DOCSLIB.ORG

Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Virginia Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Virginia Environmental Assessment OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2014-1000 Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Virginia Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2014-1000 Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Virginia Environmental Assessment Author Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objective of the Environmental Assessment 2 1.2.1 Scope of Analysis 2 1.2.2 Impact Levels for Biological and Physical Resources 2 1.2.3 Impact Levels for Socioeconomic Issues 3 1.2.4 Information Considered 3 1.3 Purpose and Need 4 1.4 DOE’s Purpose and Need 4 1.5 BOEM Authority and Regulatory Process 4 1.6 Description of Proposed Action 5 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 7 2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) 8 2.1.1 Construction 9 2.1.2 Operation and Maintenance 9 2.1.3 Decommissioning 9 2.2 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 10 2.3 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 11 2.4 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 12 2.5 Alternative E – No Action 14 2.6 Past, Present and Future Activities on the Atlantic OCS and Adjacent State Waters and Coastal Areas (hereafter referred to as cumulative activities) 14 2.6.1 Introduction 14 2.6.2 Site Assessment Activities and Other Fixed Structures 14 2.6.3 Wind Energy Development 15 2.6.4 Geological and Geophysical Activities 16 2.6.5 Transmission 19 2.6.6 Marine Minerals Use 19 2.6.7 Dredged Material Disposal 21 2.6.8 Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal 21 2.6.9 Military Range Complexes and Civilian Space Program Use 22 2.6.10 Shipping and Marine Transportation 22 2.6.11 Climate Change 23 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES 25 3.1 Physical Properties 25 3.1.1 Air Quality 25 3.1.1.1 Description of the Affected Environment 25 3.1.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 26 3.1.1.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 31 3.1.1.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 32 3.1.1.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 32 3.1.1.6 Alternative E – No Action 33 3.1.1.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 33 3.1.2 Water Quality 34 3.1.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 34 i 3.1.2.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 36 3.1.2.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 38 3.1.2.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 38 3.1.2.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 39 3.1.2.6 Alternative E – No Action 39 3.1.2.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 40 3.2 Biological Resources 41 3.2.1 Bats 41 3.2.1.1 Description of the Affected Environment 41 3.2.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 43 3.2.1.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 43 3.2.1.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 43 3.2.1.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 43 3.2.1.6 Alternative E – No Action 43 3.2.1.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 43 3.2.2 Benthic Resources 44 3.2.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 44 3.2.2.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 48 3.2.2.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 51 3.2.2.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 52 3.2.2.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 52 3.2.2.6 Alternative E – No Action 52 3.2.2.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 53 3.2.3 Birds 54 3.2.3.1 Description of the Affected Environment 54 3.2.3.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 63 3.2.3.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 69 3.2.3.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 69 3.2.3.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 69 3.2.3.6 Alternative E – No Action 70 3.2.3.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 70 3.2.4 Coastal Habitats 70 3.2.4.1 Description of the Affected Environment 70 3.2.4.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 71 3.2.4.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 73 3.2.4.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 73 3.2.4.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 73 3.2.4.6 Alternative E – No Action 74 3.2.4.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 74 3.2.5 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat 74 3.2.5.1 Description of the Affected Environment 74 3.2.5.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 81 3.2.5.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 86 3.2.5.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 87 3.2.5.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 87 3.2.5.6 Alternative E – No Action 87 3.2.5.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 88 3.2.6 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 89 3.2.6.1 Description of the Affected Environment 89 3.2.6.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 104 3.2.6.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 118 ii 3.2.6.4 Alternative C – Alternative Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 118 3.2.6.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 118 3.2.6.6 Alternative E – No Action 119 3.2.6.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 119 3.2.7 Terrestrial Wildlife 122 3.2.7.1 Description of the Affected Environment 122 3.2.7.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 122 3.2.7.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 122 3.2.7.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 122 3.2.7.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 123 3.2.7.6 Alternative E – No Action 123 3.2.7.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 123 3.3 Socioeconomic Considerations 123 3.3.1 Archaeological Resources 123 3.3.1.1 Description of the Affected Environment 123 3.3.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 125 3.3.1.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 127 3.3.1.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 127 3.3.1.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 128 3.3.1.6 Alternative E – No Action 128 3.3.1.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 128 3.3.2 Recreational Resources 129 3.3.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 129 3.3.2.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 131 3.3.2.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 132 3.3.2.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 132 3.3.2.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 133 3.3.2.6 Alternative E – No Action 133 3.3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 133 3.3.3 Demographics and Employment 134 3.3.3.1 Description of the Affected Environment 134 3.3.3.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 136 3.3.3.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA 137 3.3.3.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within Virginia WEA) 137 3.3.3.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 137 3.3.3.6 Alternative E – No Action 137 3.3.3.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 137 3.3.4 Environmental Justice 138 3.3.4.1 Description of the Affected Environment 138 3.3.4.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 139 3.3.4.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 140 3.3.4.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 140 3.3.4.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 141 3.3.4.6 Alternative E – No Action 141 3.3.4.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 141 3.3.5 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 142 3.3.5.1 Description of the Affected Environment 142 3.3.5.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 142 3.3.5.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 142 3.3.5.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 143 3.3.5.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 143 iii 3.3.5.6 Alternative E – No Action 143 3.3.5.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 143 3.3.6 Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities 143 3.3.6.1 Description of the Affected Environment 143 3.3.6.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 147 3.3.6.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 149 3.3.6.4 Alternative C – Alternate Turbine Location (within the Virginia WEA) 149 3.3.6.5 Alternative D – Alternate Export Cable Landfall (Croatan Beach) 150 3.3.6.6 Alternative E – No Action 150 3.3.6.7 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 150 3.3.7 Other Uses of the OCS 152 3.3.7.1 Description of the Affected Environment 152 3.3.7.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 154 3.3.7.3 Alternative B – Alternate Turbine Location (adjacent to the Virginia WEA) 158 3.3.7.4 Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Applications of Systems Engineering to the Research, Design, And
    Applications of Systems Engineering to the Research, Design, and Development of Wind Energy Systems K. Dykes and R. Meadows With contributions from: F. Felker, P. Graf, M. Hand, M. Lunacek, J. Michalakes, P. Moriarty, W. Musial, and P. Veers 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. Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-52616 December 2011 Contract No. DE -AC36-08GO28308 Applications of Systems Engineering to the Research, Design, and Development of Wind Energy Systems Authors: K. Dykes and R. Meadows With contributions from: F. Felker, P. Graf, M. Hand, M. Lunacek, J. Michalakes, P. Moriarty, W. Musial, and P. Veers Prepared under Task No. WE11.0341 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. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-52616 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401 December 2011 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 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. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Highlights
    G NER Y SE E CU O R T I A T Y N NATO ENERGY SECURITY C E CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE E C N T N R E E LL OF EXCE ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS 1 Content 7 Introduction 11 Chapter 1 – Wind Energy Systems and Technologies 25 Chapter 2 – Radar Systems and Wind Farms 36 Chapter 3 – Wind Farms Interference Mitigation 46 Chapter 4 – Environmental and societal impacts of wind energy 58 Chapter 5 – Wind Farms and Noise 67 Chapter 6 – Energy Storage and Wind Power 74 Chapter 7 – Case Studies 84 Conclusions 86 A Way Forward 87 Bibliography This is a product of the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (NATO ENSEC COE). It is produced for NATO, NATO member countries, NATO partners, related private and public institutions and related individuals. It does not represent the opinions or policies of NATO or NATO ENSEC COE. The views presented in the articles are those of the authors alone. © All rights reserved by the NATO ENSEC COE. Articles may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without reference to the NATO ENSEC COE and the respective publication. 2 ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS 3 Role of windfarms for national grids – challenges, risks, and chances for energy security by Ms Marju Kõrts ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY have arisen in other countries wher wind power RECOMMENDATIONS The author would like to acknowledge the work and insights of the people who contributed to this is expanding. study either via the conducted interviews or their fellowship at the NATO Energy Security Center of apid growth of wind energy worldwide Excellence in summer and autumn 2020.
    [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]
  • FERC Approval Release 5-19
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Frank Maisano, (202) 828-5864, c: (202) 997-5932 [email protected] FERC Action Will Enable Offshore Transmission, Reduce Congestion First–of-Kind Offshore Backbone Project will Deliver Clean Energy, Jobs, Reliability WASHINGTON, DC – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a filing that greatly enhances transmission development to support America's renewable energy needs, which will also reduce expensive transmission congestion in the Mid-Atlantic states. FERC's order provides a boost to new transmission projects like the Atlantic Wind Connection that require large sums of capital that are totally at risk. The Atlantic Wind Connection investment will create thousands of offshore wind development jobs and expand reliability and national security through improvements in the electric grid. "This is an important and significant step forward to build the interstate electric super highway necessary for offshore wind to reach scale," said Robert Mitchell, CEO of Atlantic Grid Development, the project's developer. "The Atlantic Wind Connection project will allow thousands of megawatts of clean power to efficiently connect to the PJM transmission grid, while spurring the creation of thousands of clean energy jobs and improving the reliability and security of the power grid in the Mid-Atlantic. We are gratified and appreciate that the Commissioners recognize the important benefits this project will provide in furthering the efficient and timely development of offshore wind in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.” AWC originally filed its petition with FERC regarding its backbone transmission project in December. Announced in October, the AWC project is the super highway for potential offshore wind energy along the Mid-Atlantic coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Minutes PJM Interconnection PJM Planning Committee PJM Conference and Training Center Valley Forge, PA January 9Th, 2014 9:30 AM Members Present
    Meeting Minutes PJM Interconnection PJM Planning Committee PJM Conference and Training Center Valley Forge, PA January 9th, 2014 9:30 AM Members Present: David Canter AEP John Syner (FE) Allegheny Power Takis Laios American Electric Power Chris Norton American Municipal Power, Inc. Dale Burmester American Transmission Company, LLC Gary Fuerst American Transmission Systems, Inc. David Tates American Transmission Systems, Inc. Patricia Esposito Atlantic Grid Operations A, LLC Mohamed El Gassier Atlantic Wind Connection Paul McCoy Atlatic Wind Connection James Jablonski Borough of Butler, Butler Electric Division Ron Pezon Borough of Chambersburg Wil Burns Burns Law Firm Barry Trayers Citigroup Energy, Inc. Deral Danis CLEAN LINE ENERGY PARTNERS LLC William Allen Commonwealth Edison Company Thomas Leeming Commonwealth Edison Company Rehan Gilani ConEdison Energy Griffin Reilly Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. Dan Griffiths Consumer Advocates of PJM States Bill Dugan Customized Energy Solutions, Ltd.* Guy Filomena Customized Energy Solutions, Ltd.* Carl Johnson Customized Energy Solutions, Ltd.* John Horstmann Dayton Power & Light Company (The) Jaclyn Cantler Delmarva Power & Light Company David Hastings DhastCo,LLC David Scarpignato Direct Energy Janhavi Dharmadhikari (ES) Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. George Owens Downes Associates, Inc. Greg Pakela DTE Energy Trading, Inc. Kenneth Jennings Duke Energy Business Services LLC Steve Steinkuhl Duke Energy Business Services LLC Jason Harchick Duquesne Light Company Jennifer Ayers-Brasher
    [Show full text]
  • Request to Study the Atlantic Wind Connection Project
    1 DRAFT – April 12 2012 Request to Study the Atlantic Wind Connection Project and Request For Scoping Meeting 1. New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington D.C. (Eastern PJM States) hereby jointly request PJM to evaluate the Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) project as a transmission solution to their combined offshore renewable energy needs. The Eastern PJM States would like PJM to: (i) Quantify the various categories of benefits that AWC will provide, including impacts on reliability, market efficiency, congestion costs, LMPs, and capacity payments relative to a baseline scenario without AWC; (i) Identify the likely beneficiaries within the states served by PJM, (ii) Quantify the distribution of the benefits among the beneficiaries. The Eastern PJM States would also like PJM to indicate how AWC would be treated under the Critical Mass Approach ("CMA") as it is currently envisioned by PJM. The Eastern PJM States further request that PJM calculate the additional reliability and congestion costs and benefits that would result from the ability of the AWC backbone line to provide power into the northern New Jersey market including the additional revenues that would be available to wind developers. 2. In examining how the transmission method selected for offshore wind projects may impact the PJM states generally, and the states that support offshore wind energy in particular, the Eastern PJM States request that PJM consider, at a minimum, alternate transmission approaches as outlined in the table below (and shown on the attached maps). To the extent PJM needs to prioritize tasks, we suggest starting with the 3,000 MW configuration for study year 2019, followed by 7,000 MW for study year 2023.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Wind Farm Data September 2008 Yih-Huei Wan
