DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2021 Offshore Wind – East Coast Projects 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2021 Offshore Wind – East Coast Projects By John Benson January 2021 1. Introduction This is the first post of a 2-part paper and only covers the subtitle subject. The second post will cover everything else, including west coast activity, a new inter-government organization and new turbine developments. Although these are basically both completed, there will be two weeks between this post and part 2, as these originally started out as a single post (but was way too long), and I have committed to post another paper on 1/26. The last posts with the same subject as this was and last May. This is described and linked below. A Wet & Windy Post: This post focuses on updates for U.S. East Coast off-shore wind projects, and any advancements in products from turbine vendors that supply these to the aforementioned projects. https://energycentral.com/c/cp/wet-windy-post Although there has been some progress on the East Coast, most projects have slowed to a crawl – partially due to the Pandemic, but mostly due to delays by the outgoing administration. The former is being mitigated by the vaccines, and the latter will be toast after tomorrow (on Jan 20 and this paper is scheduled for posting on Jan 19). Also the new administration is likely to quickly accelerate the deployment of these projects due five reasons: the COVID-19 Vaccines, climate change mitigation, jobs, jobs, and jobs. 2. East Coast Each of the subsections below will deal with a single project or a series of stages for a large single project. I found one new project covered in the first subsection below. Although it was in progress in May when A Wet & Windy Post was published, its completion date is just listed as “by the mid-2020s”, so there may not have been many details at that time. 2.1. Mayflower Wind, Massachusetts From the developer’ site referenced here:1 In December 2018, Mayflower Wind was awarded the federal offshore lease area OCS-A-0521, which is located over 30 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and 20 miles south of Nantucket. The lease area has the potential to generate over 1,600 megawatts (MW) of low-cost clean energy, or enough to power over half a million homes. Mayflower Wind executed a 20-year power purchase agreement in January 2020 for 804 MW with the Massachusetts electric distribution companies, after successful selection 1 https://mayflowerwind.com/ 1 under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Section 83C II solicitation. We expect to deliver clean energy from the project by the mid-2020s. From the source referenced here:2 The Baker-Polito Administration today announced the signing of lease agreements with Vineyard Wind and Mayflower Wind to utilize the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal as the primary staging and deployment base for the construction and installation of their offshore wind projects located in federal waters south of Martha’s Vineyard. These lease agreements commit the facility to full-time offshore wind work from 2023 into 2027 and are worth more than $32.5 million… According to a 2018 assessment conducted for MassCEC on the workforce needs and economic impact of the emerging offshore wind industry, the deployment of 1,600 MW of offshore wind is estimated to support between 2,000 to 3,000 of direct job years over next 10 years and generate a total economic impact in Massachusetts of between $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion… From this source:3 The Dutch firm Ventolines has signed on as offshore wind expertise partner for Mayflower Wind, a huge offshore wind project starting 30 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, and has opened its first permanent U.S. office in Boston. Windpower Engineering & Development (this source) connected with Thibaut de Groen, Ventolines’ director of contracting and construction, and Lorry Wagner, the firm’s new U.S. representative, to learn more about the company’s U.S. offshore plans. What project aspects will Ventolines be performing for Mayflower Wind? For Mayflower, Ventolines will provide T&I (transport and installation) expertise on the electrical offshore substation, the wind turbine foundations, the electrical cables to collect the energy and get it to shore, and the wind turbines themselves. Shell and Ocean Winds staff are in management positions – we are supporting them on technical matters… Mayflower Wind (is) a joint venture of Shell New Energies and Ocean Winds (the global offshore wind collaboration between EDP Renewables and ENGIE)… I was unable to define what turbine they will be using, but one of the two project developers (Ocean Winds) has indicated that GE Haliade-X Turbines are their “turbines of choice” presently for their New Jersey Project (see below). I also reviewed their filed project plan, and although they redacted most of the section on turbines, I did see the MW output range per turbine and probable time of the turbine deliveries, and this was consistent with the Haliade-X (see section Error! Reference source not found.). 2 mass.gov, news, “Baker-Polito Administration Announces Agreements with Vineyard Wind and Mayflower Wind for New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal”, Aug 20, 2020, https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration-announces-agreements-with-vineyard-wind-and- mayflower-wind-for-new 3 Windpower Engineering & Development, “U.S. offshore wind Q&A with Ventolines”, Dec 16. 2020, https://www.windpowerengineering.com/u-s-offshore-wind-qa-with-ventolines/ 2 2.2. Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind This project has made some progress. Dominion Energy on Dec. 18 revealed it had filed a required Construction and Operations Plan (COP) to build the 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) commercial project with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 4 The COP for the project includes information about the construction, operations, and conceptual decommissioning plans for the offshore wind farm, which Dominion has proposed to install within a 2013-obtained 112,800-acre commercial lease area located 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. The COP says that while approval by the State Corporation Commission is still pending, the CVOW commercial project is on track to commence construction in 2024 and be completed in 2026. BOEM will now review the COP and if it deems it “complete and sufficient,” and finds that the project meets environmental and technical reviews, Dominion will submit design and implementation plans. Installation of the turbines can then begin. Company documents show Dominion expects BOEM’s review could take up to two years. Pilot project: Dominion’s proposed CVOW project expands on knowledge gained from a 12-MW CVOW pilot, which is located adjacent to the commercial lease area. The pilot features two Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) 6-MW SWT-6.0-154 wind turbines whose installation was completed by August 2020. “The two turbines are operational while the project undergoes BOEM’s technical review before officially entering service,” Dominion said on Friday (12/18). I believe, as indicated in the prior post last May, SGRE is still the conditionally selected turbine supplier for the main (2.6 GW) project. From this source.5 Offshore wind is a complex and enormous capital construction domain. Among other requirements, specific ships — jack ships that extends legs to the sea floor and jacks up above the sea for a stable construction platform — are required for the actual putting together of the massive wind turbines at sea. To date, there is no U.S. flagged jack ship that can support construction. The limited projects to date, such as Dominion’s two-turbine project that begin operations earlier this year, have used leased European ships. Due to U.S. law, specifically the Jones Act, using non-U.S.- constructed and crewed ships greatly complicates and constrains U.S. offshore wind construction. Dominion, with its accelerating path toward a massive 2.6-gigawatt wind farm off the Virginia coast, announced today that it is investing $600 million to address this bottleneck. In a press conference earlier today that featured Governor Ralph Northam, Senator Mark Warner, and Dominion’s CEO Robert Blue, Dominion Energy announced the keel laying of the first Jones Act-compliant offshore wind turbine installation vessel. Being 4 Sonal Patel, Power, “Dominion Kicks Off 2.6-GW Virginia Project”, Dec 22, 2020, https://www.powermag.com/power-offshore-wind-notebook-ge-boosts-haliade-x-to-14-gw-dominion- kicks-off-2-6-gw-virginia-project-vestas-absorbs-mhi-vestas/ 5 A Siegel, Blue Virginia, “Dominion Takes Step in Establishing Offshore Wind Industry: Contracts for Construction/Services Ship”, Dec 16, 2020, https://bluevirginia.us/2020/12/dominion-takes-step-in- establishing-offshore-wind-industry-contracts-for-construction-services-ship 3 built by shipbuilding firm Keppel AmFELS shipbuilders in Brownsville, Texas, this ship should enter service in 2023. “Today marks a critical step forward in the development of the offshore wind industry in Virginia and across the East Coast.” Senator Warner continued, “The construction of the first Jones Act compliant offshore wind turbine installation vessel serves as another vital link in the growing domestic manufacturing supply chain to support offshore wind energy development here in the U.S. This vessel will enable the timely construction of planned offshore wind development projects throughout the East Coast, including the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind commercial project.” The ship will be based in the Hampton Roads area, potentially with other to be constructed offshore wind support ships and vessels, and serve offshore wind projects along the Atlantic seaboard. Dominion Energy will own and operate the ship to lease it out for offshore wind projects — including to Dominion Energy Virginia. The good news is that the technology used for jack ships is very similar to technology used for drill ships and jack-up rigs which have been manufactured in large volumes in the U.S.
Recommended publications
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File

    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
  • Kansas Wind Energy Update House Energy & Utilities Committee Kimberly Svaty on Behalf of the Wind Coalition 23 January 2012

    Kansas Wind Energy Update House Energy & Utilities Committee Kimberly Svaty on Behalf of the Wind Coalition 23 January 2012

    KANSAS WIND ENERGY UPDATE HOUSE ENERGY & UTILITIES COMMITTEE KIMBERLY SVATY ON BEHALF OF THE WIND COALITION 23 JANUARY 2012 Operating Kansas Wind Projects •1272.4 MW total installed wind generation •10 operating wind projects •Equates to billions in capital investment and thousands of construction jobs and more than 100 permanent jobs •Kansas has the second best wind resource in the nation th •Ranked 14 in the nation in overall wind power production • Percent of Kansas Power by wind in 2010 – 7.1% th •Kansas ranked 5 in the US in 2010 for percentage of electricity delivered from wind • Operating Kansas Wind Projects Project County Developer Size Power Turbine Installed In-Service Name (MW) Offtaker Type Turbines Year (MW) Gray County Gray NextEra 112 MKEC Vestas 170 2001 KCP&L 660kW Elk River Butler Iberdola 150 Empire GE 1.5 100 2005 Spearville Ford enXco 100.4 KCP&L GE 1.5 67 2006 Spearville II 48 48 2010 Smoky Hills Lincoln/ TradeWind 100.8 Sunflower – 50 Vestas 56 2008 Phase I Ellsworth Energy KCBPU- 25 1.8 Midwest Energy – 24 Smoky Hills Lincoln/ TradeWind 150 Sunflower – 24 GE 99 2008 Phase II Ellsworth Energy Midwest – 24 1.5 IP&L – 15 Springfield -50 Meridian Cloud Horizon 204 Empire – 105 Vestas 67 2008 Way EDP Westar - 96 3.0 Flat Ridge Barber BP Wind 100 Westar Clipper 40 2009 Energy 2.5 Central Wichita RES 99 Westar Vestas 33 2009 Plains Americas 3.0 Greensburg Kiowa John Deere/ 12.5 Kansas Power Pool Suzlon 10 2010 Exelon 1.2 Caney River Elk TradeWind 200 Tennessee Valley Vestas 111 2011 Energy Authority (TVA) 1.8 Operating Kansas Wind Projects Gray County Wind Farm- Gray County, Kansas - Kansas' first commercial wind farm was erected near the town of Montezuma by FPL Energy (now NextEra Energy Resources) in 2001.
  • Planning for Wind Energy

    Planning for Wind Energy

    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
  • Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report

    Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report

    Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report EEA #15787 December 17, 2018 Submitted to Prepared by Executive Office of Energy and Epsilon Associates, Inc. Environmental Affairs 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 MEPA Office Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Submitted by In Association with Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc. New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Geo SubSea LLC December 17, 2018 Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Attn: MEPA Office Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Secretary Beaton: On behalf of Vineyard Wind LLC (the Company, or Proponent), I am pleased to submit this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Vineyard Wind Connector1. A year ago, we submitted the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for this groundbreaking project. We are most appreciative of the concerted effort made by the entire EEA team to provide a constructive review, and to do so on an ambitious schedule. As we enter the final step of the MEPA review process, Vineyard Wind is pleased with the refinements that have been made to Project, many of which reflect input from your resource agencies as well as the Town of Barnstable. We look forward to continuing to work with the EEA team to bring the MEPA process to a productive conclusion, thus completing a central component of the public review of the Project. The balance of this letter provides an update on Project milestones, an overview of the refinements and improvements made since the submittal of the SDEIR in late August, and an update on the BOEM review process.
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment

    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 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
  • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O

    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O

    Revised CTUIR RENEWABLE ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT June 20, 2005 Rev.October 31, 2005 United States Government Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory DE-FC36-02GO-12106 Compiled under the direction of: Stuart G. Harris, Director Department of Science & Engineering Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O. Box 638 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 2 Table of Contents Page No. I. Acknowledgement 5 II. Summary 6 III. Introduction 12 III-1. CTUIR Energy Uses and Needs 14 III-1-1. Residential Population – UIR 14 III-1-2. Residential Energy Use – UIR 14 III-1-3. Commercial and Industrial Energy Use – UIR 15 III-1-4. Comparison of Energy Cost on UIR with National Average 16 III-1-5. Petroleum and Transportation Energy Usage 16 III-1-6. Electrical Power Needs – UIR 17 III-1-7. State of Oregon Energy Consumption Statistics 17 III-1-8 National Energy Outlook 17 III-2. Energy Infrastructure on Umatilla Indian Reservation 19 III-2-1. Electrical 20 III-2-2. Natural Gas 21 III-2-3. Biomass Fuels 21 III-2-4. Transportation Fuels 21 III-2-5. Other Energy Sources 21 III-3. Renewable Energy Economics 21 III-3-1. Financial Figures of Merit 21 III-3-2. Financial Structures 22 III-3-3. Calculating Levelized Cost of Energy (COE) 23 III-3-4. Financial Model and Results 25 IV. Renewable Energy Resources, Technologies and Economics – In-and-Near the UIR 27 IV-1 Biomass Resources 27 IV-1-1. Resource Availability 27 IV-1-1-1. Forest Residues 27 IV-1-1-2.
  • Prefiled Testimony of Michael R Cutter

