Despite federally-instituted stop-work orders and a flurry of lawsuits both for and against other wind projects, Vineyard Wind 1 has silently moved through the start of the Trump administration relatively unscathed. And officials of Iberdrola, parent company of the project’s part-owner Avangrid, recently announced the wind farm is 50 percent operational.
“We are in a good trend to continue finishing in the next months to come,” José Antonio Miranda, who leads Avangrid, told financial analysts in London in September.
The planned project is expected to have 62 turbines, and Iberdrola officials previously said in mid-July that 17 of those turbines were up and running. This newest report means that at least 31 turbines are operational and can — if at full capacity — send up to around 400 megawatts to the grid.
“Vineyard Wind continues to make progress and is delivering needed power to the New England grid, with a current capacity over 400 Megawatts,” Craig Gilvarg, spokesperson for Vineyard Wind, said but wouldn’t confirm the number of operational turbines.
“Fifty percent of the turbines are exporting energy at Vineyard Wind,” the company’s executive chair, Ignacio Galán, told investors, as reported by E&E News by Politico.
The project is advertised as a 806-megawatt project that will be able power up to 400,000 homes across the Commonwealth when completed. But 806-megawatts is the nameplate production potential, which is the amount produced under optimal conditions (all turbines spin constantly at optimal wind speeds). A 2020 construction and operations plan (pg. 7) for the project said the wind turbine generators have an annual capacity factor that exceeds 45 percent, as reported by The New Bedford Light. This is the ratio of the project’s annual power production to the nameplate production potential.
Iberdrola, through Avangrid, owns other leases in U.S. federal waters, including New England Wind 1 and 2, a fully federally-permitted project. Those permits, however, are under review by the federal government as of early September.
When asked about how the mood around the offshore wind industry amidst turmoil caused by the Trump administration, Iberdrola officials seemed to remain optimistic about their other U.S. leases but only in future terms.
“I think these leases, they are there for the future, and there is a long runway for them to be exploited because they are affordable to maintain,” Antonio Miranda said to investors last month. “Therefore we have to see in the future, if there is any change and there is any possibility to move forward, the only thing that we can say is that we will be always very prudent.
“We will move forward only when we see that this is creating value to the society, to the shareholders, and also that in New England, there [are not] many other options. If you want to really have the power that you need for the future, probably offshore has to be part of the equation as any other source of energy. We are really very much resonating on all of the above, thinking that every electron that you can produce in the country will be absolutely needed.”
This article paints Vineyard Wind as gliding through regulatory challenges and delivering half its power, but that framing doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Vineyard Wind’s permitting was halted for over a year in 2019 for an expanded federal review, pushing its schedule back significantly — hardly “unscathed.”
The claim that 50% of turbines are “operational” is also misleading. 400 MW refers to nameplate capacity — the theoretical maximum in perfect wind. The project’s own documents cite a 45% capacity factor, so real average output is closer to 180 MW. And Vineyard Wind won’t confirm how many turbines are actually running, which should give readers pause.
Finally, Iberdrola’s remarks about other U.S. projects are cautious at best — they’re essentially waiting to see whether the economics justify further build-out. That’s a far cry from the rosy picture this article paints.
We all have some opinions that are not based on facts. But sometimes, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they assert something that is obviously incorrect and easily verifiable. Unfortunately our president does it frequently. He recently claimed that he is dropping prescription drug prices by 500, 1,000, or even 1,500 %. “Hard to believe” he said. His followers don’t seem to care— But to the story at hand; About a week ago, a well known but misinformed island resident suggested we use the VW1 building on beach road as the site for a new Tisbury town hall. He said this; “How about the big size warehouse on Beach road? plenty of parking underneath and no longer needed-public domain? We are not getting electricity anyhow.” So I wonder if some people are so dug into their preconceived perceptions and biases that they can make ridiculous public statements and not even care about their “facts” being obviously incorrect. This project is currently providing electricity for about 200,000 homes. But some people just don’t believe it, I guess. How have we come to this point where reality is simply denied based on our “feelings” or political views ?
