Dan McKay's Posts - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-29T10:18:58ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKayhttps://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1548425693?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/feed?user=326vozw4io2rw&xn_auth=noMerrimack and Schiller stations, last coal plants in New England, to shut down coal operationstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-28:4401701:BlogPost:2594492024-03-28T13:16:45.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p><span>Merrimack Station in Bow, the last operating coal-fired power plant in New England, is set to close its coal operations by June 2028, the plant’s parent company announced Wednesday. </span></p>
<p><span>The decision is part of a settlement agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, after the Conservation Law Foundation and the Sierra Club brought lawsuits under the Clean Water Act against the parent company, Granite Shore Power.</span></p>
<p><span>According to the agreement,…</span></p>
<p><span>Merrimack Station in Bow, the last operating coal-fired power plant in New England, is set to close its coal operations by June 2028, the plant’s parent company announced Wednesday. </span></p>
<p><span>The decision is part of a settlement agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, after the Conservation Law Foundation and the Sierra Club brought lawsuits under the Clean Water Act against the parent company, Granite Shore Power.</span></p>
<p><span>According to the agreement, the company will also close coal operations at its Portsmouth facility, Schiller Station, by December 31, 2025..................................</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/03/27/merrimack-and-schiller-stations-last-coal-plants-in-new-england-to-shut-down-after-lawsuits/?utm_medium=email">Merrimack and Schiller stations, last coal plants in New England, to shut down coal operations • New Hampshire Bulletin</a></p>Roper: Vermont House passes Renewable Energy Standard amidst cloud of baloneytag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-23:4401701:BlogPost:2596212024-03-23T13:35:53.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<table border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td width="64"></td>
<td><p>Timothy Page</p>
<p>March 22</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div><p></p>
<div><img src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NamJPWt_L_RSrzxG9rFh0kawDFWbKbPPcvxGupi7B8tFGsiwuPinXQI984eiBB1sMIxvpXO4o-WfyX2jUHlZ9T3jMT9TyP8-aivavC8LLcF_mhl96GYrhZKE2KAeQCMJGJMSt_2EbA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20href="></img></div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>by Rob Roper</strong></p>
<p>This week the House voted in favor of …</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td width="64"></td>
<td><p>Timothy Page</p>
<p>March 22</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div><p></p>
<div><img src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NamJPWt_L_RSrzxG9rFh0kawDFWbKbPPcvxGupi7B8tFGsiwuPinXQI984eiBB1sMIxvpXO4o-WfyX2jUHlZ9T3jMT9TyP8-aivavC8LLcF_mhl96GYrhZKE2KAeQCMJGJMSt_2EbA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20href="/></div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>by Rob Roper</strong></p>
<p>This week the House voted in favor of <a href="http://vermontdailychronicle.com/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=94f1edf8d91c86744acf1cd7857ea0574c00b23a1a301c110c941c7b594ac75e&blog_id=122324971&post_id=111949&user_id=150759755&subs_id=193923615&signature=0a09c30c0cff08b70f30ed99e54d49da&email_name=new-post&user_email=mckaydan2@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vcmVkaXJlY3QvZmJkYzBlZjQtMjYxMC00MmE2LWIyN2MtM2RlYTUxYWRhN2YyP2o9ZXlKMUlqb2lNWEJ1Tm1JMUluMC4xMWhEQWRqZ1AzTm1oMmlsMDBzT1hGZ004amJkbXVDQmFOT01KQ0NVeUQw" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">H.287 – An act relating to the Renewable Energy Standard</a> by a vote of 99-39 with eleven members absent. Even with a half a dozen or so Democrats joining all of the Republicans in voting NO, it looks like the Democrat Party leadership has twisted enough arms, if everyone were present, to override a gubernatorial veto. Here’s to hoping Senators have more common sense.</p>
<p>The overall issue with this bill is that it will by some estimates cost electric utilities and additional $1 billion dollars purchase power over the next decade, which means, when fully implemented, as much as an additional $192 tacked onto the average Vermonter’s annual electric bill. This is on top of other factors leading to higher costs such as increased demand, inflation, etc.</p>
<p>The added cost in H.289 comes largely from the fact that lawmakers are forcing utilities to buy more in-state renewable energy from companies that are, coincidentally, major donors to their campaigns and causes. The utilities themselves and the Department of Public Service backed another plan to meet the Net Zero emissions goals for a fraction of the cost by allowing the utilities to buy clean power from any available source. <a href="http://vermontdailychronicle.com/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=06b1b600b38d0e7d5f617521ed4689fa5eb0881ed14066cb8cce4037f6bfaaff&blog_id=122324971&post_id=111949&user_id=150759755&subs_id=193923615&signature=8f39f118705aa4245362d926cfc9dcf7&email_name=new-post&user_email=mckaydan2@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vcmVkaXJlY3QvOGE0YzE3MzAtYzY3NS00ZjI1LWFhYzQtZjRhZmI1NDQ3YWRmP2o9ZXlKMUlqb2lNWEJ1Tm1JMUluMC4xMWhEQWRqZ1AzTm1oMmlsMDBzT1hGZ004amJkbXVDQmFOT01KQ0NVeUQw" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">But this bill isn’t really about emissions, it’s about cronyism</a>.</p>
<p>So, what do regular old Vermonters get for this added expense? Not a thing!</p>
<p>This point was made clear in a floor debate exchange between Representatives Gina Galfetti (R-Barre Town) and Laura Sibilia (1-Dover). Well, clear despite the rhetorical smoke screen of jargon and obfuscation (that’s a polite term for the fecal waste of a male bovine) thrown up by Sibilia, which was truly monumental. Let’s analyze!</p>
<p>Here’s Galfetti’s question, “Scientifically speaking, what impact will moving the RES target up by two years and increasing the mandate from [75] percent to 100 percent renewables, as S.289 would have us do, have on future climate trends and extreme weather events in Vermont?” Pretty straight forward. Could answered with one word: none.</p>
<p>Instead, after re-stating the question a couple of times Sibilia starts spewing the kind of word salad non-answer to a simple question that she is, hat tip, the master of. I’ll interject my thoughts in brackets and italics as they occur.</p>
<blockquote><p>SIBILIA: “One of the important factors of the work that Vermont has done around climate change is committing to the Paris Accords. Why is that important? <em>[It’s not. Particularly in regard to the question? But do go on….]</em> That is important because there are other much larger countries, much larger states, that are also committed to the Paris Accords and to reducing carbon emissions. Why does that matter for Vermont? <em>[It doesn’t. You’re presenting something irrelevant as if it were a relevant point in order to avoid answering the question.]</em> We – and as someone who lives in rural Vermont I feel acutely – we run the risk if we are not keeping apace of falling pretty far behind and falling behind pretty quickly <em>[Now, here’s an opening for Galfetti to ask, okay, what are the consequences of ‘falling behind’ in terms of impact on future climate trends and extreme weather events in Vermont? Answer: none, unless you count Vermont ratepayers saving a billion dollars as a consequence.]</em>, and our most vulnerable will be subjected to that falling behind. <em>[Another opening to ask really? How so?]</em> We’ve seen this with the transition ---</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At this point, Representative Joe Parsons (R-Newbury) called for a point of order, stating what should have been obvious to any rational person in the room, “I’m hearing a speech and not an answer. I don’t think she’s giving an answer, I think she’s just giving a speech.” Yup! But Speaker Jill Krowinsky (D-Burlington) of course ruled the “answer” Sibilia was giving was just fine. Let’s get back to it….</p>
<blockquote><p>SIBILIA: “We frequently have this debate here when we are talking about the energy transition: ‘This is not going to fix the climate here in Vermont<em>.’ </em>And we are not an island here. <em>[No, we’re not. Without China, Russia, India, etc. on board doing these same things – and they are emphatically not on board -- our efforts here are entirely wasted. So how is this worth an extra billion dollars on your constituents’ electric bills?] </em>So, what is the effect that this Renewable Energy Standard is going to have on the climate here in Vermont? It’s the same that it will have across the United States. <em>[Yes, none. Why can’t you just say that? NONE!]</em></p>
<p>It’s not going to stop the impacts of climate change we are seeing and feeling right now here. What it will help with is allowing more distributed energy, more renewable energy in our state and gives us greater resilience for stronger storms and more frequent storms which we are seeing in Vermont. You know, some of our utility folks let me know whenever there are hurricane force winds now just because it’s pretty wild that that’s a regular occurrence and causing damage.</p>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<p>Okay, stop the tape! This is just absurd. How does more renewable energy – wind and solar – which are in the best of circumstances intermittent, non-baseload power – going to make us more resilient in the face of hurricane force winds, etc.? The most wind resistant wind turbines automatically shut down – stop producing any power whatsoever – when wind speeds hit 55 mph – 18 mph LESS than when hurricane force winds kick in at 72 mph. And since more rain means more clouds which means less efficient solar generation, if we are really experiencing hurricane force winds and the cloud cover that generally accompanies more flooding as a regular occurrences, mandating more reliance on in-state wind and solar is the last thing we should be doing.</p>
<p>What H.289 does is add the injury of making us LESS RESILIENT in the face of extreme weather to the insult of having to pay a billion dollars more for less reliable power. Sibilia is just flat out lying here. Call her out!</p>
<p>But back to the debate…. Galfetti asks, “Okay, so I just want to be clear. Basically, rate payers are going to have to purchase carbon [Renewable Energy] credits [or RECs] in order to not be able to measure any impact on climate change in the state of Vermont. I want to be sure that’s correct.” And here Galfetti falls into the trap you have be wary of when dealing with someone educated in the Bill Clinton School of It Depends on What the Definition of ‘Is’ Is.</p>
<blockquote><p>SIBILIA – Rate payers are not required to purchase credits. None of our utilities are required to purchase credits, and when they do it is usually to maintain rates and to manage rates…. So, RECs are typically a means of keeping rates low. Low-er.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, stop the tape! No, ratepayers don’t ‘purchase’ RECs directly, they are forced to pay the cost of them in their electric bills. Sibilia knows this. No, utilities aren’t ‘required’ to purchase RECs if they can get all of their power from sources deemed renewable by the RES, which happens never. Sibilia knows this. That’s not what Galfetti was getting at, and Sibilia knows that too. And to insinuate that the government forcing utilities to buy RECs – an artificial cost placed on top of the actual cost of the power -- to utilize certain sources of power is somehow a tool for lowering electric rates for customers is at best a grotesque attempt to mislead people.</p>
<p>Even so, the REC discussion was an unnecessary rabbit hole to open up and get dragged into. Who buys RECs and a detailed discussion of how they work is at best tangential to the main point: H.289 raises the cost of electricity by as much as a billion dollars, and Vermonters get no benefit from that added expense. Ergo, there is no good reason to vote for this bill.</p>
<p>The floor debate over H.289 went on for roughly four hours – largely like this (I watch this stuff so you don’t have to…). And this post covering about seven minutes of it is already getting long, so I’ll wind up with one more whopper told by Laura Sibilia:</p>
<blockquote><p>Is that [the RES] going to fix the climate in Vermont? It’s not going to fix the climate in Vermont, but it’s going to help fix – <strong>it’s going to help slow the climate change impacts globally</strong>. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Good grief! The follow up question to that is, “Really. By how much?” Answer: By no detectible amount. And, “Is that worth another billion dollars coming out of already struggling Vermonters’ pockets?” I’ll answer more succinctly that the Representative from Dover. “No.” It is not. </p>
<hr/><p>For another example of a Rep. lying is butt off on the floor regarding this bill (spoiler alert, it’s Rep. Marc Mihaly (D-Calais) , <a href="http://vermontdailychronicle.com/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=771087a406c620f01115d153b7914441c06d79cf38b6a977eecb42c92030d541&blog_id=122324971&post_id=111949&user_id=150759755&subs_id=193923615&signature=0adbe52e4b7beb84ee17c308349ab9cd&email_name=new-post&user_email=mckaydan2@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vcmVkaXJlY3QvMjg3OWFjM2ItNjdjNy00MjExLWJiMTYtYjRiODMyMzk5OTQ2P2o9ZXlKMUlqb2lNWEJ1Tm1JMUluMC4xMWhEQWRqZ1AzTm1oMmlsMDBzT1hGZ004amJkbXVDQmFOT01KQ0NVeUQw" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">check out this excellent article</a> by Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.</p>
<p><em>Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, </em><a href="http://vermontdailychronicle.com/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=2aac70b72cf12a2677b84ed1e1d06e4fbbbf08ad42979067a70728ada6e495ed&blog_id=122324971&post_id=111949&user_id=150759755&subs_id=193923615&signature=f70b842fd4fa42b20e835bfaf12a6b53&email_name=new-post&user_email=mckaydan2@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9yb2JlcnRyb3Blci5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20v" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">robertroper.substack.com</a></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>Changes to The Maine Wind Energy Act, The goals for onshore wind are gonetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-19:4401701:BlogPost:2593882024-03-19T12:54:41.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div class="mrs-text indpara"><strong><span class="headnote"><a href="https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/35-A/title35-Ach34sec0.html">Chapter 34: THE MAINE WIND ENERGY ACT</a> §3401 - §3410</span></strong></div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"></div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"></div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"><span class="headnote">2. State wind energy generation goal. <span> </span></span>The State's goal for wind energy development in proximate federal waters is for at least 3,000…</div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"><strong><span class="headnote"><a href="https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/35-A/title35-Ach34sec0.html">Chapter 34: THE MAINE WIND ENERGY ACT</a> §3401 - §3410</span></strong></div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"></div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"></div>
<div class="mrs-text indpara"><span class="headnote">2. State wind energy generation goal. <span> </span></span>The State's goal for wind energy development in proximate federal waters is for at least 3,000 megawatts of installed capacity by December 31, 2040. </div>
<div class="mrs-text paragraph B">Beginning January 1, 2025 and every 2 years thereafter, the office may reevaluate and increase the goal established by this subsection and report that goal to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over energy and utilities matters. </div>
<div class="mrs-text paragraph MRSLetteredPara status_current LP"><span class="letpara_id">A.<span> </span></span><span class="bhistory">[PL 2023, c. 481, §3 (RP).]</span></div>
<div class="mrs-text paragraph MRSLetteredPara status_current LP"><span class="letpara_id">B.<span> </span></span><span class="bhistory">[PL 2023, c. 481, §3 (RP).]</span></div>
<div class="mrs-text paragraph MRSLetteredPara status_current LP"><span class="letpara_id">C.<span> </span></span><span class="bhistory">[PL 2023, c. 481, §3 (RP).]</span></div>
<p><span class="bhistory">[PL 2023, c. 481, §3 (RPR).]</span></p>Apparently, New England Electricity Produced by Natural Gas Plants is Not Going Awaytag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-13:4401701:BlogPost:2593642024-03-13T14:00:00.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12399903093?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12399903093?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12399903093?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12399903093?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>Offshore wind power prices take big leaptag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-01:4401701:BlogPost:2592562024-03-01T16:18:55.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div class="Ar Au Ao" id=":wg"><div class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY" id=":wc"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="newspack-post-subtitle"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>New York prices more than double last bid in Mass</strong></span></div>
<div class="entry-subhead"><div class="entry-meta"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong><span class="byline">by …</span></strong></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=":wg" class="Ar Au Ao"><div id=":wc" class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="newspack-post-subtitle"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>New York prices more than double last bid in Mass</strong></span></div>
<div class="entry-subhead"><div class="entry-meta"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong><span class="byline">by <span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://commonwealthbeacon.org/author/bruce-mohl/">BRUCE MOHL</a></span></span><span class="posted-on">17 hours ago</span></strong></span></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>THE PRICE OF ELECTRICITY</span> from offshore wind is taking off, as New York awarded contracts to two developers on Thursday at prices more than double what Massachusetts negotiated during its last procurement.</p>
<p>A press release issued by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul indicated the average cost of the two contracts in New York is $150.15 per megawatt hour. The press release said the price “is on-par with the latest market prices,” but it’s a sticker-shock leap from the $76.73-per-megawatt-hour price that Massachusetts negotiated with Avangrid in March 2023.</p>
<p>Avangrid <a href="https://commonwealthbeacon.org/energy/avangrid-agrees-to-pay-48m-to-terminate-offshore-wind-deal/">ended up paying</a> a $48 million penalty to terminate that contract in July last year, saying rising interest rates, inflation, and economic upheaval caused by the war in Ukraine made the contract terms unworkable. That decision set off a domino effect in the industry, as a number of projects up and down the Atlantic seaboard were terminated.</p>
<p>The two winners of the New York procurement – Sunrise Wind (a joint venture of Orsted and Eversource Energy) and Equinor – went through the same process, terminating contracts negotiated in 2019 and replacing them with new contracts with prices roughly $32 to $40 per megawatt hour higher, according to press reports.</p>
<p>In Massachusetts, one offshore wind farm – Vineyard Wind 1 – is going up, with 5 of 62 turbines currently installed. But three other fully bid projects fell by the wayside amid economic turmoil. Gov. Maura Healey wants to play catchup with the next procurement, with bids expected March 27 and awards expected early next year.</p>
<p>But price is a big concern, so much so that Healey <a href="https://commonwealthbeacon.org/energy/offshore-wind-procurement-delayed-2-months/">delayed</a> the upcoming procurement by nearly two months to give developers more time to determine whether federal tax credits could help lower their bids. Massachusetts has also partnered with Connecticut and Rhode Island on the next procurement, looking for benefits of scale that could lower costs.</p>
<br />
<p>The Healey administration can always reject bids if they come in too high, but that would be a very difficult decision given that the governor has said repeatedly that the state desperately needs offshore wind to begin decarbonizing the economy.</p>
<p>Sen. Michael Barrett of Lexington, the Senate chair of the Legislature’s Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy Committee, said the New York prices are very troubling. Barrett said Massachusetts in the past has focused on keeping electricity prices low because electricity usage is expected to play such a key role in decarbonization. Other states, meanwhile, have been willing to accept higher prices to lure more onshore wind development to the state.</p>
<p>In the past, Barrett said, offshore wind developers interested in doing business in Massachusetts had told him there would continue to be a price difference between Massachusetts and states like New York. Over the last six months, however, he said the message has shifted to suggest pricing may not differ that much.</p>
<p>“We’re basically looking at New York prices without New York benefits, and that’s a real problem,” he said.</p>
<p>The New York procurement offered some welcome news for Eversource Energy, a utility that serves Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Eversource ventured into offshore wind as a partner with Orsted and suffered major losses. It recently <a href="https://commonwealthbeacon.org/energy/eversource-exits-wind-business-reports-massive-loss/">exited the business</a>, selling its stakes in several wind farms, including Sunrise Wind. Eversource had written off its entire investment in Sunrise Wind, but the fact that it won the New York procurement means the $1.22 billion impairment charge it took on the project could be reduced significantly.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Catastrophe Overtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-01:4401701:BlogPost:2592522024-03-01T14:41:44.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><em><strong>Maine elites with climate catastrophobia have identified offshore wind as a key component of reaching clean energy goals, which include using 80% renewable energy by 2030, with the intention of reaching 100% by 2040.</strong></em></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>What does it mean to reach renewable energy…</strong></span></span></div>
<p></p>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><em><strong>Maine elites with climate catastrophobia have identified offshore wind as a key component of reaching clean energy goals, which include using 80% renewable energy by 2030, with the intention of reaching 100% by 2040.</strong></em></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>What does it mean to reach renewable energy goals?</strong></span><br/></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>First, what does Maine define as renewable energy?</strong></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div>Renewable energy is confined to certain types of electrical generation, i.e. fuel cells; tidal power; solar arrays and installations; wind power installations; geothermal installations; hydroelectric generators that meet all state and federal fish passage requirement; or biomass generators, including generators fueled by landfill gas.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>How does Maine track the renewable energy goals?</strong></span></div>
<div>The goals are established by the purchases of renewable energy certificates that renewable energy electrical generators receive.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>How much renewable energy is made in Maine?</strong></span></div>
<div>Maine has renewable generators. In fact, Maine has enough renewable generators that receive renewable energy certificates that the renewable energy goals are presently achievable.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Why isn't Maine at 100% renewable right now? </strong></span></div>
<div>But Maine climate catastrophobics want a market that buys and sells renewable energy certificates. They say it provides cash incentives to pay for more renewable development. Cash that comes out of the electric bills paid by electric customers.</div>
<div>This market offers renewable energy certificates to the highest bids which means they represent a regressive impact on ratepayers. Higher bids mean higher costs passed to the ratepayers.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>How can Maine reach 100% renewable and terminate the renewable energy certificate market?</strong></span></div>
<div>If Maine simply retired renewable energy certificates as they are produced by Maine renewable generators instead of offering them to a cash market that has many, larger, out of state bidders, Maine ratepayers would save on energy bills (which can add 5 cents per kilowatt hour to rates) plus the renewable energy goals would be reached. </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Catastrophe Over.</strong></span></div>A Bone to Pick With the Democrats on the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee of Augustatag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-29:4401701:BlogPost:2591532024-02-29T13:03:35.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<div dir="ltr">The democrats of the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee are running rampantly against standard committee practice.The democrats outnumber the republicans in the committee 8 to 5. Both chairs are democrats and they are very bold, but one wonders how ethical their actions are.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></br><div> For instance, a couple weeks ago, a work session was scheduled for a bill that would provide for a study on how Maine might restrict the build-out of…</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<div dir="ltr">The democrats of the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee are running rampantly against standard committee practice.The democrats outnumber the republicans in the committee 8 to 5. Both chairs are democrats and they are very bold, but one wonders how ethical their actions are.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br/><div> For instance, a couple weeks ago, a work session was scheduled for a bill that would provide for a study on how Maine might restrict the build-out of natural gas systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It had many people testifying at the public hearing, but when the work session was supposed to take place, it occurred behind closed doors (Work Sessions are normally available on the committee website with real time video and audio).</div>
<div> Adding insult to injury, the democrats decided to turn over further discussion of the bill to be presented by an unelected person from the NRCM for the second work session.</div>
<div> These democrats are taking the role of authoritarians. Vote them out</div>
</div>Do Maine Lawmakers Have the Best Interests for the Maine People? There is a Way to Find Out.tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-28:4401701:BlogPost:2591402024-02-28T17:28:03.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div class="Ar Au Ao" id=":sr"><div class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY" id=":sn"><strong>The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recorded the 2022 total Maine electric sales at 11,875,708 megawatt-hours</strong><div><br></br><div><strong>The EIA record shows Maine has generation capabilities from renewables at 11,257476 megawatt-hours.</strong></div>
<div><strong>This means if Maine would qualify just one in-state hydropower plant over a 100 megawatt capacity as renewable, Maine…</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=":sr" class="Ar Au Ao"><div id=":sn" class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY"><strong>The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recorded the 2022 total Maine electric sales at 11,875,708 megawatt-hours</strong><div><br/><div><strong>The EIA record shows Maine has generation capabilities from renewables at 11,257476 megawatt-hours.</strong></div>
<div><strong>This means if Maine would qualify just one in-state hydropower plant over a 100 megawatt capacity as renewable, Maine could be 100% renewable by retiring renewable energy credits with all credits going towards Maine goals.</strong></div>
<div><strong>This also means if the Maine legislators will not guide the state into this path, they are compromised by someone(s) .</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>ISO – NE Warningtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-27:4401701:BlogPost:2593212024-02-27T16:19:03.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p>The<span> </span><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/learn">New England Integrated System Operator</a><span> </span>(ISO) issued a<span> </span><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2022/07/2021_economic_study_future_grid_reliability_study_phase_1_report.pdf">report</a><span> </span>in 2022 that looked at four scenarios to decarbonize the New England power grid by 2040. The report projected increases in power demand from EVs and electrification of home…</p>
<p></p>
<p>The<span> </span><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/learn">New England Integrated System Operator</a><span> </span>(ISO) issued a<span> </span><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2022/07/2021_economic_study_future_grid_reliability_study_phase_1_report.pdf">report</a><span> </span>in 2022 that looked at four scenarios to decarbonize the New England power grid by 2040. The report projected increases in power demand from EVs and electrification of home and business heating.</p>
<p>Only one scenario could meet state decarbonization goals and rising demand. That scenario called for 84 gigawatts of new wind, solar, and storage, to provide 56 percent of electricity by 2040.</p>
<p>But the ISO concluded that such a wind-, solar-, and battery-dominated system would not be reliable, requiring periodic operator-imposed blackouts. Even with 2,400 gigawatt-hours of battery-energy capacity and system reserve margins that were 300 percent over typical electricity demand, the system would fail for an estimated 15 days, and be at risk of failure an additional 36 days each year.</p>
<p>Wind and solar buildouts also conflict with alarming climate forecasts. Climate warnings call for increasingly severe weather, including stronger and more frequent storms, floods, and droughts. Yet climate-policy advocates demand a switch to intermittent wind and solar electricity sources. Wind and solar typically fail to operate during heatwave, cloudy, rainy, snowy, or stormy weather conditions.</p>Rep. Reagan Paul delivers this week's Republican Radio Address regarding the selection of Sears Island as the offshore wind porttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-26:4401701:BlogPost:2593192024-02-26T14:35:57.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6owTfiDiYU">2024 02 22 Paul Radio Address (youtube.com)</a></p>
<p></p>
<p align="left"><strong>AUGUSTA</strong> – Governor Mills announced this week that Sears Island has been selected as the location where her administration will launch its long-awaited offshore wind energy project. Climate extremists were ecstatic with the news. Renewable energy lobbyists were bouncing off the State House walls. But sadly there is a clear loser here – it’s…</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6owTfiDiYU">2024 02 22 Paul Radio Address (youtube.com)</a></p>
<p></p>
<p align="left"><strong>AUGUSTA</strong> – Governor Mills announced this week that Sears Island has been selected as the location where her administration will launch its long-awaited offshore wind energy project. Climate extremists were ecstatic with the news. Renewable energy lobbyists were bouncing off the State House walls. But sadly there is a clear loser here – it’s Maine’s environment.</p>
<p align="left">Hello, this is Representative Reagan Paul of Winterport. I’m pleased to join you for this week’s Republican Radio Address; but I’m afraid my message today is not so pleasing.</p>
<p align="left">Simply put, climate activists now represent a clear and present danger to Maine’s environment and even our livelihoods. Yes, the very people who claim to be doing everything they can to save our environment are instead doing everything they can to destroy it.</p>
<p align="left">Just off Searsport, Sears Island has long been known as a place of tranquility and home to abundant wildlife, migratory birds, botanical resources and historical sites. It boasts a wealth of Wabanaki history as well as historical significance dating back to the Revolutionary War.</p>
<p align="left">It is also the largest undeveloped, uninhabited island on our nation’s East Coast. This local treasure is important to the Midcoast community as a significant tourist attraction, welcoming thousands of visitors from around the globe every year.</p>
<p align="left">The State owns the 940-acre island and has maintained it for years as an ecological sanctuary. In 2007, 601 acres were placed under a conservation easement held by the Maine Coast Heritage Trust. About 330 acres were reserved on the Transportation parcel for possible future use as a cargo port. Unfortunately, that changed this week when Gov. Mills announced they would develop about 100 acres of it into an offshore wind port.</p>
<p align="left">Interestingly, a Maine DOT slideshow shows 100-PLUS acres would be utilized. What is the plus? Habib Dagher of the University of Maine, who is developing this technology, was recently quoted as saying an offshore wind port would require 200 to 600 acres. Maybe he knows what the “plus” really means. Whatever the amount of land, up to 330 acres could be used to house a complex to “support the transportation, assembly and fabrication of offshore wind turbines.”</p>
<p align="left">The Mills Administration apparently thinks turning a pristine natural environment into an industrial one with hazardous chemicals, composites and construction materials will be good for the environment. But more than that, it begs the question, “What is really going on here?” Especially when in 1995, the EPA and other agencies said that using Sears Island as a cargo terminal would irreparably harm the aquatic environment and significantly degrade waters in the United States.</p>
<p align="left">As the representative for Searsport and other coastal communities, I share the concerns of many constituents who have voiced their opposition to this plan. I’ve heard the larger concern of thousands of acres of Maine’s pristine landscape being covered with solar panels that will prove more toxic than PFAS when decayed e-waste starts piling up. I’ve also heard the concerns of those who may have their property taken by eminent domain for the transmission lines that will be required to make this “green” nightmare come to fruition.</p>
<p align="left">And the windmills as tall as skyscrapers that are being proposed offshore will threaten everything from endangered right whales, Piping Plovers and Least Terns to the collapse of our fishing industry. The hypocrisy here is almost laughable.</p>
<p align="left">It all has to do with this cult-like desire to attain a greenhouse gas-free environment. Well, removing 100 acres of trees certainly doesn’t help, nor does the fact that China accounts for more than 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions compared to only 15 percent for the U.S.</p>
<p align="left">But climate zealots don’t want to hear that. They’d rather we clean up our air to benefit Europe than worry about China exporting their dirty air to us.</p>
<p align="left">Still, if the goal here is to protect our environment, these climate extremists are failing spectacularly. Consider the fact that the push toward electric vehicles requires the mining of 500,000 pounds of ore just to produce the nickel, lithium, cobalt and magnesium to make one car battery.</p>
<p align="left">In fact, Republicans held a press briefing earlier this week that outlined how nuclear power is the cleanest, most stable form of energy generation we can achieve. This brings me to my final point: There are cleaner alternatives than wind and solar.</p>
<p align="left">For example, you would need millions of acres of offshore wind with a 30% capacity factor, hundreds of thousands of acres for onshore wind with a 30% capacity factor, hundreds of thousands of acres of solar panels with a 15% capacity factor, or just 35 acres of small modular nuclear reactor with a 92% capacity factor to produce the same 1,000 megawatts of electricity.</p>
<p align="left">All you have to do is drive by a solar farm after a snowstorm like today and see every single panel covered with snow or think about steel corroding in saltwater. Billions of dollars in subsidies have been handed to solar and wind companies for inefficient and expensive energy sources that do nothing but ecological and economic harm. This isn’t complicated.</p>
<p align="left">That is why I submitted LD 1549, which would direct the PUC to request information about the time, estimated cost and potential site locations for such reactors in Maine. It’s a no brainer. Unfortunately, Democrats have left my bill – mind you, a simple informational request to look into this technology – in the purgatory of unfinished business for nearly nine months.</p>
<p align="left">The bottom line is we’re going to destroy potentially hundreds of acres of beautiful Maine habitat to chase a dream that may not even bear fruit. What if this venture fails? What if we find dead whales washed ashore as they did in New York and New Jersey, two states that have since abandoned offshore wind?</p>
<p align="left">It’s time Maine drops this green energy pipe dream and instead pursue cleaner options like hydro, geothermal and nuclear energies. Only then will we truly be in charge of our environmental future and stop Maine from looking like a science experiment. The way it’s shaping up now, climate activists represent an existential threat to Maine’s environment and economy.</p>
<p align="left">Again, this is Representative Reagan Paul of Winterport. I thank you for listening.</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left"><em>Representative Reagan Paul of Winterport is in her first term representing District 37, which includes several communities in Waldo County. She serves on the Legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee.</em></p>Two Northern Maine lawmakers who support the King Pine Wind Projecttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-26:4401701:BlogPost:2592302024-02-26T13:38:47.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<h1 class="entry-title">Aroostook lawmakers back study that could further slow massive wind project</h1>
<p><span class="byline"><span>by</span><span> </span><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/author/ktomaselli/">Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli </a></span></span><span class="posted-on">February 23, 2024 Bangor Daily News…</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="entry-title">Aroostook lawmakers back study that could further slow massive wind project</h1>
<p><span class="byline"><span>by</span><span> </span><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/author/ktomaselli/">Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli </a></span></span><span class="posted-on">February 23, 2024 Bangor Daily News</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="posted-on"><a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/02/23/aroostook/aroostook-government/aroostook-lawmakers-ls-power-study/?utm_medium=email">Aroostook lawmakers back study that could further slow massive wind project (bangordailynews.com)</a></span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>The top Aroostook County lawmakers who have championed a stalled transmission line linking a massive wind farm to the regional grid are backing a study that could further slow the project.</p>
<p>The early stages of connecting the <a href="https://www.longroadenergy.com/renewable-energy-projects/king-pine-wind/">King Pine Wind Project </a>in Aroostook County to the grid hit several snags last year, culminating in the Maine Public Utilities Commission <a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/12/21/politics/maine-puc-ls-power-transmission-line-plans/">killing the transmission line plans</a> in December, citing cost uncertainties.</p>
<p>The project was also hampered by opposition in the central Maine communities that the line would cross. Their allies in the Legislature are pushing for a pause in the project so the state can study its options before putting it back out to bid. Some of the transmission line’s most ardent supporters are also behind it, although the company seeking to build the wind farm is against it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>“If we really want this to work and serve our future needs, involving as many people as possible will allow for greater transparency and acceptance by a majority of Mainers,” Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, who has backed the project, said of the measure.</p>
<p>The bill <a href="https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=2205&snum=131#">proposing a new feasibility study</a> would direct the PUC to contract with an independent engineering firm to study what new infrastructure development is necessary to complete the proposed electric transmission line, among other issues.</p>
<p>It is sponsored by Rep. Scott Cyrway, R-Albion, but Stewart and Senate President Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, are also backing it. The two Senate leaders have also <a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/01/08/politics/maine-lawmakers-try-to-restart-aroostook-wind-project-joam40zk0w/">suggested exploring additional options</a> to speed the project along, like building underground transmission lines and removing firm requirements on transmission line technology to get the project going quicker.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Last February, the utilities commission selected New York-based <a href="http://www.lspgridmaine.com/">LS Power </a>and <a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/02/28/news/aroostook/aroostook-residents-wind-project-benefits/">Long Road Energy’s King Pine Wind Project</a> for the <a href="http://www.lspgridmaine.com/project/">Aroostook Renewable Gateway</a>. The decision to proceed came after Massachusetts agreed to pay for 40 percent of the project.</p>
<p>In June 2023, the legislature approved the LS Power transmission lines without a specified route and Gov. Janet Mills signed it into law. Prior to the votes, lawmakers opposed to the plan and members of communities affected by the line criticized the Legislature for voting without a clear idea of where the line would go.</p>
<p>“The people of Maine have told us that they want our review of these projects and they want us to vote and make a decision,” Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, said at the time.</p>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>In late summer and early fall, LS Power talked with more than 700 landowners in local information sessions regarding the controversial proposed route.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The PUC’s decision to include Massachusetts in the agreement finalized with LS Power introduced new risks and delays that were beyond LS Power’s control, according to a January <a href="https://mpuc-cms.maine.gov/CQM.Public.WebUI/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7BB0B1FA8C-0000-CC18-9ED0-7FB6007EF617%7D&DocExt=pdf&DocName=%7BB0B1FA8C-0000-CC18-9ED0-7FB6007EF617%7D.pdf">letter</a> to the PUC from LS Power President Paul Thessen.</p>
<p>Thessen said his company was eager to work with the commission, but a failure to acknowledge those risks by the state would have been fatal for financing. That led to significant differences between LS Power, Longroad Energy, Central Maine Power, Versant Power, PUC staff and Massachusetts in developing a transmission agreement.</p>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>The study is opposed by Longroad. Chad Allen, the company’s director of development, <a href="https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=181418">told lawmakers this week</a> that it may delay the project for more than two years. That could add uncertainty to the cost and reduce competition in the bid process, he said. But Stewart pitched it as a way to bring people together on a plan.</p>
<p>“The obvious problems of the transmission line are what we’re hoping to avoid in the future,” Stewart said.</p>NextEra and the NECECtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-25:4401701:BlogPost:2591232024-02-25T15:23:02.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<h1 class="viewsHeaderText">Inside a clean energy titan’s fight to kill a climate project</h1>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Story by By Benjamin Storrow…</span></p>
<div class="Ar Au Ao" id=":so"><div class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY" id=":sk"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<h1 class="viewsHeaderText">Inside a clean energy titan’s fight to kill a climate project</h1>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Story by By Benjamin Storrow</span></p>
<div id=":so" class="Ar Au Ao"><div id=":sk" class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br/><div><p>The United States’ top developer of green energy has spent nearly six years undermining a project vital to generating clean power in New England — a stance critics say belies the company’s branding as a leader in the fight against climate change.</p>
<p>Florida-based NextEra Energy has <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/01/18/war-between-energy-titans-could-shape-new-england-climate-285255" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fought to block a transmission line</a> for Canadian-generated hydropower by opposing it at two state supreme courts, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the ballot box — twice. Its tactics, overseen in part by a public relations firm with a history of defending coal, recently led a Maine ethics agency to issue <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24212709-alpine-initiatives-consent-agreement#document/p2/a2421030" target="_blank" rel="noopener">its largest-ever fine</a>against an organization working on NextEra’s behalf.</p>
<p></p>
<p class="gmail-continue-read-break">NextEra’s campaign has delayed the power line’s construction for almost two years, leaving the region overwhelmingly dependent on natural gas. Its opposition highlights an uncomfortable reality for climate advocates: Powerful allies can turn into cutthroat adversaries when their profits are threatened.</p>
<p>“It just shows you that these companies are not fundamentally allied with the climate movement, not fundamentally on the side of climate progress,” said Leah Stokes, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied utility opposition to climate policy. “They are just monopolies who sit on the bridge like a troll and try to protect their own profits.”</p>
<p class="gmail-">NextEra spokesperson Chris McGrath defended its opposition to the line, saying no other company had done “more to drive the transition to clean energy” or “invested more in the nation's electrical infrastructure in the past decade.”</p>
<p class="gmail-"></p>
<p>But he argued that new transmission projects should be used for domestic energy, and the company has asserted in legal filings that the line might fail to deliver its promised environmental benefits. That echoes concerns expressed by some green groups about the power line's potential impacts on forests and rivers.</p>
<p>“Our concerns around the transmission line in question stemmed from our belief that newly constructed transmission in the U.S. should support U.S. power generation — both new and existing clean energy,” McGrath said in a statement.</p>
<p>NextEra’s national fleet of wind and solar farms generates more renewable electricity than any other company in the country. It built the largest utility-scale solar project in New England, a 77-megawatt facility in Maine with enough power to supply about 15,000 homes. And its executives have been vocal about climate action, praising passage of President Joe Biden’s <a href="https://www.investor.nexteraenergy.com/sustainability/ceo-letter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Inflation Reduction Act</a> and calling for increased cooperation among companies and governments during climate talks last year in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But the company also has a history of defending its turf against other clean energy initiatives at a time of record-high global temperatures. NextEra’s campaign in New England echoes <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/04/28/in-surprise-move-fla-governor-vetoes-solar-crackdown-00028391" target="_blank" rel="noopener">its fight against rooftop solar incentives</a> in Florida, where it operates the country’s largest utility.</p>
<p>In New England, the power line, called New England Clean Energy Connect, represents potential competition for NextEra’s fleet of power plants.</p>
<h4 class="gmail-story-text__heading-large">Battles fought, battles lost</h4>
<p>The <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=0000018d-56d6-de62-ab8d-56de884b0000" target="_blank" rel="noopener">transmission line would run 145 miles through Maine</a>, from the Canadian border to a substation in the southern part of the state, where it would inject power generated by dams in Quebec into New England’s electric system.</p>
<p>The project has divided environmentalists, pitting those who say it’s needed to back up wind and solar against those who worry about the ecological impact of sawing down trees and damming rivers</p>
<p></p>
<p>But nowhere has the fight been more intense than between power companies.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It began in 2018, when Massachusetts awarded a 20-year contract to the line’s two developers, Avangrid and Hydro-Québec. The contract would make the project one of the region’s largest power sources, providing enough electricity to meet about 7 percent of annual demand.</p>
<p>NextEra jumped into the fight almost immediately.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It operates Seabrook Station, a massive nuclear power plant in New Hampshire; an oil-fired power plant in Maine; and renewable facilities across the region. The company challenged the legality of the line’s power contracts in Massachusetts, contending they failed to meet state requirements for clean energy. The argument reached the state’s highest court, <a href="http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/485/485mass595.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">where NextEra lost</a>.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>In Maine, it challenged the project by arguing that utility regulators failed to consider its impact on renewable energy projects and state woodlands. <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24356859-me-sjc-nextera-ruling?responsive=1&title=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">It lost there</a>, too.</p>
<p>And when New England's grid operator determined that a circuit breaker at Seabrook needed to be upgraded to accommodate the injection of hydropower, NextEra asked federal regulators to ensure it was compensated for lost operating time. In response, FERC said Avangrid needed to pay for the upgrade, but not lost revenues. NextEra is appealing the decision in federal court.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Alison Silverstein, a grid consultant who served as an adviser to former FERC Chair Pat Wood III, said NextEra has a history of trying to shield its power plants from competition. In this case, those efforts conflict with Massachusetts’ climate goals, she said, because the state has directed its utilities to buy large amounts of hydropower to back up wind and solar energy.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>“It would appear the public purpose and the will of the state is something that NextEra is willing to block,” Silverstein said.</p>
<h4 class="gmail-story-text__heading-large">'Disturbing evidence'</h4>
<p>In November, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices issued fines to two organizations connected to the company. Ethics committee documents and testimony show the groups were directed by consultants working on behalf of NextEra to block the line.</p>
<p></p>
<p>One of the groups, Alpine Initiatives, failed to register as a political action committee before making a $150,000 contribution to the Maine Democratic Party, a move that ethics officials said masked the source of payment from the public. The contribution was an attempt to ingratiate the consultants to Democratic officials as they looked for allies in their fight against the power line, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24212709-alpine-initiatives-consent-agreement#document/p2/a2421030" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the commission said</a>. As part of a consent agreement, officials with Alpine Initiatives agreed to pay a $160,000 fine in exchange for not having to admit guilt.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>The commission fined Stop the Corridor, a second group led by NextEra-hired consultants, $50,000 for failing to register as a ballot committee after it hired field workers to gather signatures needed to place a question on the 2020 ballot that asked voters to block the line. Stop the Corridor also signed a consent agreement that allowed it to avoid admitting guilt.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The Maine Supreme Judicial Court blocked the ballot question. But the following year, opponents of the line gathered enough signatures to add another question to the ballot that would have blocked the project.</p>
<p>NextEra spent more than $20 million to support this question, while Avangrid and Hydro-Québec, the Canadian utility that would send power to New England, put up more than $50 million in an attempt to defeat it. The question ultimately passed with the support of nearly two-thirds of voters, temporarily halting construction. Maine’s highest court later <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/08/30/maine-supreme-court-revives-contentious-transmission-project-00054249" target="_blank" rel="noopener">invalidated the result</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>NextEra is not named in the two consent agreements, which refer only to “the client” who hired the consultants. But the paper trail leads back to the company. Stop the Corridor’s consent agreement notes that the client is identified in a campaign finance report attached to the deal. That report lists a solitary contribution: a payment of $95,726 from NextEra Energy Resources, the company's renewable development and wholesale electricity arm.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>During a November meeting of the Maine ethics commission, a lawyer “speaking on behalf of Stop the Corridor as well as the client” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJDOVkM4g1w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued that the client</a> would face “reputational harm” if the consent agreement identified it.</p>
<p>“The client is not being accused of any unlawful activity in this proceeding, and is facing no liability,” Paul McDonald, a lawyer at Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer and Nelson, told the commission. Bernstein Shur helped establish and run Stop the Corridor, commission records show.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But when questioned by Commissioner David Hastings III, a Republican, McDonald acknowledged the client was named in the campaign finance report attached to the Stop the Corridor deal. Hastings also asked if the client named in the Alpine Initiatives case was the same. McDonald said it was.</p>
<p>“I want to make very clear that the client is identified at least in exhibit B,” Hastings said, referring to the campaign finance report.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>NextEra Energy did not respond to a question asking if it was the client. Instead, the company issued a statement echoing the terms of the consent agreement.</p>
<p>“NextEra Energy Resources is not a party to the consent agreements approved by the Maine Ethics Commission, and the agreements do not conclude that our company engaged in any wrongdoing,” said McGrath, the company spokesperson. “The agreements also do not conclude that our company failed to report any activity whatsoever.”</p>
<p></p>
<p>Avangrid took the opposite view. In a statement to POLITICO’s E&E News, the Connecticut-based utility said the ethics commission’s findings “provide direct and disturbing evidence that NextEra took nefarious and deceitful action to exclude competition and put its own bottom line ahead of the interests of New England residents and businesses.”</p>
<h4 class="gmail-story-text__heading-large">'Subverting the whole plan'</h4>
<p>NextEra is the most valuable publicly traded power company in the country, with a market capitalization around $117 billion, and has pledged to achieve “real zero” emissions by <a href="https://www.nexteraenergy.com/sustainability.html?cid=SEANEE0015aug22&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiApuCrBhAuEiwA8VJ6Jor1g-8ZxSMOxJfNX4_idKyfm5-HJVODVL6_TNeNkFRhKHyhY21IWBoCPEEQAvD_BwE" target="_blank" rel="noopener">eliminating carbon dioxide pollution</a> from its operations by 2045.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>But analysts said NextEra's fight against the transmission line resembles its opposition to rooftop solar in Florida. A joint investigation by the British newspaper <i>The</i> <i>Guardian</i> and the U.S.-based environmental news site Floodlight found <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/20/revealed-the-florida-power-company-pushing-legislation-to-slow-rooftop-solar" target="_blank" rel="noopener">that a lobbyist</a> for Florida Power and Light, a NextEra subsidiary, had written large parts of a bill that would have gutted the state’s rooftop solar industry. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/04/28/in-surprise-move-fla-governor-vetoes-solar-crackdown-00028391" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vetoed the bill</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>J. Timmons Roberts, a professor of environmental studies at Brown University, said NextEra’s campaigns in New England and Florida are part of a wider trend in which utilities seek to protect themselves from competition.</p>
<p>“For them to be subverting the whole plan here is pretty devastating for the energy transition,” Roberts said. “We need, badly, all the wind and solar we can get on the grid, and we need the interconnection cable to Canada to balance the load for the times when there's shortages down here.”</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>NextEra’s fight comes as state officials in New England seek to green the grid by awarding long-term power contracts to renewable energy developers, existing nuclear plants and hydropower operators.</p>
<p>That has prompted <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/01/18/war-between-energy-titans-could-shape-new-england-climate-285255" target="_blank" rel="noopener">objections from power plant owners</a>, who worry they could lose market share to competitors with fixed priced contracts. The transmission line received a 20-year power contract from Massachusetts to deliver 9.45 terawatt-hours of electricity annually, or enough to meet 7 percent of the region’s electric needs. The power will be consumed throughout New England because the region operates a single electricity system.</p>
<p></p>
<h4 class="gmail-story-text__heading-large">Canadian river power</h4>
<p>It was against that backdrop that NextEra emerged as a chief opponent of the transmission line.</p>
<p>Roberts said NextEra’s legal challenges jeopardize climate efforts in New England, where five of the six states have legally binding requirements to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas pollution by the end of the decade. Those reductions are unlikely to materialize without a massive build-out of renewable energy, an increase in Canadian hydropower imports and the continued operation of Seabrook, he said.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>Massachusetts officials estimated the line would reduce CO2 emissions by 36 million tons over its 20-year power contract. CO2 pollution from power plants in New England was 25.5 million tons in 2023, according to EPA data.</p>
<p>Stokes, of UC Santa Barbara, called hydropower “an amazing resource” that can reduce the region’s reliance on natural gas, which accounts for more than half of New England’s power generation.</p>
<p></p>
<p>“Would you rather have hydropower, clean hydropower from Quebec, or would you like to keep burning fossil gas?” Stokes said. “And my choice is I'm going to take the hydropower.”</p>
<p>NextEra questioned the environmental benefits of the transmission line. In its legal challenge over the line’s power contract in Massachusetts, it questioned whether the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24356927-nextera-dpu-brief?responsive=1&title=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">project would cut emissions</a> to the degree promised, by arguing that the contract failed to guarantee additional imports of hydropower above what Hydro-Québec already sells to New England. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and the state Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<h4 class="gmail-story-text__heading-large">Persuading Democrats</h4>
<p>The consent agreements released by the Maine ethics commission show how NextEra political consultants sought to influence public opinion around the power line.</p>
<p></p>
<p>NextEra, identified as the client in commission documents and testimony, hired the Hawthorn Group, a public affairs and consulting firm based in Alexandria, Virginia. The firm is perhaps best known for representing <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2009/11/18/irs-disclosures-show-extent-of-oil-and-coal-groups-outreach-181292" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a> during the congressional debate over cap and trade in 2009, when one of its <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2009/08/04/coal-industry-group-linked-to-a-dozen-forged-cap-and-trade-letters-184923" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contractors forged letters</a> to lawmakers.</p>
<p>In Maine, Hawthorn turned to Bernstein Shur, a local law firm, to lead the campaign against the transmission line. Bernstein Shur and another Maine political consultancy, which was not named in the consent agreement, founded Stop the Corridor in April 2018 — around the time Massachusetts awarded the line’s developers a 20-year power contract.</p>
<p>Stop the Corridor arranged for opponents to attend municipal meetings, sought to shape public opinion through advertising, and worked with other groups to draft comments to state and federal agencies, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24189988-stop-the-corridor-consent-agreement_0#document/p3/a2414135" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the ethics commission said.</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Bernstein Shur provided regular updates to the Hawthorn Group on phone calls held every two weeks. Sometimes, a NextEra employee joined the calls in listen-only mode. The client, later identified as NextEra, financed Stop the Corridor through the Hawthorn Group, the commission said.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>As the 2018 midterm elections approached, Bernstein Shur contacted the Maine Democratic Party to provide a political contribution. The consultants thought Democrats would be more likely to oppose the line than Republicans, the consent agreement said, but they did not publicly disclose the reason for the contribution or the donor’s name.</p>
<p>The Hawthorn Group told Bernstein Shur not to reveal the client’s identity, so the consultants avoided taking any action that would require the disclosure of the company's name, the ethics commission found. Instead, the law firm formed Alpine Initiatives to make the $150,000 contribution — Alpine’s only transaction during its 14-month existence.</p>
<p>Representatives from Bernstein Shur and the Hawthorn Group did not respond to requests for comment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Annina Breen, a spokesperson for the Maine Democratic Party, declined to comment on Alpine’s contribution. “The MDP was never the subject of the commission’s investigation and no wrongdoing has been found or was ever even alleged on the part of the MDP,” she said.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>NextEra also made alliances with environmental groups. Some of them shared the company’s view that the project would fail to cut carbon pollution and objected to its plans to saw down a 50-mile strip of forest for the transmission corridor in Maine.</p>
<p>The consent agreement names the Natural Resources Council of Maine and the Sierra Club as groups that worked alongside Stop the Corridor to oppose the project. The Sierra Club felt the region should be focused on building domestic renewables rather than supporting Canadian hydropower to meet its climate goals, said Matt Cannon, who leads the Sierra Club’s conservation and energy program in Maine.</p>
<p>“We did not feel like they had enough data to support the claim that it was clean energy,” Cannon said.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Asked if the Sierra Club had coordinated with NextEra, Cannon said, “Absolutely not.”</p>
<p>A spokesperson for the Natural Resources Council of Maine did not respond to requests for comment.</p>
<div class="gmail-intra-article-module"></div>
<p>Avangrid resumed construction of the line last fall, but the project’s costs have ballooned from $950 million to $1.5 billion due to inflation. NextEra’s legal battle, meanwhile, continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the company is appealing FERC’s circuit breaker ruling. The next window for making the upgrade will come this fall, when Seabrook is scheduled to go offline to refuel.</p>
<p>The court battle appears to contrast with the message that a NextEra executive delivered during the COP28 climate talks in Dubai two months ago.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IFzNyOItUM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In an interview with the Atlantic Council,</a> NextEra Energy Resources CEO Rebecca Kujawa hailed progress in cutting greenhouse gases from U.S. power plants. She added that much of the easy work had been done, and called on governments and companies to work together on deeper emission cuts.</p>
<p></p>
<p>“Our goals at COP is to help influence government policy, other commercial entities, stakeholders that have a part to play, to really engage with one another,” Kujawa said. “There is no single company, there is no single industry that is going to help us accomplish our goals.”</p>
<p><i>This story also appears in </i>Energywire.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Maine Dems Unanimously Reject Voter IDtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-24:4401701:BlogPost:2590002024-02-24T13:03:19.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div class="Ar Au Ao" id=":20e"><div class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY" id=":20a"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><span class="meta-item post-author has-img"><span class="by">BY</span> <a href="https://www.themainewire.com/author/seamusthemainewire-com/" rel="author" title="Posts by Seamus Othot">SEAMUS OTHOT</a></span><span class="meta-item date">FEBRUARY 23, 2024…</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=":20e" class="Ar Au Ao"><div id=":20a" class="Am aiL Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><span class="meta-item post-author has-img"><span class="by">BY</span> <a href="https://www.themainewire.com/author/seamusthemainewire-com/" title="Posts by Seamus Othot" rel="author">SEAMUS OTHOT</a></span><span class="meta-item date">FEBRUARY 23, 2024</span><span class="meta-item has-next-icon date-modified"><span class="updated-on">UPDATED:</span>FEBRUARY 23, 2024</span><span class="has-next-icon meta-item comments has-icon"><a href="https://www.themainewire.com/2024/02/maine-dems-unanimously-reject-voter-id/#comments"></a></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>Maine’s Legislative Council voted down a proposed bill to increase election security before the upcoming state primary and the potentially contentious general election in November.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><p>The bill, proposed by Rep. Heidi Sampson (R-Alfred), would have outlawed ballot harvesting, required voters to present a valid photo ID, and increased transparency by allowing representatives from both parties to observe all ballot handling activities.</p>
<p>Democratic leaders, who wield a majority on the Legislative Council, unanimously opposed the bill.</p>
<img width="698" height="333" src="https://i0.wp.com/%3Ca%20href="/>www.themainewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-23-at-2.13.50-PM.jpg?resize=788%2C376&ssl=1" alt="" class="gmail-wp-image-25944 gmail-no-display gmail-appear" /><br />
<p>“It was a straight party-line vote as the members of The Legislative Council dispatched with my Election Integrity bill. Maine Democrats obviously embrace cheating. They flat-out reject accountability and transparency in our elections,” said Rep. Sampson in an email to The Maine Wire.</p>
<p>The bill would have made ballot harvesting, the practice of a third party transporting absentee ballots from numerous voters, a class C crime.</p>
<p>A disabled voter would still be able to have a relative or friend deliver an absentee ballot, but only after written authorization, and no one person would be permitted to deliver more than three absentee ballots.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The bill also would have created a class C crime for election officials who try to prevent designated representatives from both parties from observing election procedures and ballot handling.</p>
<p>The bill would have increased security surrounding absentee ballots, by requiring someone to request a ballot 14 days before the election, requiring a reason for voting absentee, such as a disability or an inability to reach the polling location, and would have discarded any absentee ballots received after the close of in-person voting.</p>
<p>Sampson’s bill would also have implemented the basic security measure of requiring photo ID’s, which Maine currently does not require.</p>
<p>As of 2024, eight states require valid photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Virginia.</p>
<p>Additionally, ten states have photo ID requirements for voting but offer alternative methods for verifying a voters identity. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Texas.</p>
<p>Maine is one of 15 states that requires no verification whatsoever of a voter’s identity.</p>
<p>The final vote on Sampson’s was split along party lines, with a result of 4-6.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Maine Congressional Democrats Vote Down Election Integrity Billtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-23:4401701:BlogPost:2591012024-02-23T14:00:00.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>The Legislative Council Was Asked to Move a Bill into Committee That Would Have Assured Every Legal Vote Would Count in Upcoming Elections. </strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Again and Again, Democrats Show Their Ignorance to Common Sense…</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12388588074?profile=original" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12388588074?profile=RESIZE_710x"></img></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>The Legislative Council Was Asked to Move a Bill into Committee That Would Have Assured Every Legal Vote Would Count in Upcoming Elections. </strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Again and Again, Democrats Show Their Ignorance to Common Sense</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12388588074?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12388588074?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>Vineyard Wind paid for guaranteeing future electricity production?tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-22:4401701:BlogPost:2587962024-02-22T13:33:40.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p class=""></p>
<div class="col-xs-12"><div class="adunit 300x250 center-block display-block" id="V2-Article-Inline-300x250"></div>
</div>
<p class=""></p>
<p class=""> </p>
<div class="gmail-col-xs-12"><div class="gmail-adunit gmail-300x250 gmail-center-block gmail-display-block" id="gmail-V2-Article-Inline-300x250"><div><p class="gmail-">The nation’s first major offshore wind farm, the under-construction Vineyard Wind off Massachusetts, has shown up in an important, if obscure,…</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=""></p>
<div class="col-xs-12"><div class="adunit 300x250 center-block display-block" id="V2-Article-Inline-300x250"></div>
</div>
<p class=""></p>
<p class=""> </p>
<div class="gmail-col-xs-12"><div class="gmail-adunit gmail-300x250 gmail-center-block gmail-display-block" id="gmail-V2-Article-Inline-300x250"><div><p class="gmail-">The nation’s first major offshore wind farm, the under-construction Vineyard Wind off Massachusetts, has shown up in an important, if obscure, location.</p>
<p class="gmail-">The project is one of more than 900 energy providers of various types who won bids to receive payments in the annual forward capacity auction, which is used by ISO-New England to ensure that there will be enough electricity to meet regional demand in three years. Bidders receive payments in return for guaranteeing they can produce a certain amount of power on demand.</p>
</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Vineyard Wind won bids to guarantee production of 235 megawatts starting in June 2026 and 495 megawatts as of October 2026. Its annual capacity payments will exceed $2.5 million; it will also be paid per-kilowatt for electricity that it produces.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="gmail-">Vineyard Wind isn’t the first offshore wind farm to be in New England’s capacity auction; Block Island Wind off Rhode Island has been in the program for several years. But when its construction is finished, probably this year, Vineyard Wind will be more than 25 times the size of Block Island, marking America’s long-overdue entry into the global offshore-wind industry. </p>Maine state law exempts solar projects from municipal property taxestag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-22:4401701:BlogPost:2588922024-02-22T13:27:36.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>After being forced to provide a roughly $63,000 property tax refund to a solar development, the town of Oxford, Maine, decides to<span> </span><a href="https://energynews.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ae5d3a0c6088cad29d71bf0d0&id=6553d404d8&e=25b1ba1751" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hold a vote</a><span> </span>on a proposed solar project moratorium in June.<span> </span><em>(Advertiser Democrat)</em></li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>After being forced to provide a roughly $63,000 property tax refund to a solar development, the town of Oxford, Maine, decides to<span> </span><a href="https://energynews.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ae5d3a0c6088cad29d71bf0d0&id=6553d404d8&e=25b1ba1751" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hold a vote</a><span> </span>on a proposed solar project moratorium in June.<span> </span><em>(Advertiser Democrat)</em></li>
</ul>Spend Billions of Dollars and Get 0 Results.tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-22:4401701:BlogPost:2588902024-02-22T13:10:33.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>According to ISO-NE computations for annual electrical production by source:</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Non-Renewable Sources Made Up 88% of Production in 2001.</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Non-Renewable Sources Made Up 89% of Production in 2023.</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>No Joke…</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>According to ISO-NE computations for annual electrical production by source:</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Non-Renewable Sources Made Up 88% of Production in 2001.</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Non-Renewable Sources Made Up 89% of Production in 2023.</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>No Joke</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b style="font-size: 12pt;">At least CO2 emissions went down as less coal and oil was used</b> <span style="font-size: 16px;"><b>After</b></span><b style="font-size: 12pt;"> 22 Years</b></span></p>Wait for the Blackouttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-18:4401701:BlogPost:2588742024-02-18T23:01:17.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<h3>When will Net Zero turn out the lights?</h3>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="auto">
<tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="auto">
<tbody><tr><td><div><a href="https://substack.com/@davidturver" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DAVID TURVER</a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="auto">
<tbody><tr><td><div>FEB…</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>When will Net Zero turn out the lights?</h3>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><table width="auto" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><table width="auto" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><div><a href="https://substack.com/@davidturver" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DAVID TURVER</a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><table width="auto" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><div>FEB 18</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p><span>Last week, Jess Ralston, the Head of Energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/ac651795-9b74-4eb6-a03b-4c530070c32d?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">took to Twitter/X</a><span> to criticise Robert Jenrick for suggesting that if Labour keep their promise to decarbonise the grid by 2030, then we will see power blackouts (see Figure 1).</span></p>
<div><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td></td>
<td align="left" width="606"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/16a00f8c-2817-4b15-98b8-1c5a7d203429?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img alt="Figure 1 - Jess Ralston Blackout Fears Unfounded Post on X" title="Figure 1 - Jess Ralston Blackout Fears Unfounded Post on X" width="550" height="330.36303630363034" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NZxK_IoADbQ8IFraD3CuudALROxVNP37ELG3allyHK7RUahQkmlZF4McbBaDnqI3o6fhYfUWO4zIhlBJkW3GqeWT0GHLvVE1fneeOCE0pUa6yDm16ZT8xnC_6EUkKic2BZ-0EP5RkxYcQa1IvMEXxZyL3dMy9wL2bSWaJiP13qkcxg_PmOw1gn38aC-1SS88oUOrPdDU2_3zEGwWuV-hSJtCmdZXVXI1-3EpJcQbeJ0CJqtwGC6RyulCEI1tDh7xSZS8rKBcL7V5siKaYWri_KVMv-cpTsicylUYP39dNBab_ZNc19e5rJY=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1212,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc2703a7a-4b6e-4384-9e73-5ee2bda9f061_606x364.png" class="CToWUd"/></a></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Figure 1 - Jess Ralston Blackout Fears Unfounded Post on X<br />
<br />
</div>
<p>She suggested Jenrick’s fears were “scaremongering” and demanded some evidence. She’s right that assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, time to look at the evidence.</p>
<p><a href="https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=1285567&post_id=141705319&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=gnoul&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNzk3OTE0OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQxNzA1MzE5LCJpYXQiOjE3MDgyMzU4ODYsImV4cCI6MTcxMDgyNzg4NiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTEyODU1NjciLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.X3X4gHR79OZvV44s-mTe1qlySys1LpD2P7hrGCwh0ZQ" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Share</span></a></p>
<h1>Warnings of Blackouts</h1>
<p><span>First, Robert Jenrick is hardly the first person to warn of blackouts. The boss of the National Grid </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/bad5c1c1-3eba-49f5-8290-c844ebda1cc5?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">warned in November 2022</a><span>, that blackouts and power cuts could be imposed during a really cold winter. Last year the National Grid </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/ad957b3d-6447-424c-9416-9147e06a42d2?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">also warned</a><span> that they “sometimes they need to reduce demand by planned outages to avoid major damage.”</span></p>
<p>If even the National Grid is warning of outages, then Jenrick’s comments can hardly be described as scaremongering.</p>
<h1>Peak Supply from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear</h1>
<p><span>Remember that Labour have promised to decarbonise the grid by 2030, so I thought it would be helpful to see how much we rely upon reliable sources of power like fossil fuels and nuclear power now. I downloaded the supply and demand figures from </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/2d1dafe7-69e2-4931-af53-997b88c9e22b?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gridwatch</a><span> for December 2023 and January 2024 to determine the peak supply from fossil fuel sources and from nuclear power during that period. There were eight occasions when supply from these sources exceeded 32GW. The peak supply from fossil fuels and nuclear came during the evening of December 1</span><sup>st</sup><span>, 2023, at 32.3GW. At that time, we were getting <1.5GW from wind, nothing from solar, 2.8GW from biomass, 0.8GW from hydro and a net 5.8GW from interconnectors.</span></p>
<p>Since then, due to a fault on one of the nuclear power stations supply from nuclear has dropped from 4.8GW to 3.8GW.</p>
<h1>Changes to Generating Capacity</h1>
<p><span>Over the next few years, the supply from fossil fuel and nuclear sources is going to change dramatically. First, the Government </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/726c603c-f1c2-4fcd-b66f-ca2dded17aa4?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">has announced</a><span> that it plans to phase out our remaining coal power stations by October 2024. Moreover, the Hartlepool and Heysham 1 nuclear power plants are scheduled to shut down in 2026. In addition, the remaining two Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors at Heysham 2 and Torness and due to shut down in 2028. This will leave us with just 1.2GW of nuclear capacity until Hinkley C eventually comes online, now expected in 2031.</span></p>
<p><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/9cf9d71a-4086-4b7e-a06c-31bcb46f2b48?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DUKES Table 5.11</a><span> gives a list of all power stations in the UK, by type, including the year of installation. Gas-fired power stations are supposed to have a life of </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/39b299fa-da9c-4b30-ad39-748efafbd137?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">25-30</a><span> years (sometimes </span><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/b0a890fa-3acf-42aa-90c0-64583bdce6cf?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">up to 40 years</a><span>). Assuming an asset life of 30 years for gas-fired units and the announcements about coal generation and the nuclear power plants, Figure 2 shows what the profile of fossil fuel and nuclear power plant capacity looks like out to 2035 and compares that to the peak power produced by these types of unit in December 2023.</span></p>
<div><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td></td>
<td align="left" width="1456"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/2e818138-805d-4736-aa87-e7382cc744c6?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img alt="Figure 2 - Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Gen Capacity vs Peak Supply Dec 2023 (MW) (Gas Lifetime 30 years)" title="Figure 2 - Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Gen Capacity vs Peak Supply Dec 2023 (MW) (Gas Lifetime 30 years)" width="550" height="358.1043956043956" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NZ0i2nw8sM2vOCukO9wu6CT1TLO65n9tVzKNJobJBMFeVCj-al-cwwINM9fVsHlKwb6Qj4lcPo8JUD4xw7LlqkBZ8xW8ZqxDkl92YZaCddELF9es3ba_gEn9E3qtbIKnSrdo7fShwIWtWwmvE9nDoMMXc8CIcVVObuhLTrewk31GMS2D0sSRwkKqvcQK_BGttyEmTZAFpBD0x99a99MPYtmaL3tib1aUFp3Uf8nvcJpsV6ao6ULgxHSWtJcAxCW629Uqx3hU9ipT1JiixHWRsZ2YhV0UHwEH-bX8_3nbpd6GQgVIOofFd4h7lA=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_2912,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2b32063c-abb1-4b53-baa9-1fcc83875afd_2986x1945.png" class="CToWUd"/></a></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Figure 2 - Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Gen Capacity vs Peak Supply Dec 2023 (MW) (Gas Lifetime 30 years)<br />
<br />
</div>
<p>Here we can see we may run into trouble as soon as late this year if there are any unplanned outages or maintenance issues with the power plants. Capacity in 2025 just falls short of peak requirement, with 2026 showing a capacity gap of 3.9GW. The gap then grows to 15.9GW in 2030, closes a bit in 2031 as Hinkley C comes online before expanding to over 17GW by 2035. This does not consider that as the penetration of EVs and heat pumps increases, peak demand is likely to rise, further exacerbating the gap.</p>
<p>It might be possible to extend the life of these power plants out to 40 years. This begs the question about whether we should be basing our energy security on aging gas-fired power plants that are on their last legs? Ignoring that issue for the moment, extending the lives has the impact of keeping us just above water out to 2027, but there is a 1.4GW gap from 2028 as the remaining AGR nuclear plants close. If the grid is supposed to be decarbonised by 2030, there is then a gaping chasm of over 31GW at that point, as seen in Figure 3.</p>
<div><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td></td>
<td align="left" width="1456"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/52235cb4-fed5-4c28-af63-afff22975f10?j=eyJ1IjoiZ25vdWwifQ.Wzj7BjTdrmymB2_eFlgXWn3zhVY-nDRKBFp65bftNnI" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img alt="Figure 3 - No Fossil Fuel from 2030 and Nuclear Gen Capacity vs Peak Supply Dec 2023 (MW) (Gas Lifetime 40 years)" title="Figure 3 - No Fossil Fuel from 2030 and Nuclear Gen Capacity vs Peak Supply Dec 2023 (MW) (Gas Lifetime 40 years)" width="550" height="358.1043956043956" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NabncLIg_2HLFpxex-1NTcEIipl75USfrDKRtwDAiPx38x8eTbuus5LoXo3zHbcvtumljAz1cofwmuJNEloRKXvofmHUsbkD7f7BtR4rhowWgkE8h_jbJddFaqrivzUutQE-tCQIURVwCp2PerFWFICcQhYDtvO83bR_lZD5Xi9Nb7bBOesdrAX3u3spVRjkW_-mNaulEy4cWIW1hDk7bYgDlbEwY7NqrusA3Q-6EP6ZDUCSJVPiGACSmnAS--dMdHBIxNOUbvzfOpvwKHY4eJvFokyi24N3SPNOgARiFFn8ydNFCfDIQTAD68=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_2912,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F22a838cb-4bc2-4d11-9119-20ef5ffa1ce1_2986x1945.png" class="CToWUd"/></a></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Figure 3 - No Fossil Fuel from 2030 and Nuclear Gen Capacity vs Peak Supply Dec 2023 (MW) (Gas Lifetime 40 years)<br />
<br />
</div>
<p>So, what might fill the gaps? Well, the most obvious thing to do would be to keep the coal-fired plants running and nurse the gas-fired plants into a longer life. To be safe, we should be investing in more new gas-fired plants, but we have not installed a new CCGT plant since 2016.</p>
<p>During those peak times described above, the interconnectors were effectively maxed out already, so there is no chance they can come to the rescue.</p>
<p>The Net Zero zealots have ruled out fossil fuels, so let us look at renewables. We have 1.5GW of natural flow hydroelectric capacity and aside from a few single-digit MW installations, we have not installed any significant new capacity since 2008. Hydro is not coming to the rescue. We also have pumped hydro, designed for fast response, but much of this was already being used at the times of peak demand, so that is not going to bridge the gap either.</p>
<p>We have 3.9GW of bioenergy, most of it being burning trees at Drax. There is no chance of expanding that to meet a 31GW supply gap by 2030, and anyway, where would all the wood-chips come from?</p>
<p>Of course, if we carpeted more farmland with solar panels, it would make no difference at all. This is because the peaks occur when it is dark, so there is no solar power anyway.</p>
<p>That leaves wind. At the times when fossil fuels and nuclear were providing over 32GW, wind was producing 1-1.5GW. It is unrealistic to expect that we can double wind capacity by 2030, but even if we could, we might expect at most an extra 1.5GW of generation on calm cold evenings, or less than 5% of the gap. So even doubling wind capacity is not going to help.</p>
<p>They could retrofit carbon capture and storage (CCS) on to the existing gas-fired plants, but there are several issues with this. First, we do not have a single plant working with this technology today, so the chances of installing this on all the aging gas-fired plants by 2030 are negligible. Second, CCS reduces the efficiency of power plants, so even if they did manage to install CCS, the output would be ~20% lower than it is today, meaning we would still have a significant generation gap.</p>
<h1>Conclusions</h1>
<p>Robert Jenrick was right, the evidence shows if Labour gets in and pursues decarbonising the grid by 2030, then we are in for blackouts. But before he takes a victory lap, he should consider that his party’s plans call for decarbonisation of the grid by 2035. Under his government’s plans we will still face blackouts by 2028 at the latest.</p>
<p>I do hope this is sufficient evidence to convince Jess Ralston that our generation capacity is in a parlous state and there is a very real risk we will face blackouts in the not-so-distant future. And while we are on the subject of needing evidence to support assertions, what is the evidence that the “I” in ECIU can justifiably stand for Intelligence?</p>
<p>The inspiration for the title of this article came from the eponymous song by, appropriately enough, The Damned. When thinking about alleged policy gurus, recent, current and potential future energy secretaries, I am reminded of another track from the punk era: Pretty Vacant.</p>Offshore Wind Update - 2023 Q3 and Q4tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-18:4401701:BlogPost:2588722024-02-18T21:44:53.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div class="pre-content"><div class="ma__page-header__content"><h1 class="ma__page-header__title">Offshore Wind Update - 2023 Q3 and Q4</h1>
</div>
<br />
<div class="mass-alerts-block"></div>
</div>
<div class="main-content main-content--two"><div class="page-content ma__announcement__page-content ma__announcement__page-content--news"><div class="ma__press-status__title"></div>
<div class="ma__press-status__content"><div class="ma__press-status__date">1/03/2024…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="pre-content"><div class="ma__page-header__content"><h1 class="ma__page-header__title">Offshore Wind Update - 2023 Q3 and Q4</h1>
</div>
<br />
<div class="mass-alerts-block"></div>
</div>
<div class="main-content main-content--two"><div class="page-content ma__announcement__page-content ma__announcement__page-content--news"><div class="ma__press-status__title"></div>
<div class="ma__press-status__content"><div class="ma__press-status__date">1/03/2024</div>
<ul class="ma__press-status__names">
<li class="ma__press-status__name">Division of Marine Fisheries</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<div class="ma__figure--no-wrap"><div class="ma__figure ma__figure-image"></div>
</div>
<div class="ma__rich-text" dir="auto"><p>MA DMF engages in offshore wind by conducting technical review of permitting documents, fulfilling advisory roles for regional research efforts, providing best management recommendations to state and federal agencies in response to developer permitting submissions, and is committed to engaging fishery stakeholders in all phases of industry development. In the last year, DMF has reviewed permitting documents, fisheries economic exposure and environmental impact assessments, and monitoring plans associated with the South Fork Wind, Sunrise Wind, Beacon Wind, South Coast Wind, and New England Wind (Park City Wind and Commonwealth Wind) projects. </p>
<p></p>
<p>DMF also assisted in the development and review of fisheries compensations plans among a variety of offshore wind projects in Southern New England including Sunrise Wind and New England Wind that will be used to offset economic impacts to Massachusetts commercial and for-hire fishing due to loss of access or reduction of harvest during construction and operation, including within the wind energy area and the export cable. All drafts of the fisheries compensation and economic exposure analyses were presented to the MA Fisheries Working Group in September. Sunrise Wind’s compensation package totaled $11,288,000 including $8,788,000 for the direct compensation program (commercial and for-hire fisheries); $1,000,000 for a fishery decommissioning fund (offset direct losses during decommissioning); $1,000,000 for a coastal community fund that will support the co-existence of the fishing and wind industries. $500,000 for the Navigation Enhancement and Training Program that will support upgrades to navigation equipment, professional training opportunities, and experiential learning. New England Wind’s first phased project (Park City Wind LLC) entered into a two-part fisheries compensation agreement with the Commonwealth that totaled $7,359,471. Park City Wind LLC will provide a total of $5,859,471 in funding to the direct fisheries compensation program and $1,500,000 to support the Massachusetts Fisheries Innovation Fund (MFIF). </p>
<p></p>
<p>The MFIF’s purpose is to support programs and projects that ensure safe and profitable fishing continues as offshore wind development continues through grants for technology and innovation upgrades and studies that assess the impacts of offshore wind development on fishing industries and resources. Currently, the MFIF is separate from the Fisheries Innovation Fund established by Vineyard Wind LLC ($1.75 million). The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs plans to merge these two separate innovations funds into one combined legislative trust named the Massachusetts Fisheries Innovation Fund. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Southern New England Wind Projects</strong><br/>As of late December, two of the nine offshore wind projects in Southern New England south of Martha’s Vineyard have installed the export cable, several wind turbine foundations (monopile), electrical service platforms, and inter-array cables. <strong>Vineyard Wind</strong> has installed four complete wind turbines and is expected to start generating power by the end of 2023. Vineyard Wind has currently installed 34 of 62 monopile foundations- four have turbines installed- and one electrical service platform. The export cable installation (landfall at Covell’s beach in Barnstable County) and testing was completed for Vineyard Wind in October 2023. All turbines in Vineyard Wind 1 are expected to be installed by early 2024. DMF continues to support EEA in hosting and administering the $1.75 Fisheries Innovation Fund established through an MOA between Vineyard Wind LLC and EEA to enhance fisheries coexistence with offshore wind development. DMF is currently working with the fund’s advisory panel to provide recommendations for the disbursement of funds that are directed towards projects pertaining to fishing vessel technology and safety innovations or conducting studies that monitor effects of fisheries and vessel impacts to offshore wind.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As of December 2023, <strong>South Fork wind</strong> has installed all 12 of its monopile foundations, one electrical service platform and has installed its first wind turbine. In November 2023, South Fork Wind installed the offshore export cable from the wind farm to its onshore landfall site in Westhampton Beach, NY.</p>
<p></p>
<p> In November 2023, <strong>Revolution Wind</strong> was approved for construction and operation by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and is expected to start offshore wind construction in 2024 and is anticipated to be operational in 2025.</p>
