The State Corporation Commission (SCC), which regulates public utilities, recently approved a new Dominion Energy-backed $9.8 billion offshore wind farm, the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project (CVOW), 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach.
Unsurprisingly, Virginia ratepayers will pay more to “transition” away from fossil fuels as stipulated by the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act—Virginia’s “Green New Deal” signed into law by former Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA). [bold, links added]
Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) has pledged to repeal the VCEA but can’t unless Republicans retake the State Senate next year.
The project’s supporters claim the 176 planned wind turbines will each produce “14.7 megawatts” to power upwards of 660,000 homes.
But there are major problems befalling the project.
Most notably, the CVOW contains a “revenue requirement of $78.702 million for the rate year of September 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023, to be recovered through a new rate adjustment clause (Rider OSW).”
The Rider OSW, the SCC noted, will have a base monthly bill increase of $4.72 but a peak monthly bill increase of $14.22.
Isn’t clean energy like wind supposed to help lower costs? It doesn’t here. Talk about unreliability.
This year alone, many Virginians will pay a solar tariff amounting to $20 in additional electricity costs.
This is compounded by Dominion Energy’s request to charge its five million Virginia customers seven percent more across three years to reportedly combat inflation.
Another estimate, however, points to the electric utility potentially raising fees by 12 to 20%.
Given this, the CVOW isn’t a cost-savings measure.
As electricity prices continue to soar, how would this expensive project be a remedy to include in the Commonwealth’s power grid? It isn’t.
Virginia already has two offshore wind turbines that cost $300 million. Has wind’s inclusion been reflected in the power grid? Has it led to our energy bills decreasing? Hardly.
Per the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Virginia was predominantly powered by natural gas (61%) followed by nuclear (29%), biomass (6%), and coal (4%). No mention or listing of solar and wind.
Obviously, natural gas and nuclear are still kings in Virginia. Why discourage their use in favor of unreliable solar and wind?
The CVOW’s costs and limited electricity generation aren’t the only red flags. The project’s potentially negative environmental impact has yet to be seriously discussed and considered.
Here’s an inconvenient truth: offshore wind farms (OWFs) greatly interfere with fish migration patterns.
Oceanography, a magazine of the Oceanography Society, noted OWFs may act as artificial reefs but boast many ecological consequences like turning some OWFs into “no-go areas”— thereby making them “no-take zones.”
The magazine also notes there could be adverse effects to the “sensory environment related to sound, as well as electromagnetic fields and physical alterations of current and wind wakes, may have as yet unknown impacts on fisheries resources.”
The Energy Department even conceded wind turbines have adverse environmental impacts, writing,
“As with all energy supply options, wind energy can have adverse environmental impacts, including the potential to reduce, fragment, or degrade habitat for wildlife, fish, and plants. Furthermore, spinning turbine blades can pose a threat to flying wildlife like birds and bats.”
Governor Youngkin broadly supports wind energy but didn’t join an 11-state partnership with the Biden administration aimed at shoring up offshore wind development.
In June, five of Youngkin’s cabinet members wrote a letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) warning future leasing areas not “impact or restrict maritime commerce or commercial navigation within the federal channels into the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, The Port of Virginia’s facilities, Chesapeake Bay anchorages, the Atlantic Ocean shipping lanes and its port approaches as well as traditional and projected high-density maritime traffic routes.”
Where are the Virginia environmental groups opposing the project on conservation grounds? Sadly, they’re all-in for it.
Lest Virginians forget: The CVOW is owned and operated by Dominion Energy—the same utility company whose CEO pumped money into a shadowy political action committee (PAC) that tried to depress turnout ahead of the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election.
Read rest at Townhall
News Flash:
Steel, concrete, and Labor costs have risen 50 to 100% over the past 2 years. So take those cost numbers and double them.
More of those Bird Maiming eyesores spoiling your view of the Ocean do the Eco-Freaks still support them?
Looking at the MATH, this offshore wind project does not look like a very good bargain. The 176 (14.7 MW) turbines with a generous generation rate of 50% will produce just under 1,300 MW. At a project cost of $9.8 Billion, that doesn’t seem to be too competitive, especially when you will (still) need coal or natural gas “back up” generation onshore to keep the Virginia grid stable & reliable. Yep, I’d say the word “Boondoggle” in the title is aptly phrased…
Valid points Randy. When will we hold the liars accountable, the ones who claim that the wind and the sun are free for the taking?
The figures that I have seen has off shore wind power twice as expensive as the on shore version. On shore wind power is extremely expensive compared to fossil fuels and only has one tenth the energy density as solar power.
Well, my former employment was in the oil & gas industry. so I can reasonably assure just about anyone that operating offshore is quite a bit more “pricey” than onshore. That $9.8B estimate cited in the article is most likely low. I’m sure you are aware that the proponents of industrial wind (primarily) and solar use the “levelized cost of electricity” (LCE) to get the numbers to be competitive (onshore) with combined cycle natural gas & coal fired electricity generation. Problem with those LCE calculations is they normally don’t take into account the upfront subsidies, tax credits, transmission by-passes & other market distortions that favor renewables. You add in all the ACTUAL costs, not to mention the thermal “back up” generation that is required and wind & solar are not very competitive at all. Americans are being sold a “bill of goods” on this “100% renewables by X Date” slogan. There is not a SINGLE qualified, peer reviewed engineering study I am aware of that supports that “mantra.” Facts don’t matter to ideologues. That might work in the social sciences, but it has little applicability when dealing with energy imperatives…