Category Archives: Offshore

Amanda Lefton:

Certainly offshore wind has the opportunity to create a great deal of jobs and American jobs. We know that in order for us to really, truly build out offshore wind, not only are we going to need people that are physically building them and operating them, but we're going to need a supply chain to support the development of offshore wind, which can mean steel, which can mean other critical materials that can come from the United States.

Additionally, we're seeing investments in things like large vessels that are being built right here in America with materials from America. So I think undoubtedly we have a tremendous opportunity to create good family-supporting jobs with offshore wind as we continue to transition to a clean energy future, which is not just critical for climate change, but to of course support those jobs and create them here.

Continued here:

How regulators are approaching the push for offshore wind - PBS NewsHour

Ivette Feliciano:

But getting to this point has been a long road. Vineyard first leased these 260 square miles of ocean back in 2015, spent millions surveying the area, and applied to federal regulators for a permit in 2017. Two years later, the process was paused as regulators decided to look at the cumulative impact of Vineyard, and several other projects planned in the same area.

All together, there are more than a dozen leases in various stages of development up and down the east coast. and industry groups estimate that between 20 and 30 thousand megawatts of offshore wind or enough to power more than 12 million homes will be operational by 2030.

While the US has not yet approved a major project, in Europe, offshore wind has grown exponentially in the last 15 years, with more than 40 commercial-scale projects now operating.

Go here to see the original:

Under Biden, will offshore wind finally drive major energy gains in the U.S.? - PBS NewsHour

The Biden administrations approach to policy setting in the offshore wind context can already be seen in recent legislation and executive orders related to tax law, maritime law, and environmental law. We address the interplay of these legal issues in this white paper in the context of the new administrations overall policy objectives. In Part One, we addressed relatively recent New Jersey and New York state developments and recent Biden administration executive actions affecting the offshore wind sector. In this Part Two, we discuss some related tax, maritime, and environmental issues and developments affecting the sector.

These developments demonstrate the significant and broad role that offshore wind will have on furthering Biden administration policy objectives related to addressing climate change, expanding the availability of renewable energy and its contribution to the nations power needs, and, in the process, creating well-paying, permanent jobs.

The 2021 Appropriations Act included a one-year extension of the PTC already in place, which allows a credit against business income tax to taxpayers based on electricity produced by onshore and offshore wind projects. The credit, stated under I.R.C. 45(a)(5), is a credit of 1.5 cents per kWh of electricity produced by the taxpayer from wind at a qualified facility for the first 10 years after the project is placed in service. The amount of the credit will be adjusted for inflation and phases out based on when the facility construction started. Eligibility for the credit was set to end in 2020, but the 2021 Appropriations Act extended applicability of the credit to projects that begin construction in 2021. Projects that begin construction after 2021 will not be eligible for the credit, which will phase out in 2022.

A 30 percent ITC against business income tax is now available for certain offshore wind facilities that are located within the inland navigable waters of the United States or in the coastal waters of the United States, and that begin construction before January 1, 2026. The term of the ITC is five years. I.R.C. 45(d)(1). Unlike the PTC, this ITC for offshore wind projects does not phase out for projects that start construction before 2026. This offshore wind ITC will provide meaningful financial assistance and encouragement for qualified offshore wind projects during the next five years and will likely spur further development initiatives during the period to take advantage of the credit.

Section 3003 of the 2021 Appropriations Act authorizes the creation of a program to fund research and development and commercialization for wind energy technologies. The purposes of the program include improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of wind energy, optimizing its performance, and reducing barriers to the commercialization of wind technology. The program includes a focus on offshore wind-specific projects and plants. Over $100 million is allocated to the program, including for awarding grants, performing research, creating demonstration projects, and providing small business vouchers. This program is an indication of the federal governments renewed focus on wind energy, including offshore wind projects, and its commitment to expanding this field.

One of the major questions facing the offshore wind industry for the past several years has been whether and to what extent foreign-flagged vessels may be utilized in support of offshore wind construction and operations. The flurry of offshore wind related activity to start the year by Congress, the president, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) addressed this issue in part and seem to signal that more action is likely to come in the near future to resolve other open issues.

Under the Jones Act, only U.S. flagged and coastwise qualified (i.e., owned, operated, and controlled by U.S. citizens) vessels are permitted to carry merchandise between any two points in the United States. Thus, foreign-flagged vessels may only be used in support of offshore wind projects in a manner that does not involve transportation of merchandise between two U.S. points for example, by employing a stationary foreign installation vessel to install components transported aboard U.S. flagged coastwise-qualified feeder vessels. A report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in December 2020 titled Offshore Wind Energy Planned Projects May Lead to Construction of New Vessels in the U.S., but Industry Has Made Few Decisions amid Uncertainties highlighted the significance of the issue to the industry by noting that there are currently no Jones Act-compliant vessels capable of serving as a [wind turbine installation vessel] and that larger capacity feeder vessels will also likely be needed to support the industry. In other words, while reports of the construction of Jones Act compliant installation and feeder vessels have begun to surface, at least in the near term, use of foreign vessels in some capacity will still be required for offshore wind construction. Thus, it is essential for the industry to have clarity on the exact extent to which foreign vessels may be employed.

