Deciphering The Massachusetts Energy Crisis

This past month, our National Grid gas bill was $890 and our Eversource electric bill was $735. Our house is on the larger side, but it’s built to high efficiency standards – commercial-grade furnaces (95%+ efficiency), tankless water heaters, an airtight insulated structure, and solar panels with Tesla Powerwall backup batteries.

None of this was enough to avoid our highest gas bill ever.

So I went down the rabbit hole. Why are electricity and gas prices in Massachusetts so high? The utility companies say that it’s because we had more cold days this winter than usual. The Democrats say that the utility companies are taking advantage of residents. The Republicans say that it’s due to the green energy policies of the Healey administration.

I went into this research assuming that Massachusetts just needed to build more gas pipelines. But this is only part of the equation.

This blog post details why energy prices in Massachusetts are so high and proposes a comprehensive list of solutions. Some of these proposed solutions will likely never be implemented by the Healey administration – but some may be bipartisan enough to have a chance!

Most frustrating is learning that it didn’t have to be this way. With sensible energy policies, utility rates could be half of what they are today. Massachusetts residents deserve that. No one should be struggling to pay their gas or electric bills because of poor policy decisions. 

Challenges

Location & Weather

Massachusetts faces unique energy challenges that begin with our geographic location and severe winter weather. Unlike much of the United States, we do not have abundant local energy resources. While many regions benefit from cheap domestic oil, natural gas, or sustainable options like hydropower, our state must purchase the bulk of our energy from other states – and even from overseas. This dependency is compounded by our brutal winter conditions.

Even homes built to high efficiency standards still struggle in the winter. For our home, in the summer, our solar panels and batteries can offset up to 75% of our electric usage. However, in winter the same solar panels only offset around 30% of our usage.

With winter temperatures hovering near zero for weeks on end, and with limited sunlight to charge batteries during peak cold days, Massachusetts utilities must be prepared for peak demand when every resident depends on reliable heat and power.

Natural Gas as the Primary Fuel

Natural gas has become the backbone of Massachusetts’ energy mix. Currently, it fuels roughly 63–76% of our electricity generation and over 50% of residential and commercial heating needs. When you remove residential solar from the equation, natural gas supports closer to 75–85% of electricity generation.

This heavy reliance on natural gas is a relatively recent development. Twenty years ago, our state’s energy mix was more diversified, relying on nuclear power, coal, oil-fired plants, and even hydroelectric imports. Back in 2000, coal and oil provided around 30% of electricity, and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station contributed about 14% until its shutdown in 2019.

Over the past two decades, environmental concerns and economic pressures have led to the phase-out of coal and oil-fired power plants, while political reluctance prevented significant reinvestment in nuclear energy. Natural gas emerged as the default replacement – abundant, initially cost-effective, and seen as a cleaner alternative to coal.

Even as renewable energy sources like wind and solar have grown, their intermittent output, especially during winter peaks, means they cannot fully replace gas-fired generation. As a result, Massachusetts is now critically dependent on natural gas. This dependence leaves the state vulnerable not only to price volatility, supply constraints, and geopolitical disruptions, but also to market inefficiencies. Practices like “down-scheduling” on pipelines can artificially tighten available supply during peak demand, driving up prices even when abundant gas exists elsewhere.

Moreover, gas-fired power plants set the marginal price for electricity. When natural gas prices spike, the cost to produce electricity rises in tandem, meaning that high gas prices directly translate into high electric bills.

The Unintended Consequences of the Green Push

Ironically, the aggressive push for renewable energy in Massachusetts has only made us more dependent on natural gas. State Democrats' push for solar and wind was intended to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels – but because these renewable sources are intermittent, they cannot consistently meet demand during cold winter nights and storm conditions.

Even more, the promotion of electric heat pumps as a climate-friendly alternative to gas and oil heating has led to a surge in winter electricity demand. However, since most of our electricity still comes from natural gas power plants, this transition forces utilities to burn even more natural gas to keep up with the higher demand, creating a vicious cycle.

Additionally, policy-driven measures such as carbon pricing and renewable mandates – designed to achieve environmental goals – add incremental costs to our energy bills, further pushing up prices.

At the same time, Governor Healey has stalled any expansion of natural gas infrastructure. Massachusetts is left with only two major pipelines, the Algonquin Gas Transmission and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. Without additional capacity, our state is forced to rely on expensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from overseas rather than accessing more affordable domestic natural gas from places like Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region.

