Andrew Cline: New Englanders would save billions by replacing mandated renewable energy with nuclear, natural gas

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 new study released recently by a coalition of New England think tanks finds.

Alternatives to New England’s Affordability Crisis 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 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%.

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.

Electricity prices are a top contributor to New England’s high cost of living. In building enough energy generation to meet the region’s needs in 2050, the report shows that energy prices would increase by 64.8% in the nuclear scenario, 26.5% in the nuclear/natural gas scenario, and just 13% in the natural gas scenario. These increases are a fraction of the renewable scenario, which would increase prices by 126.4%.

The 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 at jbartlett.org/wp-content/uploads/1.13.2026-Alternatives-to-New-Englands-Energy-Affordability-Crisis.pdf

•••

Andrew Cline is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, New Hampshire’s free-market think tank. The center’s mission is to develop and advance free-market policies that promote opportunity and prosperity for all Granite Staters.