Such clarity appears to have been provided with respect to projects on the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS). Under Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Jones Acts restrictions also apply on the outer continental shelf in some instances. Based on the prior wording of OCSLA, there was an open question as to whether OCSLAs extension of the Jones Act applied to offshore wind installations on the OCS. This question was addressed, at least in part, by passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2021, which included an amendment to the OCSLA, the effect of which was to clarify that U.S. law (including the Jones Act) applies to installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed, which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources, including non-mineral energy resources. (Emphasis supplied).

President Biden echoed this commitment to the application of the Jones Act to offshore wind projects by issuing the Made in America Executive Order. The Made in America Executive Order included the Jones Act under its definition of Made in America Laws meaning that increased intergovernmental consultation will be required before a waiver of the Jones Act may be granted. A White House press release indicated that the Made in America Executive Order [r]eiterates the Presidents strong support for the Jones Act. The President will continue to be a strong advocate for the Jones Act and that with the signing of the NDAA for FY 2021, the Jones Act has also been affirmed as an opportunity to invest in Americas workers as we build offshore renewable energy, in line with the Presidents goals to build our clean energy future here in America.

Shortly after the presidents issuance of the Made in America Executive Order, CBP, the agency charged with interpretation of the Jones Act, issued ruling letter HQ H309186 (Jan. 27, 2021), its first interpretative ruling relating to application of the Jones Act to offshore wind turbines and installations since 2011. CBP applied the amended language of OCSLA to conclude that the Jones Act would be violated by several proposed scenarios involving the lading of scour protection by a non-coastwise qualified vessel at a U.S. point (either Port Providence or a vessel anchored in U.S. waters or on the OCS) and unlading of the scour at a monopile or wind turbine generator installed on the seabed of the OCS. CBP also found that the Jones Act would be violated by scenarios that involved lading of scour at a U.S. point (either Port Providence or a vessel anchored in U.S. waters or on the OCS) and unlading on the pristine seabed of the OCS prior to the construction of any offshore wind monopiles.

While the above actions appear to have resolved questions relating to application of the Jones Act on the OCS, questions remain as to CBPs interpretation of what items carried aboard a vessel constitute merchandise (i.e., an item covered by the Jones Act and required to be transported between U.S. points by a U.S. flagged coastwise qualified vessel). In particular, CBP excludes items deemed to be vessel equipment from the definition of merchandise. At the end of 2019, CBP issued a revocation of prior rulings that relied upon a standard for such determinations tied to whether the item at issue was utilized in fulfilling the mission of the vessel because CBP determined such an approach was overbroad.1 Instead, CBP indicated that it would interpret vessel equipment to include items that are necessary and appropriate for the navigation, operation, or maintenance of a vessel and for the comfort and safety of the persons on board. CBP made clear, however, that this determination would be made on a case-by-case basis and specifically declined at that time to clarify how this standard would be applied to offshore wind projects. Thus, uncertainty remains as to how the Jones Act will apply with respect to the carriage of various components and equipment needed for offshore wind construction and operations. However, given the momentum behind the industry evidenced by congressional, executive, and CBP action in the early part of the year, further clarification on this issue in the near future seems likely.

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an important policy tool in the climate change discussion, including with respect to environmental permitting for offshore wind, which is discussed in more detail below. The SCC, which attaches a monetary amount to the impacts of a ton of carbon (CO2) in a given year, has broad implications, depending on the amount and where it is used in any federal cost-benefit analysis. A cost-benefit analysis is typically required prior to a federal agency implementing any new rule or engaging in any governmental decision-making, including federal permitting decisions. Section 5 of the Climate Crisis Executive Order takes the first step toward restoring application of a higher value SCC and previously established values for other greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NOx). To that end, President Bidens Climate Crisis Executive Order recreates the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was disbanded by executive order under the Trump administration.2 The IWG is tasked with evaluating and setting the SCC, methane, and nitrous oxide values by January 2022. The revamped SCC values and values for CH4 and NOx are likely to be in alignment with the values developed under the Obama administration, if not greater.

Indeed, on February 26, 2021, Heather Boushey, on behalf of the IWG, announced that the IWG would immediately replace the previous Administrations estimates with the estimates developed prior to 2017, adjusted for inflation (i.e., restoring Obama-era values).3 The quick decision stems from a January 27, 2021, memorandum from President Biden titled Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking. The memorandum directs federal agencies to review and expeditiously update any policy, process, or practice that does not use best available science. The IWG also anticipates an upcoming Federal Register notice to determine whether an update to the approach to value discounting is warranted and, if so, a more complete revision to the estimates is expected to be released within a year. While the full impacts of even higher SCC, CH4, and NOx values remain to be seen, continued encouragement of renewable energy development projects, including offshore wind projects, is anticipated.

Most major infrastructure projects, including offshore wind, are highly impacted by legal and regulatory developments relating to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Section 207 of the Climate Crisis Executive Order mandates that Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) review of siting and permitting processes be in consultation with other agencies, including the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). CEQ is the agency responsible for overseeing and implementing NEPA. NEPA is the legal mechanism by which federal agencies must consider the environmental impacts for infrastructure projects through issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is required all for major Federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.4

NEPA is not designed to stop a project and is procedural in nature. It is designed to require thorough environmental review and public input before, for example, BOEM can issue an offshore wind lease to a potential developer through a formal Record of Decision.5 Importantly, a BOEM lease is required for any offshore wind project on the OCS,6 and typically before an application can be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its approval and licensing of any hydrokinetic project seeking to transmit electricity to the interstate electricity grid. Clearing the NEPA hurdling is an important milestone for any infrastructure project requiring federal approval(s). As it relates to offshore wind, developers further along in the BOEM leasing and FERC licensing process, which will include the NEPA review process, also have competitive advantages to obtaining state approvals for obtaining renewable energy credits used to fund the project.

