This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Conservationists won the last round, but this time the stakes involve new renewables technology.
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.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A look at the week’s biggest fights over wind and solar farms.
1. McIntosh County, Oklahoma – Say goodbye to the Canadian River wind project, we hardly knew thee.
2. Allen County, Ohio – A utility-scale project caught in the crossfires over solar on farmland and local-vs-state conflicts now appears deceased, too.
3. Albany County, Wyoming – We have a new “wind kills eagles” lawsuit to watch and it could derail a 252-megawatt project slated to be fully online next year.
4. Martin County, Kentucky – I’ve been getting complaints we’re too much of a downer in this newsletter and should praise success stories. So here’s one: a solar farm in Kentucky on a former coal site.
Here’s what else we’re watching…
In Delaware, U.S. Wind is appealing a local regulator’s decision to reject a substation for offshore wind.
In Illinois, the Panther Grove 2 utility-scale wind project just cleared its county planning commission. The project is a joint venture between Enbridge and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.
In North Dakota – the home state of Trump’s pick for Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum – Minnkota Power Cooperative and PRC Wind yesterday announced plans to develop a new 370-megawatt wind farm near the town of New Rockford.
In Texas, a subsidiary of Eni New Energy completed building a 200-megawatt battery storage facility just outside the southwestern city of Laredo.
In Nebraska, what would be one of the state’s largest utility-scale solar projects is facing an uphill climb with county regulators. Good luck, NextEra!
In New York and New Jersey, the cable landings for the Vineyard Mid-Atlantic offshore wind project are starting to receive federal review.
In Tennessee, a different NextEra solar project has a key county hearing scheduled for early February.
In Washington state, regulators have approved a 470-megawatt solar project in Benton County, which we’ve previously told you is home to its own massive fight over wind energy.
In California, residents are complaining to local media about a solar project potentially destroying native Joshua Trees.
In Massachusetts, the small city of Westfield is inching closer to restricting battery storage facilities in its limits.
A conversation with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam of DNV Energy Systems
Today we’re speaking with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam from DNV Energy Systems, who helped craft a must-read report out this week on community relations in transmission with Americans for Clean Energy Grid (ACEG). Their report compiles findings of a roundtable with environmentalists, Indigenous rights activists, developers, and individual land owners, and finds transmission can fare better than solar and wind in this current political climate – and that community benefit agreements can be helpful for getting projects across the finish line. But some issues divided the roundtable, including how to structure labor benefits to ensure lots of people get job opportunities from transmission.
The following is a lightly edited and abridged version of our conversation:
Jael: Can you walk me through what you and ACEG found as a part of your research?
Morgan: ACEG identify – like you have – that there is a realness to the community opposition that can arise with these projects. While there are clearly cases of money being spent to augment that, it doesn’t mean the opposition isn’t present. ACEG’s interest was to help make meaningful progress on this issue and figure out how we can do better to accelerate the rate at which we develop transmission. As the report calls out early on, development really proceeds at the pace of trust within a community.
Cici: There are a lot of reports out there on best practices. There are 1,500-page reports on desktop research and lots of interviews and so forth. But I think ACEG hit the nail on the head by bringing in the voices at the same table. With my expertise in mediation, we were able to do that. The recruiting of all the voices helped make the report more inclusive, and more comprehensive and more holistic in viewpoints and perspectives.
The other thing that was really important was bridging the technical aspects of these large infrastructure projects that are so complex that communities don’t understand [them.] Being able to bring the large complexities of these projects – transmission, in this case – and community needs and interest, and being able to translate and interpret and be able to talk to one another, is a core piece of this report.
The tool that gets us there is these community benefits agreements, project work agreements. And they only work well and are effective if they are co-developed with the voices, the developers, the landowners, the host communities alike.
Jael: Did you feel there was a need for a consensus on best practices for community engagement?
Cici: It’s a differentiator. It’s one of the reasons we’re doing this.
We all recognize the needs of load growth demand. But to most effectively advance some of these best practices and make them actionable, these trusted voices have to discuss and agree. Or not agree – because we have a non-consensus segment as well where there were issues that did not meet consensus. When that happened, we made a recommendation to continue the discussion toward consensus.
Jael: What issues were most difficult to find consensus on and why?
Cici: The big piece of tension was how would these projects treat workforce development [and] bring in a local workforce while balancing the needs of labor,because labor has the skills. For instance, one of the issues was that local workforces need to be up-skilled in a way that is much more structured and systematic because there are safety issues in climbing a pole and doing electrification and things like that.
Jael: At a high level, are we seeing a similar broad backlash to transmission like what we’re seeing in specific communities with solar and wind?
Morgan: No, we’re not. It could happen. But those types of things you’re referencing are not yet occurring in transmission. I think it is less likely but not impossible, because–
Jael: What about Grain Belt Express or what’s happened around Piedmont? Do those situations give you any pause?
Morgan: So Grain Belt I think a little bit but it’s in a different category in my mind. Grain Belt is a specific project and, well, just look at the MISO region where that project sits. MISO’s moving forward with a lot of transmission. That project is but one project and it is being developed by an independent transmission developer that has… I think they face additional hurdles at times by virtue of their independence.
Having said that, I think the earlier statement still applies to all transmission. It’s about trust. It’s something where I think if you have the trust and support of the communities, you’re going to be able to move the projects forward.
Cici: We’ve seen a lot of momentum in favor of longer term regional planning of transmission. We haven’t seen as much attention on the triggering words we see with solar, or wind, and the incoming administration for transmission. And we also have a lot of the load demand, which is data centers.
We’re all crossing our fingers with the incoming administration. It’s so unpredictable.
This week’s top news around renewable energy policy.
1. Youngkin sides with locals – Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin this week said at his State of the State address that he would oppose efforts to “end local control of solar project siting” – indicating he will fiercely challenge efforts by some state policymakers to resolve challenges posed by town and county restrictions on renewables by overriding them.
2. More like Hearing Watch – We’re starting to learn how Trump’s most significant nominees may run federal energy and climate agencies. Thank you, senatorial advise and consent process!
3. Using land for data – One of Biden’s final days this week was spent opening up federal lands for constructing data centers in order to give the U.S. a leg up in developing artificial intelligence.