DOCSLIB.ORG

May Flower Site Assessment Plan for Lease OCS-A 0521

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May Flower Site Assessment Plan for Lease OCS-A 0521 SAP Mayflower Wind Lease OCS-A 0521 Site Assessment Plan July 29, 2019 For Public Release SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Mayflower Wind Lease OCS – A 0521 Massachusetts Offshore Wind Energy Area SUBMITTED TO: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy U.S. Department of the Interior 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP Sterling, Virginia 20166 Office 703-787-1577 Fax 703-787-1708 Attn: Jeff Browning, Mayflower Project Coordinator PREPARED FOR: Mayflower Wind Energy LLC 281 Albany Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 PREPARED BY: ESS Group, Inc. 10 Hemingway Drive, 2nd Floor East Providence, Rhode Island 02915 ESS Project No. M394-000.05 July 29, 2019 © 2019 ESS Group, Inc. – This document or any part may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording without the express written consent of ESS Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Mayflower Wind Lease OCS-A 0521 Site Assessment Plan July 29, 2019 For Public Release TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Information (30 CFR § 585.610(a)) ...................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Contact Information (§ 585.610(a)(1)) .................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Site Assessment Concept (§ 585.610(a)(2)) .......................................................................... 1 1.1.3 Designation of Operator (§ 585.610(a)(3)) ............................................................................. 2 1.1.4 Lease Stipulations and Compliance (§ 585.610(a)(4)) ........................................................... 3 1.2 Proposed Activity .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 General Structure and Project Design, Fabrication, and Installation (§ 585.610(a)(6)) ........ 5 1.2.2 Deployment Activities (§ 585.610 (a)(7)) ................................................................................ 8 1.2.3 Mitigation Measures (§ 585.610 (a)(8))................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 CVA nomination (§ 585.610 (a)(9)) ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.5 Reference Information ((§ 585.610 (a)(10)) ............................................................................ 9 1.2.6 Decommissioning and Site Clearance Procedures (§ 585.610 (a)(11)) ................................. 9 1.2.7 Air Quality Information (§§ 585.610(a)(12) and 585.659) ..................................................... 10 1.3 Regulatory Framework (§ 585.610(a)(13)) ..................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 List of Permits/Authorizations ............................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Completed and Anticipated Agency Correspondence (§ 585.610(a)(14)) ........................... 11 1.4 Financial Assurance Information (§ 585.610(a)(15)) ...................................................................... 11 1.5 Other Information (§ 585.610(a)(16)) – As requested by BOEM ................................................... 11 2.0 SURVEY RESULTS (§ 585.610(B)) ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Geotechnical Survey (§ 585.610(b)(1)) .......................................................................................... 12 2.2 Geological Survey and Shallow Hazards (§§ 585.610(b)(4) and 585.610(b)(2)) ........................... 12 2.3 Archaeological Resources (§ 585.610(b)(3)) ................................................................................. 14 2.4 Biological Survey (§ 585.610(b)(5)) ................................................................................................ 14 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES (§ 585.611(B)) .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1.1 Hazard Assessment (§ 585.611(b)(1)) ........................................................................ 14 3.1.1.2 Metocean Criteria Assessment…………………………………………………………….14 3.1.2 Coastal Habitats .................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.3 Water Quality (§ 585.611(b)(2)) ............................................................................................ 15 3.1.4 Benthic Resources (§ 585.611(b)(3-5)) ................................................................................ 15 3.1.5 Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat (§ 585.611(b)(3-5)) ..................................................... 15 3.1.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Fish ............................................................................... 16 3.1.5.2 Commercially and Recreationally-Important Fish ....................................................... 17 3.1.5.3 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ....................................................................................... 17 3.1.6 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (§ 585.611(b)(3-5)) ........................................................ 17 3.1.6.1 Marine Mammals ......................................................................................................... 17 3.1.6.2 Sea Turtles .................................................................................................................. 17 3.1.7 Coastal and Marine Birds and Bats (585.611(b)(3-5)) .......................................................... 18 3.1.8 Archaeological Resources (§ 585.611(b)(6)) ........................................................................ 18 3.1.9 Social and Economic Resources (§ 585.611(b)(7)) .............................................................. 18 3.1.9.1 Coastal Industries & Employment ............................................................................... 19 3.1.9.2 Commercial & Recreational Fisheries ......................................................................... 19 i www.essgroup .com Mayflower Wind Lease OCS-A 0521 Site Assessment Plan July 29, 2019 For Public Release 3.9.1.3 Recreational Use ......................................................................................................... 19 3.1.9.4 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................. 19 3.1.9.5 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 20 3.1.10 Coastal and Marine Uses (§ 585.611(b)(8)) ................................................................. 20 3.1.11 Consistency Certification (§ 585.611(b)(9)).................................................................. 21 3.1.12 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Vessel Related Potential Impacts ................................................................................... 23 3.2.1.1 Coastal Habitats and Terrestrial Mammals ................................................................. 23 3.2.1.2 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles .............................................................................. 23 3.2.1.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1.4 Navigation, Transportation, and Military Operations ................................................... 24 3.2.2 Buoy-Related Potential Impacts ..................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.1 Geologic Resources .................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.2 Benthic Resources ...................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.3 Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................... 26 3.2.2.4 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles .............................................................................. 26 3.2.2.5 Navigation, Transportation and Military Operations .................................................... 26 3.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures ................................................................................ 27 3.3.2 Marine Trash and Debris Prevention .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe
    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe August 2020 Michael C. Allen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Matthew Campo, Senior Research Specialist, Environmental Analysis & Communications Group, Rutgers University Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance (https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/). Working Group Members: John Cecil, New Jersey Audubon Tim Dillingham, American Littoral Society Patty Doerr, The Nature Conservancy of New Jersey Russell Furnari, PSEG Kevin Hassell, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Anthony MacDonald, Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University Martha Maxwell-Doyle, Barnegat Bay Partnership David Mizrahi, Ph.D., New Jersey Audubon Technical Reviews and Acknowledgments Joseph Brodie, Ph.D. Jeanne Herb Marjorie Kaplan, Dr.P.H. Josh Kohut, Ph.D. Richard Lathrop, Ph.D. Julie Lockwood, Ph.D. Douglas Zemeckis, Ph.D. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-wn1p-cz80 1 ABSTRACT Offshore wind energy is poised to expand dramatically along the eastern United States. However, the promise of sustainable energy also brings potential impacts on marine ecosystems from new turbines and transmission infrastructure. This whitepaper informs government officials, scientists, and stakeholders in New Jersey about the current policies and monitoring methods other jurisdictions use to monitor potential ecological impacts from offshore wind installations. We reviewed policy documents in the eastern U.S. and Europe, reviewed the scientific literature, and conducted stakeholder interviews in Spring 2020. We found: 1. Short-term (3-5 year) project-specific efforts dominate coordinated regional and project life duration ecological monitoring efforts at offshore wind farms in North America and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Market Report
    US OFFSHORE WIND MARKET UPDATE & INSIGHTS US OFFSHORE WIND CAPACITY GENERATION The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM), has auctioned 16 US offshore wind energy areas (WEAs) designated in federal waters for offshore wind development. Each area has been leased to a qualified offshore wind developer. The ar- eas are located along the East Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts and represent a total potential capacity of 21,000 Megawatts (MWs) of offshore wind power generation. HISTORY OF BOEM AUCTIONS AND LEASES YEAR LEASE # LESSEE STATE ACREAGE BID MW* NEXT 2012 0482 GSOE I DE 70,098 NA NA SAP *Reading volumes, some earlier estimates 2013 0486 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 97,498 $3,838,288 3400 TTL COP of capacity likely used 2013 0487 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 67,252 $3,838,288 3400 TTL FDR different calculations. 2013 0483 VA Electric & Power Co. VA 112,799 $1,600,000 2000 COP In all cases, capacity 2014 0490 US Wind MD 79,707 $8,701,098 1450 COP calculations should be considered estimates. 2015 0501 Vineyard Wind MA 166,886 $166,886 See Below FDR 2015 0500 Bay State Wind MA 187,523 $281,285 2000 TTL COP 2016 0498 Ocean Wind NJ 160,480 $880,715 See Below COP 2016 0499 EDFR Development NJ 183,353 $1,006,240 3400 TTL SAP 2017 0512 Equinor Wind US NY 79,350 $42,469,725 1000 COP 2017 0508 Avangrid Renewables NC 122,405 $9,066,650 1486 SAP 2018 0519 Skipjack Offshore Energy DE 26,332 Assigned NA SAP 2018 0520 Equinor Wind US MA 128,811 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0521 Mayflower Wind Energy MA 127,388 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0522 Vineyard Wind MA 132,370 $135,000,000 1500 EXEC EXEC—Lease Execution SAP—Site Assessment Plan COP—Construction & Operations Plan FDR—Facility Design Report @offshorewindus / BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND / offshorewindus.org 1 STATE 2018 2019 MARKET GROWTH The US Offshore Wind market currently stands VIRGINIA 12 12 at 16,970 MWs and is a subset of the total US MARYLAND 366 366 potential generation capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Stafftop Challenge for New US Sector
    Subsea Cable Solutions for offshore wind The Offshore Extensive experience in Wind Consultants complete projects owcltd.com 21 August 2020 @IPF20 LIVESTREAM Equinor puts floating TRENDING ON wind on its project menu Equinor is looking at floating wind Staff top challenge projects as part of its expansion in the US, IPF20 Livestream heard. p2 Vineyard and Mayflower Wind agree staging port leases Vineyard and Mayflower Wind have for new US sector signed lease agreements to use the The US offshore wind industry New Bedford Marine Commerce is primed to deliver on its Terminal as their primary staging and multi-gigawatt promise deployment base. despite confidence being Click here knocked by permitting delays, IPF20 Livestream heard. HOME ADVANTAGE (clockwise Philippe Kavafyan, CEO Orsted secures blessing to from top left): Martin Hansen of turbine manufacturer deploy Haliade-X at Skipjack of Siemens Gamesa, Orsted’s Grant van Wyngaarden, Matt MHI Vestas, told delegates The Maryland Public Service Sellers of Kiewit and sourcing on Thursday the necessary Commission has approved Orsted’s manager Senthil Baskaran elements are there for the turbine selection for its Skipjack wind Screengrab: Business Network for Offshore Wind sector to succeed. farm off the coast of Delaware. Consenting delays, caused BULLISH: Business Network for Offshore Wind CEO Liz Click here Secondary steel key to by the Bureau of Ocean Burdock and MHI Vestas chief Philippe Kavafyan Screengrab: reNEWS Orsted’s local content Energy Management’s Orsted is aiming to deliver significant decision last year to likely to collaborate, including involved if US developers Consortium unveils NY offshore local content levels across its near undertake a cumulative study turbine suppliers, in order to decide to use the next wind port upgrade 3GW US offshore wind portfolio by of all proposed east coast be able to access people with generation of turbines, A New York consortium has unveiled bringing tier two and three suppliers projects, have “calmed down” the required skills.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Market Report & Insights 2020
    RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND FARM — COURTESY OF ATKINS THE BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND U.S. OFFSHORE WIND MARKET REPORT & INSIGHTS 2020 MEMBERS ONLY The Business Network for Offshore Wind’s2020 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Insights offers an analysis of federal and state government activity to better understand how it may affect your business planning and the industry holistically. The federal government has turned its attention to the burgeoning industry to offer more regulation. Congress and federal agencies beyond the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management and U.S. Department of Energy are now affecting how the offshore wind industry will operate into the future. This report also discusses how some of the challenges facing offshore wind are being addressed. The health and safety of workers – whether onshore or offshore – are a paramount tenet within the industry. Particular- ly at this time, the offshore industry remains proactive in its response to the coronavirus epidemic, having put in place telework directives, eliminating unnecessary travel, and following government guidelines. As a result of these protocols, Europe has reported minimal disruptions to the supply chains and the 15 offshore wind projects in the U.S., remain in the planning and development stages. It is too soon to know exactly how the global COVID-19 epidemic disruption will affect the U.S. offshore wind in- dustry. Our main concern centers around the economic hardship a long-term shutdown and recession would place on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers. It is important to point out, however, that there is almost 10GWs of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy in Texas: an Argument for Developing Offshore Wind Farms
    4A2EF709-5F17-08B920.DOC 6/9/2009 5:00 PM RECENT DEVELOPMENT WIND ENERGY IN TEXAS: AN ARGUMENT FOR DEVELOPING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS I. INTRODUCTION Because of the place of oil in Texas history, many find it surprising that Texas leads the nation in the development of wind energy. Even California, which many would suspect to lead the nation (though ranking second in the nation) does not produce half of the wind energy that Texas produces: 2,484 megawatts as compared to 5,317 megawatts of wind capacity.1 Texas is committed to the continued development of wind energy.2 In fact, the state is about to undertake a $4.93 billion expansion of its grid system in large part to facilitate additional wind capacity.3 Capacity upgrades to the transmission grid will allow for dramatic growth of wind farms in West Texas and allow consumers to access it.4 That is not to say that Texas does not 1. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, 2008 TEXAS STATE ENERGY PLAN 18 fig.8 (2008), available at http://governor.state.tx.us/files/gcc/2008_Texas_State_Energy_Plan.pdf. “Capacity” measures the productivity of a power production facility. AM. WIND ENERGY ASSOC., WIND ENERGY BASICS, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html (last visited Mar. 28, 2009) (“It compares the plant's actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time.”) . 2. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, supra note 1, at 49. 3. ELEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities
    Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities Fishery Management Council Coordinating Committee May 18, 2021 Brian Hooker | Office of Renewable Energy Programs Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Energy OCS Lands Act: "… vital national resource … expeditious and orderly development … environmental safeguards" Energy Policy Act of 2005: "… energy from sources other than oil and gas …" Alaska OCS Pacific OCS Gulf of Mexico OCS Atlantic OCS 2 Biden Administration Offshore Wind Energy Goals o March 29, 2021 the White House issued a “whole-of-government approach” to offshore wind energy development including: o Establishing a Target of Employing Tens of Thousands of Workers to Deploy 30 Gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of Offshore Wind by 2030 (BOEM). o Partnering with Industry on Data- Sharing (NOAA). o Studying Offshore Wind Impacts. (NOAA). 3 Renewable Energy Program by the Numbers Competitive Lease Sales Completed: 8 Active Commercial Offshore Leases: 17 Site Assessment Plans (SAPs) Approved: 11 General Activities & Research Plans Approved: 2 Construction and Operations Plans (COPs): • Under Review 14 • Anticipated within next 12 months 2 Regulatory Guidance: 11 Leasing Under Consideration: 7 Steel in the Water: 2020 4 Atlantic OCS Renewable Energy: “Projects in the Pipeline” Project Company 2020 Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot South Fork Vineyard Wind I Revolution Wind Skipjack Windfarm Empire Wind Bay State Wind U.S. Wind Sunrise Wind Ocean Wind Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Park City Wind Mayflower Wind Atlantic Shores Kitty Hawk 2030 OCS-A 0522 5 Pacific OCS Renewable Energy State Project Nominations California Humboldt Call Area 10 California Morro Bay Call Area 11 California Diablo Canyon Call Area 11 Hawaii Oahu North Call Area 2 Hawaii Oahu South Call Area 3 6 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Empire Wind Project Version 1.0
    Environmental Mitigation Plan for the Empire Wind project Version 1.0 Prepared Pursuant to Section 12.06 of the Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreement by and Between the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and Equinor Wind US LLC Albany, NY Prepared by Equinor Wind US LLC 120 Long Ridge Road Ste 3EO1 Stamford, CT 06902 October 23, 2019 i Table of Contents 1. Environmental Mitigation Plan Summary ..................................................................................... 1 1.1. Overall philosophy and principles ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Overall approach to incorporating data and stakeholder feedback ............................................. 1 1.3. Existing guidance and best practices that will be followed .......................................................... 1 2. Communications and Collaboration Approach .............................................................................. 3 2.1. Overview and communication plan objectives ............................................................................. 3 2.2. Communication officers/positions, responsibilities, and contact information ............................ 3 2.3. Identification of stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 3 2.4. Participation in stakeholder and technical working groups ......................................................... 4 2.4.1. Communication
    [Show full text]
  • “The Energy Capital of the East Coast?”: Lessons Virginia Can Learn from Cape Wind Failure and European Success in Offshore Wind Energy
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 39 (2014-2015) Issue 3 Article 5 May 2015 “The Energy Capital of the East Coast?”: Lessons Virginia Can Learn from Cape Wind Failure and European Success in Offshore Wind Energy Lamya Moosa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Repository Citation Lamya Moosa, “The Energy Capital of the East Coast?”: Lessons Virginia Can Learn from Cape Wind Failure and European Success in Offshore Wind Energy, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 713 (2015), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol39/iss3/5 Copyright c 2015 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr “THE ENERGY CAPITAL OF THE EAST COAST?”: LESSONS VIRGINIA CAN LEARN FROM CAPE WIND FAILURE AND EUROPEAN SUCCESS IN OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY LAMYA MOOSA* INTRODUCTION The current opportunity for a successful wind energy initiative off the coast of Virginia will serve as the springboard for future investments in offshore wind energy throughout the United States. Virginia can act as a model for the rest of the nation for the viability of future initiatives if Virginia: 1) looks at successful examples of offshore wind projects used by European forerunners and 2) tailors the process to satiate our domes- tic concerns. Given the length of the United States coastlines and the strength of wind off our coasts,
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis
    Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Client Contact Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman Award Number DE-EE0005360 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 Bedford Street Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803-5154 781.270.8314 www.navigant.com February 22, 2013 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Document Number DE-EE0005360 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Michael Hahn Patrick Gilman Prepared by: Navigant Consulting, Inc. Lisa Frantzis, Principal Investigator Lindsay Battenberg Mark Bielecki Charlie Bloch Terese Decker Bruce Hamilton Aris Karcanias Birger Madsen Jay Paidipati Andy Wickless Feng Zhao Navigant Consortium Member Organizations Key Contributors American Wind Energy Association Jeff Anthony and Chris Long Great Lakes Wind Collaborative John Hummer and Victoria Pebbles Green Giraffe Energy Bankers Marie DeGraaf, Jérôme Guillet, and Niels Jongste National Renewable Energy Laboratory Eric Lantz Ocean & Coastal Consultants (a COWI company) Brent D. Cooper, P.E., Joe Marrone, P.E., and Stanley M. White, P.E., D.PE, D.CE Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Michael D. Ernst, Esq. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Page ii Document Number DE-EE0005360 Notice and Disclaimer This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the exclusive use of the U.S. Department of Energy – who supported this effort under Award Number DE-EE0005360. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power
    Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power Eric R. A. N. Smith Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Holly Klick Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Abstract Public opinion polls show that the American public strongly supports the development of wind power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Yet when specific wind farm proposals are made, they often meet local opposition, which is usually described as Nimby ("not-in-my- backyard") opposition. We examine public toward wind power in depth using an internet survey. Instead of only asking about support for wind power, we investigate how people respond to advantages and disadvantages of wind power. Our data show that questions asked in national surveys about proposals such as wind farms exaggerate the support for wind farms because the answers are typically superficial, top-of-the-head responses. When people think about the advantages and disadvantages of wind farms, as they would if a wind farm were proposed for their community, their support diminishes. Therefore, to explain NIMBY effects, researchers must look at both local and national opinion. Revised version of a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29, 2007 We would like to thank the Institute of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research, U.C. Santa Barbara, for funding to support this research 1 Introduction According to national opinion surveys, Americans overwhelmingly support government investment in renewable energy resources in general, and in wind power in particular. Despite this general popularity, proposals for specific wind power farms often face resistance from individual citizens, political leaders, grassroots organizations, national interest groups, and in some cases, even environmental groups.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry
    U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry Michaela D. Platzer Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business December 18, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42023 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry Summary Increasing U.S. energy supply diversity has been the goal of many Presidents and Congresses. This commitment has been prompted by concerns about national security, the environment, and the U.S. balance of payments. Investments in new energy sources also have been seen as a way to expand domestic manufacturing. For all of these reasons, the federal government has a variety of policies to promote wind power. Expanding the use of wind energy requires installation of wind turbines. These are complex machines composed of some 8,000 components, created from basic industrial materials such as steel, aluminum, concrete, and fiberglass. Major components in a wind turbine include the rotor blades, a nacelle and controls (the heart and brain of a wind turbine), a tower, and other parts such as large bearings, transformers, gearboxes, and generators. Turbine manufacturing involves an extensive supply chain. Until recently, Europe has been the hub for turbine production, supported by national renewable energy deployment policies in countries such as Denmark, Germany, and Spain. However, support for renewable energy including wind power has begun to wane across Europe as governments there reduce or remove some subsidies. Competitive wind turbine manufacturing sectors are also located in India and Japan and are emerging in China and South Korea.
    [Show full text]