The Climate Crisis Executive Order had the immediate effect of placing BOEM back on track for its NEPA review of the Vineyard Wind project. Changes to the Vineyard Wind turbines and signals from the previous administration that these changes might result in a deficient EIS caused Vineyard Wind to request that BOEM stop consideration of its application. Any requirement for a new application would have resulted in over a year of delay. On January 22, 2021, Vineyard Wind requested its original application continue through the review process. In a recent press release, BOEM announced that it would continue its environmental review of the Vineyard Wind project and proceed with development of a final EIS, signaling that a new application would not be required due to the turbine changes.

More changes to the previous administrations NEPA policies are also likely on the horizon. For example, Section 7(e) of the Climate Science Executive Order directs CEQ to rescind its August 2017 draft guidance on consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during NEPA review, reverting instead to the August 2016 guidance issued in the final months of former President Barrack Obamas administration. This guidance will immediately restore the environmental review advantages of all clean energy projects, not just offshore wind projects.

An even hotter issue to watch relates to the previous administrations changes to NEPA regulations. On July 16, 2020, under the prior administration, CEQ finalized a new rule effective September 14, 2020, which some viewed as limiting NEPA reviews for certain projects, particularly more carbon intensive projects. Although procedural in nature, NEPA review and litigation is known to often delay a controversial project for many years. The new NEPA rules were spurred by President Trumps August 15, 2017, Executive Order 13807 requiring federal agencies to process environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects as One Federal Decision (OFD).7 One clear purpose of OFD was to expedite environmental reviews for oil and gas infrastructure projects. The new NEPA rule implemented myriad changes to NEPA regulations in alignment with OFD. While seemingly innocuous, the changes have been argued to have broad effects on the NEPA process that make it too easy to get through environmental review without full public engagement.8 The new rule is currently subject to litigation, but is currently being evaluated by the Biden administration.

The full effect of the Biden administrations reversal or changes to NEPA in the offshore wind context remains to be seen. The new administration has stated it is reviewing the new NEPA rule to determine whether changes are required. The Climate Science Executive Order revokes OFD, the very basis for the rule change, signaling modification is likely, and the CEQ has sought stays in many of the pending challenges to the rule, with one request for stay denied in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Thus, the new administration will need to address the issue sooner rather than later.

The NEPA process for large-scale projects also often involves consultation and collaboration with other agencies with responsibilities to protect natural resources under a variety of other statutes, like the EPA or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Climate Crisis Executive Order is a signal to these agencies that their consultation for offshore wind projects should be particularly timely, in addition to their own separate reviews, while revocation of OFD is a separate signal to reestablish clean energy project advantages in environmental permitting review.

In addition to BOEM and FERC authorization activities and the consultation process, offshore wind development will also involve the typical environmental permitting processes associated with any large infrastructure project. It will involve the crossing of wetlands and other waters of the United States (WOTUS) requiring permitting approval under the Clean Water Act (CWA), over which EPA has authority to regulate, or require review of species regulated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), over which USFWS has authority to regulate. The building of ports or onshore office and/or maintenance spaces are likely to be on current or former industrial areas with soil and groundwater contamination issues, which would require thorough environmental due diligence under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and its state counterparts prior to acquisition or leasing.

The Climate Crisis Executive Order does not specifically address these everyday environmental considerations and concerns. Some approval processes (for example, ESA and MMPA review) will be addressed early through consultation in the NEPA process and the Biden administrations potential changes to this process. Section 401 water quality certifications under the CWA are likely to be required for the transmission crossings and onshore interconnection cables from either EPA or a state agency with delegated authority to issue Section 401 certifications. A Section 404 permit under the CWA for dredge and fill activities in wetlands is also likely to be required from either the regional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with EPA-delegated permit authority or a state agency with EPA-delegated authority to issue such permits. The state may also have its own host of environmental siting statutes and regulations for consideration, subject to review and approval by the overseeing state agency.

In addition, Section 328(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires federal air pollution regulations to be extended to projects on the OCS if the project is located within 25 miles of the state seaward border. Assuming that applies, the construction period of an offshore wind project may generate GHG emissions, which, depending on the attainment status of that area, may trigger a robust New Source Review under the CAA. Some CAA permitting (perhaps pursuant to a general permit) will likely be required for more routine pieces of equipment that generate emissions backup generators, for example. The CAA offshore wind regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. part 55 would be managed by EPA.

While the Climate Crisis Executive Order does not address the details of an offshore wind projects robust and complex environmental permitting regime, it does signal that such projects should be given priority and should be timely.

As the regulatory and permitting regimes for offshore wind projects become clearer and more favorable, the technology behind those projects also continues to advance. Currently, the elevation of the OCS on the U.S. East Coast makes it the most technically feasible location for offshore wind. Commercial scale turbines used or planned to be used still require foundation support, which leads to an intense construction process requiring pile driving and, by extension, more impacts during construction on the sea floor and to aquatic life.

