83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects Pursuant to Section 83C of Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects Pursuant to Section 83C of Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008 D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 1 of 210 Final Report 83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report Long-term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Projects Pursuant to Section 83C of Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008 Prepared for: Eversource Energy National Grid Unitil Corporation February 7, 2020 Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich 75 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02166 (617) 871-6900 www.tcr-us.com D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 2 of 210 DISCLAIMER 83C Round II Quantitative Evaluation Report has been prepared by Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich, INC (TCR) for the Massachusetts Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs), Eversource Energy, National Grid US and Unitil for the sole purpose of providing the quantitative analyses to allow the EDCs to evaluate the proposals that they receive in response to the 83C Part II RFPs. The information provided herein deals with the analysis, methodology and results of the proposal quantitative evaluations. Any other use of the materials without the explicit permission of the EDCs is strictly prohibited. D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 3 of 210 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Section 1. Summary and Overview ................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2. Evaluation Costs and Benefits ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1: Analytical Approaches to Quantitative Evaluation of Proposal Cases ........................................... 5 2.2: Metrics Used in Quantitative Evaluation of Proposal Cases ............................................................. 5 2.2.1: Direct Costs and Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2: Indirect Costs and Benefits................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.3: Net Benefit (Cost) .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.4: Quantitative Workbooks...................................................................................................................................... 7 Section 3. Market Simulations – 83C II Base Case and Proposal Cases .................................................. 9 3.1: 83C II Base Case and 83C II Proposal Cases ......................................................................................... 9 3.2: ENELYTIX Simulation Model .................................................................................................................... 9 3.3: Major Input Assumptions Used to Model 83C II Base and Proposal Cases ................................. 10 3.3.1: Modeling Input Assumption Categories with differences between the 83C II Base Case and each Proposal Case .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.2: Modeling Input Assumption Categories with no differences between the 83C II Base Case and each Proposal Case ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Section 4. Proposal Evaluation – Quantitative Workbook ....................................................................... 15 4.1: GHG Inventory Worksheet ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2: Proposal Metrics Worksheet .................................................................................................................. 16 Section 5. Scoring and Ranking of Proposal Cases ................................................................................... 17 Stage Two Proposal Scores and Ranking ....................................................................................... 18 Protocol for 83C II Quantitative Metric Calculations, Stage 2 ................................................... 20 83C II Base Case Results .................................................................................................................... 23 83C II Base Case Assumptions and Description of ENELYTIX simulation model ................ 24 D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 4 of 210 Section 1. Summary and Overview The Massachusetts (“MA”) electric distribution companies (“EDCs”) issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) on May 23rd2019 for long term contracts from offshore wind energy projects. The EDCs solicited bids (“Proposals”) for projects (“Projects”) providing such supplies of wind energy and renewable energy certificates (“RECs”) to comply with Section 83C of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act. This RFP (“83C Round II” or “83C II”) is the second round of the multi-phase procurement totaling 1,600 megawatts (“MW”) of offshore wind. The first round of this procurement (“83C I”) resulted in the Massachusetts EDCs entering into long term contracts for 800 MW offshore wind through a similar RFP process initiated in June 2017. The Massachusetts EDCs selected Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich (“TCR”) as Evaluation Team Consultant to help them evaluate certain costs and benefits1 of the proposals received in response to the RFP. This report summarizes the analyses TCR prepared to evaluate such costs and benefits, and the results of those evaluations. The 83C II RFP required bidders to submit proposals for at least 400 MW of generation capacity with two pricing options. The first option was a generator lead line (“GLL”) proposal that would include the delivery infrastructure required to support the bid generation capacity; the second pricing option was a similar GLL proposal with a Commitment Agreement (“CA”) which is a commitment for the bidders to negotiate in good faith and use commercially reasonable efforts to enter into a voluntary agreement with third-party developers regarding interconnection to and future expansion of the delivery infrastructure. The 83C II RFP also gave bidders the option of submitting proposals of no less than 200 MW and no greater than 800 MW2. However, each optional proposal also had to include both a GLL pricing and a CA pricing option. The 83C II RFP Evaluation Team reviewed and evaluated the Project bids using a process described in testimony sponsored by the EDCs in this proceeding. As part of this process, TCR performed the Stage Two Quantitative Analysis of each Proposal as well as certain discrete analyses requested by the Evaluation Team at