The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Q&A

Why Offshore Wind Might Survive in the South

A conversation with Katharine Kollins of the Southeastern Wind Coalition

Katherine Kollins
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Katharine Kollins of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, an advocacy group that supports offshore wind development in the American Southeast. I wanted to talk with Katherine about whether there are any silver linings in the offshore wind space, and to my surprise she actually had one! Here’s to hope springing eternal – and Trump leaving Coastal Virginia intact.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

Tell me about the Southeast. What does offshore wind look like there?

The Southeast is interesting. In Virginia, we have a project that is more in the first mover status – the very large Coastal Virginia wind project – which is already under construction.

As you move further south, I would say all of those projects are later stage than what we see in the Northeast. We get a taste of both of those project stages and how the current administration is affecting them. I believe that the Coastal Virginia wind project will continue construction. They’re already a year and a half into a three year phase of construction. That project is expected to be generating electricity next year.

What about the rest?

The rest – no other project has an offtake agreement in the Southeast. North Carolina is getting closer to defining an offtake agreement through the state’s carbon plan process. That’s a back and forth between Duke Energy and the North Carolina Utilities Commission to produce a least-cost electricity portfolio that also gradually reduces the state’s carbon emissions, and offshore wind is as far in that process as we have ever seen in the state. Right now, the utility is responsible for issuing an acquisition RFI (request for information) – it does put the request out there for the developers in the lease areas off of North Carolina and ask them to submit rough estimates for what their projects might cost to be included in Duke’s portfolio. They’re in the process of that and it needs to wrap up by July 1st.

Before we move on to Coastal Virginia, is it your hope this state level effort further south is able to progress through Trump?

Yes. Even in a best case scenario, we’re still looking at a 2032 or 2033 [completion date]. I still think that’s possible.

Have you seen similar conflicts in the Southeast over stuff like wildlife that we see in the Northeast?

We certainly hear those arguments but they don’t come out as strongly. That could be because projects just aren’t as far along as they are in the Northeast – we don’t have any cable landing sites yet. Our projects are all further offshore than many of those in the Northeast, so they don’t come with the same visual impact concerns which is helpful.

I think as we get further in the development process, certainly there will be more conversations around those things but part of what our organization does as well is come in early and try to talk to folks so there’s more information out there for citizens to understand what offshore wind might really mean, what it might feel like, what it might mean for the economy and the environment – before we start choosing a cable landing site. We’ve got a good runway here.

On Coastal Virginia, my concern is that there seems to be enough time for some shenanigans to go on. Is it just your hope here that the project is able to continue without impediment?

I would say hope but it’s also reasonable-ness. This project has already invested $6 billion of ratepayer funds to generate 2,600 megawatts of electricity. To pull the plug on that would mean the federal government was telling Virginians that even though they spent $6 billion dollars to build clean energy development off their coast, the federal government could step in and take that away.

I don’t think that is a reasonable thing to do. So my hope is that the project is able to continue construction and generate that clean electricity for Virginians.

You’ve seen too, a lot of support – bipartisan support – for CVOW. Jen Kiggans, the congresswoman from the Hampton Roads area, has been more outspoken than many in Congress about the importance of the economic value of the CVOW project as well as the need for new electricity and the demand this project is going to help meet.

Have you found in light of the recent election that organizations like yourself are helpful for offshore wind development, and do you feel like more voices are needed to speak out on what the Trump administration has done? We haven’t seen any litigation or blue states in the Northeast stridently or forcefully go to bat yet.

I think there’s many issues folks are grappling with right now and deciding where to put their political capital. Those processes are still under way. There are so many places to focus our attention right now and just a lot on Congress’ plate right now, so they’ve got to figure out which issues they are going to spend the most time on. And what’s winnable for them.

There are a lot of things folks are focused on right now. And maybe that’s part of the plan – spread our people’s ability to speak, or dilute the ability to speak. If you look at the trade associations and NGOs working on offshore wind, we’re working harder than ever. We are consistently looking at, who do we get the message out to about the benefits of offshore wind?

When you think beyond the organizations like ours that speak explicitly to the benefits of offshore wind – could we use more? Always. You can always use more voices speaking out about an energy technology that is very much part of our future, part of our economic and environmental future, and I don’t think you could have too many people speaking out in favor of offshore wind.

If we’re thinking about politicians, right now there’s a lot on people’s plate. The dust has yet to settle.

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

The Blast Radius of Interior’s Anti-Renewables Order Could Be Huge

Solar and wind projects will take the most heat, but the document leaves open the possibility for damage to spread far and wide.

Wetlands, Donald Trump, and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s still too soon to know just how damaging the Interior Department’s political review process for renewables permits will be. But my reporting shows there’s no scenario where the blast radius doesn’t hit dozens of projects at least — and it could take down countless more.

Last week, Interior released a memo that I was first to report would stymie permits for renewable energy projects on and off of federal lands by grinding to a halt everything from all rights-of-way decisions to wildlife permits and tribal consultations. At minimum, those actions will need to be vetted on a project-by-project basis by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the office of the Interior deputy secretary — a new, still largely undefined process that could tie up final agency actions in red tape and delay.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Idaho’s Lava Ridge Wind Farm Faces a New Fight in Congress

We’re looking at battles brewing in New York and Ohio, plus there’s a bit of good news in Virginia.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Idaho — The LS Power Lava Ridge wind farm is now facing a fresh assault, this time from Congress — and the Trump team now seems to want a nuclear plant there instead.

  • House Republicans this week advanced an Interior Department appropriations bill that would indefinitely halt federal funding for any permits related to the proposed wind facility “unless and until” the president reviews all of its permits issued under the Biden administration. Biden had completed permitting right before Trump took office.
  • Trump had already ordered a stop to construction on the project as part of a Day 1 flurry of executive orders. But if this policy rider becomes law, it could effectively handcuff any future president after Trump from allowing Lava Ridge to move forward.
  • While Democrats tend to view riders like these unfavorably and attempt to get rid of them, government funding packages require 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster, which often means partisan policies from funding bills passed by previous Congresses are challenging to get rid of and can stick around for long stretches of time.
  • By that same logic, one would assume that the need to hit that 60 number now requires Democrats, so wouldn’t they need them and want to ditch this rider? Except one thing: it is exceedingly likely given past congressional fights that the party’s right flank in the House requests fresh concessions. Policy riders like these become chits in that negotiation – and I do expect this one to be an easy sop for this flank given the executive order is already in place.
  • There’s also the whole matter of whether LS Power will try to proceed with this project under a future president amidst increasing pressure on the company. That’s likely why Sawtooth Energy, an energy developer interested in building new small modular nuclear reactors, is now eyeing the project site.

2. Suffolk County, New York — A massive fish market co-op in the Bronx is now joining the lawsuit to stop Equinor’s offshore Empire Wind project, providing anti-wind activists a powerful new ally in the public square.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How to Fight Back Against Anti-Renewable Activists

Getting local with Matthew Eisenson of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The Fight Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Matthew Eisenson at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Eisenson is a legal expert and pioneer in the field of renewable energy community engagement whose work on litigating in support of solar and wind actually contributed to my interest in diving headlong into this subject after we both were panelists at the Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference last year. His team at the Sabin Center recently released a report outlining updates to their national project tracker, which looks at various facility-level conflicts at the local level.

On the eve of that report’s release earlier this month, Eisenson talked to me about what he believes are the best practices that could get more renewable projects over the finish line in municipal permitting fights. Oh — and we talked about Ohio.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow