FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New England Should Pursue Nuclear — But Be Realistic About Affordability
Energy advocates support expanding nuclear power while urging a realistic discussion of costs, financing, and immediate regulatory relief.
New England— As New England’s governors prepare for today’s regional nuclear summit, energy advocates and free market organizations from across the region welcome renewed attention to nuclear power, while calling on New England governors to push regulatory changes that will lower energy costs sooner.
While advocates support pursuing small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced nuclear technologies for long-term power generation, they emphasize that new nuclear buildouts are years away and will not solve New England’s immediate affordability crisis.
New England states can lower energy prices more quickly by reducing costly regulations.
“It makes sense to support nuclear energy, and although it comes with a price, our study from earlier this year shows that New Englanders would still save between $400 – $700 billion by replacing planned wind and solar with a combination of nuclear and natural gas,” said Paul Diego Craney, Executive Director of the Fiscal Alliance Foundation. “If the governors are serious about nuclear, they will need to explain their investment model to make these projects financeable and address replacing costly and intermittent solar and wind mandates rather than adding to them.”
The coalition warns policymakers against forcing ratepayers to pay twice—first for subsidies, transmission, and storage supporting intermittent renewables, and again for baseload generation like nuclear and natural gas to keep the grid stable.
State policies, including the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), renewable portfolio standards, and natural gas pipeline constraints, continue to drive regional energy prices higher. Carbon-pricing programs alone added over $1.1 billion to regional wholesale energy costs in 2025. Beginning in 2027, tighter RGGI limits threaten to prematurely push reliable natural gas generators off the grid years before new nuclear capacity comes online.
“New England should not make ratepayers pay twice, first for costly wind and solar mandates and the infrastructure needed to support them, and then again for the dependable generation needed to keep the lights on,” said Drew Cline, President of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy. “Nuclear and natural gas can provide a more affordable and reliable path while still delivering required emissions reductions. The governors should be willing to rethink the existing strategy rather than simply layering nuclear on top of it.”
“We should plan aggressively for nuclear, but states can act on affordability now,” said Clara Morrison, Executive Director of Right for Vermont Foundation. “The focus should be on affordable, reliable electricity. We should not impose unnecessary costs or use policy to drive dependable generating resources such as natural gas out of the market before realistic and affordable alternatives are available.”
“New England desperately needs a more rational energy strategy, and nuclear power should be a significant part of its future,” said Matthew Gagnon, CEO of the Maine Policy Institute. “That said, it will take time to develop that industry, and we can and should act now to take immediate steps to address high costs. We can do that by reducing costly mandates, expanding reliable generation, and putting affordability back at the center of energy policy.”
“Rhode Islanders already suffer from some of the highest electricity rates in all of America and our state’s Act On Climate laws and net-zero mandates will soon double prices for Ocean State families,” commented Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity. “Our recent reports clearly show that nuclear and natural gas generated power are the most reliable and affordable options.”
“It’s encouraging to hear governors talk about nuclear power. New England families and businesses need dependable power. But you can’t pay today’s electric bill with tomorrow’s reactor. Connecticut residents already face some of the nation’s highest rates. Governors need to reckon with what their policies cost, tell ratepayers the price of tighter RGGI rules, and return more auction proceeds directly to them through their electric bills,” said Carol Platt Liebau, President of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy.
“When Vermont Yankee closed, Vermont lost 72% of its in-state power and never replaced it. Today we depend on Canada and a regional grid run on natural gas, and Vermonters pay 33% more for electricity than the national average. That is a vulnerability. Batteries at the Yankee site will not fix it. They store power. They do not make it. Small modular nuclear power could give Vermont reliable, clean power made right here at home. New nuclear power options must be considered or Vermonters will be left to foot the bill,” said Elizabeth Brown, Vermont State Director for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation.
New England should move aggressively to make nuclear power part of the region’s long-term energy future, but governors should not wait years to address the high costs families and businesses are paying today. The region can pursue nuclear power while also reducing costly mandates, protecting reliable generation, and putting affordability and reliability back at the center of energy policy.
# # #
The New England Energy Coalition includes the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, Right for Vermont Foundation, Maine Policy Institute, Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, Yankee Institute for Public Policy, and the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy. Together, these organizations research and educate on energy affordability, reliability and economic competitiveness across New England.
