Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is pausing the state's involvement in a multistate offshore wind development deal.

Lamont cites the projects' potential costs, leaving Rhode Island and Massachusetts to collect proposals.

A Sierra Club report finds offshore wind can save New Englanders $630 million annually.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said offshore wind is essential to the state achieving its climate goals.

"It's a real dangerous game to play, for the rest of us out here trying to get our climate action going, trying to get offshore wind off and running," said Brown. "And it's a huge market, and we're backing away from it for absolutely no good reason whatsoever except political gain."

Postponing offshore wind could prevent Connecticut from reaching its 2030 carbon emission reduction goal. At the same time, the state is building momentum with fossil fuels.

Enbridge is proposing a fracked gas pipeline extension from New Jersey to Rhode Island, much of which would run across Connecticut.

Project Maple is still in its earliest phases, but environmentalists worry about the hazards it can create.

Some environmental organizations feel the state's over-reliance on methane gas has led to increasing price spikes. The state's gas utilities got rate increases earlier this year that many Connecticut residents opposed.

Samantha Dynowski - state director of the Sierra Club Connecticut chapter - said along with offshore wind, the state should pursue all other cost-saving renewable energy options.

"Connecticut really should be moving forward with more solar - particularly on homes, and businesses, and parking lots," said Dynowski. "We also need to be doing more with energy efficiency. We know we can really reduce demand with energy efficiency."

She added the state can also invest in battery storage, which distributes saved-up energy for times when the sun isn't out or the wind has died down.

However, offshore wind is the most abundant renewable resource New England has.

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds offshore wind provides more power for the region in winter than current gas lines do.

A new analysis of what Congressional lawmakers have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act found it would eliminate thousands of jobs in South Dakota and slow economic growth.

The bill's current language repeals multiple federal policies, funding programs and tax credits meant to boost American clean energy and manufacturing.

Daniel O'Brien, senior modeling analyst for the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation, said South Dakota could lose as many as 1,600 jobs by 2030 as funding is diverted to jobs in the coal, oil and gas industries.

"Those are but a fraction of the number of jobs that are being lost in manufacturing, construction, utilities, farming and agriculture," O'Brien explained.

O'Brien noted up to 840,000 jobs nationwide could be eliminated over the next five years if the current bill remains intact. It repeals more than $500 billion in Inflation Reduction Act investments, which some House Republicans have dubbed a "green new scam."

South Dakota households currently benefit from low energy prices, partly due to the growth of renewable energy. The industry has drawn more manufacturing to the state, along with data centers in need of large amounts of cheap power. But the analysis showed a shift toward fossil fuels will increase annual statewide energy bills by more than $180 million by 2035.

O'Brien stressed industries looking to reduce costs may choose to operate elsewhere.

"When you repeal these tax credits, you lose the incentivization of companies to build out cheap renewables in South Dakota," O'Brien pointed out. "For that reason, companies that are relying on their cheap power might go to other states or they might move outside of the U.S."

He added gas prices are also expected to rise with the repeal of EPA rules on vehicle tailpipe emissions and fuel economy standards. Zero-emission vehicle sales in South Dakota are expected to fall from more than 50% in 2030 to around 30% over the next five years.

As Washington D.C.'s sole gas company continues a multi-billion dollar, 40-year project to replace methane pipes, clean energy advocates argue the projects are misguided and alternatives to gas pipes are better for public health and the environment.

Washington Gas's plan will upgrade 200 miles of gas pipes in the District, costing more than $200 million for the third phase of pipe replacement, paid for by rate hikes on consumers.

In February, a majority of District council members signed a letter urging the Public Service Commission to direct the company to focus only on pipes that need to be fixed.

The company has fallen behind on a similar project in Maryland.

Claire Mills, District of Columbia campaigns manager with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said many pipes being replaced are plastic and less than 25 years old.

She says only lead pipes over 40 years old are likely to leak.

"Even small gas leaks that don't have the potential to explode," said Mills, "are putting methane gas, which is a hugely powerful greenhouse gas, into our atmosphere and creating climate change."

Washington Gas claims in a brochure that the D.C. project has led to the creation of more than 600 jobs. The company also argues it cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions by more than 5,000 metric tons.

Since 2018, when the District project began, the number of gas leaks across the District has decreased by nearly 25%, according to the Public Service Commission.

There were more than 1,200 instances of the gas leaks in 2023.

Mills says groups like hers are urging the Public Service Commission to create a plan that transitions the District to clean electricity, rather than doubling down on methane gas.

"Even if your gas pipe is all good, just burning methane gas in your home in your gas stove or your furnace has really negative health impacts," said Mills. "So in the long term, the real solution to this problem is moving the District off of methane gas through a managed transition that takes a serious approach."

The Public Service Commission is holding a hearing on the project tomorrow at its office in downtown D.C. at 5:30 p.m.

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to roll back Biden-era limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas power plants, a move critics said would negatively affect Pennsylvanians' health and the environment.

The agency estimated the proposal would cut regulatory costs for the power sector by $19 billion over 20 years starting in 2026.

Thomas Schuster director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club, explained the EPA wants to roll back standards on carbon pollution from power plants, a major source of emissions in Pennsylvania. He warned the move will put Pennsylvanians at risk.

"The rollback of these safeguards will mean that Pennsylvanians will be saddled with more extreme weather, more respiratory illnesses, more hospital visits and missed work," Schuster outlined. "We're basically out of time to deal with the climate crisis, and we can't afford to reset the clock on the clean energy transition."

Schuster argued the EPA cannot just scrap the standards. To replace them, it must go through the same formal rulemaking process it took to put the standards in place. He urged the public to speak up during the comment period required by the process. The EPA countered repealing regulations on coal and gas power plants will lower energy costs, boost national security and help power U.S. manufacturing and artificial intelligence.

Schuster believes EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's attempts at deregulation will have major future consequences. He stressed climate change results in more public health problems, premature deaths and catastrophic weather disasters. He contended the agency is ignoring clean energy options while promoting destructive policies.

"They're talking about rolling back toxic pollution standards from these plants as well, which contribute to pollutants like mercury, which are neurotoxins, which can really affect the development of children," Schuster noted.

Schuster emphasized climate change is also driving extreme weather in Pennsylvania, pointing to April's storm, which knocked out power to hundreds of thousands of people and how last year was Pittsburgh's hottest on record, with cities across the state breaking 20 daily heat records in June. He added heavy rainfall last April triggered major landslides.