Energy is getting very expensive for American households. NPR reported as recently as August that one in six families struggles to pay their utility bills, and energy costs nationwide are outpacing inflation by more than 100 percent.
New Englanders aren’t crazy to suspect their electric bills increased this year, and winter has yet to even arrive. Something must change, and while President Trump is right to point out the high costs and practical challenges of getting energy to New England, he’s wrong to close the door on certain sources.
The Trump administration has been adamant that it wants to diversify and boost national energy outputs to lower prices and “increase consumer choice,” according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright, but the administration’s policies have specifically singled out wind energy as persona non grata.
According to ISO New England, the region’s main grid operator, wholesale electricity prices increased by 48 percent from spring 2024 to spring 2025, marking the highest regional spike in the nation. The reasons for price hikes are many, but fluctuating natural gas prices and the costs of maintaining adequate transmission capacity are among the obvious culprits, to say nothing of increasing demand.
However, there is now no denying that the administration has put its finger on the scale. In August, the Department of the Interior ordered construction halted on Revolution Wind, a nearly finished and fully permitted offshore wind project near Rhode Island and Connecticut. The project had foundations and crews in place and close to $1.5 billion of private sector investment.
Thanks only to a last-minute ruling by a federal judge has the project been allowed to continue. The lawsuit was filed by the company building an offshore wind farm, as well as by the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut.
The initial halting of the project was not just a setback for one project or company; it was a direct hit to consumers. The higher toll of electricity prices on area families and businesses means less disposable income. Revolution Wind was designed to ease that burden, providing power at a rate of 9.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, locked in for 20 years, and at a cost lower than the average electricity rate in the region.
Independent analysts project that Revolution Wind and other contracted offshore projects would reduce wholesale energy prices by more than 10%, saving ratepayers some $400 million.
The biggest gripes about offshore wind have mostly come from President Trump himself, who has lambasted the “stupid and ugly” look of the windmills and their supposed effects on whales and birds. Taking a more nuanced view, Secretary Wright has articulated that many wind projects have relied on Biden-era public subsidies in order to be completed.
Wright isn’t wrong about the subsidy status quo, but it’s not an argument for boxing out an energy source that can provide power in a competitive market to consumers in need.
If we want to increase our energy mix, all sources should be put on the table and allowed to proceed where private interests see an opportunity to meet demand.
Gov. Ned Lamont of Connecticut put it even more bluntly. “[It’s] much more likely we have blackouts in coming years because energy use is going up and [Revolution Wind] is a way we can generate a lot more electricity now,” he said on CNBC.
It is one thing for the administration to decline to issue new permits for future offshore wind projects or to withdraw tax incentives, but it is another matter entirely for the government to halt a project that is nearing completion.
Having the federal government picking winners and losers in the energy race, whether it be wind, nuclear, natural gas, or coal, is precisely why we’re in this predicament in the first place. Washington is playing the worst kind of politics, and New Englanders will pay the price.
Yaël Ossowski covers energy policy and is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center in Washington, D.C.
Published in DC Journal (archive #1, #2)