Saving Seafood

Trump administration opens door for California offshore wind farms

October 18, 2018 — The Trump administration is considering allowing companies to build offshore wind farms off the coast of California.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said his department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will start taking comments this week on potential areas within about 1,073 square miles on California’s outer continental shelf that could host wind turbines.

The announcement, initially made at an industry conference Wednesday, came alongside news that BOEM will hold an auction in December to sell the rights to build offshore wind farms in an area off Massachusetts’s coast and that officials will start the environmental review process for the proposed South Fork Wind Project, a 15-turbine wind farm off Rhode Island.

While the Trump administration has sought to promote fossil fuels across numerous policy actions, Zinke said officials also strongly support wind power.

“I’m very bullish on offshore wind, and harnessing this renewable resource is a big part of the Trump administration’s made in America energy strategy,” Zinke said in a statement.

“We are always looking at new ways to increase American innovation and productivity to provide abundant and affordable energy for our homes and manufacturers. I think this is a win for America.”

The United States currently has just one utility-scale offshore wind farm, the Block Island project off Rhode Island. Companies have leased spots off the East Coast for other potential wind projects.

Read the full story at The Hill

EDWARD KRAPLES: We need more, not less, competition for offshore wind

October 15, 2018 — The offshore wind era in the United States is here. With no need to burn fossil fuel, to enrich uranium, to dam rivers, or to build thousands of acres of solar panels, offshore wind is the most benign form of bulk power available to mankind.

Plans to seize the potential of offshore wind already have powerful momentum on the East Coast. Between Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey alone, more than 8,000 megawatts of wind power is envisioned. Building out 1,000 megawatts entails up to $5 billion of capital investment, drawing the attention of developers far and wide. So far, European companies — mostly giant, state-spawned enterprises with deep experience in the offshore — have been quickest to recognize this enormous investment opportunity. This week the Danish firm Ørsted bought the only remaining independent US company with offshore wind positions, Deepwater.

Ørsted’s acquisition of Deepwater naturally diminishes the amount of competition for offshore wind contracts. Policy-makers in Massachusetts should immediately take two actions: first, Gov. Charlie Baker should ask the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to increase the number of planned offshore wind lease areas from two to three. Another lease area would assure that the loss of Deepwater as a competitive entrant will be offset by the emergence of a new lease owner off the coast of Massachusetts.

Second, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources should even more strongly promote an ocean grid that serves as a platform for multiple offshore wind developers. The first request for proposals that have solicited offshore power did not stipulate anything about the transmission that will take it to market. Naturally, extremely large and competent offshore wind generators dearly wish to own both the wind farms and the conduit to land and have advanced arguments to the effect that, they, and they alone, can get the job done right.

But letting each generator plan and build and own major transmission lines to shore is akin to letting Walmart plan and build and own the interstate that leads to its stores using its customers money. Bundling generation and transmission limits bidders to the few that have the capacity to do both. Limiting the offshore opportunities to only a few competitors is never good for those paying the bills.

Read the full story at Commonwealth Magazine

Block Island Wind Farm to get a new owner

October 12, 2018 — When the news was announced this past week that Danish company Ørsted — billed as the largest owner and developer of wind farms in the world — was taking ownership of Deepwater Wind, Deepwater Wind Chief Executive Officer Jeff Grybowski was asked by The Block Island Times what, if anything, that change of ownership meant for the island and its wind farm.

“The project will continue to operate as it always has. Folks should know that. Maybe some people do, but maybe most don’t know, that Ørsted is the pioneer in the off-shore wind industry. They are the clear global leader. They built the first offshore wind farm in 1991 in Denmark. They have over 1,200 turbines in operation. They have a world-class record of successful, well-run, safe projects. You can’t be in better hands,” he said. Grybowski described former owners, D.E. Shaw, as an “investment firm,” while calling Ørsted a company that “overwhelmingly runs more offshore wind than anyone in the world.” Grybowski has been named co-CEO of the new combined company, which still has to go through a regulatory process to receive final approval.

When asked how this will impact the ownership and maintenance needed for both the Deepwater Wind cable, which connects the turbines to the island, and the National Grid cable, which connects the island to the mainland — both of which had unexpected exposure issues this past summer — Grybowski said “nothing in terms of the relationship will change.”

According to the press release issued by Deepwater Wind on Monday, Oct. 8, Ørsted “plans to grow Deepwater Wind’s current Rhode Island presence in the coming years, making Providence and Boston the two major hubs of the company’s U.S. offshore wind activities.”

When asked to elaborate, Grybowski said, “The plan for the combined company will be to have offices in Providence and Boston and we’ll merge the two teams together, grow our presence for the next series of projects. We have three separate projects going: South Fork project in Long Island, Revolution Wind for Rhode Island and Connecticut” — the large offshore wind project consisting of 50 turbines that was originally called Deepwater One — “and the Skipjack project for Maryland. Ørsted is also getting ready to build off the coast of Virginia. Providence will be one of the major hubs of all that activity.”

