"For better or worse, the boosters of the much-advertised energy transition decided early on to focus their subsidy strategy on a trio of voracious rent-seeking industries: Wind and solar in power generation, and electric vehicles in transportation. It is a sort of green three-legged stool that we have been assured by activists, politicians, media and the industries themselves would be able to rapidly displace villainous fossil fuels in a cheap and seamless manner.
But a funny thing has happened on the way to our new net-zero utopia, as two of the three legs of the stool have begun to show clear signs of financial distress that could render this stool highly unstable. The EV business was the first to signal that things were not going to plan early this year as unsold inventory began to pile up on dealer lots amid slowing demand, stubborn inflation, and rising interest rates.
In recent weeks, some analysts have begun to predict that peak EV adoption could happen in the next 2-3 years and top out at just 10-12 per cent of the total vehicle fleet. Distressed automakers like Ford and GM have recently announced cancellations in some big investments in plant and equipment and year-long delays in new factory openings and new model introductions.
If anything, the Big Wind industry appears to be in even deeper financial distress. In recent weeks, Siemens Energy, a major manufacturer of wind turbines, platforms and other green technologies, has sought loan guarantees from the German government of up to €16 billion ($16.9 billion), as rising costs and supply chain issues have changed the economics of its major projects, despite the generous subsidies and incentives the government has already provided. German economy minister Robert Habek says the government is prepared to support the company’s needs as a strategic asset, saying, “In terms of industrial policy, we are at a turning point, and it would be wrong to think that if you don’t face competition, we will benefit as an economy.”
Last week, Danish wind developer Orsted said it was cancelling two major projects, the Ocean Wind 1 and 2, off the coast of New Jersey after its demands for higher subsidies had been rejected. In its earnings release, Orsted said it was recognizing impairment losses of DKK 28.4 billion, which equates to roughly $4 billion USD, blaming “adverse impacts relating to supply chain delays, increased interest rates, and the lack of an OREC adjustment on Sunrise Wind” for the need to take the write-down. BP and Equinor, two major oil companies also engaged in offshore wind development along the U.S. Northeastern coast, announced impairments of their own of $540 million and $300 million, respectively.
For those unfamiliar with industry jargon, the term “OREC adjustment” refers to Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificates, a classic green cost-shifting scheme in which local, state or the federal government pays wind developers an agreed-upon fee for each megawatt of power they build and deliver in locations favored by those governments. Those fees end up being worked into the utility rates paid by electricity consumers as part of an array of hidden charges on their monthly bills.
With several additional projects under development off the U.S. Atlantic coast, Orsted’s cancellations bring the future of the Biden Administration’s ambitious goals for offshore wind development into question. This is especially true since the Orsted announcement came in the wake of a lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico for wind development that attracted just a single bidder for a tract off the coast of Louisiana, and no bidders at all for tracts off the Texas coast.
The cancellations also do serious damage to the offshore wind goals of current New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, who made his displeasure with Orsted’s decision clear, saying, “Today’s decision by Orsted to abandon its commitments to New Jersey is outrageous and calls into question the company’s credibility and competence. As recently as several weeks ago, the company made public statements regarding the viability and progress of the Ocean Wind I project.”
But, really, so what? What is the point of these arbitrary goals, other than to provide politicians like Gov. Murphy and President Biden with opportunities to virtue signal to well-funded environmental groups during their next re-election campaigns?
No one seems to want to admit it, but it must be said that offshore wind serves absolutely no purpose at all on a power grid that cannot be filled more cheaply and effectively by an array of other power generation sources. It is without doubt an ineffective, enormously costly solution to a problem that simply does not exist."
So, no one should mourn the apparent financial troubles of this unneeded industry, and utility ratepayers should demand that their elected representatives simply hang up the phone when company executives call seeking more subsidies.
David Blackmon had a 40 year career in the US energy industry, the last 23 years of which were spent in the public policy arena, managing regulatory and legislative issues for various companies. He continues to write and podcast on energy matters