<p></p>
<p>All other RI/MA offshore wind projects are in various stages of the environmental review and site assessment process. <strong>Sunrise Wind, SouthCoast Wind, and New England Wind</strong> currently have their Draft Environmental Impact Statements published. In November 2023,</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Beacon Wind</strong> published the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for Additional Site Assessment activities.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Bay State Wind</strong> recently submitted its Construction and Operations Plan and</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Vineyard Northeast</strong> is currently in its site assessment phase. All current and proposed export cable routes with landfall in MA are primarily traversing through the Muskeget Channel export cable corridor (width ~3500 ft.) and around the southern end of Martha’s Vineyard (10 nautical miles offshore) through the Sakonnet River. Sunrise Wind’s export cable will traverse Southwest with landfall connections in Long Island, NY.</p>
<p>Seabed preparation activities prior and during construction consisted of displacing boulders from wind turbine foundation and cable route locations. Relocated boulder’s location information is available on Notice to Mariners webpages on Vineyard Wind’s and Orsted’s websites. MA DMF, MA Coastal Zone Management (CZM), and NMFS have developed a draft boulder relocation mitigation framework and guidance document for BOEM and offshore wind developers that requests the need to characterize types of disturbances from boulders, understand how changes may affect fish habitat, and evaluate how relocated boulders influence fishing activities and gear conflicts. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Gulf of Maine </strong><br/>On October 20, BOEM released the draft Wind Energy Area (WEA) for the Gulf of Maine. The draft area encompasses a total area of 3,519,067 acres (a 64.11% reduction of the Call Area). The draft WEA has a combined capacity of over 40 Gigawatts (assuming a power density of 3 megawatts per sq. km). This energy production capacity of the draft WEA exceeds the current combined offshore wind planning goals for the Gulf of Maine states <strong>(10 GW from Gulf of Maine for Massachusetts by 2050 and 3 GW for Maine by 2040)</strong>. All areas currently identified in the draft WEA are deeper than 120m and at least 20nm offshore. Given the depth of the draft WEA, all potential offshore wind development will likely consist of floating technology. BOEM will finalize the WEA in the Gulf of Maine by February 2024. DMF collaborated with CZM and other EEA departments on a comment letter to BOEM outlining areas and conflicts of most concern. The EEA comment letter on the draft Gulf of Maine WEA incorporated input received from the Massachusetts fishing industry across several workshops and meetings in October and November, as well as subject matter experts from EEA agencies and offices. The stakeholder meetings focused on topics such as fisheries navigation considerations (wind farm spacing, orientation, etc.), impacts to federal and state surveys, and identifying key fishing features (swells, ledges, banks, etc.) within the Gulf of Maine to facilitate BOEM’s decision-making on establishing Final WEAs. Once the WEAs are finalized, engagement and commenting opportunities will be available during the formation of bidding credits, lease stipulations, lease characteristics, and state energy procurement. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Draft WEAs were established by BOEM from a spatial suitability model that included four sub-models (wind industry, fisheries, natural & cultural resources, and industry & operations) and other fisheries/navigation considerations (e.g., Lobster Management Area 1, Cashes Ledge, Jeffreys Bank). All sub-models were weighted equally, while data layers within sub-models comprised of different weighting schemes. The fisheries sub-model contained 6 data layers that each contributed 4.16% to the overall spatial suitability model. Among all sub-models, a total of 98 data layers were selected to represent major ocean characteristics for the Gulf of Maine and identify space-use conflicts and environmental constraints for each 10-acre hexagonal grid in the Call Area (984,797 grid cells). Using an autocorrelation cluster analysis, one draft WEA was identified based on the most suitable areas. Of note, the current draft WEA represents the area identified by BOEM for potential wind lease areas and therefore, the cumulative area of the leasing areas could be smaller than the WEA. BOEM has also identified three Secondary Areas for further analysis from the spatial suitability model that are not included in the draft WEA but could receive consideration when finalizing WEAs, contingent on the public comments received electric export cable routes from the Gulf of Maine WEA will not be proposed and finalized until after lease areas have been identified and sold to wind developers. For those interested in the spatial suitability model used for the Gulf of Maine in more detail, the draft NOAA-NCCOS report can be downloaded from the BOEM webpage. </p>
<p>After the Final WEAs are designated for the Gulf of Maine, BOEM will release a series of notices and a lease auction that will span approximately a 1.5-year period. The first notice, a Proposed Sale Notice, is used by BOEM to inform offshore wind developers about upcoming lease auctions and its duration is at least 60 days. Once the Proposed Sale Notice comment period closes, BOEM will publish a Final Sale Notice aimed at developers and provides the final terms and conditions for a lease sale, including the date, time, and location for the sale itself. The Final Sale Notice will also include the list of the companies that have legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in the lease sale. After at least 45 days from the Final Sale Notice, BOEM will hold a lease sale and will subsequently identify the winner through an auction (final lease sales expected by December 2024). </p>
<p><strong>General Commonwealth Offshore Wind Updates </strong><br/>By 2027, previously enacted Massachusetts law codified a goal of receiving 5,600 megawatts (MW) of electricity from offshore wind. In June 2023, Massachusetts procured over 3,200 MW of electricity from power purchase agreements (PPAs). However, <strong>Massachusetts currently has less than 1,000 MW procured due to many developers reneging on PPAs from increased inflationary costs and supply chain issues. On October 4, 2023, Governor Healy announced a multi-state memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CT, RI, and MA to procure up to 6,000 MW of electricity to New England states. Through this MOU, the three states will review multi-state offshore wind proposals with project selection depending on each state’s</strong> evaluation criteria in their respective request for proposals (RFPs). Any two or three states may agree to select a multi-state proposal(s) up to each state’s procurement authority and split anticipated MW from a single project. DMF plans to work with our counterparts in CT and RI to determine potential areas for overlap pertaining to environmental mitigation and assessing cumulative impacts associated with offshore wind within each state’s RFP. </p>
<p>On April 20, 2023 Secretary Tepper announced the establishment of the EEA Interagency Offshore Wind Council (IOWC) to advance the responsible development of offshore wind to meet the Commonwealth’s climate goals. The IOWC will be responsible for developing and maintaining an Offshore Wind Strategic Plan (Plan) with stakeholder and community input. The Plan will: 1) lay out the status of the offshore wind industry to the Commonwealth, existing legal and policy frameworks, and progress made to date, 2) identify key drivers, gaps, and needs and findings, and 3) recommend specific actions and strategies necessary to advance the Plan’s goals and objectives before 2040. The Plan’s objectives will be relevant to its three primary components for balancing economic development, socioenvironmental considerations, and energy advancement needs. The main objectives within the Plan are to grow Massachusetts as a national hub for offshore wind economic development; promote research and innovation for new technologies, solutions, and services; ensure comprehensive planning with robust stakeholder engagement; implement efficient and effective environmental reviews and support for mutual co-existence; establish long-term offshore wind energy targets and plan for procurements; and develop a modern and resilient transmission system with efficient interconnection of offshore wind. The approval and issuance of the Plan is expected by September 2024. </p>
<p><em>By Justin Bopp, Offshore Wind Specialist</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>Is Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard Ridiculous?tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-18:4401701:BlogPost:2587642024-02-18T15:33:48.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p><em><strong>What does it take to keep the lights on in Maine?</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>As the chart shows, it takes 57+% of Maine's electricity coming from natural gas-fired plants and 18+% from nuclear plants. (SEE SUPPLIER"AS MIX)</strong></em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>Even though Maine renewable energy generating plants produce 63% of the electricity Maine needs to keep the lights on and this 63% exceeds Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance for 2024 of 56.6% , this…</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>What does it take to keep the lights on in Maine?</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>As the chart shows, it takes 57+% of Maine's electricity coming from natural gas-fired plants and 18+% from nuclear plants. (SEE SUPPLIER"AS MIX)</strong></em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>Even though Maine renewable energy generating plants produce 63% of the electricity Maine needs to keep the lights on and this 63% exceeds Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance for 2024 of 56.6% , this mix will not be reliable enough to actually keep the lights on. </strong></em></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>)</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12384092261?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12384092261?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>Behind Closed Doorstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-17:4401701:BlogPost:2588652024-02-17T12:06:08.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<ul>
<li><em><b style="font-size: 18pt;">What was advertised to be a work session for the EUT</b> <span style="font-size: 24px;"><b>Committee</b></span><b style="font-size: 18pt;"> was suddenly canceled. Is this the new government?</b></em></li>
</ul>
<h1>Gas industry, environmentalists, consumer advocates negotiate study on future of natural gas in Maine Numerous stakeholders are negotiating what a study would look like as…</h1>
<ul>
<li><em><b style="font-size: 18pt;">What was advertised to be a work session for the EUT</b> <span style="font-size: 24px;"><b>Committee</b></span><b style="font-size: 18pt;"> was suddenly canceled. Is this the new government?</b></em></li>
</ul>
<h1>Gas industry, environmentalists, consumer advocates negotiate study on future of natural gas in Maine Numerous stakeholders are negotiating what a study would look like as</h1>
<div><div id="m_5471467115726207115m_8997751508420514008gmail-js-post-content"><div class="gmail-mtm-article gmail-p402_premium"><div class="gmail-post-content gmail-clearfix" id="gmail-js-post-content"><div class="gmail-trinity-player-iframe-wrapper"></div>
<p>Gas utilities, environmentalists, consumer advocates and others are negotiating the outlines of a study in proposed legislation on how Maine might restrict the build-out of natural gas systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Most participants contacted would not discuss details of the <strong><em>closed-door negotiations.</em></strong></p>
<div class="gmail-inner-sidebar"></div>
<p>The scope of the <a href="https://legislature.maine.gov/billtracker/#Paper/2077?legislature=131" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legislation</a> is broad, all but guaranteeing pushback from the industry and its business group allies. The bill proposes to ban gas companies from charging ratepayers to build and expand service mains and lines beginning Feb. 1, 2025, and instead require business and residential customers that benefit from new infrastructure to pay the costs.</p>
<div id="gmail-attachment_4443126" class="gmail-caption gmail-alignleft"><p class="gmail-wp-caption-text"></p>
</div>
<p>It has drawn fierce opposition from the gas industry, businesses, economic development advocates and others who say Maine would be at a disadvantage in attracting businesses, particularly manufacturers, that require access to natural gas infrastructure.</p>
<p>Sen. Mark W. Lawrence, D-York, co-chair of the Legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee, <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/19/environmentalists-consumer-advocates-at-odds-with-businesses-over-plan-to-scale-back-natural-gas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last month that he expected the measure to be reworked.</p>
<p>Scaling back natural gas build-outs has <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/23/bill-to-scale-back-natural-gas-in-maine-draws-strong-opposition-at-public-hearing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">strong support</a> from environmentalists who are looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Backers of the legislation say that in addition to reducing the use of a fossil fuel, the legislation would require gas users to pay the true cost of natural gas expansion rather than use ratepayer subsidies.</p>
<div class="gmail-ad-injection"><div id="gmail-adslot1" class="gmail-injectable-ad-slot gmail-opscoad-adPosition1"><div class="gmail-opsco-ad" id="gmail-opscoad-3"><div class="gmail-opsco-ad-gpt gmail-htl-size-300x250" id="gmail-opscoad-3-gpt"><div id="gmail-google_ads_iframe_/6119/centralmaine.com/news_2__container__"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p>Another part of the legislation calls for a study of gas system expansion, consumer costs and the “implications for gas use” in Maine such as how gas utilities are preparing for a possible loss of customers and declines in gas use due to factors related to climate change. The Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee may report out a bill to the Legislature next year, according to the legislation.</p>
<p>As many as 20 representatives of environmental groups, industry, state government, consumer advocates and others met Wednesday, for the second time in a week, according to Public Advocate William Harwood, who is proposing the legislation with several environmental groups.</p>
<p>“We did not reach any consensus or agreement,” he said Thursday.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>No one has said provisions of the legislation scaling back ratepayer funding of natural gas network build-outs would be excluded from compromise legislation, he said. But the focus of negotiations is on the study, Harwood said.</p>
<p>Negotiators are trying to avoid having the legislation head to the “special appropriations table” in the Legislature where “most bills end up getting killed,” Harwood said.</p>
<p>Several participants would not comment Thursday. “I don’t want to risk inflaming the situation right now by arguing my case in the media,” said Anthony Buxton, a lawyer who represents the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, which said the legislation is “highly destructive to Maine’s manufacturing economy.”</p>
<div><div id="m_5471467115726207115m_8997751508420514008gmail-adslot2"><span>Emily Green of the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, and Jack Shapiro, climate and clean energy program director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, declined to comment. Lizzy Reinholt, a spokesperson for Summit Natural Gas of Maine, said public discussion about “any possible amendment or study would be premature.”</span></div>
</div>
<p>Through a spokesperson, Rep. Stanley Paige Zeigler Jr., D-Montville, a sponsor of the legislation, would not comment on negotiations.</p>
<p>Patrick Woodcock, president and chief executive officer of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, did not discuss specifics related to negotiations. But he said the state should analyze technologies that can be adapted for natural gas systems to benefit goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve electrification.</p>
<p>“It’s healthy to constantly review this,” he said.</p>
<p>The Governor’s Energy Office opposes the legislation. But in testimony to the Legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee, Legislative Liaison Caroline Colan said the office supports a process to “carefully examine” the future of gas demand in Maine; how gas companies are planning for changes in revenue, expenses and investments; and how to protect infrastructure safety, reliability and customer affordability as gas demand declines.</p>
</div>
</div>It's Time to Get Real About Getting Maine Out of the ISO-NE Networktag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-16:4401701:BlogPost:2589442024-02-16T13:50:00.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>South <span style="color: initial;">Portland, a very liberal city, has been counseled to go green even if it means having the power system go down. You can now bet that ISO-NE will keep the power grid operating for everyone in New England but Maine duringt rolling blackouts.</span></strong></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>In Maine, South Portland’s council rejects a power…</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>South <span style="color: initial;">Portland, a very liberal city, has been counseled to go green even if it means having the power system go down. You can now bet that ISO-NE will keep the power grid operating for everyone in New England but Maine duringt rolling blackouts.</span></strong></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>In Maine, South Portland’s council rejects a power plant's ordinance waiver request </span><span> to add 40,000 gallons of waterfront oil tank storage to meet the grid operator’s black-start resource standard.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>The Energy Cape facility at 2 Ocean St. has two 12,000-gallon oil tanks. The company said it needs to add 40,000 more gallons to its capacity to meet Independent System Operator New England’s standards of being a “black-start resource.”</span><span><br/></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><h3>About Blackstart Service From ISO-NE Website:</h3>
<p>Blackstart service is necessary to facilitate a stable and orderly restoration of the power system in the event of a partial or complete shutdown of the system. The ISO selects and compensates specific participating generators interconnected to the transmission or distribution system at strategic locations that can be called upon to re-energize the transmission system. These units must meet certain requirements, including having the ability to quickly restart without an outside electrical supply.</p>
</div>BlackRock enters New England/ New York Electricity Markettag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-14:4401701:BlogPost:2589342024-02-14T14:23:56.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>BlackRock Agrees to Acquire Global Infrastructure Partners (“GIP”), Creating a World Leading Infrastructure Private Markets Investment Platform ( January 12,2024)</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Eversource plans to sell its stake in two offshore wind projects - South Fork Wind and Revolution Wind to Global Infrastructure Partners - for $1.1 billion (February 13,2024)…</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>BlackRock Agrees to Acquire Global Infrastructure Partners (“GIP”), Creating a World Leading Infrastructure Private Markets Investment Platform ( January 12,2024)</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Eversource plans to sell its stake in two offshore wind projects - South Fork Wind and Revolution Wind to Global Infrastructure Partners - for $1.1 billion (February 13,2024)</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>South Fork Wind is a Long Island Venture</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Revolution Wind is a Connecticut/Rhode Island Venture</strong></span></p>Arizona has had enoughtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-12:4401701:BlogPost:2586542024-02-12T22:54:02.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12378766875?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12378766875?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12378766875?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12378766875?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>Smith: Renewable power industry exploits poorest townstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-08:4401701:BlogPost:2587192024-02-08T14:20:37.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><div><div><div><p><strong>Dear Senate Finance Committee,</strong></p>
<p>I need to respond to something Sen. Becca White was quoted as saying in this evening’s WCAX coverage of S.236.</p>
<p>She says lower-income communities are disproportionately selected for these projects as a result of the argument. “Essentially forces renewable energy to go into communities that might not have the financial ability to make the case that something is…</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p></p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td><div><div><div><p><strong>Dear Senate Finance Committee,</strong></p>
<p>I need to respond to something Sen. Becca White was quoted as saying in this evening’s WCAX coverage of S.236.</p>
<p>She says lower-income communities are disproportionately selected for these projects as a result of the argument. “Essentially forces renewable energy to go into communities that might not have the financial ability to make the case that something is aesthetically not in line.”</p>
<p>For many years, VCE has gotten calls from neighbors about poorly sited solar projects. The neighbors knew their neighbors and talked to them. What they learned was that the solar companies were targeting people who were in financial distress, with unpaid back taxes or behind on mortgage payments. Our experience was that it was their neighbors who were concerned for people being exploited by the industry who helped to make sure that their neighbors were not being taken advantage of.</p>
<p>I have not heard anyone claim in testimony in your committee on this bill that concern about aesthetics is forcing solar arrays to go into communities that might not have the financial ability to make the case that something is not aesthetically in line. We have found that solar sites affect people of all income levels. I would like to see Sen. White produce some data and facts to support her claim.</p>
<p>However, it is a fact that almost all the big wind projects have been built in towns that have been on the list of the 10 poorest towns in Vermont. That is no accident. The aesthetics criteria has nothing to do with it. It is well known that the people of Lowell voted for the wind project to get the money to offset their property taxes. Poor towns have been targeted because they are vulnerable to monetary promises. Iberdrola’s effort in Windham and Grafton was the outlier, with two fairly well-off communities torn apart by the proposal, and they were offered money if they voted to approve the project. To their credit, they said no thanks. But the other communities targeted for industrial wind said yes, because they wanted the money.</p>
<p>Sen. White has turned this situation upside down. Aesthetics has nothing to do with it. We are dealing with an industry whose large profits are undisclosed and unknown, empowered to choose the cheapest sites and not work with community members or talk to neighbors. As you see from the data I presented, almost all solar arrays are approved, almost all without any opposition and most without any public input. The Vermont legislature has given the industry tax breaks that I hear about frequently as robbing our communities of money that has to be made up by other property owners. Sen. White is right that it is all about money, but that money is not being used to benefit the people who are affected by these projects. It is making a lot of money for a few people in the industry, and their non-profit organization supporters.</p>
<p>Thank you for listening.</p>
<div><p><strong>-Annette Smith</strong></p>
<p><strong>Executive Director</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vermonters for a Clean Environment</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p></p>A Market That Produces Nothing But Twice the Power Costs.+tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-08:4401701:BlogPost:2587172024-02-08T13:24:13.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p>From </p>
<h3 class="iw"><span class="qu"><span class="gD"><span>Northeast Energy News</span></span><span> </span><span class="go"><span><</span>info@energynews.us<span>></span></span><span> </span></span></h3>
<p> ` </p>
<p><span>"There currently …</span></p>
<p>From </p>
<h3 class="iw"><span class="qu"><span class="gD"><span>Northeast Energy News</span></span><span> </span><span class="go"><span><</span>info@energynews.us<span>></span></span><span> </span></span></h3>
<p> ` </p>
<p><span>"There currently </span><a href="https://energynews.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ae5d3a0c6088cad29d71bf0d0&id=ac7d20ed34&e=25b1ba1751" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aren’t enough existing or contracted renewable energy projects underway</a><span> in New York to help the state reach its 70% renewable power by 2030 goal, in part because of recently canceled offshore wind projects, increased development costs and reduced subsidies"</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>To reach 70%, New York must purchase "Renewable Energy Credits" from qualified renewable resources, some that are generated in Maine. </strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>The Renewable Energy Credit market piles on costs above and beyond the wholesale energy market, often doubling the cost of electricity. Bad, Very Bad.</strong></span></p>MONUMENTAL RULING FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY: First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Voter Rolls are Public Records and Election Officials Cannot Hide Them from the Publictag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-06:4401701:BlogPost:2586162024-02-06T12:30:53.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p>The Public Interest Legal Foundation secured a landmark case on Monday in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p>The Court ruled that under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) Maine’s voter roll is a public record and election officials cannot hide the information from the public.</p>
<p>George Behizy posted this from the ruling,</p>
<div class="tgp-post-inline-1" id="tgp-1782590353"><div class="adcovery-postinline-01"></div>
</div>
<blockquote><p>“Whether voter…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Public Interest Legal Foundation secured a landmark case on Monday in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p>The Court ruled that under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) Maine’s voter roll is a public record and election officials cannot hide the information from the public.</p>
<p>George Behizy posted this from the ruling,</p>
<div class="tgp-post-inline-1" id="tgp-1782590353"><div class="adcovery-postinline-01"></div>
</div>
<blockquote><p>“Whether voter registration rolls are accurate and current cannot be determined without inspecting the Voter File…In other words, the evaluation of voter registration rolls would be impossible if the results of Maine’s voter list registration and maintenance activities were not subject to public disclosure. For the above reasons, Maine’s Voter File is a record concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters and is thus subject to disclosure under Section 8.”</p>
</blockquote>Wake Up, Maine EUT Committeetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-05:4401701:BlogPost:2585832024-02-05T16:27:06.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p>While EUT Committee members sit around twiddling their thumbs, other New England States are suddenly including nuclear powered electricity in their renewable portfolio standards. Connecticut has applied 50% of the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant output and a significant portion of the Seabrook Power Plant output towards the purchasing of Ren</p>
<p><br></br>Massachusetts, likewise, is including nuclear power as part of their portfolio and New Hampshire is proposing to make Seabrook Nuclear a…</p>
<p>While EUT Committee members sit around twiddling their thumbs, other New England States are suddenly including nuclear powered electricity in their renewable portfolio standards. Connecticut has applied 50% of the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant output and a significant portion of the Seabrook Power Plant output towards the purchasing of Ren</p>
<p><br/>Massachusetts, likewise, is including nuclear power as part of their portfolio and New Hampshire is proposing to make Seabrook Nuclear a renewable resource. </p>
<p></p>
<p><br/>In the meantime, Maine energy, technology and utility committee experts waste the people's time and money on micromanaging the PUC and pushing battery storage, hydrogen and other inefficient electrical production pie-in-the-sky ideas. </p>
<p></p>
<p><br/>Maine had best remove the state from the REC wars as we are already on our way to going behind and will only create a mess within the state with more wind and solar development to help Massachusetts reach their renewable energy goals. </p>
<p></p>
<p> <br/>Why are Maine natural gas-fired plants suddenly surging? Just when RGGI carbon dioxide allowances are hitting record costs? Massachusetts is serious about doing away with fossil fuels and the pipelines are transferring fuel from Massachusetts plants to Maine plants so they can maintain their greenhouse gas emissions levels. </p>
<p></p>
<p><br/>The people of our Maine EUT committee can't play on the same field as Massachusetts. They are allowing our state to be Massachusetts renewable slaves. </p>Replace ROC With REC. How Renewables Double the Cost of Electricitytag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-05:4401701:BlogPost:2586042024-02-05T11:36:30.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-justifyContent-center pc-reset"><div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-flexDirection-column pc-gap-16 frontend-pencraft-Box-module__flexGrow--mx4xz pc-reset"><div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-flexDirection-column pc-gap-4 pc-alignItems-flex-start pc-reset"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-justifyContent-center pc-reset"><div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-flexDirection-column pc-gap-16 frontend-pencraft-Box-module__flexGrow--mx4xz pc-reset"><div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-flexDirection-column pc-gap-4 pc-alignItems-flex-start pc-reset"><a class="pencraft pc-reset frontend-pencraft-Text-module__color-secondary--WRADg frontend-pencraft-Text-module__line-height-20--p0dP8 frontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-meta--U_nxy frontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-11--k1e8b frontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-medium--x7khA frontend-pencraft-Text-module__transform-uppercase--IDkUL frontend-pencraft-Text-module__decoration-hover-underline--BEYAn frontend-pencraft-Text-module__reset--dW0zZ frontend-pencraft-Text-module__meta--jzHdd" href="https://davidturver.substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EIGEN VALUES</a><div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-flexDirection-column pc-gap-8 pc-alignItems-flex-start pc-reset"><a class="pencraft pc-reset frontend-pencraft-Text-module__color-primary--ud4Z0 frontend-pencraft-Text-module__line-height-40--IuB7y frontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-display--KlbfE frontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-32--oRWIM frontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-bold--Ps9DB frontend-pencraft-Text-module__decoration-hover-underline--BEYAn frontend-pencraft-Text-module__reset--dW0zZ" href="https://davidturver.substack.com/p/renewable-obligation-certificates-rocs-rip-off" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How ROCs Rip Us Off</a><div class="pencraft pc-reset frontend-pencraft-Text-module__color-secondary--WRADg frontend-pencraft-Text-module__line-height-24--lgb2s frontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-text--QmNJR frontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-16--fFowu frontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-normal--s54Wf frontend-pencraft-Text-module__reset--dW0zZ frontend-pencraft-Text-module__body3--xcwfZ">How the Renewables Obligation Certificate scheme will keep increasing our electricity bills.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-gap-12 pc-alignItems-center pc-reset byline-wrapper"><div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-flexDirection-column pc-reset"><div class="pencraft pc-reset frontend-pencraft-Text-module__color-pub-primary-text--RzL7j frontend-pencraft-Text-module__line-height-20--p0dP8 frontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-meta--U_nxy frontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-11--k1e8b frontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-medium--x7khA frontend-pencraft-Text-module__transform-uppercase--IDkUL frontend-pencraft-Text-module__reset--dW0zZ frontend-pencraft-Text-module__meta--jzHdd"><div class="profile-hover-card-target frontend-reader2-ProfileAndPublicationHoverCard-module__profileHoverCardTarget--Od_YL"><a class="pencraft pc-reset frontend-pencraft-Text-module__decoration-hover-underline--BEYAn frontend-pencraft-Text-module__reset--dW0zZ" href="https://substack.com/@davidturver">DAVID TURVER</a></div>
</div>
<div class="pencraft pc-display-flex pc-gap-4 pc-reset"><div class="pencraft pc-reset frontend-pencraft-Text-module__color-pub-secondary-text--OzRTa frontend-pencraft-Text-module__line-height-20--p0dP8 frontend-pencraft-Text-module__font-meta--U_nxy frontend-pencraft-Text-module__size-11--k1e8b frontend-pencraft-Text-module__weight-medium--x7khA frontend-pencraft-Text-module__transform-uppercase--IDkUL frontend-pencraft-Text-module__reset--dW0zZ frontend-pencraft-Text-module__meta--jzHdd">JAN 28, 2024</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr/></div>
</div>
<div class=""><div class="available-content reader2-post-content"><div class="body markup" dir="auto"><h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget">Introduction</h1>
<div id="§introduction" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span>Most of the articles I have produced on subsidies for renewables have focused on the Contract for Difference (CfD) regime. This is because this is the active regime and most new renewables projects are commissioned under this regime. However, whilst producing last week’s article that updated the </span><a href="https://davidturver.substack.com/p/re-exposing-the-hidden-costs-of-renewables/" rel="">hidden cost of renewables</a><span>, I noticed that the cost of the old Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) regime was far higher than the CfD regime. This prompted me to delve into the ROC data and see what insights could be gleaned.</span></p>
<p class="button-wrapper">https://davidturver.substack.com/p/renewable-obligation-certificates-rocs-rip-off?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNzk3OTE0OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQwOTcxOTgxLCJpYXQiOjE3MDcxMzI4MDYsImV4cCI6MTcwOTcyNDgwNiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTEyODU1NjciLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.IWkR0UDYCKzms71-aw6GewLIbVVxvBQJdkQgQP1BnWU","text":"Share","action":null,"class":null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://davidturver.substack.com/p/renewable-obligation-certificates-rocs-rip-off?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNzk3OTE0OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQwOTcxOTgxLCJpYXQiOjE3MDcxMzI4MDYsImV4cCI6MTcwOTcyNDgwNiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTEyODU1NjciLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.IWkR0UDYCKzms71-aw6GewLIbVVxvBQJdkQgQP1BnWU" rel=""><span>Share</span></a></p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget">Overview of the ROC Regime</h1>
<div id="§overview-of-the-roc-regime" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span>The </span><a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/renewables-obligation-ro" rel="">ROC system</a><span> was designed to encourage the development of electricity from renewables. The scheme came into effect in 2002 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland followed in 2005.</span></p>
<p>ROCs are issued to operators of accredited renewable electricity generators for the power they produce. The number of ROCs per MWH generated varies by the type of generator. For instance, offshore wind attracts more ROCs per unit than onshore wind or biomass. It is also worth noting that the number of ROCs issued per MWh has changed during the life of the scheme.</p>
<p>Generators generally receive contracts for 20 years. The scheme was closed to new capacity in 2017 and replaced by the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme. However, there is a legacy of generators still operating under the ROC regime. Over time, the early generators will start to drop out of the scheme, but many developments will continue to receive subsidy up to 2037.</p>
<p>The scheme places an obligation on electricity suppliers (like Octopus or Eon) to present to Ofgem a specified number of ROCs per MWh of electricity supplied to their customers. Suppliers can meet their annual obligation by presenting ROCs, by paying into a buy-out fund or a combination of the two. The suppliers can buy ROCs from operators of renewables generators or from third-party traders.</p>
<p><span>Each scheme year, the value or buy-out price of a Renewable Obligation Certificate is indexed upwards by the Retail Price Index (RPI). The buy-out price for </span><a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/renewables-obligation-ro-buy-out-price-mutualisation-threshold-and-mutualisation-ceilings-2023-24#:~:text=2023%2D2024,%C2%A359.01" rel="">financial year 2023/24</a><span> is £59.01.</span></p>
