Report: New England electricity prices among the highest nationwide

From ClimateREALISM

Editor’s note: It is no coincidence that new reports are showing that New England, and indeed all states involved with the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, rank among the states with highest electricity costs. Climate Realism has pointed out many times that renewables are not cheaper than traditional resources, and states that have a large penetration of renewables suffer from higher energy costs, as well as less grid stability.

Guest post by Christen Smith, from The Center Square

(The Center Square) – Residents in New England pay more for electricity than nearly all others, according to the Energy Affordability 2026 report from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC released its analysis on Wednesday. North Dakota and Louisiana were the leaders in the review of electricity prices and energy affordability indicators as measured for each of the 50 states. The higher the ranking, the less expensive the costs for consumers.

Vermont (41), Maine (42), New Hampshire (44), Massachusetts (46), Rhode Island (47) and Connecticut (48) ranked among the 10 most expensive. New York (43), Alaska (45), California (49) and Hawaii (50) rounded out the top 10.

The report uses the most recent information available for consistency; this means electricity price data is from 2024, and gasoline and diesel fuel prices are from 2025.

Additionally for context, the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on Feb. 28, and the prices of fuel have climbed since. Global energy infrastructure has been impacted by the action and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Connecticut

ALEC says, “Connecticut has one of the highest average electric rates in the nation. It produces the vast majority of its electricity through natural gas and nuclear, with small contributions from solar, hydroelectric, and other sources. Though it is a net exporter of electricity, increased supply has not helped reduce rates for consumers.”

ALEC suggests “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

The report says the average retail price in cents per kilowatt-hour is 24.37. Total retail sales in megawatt-hours are 27.5 million.

Natural gas (58%), nuclear (38%), hydroelectric (1%) and solar (1%) represent the top generation sources. The state has adopted a 37% renewable portfolio standard by 2030.

Maine

ALEC says, “Maine reflects some of the highest average retail electricity prices in the nation. As a net exporter of electricity, the state relies on a diverse generation mix led by natural gas, hydroelectric, and wind, with additional contributions from wood and solar.”

ALEC suggests “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

The report says the average retail price in cents per kilowatt-hour is 19.66. Total retail sales in megawatt-hours are 11.3 million.

Natural gas (44%), hydroelectric (19%), wind (17%), wood (11%) and solar (6%) represent the top generation sources. The state has adopted a 100% renewable portfolio standard by 2040.

Massachusetts

ALEC says, “Massachusetts maintains some of the highest retail electricity prices in the nation. Domestic generation capacity is dominated by natural gas, with smaller contributions from solar, hydroelectric, wind, and petroleum. The state is a net importer of electricity, relying on external contributions to meet demand.”

ALEC suggests “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

The report says the average retail price in cents per kilowatt-hour is 23.94. Total retail sales in megawatt-hours are 49.4 million.

Natural gas (77%), solar (10%), hydroelectric (4%), wind (1%) and petroleum (1%) represent the top generation sources. The state has adopted an 80% renewable portfolio standard by 2050.

New Hampshire

ALEC says, “New Hampshire faces some of the highest electricity costs in the nation despite serving as a net exporter of power. The state’s generation mix is anchored by nuclear energy, supported by natural gas, hydroelectric power, wood, and wind.”

The Granite State is “currently working on legislation that creates strong definitions for “affordable”, “reliable”, and “clean” energy sources, according to the report. ALEC says “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

The report says the average retail price in cents per kilowatt-hour is 20.61. Total retail sales in megawatt-hours are 10.9 million.

Nuclear (57%), natural gas (26%), hydroelectric (8%), wind (3%) and wood (3%) represent the top generation sources. The state has adopted a 25.2% renewable portfolio standard by 2025.

Rhode Island

ALEC says, “Rhode Island faces some of the highest electricity prices in the nation. As a net exporter with a highly concentrated generation mix, the state remains sensitive to regional market conditions and policy-driven cost structures.”

The report says, “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

The report says the average retail price in cents per kilowatt-hour is 24.15. Total retail sales in megawatt-hours are 7.4 million.

Natural gas (90%), solar (6%) and wind (2%) represent the top generation sources. The state has adopted a 100% renewable portfolio standard by 2033.

Vermont

ALEC says, “Vermont experiences relatively high electricity prices. Its in-state generation is primarily hydroelectric, supplemented by wind, wood, and solar, resulting in a resource mix heavily shaped by renewable mandates. Although Vermont exports electricity to other states, it imports electricity from Canada, leading to a complex role in the regional grid.”

The report says, “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

The report says the average retail price in cents per kilowatt-hour is 18.41. Total retail sales in megawatt-hours are 5.5 million.

Hydroelectric (57%), wind (16%), wood (15%) and solar (10%) represent the top generation sources. The state has adopted a 100% renewable portfolio standard by 2030.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
3.2 6 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
missoulamike
April 12, 2026 6:13 pm

I bet if they let someone build a pipeline to the gas plants from Pennsylvania it might be cheaper than bringing it in on ships from who knows where and regasifying it. Maybe one of those Ivy educated governators will figure it out some day, lol.

don k
Reply to  missoulamike
April 13, 2026 4:10 am

There ARE gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England. But they are rather long which makes natural gas rather more expensive in New England than elsewhere.

What the article fails to mention is that most of the states with high electricity costs have limited or no hydrocarbon resources, New England specifically has no fossil hydrocarbons whatsoever except some notoriously combustion resistant coal in Rhode Island, and a few unexploitable with current technology exposures of Utica Shale in Northwest Vermont. Energy has always been expensive up here.

BTW, the reason Burlington, VT has a 25MW wood burning power plant isn’t green mania. It’s because at the time it was built in 1977, burning scrap from lumbering operations was the cheapest available option.

Bill Kotcher
Reply to  don k
April 13, 2026 4:18 pm

Yes there are pipelines, but we need more and many that were to be built were cancelled.
Northeast Energy Direct (2016)
Access Northeast (2017)
Atlantic Coast Pipeline (2020)

Bryan A
Reply to  missoulamike
April 13, 2026 5:35 am

Their intent was never to make Gas Affordable. Their intent was to artificially raise the cost of gas to the point that it cost more than renewables to heat and cook with so people switched of their own accord.

April 12, 2026 6:38 pm

ALEC says, “Connecticut has one of the highest average electric rates in the nation. It produces the vast majority of its electricity through natural gas and nuclear, with small contributions from solar, hydroelectric, and other sources. Though it is a net exporter of electricity, increased supply has not helped reduce rates for consumers.”

ALEC suggests “establishing clearer statutory priorities around affordability, reliability, and domestic production could help address cost pressures while strengthening long-term grid stability.”

I’m not quite following this. Connecticut (and some other New England states) is a “net exporter” of power and the two largest sources are from natural gas and nuclear power. It then says that the suggestion to reduce rates is “focus on affordability, reliability, and domestic production.

They’re already “net exporters”, so how much more domestic production do they need? Most of the states up there seem to get the bulk of power from natural gas, nuclear power, with petroleum picking up some slack. How much more dependable do you need it? How much more of both of these will make it less expensive?

It sounds like what they need, to cut to the chase, is less regulation and maybe lower taxes. Just say that.

Reply to  johnesm
April 13, 2026 3:04 am

I kinda doubt New England is exporting power out of New England. I think it’s mostly back and forth to other New England states- but that’s a guess. I don’t know where they’d export out of the region as the region only touches NY and Canada. It can be more dependable if they give up the green dream and allow new pipes to bring in all that glorious natural gas from PA and NY.

oeman50
Reply to  johnesm
April 13, 2026 5:03 am

The exports are due to the nuclear power plants, running at full load most of the time. So if the native load is light, then the rest can be exported. But if demand is high, then all of the nuclear power is consumed more or less locally.

Please note the prices are set by NEPOOL, a regional transmission organization.

starzmom
Reply to  oeman50
April 13, 2026 6:42 am

I don’t think they have much nuclear in New England. At this moment (iso-ne.com 4/13 9:38 am EDT), they report 10% nuclear and 9% net imports in their generation mix. My sense is that they may export to nearby grids and import from others as a transmission matter. They are currently exporting to NY on one side and importing from it on another side. They also import some from Canada.

starzmom
Reply to  starzmom
April 13, 2026 6:45 am

OK, something goofy cropped up in that post and I can’t get rid of it. Help, mods.

oeman50
Reply to  starzmom
April 14, 2026 4:15 am

There is currently about 2000 MW of nuclear power in Connecticut, all from the Millstone Power Station.

Petey Bird
Reply to  johnesm
April 13, 2026 7:48 am

Being a net exporter doesn’t mean much if the exports are during low demand periods when prices may be low or negative. A utility can be a net exporter and still have to import at high cost during high demand periods. The details matter.

Bill Kotcher
Reply to  johnesm
April 13, 2026 4:22 pm

Our local price is higher because we have to compete with our neighbors for our energy.
What we need is for our neighbors to produce electricity for their local markets instead of relying on us.
The only logical, effiecient, economical step forward is for local markets to produce electricity locally.

Nick Stokes
April 12, 2026 6:40 pm

“ALEC says, “Connecticut has one of the highest average electric rates in the nation. It produces the vast majority of its electricity through natural gas and nuclear, with small contributions from solar, hydroelectric, and other sources.”

Why is there no link to the ALEC report? As with Connecticut, the expensive states may like renewables, but they actually rely on gas, which forces up the cost.

What does ALEC say about Iowa, say:

Iowa ranks among the most affordable states in the nation when it comes to energy prices. As a net exporter of electricity, the state benefits from a generation mix dominated by wind, supported by coal and natural gas, which helps keep retail prices low.

Iowa was the first state in the nation to enact an RPS, mandating in 1983 that in-state generation capacity must include 105 MW of renewable energy. Heavy investment in wind power over the past three decades has helped the state meet its RPS goal. Iowa has not adopted an updated RPS since.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 12, 2026 8:26 pm

Pffft.
Iowa is uniquely situated to benefit from wind. Low population density, relatively flat, integration with multiple other states to which it exports power and a much steadier wind than most states. So for Iowa it works. Your quip about gas increasing prices is absurd. Not building the pipelines to bring cheap gas to their states drives up the price of gas which drives up the cost of electricity. Gas is also used in peaker plants that provide load following. Peaker plants operate at many times the cost of base load plants. So the variability of wind causes increased use of high cost peaker plants and your ilk then point to gas as the culprit. Wind is the culprit. Gas is the saviour.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 12, 2026 8:33 pm

drives up the price of gas which drives up the cost of electricity”

Yes, it does. Regardless of why gas is expensive, it is the cause. As to peakers etc, the fact is that, as ALEC says, renewables were maoking a small contribution. Peakers are dealing with peak demand, as they always have, not renewables fluctuations.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 12, 2026 8:52 pm

Regardless of why gas is expensive, it is the cause.

That may well be one of the dumbest things you’ve ever said on this site.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 13, 2026 3:08 am

“Regardless of why”

Don’t confuse Nick with the facts!

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 12, 2026 8:53 pm

So renewables are making a small contribution, so therefore they can’t be to blame, unless it actually costs more through subsidies etc. Fixed it for you. 😉

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 12, 2026 8:56 pm

Peakers are dealing with peak demand, as they always have, not renewables fluctuations.

No. Peakers step in when there is a gap between generation and demand that needs to be filled immediately. If unreliables drop off, it creates exactly that gap.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 12, 2026 9:16 pm

Says IEA, 2023 data. Connecticut electricity came 52.4% from natural gas, 43.4 from nuclear, and 3.8% from renewables, 0.4% from petroleum (peakers). There is no way that 3.8% is driving costs.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 12, 2026 11:37 pm

If that 3.8% renewables is not available at peak time, which mostly it won’t be… peakers are needed.

And there goes the price.

It doesn’t take much highly erratic “unreliables” to stuff up a system. !

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 12:45 am

Connecticut’s has set a legally binding commitment to achieve a 100% zero-carbon electric grid by January 1, 2040. Codification into Law: Governor Ned Lamont’s Executive Order No. 3 in 2019, this goal was codified into state law in April 2022 through Public Act 22-5 (Senate Bill 10)

A November 2020 report estimated it would cost roughly $5.5 billion to develop enough renewable energy sources to replace the output of the Millstone nuclear power plant, averaging over $300 million annually through 2040.

As you say there current production is 3.1% can you guess why there power bills are so high … NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

So here is the backdrop
https://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2026/03/20/green-dreams-11-billion-reality-connecticut-energy-bill-could-drive-up-electric-bills/

The bottom line:
Because once these costs are approved, they do not remain theoretical. 
They show up — month after month — on ratepayers’ bills. 

So wrong it’s another example of cheap renewable driving up power prices. Just because you use wholesale generation cost … the customers can’t.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Leon de Boer
April 13, 2026 3:24 am

Whatever may be promised for 2040, what determnes costs is what is being done now. And it is renewables 3.1%, but even that is about 70% wood. Solar is about 1%, and virtually no wind. They use gas mainly, and it costs. Now.

2hotel9
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 4:15 am

Yes, stuck on stupid idiots like you are making everything expensive. We get it, wittle nickee.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 4:52 am

‘Now.’

Ok, Nick. Right ‘now’ all energy providers in CT are required to purchase RECs (renewable energy credits) covering 38% of their output. Where do these RECs come from given that New England gets nowhere near 38% of its energy from renewable sources and how much does this add to customer bills? Also right ‘now’, all rooftop solar energy fed into the grid in CT receives the full blown utility rate, which includes transmission, distribution and ‘public benefit’ charges. Please tell me why this makes any sense and why it doesn’t significantly raise cost for other ratepayers on the grid?

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 7:37 am

Your statement is beyond stupid did you even read what is happening or did you just make rubbish up.

Lets spell it out for you in a way even a special needs can understand it.

To get to 100% renewables by 2040 you have to build the renewable projects NOW you can’t build 97% in the last 2039. Unless you get a grant or a fairy gives you free money they you have to add it to the cost of electricity.

They are a couple of years behind New York which is running into the same problem and this is the problem with legislating targets you have not costed. It is going to get a lot worse for Connecticut going forward.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 9:40 pm

This is because Solar Sucks and Wind Blows!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 3:08 am

Billions of dollars have been spent to get that 3.8% free sun and wind energy. All that $$$ must be counted.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 3:11 am

There is no way that 3.8% is driving costs.”

Malarky! The overall cost of the renewables has almost nothing to do with how much electricity they provide. Because of the intermittency of the driving power (wind and solar) the costs can be very high while the output is low.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 10:15 am

Peaker plants a) charge for just being available, b) cost 5X to 10X to produce versus baseload generation, and in extreme situations as much as 100X (Think Texas storm). The 3.8% is also quite misleading. What is the PEAK of the renewables? 3.8% is an average. At their peak output, wind and solar hit between 10% and 20% of the grid depending on time of day as total load varies also. So the peaker plants aren’t stepping in to deal with a 3.8% variability, they are stepping in to mitigate a 10% to 20% variability. So you have to have a peaker plant than can step in for that full 10 to 20 percent, you have to pay it to just be there, and when it does fire up, its at 5X to 10X the cost. So that 3.8% average gets blown up to periodic peaker plant time that costs as much as the rest of the grid combined.

starzmom
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 13, 2026 11:52 am

I actually keep track of that for New England. I do not think I have ever seen wind and solar contribute more than 10-15% of the total. They do lump landfill gas, wood waste and other waste in as renewable power, but all emit CO2 when burned, so you have to take that out to just look at wind and solar.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 9:38 pm

The solution for Connecticut is simple. Raze the state! Cover entirely with Solar Panels and Batteries! Run Transmission lines to Manhattan and electrify New York City including transportation, heating and cooking.

2hotel9
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 4:13 am

It is expensive because stuck on stupid idiots like you make it expensive.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 3:06 am

“they actually rely on gas, which forces up the cost”

Say what? American gas is pretty cheap. How does it force up the cost- compared to what? Compared to all that free wind and solar energy?

oeman50
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 13, 2026 5:12 am

The market sets the price based on the highest accepted offer, which is typically natural gas. Gas supply is constrained by pipeline capacity, since there are no local supplies. So in the winter, when gas is being used for both electricity and home heating, the price of gas can peak to the point where electricity from oil is less expensive!

Reply to  oeman50
April 13, 2026 7:02 am

Of course we need to make the distinction between natural gas and LNG, price wise. And yes, where the supply is limited, like in New England, the price will be higher than in states with abundant supply thanks to better governance.

