Updated Feb. 11
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey announced last week that she signed an agreement between the state and Nova Scotia to advance offshore wind development in the Atlantic, a move that shows continued support of the industry under attack by the federal government.
Offshore wind is not a lost cause, Healey told reporters at a press conference Feb. 4. It may be through the Canadian province, however, that the state procures further energy supply from the offshore wind industry.
Nova Scotia, almost 500 miles from the commonwealth, is behind the U.S., and especially Massachusetts, in terms of deployment of offshore wind. Premier of Nova Scotia Tim Houston said that the province only uses two gigawatts of energy at peak demand but has the potential to produce between 40 and 60 gigawatts from future offshore wind projects. Just one gigawatt is larger than what Vineyard Wind 1 should produce at full capacity (806 megawatts).
The idea is that the Canadian gigawatts could eventually be purchased and sent to the commonwealth as well as other New England states and parts of the U.S. The memorandum of understanding (MOU), signed last Wednesday by Healey and Houston, simply recognizes the shared goals and pursuit of affordability, economic growth, energy independence, and environmental protection to someday get there.
Massachusetts plans to share best practices, such as port infrastructure, workforce development, and supply chain coordination, for offshore wind development, and both entities intend to explore transmission integration and possible ways to deliver power as well as grid implementation as Nova Scotia develops an offshore wind fleet. The aim is to exchange institutional knowledge for potential surplus energy supply as demand increases everywhere.
The province is currently in the bid process for offshore wind projects, Houston said. But getting from the bid process to actual construction of a project can take years. Vineyard Wind 1, for example, started the process around a decade ago and hopes it will be completed by the end of March.
Healey said she continues to push for an all-of-the-above approach to energy supply — whether that’s more wind, solar, gas, hydro, nuclear, or battery storage — in spite of recent decisions by the federal government, such as a Dec. 22 suspension of all offshore wind projects under construction (all of which were recently allowed to resume by federal judges).
“Whatever actions may or may not be coming out of Washington, rest assured that here in Massachusetts, we’re moving forward in any which way to bring more energy into this region. And we’re continuing with an international collaboration that helps us increase supply, lower costs, and bring economic development to our port communities.”
Healey emphasized a deep-seated alliance between the state she governs and the Canadian province, a relationship that goes back generations. In 1917, after two ships collided in the harbor of Nova Scotia’s capital and killed almost 2,000 people, Boston sent a train that carried supplies to Halifax in a matter of hours. Houston said the legend goes that Massachusetts fishermen heard the explosion and alerted the masses.
“We’re here to affirm and announce our commitment to the strong ties we have with Nova Scotia,” Healey said at the press conference about the Atlantic state and province.
How to actually deliver the power is a hurdle that Massachusetts and Nova Scotia will have to face. But there are already efforts to modernize the grid and upgrade the transmission system in the region that could be an example for this cross-border effort.
Though not a part of this MOU, ISO New England, a nonprofit corporation that manages the grid for the six New England states, plans to upgrade and further connect the regional transmission system between less populous northern Maine, where there is more open space and new onshore wind generation is expected to reach 1,200 megawatts, to the more populous parts of southern New England, where there is higher energy demand. The nonprofit received six proposals for interconnection of the transmission system, and a plan may be chosen by September.
Rebecca Tepper, secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts, also said in the press conference that the state, New York, and other Northeast states have launched a “collaborative” to advance interregional transmission.
Healey has looked north for clean energy before as the federal government has clamped down on domestic projects. Since mid-January, a new transmission line, known as the New England Clean Energy Connect, has been carrying Canadian hydropower from Québec to New England –– though concerns were raised after power was halted amid high demand in last month’s winter storm.
There isn’t a specific amount of energy that Massachusetts hopes to eventually gain from this agreement, Tepper said in the press conference. “That’s the point of this MOU –– to start really thinking about what will be available, what would we need over a period of time, how long would it take. There’s a lot of questions that need to be answered.”
Editor’s note: Updated to include more details. This is the print edition of the story.
