Concerning Keith Hastie’s July 23 column, “Our path to a better energy future,” I agree that if we need to build more solar panels in Massachusetts, then some should be sited in forests. I also agree that the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan is ambitious, but I would not describe it as magnificent. I would like to provide some context so others can assess Mr. Hastie’s assumptions, evaluate the benefits he believes this plan will yield, and consider the trade-offs involved.
Massachusetts contributes about 0.1% to global greenhouse gas emissions. It would make little difference to global greenhouse gas emissions if this were reduced to zero. It would affect the standard of living for Massachusetts residents as energy costs increase, with the effects flowing through the cost of most goods. Financial incentives do not reduce the real economic cost of equipment or labor — they just redistribute it to other utility customers or to other taxpayers. Mr. Hastie writes that “If we succeed… ” then beneficial outcomes follow. Who are the “we?” To have any significant impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, it would have to be more than just Massachusetts residents, and this is certainly not going to happen. I understand that if other states or countries join Massachusetts and implement net-zero policies, emissions will decrease by more than 0.1%. However, it appears some states are stepping back from their net-zero implementation plans.
On March 20, 2026, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote, “I have repeatedly said that utility rates in our state are too high. And while the Climate Act is not the driver of the high energy prices we are experiencing, the undeniable fact is we cannot meet the Climate Act’s 2030 targets without imposing new and additional crushing costs on New York businesses and residents.” In May 2026, New York State amended its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act to limit the financial impact of going to net-zero by adding the qualifying phrase “to the maximum extent feasible and cost effective.” Some might consider this phrase overly broad, giving regulators too much discretion, but it shifts the endpoints from mandatory to aspirational.
Rhode Island has not yet changed its law, but it appears Gov. Dan McKee is concerned about high energy costs and would like to amend it. In a Feb. 9, 2026 press release, McKee is quoted as follows: “With fewer clean energy sources available, the Renewable Energy Standard charge on your bill is projected to quadruple by 2033… Meanwhile, ratepayer costs for large-scale solar projects have ballooned in recent years, growing 250% in the last five years alone,” and “These escalating costs should not be borne by Rhode Island residents and businesses who are already struggling to pay their bills.”
Let’s consider some Massachusetts non-developments. In Melissa Hoffer’s Oct. 25, 2023 report, Recommendations of the Climate Chief, she wrote about significant gaps, and the first bullet point on page 21 states, “Lack of comprehensive economic analysis of total cost of achieving Net Zero by 2050 and necessary resilience investments over the next two decades. Such an analysis, led by A&F, Climate Office, EEA, and MassDOT/MBTA should be completed by the end of 2024, paired with recommended funding strategies.” As far as I know, this report has not been issued, and I don’t know when or if it will be issued. And if it is issued, I don’t know if the estimates will be reliable. It seems to be a bit of overreach to think that the cost of widespread grid enhancements, solar field siting and installation, battery storage systems, heat pump purchasing and installation, EV purchasing, etc., etc., for a state with about a $750 billion GDP could be determined by anyone, let alone a state committee.
In 2017, Gov. Charlie Baker issued a rule requiring all state agencies operating fleets of 30 or more vehicles to 1) Annually reduce greenhouse gas emissions from state-owned passenger vehicles and 2) Submit annual compliance reports to MassDEP beginning in 2019. CommonWealth Beacon published an article on Nov. 20, 2025, disclosing that no state agency has ever filed such a report and that MassDEP did not follow up to compel compliance. If Massachusetts agencies are not taking the rules seriously, why should its residents?
Mark Mills recently wrote an article, “The Myth of an Energy Transition,” stating that the world’s use of oil on a per capita basis “… is essentially the same today as two decades ago despite gushers of capital and tens of millions of heavily subsidized electric vehicles,” and “… the same is true for natural gas and oil.” He states, “The data show nothing vaguely resembling an energy transition. What we’ve witnessed instead is the reality of continual additions to energy supplies from all sources, including from the politically favored ones.”
I’m all for technology and think that some new products, services, or energy sources could be scalable and cost-effective. Perhaps in the next decade we will see small modular reactors, new AI-based software to manage the grid, or more efficient heat pumps. In an energy network this complex, market forces — rather than state mandates — should determine which technologies prove scalable and cost-effective.
Massachusetts has already spent a lot of money on net-zero projects, and it’s time for this to stop. Additional state spending cannot override the fundamental constraints of physics, engineering, or basic economics. Local decarbonization is largely symbolic, which wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t so expensive.
Daniel Lyons lives in Florence.