Floating turbines, however, are on the horizon. Several floating wind projects are in the early phases (pilot or small scale) either in areas where fixed foundation turbines might be too disruptive to the local economy (e.g., Maine) or areas of the OCS where the water is too deep for fixed foundation construction (e.g., Maine, California, and Hawaii). Maine is leading the way to advance this new technology via a pilot project. On January 22, 2021, in a letter to the local fishing industry, Maine Governor Janet Mills announced she would propose a 10-year moratorium on any state water, offshore wind projects, while continuing to support the planned floating turbine research project in federal waters and extending the time for public input of that project. Thus, despite opposition, Maine appears slated to move forward with advancing floating turbine technology along its coast. Other, larger projects are also slated along the coast of California and Hawaii, with Oregon and Washington expected to follow.

While too early to detail a comparison of floating vs. fixed foundation offshore wind projects from an environmental permitting perspective, it is possible that floating turbines will have the upper hand to the extent they can be built to scale, which is still far in the future. This will be the only offshore wind option in certain areas of the OCS. The less disruptive nature of the construction and maintenance of floating turbines (which can be pulled to shore for repairs, upkeep, and decommissioning) will inevitably lead to less aquatic environmental impacts and a shorter environmental permitting timeline. Whether the permitting and siting advantages will outweigh cost considerations of purchasing more expensive turbines (or, in areas where fixed-foundation is not technically feasible, of relying on other clean energy projects like solar and onshore wind) is likely to be a hot topic in the future.

The offshore wind sector is well positioned to provide a synergistic focus for addressing climate change and meeting the nations renewable energy goals. The enormous scope and scale of offshore wind development makes it a critical part of the drive for accomplishing President Bidens Climate Crisis Executive Order objectives, as well as those of U.S. coastal states where the prospects for offshore wind are under various stages of development. Navigating the legal, regulatory, political, and technical waters associated with this development requires the assistance of experienced professionals who can provide guidance and advice regarding the many complex issues and concerns.

Read the original here:

Developments in Offshore Wind: Part Two | Cozen O'Connor - JDSupra - JD Supra

March 28, 2021

Like all Californians, I care deeply about our environment. Our state's natural beauty and diverse ecosystems are something to treasure and protect. Shifting toward more renewable energy is essential to meeting California's air quality and climate mandates.

California's growing population continuously requires new electricity generation. Renewable energy, largely from wind and solar sources, is key to meeting California's growing energy requirements while accomplishing important environmental challenges.

To meet California's goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2045, offshore wind energy needs to be a significant part of the plan. New offshore wind energy legislation in Assembly Bill 525 is exactly what we need.

California is positioned to lead the west coast in this innovative technology. With the second longest coastline in the lower 48 states, our potential is enormous. Similar potential on America's eastern shores has already caused seven coastal eastern states to join together to achieve their offshore wind energy goals. Our state's 2045 goal is attainable and can even be surpassed.

Californians need safe, reliable power that is both clean and affordable. Offshore wind development will create over 10,000 well-paying professional jobs during the construction phase, and several thousand permanent positions, all while delivering energy to California's citizens at the lowest possible cost: Far lower than electricity generated from coal, gas, oil or nuclear power.

I am pleased to see the emphasis on coordination for new wind projects at sea laid out within AB 525. The bill emphasizes working with the California Coastal Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, the State Lands Commission and other relevant agencies to ensure a successful, sensible plan that serves all Californians and the environment.

If passed and implemented, this bill will kick-start a vital industry that will serve the electricity needs of Californians for decades to come while improving the health of our communities.

Ace Hoffman is a San Diego-based software developer and environmental activist

Times of San Diego is an independent online news site covering the San Diego metropolitan area. Our journalists report on politics, crime, business, sports, education, arts, the military and everyday life in San Diego. No subscription is required, and you can sign up for a free daily newsletter with a summary of the latest news.

See the rest here:

Opinion: California Can Cleanly Power Its Future With Offshore Wind Energy - Patch.com

President Joe Biden entered office pledging to deliver the federal policy framework needed to launch US offshore wind at commercial scale and unlock a potential $50bn-plus clean energy and economic opportunity this decade along the east coast.

His administrations leadership is critical. The federal government owns the seabed on the outer continental shelf where offshore wind projects will be built, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), an arm of the Department of Interior, regulates its use through lease area sales and construction permits.

Given slow-rolling progress on both under Donald Trump, the states took the lead. They have invested in port infrastructure, research, and workforce training, while soliciting and awarding capacity 11.6GW to date despite lack of clarity if, or when, contracted projects could win federal approvals to get built.

New England, northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have committed to procure 30GW of capacity by 2035, a hint of the sectors growth potential as it moves to add to the pioneering Block Island project that entered service in 2016 and the two-turbine Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind pilot completed last year.

Amanda Lefton, the New York environmental official Biden appointed as BOEM director, faces two pressing near-term challenges with offshore wind. The first, by her own admission, is to develop efficient and effective processes for reviewing project plans by existing leaseholders. Her second priority is developing an inclusive and expeditious process for identifying areas for potential future lease sales, she says. The last one was in December 2018.

Despite the ongoing challenges, the US is poised for a first wave led by the projects below America's offshore wind pioneers.

Vineyard Wind I

Owners: Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Nameplate capacity: 800MW. Location: south of Massachusetts.

The US flagship large-scale projects 38-month odyssey to secure a federal green light appears to be nearing an end. BOEM on 8 March completed its final environmental review for the $3bn array, a critical step toward expected Record of Decision (RoD) issuance with approval in the second quarter.

The developer would then need to submit two reports covering facility design, fabrication and installation that provide specifics as to how the project will be built and installed in accordance with its Construction and Operations Plan (COP), and best design and engineering practices. If BOEM approves them within a mandatory 60-day review period, as expected, construction can then begin.

Plans call for financial close in second half of 2021 and electricity deliveries to begin in 2023. The project will use between 57 and 62 GE Haliade-X turbines.

South Fork

Owned by Orsted and Eversource Energy. Nameplate capacity: 130MW. Location: south of Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

BOEM recently published a draft environmental review, expects a final version out in August and RoD issuance in January 2022. If favourable, full commercial service is possible as early as Q4 2023.

The commercial fishing industry, which plays an important role in the New England economy, has been critical of BOEMs environmental review process for the project. Potential impacts for the permitting timeline are uncertain. Siemens Gamesa is the turbine supplier. South Fork has a 20-year PPA with Long Island Power Authority (LIPA).

Skipjack

Owned by Orsted. Nameplate capacity: 120MW. Location: east of Delaware.

In 2017, this small project won a 20-year contract from Maryland for offshore wind renewable energy credits (ORECs), the industrys earliest for firm off-take.

Last August, Maryland utility regulators gave the project a major boost when they backed Orsteds controversial decision to switch turbines from an 8MW Siemens Gamesa to the much larger GE Haliade-X at 12MW rating.

BOEM is reviewing the projects COP and opponents will have opportunities to make their case that Skipjack should be moved further out to sea to avoid viewshed impacts at Ocean City and other seaside resorts. Orsted will invest at least $13.2m to stage the project at Sparrows Point near Baltimore. Permitting delays have pushed the in-service date back to Q2 of 2026, the developer confirmed in March.

MarWin

Majority owned by US Wind, a unit of Italys Renexia. Nameplate capacity: 270MW. Location: east of Maryland.

This often-delayed project is gaining momentum under new CEO Jeff Grybowski, an industry pioneer who led development last decade of the 30MW Block Island project, the nations first, in Rhode Island waters. Last August, funds controlled by New York-based Apollo Asset Management took a $265m equity stake.

MarWin, the first European-backed project here, also won Maryland ORECs in 2017, a deal US Wind values at $3.3bn over 20 years. The developer tells Recharge that it is actively evaluating turbine options including the larger, latest generation machines.

BOEM is reviewing the $1.5bn projects COP but there is no indication when it will complete a draft environmental review. Permitting delays have pushed back in-service start several times and the latest early 2023 target appears ambitious.

Revolution Wind

Owned by Orsted and Eversource Energy. Nameplate capacity: 704MW. Location: south of Rhode Island Massachusetts.

This project is unique in having contracted off-take (20 years) with two states. Rhode Island is taking 400MW of capacity and Connecticut 304MW.

The developer filed the projects COP in March 2020 and expects BOEM to release a review schedule this year. Permitting delays have pushed the in-service date to 2024 at the earliest.

Orsted and Eversource have committed $57.5m toward redeveloping State Pier in Connecticuts New London port into a major offshore wind hub with heavy lift capability that will serve Revolution Wind and their other offshore projects in the region.

Ocean Wind

Owned 75% by Orsted, 25% by PSEG. Nameplate capacity: 1.1GW. Location: southeast of New Jersey.

Among the largest US projects, Ocean Wind won a 20-year power supply contract in New Jerseys first competitive solicitation in 2019. Orsted will stage the facility at a new $400m purpose-built offshore wind port on the eastern shore of the Delaware River that Governor Phil Murphy says will begin partial operation by 2023.

German fabrication specialist EEW will supply monopile foundations from a new $250m plant in the Port of Paulsboro scheduled to also open in 2023. Ocean Wind will employ 90 GE Haliade-X turbines at 12MW rating.

Orsted is optimistic that BOEM later this year will set a clear project permitting timeline and advance its COP. The original 2024 in-service date is unlikely to be met, according to Orsted CEO Mads Nipper.

Empire Wind I

Owned 50-50 by BP and Equinor. Nameplate capacity: 816MW. Location: south of Long Island.

Empire Wind I was one of two projects chosen by New York in its inaugural July 2019 competitive offshore wind tender, winning a 25-year contract for ORECs. The lease areas proximity to metropolitan New York City makes it among the most valuable along the east coast. Equinor later sold a 50% interest to BP.

The developer will partner with the state to upgrade part of the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal into a facility to stage and service the project. Gravity-based foundations, towers, and transition pieces will be manufactured by third parties at new plants in the Hudson River ports of Albany and Coeymans.

BOEM has not published a timeline for permitting the project and the original 2024 in-service date is unlikely.

Sunrise Wind

Owned by Orsted and Eversource Energy. Nameplate capacity: 880MW. Location: south of Rhode Island Massachusetts.

The other winner in New Yorks first tender. The project has a 25-year off-take contract for ORECs. Orsted and Eversource expect to create more than 900 jobs annually through development, construction, and initial operation of Sunrise Wind, and will establish an operations and maintenance hub in Port Jefferson, Long Island.

The developer filed the projects COP on 1 September 2020 and expects BOEM to issue a review schedule this year. Commercial start is not anticipated before 2025.

Mayflower Wind.

Owner: Ocean Winds and Shell New Energies. Nameplate capacity: 804MW. Location. South of Massachusetts.

The joint venture set a US industry record by paying $135m in the last federal lease area sale in December 2018. Less than one year later, it won Massachusetts second competitive solicitation, signing a 20-year PPA with a levelised price of $77.76/MWh the lowest for any US offshore wind project thus far.

That should decline to $70.26/MWh, a $25m savings each year for ratepayers, as the developer agreed to convert the 30% value of the federal investment tax credit passed by Congress in December into a price reduction.

BOEM has not published a timeline for permitting the project. The joint venture is targeting commercial start in the mid-2020s.

Park City Wind

Owner: Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Nameplate capacity: 804MW. Location: south of Massachusetts.

Park City was selected by Connecticut after a competitive solicitation in December 2019 and a 20-year PPA is pending approval. The array will supply the equivalent of 14% of the states electric power when potentially in service in 2025.

The joint venture has proposed to re-develop waterfront industrial property in Bridgeport for transition piece steel fabrication and final outfitting for turbine foundations and as a base for operations and maintenance for the project. There would also be heavy-lift barge/vessel loading capability and outdoor lay-down space.

New England Aqua Ventus I

Owners: University of Maine, Diamond Offshore Wind and RWE Renewables. Nameplate capacity: 12MW. Location: Maine state waters.

After numerous setbacks, the nations only industrial-scale floating offshore wind project with firm off-take has new life. With strong political support from Governor Janet Mills, regulators approved a 20-year PPA, while the project obtained a $100m investment pledge from Mitsubishi-owned Diamond Offshore Wind and developer RWE Renewables.

The University of Maine Composites Center, the projects driving force, is targeting 2023 to demonstrate its VolturnUS concept - a multi-patented, modular concrete semisubmersible design that would be the countrys first industrial-scale floating wind project.

UMaines foreign partners will oversee permitting, construction, assembly, and deployment responsibilities. If successful, plans call for development of a 100MW array in deeper federal waters later this decade.

Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind

Owner: Dominion. Nameplate capacity: 2.64GW. Location: east of Virginia.

The nations largest offshore wind project and the most expensive with an estimated $8bn price tag. Dominion, an investor-owned utility, will seek to recover costs from the existing rate base in Virginia as it would any large infrastructure project a first for a developer in the US industry.

The project will consist of three 880MW phases. Dominion anticipates a 2024 construction start and full commercial operation by 2026. It will use Siemens Gamesa 14MW turbines. In December, the company filed a COP with BOEM.

Note: Vineyard Wind and South Fork are the only projects with relatively firm timelines for BOEM to issue a Record of Decision (RoD) to approve or deny a construction permit. New England Aqua Ventus is the only project in state waters but will require BOEM approvals to lay power line under the seabed to link with the onshore grid.

Continued here:

Ocean's Twelve! America's first wave of offshore wind farms starts to build | Recharge - Recharge

In summary

Heres why environmental justice experts and advocates from organized labor think California needs to go all in on offshore wind farms.

Jeff Hunerlach is a district representative at Operating Engineers Local #3, jhunerlach@oe3.org.

Standing on the beach, the giant blades of an offshore wind turbine 20 miles off the coast appear miniscule a white pinprick floating on the blue horizon. But up close, the turbines are massive taller, sometimes, than the Washington Monument and with blades that can span the length of a football field.

The impact of these turbines in transitioning California to 100% clean energy could be massive in just seven seconds, the powerful rotation of a single offshore wind turbine can generate enough renewable electricity to power a home for an entire day.

In Europe, thousands of these turbines spin off the coast of 12 different nations, generating more than 22,000 megawatts of clean, pollution-free electricity. U.S. coastal waters, in contrast, are home to only two offshore wind farms, with a grand total of seven turbines, but President Joe Biden seeks to change that. Earlier this year, the new administration issued an executive order calling for a doubling of the nations offshore wind capacity.

We rely on your generous support to cover the stories that matter most to you. If you find our work valuable in these difficult times, please support our journalism.

Heres why Californias environmental justice experts and advocates from organized labor think California needs to go all in on offshore wind.

In 2021, this multibillion-dollar industry is poised for explosive growth and for the states who move to capitalize on this clean energy resource, the economic and jobs benefits will be enormous. By tapping offshore wind, California could create more than 17,500 good-paying jobs by 2045 in key regions that lack high-skilled job opportunities while also improving air quality in frontline communities and delivering on our promise of 100% clean energy.

The East Coast may have a head start on offshore wind development, but our state is poised to move quickly. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has already initiated the leasing process for three potential offshore wind sites off the coast of California in Humboldt Bay, Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon and two additional sites have been identified in studies for potential future development. If California built all five of these sites to their total generation capacity, they could provide 25% of our electricity needs with clean, pollution-free power.

Developing each of these sites will create thousands of jobs through shovel-ready projects. The first step to development port revitalization can create up to 6,000 local, full-time equivalent jobs per port right off the bat, according to a report from Brightline Defense. And thats just the beginning investing in offshore wind will generate thousands of additional jobs in construction, manufacturing, turbine demonstration and transmission line projects.

Many of the jobs created will require mandated apprenticeship training programs creating new career pathways in the trades for workers who may have been displaced during the COVID-19 downturn. These opportunities will also prepare the states workforce for building, operating and maintaining Californias 100% clean energy electricity grid.

By meeting our electricity needs through clean, pollution-free offshore wind energy, California can also deliver vital air quality improvements in frontline communities. About 78% of Californias gas power plants reside in communities identified by CalEPA as having the states highest burden of poverty and cumulative environmental health burdens.

This legislative session, California policymakers have a fantastic opportunity to advance Californias progress toward 100% clean energy and capitalize on the economic and air quality opportunities by voting to pass Assembly Bill 525, introduced by Assemblymember David Chiu, a Democrat from San Francisco. The bill would set a target of producing 10 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2040.

By investing in offshore wind energy, California can kickstart our economic recovery, create good jobs in hard-hit communities and cut lung-damaging pollution across the state. The Golden State can still lead the nation on offshore wind but we need to move quickly. This opportunity is ours to lose.

Read more here:

California could lead the nation in offshore wind energy - CalMatters

Gov. Mills moratorium on new offshore wind projects in state-managed waters is a dazzling mistake.

Yes, when new ideas are being explored along the coast, all stakeholders including our fishing families need to sit down together at the table. Thats only fair. The ocean is a commons, and it belongs to all of us.

But meanwhile, wind projects elsewhere along the East Coast are gearing up rapidly. Projects in the North Sea are fully 10 years ahead of us. The developers worked closely with their fishing industries, government agencies and other stakeholders and made it right. Today theyre already long since improving the fishing resource, cutting the cost of home energy for everyday citizens and reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Thats a win-win for everyone and theres no reason we cant do it, too.

Existing research shows that wind turbines create a sanctuary for sea life that increases the fish population and benefits the industry. Whats more, the Gulf of Maine has one of the worlds best natural wind resources. Theres cheap energy waiting to be made! Our other big advantage is in the University of Maines floating wind turbines, which work without disturbing the seabed.

Banning offshore wind projects will hurt our economy and jobs and will needlessly delay our much-needed transition to clean energy. Lets not do that. Acidification and warming of the Gulf are much more significant threats to the industry than wind turbines.

Theres a better future straight ahead for all of us.

George SimonsonHarpswell

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Read more:

Letter to the editor: Maine moratorium on offshore wind projects a mistake - pressherald.com

Standing on the beach, the giant blades of an offshore wind turbine 20 miles off the coast appear miniscule a white pinprick floating on the blue horizon. But up close, the turbines are massive taller, sometimes, than the Washington Monument and with blades that can span the length of a football field.

The impact of these turbines in transitioning California to 100% clean energy could be massive in just seven seconds, the powerful rotation of a single offshore wind turbine can generate enough renewable electricity to power a home for an entire day.

In Europe, thousands of these turbines spin off the coast of 12 different nations, generating more than 22,000 megawatts of clean, pollution-free electricity. U.S. coastal waters, in contrast, are home to only two offshore wind farms, with a grand total of seven turbines, but President Joe Biden seeks to change that. Earlier this year, the new administration issued an executive order calling for a doubling of the nations offshore wind capacity.

Heres why Californias environmental justice experts and advocates from organized labor think California needs to go all in on offshore wind.

In 2021, this multibillion-dollar industry is poised for explosive growth and for the states who move to capitalize on this clean energy resource, the economic and jobs benefits will be enormous. By tapping offshore wind, California could create more than 17,500 good-paying jobs by 2045 in key regions that lack high-skilled job opportunities while also improving air quality in frontline communities and delivering on our promise of 100% clean energy.

Read the original:

Eddie Ahn and Jeff Hunerlach: California could lead the nation in offshore wind energy - Lompoc Record

Published in the Marine Policy journal, its authors argue that offshore aquaculture growth depends on whether aquaculture stakeholders and policymakers can balance growth goals alongside social and ecological trade-offs.

Aquaculture has huge growth potential in the US it currently accounts for only 8 percent of domestic seafood production. Proponents of the EO say that the deregulation will make the US aquaculture industry more competitive and seize offshore production opportunities. However, the EO came at a challenging time for the US seafood sector. Unresolved trade wars and the Covid-19 pandemic meant that the industry was restructuring. Imagining the upshots of a new EO is difficult. There is a chance that, if aquaculture expands without proper oversight, it could undermine environmental gains and lose public support.

Turbulent might be the best way to characterise 2020 for the US seafood sector. An on-going trade war with China meant that the US was cut off from the worlds largest seafood consumer. The start of the Covid-19 pandemic in March of that year was another body blow for the sector. The lockdowns and closure of the food service sector caused huge economic losses. The researchers estimate that 75 percent of seafood consumption in the US takes place in restaurants fish and shellfish farmers had to quickly adapt their business models to stay in the black.

For many finfish producers, this meant shifting from restaurant to retail sales while shellfish farmers either downsized or delayed selling their crops until the pandemic reached a low ebb. Though the federal government provided pandemic relief with the $1.8 trillion CARES Act, only 0.017 percent of the aid money went to aquaculture producers.

The researchers highlighted five ways to ensure the EO balances the social and ecological trade-offs of the deregulated industry.

The EO calls for fisheries to increase catch levels while maintaining sustainability targets this is easier said than done. Currently, 85 percent of wild-caught fisheries are fished at, or near, maximum sustainable levels. Deregulation needs to be strategic and specific to achieve both goals. From the researchers perspective, changes in regulation might make fisheries more profitable, but increasing wild production may not be feasible.

