Follow @EngelsAngle
Construction is underway on New York's first offshore wind project. South Fork Wind is being jointly developed by Ørsted and Eversource, and is expected to come online in 2023. The project positions New York to lead the nation in offshore wind development, according to Doreen M. Harris, president and CEO of the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA). She said it would establish a robust supply chain for future projects. "We are solidifying New York State's clean energy vision," Harris said. New York's goal is to develop 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035. In January, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that the state would invest $500 million to set up manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure for offshore wind. South Fork Wind Farm is a 132 MW project to be sited 19 miles southeast of Block Island, Rhode Island. The project is approved to install 12 or fewer wind turbines and is expected to use Siemens-Gamesa’s 11 MW turbines. Kiewit Offshore Services won a contract to will design and build the project’s substation. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/z6A5OsV
0 Comments
Follow @EngelsAngle
A study found that the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard has failed to meet greenhouse gas emission targets but increased corn prices by 30%.The carbon intensity of corn ethanol supported by the U.S.'s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is likely at least 24% higher than gasoline, according to a peer-reviewed study from University of Wisconsin researchers. Researchers determined that the production of corn-based ethanol under the RFS policy "has failed to meet the policy’s own greenhouse gas emissions targets and negatively affected water quality, the area of land used for conservation, and other ecosystem processes." The RFS also pushed prices for corn up by 30% and other crops by 20%, they said. The study aims to support policymakers as they determine the future of the RFS, which is among the world's largest biofuel programs. The policy was first established in 2008 and is now under review by the Biden administration. The study, Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard, will be published in the March issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. The work was supported by the U.S. Deptartment of Energy and the National Wildlife Federation, among others. The Bloomberg news service noted that the National Wildlife Federation is a vocal critic of the RFS. The Renewable Fuels Association, which aims to expand demand for American-made biofuels, said the RFS is the "single most successful clean fuels policy in the U.S." The group said ethanol has saved Americans money, reduced the country's dependence on foreign fuels, and supported job growth. Renewable Energy World has asked the Renewable Fuels Association for comment on the study. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/ysxLg2Z By Allison Kite, Kansas Reflector Senators heard three hours of testimony from anti-wind sources and just one hour from proponents of renewable energy A series of bills professing to protect rural residents from industrial wind claim to bring transparency, limit abuse and enact safety measures to protect against the supposed health hazards of turbines. In reality, they would transform Kansas, one of the top producers of wind energy for two decades, into one of the most restrictive states in the nation, pro-wind experts say. “This is punitive. This is not progressive,” said Kimberly Gencur Svaty, public policy director for the Kansas Advanced Power Alliance. “This is not laying out a path of economic development or growth for the state of Kansas.” Kansas has embraced renewable development for years. The expansion of wind energy in Kansas has been embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike — and the state’s status as one of the top producers in the nation is celebrated. But opposition to wind energy has found an ally in the Johnson County Republican leading the Senate Utilities Committee. The struggle between burgeoning resentment of industrial wind projects and the state’s two-decade history as the “Saudi Arabia of wind” received attention all last week in Sen. Mike Thompson’s committee. “He’s been very clear he is very, very opposed and would like to end renewable energy, and so he brings these wolves-in-sheep-clothing bills to say, ‘Oh, these are just meant to do reasonable things,’ when quite clearly they’re not,” said Alan Claus Anderson, vice president of the energy group at Polsinelli law firm. Thompson, in just his third session as a state senator, has established a reputation as a frequent critic of wind energy and touts dubious science about the health effects of wind. His committee is sponsoring half a dozen bills, most of them introduced at his request, enacting what the industry claims are poison pill restrictions on wind farms. Thompson didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story. Last week, his committee heard for two days from anti-wind sources who claimed proximity to wind turbines could cause cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance and headaches. They cited anecdotes and disputed research showing no evidence of significant health harms from wind turbines. There is evidence wind farms can cause annoyance, but those sensations are often worse for people who are opposed to wind energy as an underlying cause for their frustration. “I thought and assumed that wind turbines were quiet, good for the world, and I assumed they were safe,” said Ben Washburn, a retired cardiologist from Iowa who presented for an hour to the committee. “The last few years I’ve witnessed the good, the bad, the ugly of wind turbines. The topic is massive, emotions are high, and distortion and corruption is in play.” Washburn said to people who believe renewables are the only path forward, “I would ask you to carefully reconsider.” And while Washburn and fellow wind critics’ testimony was supposed to be purely informational, one of them repeatedly voiced his support for Thompson’s bill requiring wind turbines to be sited at least a mile or 10 times the height of the turbine from the next property line. After two days of hour-long presentations outlining supposed risks of wind energy, supporters of Thompson’s anti-wind bill got a third day in committee to speak directly about the legislation for five minutes each. Only on Thursday did pro-wind forces and experts get to speak on Thompson’s bill — also for five minutes each. An expert with his PhD in environmental health and a career studying the health effects of wind got his credentials questioned. And Thompson cut off another senator voicing his opposition to the legislation. “If we move forward with this bill — we are now a net exporter of energy — we will no longer be an exporter of energy,” said Sen. Robert Olson, an Olathe Republican. “We’ll be an importer of energy. And —” Thompson cut him off. “Are you testifying or are you asking a question? We need to make —” “I’m making a comment here, which I have a right, I believe,” Olson said. Thompson said he would limit Olson’s time to comment, and Olson voiced his frustration with the dayslong anti-wind testimony. “You know, we had people all week say what they want for an hour, and I sat in here for a long time,” Olson said. Thompson said, “This is my committee, and I’m saying get a question in.” Gencur Svaty encouraged the committee following her testimony to ask questions so that pro-wind advocates would get more time to speak, noting the previous days of testimony. Thompson responded that anti-wind groups testifying on his bill the day before were also limited to five minutes. Anderson said the informational hearings held by Thompson’s committee were not meant to compile information in good faith. “I struggle to say informational because they were obviously not intended to give good information,” Anderson said. “The people who presented are on the fringe of the fringe.” Health effects of windOpponents of wind energy have made numerous claims regarding the potential health consequences of living near a turbine. They say the whooshing sound can cause stress, and infrasound — sound waves too low for people to hear — can harm the body. Washburn cited a 1970 paper on pollution that called noise a “scourge of the modern world” and said ambient noise could cause atherosclerotic disease, or plaque buildup in the arteries, and death. He took issue with wind turbines, too, not based on health but because wind is an intermittent energy resource that he called unreliable. He said moving to renewable energy only is “absurd.” And he recalled a public meeting in Iowa where he claimed a wind developer’s representative was hesitant to say wind was safe. Research has shown a link between wind turbines and feelings of annoyance but that there is not sufficient information to link wind turbines to disease. The University of Iowa’s College of Public Health, Iowa Policy Project and the Iowa Environmental Council reviewed several pieces of research and found the consensus was there was little scientific evidence to support the idea that wind energy poses a threat to human health. Another literature review published by researchers in Switzerland found in 67 peer-reviewed and web articles published between 2012 and 2017 that annoyance was the only symptom of wind turbine exposure that was backed up by science. The article acknowledged people who live near wind turbines might experience anxiety or distress, which is highly dependent on their attitudes toward wind energy. And the article notes there are known negative effects from the use of fossil fuels to create electricity. That includes climate change, but also asthma for individuals living near coal-fired power plants. “If you just want to have no wind turbines ever, well, then we’re going to have more coal-fired power plants and more disease,” said David Osterberg, lead researcher for the Iowa Policy Project and professor emeritus at the University of Iowa College of Public Health’s Department of Occupational and Environmental Health. Osterberg said in an interview he doesn’t doubt people who live near turbines experience symptoms, but that it doesn’t come from sound. It could be a result of annoyance or stress from a large project they don’t want moving in near their home. “But that is not a health effect that we can fix by moving the turbines back half a mile … so what they’re asking for does not take care of their symptoms,” Osterberg said. “They’re still going to be mad.” Christopher Ollson, an environmental health scientist with Ollson Environmental Health Management, acknowledged a link between environmental noise and health concerns. But he told senators on the committee 20 years of research has shown noise from wind turbines isn’t loud enough to create those concerns. “There is considerable research over the last 20 years that has studied this topic,” Ollson said. “The … provisions in this bill are far more excessive than any other state in this country, any of the local ordinances that have worked for more than 20 years.” Fight over windRural residents who have opposed wind projects moving into — or proposed — in their communities pleaded with the Utilities Committee on Wednesday to enact Thompson’s restrictions. Aside from the one-mile setback, the bill would limit the decibel noise of the projects to levels