IN THE DEBATE over whether the state should go big or small in this week’s offshore wind procurement, one argument has largely been missing from the go-big side – saving money.

Those who favor doing a relatively small procurement say interest rates, inflation, and supply chain bottlenecks have driven up the price of offshore wind electricity and it would make sense to go small now and wait until the economy settles down before procuring more. The counter-argument has been that addressing climate change can’t be put off until later and going big now might be wise if Donald Trump, an opponent of offshore wind, gets elected president.

Now the go-big forces are marshaling pricing and reliability arguments as well. One argument from the Union of Concerned Scientists is that offshore wind would be particularly helpful in reducing reliance on electricity produced using fossil fuels during the winter months.

Susan Muller, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the electricity output of offshore wind farms is expected to be the highest during the winter months, the same period when the electric grid is most vulnerable to blackouts caused by lack of natural gas for both heating and electricity production.

By bringing offshore wind on to the grid, Muller says, the region’s grid operator will have much more flexibility in addressing demand and won’t need to spend as much money on what some call grid insurance – payments to generators to keep fuel supplies on hand and to keep operating even if they are not the most efficient.

The Environmental League of Massachusetts has also given the Healey administration another piece of research indicating that purchasing all of the 3,600 megawatts allowed under this procurement would have minimal impact on monthly electricity bills.

The research indicates the average monthly bill over the life of a 20-year contract would go down a penny at an electricity price of $140 a megawatt hour and go up $1.13 at $160 a megawatt hour and $2.27 at $180 a megawatt hour. Those bill impacts are in 2023 dollars, according to the study.

All of those electricity prices are well above the rates Massachusetts has contracted for in the past. The 20-year average nominal cost of the power from Vineyard Wind 1, whose construction is on hold because of a turbine blade defect, is expected to be $89 per megawatt hour. The prices on the state’s three other contracts that were subsequently terminated because of economic uncertainty were in the $77 range.

The Environmental League obtained the research paper on pricing from Avangrid, one of the companies bidding in the procurement. Avangrid is a member of the Environmental League’s corporate council, which the Environmental League’s website describes as a “working alliance between the private sector and environmental advocates.”

The Environmental League hired its own consultant, Industrial Economics of Cambridge, to scrub the numbers produced by Avangrid’s consultant, Daymark Energy Advisors of Worcester. The Industrial Economics analysis said Daymark’s “estimates of ratepayer impacts are reasonable for the illustrative power purchase agreement price scenarios examined by Daymark.”

Industrial Economics highlighted a number of variables that go into Daymark’s estimate that could be challenged. For example, the Daymark analysis doesn’t assume the state will reduce its reliance on fossil fuels as fast as policymakers hope. The Daymark analysis assumes renewables will account for 27 percent of electricity generation starting in 2032, rising to 34 percent in 2051. State policymakers are forecasting renewable electricity generation will grow from 55 percent to 86 percent over that time period, according to the Industrial Economics analysis.

The Daymark analysis also assumes consumers will use an average of 500 kilowatts a month over the life of the offshore wind contracts. Most utilities say consumers are now using an average of 600 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and policymakers expect that number to rise in the future as more and more homeowners convert their cars and home heating systems to electricity. Industrial Economics said higher electricity usage could lead to higher bill impacts, but it nonetheless concluded the effect on ratepayers would not be huge.

“In our view, these limitations are unlikely to affect the order of magnitude of the ratepayer impacts associated with the proposed offshore wind projects,” Industrial Economics said in its analysis.

In a July 22 letter, Elizabeth Henry and Kelt Wilska of the Environmental League urged officials from the Healey administration to study the two analyses and draw their own conclusions. But the president and offshore wind director of the Environmental League said the studies have brought them a “sense of comfort” in pushing for a big procurement.

“We can be ambitious on offshore wind – unlocking all the climate and economic development opportunities it provides – with a minor to negligible impact on average household bills, which will ultimately be offset by nonprice economic and environmental benefits alongside downward pressure on wholesale energy prices,” the letter said.