DOCSLIB.ORG

Offshore Wind Development White Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Offshore Wind Development White Paper 12-14 July 2010 Selected Materials Regarding Offshore Wind Development Karen A. Winters Rebekah M. VanDrake Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. Offshore Wind Seminar September 16, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION A US Department of Energy (DOE) report indicates that the United States possesses enough wind to meet at least 20 percent of the country’s electricity needs.1 A number of onshore wind energy projects have been permitted and constructed all over the United States; however, an offshore wind project has yet to be constructed and operated in the US waters. As electricity demands increase and state and federal governments emphasize the importance of clean, renewable energy sources, offshore wind development has been gaining speed. Most recently, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, the lead agency charged with evaluating and permitting offshore wind energy projects in federal waters, approved the country’s first offshore wind project – the Cape Wind Energy Project. The Project received approval after years of opposition from local residents in Massachusetts’ Cape Cod. Currently, a number of offshore wind energy developers are working with the Atlantic coast’s state and federal agencies to begin developing and permitting additional offshore wind farms. The United States also has rich wind resources in its Great Lakes Region. While there are not yet any constructed and operational Great Lakes offshore wind projects, a number of Great Lakes states are working with developers to construct the first offshore wind facility in the country’s Great Lakes. Most recently, the Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation (LEEDCO), developed as an off-shoot of Ohio’s Cuyahoga County Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force, sent bid packages to major developers for a 15-20 MW pilot project to consist of four to eight turbines. On May 14, 2010 LEEDCO entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with General Electric Company, a major Ohio employer and an industry leader in wind turbine technology. This demonstration-size wind farm will provide valuable information as to the cost of construction and operation of a large-size wind farm as well as the electricity yield that such a wind farm is likely to produce. In sum, offshore wind energy development is at the forefront of renewable energy development. The United States has a number of regions rich in wind resources. In siting offshore wind projects, developers must consider the permitting, regulatory, technical, environmental, economic, and community aspects of development. The following provides an overview of select offshore wind materials for both the East Coast and the Great Lakes, including regulatory materials, information regarding current wind farm applicants, and potential offshore wind energy developments. II. EAST COAST A. FEDERAL 1 See U.S. DOE, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contributions to U.S. Electricity Supply (May 2008). 12-14 July 2010 1. ENERGY POLICY ACT The Energy Policy Act (EPAct), signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005, amended the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to grant the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) authority to regulate offshore renewable energy including offshore wind. On March 20, 2006 the Secretary delegated this authority to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). MMS, now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 2 , has the authority to issue leases, easements, or rights-of-way for previously unauthorized activities that: (1) produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas; or (2) use, for energy- related or other authorized marine-related purposes, facilities currently or previously used for activities authorized under the OCSLA. 2. MMS (NOW BOEMRE) AS LEAD AGENCY Pursuant to its delegated authority, on April 29, 2009, MMS published its final regulations for outer continental shelf (OCS) renewable energy. See Final Rule, Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, 74 Fed. Reg. 19637 (April 29, 2009) (codified at 30 CFR Parts 250, 285, and 290). It adopted a “cradle-to-grave” approach, including: (1) coordination through task forces established with state, local and tribal governments; (2) lease and grant issuance, including competitive and non-competitive leasing as well as commercial and limited leases; (3) plans and operations oversight, including site assessment, construction and operations, and general activities, plan approval, and environmental and safety monitoring and inspections; (4) payments to cover bonding activities; and (5) decommissioning at the end of a project’s life span. MMS’ regulations also include mandates related to safety, protection of the environment, coordination with affected state and local governments and federal agencies, fair return for use of OCS land, and equitable sharing of revenue with States. See also U.S. Department of the Interior, Guidelines for the Minerals Management Service Renewable Framework (July 2009). Although BOEMRE has been delegated lead authority for the regulation of offshore wind energy, it must coordinate with several other federal and state agencies during the development, permitting, and operational oversight of offshore wind energy projects. An overview of the federal agencies potentially involved as well as the basis for that involvement is attached. 3. COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES (A) DOI/FERC MOU On April 9, 2009 MMS and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), clarifying the jurisdiction of each regarding renewable energy projects on the OCS. The purpose of this memorandum was to develop a cohesive, streamlined process that would help accelerate the development of wind, solar and hydrokinetic energy projects. Until March 2009, regulatory uncertainty existed regarding which federal agencies had authority to regulate energy development on the OCS. Both MMS and FERC claimed this authority based on differing interpretations of Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Section 8(p) of OCSLA, as amended by EPAct. On March 17, 2009, however, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Acting Chairman of FERC 2 See http://www.boemre.gov/. 12-14 July 2010 issued a joint statement on the development of renewable energy resources on the OCS. In this joint statement, the Secretary and the Acting Commissioner requested that MMS and FERC staff prepare a MOU to describe the process by which authorizations related to renewable energy resources in offshore waters will be developed. Specifically, the memorandum recognizes that (1) MMS has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from nonhydrokinetic alternative energy projects on the OCS including renewable energy sources such as wind and solar; (2) MMS has exclusive jurisdiction to issue leases, easements and rights-of-way regarding OCS lands for hydrokinetic projects; and (3) FERC has exclusive jurisdiction to issue licenses and exemptions for hydrokinetic projects located on the OCS. Under the memorandum those entities interested in operating a hydrokinetic project on the OCS must first obtain a lease from MMS. Therefore, offshore wind projects that do not have a hydrokinetic component are within the exclusive jurisdiction of MMS. (B) DOI/DOE MOU On June 29, 2010 BOEMRE and the DOE entered into a five-year MOU “in order to prioritize and facilitate environmentally-responsible deployment of commercial-scale offshore wind and marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies” on the OCS. Pursuant to this MOU, the BOEMRE and DOE agree to work collaboratively regarding information exchange, stakeholder engagement, research of key technical and environmental issues, joint evaluation and development of standards and guidelines and the dissemination of relevant information to decision makers. Implementation of this MOU includes: (1) development of deployment goals for offshore wind; (2) identification and implementation of inter-agency measures to ensure reasonable permitting timeframes; (3) development of a plan for offshore wind resource measurement and prediction; (4) coordination with appropriate parties to acquire resources to develop and characterize variable wind, wave, tidal and ocean current resources; (5) collaborate on the development of technical standards for offshore wind; (6) identify sites with high potential for commercial- scale offshore wind development and pursue priority leasing and permitting for these sites; (7) development of environmental monitoring and mitigation protocols; (8) coordinate studies in support of research leases for offshore wind; (9) joint management of coastal states, tribes, and regional governors associations and other relevant entities; (10) technical assistance; and (11) gathering and disseminating publicly-available data. (C) DOI/FWS MOU MMS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) entered into a MOU regarding the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. The MMS and FWS agreed to: (1) collaborate in the protection, restoration and enhancement of the habitat of migratory birds through the development and implementation of management practices that minimize or avoid negative impacts on migratory bird populations; (2) promote research and information exchange related to migratory bird conservation; (3) periodically evaluate the measures described in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Examination to Pathways Powering Car Using Clean Energy
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2020 An Examination to Pathways Powering Car Using Clean Energy Marina Miranda West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the Automotive Engineering Commons, Energy Systems Commons, and the Power and Energy Commons Recommended Citation Miranda, Marina, "An Examination to Pathways Powering Car Using Clean Energy" (2020). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 7713. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7713 This Problem/Project Report is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Problem/Project Report in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Problem/Project Report has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Examination to Pathways Powering Car Using Clean Energy Marina Miranda Project Report Submitted to the Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources West Virginia University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Energy Systems Engineering Hailin Li, Ph.D., Chair Roger Chen, Ph.D. Yi Luo, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • As Part of the RPS Proceeding, Staff and NYSERDA Prepared a Cost
    EXPRESS TERMS - SAPA No.: 03-E-0188SA19 The Commission is considering whether to adopt, modify, or reject, in whole or in part, potential modifications to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, including base forecast, goals, tier allocations, annual targets and schedule of collections. The base forecast of electricity usage in New York State against which the RPS goals are applied is currently the forecast contained in the 2002 New York State Energy Plan. The Commission is considering updating the base forecast using a 2007 forecast of electricity usage in New York State developed in Case 07-M-0548, the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) proceeding. The Commission is also considering updating the base forecast using a post-EEPS forecast of electricity usage in New York State, also developed in the EEPS proceeding, incorporating successful deployment of the targeted levels of energy efficiency planned in the EEPS case into the forecast. The current goal of the RPS program is to increase New York's usage of renewable resources to generate electricity to 25% by 2013. The Commission is considering whether to increase the goal to 30% by 2015 or to otherwise adjust the goal. The RPS program targets are currently divided into tiers. If the Commission modifies the base forecast or the goal, the Commission will consider whether the targets by tier should be adjusted proportionally or on some other basis. The Commission is also considering whether the annual targets should be modified to account for such changes to the RPS program. The Commission is also considering whether the schedule of collections should be modified to account for such changes to the RPS program, to specify collection levels beyond 2013 necessary to fund contracts extending beyond 2013, and to fund maintenance resources and administrative costs not yet accounted for in the current schedule of collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Acceptance of Offshore Wind Power: Does Perceived Fairness Of
    This article was downloaded by: [University of Delaware] On: 14 December 2012, At: 05:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20 Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter? Jeremy Firestone a , Willett Kempton a , Meredith Blaydes Lilley b & Kateryna Samoteskul a a School of Marine Science and Policy, College of Earth, Ocean and Environment, University of Delaware, 204 Robinson Hall, Newark, DE, 19716, USA b Sea Grant College Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HIG Room 238, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA Version of record first published: 14 Dec 2012. To cite this article: Jeremy Firestone , Willett Kempton , Meredith Blaydes Lilley & Kateryna Samoteskul (2012): Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55:10, 1387-1402 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.688658 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Retail Electric and Natural Gas Competition: Recent Developments and Policy Implications for Low Income Customers
    AN ANALYSIS OF RETAIL ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS COMPETITION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS Barbara R. Alexander Consumer Affairs Consultant June 2013 Barbara R. Alexander opened her own consulting practice in March 1996. From 1986-1996 she was the Director, Consumer Assistance Division, at the Maine Public Utilities Commission. Her special area of expertise has been the exploration of and recommendations for consumer protection, universal service programs, service quality, and consumer education policies to accompany the move to electric, natural gas, and telephone competition. She has authored “A Blueprint for Consumer Protection Issues in Retail Electric Competition”(Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, October, 1998). In addition, she has published reports that address policies associated with the provision of basic or “default” electric and natural gas service, smart meter pricing and consumer protection policies, consumer protection policies and programs that impact low income customers, and, in cooperation with Cynthia Mitchell and Gil Court, an analysis of renewable energy mandates in selected states. Her clients include national consumer organizations, state public utility commissions, and state public advocates. The author gratefully acknowledges the time and input from several colleagues on a draft of this report, specifically Janee Briesemeister of AARP, John Howat of National Consumer Law Center, Allen Cherry, an attorney with the Low Income Advocacy Project in Illinois, Aimee Gendusa-English with Citizens Utility Board in Illinois, and Pat Cicero of the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project. Of course, any errors or omissions are those of the author alone. Ms. Alexander can be reached at [email protected] This report was prepared under contract with Ingenium Professional Services, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • US Offshore Wind Energy
    U.S. Offshore Wind Energy: A Path Forward A Working Paper of the U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative October 2009 Contributing Authors Steven Clarke, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Fara Courtney, U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative Katherine Dykes, MIT Laurie Jodziewicz, American Wind Energy Association Greg Watson, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Working Paper Reviewers The Steering Committee and Board of the U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative owe a debt of gratitude to the following individuals for their careful and thoughtful review of this Working Paper and for offering their invaluable comments and suggestions. Walter Cruikshank, U.S. Department of the Interior Soren Houmoller, 1st Mile (DK) Chris Jenner, RPS Group (UK) Jim Manwell, University of Massachusetts Walt Musial, ex officio, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Bonnie Ram, Energetics USOWC Board of Directors Jack Clarke, Mass Audubon Steve Connors, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Hummer, Great Lakes Commission Laurie Jodziewicz, American Wind Energy Association Jim Lyons, Novus Energy Partners Jeff Peterson, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority John Rogers, Union of Concerned Scientists Mark Sinclair, Clean Energy States Alliance Greg Watson, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Walt Musial, ex officio, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Cover: The Middelgrunden offshore wind farm in
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy in NY State
    2010 New York State Wind Energy Study Final Report Source: Milian, Chris; www.photosfromonhigh.com Submitted by: Christina Hoerig Kimballe Campbell Daniel Grew Nicole Gumbs Happiness Munedzimwe Sandeep George Jun Wan Timothy Komsa Karl Smolenski Tyler Coatney Cornell University II Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................II List of Figures .................................................................................................................... VI List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... VII 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. VIII 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................10 3 New York State Present Energy Supply/Demand ....................................................14 3.1 New York Energy Background ............................................................................14 3.2 Current NYS Wind Power ...................................................................................16 3.3 Near Term Growth of New York State Wind Power .............................................17 3.4 Progress of Other Renewables in New York State ..............................................19 3.5 Power Demand in Tompkins County ...................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Fallout of the Freeze on Ohio's Clean Energy Sector
    The Economic Fallout of the Freeze on Ohio’s Clean Energy Sector By Gwynne Taraska and Alison Cassady March 10, 2015 Passed in 2008 with overwhelming bipartisan support, Ohio’s renewable energy and energy-efficiency standards proved unambiguously successful in spurring economic progress in the state. Among their benefits were increased in-state investment and energy development, new jobs for Ohioans, and decreased electricity bills. Despite broad public support for these standards, the Ohio legislature passed S.B. 310 in May 2014, which froze the state’s ramp-up schedules for renewable energy and energy effi- ciency.1 It subsequently passed H.B. 483, which dramatically increased the setback require- ments for wind turbines.2 Gov. John Kasich (R) signed both bills into law in June 2014. To understand whether S.B. 310 and H.B. 483 are beginning to chill investment in Ohio and erode the progress made by its clean energy sector, the Center for American Progress interviewed business leaders and experts in renewable energy and energy effi- ciency across the state. All spoke to the uncertainty created in the clean energy sector, and all reported negative impacts of the recent legislation. For example, some have had to stall hiring or lay off employees; some are shifting their operations to other states; some are experiencing a downturn in business or diffi- culty attracting new investment; and some have had to cancel projects After a series of campaigns across the country to that the new legislation made economically unviable. roll back state-level renewable energy standards over the past two years, many states are now fac- ing similar efforts in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • OFFSHORE WIND in the ATLANTIC Growing Momentum for Jobs, Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Wildlife Protection
    OFFSHORE WIND IN THE ATLANTIC Growing Momentum for Jobs, Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Wildlife Protection NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 2 0 1 0 Vestas Wind Systems A/S Systems Wind Vestas CONFRONTINGReport GLOBAL WARMING Acknowledgments Authors: Curtis Fisher, Suraj Patel, Catherine Bowes, and Justin Allegro This report was produced with much assistance and appreciation to the following individuals and organizations: National Wildlife Federation (John Kostyack, Tim Warman, Felice Stadler, Bruce Stein, Ron Warnken, Jen Mihills, Emily Maxwell, Christopher Davis); Environment America (Rob Sargent, Matt Elliot); Natural Resources Council of Maine (Dylan Voorhees); Environmental League of Massachusetts (Ken Pruitt); Environment Council of Rhode Island (Tricia Jedele, Paul Beaudette); Environmental Advocates of New York (Ross Gould); New Jersey Audubon (Eric Stiles); Delaware Nature Society (Brenna Goggin); Virginia Conservation Network (Nathan Lott); North Carolina Wildlife Federation (Tim Gestwicki); South Carolina Wildlife Federation (Ben Gregg, Steve Moore); Georgia Wildlife Federation (Jerry McCollum, Shirl Parsons); Florida Wildlife Federation (Manley Fuller, Jay Liles, Ann Vanek Dasovich, Preston Robertson); Mass Audubon (Jack Clarke); U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative (Fara Courtney); Clean Energy States Alliance (Mark Sinclair); Conservation Law Foundation (Sean Mahoney, Seth Kaplan, Tricia Jedele, Susan Reid); Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (Simon Mahan); Renewable Energy Long Island (Gordian Raacke); Sierra Club–VA Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Energy from America's Oceans
