Massachusetts a leader in the nation and spurred enormous investment and job creation in the Commonwealth – helping grow the local economy even as emissions decline,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts Program Director and Director of State Implementation at Acadia Center. “Yes, the state must contend with and adapt to new roadblocks posed by the federal Administration, but if there are concerns about Massachusetts achieving its climate targets, policymakers should redouble efforts to pursue cost-effective pathways to their attainment, not water down the underlying goals. Simply put, weakening targets is essentially granting the state permission to fail, and failure is not acceptable – certainly not five years before a deadline. Acadia Center calls on the Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration to work collaboratively to preserve existing targets and deploy new and enhanced policies, like Mass Save, to keep Massachusetts on the strongest path for affordability, emissions, and economic growth.”
At a time when infrastructure costs and overreliance on volatile fossil fuels are driving electric and gas ratepayer bills ever higher, clean energy programs like Mass Save remain an essential tool to effectively keeping those costs lower. Sadly, with the most recent $500 million cut from Mass Save in January 2025, Massachusetts has already chosen to lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits, 20 trillion British thermal units (TBtus) of energy savings, and 1.8 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, based on Acadia Center analysis. The House proposal would now propose to almost double those harmful impacts with a further $330M cut in program budgets, threatening $2+ billion in total lost savings, and would further harm the program by imposing unprecedented and arbitrary caps on future three-year program budgets – completely doing away with the long-standing decision to procure energy efficiency as the cost effective resource that it is and can be for the grid. This misguided approach to cost-cutting will immediately backfire, with the consequences of driving up total energy system costs by forcing ratepayers to purchase more costly supply and pay more for transmission and distribution of energy. Yes, Mass Save can be strengthened and program cost recovery can be improved to diversify funding sources, but the program’s successful track-record is undeniable: from 2012-2023, Massachusetts residents received $34 billion in benefits from Mass Save, corresponding to $3.51 in lifetime benefits for every $1 invested in energy efficiency. The program has saved 18 million megawatt-hours (MWhs) of annual electricity consumption, which is more than three times the annual output of the one gigawatt of generation from the retired Brayton Point Coal plant, formerly the largest coal generating plant in New England. This means that even ratepayers who have not participated in the program have seen massive savings.
Though details are still emerging, early reports indicate that the proposed legislation would:
- Make 2030 Mass Save greenhouse gas target merely advisory;
- Cut another $330 million from the 2025-2027 Mass Save plan budget;
- Subject future three-year Mass Save plans to an unprecedented and arbitrary budget cap, completely dismissing the notion of energy efficiency as a cost-effective resource to be procured;
- Remove the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from Mass Save’s cost-effectiveness test;
- Add rebates for natural gas heating systems back into the program;
- Remove demand management, beneficial electrification, and decarbonization from the program;
- Eliminate the newly created moderate-income discount rate;
- Appear to attempt to reverse the Supreme Judicial Court on ENGIE Gas & LNG v. Department of Public Utilities and Conservation Law Foundation v. Department of Public Utilities, which prohibits the Department of Public Utilities from authorizing electric distribution companies to enter into electric ratepayer-backed gas pipeline contracts;
- Decrease the yearly increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from 3% to 1% until 2033; and
- Require the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to direct the utilities to coordinate an initiative to perform a customer bill-impact analysis assessment on costs from any programs associated with greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy, solar, workforce development, or electrification.
It does not appear, however, that the bill would meaningfully address many of the largest real underlying energy cost drivers affecting Massachusetts households and businesses, and in fact would leave customers worse off through greater exposure to their pressures. These energy cost drivers include:
- Gas volatility and fossil fuel costs – impacts on electric and gas as well as transportation budgets
- Gas infrastructure spending – ballooning expenditures on leak prone gas pipe replacements
- Electric transmission costs – skyrocketing Asset Condition Project (ACP) spending, putting upward pressure on highest transmission costs in the nation
- Utility profits from traditional regulation and financing
- Failure to invest sufficiently in cost-reducing technologies like Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs), energy storage, and demand response/Virtual Power Plants; and beyond
There is a large and growing body of evidence supporting the strong continued rationale for keeping Massachusetts’ climate targets on the books and augmenting the set of policy and program levers at the state’s disposal, rather than throwing in the towel five years ahead of a deadline. This evidence includes:
- Total costs of the transition are relatively small and manageable: In analysis undertaken for the Massachusetts Decarbonization Roadmap and Clean Energy and Climate Plans (CECP), findings showed that the total cost increase of a representative mitigation pathway in 2050 ($1.5 billion annual spending) compared to a non-decarbonized reference case in 2050 was actually less than the expected increase in statewide energy costs resulting from population and economic growth ($2.4 billion annual spending).
- Clean energy done right will save households money: The 2025/2030 CECP found that “The increased adoption of electrified transportation and heating systems means that the average Massachusetts household will spend less money on energy every year. Average overall household energy expenditures, which include transportation-related fuel costs (included as “energy” cost in this analysis), are projected to decline 8% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, for an average household savings of $400 per year.”
- Investing in clean energy grows Massachusetts GDP and creates local jobs: Pathways that invest in local energy resources, including renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency, create more jobs and demonstrate greater economic benefits by keeping money local compared to pathways more reliant on imported energy. For example, the “All Options” pathway from the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Study Economic and Health Impacts Report (which emphasized deep electrification and broad renewable electricity buildout) had 17% higher economic “output” (the broadest measure of economic activity) in Massachusetts per dollar invested than the “Pipeline Gas” pathway (which relied heavily on imported alternative fuels).
- The global energy transition continues to accelerate, countering U.S. headwinds: Massachusetts’ 2030 climate targets were enacted in law in 2021, four full years ago. Since then, despite turbulent tailwinds and headwinds at the federal level, the pace of global technology improvement and development has accelerated markedly. Technologies continue to improve in their performance: solar cells are more efficient, battery cells are achieving greater energy densities, and heat pumps are notching even higher coefficients of performance (COP). And costs continue to decline as well: for example, the average price of a lithium-ion battery pack fell 20 percent last year to $115 per kilowatt-hour — the biggest drop since 2017, according to clean energy research firm BloombergNEF. This is part of an even larger drop from $155 to $115/kWh between 2021 and 2024, and further cost declines have materialized since then as well. These are cost reductions that Massachusetts can now take advantage of to reap greater savings and benefits than originally forecast four years ago.
Although recent negative developments at the federal level must be acknowledged, it is still eminently possible for the Commonwealth to adapt to them and forge a modified path forward that keeps climate targets within reach while preserving affordability.
Statement on PURA’s Approval of a $66M Rate Increase for United Illuminating Customers
October 30, 2025
MEDIA CONTACTS
Kate McAuliffe
Senior Policy Advocate, Connecticut
Kmcauliffe@acadiacenter.org; 860-246-7121 x202
Noah Berman
Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager
nberman@acadiacenter.org; 617-742-0054 x107
Acadia Center raises affordability concerns over PURA’s approval of a significant $66M increase in rates for United Illuminating (UI) electricity customers and calls for sustained implementation of rate reforms
Nonprofit urges PURA to remain focused on affordability and rapidly implement the draft Performance-Based Ratemaking framework to reduce customer costs.”
The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), issued a final decision in the United Illuminating (UI) rate case granting the utility a $66 million rate hike. This increase is $2.3 million larger than a proposal UI had previously said was “just and reasonable.”
In fact, according to Noah Berman, Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager at Acadia Center, “The approved $66M rate increase is more than double what was approved in the draft decision under previous leadership. With the approved rates, the average UI customer can expect an annual bill increase of $120 to $156.”
“Connecticut already has some of the highest electric rates in the country,” noted Kate McAuliffe, Senior Policy Advocate for Connecticut at Acadia Center. “PURA and intervenors have spent the last several years working on tools that the Authority can use to control high rates in the performance-based ratemaking (PBR) docket. We urge PURA to remain focused on affordability and rapidly implement the draft PBR framework to reduce customer costs, make better use of low-cost technologies, and plan the distribution grid in a more integrated way.”
“PURA faces a large body of ongoing casework that intervenors and Authority staff have invested substantial time and effort into,” said Berman. “That the Authority voted to approve an additional $37M in rate increases for UI as compared to the Authority’s prior draft decision is concerning – particularly since $66M is over $2M more than UI itself said was sufficient for it to operate in a filing made only 11 days before the vote.”
On September 10, 2025 – during former Chair Marissa Gillett’s tenure – PURA issued a draft decision in UI’s rate case, which would have granted the utility a $28.6M rate hike. Afterward, UI and other intervenors began settlement talks to determine if a stipulated agreement would be feasible. When those talks failed to reach consensus, UI submitted an Alternative Resolution Position (ARP) stating that a $63.7M rate increase would lead to “a just and reasonable result.” (UI’s Motion to Adopt and Approve the United Illuminating Alternative Resolution Position at 2). On October 28th – after former Chair Gillett’s resignation and recusal from the proceeding – PURA approved a final decision in UI’s rate case, granting UI a $66M rate hike. The approved $66M rate increase is more than double what was approved in the draft decision under previous leadership, and substantially mirrors the positions included in UI’s ARP. With the approved rates, the average UI customer can expect an annual bill increase of $120 to $156.
PBR is a common-sense, alternative utility regulatory framework that ties financial incentives for utilities to measurable performance outcomes rather than simply allowing recovery of costs for capital investments. The Authority was expected to release its final decisions in the three PBR reopeners in mid-October but has delayed the release of those decisions for an indeterminate amount of time. The swift implementation of the framework provided for in the three draft decisions would bring substantial benefits to Connecticut electricity customers by containing the electric utilities’ costs and shifting their incentives to align with the public policy priorities of the state — such as lower electric bills, better reliability, improved resilience during storms, and reduced pollution. A well-designed PBR framework, which PURA still has in its Draft Decisions, can provide meaningful relief to ratepayers, and PURA should consider moving forward with all due haste.