Youngkin Endorses Dominion Wind Project

by Steve Haner

Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin’s administration has filed a letter with the State Corporation Commission asking the regulators to approve the Dominion Energy Virginia application to build a 176-turbine Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project.

The letter was on Department of Energy letterhead and signed by that agency’s director, John Warren, a holdover from the Democratic Ralph Northam administration.

During and after the 2021 campaign, Youngkin was critical of the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) that mandated SCC approval of the project, slated to cost just under $10 billion. He expressed a desire to protect consumers from rising energy costs. But he and his staff took no role in the 2022 legislative efforts to repeal VCEA or restore more SCC authority over costs, bills which passed in the House of Delegates but failed in a Senate committee stacked with Democrats.

He is now off the sidelines. Youngkin’s support for the project assumes it can become an economic boon to the state. His department director wrote:

Offshore wind presents an opportunity to introduce a new industrial sector to Virginia’s economic future. As an emerging industry in the US, activity associated with hosting large sections of the offshore wind supply chain during the development of this project can validate Virginia’s potential to host a U.S. East Coast supply chain hub. Investment to establish the offshore wind industry in Virginia should be viewed within the wider context of the overall benefit the industry offers.

States that can rapidly advance their local offshore wind industry are likely to have a “first-mover” advantage in capturing the jobs and economic activity associated with the supply chain required to support the 30 GW of offshore wind expected to be developed along the East Coast by 2030.

Virginia Energy also strongly supports the need to protect the interests of ratepayers. To that end, Virginia Energy recommends the Commission’s order in this proceeding include additional reporting requirements and a performance guarantee in the event that it approves the project.

Whether and how to structure such reporting requirements or performance guarantees was reportedly the focus of the SCC’s hearings on the application last week. Virginia Mercury’s report is the most comprehensive. Unfortunately, I was otherwise occupied with what they call “pressing personal business” for the period.

None of the various parties to the case, not even the Office of Consumer Counsel under Attorney General Jason Miyares (R), has asked the Commission to reject the application. The only grounds to do so, thanks to VCEA, would be a finding that the projected cost will exceed a specified levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of $125 per megawatt hour. That cost cap was designed by Dominion and inserted in VCEA.

The SCC staff in its analysis laid out various scenarios where the initial construction cost projections escalate, or performance of the final project fails to meet its promised capacity or availability factors, and the $125 per megawatt hour ceiling is breached. But the staff then also signed a stipulation with Dominion and basically agreed that what is on paper for the application is below the target and is “reasonable and prudent pursuant to governing law.” That final qualifier recognizes that the VCEA is not the standard regulatory approach, but it is now Virginia’s “governing law.”

Other parties, including Attorney General Miyares and some of the environmental groups, did not sign the stipulation, but any united front against Dominion in front of the judges has dissolved. The file is now full of comments pro and con, more than probably any previous case, but the Youngkin Administration position will be noticed, especially the call for a performance guarantee.

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

57 responses to “Youngkin Endorses Dominion Wind Project”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I don’t see an explicit statement from Youngkin himself. Are we sure this office is not off the ranch on this?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      If so, we’ll find out soon. 🙂 The reality is the agency heads serve at the pleasure and positions they take are administration positions.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It is unthinkable that an agency head would announce such a consequential policy decision without clearing it with the Governor’s office. (In his case, with Andrew Wheeler, Senior Adviser to the Governor.)

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The agency is part of Commerce and Trade, under Sec. Caren Merrick, but I also assume it was vetted.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The agency is part of Commerce and Trade, under Sec. Caren Merrick, but I also assume it was vetted.

      3. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The agency is part of Commerce and Trade, under Sec. Caren Merrick, but I also assume it was vetted.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          OOPS! Major mistake on my part! I assumed, without looking, that the letter was from DEQ. His reference to “Energy” should have tipped me off.

      4. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The agency is part of Commerce and Trade, under Sec. Caren Merrick, but I also assume it was vetted.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Sounds like they believe this is really a Virginia economic stimulus program as much as anything. From that perspective, funding economic stimulus through the new “tax” on rate payers makes more sense than doing it through federal deficit-funded tax cut or spending stimulus. An added benefit is it will not be inflationary. Could be what they are thinking….

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Every East Coast port is trying to become the home of the installation and then O&M industry. Might be Hampton Roads, might not, and it might not develop at all. As I’ve been told by others, the real turbine manufacturing side requires energy, mostly natural gas, and the Climate Warriors won’t stand aside and let the supply expand to that region.

      And of course this is federally funded with deficit dollars. In any other circumstance you’d call the production tax credit a “tax expenditure.” This would never happen without that subsidy.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      States like Va. and NJ feel like the state needs to create it own jobs, create its own economy, rather than create conditions to attract jobs. They are doubling down on Virginia is gov’t job state, some from Fed and some from state, whereas Dominion is defacto arm of state.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Every East Coast port is trying to become the home of the installation and then O&M industry. Might be Hampton Roads, might not, and it might not develop at all. As I’ve been told by others, the real turbine manufacturing side requires energy, mostly natural gas, and the Climate Warriors won’t stand aside and let the supply expand to that region.

      And of course this is federally funded with deficit dollars. In any other circumstance you’d call the production tax credit a “tax expenditure.” This would never happen without that subsidy.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I have been educated again by you. I did not realize that commercial scale wind generation received a production tax credit. But, I guess I’m not surprised. Of course, fossil fuel companies get a depreciation allowance. Everyone has got his nose in the trough.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        have you got a reference that shows this? One would think the case would be made.. and so far, I’ve only seen supporters make the claim without real substantiation.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Utility wind generation projects are eligible for significant investment tax credits, as well as production tax credits. https://windexchange.energy.gov/projects/tax-creditshttps://windexchange.energy.gov/projects/tax-credits

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Well, it has not taken long for Youngkin and Miyares to disappoint their supporters.

  4. The flip side to this argument is that the first case is usually the worst case. Or as John D. put it so eloquently “Pioneering don’t pay”. Becoming a hub is good, but if Virginia wants to fund economic development via technology first moving, then rate paying is a highly regressive tax. Moreover high rates hurt many businesses and industries. Virginia should openly use tax revenues, not rates.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Don’t worry about regressive, we will shift the cost burden to middle class (me).

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The “reliability” thing is a bogus canard. We currently have enough gas to power the Virginia grid. The only thing wind/solar allow is to not use gas when wind/solar are available. When they are not, we drop back to using the existing gas plants.

    If wind/solar cost less than gas, it’s downright ignorant to insist we burn the more expensive fuel … but that’s where the opponents are right now.

    1. First, you have to include the cost of those gas plants sitting there not generating revenue. The capital cost is still there adding up. This makes having duplicate generation capacity high.
      Second the law requires shutting down all the gas plants, beginning next year.
      But I have explained this to you several times before. Interesting that you ignore these simple facts.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        gas plants are cheap compared to nukes and coal plants and paid for much more quickly.

        When you continually reference your own “facts”, we know that’s the only ones you really rely on.

        The law does NOT “require” shutting the plants down – it’s a GOAL that can and will be changed if need be. It’s boogeyman politics to claim otherwise.

        Dominion itself as well as PJM will tell us when reliability is at issue – not the “sky is falling” opponents.

        Your “simple facts” IMHO are your opinions which actually are biased and NOT backed up by real facts.

        1. Turbocohen Avatar
          Turbocohen

          Politicians never take responsibility for natural disasters that cut off electricity when it comes to unpreparedness.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            like in Texas?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So, here’s a question. Who is PJM and where did they come from and does it have anything to do with govt and politicians?

            It was the absence of an entity like PJM that played a role in the disaster in Texas where the free market was responsible for reliability?

            And ironically, the disaster was initially blamed on wind until the truth came out about how gas lines froze.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24ea9be0553cfee24babb022ddfd4f7bcf3ea2d854f002fa844f9f60454220c1.jpg

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Offshore wind is very, very expensive. Offshore wind is the issue here.

      I suppose the recent up-tick in nat gas prices makes this a good time to push this offshore project through, politically.

      1. yes, offshore wind is very expensive here in US. Not so much in Europe, but they are way down the cost curve having installed over 3GW in 2021 with a total of over 15GW. If US decides to stick to it, the price will come down.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          Maybe…Texas is waiting for the price to come down. We are committing now at very high cost to be the “first”. I come from a private industry background that hated being first due to the risk and high cost. Sometimes situation changed and procrastination was great option.

          1. Yes, there’s always that early adopter vs mainstream adoption question. Truthfully though, the US is a mainstream adopter of offshore wind, not an early adopter, but US rules and lack of appropriate supply chain infrastructure is a big part of the cost difference (e.g., Jones Act, lack of logistics and installation infrastructure…) Part of the driver here, as was mentioned above, is probably the first mover advantage being sought by hampton roads as an east coast hub. There has been relatively intense competition in Europe between the UK, Denmark/Germany, and other regions to be the dominant hub for manufacturing, marine operations, etc., so there’s probably a competitive lesson being followed in the US by viable players.

          2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            But our wind turbines are absolute unproven huge monsters size wise, I fear out of any reasonable experience base in EU.

          3. there are 15-16 MW systems coming out now that are 3 football fields tall. Not sure about unproven part though in general.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        this particular project is, yes.

    3. Turbocohen Avatar
      Turbocohen

      All of the used fuel from U.S. nuclear plants can fit on a football field stacked just 50 foot high. Solar panels produce 300 times more waste for the amount of energy created than do nuclear plants, and, at the end of their life, solar panels are usually destined for landfills, often in poor nations, where workers are at risk of exposure to dangerously toxic heavy metals.

      Wind and solar generate energy for just part of the year while fossil fuel and nuke are there all year long. The opponents are kook left green deal democrats who hate nuke and get a rise when Republicans go big $ on climate finance.

  6. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Bad idea. The boosters got his ear.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    As any sailor will tell you, “Wind blows free.” They’ll also tell ya, “Catchin’ it costs a bundle.”

  8. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    It’s a bad idea, but I think reflects his private equity background. Those guys know how to make money. They love money. But…this money is entirely dependent on government subsidy and I don’t think can be made to work without it… Why do all the elected think they can do better than natural, invisible hand? With new tech, there is bleeding edge and leading edge. I would rather, as a citizen, customer and shareholder, be leading edge or less here.
    Climate change is a canard. As is using wind ultimately… Build nuclear. We know how it works and is safe and is reliable.

    1. I’ll beg to differ on the financial viability of nuclear.

      https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-united-states-georgia-atlanta-7555f8d73c46f0e5513c15d391409aa3

      A Board of Directors of any utility in the US will put the company at risk if they endorse a new plant.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        yep. Nukes are a no go right now. When we can build a safer nuke that can modulate in response to demand, I’m totally on board – and even so if we subsidize it.

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        I beg to differ with that. The regulatory and environmental zealots are the ones blowing up the costs…

        1. Any proof to that statement?

  9. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Wunnerful! I can’t wait to pay more. It makes me happy.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      the irony is that even expensive electricity is cheaper than gasoline these days…. 😉

  10. Team Youngkin has rolled the dice. Virginians will be paying big-time for this wind power, and who knows what the consequences will be for reliability. Let’s hope at the very least that there is some economic-development to the Hampton Roads economy. I view that as a consolation prize. But the only thing worse than getting the consolation prize is getting nothing at all.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Let’s face it, the die is cast. Hampton Roads wants this badly and some of the colleges down there have been offering offshore wind project engineering classes for some years already.

    2. FWIW, Dominion says “$4 per month” for 30 year life of the power plant

    3. Turbocohen Avatar
      Turbocohen

      James the real risk is that as we dilute nuke energy demand with wind spikes and troughs we lose nuke steam turbine efficiency. Big generators don’t ramp up and down as fast as the wind and forecasting demand is a part of the economic advantage to stable and reliable nuke energy which is still on avg 1/5 or less than the cost of best case wind when all womb to tomb expenses are accounted for. Years ago I worked for Siemens and while involved with unconventional and alternative fuels/energy I got to know a few of the folks in their wind power division. They put on a great demonstration across the pond and could not find any dance partners here in VA but they pitched what was possible then and the 80000 pound gorilla in the room was Surry and other coastal nuke plants capacity to make dirt cheap cheaper electricity all the time. But, again, the real issue for rate payers here is the cost/difficulty of ramp up/down and then the 80,000,000,000 pound gorilla.. we need to modernize our out of date and overtaxed power grid, a realized cost that loses more energy than the lifecycle costs of 176 state of the art windmills can offset.

      https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I’d take nuke energy over wind/solar – if we could use a modern design that is not 60 years old and so risky that you’d never be able to site one near an urban area. Fix that problem and I’m on board.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          You think building wind turbos is hard, try building nuclear reactors. There is just no capacity in the very specialized manufacturing sector to meet a meaningful increase in demand and the lead time to build up that capacity is measured in decades.

