Fuel rates, mandates, tariffs add punch to energy price stew
BOSTON (WWLP) – As Massachusetts Democrats predict price shocks from President Donald Trump's threatened tariffs on Canadian oil and gas, a Republican senator on Tuesday blamed ballooning ratepayer costs on the state's clean energy mandates.
During a virtual press conference with New England Republican lawmakers and conservative think tanks, Sen. Ryan Fattman of Sutton proudly noted he voted against the 2021 climate law directing Massachusetts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
'We have to build out tremendous new infrastructure that's going to cost billions of dollars in order to transition to alternatives and away from clean-emission energy, like natural gas,' Fattman said.
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, leaned into April Fools' Day as he urged ratepayers, 'Do not be fooled by what you hear from your State House politicians.'
'The reason why your bills are getting jacked up right now is not because of tariffs, not because of natural gas, not because of who occupies the White House,' Craney said. 'But it's because of these mandates, these green renewable mandates, these alternative energy mandates, which are driving up costs because we are funding the transition and it will continue to get worse.'
Rising natural gas prices have stung Massachusetts ratepayers in recent winters. Regional grid operator ISO-New England last week reported that the average real-time wholesale electricity price was $126.40 per megawatt-hour in February 2025, up 301% compared to February 2024.
After energy bills soared this winter, Gov. Maura Healey vowed to file a bill to rein in costs. Her administration's 'energy affordability agenda' also outlines strategies to expand discount programs for moderate-income customers, redirect clean energy infrastructure funding, and stabilize local energy supplies.
The governor on Tuesday praised ISO-New England's first competitive solicitation for transmission investments, which her office said 'will address long-standing constraints on the New England power system and integrate new, affordable, onshore wind resources in the coming years.' Healey said the procurement 'will unlock affordable electricity for Massachusetts residents and businesses at a critical time.'
Meanwhile, Healey has warned Trump's plan to impose a 10% tariff on petroleum and natural gas imports from Canada would cost Massachusetts $370 million annually. Trump is expected to announce his tariff plan Wednesday on so-called 'Liberation Day.'
'If the Republicans want to lower energy costs – the first thing they should do is oppose Donald Trump's tariffs on energy from Canada,' MassDems Chair Steve Kerrigan said in a statement Tuesday. 'Donald Trump's tariffs will raise the costs of gas and oil by 20 cents per gallon, and cost Massachusetts ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The Republicans will never oppose these tariffs because the Republican Party is loyal to Donald Trump, not the people of Massachusetts.'
Fattman, asked whether he supports Trump's planned tariffs, said, 'I'm not a big fan of tariffs in general.' He stressed he's focused on state-level climate policies that lawmakers can control.
Fattman also criticized looming state regulations that will require manufacturers to sell lower-emissions engines, based on California's vehicle emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
'I don't like tying my future to the state of California, which the commonwealth did,' Fattman said. 'Our Legislature did that. They have no ability to change tariffs. They have a big ability to change our standards for vehicles — for advanced clean technology in vehicles and heavy-duty operating.'
In response to Tuesday's presser, the Acadia Center said high natural gas costs this winter stem from the New England region's 'untenable overreliance on fossil fuels, with rising energy burdens driven by natural gas infrastructure, generous utility profits, and the region's continued fossil fuel investments.'
'Right now, the region has almost all its eggs in the fossil fuel basket, and this offers only the false promise of fool's gold in protecting the region's consumers from rising energy bills,' the Acadia Center said. 'The region must double down on its climate and clean energy goals to make the broader northeast region energy independent from fossil fuels, reduce consumer price spikes, and mitigate the economic harms of worsening climate change.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people . The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge rejects Newsom's emergency request to limit Trump LA troop deployment
A judge has rejected California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) emergency request to limit President Trump's Los Angeles troop deployment. Newsom had earlier Tuesday asked a federal judge to immediately intervene to limit Trump's deployment of the National Guard in L.A., asking for an emergency ruling by 1 p.m. PDT that day. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, however, granted the Trump administration's request for more time to respond to Newsom's request. The administration has until 11 a.m. PDT Wednesday to submit its arguments. 'The court did not deny or rule on the Governor's request for a temporary restraining order. The court set a hearing for Thursday, after the federal government and the state file additional briefs, and we anticipate the court will rule on the request for a TRO a short time later,' a Newsom spokesperson told The Hill on Tuesday when reached for comment. Trump and Newsom have gone after each other amid the recent immigration protests in Los Angeles, with Trump even saying he would support arresting the Golden State governor. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom shot back in a post on X Monday at Trump. Vice President Vance also took swings on Monday at Newsom, responding to Newsom's post about Trump's comments on his arrest by telling him to 'Do your job.' 'That's all we're asking,' he added.
