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 conversation with Jillian Blanchard of Lawyers for Good Government about the heightened cost of permitting delays
This week I chatted with Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environmental justice with Lawyers for Good Government, an organization that has been supporting beneficiaries of the Inflation Reduction Act navigate the uncertainties surrounding tax credits and grant programs under the Trump administration. The reason I wanted to chat with Jillian is simple: the IRA is under threat for the first time under a Republican Congress. I wanted to understand how solar and wind projects could be impacted by the House Republican reconciliation bill and putting IRA tax credits in doubt. I learned a lot.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Okay, Jillian, what’s the topline here? How would the GOP reconciliation bill impact individual projects’ development?
There are big chunks of the reconciliation bill that will have dramatic impacts on project development, including language that would repeal or phase out bipartisan and popular tax credits in a way that would make it very, very difficult to invest in projects. I can get into the weeds next.
But it’s worth saying first – the group of programs aside from tax credits that [House Republicans] would repeal represents every single part of America. Hundreds of projects that will not go forward if these programs are not going well. And they have several legally obligated grants that EPA has already mucked up in a litany of ways. But what they’re proposing to do is to pull the rug out from under those programs. On top of that they want to pull any unobligated funding out.
I think it’s extremely misrepresentative to say these are not big cuts. They’re significant cuts to clean air and clean water across the board.
Help me get into the weeds about how phasing out the credits will make it harder to invest in a project.
Right now, a bank might want to invest a certain amount of money in a clean energy project because they know on the back end they can get 30% or 40% back on their investment. A return through tax credits. They can bank on that, because tax credits are a guarantee.
Was that an intentional pun? “Bank”?
Yeah, it is. I love a good pun. You opened the floodgates, that was a mistake.
But anyway, the program itself was supposed to be around until at least 2032 and the bank could bank on those tax credits. That’s a big runway, because projects could get delayed and you could lock in the credit as soon as you started construction.
Now they’re doing a phase-out approach where if your project is not placed into service before a certain date, you don’t avoid the phase out. You don’t get any protections if you’re starting your project now or next year. It has to be placed in service before 2028 or else your project may not be eligible. You are constructing it, you are financing it, but then through no fault of your own – a storm or whatever – then suddenly that project is no longer entitled to get 30% or 40% back.
That’s a big risk. And banks don’t like risk.
Opposition on the ground also delays projects the way a storm does. Would this empower those opponents?
Oh, totally. Totally. If anyone wants to fight a project, a bank might be even less likely to invest in it. The NIMBYs for that particular project become a risk.
What would you tell a developer at this moment who is wondering about the uncertainty around the IRA?
I would tell them that now is the time to speak up. If they want to stay in this business and make sure their energy stays as low-cost as it already is, they need to speak up right now, no matter what their political party affiliation is. Make it clear solar isn’t going away, wind isn’t going away, storage isn’t going away. These are markets America needs to be competitive with the rest of the world.
And more of the week’s biggest conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. St. Lawrence County, New York – It’s hard out here for a 2-megawatt solar project in upstate New York.
2. McKean County, Pennsylvania – Swift Current Energy is now dealing with an insurgent opposition campaign against its Black Cherry wind project.
3. Blair County, Pennsylvania – Good news is elsewhere in Pennsylvania though as this county has given the go-ahead for a new utility-scale Ampliform solar project, the BL Hileman Hollow Solar project.
4. Allen County, Ohio – The mayor of Lima, a small city in this county, is publicly calling on Ohio senators to make sure that the pending reconciliation bill in Congress ensures Inflation Reduction Act tax credits can still apply to municipalities.
5. Vanderburgh County, Indiana – Orion Energy’s Blue Grass Creek solar project is now facing opposition too, with Orion representatives telling local press they actually expected some locals to be against the project.
6. Otsego County, Michigan – That state forest-felling solar farm that Fox News loved to hate? That idea is no more.
7. Adams County, Illinois – The Green Key solar project we’ve been following in the town of Ursa has received its special use permit from the county after vociferous local opposition.