Great idea– but let’s not kid ourselves about trump. He has already established himself as a de facto didktater here, but his kind of megalomania doesn’t stop at borders. He will try to stop the transmission lines — he can just say they are a national security risk and his followers will bleat their agreement. But fortunately, we know trump can be bought off. If we agree to give him (directly) a 15 or 20 % cut of the electrical sales, he will be all for it– — Canada will pay that, so ratepayers here won’t, of course. He did get Mexico to pay for the wall, and China to pay the tariffs, after all. The other cheaper option would be to put his name and mugshot n the nacelles, but Canadians might not go for that.
That’s too bad if this doesn’t go through, because I want to know where our electricity is coming from. It seems that the criteria for getting electricity on this island is that we can’t see the means of production and it can’t be anywhere close to us. What could be better than Canadians suffering all the grief and we get all the benefits?
This article turns on whether offshore wind developed hundreds of miles away could realistically supply New England, given transmission feasibility, timelines, and cost.
Don, if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion about energy policy, you have to actually engage with that subject. None of that is addressed by jokes about bribery, dictatorships, or turbine branding.
Large-scale transmission projects are governed by engineering limits, environmental review, international agreements, financing, and grid integration — not by personality-driven hypotheticals. Treating complex infrastructure decisions as a kind of political satire may be entertaining, but it doesn’t substitute for analysis.
The real questions remain unanswered in your comment: How would power be transmitted from Nova Scotia to Massachusetts? What would it cost? Who would pay for the lines? How long would permitting take? And how would this affect ratepayers already facing some of the highest electricity costs in the region?
If the goal is to understand where our electricity comes from, the conversation has to stay grounded in those realities. Otherwise, the comment section becomes noise rather than insight — and that helps no one trying to evaluate the actual merits or risks of the proposal.
Murray, you are like the best, highest rated ANC (active noise cancellation) earphones. Thank you!
Jackie, that truly means a lot. Honestly, it was reading your thoughtful posts over the years that encouraged me to step into the arena myself. So thank you — more than you know.
Murray–you are ignoring reality if you think the only thing that has slowed offshore wind’s large-scale transmission projects are not driven by personality-driven hypotheticals. To ignore trump’s actions is not hypothetical He clearly has an issue with wind power. — A personal issue– The engineering, environmental reviews, international agreements financing and grid integration are all there or feasible. As of 10Am Feb 11 ,ISO is getting 571 MWH (4.6%) from Canadian hydro. I don’t know, but my logic says that if you can turn a turbine with water in Canada and get electricity to Ma., you can turn a turbine with wind and get it here. Accusations of bribery, and the reality of authoritarian rule by a wanna be dictator are not jokes. The branding thing might be a “joke” to you but it might work. Let’s remember, this clown is holding up a mayor infrastructure project in NY until they rename Penn station “trump station” he has torn down part of the White House to build the “trump ballroom” renamed the Kennedy center after himself and is going forward with a plan to build a 250 ft arch called the “arch de trump”. Those are examples of “jokes” .
Don, the fact that Canadian hydro already reaches New England proves the opposite of your point. It works because specific transmission corridors were financed, permitted, and built over many years to move a defined amount of power. That infrastructure exists.
What does not exist is a transmission system capable of moving tens of gigawatts of offshore wind developed hundreds of miles offshore in another country. Hydro flowing through established lines is not equivalent to building entirely new subsea transmission at massive scale.
The issue isn’t whether electricity can cross a border — it obviously can. The issue is whether the physical capacity, siting approval, financing, and long-distance offshore transmission required for this proposal are actually in place. They aren’t. That’s the reality being ignored.
Electrical energy transport is the cheap part.
The expensive part is often the fuel cost.
Electricity waves move at about 300,000 kilometers per second. The electricity from Canada is less than 1,000 kilometers away. It takes a tiny fraction of a second for the electricity to move from Canada to Martha’s Vineyard. Instant!
I love what Trump is doing. Reversing all the EPA regulations that have cost us trillions of dollars and are all speculative. Kellers dislike for Trump is palpable and it masks a reasonable discussion on Climate and Fossil fuels. Last time I looked Trump is not doing anything illegal but has done a great deal for the country that needs to be preserved. BTW I dont want anything from Canada–too expensive.