The past few weeks have been cold, brutally cold, especially on an Island surrounded by the frigid Atlantic where the winds, which gather speed and blow faster over the ocean, have reached up to 60 miles per hour. But these low temperatures and wind gusts don’t just cause involuntary tears to stream down people’s faces as they race from their car to Stop & Shop, they also stress out the tangled web of infrastructure that keeps all of New England powered: the energy grid.
The grid, a network of transmission lines between energy resources and homes and businesses, is understandably under a lot of stress in the winter. Weather is the biggest driver of electricity demand, and so in the winter and summer, when extreme weather temperatures and events are more common, operators of the grid must work harder and smarter to maintain energy supply and normalcy, i.e. no outages.
Over the past two weekends of extreme cold, two storms were in the forecast — one that lived up to promises of a foot of snow, and another that moved away from the Island earlier than anticipated, but still brought heavy winds. Despite alarms for back-to-back storms, the grid remained reliable, and the Island was largely unaffected in terms of power. There was only one small outage in Aquinnah, which was serviced by the Island’s utility company, Eversource. And while millions lost power across the country, most outages were caused by snow and ice on poles and wires, not because demand exceeded supply.
The grid experienced the toughest conditions in almost a decade in the past two weeks and survived, though under tight constraints, and so the question remains: Is the grid prepared for a continued rise in electricity usage, as people buy more electric vehicles, use heat pumps, and manufacture data centers, or in the event of more catastrophic weather?
To stay ahead of a true crisis, there’s a push across the country to bring on more energy resources, especially alternatives to oil and gas. And a study from the Cambridge-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released Wednesday argues that offshore wind energy can help small grids, like in New England and New York, endure the surges in demand that come from cold weather.
Analysts studied wind speed data on the Outer Continental Shelf in the New England offshore wind lease area last winter, and found that the energy that could’ve been delivered by two projects that are now almost complete might have significantly lowered the risk of power outages.
Susan Muller, senior energy analyst for the UCS and previously counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, authored this study, and compared offshore wind energy to the ridgeline of a mountain range, where the highest peaks are off the coast of New England and New York. It’s a variable resource, she said, and fluctuates as winds do.
“But people get so focused on the variability that they miss the more important point, which is the scale,” Muller said in a press conference prior to release of the study. She added that the scale of offshore wind has the potential to help problems of grid reliability as well as cost of energy, especially in the winter months when the air is denser and wind speeds higher.
Wind speeds, in meters per second, were collected by researchers from the start of December 2024 to the end of February 2025, then translated into power that could’ve been delivered by a 1,500-megawatt offshore wind fleet comprised of Vineyard Wind 1 (806 megawatts) and Revolution Wind (704 megawatts), had they been fully operational in those three months. Suspension and stop-work orders at the federal level as well as a manufacturer problem for one of the wind farms have continuously delayed the construction process.
For purposes of this study, a turbine model, developed by the National Laboratory of the Rockies in Colorado, appropriate for these two projects, was used for projections. Each farm, however, uses different turbine manufacturers, and so the relationship between wind speed and power output, what’s called the power curve, can vary. Muller said that the turbines start to produce power at wind speeds of four meters per second, and reach maximum output at 11 meters per second and above. She added that at about 25 meters per second, they shut down.
Muller also took the capacity factor of a wind farm into account for her analysis. Capacity factor is an average over time, often talked about as an annual percentage. For example, Vineyard Wind 1 has a capacity factor, the project’s annual power production to the nameplate production potential of 806 megawatts, that exceeds 45 percent. But that’s an annual number, and she said the capacity factor in the winter months is actually higher. And for the study, they looked at much smaller units of time, even at the hourly level.
It is less important in terms of the grid, she said, that energy is consistent. Instead, she said, what the grid really needs right now are large energy deliveries, even ones that aren’t constant.
Between Dec. 1, 2024, and Feb. 28, 2025, total daily energy demand rose above 350,000 megawatt-hours, a threshold for elevated risk of blackout tracked by ISO New England, on 53 of the 90 days. It exceeded 400,000 megawatt-hours, a marker for an even higher risk of blackout, on four of those 53 days. ISO New England is the nonprofit corporation that manages the grid for the six New England states.
But through subtraction, Muller deduced that energy from the two offshore wind projects visible off the coast of the Island would have reduced the load on the system and cut down risky days by more than half. Days that crossed the elevated risk threshold would’ve capped out at 24 days. And in an offshore wind fleet of 3,500 megawatts (had South Coast Wind and New England Wind 1 been operational), which under the President Donald Trump’s administration doesn’t currently seem feasible, only 13 days would’ve sat at an elevated risk of blackout.
Although there were days of elevated and high risk of blackout in 2024 and 2025, ISO didn’t have to direct any controlled outages. The nonprofit said they couldn’t comment on the figure or metrics named in the report.
Oftentimes, a problem isn’t a problem until people start to see physical manifestations, feel the ripple effects, or once time’s run out, are actually forced to square up to said issue. Icons that flash on a car’s dashboard are only an annoyance right before the car is stuck on the side of the highway, and there’s no cell phone signal.
