Subject: Re: Off-shore wind farms
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Arlene Busch" <[email-masked]>, "Neil Callahan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:21:35 -0400

Neil, I believe this is the Rhode Island project you were talking about that
is backed by First Wind and DE Shaw.

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Arlene Busch <[email-masked]>wrote:

>  In case you didn't see the NY Times article this morning.
>
> As New Englanders await a decision in Massachusetts on a bitterly contested
> proposal to build the nation's first offshore wind farm, the State of Rhode
> Island is forging ahead with its own project in the hope of outpacing - and
> upstaging - its neighbor.
>
> Crucial to its strategy is dispelling worries that economics will trump the
> environment, or the broader public good.
>
> Instead of having a private developer dominate the research on potential
> sites, as Massachusetts has, Rhode Island embarked on a three-year
> scientific study, to be completed in August, of all waters within 30 miles
> of its coast. It has spent more than $8 million on research into bird
> migration patterns, wildlife habitats, fish distribution, fishermen's needs
> and areas that might be of cultural importance to Indian tribes.
>
> Its goal has been to head off the hurdles that have been in the way of the
> Massachusetts project, which has pitted coastal Indian tribes, business
> interest and homeowners against the developer, Cape Wind, and proponents of
> alternative energy. Frustrated by the failure of the two sides to broker an
> agreement, the Obama administration's interior secretary, Ken Salazar, has
> promised to determine the fate of the project on his own this month. (On
> Friday a federal historic panel sent Mr. Salazar its recommendation that the
> government reject the Cape Wind Project.)
>
> "We took the opposite approach of what Cape Wind did," said Grover Fugate,
> the chief administrator of the Rhode Island project and the director of the
> state's Coastal Resources Management Council.
>
> Still, independent of the scientific study, Rhode Island has proposed two
> potential offshore sites - a $200 million eight-turbine project off Block
> Island, and a far bigger $1.5 billion farm in the eastern Rhode Island Sound
> - and has selected a preferred developer, Deepwater Wind.
>
> In February, Gov. Donald L. Carcieri went so far as to suggest that the
> Block Island site was "on target to become the nation's first offshore wind
> farm."
>
> Massachusetts counters that it is much further ahead. "We've been through
> all the state permits and we're awaiting the final permits," Ian Bowles, the
> state's secretary of energy and environment, said in a recent interview.
>
> Rhode Island has not secured permits, but it has trumpeted what Cape Wind
> so far lacks: a "power purchase" agreement with a utility company to buy
> what a farm generates. Yet on Wednesday, the state's utility commission
> rejected that pact, which involved the proposed farm off Block Island, as
> too costly.
>
> So for now, Cape Wind is poised to be first, said Matt Kaplan, a wind
> analyst at Emerging Energy Research, a firm that tracks emerging energy
> markets.
>
> "If Cape Wind makes it through the permitting process, that is a major feat
> that no other offshore wind project has achieved in the U.S.," he said.
> "However, power purchase agreements have been hard to secure."
>
> Officials consider a viable project as a source of energy and jobs, but the
> wind wars are also driven by state pride. "There is a rivalry to be the
> first state to have an offshore wind project in the nation," Mr. Kaplan
> said. "And there is some embarrassment on the part of Massachusetts, having
> taken so long with Cape Wind."
>
> Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Virginia are also eager to secure
> permits and to lease blocks from the federal government in waters beyond the
> three-mile limit of state control.
>
> Some environmentalists are concerned that the offshore competition in the
> Northeast could trump the protection of fish and bird populations, said
> Jonathan Stone, the executive director of Save the Bay, an advocacy group
> for Narragansett Bay.
>
> While environmental groups have generally praised Rhode Island's planning
> as thorough, some question why state officials homed in on two sites before
> the three-year study was completed.
>
> Mr. Fugate has emphasized that the sites are tentative and could be vetoed
> if the research indicates that they have big drawbacks. Adjustments have
> been made as the research has progressed, he said.
>
> "It is a matter of concern, but that's the answer they gave," said Trisha
> Jedele, a lawyer for the Conservation Law Foundation, an advocacy group.
> "And you continue to assess the data and stay vigilant and make sure that
> ultimately that's what happens in the end."
>
> The economic stakes are considerable. Deepwater, the developer favored by
> Rhode Island, says that the wind farm proposed in the sound could generate
> 1.3 million megawatt hours of power a year, light up 125,000 homes and
> create more than 600 jobs.
>
> The competition is so heated that Rhode Island officials have asked
> researchers to keep some of their results secret.
>
> "I can't talk to some of my former graduate students because they work for
> the State of Massachusetts," said John King, a geologist at the University
> of Rhode Island who is working on the study.
>
> Yet in some ways, the scientists are embracing the competition, said Scott
> McWilliams, a University of Rhode Island ecologist who has been using radar
> to plot flight patterns of various birds in an effort to figure out how wind
> farms might affect migrations and habitats. "There's definitely a rivalry in
> getting something in the ground first."
>
>
>
> --------------------------
> Arlene R. Busch
> 312.498.9595  Mobile
> [email-masked]
>

-- 
Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Partners
(202) 333-1880
[email-masked]