Ugh:
The Cape Wind plan was dealt a major setback Tuesday when two power companies that had agreed to buy energy from the Nantucket Sound wind farm terminated their contracts with the developers, raising questions about the future of the $2.5 billion offshore project.
National Grid and Northeast Utilities said Cape Wind had missed the Dec. 31 deadline contained in the 2012 contracts to obtain financing and begin construction, and chosen not to put up financial collateral to extend the deadline.
NStar, a Northeast Utilities subsidiary, informed Cape Wind officials of its decision late Tuesday, officials said.
“Unfortunately, Cape Wind has missed these critical milestones,” Northeast Utilities spokeswoman Caroline Pretyman said in an e-mail. “Additionally, Cape Wind has chosen not to exercise their right to post financial security in order to extend the contract deadlines. Therefore the contract is now terminated.”
via Major setback for Cape Wind project – Metro – The Boston Globe.
This, sadly, is not 100% unexpected. More than a year ago at the Cleantech Meetup, the Governor was hopeful but publicly uncertain that Cape Wind would get its financing worked out in time.
Obviously this would be a shame for a number of reasons. One is the chance to generate a good chunk of clean energy. But New Bedford stands to be the biggest loser, since the wind development center was going to be the staging and construction site. New Bedford folks are keeping up a brave face, and hopefully there are other projects in the offing.
Cape Wind is citing the ongoing legal harassment of the Alliance (funded largely by one guy, a Koch brother, of course) as a Force Majeure. It would be a tragedy if, having passed all the regulatory hurdles, that the endless lawyering prevented this project from being built.
As far as the future of clean energy in Massachusetts is concerned, fear not — not all the eggs are in one basket, by any stretch.
Read Ian Bowles’ tweets for a quick summary on what this means:
Some thoughts on the apparent demise of Cape Wind — 1st: with all the success in clean energy, MA’s leadership is secure
— Ian Bowles (@iabowles) January 7, 2015
2: Nearly 1GW of solar built, another GW of wind built around MA and NE, nation leading energy efficiency show rest of flowers blooming
— Ian Bowles (@iabowles) January 7, 2015
3: with more hydro, MA will achieve the state goal of 25% greenhouse gas reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. By far, nation leading
— Ian Bowles (@iabowles) January 7, 2015
4: When Pilgrim was built, the ratepayers bore the full cost of 4X cost overruns. With Cape Wind, they bore zero development cost risk
— Ian Bowles (@iabowles) January 7, 2015
5: Ironically, the current spike in regional natgas prices actually meant the CW contract would have saved ratepayers
— Ian Bowles (@iabowles) January 7, 2015
6: In any case, the project needed to either get built or clear the stage.
— Ian Bowles (@iabowles) January 7, 2015
Cape Wind has been an icon of clean energy development, but it’s turned out that we haven’t needed it to proceed on any number of extremely worthwhile fronts, as the State Senate notes in a report aimed at the incoming Governor. We should continue to aim extremely high in cleantech and efficiency — just as California is doing.
Anyway, ironic that Cape Wind and Keystone are facing similar fates today. But it may well be that time has passed both of them by. We’ll see.
stomv says
because I already said it.
Let’s not forget, it isn’t built yet.
I presume Charley Baker will let this wither and die. I suppose it’s possible that the legislature could make a new “83” or “83A” and require that the IOUs (and hey — you could require the munis too) do a round of bulk purchase of off-shore wind. The Horseshoe Shoal area could be re-engineered with larger turbines for more MW at less money, and try it again.
And hey, there’s no reason why the New England states can’t provide some loan guarantees or loans, just as there’s no reason why the Federales couldn’t.
The project may well be dead, but off-shore wind in the region needn’t be. However, somebody needs to show pound-the-table leadership on this, and get it done.
jconway says
This is his first test, let’s see if he passes it.
methuenprogressive says
Elections have consequences.
SomervilleTom says
I invite links to evidence that the Democratic nominee would have done anything differently. Was even lukewarm support for Cape Wind part of the Coakley platform? If so, I don’t remember it.
As in so much of current Massachusetts governance, I think the real question is what Mr. DeLeo wants to see happen with off-shore wind in the region. If Mr. DeLeo wants it, it is far more likely to happen.
