Conflicts and Solutions: Politics and Fisheries

David Etnier of Maine's Dept. of Marine Resources opens his talk with a recollection of the proposal to site an LNG terminal in his hometown of Harpswell: "it started out divisive, became acrimonious, and on the day of the special election there were bomb threats called in to the polling place." Process is important; having "big amounts of money on the table brings out the worst in people."

He's also talking about the state's process in siting and approving leases for aquaculture projects - another relatively new phenomenon that required a new regulatory framework. He seconds Deerin Babb-Brott's comments on the importance of earning the public trust.

Will Hopkins, of the Cobscook Bay Resource Center in Eastport, focused on strengthening communtiy-based approaches to resource management. His organization includes the primary spokesman opposing LNG development in Passamaquoddy Bay, as well as the main proponent for the project from the tribe. "It got quite heated" in board meetings: the board recalled the extremely divisive Pittston oil refinery debate 30 years ago, and resolved that the organization would neither support or oppose the project, but provide good information on ecology and economic development in the area.

In eastern Maine, a recent study by the the Electric Power Research Institute estimated the potential for as much as a gigawatt of electricity. Besides Sauer's Ocean Renewable Power Co. (heard from earlier today), there are other proposals in the works as well: here's a 2006 Working Waterfront article on the EPRI study and another tidal power proposal.

Last but not least is John Meschino, a lobsterman from Hull, MA. They had their own LNG proposal recently - Meschino's daughter, chair of the board of selectmen, wrote to the developers and told them that if they could prove why their town needed them, they would open discussions. "The developers never came back," he says with some satisfaction. No bomb threats necessary. Pictured below: one of Hull's turbines with the Boston skyline beyond.



Hull has its own power company, which generates its own power with two onshore wind turbines. With research and feasibility study support from the state, Hull is now considering four additional ocean-based turbines, 1.5 miles east of Nantasket Beach. Here's a Globe article on the proposal. As a lobsterman, Meschino wonders about the effects of electromagnetic fields from ocean transmission lines on groundfish like lobsters.

Conflicts and Solutions: Birds, Carbon

After lunch, the panel discussion will docus on environmental risks and mitigation for offshore renewable projects. What role can collaborative community-based planning play?

First up is Stewart Fefer of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bird concentration areas, flyways, and seasonal nesting or breeding areas are of particular concern. Thousands of offshore surveys have been conducted in the Gulf of Maine thanks to interest in past decades in offshore oil exploration.

Over lunch I was able to download some images from the morning's presentations. Here's the previously-mentioned map of bird flight paths before and after an offshore wind project:



Fefer points out that birds' avoidance of turbines may be problematic if turbines block bird migration corridors.

Fefer's final recommendations to developers: Avoid bird concentration areas and mitigate by addressing other challenges to bird populations: overfishing of birds' food supplies, collisions between birds and ships, extirpation, etcetera.

Next up is Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. He's talking about the need to keep the big picture in mind - our obsolete energy infrastructure, our carbon emissions crisis, air toxins from coal burning - in addition to the consideration of little-picture impacts caused by construction of wind or ocean turbines.

NRCM: We need as much low-carbon generation as possible to lower the overall impact. Wind power is part of the solution.

Eight projects in the pipeline for Maine: two permitted and about to begin construction (Stetson and Kibby Mountain). Successful projects have mitigation strategies: Stetson appeased fishing guides by protecting a local watershed and contributing to a land trust; Kibby Mt. agreed to protect sensitive alpine zones nearby.

They're opening it up for questions after those two questions ... please comment if you'd like to participate from wherever you are.

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office: Deerin Babb-Brott

Deerin Babb-Brott of Massachusetts's Environmental Policy Office is up next. He grew up down the road in Camden.

He begins with two points:

Regulations need context.

This is not about science and technology, but about public trust.

I suspect that the latter point might have grown out of his state's experience with Cape Wind. The former, I hope, is a reference to some bureaucrats' and activists' tendency to lose the big-picture value of renewable projects: sure, a wind turbine might disturb a few square meters of ocean floor, but it's also displacing the need to burn tons of fossil fuels somewhere else upwind from us. I'm reminded of people here in Maine who treat land-based wind power projects as though they were equivalent to Wal-Mart stores, and protest the projects based on the fact that wind turbine construction requires the removal of some trees and the reconstruction of some logging roads.

He notes that MA has resolved differences and gained the public's trust for two new liquefied LNG terminals, thanks to extraordinary mitigation measures. Wind power projects have not successfully gained the public trust, even though most would probably agree that wind power is environmentally preferable to burning natural gas.

Gov. Patrick signed the MA Oceans Act of 2008 a few weeks ago: a comprehensive plan for state waters management, support renewable energy development, and balance natural resource preservation with traditional and new uses. A plan will be drafted by summer 2009, with final plan scheduled to be complete by Dec. 31, 2009.

NOAA and Fisheries presentation

Now someone from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is pinch-hitting a presentation about marine fisheries regulations. He begins with a slide with seven or eight different laws that govern NOAA's evaluation of marine power projects.

He says that his agency's main need in evaluating ocean energy projects is more information on how renewable energy projects affect marine environments. He repeats a recurring theme from these agencies: we're still learning how to regulate these kinds of projects.

The big, overarching regulation is NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA typically requires an Environmenal Assessment or Impact Statement for major projects in the federal government's jurisdiction.

NEPA requires the collection of good baseline data, along with an evaluation of all the probable effects and impacts that a project will have. These might include invasive species, noise, or alteration of hydrology, temperature, or salinity.

"[In] our review of the Cape Wind project... we didn't have a tremendous number of concerns about that project. Offshore wind projects may be a rather benign activity in terms of impact on fisheries. But we don't know what kind of impacts they'll have once they're built. We'll see once they're in the water."

"Quality data needs to be collected before, during and after project installation."

FERC presentation

Now it's FERC's turn to present, with Kristen Murphy here from Washington, DC to represent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. She points out the fact that FERC licenses hydropower projects, which include wave generators and tidal turbines, but not wind turbines.

She's describing FERC's permitting and license process now. Steel yourself for some hardcore bureaucracy: first FERC offers a preliminary permit for feasibility studies and to let the project developers move forward with financing, etc. Then, presuming all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, FERC issues a final permit authorizing construction. You also need an operating license, as with hydro dams, which are renewed every 30-50 years.

No license is required for experimental, short-term studies that don't transmit into the grid. The Roosevelt Island tidal power project in the East River satisfied these criteria during its testing phase, so no license was needed.

As with MMS, FERC is still trying to figure out its position and authority re: wave and tidal energy projects. They're also very open to collaboration with the industry (says Murphy the FERC employee).

Here's FERC's white paper on FERC's hydrokinetic pilot project licensing.

MMS presentation

Maureen Bornholdt manages the federal government's Minerals Management Service's alternative energy program. She's discussing the agency's interim policy on offshore renewable energy development. MMS typically leases federal offshore waters for oil and gas development; recent interest in offshore renewable technology has led MMS to adopt a new, interim policy to govern short-term leases for renewable energy projects. When a comprehensive long-term policy is finalized, MMS will offer longer-term commercial leases for offshore projects.

MMS has also designated offshore regions as priority areas for offshore renewable energy research, and has already received applications for 16 projects in those waters. The closest one to us in Maine is in the Cape Cod channel, where tidal currents may make underwater tidal current turbines commercially feasible.

Bornholdt emphasizes that their agency is expediting the process to approve a finalized policy.

Chris Sauer, Ocean Renewable Power Co.

Sauer is developing two tidal power projects in western Maine with Ocean Renewable Power. He cites excellent relationships with the local community, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the economic development potential (which is particularly important is rural eastern Maine - Washington Co. is Maine's poorest county).

Sauer also refers to the complications of regulation. Most significantly, he says, the complicated regulatory framework creates uncertainty for investors, and makes venture capital funding especially difficult to acquire. Ocean Renewable Power, as a tidal power development company, is involved in both technological research and development (refining new tidal technology) and in developing commercial power projects in the Bay of Fundy.

He also thanks and cites the helpfulness and collaboration received from Maine's DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. "We were able to obtain permits in record time."

Sauer closed his presentation with a video of his company's first tidal turbine in Eastport.

Sean O'Neill, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition

O'Neill covers some similar points - ocean power's proximity to consumers, the complexity of regulations. His major point was about the twin agency mandates of FERC and MMS (the Minerals Management Service), both of which have jurisdiction over ocean energy development. Both agencies would like to help develop offshore power, but having both involved complicates regulatory hurdles significantly and generates considerable uncertainty.

www.oceanrenewable.com/.

Peter Mandelstam, Bluewater Wind

Mendelstam works for Bluewater Wind, a company working on developing an offshore project 11 miles off the coast of Delaware. He notes the increasing acceptance and respect his company is getting from the larger energy industry.

Peter kicks things off with a densely-packed slide of text - all of the regulatory hurdles and permits necessary to complete an offshore project. He says this isn't necessarily a problem - in the end, all of these studies will prove the worthiness of an offshore project. But the vetting process could stand to be streamlined.

He also put up a striking slide - can't find the picture on the web, unfortunately - of bird flight paths before and after an offshore wind project in Denmark. Before, flight paths were random and scattered throughout the monitoring area. After, birds' paths followed diagonal paths through the wind farm. "Birds aren't stupid," says Mandelstam. They know how to avoid turbines. He cites studies that find fewer than 1 bird strike per turbine per year. More important than individual birds, though, is the viability of entire bird populations at risk thanks to climate change, mercury, and other fossil-fuel externalities.

His proposed project in Chesapeake Bay could have a $200 million -plus direct economic impact for Delaware workers.

Musial wrap-up

Musial is confident that deepwater technology will converge on a preferred, cost-effective engineering solution in the near future.

Dept. of Energy predicts that wind power will provide 20% of US energy by 2030. Offshore wind will need to be a part of that target.

In conclusion: 100 companies are now pursuing wind and tidal energy projects - no tech. conversion yet exists. No commercial projects, either - will require capital investments.

Shallow water wind will develop first, then deepwater, offshore wind. But the technology will need to converge first.

Walter Musial, National Renewable Energy Labs

Musial comes to us from Golden, CO. His talk is going to focus on some of the available and emerging ocean-based energy technologies.

He begins with a population density map of the continental US. Of course, most of the nation's biggest cities and population clusters are coastal (or near the Great Lakes).

He begins with a discussion of some of the "hydrokinetic" technology under development. Because the technology is new, a number of different designs are being tested - there are open rotors that look like underwater wind turbines, as well as smaller units shrouded in tubes.

Wave energy is even more diverse in design. The Pelamis is a "floating snake" that compresses and pumps hydraulic fluid through a turbine as a wave runs along its length. Others use floating buoys (pictured) in which a wave moves a magnet up and down through a coil to create current. Breakwater-like "terminator" generators collect and focus wave energy into a single, central turbine.

Onto offshore wind: advantages include no visual complaints, and easier to transport huge rotors by sea than by road.

1135 MW of offshore wind power are installed in Europe - mostly in GB and Denmark. Targets are 40 GW by 2020, 150 GW by 2030. Offshore projects can utilize huge turbines: 5 megawatt turbines are going up in Scotland.

Cost factors include turbine supply, construction costs, exchange rates (the weak dollar makes turbine technology more affordable in Europe).

Offshore projects in development: about a dozen projects proposed, none built yet. There are essentially only 2 firms that can supply offshore equipment: Siemens and Vestas. Both are European companies (another strike against us, with our weak dollar).

Maine has 133 gigawatts in potential deep-water offshore turbine development. 6.4 gigawatts in shallow water (0 to 30 meters deep). So far, technology only exists for fixed-foundation turbines in water up to 30 meters deep. Deepwater technology would probably rely on floating-platform technology.

John Kerry, Office of Energy Independence

John Kerry, the director of Maine’s Office of Energy Independence and Security, is now speaking, starting out with arguments about why Maine, a small state, still has a role and a responsibility in the global climate crisis.

He's declaring the interests of energy policy in economic development policy. He's presenting a 50-year vision: here in 2008, we're inside of a "fossil culture." He's envisioning a transition to a "conservation culture" by 2015. Dramatic increases in fuel costs, 80% - 100%, are already helping that transition, of course.

Kerry also talks about the importance of improving transmission infrastructure. Huge renewable projects are happening in the Maritime provinces to our north: we're in the middle of these projects, but our existing transmission grid still puts Maine at the "end of the line."

As energy prices increase, the economic development potential of conservation and efficiency programs becomes stronger. Kerry mentions Katahdin Paper, and the potential of developing a cutting-edge "trigeneration" (electricity, heating, and cooling) power plant there. He estimates the payback for such a project at 5 years.

The state is still pursuing biofuels - Kerry makes an important distinction that we're researching cellulosic ethanol made from wood pulp. While this is less harmful than corn-based ethanol, I still have my doubts, personally. A recent study from Iowa ag economists declared that cellulosic ethanol may never be commercially viable. Here's an alternative, more optimistic view from biofuels investor Vinod Khosla.

Here's a looming problem: Maine is 80% dependent on fossil oil for heating. Kerry has a target to bring Maine's proportion of heating by oil down to 25%. He mentions the formation of an ironically-named "Pre-Emergency" task force on the costs of heating oil in Maine (I think that many people would argue that it's too late for a "pre" emergency task force).

Kerry just put up a map of regional wind development sites and transmission lines, from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to James Bay to New York. Maine is a big blank white space in the middle, scattered with potential sites for wind power development. I'll try to find another copy of the map to post here in a moment...

Kerry wraps by citing his experience with the Catholic Charities of Maine, and telling us that Maine has a "moral obligation" to help Mainers address these energy problems.