Editorial: Wind farms in Lake Michigan make no economic sense. Springfield ought to sink that idea.

There’s a bill floating around in Springfield that would establish a wind farm in the waters of Lake Michigan.

Residents in high-rises with lake views need not be alarmed. Nothing being envisioned poses a visual threat to their vistas. The turbines would go on the Far South Side, nearest to heavy industrial areas that aren’t known for being picturesque.

The idea ought to be killed anyway for reasons having nothing to do with aesthetics. It’s unneeded, prohibitively expensive and would be funded by hiking your electric bills, which already are considerably higher than they were a few years ago.

But let’s start at the beginning.

Democratic state Sen. Robert Peters and state Rep. Marcus C. Evans Jr., both South Side lawmakers, last year introduced the measure, which would require the state to contract with the developers of the new wind power facility and have utilities charge customers accordingly. They argued the project, which would feature up to 12 turbines and generate up to 150 megawatts of power, would help the environment and also create jobs for the economically disadvantaged South Side.

The bill had some momentum in the spring session, passing the House on a convincing 85-21 vote. Ultimately, it stalled in the Senate.

So the General Assembly did what lawmakers do when they don’t want to just say no to their colleagues. They passed a law requiring the Illinois Power Agency, the state body tasked with negotiating power procurement on behalf of utility customers, to study the issue along with several other energy projects wanting state help.

That report is due in March.

Lawmakers no doubt will wait for the IPA to weigh in before making any final decisions. But, unless they ignore economic rationality — something they’ve been known to do, especially when it comes to energy policy — they will take a pass. The economics of offshore wind power, already poor when the bill surfaced, have grown considerably worse since then.

Consider that several major offshore wind projects planned in the Atlantic, off this nation’s East Coast, have been deep-sixed or gone on life support in recent months. The problems are essentially the same in all cases. Costs have ballooned far higher than originally projected thanks to supply-chain snarls and sharply higher interest rates.

Danish wind power giant Orsted last month canceled two large developments planned off the southern coast of New Jersey, prompting Gov. Phil Murphy to accuse the company of breaking promises and jeopardizing its credibility.

Other planned projects off New York and Massachusetts either are tottering or returning to the drawing board.

In Massachusetts, developers of two massive wind farms have gone so far as to pay the state $108 million to free them of power-purchase contracts that had become financially infeasible. They intend to rebid with the state, at considerably higher prices.

There’s a lot of debate right now about the future of wind power off the East Coast. Is the industry merely enduring a hiccup or are these issues killing Atlantic offshore wind in the cradle?

Most likely, wind farms in the Atlantic eventually will happen. The Biden administration is banking on substantial ocean development to meet its carbon goals. The Great Lakes are another story.

To date, there are no wind farms in the Midwestern portion of the Great Lakes. A relatively small 20-megawatt project proposed off Cleveland in Lake Erie is struggling to obtain financing and may need to be rethought.

There are simple reasons the oceans are a far better bet for siting wind power than the Great Lakes. First, saltwater doesn’t freeze nearly as quickly as fresh water. Frozen lake waters add substantially to the cost of wind power and also hinder operations, making them potentially less efficient.

Then there’s public acceptance. Oceanic wind farms can be located far enough out to sea that they can’t be seen from the shore. That’s not the case in Lake Michigan.

More generally in terms of energy policy, state lawmakers have resorted again and again over the past decade to promoting various clean-energy initiatives — typically in the form of electric-bill surcharges financing nuclear plant bailouts, utility-run energy efficiency programs, renewable energy, social equity in energy policy, etc. — that the last thing we need is yet another add-on to your monthly ComEd bill bankrolling something that provides so little bang for the buck.

The economics are so crummy that even some environmental groups oppose the bill. The Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago estimates the Lake Michigan project would require power prices of at least 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. Onshore wind power in Illinois is economic at prices more like 2 or 3 cents. That’s quite the markup.

ELPC also believes, since the lake bed is held in public trust, that allowing it to be used for private gain potentially violates the law.

The economic development case for wind is poor as well. Wind power, once in operation, is a low employment industry. There are construction jobs, of course, but those are temporary. The industry’s real job-creation engine is in manufacturing the turbines.

More practically, Illinois has lots of open land where more wind power can be installed far more cost effectively as the state strives to meet its ambitious clean-energy goals.

In Europe, where offshore wind has been a reality for years, domestic energy sources are less abundant, making the case for offshore wind more compelling.

Windmills in the lake are an idea whose time hasn’t come. There’s plenty of green-energy opportunity without messing with Lake Michigan.

Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.