Only a small portion of our supply comes through the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, delivering Canadian gas. Although historically significant, this supply now plays a minor role except during winter peaks.

This artificial supply constraint only increases price volatility, especially when gas demand for both electricity generation and heating surges simultaneously.

Energy Peaks and System Vulnerability

During peak demand periods, Massachusetts experiences a perfect storm. In the dead of winter, when temperatures drop to near freezing and millions of residents simultaneously crank up their heating, the energy system is stretched to its limit. The region’s just-in-time natural gas delivery model leaves little margin for error.

Unlike areas that have abundant underground natural gas storage, New England must import gas continuously, with no buffer to fall back on during sudden surges in demand.

When the coldest days arrive, utilities are forced to import LNG at volatile spot market prices. These prices can be as much as 10 times the national average, directly translating into astronomical bills for consumers. In cases where natural gas supplies fall short, electric utilities sometimes have to flip on oil-fired backup generators – an expensive band-aid that not only drives up wholesale electricity prices but also emits significantly more CO₂, further contradicting the government's clean energy goals.

Renewable energy sources, better suited to more temperate climates, fail to deliver during these critical moments. Solar panels produce no power on winter nights and wind turbines often have to be shut down when winds are dangerously high, leaving the entire grid dangerously dependent on natural gas, imported LNG, and backup oil.

LNG and Geopolitical Shocks

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a crucial, though expensive, component of Massachusetts’ energy system, especially during extreme winter conditions. LNG is natural gas cooled to -260°F, which reduces its volume to 1/600th of its original size, making long-distance transport more feasible.

Because Massachusetts has limited pipeline capacity and lacks domestic LNG shipping options due to restrictions like the Jones Act, the state must import LNG from overseas. Most shipments arrive from Trinidad and Tobago, with occasional deliveries from Qatar or even Canada via facilities such as Canaport LNG in New Brunswick.

The Jones Act: An Outdated Barrier

The Jones Act is a century-old shipping law that mandates all goods transported between U.S. ports must be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels built in the United States. While this law was originally intended to bolster domestic shipping and national security, it now poses a significant barrier to energy affordability in Massachusetts. Because there are no U.S.-flagged LNG tankers capable of transporting LNG between domestic ports, Massachusetts is forced to rely on expensive foreign-built vessels for its LNG imports. This restriction not only prevents the state from accessing cheaper, domestically produced LNG from the Gulf Coast but also contributes to the high energy costs that residents face every winter.

This reliance on imported LNG comes at a steep cost. Massachusetts competes in the global LNG market, meaning that when international demand spikes – exacerbated by events like the Russia-Ukraine conflict – prices soar. The winter of 2022–2023 was a stark example, with LNG spot prices surging dramatically.

In extreme circumstances, such as during the 2018 polar vortex, New England was forced to import emergency LNG, including a shipment containing Russian LNG (!), to keep the grid running when pipeline capacity was maxed out. Without long-term LNG contracts, utilities are forced to purchase at these inflated, volatile rates. Added shipping costs and processing fees further drive up expenses, making LNG a costly yet necessary lifeline.

Compounding these challenges are global geopolitical shifts and federal energy policies that have left Massachusetts particularly vulnerable. With domestic natural gas supplies limited, the state finds itself at the mercy of global market dynamics. American policies have prioritized LNG exports to Europe over ensuring affordable domestic supply, while longstanding shipping laws prevent Massachusetts from accessing cheaper, domestically produced LNG from the Gulf Coast.

This combination of international market pressures and restrictive federal policies has essentially trapped Massachusetts in a global bidding war for energy—a situation that underscores the urgent need for more balanced infrastructure investments and regulatory reform.

Overall Fragility of the System

The cumulative effect of all these factors is a dangerously fragile energy system in New England. With our natural gas supply chain concentrated at only a few critical entry points—the Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline, the Tennessee Gas Pipeline, and the Everett LNG Terminal—even a minor disruption could have catastrophic consequences.

For instance, the Everett LNG Terminal, which supplies up to 35% of the region’s gas during peak winter demand, is a single point of failure. Should it experience a shutdown due to a cyberattack, extreme weather, or another disruption, there would be no immediate backup, leaving utilities scrambling to secure emergency fuel at exorbitant spot market prices.

Massachusetts’ just-in-time delivery model, while efficient under normal conditions, leaves little room for error when faced with sudden weather-related disruptions, pipeline maintenance issues, or delays in LNG shipments. ISO New England has already issued multiple warnings about potential rolling blackouts during extreme cold, underscoring the precarious nature of our energy grid.

