California Seeking Authority From Biden To Ban Diesel Trains

Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has requested comments on a waiver sought by the California Air Resources Board to implement new proposed state regulations on freight rail trains that are stricter than the current national Clean Air Act standards. Under California’s proposed rule, starting in 2030, no train older than 23 years may operate in the state, despite locomotives usually lasting 40 years. The proposal also calls for increased use of zero-emissions technology to transport freight from ports and throughout railyards. Starting in 2030, half of all new trains must be ”zero-emission,” and by 2035, all new trains must be zero-emission. The rule would essentially guarantee all train fleets would be zero-emission no later than 2058. The proposal will also ban locomotives in the state from idling longer than 30 minutes if they are equipped with an automatic shutoff. If the waiver is approved by EPA, it will not only affect rail travel in California, but nationwide as well as the same locomotive is used across state borders. Comments are to be filed by April 22, 2024.

Because transitioning from diesel-powered trains to electric trains is prohibitively expensive, California will require all train companies in the state to set aside almost a billion dollars each starting in 2026 to fund an eventual transition to a battery-powered fleet. Locomotive operators would be required to deposit funds into a trust account based on their emissions in California, which can be used to invest in newer mandated locomotives or infrastructure. Train companies cannot fund the transition now because the technology for a completely battery-powered train does not exist. Freight trains are huge and heavy and must operate in the extreme cold and climb steep heights through mountains. Cold weather and steep inclines have proven to reduce the range of truck electric vehicles by half. It would be far worse for freight trains, which carry much heavier loads.

The damage from California’s freight rail regulation would be devastating. Since trains do not switch when crossing state borders, train fleets would be forced to update their entire fleet to make sure they complied with the ban on engines older than 23 years. Also, since almost all freight train companies operate in California, they would all be forced to start contributing almost a billion dollars a year to the mandatory transition fund. Since 40 percent of all long-haul freight traffic is delivered by train, it would mean price increases for almost all consumers. Finally, since an operative commercially available prototype does not exist, every train company would face regulatory uncertainty as the 2030 and 2035 fleet mandates kick in.

The waiver and the proposal in unnecessary as the national Clean Air Act standard for trains ensures that diesel freight is not contributing to bad air quality or other health concerns. U.S. rail can move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel, which is much cleaner than if the merchandise was moved by truck. Freight railways transport roughly 1.6 billion tons of goods nationwide across nearly 140,000 miles.

California is setting unrealistic targets and unachievable timelines that will undoubtedly lead to higher prices for the goods and services and fewer options for consumers. California is the nation’s largest agriculture producer, which means that increased costs for freight will drive food inflation, as well as goods coming from China that are imported into California ports.

Further, its push for a zero-emission transportation sector is useless since China is currently adding two new coal plants every week and is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Rail accounts for only about 2 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector. If President Biden is looking for an opportunity to lower prices for consumers, he should start by rejecting California’s freight rail waiver.

Conclusion

California started the EV car mandate that grew to 17 states and nationwide regulations when the Obama Administration granted California a waiver to set its own fuel economy standards. EPA also recently approved California rules requiring zero-emission trucks to make up between 40 percent and 75 percent of sales by 2035, depending on the type. California is now set to use the same ploy for rail, with a waiver application into the Biden administration that will let California set its own emission standards for locomotives that are designed to force electric locomotives to replace diesel. Because a locomotive is not switched across state lines, the locomotive mandate will be forced upon the rail industry nationwide, which will increase prices on consumers as 40 percent of U.S. freight is moved by rail. The California rail mandate clearly interferes with the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution that guarantees the free flow of commerce.

California’s rule will be expensive for rail companies and increased costs for them will mean higher prices for many goods that move by rail for Americans, who are looking for lower costs having been hit by Bidenomics and its inflationary effects for over three years.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

AEA Statement on the EPA’s Heavy Truck Rule

WASHINGTON DC (03/29/2024) – Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the final version of their emission standards for heavy-duty trucks, which would impose significant reductions in CO2 emissions for heavy-duty trucks from the model year 2027 through 2032 as well as a push toward full electrification in later years.

An EPA analysis estimated the rule would result in truck makers needing to use battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for anywhere from 10 to 40 percent of their fleet. A recent analysis from the Clean Freight Coalition estimated the infrastructure costs of electrifying the entire commercial truck fleet to be $1 trillion alone.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

The EPA is setting unachievable emission reduction targets, this time targeting heavy-duty trucks which are responsible for an enormous portion of freight movement in the U.S. The technology needed to electrify the trucking industry is nowhere near ready, and this rule is setting us on a collision course for supply chain disasters.

By increasing the cost of shipping with this rule, the Biden administration is once again demonstrating their lack of concern for American families who have been hit hard by inflation and the onslaught of rules and regulations that are making it increasingly difficult to do business in the U.S.


Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #175: The Last American

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss recent movement on Capitol Hill and cover a litany of headlines from a busy week in the beltway and beyond.

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #174: Chop Choppy

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss recent primary contests, Biden’s latest stories, and the EPA’s “not-a-ban” ban on gas powered vehicles.

Links:

11 Questions for FERC Nominees

WASHINGTON DC (03/21/2024) – The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a confirmation hearing today on three new nominees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Given the usual glacial pace in which the Senate operates these days, it appears the Senator Joe Manchin, the Chairman of the Committee, is working with President Biden to rush these nominees through the process without much scrutiny. While we know little about two of the nominees, David Rosner and Lindsay See, the third nominee, Judy Chang, has made vocal her opposition to the construction of new natural gas pipelines, the permitting of which is a key function of the FERC.

Given the importance of FERC’s role in shaping U.S. electricity and energy infrastructure markets, senators from both parties should ask some important questions in today’s hearing. More importantly, the Senate should refrain from rushing these nominees through the process until a full and transparent vetting of their qualifications and their views on these important issues has been conducted.

Here are some suggested questions for the nominees:

  1. The alleged purpose of the Natural Gas Act is to promote natural gas delivery to consumers. A major policy change was the redefinition of the term “public interest” to reflect the climate focus of the chairman at the time. Do you believe that the definition of “public interest” should affirm the need for FERC to ensure affordable and reliable energy?
  2.  Pipelines are the primary mode of transportation for crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas. America has 190,000 miles of onshore and offshore petroleum pipeline and 2.4 million miles of natural gas gathering and distribution pipelines.  Approximately 80 percent of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped by pipeline on a ton-mile basis.  Will you commit to ensuring a speedier permitting process for oil and natural gas pipelines?
  3.  Should NEPA apply to transmission projects made necessary by political decisions to add intermittent renewable energy to the grid?
  4.  Will you affirm FERC’s responsibility to ensure the reliability of the energy grid as a priority over net zero and Paris Agreement targets? Should ordinary ratepayers be required to pay for the additional costs for adding the transmission necessary for these targets. 
  5.  In late January, the Department of Energy announced a pause on pending and future LNG export applications to countries that don’t have a free trade agreement with the United States. Do you view infrastructure supporting LNG as an essential component of affordable and reliable energy in the U.S.? 
  6.  In November 2023, FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and NERC CEO Jim Robb issued a statement on reliability in New England which stated: 

    “[w]ith respect to the natural gas system, the evidence raised what we view as serious concerns about certain local gas distribution systems’ ability to ensure reliability and affordability in the region without Everett.  And, although there was evidence that the retirement of Everett would be “manageable” for the electric system, at least in the near-term, given anticipated new resource deployments and transmission development, minimal load growth, limited resource retirements, and increased reliance on non-natural gas generators, the evidence indicates that, should those expectations not materialize as anticipated, ensuring reliability and affordability could become challenging in the face of a significant winter event.”  

    Do you support keeping the Everett Marine Terminal operational?  Do you think it would be beneficial for electric reliability? 
  7.  China controls the world’s supply chain for rare earth elements and strategic and critical minerals necessary for renewable energy like solar panels, windmills, and batteries.  Will the sourcing of these materials for renewable energy factor into your decision making at FERC?
  8.  To what extent do you believe that FERC should consider environmental impacts? Where is FERC authorized to be an environmental regulator?