8. Dane County, Wisconsin – We’re getting a taste of local worry about how the GOP’s efforts to change the IRA could affect municipal energy planning, thanks to the village of Waukanee.
9. Olmsted County, Minnesota – The fight over Ranger Power’s Lemon Hill solar project is evolving into a nascent bid to give localities more control over permitting renewables projects.
10. Cherry County, Nebraska – This county is seeking an investigation into whether Sandhills Energy’s BSH Kilgore wind farm is violating zoning standards after receiving requests from residents who are against the project.
11. Albany County, Wyoming – Bird conservation activists fighting wind projects in Wyoming claim the Interior Department is providing them incomplete information under the Freedom of Information Act about wind turbines and eagle deaths.
12. Santa Fe County, New Mexico – Renowned climate activist Bill McKibben is publicly going on the attack against opponents of an individual solar project, the AES Rancho Viejo solar farm near Santa Fe.
13. Apache County, Arizona – Opponents of the Repsol Lava Run wind project are now rallying around trying to stop transmission for the project.
14. Klickitat County, Washington – The Cypress Creek Renewables solar project we told you last week got fast-tracked by the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council? Turns out the county had a moratorium on new solar and anticipated a chance to formally file public comments before that would happen.
Will Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind get the Trump treatment?
The sharks of opposition are circling the American offshore wind industry, as they await the federal government’s next victims.
This week, we received news that Equinor – developer of the Empire Wind project – is inching towards potentially canceling development after a visit to Washington and the White House yielded little success. In addition, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox Business that the department is now reviewing all offshore wind permits issued under the Biden administration.
“What people don’t realize, billions of tons of rock are poured into the ocean before they can begin the years of pile driving,” Burgum told Fox Business, claiming the review of offshore wind permits that Trump ordered uncovered new data about Empire Wind “that was never released to the public” showing the approval “lacked total rigor.”
Meanwhile, coastal opponents of wind energy have moved onto other projects: Orsted’s Revolution Wind project near Rhode Island and Sunrise Wind project off New York’s coastline. In petitions to the EPA, two anti-wind groups – Green Oceans and Protect Our Coast N.J. – have asked the agency to rescind key permits for air emissions and water discharges, asserting the federal government moved too fast to get them approved.
In addition, an environmental consultancy hired by Green Oceans called Planet A* Strategies sent a detailed report to Burgum examining “the background, legal requirements, and data used in Federal agency decision-making regarding offshore wind development.” The consultancy claimed it had found actual violations of environmental law and that facts in the report “include material information that may have been omitted or misrepresented by offshore wind project developers and governmental decisionmakers.” Planet A* Strategies is run by Maureen Koatz, a former policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute and Senate staffer.
Green Oceans has also retained federal lobbyists from two different firms, a noteworthy move for an organization that previously had no obvious government affairs footprint.
It is likely no coincidence that all of these petitions and this report are all being filed right now, as we saw a similar flurry of activity surround Empire Wind before its stop work order was issued. Similar noise occurred in the days before Atlantic Shores lost a key EPA permit, sending work on the project into indefinite hiatus. For this reason, I suspect we will see more actions threatening other permits for offshore wind projects – and will be surprised if that doesn’t happen.
But at least this time there’s a countervailing force, as climate-minded environmentalists now swoop in too. Late Thursday, 10 major environmental non-profits – including NRDC, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Wildlife Federation – filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit that was filed by Democrat-led states against Trump’s blanket ban on offshore wind approvals and leases. I obtained a copy of the filing this afternoon from NRDC.
The amicus brief focuses on the argument that Trump’s order and the government’s compliance with it violates the Administrative Procedures Act. This comes after months of relative inaction from the environmental movement, other than a handful of rallies and public statements against the offshore wind ban.
The brief also declares that “when robust environmental review and permitting frameworks are applied, the responsible deployment of U.S. wind power is compatible with wildlife protection, public health, community protection and economic development,” and that the agencies “have taken an abrupt, 180-degree turn in their approach to wind permitting, without acknowledging this about-face, and without providing any justification, let alone a reasoned one.”