Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Climate

What’s Even Better Than Building New Wind Farms?

Enter “repowering.”

Wind turbines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s not easy to build a wind project. Many of the best spots for generating wind power are already occupied by turbines. Even if you do find a good one, then comes everything else — inflation in the supply chain, convincing a local community that they want a wind farm near them, leasing the land, and so on and so forth. The whole process can take as long as five years.

But what about just making an existing wind farm … better.

This option, known as repowering, is becoming more attractive to wind developers and operators as existing wind assets age — operators get a more efficient wind farm, and developers get to avoid the many headaches of starting from scratch. The topic came up Tuesday, in fact, at the American Council on Renewable Energy’s 2024 Finance Forum. There are “some real opportunities for repower,” said David Giordano, BlackRock’s global head of climate infrastructure, on a panel about scaling capital to meet demand growth for renewables.

“When you repower a project, oftentimes you can utilize some of the existing infrastructure. And that means that you can add new equipment without the full cost of a greenfield development,” Eric Lantz, director of the Wind Energy Technologies Office at the Department of Energy, explained to me. When you install more modern equipment, he said, “you have higher hub heights, you have larger rotors — you can capture more energy from that site.”

Even if you tear down everything and rebuild from the ground up, Lantz told me, repowering still means you can use the existing transmission and interconnection, meaning developers can get more generation without having to deal with infamously long interconnection queues, which can impose yet more years on the energy development timeline.

Lantz collaborated on a 2020 research paper with a trio of Danish wind researchers (Denmark has one of the largest and most advanced wind power industries in the world) and found that from 2012 to 2019, 38% of all wind energy development projects in the country involved replacing old equipment as opposed to building on new sites. Repowering can be attractive to both developers and local communities, the researchers explained, because larger and more efficient turbines can actually reduce the net number of turbines on a given site while generating the same or even more power, with less visual disruption and less maintenance required.

Last year, Wood Mackenzie estimated that repowering onshore wind assets would lead to more installed capacity than new offshore wind in 2025 and 2026. In 2022, the U.S. repowered 1.7 gigawatts of wind plants, mostly by upgrading rotors (blades) and nacelle components like gearboxes and generators, upping their total capacity to 1.8 gigawatts, according to the Department of Energy. Average rotor diameter increased from 93 meters to 112 meters, adding on about the length of an 18-wheeler to the typical rotor.

Repowering has been a favored strategy of some of the biggest renewable developers, who have large and aging fleets of wind turbines that often already occupy prime spots. At the massive Shepherds Flat site in Oregon, for instance, Brookfield Renewable Partners replaced more than 300 turbines — i.e. over 900 blades — with new ones that were about 90 feet longer, upping the site’s total generation by some 20%.

At a proposed repowering in Southern California, Brookfield wants to replace around 450 turbines with just eight, while a New York repowering increased generation by almost 30% “while maintaining the same number of units to minimize ground disturbance,” the company said.

The rationale for repowering, like everything in energy, is a mixture of mechanical and financial. Over time, wind turbines tend to degrade, with actual power generation falling off. Even just by restoring a wind farm’s initial generating capacity, repowering can increase output, with newer, more advanced equipment, capacity can notably increase. And when renewable developers have to answer to investors, that cheaper generation can look quite attractive.

The energy developer NextEra plans to repower 1.4 gigawatts of its wind projects through 2026, the company’s chief financial officer said in an April earning call, and in January said that it had repowered a quarter of its existing 24 megawatts of wind. At that time, NextEra chief executive John Ketchum told analysts that the cost had been “roughly 50% to 80% of the cost of a new build and starting a new 10 years of production tax credits, resulting in attractive returns for shareholders.”

“With over a decade to potentially qualify for repowering,” he added, “it represents a great opportunity set.”

Looking at wind projects from before and after 2012, Scott Wilmot, an executive vice president at Enverus Intelligence Research, calculated that average capacity factor increased from around 30% to around 40%. “Swapping new equipment right off the bat, you can get a plus-10 percentage point gain on capacity factor,” he told me.

And then there’s the tax incentives. Repowering “resets” the production tax credit that’s the lifeblood of the wind industry, allowing owners and developers to claim it for another 10 years. When Enverus looked at a hypothetical project that had been operational since 2011 and repowered in 2023, it was possible that its production tax credit for an additional 10 years could increase from $22 per megawatt to almost $28. “It really does make the economics look quite attractive,” he told me.

“If you can get close to 10 percentage point capacity factor gain, you blow pretty much any greenfield, new build project out of the water.”

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

How Developers Should Think of the New IRA Credit Rules

A conversation with Scott Cockerham of Latham and Watkins.

How Developers Should Think of the New IRA Credit Rules
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Scott Cockerham, a partner with the law firm Latham and Watkins whose expertise I sought to help me best understand the Treasury Department’s recent guidance on the federal solar and wind tax credits. We focused on something you’ve probably been thinking about a lot: how to qualify for the “start construction” part of the new tax regime, which is the primary hurdle for anyone still in the thicket of a fight with local opposition.

The following is our chat lightly edited for clarity. Enjoy.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

An Influential Anti-ESG Activist Targets A Wind Farm

And more of the week’s most important news around renewable energy conflicts.

Map of renewable energy fights.
Heatmap Illustration

1. Carroll County, Arkansas – The head of an influential national right-wing advocacy group is now targeting a wind project in Arkansas, seeking federal intervention to block something that looked like it would be built.

  • Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, recently called on the Trump administration to intervene against the development of Scout Clean Energy’s Nimbus wind project in Arkansas. Consumers’ Research is known as one of the leading anti-ESG advocacy organizations, playing a key role in the “anti-woke” opposition against the climate- and socially-conscious behavior of everyone from utilities to Anheuser-Busch.
  • In a lengthy rant posted to X earlier this month, Hild pointed to Carroll County’s local moratorium on wind projects and claimed Nimbus being built would be “a massive win for ESG radicals – and a slap in the face for local democracy.”
  • As I told you in April, the Nimbus project prompted Carroll County to enact the moratorium but it was grandfathered in because of contracts signed prior to the ban’s enactment.
  • However, even though Nimbus is not sited on federal land, there is a significant weak point for the project: its potential impacts on endangered birds and bats.
  • Scout Clean Energy has been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service since at least 2018 under Trump 1.0. However, the project’s habitat conservation plan was not completed before the start of the current Trump term and Scout did not submit an application for Nimbus to receive an incidental take permit from the Service until May of this year.
  • Enter the Trump administration’s bird-centric wind power crackdown and the impact of Hild’s commentary comes into fuller focus. What will happen to all the years of work that Scout and the Service did? It’s unclear how the project reckons with this heightened scrutiny and risk of undue federal attention.

2. Suffolk County, New York – EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin this week endorsed efforts by activists on Long Island to oppose energy storage in their neighborhoods.

Keep reading...Show less
Spotlight

Trump’s Permit Freeze Prompts Some Solar to Eye Exits

Is there going to be a flight out of Nevada?

Solar in Nevada.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Donald Trump’s renewables permitting freeze is prompting solar companies to find an escape hatch from Nevada.

As I previously reported, the Interior Department has all but halted new approvals for solar and wind projects on federal lands. It was entirely unclear how that would affect transmission out west, including in the solar-friendly Nevada desert where major lines were in progress to help power both communities and a growing number of data centers. Shortly after the pause, I took notice of the fact that regulators quietly delayed the timetable by at least two weeks for a key line – the northern portion of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – that had been expected to connect to a litany of solar facilities. Interior told me it still planned to complete the project in September, but it also confirmed that projects specifically necessary for connecting solar onto the grid would face “enhanced” reviews.

Keep reading...Show less