Loading Study
✕
Fiscal Alliance Foundation Study Overview · Published: January 2026

Alternatives to New England's
Energy Affordability Crisis

There Is a Cheaper, More Reliable Path to Meeting the Region's Rising Power Demand

By Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling, and Trevor Lewis · Always On Energy Research

$815B
Added cost of the Renewable scenario through 2050
$707.9B
Savings from the Natural Gas scenario instead
6.4×
More generating capacity the Renewable plan requires
$51,914
Renewable cost per New England resident by 2050

New England is choosing the most expensive way to keep the lights on.

Five of the six New England states — every state but New Hampshire — have adopted aggressive mandates for solar, offshore wind, onshore wind, and battery storage, along with deep cuts to power-sector carbon dioxide emissions. Those same policies require households to abandon natural gas and fuel oil for home heating and to replace gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric ones.[1]

Electrifying heating and transportation will nearly double peak demand on the ISO New England system and increase total electricity demand by 106 percent. Meeting that demand while shifting away from dispatchable natural gas and toward weather-dependent resources sends prices skyrocketing.[3]

Always On Energy Research previously found that this path — the Renewable scenario — would cost New England electricity customers an additional $815 billion through 2050 compared with operating the current grid, and would leave the region vulnerable to rolling blackouts.[2]

This study asks a different question: is there a cheaper way? It models three alternatives — a Nuclear scenario, a Natural Gas scenario, and a Happy Medium scenario. Every one of them costs hundreds of billions of dollars less than the Renewable path, and none of them results in rolling blackouts.[1]

$4,600
Average New England family's annual electric bill in 2050 under the Renewable scenario — up from $2,100 in 2024
$106.9B
Added cost of the Natural Gas scenario — the lowest-cost path studied
225,400 MW
Installed capacity the Renewable scenario requires by 2050, versus roughly 60,400 MW for every alternative
6 hours
Capacity shortfall — a rolling blackout — the Renewable grid suffers in December 2050 under real 2019 weather
$405.1B
Massachusetts's share of the Renewable scenario's cost by 2050 — more than twice any other state
50%
Share of New England's electricity generated by natural gas in 2024; wind and solar together produced 7%

Peak Demand Is About to More Than Double

New England's grid was not built for the load these mandates create. According to ISO-NE's Internal Market Monitor, average hourly demand in 2024 was 13.2 gigawatts, with a peak of 24.9 GW. ISO-NE's own "2050 Transmission Study" projects winter peak demand could reach 57 GW by 2050 — and its "Economic Planning for the Clean Energy Transition" report puts the figure as high as 60 GW, before accounting for data centers.[4][3][5]

The vast majority of that new winter load growth comes from home heating, which becomes the single largest component of peak electricity demand in 2050. Electrifying the transportation sector adds the rest.[3]

Because New Hampshire has not adopted these mandates, this analysis assumes its residents keep conventional heating systems and internal combustion engines. That single assumption removes 4,457 MW from ISO-NE peak demand, bringing the modeled 2050 peak to 52.5 GW.

Today, natural gas and nuclear carry the region. In 2024, natural gas generated 50 percent of New England's electricity and nuclear another 22 percent. Wind and solar combined produced just 7 percent.[4]

ISO-NE Energy by Source · 2024

What Actually Powers New England Today

Source: ISO-NE Internal Market Monitor, "2024 Annual Markets Report" (Figure 6, p. 19)
Why Balance Matters

The most important thing to know about the electric grid is that supply must be in perfect balance with demand at every second of every day. Dispatchable plants — natural gas, nuclear, hydro — can be turned up or down on command. Wind and solar cannot; their output is subject to second-by-second fluctuations in the weather. When supply cannot be raised to meet demand, grid operators are forced to cut power to consumers.[1]

Four Ways to Meet the Same Demand

Each scenario meets the same projected 2050 peak and annual electricity demand. What differs is how — and what it costs. The Renewable scenario is the portfolio the states' mandates actually produce. The other three are alternatives.[1]

Lowest Cost

The Natural Gas Scenario

$106.9B
Additional cost through 2050
60,343 MW
Installed capacity in 2050
−24.5%
Total annual CO₂ emissions in 2050
New combined-cycle plants provide high-efficiency baseload power, with combustion turbines added to meet peaks. Existing nuclear plants are relicensed; existing wind, solar, and batteries run out their useful lives but are not repowered.
Balanced

