Eversource Drops Three Connecticut Solar Contracts

Eversource has pulled out of three state-selected solar contracts totaling 54 megawatts of capacity, dealing a significant setback to Connecticut’s clean energy procurement efforts at a moment when federal solar tax credits are already being rolled back.

The utility’s Deputy General Counsel, Duncan R. MacKay, sent a letter to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and legislative leaders on March 27 declaring that the company would not execute the power-purchase agreements. MacKay cited the contracts’ pricing as above market rates and argued they fail to deliver meaningful new generation supply to customers.

“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. He added that the contracts “do not add value to customers in terms of materially increasing available generation supply and offering a pathway to lower generation costs.”

A Rebuke From DEEP

State officials pushed back hard. Will Healey, a spokesman for DEEP, called Eversource’s decision “surprising” given increasing demand on the regional electric grid. He noted that the solar projects had scored highest in DEEP’s evaluation during the bid review process, and that Eversource had participated in that process without raising any objections.

Healey’s statement added a pointed observation: Eversource has not objected to signing contracts with Massachusetts for the same projects it now claims are unaffordable in Connecticut. “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 said.

An Eversource spokesperson declined to comment beyond MacKay’s letter.

Why the Timing Matters

The three contracts were selected through a [multistate renewable energy bidding process](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/new-england-clean-energy-rfp) established in 2013 to spur development of renewable projects across the region. DEEP announced the winners in December after an expedited process designed specifically to lock in federal solar investment tax credits before the Trump administration phases them out.

That context makes Eversource’s exit particularly disruptive. The accelerated timeline was a direct response to a narrowing federal policy window. By walking away now, the utility risks leaving those projects in limbo precisely when the financial conditions that made them viable are deteriorating in Washington.

For Connecticut ratepayers, the stakes are real. The state has committed to getting 100 percent of its electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2040 under the Connecticut Clean Air Act framework, and solar procurement is a central mechanism for getting there. Falling short on contracted capacity means the state either scrambles for replacement sources or falls further behind its own targets.

What This Means for Your Electric Bill

MacKay’s letter argued that executing the contracts would raise the public benefits charge, a line item that Connecticut ratepayers already see on their monthly bills. That charge funds clean energy programs, efficiency initiatives, and renewable subsidies across the state.

Healey disputed the framing, arguing that the selected projects would actually lower costs. The disagreement over whether these contracts save or cost ratepayers money sits at the heart of the standoff, and DEEP has offered no resolution yet.

For households in Fairfield County and the Hartford suburbs, where electric bills already run high and utility costs factor directly into housing cost calculations, the outcome matters. A prolonged dispute between Eversource and DEEP could delay new supply coming onto the grid, which puts upward pressure on generation costs as demand from data centers and electrification continues to climb across New England.

MacKay’s letter also took a broader swipe at Connecticut’s energy planning, citing what he called a lack of “comprehensive” energy strategy in the state. That characterization will likely draw a formal response from DEEP and could become a flashpoint in the General Assembly, where energy affordability has been a recurring tension between the utility industry and clean energy advocates.

This story was first reported by CT Mirror.

DEEP said it is actively exploring options to keep the three projects moving, but the agency has not yet said what those options are or when a decision might come. The General Assembly’s energy committees are likely to weigh in. Watch for hearings this spring.