The system’s fragility not only leads to astronomical energy bills for consumers but also poses a significant risk to the state’s economic competitiveness and the reliability of critical services.

In summary, Massachusetts’ energy system is caught in a precarious cycle of over-reliance on natural gas, limited infrastructure, and policy decisions that have left us exposed to both domestic and global shocks. Our state’s high energy costs and the constant threat of supply disruptions are a direct result of a fragile system – one that desperately needs a more balanced and resilient approach.

Solutions

Massachusetts faces significant energy challenges, but there are concrete steps we can take over the next few years to build a more resilient, affordable, and diversified energy system.

Short Term (0–2 Years)

1. Complete the NECEC Transmission Line

Completing the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission line is one of the most impactful near-term steps for Massachusetts. This line, once finished, would enable us to import approximately 1,200 megawatts of inexpensive, green hydroelectric power from Hydro-Québec in Canada – covering roughly 15–18% of our non-peak electricity demand! That capacity isn’t just a technical figure; it represents a significant relief valve for our grid during normal operating conditions. This imported hydro power, celebrated for its low cost, environmental benefits, and reliability, would reduce our heavy reliance on gas-fired generation and help stabilize wholesale prices.

Beyond lowering overall costs, the NECEC project diversifies our energy mix by tapping into a stable source of clean energy. This added diversity not only improves reliability by countering the volatility of natural gas prices but also reinforces our environmental goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants. 

Given that hydro is a green, renewable resource, this project should be strongly supported by Governor Healey. Completing NECEC represents a strategic investment in Massachusetts’ energy security that can garner broad, bipartisan backing while paving the way for a cleaner energy future.

2. Seek a Jones Act Exemption for LNG Shipments

It’s ludicrous that in 2025 Massachusetts is forced to import LNG from far-flung sources like Trinidad and Tobago when abundant, affordable natural gas exists right here in the U.S. The outdated Jones Act, which mandates that LNG shipments between U.S. ports must be carried on domestically built and flagged vessels, creates an unnecessary barrier to accessing cheaper domestic LNG from the Gulf Coast. This restriction not only inflates our energy costs but also undermines our national resource advantage.

By pushing for a Jones Act exemption or modification specifically for LNG shipments, which President Trump would likely support, Massachusetts could tap into more affordable domestic sources.

With U.S.-flagged LNG tankers now able to transport gas between ports, shipping costs would drop significantly, translating into lower energy bills for consumers. Pursuing such a policy change would require coordinated state and federal efforts, but the potential short-term relief and long-term benefits to energy affordability make it an essential part of our multi-pronged strategy.

3. Lock in Long-Term LNG Supply Contracts

Today, many utilities rely on purchasing LNG on the volatile spot market. This leaves consumers vulnerable to dramatic price surges during peak demand periods. By locking in long-term LNG supply contracts at discounted rates, utilities could secure a steady and predictable supply of fuel. Long-term contracts give utilities the leverage to negotiate better terms and avoid the uncertainty of daily price fluctuations – a benefit that would ultimately be passed along to consumers in the form of lower, more stable rates.

Securing these contracts requires proactive planning and coordination with suppliers, as well as a willingness on the part of regulators to support longer-term procurement strategies. With guaranteed access to LNG at predictable costs, utilities can better plan their fuel budgets and hedge against global market volatility. This strategy not only cushions consumers against emergency price spikes but also stabilizes the overall energy market in the region.

4. Expand LNG Storage Capacity

Locking in long-term LNG contracts means there will likely be an excess of LNG at points throughout the year. It will be crucial to store this excess LNG.

Increasing LNG storage capacity within Massachusetts can provide a crucial buffer during the cold winter months. By constructing new storage facilities or expanding existing ones, utilities could stockpile LNG when market prices are low and draw from these reserves during periods of high demand. This approach mitigates the need for expensive last-minute purchases, ensuring that the grid has access to fuel even during unexpected supply disruptions.

Enhanced storage capacity also offers utilities more flexibility in their fuel procurement strategies. With the ability to store LNG, they can take advantage of lower prices during off-peak periods and avoid the pitfalls of a volatile spot market. This, in turn, leads to more stable electricity prices for consumers and reduces the overall risk associated with energy supply during extreme weather events.

5. Implement Regulatory Reforms for Fuel Hedging

State regulators can play a pivotal role in stabilizing energy prices by reforming market rules that currently discourage long-term fuel hedging. These regulatory reforms would allow utilities greater flexibility to secure long-term contracts and to hedge against price volatility. In practical terms, this means updating existing policies to make it easier for utilities to commit to multi-year fuel agreements without facing prohibitive penalties or regulatory hurdles.

By implementing these reforms, the regulators could create a more predictable environment for energy procurement. Utilities would be incentivized to engage in long-term planning rather than relying on short-term, reactive measures that tend to drive up prices. This regulatory certainty is essential for building a stable energy market that protects consumers from the financial shocks associated with sudden spikes in fuel costs.

6. Contract with Flexible Energy Consumers

One innovative approach to managing grid demand is to contract with industries that can adjust their energy usage on short notice – Bitcoin miners are a prime example. These flexible consumers can act as “energy sinks,” ramping up their consumption when there is excess power on the grid and reducing demand during peak periods. This dynamic flexibility can help smooth out the demand curve, preventing sudden surges that force expensive emergency generation measures. 

Texas, for instance, has seen success with demand response programs where flexible industrial loads like Bitcoin mining have been incentivized to curtail usage during peak periods, thereby reducing the strain on the grid and avoiding costly blackouts.

Integrating such flexible loads into the energy market in Massachusetts would require coordinated efforts between utilities and these industries. By designing contracts that reward companies for shifting their energy usage, mirrored off of Texas' initiatives, we can create a mutually beneficial arrangement. The grid gains stability, while industries benefit from lower energy costs during off-peak times. This win-win situation ultimately supports lower consumer rates and enhances overall grid reliability.

7. Expand Geothermal Heating Incentives

Diversifying our heating sources away from natural gas and electricity is crucial for diversifying our energy makeup, creating more resiliency, and lowering costs.

Geothermal heat pumps offer a proven, efficient alternative to natural gas-based heating. In the short term, Massachusetts can boost its efforts to incentivize both residential and commercial geothermal installations. Expanding financial incentives and streamlining permitting processes would help accelerate the adoption of geothermal technology, thereby reducing the overall demand for natural gas during the winter months.

Increased geothermal use also has long-term environmental benefits. Unlike fossil fuels, geothermal energy provides steady, reliable heat with minimal emissions. By promoting this technology through targeted incentives, deregulation, and public awareness campaigns, the state can help its residents transition to cleaner, more cost-effective heating solutions. In turn, this shift would contribute to a bipartisan win: lowering both energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions.

Medium Term (2–5 Years)

1. Expand Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity

It is imperative that we expand natural gas pipeline capacity – not only for cost reasons, but for the resilience of our entire energy system. The current situation, with only two pipelines operating at maximum capacity, is unsustainable and precarious.

To ensure reliable fuel delivery and protect consumers from volatile LNG prices, we must address the bottlenecks in our current infrastructure.

Expanding the capacity of existing pipelines such as the Algonquin Gas Transmission and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline should be our immediate focus. These pipelines are our lifelines for domestic natural gas, yet they are often stretched to their limits during peak demand.

Reactivating stalled projects like the Constitution Pipeline or the proposed Transco expansion – which could collectively boost our supply by roughly 20–30% – could significantly alleviate these constraints. Such projects would allow more affordable domestic gas, primarily from the abundant shale sources in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus region, to reach Massachusetts without having to resort to expensive LNG imports.

Furthermore, developing new pipeline corridors or upgrading existing infrastructure, such as adding compressor stations and looping segments on current pipelines, would not only lower prices but also enhance system reliability. A more robust and diversified pipeline network would reduce our dependence on emergency measures during extreme winter conditions, providing a steadier, more predictable flow of gas. 

While these infrastructure investments will require overcoming significant political and regulatory hurdles, the long-term benefits in terms of energy stability, reduced price volatility, and improved resiliency make them an essential part of our strategy for a secure energy future in Massachusetts.

2. Deploy Grid-Scale Battery Storage

Grid-scale battery storage is a transformative technology that can store excess energy during periods of low demand and discharge it during peaks. By deploying these systems, utilities can reduce their reliance on gas-fired peaking plants –which are among the most expensive sources of electricity – while also helping to flatten the demand curve. This improved balance ensures that the grid operates more efficiently and avoids costly emergency generation measures.

Implementing large-scale storage projects will require both substantial capital investments and supportive policies that incentivize private sector participation from companies like Tesla. As battery costs continue to decline and technology advances over the medium term, these storage solutions will become increasingly viable.

Notably, investing in grid-scale storage is likely to be favorable from a bipartisan perspective, as it enhances energy resiliency and lowers consumer costs without relying on fossil fuels. Ultimately, a more resilient grid that can effectively manage fluctuations in demand will lead to lower overall energy bills and a more secure energy future for Massachusetts.

3. Develop Strategic Reserves of Heating Fuels

Drawing inspiration from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, establishing strategic reserves of natural gas and heating oil can provide a critical buffer during periods of extreme demand. These reserves, whether maintained by utilities or through a state-run program, would ensure that ample fuel is available during sudden cold snaps or supply disruptions.

By developing these reserves, Massachusetts can prevent the rapid price escalations that occur when demand outstrips available supply. Even though oil is a dirtier option than natural gas, if we must spin up oil-fired plants during peak conditions, having a reserve means that residents won't have to pay enormously higher bills.

A strategic reserve offers a safety net that helps stabilize prices during crises, reducing the reliance on emergency, high-cost measures. Ultimately, this approach not only protects consumers from the financial impact of extreme weather but also contributes to a more stable and resilient energy market overall.

4. Expand Geothermal District Heating Projects

Geothermal district heating systems present an exciting opportunity to scale up the benefits of geothermal energy in densely populated urban areas. Unlike individual geothermal installations that serve a single building, district heating networks deliver consistent, efficient heating to multiple buildings from a centralized source. By tapping into geothermal energy, these systems can provide reliable warmth with a fraction of the emissions produced by natural gas. The economies of scale achieved through a shared network not only reduce operating costs but also make the technology more accessible and cost-effective for communities.

Imagine a neighborhood or even an entire urban district where homes, offices, and public buildings are connected by a centralized geothermal network. In this scenario, instead of each building relying on individual boilers or gas furnaces, a single geothermal plant extracts the earth's natural heat and distributes it via an insulated network of pipes. The system would be designed to operate year-round, with the capacity to scale up during the coldest months, significantly reducing peak load pressures on the grid. As a result, residents would experience more stable and lower energy bills while contributing to a reduced carbon footprint – another bipartisan win!

Developing such networks would require close collaboration among municipalities, utilities, and private developers. Coordinated planning could identify urban centers where district heating is most viable and where the benefits would be maximized – areas with high building density, aging infrastructure, and a strong need for energy cost reduction. Pilot projects in key neighborhoods could serve as blueprints for broader regional implementation, demonstrating that geothermal district heating is not only technically feasible but also economically advantageous.

Over time, successful projects could inspire other regions to adopt similar systems, further enhancing the resilience and sustainability of Massachusetts' overall energy infrastructure.

5. Reform ISO New England’s Capacity Market

ISO New England, the regional grid operator responsible for managing the electricity market and ensuring reliable power supply across six New England states, currently runs a capacity market that is heavily dependent on short-term emergency pricing. This model contributes significantly to volatile energy costs because it relies on last-minute, high-priced fuel purchases during periods of extreme demand. A medium-term reform of this capacity market is essential to foster long-term stability.

Reforming the capacity market would involve restructuring it to favor long-term fuel contracts and reliable baseload generation over emergency measures. This could include creating incentives for utilities to commit to firm fuel supply arrangements, ensuring that a stable and predictable amount of fuel is available even during peak demand, as well as implementing penalties for practices that artificially restrict capacity. A reformed market would reward stability and long-term planning, ultimately leading to lower and more consistent prices for consumers.

This approach requires close collaboration between regulators, utilities, and market participants to redesign the market mechanisms in a way that aligns with long-term energy security goals. By moving away from a system that depends on volatile, short-term pricing and emergency actions, ISO New England can help create a more resilient and predictable energy market that benefits all residents in the region.

Long Term (5+ Years)

1. Invest in Next-Generation Nuclear Energy (SMRs)

If Governor Healey and state Democrats are committed to reducing our dependence on natural gas and achieving a low‐carbon energy future, then it is critical to diversify our energy sources beyond intermittent options like solar.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) represent a promising avenue for achieving this goal. Unlike traditional nuclear plants, SMRs are designed to be safer, more scalable, and less capital-intensive. They can provide reliable, emission-free baseload power that is not subject to the same fuel price volatility as natural gas, thereby stabilizing our energy supply.

For those committed to green energy, embracing nuclear energy is arguably the only viable long term option for Massachusetts. While some have suggested that the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant – the only nuclear facility in the state that might theoretically be recommissioned – could serve as a temporary fix, Pilgrim is already deep into its decommissioning process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and economic assessments have determined that reactivating Pilgrim would be neither safe nor cost-effective given its aging infrastructure, extensive required repairs, and the long timeline for decommissioning. In short, Pilgrim’s irreversible decommissioning underscores that trying to restart it is simply not a feasible path forward.

Investing in SMRs would involve robust research and development efforts, along with pilot projects to demonstrate their viability in our region. As regulatory frameworks evolve and public acceptance grows, SMRs could play a central role in reducing long-term dependence on natural gas. The steady, predictable power from SMRs would complement intermittent renewable sources, helping to build a balanced, low-carbon energy portfolio for Massachusetts. Embracing SMRs isn’t just about adding another power source—it’s about laying the foundation for a resilient, sustainable energy future that meets both environmental and economic goals.

2. Expand Interregional Transmission Capacity

Long-term energy resilience in Massachusetts depends on our ability to tap into a broader range of power sources. Expanding interregional transmission capacity would allow us to connect with neighboring regions that have abundant and diverse energy resources—not just Hydro Québec, but also power markets in Ontario, Atlantic Canada, and even upstate New York, where there is significant hydroelectric capacity. 

Developing new transmission corridors and upgrading existing ones requires substantial investment and strong regional cooperation. However, the benefits are significant: improved grid reliability, reduced costs, and enhanced access to a diverse array of renewable and conventional energy sources.

By broadening our energy network, Massachusetts can reduce its isolation from larger, more competitive markets, thereby reducing the “New England premium” and ensuring a more stable and affordable supply of power over the long term. This strategy not only taps into immediate renewable resources but also positions the state to benefit from future market developments in clean energy across North America.

3. Modernize the Grid

A modern, smart grid is the backbone of a resilient energy system. Long-term grid modernization efforts should focus on integrating advanced technologies such as real-time monitoring, automated controls, and improved energy storage management. These upgrades will reduce inefficiencies, enhance reliability, and enable better integration of renewable energy sources.

Modernizing the grid involves both technological investments and the implementation of new policies that support dynamic energy management. A smarter grid can quickly adapt to fluctuations in supply and demand, minimizing the need for costly backup generation and reducing overall consumer costs. Over time, a modern grid will not only support new renewable and distributed resources but also create a more flexible and responsive energy market for all Massachusetts residents.

The Path Forward

Massachusetts’ energy challenges are complex, involving geographic realities, aging infrastructure, and green policy decisions that have paradoxically left us overly reliant on natural gas. However, by taking decisive actions in the short, medium, and long term, we can begin to break this cycle.

From securing long-term LNG contracts and expanding storage, to modernizing the grid and investing in next-generation nuclear power, each solution plays a critical role in building a more resilient and affordable energy system.

These measures offer a roadmap toward reducing energy bills, enhancing reliability, and ensuring that Massachusetts remains competitive in the face of global energy challenges.

Sources:

• U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) – Massachusetts State Energy Profile 2023 Data
URL: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MA

• ISO New England – Key Grid and Market Stats 2024
URL: https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports

• University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute – Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver? (November 2020)
URL: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/research/

• E&E News / Politico – Saqib Rahim, “How Russian Gas Ended Up on U.S. Shores” (March 21, 2018)
URL: https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-russian-gas-ended-up-on-us-shores/

• The Wall Street Journal – ISO-NE Winter Blackout Warning (October 18, 2022)
URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/iso-ne-warns-of-winter-blackouts

• Utility Dive – NERC/NPCC Reliability Report (January 23, 2025)
URL: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nerc-npcc-reliability-report-2025/

• OilPrice.com / Financial Times – Analysis of New England Energy Prices and the Jones Act (November 18, 2022)
URL: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-England-Jones-Act-Energy-Analysis.html

• Commonwealth Beacon – Michael Giaimo, “Natural Gas Bottleneck Hurting New England” (February 2, 2022)
URL: https://commonwealthbeacon.com/natural-gas-bottleneck-new-england/

• Mass. Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) – Net Zero Grid Initiatives 2023
URL: https://masscec.com/initiatives/net-zero-grid/

• MIT Energy Initiative – Webinar on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) by Jacopo Buongiorno (October 2021)
URL: https://energy.mit.edu/research/smrs/

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – Winter Energy Reliability Assessment 2024-2025
URL: https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/winter-reliability

• ISO New England Newswire – Market and Reliability Updates (2022-2024)
URL: https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/newswire