It turns out that glmnet doesn't offer standard errors (and therefore doesn't give you confidence intervals) as explained here and also addressed in this vignette (excerpt below):
It is a very natural question to ask for standard errors of regression
coefficients or other estimated quantities. In principle such standard
errors can easily be calculated, e.g. using the bootstrap.
Still, this
package deliberately does not provide them. The reason for this is
that standard errors are not very meaningful for strongly biased
estimates such as arise from penalized estimation methods. Penalized
estimation is a procedure that reduces the variance of estimators by
introducing substantial bias. The bias of each estimator is therefore a
major component of its mean squared error, whereas its variance may
contribute only a small part.
Unfortunately, in most applications of
penalized regression it is impossible to obtain a sufficiently precise
estimate of the bias. Any bootstrap-based calculations can only give
an assessment of the variance of the estimates. Reliable estimates of
the bias are only available if reliable unbiased estimates are
available, which is typically not the case in situations in which
penalized estimates are used.
Reporting a standard error of a
penalized estimate therefore tells only part of the story. It can give
a mistaken impression of great precision, completely ignoring the
inaccuracy caused by the bias. It is certainly a mistake to make
confidence statements that are only based on an assessment of the
variance of the estimates, such as bootstrap-based confidence
intervals do.
Reliable confidence intervals around the penalized
estimates can be obtained in the case of low dimensional models using
the standard generalized linear model theory as implemented in lm, glm
and coxph. Methods for constructing reliable confidence intervals in
the high-dimensional situation are, to my knowledge, not available.
However, if you insist on confidence intervals, check out this post.