Eversource Drops Three Connecticut Solar Contracts

Eversource walked away from three state-selected solar contracts on March 27, abandoning 54 megawatts of capacity that Connecticut’s clean energy planners were counting on to meet the state’s long-term decarbonization goals.

The utility’s Deputy General Counsel, Duncan R. MacKay, sent a letter that day to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and to legislative leaders, stating flatly that Eversource won’t sign the power-purchase agreements. His reasoning: the contracts are priced above market and don’t deliver meaningful new generation supply.

“The prospect of committing another $238 million of customer money over the next 20 years is concerning to Eversource and is a clear divergence from a much-needed affordability lens,” MacKay wrote. The contracts, he added, “do not add value to customers in terms of materially increasing available generation supply and offering a pathway to lower generation costs.”

That’s a sharp rejection. And the timing couldn’t be worse for Connecticut’s clean energy program.

A Rebuke From State Officials

DEEP spokesman Will Healey didn’t hold back. He called Eversource’s decision “surprising,” pointing out that the solar projects had ranked highest in the agency’s competitive bid evaluation and that Eversource had participated throughout that process without raising a single objection. That’s a significant detail. If the pricing was so troubling, you’d expect the utility to have said something during the review.

Healey also landed a pointed counterargument: Eversource hasn’t objected to signing contracts tied to the same projects for Massachusetts customers. It’s hard to square a cost argument that applies in Connecticut but not across the state line. “DEEP is in contact with Eversource to further understand the nature of its concerns and is exploring options to ensure these projects and other current and future procurements can continue to deliver cost effective energy resources to Connecticut ratepayers,” Healey told reporters. An Eversource spokesperson declined to say anything beyond what MacKay’s letter contained.

Timing Matters

The three contracts came out of a multistate renewable energy bidding process established in 2013 to accelerate regional clean energy development. DEEP announced the winners in December, and the timeline wasn’t arbitrary. The agency moved fast specifically to lock in federal solar investment tax credits before the Trump administration finishes dismantling them. With those credits potentially gone, the economics of future solar procurement get considerably harder.

Eversource’s exit puts that whole strategy at risk. The projects are now in limbo, and the financial window that made them attractive is closing fast in Washington. According to CT Mirror, the move caught state officials off guard given how far the procurement had already progressed.

For Connecticut ratepayers, this isn’t abstract. The state has committed to sourcing 100 percent of its electricity from zero-carbon supplies by 2040 under the Connecticut Clean Air Act framework. That’s a legally binding target, not an aspiration. Losing 54 megawatts of contracted solar capacity in 2026, with federal incentives shrinking and grid demand rising, creates a real gap.

The demand side of this equation also matters. Regional electricity use is climbing, driven partly by data centers and electrification of heating and transportation. Healey made that point explicitly in his pushback against Eversource, noting the utility’s decision runs counter to the direction of grid demand. More load, less new supply. That math doesn’t work for anyone paying an electric bill.

There’s also the question of what Eversource’s objection actually signals. The affordability argument would carry more weight if the utility weren’t simultaneously willing to sign similar contracts for Massachusetts customers. Either these projects are too expensive or they aren’t. The company can’t have it both ways across state lines without raising legitimate questions about its reasoning.

DEEP says it’s still working through options. What those options look like in a federal policy environment that’s actively hostile to renewable energy isn’t clear. But the agency doesn’t have a lot of runway. The window that made December’s announcement possible is already narrowing.

MacKay’s letter may read like a principled cost-control position. What it actually does is leave Connecticut’s 2040 clean energy commitments a little harder to keep.