Massachusetts Governor Declares Energy Emergency Ahead of Elections

Democratic Governor of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, recently announced an “energy emergency,” which seems more like a political tactic than a true response to a crisis, especially with Election Day fast approaching.

This move follows a common pattern seen within the Democratic party regarding energy issues:

• First, implement policies that intentionally increase costs for consumers in line with the party’s concerns about climate change.
• Second, when these rising costs become politically problematic, declare an emergency and point fingers at Republicans.

Residents of Massachusetts are already grappling with among the highest electricity rates in the U.S.—around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, significantly higher than the national average of roughly 18 cents. These elevated prices aren’t due simply to geographical or market factors. For years, state policies—often spearheaded by Healey—have limited natural gas infrastructure, opposed new pipelines, and applied renewable energy mandates that impact consumers, particularly in a state with cold winters. Consequently, the state relies heavily on imported liquefied natural gas, even when there’s a plentiful domestic supply available right next door in Pennsylvania.

While serving as attorney general, Healey opposed pipeline expansions, referring to a dubious 2015 study that claimed there was no need for additional gas capacity and later even sued ExxonMobil over climate-related allegations. Those actions locked the region into expensive LNG and oil alternatives during peak winter demand. Now, as she faces reelection, Healey has urged the Trump administration to expedite Project RARE, which is an expansion of the Algonquin pipeline that could relieve some of the financial burden, potentially saving ratepayers around $40 million each year.

This sudden pivot seems opportunistic, designed to align with her party’s strategy ahead of the midterms. However, the foundational policies that initially caused the high consumer costs remain essentially unchanged.

The emergency declaration appears to be little more than a temporary act. It extends heating assistance to about 50,000 middle-income families (providing up to $680 for those using oil), increases support for low-income households, and temporarily removes a solar energy surcharge from electric bills. While these measures might alleviate some winter expenses, they do not reverse the renewable energy standards, carbon reduction mandates, or the resistance to infrastructure that contribute to persistently high prices. The removal of a surcharge seems more like a political strategy to win votes on November 3 than a genuine solution to the underlying issues.

Healey’s strategies mirror those of California Governor Gavin Newsom regarding gasoline prices. In California, specific fuel regulations, drilling restrictions, and refinery closures over the years have led to gas prices far above the national average. In response to recent price spikes, Newsom attempted to redirect blame for these costs toward President Trump, disregarding the accumulated effects of poor policy decisions by Democrats over decades.

Healey’s remarks echo this approach. She has pinned rising costs on the war with Iran and the Trump administration’s actions, even though Massachusetts’s self-imposed limitations on pipelines and base load generation date back well before those events. Natural gas still accounts for about half of New England’s energy supply; thus, blocking access to more affordable pipeline options while aiming for stricter emissions reductions has naturally led to increased expenses. Declaring an emergency won’t change that fact, nor does it alter the clear cause and effect relationship.

Democratic energy policy in predominantly blue states often involves the assumption that raising energy prices will reduce consumption and, consequently, lower emissions. This concept aligns closely with core beliefs of the global climate alarm movement. Yet, whenever it’s politically necessary, the same leaders who implemented cost increases roll out temporary relief measures and shift blame elsewhere.

Genuine solutions would entail increasing pipeline capacity—such as advocating for the proposed Constitution Pipeline to bring natural gas from the Marcellus Shale into New England—strengthening and expanding reliable energy sources, and discontinuing the notion that higher consumer prices are an acceptable method of decreasing emissions.

While Project RARE and similar ventures may provide some relief, they only serve as stopgap measures unless there’s a significant shift in policy direction. Until that happens, residents of Massachusetts and similar areas should brace for the same repetitive cycle: intentional cost hikes followed by politically motivated emergencies and blame directed at anyone but the policymakers whose misguided strategies led to these conditions in the first place.