Wow Don you manage to make everything about Trump
The only thing Wind power has to do with Trump is that the president thinks it’s not cost effective , not good to look at and basically a government money laundering scam
Reading all the articles about vineyard wind, he might be on to something
John– Are you saying that trump has not been a factor in wind power? ? He has exercised his self proclaimed powers to rule by fiat, and has arbitrability revoked permits and put out edicts to stop work on them. Of course trump is involved here. Andy will tell you that we live within a free market system and about invisible hands , etc., There is a perception about government “laundering scams” and other conspiracy theories, concerning the wind turbines. The reality of government interference in free markets is mostly tilted towards the fossil fuel industry. As an example, on sept 29 trump proclaimed that U.S taxpayers would give $625 million to the failing coal industry. Just so far in 2025, the trump administration has ADDED a staggering $40 billion in us taxpayer dollars to the already staggering subsidies for fossil fuels . https://www.wired.com/story/us-taxpayers-will-pay-billions-in-new-fossil-fuel-subsidies-thanks-to-the-big-beautiful-bill/ Coincidently, all the “budget busting” health care subsidies for up to 20 million people at the center of the shutdown debate is about $30 billion. I would rather help millions of people keep health insurance for $30 billion than give the already very profitable oil companies another $40 billion. But we have different priorities, I guess.
It’s not “denying reality” to question Vineyard Wind — it’s refusing to nod along with shiny marketing spin. The company’s “200,000 homes” claim looks great in a glossy brochure, but anyone who’s checked the math knows better.
Each turbine may be rated at 13 megawatts, yet offshore wind farms rarely operate above 40–45% efficiency. That means the actual power reaching the grid is roughly half the headline number — and that’s before factoring in downtime, maintenance, or transmission loss.
So before scolding Islanders about “facts,” maybe ask Vineyard Wind to publish transparent production data instead of polished talking points.
Islanders are the ones stuck with Beach Road gridlock, rising rates, and the offshore clutter — we’re entitled to more than promises and PR.
Skepticism isn’t bias; it’s basic accountability. When billions in subsidies and ratepayer funds are involved, “trust us” doesn’t cut it.
Vineyard Wind will operate at 45-50% of nameplate rating.
The Canal Power Plant operates at about the same numbers.
The fuel cost for Vineyard Wind is zero.
The fuel cost for the Canal Power Plant is dependent on world geopolitics.
The Canal Power Plant has 1.5 megawatts of solar.
Should it be removed?
Like Vineyard Wind?
So VW spokesperson says they’re at 50% but can’t tell us how many turbines are operational?
Considering VW’s track record of deceit and lack of transparency, I’m not believing a single word any of their spokespeople have to say.
I’m still waiting for their response email as to the location of the broken AW-38 blade that they were set to recover about a year ago.
My guess is it’s still on the bottom breaking apart piece by piece , otherwise they would have showed us that the recovery effort was a success.
Horrible PR department!
The mess continues……
Just like sunk fiberglass fish boats.
There are boats and nuclear waste at the bottom of the ocean.
Who is going to protest against that?
Who is going to protest against uranium mining that endangers the health of the uranium miners?
Who is going to protest against nuclear energy to protect the factory workers who process the uranium for the nuclear reactors?
Are there any fishermen who will stand up to protect miners? And factory workers?
“We will move forward only when we see that this is creating value to the society,” Weasel words protecting them from actionable results and lower prices. On an another issue why does Trumps drug price claims enter the picture on this particular post?
Because he has reduced them by 1,500 percent.
The price of electricity will never go down, on an ongoing basis.
Like hydrocarbons.
What about pelagic fish? Are they swimming in a sea of nuclear waste? Do any of the fishermen care about that? How about the restaurants who serve the fish? Or the people who eat it? Or are wind turbines on the horizon worse?
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2025/05/29/200-000-barrels-of-radioactive-waste-at-the-bottom-of-the-sea-scientists-set-out-to-inspect-a-nuclear-dump-in-the-atlantic_6741788_114.html#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
https://www.google.com/search?q=pelagic+fish&client=safari&sca_esv=d759ad7ae321597e&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=nDTzaOyAIaiymtkP3MGioAo&oq=pelagic+fi&gs_lp=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&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp
No, pelagic fish are not swimming in nuclear waste. The deliberate ocean dumping of radioactive waste was banned by international treaty in 1993, and while accidental releases have occurred, vast ocean currents quickly disperse and dilute radioactive materials to very low levels. The Fukushima waste is covered by what i mentioned above. Your passion for non fossil fuel life is matched by your irrational fear of things that might hurt you.
The release of radioactive waste continues.
Everything leaks.
Comments are closed.