The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Spotlight

The Grudge Match Over Maine’s Plans for Offshore Wind

Conservationists won the last round, but this time the stakes involve new renewables technology.

Maine map.
Maine Department of Transportation / Heatmap

The future of floating offshore wind in America rests on a feud between YIMBY state officials and a government whistleblower over a bucolic island off the coast of Maine. I have no clue who will win.

Floating offshore wind is Maine’s best bet for wind power in deeper stretches of ocean, far away from beach views, coastal properties, and valuable fishing grounds. The tech — which other countries have tried to deploy but is still unproven at large commercial scale — offers a hypothetical panacea for the sorts of conflicts that often stymie offshore wind, and other states are looking to it as a solution for these thorny issues, including California.

But Maine has chosen to construct its floating offshore wind turbine assembly site at Sears Island, a naturalist tourist destination in Penobscot Bay. Conservationists in New England have fought for a long time to preserve the island, an incredibly biodiverse ecosystem rich with wetlands, from the Maine Department of Transportation, which over decades has attempted to use a section of the island for various forms of infrastructure, including an industrial port.

Now that this longstanding conflict has become intertwined with the cause of carbon reduction, it is pitting an older generation of eco-warriors against a younger breed of climate activists, as well as local unions eager to get in on energy transition jobs. Unfortunately for Maine regulators, one of the old heads opposing this project is Kyla Bennett, a former wetlands permitting staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency who stopped a previous effort by the Maine Department of Transportation to build a port at Sears Island in the 1990s.

At EPA, Bennett determined that constructing the port would’ve been illegal under the Clean Water Act because of the sheer proliferation of obvious wetlands. When political officials interceded and reassigned her to a different job, she blew the whistle on them — and won, winning back her post. The port permits were also denied.

Bennett is now a key organizer for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an organization that represents whistleblowers doing environmental protection work in government. And she’s making it a hobby horse to, again, stop Sears Island from becoming a port — even if it’s in the name of developing technology that could stem the tide of climate change.

“It’s déjà vu. It’s really disturbing to me that it’s back and we have to do this all over again,” she told me.

The facility has to go somewhere because, well, the technicians and researchers need a place to build these turbines, and Maine has claimed that no port existing today on the East Coast fits the precise spacing and resource needs. Habib Dagher, a University of Maine professor who leads the consortium plotting a U.S. offshore wind industry, told me constructing a port for assembly is “critical” to near-term success.

Yet there is another option. Moffat and Nichols, the engineering firm that studied port locations for Maine regulators, did conclude Mack Point, an existing import terminal on the coast of the Penobscot owned by Sprague Energy, would also fit the bill. Sprague is proposing to pay for a large expansion of Mack Point to take this floating offshore wind business off of Sears Island. Not only does it already have existing rail infrastructure and a long history of working in energy and construction but crucially, the engineering firm also found that siting the assembly facility there would shave years off the permitting and construction timetable for making floating offshore wind a reality.

Legally, this alternative matters, and federal regulators will decide who wins this fight. Maine regulators are expected to submit paperwork to begin the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act for building the assembly site at Sears Island in the coming weeks. As they do so, they will be required to explain how this plan offers the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” under environmental law. And Bennett is confident their claims will not pass muster in court, if not with career EPA staff.

“It cannot be legally permitted,” she confessed. “We will sue them.”

So I sought out to answer this pesky question: Why is Maine trying to build this crucial infrastructure for the energy transition in a place with activist resistance, and where even its own consultants have said the process would take longer?

State regulators, politicians, and supporters of the Sears Island plan have a few reasons. First off, Maine Governor Janet Mills has bemoaned that to use Mack Point would require leasing the property from Sprague, which would mean a recurring cost to taxpayers. There are also size issues — the Maine Department of Transportation claims there simply wouldn’t be enough space at Mack Point for researchers and, eventually, industry to do their work.

“We know there would be environmental impacts at both the Mack Point and Sears Island sites,” Paul Merrill, director of communications for the Maine Department of Transportation, told me in an email Monday evening. “The bottom line is that the port Maine needs simply doesn’t fit at Mack Point. Sprague has a financial interest in development on Mack Point. Our goal is to develop a port that is in the best interest of the public.”

Merrill did acknowledge the new proposal for Sears Island would be located on “the same part of the island that was discussed for development in the 1990s.”

Sprague denies the logistical issues with building the port at Mack Point and told me issues Maine regulators are easily resolved. The company has begun campaigning to win key stakeholders to its side, publishing op-eds and meeting with environmental advocates. On September 12, Sierra Club’s Maine chapter hosted a virtual event with a Sprague executive, Jim Theriault, about how the port selection “needs to be considered carefully.” When I spoke to Theriault this week, he told me that Sierra Club members were asking the same question I was.

“At the end of the day, we’d be reusing an industrial site, and we’d relocate what we do to other parts of the terminal,” he said. “I’ll make myself available to anybody that wants to talk.”

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

An Energy Developer Is Fighting a Data Center in Texas

Things in Sulphur Springs are getting weird.

Energy production and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, MSB Global, Luminant

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to pressure a company into breaking a legal agreement for land conservation so a giant data center can be built on the property.

The Lone Star town of Sulphur Springs really wants to welcome data center developer MSB Global, striking a deal this year to bring several data centers with on-site power to the community. The influx of money to the community would be massive: the town would get at least $100 million in annual tax revenue, nearly three times its annual budget. Except there’s a big problem: The project site is on land gifted by a former coal mining company to Sulphur Springs expressly on the condition that it not be used for future energy generation. Part of the reason for this was that the lands were contaminated as a former mine site, and it was expected this property would turn into something like a housing development or public works project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Who Really Speaks for the Trees in Sacramento?

A solar developer gets into a forest fight in California, and more of the week’s top conflicts around renewables.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Sacramento County, California – A solar project has become a national symbol of the conflicts over large-scale renewables development in forested areas.

  • This week the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to advance the environmental review for D.E. Shaw Renewables’ Coyote Creek agrivoltaics solar and battery project, which would provide 200 megawatts to the regional energy grid in Sacramento County. As we’ve previously explained, this is a part of central California in needs of a significant renewables build-out to meet its decarbonization goals and wean off a reliance on fossil energy.
  • But a lot of people seem upset over Coyote Creek. The plan for the project currently includes removing thousands of old growth trees, which environmental groups, members of Native tribes, local activists and even The Sacramento Bee have joined hands to oppose. One illustrious person wore a Lorax costume to a hearing on the project in protest.
  • Coyote Creek does represent the quintessential decarb vs. conservation trade-off. D.E. Shaw took at least 1,000 trees off the chopping block in response to the pressure and plans to plant fresh saplings to replace them, but critics have correctly noted that those will potentially take centuries to have the same natural carbon removal capabilities as old growth trees. We’ve seen this kind of story blow up in the solar industry’s face before – do you remember the Fox News scare cycle over Michigan solar and deforestation?
  • But there would be a significant cost to any return to the drawing board: Republicans in Congress have, of course, succeeded in accelerating the phase-out of tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act. Work on Coyote Creek is expected to start next year, in time to potentially still qualify for the IRA clean electricity credit. I suspect this may have contributed to the county’s decision to advance Coyote Creek without a second look.
  • I believe Coyote Creek represents a new kind of battlefield for conservation groups seeking to compel renewable energy developers into greater accountability for environmental impacts. Is it a good thing that ancient trees might get cut down to build a clean energy project? Absolutely not. But faced with a belligerent federal government and a shrinking window to qualify for tax credits, companies can’t just restart a project at a new site. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on decarbonizing the electricity grid. .

2. Sedgwick County, Kansas – I am eyeing this county to see whether a fight over a solar farm turns into a full-blown ban on future projects.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How to Build a Data Center, According to an AI-Curious Conservationist

A conversation with Renee Grabe of Nature Forward

Renee Grebe.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Renee Grabe, a conservation advocate for the environmental group Nature Forward who is focused intently on data center development in Northern Virginia. I reached out to her for a fresh perspective on where data centers and renewable energy development fits in the Commonwealth amidst heightened frustration over land use and agricultural impacts, especially after this past election cycle. I thought her views on policy-making here were refreshingly nuanced.

This transcript was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow