A yes vote by CRMC would be essential to permitting the offshore wind project
By Mary Lhowe / ecoRI News
contributor
 |
| The Revolution Wind facility is proposed for federal waters off the coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. (BOEM) |
Mindful of concessions and mitigation actions promised by the developers of the proposed Revolution Wind project, staff of the Coastal Resources Management Council have recommended the council vote yes on the project, thereby declaring that it conforms with the state’s coastal management plan.
But after hearing four hours of arguments from fishermen
and the public at its April 25 meeting and with several people still waiting to
comment at 10 p.m., the CRMC board took no vote, continuing the matter to its
May 9 meeting.
A yes vote, declaring that the project is consistent with
the state’s Ocean Special Area Management
Plan, would be essential to permitting the wind facility, which
still is awaiting final approval on the federal level from the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM).
“Mitigation and project modifications” to which developers Ørsted and Eversource have made commitments “will allow the project to meet our policies,” said Kevin Sloan, an analyst working for the council.
The Revolution Wind project, in the planning for years,
would position about 65 turbines across 84,000 acres of the Outer Continental
Shelf about 15 miles southwest of Point Judith. When completed, it is expected
to deliver 704 megawatts (MW) of power, of which 400 would be bought and used
in Rhode Island and 304 would go to Connecticut. The project would have two
offshore substations. Export cables on the seafloor would bring power to the
land-based grid at Quonset Point.
The final environmental impact statement for the project
is expected to be published in June. Construction work, if the project is
approved, would begin in 2024, starting with seabed preparation beginning in January,
foundation and turbine placement in May, cable installation in July, and
remediation, if needed, toward the end of that year.
Attorneys for the Fishermen’s Advisory Board (FAB), which
is extremely wary of the project, along with Ørsted and Eversource, the two
co-developers of Revolution Wind, presented statements to the council. Speakers
also included people arguing for the need for renewable energy and local
fishermen, who fear the impact of the 84,000-acre project on important fishing
grounds, including the revered Coxes Ledge, a
habitat for cod.
The plan has been under study by the council for a year
and half, a period that included a lot of negotiation with Ørsted and the
commercial and recreational fishing communities.
Ørsted has promised to create a fund of $12.9 million to
compensate fishermen for losses due to construction and operation of the
project over its lifetime of about 30 years. Rate of loss is estimated by
Ørsted and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute at 5% annually. Ørsted would
also put money into a fund to study the environmental impacts of the wind
facility over time.
In contrast, a FAB spokesperson said an appropriate amount
for the fund based on losses to the industry would be $21.6 million.
To ease concerns of fishermen and others worried about
the impact on the ocean, Ørsted reduced the number of planned wind turbines to
65 from 100. Ørsted representatives said turbine locations were eliminated to
entirely avoid areas of glacial moraine on the seabed, which is complex hard
surface where some important fish species live and feed.
The original grid layout of the turbines, spaced 1
nautical mile apart, would look more like a web, Ørsted representatives said,
because some turbines would be microsited, meaning their position would be
adjusted and fine-tuned to avoid sensitive areas of the seafloor.
Boulders on the seafloor are a sensitive topic because
they can snag, tear, and break fishing gear, and experienced fisherman already
know where they are and how to avoid them. Ørsted said it would make an effort
to move boulders, as needed, into piles, making them more concentrated and
predictably positioned. Ørsted said it would reposition some seafloor cables to
bypass complex and essential fish habitats.
Fishermen and other speakers who worry about the impact
of the project on the ocean spoke forcefully at the meeting, individually and
through FAB attorneys.
Marisa Desautel, a lawyer for the FAB, said the
developers’ “conditions do not go far enough to mitigate the impact of this
project.”
During public comment, fishermen spoke in far more
emotional terms. Chris Brown, a commercial fisherman and member of the FAB,
called offshore wind “tremendous ecosystem disruptors.”
Shifting gears, Brown said, “There is a religious
arrangement that fishermen have with their grounds. It is sacred. Mitigation
measures will help, but they are not a solution. We don’t think there is any
level of mitigation that could affect the deleterious effect [of wind farms] on
the Atlantic Ocean.”
Speaking of the value of renewable energy, Brown said,
“My kids and grandkids need green energy, but must we accept environmental
compromise?”
One speaker, a wind farm opponent but not a fisherman, was Elizabeth Knight, who raised objections about navigational safety within the wind farm.
She said the Coast Guard has declared that a symmetrical grid pattern for the turbines makes navigation safer, whereas a less-symmetrical grid caused by micrositing to avoid important habitats can contribute to “radar scattering” that make radar less effective and seamen less safe.
Knight said a
Congressional committee has expressed concern about a lack of attention by wind
farm planners to Coast Guard comments. Knight identified her presentation by
her name, but she also is a director and main spokesperson for the East Bay
anti-offshore wind group Green Oceans.
One speaker and wind farm supporter, Tom Clemow, urged
the council not to expect or require 100% certainty about offshore wind. “It is
not possible to know everything about how the project will affect fish or the
fishing community,” Clemow said. “Just because we don’t know everything about
everything is not a reason not to do this.”
Speaking later, J. Timmons Roberts, a professor of
environmental studies and sociology at Brown University with expertise in
climate science, addressed Brown’s question about tradeoffs between ocean
health and securing green energy. He reminded the council of the fundamental
rationale for developing renewable wind energy: the need to eliminate the
burning of fossil fuels, which are warming the Earth’s climate to a dangerous
degree.
“Temperatures are rising. Carbon dioxide is accumulating
in the atmosphere. This stuff stays up there for hundreds of years,” Roberts
said. Hitting the pocketbook issue, Roberts said Rhode Islanders spend $3
billion a year importing sources of fossil fuel energy from outside the state,
even as high winds above the Atlantic provide endless power. “We have to act,”
Roberts said. “We have an awesome resource right here.”
Roberts said many of the fears surrounding offshore wind
are “speculative and unsupported by research.” He noted that offshore wind is a
known and studied industry, with 5,400 turbines spinning as of 2021 in waters
off the coast of Europe.
“We are not going to fall off a cliff here,” he said.