And although ISO spokesperson Mary Cate Colapietro said the regional grid is overall well-positioned for the season, the past two weeks were a challenge.
“Over the past two weeks, New England’s power system experienced its most challenging operating conditions since the winter of 2017–2018,” an update from the nonprofit on Tuesday read. “Prolonged cold temperatures drove consumer demand for electricity sharply upward, both at peak moments and in overall usage, placing sustained pressure on the power system.”
Grid operators needed to bolster fuel supplies, and both high demand and limited capacity to transport gas to the region meant high prices. This was compounded by cold temperatures across the country that limited imports to this region, as well as a reduction in solar production. Many generators were forced to turn to oil as an economical alternative.
The nonprofit was also forced to turn to the U.S. Department of Energy on behalf of generators, and filed for exemptions to allow a specific list of resources to “run in ways that keep the grid reliable, even if that temporarily overrides regulatory or emission requirements.” This emergency order, first approved before on Jan. 25, was extended last Friday to last through Feb. 14.
“The ISO did not make these requests lightly, and recognizes the importance of environmental permit limits. However, the prolonged nature of this cold weather made the initial request and subsequent extension necessary to ensure adequate generating resources are at hand to keep power flowing in the region,” the news release reads.
When ISO New England calls on resources to provide power, it uses the most cost-effective resource first, regardless of fuel type or technology. But high demand, like in the winter, can drive prices up. Offshore wind, though, has the potential to lower energy prices. It could displace the high costs of resources, like gas or oil, and suppress wholesale market prices. Imported liquified natural gas, used to supplement energy demand in New England winters, for example, is especially vulnerable to global price shocks and world events.
But that won’t necessarily be true until projects reach the commercial operation date. For Vineyard Wind 1, recently issued a suspension by the federal government and then allowed to continue construction by a federal judge last week, that date should come by March 31. Commercial operation is when the power purchase agreement, a contract between the developer and utility companies, can become effective.
In court for Vineyard Wind against the federal government on Jan. 27, Nathaniel Haviland-Markowitz, assistant attorney general for Massachusetts, said that agreement provides a fixed, stable price for energy.
“The electricity that is currently being generated by Vineyard Wind is being sold and purchased on the wholesale open market, and those prices are much, much higher than the stable price that would have been guaranteed by the power purchase agreement,” Haviland-Markowitz said.
Vineyard Wind 1 is the only project currently under construction that already sends power to the grid, but that stable price, reported to be around $74 per megawatt-hour in a decades-long contract, isn’t yet the reality.
And the cold isn’t over yet, for the Island or the region. Early forecasts from ISO predict below-normal temperatures throughout the month of February, as well as another cold front expected this weekend.
I know that the study was calculated in meters per second, but the Times could have done about 2 minutes worth of converting meters per second to miles per hour so we can all understand what that means— so I have taken those 2 minutes to do it for them. Turbines start producing power at 9 mph, and achieve maximum output between 24 mph and 56 mph, at which point they have to be shut down . By the way, at maximum capacity they hold a steady 10 revolutions per minute ( approximately) and have blade tip speeds of about 180 MPH.
This article is laughable! You can be a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists if you have a credit card and pay their fee to “become a member”. They adopted Global Warming as their cause for fundraising when the Soviet Union collapsed and the fear of nuclear war between the US and USSR diminished. Forty years later we can all agree Global Warming was a hoax as well.
How can this true?
They are re so unsightly.
Albert — that’s a fair question. I’m not aware of any publicly released data showing whether Vineyard Wind turbines curtailed or shut down during the recent storm. That operational detail hasn’t been made public.
But that uncertainty is part of the issue. The study’s conclusions rely on modeled offshore wind output rather than demonstrated performance during peak winter stress. Modeled energy isn’t the same as firm reliability.
What we do know is that during this period ISO New England relied on dispatchable gas- and oil-fired generation operating under emergency exemptions to keep the grid stable. That’s real-world performance under stress, not a retrospective modeling exercise.
I’m skeptical of the conclusions being drawn here because they rely almost entirely on modeling rather than real-world performance.
The past few weeks are framed as a near-miss for the grid, yet the grid held. There were no controlled outages, and the Island experienced only a small, localized interruption. Reliability is demonstrated by what happens during stress events, not by retrospective estimates of what might have helped.
The study from the Union of Concerned Scientists assumes offshore wind output during critical winter hours, subtracts that assumed energy from historical demand, and then labels the difference reduced “blackout risk.” That approach treats modeled energy as if it were firm capacity. It isn’t. Offshore wind remains a variable resource that can drop quickly during cold snaps due to icing, curtailment, or cut-out limits — exactly when reliability matters most.
During this same period, grid operators relied on oil- and gas-fired generation under emergency exemptions to keep power flowing. That points to fuel-security and infrastructure constraints, not a lack of installed generation.
It’s also telling that ISO New England declined to endorse the study’s blackout-risk metrics.
Modeled energy is not the same thing as proven reliability under peak winter stress.
