Lumberton coal plant to be retired early

Calgary Electricity Price Increase signals higher ENMAX bills as grid demand surges; wholesale market volatility, fixed vs floating rates, kWh costs, and transmission charges drive above-average pricing across Alberta this winter.

Key Points

A market-led rise in Calgary power rates as grid demand and wholesale volatility affect fixed and floating plans.

✅ ENMAX warns of higher winter prices amid record grid demand

✅ Fixed rates hedge wholesale volatility; floating tracks spot market

✅ Transmission and distribution fees rise 5-10 percent annually

Calgarians should expect to be charged more for their electricity bills amid significant demand on the grid and a transition to above-average rates across Alberta.

ENMAX, one of the most-used electricity providers in the city, has sent an email to customers notifying them of higher prices for the rest of the winter months.

“Although fluctuations in electricity market prices are normal, we have seen a general trend of increasing rates over time,” the email to customers read.

“The price volatility we are forecasting is due to market factors beyond a single energy provider, including but not limited to expectations for a colder-than-normal winter and changes in electricity supply and demand in Alberta’s wholesale market. ”

Earlier this month, the province set a record for electricity usage during a bitterly cold stretch of weather.

According to energy comparison website energyrates.ca, Alberta’s energy prices have increased by 34 per cent between November 2020 and 2021.

“One of the reasons that this increase seems so significant is we’re actually coming off of a low period in the market,” the site’s founder Joel MacDonald told Global News. “You’re seeing rates well below average transitioning to well above average.”

According to ENMAX’s rate in January, the price of electricity currently sits at 15.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, with an electricity price spike from 7.9 cents per kilowatt-hour last year.

MacDonald said prices for electricity have been relatively low since 2018 but a swing in the price of oil has created more activity in the province’s industrial sector, and in turn more demand on the power grid.

According to MacDonald, the price increase can also be attributed to the removal of a consumer price cap that limited regulated rates to 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for households and small businesses with lower demand, which, after the carbon tax was repealed, initially remained in place.

Although the cap was scrapped by the UCP three years ago, he said energy bills now depend on the rate set by the market.

“What’s increased now recently is actually the price per kilowatt, and the (transmission and distribution) charges have only increased, but annually they increase between five and 10 per cent,” MacDonald said. “So the portion of your bill that’s increasing is different than what Albertans are typically used to, or at least in recent memory.”

But Albertans do have options, MacDonald said.

As part of its email to customers, ENMAX sent a list of energy saving tips to reduce energy consumption in people’s homes, including using cold water for laundry and avoiding dryer use, energy-efficient lightbulbs and unplugging electronics when they are not in use.

Retailers also offer contracts with floating or fixed rates for consumers.

“Fixed rates, obviously, you’re going to pick your price. It’s going to be the same each and every single month,” MacDonald said. “Floating rate is based off the wholesale spot market, and that has been exceptionally high the last few months.”

He said consumers looking to save money when electricity prices are high should look into a fixed rate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Shell's Industrial Electricity Supply Strategy targets UK and US industrial customers, leveraging gas-to-power, renewables, long-term PPAs, and energy transition momentum to disrupt utilities, cut costs, and secure demand in the evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Shell will sell power directly to industrial clients, leveraging gas, renewables, and PPAs to secure demand and pricing.

✅ Direct power sales to industrials in UK and US

✅ Leverages gas-to-power, renewables, and flexible sourcing

✅ Targets long-term PPAs, price stability, and demand security

Royal Dutch Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one. The shift is strategic and demonstrates that oil and gas majors are capable of adapting to a new world as the transition to a lower carbon economy develops. For those already in the business of providing electricity it represents a dangerous competitive threat. For the other oil majors it poses a direct challenge on whether they are really thinking about the future sufficiently strategically.

The move starts small with a business in the UK that will start trading early next year, in a market where the UK’s second-largest electricity operator has recently emerged, signaling intensifying competition. Shell will supply the business operations as a first step and it will then expand. But Britain is not the limit — Shell recently announced its intention of making similar sales in the US. Historically, oil and gas companies have considered a move into electricity as a step too far, with the sector seen as oversupplied and highly politicised because of sensitivity to consumer price rises. I went through three reviews during my time in the industry, each of which concluded that the electricity business was best left to someone else. What has changed? I think there are three strands of logic behind the strategy.