I agree with stomv that “somebody needs to show pound-the-table leadership on this, and get it done”. I suspect that Mr. DeLeo can pound the table louder and longer than anybody of either party in the corner office.
methuenprogressive says
Call your IT guy.
SomervilleTom says
You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
Charley on the MTA says
Can on-shore in MA provide the sheer quantity that off-shore can? Is off-shore — wherever — likely to be cheaper than CW?
Trickle up says
is competing with Canadian mega-hydro, or at least the IOUs anticipate that it will.
Of the two, wind more environmentally benign (plus more local).
stomv says
Canadian hydro is transmission limited. We can theoretically build and site more transmission, but every 1-2 GW has to have entirely distinct transmission runs for contingency purposes: if it all ran on the same line, then a single incident could bring down too much resource and we’d have reliability problems. Canadian hydro, by itself, isn’t enough for New England to meet its carbon emission goals or to sufficiently reduce its exposure to swings in the price of natural gas.
Onshore wind has promise, but it is resource limited. There are some bottlenecks in Maine that, when solved, will help. Onshore wind is in New England totals ~840 MW (source: AWEA). The capacity factor (energy production per MW of capacity) of Cape Wind’s 468 MW were expected be roughly 50% higher than on-shore, so apples to apples Cape Wind was to be roughly 700 MW of on-shore wind. That is, Cape Wind would have almost doubled the wind energy produced in New England, as compared to 3Q2014. Can onshore wind keep up? Nope. There’s just not enough of it.
What about solar? Sure, solar has promise but it too is limited. As the grid evolves to incorporate more solar (by including more traditional demand response, electrical, thermal, and potential energy storage, and time-shifting use), the ability to incorporate more will increase but, ultimately, PV can’t do it by itself. It can get to ~10% of total annual energy needs in a straightforward way, but after that will require some substantial changes to the grid.
Remember, we don’t just have to meet the needs of current electrical use (lighting, plug load, ventilation and air conditioning, manufacturing). We’ve got to convert transportation to electric to reduce combustion of gasoline and diesel. We’ve got to convert heating to electric (air source heat pumps, not resistance heating) to reduce consumption of heating oil and natural gas. We’ve got to do these things to reduce carbon emissions to meet our targets, and doing those things will increase our collective electricity consumption. That means even more carbon-free electricity generation is necessary.
Remember, too, that five states in New England have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that increase each and every year.* Canadian Hydro does not result in RPS compliance. PV does, but isn’t currently being installed quickly enough to cover the increase. We need wind power to meet those goals, and Cape Wind would have provided a significant portion of our RPS targets. In fact, Cape Wind would have provided the total increase in targets from a single calendar year, plus about 25% more.
I have a hard time imagining how New England can meet it’s CO2 targets, meet it’s RPS requirements, or reduce it’s dependence on natural gas for electricity generation without Cape Wind. In that sense, Cape Wind is “cheaper” because we will struggle to meet our goals without it.
* Vermont doesn’t. Yeah, it’s strange.
Trickle up says
about letting imported hydro fulfill the RPS.
Which would be a poor idea. But is what I am thinking of nonetheless.
stomv says
It’s certainly been floated in CT. Nutmeggers make up about 25% of the RPS of New England so, if that happened, it would have a not insignificant effect.
Peter Porcupine says
I am so livid about this I cannot speak, but Nantucket Sound has been called a ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind’ so steady and strong are the blasts to be harvested.
I know some here want to make this a GOP issue, but earlier this year, another feckless Kennedy wife abuser was whining about the sacredness of Uncle Ted’s waters. And this is a single party super majority state. Horseshoe Shoals are FEDERAL waters, not state, and our delegation is entirely composed of Democrats. They chose to do nothing for 15 years.
All of the cost analyses of the ‘high’ price of renewables assumed that the existing price of electricity remained stable. Well, as of Jan. 1, the Cape will experience an approved 40% HIKE in electric rates making that comparison of gas vs. wind into confetti. And as a bonus, we have a 5 – 7 year moratorium on expansion of natural gas.
I supported this project – before Jim Gordon was even involved with it – because it was a PRIVATE SECTOR initiative. The costs and risks would be borne by the investors and owners. It was a perfect way to test the actual economic efficiency of large scale renewables in this region. Until somebody didn’t want their view blocked when sailing. THAT is what enabled the opposition to file endless lawsuits to stop the project.
judy-meredith says
You can skip bringing up the Kennedy character flaws .. many die hard Democrats have spent 50 years forgiving them. Don’t know why myself.
stomv says
porc, I share your frustration. Hyperbole doesn’t help. To suggest that the entire Democratic delegation “did nothing” for 15 years is nonsense.
Peter Porcupine says
You’re right – many took an active role in delaying and blocking the project.
We should not forget their efforts.
stomv says
What impact would a carbon tax or cap & trade had on the financing of Cape Wind? I seem to recall Mr. Markey was active on that issue, and I seem to remember an entire delegation in support of a number of market-based approaches that would have made Cape Wind more bankable. I also seem to remember another party that made “cap and trade” a dirty word.
What impact would the wind production tax credit have on bankability of Cape Wind? Yeah, see the paragraph above to remind yourself exactly how the MA delegation voted on those issues, and how your own GOP voted.
There’s plenty of blame to go around on this one. Don’t act like your [party’s] shit don’t stink here.
Peter Porcupine says
A specific low impact energy generator.
Not manufacturing. Not coal. Not pears. Not Pretty Ponies.
It didn’t need your help being bankable. It WAS bankable. It just needed you to cease opposing it.
stomv says
Your GOP was as much an enemy to Cape Wind as some Democrats were. Don’t put your head in the sand and pretend that there aren’t consequences to the climate change denying wing of your part (be they of the “regulations kill business” wing or the “undermine science because we didn’t come from monkeys” wing).
This discussion of Cape Wind has everything to do with climate change — and the GOP’s consistent nation-wide efforts to resist any attempts to deal with it — belong in this discussion of Cape Wind.
Cape Wind didn’t fail because of Ted Kennedy or the Democratic delegation. If Cape Wind doesn’t get built, it’s because the AtPNS, led by Audra Parker and funded by overwhelmingly by major GOP donor Bill Koch, managed to run out the clock.
P.S. I take issue with your use of the word “you.” Any group that includes stomv didn’t “oppose” Cape Wind as a matter of policy, or in any unified manner. And, frankly, you haven’t even tried to demonstrate otherwise because it’s simply not true.
centralmassdad says
The project was supported by many self-identified Democracts, but either actively opposed by the actual elected Democratic officials, or at least not supported in any meaningful way by elected Democrats– particularly by the most powerful of these. These were the folks, I suppose, for whom self-identified Democrats vote “because they are more likely to listen” listen on issues like this. And I also suppose that they listened politely, and then continued to do nothing because they did not support the project.
But it is really the Republicans’ fault, because they said things that created an environment in which Democratic elected officials would not change their position? Come off it.
This project failed because it, while it made policy and (mostly) financial sense, it required political support to get it across the finish line, and when the chips were down, it had none. It was not supported by the Democratic Party, and it was not supported by the Republican Party. And so it failed.
But it is absurd, after a long stretch of years in which Democrats COULD have given the political support to get things done, but failed to do so, to somehow blame that failure on the Republicans, who were during that entire time incapable of stopping the project if it were actually supported by the Democrats.
It seems apparent to me in the context above that porcupine used “you” in the 2nd person plural, to describe the Democratic Party, and was therefore accurate. Even if that makes either stomv or the Democratic Party something other than true Scotsmen.
Trickle up says
It’s not clear that Cape Wind is really dead, and if it is dead, it’s not clear what the lessons are.
I expect they will become clear, soon enough.
It is pretty clear that NStar and NU have opted out of their prior agreement in a way that is likely to stick, assertions of Cape Wind notwithstanding. That is what the news coverage has been about the past 48 hours.
But that does not mean that those deals won’t be renegotiated and consummated. After all, those companies still need to satisfy the RPS requirements.
Unless that changes.
We’ll see.
Charley on the MTA says
If there were more GOPers like porcupine, we’d be in a much better place. If GOPers and Dems were falling all over each other to create jobs and make clean energy cheap and abundant, the same way they fall over each other to protect F-35s and light money on fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, well by golly we might not be facing global catastrophe and my kids could have an easier life when they get to be my age.
Anyway, I’m hoping Charlie Baker has gotten smarter in the last few years and becomes that kind of Republican, the kind that thought it’d be a good idea to go swimming in the Charles. There used to be a few.
Christopher says
I know Kennedy didn’t want his view spoiled (which I never understood – I didn’t think the turbines were visible from land), but I always thought (maybe assumed is a better word) that Cape Wind would otherwise be something Dems were for.
TheBestDefense says
since there really is no such things as a monolithic “Dems.” The Congressional delegation publicly fell in line behind Sen. Ted but many were not truly opposed. OTOH Deval was a big supporter and many members of the legislature were also, none more heroically so than former Falmouth state representative Matt Patrick, who nearly lost office because of his vigorous support. Porcupine will probably have something snarky to add here, but Matt’s advocacy for Cape Wind was unflinching. If only porcupine’s fellow GOPers had half the wisdom and half the courage as did Matt.
You are correct that the turbines would be nearly invisible from the Cape. Moreover, in other parts of the world, ocean turbines are considered visual amenities. Personally, I get a little kick every time I drive past a land based turbine, knowing that each one makes our planet a little safer. Plus, I am a tech geek who just thinks they are cool. YMMV
jconway says
Wind turbines are on the freakin’ beach in my fiancee’s hometown in Ilocos Norte, I lived next to them for two weeks and they created hundreds of jobs for the village and her entire family and neighbors are employed thanks to those turbines. They are beautiful and magnificent to boot and draw busloads of tourists from all over Southeast Asia and electrified the province. Those busloads have led to a demand for better roads, better housing along those roads, not to mention small shops and restaurant businesses popping up. It was a boon to the entire economy.
As Porcupine noted, this is a great private sector opportunity the hypocritical NIMBY crowd on the Cape and the Islands have to stop opposing. Kudos to Dan Wolf and Matt Patrick, kudos to the Republicans that backed this, and kudos to Deval Patrick for being an early and vocal supporter. One of the biggest reasons I campaigned for him. Let’s hope we can restore this project and get it completed so the special, and I mean real 1%ers here, don’t win.
petr says
… it is unlikely that a “spoiled view” formed all, if indeed any, opposition to Cape Wind on the part of the Kennedy’s, most particularly Ted Kennedy. People forget that fisherman oppose Cape Wind on the grounds that it would have deleterious affect upon both the fish population and their ability to navigate and fish to, from and around the fishing grounds. In addition, according to the fisherman, the very thing that makes offshore wind attractive — lots and lots and lots of underwater cables placed without regards to aesthetics or traffic– make fishing that much more difficult. Maybe the fisherman are wrong about this… there is debate on the subject… but to make the issue about “spoiled views” of the rich and powerful elides the fact that fisherman have concerns.
Until then-candidate, now-Governor Baker cried over their plight, fisherman were considered a pretty hardcore dem constituency… Certainly, Kennedy joined a long list of congressmen, north and south shore, who were both Democrats and sympathetic to fishermen concerns.
Personally I think that Ted Kennedy, being a quite avid — and purportedly very skilled– sailor understood the concerns of fishermen: he’d been upon the water in the very waters in question. But, even if he did not understand fishermen, he’d be remiss if he didn’t take into account their concerns. Maybe too, as a sailor, he didn’t want to navigate them himself, or see how they changed the boating lanes… I guess that plays worse than ‘spoiled views’.
Peter Porcupine says
A weird little raised donut on the ocean floor. That’s why they are Federal, instead of state, waters – they are not navigable. Having turbines on top would be an IDENTIFIER so as not to go adrift.
And for those who think it wrong of me to drag Ted into this – P. 2, huge picture above the fold of Bobby 3.0, calling himself a ‘resident’ and celebrating the possible demise of the project. I think he bases his residency on inheriting a share of the house rather than actually spending time here unless for sailing in the summer. Just protecting the investment.
petr says
The Horseshoe Shoals are federal waters because they lie greater than 3.5 miles offshore. The area of Horseshoe Shoals contains many fish, in particular bluefish, and has both very shallow and extremely deep areas. Knowing the difference, for a fisherman, is what makes them money. Fisherman do not need turbines to identify anything, they have charts. Their concern is that navigating by chart and manning a lookout for hazards, while running or casting lines or nets, would be either impossible or financially unworkable: it would be analogous to running the Boston Marathon WITHOUT closing off the streets to traffic; theoretically possible but hardly the same endeavor.
