May 18, 2021 — In 2019, Mayflower Wind submitted multiple bids for offshore wind projects to the state. One had a higher price tag, but included investment promises for the region, such as a plan to build a factory at Brayton Point that would have employed as much as 200 people, according to Mayor Jon Mitchell; another lacked that plan, but had a lower price tag. The state selected the latter, he said.

That decision is one example the mayor cited to argue that the state has valued price over economic investment to the detriment of Southeastern Massachusetts.

In an April comment letter sent to the Baker administration and state Department of Public Utilities (DPU) — which oversees bid procurement — Mitchell, Fall River Mayor Paul Coogan, state representatives, city councilors and various New Bedford business leaders said they are concerned the state’s approach to procuring offshore wind energy contracts will make it “more difficult for this region to achieve its potential.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

The following is a letter from local stakeholders regarding the offshore wind bid process:

Dear Secretary Marini:

We are a group of public sector, business, and civic leaders in Southeastern Massachusetts who continue to be concerned that the Commonwealth’s approach to procuring offshore wind energy contracts will make it more difficult for our region to reach its full potential as a national leader in the industry. We offer the following comments to the draft RFP and the Initial Comments submitted last week.

The Current RFP Repeats the Mistakes of the Past

We have written previously about the state’s wind energy procurement process, and how it has yielded little in the way of permanent industry investment in Southeastern Massachusetts. As articulated by the Attorney General in her Initial Comments, the current proposed Request for Proposals for Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects, despite modest improvements, essentially repeats the mistakes of the first two solicitations. The root of the problem is the Commonwealth’s continued insistence on obscuring the value of economic benefits in the evaluation of project proposals, coupled with its leaving the evaluation of economic benefits entirely in the hands of the state’s utilities. As the developers themselves explicitly noted in their comments to the draft RFP, the net effect again will likely be an award based almost exclusively on price, and the continued capturing of still more industry investment by East Coast states that have been more eager to compete for it.

Our frustration is based on our intensely felt recognition that attracting capital to formerly industrial cities that are not part of a major metropolitan area is inherently difficult. In America’s winner-takes-all economy of the last twenty years, in which so-called “superstar” cities like Boston have pulled in the lion’s share of the country’s investment capital, the offshore wind industry offers a rare opportunity for our region to expand its economic base. With its close proximity to wind energy areas, maritime workforce, and high-functioning port infrastructure, Southeastern Massachusetts is naturally suited to attract a wind industry cluster and the well-paying jobs that would come with it.

Many of us have worked for most of the last decade to cultivate the industry’s interest in our region, and we are proud that our early work laid the foundation for industry’s acceptance across Massachusetts and beyond. Although we are excited that the industry will help to lower America’s carbon emissions, our effort has been primarily about economic development. So it has been troubling for us to witness the establishment of headquarters and regional offices of major wind companies in Boston.

We fear that the DOER’s tweaks of the previous RFP will not meaningfully change the outcome. As the Attorney General notes, “The Proposed RFP’s evaluation protocol, including the failure to disclose the relative value that evaluators will place on each of the Proposed RFP’s required commitments, may result in missed opportunities for the Commonwealth.” See AGO’s Initial Comments at 5-6. We couldn’t agree more, and we fear that the developers, not knowing the actual value assigned to economic benefits, will again submit alternate bids, and the utilities again will select one that is light on investment commitments. Unless the utilities are required to disclose how they will score economic benefits, our region could lose out again.

Read the full letter here