Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

Five dollars a month. That is the projected household advantage of a power mix that includes offshore wind in The Nature Conservancy’s new study of where offshore wind can compete in New England.

But the word “save” needs an asterisk.  

The study does not predict that offshore wind will cut $5 from anyone’s current electric bill. It models three possible futures, but the $5 figure comes from comparing two of them. By 2050, one would add about $310 a year to a typical household’s generation costs; the other would add about $370. The difference is $60 a year, or $5 a month.  

None of the three paths makes electricity generation cheaper. By 2050, every one costs households more than the system Dunsky started with. The real question is which path adds the least.

Those numbers come from a study commissioned by The Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit that supports renewable energy. The group hired Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, a Canadian consulting firm, to answer a narrower question: Under what conditions can offshore wind compete with other power sources in New England from 2035 through 2050? 

The report examines three scenarios. These are “what if” exercises, not predictions. 

In “All Fossil and Nuclear,” Dunsky allows only new natural-gas plants or small modular reactors, a smaller type of nuclear plant. Solar and battery projects already scheduled to come online are still included. Dunsky cautions that this scenario should not be treated as a likely path for New England. 

At Dunsky’s estimated construction cost, nuclear is too expensive to make the cut. The scenario instead adds roughly 25 to 26 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity by 2050. Nuclear returns when Dunsky uses lower federal cost estimates. Put simply, its role depends on whether a technology that has not yet proved itself commercially can become cheaper. 

The “Least-Cost Mix” opens the field to gas, nuclear, wind, solar and batteries. But the competition still has rules. Land-based wind is capped at 3,600 megawatts because suitable sites are expected to be scarce. The final mix includes about 14,000 megawatts of offshore wind, along with new gas plants and batteries. 

“All Clean” prohibits new gas plants and requires steep emissions reductions. It keeps the grid running with more wind, solar, batteries and nuclear power. The report’s graph shows this path remaining more expensive than the least-cost mix through 2050. 

The household math assumes a family uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month. That works out to 12 megawatt-hours a year. The study estimates annual added generation costs of about $310 for the least-cost mix and $370 for the fossil-and-nuclear option. Subtract the two, and the difference is $60 a year—or $5 a month. 

That $60 advantage arrives late. The fossil-and-nuclear option is cheaper during the early years of the study, and the least-cost mix does not become the cheaper option until sometime in the 2040s. 

Here is the catch: Offshore wind starts winning only when the analysis assumes a higher natural-gas price. Gas plants must keep buying fuel, while wind turbines do not. At $3.72 per million British thermal units — the price New England’s grid operator used in its 2024 planning study — the least-cost mix includes no offshore wind. At $5, offshore wind begins to appear. At $6, the price used for the report’s main findings, it grows to about 14,000 megawatts by 2050.

Dunsky says $6 roughly matches Connecticut’s average price for gas delivered to local utilities over the previous five years. Whether that is the right long-term price for power plants is worth debating, because a lower assumption produces a very different energy mix. 

Even at $6, the least-cost option still adds about 11,000 megawatts of gas-fired capacity. Gas covers long stretches when wind production falls and four-hour batteries cannot fill the gap. 

The household estimate leaves out additional transmission and labor expenses. The report also does not say whether its offshore-wind construction costs include federal tax credits. Without that information, readers cannot tell how much of the modeled cost would be paid through electric rates and how much, if any, would be shifted to taxpayers. 

The study also excludes any estimated cost from carbon emissions or climate damage.

Connecticut’s support for offshore wind extends beyond this model. According to the state’s official offshore-wind website, Connecticut invested $211 million redeveloping the State Pier in New London, while private developers contributed $100 million. Connecticut also has a ratepayer-backed contract for 304 megawatts from Revolution Wind. Whatever offshore wind ultimately delivers, Connecticut taxpayers and ratepayers already have money on the line. 

Offshore wind turbines generate electricity without burning fuel, which can reduce customers’ exposure to swings in natural-gas prices. Dunsky makes a credible case that offshore wind could earn a place in New England’s energy mix. 

What the study does not establish is that offshore wind will lower electric bills. Its $5 monthly advantage appears in 2050, measured against another future with even higher costs. That result changes with the assumed price of natural gas and excludes expenses customers would still have to pay. 

Connecticut should not choose an energy source because it carries the right political label. Offshore wind, natural gas, nuclear, solar and storage should compete on reliability and their full cost to ratepayers. 

Before approving another long-term contract, state officials should publish the complete calculation: the contract price, tax credits, transmission costs and the effect on an actual electric bill. The cheapest source in a model should also have to prove it is the best deal at the meter. 

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'