But a new study shows it doesn’t have to be this way!

by Rob Roper

A coalition of New England think tanks released a new study this week pithily (and accurately) titled, Alternatives to New England’s Energy Suicide, questioning the viability and cost of the renewable energy mandates adopted by most states in the region, New Hampshire being the sane exception. The gist of the report’s conclusion is New England’s current electrification and decarbonization plans focused on renewable energy sources could cost up to $815 billion – yes, that’s nearly a trillion dollars — more than better alternatives by mid-decade.

For individual households, this means we’re looking at more than doubling our annual electric bills from (on average and in constant 2024 dollars) $2100 to $4610. That’s just the direct cost. There is also the inflationary cost that happens when businesses pass on to consumers the higher energy costs they incur producing and delivering goods and services.

The good news is, with intelligent, honest elected leadership we don’t have to head down this path to unaffordable, unreliable, economically uncompetitive electricity. The bad news currently is, well… that whole bit about needing intelligent, honest elected leadership. But, optimistically assuming a positive change in this current drag factor come November 2026, what are some alternatives to “energy suicide”?

Short answer: more nuclear and more natural gas.

According to the report, policies emphasizing offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, and battery storage, which are Vermont’s current energy policies, could increase regional electricity system costs by approximately $815 billion through 2050 compared to the current grid. Vermont’s share in this is estimated to be $1.4 billion by 2030, $10.1 billion by 2040, and $32.9 billion by 2050. Fun stuff!

However, scenarios that shift to an expanding use natural gas and nuclear power can achieve comparable emissions reductions for a substantially lower cost while providing the added benefit of a more reliable, baseload product. The report’s “happy medium” alternative utilizing a natural gas/nuclear reliant mix would save New England ratepayers around $620 billion over the next twenty-five years compared to the current “renewable” energy reliant policy.

While there are obstacles to the expansion of any type of electricity generation (pipeline capacity, citing restrictions, etcetera), expand we must do due to increased and increasing demand for power driven in large part, but not entirely, by AI. So, maybe, just throwing this out there, we should start working on removing some of those obstacles and working to reduce current and future cost drivers now.

And to that end here in Vermont, Republican legislators at the request of the Scott Administration have put in a bill, H.601 – An act relating to the Clean Energy Standard. In a nutshell, this would immediately eliminate the mandate that electric utilities buy “unnecessary” Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) when purchasing clean nuclear power for their portfolios. This would save Vermont ratepayers (relying on Grok AI for some research here) about $20 million a year off our electric bills. YES! Pass the bill if only for this provision.

But beyond that common sense reform, H.601 would also, “remove needless statutory barriers to considering nuclear energy generation,” to quote sponsor Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney). Or, in other words, let’s start thinking about bringing nuclear power generation back to Vermont. Yes again. See that New England report!

As the other bill sponsor, Michael Southworth (R-Walden) noted,

Sounds like more common sense. Since the closure of Vermont Yankee our energy costs have gone up, as have our greenhouse gas emissions. Kicking nuclear power out of our state was and has proven to be a colossally stupid policy decisoin. But, of course, the nitwits in charge of the committee of jurisdiction for H.610, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure, are more interested in paying off special interest groups such as VPIRG and their big dollar donors in the renewable energy businesses. In the split screen video of the committee hearing, you can see Rep. Laura Sibilia (I-Dover) and VPIRG lobbyist Ben Walsh texting and nodding at each other, I suspect (any lip readers out there?) getting the story straight on how to quash the bill. Kinda funny in a gross sort of way!

Sibilia, who is the ranking member on the committee, commented,

Yes, we should always be “thoughtful in thinking.” And as I thoughtfully think about this comment, I find it odd that someone who says she is in favor of nuclear power, is interested in transitioning to more electric use for home heating an transportation, recognizes the increased demand for nuclear electricity competing for that priority, as well as the fact that the scramble for nuclear energy is in response to the world’s top drivers of economic growth industries (trends where Vermont probably wouldn’t do well to be left behind), and witnessed close hand the economic devastation of closing Vermont’s nuclear power plant would conclude we should “move slowly” here. And, not just slowly. More slowly than a bill that just “allows us to consider” a power source that in a best case scenario could be brought on line within an 8 to 10 year planning horizon? How much more slowly can you get? Stopped. That’s how much slower. And I’m guessing that her (and the chair’s) true objective.

I really do wonder what was in those Ben Walsh texts? “Suck it up, Representative, and just swallow the Energy Suicide pill!” Or maybe they were just making plans for dinner.