Power markets are being forced to adapt to a faster, more volatile energy system than they were designed for. New England is reworking how it procures reliability. Offshore wind is running headlong into Trump’s effort to shut off federal support. Permitting reform is still alive, but narrowly. Utilities spent 2025 buying scale instead of waiting for policy clarity. And nuclear, once treated as politically radioactive, is now being openly repositioned as strategic infrastructure.

This is what transition actually looks like: messy, uneven, and driven as much by market pressure as ideology.

ISO New England is proposing a structural change to how it procures reliability through its Forward Capacity Market. Traditionally, ISO-NE runs auctions roughly three years ahead of delivery, locking in commitments from generators long before real-world conditions are known.

That model made sense when load was flat, retirements were predictable, and fuel risks were modest. None of that is true anymore.

ISO-NE’s proposal would move toward a more prompt auction, closer to the delivery year. The goal is to better reflect actual system conditions: which plants are still viable, what fuel constraints exist, and what demand actually looks like after data-center growth, electrification, and weather volatility are accounted for.

This contrasts sharply with PJM Interconnection, which still relies heavily on three-year-forward auctions. PJM’s system prioritizes long lead times and price stability, but that comes at the cost of flexibility. In a world where demand forecasts are being revised upward every year and retirements can happen suddenly, that rigidity is increasingly a liability.

Why It Matters - Capacity markets are supposed to buy reliability. If they can’t adapt to rapid change, they end up buying the wrong thing, too early, at the wrong price.

Grid Take - ISO-NE is saying the quiet part out loud: reliability markets built for a slow-moving grid are breaking. Other regions will face the same choice soon—cling to long-range certainty or redesign for speed and realism.

The Trump administration has issued stop-work orders affecting several large offshore wind projects under development by Ørsted and Equinor, halting construction on projects that were already permitted and partially built. The Department of the Interior cited national security concerns tied to evolving defense and radar considerations, prompting developers to seek injunctions against the pause.

The projects involved, including Revolution Wind, Empire Wind, Vineyard Wind, and others, represent some of the largest and most expensive offshore wind investments in the U.S. Revolution Wind alone has seen more than $5 billion invested to date and estimates delay costs exceeding $1.4 million per day. Developers argue that these projects underwent extensive interagency review and mitigation before approval, while the administration maintains that new risk assessments justify reassessment.

Beyond the legal dispute, the pause lands on a sector already under financial strain. Offshore wind projects have struggled with rising capital costs, supply-chain delays, and uncertain long-term economics. Even with policy support, many projects have required renegotiated contracts, revised pricing, or additional financial backing to remain viable.

Why It Matters - This moment tests whether large-scale renewable projects can stand on durable economics rather than continued policy insulation.

Grid Take - If projects cannot clear risk and cost thresholds without ongoing intervention, slowing or stopping them may be less disruptive than committing ratepayers and taxpayers to decades of support.

Permitting reform remains alive in Washington, but in a narrowed form that reflects political reality rather than developer needs. The current Senate effort borrows selectively from the proposed SPEED Act, focusing on faster agency reviews, better coordination, and tighter procedural timelines for certain projects, particularly offshore wind and transmission. What it avoids is just as important as what it includes: there are no changes to legal standing, venue shopping, or the ability to file repeated post-permit lawsuits.

That distinction explains why the debate feels circular. Agency review times have improved in recent years, but projects are still spending years stuck in court after permits are granted. Developers know the difference. Faster paperwork does not equal faster construction if a single injunction can halt work indefinitely. The reforms moving now optimize process, not risk.

Why It Matters - Energy infrastructure fails less often in agencies than in litigation. Until legal exposure is addressed, capital will continue to treat U.S. permitting timelines as unpredictable.

Grid Take - Washington is fixing the part of the system it controls while ignoring the part that actually stops projects. Permitting reform that doesn’t touch lawsuits is process reform, not build reform.

The Trump administration has committed $2.7 billion to rebuild domestic uranium enrichment capacity, awarding $900 million each to American Centrifuge Operating, General Matter, and Orano Federal Services. The funding targets a long-ignored bottleneck: the U.S. dependence on foreign enrichment for both today’s reactor fleet and tomorrow’s advanced designs. Orano will support low-enriched uranium for existing plants, while American Centrifuge and General Matter will focus on HALEU, a prerequisite for most next-generation reactors.

This move stands out because it comes as the administration has pulled back funding from many other Biden-era climate programs. Nuclear survives that purge because it is being treated differently. It is no longer framed primarily as a climate solution, but as strategic infrastructure tied to national security, industrial capacity, and energy affordability. Energy Secretary Chris Wright made that framing explicit, casting the investment as a way to strengthen American security and prosperity by reclaiming a critical part of the nuclear supply chain.

Why It Matters - Advanced reactors cannot deploy without fuel. By putting real capital into enrichment, the administration is addressing the constraint that has quietly stalled nuclear development for years.

Grid Take - This is not a symbolic nuclear revival. It is industrial policy aimed at making construction possible. If fuel becomes reliable and domestic, nuclear timelines stop being aspirational and start being bankable.

Upgrade to Grid Brief Premium to get extra deep dives into energy issues all over the world.

What This Shows
There is no single “U.S. grid.” Some regions rely on multi-year market forecasts. Others depend on regulated utilities making build decisions internally. Capacity markets promise price discovery but struggle with fast-changing demand. Utility planning offers control but moves slowly.

ISO-NE’s proposed shift toward a prompt auction stands out because it acknowledges a core reality: forecast error is now structural, not incidental.

Grid Take
When demand is volatile, the speed and structure of procurement matter as much as the megawatts themselves.

We rely on word of mouth to grow. If you're enjoying this, don't forget to forward Grid Brief to your friends and ask them to subscribe!