New England states pay the highest electricity costs in the continental U.S. Except for New Hampshire, New England states also have some of the most aggressive net-zero emissions policies in the country, which aim to reduce emissions from electricity generation by 80% by 2050. [emphasis, links added]
To reach that goal, about 71% of New England’s energy will have to be generated from wind, solar, and batteries.
A new study by a coalition of free-market think tanks finds that New Englanders would save as much as $708 billion if it instead supported its grid with new natural gas plants, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 24.5%.
If New England utilized nuclear power plants, ratepayers would save nearly $400 billion by 2050, and emissions would be reduced by 92%.
A mix of natural gas and nuclear, the study found, would save ratepayers $619 billion in that time and reduce emissions by 50%.
Extraordinarily long, dangerous blackouts
The study builds upon a 2024 study that found the total cost of New England’s current zero-emissions plan will be $815 billion through 2050. It forecasts a 106% increase in electricity demand resulting from the electrification of appliances, home heating, and transportation.
The plan would require 97 gigawatts of energy created by renewables.
The most economical mix of intermittent sources, according to the study, would be 6,600 offshore wind turbines, over 5,600 onshore wind farms, and over 129 million solar panels covering 200 square miles of New England.
Not only are the costs staggering, but the study estimates that the New England grid would face “extraordinarily long blackouts” lasting as long as 18 hours.
Such a blackout could leave hospitals, highways, and airports in the dark, and literally freeze citizens to death.
The new study takes the conclusions of the 2024 study and analyzes costs to reach the New England projected electricity demand by 2050 using nuclear, natural gas, or a mix of both, instead of renewables.
In all three cases, New England ratepayers see enormous savings, according to the new study.
“The big reason for that is the dispatchable resources don’t require the same overbuilding and curtailment that you would need for renewables,” Isaac Orr, vice president of research at Always On Energy Research, said in a Tuesday webinar introducing the study.
Because wind and solar only generate electricity under narrow weather conditions, the amount of total installed capacity has to be much greater than peak electricity demand.
That also means when weather conditions are ideal, the grid is producing far more power than it can use and store.
As a result, wind and solar farms are often curtailed when there’s no place for all the electricity to go. In California, for example, curtailment is increasing steadily every year.
Voters seek lower energy costs
Like other affordability issues, the cost of energy is a prime concern for voters right now, and New England is no exception.
As winter approached, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey directed the Department of Public Utilities to do a comprehensive review of gas and electric rates to figure out how to lower the state’s sky-high energy costs.
The DPU hasn’t finished the review, but by November, Healey was blaming President Donald Trump for high heating costs in her state.
On Thursday, Healey delayed the Clean Heat Standard, which requires heating in homes, businesses, and industry to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The governor had championed the standard as a means to lower costs for consumers. Its mandates now will not go into effect until after the state’s gubernatorial election.
“As we head into 2026, any New England politician who wants to actually make substantial progress on affordability really needs to read this report,” Drew Cline, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in New Hampshire, said in the webinar.
New Hampshire is the only New England state that hasn’t set legally binding net-zero emissions targets.
“New Hampshire was really a political pariah in New England for pursuing a reality-based energy policy focused on reliability and affordability, rather than a fantasy-based energy policy focused on lowering global greenhouse gas emissions,” Cline said.
Read rest at Just The News
