A new report commissioned by seven conservative-leaning organizations and free-market think tanks paints Massachusetts’ and New England’s devotion to renewable energy as failed policy that will cost residents more than $815 billion, won’t meet electricity demand, and result in rolling blackouts. 

Massachusetts residents will pay the biggest share of the pie, $405 billion, if the region is to achieve its decarbonization goals, the report found. In Massachusetts, state law says net zero carbon emissions must be reached by 2050. 

The report, titled “The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies,” received pushback from various sources, including Gov. Maura T. Healey’s administration, which believes renewable energy will end a reliance on fossil fuels that harm the environment and will generate thousands of jobs.

The study, conducted by Always on Energy Research, was released on Tuesday during a virtual meeting attended by representatives from the groups that commissioned the study: Yankee Institute, Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, Fiscal Alliance Foundation, The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, Maine Policy Institute, Ethan Allan Institute and Americans for Prosperity Foundation. 

Steeped on conservatism

Always on Energy Research appears to be steeped in conservative policy that supports the fossil-fuel industry. 

According to its website, the organization is dedicated to ensuring every state has affordable, reliable energy needed for a robust economy. 

Amy Cooke, the organization’s president and board chair, was named by President-elect Donald Trump in 2016 to the transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Two of the organization’s founders, Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling, who are also authors of the report, wrote a Substack article in August that said their research had been used in several lawsuits that challenge environmental regulations.  

One lawsuit seeks to halt EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions at coal and natural gas plants in numerous states. Another lawsuit filed by the state of North Dakota cites their research in an effort to suspend standards from the Biden administration that the article said could force the closure of 4,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity.

According to the Energy and Policy Institute, which describes itself as a “pro-clean energy watchdog,” Orr and Rolling contributed to a report that the conservative John Locke Foundation used to challenge an executive order by North Carolina’s Democratic governor that supported offshore wind development. At the time, Orr and Rolling worked for the conservative Center of the American Experiment. 

Heavy costs to meet customer demand

The report found that New England currently produces 4 gigawatts of renewable energy and needs 96 to meet 2050 decarbonization goals. It also said the region will need 225 gigawatts to satisfy customer demand in 2050. To get there, the report said, more than 6,600 offshore and 5,600 onshore wind turbines, plus at least 129 million solar panels, must be built at a cost of $815 billion. 

To pay the bill, the report said, New England’s residential customers will pay an extra $99 yearly. Commercial and industrial customers will see an average yearly increase of $489 and $5,280, respectively.

There’s also a reliability issue, the study said. Wind and solar power generation is unpredictable, so New England will likely experience rolling blackouts during the winter months when the demand for heat reaches its peak.

The region’s adherence to renewable energy policies brings additional costs, the report said. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) proposals mean companies are looking at hydrogen gas in pipelines that could hike the price of natural gas by $1,588 yearly for every New England customer by 2050. In addition, it said, ESG policies adopted by public pension plans are diverting monies away from higher-yielding investments. 

“These polices, when fully explored, can’t be rationalized,” said the study, stating that workers and businesses will leave the state in droves if they become reality.  

Report has opposition

Gov. Maura T. Healey’s administration disagrees. In a prepared statement, it said it’s committed to all customers having access to clean, affordable and reliable electricity.

“Producing our own home-grown clean electricity will reduce our reliance on foreign fossil fuels and provide energy independence,” said the statement from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. “It will also generate thousands of good-paying jobs, drive economic growth, and ensure that everyone benefits from a fair and equitable energy future. With the clean energy transition, our homes will be healthier, our air cleaner, and our economy stronger.”

The nonprofit Acadia Center, which is focused on cutting carbon emissions, said the report presents a “deeply flawed analysis” and a “distorted view of the region’s future energy outlook.” 

Job growth from renewable projects that end the region’s reliance on spending billions to import fossil fuels, along with the steep cost of rebuilding areas after natural disasters due to climate change, are reasons cited by the Acadia Center to support a renewable-energy path.

The transition will be expensive, said Acadia, but “using intentionally misleading information to fearmonger on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and advance its interests does not serve the best interests of New England ratepayers.”    

Study’s backers warn of ‘dystopian future’

The seven groups that commissioned the Always on Energy Research report said Tuesday that voters in the recent presidential election made clear their feeling that renewable energy is not the way to go. They also said renewable-energy spending amounts to a regressive tax on those that government policies are supposed to benefit. Plus, they ask, why spend billions when New England is only responsible for 0.4% of carbon emissions worldwide?

Drew Cline, president of the Josiah Center Bartlett Center for Public Policy in New Hampshire, said the Granite State has bucked the renewable policy trend in New England by sticking with natural gas, thereby cutting electricity demand in the region, putting less stress on the grid and lowering electricity demand during peak periods.

“Unrealistic government mandates are not the right path forward. This study shows that in clear detail,” said Cline.

Policies recommended in the report include ending emissions reduction goals if affordable, reliable energy is compromised; lifting moratoriums on nuclear power plants; and that any state that mandates contracts for certain types of energy should detail the costs for the public, including expected increases and decreases on monthly bills.

When a reporter asked the seven groups why lowering consumer demand, instead of an emphasis on the downsides of investing in renewable energy, was not mentioned in the report as a way to curb energy costs, Ross Connolly with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation said that’s a “dystopian future.”

“Energy demand must increase if we’re going to increase the well-being for society at-large,” said Connolly. “Asking society to cutback on energy consumption is a dystopian future.”

Contact Henry Schwan at henry.schwan@telegram.com. Follow him on X: @henrytelegram.