|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Town of Nantucket and a Nantucket-based activist group are challenging three offshore wind projects off the Massachusetts coast through litigation in federal court and two petitions, respectively.
The challenges are part of a larger effort to reverse Biden-era approvals of offshore wind projects under the Trump administration, which has been highly critical of them.
On Thursday, the town sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, requesting that the government “set aside” its record of decision approving SouthCoast Wind. Nantucket wants the government to restart its environmental review — a process that took more than three years to complete and culminated in key permits allowing the project to move forward with construction.
Meanwhile, the Nantucket-based ACK for Whales (formerly known as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines) is asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to rescind permits it granted to Vineyard Wind and New England Wind to construct and operate their offshore wind farms.
The group filed a petition against Vineyard Wind on March 25, asking the EPA to reopen, reanalyze, and ultimately revoke the permit, which the agency granted in 2021 and amended in 2022. Vineyard Wind is currently under construction, with the Port of New Bedford as its staging area.
Two weeks ago, the group filed a similar petition against New England Wind, which is set to use the Port of New Bedford for long-term operations and maintenance, and Salem to stage the major turbine components.
SouthCoast Wind plans to use the Port of New Bedford for staging out of the Marine Commerce Terminal and for long-term operations and maintenance.
The Trump administration, which is opposed to offshore wind, is unlikely to aggressively defend against such challenges.
This is a risk experts saw pre- and post-election, The Light previously reported. The government may opt to mount a less vigorous defense in lawsuits against wind projects and the agencies permitting them. Or it could voluntarily agree to take another look at a permit, which would mean more delays. These actions create further uncertainty and increase project costs for the industry.
Timothy Fox, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, says Vineyard Wind faces less risk from the challenges, since it’s already under construction, while wind projects in the planning stages are at higher risk.
“We think the current best-case scenario for the U.S. offshore wind sector is that the few facilities that are already in advanced stages of development or in commercial operation continue, but that no other projects could come online,” Fox told The Light earlier this week, before Nantucket filed its litigation against SouthCoast Wind.
“Therefore, we think the Vineyard Wind project could be comparably safe from federal permit remand and we think New England Wind may be at significant risk,” Fox said.
SouthCoast Wind, which is projected to power more than 840,000 homes, received final federal approval on the last business day of the Biden administration. However, it still requires a key permit from NOAA Fisheries in order to construct offshore. The company, owned by Ocean Winds, announced last month that its project could be delayed by up to four years due to the Trump administration’s oppositional stance on offshore wind.
Offshore wind opponents have been lobbying new Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to revoke permits, claiming the projects harm whales and wildlife.
Nantucket’s challenge to offshore wind
Last month, Nantucket Select Board Chair Brooke Mohr wrote to Burgum, who has been tasked by Trump to review all offshore projects. She asked Burgum to review what the board believes were “legal errors” in the project’s approval.
Nantucket town administrators, in their announcement, argued against criticisms that they are engaging in NIMBYism (“not in my back yard”). The phenomenon is what killed Cape Wind, a much smaller project by today’s standards, proposed for the Nantucket Sound in the early 2000s.
On an FAQ page on the SouthCoast Wind litigation, the town writes, “The importance of the Nantucket National Historic District has nothing to do with a property’s market value or a property owner’s net worth. Nantucket’s history speaks to our history as Americans, and for that reason federal law requires the highest level of protection.”
“This is not about protecting rich people’s views,” said Matt Fee, vice chair of the Select Board, in a statement. “Our entire economy depends on heritage tourism. If people no longer want to come to Nantucket, that has a real impact on our small businesses and the people who operate them.”
Vineyard Wind, 15 miles southwest of Nantucket, is at times visible from the island. New England Wind’s lease area is 24 miles southwest of Nantucket, and SouthCoast Wind’s area is 23 miles south.
The town is calling its litigation an appeal, in response to a question about whether this is a lawsuit. The town acknowledges that appealing a federal agency’s decision is considered a form of litigation, but says such appeals are not considered lawsuits.
Town officials allege the federal government violated federal environmental and historic preservation law in its permitting and approval of SouthCoast Wind.
SouthCoast Wind did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.
EPA petitions
New England Wind, which would be built in two phases, received final federal approval in July 2024. The project is still negotiating its power contract with Massachusetts, as is SouthCoast Wind. The contracts are scheduled to be finalized on March 31 after delays.
As of now, New England Wind has not broken ground, but has spent and invested significant capital, including to survey the seafloor to prepare for cable laying and turbine installation. A spokesperson for Avangrid, the company developing New England Wind and Vineyard Wind, declined to comment on the petitions.
Fox said the petitions to the EPA put federal agencies in an “awkward” position: “They either must defend projects approved by the Biden Administration or accept the petition and put a project currently under construction at real risk.”
The type of EPA permit being challenged, issued under the Clean Air Act, sets conditions under which a wind farm must be built and operated, and includes estimates of expected emissions. The Vineyard Wind project, for example, has required many vessels to get the project up and running, as do the other projects.
These vessel trips have exceeded expectations due to the July failure of a turbine blade, which has required the removal of already installed blades, the shipment of those faulty blades back to Canada and to France, and additional shipments of new blades from France. This has all meant more transatlantic vessel trips with heavy lift vessels that require significant fuel.
It is for this reason, among others, that ACK for Whales argues the EPA’s permit was deficient and underestimated emissions by the renewable energy project.
“The analysis and attendant fact sheet for Vineyard Wind 1 does not appear to account for emissions related to and resulting from blade failures, which would warrant emergency repairs or replacement activities,” reads the petition, “which could significantly increase volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX, and particulate matter.”
Last month, another anti-offshore wind group succeeded in its petition against a project in New Jersey, Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind. The EPA has since remanded the project’s Clean Air Act permit, citing President Trump’s memorandum ordering the review of all projects.
The EPA office “plans to ‘confer with other executive branch agencies regarding further evaluation of various impacts that may result from the Project, including impacts on birds, wildlife, fishing, and other relevant environmental concerns described in the Presidential Memorandum,’” read the filing.
Fox, the analyst, says the EPA’s New Jersey decision could open the door to more reversals.
“EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board remand of the permit set a precedent that offshore wind opponents could rely on to attempt to remand necessary federal permits for other offshore wind projects,” said Fox.
Atlantic Shores has appealed the decision.
The New Jersey case is different from the case of New England Wind, however, because the petition for the Massachusetts project was submitted after the review period for the EPA permit closed.
The American Clean Power Association, which represents offshore wind developers, called the petition against New England Wind a “baseless and disruptive attempt” to delay necessary energy projects.
“Should EPA concur with these unfounded petitions it would send a chilling message to investors, undermining confidence in the U.S. business environment across all sectors,” said Jason Ryan, ACP spokesperson, in an email. “Our system is built on laws that provide the business certainty necessary for long-term investments. Blocking these crucial, fully permitted energy projects will not only strain the grid but will inevitably lead to higher energy costs for consumers.”
Nantucket wind opponents cite blade failure
Amy Everett DiSibio, a board member for ACK For Whales, cited the blade failure in a comment to The Light, stating it “should be [a] wake up call for everyone as blade failure is not uncommon.”
The blade failure has been a flashpoint at many Nantucket Select Board meetings since July, where residents have expressed concern, displeasure and skepticism with the wind projects, as have some board members.
Foam and fiberglass debris from the blade failure hit beaches in Nantucket and the South Coast over the summer.
“Sadly we are still seeing impacts from that event even now,” DiSibio said. “Unfortunately, the environmental repercussions that can ensue after blade failures have not been considered as part of the federal agencies’ permitting process. We are hopeful the EPA will respond to our petition in a timely manner, but I’m not aware that there is a set timeline.”
She said ACK For Whales does not currently have plans to file other such petitions.
The EPA did not provide a statement before publication or information on next steps now that the petitions have been submitted to the agency.
Thomas Stavola, the attorney representing ACK for Whales, told The Light on Thursday that the group has not received a response from the EPA. He said he believes the petition will receive expedited processing because there is a “heightened urgency,” given the projects are set to progress or already progressing with construction.
Vineyard Wind’s progress and the state’s energy plan
Of these three projects, Vineyard Wind is furthest along.
As of March 24, more than half of Vineyard Wind’s 62 turbine towers were installed. Of that, more than one-third were fully completed with blades. However, some of those turbines may have faulty blades that still await removal. The project resumed sending power to the grid earlier this year. Once at full capacity, it could power up to 400,000 homes.
Earlier this week, Massachusetts Energy and Environment Secretary Rebecca Tepper spoke at an event about the future of energy in the state, when demand is rising rapidly across the country. These legal challenges to projects also come at a time where blue states, and even some red states, support offshore wind as an energy source, and acknowledge its benefits to the workforce and economy.
Tepper reiterated the state’s support for offshore wind.
“We need to be energy independent, and that’s vital, but we should not take domestic energy sources off the table,” Tepper said at the event. “The doubting of federal agencies and costly tariffs are creating a lot of uncertainty and instability in the economy. Offshore wind is not immune, but I am confident, and I remain confident, that there will be an offshore wind industry off the coast of Massachusetts.”
She did not respond to a request for comment before publication.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
I hope they are successful in shutting the project down permanently.
Governor Healy’s insistence to procure “clean energy” for MA residents and the cessation of natural gas use has caused sky-rocketing energy bills for everyone. She recently stated that these bills may double or even triple in the near future. OSW is not only the most expensive energy available but the construction and operation of 1000’s of proposed turbines is an environmental nightmare along our shoreline, seriously threatening the continued success of our commercial fishing industry. The Southcoast and the Islands have seen the destruction first-hand. The Fishing industry employs thousands of people, and is the major force in our local economy. I fear the end of commercial fishing is eminent if we allow these proposed OSW installations to proceed.
These projects make Massachusetts more energy independent and control rising energy costs. They also support American energy dominance. I support the continued investment in the Massachusetts economy and New Bedford’s economy! Being anti-development of renewables is like sticking your head in the sand and asking why it is dark.
These anti-offshore wind groups are funded by foreign oil funds and ignorant wealthy individuals that are the definition of NIMBY. This is anti-American, offshore wind is and will be great for the economy, US energy independence and part of the all of the above strategy. Trying to dismantle projects for rich coastal land owners is MORONIC to 99% of Americans.
Just do a Google search for ” who is funding the anti-wind campaign ” and you will realize what is going on around you
Battery powered by solar panels will be available soon to homeowners and business’s. Good bye Eversource.