MYSTIC, Conn. — Government officials and industry executives discussed how to mitigate rising energy costs in New England at the 77th annual New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners Symposium May 19 and 20.

Moderating a panel on affordability, Ron Gerwatowski, chair of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, compared the different components of a customer’s bill to a large stack of pancakes. While no one pancake is overwhelming on its own, “when viewed as a tower of components, then you see the problem,” he said.

“With the possible exception of the supply costs … I don’t think it’s fair to blame any one component for the high bills,” he added.

While all speakers emphasized the importance of affordability, there were few easy answers and limited consensus about how to meaningfully cut costs on bills. (See related story, ISO-NE Open to Asset Condition Review Role amid Rising Costs.)

Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association, said energy prices have trended down over the past 10 years when adjusting for inflation, and added that “we are in a time of some of the lowest capacity prices in the history of New England.”

Dolan acknowledged that New England faces “massive volatility in cold winters” but argued that “as I look at the data, I don’t know where else to really squeeze on the supply end without pushing out resources that are really performing.”

Looking forward, with above-market-rate clean energy contracts set to take effect and load growth likely to accelerate in the coming years, “the bottom line is that rates are probably going to go up,” Dolan said.

Doug Horton, vice president of distribution rates at Eversource Energy, said “affordability for our customers means looking at the entire stack,” while noting that the company’s distribution charges are “generally aligned with other utilities across the country providing similar services.”

Meanwhile, representatives of climate and energy efficiency organizations made the case their portions of the stack were not the drivers of the region’s high energy costs.

“I don’t see a correlation between recent bill increases and the macro-trends we’re seeing on energy efficiency,” said Maggie Molina, executive director of Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. Molina said energy efficiency typically provides a roughly 2-to-1 return on investment and warned policymakers that rolling back energy efficiency programs would bring long-term affordability consequences.

Jamie Dickerson, senior director of clean energy and climate programs at the Acadia Center, said it was “a cold, tough winter, there’s no doubt about it,” but added that “the primary driver of costs was gas and oil, not renewable energy.”

He said adding more clean energy to the grid will help diversify the supply mix and drive down market volatility. The New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line, which is slated to come online at the end of 2025 should save ratepayers millions annually, while the winter-peaking power production profile of offshore wind should provide significant relief for winter price spikes, Dickerson said.

He resisted the idea that adding new pipeline capacity to the region would lower consumer costs, telling attendees that “we actually don’t see that there is an economic case for the buildout of pipelines into New England.”

Arguments for new pipelines to New England have seen some revived interest under the administration of President Donald Trump, who was elected with strong financial backing from the fossil fuel industry, which spent more than $219 million during the 2024 election cycle, according to Yale Climate Connections.

“We need more pipelines,” said Cynthia Niemeyer-Tieskoetter, natural gas markets policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute. She added that “the system is already facing constraints” during extreme winter weather, with electricity demand projected to increase in the coming decades.

Niemeyer-Tieskoetter lauded the White House for its “pro-energy agenda” and called for permitting reform to reduce the challenges of building new energy infrastructure.

Earlier in the week, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) appeared to agree to concessions relating to a potential new gas pipeline to the Northeast in exchange for the Trump administration lifting the stop-work order on Empire Wind. (See related story, BOEM Lifts Stop-work Order on Empire Wind.) Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) also signaled he’s open to a new pipeline project.

While increased gas capacity in New England would ease some of the region’s pipeline constraints during cold periods — when heating demand backed by firm contracts limits gas generators’ ability to access fuel — it is unclear who would pay for this new capacity, or whether it would be a cost-effective solution in the long term.

Gas generators generally do not receive enough incentives to contract for firm fuel, and it is not clear whether gas distribution companies in New England would be willing to take on the costs of new pipeline infrastructure. In 2016, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state’s electric ratepayers could not be charged with the costs of new gas infrastructure, a major blow to a proposed $3.2 billion pipeline project by Enbridge, which ultimately was canceled in 2017.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) served as the state attorney general at the time of the SJC ruling and was a vocal critic of the plan to fund pipelines through electric rates. (See Massachusetts Regulators Endorse Pipeline Contracts.) Elected governor in 2022, Healey’s administration has taken significant steps to transition Massachusetts away from natural gas reliance as the state works to meet its statutory emissions limits.

Doubling down on natural gas likely would undermine state decarbonization efforts, as methane is an intense short-lived greenhouse gas and could risk creating expensive stranded assets as states electrify and move to renewable power.

Matt Nelson, principal at Apex Analytics and former chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, said it is “critical” to coordinate clean energy policy to avoid unnecessary gas investments as states transition to clean energy.

“You could see bills going up in the near term to help avoid these long-term costs, and you have to be good about messaging that,” Nelson said, adding that, in the long term, “you’re going to have to build clean generation to meet electrifying customers.”

“In the short term, you may see some increased emissions as people transition from gas to electric heating,” Nelson said. “If you’re committed to adding clean resources, however, those emissions will come down over time.”

Lamont spoke briefly at the symposium prior to its conclusion, pitching lawmakers on the importance of regional collaboration to help support new and existing generation in the region. He highlighted the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, which is owned by Dominion Energy and is under contract with Connecticut’s electric distribution companies through 2029.

“I like Millstone. … It represents about half of our power and almost all of our carbon-free power,” Lamont said. “I think we ought to give Dominion the incentives they need to continue, and I can do that a lot more effectively with the other governors.”

Lamont advocated for a formal collaboration between Northeast energy officials to ensure resource adequacy in the coming years. He noted that the Northeastern governors will meet in the coming weeks and said this concept is at the “top of the agenda.”