2hotel9
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 13, 2026 4:12 am

Poor wittle nickee, so stuck on stupid.

April 12, 2026 6:51 pm

Anything North of NY state is getting their natural gas from imported LNG at international LNG prices. NY state will not allow a pipeline through to take advantage of cheap domestic gas and the Jones act makes it untenable to transship domestic LNG.

Reply to  Fraizer
April 13, 2026 3:11 am

NY doesn’t allow fracking its own shale gas. If it did, that would collapse energy prices.

Reply to  Fraizer
April 13, 2026 6:31 am

‘NY state will not allow a pipeline through to take advantage of cheap domestic gas…’

I presume none of the New England states have lodged a complaint about this, since if they really wanted access to cheaper gas from, say, PA, at least one of their more rational Attorneys Generals could easily lodge (and win) a Federal complaint that NY’s actions were equivalent to states along the Mississippi River building robber baron forts to impede interstate commerce.

But then, I’m incorrectly assuming that rationality exists anywhere at the state level in the progressive playground that is New England, where the concept of ‘states rights’ is only applicable in cases in which it is convenient to pursuing the Left’s agenda.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 13, 2026 7:05 am

New England wants nut zero so they’re happy that ff prices are high.

April 13, 2026 3:00 am

Wokeachusetts is now 2nd highest, after Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific. But, some of MA electricity is green so we’re helping to save the planet. 🙂

oeman50
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 13, 2026 5:15 am

And the temperature of the earth is calculated to reduce by 0.000001 C! (Made that up, but you get the point.)

Reply to  oeman50
April 13, 2026 7:12 am

Probably the correct number for little old Wokeachusetts- yet, they’ll insist the cult must continue. Seriously, there is just about zero discussion of net zero here. Everyone is whining about high energy costs- and the state politicians notice that- but they all can’t seem to grasp why energy costs are high. Our governor stopped 2 major pipelines when she was the state’s attorney general- but she doesn’t want to discuss that. Like other lunatic climate cultists, she thinks the solution is more wind and solar.

starzmom
Reply to  oeman50
April 13, 2026 3:12 pm

That looks pretty close, based on an EPA analysis about 15 years ago. And they went ahead with the expensive rules they proposed to reduce temperatures by that much.

observa
April 13, 2026 6:41 am

Currently in South Australia leading the States in wind and solar I’m paying 33.2c/kWhr peak rate in US currency and you can see why here-
“Not economically viable:” Global funds giant drops plans for solar farm, to build bigger battery instead

“Solar farms are not currently assessed as economically viable in South Australia,”

Well clearly that’s because resources have been grossly misallocated already and now electricity consumers have to pay even more to fix the fickles problem.

Speaking of the price of energy the climate changers down under are in a bit of a dilemma with fuel prices so like woke lefties everywhere talk up fickles and blame Trump-
‘The stupidity is contagious’: Bowen rambles on about renewables as fuel crisis deepens

Isn’t that what every climate changer really wanted with the price of oil and gas you ask? Well relax because Trump just put the last piece of the Iran puzzle on the board and took the high moral ground from the pearl clutchers everywhere-
(1175) The US Navy’s “Secret Weapon” Just Arrived In The Straights Of Hormuz – YouTube

Simply sublime when gangsters and tyrants want only unearned power and money. So Trump and Netanyahu neutralised the death cult’s power and now to cut off their standover bag money in a masterstroke. The regime can’t last without money to pay the flunkies and notice the 82nd Airbourne etc were just a smokescreen as no boots on the ground required. Oh and drill baby drill with Venezuelan oil can wait them all out with the noble high ground. Trump derangement syndromer heads are about to explode everywhere and it won’t take long for the price of oil to come down when they all acquiesce to ‘Trump Straits’. He’s something special this man and the team he can gather around him.

April 14, 2026 5:42 pm

I think the problem in NE is they have retired their coal plants and rely mainly on natural gas. Since they refuse to build natural gas infrastructure, they pay a lot for the gas. Policy choices. By pushing solar,e.g. Maine, and wind, they are raising their costs even more. Their voters are clueless. I know some.