The report summarizes the environmental and economic benefits of Atlantic Coast offshore wind energy development. It offers recommendations for overcoming cost and siting obstacles, as well as state-by-state summaries of ongoing projects.
Compares Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium (VCERC) modeled capital costs of offshore wind development with data from European projects and a National Academies of Sciences study.
Appendix E summarizes the results of the modelling of total economic impacts of offshore wind energy development in two phases: an investment phase and an operation phase. An investment of $1 million dollars would generate less than 8 jobs, $1.6 million in output, and $0.5 million in wages on average. But once operational, offshore wind would support annually a total of 48 jobs, $8.3 million in output, and $3.6 million in wages. The total state and local tax revenues would amount to approximately $97,953 on average per $1 million for the investment phase, and an annual total of $424,731 for the operation phase.
The draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Act plan comprises 65 strategies that are expected to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 25% from a 2006 baseline by 2020 to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change and contribute to the growth of green jobs and economic recovery. The identified offshore wind initiative is expected to generate annually 48.2 jobs, $8.3 million in output, and $3.6 million in wages (in its operational phase).
The proposed Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2012 would incentivize the development of offshore wind capacity by creating a carve-out in the stateﾒs renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), to be set by the Public Service Commission (PSC), not to exceed 2.5%, between 2017-2022. To qualify, offshore wind projects would have to demonstrate positive net benefits to the state (including in-state jobs, health benefits, and electric rates), be located in federal waters off the coast of Maryland, and be priced below statutory safeguards for ratepayers.
The report provides an overview of offshore wind energy resources in the United States, status and trends in offshore wind energy technology, offshore wind economics, federal and state regulatory pathways for offshore wind facility siting and permitting, environmental and socioeconomic risks of offshore wind projects, and environmental and economic opportunities of large-scale offshore wind deployment.
Overview of the Public Service Commission's (PSC) final report's findings on whether and how Maryland might "re-regulate" its electricity markets. It includes graphs used in modeling the economic benefits and costs of offshore wind.
This final report studies whether and how Maryland might ﾓre-regulateﾔ its electricity markets. As part of its inquiry, the Public Service Commission (PSC) analyzed options for new electricity generation. The Commission concluded that offshore wind, while using a more reliable wind source than onshore wind and producing greater carbon dioxide reductions (747,000 to 975,000 tons per year, as compared to the full-year Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) target for 2015 of 937,600), is roughly twice as expensive to build and operate and is thus projected to result in economic loss to ratepayers, not a net benefit. The Commission relied on Levitan & Associates' modeling of the terms of the NRG BlueWater Wind contract in Delaware.
The Order establishes an Offshore Wind Economic Development Task Force to report on the economic costs and benefits of developing 5,000 MW of offshore wind energy by 2030.
The Board of Public Utilities's (BPU) consultants state that the net benefits of the project were not demonstrated because key underlying assumptions of Fishermen Energyﾒs (FERN) cost-benefit analysis were not adequately substantiated. The project has significant technical risks that may impair its ability to perform as promised; risks involve primarily the use of wind turbines that are not fully commercialized, and a foundation concept that has not been used before for offshore wind turbines. While securing financing from XEMC is a positive achievement, XEMCﾒs financial strength was not demonstrated because its financial statements donﾒt meet U.S. accounting standards. Finally, key management staff at Fishermen's Energy do not demonstrate signficant offshore wind experience.