Before the EO, fisheries and aquaculture activities were managed by two separate agencies, NOAA and USDA. Putting both sectors within the remit of NOAA gives the agency the opportunity to adopt an integrated management approach, specifically an ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA).

This model prioritises ecosystem health, community well-being, profitability and overall environmental health when developing aquaculture projects. Managing aquaculture this way is crucial: well-managed and spatially planned fish farms can reduce environmental impacts. Ill-executed developments will degrade the surrounding ecosystem.

Public pushback against new aquaculture projects has been a hallmark of the industry for years. Despite high consumption of imported farmed seafood in the US, many communities remain resistant to local fish and shellfish farms. Industry-led efforts to improve aquacultures public image havent been hugely successful either.

For the EO to achieve its goals, aquaculture development must include local stakeholders in decision-making. The researchers urged the industry to think of the social carrying capacity of communities to minimise objections to new developments. In their view, NOAA is well-equipped to manage these interests when selecting potential sites.

The EOs clause concerning suitable reporting from aquaculture operators is a welcome one. Aquaculture rules vary between states and there arent any uniform production standards at the federal level. Federal reporting occurs in five-year census increments theres a gap in the national aquaculture data.

Creating a reporting mechanism that tracks annual production and on-farm metrics like feed sources, efficiencies, survival rates and environmental indicators would help aquaculture establish a baseline and build towards future success. The researchers believe that strong data collection will build public confidence and allow secondary industries (like processing and insurance) to thrive.

One unanticipated consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic has been an increase in food nationalism and a renewed focus on the US seafood deficit. This growing concern could be a stumbling block for the EO and the Seafood Trade Task Force.

The Task Force needs to maintain the support of sustainable aquaculture producers while gaining access to lucrative foreign markets. The aquaculture market is global protectionism tends to punish consumers and frustrate growth. Despite its status as the top seafood importer, the US is also among the top five seafood exporters. Identifying opportunities in foreign markets drives the industrys expansion and will make the US food system more resilient going forward.

Read more about this assessment in Marine Policy.

See the article here:

Ensuring the sustainable growth of the US offshore aquaculture sector - The Fish Site

Now, the Boston area is known the world over for its biopharmaceutical innovations, he said. We must pursue the same strategy to make Massachusetts the leader of our clean-energy future.

Mariano made the promise during a speech on Thursday to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. In pre-pandemic times, these annual speeches gave the House speaker an opportunity to highlight legislative priorities of interest to the business community. This one was no different, though it was Marianos first major speech outside of the Legislature in his new role he took over for longtime speaker Robert DeLeo roughly three months ago and it took place via videoconference, as opposed to in a hotel ballroom.

Mariano rattled off a long list of legislative actions in the past year to help businesses endure the COVID-19 pandemic: providing tax relief for recipients of federal stimulus payments, giving restaurants permissin to sell mixed alcoholic drinks to go, and allowing notarization of legal transactions.

The subject that received the most attention on Thursday, though, was offshore wind farm development. The 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project is close to receiving its final federal permit, he said, and the 62-turbine project south of Marthas Vineyard could provide enough power for more than 400,000 homes.

That project is the direct result of a 2016 state law requiring major electric utilities to buy up to 1,600 megawatts worth of offshore wind power. The Legislature essentially doubled that amount in 2018, and it just passed a new climate bill that would bring the total to 5,600 megawatts in offshore wind capacity.

Mariano told the chamber the state cant stop there. He said the House will include $10 million in its budget proposal for the next fiscal year for the quasi-public Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to prioritize job-training programs that will prepare workers for offshore wind farm construction. That money would be on top of $12 million of additional ratepayer funds allocated for the MassCEC in the climate bill. (Most of the agencys $27 million in revenue this fiscal year is coming from an electric ratepayer surcharge.)

Mariano has asked Representative Jeff Roy, the House chair of the energy committee, to focus on improving the states wind-energy workforce.

Mariano also said he plans to authorize a large-scale bonding effort to establish the South Coast as a regional hub for the wind-energy industry. This effort would build on the offshore wind terminal that the MassCEC constructed with state funds in New Bedford. It could also address concerns raised by South Coast leaders that the states bidding approach isnt doing enough to encourage economic development in the region, especially when compared to criteria used in other states when evaluating offshore wind bids.

The House speaker said offshore wind is just one of many industries that could be held back by a mismatch of skills in the workforce. Toward that end, Mariano said he will work to establish a formal skills-credentialing system, possibly with the help of federal stimulus funds, to launch careers for people who choose not to pursue traditional college degrees and to spur educated professionals to refine their skills. He didnt provide any details about the next steps he would like the Legislature to take toward this goal.

But Mariano did offer a strong endorsement for another nascent industry: sports betting. The House last year had approved legislation to legalize sports betting as part of an economic development bill, but it was dropped in negotiations over the broader bill because Senate leaders wanted to address the issue separately.

Mariano said he remains hopeful that taxes on sports bets could bring in more than $50 million in annual revenue to the state. He will continue to support legislation to create in-person and mobile sports-betting licenses for the casinos and tracks in the state, as well as for the Boston fantasy-sports company DraftKings. It offers sports betting in 14 states, but not Massachusetts.

DraftKings was created here, theyve stayed here, and theyve grown here, Mariano said. Its time Massachusetts allows them a future here.

Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jonchesto.

Original post:

House speaker vows to increase states investment in offshore wind energy - BetaBoston