By Steve Thurston 

The brutal three-week cold snap from January 18 to February 8 —known as Winter Storm Fern—hit New England hard. Electricity prices skyrocketed due to limited natural gas supplies, as pipelines couldn’t deliver enough from abundant Marcellus Shale sources. 

Gas was prioritized for home heating, forcing power plants to burn expensive oil instead and to import Liquified Natural Gas from foreign countries in container ships at 3-5 times the normal, unconstrained cost of Marcellus Shale gas.

Wholesale electricity prices (called LMPs) spiked dramatically, with peaks over $660/MWh on January 27 and averages far higher than normal during the event. For comparison, the most recently reported average annual wholesale cost of ISO-NE electricity was $40/MWh for 2024. 

The total wholesale cost for power in the region during Fern reached roughly $3.1–3.3 billion—much more than usual winter levels.

What if better pipelines had allowed steady, cheap Marcellus gas to flow in? Here’s what could have happened:

• Gas prices would have stayed much lower (around $8–$10 per million BTU instead of surging to $50–$66+), cutting the cost of running efficient gas plants by about $120–$135 per MWh.
• With total electricity use around 9–10 million MWh over the 22 days, wholesale savings alone could have been $1.1–$1.2 billion (or higher based on actual spikes).
• This would have lowered utility buying costs, potentially saving the region’s 6.5 million electric customers an average of $170–$185 on their bills if passed through fully.

Extra savings would have come from avoiding heavy oil use. Oil powered up to 35–44% of electricity on the worst days, costing over $250/MWh. Switching to gas could have saved about $290 million more across roughly 1.5 million MWh of oil generation.

On the environmental side, natural gas emits less CO₂ than oil (about 0.41 vs. 0.68 tons per MWh). Replacing oil with gas would have avoided around 405,000 tons of CO₂.  While I am not an advocate for claims of “social cost of carbon” damages, the EPA’s social cost of carbon (~$190–$215 per metric ton for near-term emissions), this delivers ~$80–$90 million in societal climate benefits that Vermont’s renewables advocates should applaud. 

Total potential benefits: Roughly $1.5–$1.6 billion, combining wholesale relief, oil avoidance, and emissions savings.

These numbers align with studies on the revived Constitution Pipeline (a 125-mile line from Pennsylvania to New York hubs feeding New England). It could cost $1–$2 billion (or less for smaller upgrades) and deliver up to $11.6 billion in energy savings over 15 years by preventing future spikes. Remarkably, savings from just this one cold snap could cover a big chunk—or even all—of a major pipeline’s cost.

Critics may point to permitting delays, environmental concerns, and alternatives like renewables or energy efficiency,  but this winter showed the high price of limited pipelines – billions in extra costs, dirtier backup power, and grid stress.

Looking ahead, New England’s long-term energy security and reliability need a solid backbone of dependable sources like natural gas (with better pipeline access) and nuclear power. Natural gas already supplies 45–50% of power normally and ramps up fast for peaks; nuclear power (like Millstone and Seabrook) provides steady, carbon-free output with on-site fuel that shines in bad weather.  

We are fortunate that Governor Scott has spoken in favor of nuclear power recently.  Together with hydro, natural gas and nuclear power ensure the grid can handle growing demand from electrification and data centers, integrate wind/solar safely, and avoid blackouts during extremes—keeping lights on, bills reasonable, and the system resilient for years to come.