peel back effect
OPINION

Stevenson: Fact checking US Wind benefits claims

Posted

David T. Stevenson is the director of the Center for Energy & Environmental Policy at the Caesar Rodney Institute.

I’m writing in response to a recent Opinion by Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall, D-Rehoboth Beach (“US Wind initiative would be positive move”).

It’s hard to pick the most misleading claim of offshore wind supporters. You chose.

The federal final environmental impact statement concludes on Page 135, “US offshore wind projects would likely have a limited impact on global emissions and climate change.” Further, the US Wind project is only about 4% of that total effort, so expect no measurable reduction in sea level rise from it.

Exxon, Shell and BP are investing billions in offshore wind projects to make a profit. Big Oil is not opposing offshore wind.

Our electric rates won’t go down. The US Wind consultant for the benefits package actually states that Delaware residential electric customers may save $9 a year in the second decade of the project but doesn’t tell us what happens in the first decade. The consultant’s statistical analysis has a +/- $17 error bar. An honest statistician would report the savings as zero.

US Wind also claims that the $200 million it will invest in building transmission lines to move power ashore will offer general upgrades to the local transmission systems. Over the last several years, transmission and distribution line upgrades not related to the US Wind project have been completed. The US Wind investment is only needed to bring its own power ashore to connect to the regional grid, and any created jobs are promised to Maryland. If the project isn’t built, its transmission upgrades are not needed.

The two offshore wind projects were approved in two different Maryland Public Service Commission dockets using two different consultants. Both consultants stated that the offshore wind projects would simply replace onshore wind projects needed to meet Maryland renewable energy requirements. The second consultant went on to calculate that emission savings would actually be higher for the onshore wind projects, as there would be less transmission energy losses because the onshore wind projects are closer to electricity demand centers. So, no emissions reductions can be specifically claimed for the project, and, by the way, Delaware meets all federal air pollution standards — standards set to protect human health.

That second consultant also recommended that the US Wind project should not be approved if a serious regional grid congestion problem near York, Pennsylvania, isn’t upgraded. The upgrade was estimated to cost $250 million to $450 million. The upgrade has not been authorized, and US Wind isn’t paying for it. The cost will eventually be added to our electric bills.

The benefits package signed by then-Gov. John Carney equals $128 million over 20 years. An honest analysis would do two things: First, the benefits would be summarized in current dollars, which equal only $40 million. Second, they would be compared to cost. The final environmental impact statement reads that commercial fishing operators will abandon fishing in the lease areas, there will be more vessel collisions, Coast Guard Search and Rescue operations will take longer, and there will be poorly studied environmental impacts. All of these impacts come at a cost.

However, the biggest cost will be to lost tourism. The FEIS concludes that ocean views will change from pristine to developed, with visibility dominated by turbines, and this will be a major impact. The statement used a University of Delaware survey of beachgoers to calculate potential lost tourism due to the daytime visual blight of turbines on ocean views. The survey estimated that 15% of tourists would not return to a beach with visible turbines. A similar survey of recent renters in the Outer Banks of North Carolina showed that 38% would not return. Both surveys used visualizations with turbines about half the size of the turbines US Wind plans to build.

A 2021 Delaware tourism report shows $2.7 billion in tourist spending at the beach. The entire $40 million benefits package would be wiped out with a 1.5% loss in tourism in just the first year. The University of Delaware report also expects lost property values. No wonder our survey of all 11,000 property owners within 1 mile of the beach showed that 87% of respondents oppose offshore wind. It’s those property owners who fund 100% of our efforts to oppose offshore wind.

Some say sea life will not be harmed. Why then did the National Marine Fisheries Service authorize harassment of dozens of endangered and threatened species?

Clearly, the US Wind project is not a good deal for Sussex County. Our complete study, “Critique of PA Consulting Group Delaware Offshore Wind Benefits Report,” including reference links, can be found at caesarrodney.org.

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.

Members and subscribers make this story possible.
You can help support non-partisan, community journalism.

x
X