First, the state of the energy market. The price of gas in particular has fallen across the world over the last three years to the point where the International Energy Agency describes the current situation as a “glut”. Meanwhile, Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply, while options such as storing electricity in natural gas pipes gain attention in Europe. Given its reach, Shell could sign contracts to supply all the power needed by the UK’s National Health Service or with the public sector as a whole as well as big industrial users. It could agree long-term contracts with big businesses across the US.

To the buyers, Shell offers a high level of security from multiple sources with prices presumably set at a discount to the market. The mutual advantage is strong. Second, there is the transition to a lower carbon world. No one knows how fast this will move, but one thing is certain: electricity will be at the heart of the shift with power demand increasing in transportation, industry and the services sector as oil and coal are displaced. Shell, with its wide portfolio, can match inputs to the circumstances and policies of each location. It can match its global supplies of gas to growing Asian markets, including China’s 2060 electricity share projections, while developing a renewables-based electricity supply chain in Europe. The new company can buy supplies from other parts of the group or from outside. It has already agreed to buy all the power produced from the first Dutch offshore wind farm at Egmond aan Zee.

The move gives Shell the opportunity to enter the supply chain at any point — it does not have to own power stations any more than it now owns drilling rigs or helicopters. The third key factor is that the electricity market is not homogenous. The business of supplying power can be segmented. The retail market — supplying millions of households — may be under constant scrutiny, as efforts to fix the UK’s electricity grid keep infrastructure in the headlines, with suppliers vilified by the press and governments forced to threaten price caps but supplying power to industrial users is more stable and predictable, and done largely out of the public eye. The main industrial and commercial users are major companies well able to negotiate long-term deals.

Given its scale and reputation, Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices. This is where the prospect of a powerful new competitor becomes another threat to utilities and retailers whose business models are already under pressure. In the European market in particular, electricity pricing mechanisms are evolving and public policies that give preference to renewables have undermined other sources of supply — especially those produced from gas. Once-powerful companies such as RWE and EON have lost much of their value as a result. In the UK, France and elsewhere, public and political hostility to price increases have made retail supply a risky and low-margin business at best. If the industrial market for electricity is now eaten away, the future for the existing utilities is desperate.

Shell’s move should raise a flag of concern for investors in the other oil and gas majors. The company is positioning itself for change. It is sending signals that it is now viable even if oil and gas prices do not increase and that it is not resisting the energy transition. Chief executive Ben van Beurden said last week that he was looking forward to his next car being electric. This ease with the future is rather rare. Shareholders should be asking the other players in the old oil and gas sector to spell out their strategies for the transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act proposes DOE grants for utility companies to fund wildfire mitigation, grid resilience upgrades, undergrounding power lines, fast-tripping protection, weather monitoring, and vegetation management, prioritizing rural electric cooperatives.

Key Points

A federal bill funding utility wildfire mitigation and grid hardening via DOE grants, prioritizing rural utilities.

✅ $1B DOE matching grants for grid upgrades and wildfire mitigation.

✅ Prioritizes rural utilities; supports undergrounding and hardening.

✅ Funds fast-tripping protection, weather stations, vegetation management.

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley today introduced new legislation, amid transmission barriers that persist, to incentivize utility companies to do more to reduce wildfire risks as aging power infrastructure ignite wildfires in Oregon and across the West.

Wyden and Merkley's Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act of 2020 would ensure power companies do their part to reduce the risk of wildfires through power system upgrades, even as California utility spending crackdown seeks accountability, such as the undergrounding of power lines, fire safety equipment installation and proper vegetation management.

"First and foremost, this is a public safety issue. Fire after fire ignited this summer because the aging power grid could not withstand a major windstorm during the season's hottest and driest days," Wyden said. "Many utility companies are already working to improve the resiliency of their power grid, but the sheer costs of these investments must not come at the expense of equitable regulation for rural utility customers. Congress must do all that it can to stop the catastrophic wildfires decimating the West, and that means improving rural infrastructure. By partnering with utilities around the country, we can increase wildfire mitigation efforts at a modest cost -- a fire prevention investment that will pay dividends by saving lives, homes and businesses."

