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

The Loud Fight Over Inaudible Data Center Noise

Why local governments are getting an earful about “infrasound”

Data center noise.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As the data center boom pressures counties, cities, and towns into fights over noise, the trickiest tone local officials are starting to hear complaints about is one they can’t even hear – a low-frequency rumble known as infrasound.

Infrasound is a phenomenon best described as sounds so low, they’re inaudible. These are the sorts of vibrations and pressure at the heart of earthquakes and volcanic activity. Infrasound can be anything from the waves shot out from a sonic boom or an explosion to very minute changes in air pressure around HVAC systems or refrigerators.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

An Anti-Battery Avalanche Outside Seattle

And more on the week’s top fights around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. King County, Washington – The Moss Landing battery backlash is alive and well more than a year after the fiery disaster, fomenting an opposition stampede that threatens to delay a massive energy storage project two dozen miles east of Seattle.

  • Moss Landing looms large in Snoqualmie, a city in the Cascade Mountains where Jupiter Power is trying to build Cascade Ridge Resiliency Energy Storage, a 130-megawatt facility conveniently located on unincorporated county land right by a substation and transmission infrastructure.
  • To say residents nearby are upset would be an understatement. A giant number of protestors – reportedly 650 people, which is large for this community of about 14,000 – showed up to rally against the project this weekend, just as Jupiter Power submitted its application for the project to county regulators.
  • The opposition is led by Snoqualmie Valley for Responsible Energy, a grassroots organization that primarily has focused on the risk of thermal runaway from battery storage events and rhetoric about the Moss Landing fire. “The battery chemistry proposed for Cascadia Ridge has not been verified in any public filing. Recent incidents illustrate what is at stake,” state SVRE strategy materials posted to their website.
  • Jupiter Power has tried to combat this campaign with its own organizing coalition – dubbed “Keep the Lights On!” – that includes local union labor and some environmentalists, including volunteers for Sierra Club. This campaign has emphasized how modern engineering around battery storage is nothing like the set-up was at Moss Landing.
  • However, the concerned voices are winning out over those who want the storage project. On Wednesday night, this outcry led the Snoqualmie city council at a special meeting to vote to request via letter for the storage project to be relocated and communicate that dissent to both the local utility, Puget Sound Energy, and King County.
  • “We encourage consideration of alternate locations within the Puget Sound Energy transmission and distribution system to better address the concerns that have been raised,” read a draft version of the letter presented by councilors at the meeting.
  • Jupiter Power told me it “welcome[s] any feedback from the community” and King County said in a statement, “We understand the concerns.” PSE told me they had not “received official notification about the formal action by the City Council and we can't comment on something we have not received.”
  • This degree of on-the-ground frustration will be challenging for any higher-level decision maker in Washington State to ignore. I’d argue the entire storage sector should be watching closely.

2. Prince Williams County, Virginia – It was a big week for data center troubles. Let’s start with Data Center Alley, which started to show cracks this week as data center developer Compass announced it was pulling out of the controversial Digital Gateway mega-project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Is the Left Making a ‘Massive Strategic Blunder’ on Data Centers?

A conversation with Holly Jean Buck, author of a buzzy story about Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a national data center moratorium.

Holly Jean Buck.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Holly Jean Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and former official in the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Buck got into the thicket of the data center siting debate this past week after authoring a polemic epistemology of sorts in Jacobin arguing against a national data center ban. In the piece, she called a moratorium on AI data centers “a massive strategic blunder for the left, and we should think through the global justice implications and follow-on effects.” It argued that environmental and climate activists would be better suited not courting a left-right coalition that doesn’t seem to have shared goals in the long term.

Her article was praised by more Abundance-leaning thinkers like Matthew Yglesias and pilloried by some of the more influential people in the anti-data center organizing space, such as Ben Inskeep of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana. So I wanted to chat with her about the discourse around her piece. She humbly obliged.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow