Energy Musings - January 14, 2026
A new report on the energy policies of New England states highlights how building a grid to handle renewable energy only will be very expensive. It risks harming residents and the economy.
Renewables Could Bankrupt New Englanders
New England states’ energy policies will shift their economies away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. The region’s electricity grid will transition from 50% fossil fuel power to 100% renewable energy by 2050, when you consider nuclear, hydro, and imports. The electricity transition is driven by “electrifying everything,” with renewable energy and batteries supplying the power. The problem is that this strategy risks crippling economic activity in New England due to the high cost of power. Families will be financially strapped, and workers could lose their jobs, as their employers find it too expensive to operate.
A new report highlights how expensive and economically destructive a renewable-energy-powered economy will be. Fortunately, the report presents alternative energy scenarios that are cheaper and still significantly reduce New England’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The state renewable energy policies are designed to cut GHG emissions, and were selected without serious examination of alternative strategies or an analysis of what the policies would cost New England residents. That decision was a mistake and should be rectified.
The report, “Alternatives to New England’s Energy Affordability Crisis,” was authored by Always On Energy Research’s team of Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling, and Trevor Lewis. The report follows up on the team’s 2024 report, “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies.” The purpose of the new report is to highlight the potential economic and societal damage from the renewable energy policies, given that less costly and less harmful alternative energy scenarios exist.
The electrification of New England’s home heating and transportation sectors by 2050 is projected to nearly double the Independent System Operator – New England (ISO-NE) system’s peak electricity demand. Moreover, the shift in electricity consumption for home heating in the region will change the seasonal peak from summer to winter, with significant implications for utility bills, power supplies, and blackout risks.
Building sufficient generating capacity to meet this projected demand growth will be challenging, given the mandate to shift to non-dispatchable renewable generating power such as wind, solar, and battery storage. Residents of New England face paying an additional $815 billion in current dollars for the electricity they will use in 2050, according to the report.
Here are the current energy sources powering the ISO-NE grid today. The chart is followed by one showing the 2050 grid fuel supply mix based on the renewable energy scenario. Note how offshore wind becomes the largest renewable energy supplier. However, offshore wind represents the most expensive renewable energy option.
The ISO-NE grid is currently powered 50% by natural gas.
Renewable energy supplies the ISO-NE grid in 2050.
Why will providing this clean energy cost so much? It is because the renewable energy scenario requires building a grid with 225,400 gigawatts (GW) of generation capacity, 6.4 times the size of the current ISO-NE grid. The chart shows the comparative grid sizes for each scenario – Renewable, Natural Gas, Nuclear, and a Happy Medium combination of natural gas and nuclear. These alternative scenarios are presented in the report as cheaper ways to provide the power New England residents will need, while still delivering significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
A renewable energy grid must be 6.4 times larger than it is now.
The reason such a large grid is required is the low capacity factors (the percentage of nameplate generating capacity that is actually produced) of solar, wind, and battery energy, which account for most of the grid’s 2050 capacity. Solar provides 10-20% of its nameplate capacity, while onshore wind is about 30%, and offshore wind is 45-50%.
Solar accounts for 18% of the 2050 renewable energy grid’s supply, while onshore wind supplies 9%, offshore wind 43%, and batteries 1%. In the renewable energy scenario, natural gas provides only 7% of the capacity, down from the current 50% it supplies today.
To achieve the 2050 renewable energy scenario, the region’s utilities must begin to build new generating capacity quickly. This chart shows that, over just five years between 2024 and 2030, to stay on track for 2050, the ISO-NE grid capacity must expand by 52%, a considerable challenge.
Building new ISO-NE generation must begin and accelerate over 25 years.
Electricity costs for New Englanders will rise sharply in the renewable energy scenario. That is for several reasons: substantially more nameplate generating capacity must be constructed to offset the low capacity factors of wind and solar power. However, given the substantial renewable capacity, when conditions are favorable, much more electricity will be generated than the grid needs or can handle. Therefore, wind and solar facilities must be curtailed, and their owners paid for the power generated but not used. This cost is funded by ratepayers, adding to their electricity bills. Furthermore, most renewable energy is located farther from consumption points, so more transmission and distribution lines must be installed, increasing electricity costs.
A grid based on renewable energy must also have real-time dispatchable power (fossil-fuel-generated or from batteries) ready to deliver electricity when the sun fails to shine, and the wind doesn’t blow. Because these solar and wind lulls may last for extended periods, batteries with their typical four-hour life must be supplemented by fossil-fuel-powered generators. Ratepayers are charged for this alternative power grid, which is necessary due to fluctuating renewable energy supplies.
Renewable energy is the most expensive grid by multiples.
The report analyzes the costs of the four energy supply scenarios and finds that renewable energy is the most expensive option. The cost estimates are based on assumptions utilized by federal government energy modeling, so they are reasonable and consistent with other energy forecasts. The study concludes that the cost of the renewable energy scenario is twice the cost of powering the grid with natural gas and transitioning to nuclear power. Amazingly, the study concludes that a scenario based on expanding regional natural gas pipelines, storage, and gas-fired generation costs about one-eighth as much as the renewable energy scenario.
Large lump-sum cost figures are often overwhelming. They fail to convey the cost to ratepayers, especially when we are talking about the cost in 25 years. Importantly, these total cost figures represent each scenario’s cost in current (2024) dollars. To show the impact over time, the following chart shows how the costs of the four scenarios increase over the next 25 years.
The high cost of the renewable energy scenario is clear.
These estimates reflect the annual cost per residential customer in New England for 2025-2050. For Renewable energy, the annual electricity bill increases to $4,610 from $2,000 in 2024. The Natural Gas scenario cost increases to $2,302, while the nuclear scenario cost is $3,339, and the Happy Medium scenario cost is $2,569.
New England electricity prices are among the highest in the nation. They have been rising sharply in recent years. The following table shows the change in residential and total electricity prices for each state, all six New England states, and the United States between 2020 and the average for the first 10 months of 2025. The prices shown are in current dollars. Therefore, they reflect the inflation that increased rates charged to customers.
New England residential electricity prices increased by 35% between 2020 and 2025.
If we calculate the average annual increase in electricity costs between 2020 and 2025, New England’s price has risen by almost 7% per year, while the USA price has increased by about 6.25% per year. While the past is fascinating, the question is, what about the future? The report provides a year-by-year forecast of electricity prices per kilowatt-hour for the period 2025-2050 for each scenario.
The increase in residential electricity costs over the period in the renewable scenario is 119%. This is the increase based on a forecast in constant 2024 dollars. If we assume that inflation increases at an annual rate of 3%, the overall rate increase is 128%. When we perform the same analysis for the natural gas scenario, the constant-dollar rate increases by 11%, whereas the rate adjusted for 3% annual inflation increases by 14.5%.
The impact on residents’ annual electricity bill will be driven by the amount of electricity consumed multiplied by the annual electricity price. Electricity consumption has not changed significantly in recent years, except for weather-related fluctuations in demand. However, the push to electrify home heating and transportation will increase power consumption and substantially shift the seasonal peak demand period from summer to winter.
In the winter, solar is of little value. Offshore wind output increases because winter winds are stronger and more consistent. However, cold weather significantly boosts demand and often leads to twice-daily peak demand periods – when people arise and prepare for the day and when they are home in the evening for dinner and relaxation. Additionally, electric vehicles are mostly charged at night because people prefer cheaper residential electricity to the higher costs of commercial charging stations.
Notice how the hourly electricity demand pattern in 2050 will differ from the 2023 historical pattern in 2023, based on ISO-NE’s hourly data.
New England is heading for winter peaks under existing energy policies.
Using this demand pattern in 2050, the researchers created a chart showing the supply of wind and solar power, based on 2019 historical data, for peak electricity-demand days. December 14-18. Examining the data over multiple days allows the model to account for battery power use during brief periods when wind and solar are not contributing. However, once the batteries are depleted (typically after four hours), they must be recharged, which adds further demand on the grid.
Blackouts are on the horizon in the renewable energy scenario.
As the chart shows, there is a six-hour blackout on the night of December 17. This is a critical consideration because statistics show that more people die from cold temperatures than from hot ones. Winter nights are the coldest part of the day. Extended wind droughts, which occur during winter when solar energy contributes little to the grid and none at night, escalate the risk of blackouts and create significant societal harm.
Another consideration for power costs in 2050 is the level of the grid’s peak demand, because generation assets must be built, and the power must be transmitted from where it is generated to where it is consumed. This means more transmission and distribution capacity will be needed. The report shows what happens when the peak demand in the renewables scenario (57 GW) is compared with the natural gas peak (51 GW). Transmission costs will be significantly higher in the renewable scenario, with its higher demand peak in 2050 compared to the natural gas scenario.
More remote renewable energy requires more infrastructure at a cost.
The final major cost consideration in the renewables scenario is curtailment. As mentioned previously, when Mother Nature is rewarding, there is often too much wind and solar power generated than the grid needs. Unless the power can be stored in batteries or pumped-storage hydroelectric systems, its generation needs to be curtailed. Developers expect to be paid for every bit of energy they produce. Ratepayers foot the bill.
Curtailment increases with the share of renewables in the energy mix.
A chart from the report shows the percentage increase in power output curtailment plotted against the percentage of renewable capacity. We have seen curtailment projections for offshore wind projects in the documents for their approval by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). That is significant given the expected role offshore wind is projected to play in the renewables scenario.
Additionally, ISO-NE prepared a report in 2024 titled “Economic Planning for the Clean Energy Transition: Illuminating the Economic Challenges of Tomorrow’s Grid.” They presented three scenarios for 34,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind based on low, medium, and high turbine density. That amount of offshore wind power is nearly half what is called for in the renewable energy scenario.
New England waters will be industrialized with wind turbines.
The low-density scenario requires 7.15 million acres of offshore waters, while the medium-density scenario needs 4.2 million acres, and the high-density scenario 1.75 million acres. To put that into perspective, the 704 MW Revolution Wind Farm occupies an 83,798-acre lease. Based on that size, installing 34,000 MW of offshore wind turbines would require more than 48 wind farms, occupying nearly 4.2 million acres of New England waters.
The renewables scenario would require 66,000 MW of offshore wind, nearly twice the amount of offshore wind acreage modeled by ISO-NE, or almost 8.5 million acres. If the turbines have a rating of 15 MW, ISO-NE would need 2,267 turbines to reach the nameplate capacity of 34,000 MW. If we are talking about nearly twice the ISO-NE model, then 4,400 wind turbines would need to be installed off the New England coast. This would industrialize the waters of New England and likely destroy commercial and recreational fishing operations, besides creating visual impacts that would impact tourist activity.
Since we have a summer home in Rhode Island, we pay attention to how the state’s and region’s energy policies will impact our electricity bills. Based on 2024 Energy Information Administration data on residential power use in Rhode Island, each customer, on average, uses 6,800 kilowatt-hours per year. The report calculates the annual residential electricity price for the years 2025 to 2050. Based on the 2025 price of $0.2963 per kilowatt-hour, the annual power bill would be $2,044. At a similar yearly power consumption in 2050 at the estimated price of $0.6502, the bill increases to $4,421, more than double the 2025 bill.
The Rhode Island power bill calculation assumes that the customer’s power consumption remains stable over the 25-year forecast period. However, as we learned earlier, the electrify everything mandate will double power consumption. Therefore, a customer who follows the mandate could face a doubling of the estimated 2050 bill or an annual electricity cost of more than $8,800. That would be an average monthly electricity bill of about $750.
Politicians in New England who have passed clean energy mandate legislation need to educate themselves about the cost of these policies. While the report is the latest analysis of the costly renewable energy scenario, a growing body of research demonstrates many problems with this approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The region’s clean energy mandate policies will lead to costly electricity and significant financial harm to families and businesses in New England. The unrest among the populace over their current electricity bills will only grow.