"When this year's unprecedented wildfire event hit, I drove hundreds of miles across our state to see the damage firsthand and to hear directly from impacted communities, so that I could go back to D.C. and work for the solutions they need," said Merkley. "What I saw was apocalyptic--and we have to do everything we can to reduce the risk of this happening again. That means we have to work with our power companies to get critical upgrades and safety investments into place as quickly as possible."

The Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act of 2020:

* Establishes a $1 billion-per-year matching grant program for power companies through the Department of Energy, even as ACORE opposed DOE subsidy proposals, to reduce the risk of power lines and grid infrastructure causing wildfires.

* Gives special priority to smaller, rural electric companies to ensure mitigation efforts are targeted to forested rural areas.

* Promotes proven methods for reducing wildfire risks, including undergrounding of lines, installing fast-tripping protection systems, and constructing weather monitoring stations to respond to electrical system fire risks.

* Provides for hardening of overhead power lines and installation of fault location equipment where undergrounding of power lines is not a favorable option.

* Ensures fuels management activities of power companies are carried out in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

* Requires power companies to have "skin in the game" by making the program a 1-to-1 matching grant, with an exception for smaller utilities where the matching requirement is one third of the grant.

* Delivers accountability on the part of utilities and the Department of Energy by generating a report every two years on efforts conducted under the grant program.

Portland General Electric President and CEO Maria Pope: "We appreciate Senator Wyden's and Senator Merkley's leadership in proposing legislation to provide federal funding that will help protect Oregon from devastating wildfires. When passed, this will help make Oregon's electric system safer, faster, without increasing customer prices. That is especially important given the economy and hotter, drier summers and longer wildfire seasons that Oregon will continue to face."

Lane County Commission Chair Heather Butch: " In a matter of hours, the entire Lane County community of Blue River was reduced to ashes by the Holiday Farm Fire. Since the moment I first toured that devastation I've been committed to building it back better. I applaud Senators Wyden and Merkley for drafting the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act, as it could well provide the path towards meeting this important goal. Moreover, the resultant programs will better protect rural communities from the increasing dangers of wildfires through a number of preventative measures that would otherwise be difficult to implement."

Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist: "This legislation is a smart strategic investment for the future safety of our residents as well as the economic vitality of our community."

Marion County Commissioner Kevin Cameron: "After experiencing a traumatic evacuation during the Beachie Creek and Lion's Head wild fires, I understand the need to strengthen the utility Infrastructure. The improvements resulting from Senator Wyden and Merkley's bill will reduce disasters in the future, but improve everyday reliability for our citizens who live, work and protect the environment in potential wildfire areas."

Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn: "EEI thanks Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley for their leadership in introducing the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act. This bill will help support and accelerate projects already planned and underway to enhance energy grid resiliency and mitigate the risk of wildfire damage to power lines. Electric companies across the country are committed to working with our government partners and other stakeholders on preparation and mitigation efforts that combat the wildfire threat and on the rapid deployment of technology solutions, including aggregated DERs at FERC, that address wildfire risks, while still maintaining the safe, reliable, and affordable energy we all need."

Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association Executive Director Ted Case: "Oregon's electric cooperatives support the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act and appreciate Senator Wyden's and Senator Merkley's leadership and innovative approach to wildfire mitigation, particularly for small, rural utilities. This legislation includes targeted assistance that will help us to continue to provide affordable, reliable and safe electricity to over 500,000 Oregonians."

Sustainable Northwest Director of Government Affairs & Program Strategy Dylan Kruse: "In recent years, the West has seen too many wildfires originate due to poorly maintained or damaged electric utility transmission and distribution infrastructure. This legislation plays an important role to ensure that power lines do not contribute to wildfire starts, while providing safe and reliable power to communities during wildfire events. Utilities must, even as Wyoming clean energy bill proposals emerge, live up to their legal requirements to maintain their infrastructure, but this bill provides welcome resources to expedite and prioritize risk reduction, while preventing cost increases for ratepayers."

