|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Dozens of offshore wind opponents are lobbying the new Interior secretary to revoke authorizations for the energy projects and order an immediate stop to construction, including at Vineyard Wind, citing concerns over whales and other marine species.
President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 order on offshore wind has already had a chilling effect on the industry. It halted leasing and permitting, and ordered Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to not only review all projects and permits, but also consider terminating leases and rescinding approvals.
This Feb. 11 request from the groups, submitted in a letter, is seeking to fast-track possible actions by the Interior Department before it completes its project-wide review.
The status of that review is unclear. The Interior Department did not provide a comment on the letter, or answer questions from The Light about the secretary’s review of permitted offshore wind projects, what it entails, and when it might be completed.
“We recommend the Interior Department work with [National Marine Fisheries Service] to immediately revoke the Letters of Authorization and order an immediate cession of construction until a review is complete,” wrote representatives of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and the Caesar Rodney Institute.
The conservative think tanks and some of the letter’s co-signers have been involved in litigation against the federal government over its approval of several offshore wind projects — and some of the opponents have been tied to fossil fuel interests.
The letters of authorization they refer to are granted by NOAA Fisheries (another name for the National Marine Fisheries Service), which falls under the Commerce Department (not the Interior Department).
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and one of the letter’s co-signers, said he believes all the offshore wind projects should be shut down, citing environmental and economic concerns over what this new form of energy would cost ratepayers.
“If I had one wish, it would be that all offshore wind should be prohibited completely,” Craney told The Light in an interview this week. He added the organization is looking at participating in a pending lawsuit against Vineyard Wind, which alleges the project — and the federal permitting agencies — violated laws that are meant to protect marine life.
Vineyard Wind declined to comment on the letter. Turbine components have continued to move in and out of the Port of New Bedford as the project erects towers and removes faulty blades.
An organization that represents the offshore wind industry criticized the letter.
“The groups involved in this effort have a well-documented history of spreading false claims about renewable energy, particularly offshore wind,” said a spokesperson with the American Clean Power Association. “NOAA Fisheries has conducted a comprehensive review of all offshore wind-related activities and found no evidence that they pose a risk of serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.”
The ACP spokesperson also said the groups’ proposals threaten to drive up energy costs for consumers. “But to achieve energy dominance, we need to invest in an all-of-the-above energy strategy,” the spokesperson said.
Wind opponents claim projects harm whales
In their letter to Burgum, first reported by Heatmap, the organizations argue that the federal government has failed to adequately consider cumulative impacts to species, including the right whale, which numbers fewer than 350.
In recent years, scientists have cautioned that the government has not sufficiently considered cumulative impacts, including impacts to fisheries. (The Biden administration tried to address this by adopting a regional environmental review of newer wind projects.)
Offshore wind companies require review and approvals from several federal agencies, and each agency has a responsibility to enforce different statutes. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is under NOAA Fisheries’ purview.
The MMPA, enacted in 1972, prohibits killing or injuring marine mammals “except under certain circumstances.” The act allows exemptions by request for the accidental killing or injuring of mammals, called “incidental take,” provided the government finds the take will be a “small number,” have no greater than a “negligible impact,” and have no “unmitigable adverse impact.”
Offshore construction has environmental impacts ranging from negligible to adverse, so wind developers must request authorization from NOAA Fisheries to undertake certain activities, like pile driving foundations into the seafloor. They must also propose and enact mitigation measures.
Offshore wind is not the only industry to receive these incidental take authorizations. So do the fishing industry, the U.S. military and other government agencies, universities and research institutions, and the oil and gas industry.
There are two levels of harassment, A and B. Level A means the activity has the potential to injure a marine mammal. Level B covers activities that can disturb (but not injure) a mammal by disrupting behavioral patterns (migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering).
Projects can be issued a “letter of authorization,” which lasts up to five years, or an “incidental harassment authorization,” which only lasts for up to one year.
