Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Wind Energy’ Category

US Wind case provides further evidence of the emerging Federal-local govt alliance against offshore wind

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , on August 27, 2025| Leave a Comment »

US Wind lease highlighted in green

Historically, State and local governments have tended to be aligned, either for or against offshore energy (primarily oil and gas) leasing. However, a new (offshore) world order is emerging with local governments joining the new Administration in opposition to wind projects.

Most recently, and consistent with previous speculation, the Federal govt announced its intent to revoke approval of the Construction and Operations Plan for the US Wind project offshore Maryland and Delaware. (See the attached court filing.) This project is not yet in the construction phase.

Particularly noteworthy, as has been the case for other wind projects offshore Mid-Atlantic and New England states, is the alignment of Federal and local (coastal) govts in opposition to State policies.

Specifically, with regard to the US Wind project, the positions of State and local leaders couldn’t differ more:

Ocean City MD Town Manager Terry McGean:

“This is an extremely positive development in our fight against the irresponsible and costly US Wind project,” McGean said to WBOC on Monday. “We have stated all along that the approval of this project was fast and tracked without adequate public input and that approvals ignored significant risks to our economy, fishing industry, marine mammals, and the horseshoe crab. We are glad that our concerns are finally being taken seriously.”

Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan:

“For the past eight years, Ocean City has voiced strong opposition to the proposed US Wind project. Unfortunately, we believe this project was fast-tracked and that our serious concerns have been largely ignored throughout the review process.“

Contrast the above comments with this statement from MD Governor Wes Moore:

“Canceling a project set to bring in $1 billion in investment, create thousands of good paying jobs in manufacturing, and generate more Maryland-made electrical supply is utterly shortsighted,” the Governor’s statement reads in part. “The President’s actions will directly lead to utility-rate hikes by taking off most promising ways for Maryland to meet its looming energy generation challenges.”

Such sharply divergent views are also evident in other coastal states. Offshore wind could be a factor in the upcoming gubernatorial race in NJ. The pro-wind energy candidate has the support of large environmental NGOs, while her opponent is supported by grass roots environmental groups that strongly oppose wind projects.

DOJ US Wind filingDownload

Read Full Post »

Letter from BOEM to Ørsted

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on August 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Revolution Wind shutdown order is attached. The letter cites concerns about national security and interference with other offshore activities.

Excerpt from Ørsted’s response:

“Ørsted is evaluating all options to resolve the matter expeditiously. This includes engagement with relevant permitting agencies for any necessary clarification or resolution as well as through potential legal proceedings, with the aim being to proceed with continued project construction towards COD in the second half of 2026.”

Director'sOrder-20250822Download

Read Full Post »

BOEM halts activity on Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project!

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , on August 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is halting activity on the Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut. No details on this decision have been provided.

According to Ørsted, all of Revolution Wind’s foundations and almost 70 per cent of the turbines have been installed.

Revolution Wind is a partnership between Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables.

Related post from last week.

Read Full Post »

S&P downgrades Orsted’s credit rating. Will BOEM require supplemental financial assurance?

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , on August 15, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Following the announced $9 billion rights offering to shore up its finances, Orsted’s long-term issuer credit rating has been downgraded to BBB- by S&P, just one step above junk.

Will BOEM now require decommissioning financial assurance pursuant to 30 CFR § 585.517(b)?

§ 585.517 How will BOEM determine the supplemental financial assurance associated with commercial leases?

(b) If your cumulative potential obligations and liabilities increase or decrease, we may adjust the amount of the supplemental financial assurance.

Read Full Post »

Ørsted’s troubles and Atlantic wind decommissioning

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2025| 1 Comment »

Ørsted’s stock price plummeted on Monday following the announcement of a $9.4 billion rights issue to fund the Sunrise Wind project. The share price has remained depressed (chart below).

Also, although Ørsted attributes its financial woes to the change in US policies, it’s apparent in the second chart (5 year trend) that the decline in Ørsted’s valuation has been ongoing since 2021.

In March, Fitch downgraded Ørsted’s rating to BBB from BBB+, and its subordinated rating to BB+ from BBB-. Further downgrades would seem to be a distinct possibility.

Meanwhile, decommissioning financing for the 3 Ørsted projects under construction in the US Atlantic is far from assured:

  • Revolution Wind: As they did for Vineyard Wind, BOEM approved Ørsted’s request to defer full decommissioning financial assurance until 15 years after the beginning of construction (see attached letter). This approval was prior to the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule (effective June 29, 2024), which eliminated the need for such waivers.
  • Sunrise Wind: Ørsted is now solely responsible for funding and constructing this project given the company’s failure to find investment partners. Presumably, decommissioning financial assurance was not required given BOEM’s latitude under the so-called “Modernization Rule.”
  • South Fork Wind: As is the case with Sunrise Wind, BOEM presumably allowed Ørsted to defer financial assurance for decommissioning as permitted by the “Modernization Rule.”

According to Ørsted, almost 70% of the turbines are installed at Revolution Wind and the first foundations have been installed at Sunrise Wind. South Fork Wind, 12 turbines and an offshore substation, is complete.

Given Ørsted’s strained finances, will BOEM now opt to require decommissioning assurance as provided for in 30 CFR § 585.517?

Ørsted’s situation is atypical in that the Danish government owns a majority (50.1%) stake in the company and Equinor, which is 2/3 Norwegian govt owned, holds a 9.8% stake. How will government ownership factor into BOEM decisions regarding decommissioning assurance? Note that Norwegian govt lobbying may have been one of the factors influencing the decision to allow the resumption of construction on Equinor’s Empire Wind project.

Meanwhile, two Danish opposition parties are calling for the state to relinquish its ownership stake in Ørsted.

