Connecticut and the broader New England region have long been at the forefront of the United States’ clean energy movement, steadily closing coal and oil plants since the 1990s to improve air quality and address climate change. But as of October 2025, the state’s transition to a renewable future faces unprecedented hurdles, largely due to sweeping policy changes from the Trump administration that have rippled through every corner of the energy sector.
On October 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy, under Secretary Chris Wright, released a report that downplayed the severity of climate change. According to CleanTechnica, Secretary Wright also pledged to rewrite prior climate science policy reports, signaling a dramatic shift in the federal government’s approach to climate issues. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy took the extraordinary step of banning a host of climate-related terms—including “climate change,” “green,” “decarbonization,” and “energy transition”—from official communications, a move that Meghan Pazik of Public Citizen’s Climate Program called “a direct, intentional attack on evidence-based science and independent thought which are essential tools for holding governments accountable.”
This climate of suppression has had tangible impacts on the ground in Connecticut. The Trump administration eliminated future development of onshore and offshore wind projects on federal property, which effectively halted all offshore wind projects—including one critical installation for Connecticut. According to The Connecticut Mirror, stop-work orders were issued for two major offshore wind projects in the Northeast, including Connecticut’s Revolution Wind. While construction eventually resumed after about a month, the delays cost millions and left the future of additional projects in serious doubt.
“Singling out and disfavoring renewable resources while many other resources continue to enjoy favorable tax treatment, including fossil resources—this is not leveling the playing field. This is definitely putting a finger on the scale to disadvantage clean renewable energy resources,” said Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), in an interview with The Connecticut Mirror. The administration’s new law ending federal tax credits for wind, solar, and energy efficiency projects—a set of incentives that had been widely popular and effective—has further complicated matters. Dykes warned that this change would likely drive up power prices and force the state to scramble for alternatives.
Connecticut responded by issuing an expedited request for proposals for solar and onshore wind, with proposals due October 10, 2025. But as Dykes admitted, “We can’t fill all the gaps.” Energy efficiency initiatives, especially those serving lower income and environmental justice communities, stand to be hit the hardest by the disappearance of federal support.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has doubled down on fossil fuels, installing more than 100 fossil fuel insiders, renewable energy opponents, corporate lobbyists, and far-right think tank alumni across nine agencies during its second term, according to CleanTechnica. The administration has not only supported keeping aging coal plants operational—handing out over $600 million in subsidies—but has also ramped up oil and gas drilling, citing a supposed “energy emergency” even as the U.S. remains the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. This approach, critics argue, undermines both the environment and the economy. Right-wing politicians and lobbyists continue to block companies from addressing climate risk, further stymieing progress.
“Democrats are pretty silent about what matters most to the GOP: the protection of fossil fuels,” noted Rakesh Bhandari of UC Berkeley. The inefficiency of the current fossil energy system is staggering—almost two-thirds of all primary energy is wasted in production, transportation, and use, amounting to $4.6 trillion per year globally, nearly 5% of global GDP.
Despite federal roadblocks, the adoption of renewables continues to show promise. In the summer of 2025, solar panels provided up to 22% of New England’s power during heat waves—nearly double the daily average—helping stabilize the grid and save customers tens of millions of dollars. Ted Kelly of the Environmental Defense Fund highlighted, “Solar and storage are the cheapest, fastest ways to bring much-needed affordable power to communities, as electricity demand and costs surge.” Battery storage technology is making solar and wind more practical, and clean energy is now the least costly form of new generation to build.
Yet, the Trump administration’s two-tiered approach to energy permitting—expediting polluting fossil fuel projects while freezing, delaying, or canceling renewables—has left the region in what Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association, described as a “muddled middle period.” Investment has stalled, and uncertainty reigns. “In terms of new supply sources, I am not seeing meaningful, large-scale new developments happening anytime soon in the region,” Dolan told The Connecticut Mirror. If demand rises significantly, the region may have no choice but to keep older, dirtier power sources running longer, at considerable cost.
Connecticut’s DEEP is now revising its Integrated Resource Plan, a 10-year outlook that must account for not only federal policy shifts but also tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and environmental reversals. The state is urging residents and businesses to take advantage of remaining tax credits before they vanish at year’s end. Other states, like Massachusetts, are streamlining permitting and regulatory processes to help offset the loss of federal incentives.
Offshore wind, once heralded as the region’s big prize, has been dealt a severe blow. At the end of the Biden administration, 11 projects had been approved, but most have since been halted or rescinded by Trump-era policies. Elizabeth Klein, former director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, called the administration’s national security concerns over wind projects “specious,” adding, “This is arbitrary and capricious decision-making. There’s no evidence that there’s something new or unusual or that had not been considered.”
The region’s grid operator, ISO-New England, issued a blunt warning after the Revolution Wind project was paused: “Delaying the project will increase risks to reliability. Unpredictable risks and threats to resources… will stifle future investments, increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid’s reliability and the region’s economy now and in the future.”
Solar energy’s future is also uncertain. While the 30% federal tax credit is set to expire, solar installation costs have dropped dramatically, and the technology remains the fastest to deploy. Connecticut is exploring ways to boost solar adoption, such as swapping out old panels for newer, more efficient ones and using retired power sites for grid-scale storage. DEEP Commissioner Dykes, dubbed the “godfather of solar” by colleagues, remains adamant: “Solar is not only an industry here in the state, it is part of the solution for us. To abandon it and not offer any incentives, or to backtrack to the point where the incentives don’t stimulate actual implementation—shame on us.”
As Connecticut and its neighbors navigate this period of uncertainty, the stakes could hardly be higher. “Investors need to know that after a multiyear permitting process, when you have a project that’s 80% constructed, that you can bring it online, sell your power and get your money back,” Dykes emphasized. Without that assurance, the investment climate for all types of energy resources will suffer—at precisely the moment when a rapid, reliable transition is needed most.
Amid policy whiplash and political headwinds, New England’s clean energy future hangs in the balance, with the next steps likely to determine not just the region’s power supply, but its economic and environmental well-being for decades to come.
