This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.


Is Offshore Wind “On” in the Biden Administration?

image credit: Purchased Stock
David Gaier's picture
Owner, David Gaier PR

David Gaier is a communications professional, former spokesman for NRG Energy and PSEG Long Island, and consultant to energy advisory agencies. His 30+-year career includes crisis communications...

  • Member since 2019
  • 56 items added with 32,777 views
  • Dec 4, 2020

Offshore wind holds great promise, mainly because its fuel is cost-free, potentially unlimited, emission-free, and requires no storage or transportation. Yet there is only one utility-scale offshore wind park operating off the coast of the United States, the Block Island project off the coast of Rhode Island. More of a demonstration project, its five turbines have a combined nameplate capacity of just 30MW, which means at a claimed capacity factor of 47% is still producing only 14.1 MW over a given period of time.

Still, it was a start, and many more are in the queue including large projects off the coast of Long Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, and even Ohio, in Lake Erie. According to Recharge News, state offshore wind capacity commitments now total about 23GW by 2035, most of these backed by power purchase agreements (PPAs) including 20 years from the Long Island Power Authority for the South Fork Wind project; 20 years from National Grid, Eversource, and United Illuminating Co. for the Revolution Wind project; 25 years from the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) for New York’s Empire Wine project; 25 years from NYSERDA for the larger Long Island Sunrise Wind project; 16 years from Cleveland Public Power for the Lake Erie Icebreaker project; and Offshore Wind Energy Credits from the state of Maryland for the Skipjack project off the coast of Delaware.

Even with signed and dotted PPAs many challenges remain. When you stack up federal and state regulatory approvals; subsea geotechnical work; completed and approved construction and operations plans and environmental impact statements; secured ports and laydown areas; shoreline community input; turbine selection, financing and acquisition; a BOEM lease, and secured offshore construction vessels, just to name a few, you get the feeling that projected timelines are more aspirational than realistic.

I received a dose of this complexity more than ten years ago at Princeton-based NRG Energy where I was the spokesman for the East Region and the proposed Mid-Atlantic Wind Park off the coast of Delaware. Although NRG inherited a project in progress and a groundbreaking PPA with Delmarva Power when we bought Bluewater Wind, we labored for two full years in what were still just the beginning stages—more geotechnical work, plans for a meteorological tower that was never built, permitting with Interior, BOEM and its predecessor BOEMRE, and unsuccessful attempts to land a financing partner, secure Jones Act-compliant vessels, and obtain a location to bring the cable ashore from an estimated $1.5 billion, 200 MW offshore wind park. We even had to meet and come to preliminary terms with fishermen’s representatives, the US Coast Guard, NORAD and the FAA. Month by month the costs ran up in parallel with the obstacles, and while we ultimately secured a 100,00 water-acre lease from BOEM, we never moved forward from that point, and eventually sold the lease to Deepwater Wind, which later was acquired by Ørsted.

NRG CEO David Crane summed up the main obstacle at the time in an interview with Transmission Hub’s Corina Rivera-Linares: “We’re not saying it’ll never be resurrected, but right now, there are just so many different aspects of offshore wind in the United States that require coordinated government action, and we just don’t see that that’s going to happen.”

To be sure, things are far different—and much better—a decade later. What may have changed are more positive public attitudes towards offshore wind and utility-scale green energy in general, and the advantages of a White House that looks more than kindly on them. And today’s projects have much more momentum, financial backing, solid, long-term PPAs and not least the strong and vocal support of state governors including New York’s Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, states with aggressive renewable portfolio requirements and big plans for offshore wind. Moreover, on October 29 the governors of Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia inked an agreement to “establish the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Transformative Partnership for Offshore Wind Energy Resources”…“the framework under which Signatory States will cooperatively promote, develop, and expand offshore wind energy generation and the accompanying industry supply chain and workforce.”

Another bright spot is Houston-based Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation, which announced on December third that it will build the first Jones Act-compliant, U.S. flagged offshore installation ship to coincide with the advancement of one or more of the 14 projects expected to be online within about five years. And in mid-November, Ørsted and North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) announced a partnership to develop, train and deploy an offshore wind construction workforce to support Ørsted’s planned projects. Assuming Joe Biden is inaugurated on January 20, he’s made clear that large-scale renewables are a central plank in his energy platform.

But as we’ve seen just this week, in the case of offshore wind power, technical advancements ironically can lead to development delays. To wit: on December first, Vineyard Wind withdrew its construction and operations plan (COP) filed with BOEM, following its selection of the massive GE Renewable Energy's Haliade-X 13 MW turbine. Given their output, the Vineyard project will require fewer turbines, requiring a rewrite of the COP which was developed based on 8-10 MW machines. I reflected on this, especially because less than 10 years ago we were looking at 3-5 MW turbines as state-of-the-art.

