BOSTON — While Beacon Hill lectures families about “climate goals,” a new regional energy report is basically screaming the quiet part out loud: New England’s net-zero plan is a wallet-melter — and ordinary people are the ones being forced to pay for it.

A coalition of New England free-market think tanks says New Englanders could save $400 billion to $700+ billion by replacing state-mandated wind and solar projects with nuclear power and natural gas — options the group says would be cheaper, more reliable in winter, and still cut emissions.

The report, Alternatives to New England’s Affordability Crisis, estimates what it would take to meet the region’s energy needs through 2050 using different strategies. The authors argue that policies aimed at decarbonizing heating and transportation will dramatically increase electricity demand — and that the biggest surge will hit during the coldest winter months, when the grid is already under stress.

“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,” said Isaac Orr, vice president of research for Always On Energy Research. He said the analysis found that meeting winter peak demand with nuclear or natural gas would save New England families and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decades.

The study lays out three alternative pathways and their estimated costs and emissions impacts:

• 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 emissions by 50%.

The coalition says each of these options comes with another benefit: reliability. Wind and solar cannot run continuously, the authors argue, which means leaning too heavily on them increases the risk of power shortages and blackouts — especially during extended winter cold snaps when demand spikes and generation has to be there on command.

“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,” the coalition said.

In a previous 2024 analysis, the coalition claimed that sticking with current renewable energy mandates tied to a NetZero by 2050 climate target would cost New Englanders $815 billion through 2050. If that figure holds, the report argues the price gap is enormous: $399.5 billion more than the nuclear pathway and $708 billion more than the natural gas pathway.

“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,” said Paul Diego Craney, executive director of the Fiscal Alliance Foundation. He said state-mandated wind and solar are driving up costs while increasing the risk of blackouts, and argued that replacing these mandates with nuclear and natural gas would save hundreds of billions, strengthen grid reliability, and deliver emissions reductions without sacrificing affordability or economic competitiveness.

“This new energy analysis confirms what Maine ratepayers are already feeling every month when they open their utility bills,” said Harris Van Pate, a policy analyst at the Maine Policy Institute. He said 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 alternatives exist.

“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 of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity.

“Energy policy decisions made today will shape electricity costs and reliability for decades,” said Jack DeOliveira, director of policy at the Yankee Institute. He said the analysis gives policymakers a foundation to weigh trade-offs between affordability, emissions reductions, and system reliability as New England’s energy demand grows.

“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,” said Ross Connolly of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. He argued the region is on an unsustainable path driven by overregulation and mandates.

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 coalition said the study draws on data from ISO-New England, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the Weldon Cooper Center, and includes modeling of generation capacity, cost-of-service, and peak demand scenarios through 2050.

The group is pitching the report as a framework for policymakers, regulators, and the public to assess the cost and reliability consequences of competing energy strategies — but the message to ratepayers is simple: the bills are already brutal, winter demand is rising, and this coalition says there’s a far cheaper path than the one lawmakers are currently forcing the region to fund.