REV_0486_Fin Assur Decom Departure Appr LtrDownload

Read Full Post »

Offshore wind: End of the decommissioning free ride?

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , on August 11, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Dept. of the Interior is reviewing offshore wind regulations including “the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule, as well as financial assurance requirements and decommissioning cost estimates for offshore wind projects…”

Concerns about offshore wind financial assurance were first raised on this blog in response to a precedent setting waiver of the “pay as you build” requirement. Vineyard Wind was authorized to defer providing the full amount of required decommissioning financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations.  The waiver request, which had been denied in 2017, was resubmitted in 2021 and approved. This questionable decision was consistent with the administration’s enthusiastic promotion of accelerated offshore wind development.

BOEM’s streamlining rule codified the deferred financial assurance option. The rule authorizes the transfer of decommissioning risks from developers to taxpayers and consumers by (1) not requiring any additional supplemental financial assurance at the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) approval stage, (2) not requiring supplemental assurance at the installation stage, and (3) providing for incremental supplemental assurance post-installation (e.g. for Vineyard Wind, the full amount is not due until 15 years after installation). See the rule’s previous and current language in the table below (emphasis added).

30 CFR 585.516 – What are the financial assurance requirements for each stage of my commercial lease?

financial assurance required before BOEM will: language prior to 4/24/2024 “modernization” rulecurrent language
Approve your COPA supplemental bond or other financial assurance, in an amount determined by BOEM based on the complexity, number, and location of all facilities involved in your planned activities and commercial operation. The supplemental financial assurance requirement is in addition to your lease-specific bond and, if applicable, the previous supplement associated with SAP approval.There is no supplemental bond requirement at the COP approval stage.
Allow you to install facilities approved in your COPA decommissioning bond or other financial assurance, in an amount determined by BOEM based on anticipated decommissioning costs. BOEM will allow you to provide your financial assurance for decommissioning in accordance with the number of facilities installed or being installed. BOEM must approve the schedule for providing the appropriate financial assurance coverage.A supplemental bond or other authorized financial assurance in an amount determined by BOEM based on anticipated decommissioning costs of the proposed facilities. If you propose to incrementally fund your financial assurance instrument, BOEM must approve the schedule for providing the appropriate financial assurance.

The current financial assurance language is fuzzy enough that BOEM could deny deferred funding requests and require full financial assurance at the time facilities are installed. However, revising the language to clearly require that assurance be fully demonstrated prior to installation would provide clarity and eliminate the deferral option going forward.

The more difficult challenge may be adjusting financial assurance requirements for the projects already under construction. It’s also important to ensure that parent corporations are not shielded from decommissioning and other liability risks.

Read Full Post »

The winds of change! 😉

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , on August 8, 2025| Leave a Comment »

2023 vs. 2025: Not so subtle changes

BOEM tweet (12/8/2023): Offshore wind is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a new clean energy industry, tackle the climate crisis, and create good-paying jobs, while ensuring economic opportunities for all communities.
BOEM tweet (7/31/2025): America’s offshore energy resources are powering the nation. In FY2024 that looks like 668M barrels of oil, 700B cubic feet of natural gas
BSEE 2023 logo
BSEE 2025 logo

BTW, the new BSEE logo appears to have been influenced by the masterpiece Rig at Sunset 👍 😉

Rig at Sunset

Read Full Post »

Dept. of the Interior is reconsidering approval of US Wind Construction & Operations Plan

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on August 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

A new court filing (attached) informs that the Dept. of the Interior is reconsidering the Construction & Operations Plan (COP) approval for US Wind’s Maryland Offshore Wind (“MarWin”) Project (maps above). That approval is the subject of litigation filed by Ocean City MD and others.

The key section of the Federal government’s filing is pasted below.

  1. An extension in this case is necessary as Interior intends to reconsider its COP approval and move in the District of Maryland—the first-filed case—for voluntary remand of that agency action. See, e.g., Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 901 F.3d 414, 436 (D.C.Cir. 2018) (recognizing that administrative agencies have the authority to reconsider their decisions). The outcome of Interior’s reconsideration has the potential to affect the Plaintiff’s claims in this case.
Maryland Offshore WindDownload

Read Full Post »

Nantucket Current opinion piece challenges Select Board rhetoric

Posted in Offshore Wind, energy policy, climate, tagged , , , , , on August 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Victoria Bonnet’s piece in the Nantucket Current challenges certain assertions made at the Select Board’s July 29 press conference. Key points:

“The government documents for ALL the Atlantic projects make it clear that there will be no benefit to climate change from implementing wide scale offshore wind.”

“And how is it possible that an attorney representing an island that is receiving the full brunt of the environmental impacts from this massive industrial project is lecturing the press that historic preservation can co-exist with offshore wind? The sight of just the first 40 towers from Vineyard Wind makes it clear they can’t.”

“Blindly following public relations statements about offshore wind as a critical solution to climate change that must be implemented immediately is how we got here in the first place. It has become clear that Nantucket receives no benefits from, but is significantly harmed by, Vineyard Wind. Our Select Board’s role should not be to advocate for any energy source that harms Nantucket.”

“Dawn Hill, a signatory to the Good Neighbor Agreement and the current Select Board Chair, was a bright spot in the meeting. Her acknowledgment that the project is way more impactful than communicated at the time the Good Neighbor Agreement was signed gives hope that more rational thinking and action is on the way.“

Read Full Post »

Denmark relies heavily on imported power

Posted in climate, energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , on August 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »

As indicated in the Jens Christiansen graphic above, Denmark’s net imports exceeded 80% of demand several times in July. Per Jens, a Danish physicist, “this is the downside of being a wind leader we have to talk about.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »