With New England state governments committed to reducing their carbon emissions at least 80% by 2050, residents and businesses can expect electricity rates to double, along with rolling blackouts, according to a new joint report completed by several of the region’s leading think tanks. The study concludes that weather dependent “renewable” energies — like wind and solar — simply cannot meet regional demands for electricity.
The report, “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies,” was commissioned by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in New Hampshire, the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation in Massachusetts, the Maine Policy Institute, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom, and Prosperity, and Yankee Institute in Connecticut. The report was conducted by Always on Energy Research (AOER), a research organization dedicated to ensuring that every state in America has affordable, reliable energy.
“Compliance with the New England Decarbonization Plans would cost $815 billion through 2050,” the report concludes. “New England families would see their electric bills increase by an average of $99 per year. Commercial businesses would see their costs increase by $489 per year. Industrial (manufacturing) customers would see their electric bills increase by an average of almost $5,280 per year.”
The report shows that on a per-capita basis, the cumulative cost of the plans increases expenses for each person in New England by an additional $2,061 in 2030, $15,552 in 2040, and an additional $51,914 in 2050. All these increases will make New England less affordable.
As the only New England state that doesn’t impose unrealistic electrification mandates for transportation and home heating, New Hampshire offers the only bright spot in the study.
“New Hampshire’s energy policies produce substantial benefits for the entire ISO-NE region,” the study concludes. “The Granite State’s lack of electrification mandates for transportation and home heating reduces the projected peak system demand from 57 GW to 52.5 GW, and the continued use of natural gas provides critical dispatchable capacity for the system, allowing it to perform better during periods of low wind and solar output.”
“New Hampshire’s current energy policies would save all New Englanders $56.5 billion during the time period studied,” the report finds.
Although the organizations that commissioned the study support the goal of achieving a cleaner environment, the report finds that switching primarily to weather dependent “renewable” energy is not entirely feasible for the electrical grid of ISO-New England — an independent, not-for-profit corporation responsible for keeping electricity flowing across the six New England states.
The study concludes that ISO-New England may be unable to coordinate electricity to power the region within 11 years, warning that “[i]f each of the New England states adheres to the same renewable-intensive path, a blackout scenario could be dire indeed.”
According to the study, powering New England without interruption during a year in which wind and sunshine are plentiful would require 225 gigawatts (GW) of renewables — or equivalent to power generated by 12,000 wind turbines and 129 million solar panels. Even more renewables would be required to power New England in a less sunny or windy year.
New England is responsible for less than 0.4% of global emissions; it is unclear just how much cleaner the environment will become in exchange for the costs that have been imposed on the region and its people.
Ultimately, the report finds that the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under these plans exceeds the benefits of doing so, especially because in many cases, “green” policies have been enacted without any effort to quantify the environmental benefits they will secure. This raises the very real possibility that New England states are imposing net harm on their economies by imposing policies whose costs outweigh their benefits.
Policy Recommendations
1. Reconsider emission-reductions goals in the context of affordability and reliability of electricity. Legislators should prioritize affordability and reliability before emissions reductions goals. If emissions reduction goals cannot be reduced without compromising affordability and/or reliability of electricity, they should be abandoned.
2. Lift state nuclear moratoriums. Lifting moratoriums and impediments to building new nuclear power generators will be the most reliable and affordable way to decarbonize the New England grid. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont each have substantial barriers to nuclear energy.
3. Purchase Power Agreement transparency. Any state that mandates contracts for certain types of energy should clearly detail the cost of those contracts for the public. These reports should provide ratepayers with the expected increases (or decreases) in their monthly bills.
4. Allow nuclear to compete with renewables. Net Zero mandates treat renewable energy as more desirable than nuclear energy, despite both producing no carbon emissions. Allowing nuclear energy to be included toward meeting mandates will lower the costs for businesses and households.
5. Require investment fee reporting. Mandatory reporting of investment fees for state governments will allow for more transparency around the cost and benefit of generally higher-risk alternative investments like private equity and hedge funds, which are often used for ESG investments.
To read the full paper, click here: Green Energy Policy Costs.
About the Authors
Always On Energy Research (AOER) believes every resident in every state has the right to know how much energy policy passed at local, state, and federal levels will cost them in terms of standard of living, including monetary and reliability.
At Americans for Prosperity Foundation, we empower and educate Americans on the proven and principled solutions to our country’s most challenging issues. We believe in people. When Americans have freedom and opportunity, they can achieve extraordinary things. Through education, research, and community engagement we can empower Americans to achieve their full potential.
The mission of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is to develop and advance practical, free-market policies that promote prosperity and opportunity for all.
The Ethan Allen Institute’s mission is to influence public policy in Vermont by helping its people to better understand and put into practice the fundamentals of a free society: individual liberty, private property, competitive free enterprise, limited and frugal government, strong local communities and personal responsibility.
Maine Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works to expand individual liberty and economic freedom in Maine. Maine Policy is the strongest voice in Augusta for taxpayers and believes in an open, transparent, and accountable state government.
