Well, Would You Look at That.... Who Would Have Thought....

H/T to P.S. 

The region’s governors acknowledge the limits of ‘renewable’ energy.

By Andrew Fowler April 9, 2026 4:49 pm ET

WSJ Opinion: Hits and Misses of the Week

A bipartisan coalition of all six New England governors has reached a 

conclusion that until recently would have been politically unthinkable: 

Renewable energy alone can’t deliver the affordable, reliable power the 

region needs.                  "Wait! What?? You don't say"_ Irish

In a March 31 joint statement, the governors called for a “diverse 

energy strategy,” identifying nuclear power as essential to meet growing 

demand and safeguard the region’s “collective energy future.” The shift 

reflects a broader trend: Energy policy is no longer only about 

emissions targets. It’s increasingly about cost and reliability.

Electricity prices in the region today are among the highest in the 

country. Natural gas last year accounted for 55% of generation in the 

region and nuclear for 25%. New England has invested heavily in 

renewable energy, particularly offshore wind and solar. Renewables last 

year accounted for 13% of total generation. By nature, they’re 

intermittent and risk prolonged blackouts.

Against this backdrop, nuclear energy is re-emerging as a practical 

solution. Nuclear power is consistent and is already a major source of 

clean energy in the U.S., preventing hundreds of millions of metric tons 

of emissions annually.

In New England, nuclear facilities such as Connecticut’s Millstone Power 

Station help maintain grid stability, powering roughly two million 

homes. Yet regulatory barriers have long limited the development of new 

nuclear capacity.

That is beginning to change. Public opinion is shifting, and 

policymakers increasingly recognize that meeting climate goals without 

reliable baseload power is unrealistic. A 2026 analysis from regional 

think tanks, including my own, estimates that meeting the region’s 

energy needs with nuclear power would cost roughly $415 billion, about 

half the cost of a renewable-heavy system, while reducing emissions by 

92% by 2050.

Other countries offer practical lessons. France generates about 70% of 

its electricity from nuclear power, maintaining low emissions while 

exporting energy to neighboring nations. By contrast, European systems 

that rely heavily on intermittent renewables have faced higher costs and 

reliability challenges.

The conclusion isn’t that we should abandon renewables—it’s that they 

can’t stand alone. Energy policy requires balance. Wind and solar can 

help reduce emissions, but without complementary investments in sources 

like nuclear, the region risks higher costs and greater instability.

As electricity demand rises, driven by data centers and advanced 

manufacturing, regions that can deliver reliable, affordable power will 

also have a competitive advantage. New England will fall behind if it 

can’t meet demand.

If affordability is a priority, policymakers must focus on scaling up 

energy sources that work. Nuclear energy represents an area of alignment 

across political lines. Policymakers can reduce barriers to nuclear 

development, encourage investment and build an energy system that is 

cleaner, more reliable and affordable.

A region’s energy policy will be judged by whether the lights stay on 

and whether people can afford the bill.