Discontinuing Revolution Wind Might Lead to Grid Calamity in New England
In the heart of the Northeast, the ongoing delay of the Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts is causing ripples of concern. This nearly complete offshore wind farm, slated to supply 704 megawatts of electricity, has been halted due to dubious "national security" reasons, as reported by regulatory authorities during the Trump administration.
The potential loss of Revolution Wind's electricity could cost New England consumers about $500 million a year, according to recent estimates. This is not a mere figure; it represents a significant portion of households' energy bills.
The halted project is part of a larger story that has been unfolding for months, with the president's assault on an energy source central to the region's grid and decarbonization plans. State governors, labor leaders, and New England fishermen who voted for Donald Trump oppose this move, highlighting the complexities of energy politics.
The Revolution Wind project, if completed, could have significantly reduced energy costs for New Englanders. A new report from Daymark Energy Advisors suggests that the project, along with Vineyard Wind, New England Wind 1, and the first phase of the SouthCoast Wind project, could have saved the region $400 million in energy costs this past winter.
The prices for offshore wind power, while higher than average wholesale energy market prices, are stable and not susceptible to the huge swings that fossil gas prices often experience. This stability could have been particularly beneficial this past winter, when total energy costs rose 67% compared to the previous year, driven primarily by a 112% year-over-year increase in gas prices, according to ISO New England data. Wholesale power costs from December to February spiked to $4 billion, up from $1.6 billion the previous winter.
During winter months, the region relies heavily on oil and costly liquefied natural gas to cover the gap in gas-fired power plants. The loss of Revolution Wind could be most keenly felt during these months due to the region's limited supply of fossil gas.
The project's potential extends beyond cost savings. The Revolution Wind project, like its counterpart Vineyard Wind, is poised to supplant costlier power plants used during grid emergencies. A similar analysis Muller worked on last year found that Revolution Wind and Vineyard Wind would have slashed blackout risk had they been available in recent decades.
The utilities in Connecticut and Rhode Island that signed long-term contracts with Revolution Wind will be paying prices for that power that are higher than the average prices on ISO New England's wholesale energy market. However, these prices may seem a small price to pay when considering the potential long-term benefits for the region's energy security and affordability.
As the region grapples with rising energy costs and the need for a reliable energy supply, the delay in the Revolution Wind project adds an unwelcome layer of uncertainty. The project's completion could not only help ease the burden on consumers but also contribute to the region's decarbonization efforts.
Meanwhile, Vineyard Wind is already sending power to the grid from 17 of its 62 turbines, and the entire project is expected to be complete by year's end. The question remains: Will Revolution Wind follow suit, or will the delay persist, leaving a gaping hole in New England's energy mix?