    Clean Energy from America’s Oceans Permitting and Financing Challenges to the U.S. Offshore Wind Industry Michael Conathan and Richard Caperton June 2011 Introduction and summary For 87 days in the spring and summer of 2010, an undersea gusher of oil continuously reminded Americans of the toll energy development can take on our oceans. Approximately 3,500 oil rigs and platforms were operating in U.S. waters at the time of the BP disaster. There were also over 1,000 wind turbines generating clean, renewable electricity off the coastlines of northwestern Europe. But not a single windmill yet turns in the strong, abundant winds that abound off our shores. Clearly wind power cannot immediately replace the energy we still must generate from the oil and gas produced on the outer continental shelf. But America’s unwillingness to clear the way for permitting a proven, commercially scalable, clean source of energy is a major black eye for a nation that purports to be a leader in technological development. Denmark constructed the first offshore wind facility in in 1991. In the intervening two decades 10 other countries installed offshore wind farms—eight nations in northern Europe, plus Japan and China (see chart). Nations embracing wind energy Current offshore wind capacity in megawatts, Europe, China, and the United States Europe Offshore wind capacity (United Kingdom, Denmark, The China United States in megawatts (MW) Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Norway)1 Installed 2,946 1022 0 Under construction 3,000 2,3003 0 Permitted 19,000 13,6004 4885 Total 24,946 MW 16,002 MW 488 MW Note: One megawatt roughly equates to the amount of electricity needed to power 300 American homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Capturing Energy Waste in Ohio Using Combined Heat and Power to Upgrade Electric System Amanda Woodrum and Randy Schutt
    Energy Policy March 2012 Capturing energy waste in Ohio Using combined heat and power to upgrade electric system Amanda Woodrum and Randy Schutt Executive Summary In 2009, Ohioans spent nearly $41 billion to fuel cars, to run our homes and businesses, and to power industry. This amounted to about 9 percent of Ohio’s gross product that year. Because we use energy very inefficiently, however, billions of dollars are wasted. As a result, Ohio ranks 28th in the nation for energy productivity, which is the economic value achieved from the energy we use. The biggest source of Ohio’s energy waste comes from Key findings inefficiencies in the electric power industry itself. In 2009, we th lost more than one quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) of • Ohio ranks 28 in nation for energy in Ohio’s electricity-generation system, worth an energy productivity—the bang we get for our energy buck estimated $17.6 billion. • Nearly 1/3 of all energy Combined heat and power (CHP) technologies, which generate consumed in Ohio, worth an power from heat that is normally wasted, can help transform estimated $17 billion, is lost in this inefficient system and cut energy losses. our outdated electric system th The overall energy efficiency of a factory is typically in the • Ohio ranks 44 in nation for range of 50 to 55 percent. By using a single fuel source to adoption of CHP technology produce both heat and power, CHP technologies achieve much designed to capture energy higher industrial plant efficiencies than separate heat and traditionally wasted power systems, result in significantly lower utility bills, and cut • Increasing CHP share of total related emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore Wind Sector
    Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore Wind Sector Prepared for the Department of Energy as subtopic 5.2 of the U.S. Offshore Wind: Removing Market Barriers Grant Opportunity 24th September 2013 Disclaimer This Report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy. As such, the document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. Though this Report does not constitute “influential” information, as that term is defined in DOE’s information quality guidelines or the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin), the study was reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication. For purposes of external review, the study and this final Report benefited from the advice and comments of offshore wind industry stakeholders. A series of project-specific workshops at which study findings were presented for critical review included qualified representatives from private corporations, national laboratories, and universities. Acknowledgements Preparing a report of this scope represented a year-long effort with the assistance of many people from government, the consulting sector, the offshore wind industry and our own consortium members. We would like to thank our friends and colleagues at Navigant and Garrad Hassan for their collaboration and input into our thinking and modeling. We would especially like to thank the team at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) who prepared many of the detailed, technical analyses which underpinned much of our own subsequent modeling.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014-2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report
    2014-2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. 2014–2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report Aaron Smith, Tyler Stehly, and Walter Musial National Renewable Energy Laboratory Prepared under Task No. WE14.CG02 Link to Data Tables NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-64283 September 2015 This report is being disseminated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As such, this document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (public law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by DOE. Though this report does not constitute “influential” information, as that term is defined in DOE’s information quality guidelines or the Office of Management and Budget’s Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, the study was reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication. For purposes of external review, the study benefited from the advice and comments of seven wind industry and trade association representatives, nine consultants, one academic institution, and five U.S. Government employees. NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]