Read the full story at The Block Island Times

Massachusetts DMF: Covell Beach better spot for Vineyard Wind cable

October 11, 2018 — An underwater cable proposed by offshore energy company Vineyard Wind will pose less of a threat to marine resources if it makes landfall at a Centerville beach instead of traveling through Lewis Bay, according to state fisheries officials.

“To avoid and minimize marine resource impacts, Covell’s Beach is a better choice,” Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Director David Pierce wrote in a letter last week to Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton.

The Oct. 3 letter reviews new information contained in a 1,111-page supplemental draft environmental impact report that Vineyard Wind filed in August with the Energy and Environmental Affairs. The supplemental report follows up on an earlier draft issued in April, and includes more detailed information about two possible landing sites for the 800-megawatt cable that will connect the company’s turbines southwest of Martha’s Vineyard with the electrical grid: New Hampshire Avenue in West Yarmouth and at Covell Beach in Centerville.

Although the company’s initial filings — including the supplemental report — listed New Hampshire Avenue as its preferred landing site, a host community agreement signed by Vineyard Wind and the town of Barnstable last week stipulates that Covell Beach is now the preferred site.

Beaton is chairman of the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, which will decide where the cable comes onshore after considering reliability, environmental impacts and costs, according to its website. The board began a monthlong hearing on the issue last week, and is expected to announce its decision in April.

Because the decision on where to site the cable rests with the board, Vineyard Wind is still pursuing both locations.

Bringing the cable onshore at New Hampshire Avenue could pose a threat to numerous marine resources, according to Pierce’s letter.

“New Hampshire Avenue, within Lewis Bay, will potentially impact shellfish beds, a depuration area, bay scallop habitat, and a mooring field,” the letter says. A depuration area is a location used to cleanse or purify seafood.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Offshore wind firm Orsted expands U.S. business with $510 million acquisition

October 9, 2018 — The following is an excerpt from a story originally published by Reuters:

Orsted, the world’s largest offshore wind developer, said on Monday it would buy U.S.-based Deepwater Wind LLC for $510 million as part of its strategy to expand in a major growth market.

The still small U.S. offshore wind sector is seen as one of the most important markets outside the core European region, where subsidies that have underpinned the industry since the early 1990s are starting to be wound back.

Deepwater Wind, the builder of the only operating U.S. offshore wind farm, has a portfolio with a capacity of around 3.3 gigawatts (GW). Orsted’s U.S portfolio currently has a capacity of 5.5 GW.

Orsted has so far lost out on auctions in the nascent market, while Deepwater Wind has been more successful and currently has the right to develop wind farms in Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut.

Read the full story at Reuters 

Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant warming

October 5, 2018 — It’s expanded 35-fold since 2000 and now provides 8% of the nation’s electricity. The US Department of Energy expects wind turbine capacity to more than quadruple again by 2050.

But a new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems.

The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 ˚C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 ˚C.

“If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has—in some respects—more climate impact than coal or gas,” coauthor David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, said in a statement. “If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas.”

Specifically, the “avoided warming” achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel sources could surpasses any warming from wind in about a century in the studied scenario, as emissions reductions accumulate.

Keith and lead author Lee Miller, a postdoc at Harvard, stress that the conclusions mean scientists and policymakers should take this side effect of wind power seriously—and carefully consider what role the resource should play in the shift to clean energy.

“Our analysis suggests that—where feasible—it may make sense to push a bit harder on developing solar power and a bit less hard on wind,” Keith said in an e-mail.

Notably, the warming effect from wind in the studied scenario was 10 times greater than the climate effect from solar farms, which can also have a tiny warming effect.

Read the full story at MIT Technology Review

The down side to wind power

October 4, 2018 — When it comes to energy production, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, unfortunately.

As the world begins its large-scale transition toward low-carbon energy sources, it is vital that the pros and cons of each type are well understood and the environmental impacts of renewable energy, small as they may be in comparison to coal and gas, are considered.

In two papers — published today in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule — Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.

“Wind beats coal by any environmental measure, but that doesn’t mean that its impacts are negligible,” said David Keith, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and senior author of the papers. “We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. In doing so, we must make choices between various low-carbon technologies, all of which have some social and environmental impacts.”

Keith is also professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

One of the first steps to understanding the environmental impact of renewable technologies is to understand how much land would be required to meet future U.S. energy demands. Even starting with today’s energy demands, the land area and associated power densities required have long been debated by energy experts.

Read the full story at The Harvard Gazette

Judge Tosses Seafood Industry Challenge to East Coast Wind Farm

October 3, 2018 — A seafood industry challenge to a $42.5 million lease for a wind farm off the coast of New York was filed prematurely, a federal judge has ruled.

Led by the Fisheries Survival Fund, the plaintiffs in the case said the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management failed to adequately consider how the Statoil Wind US LLC wind energy facility would impact fishermen, along with other environmental and economic impacts.

The plaintiffs also argued that the agency failed to consider adequate alternatives or prepare an environmental impact statement, which the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said was unnecessary after determining that there were no foreseeable environmental impacts that would significantly impact the human environment.

But U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, while finding that  the Fisheries Survival Fund and the other  plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, ruled Sunday they were not yet ripe.

That’s because Statoil Wind US LLC, the company developing the 26-mile wind farm roughly 11 miles out from Long Island, must first submit its construction and operations plans, along with a site assessment, while the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management retains authority to reject any or all of those.

“The presence of these ‘conditions’ does not transform the lease into an irretrievable commitment of resources,” the 24-page ruling says.

Chutkan later adds: “The lease sale does not represent the final word on anything, nor does it commit any resources, even putting aside the question of whether it does so irretrievably,” the 24-page ruling says.

If its site assessment plan is approved, Statoil will have five years to conduct surveys and propose construction and operations plans.

Read the full story at Courthouse News

Court upholds BOEM lease for New York offshore wind energy

October 3, 2018 — Seafood industry groups were dealt a setback Sept. 30 when a federal court judge in Washington, D.C., refused to grant a ruling in their challenge of a federal lease for an 80,000-acre offshore wind energy project near New York.

The Fisheries Survival Fund and its allies sought a summary judgement from U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., to overturn the federal Bureau of Offshore Energy Management’s grant of a $42.5 million lease to Norway-based Equinor, formerly Statoil, for its Empire Wind project. 

Fishermen argued BOEM ignored potential impacts on the environment and fishing. On Sunday the judge ruled that challenge to the initial December 2016 leasing was premature, as the agency has yet to review a construction and operations plan from the company.

But other court precedents have held that offshore leaseholders “gain more rights as development proceeds, and as more time and money are invested in a project,” the Fisheries Survival Fund said in a prepared statement. “That means that the further development proceeds, the more difficult it becomes for plaintiffs to overturn a leasing decision.”

The decision comes as wind energy companies are vying to lock in agreements with state governments in New York and New Jersey – and get priority for ratepayer subsidies that will help develop a U.S. industry.

The judge has found the fishing industry and affected communities; including scallop fishing ports like New Bedford, Mass., have standing to contest the wind farm proposal. The challengers say the “unsolicited bid procedure allowed BOEM to decide, behind closed doors, what area of the ocean was to be leased.”

Read the full story at WorkBoat

Fisheries Survival Fund Expresses Concern Over Recent Ruling in NY Wind Farm Case

October 1, 2018 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

Late yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a ruling for summary judgment in the ongoing lawsuit against the leased wind farm area in the New York Bight. While the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) is pleased that the court found that the fishing industry and affected port communities have standing to bring claims in the case, we are concerned with other aspects of the ruling.

Specifically, we are troubled by the court’s finding that our claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are not ‘ripe.’  The court held that, because the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) retains some authority to preclude surface disturbing activities in the period between issuing a lease and the approval of a construction and operations plan, the lease itself does not constitute the irretrievable transfer of resources required under NEPA. The court found that the “lease sale does not represent the final word on anything, nor does it commit any resources, even putting aside the question of whether it does so irretrievably.”

This suggests that the court views the lease as something akin to a ‘ticket’ to proceed, rather than a guarantee of any rights.  Just as a concertgoer’s ticket can be revoked by a venue for inappropriate behavior, the court seems to contend that the leaseholder’s ‘ticket’ for at-sea development can be revoked by BOEM at any time. But in fact, judicial precedent interpreting the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) has held that the leaseholder gains more rights as development proceeds, and as more time and money are invested in a project.  This means that, the further development proceeds, the more difficult it becomes for plaintiffs to overturn a leasing decision.

We are concerned that the court’s view of the case as premature at the leasing stage, combined with case law finding a leasing challenge too late at the construction and operation plan phase, leaves plaintiffs with no opportunity to challenge this siting decision.

We are encouraged the court never contested our view that the unsolicited bid procedure allowed BOEM to decide, behind closed doors, what area of the ocean was to be leased. But we are troubled by the court’s ruling that our OCSLA claims are barred because we did not comply with the provision requiring 60 days notice of an intended filing. We were not able to provide 60 days’ notice, because BOEM scheduled the lease sale only 45 days after publication of the Final Sale Notice.

The court held that we were not excused from compliance with the 60-day notice period because the statute does not require BOEM to schedule its lease sales with sufficient time to accommodate potential claimants. If the court’s position is upheld, BOEM apparently would have the ability to lease any portion of the ocean unchallenged, and would deny any harmed parties their right to challenge a proposed lease sale under the OCSLA.  We believe given these circumstances that we should have been granted an exemption from this requirement.

About the Fisheries Survival Fund
The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was established in 1998 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery.  FSF participants include the vast majority of full-time Atlantic scallop fishermen from Maine to North Carolina.  FSF works with academic institutions and independent scientific experts to foster cooperative research and to help sustain this fully-rebuilt fishery.  FSF also works with the federal government to ensure that the fishery is responsibly managed.