Massachusetts pays the third highest electricity prices in the country according to the EIA (the U.S. Energy Information Administration). And voters have noticed: the cost of living is the most important issue facing the state in the University of New Hampshire’s most recent Bay State poll.
The basic problem facing Massachusetts is that we do not have significant domestic energy resources. Our solar and wind potential is paltry compared to plains states like South Dakota and Kansas. That is why despite the state’s high conviction in addressing climate change, we still rely on fossil fuels for about 80% of our energy consumption, supplied principally through natural gas pipelines connecting to the Gulf of Mexico.
As the climate becomes more extreme, peak demand events become more frequent, sending prices skyrocketing because there’s only so much gas that can fit down the pipe. This hits working families hardest: energy consumes a far larger share of their household budget than it does for the wealthy.
Massachusetts has dirty, expensive energy when what we need is cheap, clean energy.
We have the worst of all possible worlds.
Sen. Ed Markey has consistently blocked the most viable paths out of this trap. The obvious path forward is high-voltage transmission lines connecting Massachusetts to abundant renewables in the Great Plains, or expanding natural gas pipelines for near-term price relief, ideally both. In 2022, Congressional Democrats negotiated a permitting reform package that would have enabled exactly this dual approach. Markey instead joined with Senate Republicans to vote against the package and it collapsed.
Given our lack of domestic resources and Markey’s opposition to importing energy from elsewhere, the only realistic alternative is nuclear — zero-carbon, small footprint,
buildable right here in Massachusetts. But Markey opposes nuclear power, too. In 2024 he was one of just two Senate votes against the ADVANCE Act, a bipartisan bill supporting next-generation nuclear. Even Elizabeth Warren voted yes.
This reflects Markey’s consistent approach across fifty years: raise the price of fossil fuels to discourage their use, prevent significant renewable infrastructure, and block nuclear. If you obstruct every source of energy, the only possible outcome is less energy. It is a strategy of managed degrowth: saving the environment at the expense of living standards. The problem is voters have never agreed to this bargain. The backlash against this approach is part of what gave us an administration now reviving coal and rolling back mercury emissions standards.
Markey’s convictions should not be immune from results. Fifty years on, renewables provide a fraction of New England’s power, electricity prices continue climbing, and Massachusetts families are hurting. At some point, conviction that ignores outcomes isn’t leadership. It’s dogma.
The September primary gives independents and Democrats the chance to choose differently. Seth Moulton supports permitting reform and nuclear energy. He can see that clean energy only helps Massachusetts if we actually build and deliver it, rather than just talking about it.
On Sept. 1, vote for a candidate who will fight for lower energy costs instead of blocking every realistic way to achieve them.
Nick Ward
Rolleston Road
