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

How Virginia, Texas, and Other States Are Starting to Regulate Data Centers

Though the issue already dominates U.S. politics, policymaking has lagged behind.

A data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Library of Congress

Data centers are swallowing American politics. But on the policy front, states are only in the infant stages of regulating them.

After reviewing legislative responses in the top five states for data center fights – Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia and Indiana – I found the seeds of new rules around sales taxes for computer equipment, project siting, energy and water usage, non-disclosure agreements and grid upgrade costs. But it’s unclear how much can actually be accomplished in any one direction – development restrictions, environmental protections, or tax revenue – in many of these places without changes in political control and approaches to governance.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Scoop: This GOP Lawmaker Is Aiming to Stop an Arizona Wind Farm

Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewables and data center development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Apache County, Arizona – A Republican member of Congress is now trying to convince the Trump administration to intercede against a large, controversial wind farm in the White Mountains of northern Arizona.

  • Representative Eli Crane, a stalwart supporter of President Trump, is lobbying three separate federal agencies – the Federal Aviation Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Communications Commission – to stop Repsol’s Lava Run wind project, according to audio of a tele-town hall from late March posted to social media this Thursday. Per the audio, Crane told attendees he opposes the project and is doing everything he can to get Trump officials to intercede in order to stop future construction.
  • Lava Run is situated entirely on state and county land, which Crane said will make it challenging for him to intercede. But the project is definitely vulnerable to federal intervention — it’ll likely require federal permits for disturbing protected birds, according to court filings we scooped last year. I reached out to the Fish and Wildlife Service to ask about Crane’s letter, and I’ll let you know if I hear back from them.
  • Apache County, a signpost for renewable energy’s struggles in the sunniest state, is in the process of updating its renewable energy ordinance to be more restrictive, including by raising the wind turbine setback to 1.5 times the turbine’s height from properties and roadways. It’s a weird county in terms of renewable energy risk, with only a 49 risk score in the Heatmap Pro database but a significant quantity of protected land that weighs heavily on that score.

2. Morrow County, Oregon – Amazon has settled a lawsuit over its headline-grabbing data center pollution concerns.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

A New Tool to Help Solve State Permitting Problems

Chatting with RMI’s Cayla Calderwood.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Cayla Calderwood, U.S. program manager for the clean energy think tank RMI. Calderwood and I chatted about a new web program the group calls the State Permitting Power Tool, which is a giant interactive decision tree matrix of permitting reform solutions. I took a spin and found the tool to be quite intuitive, so I asked if we could talk to preview how our readers could make the most of it. Given how often permitting reform comes up in conversations around project siting, this feels like an especially relevant time to give folks supplies for parsing this wonky topic.

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow