Jump to content

Talk:US Wind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit Requested

[edit]

Hi Wikipedia editors!

I have a "paid conflict of interest" as defined by the site's guidelines and reflected on my userpage (Dreamer4312). Per best practices and policies I am requesting this change instead of editing directly. I have included what I hope is helpful context and references below, as well as revised language. Thank you in advance for your time. Dreamer4312 (talk)

Change the phrase that reads: “… that is a subsidiary of Italy-based Renexia SpA, part of Toto Holdings.”

This is a dated reference. In August, 2020, funds managed by Apollo Global Management invested $265 million to acquire an equity stake in US Wind along with Renexia, SpA. This can be sourced from an Apollo Global Management Press Release.

The revised text could read:

US Wind is owned by funds managed by Apollo Global Management, an American investment firm, and Renexia SpA, a subsidiary of Toto Holding SpA.[1] Dreamer4312 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Would you be able to provide independent sourcing for the change? PK650 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! Yes, I believe this Reuters article would fit the criteria. Dreamer4312 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Implemented Regards,  Spintendo  08:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will flag any similar edits, and appreciate the helpful responses! 2601:249:8280:2B0:B858:D1E4:961A:199D (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Apollo Infrastructure Funds Announce Strategic Investment in US Offshore Wind Developer US Wind Inc". apollo.com. Archived from the original on 2024-10-15. Retrieved 2024-11-20.

Correction Edit Requested

[edit]

Edit Requested

[edit]

Hello again, Wikipedia editors!

I have a "paid conflict of interest" as defined by the site's guidelines and reflected on my userpage (Dreamer4312). Per best practices and policies I am requesting this change instead of editing directly. I have included what I hope is helpful context and references below, as well as revised language. This correction is a bit more complicated, but I hope the context below will help to clarify. Thank you in advance for your time. Dreamer4312 (talk)

Change the phrase that reads: “In 2014 US Wind won the auction for a 25-year leases for both Wind Energy Areas (WEA) in Maryland established by the BOEM with a bid of $8.7 million; OCS-A 0489 (Momentum Wind) was later merged into OCS-A 0490 (MarWin).”

This statement confuses the acquisition of two lease areas and their subsequent merger into a single lease area with US Wind’s two separate awards from the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC). On December 1, 2014, US Wind won the auction for two lease areas – OCS-A 0489, and OCS-A 0490. On March 1, 2018, US Wind requested and was granted a merger of the two leases into OCS-A 0490. This can be seen in the original citation which was mischaracterized.

At this time, US Wind had only been awarded 248 MW in Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Credits (ORECs) from the Maryland PSC. This development has been referred to as the MarWin project ever since, and it has been planned to occupy the most southeasterly section of the merged lease area. It wasn’t until December 17, 2021 that the Maryland PSC awarded 808.5 additional ORECs to US Wind.

Subsequently, US Wind announced that development of the 808.5 MW award would be referred to as Momentum Wind. Thus, the announcement of Momentum Wind came over three years after the merger of the two lease areas into one. In addition, Momentum Wind’s footprint would occupy space from both of the individually named lease areas. Therefore, US Wind’s two announced projects do not correspond to the individual lease areas. In addition, both lease areas (and the administratively combined single lease area) are cited in Federal waters, and should not be referred to as “Maryland.”

The revised text could read:

On December 1, 2014 US Wind won the auction for 25-year leases for two Wind Energy Areas (WEA) (OCS-A 0489, and OCS-A 0490) established by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) with a bid of $8.7 million. On March 1, 2018, the two lease areas were administratively merged into a single lease area referred to as OCS-A 0490. On May 11, 2017, US Wind won an Offshore Renewable Energy Credit (OREC) award from the Maryland Public Service Commission, enabling it to develop 248 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind in its lease area. This is referred to as the MarWin project. On December 17, 2021, US Wind won an OREC award from the Maryland PSC enabling it to develop 808.5 MW of offshore wind. This second award is referred to as the Momentum Wind project. Both projects are proposed to be developed in the merged lease area OCS-A 0490.[1][2][3]

Dreamer4312 (talk) 5:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maryland PSC (19 November 2017). "Maryland PSC Awards ORECS to Two Offshore Wind Developers Projects to Create Jobs, Economic Development in New Industry" (PDF). psc.state.md. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-19.
  2. ^ Maryland PSC (17 December 2021). "Maryland PSC Decision Expands Offshore Wind Development" (PDF). psc.state.md. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2024-12-19.
  3. ^ Chris Flood (31 December 2021). "Ørsted selected to expand windfarm area off Delaware coast". capegazette.com. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2024-12-19.

Dreamer4312 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamer4312: That looks in order from what I can see. Do you have a reference for the lease merger in 2018?
I would add the original cite [1] from BOEM for the first sentence about the two leases original award in 2017. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quickly response! I agree on maintaining the original cite, and have a reference for the lease merger here. [2]
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance! Dreamer4312 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might rather use [3] as a secondary source rather than the primary government letter. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]