Acadia Center Responds to Severe Clean Energy Rollbacks in Governor McKee’s FY 2027 Budget Proposal (RI)

Press Release

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**Cutting clean energy doesn’t protect ratepayers; it protects an outdated energy system and keeps us dependent on dirty, expensive fossil fuels.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 “The Governor’s budget proposal locks Rhode Island into an outdated energy system and strips us of our most potent tools to address skyrocketing energy costs.”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

Source: 2025 Annual Report | Rhode Island Energy Efficiency Council

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

Full Press Release

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

Press Release

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

Press Release

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.

Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast

Report

FAQs

Acadia Center announces release of new report “Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast.”

Acadia Center’s latest report highlights the essential contributions energy efficiency programs make to stabilizing costs, benefitting ratepayers, and diversifying the energy mix in seven states in the northeast.

Efficiency Ahead further recommends how standardizing metrics by states for program measurement, evaluation, and reporting would increase value.

ROCKPORT, ME – Acadia Center announces its new report: Efficiency Ahead: How State Energy Efficiency Plans are Driving Utility Bill Savings and Benefits Across the Northeast. This new analysis takes a closer look at the most recent energy efficiency plans developed by the six New England states and New York. It examines program investment levels, projected benefits and energy savings, cost-effectiveness levels, the impact of recent proposed funding cuts, and states’ progress relative to their peers on criteria like per-capita investment levels.

“State energy efficiency programs make a major contribution to the energy system as a low-cost resource, yet face a pivotal juncture in the northeast region,” said Jamie Dickerson, Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs. “Consumer affordability is front of mind for consumers and policymakers with rising energy prices. Other energy resources are rising in cost, yet cuts to ratepayer funded programs – which reduce system costs – have been threatened and implemented by leading states. It is more important than ever for policymakers, advocates, program administrators, and consumers to understand the value and evolving role of energy efficiency resource acquisition and shape the future trajectories of the programs to meet the emerging needs of the region.”

Each state in the Northeast operates and administers energy efficiency programs funded via electricity and natural gas bills to deliver energy efficiency and electrification improvements to customers. These ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have been and remain the largest source of investment in efficiency and building decarbonization for the region. These state programs have been operating for decades and provide major overall benefits in the form of reduced overall building energy consumption, energy cost savings to residents and businesses, reduced peak demand stress on the region’s electricity grid, and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in addition to significant job creation and economic development increases.

The analysis conducted by Acadia Center in this report draws on publicly available data reported in each state’s three-year energy efficiency plan, annual program reports, and related filings. The analysis in the report yielded the following findings for program activity in the next three years:

  • Record-level investments and lifetime benefits: Seven states poised to invest almost $10 billion in efficiency overall, with New England programs alone generating an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits. 
  • Significant electricity and fuel savings: New England and New York combined are expected to realize 700 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) in lifetime savings across all fuels, including 20 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity savings (lifetime) from efficiency investments in New England—equivalent to 5.2 million homes using natural gas for one year in New England. 
  • Wide range in per-capita investments by state: Program budgets range from $149 per capita in New York State to $631 per capita in Massachusetts—revealing differences in population, portfolio mixes, cost-effectiveness screening, and overall program ambition.
  • Missed benefits from recent budget cuts: Massachusetts will lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits, 20 TBtus of energy savings, and 1.8 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions by cutting $500m in program budgets. Rhode Island too faces cuts of 30% that would lose the state some $92m in benefits.
  • Strong ongoing cost-effectiveness: Each dollar spent on efficiency yielding $2.93 in benefits across New England, on average—indicating an opportunity to increase investment levels further and acquire deeper cost-effective savings across the region.
  • Major contributions to the region’s grid: Electric savings will help the region continue meeting a substantial portion of annual electric load via energy efficiency (20.6 TWh saved in 2023, or almost 15% of gross load).

While the benefits delivered by these programs are impressive, state program data were not easy to compile, and cross-state comparisons are made quite challenging by significant variations in reporting methodologies and data formatting across states. Cross-state collaboration to enable more uniform reporting would enable stakeholders to better communicate the significant positive benefits these programs are having on a regional scale.

“State energy efficiency programs are well positioned in the coming years to reduce overall building energy consumption, deliver energy cost savings to residents and businesses, reduce peak demand stress on the region’s electricity grid, and deliver reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—all despite the changing overall landscape for efficiency investments and available funding sources,” said Ben Butterworth, Director of Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis at Acadia Center and a lead author on this report. “Looking ahead, improving program design and administration can achieve even larger consumer and system benefits.”

MEDIA CONTACT
Jamie Dickerson
Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org; 401-276-0600 x102

Statement on Chair Marissa Gillett’s Resignation from the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

Press Release

September 24, 2025

MEDIA CONTACTS
Will Taylor
Strategy Director, Infrastructure and Resilience
wtaylor@acadiacenter.com; 860-246-7121 x203

Noah Berman
Senior Policy Advocate and Utility Innovation Program Manager
nberman@acadiacenter.org; 617-742-0054 x107

Acadia Center applauds Marissa Gillett’s tenure as Public Utility Regulatory Authority Chair and highlights her accomplishments in the role.

Encourages next PURA Chair to “maintain a strong stance on what rates are just and reasonable, and further the work done to establish Connecticut as a national leader in modernizing utility ratemaking.”

HARTFORD, CT – Public Utility Regulatory Authority’s (PURA) Chair Marissa Gillett’s tenure has witnessed significant accomplishments regarding cost savings and modernizing Connecticut’s approach to setting rates and establishing a performance-based ratemaking framework. “Chair Gillett consistently sought fair outcomes when utilities came to PURA to adjust their rates, ensuring only costs that were truly prudent and reasonable would be passed on to ratepayers,” said Will Taylor, Strategy Director, Infrastructure and Resilience, at Acadia Center. “Her unswerving dedication to utility prudence has been a bulwark to Connecticut ratepayers, saving them millions of dollars in rate increases.” Notable advances made throughout the Chair’s tenure, which have withstood judicial scrutiny five times at the Connecticut Supreme Court, include:

  • In 2024, PURA directed the Connecticut Natural Gas (CNG) and The Southern Connecticut Gas (SCG) Companies to return $24 million and $96 million to ratepayers over 3 years, respectively. In part because of these directives, the revenue requirements approved by PURA represented $24.6 million and $10.7 million in reductions from current revenues.
  • In 2023, PURA approved rates for Aquarion Water Company that represented an average decrease to customer bills of $67/year. Paired with the Water Infrastructure Conservation Adjustment (WICA) surcharge being reset to $0; customer rates were decreased 11%. This ruling included a reduction of requested revenue requirements for operations and maintenance costs of $10.7 million, because the company failed to show they would benefit ratepayers. Aquarion had requested an increase of $37 million in distribution revenues.
  • In 2023, PURA approved rate adjustments for The United Illuminating Company (UI), increasing bills by 2% in response to UI’s requested rate increase of 11% over 3 years. Under Chair Gillett, PURA determined that a return on equity of 9.10% was sufficient, but not more than sufficient, to allow the Company a reasonable return—much reduced from the 10.20% ROE proposed by the company. Holding the utility accountable, PURA included a downward adjustment of 0.47% to an effective ROE of 8.63%, reflecting UI’s management and operational deficiencies.
  • In 2025, PURA advanced a new framework for performance-based ratemaking (PBR) by issuing three draft decisions that lay out how Connecticut’s utilities will be regulated going forward. The draft rulings propose shifting utilities onto multi-year rate plans with revenue caps, adopting clear performance scorecards and financial incentives tied to reliability, affordability, clean energy, and equity, and requiring a transparent grid planning process that evaluates non-wires alternatives alongside traditional investments.

These decisions represent significant achievements in reducing ratepayer costs while advancing affordable clean energy. PBR in particular is a critically important step to modernize Connecticut’s outdated approach to utility ratemaking. 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. PBR helps to align utility behavior with customer interests and public policy goals. It encourages cost efficiency, innovation, and improved service quality while promoting clean energy adoption, equity, and resilience by removing traditional cost-of-service biases. For ratepayers, a successful PBR framework means that utility financial success is more directly linked to delivering tangible benefits — such as lower costs, better reliability, and progress on clean energy — than to how much the utility spends. That should be welcome news for the people of Connecticut.

Under Chair Gillett, PURA has ensured that utility returns are sufficient but prudent — resulting in at least tens of millions of savings for ratepayers — and worked diligently to establish a PBR framework to bring cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable power to the people of Connecticut for many years to come. “Chair Gillett has faithfully served the people of Connecticut by advancing a more affordable, equitable, and sustainable energy future,” said Taylor.

“It is regrettable that she has been subjected to such an unrelenting barrage of attacks while consistently fulfilling her duties. Acadia Center hopes that the next PURA chair will maintain a strong stance on what rates are just and reasonable, and further the work done to establish Connecticut as a national leader in modernizing utility ratemaking.”

Acadia Center Responds to Governor McKee (RI)’s Rate Relief Announcement

Press Release

September 12, 2025

The two settlements highlighted in the Governor’s rate relief announcement are examples of our regulatory bodies holding the utility accountable to their obligations and refunding money already owed to ratepayers. Acadia Center thanks the DPUC and PUC for their tireless efforts on this front and appreciates the immediate relief these returns offer for Rhode Islanders struggling with energy costs.

However, we cannot rely on settlements alone to provide rate relief year after year in the future. In addition to ongoing regulatory oversight, Rhode Islanders need long-lasting, renewing tools to help protect against rising energy costs. Energy efficiency is one such key tool – it lowers energy bills year after year, at the household and business level and across the gas and electric systems by proactively reducing supply and infrastructure costs.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island’s energy efficiency programs are facing significant cuts this year, despite cost-effectively providing tangible benefits for Rhode Islanders. Acadia Center urges that proposed program cuts be reversed and the accompanying savings be added to an even more robust and enduring rate relief package from the McKee Administration this fall.

See Acadia Center’s Energy Efficiency Action Alert Regarding Proposed Cuts to the 2026 Rhode Island Programs

Reporting by the Providence Journal

Media Contact:
Emily Koo, ekoo@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x402

Statement on Trump Administration Offshore Wind Orders

Press Release

Contact: Jamie Dickerson – Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs; jdickerson@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x102

Acadia Center issued the following statement on the latest actions by the Trump Administration against offshore wind. This is a developing story.

Offshore wind stoppages from the Trump Administration will drive up consumer costs, jeopardize grid reliability, and kill thousands of good-paying jobs

Actions will make energy more costly, less reliable, and more polluting

“Actions taken by the Trump Administration to halt critical offshore wind projects and port infrastructure along the east coast will increase utility bills for families and businesses by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, jeopardize reliable power, and kill thousands of good-paying, union jobs,” said Jamie Dickerson – Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs at Acadia Center. These stoppages and withdrawn grants will make energy systems more vulnerable to extreme weather events, wreak further damage on federal-state energy system planning and collaboration, and erode investor confidence and market stability – undermining future investment in urgently needed grid infrastructure. From any point of view, halting work on established wind projects that states energy officials are relying on to meet power needs, clean the air, and reduce system costs defies the facts and simply makes no sense.

The August 29 announcement withdrawing and cancelling significant offshore wind port infrastructure funding comes just one week after the stop work order halting progress on the 80% complete Revolution Wind project, which was slated to begin delivering 700 MW of power to Connecticut and Rhode Island in 2026. Other affected port projects in the northeast include those in: Bridgeport, CT ($10.5m); Paulsboro, NJ ($20.5m); Quonset, RI ($11.2m); Staten Island, NY ($48m); and Salem, MA ($33.8m). Without investment in these critical port facilities, the region’s economy and infrastructure will be severely damaged. Further reporting now indicates the Trump Administration may also reconsider previously approved permits for SouthCoast Wind, serving Massachusetts.

Last week, a new study conducted by Daymark Energy Advisors on behalf of RENEW Northeast, found that offshore wind would have saved New England ratepayers at least $400 million in utility bill costs last year, lowering energy market prices by 11% and insulating ratepayers from expensive, volatile natural gas. Today, the grid is dangerously over-reliant on natural gas, which provides over 50% of electricity generation in New England. This overreliance costs ratepayers dearly, with volatility in natural gas prices imposing an extreme burden on ratepayers: on average, the region spends around $3 billion per year on natural gas for power generation, and recently, the region saw a 67% price increase between 2024 and 2025 due to a 112% jump in the price of natural gas (see: ISO New England report). Offshore wind is an effective hedge against this volatility, provide sorely needed on-peak production, and reducing fuel-burn to keep supplies available and replenished during extended cold-snap periods.

The bottom line: analysis after analysis provides compelling evidence that offshore wind will lower utility bills for households in New England and the Northeast. Acadia Center calls on policymakers and stakeholders to hold the Trump Administration accountable for the direct financial harms these project delays and stoppages have and will continue to inflict on families and businesses across the region.

Highlights of this and previous studies on offshore wind and energy affordability include:

Daymark Energy Advisors (August 2025):

Offshore wind would have lowered wholesale energy prices by 11%, saving ratepayers roughly $400m in Winter 24/25.

Under most conservative assumptions additional capacity from OSW would have reduced regional capacity market costs by at least $128 million.

Net bill impact for average residential customers of $1.32 to $2.68/month in savings, even under most expensive PPA scenarios.

Aurora Energy Research (May 2025):

Offshore wind would have saved New York $77 million in electricity costs in a single cold/high-cost winter month in 2022 or 2025.

In analysis of real market conditions in December 2022, study concluded that Empire Wind, Sunrise Wind, and South Fork Wind Farm would have saved New York $77 million.

Even higher wholesale prices in January 2025 would mean even higher savings likely greater than $80m.

Synapse Energy Economics (June 2024):

Nine GW of OSW by 2030 would reduce New England electricity bills by approx. $630 million to $1.7 billion annually under mid and high gas price scenarios, reducing customer bills by $2.79 to $4.61/month.

Would halve region’s spends on natural gas for power gen. (~$3b annually), help region retain $1.57 billion otherwise flowing out of region.

ISO-NE and MassCEC (December 2018):

Over a 16-day cold-snap period, 400 to 1,600 MW of offshore wind would have yielded $20 to $85m in avoided power production costs.

Production would have reduced day-ahead locational marginal prices (LMP) by 4% to 13%.

FOR RELEASE: RGGI States Finalize Program Updates to Support Clean Air and Affordable Energy through 2037

Full Press Release Here

MEDIA CONTACTS
Paola Moncada Tamayo
Senior Policy and Data Analyst
ptamayo@acadiacenter.org; 860-246-7121 x204

Jamie Dickerson
Senior Director, Climate and Clean Energy Programs
jdickerson@acadiacenter.org; 401-276-0600 x102

ROCKPORT, ME – On Thursday, July 3, 2025, the ten states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) announced the conclusion of the program’s Third Program Review, finalizing a long process for updates aimed at reinforcing the region’s power sector transition and related climate and energy affordability goals. The agreement by the states will allow for the program’s benefits to continue through 2037, which to-date have brought $20 billion in energy bill savings through the investment of proceeds. RGGI has proven the power of multi-state collaboration, and the continuation of the program will ensure steady investments to benefit consumers, address energy affordability, support communities, and increase economic output. The agreement includes several important changes to strengthen and future-proof the program for consumer and community benefits, including: a strengthened emissions cap through 2037, new market mechanisms, the removal of offsets for program compliance, and a commitment to continued progress. Acadia Center applauds the RGGI states and RGGI, Inc., for bringing this updated model rule to fruition during a period of unprecedented uncertainty.   

“RGGI has long demonstrated its effectiveness in providing consumers with large benefits in energy savings and investments in a cleaner future” said Daniel Sosland, president of Acadia Center. “RGGI program improvements reflect the power of bipartisan states’ cooperation to work together toward a cleaner energy future. We look forward to supporting their efforts as they move into the implementation phase and ensuring that the benefits of this program reach households and communities across the region.”

The conclusion of the program review and associated updated model rule bring clarity to several important program and market mechanisms that affect the program’s operation and its resulting impacts to power plants, communities, consumers, and other stakeholders. The program mechanisms described below will work together not only to reduce detrimental pollution that harms public health, but also to enhance the program’s ability to keep delivering tangible financial and energy benefits to consumers and the public.

Key Program Updates:

  • Stronger Emissions Cap: Beginning in 2027, the new regional cap puts the ten states on a declining trajectory to reach just under 10 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from the power sector by 2037, down from a cap of 82 million tons of CO2e emissions today and a cap of 188 million tons CO2e when the program first held auctions in 2008. Backed by state policy and consistent market direction, it is a positive step forward that demonstrates a strong, multi-state commitment to grid decarbonization.
  • Removal of Offsets: Historically, the RGGI program has allowed power generators to use offset allowances representing GHG reductions achieved outside the power sector (e.g., avoided agricultural methane) to meet their emission reduction requirements. RGGI will no longer issue offset allowances beginning in 2027, simplifying program design and reinforcing the focus on direct emissions reductions in the power sector.
  • A New Cost Containment Reserve Market Mechanism: A two-tier Cost Containment Reserve (CCR) will be instituted with the objective of helping manage cost volatility while maintaining cap integrity across the ten-state region.
  • Minimum Price Floor: The existing Emissions Containment Reserve (ECR) will be replaced by a higher minimum price floor, set at $9 in 2027 and increasing by 7% annually, ensuring RGGI sends a stronger lower bound price signal to power generators.

The updated Model Rule provides the framework for each participating state to revise its own rules through legislative or regulatory processes, with the goal of implementing these changes by January 1, 2027.

Since the first auction in 2008, RGGI has steadily evolved through three program reviews to become an effective policy tool for emission reductions and regional collaboration. The chart above illustrates how the emissions cap has tightened significantly over time, from an initial 188 million tons to a projected 10 million tons in 2037. The new cap trajectory from the Third Program Review sends a strong signal to markets and power providers that the decarbonization of the power sector is not only possible but already underway across the region and expected to continue, irrespective of countervailing changes at the federal level.

Acadia Center’s full set of Findings and Recommendations for the Third Program Review Report helped shape the discussion by offering proposals to strengthen program impact, enhance equity in proceeds spending, and address other longer-term elements of the program’s evolution.

A Proven Track-Record of Success

RGGI is the United States’ first multi-state program designed to reduce pollution from power plants, providing significant benefits for the participating states and their consumers and communities. Since its inception, RGGI has contributed to nearly 50% reduction in CO₂ emissions from covered power plants. The program has generated over $9 billion in proceeds, which states have invested in clean energy, energy efficiency, and bill assistance programs that benefit local communities and consumers.

RGGI announced that program investments have directly benefited more than 8 million households and 400,000 businesses and are expected to save ratepayers over $20 billion on energy bills. A recent analysis by Acadia Center, RGGI Proceeds in Action, highlights in further detail how states have used these investments to deliver benefits to communities and consumers, along with recommendations for improved reporting and proceed investments.

Looking Ahead

As part of this announcement, the RGGI states have committed to launching a Fourth Program Review no later than 2028. This future review will assess the performance of the newly adopted changes, consider additional adjustments as needed, and further explore opportunities to ensure a reliable, equitable, and clean electricity system across the region.

The updated framework also leaves the door open for future participation by additional states, which would bring greater economic efficiency and climate benefit to the region as a whole.

The graph above focuses on the cumulative RGGI cap over the 200-2037 time period for the ten states that currently participate in RGGI and assumes New Jersey did not exit the program from 2012-2019 for the sake of visual clarity.