Fossil fuels continue to dominate New England's energy grid, despite green push, study says

Tim Dunn, Boston Herald on Aug 21, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOSTON — A new study shows that despite the push across most of New England to transition to green energy, the region’s energy grid is still dependent on fossil fuel-based generation.

The study, titled “New England’s Energy Transition: Colliding with Reality,” was authored by energy policy analyst Lisa Linowes and released by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, and concluded that New England is essentially as dependent on fossil fuels today as it was in 2000.

The report found that in 2000, fossil fuels supplied 54.6% of electricity generated in New England, with that number rising to 55.4% in 2025.

This after renewable sources offshore wind, battery storage and solar power provided less than 10% of power to New England’s energy grid during the January cold-snap that saw temperatures plummet into the single-digits. The region heavily depended on natural gas and heating oil at the time.

“Now that does not mean that our electricity system hasn’t changed, it has changed dramatically. Coal has virtually been eliminated. Oil has been treated now mainly as a backup in periods when we have very high demand. Two nuclear power plants have closed and wind and solar have grown substantially, but the transition did not eliminate fossil dependence,” Linowes told reporters.

At the same time, recent energy policies have aimed to move the region away from energy resources like natural gas, while oil and coal have already been largely displaced, she says.

“It concentrated that dependence overwhelmingly on natural gas. So, when we discuss policies intended to move New England away from natural gas, we need to understand the starting point. We’re not talking about eliminating a marginal resource. We are talking about the resource on which the region now depends most heavily,” Linowes added.

Two nuclear plants have closed as a result of the forced regional transition as the weather-dependent wind and solar technology have substantially grown.

In January 2016, natural gas represented 63% of proposed new capacity in ISO New England’s interconnection queue, but by January 2026, the proposed capacity changed to 46% battery storage, 44% wind and 10% solar, leaving no room for any fossil generation.

The study also highlights policy changes that it expects to increase the costs of operation New England’s current fossil generation, specifically, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Established in 2005 and launched in 2008, RGGI became the first-ever mandatory, market-based cap-and-invest program in the United States aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The study finds that RGGI allowance prices jumped from a $13.49 average in 2023 to a whopping $35 in June of this year. This as carbon-pricing programs increased average wholesale energy prices by approximately $9 per megawatt-hour in 2025, adding roughly $1.1 billion to regional energy costs.

“The reversal in ISO-NE’s interconnection queue is also an investment signal. A new combined-cycle plant must operate for decades to recover its construction cost. Few investors will finance a 30-year asset when its future operating hours and carbon costs are increasingly uncertain,” the study said. “RGGI is therefore doing more than raising the price of gas generation. It is reinforcing the broader policy signal against investment in a resource New England still relies on before a dependable replacement system has been shown to be feasible at a cost consumers can afford.”

The agreement currently includes all six New England states along with Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Virginia.

“These gas power plants are going to find it to become unaffordable to operate. And this is an arbitrary decision we are making in our region,” said Fiscal Alliance Foundation Executive Director Paul Craney.

“It’s not because of the free market. It’s not because the gas companies want to make more profit. This is because policy makers demanded this program to try to transition us off and we’re about to hit a wall pretty soon and we don’t have a plan for the future,” he said.

The study recommends reopening the option for new high-efficiency natural gas generation and supporting fuel infrastructure, and preserving dependable resources until an equivalent replacement has been found. It also recommends states reassess policies that increase the operating cost of existing generation, review behind-the-meter solar cost allocation, and require all-in cost and reliability comparisons for competing resource portfolios.

“New England’s energy transition should be guided by what actually works, not by arbitrary climate mandates and timelines,” added Craney. “Before policymakers make dependable energy more expensive or force it off the grid, they should be able to show ratepayers what will replace it, how reliable that replacement will be, and what the total cost will be.”

-------------