For Vineyard Wind’s second year of foundation installation, it was permitted to “take” by harassment up to seven endangered North Atlantic right whales at level B, but zero at level A, meaning it was not permitted to injure the whales.
The Light previously reported that NOAA Fisheries sent a mixed message on impacts, determining it is “extremely unlikely” right whales will experience injury as a result of pile driving noise, in light of required mitigation measures like visual monitoring and seasonal shutdowns.
Still, the science agency said noise from pile-driving will cause temporary to permanent hearing impairment in a number of endangered whales, but that “no other injury, and no harm, serious injury or mortality is expected” from exposure during project construction or operations.
Vineyard Wind wrapped up pile driving in December 2024 with the installation of its final turbine foundations. It required a second authorization as its foundation installation took more than one year to complete.
New England Wind, an Avangrid project, received a five-year letter of authorization last summer. SouthCoast Wind, which intends to construct its project out of New Bedford, has a pending letter of authorization that hasn’t been approved.
In their letter to Burgum, the organizations argue that the incidental harassment authorizations together allow wind developers to harm more right whales than there are currently.
A spokesperson from NOAA Fisheries declined to answer several questions about whether the Interior Department has been in touch with the agency about its incidental harassment authorizations, and did not respond to the claims made in the letter regarding the agency’s process for granting authorizations. The spokesperson referred The Light to Trump’s executive order, and recommended contacting the Interior Department.
Conservative groups disagree about stopping projects in progress
Trump’s Jan. 20 order does not mandate wind farms stop offshore construction, so already permitted projects, including Vineyard Wind and Revolution Wind in New England, are allowed to continue. A spokesperson with Orsted, when reached for comment about the request to Burgum, said that Revolution Wind is progressing.
The groups that signed the letter to Burgum want the administration to go further than Trump’s order. Craig Rucker, president of CFACT, in a press release, complained that permitted projects are continuing. He said this continued construction is the reason “we need [the Interior Department] to go further and yank the existing takings permits, called Letters of Authorization (LOAs), to keep them from continuing to ‘clang and bang’ in our oceans.”
Notably, a conservative organization that previously opposed an offshore wind project in its home state of Virginia has broken away from the groups now lobbying Burgum to stop the projects.
The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy was asked to sign the petition, but declined, with the organization saying the Dominion Energy project in Virginia should “go ahead” now that it’s in progress, Canary Media reported. A staffer told the news outlet that the institute was one of the “original opponents” of the project, which will be the largest offshore wind farm in the country, with 176 turbines.
The institute expressed concern that citizens would be on the hook financially if the project is canceled, stating a pause will add to costs.
“Virginia needs the power. The wind project will not have a great capacity factor and may often be idle, but when running it will produce substantial electricity,” the institute said on its website. “It will be far superior to solar panels. Kill it, and Virginia needs that much more power from some other new or leased generation, again at a major cost to ratepayers.”
The offshore wind opponents’ letter is the latest action in a yearslong effort to slow or altogether stop offshore wind projects. If the Interior decides to pause projects under construction, it could introduce added costs and logistical challenges, something Vineyard Wind experienced when its construction was suspended under an order from the federal government due to the blade failure.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Sadly for Vineyard Wind, the reason why people are against this now is two-fold: First, we can see the wind turbines from our beaches. Not one or two, but dozens littering the natural skyline. That natural ocean horizon line is now gone, at least it is if you’re sitting on any beach in Westport. It’s quite sad. You should come and see it for yourself.
Second, our electricity bill has risen by at least 30% since the state’s renewable mandate for solar and wind took effect last January, I believe. For public housing, that’s more money the state is paying Eversource. For the rest of us plebs, that’s an added cost to non-discretionary spending. We all need heat and electricity. We are forced to pay for solar and wind.
Had the electricity bill stabilized or only gone up a little, and if my horizon line was not full of wind turbines, only hard core anti-green activists or pay-for activists funded directly or indirectly by oil and gas companies would be complaining. But that is not what happened, and it was an unfortunate gambit by Vineyard Winds.
