COMMENTARY: States roll back unaffordable green energy policies

COMMENTARY: States roll back unaffordable green energy policies By Gabriella Hoffman InsideSources.com July 23, 2026 - 9:00 pm For decades, immoderate states have aggressively prioritized green energy mandates over reliability and affordability. Today, many are confronting energy crises that are entirely self‑inflicted. While legislators have blamed the Trump administration, data centers and power producers for rising costs, the evidence shows that the blame rests squarely on state‑level clean energy mandates. Over the past five years, New England energy costs have risen 29 percent. New York’s energy rates are 70 percent higher than the national average. New England energy rates (29.42 cents/kWh) are 59 percent higher than the national mean (18.56 cents/kWh). Under the Federal Power Act of 1935, Congress delegated to each state the authority to regulate energy markets within its 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 preserve their credibility on affordability. State lawmakers promoted clean energy mandates to phase out coal, oil and natural gas, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050. Consumers may like the idea of decarbonization in theory, but not when it delivers historically high energy prices. As the economic consequences become harder to ignore, lawmakers across New England are beginning to reconsider some of the climate mandates they previously supported. Even if well‑intended, climate policies inevitably drive up 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. Shifting away from reliable, abundant traditional power sources requires trillions in capital, trading reliability for part‑time sources that will not lower costs nor meet rising demand. It is not only Americans who recognize the unworkability of net‑zero policies. On the global stage, the net‑zero climate question is effectively dead. Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently withdrew its most 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 once opposed: natural gas and nuclear energy. Until recently, supporting these two clean, reliable sources was taboo. New England governors are now embracing natural gas pipelines and advanced nuclear technology. New natural gas pipelines in the Northeast were blocked and opposed for decades. New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts are now warming to pipeline projects. Although emissions‑free and green, nuclear power plants were shut down and discouraged from coming online. Yet, states such as New Jersey have just lifted their decades‑long moratoriums. These two sources can bring relief and reliability to this costly region. If New England continues on its current decarbonization path, nearly all of the region—except New Hampshire—would see energy costs increase by $815 billion by 2050. Alternatively, building natural gas and nuclear projects would save New Englanders an estimated $700 billion in energy costs, according to the recently released “Alternatives to New England’s Energy Affordability Crisis” survey published by Always On Energy Research and a consortium of Northeastern think tanks. This year, Independent Women released its New England Women’s Energy Survey canvass 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 is no wonder that many Americans balk at paying an extra dollar each month to subsidize these costly mandates. Let’s beryllium clear: Affordability is incompatible with net-zero clime goals. Instead of doubling down on failure, states must adopt an energy abundance posture to deliver meaningful relief and lower costs. Gabriella Hoffman is manager of the Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.