DOCSLIB.ORG

Launching New York's Offshore Wind Industry: Phase 1 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Launching New York's Offshore Wind Industry: Phase 1 Report Launching New York’s Offshore Wind Industry: Phase 1 Report Final Report | Report Number 19-41 | October 2019 (Revised) NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers: NYSERDA provides resources, expertise, and objective information so New Yorkers can make confident, informed energy decisions. Mission Statement: Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment. Vision Statement: Serve as a catalyst – advancing energy innovation, technology, and investment; transforming New York’s economy; and empowering people to choose clean and efficient energy as part of their everyday lives. Cover Image: Courtesy of Ørsted Launching New York’s Offshore Wind Industry: Phase 1 Report Final Report Prepared by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority NYSERDA Report 19-41 October 2019 Abstract The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has published this Launching New York’s Offshore Wind Industry: Phase 1 Report (Report) pursuant to Case 18-E-0071, and the New York State's Public Service Commission's July 12, 2018 Order Establishing Offshore Wind Standard and Framework for Phase 1 Procurement. The Report describes all aspects of the Phase 1 procurement, including the results of the final 1,696MW award group, and considerations to inform future offshore wind procurements for New York State. The Report is accompanied by the executed contracts for Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificates (ORECs) with Equinor Wind US LLC for its 816 MW Empire Wind Project and with Sunrise Wind LLC (joint venture of Ørsted A/S and Eversource Energy) for its 880 MW Sunrise Wind Project. Together, the Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind projects have an average all-in development cost of $83.36 per megawatt hour (2018 dollars) with an expected average OREC cost of $25.14 per megawatt hour. The average bill impact for residential customers is estimated to be approximately $0.73 per month. The contracts utilize an innovative index OREC contracting structure where payments rise and fall inversely to a composite average of New York’s energy and capacity market prices, which do not reflect actual project revenues but do provide protection for ratepayers and projects against volatility in utility bills and project revenue, respectively over the contracts' 25-year lifetime. NYSERDA considers the procurement results as a resounding success in all respects. The Phase 1 awards represent the largest single renewable energy procurement by a state in U.S. history and positions New York as a center of gravity for this important new industry. In terms of benefits, the projects are expected to deliver over 1,600 direct new jobs for New York workers, as well as more than $3.2 billion in new economic activity while delivering approximately $700 million of avoided health impact benefits in the form of avoided hospitalization and premature death associated with asthma and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, demonstrating tremendous value for New York ratepayers and families. The contracts further demonstrate a strong commitment to mitigation plans that actively address the interests of ocean users such as commercial and recreational fishing and environmental stakeholders and ensure that coastal communities will be fully engaged and informed during the development and construction process. ii The Phase 1 solicitation and its results are demonstrable evidence of the global significance of New York’s offshore wind market. Drawing from the highly positive response and results for Phase 1 should strengthen New York’s ability to leverage strong prices, additional economic and infrastructure benefits, and comprehensive proposals in subsequent procurement rounds, thereby supporting New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) mandates. Keywords Offshore Wind Phase 1 Report Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificates (ORECs) Index OREC Empire Wind Sunrise Wind iii Table of Contents Abstract .....................................................................................................................................ii Keywords ..................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................vi Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................vii Summary ............................................................................................................................... S-1 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Organization of this Report ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 New York State Policy Status and Background ......................................................................... 1 1.4 Offshore Wind Market............................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 U.S. Offshore Wind Market ............................................................................................... 3 1.4.1.1 Massachusetts ................................................................................................................. 5 1.4.1.2 Rhode Island .................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.1.3 Connecticut ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.1.4 Other New England States ............................................................................................... 