New Englanders would save hundreds of billions of dollars and avoid deadly power blackouts by replacing state-mandated renewable energy projects with nuclear and natural gas power, a study released today by a coalition of New England think tanks finds.
Alternatives to New England's Affordability Crisis, a new study released by a coalition of New England’s free-market think tanks, estimated the effects of trying to meet the region’s energy needs through 2050 with nuclear and natural gas plants instead of wind and solar power.
The full study can be found here.
The findings are striking:
- Meeting New England’s 2050 energy needs with nuclear power would cost $415.3 billion and reduce the region’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions by 92%.
- Meeting the region’s 2050 energy needs with natural gas would cost $106.9 billion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 24.5%.
- Meeting the region’s 2050 energy needs with a mix of nuclear and natural gas plants would cost $195.8 billion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.
Each of these options comes with the added benefit of avoiding power blackouts caused by relying too heavily on wind and solar power, which cannot run continuously, as nuclear and natural gas plants can.
All of the nuclear and natural gas options are significantly more affordable than the construction required by current renewable energy mandates imposed by five of the six New England states.
Meeting the region’s energy demand by sticking with those renewable energy mandates due to the NetZero by 2050 climate mandate would cost New Englanders a stunning $815 billion, the coalition found in its previous 2024 study. That’s $399.5 billion more than it would cost to go nuclear and $708 billion more than it would cost to build more natural gas plants.
"New England policies aimed at decarbonizing the heating and transportation sectors will drive a massive increase in additional electricity demand during the coldest winter months. Keeping the heat on will require a massive buildout of power plant capacity that will be used for only five or six months per year, which drives up prices year-round. Our analysis found that meeting this new winter peak demand with nuclear or natural gas will save New England families and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades,” said Isaac Orr, Vice President of Research for Always On Energy Research.
“Again, we see that New England states would better serve their residents by adopting reality-based energy policies that prioritize reliability and costs. And again, New Hampshire leads the way,” said Drew Cline, President of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.
“New Englanders are being asked to bankroll an energy experiment that is dramatically more expensive and far less reliable than proven alternatives. This study puts hard numbers behind what families and businesses already feel every month. State-mandated wind and solar are driving up costs while increasing the risk of blackouts. Replacing these mandates with nuclear and natural gas would save hundreds of billions of dollars, strengthen grid reliability, and deliver real emissions reductions without sacrificing affordability or economic competitiveness,” said Paul Diego Craney, Executive Director of the Fiscal Alliance Foundation.
"This new energy analysis confirms what Maine ratepayers are already feeling every month when they open their utility bills: New England’s decarbonization mandates are driving electricity costs sharply higher while putting grid reliability at risk. The report shows that doubling down on intermittent resources like wind and solar could cost the region up to $815 billion by 2050, even though more affordable and reliable energy alternatives exist. Policymakers need to stop pretending these costs are hypothetical; they are enormous, and ratepayers are already paying them,” said Harris Van Pate, Policy Analyst at the Maine Policy Institute.
“Rhode Island's special Senate Energy Commission, chaired by Senator Sam Zurier, has the unique opportunity to evaluate the staggering costs and risks of the suicidal path of our state's Act On Climate legislation and to recommend a realistic new path for our state,” said Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity.
“Energy policy decisions made today will shape electricity costs and reliability for decades. This analysis gives policymakers a foundation to weigh trade-offs between affordability, emissions reductions, and system reliability as New England’s energy demand continues to grow,” said Jack DeOliveira, Director of Policy at the Yankee Institute.
“New Englanders are struggling with perpetually rising energy costs. They are being told they need to pay more for less energy reliability in the coming years. We are on an unsustainable path driven by a government created crisis. This study makes clear there are alternatives to New England’s current energy trajectory that will provide more abundant energy for a significantly lower cost. There is still time to change course and deliver a brighter future for all. Cheap, reliable, and abundant energy is the heart of the American economy, but New England politicians are putting it in cardiac arrest with overregulation and government mandates,” said Ross Connolly of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The new study was conducted by Always on Energy Research on behalf of the Maine Policy Institute, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, and the Yankee Institute, along with Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The study draws on data from ISO-New England, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the Weldon Cooper Center and includes detailed modeling of generation capacity, cost-of-service, and peak demand scenarios through 2050.
Alternatives to New England's Affordability Crisis offers a fact-based framework for policymakers, regulators, and the public to assess the economic and reliability consequences of competing energy strategies.
The full study can be found here.