    Technical Report Summary Report of Wind NREL/TP-500-44348 Farm Data May 2009 September 2008 Yih-huei Wan Technical Report Summary Report of Wind NREL/TP-500-44348 Farm Data May 2009 September 2008 Yih-huei Wan Prepared under Task No. WER8.5001 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 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 Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 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. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Coast
    Harnessing the wind off the Atlantic Coast By Marissa N. Newhall, Clean Energy Group From New England to the Southeast, in Washington and in state capitals, there are oil and gas industry executives and their allies who look out across the Atlantic seashore and immediately think: Drill there, drill now. The American Petroleum Institute wants to open up the entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas drilling, regardless of the risk to existing coastal industries or whether this is in fact the most effective economic development strategy for the region.11 Indeed, expanded offshore drilling is not the only option. The Atlantic region’s vast natural resources, pre-existing infrastructure, and status as one of the nation’s largest energy load centers make the area prime territory for offshore wind development. In fact, the Department of Energy classifies Atlantic coastal wind resources as “outstanding,” a rating stronger than any land-based wind resources in the nation.12 The Atlantic coastal region is particularly well-suited for offshore wind power development Resource availability and energy generation potential are high Not a single wind turbine sits in water off any U.S. coastline. Yet the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that more than 4,000 gigawatts of electricity— more than four times what the U.S. power system can currently produce—could Harnessing the wind off the Atlantic Coast | www.americanprogress.org 7 be generated from winds blowing above coastal waters.13 More than a quarter of this wind power could be harnessed from winds over the Atlantic Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Contracts for Offshore Wind Energy Generation
    D.P.U. 21-40 Responses to the Department’s First Set of Information Requests Attachment DPU 1-12 Page 1 of 156 H.O.: Alice Davey February 23, 2021 Patrick Woodcock Commissioner Department of Energy Resources 100 Cambridge St. Suite 1020, Boston, MA 02114 Subject: 1600 MW Offshore Wind RFP The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined Environmental Justice as follows: “Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies”. In other words, Environmental Justice is racial justice. As currently drafted, the 1600 MW Offshore Wind RFP fails to make support of environmental justice an important element of the RFP selection criteria, thus leaving the opportunity for the project to have a profound environmental and economic impact on the Commonwealth’s too numerous environmental justice communities to the good will of project developers. We can and must do better. This is the largest such project in the Commonwealth’s history and represents a capital investment of between $4-5B. The workers and companies engaged in this solicitation have a leg up to become the leaders of tomorrow’s offshore wind industry. Your Administration projects that half of Massachusetts’ energy may come from offshore wind by 2050. This solicitation represents just the beginning of what will be tens of billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs in the decades ahead. Choices made today set the course for industry growth and workforce development for the years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Power for Municipal Utilities. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    FROM COAST TO COAST, WIND POWER IS A BREEZE Clean energy has a bright future. Today a growing number of public utilities are harvesting a new source of homegrown energy. From Massachusetts to California, more than two dozen municipal utilities have wind power in their energy mix. Wind energy is attractive for many reasons: • Wind energy is clean and renewable. • Wind energy is economically competitive. • Wind energy reduces energy price risks. Unlike coal, natural gas, or oil, the “fuel” for a wind turbine will always be free. • Wind energy is popular with the public. A RECORD YEAR — Wind power is booming. Worldwide, a record 3,800 megawatts (MW) were installed in 2001. These sleek, impressive wind turbines have closed the cost gap with conventional power plants. Depending on size and location, wind farms produce electricity for 3–6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). The nation’s investment to advance wind technology will lead to even more competitive wind generated power. OLD AND NEW — Wind power is one of mankind’s oldest energy sources. The American experience with wind technology began during Colonial times. During the 1930s, half a million windmills pumped water on the Great Plains. Today’s modern wind turbine is a far cry from the old water pumpers. Incorporating the latest engineering, these sleek, impressive machines produce affordable and reliable electricity. WIND RESOURCE POTENTIAL — Our nation is blessed with an abundance of world-class wind resources. Harnessing the strong winds that sweep across America offers an excellent business opportunity for the nation’s public utilities. MUNICIPAL WIND POWER PIONEERS From Oregon to Maine, municipal utilities are beginning Hull Municipal to harness the wind.
    [Show full text]
  • National Offshore Wind Energy Grid Interconnection Study Executive Summary
    National Offshore Wind Energy Grid Interconnection Study Executive Summary DOE Award No. EE-0005365 ABB, Inc. 12040 Regency Pkwy. Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518-7708 Project Period: 10/11 – 04/14 Authors: John P. Daniel Dr. Shu Liu Dr. Eduardo Ibanez (Principal Investigator) ABB, Inc. National Renewable Energy Laboratory ABB, Inc. 919-856-2473 303-384-6926 940 Main Campus Dr. [email protected] [email protected] Raleigh, NC 27606 919-856-3306 [email protected] Ken Pennock Dr. Gregory Reed Spencer Hanes AWS Truepower University of Pittsburgh Duke Energy 518-213-0044 412-383-9862 704-382-4560 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] July 30, 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Award No. EE-00005365. The authors wish to express appreciation for the kind support from DOE and the many industry leaders that have contributed through direct input and comment on the work as it has progressed. In particular, we would like to thank the study’s technical review committee (TRC) for their tremendous input and support for this work. Representatives from utilities, regional system operators, government, and the wind industry comprised the TRC. Technical Review Committee American Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind Development Coalition Chris Long Doug Pfeister Bureau of Ocean Energy Management PJM Casey Reeves Scott Baker Ken Schuyler Electric Reliability Council of Texas U.S. Department of Defense Cathey Carter Louis Husser ISO-New England U.S. Department of Energy Jon Black Charlton Clark Rich Kowalski Brad Ring Melissa Callaway National Renewable Energy Laboratory Xero Energy Limited Aaron Bloom Jeff Fodiak Dennis Elliott Helen Snodin Study Team ABB, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • US East Coast Offshore Wind Energy Resources and Their Relationship to Peak-Time Electricity Demand Michael J
    WIND ENERGY Wind Energ. 2013; 16:977–997 Published online 25 July 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/we.1524 RESEARCH ARTICLE US East Coast offshore wind energy resources and their relationship to peak-time electricity demand Michael J. Dvorak, Bethany A. Corcoran, John E. Ten Hoeve, Nicolas G. McIntyre and Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, MC 4020, Stanford, California, 94305, USA ABSTRACT This study characterized the annual mean US East Coast (USEC) offshore wind energy (OWE) resource on the basis of 5 years of high-resolution mesoscale model (Weather Research and Forecasting–Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting) results at 90 m height. Model output was evaluated against 23 buoys and nine offshore towers. Peak-time electrical demand was analyzed to determine if OWE resources were coincident with the increased grid load. The most suitable locations for large-scale development of OWE were prescribed, on the basis of the wind resource, bathymetry, hurricane risk and peak-time generation potential. The offshore region from Virginia to Maine was found to have the most exceptional overall resource with annual turbine capacity factors (CF) between 40% and 50%, shallow water and low hurricane risk. The best summer resource during peak time, in water of Ä50 m depth, is found between Long Island, New York and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, due in part to regional upwelling, which often strengthens the sea breeze. In the South US region, the waters off North Carolina have adequate wind resource and shallow bathymetry but high hurricane risk.
    [Show full text]