The future of renewable energy

Last Friday, Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior released its Draft Programatic Environmnetal Impact Statement for the Outer Continental Shelf. This means that the federal government has taken its first step in formulating national policy for offshore renewables. The outer continental shelf or OCS is commonly defined as waters beyond the 3 mile coastal jurisdiction of states to 200 hundred miles offshore. The following passages appear in the Editorial “A Poor Start” in today's Cape Cod Times.

For five years, we have been promoting an ocean zoning policy, a comprehensive plan to protect certain offshore areas from commercial development. While the commercial development of specific areas of federal waters is appropriate for renewable energy projects, the federal government, in consultation with state and local agencies and other stakeholders, should identify key areas that are off limits to development.

We believe that state and federal governments should zone ocean tracts for the offshore wind industry in a similar way. Just as a power plant would be inappropriate on the Cape Cod National Seashore, a wind farm is inappropriate on Nantucket Sound.

For the entire story, click here.

Cape Cod Commission Public Meeting on Cape Wind

At roughly 6:30 tonight, the Cape Cod Commission will be holding a public meeting on the Cape Wind Energy Project Final Environmental Impact Report. The public comments are expected to address the adequacy of Cape Wind’s FEIR, as this document is to guide state agencies through the permitting process.

I suspect that Cape Wind supporters will have nothing productive to add the content of this meeting. I will even venture to say with some certainty that all Cape Wind and Clean Power Now supporters will drone on and on about “how long the FEIR is” and that “5,000 pages in enough” and that “6 years has been long enough”. I would much prefer to hear about specific sections of the FEIR and discuss how they are adequate. Unfortunately for them, that just isn’t possible because the FEIR is an inadequate document. Look at the report on fishing, look at the bird surveys! Look at the whole damn thing!

Despite all of this I am hopeful that project opponents such as the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Mass Fisherman’s Partnership, and elected officials will come out in full force and share the FEIR’s inadequacies with the Commission. There is plenty to work with.

Don't Be Fooled...Cape Wind Won't Stop Global Warming

Supporters of the Cape Wind project would have an uninformed public believe that Jim Gordon’s “Vision” of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound is a serious step towards curbing the effects of global warming. Bottom line is that this project would have negligible effects on curbing global carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, the looming eco-apocalypse that will swallow Cape Cod whole is already unfolding. If you don’t believe me, check the latest report from the IPCC. We do not need Cape Wind to stop global warming. It is a pipe-dream to begin to think we can stop global warming; its effects will unfold for over the course of this century, and likely spill over into the next. If sea-levels are going to rise, it is not because of the valiant fight put up in opposition to this project, it is because humans have steadily increased emissions of greenhouse gases since the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

Enter your search terms Submit search form

All this doomsday talk does not mean that there is no hope, but it should put this debate about the placement of this particular project into context. One industrial power plant in Nantucket Sound will not address global warming. It will ruin a place that has and continues to define Cape Cod and the Islands. It will kill birds and disrupt benthic habitats. It does pose a navigational safety hazard to boat and avian traffic. It will cost taxpayers over a billion dollars in subsidies over the life of the project. Too often this debate is polarized by supporters who define all opposition as NIMBY. I believe that these people do not want to talk about the real issues at hand because they know their oppositions’ issues are legitimate and deserve consideration.

I do not doubt that the United States is in need of offshore-renewable energy, and offshore wind appears to be viable, as illustrated by our neighbors across the pond. When Jim Gordon proposed this project in 2001, it was one of a kind. Little has changed since then, and Cape Wind still stands to become the first off-shore wind farm in the United States. For many, the logical thing to do is to sink our teeth into the promise of offshore wind, and get something in the water. Unfortunately, the public is faced with a false choice when it comes to supporting a particular wind project – there is only one to choose! Why is this? Because Minerals Management Service, the government agency now in charge of writing the rules and regulations for all offshore renewable energy on the outer continental shelf of the United States, is still in its rulemaking process. You wouldn’t start spending your own money building a house that the government could tear down half way through. Can we honestly expect renewable energy developers to waste their own dollars in the same fashion? No. And we shouldn’t. The appropriate course of action is to wait and see what alternatives there are to Cape Wind. This will happen, but we have to be patient.

(photo from cjohnson7)

Demystifying the permitting of offshore wind farms

Wind power, and particularly offshore wind, continues to be cited as a clean and green way to generate electricity. Offshore technology has been realized in Europe, but has met serious opposition (and much support too) in the United States. The permitting process has been a slow and complex here in the United States as illustrated by Cape Wind Associate’s proposal to construct 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound. Though the project began in 2001, it is still over a year away from being permitted. Despite this lengthy time table, now is an opportune time to jump in and examine the complexities of permitting offshore renewable energy in the United States.

Minerals Management Service is the leading federal agency in permitting all offshore renewable energy in United States. States, the US Coast Guard, the FAA, the Department of Defense, and others also have the task of reviewing project proposals. This brings us to the most recent development in the permitting process here in the United States.

The recent release of Cape Wind Associates 5,000 page Final Environmental Impact Review (FEIR) to the state of Massachusetts has come before the release of Minerals Management Service’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the project.

This statement may mean nothing to you, but if you are interested in the future of offshore wind power in the United States you should be paying attention.

By releasing their FEIR to the state of Massachusetts, Cape Wind Associates has triggered a 30-day public comment period, which ends in eleven short days (March 22nd 2007). At the end of the comment period, Massachusetts has seven days to decide if the FEIR includes all information relevant to the public and appropriately assesses the scope of the proposed project. If Massachusetts finds the FEIR to be adequate, state agencies will be required to use the FEIR as the guiding document in their permit review.

Though the filing of the FEIR means that the permitting process is moving forward, it seems that Cape Wind is pushing forward without all relevant information. The filing of this document has come before the release of several other key documents from federal agencies that include the United States Coast Guard, the FAA, the Department of Defense, and Minerals Management Service. With several key documents not yet filed, it does not seem possible for the FEIR to contain all relevant information about the project. If the state of Massachusetts finds this document adequate, state agencies will have to move forward and make decisions when data is missing.

In 2005, Ellen Roy Herzfelder, former Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, asked that Cape Wind associates wait for federal agencies to file key documents before proceeding at the state level. She writes, “I believe coordinated review is a good government practice, both in terms of allowing for maximum public and agency understanding of the project and to ensure that review by regulatory agencies is as efficient as possible.”

In addition to recognizing the importance of a coordinated state and federal review process, Cape Wind Associates are asking the public to read and respond to a 5,000 page document in just 30 days. Stakeholders are asking that Cape Wind Associates withdraw their FEIR until federal agencies release their key documents, and are also calling for the public comment period to be extended sixty more days.

If Massachusetts finds the FEIR “adequate” it is likely that Cape Wind will run a press release claiming victory. Not so fast. Though this would be a step forward in the projects permitting process, it only gives state agencies a framework to review the project.

The state of Massachusetts and all federal agencies reviewing the project still need to report their findings and grant Cape Wind a permit before the project is built. All said, do not expect a final decision to come down until sometime in 2008.

Value conflict on the road to energy

The future of the environmental movement is in energy. With world population on the rise, a climbing domestic GDP, and India and China emerging as major players in the global market economy, the environmental movement must navigate an increasingly nuanced energy crisis. Ostensibly, the environmental battle of the future is waged against mining, drilling antienvironmentalists. However, upon closer examination, the true battle is one among environmentalists struggling to protect not only the planet but also the concept of place. Thus, while crusading against the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, the movement must simultaneously withstand a potentially divisive ideological conflict between environmentalists who seek to save Earth from global warming with the development of renewable energy, and those who want to protect specific places.

One of these places is Nantucket Sound. In 2001, New England energy developer Jim Gordon began plans to construct a power plant in the heart of Nantucket Sound. Fast forward to 2007, the so-called Cape Wind proposal has spawned trench warfare between environmentalists who favor renewable energy development in Nantucket Sound and environmentalists who contend that the costs of altering the cultural, historical, and aesthetic integrity of the Sound outweigh the benefits of Cape Wind. Disharmony amid environmental values has forced members of the movement to make difficult choices about the use and preservation of Earth’s resources. And yet, there is no silver bullet to trump global warming, keep the earth pristine, and increase energy production.

I believe that is it the task of the environmental movement is to address demands for cleaner energy without abandoning the places that communities have been built around. Nantucket Sound defines the culture, history, and character of our communities on Cape Cod. The Sound is a place in inherent worth and intrinsic value. We cannot allow this sacred place to become the home of an industrial powerplant.