CVOW on Schedule and Budget, Utility Reports

Dominion’s proposed offshore wind project.

by Steve Haner

Dominion Energy Virginia’s first wave of offshore wind remains on schedule, and within the announced capital cost of $9.8 billion; and the cost per unit of the energy from the turbines will be lower than initially projected, the utility reported last week.

Details? Well, many of those are secrets. Much of the brief report the utility filed with State Corporation Commission remains redacted, with large blocks covered by black ink. The redacted data involves reports from an affiliate corporation, Blue Ocean Energy Marine LLC. There apparently is also another document “filed under seal under separate cover.”

Finally, Dominion refers to an Excel file that includes all the data on the new levelized cost of energy (LCOE) calculations which was posted to a shared eRoom. The password is available only to the SCC and case parties who signed non-disclosure agreements, reports the SCC’s communications director in response to a query about access for Bacon’s Rebellion.

Among the interesting items which are on the record:

The next big permitting hurdle is the final environmental impact statement (EIS), which Dominion expects will be delivered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management at the end of September.  A draft EIS was published in late 2022 and was followed by a vigorous comment period. The issues raised by the comments are supposed to be addressed in the final version.

That should be followed by a formal record of decision from BOEM (approving it all, of course) and it is at that point that any lawsuit that comes will appear. The record of decision is what gets haled before a judge if a person or group is challenging the project. If the application is denied, of course, Dominion could appeal. Suits are already pending against earlier BOEM records of decision (Vineyard Wind and South Fork Wind, to name two.)

The final permit being awaited is from the Army Corps of Engineers, which Dominion expects by the end of January 2024. Then, it wrote:

Onshore and offshore construction will commence shortly after the receipt of the final permits. The updated milestone schedule dates are not expected to impact the planned project in-service during late 2026.

Key to the construction schedule is the American-built and flagged installation vessel Dominion is helping to pay for, with the fascinating choice of name Charybdis. (Is a sister ship called Scylla next?) Some of that information is deemed too secret for the bill-paying public to know, but the final bullet point states the ship will be in operation next year.

Likewise, information is hidden about two “charter parties,” which likely refers to the mass shipment of turbine generator components from European or Asian manufacturers in chartered merchant vessels. The term “charter party” is used in international trade. With all the details blocked out, little is clear about those “charter parties.”

The drop in the levelized cost of energy claimed is from the $87 per megawatt-hour cited in the application down to $80 per megawatt-hour. Those are in 2027 dollars. That works out to 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Generation costs are only one element of the customer bill, remember.)

One reason for the change mentioned is that Dominion now intends to claim a federal production tax credit (PTC) on the windfarm’s output, rather than a federal investment tax credit (ITC) on its capital costs. Both are allowed and both were apparently sweetened by the “Inflation Reduction Act” altering the renewable incentives, but now the PTC is Dominion’s preferred approach.

Dominion also claims that the renewable energy credits available to the company from power produced will have higher values than it first projected, $9.70 per MWH rather than $8.20. Absent the REC values (and if Dominion uses the power internally, it gets no such payment), the LCOE rises to $89.60 per MWH, or closer to 9 cents per KWH.

All of that is still based upon the assumed 42% capacity factor, i.e. that the turbines will produce electricity on average 42% of the time. The cost per unit of energy slides up or down with what actually happens with that output in the coming decades.

The math on all this is complicated. Some time with the Excel spreadsheet would be helpful. One can hope the rules will loosen someday or the utility will decide to share.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

16 responses to “CVOW on Schedule and Budget, Utility Reports”

  1. Don Bowler Avatar
    Don Bowler

    Why is so much of this project is being kept a secret? What is it that they don’t want the ratepayers to know?

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Charybdis?

    A whirlpool that is worse than a six headed sea monster?

    Odysseus chose to sail closer to Scylla, the six headed monster, rather than sailing near the whirlpool Charybdis. He decides that sacrificing six men to Scylla is better than chancing his entire ship to Charybdis.

    Somehow seems appropriate for this project.

  3. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    By coincidence Dominion’s application to NOAA for harassment authorization for construction has just been published for public comment:

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/04/2023-08924/takes-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-specified-activities-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to-the

    Supporting materials here:
    https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-dominion-energy-virginia-construction-coastal-virginia?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

    Save the whales from Dominion.

    “Incidental Take Authorization: Dominion Energy Virginia Construction of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project off of Virginia”

    Comments due June 5 and there is a Reg.gov comment button on the FR page.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The dates line up. They want that permit to start February 2024 and run for five years.

  4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Excellent reporting.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Meh, flip a coin… almost.
    https://www.consultancy.uk/news/24677/most-construction-and-engineering-projects-are-unsuccessful

    In general, you’ve good reason to be skeptical.

  6. Dr. Havel nos Spine' Avatar
    Dr. Havel nos Spine’

    Implementation of confidentiality rules in regulatory matters require a public interest balancing. Given that the impetus for the ‘green-up’ of the U.S. electric power sector — from the VCEA to the EPA’s just announced proposed carbon-capture rule — is to deal with a global externality (climate change) at great public expense (higher electric rates), these data should be made public. The public has a right to know and scrutinize.

  7. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    A lot of unions and Gov’t agencies involved in this agenda. Am guessing that the “pass through” costs are high. We need to see a Cost Benefit Analysis of the windmill project as compared to other methods of producing power. Yes, to include the environmental impact of making these structures, sticking them in the ocean floor, and motoring out to the windmill site by boat for the frequently required maintenance. BTW, who insures these “statures” when they all get knocked down by one hurricane? Do we also pay for that, or is it a business, write off cost, wherein taxpayers are indirectly charged?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      In the case of Dominion’s utility-owned project, the risk of failure is on the ratepayers. The Avangrid project off North Carolina, in contrast, is a merchant generator so the risk rests with its investors.

      1. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
        AlH – Deckplates

        My experience with ocean storms, and high seas to include hurricanes and typhoons is that they destroy everything in their path. Um, sorry about the rhetoric, but is there a limit to the number of times each structure will be replaced in a given time period, say in an ENSO 3 – 7 year climate cycle?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Then there is good ol’ fashioned corrosion, the bane of any metal structure on the sea. This is nuts.

  8. Greg Abbott Avatar
    Greg Abbott

    Switching from ITCs to PTCs also adds to the performance risk of the project. With the ITC approach, the ratepayers get the ITCs regardless of actual production. With PTCs, the value is directly tied to production. If the project delivers as predicted by Dominion, then ratepayers would be better off. If it produces more energy than predicted, then ratepayers would be substantially better off. However, if it underperforms, then ratepayers would be worse off. You only get PTCs for actual energy produced. For example, if a major storm knocked it offline for an extended period, no PTCs would be realized during that time. So, Dominion is passing up on the sure thing (ITCs) for the potentially higher PTCs. This adds to the underperformance risk of the project. Without a performance guarantee for the project, the ratepayers bear this risk.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Excellent point.

  9. Dr. Havel nos Spine' Avatar
    Dr. Havel nos Spine’

    The ITC/PTC ratepayer dynamic projects a mirror image on the taxpayer. Either way, it is resource costs that really matter. In the age of government giveaways, this crucial point gets lost – much to our collective peril.

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Virginia has a dream:
    Virginia wants to take the lead in OffShore Wind. So we not doing the cost-containing bid process other states are using. We are committing to pay a higher cost, to take that lead. For example New Jersey was originally way ahead of us, but Ocean Wind-1 is still a dream because the successful bidder is moving very slowly. We are moving ahead faster by taking unilateral state-sponsored construction action (and permit approvals etc).

  11. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Virginia has a dream:
    Virginia wants to take the lead in OffShore Wind. So we not doing the cost-containing bid process other states are using. We are committing to pay a higher cost, to take that lead. For example New Jersey was originally way ahead of us, but Ocean Wind-1 is still a dream because the successful bidder is moving very slowly. We are moving ahead faster by taking unilateral state-sponsored construction action (and permit approvals etc).

Leave a Reply