Energy Musings - December 8, 2025

The clean energy push is being derailed by the reality of energy physics and economics. Politicians have created clean energy mandates that cannot be fulfilled, so how do they backtrack?

Climate Dreams Don’t Mix Well With Reality

New England politicians in numerous states pushed the renewable energy revolution in response to fears about climate change’s impact on their residents. These myopic efforts involved tapping new, environmentally friendly power sources to the exclusion of fossil fuel energy supplies. They chose renewables, especially from projects out of sight of their constituents, because who wants wind turbines and solar panels in their yards? These politicians further failed to understand, or maybe read the reports of their high-paid consultants who warned about the challenges and costs of the switch.

To drive this energy transition, many states enacted clean energy mandates for their utilities, which were trumpeted for the health and economic benefits state residents would enjoy. The consultants raised red flags about the financial costs these mandates would impose on local ratepayers. These warnings countered the narrative that these renewable energy sources were cheaper than fossil fuels. The consultants suggested that lower costs would follow in the future when sufficient renewable energy supplies were online.

Not everyone in New England was on board with the program. For example, a significant project was conceived to provide “clean” power to Massachusetts residents by constructing a high-tension transmission line from the Canadian Maritime Provinces to bring hydropower-generated electricity. However, the 145-mile-long transmission line required cutting a 53-mile swath of Maine’s forests to reach the Canadian border.

The New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project was an alternative to the first project proposed to bring Canadian hydropower to Massachusetts. That project, Northern Pass, involved building the high-tension power line through New Hampshire on its way to Massachusetts. The 192-mile project was challenged by New Hampshire environmental groups and residents who objected to the line, citing negative impacts on the state’s landscapes, tourism economy, and real estate values.

Upon the rejection of the project by regulators, Eversource Energy, the project’s developer, appealed the decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. It ruled against Eversource, forcing the power company to find an alternative. The New Hampshire saga ended in 2018, and the Maine development was unveiled in 2019.

It was thought that the Maine project could move forward quickly since most of the power line’s route was along existing utility rights-of-way. The problem was with the swath through the virgin forest. As the public became more aware of the environmental damage the tree-cutting would cause, it became outraged and pushed to end the project. Opposition groups, including environmental NGOs, worked to secure a statewide referendum on the project. The two sides engaged in a fierce public relations battle. The referendum to stop the NECEC project was approved by 59% of the state’s voters, even though Massachusetts ratepayers were funding the entire cost of the project.

Once again, a massive clean energy transmission project wound up in court. This time, a state judge in Maine agreed to allow a trial with a nine-person jury to evaluate whether the project could be stopped if a substantial amount of work had been completed. The jury ruled 9-0 that halting the project at this point would inflict significant harm on the developer. The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which, in the summer of 2024, held that if substantial construction had been completed in good faith, the referendum’s retroactive nature would violate the developers’ constitutional rights. With the court victory, the project moved forward. Recently, the developer announced the receipt of the final permits, bringing the project close to completion. It is expected to soon enter the testing stage before becoming operational next year.

The Massachusetts clean energy mandate was behind the NECEC project. Ratepayers are estimated to save about $1.50 per month on their electricity bills by tapping Canadian hydropower. The contract for this power lasts for 20 years, but it may become a problem for Massachusetts ratepayers later.

The province of Ontario’s long-range power needs indicate that it would require this power supply, making it unavailable for export. We are unsure if Massachusetts politicians and regulators are worried about the loss of 1,200 MW of clean power supply as the Massachusetts clean energy mandate reaches 100%. But knowing their attention span, we are sure they are ignoring this potential supply crisis.

While the Northern Pass and NECEC sagas were unfolding, the political leaders of Massachusetts were working to ban any expansion of existing natural gas pipelines or construction of new ones. Instead, they were rallying behind offshore wind projects. Again, the political leaders were seeking power supplies that their constituents would never have to see operating, even though gas pipelines are buried underground.

The offshore wind industry gambit was rolling merrily along with the 100% backing of the Biden administration that was rushing to get 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power projects approved and under construction by 2030. Today, the effort is in turmoil due to strong opposition by President Donald Trump and his administration. The restrictions on power subsidies and their eventual ending have developers reconsidering the expensive offshore wind projects. Several approved projects are undergoing re-examination of the adequacy of their approval processes. However, two projects, Revolution Wind and Vineyard Wind, continue under construction and will benefit Massachusetts. Other projects – Empire Wind and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind – remain under construction.

Recently, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) asked a federal court to remand its approval of the New England Wind I project, adjacent to Vineyard Wind, off the Massachusetts and Rhode Island coasts. This follows a request to remand the approvals for SouthCoast Wind off Massachusetts and US Wind off Maryland.

We are also learning that the mandated report of the cause of the Vineyard Wind blade failure during the summer of 2024 has yet to be completed. This report, mandated by regulators, has taken 17 months and has seen little news of its completion. During this time, a failure in the manufacturing process for the blades at GE Vernova’s plant in Canada was identified as the source of the problem. Not only were there manufacturing issues, but the blades failed to undergo proper testing, as the supplier’s plant was rushing to complete the order.

While the offshore wind industry struggles, Massachusetts must deal with outraged residents facing soaring electricity bills. Massachusetts is not unique in New England; Connecticut is actively seeking ways to limit future electricity price increases or roll back existing rates. Connecticut’s governor is exploring the possibility of bringing more natural gas into the state and building another nuclear power plant. These solutions have climate activists in an uproar. However, the governor is responding to his constituents’ outrage, especially as he is running for re-election in 2026.

Massachusetts Governor Healey is also considering expanding a natural gas pipeline to bring greater volumes into the state. This comes after she was actively involved years earlier, as the state’s attorney general, in stopping the expansion of the state’s natural gas supply system. She conveniently ignored this history when discussing her plans. Healey’s actions have climate activists appalled because they see such moves as a reversal of the emissions-reduction gains already achieved under existing clean energy mandates.

Within the Massachusetts legislature, a proposal by a leading Democrat to change the state’s 2030 clean energy mandate from a mandate to an aspirational goal spurred outrage from environmental groups. That led the Democratic leadership to block the vote. Such a shift would have been a sharp rebuke of Healey’s climate change agenda, which will be a tough sell next year when she faces a re-election campaign.

Those climate activists clearly haven’t paid attention to the warnings from officials at the Independent System Operator – New England, which maintains the wholesale power market and ensures the reliability of the region’s grid, that it is at risk of electricity shortages as early as this winter due to inadequate dispatchable power supplies. This warning comes despite the surge in renewable energy projects.

We are also watching the struggles of New York and New Jersey with citizens’ outrage over their electricity bills. Power costs are rising due to the mandated shift to renewable energy and the lack of dispatchable power, increasing the risk of blackouts. Both states were leaders in fighting the expansion of the natural gas pipeline network into their states and New England. Here is another example of energy reality destroying climate dreams.

At the same time that New England states’ embrace of natural gas has generated news, the Wall Street Journal published a significant article on the problems Europe’s economies face due to their commitment to clean energy. Not only do they have some of the world’s highest electricity prices, but over the past 15 years, economic growth has slowed significantly, as high power costs are hollowing out the region’s manufacturing sectors, jobs are being lost, wages are stagnating, and the cost of living is rising. The high cost of these countries’ welfare systems has governments in debt, limiting their ability to address their economic woes with increased subsidies.

The WSJ article noted that Europe rushed to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, and biomass by heavily taxing carbon. Britain has shuttered all its coal-fired power plants, while 20% of Germany’s utilities plan to shut down their gas network. Denmark plans to eliminate natural gas for home heating by 2035. The goal of reaching net-zero emissions drives these moves. However, the shifts carry costs that are outraging residents facing rising living costs, forcing many to cut back on their use of power and heat, further degrading their living standards. A poll in the U.K. found that half of British consumers plan to ration their energy use this winter.

The WSJ article noted the cause of the financial pain British citizens were experiencing. “In the U.K., the cost of procuring and delivering electricity accounts for just over half of domestic electricity bills, with the rest made up of an array of levies and carbon taxes, including subsidies to pay for renewables and grid upgrades. These levies have risen faster than wholesale energy costs in the past decade, according to the Resolution Foundation, a think tank.” U.K. wholesale electricity costs are 80% higher than in the U.S.

The article noted that investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts that Europe will need to invest up to €3 ($3.5) trillion in power generation and infrastructure over the next decade, double what it spent in the prior decade. They further note that such spending will be a challenge given the massive debt burden European countries are currently dealing with, as their populations age, military spending obligations rise, and interest payments on debt grow.

The WSJ reporters interviewed Jacob Kirkegaard, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who told them, “Energy costs in the future will be a lot lower.” The problem will be getting to that point, he noted. This observation may be more aspirational than realistic. Economists and energy executives question cheaper renewable energy, especially in countries such as Germany and the U.K., which lack abundant sunshine. This has pushed them to bet big on wind, which is proving more expensive, requiring even larger government subsidies. Additionally, extended wind droughts require the use of costly alternative power supplies, boosting consumer electricity bills.

Two industry executives were quoted in the article about the challenges that industries face, given the state of Europe’s electricity business. Miguel López, CEO of German industrial giant Thyssenkrupp, said, “I have not seen any plan that facilitates green electricity in central Europe at competitive costs.” Thyssenkrupp has pulled back on many of its plans to adopt green energy in its operations due to cost and efficiency concerns.

Peter Huntsman, CEO of the Texas-based chemicals manufacturer, noted that 20 years ago, the U.K. was the most competitive location for the company globally. That was due to the cheap and abundant energy from the North Sea. However, over the past decade, the company sold off most of its U.K. assets. The reason? “The whole value chain has gone,” Huntsman said.

Decades ago, an energy-intensive manufacturer was attracted to the U.K. because it offered cheap power. It has left because power has become more expensive than alternative locations. The Huntsman experience highlights why other manufacturers in the U.K. and throughout Europe are reducing their operations. This means fewer jobs for residents. It explains why Europe’s GDP has been stagnating.

The dream that power systems can be turned green is being dashed by the realities of affordability and reliability, neither of which renewables have delivered. Expect to read more about pullbacks on climate mandates and the greater embrace of natural gas to generate the electricity that society will need.