Eversource Rejects Three Connecticut Solar Contracts

Eversource told state officials last month it would not sign contracts to buy 54 megawatts of solar power on behalf of Connecticut customers, pulling out of three publicly bid clean-energy agreements and throwing a wrench into the state’s renewable energy procurement at a particularly sensitive moment.

The company’s deputy general counsel, Duncan R. MacKay, sent a letter to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and legislative leaders on March 27 calling the agency’s latest round of clean-energy purchases overpriced and likely to drive up costs for ratepayers. MacKay argued Connecticut lacks a “comprehensive” energy strategy and said committing customer money to these contracts would be irresponsible.

“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. “Because the pricing for the contracts is over-market and the contracts do not add value to customers in terms of materially increasing available generation supply and offering a pathway to lower generation costs, contract execution does not appear to be in the customer interest.”

State Officials Push Back Hard

DEEP did not take the news quietly. Spokesman Will Healey called Eversource’s decision “surprising” given the growing demand on the regional electric grid and the state’s need for new power supplies.

Healey said the projects scored highest in DEEP’s evaluation process and that Eversource participated in the bid review without raising any objections. Then he landed the sharper blow: Eversource has not objected to signing equivalent contracts in Massachusetts for the very same projects the company now calls unaffordable in Connecticut.

“The solar projects selected in this procurement will lower costs for Connecticut ratepayers and scored the highest in our evaluation during the bid review process,” Healey said. “Eversource was part of that bid review process and had voiced no concerns or objections at any point of the evaluation and selection process.”

DEEP said it is exploring options to keep the projects on track and remains in contact with Eversource.

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

Why the Timing Matters

The contracts were selected through a multistate renewable energy bidding process that Connecticut joined in 2013 to encourage new clean-power development across the region. DEEP announced the latest winners in December after running an expedited process specifically designed to lock in solar tax credits before the Trump administration phases them out. Backing out now does not just delay three projects. It puts the tax credit window at risk.

These are power-purchase agreements, long-term contracts under which a utility buys electricity directly from a generator. They are a primary tool states use to bring new renewable capacity online without requiring ratepayers to finance construction upfront. When a utility walks away from a signed procurement, developers lose the financing certainty they need to break ground.

For Connecticut residents already absorbing some of the highest electricity rates in the country, the dispute puts two competing concerns in direct tension: the cost of clean-energy contracts today versus the cost of staying dependent on fossil fuels and volatile wholesale power prices for the next two decades.

What It Means for Your Bill

Eversource’s central argument is that these contracts will raise the public benefits charge, a line item on your electricity bill that funds state clean-energy programs. That charge has already drawn complaints from residential customers and businesses watching their monthly costs climb.

DEEP’s counterargument is that locking in long-term solar contracts at fixed prices actually hedges against the wholesale market swings that drive bill volatility. Both claims can be true simultaneously depending on how the contracts are structured and what happens to energy prices over a 20-year term.

What is not in dispute: Connecticut needs more generation capacity. The regional grid operator has flagged supply constraints as demand grows, partly from data centers and electrification. Solar built now, with federal tax credits still attached, is almost certainly cheaper than what gets built later without them.

Reporting by CT Mirror first surfaced MacKay’s letter and Healey’s response, drawing attention to the gap between Eversource’s position in Connecticut and its apparent willingness to sign comparable contracts across the state line.

DEEP has not said publicly what its legal options are if Eversource continues to refuse. Watch for action from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, which oversees Eversource’s operations in Connecticut and has authority to weigh in on whether the company’s refusal serves the public interest.