Fiscal Alliance Foundation in Massachusetts promotes individual liberty and greater fiscal responsibility and transparency in government for a better New England, through education and legal assistance.
The Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity is dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media, and public officials in Rhode Island with empirical research data, while also advancing market-based solutions to major public policy issues in the state.
Yankee Institute is the eyes, ears and voice for hard-working people who want a prosperous Connecticut. Our common-sense solutions drive positive legislative results to strengthen our communities and build a vibrant, hopeful future.
QUOTE from AOER:
“The six ISO-NE states are not the only ones grappling with the economically devastating costs and reliability challenges associated with decarbonization goals. Similar issues are emerging in other states, creating a divide between energy ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ Our research suggests that the ISO-NE states are likely to fall into the ‘have nots’ category. The positive takeaway is they have the opportunity to change course by revising their energy policies while still maintaining a clean, healthy environment.”
Quote from Josiah Bartlett Center President Drew Cline:
“One of the few bright spots in our study is found in the reliability and cost savings created by New Hampshire’s refusal to impose the most burdensome renewable energy mandates. New Hampshire has shown the rest of New England the value of prioritizing cost and reliability. The clear path forward is for the other New England states to follow New Hampshire’s lead.”
Quote from Maine Policy Institute CEO Matthew Gagnon:
“It’s time for policymakers in Maine and the region to understand there are real human and economic costs to their renewable energy agenda. For a state like Maine, in a region like New England, it simply does not make sense to continue down this path when we account for such a minuscule amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Doing so will cause serious hardship for working families and make our regional grid far less reliable.”
Quote from Ethan Allen Institute’s David Flemming:
“For the past decade, Vermont has passed successively more stringent laws and regulations regarding how electricity can be generated. Ten years ago, the Legislature shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which had been responsible for generating three-quarters of Vermont’s in-state generated electricity, all with zero carbon emissions. Vermont now generates less than half of the electricity that it did a decade ago.
Since then, despite millions in wind and solar subsidies to favored companies, Vermont produced only 15% more wind and solar powered in-state generated electricity in 2024 than in 2014. At this rate, it would take over 140 years for Vermont to build enough in-state wind and solar generated electricity to replace the nuclear-generated electricity lost. Wind and solar are simply not affordable and reliable options. With over 170,000 households relying on electricity to power their furnaces, Vermont can ill afford to double down on a failing electricity generation strategy that places thousands at risk of losing electricity during the cold winter months.”
Quote from Yankee Institute Communications Specialist, Andy Fowler:
“It costs more for Connecticut families and businesses to turn their lights on than almost anywhere else in the country. Instead of finding new ways to bring massive amounts of energy onto the grid, lawmakers want it to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2040. A new study, supported by Yankee Institute and other leading state policy organizations, demonstrates that this massive “renewable” overhaul will cost Connecticut residents billions of dollars and be more prone to rolling blackouts while only cutting global carbon emissions by a fraction of a percent. It begs the question, why? Why should we accept a lower quality of life? We can do better. We can grow our economy, improve the environment, and avoid a future when ‘turning on a light’ could be unreliable.”
Quote from Ross Connolly, Northeast Regional Director, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
“Affordable, reliable energy is essential for human well-being. To ensure New Englanders can maintain and expand well-being all energy solutions should be on the table. We cannot continue going down the route of picking winners and losers in energy markets. Policymakers should be focused on true progress for their constituents, a future that unleashes American energy abundance to benefit all. By creating an equal playing field and pursuing diverse energy innovations- whether nuclear, natural gas, or something yet to be discovered- we empower humanity to meet growing demands and set America up for success in the next century.”
Quote from Mike Stenhouse, CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity
“The government’s assault on Rhode Island families continues as politicians have recklessly placed our state on a path where residents may soon fear ‘freezing in the dark.’ As our report illustrates, without any cost-benefit analysis or planning to expand our electric grid’s capacity, lawmakers are creating a major self-inflicted crisis. Their reckless zeal to follow a false narrative knows no bounds. This report must serve as a wake-up call to all lawmakers: Ocean State families require a more reasonable energy strategy.”
Quote from Paul Craney, spokesman for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation of Massachusetts:
“New England states should view Massachusetts as a cautionary tale for what not to do with energy policy. The study shows that by 2050, every single person in New England will have paid over $51,000 for these policies. For residents of Massachusetts, we can expect to pay even more. Massachusetts lawmakers have passed overzealous and unattainable, weather dependent renewable energy policies that will hurt, not help, the residents of their state. These policies will also burden surrounding states that share our grid with crippling costs and blackout conditions. This isn’t fear mongering, this is future reality under our current laws. Course correction must be addressed swiftly.
If Massachusetts persists in relying solely on weather-dependent energy sources like solar, wind, and batteries, residents can expect soaring energy costs and the looming threat of rolling blackouts. The outlook is grim for the working people and businesses of our state alike, but entirely avoidable with the right policy changes.”