The Happy Medium Scenario

$195.8B
Additional cost through 2050
60,343 MW
Installed capacity in 2050
−50%
Total annual CO₂ emissions in 2050
A cost-optimized blend: 10,800 MW of new nuclear and 24,300 MW of new natural gas capacity deliver a 50 percent carbon-free grid by 2050 while holding costs well below the Nuclear and Renewable paths.
Deepest Decarbonization

The Nuclear Scenario

$415.3B
Additional cost through 2050
60,417 MW
Installed capacity in 2050
92%
Carbon-free generation in 2050
20,400 MW of large reactors and 14,700 MW of small modular reactors replace nearly every carbon-emitting resource, with 13,700 MW of natural gas bridging the 2030s. The first plants come online in 2036.[6]
Current State Mandates

The Renewable Scenario

$815B
Additional cost through 2050
225,400 MW
Installed capacity in 2050
6 hours
Blackout under 2019 weather conditions
Offshore wind grows from 30 MW to 66 GW, onshore wind from 1,546 MW to 19.2 GW, solar from 2,242 MW to 68.4 GW, and battery storage from 303 MW to 43 GW. This is the portfolio the states' own mandates require.
Figures 2–5 · ISO-NE Installed Capacity, 2024–2050

The Renewable Path Requires a Buildout Nothing Else Comes Close To

Source: AOER capacity expansion model (Figures 2–5, pp. 10–15). Values are total installed capacity in megawatts, excluding imports.
Are Any of These Plans Realistic?

Every scenario faces real obstacles. The Renewable scenario's offshore wind assumptions were always optimistic, and federal lease cancellations and stop-work orders have compounded the uncertainty.[7] The Nuclear scenario would require more than 13 times the nuclear capacity built nationally between 2009 and 2024, and no small modular reactor has yet been installed commercially anywhere in the United States.[8][9] The Natural Gas and Happy Medium scenarios are constrained by a pipeline shortage rooted in permits New York regulators previously blocked.[10] The value of comparing them is to show the relative cost of each approach.

New Englanders Already Pay Some of the Highest Electricity Prices in the Country.

Prices rise under every scenario. But the Renewable path costs roughly 7.6 times what the Natural Gas path costs — an extra $815 billion versus $106.9 billion, both measured against operating the current grid in constant 2024 dollars.[11][12]

Figure 15 · Page 27

Total Additional Cost by Scenario Through 2050

Source: AOER cost modeling (Figure 15, p. 27). Costs are additional spending versus operating the current grid, in constant 2024 dollars, excluding federal subsidies.
Natural Gas
+13%
Increase in electricity prices through 2050
Lowest-cost path
Happy Medium
+26.5%
Increase in electricity prices through 2050
50% carbon-free by 2050
Nuclear
+64.8%
Increase in electricity prices through 2050
92% carbon-free by 2050
Renewable
+126.4%
Increase in electricity prices through 2050
Current state mandates
$7,555
The average annual electricity cost per ISO-NE customer in 2050 under the Renewable scenario — versus $3,772 under the Natural Gas scenario. Both start from the same baseline of roughly $3,000 per customer.[11]

Figure 16 in the study divides the annual cost of each scenario across all New England utility customers — residential, commercial, and industrial. Measured that way, annual costs rise by $2,471 in the Nuclear scenario, $1,209 in the Happy Medium scenario, and $771 in the Natural Gas scenario by 2050.

The Renewable scenario raises costs immediately, because offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, battery storage, and transmission projects all have to be built at once. The alternatives have longer investment runways for new nuclear or natural gas capacity, which keeps costs lower for longer.

These rate calculations do not credit New Hampshire residents for the savings they generate by continuing to use natural gas; those savings are distributed evenly across the entire ISO-NE region.

Figure 16 · Page 28

Total Annual Cost per ISO-NE Customer

Source: AOER cost modeling (Figure 16, p. 28). Constant 2024 dollars. The baseline shown is implied by the study's reported 2050 totals and increases, which are consistent across all three alternative scenarios.

Who Pays · Residential, Commercial, and Industrial

Higher electricity costs do not stop at the meter. Commercial customers pass them on to consumers as higher prices for goods and services, making life less affordable for everyone.[13]

Residential Customers
2024 average: $2,100 per year
Natural Gas
$2,302
Happy Medium
$2,569
Nuclear
$3,339
Renewable
$4,610
Commercial Customers
2024 average: $10,627 per year
Natural Gas
$11,381
Happy Medium
$12,703
Nuclear
$16,510
Renewable
$22,794
Industrial Customers
2024 average: $113,281 per year · roughly 13% of regional electricity use
Natural Gas
$122,766
Happy Medium
$137,036
Nuclear
$178,096
Renewable
$245,883
Figures 17–19 · Page 29

Percent Increase in 2050 Bills, by Customer Class

Source: AOER cost modeling (Figures 17–19, pp. 29–31), measured against 2024 average annual bills.[14]
Figure 20 · Page 33

Total Cost per Capita in ISO-NE by Scenario

Source: AOER cost modeling (Figure 20, p. 33). Cumulative cost per New England resident in constant 2024 dollars.

"The Renewable scenario imposes the most financial hardship on New England residents through 2050, costing $45,106 more than the Natural Gas scenario."

— Figure 20, "Alternatives to New England's Energy Affordability Crisis," p. 33

Massachusetts Bears the Highest Cost of Any State — By Far

Using state-level population forecasts from the non-partisan Weldon Cooper Center, the study estimates cumulative statewide costs for 2030, 2040, and 2050. Massachusetts pays more than twice what Connecticut pays in every scenario. Under the Renewable scenario, the Commonwealth's share reaches $405.1 billion by 2050.[15]

Cumulative Cost by 2050

What Each State Pays Under Each Scenario

Source: AOER cost modeling and Weldon Cooper Center population projections (Table 1, p. 34). Billions of constant 2024 dollars.
StateNatural GasHappy MediumNuclearRenewable
Cumulative cost by 2050 ($ billions)
Massachusetts$53.1B$97.4B$206.4B$405.1B
Connecticut$23.0B$42.1B$89.3B$175.2B
New Hampshire$9.7B$17.8B$37.7B$74.0B
Maine$9.1B$16.6B$35.3B$69.3B
Rhode Island$7.7B$14.0B$29.7B$58.4B
Vermont$4.3B$7.9B$16.8B$32.9B
Swipe the table to see every scenario →
Actual State Costs Will Vary

Per-capita math is a floor, not a ceiling. States serving more rural customers may need to build more transmission and distribution lines and pass those costs to ratepayers. States with more aggressive emissions targets — Massachusetts and Vermont — will incur higher costs on behalf of ratepayers, while states with less aggressive goals, like New Hampshire, will incur lower ones.

Why the Renewable Path Costs So Much More

It is not one line item. Weather-dependent generation forces you to overbuild capacity, then build batteries and transmission to compensate for the intermittency, then curtail the surplus you built — and every one of those steps carries its own profit margin and tax bill.[1]

How Intermittency Multiplies Cost
1
Mandate Electrification
Heating and transport shift to the grid; peak demand more than doubles
→
2
Retire Dispatchable Plants
Gas generation is replaced with weather-dependent resources
→
3
Overbuild to Compensate
8.61 MW of renewables and storage per 1 MW of conventional capacity retired
→
4
Ratepayers Absorb It
Capital, profits, transmission, and taxes all land on the bill
Figure 21 · Page 38

ISO-NE Generating Capacity: Current Grid vs. 2050

Source: AOER capacity expansion model (Figure 21, p. 38), based on 2023 wind and solar output. Excludes imports.
6.4×
The Renewable scenario requires nearly 6.4 times more power plant capacity than New England uses today — 225,400 MW versus roughly 35,500 MW. The Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Happy Medium scenarios each require about 1.7 times the current grid.[16]

Generator profits. ISO-NE generators are not regulated monopolies, so states direct utilities into ratepayer-funded long-term contracts lucrative enough to attract capital. The study assumes every asset built recovers its capital cost with a 7.05 percent return. Additional generator profits reach $323 billion under the Renewable scenario, versus $44.9 billion under Natural Gas.[17]

Transmission and pipelines. ISO-NE estimates rising peak demand costs roughly $750 million per GW of load added from 29 to 51 GW, and roughly $1.5 billion per GW from 51 to 57 GW — $18.75 billion in every scenario. Interconnection adds $9.3 billion under Renewable versus $1.05 billion under Natural Gas.[3]

Taxes. More property to tax means more property tax, plus higher state and federal income taxes on power producers: $115 billion under Renewable, $14.5 billion under Natural Gas.