        2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          The was covered on TV recently, believe it was Jim Cramer’s Mad Money, he had the “new” Dominion CEO on the show for the first time. Farrel had been a regular guest, so the chair had been empty until now. The discussion of small nukes came up, with Cramer saying several countries including Canada are moving ahead with SMR (if I am recalling correctly where I heard this). It was said to be super-expensive and needing huge Fed gov’t subsidies. Dominion indicated they are studying. But I’d say our U.S. utilities like to think HUGE: they like to build the world’s largest reactors, not the worlds smallest. So I am sure it is an uncomfortable thought for them, and not yet in the cards as far as superlative Federal subsidies. Interestingly on Mad Money last week, the Offshore Wind was not discussed except the text banner at the bottom of the screen mentioned it was the only utility-owned offshore wind project. Cramer was very easy on the CEO, basically a nothing burger interview with Cramer heaping huge kudos to Dominion and the CEO. Stock up 5% depsite market rout (guess why? can you say- mega profits from captive Virginia rate payers?).

      2. Guessing that nuke # you provide is for existing, not new, generation capacity. New nuke power is more expensive than new offshore wind, but as you allude to, the capacity factor is higher (up to 2x).

        Lazard publishes a great LCOE report. Amongst other details you can see an honest comparison of incremental capacity costs across mainstream resources. It’s not what politically driven discussions would lead you to believe. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

        1. Turbocohen Avatar
          Turbocohen

          When it comes to energy thou shalt not bullshit thyself. When you talk wind the only TRUE comparison is including the land based stationary back up generation sources that have to run in parallel to cover for shortfalls when there isn’t enough wind. The Big Lie is that wind alone can be calculated, it cannot operate with near >99.999% uptime reliability. Every wind farm that looks good on paper has stationary power nearby to cover up unforeseen weather scenarios.

          Only real big plus for a government official to back this in a big way is to woo votes when they seek higher office. PERIOD.

          1. Nothing operates at five nines. The best a nuke plant can do is low 90’s. The current coal fleet in the US operates in the 50’s, but there’s a lot going on inside that number. Wind and solar require storage and/or back up generation to act like baseload, but LCOE isn’t intended to measure satisfying demand needs. Still, it’s a critical point for evaluating the energy mix. Piling intermittent resources on top of each other without factoring in those related costs is flawed economics, but so is not adding in the required costs of an energy mix based on nuclear or coal.

            Even a nuke or coal fleet requires peaking capacity because you can’t economically build baseload power to cover but a certain amount of guaranteed load. So both renewables and legacy resources require extra costs if you look at it like that.

          2. Nothing operates at five nines. The best a nuke plant can do is low 90’s. The current coal fleet in the US operates in the 50’s, but there’s a lot going on inside that number. Wind and solar require storage and/or back up generation to act like baseload, but LCOE isn’t intended to measure satisfying demand needs. Still, it’s a critical point for evaluating the energy mix. Piling intermittent resources on top of each other without factoring in those related costs is flawed economics, but so is not adding in the required costs of an energy mix based on nuclear or coal.

            Even a nuke or coal fleet requires peaking capacity because you can’t economically build baseload power to cover but a certain amount of guaranteed load. So both renewables and legacy resources require extra costs if you look at it like that.

  11. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    Progressive Democrats don’t care so much about climate, they care about political power. Why are Republicans trying to kill nuclear power by diverting (wasting) ratepayer dollars by locking in future losses on such a large wind farm while emerging technology is still yielding lower cost technology?

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      State elected officials view utility projects as a way to crate jobs and campaign donations etc. It works because it is a state-run monopoly. Conservative idea would probably be to make power generation a private industry, rather than forced onto us by state run monopolies. Then the private industry can decide how to make the power, cheap enough that people would pay for…I would probably be doing onshore wind and natural gas, if I ran that “fake” company. You seem to be politicizing the type of power, Repubs are pretty much all-of-the above, whereas Dems are much more demanding politically correct options only.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    when we compare costs for offshore and gas, we best keep in mind that the price of gas is not fixed and some forecasts show significant potential increases.

    Will the anti-renewable crowd continue to main their position if natural gas increases significantly in cost?

    What WILL their position be if gas does increase in cost?

    Will using offshore wind WHEN it is available and IS cheaper than gas be a reasonable position?

    We have, right now, more than enough gas plants and pipeline capacity to them to power the grid without wind/solar.

    so, all we’d be doing is burning less gas and probably closing some of the older plants and just substituting renewables when it makes economic sense.

    That actually sounds like a fiscally conservative thing – not a ‘liberal” thing.

Leave a Reply