Offshore

Massachusetts and Rhode Island select nearly 2.9 GW of offshore wind in coordinated procurement, the largest in New England history

Massachusetts and Rhode Island select nearly 2.9 GW of offshore wind in coordinated procurement, the largest in New England history
GE Haliade-X Turbines Stand in the Vineyard Wind 1 Project Area South of Martha’s Vineyard. (Photo Credit: Worldview Films)

Today Massachusetts and Rhode Island announced the selection of 2,878 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind in what the states are calling the first coordinated procurement of its kind and the largest offshore wind selection in New England history — but Massachusetts residents are getting the majority of the megawatts.

As a part of the procurement, Massachusetts selected 2,678 MW in total from three projects: 1,087 MW of the 1,287 MW SouthCoast Wind multistate project, 791 MW of the 791 MW New England Wind 1 project, and up to 800 MW of the 1,200 MW Vineyard Wind 2 project. This selection represents nearly 20% of the overall electric demand in Massachusetts, state officials added.

Rhode Island, on the other hand, selected 200 MW from one project: the remaining capacity of SouthCoast Wind. That represents one-sixth of Rhode Island Energy’s recent solicitation for 1,200 MW of new offshore wind to help power the state’s clean energy needs.

“This historic offshore wind selection is an important building block to our regional offshore wind industry,” said Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll. “This year, we broke ground on a new offshore wind port in Salem, expanded our terminal in New Bedford, invested in job training and academic programs, and won $389 million in federal funds for transmission. Like any new industry, offshore wind has faced headwinds, but our coalition of states is rising to meet the challenges and seize the tremendous economic, climate, and energy opportunities on the other side.”

All three projects intend to utilize Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), and are expected to create thousands of jobs and direct investments in the regional economy, state officials said. All of New England’s purpose-built offshore wind ports in New England – New Bedford, New London, Salem, and Providence Port – will have tenants through 2032 as a part of this selection. 

Troubled waters, or fresh headwinds?

The U.S. offshore wind industry, while making leaps and bounds in some areas, has been muddled in misfortune in recent years.

A recent report released by the American Clean Power Association (ACP) projects about 14 GW of wind capacity offshore U.S. coastlines by 2030, significantly shy of the goal of 30 GW set by the Biden administration in 2021.

The 2024 Offshore Wind Market Report projects $65 billion will be invested in offshore wind projects by 2030. There are currently 12 GW of projects with active offtake agreements, including 4 GW under active construction at Vineyard Wind, Revolution Wind, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. China is the global leader in offshore wind capacity, with nearly 38 GW. There is merely 174 MW of offshore wind capacity currently installed in the United States as of June 30.

According to the report, there is 56 GW under development across 37 leases in the United States. Market analysts forecast 30 GW deployed by 2033 and 40 GW online by 2035, quickly making up ground behind the assumedly missed 2030 goal. These outlooks build on the 7.6 GW of offshore wind projects seeking to be operational by the end of 2027, per ACP.

Increasing material costs, high interest rates, and supply chain snags have led multiple offshore wind companies in the last year to cancel or renegotiate power contracts for planned offshore wind farms. The U.S. Energy Information Administration is tracking offshore capacity, noting totals are in flux after Orsted canceled Ocean Wind 1 and 2 in New Jersey late last year.

Earlier this summer, Vineyard Wind 1, which was developed by the same team behind Vineyard Wind 2, experienced an “incident” in which pieces of turbine blades fell into the water and washed ashore. GE Vernova, which manufactured the blade, said a preliminary investigation suggested a “manufacturing deviation” was to blame.