New England Ratepayers Would Save Up to $700 Billion Replacing Wind, Solar with Natural Gas, Nuclear

In a groundbreaking study released this week, energy experts are sounding the alarm on New England’s heavy reliance on offshore wind and solar projects. According to the analysis, ratepayers across the six-state region could save between $400 billion and $700 billion through 2050 by shifting toward more reliable and cost-effective alternatives: natural gas and nuclear power.

This comes at a time when decarbonization efforts, including the electrification of transportation and home heating, are driving up peak demand and straining the grid.

The study, conducted by Always On Energy Research and commissioned by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, models various energy portfolios based on plans from the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO-NE). It compares the staggering $815 billion price tag of sticking with current wind, solar, and battery storage initiatives against lower-cost options that still deliver significant emissions reductions.

Key Findings: Massive Savings and Better Reliability

Under the current trajectory, New England’s renewable-heavy approach would require building out 6.4 times the current grid capacity to handle peak demand fluctuations—leading to overbuilding, curtailment, and skyrocketing costs. In contrast, natural gas and nuclear options need only 1.7 times the capacity, providing dispatchable power without weather-dependent risks.

All-Nuclear Scenario: Total cost of $415.3 billion through 2050, with a 92% reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions. This saves $399.5 billion compared to renewables.

All-Natural Gas Scenario: The cheapest option at $106.9 billion, reducing emissions by 24.5% and saving $708 billion over renewables. However, it may require pipeline expansions, which could face local opposition.

Nuclear-Gas Combination (Happy Medium): $195.8 billion total, with 50% emissions cuts and $619 billion in savings.

These figures highlight nuclear’s ability to match renewables’ environmental benefits at a fraction of the cost, while natural gas offers unmatched affordability for meeting surging demand.

Massachusetts stands to bear the brunt of the current path, with renewables costing $405 billion—half of the region’s total. Switching to nuclear would drop that to $206.4 billion (saving $198.6 billion), natural gas to $53.1 billion (saving $351.9 billion), or the combo to $97.4 billion (saving $307.6 billion). Overall, the renewable mandate could impose an extra $45,106 per resident in financial hardship compared to natural gas.Paul Craney, Executive Director of the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, didn’t mince words: “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.”

Isaac Orr, Vice President of Research at Always On Energy Research, added: “If you go with nuclear power you’re going to be getting similar emissions reduction as wind, solar and batteries for a fraction of the cost and without the reliability problems that you could see, depending on weather conditions, with renewable resources.”

Critics point out that while natural gas is the lowest-cost path, expanding pipelines might hit roadblocks due to community pushback. Still, the study urges lawmakers—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont—to scrap rigid renewable mandates. New Hampshire, with its grid already leaning on natural gas, serves as a model for the region.

The Broader Picture: Electricity Prices Across the U.S.

New England’s push for renewables isn’t just theoretical—it’s already reflected in some of the nation’s highest electricity bills. As of October 2025, six New England states rank among the top 10 most expensive for residential electricity rates, underscoring the urgency for change.

The national average sits at 17.98 cents per kWh, but heavy renewable adoption and infrastructure challenges are pushing costs upward in the Northeast.

Here’s a chart of the 15 most expensive states based on average residential rates (in cents per kWh) for 2025:

States like Hawaii and California face similar issues from isolated grids and green policies, but New England’s interconnected system offers a prime opportunity for reform.

Time for a Reality Check

As Harris Van Pate from the Maine Policy Institute notes: “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.”

Drew Cline of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy praises New Hampshire’s approach: “Again, we see that New England states would better serve their residents by adopting reality-based energy policies that prioritize reliability and costs.”

The message is clear: Proven technologies like nuclear and natural gas can deliver affordability, reliability, and emissions progress without breaking the bank. It’s time for policymakers to listen to the data and put ratepayers first. For more on this and other energy insights, tune into the Energy News Beat podcast.

Stuart Turley is the host of Energy News Beat today and will be discussing this, bringing you the latest on global energy trends. Follow on X: @STUARTTURLEY16 or check out The Energy News Beat Substack. This article also follows along with the podcast “Blue States – High Rates Tom Pyle, President, Institute for Energy Research”. 

In that podcast and article, David Blackmon, Tom Pyle, and Stu Turley covered the other aspect of this story, and that is, if you look at the list of states, they are all Democrat run states with only a few exceptions.

Sources: bostonherald.com, chooseenergy.com