CT plans its energy future amid shifting offshore wind, solar policy – CT Mirror

Report on Connecticut’s Energy Transition and Challenges to Sustainable Development Goals

Connecticut, in alignment with the New England region, has established a long-term energy strategy focused on transitioning to cleaner electricity sources. This strategy directly supports several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). The initiative, which began in the 1990s with the closure of polluting coal and oil plants, also addresses SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by improving air quality. However, recent federal policy shifts present significant obstacles to achieving these goals.

Federal Policy Impact on Renewable Energy Initiatives

A series of federal actions has created substantial challenges for Connecticut’s progress toward its sustainable energy targets. These policies actively hinder the development of renewable energy infrastructure, thereby impeding the state’s ability to meet its commitments under SDG 7 and SDG 13.

Key Federal Actions and Their Implications

• Offshore Wind Development: The administration has halted the development of offshore wind projects on federal property, issuing stop-work orders for two major installations, including the Revolution Wind project vital to Connecticut. This directly obstructs the expansion of clean energy capacity, a key target of SDG 7.
• Elimination of Tax Credits: A new law terminates federal tax credits for wind, solar, and energy efficiency projects. Katie Dykes, Commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), stated this policy is “disadvantaging clean renewable energy resources” and will likely increase power prices, undermining the affordability aspect of SDG 7.
• Support for Fossil Fuels: The administration has promoted policies to extend the operation of coal plants and increase oil and gas drilling, citing a national “energy emergency.” This approach runs counter to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in SDG 13.

Challenges to Offshore Wind: A Critical Component for SDG Achievement

Offshore wind power has been identified as a cornerstone of the Northeast’s strategy to generate large-scale, carbon-free electricity, contributing significantly to SDG 7, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) through job creation, and SDG 13.

Status of Offshore Wind Projects

1. Projects Under Construction: The Revolution Wind project, a joint effort between Connecticut and Rhode Island, is 80% complete but faced a federally mandated work stoppage. While work has resumed pending a legal challenge, the interruption has caused financial losses and created uncertainty.
2. Future Development Halted: The administration has ceased the designation of new lease areas and the issuance of new permits, effectively freezing future offshore wind development. This jeopardizes the long-term energy supply and climate goals for the entire region.
3. Grid Reliability Concerns: ISO-New England, the regional grid operator, issued a statement warning that delaying the Revolution Wind project “will increase risks to reliability” and “stifle future investments,” impacting the resilient infrastructure goals of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).

Furthermore, the development of offshore wind can have positive impacts on SDG 14 (Life Below Water), as a one-year assessment of the South Fork Wind project showed turbine foundations were functioning as artificial reefs that support marine life.

Impact on Solar Energy and State-Level Responses

The elimination of the 30% federal tax credit for solar installations presents a significant challenge to another key pillar of Connecticut’s clean energy strategy. This policy threatens to slow the adoption of solar power, which is crucial for distributed energy generation and achieving SDG 7.

State-Level Mitigation Strategies

• Expedited Proposals: DEEP has issued an expedited request for proposals for solar and onshore wind to encourage developers to utilize tax credits before they expire.
• Policy Reconsideration: Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, co-chair of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, has prioritized extending or enhancing state-level solar incentives to counteract the federal changes.
• Reducing Soft Costs: Officials are exploring streamlining permitting and regulatory processes to reduce the overall cost of solar projects, making them more financially viable without federal support.
• Innovative Financing: The state is considering financial tools, such as leveraging the Green Bank or establishing an infrastructure bank, to support clean energy projects, reflecting the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Regional Energy Planning and Potential Solutions

In light of federal headwinds, Connecticut’s DEEP is developing its new Integrated Resource Plan, a 10-year forecast of energy needs. The plan must now account for significant uncertainty regarding the availability of renewable energy sources.

Potential Scenarios and Solutions

1. Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Officials acknowledge the possibility of extending the life of older, dirtier power sources, including natural gas and oil units, to ensure grid reliability. This would represent a significant setback for SDG 3 and SDG 13.
2. Interstate and International Partnerships: The completion of the Northeast Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission line, bringing hydropower from Canada, is critical. Additionally, New England states are pursuing joint transmission development to access onshore wind from Maine, highlighting the importance of regional partnerships under SDG 17.
3. Investor Confidence: The unpredictable federal policy landscape increases the risk profile for energy projects. As Commissioner Dykes noted, if developers cannot be certain a project can be completed, it “affects the investment climate for all types of resources,” threatening the economic growth outlined in SDG 8.

The current federal stance places the U.S. out of step with global trends, where renewable energy generation recently surpassed coal for the first time. The challenges facing Connecticut underscore the critical need for robust state and regional policies to maintain momentum towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The entire article revolves around the transition to clean energy sources like wind and solar, and the challenges faced in ensuring this energy is affordable and accessible. It discusses the development of offshore wind projects, solar installations, and energy efficiency measures, directly aligning with the goal of increasing the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. The article explicitly mentions “cleaning up the electricity sources,” using “free renewable sources like sun and wind,” and the potential for increased “power prices” due to policy changes.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article frames the push for renewable energy as a response to climate change. It mentions that cleaning up energy sources is for “climate reasons” and discusses Connecticut’s “climate policies.” The conflict between state-level climate goals and federal policies that favor fossil fuels is a central theme, highlighting the challenges of integrating climate change measures into national policies, a key aspect of SDG 13.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article makes a direct link between energy sources and public health. It references the historical effort to close the “‘sooty six’ coal and oil plants” with the specific goal of “cleaning up the air for health… reasons.” This connects the shift away from fossil fuels to the reduction of air pollution, which is a major contributor to respiratory and other diseases.
4. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The development of large-scale renewable energy projects like offshore wind farms and new transmission lines (e.g., the Northeast Clean Energy Connect) represents a significant investment in building resilient and sustainable infrastructure. The article discusses the need for grid reliability, the challenges of project delays, and the importance of investment in new energy infrastructure, all of which are central to SDG 9. The potential need to “upgrade” older, dirtier power sources also relates to retrofitting infrastructure.
5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article touches on the economic implications of energy policy. The development of a new offshore wind industry creates jobs and stimulates economic activity. The article notes that federal actions are “looking to take apart an entire industry” and that investors are “staying on the sidelines,” indicating a direct impact on economic growth and employment in the clean energy sector. The discussion of project costs, investment climates, and risk premiums further connects the topic to economic considerations.
6. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The transition to clean energy sources has a direct impact on the environmental quality of cities and communities. By replacing “old and dirty coal plants” with clean alternatives like wind and solar, the state aims to reduce air pollution, which disproportionately affects urban and environmental justice communities. The article’s mention of energy efficiency being “especially useful to lower income and environmental justice communities” reinforces this connection.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The article is fundamentally about Connecticut’s and New England’s efforts to increase their share of renewable energy through offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, and hydropower. It details specific projects like Revolution Wind and the Northeast Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission line, and references the Biden administration’s goal of “30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030.” The entire conflict described in the article is a struggle over achieving this target.
2. Target 7.3: By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.
   • The article mentions the elimination of federal tax credits for “energy efficiency projects” and notes that energy efficiency is “especially useful to lower income and environmental justice communities.” It also describes how Massachusetts utilities are offering discount electric rates for heat pumps, a key energy efficiency technology. This shows that energy efficiency is a recognized component of the region’s energy strategy.
3. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • The article highlights a clear disconnect between state and federal policy. Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is creating a new “Integrated Resource Plan” to meet its “energy and climate policies.” This plan is a direct example of integrating climate measures into state-level planning. The article’s central conflict—the Trump administration’s actions undermining these state plans—is a case study in the challenges of implementing this target consistently across different levels of government.
4. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • The article’s reference to the effort to close the “‘sooty six’ coal and oil plants” for “health reasons” directly addresses this target. The potential need to keep “older, dirtier power sources operating for longer” due to policy setbacks represents a direct threat to the progress on this target by increasing air pollution.
5. Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.
   • The article discusses the development of critical energy infrastructure, such as the Revolution Wind offshore project, the NECEC transmission line from Canada, and a planned joint transmission development to bring wind power from northern Maine. The grid operator ISO-New England’s warning that delaying projects “will increase risks to reliability” underscores the importance of this target for maintaining a stable power grid.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 7.2 (Renewable energy share):
   • Quantitative Indicators: The article provides several specific data points that can be used as indicators. These include the national goal of “30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030,” the 1,200 megawatts of renewable hydropower from the NECEC transmission line, and the estimate that completed projects would add “about 13% of supply” to the grid. The data from the think tank Ember, showing that “renewables overtook coal power for the first time” globally in the first half of 2025, is a direct indicator of progress.
2. For Target 9.1 (Reliable infrastructure):
   • Qualitative and Quantitative Indicators: The ISO-New England’s statement that delaying the Revolution Wind project “will increase risks to reliability” serves as a critical qualitative indicator of infrastructure resilience. The region’s projected “11% increase” in electricity consumption over the next decade is a quantitative indicator of future stress on the grid, highlighting the need for new, reliable infrastructure. The number of new transmission projects proposed (six proposals from four developers) is another indicator of planned infrastructure development.
3. For Target 13.2 (Climate policy integration):
   • Qualitative Indicators: The existence of Connecticut’s “Integrated Resource Plan” is a direct indicator of policy integration at the state level. The article’s detailed account of the federal administration’s actions—such as issuing stop-work orders, eliminating tax credits, and subsidizing coal—serves as a negative indicator, showing a lack of integration and a reversal of climate-focused policies at the national level.
4. For Target 7.a (Promote investment in clean energy):
   • Qualitative Indicators: The article implies this indicator through its discussion of the investment climate. Statements like “I’m seeing a lot of investors watching but staying on the sidelines” and concerns that policy unpredictability “affects the investment climate for all types of resources” are clear, albeit qualitative, indicators of the flow of financial resources toward clean energy. The elimination of “federal tax credits for wind, solar and energy efficiency projects” is a direct negative indicator for this target.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ctmirror.org