“Vineyard Wind has withdrawn its construction and operation plans from the federal permitting process, suddenly throwing the future into limbo for the international consortium that has been at the front of the pack in the race to build offshore wind farms off the American eastern seaboard.”

–  Noah Asimow | The Vineyard Gazette, December 14, 2020.

Part I yesterday reviewed the history and current status on three (of four) U.S. offshore wind projects: one proposed, one defunct, and one (barely) operational. They are:

• Icebreaker (Ohio), a proposed six-turbine project eight miles offshore, that is currently dealing with significant and perhaps fatal environmental permitting requirements.
• Block Island (Rhode Island), which has encountered significant operational problems, producing very low output and adding new costs.
• Cape Wind (Massachusetts), a defunct proposal to erect 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound.

A proposed six-turbine project eight miles offshore, Icebreaker (Ohio) has been in the cooker for a decade or more…. The consensus is that even with the “poison pill” feathering requirement removed, Icebreaker faces enormous obstacles and crippling delays.

Going back to 2001, the Cape Wind (Massachusetts) project planned to erect 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound. The opposition was relentless, and eventually, “no turbines were ever anchored to the ocean floor, no blades ever spun, no power was ever generated.”

It won permits and was constructed, but the $300 million Block Island, RI project has been a monument to planning failures. Transmission cables, improperly trenched and insufficiently buried, are floating dangerously, requiring a shut down of the turbines to facilitate costly repairs.

Wind turbines are the ultimate in environmental consequence, wasting and contaminating land, water, and vistas, as well as harming wildlife and people.…

“After a dozen extensions and nearly three decades on the books, it’s time to end the Production Tax Credit….”

Thirteen extensions of a 1992 tax credit for a supposedly infant industry in need of start-up aid. A subsidy has risen with inflation and become more lucrative with new technological design.

Little wonder that wind power can be “predatory” by under-pricing conventional electrical generation that does not get the subsidy. As in negative, zero, or small-positive prices. Little wonder that firm, dependable power sources are leaving the market–or require a corrective subsidy to continue to compete (a second wrong).

It’s a racket. And so 41 free market groups have aligned to urge the U.S. Senate to end the racket. The full letter, organized by the American Energy Alliance, follows.…

Given the obvious harm caused by the renewable energy industry’s pricing practices on grid reliability, not to mention other competitors, can regulators find predatory pricing in violation of antitrust law?

Politically correct renewables have become the energy de jour of many politicians, regulators, environmental groups, and members of the public. As such, there is little political will to take on the renewable energy industry. Antitrust regulators have long demonstrated great selectiveness in what companies they target for enforcement of potential violations.

Perhaps the most important reason can be garnered from the Federal Trade Commission’s explanation of predatory pricing:

Can prices ever be “too low?” The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time.