There’s no reason the United States can’t stand up large offshore wind projects in a reasonable time frame. We should take a lesson from Europe where more than 22,000 MW of wind are operating, and just in November, Ørsted flipped the switch on the 752 megawatt (MW) Borssele 1 & 2 offshore wind farm off the southwest coast of the Netherlands, reportedly the second-largest project in the world. But it will take a concerted, focused effort and the cooperation of federal and state governments and regulators to streamline and speed the permitting and approval process. Otherwise, 2025 will come and go without another turbine in the water.  

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Dec 4, 2020

Lots of reasons to be optimistic. To be sure, clean energy advocates can know that the next four years will undoubtedly be better from a federal policy standpoint than the past four years, but the job is far from over-- pressure can and should be put on the Administration to be aggressive with clean energy action, not just clean energy targets. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 5, 2020

"Offshore wind holds great promise, mainly because its fuel is cost-free, potentially unlimited, emission-free, and requires no storage or transportation."

Your assessment reveals several misperceptions, David.

First - though wind's "fuel" is emission-free, wind power has a symbiotic parasite which comes to its rescue when fuel is scarce (more often than most think), one that is generously compensated with good pay and job security.

That, of course, is natural gas, the fossil fuel charged with rescuing every intermittent, renewable source of energy, but especially wind and solar. The unique ability of natural gas to plug the holes in their erratic generation makes it irreplaceable - a handicap easily overlooked as we move forward in the age of climate change.

Second (but related) is storage. The myth that huge batteries might one day serve as a substitute for gas is as innocent and naïve as the myth that wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) might one day power the world.

Third is cost. Being constantly told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy doesn't make it true, and despite all of the arcane arguments to the contrary, the fact remains that only in rare instances have prices gone down after renewables have been introduced on an electrical grid.

Though these myths have been tolerated for decades, it's time to stop kidding ourselves. When policymakers start sipping the renewable Kool-Aid, it's time to bring in qualified experts - physicists, electrical engineers, climatologists. For devotees of wind and solar looking for support, it won't be easy. Those who believe renewables are capable of entirely replacing coal, oil, and gas in the next 80 years can be counted on one hand.

David Gaier's picture
David Gaier on Dec 23, 2020

My perceptions are just fine and you have no way to know what they are in any event. You cite your own opinion as fact and it's not. "Arcane" arguments, "drinking Cool-Aid," are simply rudeness, not an argument. And frankly, your saying that storage will never be a substitute for natgas is unsupported and unsupportable. Casting aspersions doesn't help anyone including yourself. 


Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 25, 2020

David, I'm sorry if you were offended by my criticism of wind, solar, and batteries, but I've never presented my opinions as fact. We both offered opinion and fact, but to say "in my opinion" or  "it's a fact that..."  before each would be excessively burdensome for both writer and reader.

Because we're discussing on an informal forum I don't footnote everything, but that doesn't mean my opinion is unsupportable. For example, my opinion the idea huge batteries might one day serve as a substitute for gas is innocent and naïve is based on the following facts about California:

Capital Cost of Grid-Scale Batteries Sufficient to Power California for One Day

CA Annual Electricity Consumption (2019):[1]
250,378,710 megawatthours (MWh)

Rate of Electricity Consumption (avg): (250,378,710  MWh/yr)/(8760 hrs/yr)  = 28,582 megawatts (MW)

Daily Electricity Consumption (avg): 28,582 MW x 24 hrs= 685,968 MWh

Thus, the energy storage capacity required to power the CAISO grid for one average day without sunshine or wind is 685,968 MWh.

Current price of Li-ion grid-scale battery capacity (installed):[2] $625,000/MWh

Total cost of battery capacity:
685,968  MWh/day x  $625,000 per MWh = $428.7 billion


  • Li-Ion batteries with the capacity to power California for one day of cloudy, windless weather would cost nearly one-half trillion dollars
  • Equivalent to two years of California's entire state budget
  • Batteries would need to be replaced every 7-10 years
  • Total cost of batteries sufficient to power California for three days of cloudy, windless weather: $1.29 trillion

[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), California Electricity Profile 2019,

[2] EIA, Utility-scale battery storage costs decreased nearly 70% between 2015 and 2018

[3] EIA, Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, 2009 through 2019 (Mills per Kilowatthour),


David Gaier's picture
David Gaier on Jan 15, 2021

Here's a look at a massive energy storage system, in CAISO: Vistra Energy, the nation’s largest competitive generator, has begun operating a 300-MW/1,200-MWh lithium-ion battery storage system on its 1,020-MW combined cycle gas turbine Moss Landing power plant site in Monterey County, California. The battery storage system is the largest of its type in the world in terms of size and scale, and it towers over similar systems that have been installed to date.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Jan 15, 2021

Thanks for sharing David-- the energy storage market is an exciting one such that I suspect this won't hold the title for 'largest' for too long. Reminiscent of the 'tallest building in the world' competition throughout much of the 20th century!

David Gaier's picture
Thank David for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »