Introduction

In conjunction with six other public policy organizations, Maine Policy Institute has commissioned a report discussing the major costs associated with the rollout of restrictive renewable energy policies throughout New England. While some New Englanders previously thought that the social benefit of carbon reduction outweighed the economic costs, the report soundly rejects and disproves this idea. 

New England states broadly support renewable energy through various state-level policies. However, the new report “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies” shows that the numerous costs of renewable energy policies have been underestimated and that Maine and other states in the region should abandon the prioritization of decarbonization over ensuring electricity affordability and reliability for all consumers.

1. Increased electricity bills for New England residents

    There are many costs associated with renewable energy policies, and while the social benefit of reduced CO2 is admirable, the evidence shows that the financial costs outweigh the benefits. What’s worse is that the impact of these costs is not evenly distributed, as those barely scraping by are most hurt by even minor increases in energy costs. Moreover, the available wealth needed to capitalize on loopholes in emissions policies, such as net energy billing or subsidies for EV purchases, means these policies disproportionately benefit the wealthy and hurt the impoverished.

    2. Increased cost of doing business in New England

    Even greater than the cost to residential customers is the cost to businesses. While the average New England residential customer’s electricity costs will increase by roughly $2,500 by 2050, commercial customers will face cost increases of over $12,500 during the same timeframe and industrial customers will suffer the most, with an increase of almost $140,000. Meanwhile, national energy costs will decrease over this period, putting New England people and businesses at a severe disadvantage.

    3. New England’s lost competitive edge over other regions

    The third cost is intrinsically connected to the second. Increased energy costs will not only cause businesses to flee to more affordable states, they will also prevent new and innovative companies from opening shop in New England considering smaller, less established businesses are those most likely to be impacted by these additional costs.

    4. The storage costs of non-dispatachable energies

    The fourth cost of continuing these policies will be creating and maintaining increased energy storage. While traditional fossil fuels and nuclear energy are “dispatchable,” meaning they can reduce or increase their energy production in response to demand, most renewable energy sources are not. A New England which emphasizes renewables must adapt because the sun or wind can’t be “turned up” when people need more energy. This adaptation will require not only building storage to provide energy when demand outpaces energy supply, but also building more energy generation capacity to generate that stored energy in the first place.

    5. Increased risks of blackouts

    Cost number five is the increasing prevalence of rolling blackouts our renewable energy policies will cause. This will primarily be caused by the increased capacity needed to account for the non-dispatchability of renewable energy sources. Additionally, even with enough added capacity and energy storage, a predominantly renewable-based energy grid may still face blackouts due to demand spikes outpacing stored energy totals. 

    6. Wasted land

    Lastly, another significant cost of these policies is the increased land and resources required to create such an inefficient and infrastructure-demanding energy grid. According to the analysis, the ISO-NE grid will need 225 GW of renewable energy production to meet peak demand in the years ahead. The most responsible buildout of this capacity includes 6,600 more offshore wind turbines, 5,600 onshore wind turbines and more than 129 million solar panels. The panels alone would cover more than 200 square miles of land.

    There are alternative ways to reduce emissions, from supporting nuclear to improving energy efficiency to increased carbon recapture investments. None of these options would be as demanding, land intensive, inefficient, or costly as New England’s current renewable-focused direction.

    Conclusion

    Hopefully, Maine can move away from its current renewable energy goals in the immediate future and prioritize affordability and reliability for ratepayers. The powerful and negative public response to the Sierra Club’s Advanced Clean Cars petition has already shown widespread public opposition to this policy direction. Abolishing net energy billing and moving away from offshore wind, the most expensive form of renewable energy, would be good first steps in improving our state’s energy policy.