[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Maryland’s offshore wind project is a $4 billion boondoggle  

Credit:  By Robert Borlick | The Washington Post | June 17, 2022 | www.washingtonpost.com ~~

Offshore wind power is coming here! Maryland’s Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2019 (CEJA) mandates the procurement of at least 1,200 megawatts of in-state offshore wind by 2030. Because offshore wind is one of the most expensive forms of renewable energy, this requirement will increase the electric bills of Maryland’s residential and small-business electricity consumers (large consumers are exempt). Considering how expensive this energy is, wouldn’t the logical decision be to build just the minimum capacity required to comply with the CEJA? The Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) chose differently.

The MPSC approved two offshore wind projects totaling more than 1,600 megawatts of capacity – far more than the CEJA requires. Although the exact cost burden ultimately imposed on electricity consumers is uncertain, based on estimates produced by the MPSC’s own consultant, ICF, it will likely be about $4 billion in today’s dollars.

The CEJA conditioned its 1,200-megawatt target by limiting the increases in consumers’ electric bills. Those limits effectively determine the maximum subsidy authorized for the offshore wind projects, which is less than $1 billion in today’s dollars. So the MPSC’s decision effectively spent at least four times more than the CEJA authorized.

The contractual payments the MPSC approved are known with near-certainty and total about $8 billion in today’s dollars. In contrast, the revenue from selling the wind projects’ energy and capacity into the wholesale electricity markets, which will partially offset the contract payments, are highly uncertain because they largely depend on future natural gas prices. Forecasting natural gas prices up to 45 years into the future is speculative. In light of this asymmetric risk, one would expect the MPSC to take a conservative approach when valuing the offsetting revenue. It did not.

The US Wind project offered a price that is 32 percent lower than that offered by the Skipjack project. Given this huge price disparity, one would logically expect the MPSC to approve only the less expensive project, which satisfies the CEJA’s 2028 target, and to open a new proceeding to acquire the remaining capacity needed to meet the CEJA 2030 target. It did not.

In all fairness, the MPSC confronted a law that imposed two conflicting conditions with no guidance regarding how to reconcile them. Clearly, the legislature bears responsibility for enacting that flawed law. But that did not justify the MPSC making unrealistically optimistic assumptions in an effort to purportedly satisfy both conditions. Instead, it should have acquired only the cheaper project and informed the legislature of the irreconcilable conflict the CEJA created.

One objective of the CEJA is to create well-paying jobs within Maryland. But how much should the state spend to create a job? The approved offshore wind projects are projected to pay, on average, between $70,000 and $100,000 per year plus benefits for each full-time job. In stark contrast, each full-time-equivalent job the US Wind project creates will cost Maryland about $90,000. However, the Skipjack project will cost about $670,000 per full-time-equivalent job. Surely, the state can find cheaper, more cost-effective opportunities to create jobs.

This offshore wind award looks like a colossal, $4 billion boondoggle. To their credit, Maryland’s legislators effectively capped the subsidy for offshore wind. The MPSC then spent at least four times that legal limit. Guess who is going to pick up the tab? Not the five commissioners.

Robert Borlick is an energy consultant with more than 40 years of experience with the electric power industry and is the founder of Borlick Energy Consultancy.

Source:  By Robert Borlick | The Washington Post | June 17, 2022 | www.washingtonpost.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.