The Unfinished
Business of Power

From the Editors

Returning to unfinished business

In our spring editions, we examined the energy decisions taking shape around southeastern Connecticut: the future of Millstone, the arrival of offshore wind, the pressures on the regional grid, and the relationship between local industry and national security.

Those stories have continued. Some developments have brought greater clarity. Others have made the questions harder.

Revolution Wind offers the clearest example. Construction has advanced, yet the dispute over its approval has returned to the foreground. Meanwhile, the regional grid operator’s latest long-range forecast gives us a more specific picture of the electricity demand ahead—and a useful reason to distinguish national headlines from conditions here.

This issue returns to unfinished business. What has changed? What did we expect that still has not happened? Which questions now deserve more attention?

These are subjects on which people with different experience can reasonably disagree. Our purpose is to give that disagreement a sound place to begin.

Following Revolution Wind

The Last Turbine Is Not the Last Word

In September, Revolution Wind reached a visible milestone: installation of its sixty-fifth and final turbine. By October, its federal approval was again being challenged.

CT Mirror reported on October 13 that the Interior Department had asked a federal court to return the project’s construction approval to the agency for reconsideration. The filing questioned the earlier approval’s treatment of competing uses of offshore waters. Interior described the action as part of an existing court schedule rather than a policy change. At the time of that report, the judge had not ruled on the request. [1]

That distinction matters. A request to reconsider an approval is consequential, but it is not itself a court order cancelling a project.

Revolution Wind began delivering electricity on March 13. Its developer describes a project with 704 megawatts of capacity and twenty-year, fixed-price agreements serving Connecticut and Rhode Island. First power, completed turbine installation, and full commercial operation are separate milestones. [2]

The story now has two tracks: completing the work and resolving the challenge to its authorization.

The broader question

Our editorial concern extends beyond support for or opposition to offshore wind.

How should a country review major infrastructure thoroughly, protect legitimate public interests, and still provide a dependable basis for investment after approval?

Fishing, navigation, environmental protection, defense, and electricity supply all deserve serious consideration. The public should be able to understand the evidence, the standards being applied, and what would resolve a dispute.

There is a cost to inadequate review. There is also a cost when developers, workers, suppliers, and customers cannot tell whether an approval will endure.

The same question belongs in discussions of transmission lines, gas infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and ports. What process would we consider fair and reliable if the project under review were one we personally opposed?

That is a more useful starting point than assuming every objection is obstruction—or every approval beyond reconsideration.

What comes next for a working waterfront?

State Pier: The Question After Completion

Revolution Wind’s connection to New London is direct: State Pier has served as its onshore assembly location. That makes the project’s progress and uncertainty part of the city’s economic story. [1]

Yet completing one project does not answer the longer question of what comes next.

A working waterfront needs successive customers, suitable equipment, capable workers, and commercial arrangements that make sense. Public investment may help establish those conditions; continuing work must sustain them.

For future coverage, we will distinguish three things carefully: work under contract, work being actively pursued, and uses that remain possibilities. They offer different levels of assurance.

The important public questions are practical. What capabilities has the investment created? Which customers can use them? What additional expenditure would another use require? How much flexibility is available if the expected market changes?

These questions should remain on the table whether offshore wind expands rapidly or develops more slowly than its advocates hoped.

A waterfront is too valuable to assess only at the moment of a ribbon-cutting.

Continuing the nuclear conversation

Millstone and the Value of What Already Works

Dominion describes Millstone as supplying enough electricity for approximately two million homes and providing carbon-free generation to Connecticut and New England. Its existing role gives the nuclear discussion here a concrete starting point. [3]

Our spring continuation separated two questions: the future arrangements for existing generation and the possibility of building new nuclear capacity. We retain that distinction.

An operating station has an operating record. A proposed facility has a design, assumptions, an approval path, and a financing problem still to solve.

Both deserve examination. They require different evidence.

For existing generation, readers should ask about continued safe operation, necessary investment, contract terms, and the distribution of costs and benefits. For a new project, they should also ask who carries construction risk and how credible the proposed completion date is.

We should welcome serious investigation of technologies that could serve the region. We should be equally willing to examine an attractive proposal’s difficult parts.

This edition does not announce a new Millstone agreement or an approved reactor project. Our next report on either will need a published decision and its terms.

The useful nuclear conversation is detailed enough to move beyond enthusiasm or anxiety. It asks what can be delivered, under which conditions, and at whose expense.

A new perspective from the grid operator

The Winter Peak Is Moving

ISO New England’s June presentation of its 2026 forecast projects typical-weather winter peak demand rising from 20,483 megawatts in 2026–27 to 26,411 megawatts in 2035–36—an increase of roughly 29 percent.

Those are forecasts, not measured future outcomes. They nevertheless show why the region’s planning increasingly concerns winter as well as summer. Electrification of heating is a major contributor in the forecast. [4]

For the public discussion, the implication is straightforward: the timing of electricity demand deserves as much attention as its annual total.

A system must serve the hours when demand is greatest, including difficult combinations of weather and equipment availability. Evaluating a proposed investment therefore requires asking when it can contribute, what limits its contribution, and how it fits with other resources.

That does not produce a single preferred technology. It produces a more demanding comparison.

The regional challenge is to make decisions whose schedules fit together: the arrival of new demand, the availability of supply, and the infrastructure connecting them.

Following the data-center question

Artificial Intelligence—and a Necessary Local Distinction

Our previous edition examined the electricity demands associated with large computing facilities. A subsequent regional assessment adds important perspective.

In its June presentation, ISO New England described prospective large loads in New England as limited in number and scale, with only a few projects in formal study. It said large loads were not yet a major driver of regional demand growth, while preparing for possible acceleration. [4]

That finding should temper any suggestion that the region already faces the same data-center development pattern as the country’s largest computing centers.

It also creates an opportunity to discuss terms before a much larger proposal arrives.

For any proposed facility, the questions should include:

• What infrastructure must be built specifically to serve it?
• What financial commitments will the customer make?
• Who bears the cost if its plans change?
• What benefits and obligations fall to the host community?

These are questions for a development agreement and a regulatory record, not merely a promotional announcement.

Our editorial view is that welcoming investment and examining its terms belong together. A community can be interested in new technology while expecting clear answers about cost, land, water, and long-term commitments.

An essay returning to “Homecoming”

The People Behind the Capacity

Issue One approached this region through the people whose work and lives connect its two riverbanks. Its composite shipyard profile asked readers to consider the skill and responsibility behind a vessel they might see passing down the Thames.

That human perspective belongs beside every discussion of capacity.

A production target has to become work someone knows how to do. Experience has to pass from one person to another. A new employee has to find a workable life outside the workplace.

For a community, the questions extend beyond recruitment. Can people find a home? Can a partner find satisfying work? Are there places to meet people whose lives differ from their own?

These are questions worth asking of any region seeking sustained industrial growth.

They also give civic and social institutions a practical role. An introduction, a shared meal, a lecture, or a recurring activity can help someone begin to feel that they belong.

Such institutions cannot solve a housing shortage or train an entire workforce. They can take responsibility for the welcome they offer.

A person may arrive because of a job. The reasons to stay are often more numerous.

The Table · A suggested menu for six

A Shoreline Supper

A seasonal issue can preserve something of summer even when its publication arrives late. This meal belongs to the lingering evening: familiar ingredients, modest preparation, and time left for the people at the table.

A dry white wine or rosé would sit comfortably alongside the meal. Sparkling water with lemon and herbs deserves the same attractive glassware.

The most useful instruction is to prepare enough in advance that the host can sit down.

A question for the table: What would change your mind about the energy source you currently favor?

The conversation continues

What We Will Follow Next

The Autumn edition will return to the court proceedings affecting Revolution Wind, developments in Connecticut’s nuclear procurement and planning, and the regional preparations for winter.

We will also examine the people and places behind economic growth: how newcomers establish themselves and what makes a community worth remaining in.

Where the record changes, we will update it. Where a question remains unanswered, we will keep asking it.

Continue the Conversation

Above & Below is written for people curious about the world around them—and willing to hear how it looks from another person’s experience.

At the Thames Club, that conversation can continue across a table.

If something in these pages interests you, we invite you to discover the Club and arrange a visit.

Arrange a Visit → Browse all publications