<p>The combination of the value of a ROC certificate and the different ROC awards per MWh by technology means that different generating technologies receive different levels of subsidy per MWh. Note also that the subsidy they receive is in addition to what ever price they achieve for the electricity they sell on to the market. As the market price is frequently set by the price of gas-fired electricity, then by definition all these renewable generators are more expensive than gas.</p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget">Overall Volume of ROCs Issued and RO Generation</h1>
<div id="§overall-volume-of-rocs-issued-and-ro-generation" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span>Each year, Ofgem publish </span><a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/renewables-obligation-ro-annual-report-scheme-year-20-2021-22" rel="">a report and dataset</a><span> on the performance of the Renewables Obligation Scheme. Figure 1 below (their Figure 3.4) shows how the number of ROCs issued and the amount of electricity generated each year.</span></p>
<div class="captioned-image-container"><div class="image2-inset"><source type="image/webp">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" /><img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png" width="1456" height="985"/>https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/d08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png","srcNoWatermark":null,"fullscreen":null,"imageSize":null,"height":985,"width":1456,"resizeWidth":null,"bytes":155007,"alt":"Figure 1 - Annual ROCs Issued (m) and Electricity Generated (TWh) from Ofgem Annual ROC report Figure 3.4","title":null,"type":"image/png","href":null,"belowTheFold":true,"topImage":false,"internalRedirect":null}" class="sizing-normal" alt="Figure 1 - Annual ROCs Issued (m) and Electricity Generated (TWh) from Ofgem Annual ROC report Figure 3.4" title="Figure 1 - Annual ROCs Issued (m) and Electricity Generated (TWh) from Ofgem Annual ROC report Figure 3.4" srcset="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png 424w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png</a> 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd08f3090-c0bd-4636-8663-5f958f13f44f_2119x1434.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" loading="lazy" /></source><div class="image-link-expand"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
<source type="image/webp">Figure 1 - Annual ROCs Issued (m) and Electricity Generated (TWh) from Ofgem Annual ROC report Figure 3.4<br />
<br />
</source></div>
<p><source type="image/webp"><span>The x-axis is expressed in System Years. SY20 is system year 20, which corresponds to the financial year ended 31</span><sup>st</sup><span> March 2022. We can see that the number of ROCs issued rose steadily up to SY18 (FY ended March 2020) but has since dropped back slightly. The amount of electricity generated also peaked in SY18 at nearly 85TWh but fell back to 78TWh in SY20.</span></source></p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><source type="image/webp">Value of the ROC Scheme</source></h1>
<div id="§value-of-the-roc-scheme" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><source type="image/webp">Figure 5.10 of the Ofgem dataset shows the value of the ROC scheme for each year since SY9 (FY ended March 2011). The OBR also estimates the future value of the scheme out to March 2029. Figure 2 below combines the Ofgem and OBR data to show the history of the scheme value and the forecast of the future.</source></p>
<div class="captioned-image-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="image2-inset"><source type="image/webp"><source type="image/webp">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" /><img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png" width="1456" height="974"/>https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/dd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png","srcNoWatermark":null,"fullscreen":null,"imageSize":null,"height":974,"width":1456,"resizeWidth":null,"bytes":61879,"alt":"Figure 2 - Actual and Forecast ROC Scheme Value by Scheme Year (£bn)","title":null,"type":"image/png","href":null,"belowTheFold":true,"topImage":false,"internalRedirect":null}" class="sizing-normal" alt="Figure 2 - Actual and Forecast ROC Scheme Value by Scheme Year (£bn)" title="Figure 2 - Actual and Forecast ROC Scheme Value by Scheme Year (£bn)" srcset="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png 424w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png</a> 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdd9b731d-1250-4465-90da-f525ff0c799e_2477x1657.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" loading="lazy" /></source></source><div class="image-link-expand"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
<source type="image/webp">Figure 2 - Actual and Forecast ROC Scheme Value by Scheme Year (£bn)<br />
<br />
</source></div>
<p><source type="image/webp"><span>As can be seen, the value of the scheme rose steadily up to SY18 (March 2020), dipped back in SY19 and then reach a new peak in SY20 of £6.4bn. The OBR forecasts the value of the scheme to continue to rise and peak in SY25 (March 2027) at £8.6bn before falling back in subsequent years. Presumably, some ROC generators start to become ineligible for support after March 2027. The value in SY21 (year ended March 2023) was £6.8bn. Assuming </span><a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2022#:~:text=Households-,There%20were%20an%20estimated%2028.2%20million%20households%20in%20the%20UK,2012%20(26.6%20million%20households)." rel="">28.2m households</a><span> in the UK, this equates to ~£241 per household, just for the ROC scheme. If the number of households remains constant, the ROC scheme will cost ~£305 per household in SY25.</span></source></p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><source type="image/webp">Split of ROCs Issued by Technology</source></h1>
<div id="§split-of-rocs-issued-by-technology" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><source type="image/webp">Figure 3 shows reproduces data in Ofgem’s Figure 3.6 to show the number of ROCs issued by technology type each year. The number of ROCs received is directly proportional to the amount of money received because each RO certificate has the same buy-out value.</source></p>
<div class="captioned-image-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="image2-inset"><source type="image/webp"><source type="image/webp">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" /><img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png" width="1456" height="989"/>https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png","srcNoWatermark":null,"fullscreen":null,"imageSize":null,"height":989,"width":1456,"resizeWidth":null,"bytes":58502,"alt":"Figure 3 - ROCs Issued by Technology and Scheme Year (m)","title":null,"type":"image/png","href":null,"belowTheFold":true,"topImage":false,"internalRedirect":null}" class="sizing-normal" alt="Figure 3 - ROCs Issued by Technology and Scheme Year (m)" title="Figure 3 - ROCs Issued by Technology and Scheme Year (m)" srcset="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png 424w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png</a> 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F888dbd38-ab14-41a5-9d2a-5632466ad5f7_2490x1691.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" loading="lazy" /></source></source><div class="image-link-expand"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
<source type="image/webp">Figure 3 - ROCs Issued by Technology and Scheme Year (m)<br />
<br />
</source></div>
<p><source type="image/webp">The largest recipient of ROCs is offshore wind followed by onshore wind, fuelled generation and solar. The other technologies make up only a small part of the overall ROC scheme. Fuelled generation is mostly biomass, but the category also includes technologies such as anaerobic digestion and dedicated energy crops.</source></p>
<p><source type="image/webp">Anyone holding out for tidal or wave power to generate significant amounts of electricity is going to have to wait a long time. The last wave power was produced under the ROC scheme in FY14/15 (SY13) and only trivial amounts of tidal power are being generated by three small projects in Scotland.</source></p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><source type="image/webp">Support (Subsidy) per MWh</source></h1>
<div id="§support-subsidy-per-mwh" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><source type="image/webp">Figure 4 below reproduces data from Ofgem’s Figure 5.10 that calculates the support (subsidy) per MWh of electricity supplied.</source></p>
<div class="captioned-image-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="image2-inset"><source type="image/webp"><source type="image/webp">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" /><img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png" width="1456" height="1008"/>https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png","srcNoWatermark":null,"fullscreen":null,"imageSize":null,"height":1008,"width":1456,"resizeWidth":null,"bytes":61846,"alt":"Figure 4 - ROC Support (Subsidy) per MWh Generated (£ per MWh) by Year","title":null,"type":"image/png","href":null,"belowTheFold":true,"topImage":false,"internalRedirect":null}" class="sizing-normal" alt="Figure 4 - ROC Support (Subsidy) per MWh Generated (£ per MWh) by Year" title="Figure 4 - ROC Support (Subsidy) per MWh Generated (£ per MWh) by Year" srcset="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png 424w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png</a> 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46511580-1835-41e7-9c03-d2cdaa5b52d7_2463x1705.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" loading="lazy" /></source></source><div class="image-link-expand"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
<source type="image/webp">Figure 4 - ROC Support (Subsidy) per MWh Generated (£ per MWh) by Year<br />
<br />
</source></div>
<p><source type="image/webp"><span>The subsidies per MWh were lowest in the year to March 2012 (SY10) at £47.34/MWh. The subsidy levels have crept up almost each year to reach £78.48/MWh in SY20. Remember, this subsidy is in addition to the price the generators receive from the market for their electricity. At the time of writing the </span><a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/electricity-price" rel="">day-ahead price</a><span> for electricity is £65.10/MWh, meaning on average generators are receiving subsidies greater than the value of the power they produce.</span></source></p>
<p><source type="image/webp"><span>Figure 5 shows the average subsidy per generation technology, calculated by combining the data in Ofgem’s Figure 3.6 and the </span><a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/renewables-obligation-ro-buy-out-price-mutualisation-threshold-and-mutualisation-ceilings-2023-24" rel="">ROC buy-out price</a><span> for SY20.</span></source></p>
<div class="captioned-image-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="image2-inset"><source type="image/webp"><source type="image/webp">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" /><img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png" width="1456" height="973"/>https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png","srcNoWatermark":null,"fullscreen":null,"imageSize":null,"height":973,"width":1456,"resizeWidth":null,"bytes":49027,"alt":"Figure 5 - Subsidy by Technology SY20 (Year ended March 2022) (£ per MWh)","title":null,"type":"image/png","href":null,"belowTheFold":true,"topImage":false,"internalRedirect":null}" class="sizing-normal" alt="Figure 5 - Subsidy by Technology SY20 (Year ended March 2022) (£ per MWh)" title="Figure 5 - Subsidy by Technology SY20 (Year ended March 2022) (£ per MWh)" srcset="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png 424w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png</a> 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0672650f-7119-45c4-a2da-5a5125eac264_2710x1811.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" loading="lazy" /></source></source><div class="image-link-expand"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
<source type="image/webp">Figure 5 - Subsidy by Technology SY20 (Year ended March 2022) (£ per MWh)<br />
<br />
</source></div>
<p><source type="image/webp">Tidal power attracts by far the greatest subsidy per MWh, so it is just as well that technology is not producing much. Offshore wind is the next most subsidised technology at £96/MWh followed by solar PV at £74/MWh. Fuelled generation (mostly burning trees) attracts £66/MWh subsidy and onshore wind receives £50/MWh. It looks like landfill gas and sewage gas are much more expensive than gas obtained by conventional means as they attract significant subsides of £50 and £41/MWh respectively.</source></p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><source type="image/webp">Top-10 Recipients of ROC Subsidies</source></h1>
<div id="§top-recipients-of-roc-subsidies" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><source type="image/webp"><span>After downloading the database of ROCs from the </span><a href="https://renewablesandchp.ofgem.gov.uk/Public/ReportViewer.aspx?ReportPath=%2fDatawarehouseReports%2fCertificatesExternalPublicDataWarehouse&ReportVisibility=1&ReportCategory=2" rel="">Ofgem data portal</a><span>, it was possible to generate a Top-10 of the generators that received the most subsidy in year ended March 2023. This is calculated by multiplying the RO certificates issued in the year by the buy-out price for the year. The result is shown in Figure 6.</span></source></p>
<div class="captioned-image-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="image2-inset"><source type="image/webp"><source type="image/webp">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" /><img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png" width="1456" height="974"/>https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/a669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png","srcNoWatermark":null,"fullscreen":null,"imageSize":null,"height":974,"width":1456,"resizeWidth":null,"bytes":65183,"alt":"Figure 6 - Top-10 Subsidy Generators in Year to end March 2023 (£m)","title":null,"type":"image/png","href":null,"belowTheFold":true,"topImage":false,"internalRedirect":null}" class="sizing-normal" alt="Figure 6 - Top-10 Subsidy Generators in Year to end March 2023 (£m)" title="Figure 6 - Top-10 Subsidy Generators in Year to end March 2023 (£m)" srcset="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png 424w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png</a> 848w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png</a> 1272w, <a href="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png">https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa669d653-f02b-445a-954b-62f5fe683a07_2615x1749.png</a> 1456w" sizes="100vw" loading="lazy" /></source></source><div class="image-link-expand"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
<source type="image/webp">Figure 6 - Top-10 Subsidy Generators in Year to end March 2023 (£m)<br />
<br />
</source></div>
<p><source type="image/webp">Drax is by far the largest recipient of ROC subsidy largesse, receiving around £550m worth of ROC certificated in FY22/23. The other nine in the Top-10 are all offshore wind farms, receiving £100-220m of ROC subsidies in the year. The Top-10 represent about one third of the total value of ROCs issued for the year.</source></p>
<h1 class="header-with-anchor-widget"><source type="image/webp">Conclusions</source></h1>
<div id="§conclusions" class="header-anchor-widget offset-top"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button-container"><source type="image/webp"></source><div class="header-anchor-widget-button"><source type="image/webp"></source></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><source type="image/webp">It was remiss for me to overlook the ROC scheme up to now. However, this deep dive demonstrates that renewables produced under ROC schemes are not cheap and never will be cheap. Generators receive a subsidy in addition to the market value of the electricity they sell. As the market value is frequently set by gas-fired generators, the renewables generators are bound to be more expensive. By far the biggest recipients of ROC subsidy largesse are the tree-burners at Drax and offshore and onshore wind farms</source></p>
<p><source type="image/webp">The OBR forecasts that the costs of the ROC scheme are going to continue to rise until 2027, so there will be no let up in the price we pay for this scheme. In fact, if the OBR is right the ROC scheme will cost the equivalent of over £300 per household by 2027. If the Government is serious about reducing the impact of Net Zero on consumers, it needs to find a way of cutting back the ROC system before it bankrupts us all.</source></p>
<div><source type="image/webp"></source><hr/></div>
<p><source type="image/webp"><em>If you have enjoyed this article, please share it with your family, friends and colleagues and sign up to receive more content.</em></source></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>The Real Market Versus the "Fantasy Market"tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-01:4401701:BlogPost:2584842024-02-01T14:41:22.000ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p></p>
<p><strong>Full Disclosure:</strong> The power coming to your residence, your workplace and every other place using electricity in the Central Maine Power territory is generated by the sources at the percentages reflected in the illustration below. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is the physical electrons that run all your appliances, lights, heating and cooling equipment including the "fantasy portfolio of renewables", i.e. (biomass, municipal waste, fossil fuel cogen, fuel cells, geothermal,…</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Full Disclosure:</strong> The power coming to your residence, your workplace and every other place using electricity in the Central Maine Power territory is generated by the sources at the percentages reflected in the illustration below. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is the physical electrons that run all your appliances, lights, heating and cooling equipment including the "fantasy portfolio of renewables", i.e. (biomass, municipal waste, fossil fuel cogen, fuel cells, geothermal, hydro, solar, tidal and wind)</p>
<p></p>
<p>This power mix is from the wholesale market. The real deal: 83.5% of the incoming electrons are excited by nuclear, gas, oil and coal plants. Not just for the CMP territory, but all of New England. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The State of Maine "fantasy market" consists of 56.6% renewables. This market is quite disassociated with the real market, where an actual 16.5% of the listed renewables is deliverable, as the chart shows.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The "fantasy market" is not real, but really costs the ratepayers. The idea that renewables are overtaking the wholesale market is an illusion. They are corrupting the retail market.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The costs of the "fantasy market" continue to pile onto monthly bills because we pay for them.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p> <span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>The Wholesale Market Chart </strong></span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12372556499?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><br/><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12372556499?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-left"/></a></p>