pollution emissions carbon
(Illustration via Pixabay)

OF ALL THE impacts President Trump is having on Massachusetts, one of the most significant is the constraints he is putting on our efforts to bring clean energy online. From canceled wind contracts to ending tax credits, almost overnight the Commonwealth has found itself confronting a new reality when it comes to energy and climate ambitions – and a new bill in the House is poised to help us confront that reality. 

Massachusetts has certainly led on climate over the years. Beginning with passage of the Green Communities Act and Global Warming Solutions Act in 2008, the Commonwealth has addressed greenhouse gas emissions through legislation and regulation. With increasingly aggressive emissions mandates—a 50 percent reduction by 2030, 75 percent by 2040 and net zero by 2050—the state has dramatically expanded energy efficiency programs and encouraged the development of solar, geothermal, energy storage, and offshore wind – while transitioning away from natural gas to a system that relies primarily on electricity.  

Unfortunately, even as the dates for these mandates get closer, they remain unrealized. Today, only about a quarter of Massachusetts’s electricity is renewable – more than half of which comes from not solar or offshore wind power but the burning of wood and waste.  

Meanwhile, offshore wind projects that would provide enough energy to power more than a million homes—Southcoast Wind (1,100 megawatts) and New England Wind I (800 megawatts)—have been delayed and now contract negotiations are not expected to be completed until next year at the earliest, with new energy solicitations being put on hold. In fact, only two large clean energy projects are under construction: the 1,200 megawatt transmission line delivering hydropower from Canada, and the 800 megawatt Vineyard Wind 1 offshore wind project – neither of which will move the needle on greenhouse gas emissions within the next five years.  

So, as the Legislature considers Gov. Healey’s energy affordability bill, the question becomes: Do Massachusetts leaders need to re-think our 2030 emissions mandates? 

Rep. Mark Cusack, who leads House energy policy as co-chair of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, has introduced legislation to shift Massachusetts’s 2030 emissions target from a mandate to advisory goal – maintaining the 2050 net-zero objective, while allowing flexibility to protect households and businesses. His bill would also address rising energy costs, in part by creating an affordability and competitiveness standard to ensure the Commonwealth’s emissions efforts will not impose unreasonable adverse impacts on the cost or availability of energy.  

The longer we wait, the harder it’s going to be. In part, that’s because policies designed to incentivize zero emissions fuels and constrain our use of natural gas and leave us increasingly dependent on the one fuel everyone agrees Massachusetts shouldn’t be using: oil.  

While we all remember the spike in energy costs from last winter, less attention was paid to the negative climate impact during the coldest days when gas was in short supply. On January 22, 2025, the region required 20,000 megawatts of electricity to meet demand – the most all season. Cold winter spikes in electric use are not unusual. What was unusual is that about 30 percent of the electricity used this time was not generated by clean sources or even natural gas, but by oil. Greenhouse gas emissions averaged around 137 metric tons per minute.  

Only a year earlier, when the region’s peak electricity demand reached 18,300 megawatts on January 17, 2024, emissions averaged about 85 metric tons per minute most of the day. Why? Because natural gas was available. In a single year, a 10 percent increase in electricity usage drove up emissions by 60 percent.  

With ratepayer-funded rebates encouraging installation of up to 500,000 heat pumps—which cost between $20,000 to $30,000 apiece—adding stress to our already overburdened electricity grid, the problem will only get worse and more expensive.  

As bad as this all sounds—and it is bad—Gov. Healey is smart to leave all options on the table. 

Last month her administration announced a partnership with the University of Massachusetts Lowell to accelerate the state’s leadership in advanced nuclear and fusion energy technologies. Additionally, she reiterated her commitment to an “all-of-the above” approach to energy resources, specifically noting that natural gas “continues to play an important role in our overall energy supply.” 

Massachusetts isn’t the only progressive state reassessing this challenge. States like New York and Vermont have also taken a hard look at their emissions mandates in light of clean energy shortfalls. Even California is rethinking its environmental codes in light of housing construction shortfalls. They recognize that increasing costs with little or no practical emission reduction is not only counterproductive but—with a hostile Administration in Washington—an increasingly urgent issue to address.  

For more than a decade, Massachusetts climate strategy has effectively traded higher emissions, higher costs, and less reliability today for a promise of lower emissions tomorrow. But a promise is far from a guarantee – and with 2030 almost upon us, tomorrow still isn’t here. 

Rick Sullivan is CEO of the Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts. He served as secretary of energy and environment under Gov. Deval Patrick and previously served as mayor of Westfield.