various points in the evaluation. TCR performed these analyses by creating a scenario or “case” for each Proposal (“Proposal Case”) and a common “counterfactual” case (“83C II Base Case”) which provides projections under a future in which the EDCs do not acquire wind energy under long-term contracts from any of the Proposals received in response to the 83C II RFP. TCR evaluated the costs and benefits of each Proposal Case using inputs from that Proposal and results from modeling the operation of the New England and New York energy markets3 assuming the specific Proposal being modeled is chosen, as well as results from the modeling of the 83C II Base Case. 1 The costs and benefits TCR analyzed were a subset of the overall costs and benefits associated with the 83C II RFP bids. Costs and benefits considered less amenable to quantification were analyzed in the Qualitative Analysis portions of the evaluation process. In this report, we use “costs and benefits” and similar terms to refer to the subset of costs and benefits TCR quantified using its tools and methods. 2 Bidders were allowed to propose minor variations in proposed contract size based on expected turbine size and potential changes to expected turbine size. 3 TCR uses a simplified approach to modeling the New York system and does not use the ENELYTIX capacity expansion module to simulate capacity expansion, RPS compliance or emission targets for the New York ISO footprint. Please refer to appendix D for details on modeling assumptions for New England and New York markets. D.P.U. 20-16/20-17/20-18 Exhibit JU-4 Page 5 of 210 Based on the results of these Stage Two analyses, the Evaluation Team determined that it was not necessary to conduct Portfolio Stage Three Model runs. However, during the Stage Three analysis, TCR ran two sensitivity cases on the Stage Two top-ranked Proposal to assess the impact of the winter fuel switch mechanism on the calculated quantitative metrics4. The two sensitivity cases offer a set of alternative projections and metrics under scenarios having no fuel switches (Sensitivity 1 – winter fuel switch disabled) and lower fuel switches (Sensitivity 2 – retirement date of Millstone 2 is assumed to be delayed to 2045). The results of these sensitivity cases confirmed the correct implementation of the fuel switch mechanism and that the impact on quantitative metrics was reasonable. For further discussion and results of the sensitivity cases please see the Addendum to the 83C II Quantitative Metric Calculations, attached as Appendix B-2. Appendix A summarizes the results of TCR’s Stage Two Quantitative Analyses of each Proposal Case, the quantitative
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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact
    Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact June 2021 Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Exhibit 4: Environmental Impact TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBIT 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ..........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................4-4 4.1.2 Impact-Producing Factors - Construction ......................................................................4-6 4.1.3 Impact-Producing Factors – Operations ..................................................................... 4-17 4.1.4 Proposed Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures ................................. 4-20 4.2 Marine Physical and Chemical Conditions ................................................................................. 4-27 4.2.1 Marine Physical and Chemical Studies and Analysis .................................................. 4-27 4.2.2 Existing Marine Physical Characteristics ...................................................................... 4-28 4.2.3 Existing Marine Chemical Characteristics.................................................................... 4-35 4.2.4 Potential Marine Chemical and Physical Impacts and Proposed Mitigation.......... 4-41 4.3 Topography,
    [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]
  • Equinor Backing Port of Albany to Host Nation's First Offshore Wind
    PRESS RELEASE Equinor Backing Port of Albany to Host Nation’s First Offshore Wind Tower and Transition Piece Manufacturing Facility New York, 11/12/2020 – Today, Equinor announced its proposal to locate America’s first offshore wind tower manufacturing facility at the Port of Albany, in upstate New York. Developed jointly with leading wind industry manufacturers Marmen and Welcon, Equinor stands ready to transform the port for manufacturing offshore wind towers and transition pieces (TPs), creating up to 350 direct jobs in the region. The Port of Albany extension initiative is part of the bid Equinor submitted in response to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) latest offshore wind energy solicitation, which seeks up to 2.5 gigawatts of offshore wind and multi-port infrastructure investment plans (PIIPs). Development of a tower manufacturing facility at the Port of Albany is contingent upon NYSERDA selecting Equinor’s bid and PIIP. “With this latest solicitation, New York solidifies its commitment to renewable energy and its desire to make the offshore wind industry an important component of the state’s economy,” said Siri Espedal Kindem, President of Equinor Wind U.S. “Equinor is excited about the possibility of expanding its business within New York, and this plan would create the first facility for offshore wind tower and transition piece manufacturing in the U.S. Our proposal helps secure New York and the Port of Albany as a regional leader in this exciting new industry.” The construction of an offshore wind tower/TP manufacturing facility at the Port of Albany could provide an immediate economic boost to the area as it recovers from the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, creating new employment opportunities as early as the second half of 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book