6 1.4.1.5 Maryland .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1.6 New Jersey ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1.7 Virginia ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.4.2 Developing U.S. Offshore Wind Markets ........................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Key Takeaways: A Rapidly Accelerating Market ................................................................ 8 2 Phase 1 Procurement ........................................................................................................9 2.1 Procurement Process ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Evaluation Process................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Specialist Reviewer Engagement .................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Proposer Communications .............................................................................................. 12 2.2.2.1 Clarifying Questions ....................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.2 Proposer Interviews ........................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3 Non-Price Scoring .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.4 Offer Price Scoring ......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.4.1 Benchmark LNOC Process and Outcome ....................................................................... 14 2.2.4.2 Offer Price ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.5 Score Adjustment and Aggregation ................................................................................. 15 2.2.6 Portfolio Assessment and Evaluation .............................................................................. 16 iv 2.2.7 Award Group Portfolio .................................................................................................... 16 2.2.7.1 Federal Investment Tax Credit ........................................................................................ 17 2.2.7.2 Capacity Limitations on Key Interconnection Points ........................................................ 17 2.2.7.3 Regional Competition ..................................................................................................... 17 2.2.7.4 Portfolio Diversity ........................................................................................................... 18 2.2.7.5 Award Group .................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.8 Fixed versus Index OREC Recommendation .................................................................. 19 2.2.9 The Award Group ........................................................................................................... 19 2.2.9.1 Project #1: Equinor Wind US LLC; Empire Wind, 816 MW, Gravity Based Substructure .. 20 2.2.9.2 Project #2: Sunrise Wind LLC, 880 MW .........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe
    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe August 2020 Michael C. Allen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Matthew Campo, Senior Research Specialist, Environmental Analysis & Communications Group, Rutgers University Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance (https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/). Working Group Members: John Cecil, New Jersey Audubon Tim Dillingham, American Littoral Society Patty Doerr, The Nature Conservancy of New Jersey Russell Furnari, PSEG Kevin Hassell, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Anthony MacDonald, Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University Martha Maxwell-Doyle, Barnegat Bay Partnership David Mizrahi, Ph.D., New Jersey Audubon Technical Reviews and Acknowledgments Joseph Brodie, Ph.D. Jeanne Herb Marjorie Kaplan, Dr.P.H. Josh Kohut, Ph.D. Richard Lathrop, Ph.D. Julie Lockwood, Ph.D. Douglas Zemeckis, Ph.D. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-wn1p-cz80 1 ABSTRACT Offshore wind energy is poised to expand dramatically along the eastern United States. However, the promise of sustainable energy also brings potential impacts on marine ecosystems from new turbines and transmission infrastructure. This whitepaper informs government officials, scientists, and stakeholders in New Jersey about the current policies and monitoring methods other jurisdictions use to monitor potential ecological impacts from offshore wind installations. We reviewed policy documents in the eastern U.S. and Europe, reviewed the scientific literature, and conducted stakeholder interviews in Spring 2020. We found: 1. Short-term (3-5 year) project-specific efforts dominate coordinated regional and project life duration ecological monitoring efforts at offshore wind farms in North America and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 2019 Market Report
    US OFFSHORE WIND MARKET UPDATE & INSIGHTS US OFFSHORE WIND CAPACITY GENERATION The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM), has auctioned 16 US offshore wind energy areas (WEAs) designated in federal waters for offshore wind development. Each area has been leased to a qualified offshore wind developer. The ar- eas are located along the East Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts and represent a total potential capacity of 21,000 Megawatts (MWs) of offshore wind power generation. HISTORY OF BOEM AUCTIONS AND LEASES YEAR LEASE # LESSEE STATE ACREAGE BID MW* NEXT 2012 0482 GSOE I DE 70,098 NA NA SAP *Reading volumes, some earlier estimates 2013 0486 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 97,498 $3,838,288 3400 TTL COP of capacity likely used 2013 0487 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 67,252 $3,838,288 3400 TTL FDR different calculations. 2013 0483 VA Electric & Power Co. VA 112,799 $1,600,000 2000 COP In all cases, capacity 2014 0490 US Wind MD 79,707 $8,701,098 1450 COP calculations should be considered estimates. 2015 0501 Vineyard Wind MA 166,886 $166,886 See Below FDR 2015 0500 Bay State Wind MA 187,523 $281,285 2000 TTL COP 2016 0498 Ocean Wind NJ 160,480 $880,715 See Below COP 2016 0499 EDFR Development NJ 183,353 $1,006,240 3400 TTL SAP 2017 0512 Equinor Wind US NY 79,350 $42,469,725 1000 COP 2017 0508 Avangrid Renewables NC 122,405 $9,066,650 1486 SAP 2018 0519 Skipjack Offshore Energy DE 26,332 Assigned NA SAP 2018 0520 Equinor Wind US MA 128,811 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0521 Mayflower Wind Energy MA 127,388 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0522 Vineyard Wind MA 132,370 $135,000,000 1500 EXEC EXEC—Lease Execution SAP—Site Assessment Plan COP—Construction & Operations Plan FDR—Facility Design Report @offshorewindus / BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND / offshorewindus.org 1 STATE 2018 2019 MARKET GROWTH The US Offshore Wind market currently stands VIRGINIA 12 12 at 16,970 MWs and is a subset of the total US MARYLAND 366 366 potential generation capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Stafftop Challenge for New US Sector
    Subsea Cable Solutions for offshore wind The Offshore Extensive experience in Wind Consultants complete projects owcltd.com 21 August 2020 @IPF20 LIVESTREAM Equinor puts floating TRENDING ON wind on its project menu Equinor is looking at floating wind Staff top challenge projects as part of its expansion in the US, IPF20 Livestream heard. p2 Vineyard and Mayflower Wind agree staging port leases Vineyard and Mayflower Wind have for new US sector signed lease agreements to use the The US offshore wind industry New Bedford Marine Commerce is primed to deliver on its Terminal as their primary staging and multi-gigawatt promise deployment base. despite confidence being Click here knocked by permitting delays, IPF20 Livestream heard. HOME ADVANTAGE (clockwise Philippe Kavafyan, CEO Orsted secures blessing to from top left): Martin Hansen of turbine manufacturer deploy Haliade-X at Skipjack of Siemens Gamesa, Orsted’s Grant van Wyngaarden, Matt MHI Vestas, told delegates The Maryland Public Service Sellers of Kiewit and sourcing on Thursday the necessary Commission has approved Orsted’s manager Senthil Baskaran elements are there for the turbine selection for its Skipjack wind Screengrab: Business Network for Offshore Wind sector to succeed. farm off the coast of Delaware. Consenting delays, caused BULLISH: Business Network for Offshore Wind CEO Liz Click here Secondary steel key to by the Bureau of Ocean Burdock and MHI Vestas chief Philippe Kavafyan Screengrab: reNEWS Orsted’s local content Energy Management’s Orsted is aiming to deliver significant decision last year to likely to collaborate, including involved if US developers Consortium unveils NY offshore local content levels across its near undertake a cumulative study turbine suppliers, in order to decide to use the next wind port upgrade 3GW US offshore wind portfolio by of all proposed east coast be able to access people with generation of turbines, A New York consortium has unveiled bringing tier two and three suppliers projects, have “calmed down” the required skills.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Wind Energy in Texas: an Argument for Developing Offshore Wind Farms
    4A2EF709-5F17-08B920.DOC 6/9/2009 5:00 PM RECENT DEVELOPMENT WIND ENERGY IN TEXAS: AN ARGUMENT FOR DEVELOPING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS I. INTRODUCTION Because of the place of oil in Texas history, many find it surprising that Texas leads the nation in the development of wind energy. Even California, which many would suspect to lead the nation (though ranking second in the nation) does not produce half of the wind energy that Texas produces: 2,484 megawatts as compared to 5,317 megawatts of wind capacity.1 Texas is committed to the continued development of wind energy.2 In fact, the state is about to undertake a $4.93 billion expansion of its grid system in large part to facilitate additional wind capacity.3 Capacity upgrades to the transmission grid will allow for dramatic growth of wind farms in West Texas and allow consumers to access it.4 That is not to say that Texas does not 1. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, 2008 TEXAS STATE ENERGY PLAN 18 fig.8 (2008), available at http://governor.state.tx.us/files/gcc/2008_Texas_State_Energy_Plan.pdf. “Capacity” measures the productivity of a power production facility. AM. WIND ENERGY ASSOC., WIND ENERGY BASICS, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html (last visited Mar. 28, 2009) (“It compares the plant's actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time.”) . 2. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, supra note 1, at 49. 3. ELEC.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]