    Prefiled Testimony of Michael R Cutter

    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE Docket No. SEC 2008-04 Application of Granite Reliable Power, LLC (“GRP”) and Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. for approval of transfer of membership interests in GRP TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. CUTTER ON BEHALF OF GRANITE RELIABLE POWER, LLC AND BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE POWER INC. 2102317.4 1 1 Q. Please state your name, title and business address for the record. 2 A. My name is Michael R. Cutter. I am the Vice President of Engineering and Development 3 for Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. My business address is 200 Donald Lynch Boulevard, 4 Marlborough, MA 01752. 5 Q. In what capacity are you testifying today? 6 A. I am here today to represent the Applicants, Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. referred to 7 herein with its affiliates as “Brookfield”) and Granite Reliable Power, LLC, before the Site 8 Evaluation Committee and to speak generally about its technical capabilities of GRP and 9 Brookfield to build and operate the Granite Reliable Power Windpark, a 99-megawatt wind 10 powered 33 turbine electric power generation facility sited in Coos County, New Hampshire (the 11 “Project”). The structure of the transaction through which BGH proposes to acquire an 12 ownership interest in the Project (the “Transaction”) is described in the Application and the 13 testimony of Jason M. Spreyer on behalf of Brookfield. In essence, Brookfield is entering into a 14 Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire the 75% ownership interest in GRP currently held by 15 Noble Environmental Power, LLC. As permitted by the Purchase and Sale Agreement, a single 16 purpose affiliate of Brookfield that will be called BAIF Granite Holdings LLC (“BGH”) will be 17 created to acquire and hold this interest.
  • 2007 IRP Document

    2007 IRP Document

    2007 Electric Integrated Resource Plan August 31, 2007 PHOTO CREDITS - Avista’s investment in transmission infrastructure crosses the wheat fi elds of Washington state’s Palouse region. Photo by Hugh Imhof, Avista. - Three key components of Avista’s renewable energy and DSM plans include the Noxon Rapids Hydro Facility on the Clark Fork River in Montana, education about energy effi cient compact fl ourescent bulbs, and including power generated at the Stateline Wind Farm on the Southeast border of Washington and Oregon. SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR TALENTED VENDORS FROM THE SPOKANE AREA WHO PRODUCED THIS IRP: Ross Printing Company Thinking Cap Design Printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Introduction and Stakeholder Involvement 1-1 Loads and Resources 2-1 Demand Side Management 3-1 Environmental Issues 4-1 Transmission Planning 5-1 Modeling Approach 6-1 Market Modeling Results 7-1 Preferred Resource Strategy 8-1 Action Items 9-1 SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT This document contains forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, most of which are beyond the company’s control, and many of which could have a signifi cant impact on the company’s operations, results of operations and fi nancial condition, and could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. For a further discussion of these factors and other important factors, please refer to our reports fi led with the Securities and Exchange Commission which are available on our website at www.avistacorp. com. The company undertakes no obligation to update any forward- looking statement or statements to refl ect events or circumstances that occur after the date on which such statement is made or to refl ect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
  • Expanding Regional Renewable Governance

