For the most prominent offshore wind projects, warning lights flash

Offshore wind proponents welcomed the first utility-scale, 800-megawatt project in U.S. waters as "steel in the water" as Vineyard Wind built the first of its planned 62 monopiles for wind turbines off Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.

However, other offshore wind firms are expressing concern over their bottom lines and raising doubts about power deals already made with East Coast states and energy companies due to rising costs.

When CEO Mads Nipper of wind developer Ørsted suggested that major offshore wind projects might be abandoned if the math doesn't add up on June 8 during an investor conference in London, warning signs were apparent.

In the end, if Ørsted determines that the value creation in the projects is insufficient, Ørsted "may reconfigure or exit awarded projects where rsted has not yet taken FID (final investment decision), as of this date."

The utility regulators in Rhode Island were informed by SouthCoast Wind, which has 1,200 MW of offshore wind generation planned, that it wants to renegotiate its contracts with utility providers.

The 800 MW and 400 MW phases of the SouthCoast joint venture between Shell and Ocean Winds, according to the company, "are no longer financially viable at the previously negotiated prices." The partners claim that since 2019, their anticipated operational expenditures have increased by 20 percent.

Even after taking into account potential tax incentives, termination and payment of a termination fee have become the prudent commercial course to realize the Project, according to material and unforeseen supply chain and financing cost increases affecting the entire offshore wind industry, according to SouthCoast Wind CEO Francis Slingsby.

Early in June, Joseph Fiordaliso, the president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, voiced disappointment about the slow pace of rsted's 1,100 MW project.

The cost of raw materials, capital investments, and financing is rising for wind developers. In December, SouthCoast's neighboring project Commonwealth Wind requested a new contract for its 1,200 MW project after determining that its own 1,200 MW installation "cannot be financed and built" under the conditions of the current contract.

The Ocean Wind 1 project by Ørsted off the coast of New Jersey is a key component of Governor Phil Murphy's plans to develop the state's renewable energy sources. However, just like in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Murphy's Democratic supporters in the state legislature have warned against wind developers returning to secure better financial terms.

State Senator Paul Sarlo, the Democratic leader of te state Senate Budget Committee, said, "I am going to have a very difficult time supporting any future subsidy for these developers."

On June 10, supporters of offshore wind energy, including a collection of Democratic elected officials, environmental and labor organizations from New Jersey, held a rally in Long Branch, New Jersey, to demand the advancement of the Ocean Wind and Atlantic Shores projects.

Opponents who linked whale strandings on New Jersey beaches to sonar and survey work at offshore wind installations have been refuted by pro-wind organizations. Wind power proponents now have a new talking point thanks to days of severe smoke and poor air quality brought on by Canadian wildfires.

If we don't address climate change now, the haze from the wildfires we've seen this week will become our new reality, according to Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. "To stop the most disastrous effects of climate change, it is long past time to stop our reliance on dirty fossil fuels and move toward an equitable clean energy future, including responsibly developed offshore wind."

Clean Ocean Action, a New Jersey environmental organization that has long been critical of offshore wind project proposals, including the Empire Wind array planned to be placed in ship traffic separation lanes off New York Harbor, responded to the Long Branch event.

The group claims that the projects' location poses risks to public safety, national security, and navigation in addition to marine resources. Clean Ocean Action maintains its desire for a pilot project that can accurately assess costs and benefits: "These threats need to be thoroughly and transparently examined by independent researchers."