Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking due to concerns about the future reliability of New England’s power grid following a stop-work order on the Revolution Wind farm. The article asserts that the project’s halt leaves the region with aging oil plants and delayed gas pipeline projects as its only fallback options, raising the specter of blackouts and steep price increases. We will examine the factual accuracy of these assertions, clarify the availability of backup plans, and address the user’s specific question about the risks facing New England’s energy supply.
Historical Context
New England has struggled for decades with high electricity prices and limited access to domestic natural gas, relying on long-distance pipelines and imported fuel, especially during winter. Efforts to diversify energy sources—mainly through renewables like offshore wind—have gained traction but faced regulatory, political, and community resistance. Revolution Wind was seen as a transformative project for the region, promising cleaner, more reliable energy amid mounting pressure to retire aging fossil fuel plants. The broader context includes national debates about renewable energy costs, reliability, and the feasibility of rapid energy transitions.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: “There are no ready alternatives to replace [Revolution Wind] quickly…”
The article claims that with the shutdown of Revolution Wind, New England lacks immediate backup options to fill the gap. This statement is accurate based on regional energy planning documents and grid operator testimony. ISO New England, the regional grid operator, has repeatedly cautioned that with stalled renewable projects and constraints on gas infrastructure, the region’s backup consists primarily of aging oil and gas plants. New pipeline projects have faced yearslong delays due to permitting and opposition. Official ISO-NE assessments confirm that there is no equivalent, “shovel-ready” replacement for the lost wind capacity.
However, to state there are “no other options” is slightly overstated. New England can technically increase its reliance on existing oil and LNG imports or defer the retirement of older plants, but these are temporary and less reliable solutions. Therefore, the claim is mostly true but slightly lacking in nuance—it should be clarified that stopgap measures exist, but they are suboptimal and stressed.
Sources: ISO New England 2024 Regional System Plan; U.S. Energy Information Administration
Claim #2: “Consumers could see $200 million in annual higher energy market costs starting next year if Revolution Wind does not move forward, the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection estimated…”
This figure is derived from recent reports by Connecticut’s DEEP, which concluded that without new large-scale renewables, regional capacity auctions and fuel market constraints will drive significant cost increases for ratepayers. The $200 million estimate reflects projected spikes due to increased natural gas and oil reliance, tight winter supplies, and the absence of new wind energy. A review of the 2024 DEEP energy cost analysis confirms this projection as a reasonable and data-supported estimate for the short term.
Sources: Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2024 Energy Report
Claim #3: “Wind energy is also highly reliable and cheap in the wintertime, benefiting from blustery New England weather…”
The assertion about wind reliability and affordability in New England winters holds partial truth. Wind speeds are typically higher in the winter, increasing output potential. The cost per megawatt-hour for wind electricity is generally lower than for oil and often competitive with natural gas, especially during peak winter demand when fossil fuel prices spike. However, “highly reliable” is an overstatement: wind production can still experience variability based on weather patterns. Grid reliability studies from ISO New England acknowledge wind’s value, particularly in winter, but also stress the need for grid flexibility and backup due to intermittent supply.
Sources: ISO New England’s 2023 Renewable Integration Study; U.S. Department of Energy Wind Technologies Market Report, 2023
Claim #4: “Trump and his cabinet members have repeatedly said offshore wind is the most expensive form of energy.”
Statements from Trump administration officials, including the cited speech by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, characterize offshore wind as the “most expensive” option. While offshore wind projects do require significant upfront capital and have seen some cost overruns related to inflation and supply chains, recent studies show that the levelized cost of offshore wind, while higher than onshore wind or solar, is increasingly competitive when factoring in lifetime operating costs and fuel independence. The US Department of Energy and market analysts no longer classify modern offshore wind as the most expensive mainstream source; peaking oil and small-scale distributed plants usually cost more. The article does not directly dispute the efficiency factors, but the “most expensive” label is outdated and misleading.
Sources: U.S. Department of Energy; Lazard 2024 Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis
Conclusion
The article accurately describes the substantial risks facing New England’s energy reliability and affordability following the halt of the Revolution Wind project. Most claims are consistent with public records and statements from regional authorities, though some language, such as “no other options,” could be more precise—there are backup plans, but they are neither reliable nor desirable. Additionally, while concerns about offshore wind costs are grounded in past trends, current data indicates it is not the most expensive form of power and offers clear long-term benefits. The article as a whole emphasizes the urgency of diversifying New England’s grid, but it tends to frame the absence of wind power as bordering on disaster, somewhat amplifying the sense of crisis while underplaying the region’s emergency fallback capacity. Overall, the piece provides a factually strong, if slightly alarmist, summary of the situation.
Take Action Now
Want to stay informed and help stop misinformation? Download the DBUNK App to fact-check articles for free and join a community dedicated to accurate news.
Link to Original Article
You can view the original article here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/climate/offshore-wind-trump-new-england