    Expanding Regional Renewable Governance

    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 2011 Expanding Regional Renewable Governance Hannah J. Wiseman Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Hannah J. Wiseman, Expanding Regional Renewable Governance, 35 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 477 (2011), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/352 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLE\35-2\HLE208.txt unknown Seq: 1 2-AUG-11 9:28 EXPANDING REGIONAL RENEWABLE GOVERNANCE Hannah Wiseman* Energy drives economies and quality of life, yet accessible traditional fuels are increasingly scarce. Federal, state, and local governments have thus determined that renewable energy development is essential and have passed substantial require- ments for its use. These lofty goals will fail, however, if policymakers rely upon existing institutions to govern renewable development. Renewable fuels are fugitive resources, and ideal property for renewable technology is defined by the strength of the sunlight or wind that flows over it. When a potential site for a utility-scale development is identified, a new piece of property, which I call a “renewable par- cel,” is superimposed upon existing boundaries and jurisdictional lines. The entities within the parcel all possess rights to exclude, and this creates a tragedy with an- ticommons and regulatory commons elements, which hinder renewable development.
  • 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

    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.
  • DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1

    DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1

    BOX 1447, OAK BLUFFS, MASSACHUSETTS, 02557, 508‐693‐3453, FAX 508‐693‐7894 [email protected] WWW.MVCOMMISSION.ORG Martha's Vineyard Commission DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1. DESCRIPTION 1.1 Applicant: Vineyard Wind, LLC; Richard Andrade, Eric Peckar (Vineyard Power Cooperative); Kate McEneaney (Epsilon Associates); Rachel Pachter and Nate Mayo (Vineyard Wind). 1.2 Project Location: The proposed cables would run more or less north‐south for 12.4 or 13.7 miles below Edgartown waters approximately 1.2 miles offshore. 1.3 Proposal: The proposal is to install two 220‐kW export cables underneath the sea floor in two trenches that will pass approximately 1.2 miles offshore of Edgartown for either 12.4 or 13.7 miles (through the Edgartown waters stretch) using hydro‐plow or mechanical plow installation methods. Plans show two possible routes but only one is proposed to be installed. 1.4 Zoning: The project is offshore where there is no zoning. The area where the Wind Farm is proposed was designated a Wind Lease Area by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 1.5 Local Permits: The project will be reviewed locally by the Edg. Conservation Commission and the MVC. The Applicant has said they will conduct conversations with the Wampanoag Tribe. Other permits and reviews: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being conducted by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released on December 7, 2018, triggering a 45‐day public and agency review period (https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard‐Wind/) and is also at the Edgartown and Chilmark Public Libraries.
  • Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII

    Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII

    Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Pre-Filed Direct Testimony June 2021 PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY Pre-filed direct testimony in support of the Article VII Application for the Empire Wind 1 Project is presented by witnesses by subject area, as follows: Witness Exhibit(s) Sponsored Laura Morales Exhibit 1: General Information Regarding Application Laura Morales, Nathalie Schils Exhibit 2: Location of Facilities Laura Morales, Joel Stadell, Exhibit 3: Alternatives Sabrina Hepburn Laura Morales, Joel Stadell, Exhibit 4: Environmental Impact Sabrina Hepburn, Robert Jacoby, Katherine Miller, June Mire, Ryan Earley Joel Stadell Exhibit 5: Design Drawings Julia Bovey, Geir Miskov, Joel Exhibit 6: Economic Effects of Proposed Facility Stadell Laura Morales, Joel Stadell, Exhibit 7: Local Ordinances Sabrina Hepburn Laura Morales, Nathalie Schils Exhibit 8: Other Pending Filings Geir Miskov, Joel Stadell Exhibit 9: Cost of Proposed Facility Joel Stadell Exhibit E-1: Description of Proposed Transmission Facility Joel Stadell Exhibit E-2: Other Facilities Joel Stadell Exhibit E-3: Underground Construction Georges Charles, Joel Stadell Exhibit E-4: Engineering Justification Laura Morales, Sabrina Hepburn Exhibit E-5: Effect on Communications Laura Morales, Sabrina Hepburn, Exhibit E-6: Effect on Transportation Joel Stadell, Ryan Earley Laura Morales, Erin Lincoln Appendix B: Sediment Transport Analysis Empire Wind 1 Project Pre-Filed Direct Testimony Article VII Application Witness Exhibit(s) Sponsored Laura Morales, Katherine Miller Appendix C: Coastal Zone Management Consistency Statement Julia Bovey Appendix D: Public Involvement Plan Laura Morales, June Mire Appendix E: Benthic Resource Characterization Reports Benjamin R.T. Cotts and William Appendix F: Electric- and Magnetic-Field Assessment H.