For decades, some states have aggressively prioritized green energy mandates over reliability and affordability. Today, many are grappling with energy crises that are entirely self-inflicted.
While legislators blame the Trump administration, data centers, and energy producers for rising costs, the data show that blame falls squarely on state-level clean energy mandates.
Over the last five years, New England energy costs rose 29 percent. New York’s electricity rates are 70 percent higher than the national average. New England electricity rates (29.42 cents/kWh) are 59 percent higher compared to the national average (18.56 cents/kWh).
Under the Federal Power Act of 1935, Congress delegated to all states the authority to regulate electricity markets within their borders. Overwhelmingly higher costs today are directly attributable to green mandates, including but not limited to renewable portfolio standards, aggressive 100 percent clean energy targets, and participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Faced with this economic fallout, climate-aligned lawmakers are quietly retreating from the mandates they once championed to salvage their credibility on affordability.
State lawmakers promoted clean energy mandates to phase out coal, oil, and natural gas, with the state goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. Consumers may like the idea of decarbonization in general, but not when it hits them with historically high energy costs. As the economic consequences become harder to ignore, lawmakers across New England are beginning to reconsider some of the climate mandates they once championed.
Even if well-intended, climate policies inevitably drive up utility costs. According to a November 2025 Heatmap News report, analysts acknowledged that pursuing 100 percent clean energy goals with intermittent wind, solar, electric vehicles and battery storage is cost-prohibitive. Transitioning away from secure, abundant conventional power sources requires trillions in capital, replacing reliability with part-time energy sources that won’t lower costs nor help meet rising electricity demand.
It’s not just Americans who are recognizing the unworkability of net-zero policies. On the global stage, the net-zero climate movement is effectively dead. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently retired its extreme modeling scenario that predicted a 4.5-degree Celsius temperature spike by 2100.
In addition to retreating from climate mandates, states are increasingly turning toward the secure, abundant power sources they previously opposed: natural gas and nuclear energy. Until recently, supporting these two clean, reliable sources was taboo.
New England governors are starting to embrace natural gas pipelines and advanced nuclear energy technology. New natural gas pipelines in the Northeast were blocked and opposed for decades. New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are now warming up to pipeline projects. Despite being zero-emissions and green, nuclear power plants were shut down and discouraged from coming online. Yet, states such as New Jersey just lifted their decades-long moratoriums.
These two sources can bring reliability and relief to this expensive region. If New England were to continue down its costly decarbonization path, most of the region — save for New Hampshire — would see energy costs increase by $815 billion by 2050. Alternatively, building natural gas and nuclear energy projects would save New Englanders an estimated $700 billion in energy costs, according to a recent “Alternatives to New England’s Energy Affordability Crisis” study published by Always On Energy Research and a coalition of Northeastern think tanks.
Earlier this year, Independent Women released its New England Women’s Energy Survey poll of women. The survey found that 53 percent of women across the six New England states felt intentionally misled about climate policies delivering lower prices and reliability. It’s no wonder most Americans refuse to pay an extra dollar each month to subsidize these expensive mandates.
Let’s be clear: Affordability is incompatible with net-zero climate goals. Instead of doubling down on failure, states must adopt an energy abundance posture to deliver meaningful relief and help lower costs.
Gabriella Hoffman is an award-winning outdoor writer and a visiting fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum.
Reprinted with Permission from DC Journal – By Gabriella Hoffman
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.