New Yorkers would be forced to pay 2.5x market rate for wind energy from Empire Wind One offshore farm: expert
The Trump Administration paused construction of the controversial project — 54 turbines in the Atlantic Ocean some 14 miles south of Long Island — last week, saying it needs further review. The project has seen strong backing from Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams.
Trump's move was welcomed by those who claim the project is going to overcharge taxpayers.
Advertisement
'New Yorkers are entitled to clean, affordable, reliable energy,' Christina Kramer, president of Protect Our Coast Long Island New York, told The Post. 'And this is none of those things.'
8 Wind turbines in a farm structure in the Atlantic like the one proposed off Long Island. The pictured turbines are on a Wind Farm near Rhode Island, which was the first commercial offshore wind farm in the US.
Getty Images
8 A computer rendering of the Empire Wind 1 facility's Onshore Substation, which would collect the electricity generated by the turbines.
Empire Wind
Advertisement
The organization had requested analysis from Edward P. O'Donnell, a New Jersey nuclear engineer and consultant who spent 35 years running nuclear plants.
'Empire Wind One was awarded a contract to charge $155 a megawatt hour (MWH) for their power,' O'Donnell told The Post. 'It's a subsidy, because if you didn't have Empire Wind One, the utilities would buy [power] from the wholesale market at about $50 a megawatt hour.'
The total amount of the subsidy, O'Donnell said, would be $9 billion. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), who manages the state's power grid, is mandated to buy power generated by offshore wind over cheaper power from gas-fired or nuclear plants.
The federal Inflation Reduction Act, signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022, also provides a 30% tax credit for offshore wind projects that begin construction before Jan. 1, 2026, and additional credits are available for using US labor and building materials.
Advertisement
'A company who is building an $8 billion offshore wind project — that's what they're costing — can get up to half of that refunded to them as a tax credit,' O'Donnell said. 'That's on us, federal taxpayers throughout the country. We're all footing that bill.'
8 Christina Kramer, president of Protect Our Coast Long Island New York, who have pointed out the costs to taxpayer which the project is incurring.
8 A map showing the proposed area of the the Empire Wind Project, with phse one in yellow and phase two in purple. The map also shows the cable pipelines for the electricity to be transferred back to shore.
boem.gov
Congress may repeal the federal tax credit, O'Donnell said, but he also expects that would get thrown back at the consumer.
Advertisement
'If and when the tax credit gets repealed they would then lose $2 billion of their capital funding. They would go back to NYSERDA and say, we need another $50 per megawatt hour, or we need $205 or $210 per megawatt hour, whatever, or else we can't go forward,' he speculated.
O'Donnell points to previous examples of Empire Wind One and another contractor, Sunrise Wind — which is building 84 turbines in the ocean 30 miles east of Montauk Point — having already done this.
In 2019, NYSERDA awarded a contract to Empire Wind One, owned by the Norwegian company Equinor, at a rate of $118 per MWH for 25 years. It also agreed to pay Sunrise Wind, owned by Orsted, a Danish energy giant, $110.37 per MWH for 25 years.
Three years later, both companies wanted rate hikes, citing high costs and supply chain bottlenecks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
8 Edward P. O'Donnell, a New Jersey nuclear engineer and consultant who spent 35 years running nuclear plants.
courtesy of Edward P. OâDonnell
8 Graph showing the prices for power generated by the offshore wind projects compared to the standard market price, and how it is expected to raise over time.
Graph by Edward P. OâDonnell of. Whitestrand Consulting LLC., Long Beach Township, N.J
The requests were declined by the New York State Public Service Commission, but NYSERDA gave them the opportunity to rebid their contract and awarded them more money.
NYSERDA re-signed the developers with contracts at significantly higher prices: $155 per MWH for Empire Wind One, a 31% increase, and $146 per MWH for Sunrise, a 32% price hike.
Advertisement
'The Empire Wind One rebid ratepayer subsidy will total $9 billion over the life of the facility,' O'Donnell wrote in his report. 'The 2024 present value of these above-market ratepayer costs is $6.2 billion, compared with $4.4 billion for the original Empire Wind One contract.'
O'Donnell claims New York ratepayers will provide $18 billion in subsidies to the two foreign offshore wind companies.
With the ratepayer and federal subsidies, O'Donnell says his research shows Equinor would see a rate of return on their investment over 20%, much higher than the 9% regulated utility companies are generally allowed to earn.
8 Turbines on the Mount Storm Wind Farm in West Virginia.
Getty Images
Advertisement
8 A diagram showing the size of the wind farm turbines for the Empire Wind Project compared to the Chrysler building in New York City.
Empire Wind
'I think that no public utility should be making money off of the residents. A public utility is supposed to be just that — a service that's provided, that is created out of our tax dollars in part. But having these private equity companies make a fortune off of us after we've subsidized it is a proverbial slap in the face. We're onto it, and we're not going to stop,' Kramer added.
Empire Wind declined to comment on the subsidies. A NYSERDA spokesperson declined to comment on the economic analysis but complained about its sponsor.
Advertisement
'Protect Our Coast Long Island is a vocal critic of offshore wind energy and has been engaged in a strategic political effort to derail New York's offshore wind industry and the substantial economic opportunities it delivers,' the spokesperson said via email.
'Staff of the Department of the Interior has obtained information that raises serious issues with respect to the project approvals for the Empire Wind Project,' Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum wrote in a Wednesday letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
'Approval for the project was rushed through by the prior administration without sufficient analysis or consultation,' he added.
Kramer is pleased construction has stopped, but added: 'I think that we'd be even more elated if they said, 'Well, we're just going to put a full stop to them.' '
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump Hostility To Wind And Solar Has Utilities Treading Softly
AT SEA - JULY 07: A wind turbine generates electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 07, ... More 2022 near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States, five power generating structures are located 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island in the Atlantic Ocean. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016 at a cost of nearly $300 million. (Photo by) President Donald Trump reiterated his hostility to wind generation when he arrived in Scotland for what was ostensibly a private visit. 'Stop the windmills,' he said. But the world isn't stopping its windmill development and neither is the United States, although it has become more difficult and has put U.S. electric utilities in an awkward position: It is a love that dare not speak its name, one might say. Utilities love that wind and solar can provide inexpensive electricity, offsetting the high expense of battery storage. It is believed that Trump's well-documented animus to wind turbines is rooted in his golf resort in Balmedie, near Aberdeen, Scotland. In 2013, Trump attempted to prevent the construction of a small offshore wind farm — just 11 turbines — located roughly 2.2 miles from his Trump International Golf Links, but was ultimately unsuccessful. He argued that the wind farm would spoil views from his golf course and negatively impact tourism in the area. Trump seemingly didn't just take against the local authorities, but against wind in general and offshore wind in particular. Yet fair winds are blowing in the world for renewables. Francesco La Camera, director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, an official United Nations observer, told me that in 2024, an astounding 92 percent of new global generation was from wind and solar, with solar leading wind in new generation. We spoke recently when La Camera was in New York. My informal survey of U.S. utilities reveals they are pleased with the Trump administration's efforts to simplify licensing and its push to natural gas, but they are also keen advocates of wind and solar. Batteries Improve Usefulness Of Wind, Solar Simply, wind is cheap and as battery storage improves, so does its usefulness. Likewise, solar. However without the tax advantages that were in President Joe Biden's signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the numbers will change, but not enough to rule out renewables, the utilities tell me. China leads the world in installed wind capacity of 561 gigawatts, followed by the United States with less than half that at 154 GW. The same goes for solar installations: China had 887 GW of solar capacity in 2024 and the United States had 239 GW. China is also the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles. This gives it market advantage globally and environmental bragging rights, even though it is still building coal-fired plants. While utilities applaud Trump's easing of restrictions, which might speed the use of fossil fuels, they aren't enthusiastic about installing new coal plants or encouraging new coal mines to open. Both, they believe, would become stranded assets. Utilities and their trade associations have been slow to criticize the administration's hostility to wind and solar, but they have been publicly cheering gas turbines. However, gas isn't an immediate solution to the urgent need for more power: There is a global shortage of gas turbines with waiting lists of five years and longer. So no matter how favorably utilities look on gas, new turbines, unless they are already on hand or have set delivery dates, may not arrive for many years. Another problem for utilities is those states that have scheduled phasing out fossil fuels in a given number of years. That issue – a clash between federal policy and state law — hasn't been settled. In this environment, utilities are either biding their time or cautiously seeking alternatives. For example, facing a virtual ban on new offshore wind farms, veteran journalist Robert Whitcomb wrote in his New England Diary that New England utilities are looking to wind power from Canada, delivered by undersea cable. Whitcomb wrote a book about offshore wind energy, 'Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Energy, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future,' published in 2007. New England Frustrated By Pipeline Shortage New England is starved of gas as there isn't enough pipeline capacity to bring in more, so even if gas turbines were readily available, they wouldn't be an option. New pipelines take financing, licensing in many jurisdictions, and face public hostility. Emily Fisher, a former general counsel for the Edison Electric Institute, told me, 'Five years is just a blink of an eye in utility planning.' On July 7, Trump signed an executive order which states: 'For too long the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable sources like wind and solar. 'The proliferation of these projects displaces affordable, reliable, dispatchable domestic energy resources, compromises our electric grid, and denigrates the beauty of our Nation's natural landscape.' The U.S. Energy Information Administration puts electricity consumption growth at 2 percent nationwide. In parts of the nation, as in some Texas cities, it is 3 percent.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
To avoid worst of Trump tariffs, E.U. accepted a lopsided deal
BRUSSELS - The tariff-and-spending accord announced Sunday by the United States and the European Union stands to avert a damaging trade war between two of the world's largest economies, but it is lopsided in favor of President Donald Trump's protectionist policies, with Brussels swallowing bitter concessions in hopes of stabilizing a relationship that is vital not just economically but also for security interests. The rough agreement - which allows Washington to raise tariffs on E.U. goods while the Europeans promise to buy more U.S. products - quickly came under sharp criticism in Europe. Despite feisty rhetoric and vows to stand up to Trump, E.U. leaders largely acquiesced to the U.S. leader's ever-changing demands. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. E.U. negotiators insisted the deal was the best way to avoid a highly damaging tit-for-tat trade war that would benefit rivals such as China and Russia. But European officials and analysts said the tentative agreement does not end the uncertainty because so many details must still be worked out. To the harshest critics, including some in France who spoke of a 'capitulation' and 'humiliation,' the agreement is proof of a deeply unbalanced alliance and the latest example of European appeasement of Trump. At NATO, allies similarly strained to pledge the huge increases in military spending demanded by Trump. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who announced the deal with Trump while sitting next to him at one of his golf resorts in Scotland on Sunday, touted 'a huge deal,' clearly playing to Trump's love of largeness. But at her news conference soon after, von der Leyen appeared far more sober, declaring the 15 percent tariffs she had accepted on European automobiles to be 'the best we could get.' The E.U., and in particular Germany, its automaking powerhouse, had hoped to eliminate the 25 percent U.S. car tariffs entirely. 'We should not forget where we came from,' von der Leyen said. 'Fifteen percent is certainly a challenge for some, but we should not forget it keeps us the access to the American markets.' Trump indeed had threatened far worse, including a 30 percent across-the-board tariff that upended months of painstaking negotiations. Under the new deal, the United States will impose a 15 percent duty on most imports from the E.U. The blanket rate foisted on the E.U. mirrors a U.S. deal announced this month with Japan, another Group of Seven ally, but it is higher than the 10 percent that Britain secured earlier this year and that E.U. officials had grudgingly accepted in recent talks. Since World War II, trade agreements have largely sought to reduce the cost of buying and selling goods across borders. A 2017 deal the E.U. struck with Canada eliminated tariffs on most goods traded between them. An agreement signed with Vietnam in 2019 aims to phase out nearly all customs duties. Trump's accord with the E.U. goes in the opposite direction by raising tariffs, with some exceptions. Economists say the tariffs will increase costs for importers, who must pay the duties, and put upward pressure on inflation. Consumers and businesses will probably bear some of the extra costs, experts say. In France, where President Emmanuel Macron had urged the E.U. to take a harder line, the deal drew sharp backlash. While Macron was quiet Monday, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was 'a dark day when an alliance of free people, brought together to assert their values and defend their interests, resigns itself to submission.' Von der Leyen's European Commission, the E.U.'s executive body that negotiates trade policy for its 27 member nations, had faced calls from Germany and Italy, two countries that do outsize business with the United States, for an accord that would limit damage to their export-dependent companies. But even capitals that had urged a conciliatory approach were not exactly celebrating on Monday. 'The agreement successfully averted a trade conflict that would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard,' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. Still, members of the European Parliament from Germany blasted the deal even as it reduced Trump's tariff on cars, one of Germany's central demands. 'My first assessment: not satisfactory; this is a lopsided deal,' said Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament's committee on international trade, in a post on X. 'Concessions have clearly been made that are difficult to accept. Deal with significant imbalance. Furthermore lot of questions still open.' Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof acknowledged that 'no tariffs would have been better' but called the deal 'vital for an open economy like ours.' Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said, 'One thing is clear: This is a moment of relief but not of celebration.' The talks laid bare the E.U.'s queasiness at using its economic muscle, one of its few areas of leverage against Washington, at a time when allies have had to calibrate repeatedly to keep Trump on board as Russia wages war in Ukraine. Ultimately, after months of mixed signals and threats from Trump, E.U. leaders said they accepted a deal to give their industries a reprieve from the uncertainty that threatened to cripple business. Officials suggested they had relented out of concern that Trump was prepared to raise tariffs to a level that would effectively halt trade between Europe and the United States. 'Let's pause for a moment and consider the alternative: A trade war may seem appealing to some but it comes with serious consequences,' said the E.U. trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, who shuttled to Washington in recent months for difficult talks with Trump officials. 'Our businesses have sent us a unanimous message: Avoid escalation and work toward a solution that brings immediate tariff relief,' Sefcovic told reporters Monday. He said that he and his team had traveled to Washington 10 times for a deal and that the E.U.'s calculations reached beyond trade. 'It's about security, it's about Ukraine, it's about current geopolitical volatility,' Sefcovic said. He said he couldn't go into detail on what was discussed in the room with Trump on Sunday, 'but I can assure it was not just about the trade.' Now, nearly 70 percent of European goods will face the blanket tariff, a big increase in charges, according to a senior E.U. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about the details of the deal, which is still under negotiation. The E.U. had sought carve-outs from the U.S. tariff regime for key sectors including wine and spirits, and aircraft parts. The announced agreement eliminates tariffs on airplane parts, but a decision on wine and spirits was postponed. E.U. officials said talks will continue in the coming weeks. The two sides appeared to diverge on other details. The White House indicated that a 50 percent tariff on steel would remain in place, while E.U. officials said there would be further negotiations on lowering steel tariffs. Many officials and experts said it was crucial to sort out the details. 'We need to understand what is included,' said Brando Benifei, an Italian member of the European Parliament and head of its delegation for relations with the United States. Some questioned if ongoing U.S. trade inquiries by the Trump administration might still result in extra tariffs, such as on European-made pharmaceuticals, though the E.U. said those should remain capped at 15 percent under the new agreement. At first glance, Benifei said, the deal 'seems very asymmetric.' 'The result is due in my view to the push by some governments to have a deal at any cost, which has weakened our stance,' he added. 'Because the U.S. knew some governments wanted a deal whatever the cost.' Others noted that Trump's threats managed to shift the view on what constituted relief. Just a few weeks ago, E.U. and U.S. negotiators neared an agreement that involved a blanket tariff of 10 percent, before a Truth Social post by Trump derailed them. On Monday, some investors saw benefits for Europe's key auto industry, for instance, which would see U.S. car tariffs reduced to 15 percent from 25 percent. The tariffs, however, were at 2.5 percent before Trump's global trade blitz, and some industry groups noted their dismay. 