Isn’t that what the fishermen are asking? They’ve invested alot of their lives and capital in their efforts. Why can’t they protect their investment?
stomv says
The Cape Wind monopoles would be a half mile apart. I should home a fisherman piloting a 30′ to 60′ boat could avoid drifting into poles a half mile apart.
petr says
Fishing is an extremely difficult job involving navigating a boat that trails hundreds of meters of lines and or nets.. A half-mile of leeway (“leeway” is a nautical term describing a vector where the ocean current, motive force — either sail or engine — wind and tide conspire to move your boat off the line you intend) is not a whole lot. Add inclement weather like fog — low visibility –or squalls — control– and good luck with that.
Peter Porcupine says
But it’s still part of MA even if it IS 3 miles off-shore.
The islands each get their own 3 mile buffer. The shoals are incased within the overlapping state waters, a fact noted by my friend Brian Braginton-Smith almost 20 years ago.
petr says
.. No. You don’t know what you are talking about. And neither does you’re friend.
Nantucket is 20 miles away from the mainland. Adding the 3 miles from the shore of the mainland and the three miles from the shore of the island gives you an un-accounted for 14 miles, in which sits the Horseshoe Shoals in question. These are federal waters. They are federal waters because they sit outside three miles of any dry land and for no other reason than that.. Nobody disputes this except you.
Peter Porcupine says
I have no ideas if this link will take, but here is a PICTURE of the Cape Wind site -http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Studies/Lease%20Area.pdf
To the norths, south and west of the Federal waters, there are state waters; there is a small channel to the east connecting this ‘island’ of Federal waters to the rest of the ocean. The position of the islands and their three mile buffer creates a surrounding circle of state waters.
That is the weird raised donut of Federal waters inside the state waters.
historian says
To have any chance of averting the worst consequences of the climate crisis, we need to develop all clean forms of energy. The apparent death of Cape Wind is bad news, and it seems likely that Baker will be happy enough to let it die. The timing of this news just as Governor Patrick is about to leave also seems suspect.
Charley on the MTA says
Well, the deal was for what was generally thought of as a high rate paid to CW. So I wonder if the utilities thought this was an opportunity to get out from under that.
Is there an opportunity for a Gov. Baker to jump in and re-negotiate a deal? Considering how much is at stake for the South Shore and our energy balance generally, that would be a good opportunity to prove himself a Mr. Fixit.
stomv says
I’d add that the term of DPU Chair Berwick (yes, that Mrs. Berwick) ends January 2015. I don’t imagine that Mr. Baker will reappoint her.
I expect that Mr. Baker’s appointment to the DPU will be a far clearer indication of his intentions with respect to Cape Wind than rhetoric.
Trickle up says
no doubt.
thegreenmiles says
We’ve spent more than a decade now of government, utilities, and private investors all standing on the pier in their bathing suits, each saying “You jump first.” It’s gotten us exactly zero offshore wind turbines in the water and kept polluting energy sources alive & well.
stomv says
Initially, with RPS, which provides a financial quasi-market based mechanism. Then RGGI has helped non-emitting generators be more likely to be in the money. Then, with 83 and 83A, pieces of law that required the utilities to sign long term contracts (LTCs) with renewable generators, designed because it was believed LTCs were needed for projects like Cape Wind to finally get built.
I’m not arguing that government can’t (or shouldn’t) do more, but I am pointing out that the legislators and executive branch folks have been pushing on this stuff.
thegreenmiles says
Government telling utilities & private investors put up all the capital and take all the financial risk continues to fail to get turbines in the water. You have to wonder if we’d have been much, much better off if big government just built Cape Wind (and then a lot more) itself 10 years ago.
bpaskin says
I just receive an email from NSTAR saying they are canceling their green services starting on 1 July. No reason given. I wonder if this has anything to do with what is going with Cape Wind.
stomv says
The DPU ordered NStar Green to be discontinued.
NStar will keep the contracts they had, using the energy supply and the enviro- attributes (the RECs) for general RPS compliance. If you want to have greener electricity than the minimum required, check out Mass Energy Consumers Alliance.