the industry says are impossible and prohibit any shadow flicker on non-participating landowners’ property. Wind proponents say the way the bill is written would allow existing wind farms to be shut down over shadow flicker, something Anderson called “reckless” and said would threaten reliability of the power grid. Several of Thompson’s bills have sought to shift power in siting wind farms to landowners who aren’t participating in the project and have voiced complaints about turbines moving in. Proponents of wind energy often say landowners who want turbines on their property have a right to participate in the project without interference from their neighbors — while opponents say they have a right to enjoy their property free from what they see as the nuisance of wind turbines. Gayla Randel, of Marshall County, told senators pro-wind forces would likely say they couldn’t enact Thompson’s restrictions because it would kill development. “But what I want you to think about is, are they actually saying they can’t do their work unless they infringe on the property rights of nonparticipants,” Randel said. “Because that’s what it sounds like to me.” Other supporters of Thompson’s bill said wind companies “steamroll” rural neighbors when they come into town. “Unless you have a board of county commissioners who are actually savvy to wind projects, counties are sitting ducks,” said former Marion County Commissioner Dianne Novak. “We are at the mercy of these companies.” via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/tzfgUoX The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved plans to add around 25,500 MW of renewable energy resources and 15,000 MW of energy storage and demand response resources by 2032. The decision also adopted a 35 million metric ton (MMT) electric sector greenhouse gas emission (GHG) planning target. That goal, also to be achieved by 2032, is tighter than an earlier 46 MMT GHG target. The CPUC said its February 10 decision equates to 73% Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) resources and 86% GHG-free resources by 2032. The preferred system plan portfolio differs from one previously adopted by including more solar and battery storage, as well as new long-duration storage, out-of-state wind, and offshore wind resources. The decision said the process to include offshore wind in IRP capacity expansion models began in early 2020 and is due to wrap up in 2022. A March 2021 joint agency policy report to state legislators showed that offshore wind was likely to be needed in California’s 100% clean energy portfolio by 2045. The commission said that three load serving entities already have included around 300 MW of offshore wind in their integrated resource plans. Those resources would connect to the state’s electric power grid at interconnection points in Humboldt County and at Central Coast locations. Including offshore and out-of-state wind resources show their increased viability as “cost-effective resources” to help meet state goals, the CPUC said. A preliminary analysis of CPUC’s preferred system plan portfolio of the load serving entities (LSEs) indicated that sufficient space exists for these new resources on the existing transmission system. It said that “only limited transmission upgrades” would be needed by 2032. The CPUC said this finding would be validated in detail by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in its 2022-2023 Transmission Planning Process (TPP). The TPP is an evaluation of the CAISO transmission grid to identify grid upgrades needed to address reliability, meet state policy goals, and provide economic benefits. The regulatory decision also ordered utility procurement of two battery storage projects that were identified by the CAISO as alternatives to transmission upgrades in the previous TPP cycle. The projects are both in Pacific Gas and Electric’s service area. They include a 95 MW 4-hour storage resource on the Kern-Lamont 115 kV system and a 50 MW 4-hour storage resource at the Mesa 115 kV substation. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/ysrN1lA The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved plans to add around 25,500 MW of renewable energy resources and 15,000 MW of energy storage and demand response resources by 2032. The decision also adopted a 35 million metric ton (MMT) electric sector greenhouse gas emission (GHG) planning target. That goal, also to be achieved by 2032, is tighter than an earlier 46 MMT GHG target. The CPUC said its February 10 decision equates to 73% Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) resources and 86% GHG-free resources by 2032. The preferred system plan portfolio differs from one previously adopted by including more solar and battery storage, as well as new long-duration storage, out-of-state wind, and offshore wind resources. The decision said the process to include offshore wind in IRP capacity expansion models began in early 2020 and is due to wrap up in 2022. A March 2021 joint agency policy report to state legislators showed that offshore wind was likely to be needed in California’s 100% clean energy portfolio by 2045. The commission said that three load serving entities already have included around 300 MW of offshore wind in their integrated resource plans. Those resources would connect to the state’s electric power grid at interconnection points in Humboldt County and at Central Coast locations. Including offshore and out-of-state wind resources show their increased viability as “cost-effective resources” to help meet state goals, the CPUC said. A preliminary analysis of CPUC’s preferred system plan portfolio of the load serving entities (LSEs) indicated that sufficient space exists for these new resources on the existing transmission system. It said that “only limited transmission upgrades” would be needed by 2032. The CPUC said this finding would be validated in detail by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in its 2022-2023 Transmission Planning Process (TPP). The TPP is an evaluation of the CAISO transmission grid to identify grid upgrades needed to address reliability, meet state policy goals, and provide economic benefits. The regulatory decision also ordered utility procurement of two battery storage projects that were identified by the CAISO as alternatives to transmission upgrades in the previous TPP cycle. The projects are both in Pacific Gas and Electric’s service area. They include a 95 MW 4-hour storage resource on the Kern-Lamont 115 kV system and a 50 MW 4-hour storage resource at the Mesa 115 kV substation. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/98VMNmW
Follow @EngelsAngle
Duke Energy said it plans to double its renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade, and stop generating electricity from coal by 2035. CEO Lynn Good announced the plans during a call with investors on Feb. 10. The announcement comes as Duke intends to deploy $63 billion of capital over the next five years, 80% of which is expected to support investments in grid modernization and zero or lower-carbon emitting generation. Good said Duke's wind and solar capacity would increase from 10,000 MW currently to 24,000 MW by 2030. "As coal is phased out from our generation profile, it will be replaced with zero-carbon resources and prudent investments in cleaner natural gas," Good said, according to a transcript summary of the call. Duke has retired 56 coal units for a total of 7.5 GW of capacity since 2010, Good said. The utility will spend around $4 billion on hydrogen-enabled natural gas generation to better ensure reliability in the absence of coal. Around $15 billion would be spent on nuclear, renewables, storage, and hydropower over the same period, plus $33 billion on transmission and distribution infrastructure. The financial sector is increasingly concerned about ownership of fossil fuel assets, particularly coal facilities, said B illy Pizer, vice president for research and policy engagement at the non-profit think thank Resources for the Future. Against this backdrop of regulation and financial momentum, "rapidly phasing out coal is good not just for the environment but for Duke Energy’s business."Climate mandateCharlotte, North Carolina-based Duke is working to comply with a bipartisan clean energy and emissions mandate signed into law by North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) in October. House Bill 951, which emerged from a Republican-controlled state legislature, requires the state to reduce carbon emissions by 70% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Under the bill, the state's utilities commission has until the end of 2022 to develop a plan with utilities to achieve the mandated emissions targets. "The Carbon Plan" would then be reviewed every two years and may be adjusted. Any generation and resource changes must maintain or improve grid reliability. The utilities commission was authorized to direct the procurement of solar energy this year by utilities. And, regulators were directed to establish rules within 180 days for the early retirement of subcritical coal plants. Good said that Dude planned to file its carbon plan after gathering stakeholder input. She said the utility expected an order on the carbon plan "by the end of this year." Expanded emissions targetDuke also announced that the utility's 2050 net-zero goals would expand to include Scope 2 and certain Scope 3 emissions. The utility said it would include emissions from "the power it purchases for resale, from the procurement of fossil fuels used for generation and from the electricity purchased for its own use." Duke added a new net-zero by 2050 goal for the natural gas business that includes "upstream methane and carbon emissions related to purchased gas and downstream carbon emissions from customers' consumption." Duke claims to have already reduced Scope 1 emissions from electricity generation by 44% from 2005 levels. Matt Abele of the NC Sustainable Energy Association told Renewable Energy World that Duke's announced coal plant closures are the result of HB951, which allowed the utility to recoup costs from retirements. He said he remains skeptical about Duke's expanded emissions targets. “The jury is still out" on Duke's additional commitment to Scope 2/3 emissions. He said the utility "still seems fairly committed to natural gas in its own fleet" under Scope 1. He pointed to Duke's latest integrated resource plan as evidence. He also cited "expanded efforts for cross-state collaboration" through mechanisms like the Southeast Energy Exchange Market that "may actually increase" natural gas dependency in the state. Duke is among the 15 utilities that so far have backed the SEEM market design. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/DXMuNfv The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has received two applications for preliminary permits for a pumped storage project at the same location, Lake Elsinore in California. The location is the site of the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage (LEAPS) project, which was proposed by Nevada Hydro Company Inc. The company’s application was dismissed by FERC on Dec. 8, 2021, and a rehearing was denied. FERC said Nevada Hydro could refile the application after obtaining information that the U.S. Forest Service requested as part of its review process. Nevada Hydro said in a Feb. 8 filing that it was working with the Forest Service to obtain the needed information. The company filed its notice in an effort to preserve the site from third-party permit applications while it completes the studies necessary for resubmittal of its license application. However, a day earlier, on Feb. 7, Blue Water Renewable Development filed an application with FERC for a proposed 1,000 MW project, known as Blue Water Energy Storage Project. The application said the project would increase in size to 1,000 MW from 500 MW, without increasing the size of the upper reservoir. It also would reduce the footprint of the primary transmission line facilities to reduce environmental impacts to Forest Service lands. And, the developers proposed water quality improvements in Lake Elsinore by installing a water treatment facility and supplemental oxygen injection system. Under the proposal, Lake Elsinore would serve as the lower reservoir, with a new upper reservoir and dam across Decker Canyon to be constructed. The underground powerhouse would be about 3,000 feet from Lake Elsinore and would contain two reversible Francis-type pump-turbine/motor-generators, each rated for 500 MW at the average net head of about 1,500 feet. The 500-kV transmission line would be 6.3 miles long and connect to Southern California Edison’s Valley-Serrano line. The operating scenario would depend on market conditions and other factors. The application to FERC said one scenario would be 12 hours of on-peak generation each weekday using both units. This would result in about 3,744,000 MWh of electricity generated annually. Nevada Hydro’s LEAPS proposal was similar to the Blue Water project. One difference: The LEAPS project’s underground powerhouse would contain two reversible Francis-type pump-turbine/motor-generators, each rated for 250 MW. In addition, the 500-kV transmission line would be 32 miles long and connect to two existing transmission lines, one a 230-kW line south of the project and the other a 500-kV line to the north. Average annual electricity production of the facility would depend on plant utilization. Under a representative five-day, 10-hour weekly generation schedule, annual electricity production would be 1,300,000 MWh. FERC says: The purpose of a preliminary permit is to preserve the right of the permit holder to have the first priority in applying for a license for the project that is being studied. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/z4spjHW Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) surprised the entire stakeholder community with a 2030 proposed implementation date for complying with FERC’s Order 2222, which opened wholesale energy markets to distributed energy resources. MISO’s primary reasoning for the long lead time is staging several enabling market systems, including automating the current Demand Response Tool. And, MISO has decided to work on Multiple Configuration Resources ahead of the Order 2222 market participation model. As a result, MISO’s implementation date is beyond New England ISO. Background: What is FERC Order 2222, and what does it mean for renewable energy? MISO’s primary reasoning Is MCR MISO’s MOPR? Can Ameren-Illinois and the state of Illinois pave a path forward for “DER Light”? via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/petICh8
Follow @EngelsAngle
Grid operator ISO New England said it plans to extend the minimum offer price rule (MOPR) through 2024, a move that drew condemnation from renewable energy advocates. In a statement, ISO New England outlined the "transition" proposal that will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the coming weeks. If allowed to proceed, the MOPR would remain in effect for next year's capacity auction. The transition proposal, paired with the renewable technology resource (RTR) exemption, will serve the region with a "dual objective of protecting power system reliability while having state-sponsored resources gain entry to the market," ISO New England wrote in a blog post. ISO New England, which operates the grid for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, said its plan was designed to "mitigate short-term reliability impacts" of ending the MOPR. The New England Power Pool Participant's Committee voted to support the decision on Feb. 4. Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, condemned ISO New England's plan, saying that his group was "disappointed" that ISO-NE "reversed its earlier commitment to eliminate the anti-competitive and anti-renewable" MOPR by 2023. He said in a statement that delayed implementation would keeps clean energy from competing in the regional capacity markets for another two years. He labeled MOPR a "costly and inefficient barrier" to achieving clean energy goals and called for it to be "quickly removed." Renewable energy advocates oppose MOPRs in capacity markets arguing that they prevent energy resources like wind and solar from participating in the auction and reducing capacity costs for all consumers. The MOPR is especially problematic, advocates say, as more states implement clean energy standards and mandates. Rao Konidena, an independent energy consultant who previously worked on policy for the Midcontinent ISO, said the upcoming midterm elections may play a role in whether ISO New England's MOPR stays or goes. Republicans in the U.S. Senate could put pressure on FERC to accept ISO New England's proposal due to natural gas interests, should they regain a majority in the chamber. Konidena said that in 2018, ISO New England's Forward Capacity Market Revenue peaked with $3.6 billion changing hands but declined to $2.7 billion in 2020 as renewable resource deployments grew. "The MOPR debate has caused consternation in the stakeholder community because stakeholder process has been preempted," Konidena said in an interview. "Solar and wind do not get 100% capacity credit. Gas does." He said that renewables are being "double penalized" under the MOPR. ISO New England said that its transition plan would be submitted to FERC in the coming weeks. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/ZM3dxyX By Elizabeth Ouzts, Energy News Network Birders and organized labor dominated a recent public comment period, while beach towns were mostly mum. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will now consider the input ahead of an anticipated auction this spring. Though a spate of southeast North Carolina beach communities last year passed resolutions against ocean wind turbines that could be seen from shore, the formal letters just submitted to the federal government about the prospect were overwhelmingly — and surprisingly — positive. In a feedback period that closed last month, only Bald Head Island weighed in with the Biden administration about its plans to allow wind turbines about 18 miles from the Brunswick County coast, where they would appear as tiny specks on the horizon. The rest of the public comments were dominated by conservationists, who view the climate crisis as an existential risk to birds and other wildlife, and representatives of organized labor, who see an unprecedented opportunity for new union jobs in turbine manufacturing and construction. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will now review the input and issue a final sale notice for a 200-square-mile patch of ocean called Wilmington East, with an auction anticipated this spring. But the ocean wind farm itself is still years away, with most of its details still undetermined. “We do think that the current Wilmington East area is a preferred location for a wind project,” said Greg Andeck, government relations director for Audubon North Carolina. “But there’s still a lot more work that needs to be done before the project has steel in the ground.” ‘We need responsible offshore wind’To be sure, Bald Head Island wasn’t alone in lodging formal concern about wind turbines visible from the shore. A fishing boat captain and realtor called the structures “visual pollution” and “monstrosities.” Another commenter pleaded: “As a property owner and a senior citizen, I beg you not to place windmills within naked eyesight of our coastline.” During a comment session that closed in September, Caswell Beach also weighed in, hinting that the turbines could be placed beyond the horizon as they will be in the Kitty Hawk wind energy area off the Outer Banks coast. But during both feedback sessions, Audubon members were the most numerous voices by far, making up more than 600 of the 667 letters received in December and 800 of 814 comments received in September. “We saw over 1500 petition signatures through two different comment periods with virtually no negative feedback,” Andeck said. “That’s surprising for folks, seeing that there’s such broad support from birders.” Undeniably, wind turbines can and do kill birds, often undetected. Some studies suggest land-based wind farms in the United States could cause over a million bird deaths a year — a figure sure to increase as wind power ramps up. But unchecked global warming poses an exponentially greater danger. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius by century’s end — as they’re now on pace to do — scientists predict the areas where birds can breed, nest, and forage would shrink dramatically. Two-thirds of all bird species in North America could face extinction. “Fundamentally our members know that climate change is now the biggest threat to birds,” Andeck said, “and that we need responsible offshore wind to respond to this threat.” For Audubon, “responsible” is the key word, encompassing everything from siting decisions that avoid migration routes to technology choices that limit bird impact. The northern gannet — a snow-white seabird known for nabbing its ocean prey with a torpedo-style plunge — helps illustrate the point. Scientists believe the gannet’s nesting and feeding grounds off the coast of Canada will shrink nearly 70% if the planet continues warming apace, a contraction that may be impossible to survive. But the southern Atlantic Ocean is also along the gannet’s migration route. How might global warming alter its annual trek? How would it respond to hundreds of turbines in its path? How will the menhaden and other fish the gannet eats fair? The Wilmington East area was selected in part because it should pose limited interference to wildlife. But Audubon and other conservationists are still pressing officials to require developers to use cutting-edge equipment to further reduce risk, such as sensors that can turn off blades when bird flocks are nearby. “Migratory marine birds like Northern Gannet and trans-Atlantic migrants like Whimbrel rely on our responsible stewardship to ensure their populations remain resilient as we transition to a clean energy future,” the Audubon petition reads. If the federal government requires wind developers to monitor and reduce bird impacts upfront, it concludes, “we can provide offshore wind energy companies the certainty they need to grow this industry in North Carolina, and at the same time protect birds and the places they need today and tomorrow.” ‘A big push on our part’After Audubon, the labor movement made up the next biggest chunk of comments into the federal government, the result of a concerted effort by the state AFL-CIO and the North Carolina Climate and Jobs Roundtable, a coalition of labor, justice and environmental groups. “This was a big push on our part because offshore wind is such a big priority of many of our affiliates,” said Aiden Graham, campaign manager and field director for the North Carolina AFL-CIO. The enormous towers, blades and other specialized parts that make up offshore wind farms are now made in Europe. But from ironworkers to electrical workers to the building trades, there’s wide resolve to develop a U.S. supply chain to support the some 5,000 turbines set to be planted off the East Coast in the next decade. “We don’t have the domestic workforce that we really need, nor do we have the domestic supply chain that we really need,” Graham said. “It’s a major priority of the labor movement to build out that supply chain and to build the workforce that can do that work domestically.” A report issued last month by the Southeastern Wind Coalition and E2 projected a theoretical 2.8-gigawatt project built off North Carolina’s coast by 2030 — in line with goals set by Gov. Roy Cooper last year — could bring $4.6 billion in economic benefits, including up to 31,000 direct and indirect jobs. Federal officials estimate Wilmington East will have at least 1.5 gigawatts of capacity, enough to power more than half a million homes. Whatever jobs the project ultimately spurs, organized labor is pushing for them to be local, union accessible, and responsive to the needs of historically marginalized communities. Commenters praised the Biden administration for proposing that the wind developer who leases the area “make every reasonable effort” to enter into project labor agreements for the construction phase. “The project is an opportunity to help diversify our energy sources for families in North Carolina and bring middle-class jobs to the region,” wrote Dan Segovia, business manager for Ironworkers Local 848. “With a well-trained workforce, our partners in North Carolina can count on efficient and timely construction of any new energy development.” Project labor agreements serve to standardize work rules, safety agreements, and workforce training, the state AFL-CIO wrote in its comments, and establish clear and speedy channels for communication, coordination, and dispute resolutions. In Rhode Island, where the nation’s first commercial offshore wind project was built, Deepwater Wind’s project labor agreement with that state’s building and construction trade council “ensured the cost, schedule and time certainty challenges of our project were met,” then-CEO Jeffrey Grybowski wrote in a letter submitted to the Biden administration. Moreover, he said, “it was essential to having our project completely safely and within budget.” Federal officials are also toying with “multi-factor” bidding, in which developers bidding for the patch of ocean offer not just money but also commitments to train workers and use domestically produced supplies. Union organizers applaud the idea, so long as it is used in conjunction with, not instead of, project labor agreements. “Bidding criteria should be employed to advance community benefits, environmental justice principles, and high labor standards,” wrote the North Carolina Climate and Jobs Roundtable. A 2013 state law prevents state or local governments from requiring project labor agreements, but the Biden administration can impose whatever standards it chooses for projects constructed in federal waters. And since the Wilmington East area is equidistant to South Carolina, another state with anti-union laws, labor organizers hope the federal government will use its influence to prevent a “race to the bottom” for cheap labor. “In a state like North Carolina,” Graham said, “we have more leverage at the federal level than we do at the state level.” To be sure, there is precedent for both the Biden administration and the wind developers to meet the demands of organized labor. But most of the activity to date has been in the more union-friendly Northeast, not in this right-to-work region where workers can be represented by unions without paying dues. “Whenever there is a reference to offshore wind from the federal government, there is a reference to well paying, organized labor jobs,” said Jaime Simmons, program manager with the Southeastern Wind Coalition. “The industry has done a really stellar job at ensuring that project labor agreements are utilized at different phases of development.” “All that said,” she added, “North Carolina is a right-to-work state, so it’s tough to see how those dynamics will play out.” ‘Raising these issues early’Another question looming over the coastal wind farm: How many companies will build it? The Southeastern Wind Coalition and some wind developers believe dividing the area into two equal parcels and leasing it to two different companies will create the most competition, bringing costs down. That way, said Simmons, “there is more of an effort to sharpen your pencils to demonstrate that this is being done as cost-effectively as possible.” The state’s dominant utility, Duke Energy, takes the opposite view, arguing that keeping the area with one lessee will provide more flexibility for it to respond to concerns about environmental impact and the visibility of the turbines from the shore. (Not mentioned in the company’s letter are the company’s shareholders, which stand to benefit from less competition.) Whatever parameters the Biden administration places on the lease sale, the offshore wind project is still in its very early stages, and there will be more public input before wind turbines start spinning off the state’s southeastern coast. But both conservationists and union interests stress that their involvement in the process now is critical. “We’re raising these issues early and as soon as possible so there’s not a surprise for developers about how we would like our offshore wind industry to develop,” said Audubon’s Andeck. via Renewable Energy World https://ift.tt/r73p2HG |