Questions specifically for Judy Chang:

  1. As the former Undersecretary of Energy and Climate Solutions for Massachusetts, you were responsible for developing many of the policies surrounding energy in the state. At 28.85 cents per kWh, Massachusetts has the fourth highest residential electricity prices in the country behind Hawaii, Rhode Island, and California. If confirmed, why should we expect different results? Are you concerned by the precarious nature of natural gas supply in the New England region? Would you support more natural gas pipeline capacity into New England?
  2. In a 2016 report, you bemoaned the low price of natural gas saying it sends “exactly the wrong type of market signals,” and you went on to explain that Massachusetts should do more to raise the price of natural gas. Do you still believe you are more capable of determining the “correct” price of natural gas than the millions of decisions made by consumers and producers through the market process?
  3. In 2018, you made an inaccurate prediction that the state of Massachusetts would move away from natural gas. You went on to explain that, because of this, states should stop investing in “gas pipelines or gas plants.” You were quoted in an article discussing high electricity prices in Massachusetts: “If you have states already setting goals and policies to bring onto the grid more hydropower, offshore wind, plus other renewables and clean energy, does it make sense at the same time to build more gas pipelines or gas plants? To me, it doesn’t make sense, because all those costs will be paid by ratepayers in one way or another.” Do you still stand by this statement? Do the other nominees agree with Chang’s conclusion that we should stop investing in natural gas infrastructure?

Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

AEA Statement on EPA’s Gas-Powered Vehicle Ban

WASHINGTON DC (03/20/2024) – Today, the Biden administration finalized a gas-powered vehicle ban that aims to remake the transportation sector and fundamentally upend the American way of life. The regulation mandates electric vehicle adoption by requiring 67 percent of new light-duty and 46 percent of new medium-duty vehicle sales to be EVs by 2032. It will also increase America’s reliance on China for the critical minerals – such as lithium, cobalt, and manganese – required in battery manufacturing.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“This regulation is another example of President Biden’s assault on the middle class. The American people should be free to choose the types of cars and trucks that make the most sense for them. This administration wants to take away that choice by forcing Americans into specific vehicles preferred by government agents at the EPA. The Biden regulations will make cars more expensive and ultimately make fewer cars available for Americans. By now, we have gotten used to incredibly damaging and stupid rules from the Biden administration, but this one is in a class by itself.”


Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

AEA Statement on Energy Week

WASHINGTON DC (03/20/2024) – As House Republicans bring a series of bills to the floor aimed at increasing domestic energy production and reducing energy costs for Americans, the Biden Administration moves another step closer this week to forcing the auto industry to shift exclusively to electric vehicles, another in the more than 200 actions the Biden Administration and congressional Democrats have taken to make energy harder to produce and more expensive to purchase in the U.S.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“House Republicans are right to focus their attention on energy prices, which continue to be front and center for the many families struggling to make ends meet in this inflationary environment. Meanwhile, the Biden EPA is busy finalizing an internal combustion engine vehicle ban.

The contrast could not be more clear. House Republicans encourage the responsible development of our natural resources and reject policies – like a carbon tax – that Americans overwhelmingly oppose. Meanwhile, President Biden continues to push an agenda that restricts our energy production here at home, takes away our choice, and makes everything more expensive and less reliable.”

Additional Resources:

_____

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Renewable Energy Mandates Increase Chances Of Major Blackouts

Texas and California lead the nation in power outages and in wind and solar generation. Since 2019, there have been 263 power outages across Texas–more than any other state–each lasting an average of 160 minutes and impacting an estimated average of 172,000 Texans. From 2019 to 2023, California had 221 power outages, ranking second, and Washington ranked third with 118 outages, based on data from the Department of Energy. Texas has the most wind capacity in the nation and is the nation’s top wind producer and California has the most solar capacity in the nation and is the nation’s top producer of solar power.

Texas

Over the past 5 years, more than a third of Texas’ outages occurred in 2021, when a freeze led to widespread outages and the deaths of at least 210 people around the middle of February. There were 47 outages in February 2021 out of 91 across Texas that year. Mass outages such as the one that occurred during the 2021 freeze are rare. Typically, the outages Texans experience are localized and caused by damage to power lines. Power outages — and other events such as wildfires — are becoming greater risks for utilities as the nation’s power grid infrastructure, much of which was installed more than 50 years ago, cannot handle surging electricity demand, higher rates of intermittency, and extreme weather events. Much of the U.S. electric grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s. While the system has been improved with automation and some emerging technologies, it is struggling to meet the electricity needs of Biden’s energy transition, such as renewable energy resources and growing building and transportation electrification.

In 2022, Texas led the nation in utility-scale wind-powered electricity generation, producing more than one-fourth of the U.S. total, leading the nation for the 17th year in a row. Wind power surpassed the state’s nuclear generation for the first time in 2014 and exceeded coal-fired generation for the first time in 2020.  In 2011, Texas was the first, and until 2020 the only, state to reach 10,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity. By February 2023, Texas had nearly 40,000 megawatts of wind capacity, which was more than one-fourth of the state’s utility-scale generating capacity and almost three fourths of its total renewable generating capacity, including from small-scale (less than 1 megawatt) solar installations. In 2022, wind supplied one-fifth of Texas’ in-state utility-scale (1 megawatt or larger) generation.

Texas ranks sixth in the nation in solar power potential. In 2022, the state was the country’s second-largest producer, after California, of solar power. Solar PV capacity at the state’s large- and small-scale facilities increased to more than 13,500 megawatts in early 2023. Solar energy accounted for about 5 percent of the state’s total electricity generation in 2022. Small-scale solar facilities provided about one-eighth of that total. Natural gas-fired power plants supplied about half the electricity generated in Texas in 2022, coal-fired power plants supplied 16 percent, and the state’s two operating nuclear power plants supplied 8 percent.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas, the state’s utility regulator, is requiring Texas utilities to file resiliency plans this year for the first time. These plans would lay out each utilities’ strategies to reduce outages and otherwise harden their infrastructure against weather-related events.

California

Between 2019 and 2023, California had its largest power outages in 2022 (69 outages) and in 2020 (56 outages). In August 2020, hundreds of thousands of Californians briefly lost power in rolling blackouts amid a heat wave, marking the first-time outages were ordered in the state due to insufficient energy supplies in nearly 20 years. The heat wave extended into September and was the state’s hottest and longest for September. For more than a week, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) — which oversees the electrical grid serving 80 percent of the state — had been calling on residents to conserve their energy use in the later afternoon and evening amid extreme temperatures that sent electric demand on the grid to record levels. Heat waves drive up demand due to increased air-conditioning use. Typically, summer peak load in CAISO was about 30 gigawatts, but on a very hot day, it was over 50 gigawatts–a 60 percent plus increase, and virtually all air-conditioning.

California is second in the nation, after Texas, in total electricity generation from renewable resources and solar energy is the largest source of California’s renewable electricity generation.  In 2022, solar energy supplied 19 percent of the state’s utility-scale electricity net generation, increasing to 27 percent of the state’s total net electricity generation when small-scale solar generation is included. In 2022, California produced 31 percent of the nation’s total utility-scale and small-scale solar PV electricity generation and 69 percent of the nation’s utility-scale solar thermal electricity generation. At the beginning of 2023, California had more than 17,500 megawatts of utility-scale solar power capacity– more than any other state—and when small-scale facilities are included, the state had almost 32,000 megawatts of total solar capacity. The state is the nation’s top producer of electricity from solar energy, which generates less power in the evening and virtually none at night as the sun goes down, but that is when Californians arrive home from work and turn their air conditioners up and other appliances on.

In 2022, wind accounted for 7 percent of California’s total in-state electricity generation, and the state ranked eighth in the nation in wind-powered generation.  At the beginning of 2023, California had more than 6,200 megawatts of wind capacity.  In 2022, natural gas-fired power plants provided 42 percent of the state’s total net generation and nuclear power’s share was about 8 percent, about the same as hydropower’s contribution. According to the Energy Information Administration, California is the nation’s largest importer of electricity from other states, relying upon them for around 30 percent of its electricity.

Nation

Nationally, the number of outages from 2019 to 2023 was 93 percent higher than in the previous five years. Tennessee and Utah were the only states with a decrease in outages in the last 5 years (2019 to 2023) compared to the prior 5 years (2014 to 2018), among states with sufficient data. Tennessee generates most of its power from nuclear, natural gas and coal, which together provided over 85 percent of its generation in 2022, followed by 12 percent from hydropower. Solar energy, biomass, petroleum, and wind energy provided almost all the rest of Tennessee’s net generation—about 3 percent. About 80 percent of Utah’s electricity comes from coal and natural gas plants. In 2022, coal fueled 53 percent of Utah’s total electricity net generation, and natural gas accounted for 26 percent. Almost all the rest of Utah’s in-state electricity generation came from renewable energy sources (16 percent), primarily solar power. Utah generates about one-fifth more electricity than it consumes, and the state is a net supplier of power to other states.

Conclusion

A study has found that power outages have increased by 93 percent across the United States over the last 5 years—a time when solar and wind power have increased by 60 percent. Texas, who leads the nation in wind generation, and California, who leads the nation in solar generation, have had the largest number of power outages in the nation over those 5 years. The U.S. electric power grid is aging but it is being asked to handle increasing demand from President Biden’s forced “green” energy transition along with an increase in generation from intermittent and weather-driven renewables (wind and solar), which are to displace affordable and reliable natural gas and coal power that currently supply almost 60 percent of U.S. generation. That is a prescription for more power outages to come.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The Unregulated Podcast #173: More Barbie than Oppenheimer

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the circus like proceedings of the Senate Budget Committee. Later Carolyn Phippen, a candidate in the GOP primary for Utah’s senate seat,  joins the show to discuss the most pressing issues facing the Beehive State and the rest of the country.

Links:

 

Biden’s Offshore Wind Projects To Cost Double Initial Estimates

The cost to consumers of two offshore wind projects expected to support New York’s self-imposed climate goals has more than doubled from their original estimates, which were high to begin with. Developers had threatened to cancel their offshore wind projects without higher prices, citing inflation, supply chain challenges and rising costs driven by the pandemic, Bidenomics and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The agreements, which still need to be finalized, are expected to keep 1,700 megawatts of offshore wind on schedule for 2026. New York wants to reach 70 percent renewable energy by 2030, but to reach that goal—the highest renewable goal in the nation for 2030, the state will need to dump huge costs on its utility customers. The estimated impact to consumer bills for the two projects will be 2 percent, or about $2 per month for the new 25-year agreements—more than double what was expected in the 2019 agreements. The 2019 agreements, which were canceled, were projected to increase bills between 0.49 percent and 0.9 percent or 73 cents per month. Despite having pre-existing contracts with the state, both projects were able to bid into a November 2023 solicitation under New York state rules that allow bids from wind projects that need new contractual terms to remain financially viable. New York state government officials are walking away from protection of consumers in order to claim they are “leaders” in climate policies.

The two NY projects are the 810-megawatt Empire Wind 1 developed by Norwegian company Equinor and the 924-megawatt Sunrise Wind, slightly larger than the original 880 megawatts expected, developed by Orsted and Eversource. Empire Wind, located about 15 miles south of Long Island has received final federal approval, and Sunrise Wind, located more than 30 miles east of the eastern point of Long Island, expects final approval later this year. The projects are both expected to begin providing power by late 2026. The average development cost of the projects over 25 years is about $150 per megawatt-hour, the “strike price” for offshore renewable energy credits, for energy that is intermittent and weather driven with capacity factors less than 50 percent. In contrast, geothermal energy producers are using hydraulic fracturing to ultimately get costs down to $100 per megawatt hour for renewable energy that performs 24/7 and is reliable and carbon dioxide free.

The new offshore wind contracts are expected to include new economic benefit commitments beyond those agreed to by the developers in their 2019 contracts: $188 million in purchases of U.S. iron and steel; $32 million for disadvantaged communities; $16.5 million for wildlife and fisheries monitoring and a labor peace agreement for operations and maintenance. The agreements also maintain commitments by Empire Wind to utilize and support the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal as an assembly and staging port for offshore wind construction and for Sunrise Wind to use the Port of Coeymans near Albany for some foundation components. Both developers, Equinor and Orsted, are European companies.

The earlier awards for the projects had a net present value of $2.2 billion, but the current value is not yet available from the Governor’s office.  The strike prices in nominal dollars (not adjusted for inflation) for the original agreements were $110.37 per megawatt hour for Sunrise Wind and $118.38 per megawatt hour for Empire Wind 1. Sunrise Wind sought a requested increase to their average strike price of 27 percent while Empire Wind 1 sought a 35 percent increase. The increase in strike price from the previous contracts averaged about 30 percent. According to a New York government agency, the new cost estimates were “not directly comparable” since they are based on forecast energy prices and other factors.

A third bidder, the 1.3-gigawatt Community Offshore Wind 2 project, is “waitlisted” and may be awarded in the future. Two other large offshore wind projects have canceled their contracts, hurting the state’s ability to reach its 2030 renewable target. Equinor opted not to rebid its second offshore wind project, the 1,260-megawatt Empire Wind 2 facility, after canceling its existing contract in January. Instead, Empire Wind 2 will be ​“matured for future solicitation rounds,” according to the company. Its former partner, BP, did not indicate that it planned to rebid the Beacon Wind offshore wind facilities in the latest auction. New York plans a public webinar on the two re-awards on March 19, where the public may learn more about their decision to make consumers pay so much more for energy than the original prices.

New York is not the first or only state to allow financially distressed offshore wind facilities to re-bid their contracts after several project cancelations over the past few years. Other states, including New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, have allowed similar actions. New Jersey, for example, agreed to contracts with three developers that included prices similar to those in New York’s new agreements. These solicitations have allowed projects that were nearing construction to continue as their governments seem unconcerned about higher costs for consumers in their states.  Other offshore wind development projects remain locked into contracts that they will either need to cancel or rebid in order to remain financially viable.

Nationwide Goals

Nationwide, the Biden administration has set a goal of installing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by the end of this decade. Current estimates are that half of that are likely to be built. As of February, the United States had installed over 240 megawatts of offshore wind capacity off the coasts of New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Virginia — up from just 42 megawatts a year ago. Biden’s offshore wind targets were thrown into jeopardy after financial hardships and logistical challenges hit project developers as inflation skyrocketed and supply chains were broken.

Supply-chain constraints, rising material costs, higher interest rates and permitting delays made it more expensive and less profitable to develop these massive and complex offshore wind projects. The developers most affected by these conditions were the ones that had already signed agreements with utilities or public agencies—agreements that were not flexible in renegotiating costs. Companies signed the long-term agreements early in the planning process to specify the rate customers will pay for the electricity and how much of the energy they will use. Last year, developers with contracts signed before the pandemic found it impossible to turn a profit under their existing terms. In 2023, developers canceled contracts to sell 5.5 gigawatts of offshore wind power from projects in New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, incurring billions of dollars in penalties. These experiences cast doubt on Biden’s belief that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy.

Conclusion

Last June, offshore wind developers petitioned New York state’s Public Service Commission for increased payments under their contracts. Those petitions were denied and new solicitations were made in November. Two of those are about to be awarded, covering development cost increases of about 30 percent. Under the new agreements for the 25-year contracts, consumers will be paying more than double the bill increase that was set under the original contract agreements in 2019. New York is aiming to build 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2035, and this solicitation will cover 1,700 megawatts with a late 2026 operational date. Other states are also offering new solicitations to keep their offshore wind projects viable. Despite that, a number of offshore wind projects have been canceled with developers paying penalties. President Biden wants 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2030—only half that amount is expected, which is good for consumers, who will be paying heavily for the privilege of receiving electricity generated by offshore wind that is more expensive than electricity generated from natural gas.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.