    2018 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments This data book was produced by Sam Koebrich, Thomas Bowen, and Austen Sharpe; edited by Mike Meshek and Gian Porro; and designed by Al Hicks and Besiki Kazaishvili of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We greatly appreciate the input, review, and support of Jenny Heeter (NREL); Yan (Joann) Zhou (Argonne National Laboratory); and Paul Spitsen (U.S. Department of Energy). Notes Capacity data are reported in watts (typically megawatts and gigawatts) of alternating current (AC) unless indicated otherwise. The primary data represented and synthesized in the 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book come from the publicly available data sources identified on page 142. Solar photovoltaic generation data include all grid-connected utility-scale and distributed photovoltaics. Total U.S. power generation numbers in this data book may difer from those reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the Electric Power Monthly and Monthly Energy Review. Reported U.S. wind capacity and generation data do not include smaller, customer-sited wind turbines (i.e., distributed wind). Front page photo: iStock 880915412; inset photos (left to right): iStock 754519; iStock 4393369; iStock 354309; iStock 2101722; iStock 2574180; iStock 5080552; iStock 964450922, Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; iStock 627013054 Page 2: iStock 721000; page 8: iStock 5751076; page 19: photo from Invenergy LLC, NREL 14369; page 43: iStock 750178; page 54: iStock 754519; page 63: iStock 4393369; page 71: iStock 354309; page 76: iStock 2101722; page 81: iStock 2574180; page 85: iStock 5080552; page 88: iStock 964450922; page 98: photo by Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; page 103: iStock 955015444; page 108: iStock 11265066; page 118: iStock 330791; page 128: iStock 183287196; and page 136, iStock 501095406.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Summary
    Fisheries Technical Working Group (F-TWG) Meeting Summary Thursday, February 18th, 2021 from 2:30pm to 5:30pm ET Virtual Meeting Background This meeting summary describes key discussion points and action items from the Fisheries Technical Working Group (F-TWG) virtual meeting, which was held on Thursday, February 18th through a virtual meeting platform. Goals for the meeting included: • Update the Fisheries Technical Working Group (F-TWG) on various ongoing and upcoming activities. • Solicit input from F-TWG on key issues and ideas. • Adhere to our ground rules for an effective meeting (stay on track, let others speak, be respectful, focus on the substance not the people) There were 47 F-TWG members and other stakeholders in attendance through the Teams meeting/conference line. Staff from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Tetra Tech, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), and The Cadmus Group, were also present to provide technical, facilitation, and logistics support. This summary is organized to align with the structure of the meeting agenda (Appendix A). Opinions are generally not attributed to specific F-TWG members. F-TWG members are referred to interchangeably in the summary as stakeholders and F-TWG members. This summary identifies areas of agreement as well as the different perspectives offered during meeting presentations and discussions. Action Items The following key next steps resulted from the meeting: • Discussion on the release of the Offshore Wind Job Opportunities for Mariners Report and RCG Press Release • Developers provide more information on project updates to the F-TWG in the next meeting • More detailed discussion of the Fisheries Compensation Document in the next meeting following F-TWG review period • F-TWG members should share additional topics they would like to discussion with the F-TWG or any concerns about proposed topics with Morgan Brunbauer, [email protected].
    [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]
  • 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report: Executive Summary
    2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report Primary Authors Walter Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Philipp Beiter, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Paul Spitsen, U.S. Department of Energy Jake Nunemaker, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Vahan Gevorgian, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2 U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Market−Key Findings ............................................................................... 2 Global Offshore Wind Energy Market−Key Findings ........................................................................... 6 Offshore Wind Energy Technology Trends−Key Findings.................................................................... 6 Offshore Wind Energy Cost and Price Trends−Key Findings ............................................................... 7 Future Outlook ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Primary Database Sources ............................................................................................................................... 9 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 i | 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH AMERICAN POWER LIST Our Guide to Wind’S Top People in the US and Canada
    NORTH AMERICAN POWER LIST Our guide to wind’s top people in the US and Canada Featuring interviews with Ray Wood from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, MUFG’s Beth Waters, and Enel’s Rafael Gonzalez CONTENTS Compiling the top 100: Advisory panel and ranking process 5 Interview: BAML’s Ray Wood on consolidation, tax and more 8 Interview: Lincoln Clean Energy’s Declan Flanagan 11 Analysing the top 100: Statistics about this year’s table 13 Profiles: Numbers 100 to 81 14 Q&A interview: Enel’s Rafael Gonzalez on securing corporate deals 16 Profiles: Numbers 80 to 51 19 Interview: Greengate’s Dan Balaban discusses Canada’s green hotspot 23 Profiles: Numbers 50 to 21 24 Interview: MUFG’s Beth Waters on tax changes and new energy buyers 28 Profiles: Numbers 20 to 6 32 Top five: The most influential people in wind in North America 34 Top 100 list: The full North American Power List for 2018 36 Coming up: Key dates for your diary in 2018 38 28 Taxing times: Beth Waters talks about why MUFG is still keen on tax equity deals despite Trump tax reforms 2 North American Power List 2018 Editorial A WORD ABOUT WIND www.awordaboutwind.com [email protected] US: +1 (917) 3103 307 EDITORIAL US: +1 512 216 7117 UK: +44 (0)20 7100 1616 Editor-in-Chief: Richard Heap Firms are looking to Associate Editor: Ilaria Valtimora Designer: Mike Ward rationalise and cut Client Services: Matt Rollason Membership: Zoe Wicker costs, to drive down Marketing: Frances Salter the price of wind as the Publisher: Adam Barber end of the production Registered office: 2nd Floor, tax credit looms.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities
    Tab 7a May 2021 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]