THE MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL ALLIANCE’S recent critique of the state’s pending clean energy legislation regarding battery storage procurement is heavy on alarmism and light on accuracy. As we navigate one of the most critical energy and infrastructure transitions in history, the conversation around costs and benefits must be rooted in facts—not misinformation and back-of-the-envelope calculations designed to undermine progress.
The laughable $500,000 per megawatt-hour figure cited in the op-ed is misleadingly high, at more than double the real cost. Once you realize this first number is grossly inaccurate, the rest of the math falls apart. In addition, storage technologies are projected to become significantly more affordable in the coming years. Early investments in storage will help Massachusetts capitalize on these cost reductions while building a robust, future-ready grid.
The Fiscal Alliance also misrepresents energy storage’s critical role in modernizing our energy grid, saving customers money, and achieving climate goals. The op-ed pushes for transparency in one breath while spreading disinformation with the next. The bill doesn’t direct utilities to buy storage equipment at a fake, inflated price. It calls for a cost-effective contract for storage services. The claim that energy storage is a “tiny bit of storage useless for backing up solar and wind” is factually incorrect and strategically shortsighted.
Here’s why.
Energy storage isn’t just a support mechanism—it’s a cornerstone of a clean energy grid. Storage allows us to capture energy produced by renewables during peak production times and deploy it when demand is highest. This prevents the costly dumping of renewable energy and mitigates grid congestion, which studies by ISO New England, which oversees the region’s power grid, have shown can drive up electricity costs and reduce the value of renewable investments. Without adequate storage, we risk curtailing renewable energy generation, losing both its economic and environmental benefits.
Strategically located energy storage projects also help avoid costly upgrades to transmission and distribution systems, directly saving ratepayers money. The Fiscal Alliance’s failure to acknowledge these grid-wide benefits misses the bigger picture: Storage lowers long-term system costs and increases the reliability of our electricity grid.
Energy storage offers another critical benefit: displacing the state’s aging fleet of fossil-fueled peaker plants, which operate at high costs and emit disproportionately large amounts of greenhouse gases and harmful pollutants. These plants, often located in vulnerable communities that have been suffering for decades under the cloud of the dirtiest power plants, contribute to elevated rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
These redline communities are documented to experience more frequent and prolonged power outages due to decades of underinvestment. Again, this adds to health and economic inequities. Transitioning to clean energy storage reduces local air pollution and improves public health—outcomes that should be part of any honest cost-benefit analysis.
Critics conveniently ignore these health and environmental benefits while focusing exclusively on upfront costs. Yet, the avoided health care costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved quality of life for residents far outweigh these initial investments. Massachusetts residents deserve to have all the facts, not just selective numbers designed to provoke fear.
The op-ed’s claim that batteries would leave us “freezing all night” on cold, windless evenings misrepresents the role of storage in addressing winter reliability. New England’s current reliance on fossil-fueled plants for winter energy security comes with significant risks, including price volatility and supply constraints for natural gas.
Accelerating the deployment of energy storage enhances reliability by lessening dependence on these commodities, particularly during extreme weather events. Storage paired with renewables is not a standalone solution but an important piece of the puzzle in creating a diversified energy system that is more affordable for taxpayers.
The Fiscal Alliance is urging transparency about costs—but the conversation must also address the costs of inaction. Failing to invest in clean energy infrastructure will perpetuate reliance on expensive, polluting fossil fuels, leaving taxpayers to bear the financial and human costs of climate disasters, increased health care expenses, and food system disruptions caused by extreme weather. The costs of wildfires, floods, and droughts—all exacerbated by climate change—are already being paid by Massachusetts residents in real dollars and lost jobs. Addressing these challenges proactively through smart investments in clean energy and storage is the fiscally responsible path forward.
Massachusetts has always been a leader in innovation, and this legislation continues that tradition by making strategic investments in storage, renewables, and grid modernization. The benefits of these investments—lower emissions, improved health outcomes, and a more reliable energy system—far outweigh the costs. But to realize these benefits, we must have honest conversations and we must reject misinformation and focus on honest, data-driven solutions.
Francis Pullaro is president of Renew Northeast. Joe Curtatone is president of the Alliance for Climate Transition.
The post Setting the record straight on energy storage and clean energy costs appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.