Offshore wind could save New England $400M each winter
Subscribe to our free newsletter today to keep up to date with the latest energy, oil and gas news.
In the winter of 2024–25, New England’s energy consumers paid the price of a system still too dependent on natural gas. The region saw wholesale natural gas prices double from the previous year, with ISO New England reporting an average of $3.40 per MMBtu, compared to $1.60 the year before. The ripple effect was swift: electricity costs surged, household bills rose, and emissions from fossil fuel combustion remained high.
Yet the story was not just about the cost of fuel, it was also about missed opportunity. A report from Daymark Energy Advisors found that if the region’s contracted offshore wind capacity of 3.5 GW had been operational during that winter, it could have prevented nearly $400 million in wholesale energy costs. This figure represents more than a modeling exercise. It translates into real-world impacts: smaller household bills, reduced price volatility and fewer emissions during a high-demand season.
According to the analysis, the average Eversource residential customer could have saved between $1.32 and $2.68 per month. While modest at the household level, these savings add up to a powerful argument for accelerating offshore wind deployment.
This article explores the economic, environmental and strategic dimensions of that missed opportunity, and what the region stands to gain if it reaches its 2030 goal of 9 GW of offshore wind.
Offshore wind could have prevented $400 million in winter energy costs
The Daymark study concluded that the 3.5 GW of contracted offshore wind could have generated 3.6 billion kWh of electricity during the winter of 2024–25. This additional generation would have displaced more expensive fossil fuel sources, which tend to dominate the grid during peak heating demand.
A key metric in this analysis is the Locational Marginal Price (LMP), which reflects the cost of delivering energy to specific locations on the grid. Offshore wind, with zero marginal cost, drives these prices down. The study estimated a reduction in LMPs of 11 percent, or roughly $12.60 per MWh. leading to $400 million in avoided costs across the region.
These savings would have benefited residential and commercial ratepayers alike. Eversource customers, for example, could have seen their bills fall without any additional grid infrastructure or behavioral changes.
More importantly, offshore wind offers a form of insurance. In a region where fuel prices are unpredictable and cold snaps are inevitable, adding clean, non-dispatchable capacity during peak seasons helps mitigate the worst cost spikes. Even a partial buildout of the contracted wind capacity would have helped shield ratepayers from the sharpest impacts.
The unseen environmental gains from offshore wind
Beyond cost savings, offshore wind presents a clear path toward emissions reductions. The Daymark report estimated that the additional generation could have displaced 34 million MMBtu of fossil fuel use, avoiding the release of 1.8 million tons of carbon dioxide. That’s the equivalent of removing 400,000 cars from the road for a year.
These are measurable benefits. They stem from energy that was already contracted but not yet online. With offshore wind, electricity is produced without combustion, which means no particulate emissions, no sulfur dioxide and no nitrogen oxides, all of which have public health implications in urban and low-income areas near fossil fuel infrastructure.
Offshore wind also performs better in winter compared to other renewables. While solar production dips during the darker months, offshore wind typically peaks during the colder season. That makes it especially valuable to New England, where both electric and thermal loads rise dramatically during winter.
And unlike fossil plants that require fuel shipments, wind turbines are powered by a free, local resource. That insulates them from market and logistics disruptions that have historically caused reliability concerns across ISO New England.
Why gas prices surged and how wind power helps stabilize them
New England’s natural gas prices are notoriously volatile. This past winter was no exception. ISO New England data showed the average price rose from $1.60 per MMBtu to $3.40, a 112 percent increase. These spikes are largely driven by competition between heating and power sectors during periods of peak demand.
With constrained pipeline capacity and no regional gas storage strategy, electric generators are often priced out during cold weather events. That forces grid operators to dispatch oil- and diesel-fired peakers, which are both expensive and polluting.
Offshore wind could help smooth these disruptions. As a source with no fuel cost and no fuel delivery requirements, it reduces the demand pressure on the gas system. The electricity it supplies lowers the price floor for all other generators, suppressing price spikes and improving system reliability.
This isn’t just theory. Grid simulations show that when zero-cost wind enters the supply stack, high-cost peakers are less likely to be called. The avoided emissions and costs are particularly pronounced during winter, when wind availability is highest and grid stress is at its peak.
What 9 GW of offshore wind could do by 2030
Looking ahead, the potential benefits multiply. A 2024 report by Synapse Energy Economics modeled the impact of 9 GW of offshore wind across New England. Their findings: annual savings of $630 million under expected fuel prices, and up to $1.3 billion under high-price scenarios.
Consumers would also benefit directly. Average monthly savings per household could rise to between $2.79 and $4.61. While these numbers may not grab headlines, they reflect a broader structural change: transitioning from a price-reactive energy system to a more balanced, forward-looking one.
On the climate side, emissions could fall by 14 million short tons annually. That represents more than 40 percent of current grid emissions, a substantial step toward meeting state and regional climate mandates.
Offshore wind at that scale would also keep more money in the regional economy. Rather than purchasing fuel from out-of-state or international sources, New England could retain up to $1.57 billion annually. That capital could instead support workforce development, infrastructure and long-term grid modernization.
The regional policy gap: Procurement, infrastructure and planning
For now, the region is not on pace to meet those goals. Although several New England states have made independent offshore wind commitments, coordination remains limited. Multistate procurements have begun, but the lack of shared transmission planning and consistent timelines has slowed progress.
Transmission remains one of the biggest challenges. Developers are often responsible for their own interconnection, leading to higher project costs and longer delays. Without a regional strategy, offshore wind remains vulnerable to the same grid constraints that plague fossil fuel development.
Permitting is another obstacle. Federal reviews are lengthy, and local opposition can further delay construction. While some reforms are underway, they have yet to materialize in shorter timelines or more predictable outcomes.
Meanwhile, construction costs have risen, and some developers have walked away from contracts signed under earlier financial assumptions. States have responded with rebids and updated procurement rules, but this churn risks undermining long-term policy credibility.
Despite these setbacks, momentum is building. Regional planning groups are submitting proposals for shared transmission infrastructure, and state energy offices are starting to align timelines and strategies. If these efforts hold, they could pave the way for the kind of integrated, scalable offshore wind system the region needs.