The best thing to do would be for MA to rescind the 63% renewable mandate next year (or today!) and give people who want that 60% or 100% renewable a tax break of some kind to entice them. Most of the people that will choose are earning at 10k a month, is my guess. That’s well beyond what us average South Coast locals are making.
Are you opposed to seeing oil drilling rigs, production platforms, pipelines, refineries tanker ships, tanker trains, and tanker trucks?
Not one or two, but dozens littering the natural skyline.
Have you had the opportunity to enjoy the natural horizon lines in the Gulf of America? The sheen upon the waters. I have.
if you’re sitting on any beach on the Gulf of America. It’s quite sad. You should come and see it for yourself.
Have fuel costs and wages gone up since since the state’s renewable mandate for solar and wind took effect last January?
How much is the state paying Eversource?
For what?
Energy conservation?
Wasteful spending?
Currently New Bedford hosts seven wind farm Crew Transfer vessels
They put over a million dollars, each, a year, into the local economy.
At build out it would be over twenty.
The average windfarm job pays over 10K a month.
Does New Bedford need those jobs.
A GED is more than enough formal education.
The increase in wind production world wide will continue.
The technology will continue to improve.
We can ignore it.
Survey says, Offshore Wind is just another bad memory for New Bedford. With not being able to bring in the promoted significant financial help directly to our city and resident’s tax and electric bills continuing to rise, realistically Offshore Wind is nothing more than a pipe dream, and the biggest environmental disaster to ever hit our Oceans, Bays, and Waterways.
New Bedford has been in this situation before, a collapse of its fishing industry. Whales, cod, groundfish, Gulf of Maine shrimp all have collapsed but why? Overfishing has always been hailed as the cause but is it really or are there other factors? The Wind farms are being blamed for whale deaths and whale experts are doubtful of this conclusion, who is right has yet to be determined. New Bedford’s traditional fisheries are collapsing and this was happening long before the wind farms were ever established, a warming ocean is causing a migratory shift of all temperature sensitive marine species which are mobile are migrating towards the poles or cooler waters. All of the fisheries that have collapsed here have shifted northwards in our hemisphere. In my forty five years in the wheelhouse I can pinpoint Summer Flounder as one species of many that has shifted from North Carolina to New York in my career. These fish would migrate out of the coastal sounds of North Carolina and bays in November but now shrimp are being caught at this time and the Summer Flounder fishery has moved to Long Island Sound and in November you can be at Block Island Channel and catch this body of Summer Flounder. The big money fishery is the Atlantic Sea Scallop industry and it has been decimated by invasive species starting on our southern most bottom and moving northward at fifteen to twenty miles per year. Now we are losing scallops in the New York Bight with no sign of it slowing down. To fix this issue first we must acknowledge its existence and causation. We have already lost the most historically productive scallop bottom from Virginia to New Jersey and must act now to protect what’s left. We also will have to come to terms with a new management rationale for a new era in our fisheries. New Bedford will survive but will it’s fishing fleet? This is in doubt because if you have been watching the fishing ports collapsing from Brownsville, TX to Hampton Roads, VA along with what’s happening on the West Coast with the Alaskan Crab industry one should see that Big Wind isn’t causing the problem but in my opinion “it is the only industry that could have a positive effect on starting to cool our planet.” The fishing industry is worried that Big Wind is taking productive fishing bottom out of circulation but if a warming ocean has already devastated the traditional fisheries what have we really lost?
The Market will determine our energy future and capitalism will continue to thrive!
The government will determine our energy future. See Project 2025
Ah, the intricate dance of energy policy and environmental stewardship. This article highlights a coalition’s plea to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, urging a moratorium on offshore wind projects due to concerns over whale fatalities. While the correlation between wind development and marine life disturbances remains contentious, the coalition’s appeal underscores the necessity for rigorous environmental assessments. Balancing renewable energy advancement with ecological preservation demands meticulous scrutiny, ensuring that our pursuit of sustainability does not inadvertently harm the very ecosystems we aim to protect.