With all due respect, NE is a mess in terms of its energy policy. There is negligible onshore wind power development compared to many other regions of the country The wind resource is not that great in new England, where there is a resource there is pretty good penetration. Unfortunately the resource is remote from the demand so new transmission lines are required and no one wants to write the check to pay for them. Maine just spent over a billion dollars to upgrade their grid to improve wind access and the ratepayers are paying for it, not the wind developers , and the offshore situation is an even bigger mess(offshore isn't a mess, the technology is available but no one wants to subsidize it, Cape Wind didn't die because of the kennedy clan, it died as no utility was willing to pay the long term 30 cent per KW rate for what is still an intermittent resource, The European developer proposing a large wind farm off the Maine coast wanted a 20 year guarantee for well over market rates for the intermittent power they produced. which has set back the entire industry nationwide for prob a decade. In a period when most of the country is enjoying the benefits of cheap nat gas, NE is running periodic shortages related to transmission, that bring up the average cost/risk considerably. New England did not build out the gas infrastructure as fracking is fairly new technology that changed a lot of paradigms, there actually was a big gas boom in new England about 15 years ago and almost every plant built went bankrupt because the price of gas was too high. Folks forget for quite few years the US banned any new gas powered generation as the US was running out gas. New Englands big issue is that due to air regs they got off coal too quickly and didn't replace it fast enough. It also was one of the earlier adopters of nuke and as a consequence several base load plants have closed in the regions as they were some of the oldest I don't follow RE policy up there that closely, but it seems that your regulators and policy makers have been willing to sign very unfavorable (i.e. costly) incentives and rate contracts for RE, having a mindset that 'it has to cost', which is out of the 2005 playbook. In other parts of the country the incentives are much less generous, and yet somehow people manage to make money hand over fist at wind and solar. When I look through the DSIRE website I don't see where New England as a whole has net higher incentives than any other region. A lot of it comes down to geography, northern climates need more energy than a southern climate and a lot of the resource doesn't line up with seasonal demand. People make a lot of money hand over fist by sucking up incentives, whenever there is even a hint that the PTC is going to expire every wind developer starts beating the drums of doom. Already there is discussion of a massive failure of the solar industry due to the removal of the 30% federal tax credit. If you look at RE penetration by state its directly related to the incentives and policies in place in each state. Many of the large solar installers have turned into creative tax shelters basically monetizing long term tax credits with artificially low interest rates, incidentally are all in serious long term debt and most are set up to fail before the debts come due.
Edit: Also, the whole 'Adding a MW of peaker for every MW of RE' is a canard. The fossil grid needs a lot of peakers because of pre-existing demand surges with time of day, hot weather, etc. It is clear that up until a certain penetration (at least 5% RE power) little to no additional peakers are required. AFAIK, no NE state is anywhere near that level of RE penetration, I dont know where you get your info but most New England states have renewable portfolio standards, generally in excess of 20%, so I doubt that any peakers have been added There have been several large blocks of peakers built in New England in the last few years, I am aware 0f at least 400 MW of peakers in CT in a two year block. Even running randomly, RE often cuts into the peaker plant operation, Peakers rarely run except when the grid is constrained they are mostly there for peaks and unlike RE they are dispatchable and that is the major source of the cost savings by RE on customer bills. This is an interesting contention I would like to see evidence of cost saving for RE except for folks like myself who install solar and effectively get subsidized by the other customers who don't have RE For producers that make most of their profit on peakers, it looks like a cost, and they try to block RE whenever possible. I guess you are not familiar with the capacity market, as RE penetration increases, someone has to supply the capacity to back up the crappy dispatchability of wind and the cheapest dollar per kw to build to meet the capacity market is distillate fired peakers, NRG loves wind turbines as every wind farm built means a better capacity market and more incentive to build more peakers