Cost Drivers · Pages 39–44

Where the Money Goes

Source: AOER compliance cost model. Components shown do not sum to the full scenario total; capital and fuel costs are excluded here.
Figure 24 · Page 45

Even Under Worst-Case Natural Gas Prices, Gas Still Wins

Source: AOER compliance cost model (Figure 24, p. 45). Sensitivity assumes $2,500/kW capital cost and $4.90/MMBtu fuel, from EIA's June 2025 Short-Term Energy Outlook.[18][19]
What This Analysis Does Not Count

These figures cover generation and transmission only. They exclude the cost of upgrading the distribution system — estimated at $42 billion to $96 billion in New England alone — as well as heat pumps, home electrical panel upgrades, electric vehicles, and charging infrastructure. They also exclude the fuel savings households would realize by no longer buying natural gas, heating oil, propane, gasoline, or diesel.[20]

Hundreds of Billions in Savings — And No Blackouts

Because reliable power plants require far less total capacity to meet peak demand, New England families reap what the study calls a "dispatchability dividend." Every alternative saves hundreds of billions compared with the Renewable scenario.

Figure 22 · Page 40

Total Savings Compared to the Renewable Scenario

Source: AOER compliance cost model (Figure 22, p. 40).

Reliability is the grid's most crucial function, and it is where the Renewable scenario fails outright. Modeled against 2023 wind and solar output, the portfolio meets demand in every hour. Modeled against 2019 output — a real historical year — it does not.[21]

On December 17, 2050, the grid runs a six-hour capacity shortfall. Solar capacity factors that day were 1 percent, onshore wind 8 percent, and offshore wind 5 percent — and more than 170,000 MWh of battery storage was not enough to cover the gap.

These findings track ISO-NE's own "2050 Transmission Study," which found its All Options Pathway insufficient to meet snapshot loads for the summer and winter evening peaks of 2035, 2040, and 2050. The largest shortfall it observed was roughly 12,000 MW in the 2050 winter peak.[3]

The Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Happy Medium scenarios all meet demand in every hour studied — with far less installed capacity and far less money.

Emissions

Emissions Reductions in 2050

Reduction in total annual CO₂ emissions
Natural Gas
−24.5%
Happy Medium
−50%
Carbon-free share of electricity generation
Happy Medium
50%
Nuclear
92%
Source: AOER modeling (Section VII, pp. 61–64; Nuclear scenario, p. 13). Emissions reductions cover the electricity, transportation, and home heating sectors combined. The Nuclear scenario delivers the deepest emissions cuts of the four scenarios studied; the study reports its result as a carbon-free generation share rather than a single percentage reduction.[22]

"The cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions exceeds the Biden Social Cost of Carbon in only the Renewable scenario, meaning the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under the Renewable scenario exceed the benefits of doing so."

— "Alternatives to New England's Energy Affordability Crisis," p. 61

There Is a Smarter Path Forward, If New Englanders Will Take It.

Decarbonizing New England's economy will not be easy or affordable. Every scenario studied has significant inflationary impacts on electricity costs, harming families and businesses in the region. But the choice among them is worth hundreds of billions of dollars — and the difference between a grid that works and one that does not.[1]

What the Study Found

The Cost of the Current Path
  • An additional $815 billion through 2050 versus the current grid
  • Family electric bills rise from $175 per month in 2024 to $384 per month by 2050
  • Electricity prices increase 126.4 percent region-wide
  • Massachusetts alone absorbs $405.1 billion of the total
The Lower-Cost Alternatives
  • Natural Gas: $106.9 billion — a $707.9 billion savings
  • Happy Medium: $195.8 billion — a $618.9 billion savings
  • Nuclear: $415.3 billion — a $399.5 billion savings
  • Even under worst-case gas prices, Natural Gas remains the cheapest path
Reliability
  • The Renewable grid suffers a six-hour capacity shortfall under 2019 weather
  • Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Happy Medium meet demand in every hour studied
  • Dispatchable plants require roughly 1.7× current capacity, not 6.4×
  • ISO-NE's own study found shortfalls up to 12,000 MW at the 2050 winter peak
Emissions
  • Nuclear achieves the deepest cuts — 92 percent carbon-free power by 2050
  • Happy Medium cuts total annual emissions roughly 50 percent
  • Natural Gas cuts total annual emissions roughly 24.5 percent
  • Only the Renewable scenario's abatement cost exceeds the Biden Social Cost of Carbon

"Dispatchable generation saves New England hundreds of billions of dollars and avoids blackouts. In the end, the idea that New England can run its electric grid on wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries is a dangerous and unserious proposition."

— Conclusion, "Alternatives to New England's Energy Affordability Crisis," p. 65
Download the Full Report (PDF) →

92 pages · Always On Energy Research · Published: January 2026

References & Footnotes

This page is a summary of a longer study. Every figure above is drawn from Alternatives to New England's Energy Affordability Crisis (Always On Energy Research, January 2026); page and figure numbers are cited inline. Footnotes below identify the underlying sources the study itself cites.