'The U.S. tariff rate of 15 percent, which also applies to automotive products, will cost German automotive companies billions annually and burdens them,' said Hildegard Mueller, president of Germany's main auto industry group, the VDA. On some issues, the Europeans stood their ground. Trump officials had pressed the E.U. for concessions on tech industry regulations and on food standards, which the bloc insisted were nonnegotiable. As part of the deal, Trump said Europe had committed to buying more U.S. energy and weapons, and boosting investment in the United States. But those provisions are mostly aspirational promises without guarantees. European nations were already poised to buy more U.S. weapons under an arrangement with Trump to continue arming Ukraine, and the bloc was already seeking alternative energy sources, including liquefied natural gas from the United States, as part of its push to phase out Russian energy imports. More energy purchases and European investments would come from member states and companies that Brussels does not control. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, seen as a close Trump ally in the E.U., heralded the deal, while saying details still need to be worked out. 'I obviously welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached,' Meloni told reporters. Still, she added, 'we need to verify the possible exemptions, particularly for certain agricultural products. So there are a number of elements that are missing.' - - - Faiola reported from Rome. Beatriz Rios in Brussels and Cat Zakrzewski in Edinburgh, Scotland, contributed to this report. Related Content The U.S. military is investing in this Pacific island. So is China. In a stressful human world, 'mermaiding' gains popularity in D.C. area 'College hazing' or training? Amid shortage, air traffic recruits wash out.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
New show 'Battleground NYC' follows high-stakes mayor's race: Watch live
NEW YORK - The race for New York City mayor is heating up, and it's only going to get hotter. It's not just New Yorkers that have their eyes on Zohran Mamdani's big promises, Andrew Cuomo's campaign restart and Eric Adams' fight for incumbency. The whole country is watching. Our new show, "Battleground NYC: The Fight For Your Vote," is your daily front-row seat to the most pivotal mayoral race in U.S. Hosted by veteran political commentator SE Cupp, this fast-paced interview show investigates the "why and how" voters feel about the candidates as they vie for the role that could most powerfully shape the future of New York City. Our first guest? Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio joins Battleground NYC to give his take on the state of the race. How to watch Beginning Wednesday, "Battleground NYC" streams daily at 7 p.m. ET on YouTube and the New York City section of the free FOX LOCAL app. Click here to learn how to download. You can also watch live in the media player above. Who's running for NYC mayor? Zohran Mamdani - Democratic nominee At 33, Zohran Mamdani stands out as a Democratic Socialist and a rising star in NYC politics. As a state assemblyman, Mamdani surged ahead on a fiercely progressive platform promising rent freezes, fare-free public transit, universal childcare, and an unprecedented push for public housing expansion. His grassroots-driven campaign thrived on mobilizing young voters and harnessing digital outreach to challenge the city's political establishment. Curtis Sliwa - Republican nominee Returning to the mayoral race after his 2021 defeat to New York City Mayor Eric Adams, Curtis Sliwa brings his tough-on-crime message back to the Republican forefront. The Guardian Angels founder and outspoken radio host is banking on his core base in conservative outer-borough neighborhoods. Sliwa's law-and-order platform remains central, and he's wasted no time labeling Mamdani "too extreme for this city," positioning himself as the voice of traditional values and public safety. Eric Adams - Incumbent running as an independent Mayor Eric Adams stunned many by exiting the crowded Democratic primary, pivoting instead to an independent reelection bid amid growing criticism and sagging approval ratings. Launching his campaign in a candid Good Day New York interview, Adams leaned heavily on his reputation as a pragmatic, results-driven leader focused on "getting stuff done." He emphasized the city's need for stability, safety, and sanity, framing himself as the steady hand amid political chaos. Andrew Cuomo - Independent candidate Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched his independent bid for mayor after losing the Democratic primary in June. He's promised to revamp his campaign with a more personal approach, running under the self-created "Fight and Deliver" party and positioning himself as the only candidate who can stand up to Pres. Donald Trump. This is the next chapter in New York political dynast's comeback after resigning from office amid sexual harassment allegations. Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor known for his anti-corruption work, is carving out a niche as a centrist reformer and government watchdog. Without the spotlight or broad name recognition of his opponents, Walden appeals to voters tired of career politicians and political gridlock. His campaign, built quietly on small-donor support, stresses ethics, transparency, and economic reform. Solve the daily Crossword