Oregon Wild Wilderness Program Manager Erik Fernandez: "2020 taught Oregon the lesson that California learned in the Paradise Fire, and SCE wildfire lawsuits that followed underscore the stakes. Addressing the risk of unnaturally caused powerline fires is an increasingly important critical task. I appreciate Senator Ron Wyden's efforts to protect our homes and communities from powerline fires."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Offshore Wind Capacity is set to exceed 1 GW by 2024, driven by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and resilient supply chains, with eastern states scaling renewable energy, turbines, and content despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Projected gigawatt-scale offshore wind growth enabled by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and East Coast state demand.

✅ 17+ GW leased; only 1,870 MW in announced first phases.

✅ BOEM approvals are critical to reach >1 GW by 2024.

✅ Local supply chains mitigate COVID-19 impacts and lower costs.

Offshore wind in the U.S. will exceed 1 GW of capacity by 2024 and add more than 1 GW annually by 2027, a trajectory consistent with U.S. offshore wind power trends, according to a report released last week by Navigant Research.

The report calculated over 17 GW of offshore state and federal leases for wind production, reflecting forecasts that $1 trillion offshore wind market growth is possible. However, the owners of those leases have only announced first phase plans for 1,870 MW of capacity, leaving much of the projects in early stages with significant room to grow, according to senior research analyst Jesse Broehl.

The Business Network for Offshore Wind (BNOW) believes it is possible to hit 1 GW by 2023-24, according to CEO Liz Burdock. While the economy has taken a hit from the coronavirus pandemic, she said the offshore wind industry can continue growing as "the supply chain from Asia and Europe regains speed this summer, and the administration starts clearing" plans of construction.

BNOW is concerned with the economic hardship imposed on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers due to the global spread of COVID-19.

Offshore wind has been touted by many eastern states and governors as an opportunity to create jobs, with U.S. wind employment expected to expand, according to industry forecasts. Analysts see the growing momentum of projects as a way to further lower costs by creating a local supply chain, which could be jeopardized by a long-term shutdown and recession.

"The federal government must act now — today, not in December — and approve project construction and operation plans," a recent BNOW report said. Approving any of the seven projects before BOEM, which has recently received new lease requests, currently would allow small businesses to get to work "following the containment of the coronavirus," but approval of the projects next year "may be too late to keep them solvent."

The prospects for maintaining momentum in the industry falls largely to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The industry cannot hit the 1 GW milestone without project approvals by BOEM, which is revising processes to analyze federal permit applications in the context of "greater build out of offshore wind capacity," according to its website.

"It is heavily dependent on the project approval success," Burdock told Utility Dive.

Currently, seven projects are awaiting determinations from BOEM on their construction operation plans in Massachusetts, New York, where a major offshore wind farm was recently approved, New Jersey and Maryland, with more to be added soon, a BNOW spokesperson told Utility Dive.

To date, only one project has received BOEM approval for development in federal waters, a 12 MW pilot by Dominion Energy and Ørsted in Virginia. The two-turbine project is a stepping stone to a commercial-scale 2.6 GW project the companies say could begin installation as soon as 2024, and gave the developers experience with the permitting process.

In the U.S., developers have the capacity to develop 16.9 GW of offshore wind in federal U.S. lease areas, even as wind power's share of the electricity mix surges nationwide, Broehl told Utility Dive, but much of that is in early stages. The Navigant report did not address any impacts of coronavirus on offshore wind, he said.

Although Massachusetts has legislation in place to require utilities to purchase 1.6 GW of wind power by 2026, and several other projects are in early development stages, Navigant expects the first large offshore wind projects in the U.S. (exceeding 200 MW) will come online in 2022 or later, and the first projects with 400 MW or more capacity are likely to be built by 2024-2025, and lessons from the U.K.'s experience could help accelerate timelines. The U.S. would add about 1.2 GW in 2027, Broehl said.

The federal leasing activities along with the involvement from Eastern states and utilities "virtually guarantees that a large offshore wind market is going to take off in the U.S.," Broehl said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News