Were any of Vineyard Wind’s in commission wind turbines shutdown during the recent storm?
Is that enough of a stress test?
No surprises here– the first knee jerk reaction is to discredit the messenger. Here’s a little history of the UCS — In 1992, Kendall presided over the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, which called for “fundamental change” to address a range of security and environmental issues. The document was signed by 1700 scientists, including a majority of the Nobel prize winners in the sciences”. It seems like my kind of organization. , so I got out my credit card and tried to sign up and be a member. Imagine that– I couldn’t. I don’t think climate change is a ” hoax”. But there are more rational comments that question this because we haven’t had real world experience and are relying on “models”. Let’s get them up and running and see what happens next year. But we do know the wind speeds over the period of the study, and how much we didn’t produce because of “procedural” cases. “Models” are pretty useful when it comes to predicting weather events and other things. A few weeks ago winter storm Fran dumped a lot of what FEMA cannot call “ice” on the region. None of the operational turbines froze up. We’re not in Texas, Dorothy.
Offshore wind is a necessary compliment to our energy supply. Not surprised to see the same old echo chamber of dissent and NIMBYism sounding off here.
How much of that wind power will actually serve the island? My understanding was not much or none.
The Island is powered by “the grid”.
Where all power comes from or goes to.
Not that long ago Island diesels were used to to to back feed the grid to power the Cape
In the past month Vineyard Wind has produced more than twice as much power than the Island has consumed.
All sources of generation need backup power.
Plymouth nuclear had more diesel power power backup on the site than peak Island demand.
Your understanding is limited.
All of the electricity produced by the turbines serves the island. We are connected to the grid maintained by Eversource. The wind turbines add to the load on that grid.
As for the modeling. A one off event like the recent cold snap doesn’t make for a large enough sample and I think the Times jumped the gun in saying that this most recent study is enough information to base conclusions on. It’s not. However it does point out that the truth will be found in this sort of modeling, though it should be done under a longer time frame. Demand and Load are the barometers of our electric supply. Having the constant power produced by the Vineyard Wind gives managers a higher margin to maintain a critical electrical load. In the end that will reduce the need for building more fossil fuel power plants. That’s where the savings will be in electrical costs.
I thought all the new cables they installed were to help protect the grid.
Enhance, bring more wind power to the Island.
Murray,
Your usually well reasoned comments miss the mark here. Modelling is not at fault. It is well accepted that we must rely on models to approximate [with probability, not certainty] future situations, so arguing that modeled results are not ‘proven’ is foolish. We all understand that they are not to be taken as such. Like the weather projections based on models, a good guess but not ‘proven’. The ‘risk’ of a blackout is just that, a calculated probability of a blackout.
ISO New England forecasts net electrical energy use will rise from 116,813 gigawatt-hours in 2024 to 130,665 gigawatt-hours by 2034, a 1.8% annual average increase. Summer peak demand is expected to grow by 0.9% annually, rising from 24,803 MW in 2025 to 26,897 MW in 2034. Note, Murray, this is not ‘proven’ but also based on models. Is it not obvious that extra electrical generating capacity lessens the risk of running out and the resulting blackout? We don’t want to wait for a negative event to occur [‘proven’] before taking reactive action to correct it. So the windfarms are a preventative action taken to reduce risk, as the article says.
Peter — thanks for engaging. I don’t dispute the role of models in planning or that blackout risk is probabilistic. That is not the point I was making.
My concern is that the study treats modeled offshore wind energy as a reduction in blackout risk, even though during the recent cold period system reliability depended on dispatchable generation operating under emergency exemptions. That distinction matters. Added nameplate capacity does not automatically translate into firm capacity available during peak winter stress.
Forecasts of rising demand from ISO New England are, as you note, also modeled. But ISO declined to endorse the blackout-risk metrics used in this study, which suggests appropriate caution in how those probabilities are interpreted.
Models can inform planning. They are not, by themselves, evidence that a specific resource will perform when conditions are most constrained.
Murray–When Texas had that winter storm in 2021, the right wing media outlets were quick to blame windmills– going so far as to show frozen windmills in Europe. But the entire electrical generating capacity of the isolated “Texas grid” nearly froze. Since they didn’t believe in “climate change” they didn’t bother to harden their infrastructure against such an unlikely event. Windmills froze, gas lines froze, even the coal burners were knocked off line. They came within minutes of complete failure. Is this “proof” that nothing works ? No– this proves that poor regulation, poor maintenance, incompetent management and poor infrastructure decisions can be disastrous. Even the decision to isolate the Texas grid from the rest of the country which prevented them from importing power from other states is an extreme example of “Texas first”. If they had spent some time modeling their situation and realizing that climate change will inevitably produce more abnormal extreme weather events they could have prevented hundreds of deaths. Those are the facts, Murray. While no system is “fail safe”, regulations, government oversight and models lessen the risks. The ISO in New England is doing it. Please read this: https://limos.engin.umich.edu/deitabase/2024/12/27/2021-texas-power-grid-failure/