Study: Renewable energy could up New England rates 20%

By Brent Addleman | The Center Square

A new study shows power demand in New England has experienced an 11.4% drop from 2008 to 2020 but could cost ratepayers billions of dollars to incorporate zero-emissions electricity.

The Fiscal Alliance Foundation said the new study illustrates how New England residents pay 20% more for each kilowatt hour of electricity delivered to homes across the region.

Lisa Linowes, who authored the report, had previously testified before Congress regarding federal tax policy relative to renewable energy, the impacts of offshore wind development, and said rate increases would continue.

Wikimedia Commons/Paul Anderson

The study illustrates, according to a release, that the region’s climate policies for zero-emission energy will require “substantially more ratepayer support” and “more land and ocean development” for wind, solar, and transmission infrastructure.

“Ratepayers in New England are repeatedly told emission-free electricity will lower costs and benefit the environment,” Linowes said in a statement. “In fact, under the current energy policies, New Englanders will continue to see rate increases that will fund the industrialization of the region’s rich natural areas both on- and offshore.”

Paul D. Craney, the spokesperson for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, said that Massachusetts would not be economically competitive as long as energy prices remain high.

“The focus must go back to the price for the ratepayer instead of picking winners and losers in the energy market,” Craney said in a statement. “For the average ratepayer, they feel like their taxes are going up while they are earning less. We are seeing energy consumption decrease, while prices are increasing along with layer after layer of arbitrary mandates for more renewables.”

Craney said the annual cost of renewable energy policies in Massachusetts has quadrupled over the past decade.

“Our region’s renewable energy mandates are some of the most complex and costly in the entire country,” he said in a statement. “We now have 26 separate programs across the six states, with nine in Massachusetts. As these separate programs continue to grow, so does the cost for ratepayers.”

According to the release, the report illustrates that the cost to ratepayers has risen with the expansion of renewable energy and climate policy requirements, suggesting alternative energies lowering and stabilizing rates have yet to be realized.

Of the 26 programs in New England, according to the study, each one addresses different technologies and varying annual compliance requirements and associated costs. Companies selling electricity across the region must satisfy the mandates in each state where their commodity is sold.

While Massachusetts’ cost for renewable energy over the past decade has quadrupled from $250 million in 2011 to $1 billion just three years ago, in addition, fees to ratepayers in the Bay State in 2020 saw an average of $1 billion billed for Renewable Portfolio Standards policies. The study illustrates that between 2 cents and 3 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity was consumed, costing ratepayers $191 each year.

Meanwhile, the study shows that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has cost ratepayers $3.8 billion in higher prices from 2008 to 2020, according to a release. Of that, 53% of funds were raised for energy efficiency programs.

The study illustrates, according to a release, that the region’s climate policies for zero-emission energy will require “substantially more ratepayer support” and “more land and ocean development” for wind, solar, and transmission infrastructure.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Paul Anderson

6 thoughts on “Study: Renewable energy could up New England rates 20%

  1. I think that 20% increase of c/kWh, is a gross UNDERESTIMATE, because it does not include the cost of the government subsidies, that are charged to already-struggling household ratepayers, taxpayers and to government debt.

    The OMB estimate of the “Inflation Reduction Act” is $391 billion, but the Goldman Sachs estimate is $1.2 TRILLION, 3 times as much.

    The turnkey cost of:

    1) building wind and solar systems, and
    2) large-scale battery systems, and
    3) grid extension/reinforcement, and
    4) having a large fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the ups and downs of wind and solar,

    has increased by at least 30% during 2.5 years, 2021, 2022, and half 2023, due to:

    high interest rates,
    high inflation rates,
    increased energy prices,
    increased labor cost,
    increased costs due to supply chain interruptions, and
    increased cost due to scarcity of certain materials, including copper, lithium, etc., and various rare earth metals

    The UK and Germany have become economic basket cases
    All of the EU, the so-called Garden of Eden, has near-zero, real-growth GDP

    • Remember, the UK, Germany, etc., significantly expanded their 1) wind and solar systems, and 2) grid extension/reinforcement, and 3) battery systems, and 4) counteracting power plant fleet during low interest and low inflation conditions.

      However, HOUSEHOLD electric prices more than doubled from about 15 eurocent/kWh in 2000, to well over 35 eurocent/kWh in 2023, including all fees, taxes and surcharges. See URL


      • According to the New York Times transcript of the press conference, Biden said:

        “The United States accounts, as all of you know, for less than 15 percent of CO2 emissions.
        The rest of the world accounts for 85 percent.
        That’s why I kept my commitment to rejoin the Paris Accord, because if we do everything perfectly, it’s not going to matter.”

        WOW, Biden admitting, if the US does everything perfectly, it will not make one bit of difference regarding Global Warming!!.

        However, Vermont’s RE elites want to make Vermonters suffer anyway, by increasing the costs of electricity, gasoline, fuel oil, propane, etc., because that would lead to the highest amounts of federal and state subsidies for EAN members and Vermont National Resource Council members

        Here is the latest update of the Vermont Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Forecast for 1990 – 2017.

        Vermont CO2 electrical sector emissions were (in metric ton):

        1.00 million in 2015, see Note
        0.81 million in 2016, artificial
        0.49 million in 2017, artificial
        0.18 million in 2018, artificial
        0.13 million in 2019, artificial
        0.08 million in 2022, artificial
        0.04 million in 2027, artificial, projected

        The electrical sector reduction was accomplished by:

        1) Changing the method of calculating CO2
        2) Not counting the CO2 of wood burning
        3) Renewable energy mandates

        In Vermont, as in other states, utilities are mandated to purchase low-CO2 renewables, such as wind, solar, and hydro power, either from in-state, or out-of-state owners of such power plants.

        The PAPER power purchase agreements, PPAs, reduce utility CO2 emissions ON PAPER.

        GMP purchases in 2016 were:

        High-CO2 RE from Ryegate at about 10.03 c/kWh.
        Low-CO2 nuclear power from Seabrook at about 3.24 c/kWh.
        Low-CO2 hydro power from Hydro Quebec at about 5.549 c/kWh
        NE grid electricity (323 g CO2/kWh) at about 5.689 c/kWh
        Low-CO2 Net-metered solar at about 21.813 c/kWh
        Low-CO2 Standard Offer solar at about 21.793 c/kWh
        Purchased electricity mix average price is about 6.036 c/kWh

        Utilities Riding the Subsidy Gravy Train

        Vermont utilities buy about 1.4 million MWh/y of hydro power, at 5.549 c/kWh, under a 20-y contract, from Hydro Quebec.

        The HQ electricity is not variable, not intermittent and does not cause midday solar bulges

        GMP, a Canadian company, refuses to buy more hydro electricity from HQ, because that electricity would just be a “pass-through”, on which GMP would make minimal profit.

        HQ has plenty of electricity and is eager to sell it. This approach requires no subsidies!!

        Instead, GMP wants to invest in heavily subsidized, utility-scale solar/battery system combos, and spread them all over Vermont, as part of its very expensive “micro-grid” strategy.

        The combos are much more profitable for GMP, than buying more electricity from HQ.

        However, combos would lead to significantly increasing electricity costs for Vermonters.

        The cash value of the subsidies, at least 45% of the turnkey cost of the GMP investments, is recovered by GMP in the first 5 years, i.e., skimming the fat off the milk for GMP, and increased electricity costs for ratepayers and taxpayers for decades.

        Solar/battery combos come with subsidies:

        1) Grants from various sources, such as the VT Clean Energy Development Fund
        2) 26% federal investment tax credits, plus state FITs. Tax credits reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes GMP pays on profits
        3) 100% depreciation over 5 years; the normal for utilities is 20 to 25 years. Write-offs reduce GMP taxable income
        4) Deductions of interest on borrowed money. Interest deductions reduce GMP taxable income. See URL

    • All of the EU had -0.1% real-GDP growth for the past two quarters, which means all of the EU is officially in a recession

  2. Not to worry the UNaffordable heat standard will save you money so you can afford the more expensive and unreliable blow/glow energy. The leftist commies have your best interest at heart /s….BUILD NUKES NOW

  3. Keep working, you’ll need more money for liberal foolishness……………
    Wake up people, they just don’t care, remember you vote these fools in !!

Comments are closed.