Danish energy company Orsted cancels New Jersey wind projects


File Photo by Gary C. Caskey/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 1 (UPI) -- Danish energy company Orsted announced Tuesday that it has canceled two wind energy projects that were planned for New Jersey.

The projects, Ocean Wind 1 and 2, were intended to be built about 15 miles off the coast of southern New Jersey as part of the Biden administration's efforts to promote clean energy

The company cited supply-chain factors as the main reason for the projects being canceled.

"This is a consequence of additional supplier delays further impacting the project schedule and leading to an additional significant project delay. In addition, Orsted has updated its view on certain assumptions, including tax credit monetization and the timing and likelihood of final construction permit," Orsted said in a statement Tuesday.

Orsted leadership said the company remains committed to the goal of creating renewable energy for U.S. markets.

"We are extremely disappointed to announce that we are ceasing the development of Ocean Wind 1 and 2. We firmly believe the U.S. needs offshore wind to achieve its carbon emissions reduction ambition, and we remain committed to the US renewables market and truly value the efforts by the US government to support the build-up of the US offshore wind industry," said Orsted CEO Mads Nipper.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy expressed disappointment in Orsted's decision, saying it "calls into question the company's credibility and competence."

Murphy said the company recently had indicated it was prepared to move forward with the project.

"As recently as several weeks ago, the company made public statements regarding the viability and progress of the Ocean Wind 1 project," Murphy said.

Murphy's administration tried to create a financial incentive for the Ocean Wind projects by passing a law that would have allowed Orsted to keep tax incentives that were initially intended to offset consumer costs.

Murphy said he has directed his administration "to review all legal rights and remedies and to take all necessary steps to ensure that Orsted fully and immediately honors its obligations."

The decision to cease the projects comes as the Biden administration this week announced the approval of the largest offshore wind project to date.

"The Biden-Harris administration today announced its approval of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) commercial project -- the fifth approval of a commercial-scale offshore wind energy project under President Biden's leadership," the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said in a press release Tuesday.

Wind industry deals with blowback from Orsted scrapping 2 wind power projects in New Jersey

WAYNE PARRY
Updated Wed, November 1, 2023 










Orsted-Offshore Wind Cancellations
A worker opens a section street in Ocean City, N.J. on Sept. 12, 2023, at the start of land-based probing along the right-of-way where a power cable for New Jersey's first offshore wind farm was proposed to run. Orsted scrapped the project on Oct. 31, 2023, citing supply chain problems and high interest rates.

 (AP Photo/Wayne Parry)

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — Wind energy developer Orsted is writing off $4 billion, due largely to the cancellation of two large offshore wind projects in New Jersey whose financial challenges mirror those facing the nascent industry.

It added fresh uncertainty to an industry seen by supporters as a way to help end the burning of planet-warming fossil fuels, but derided by opponents as inherently unworkable without massive financial subsidies.

The Danish company said Tuesday night it is scrapping its Ocean Wind I and II projects off the coast of southern New Jersey due to problems with supply chains, higher interest rates, and a failure to obtain the amount of tax credits the company wanted.

“These are obviously some very tough decisions,” Mads Nipper, Orsted's CEO, said on an earnings conference call Wednesday.

He said the company, the world's largest offshore wind developer, decided “to de-risk the most painful part of our portfolio, and that is the U.S.”

That statement went straight to the heart about concerns over the financial viability of the offshore wind industry in the northeastern U.S., which is in its infancy but has extensive plans from New England to the Carolinas.

Some projects already have been canceled, and many offshore wind developers are seeking better terms from governments with whom they have already contracted. New York rejected such a request two weeks ago.

New Jersey approved a tax break for Orsted in July, letting it keep federal tax credits that otherwise would have gone to ratepayers.

“While periodic local opposition in the U.S. made some headlines, these projects ultimately come down to economics, so higher costs and lower power prices are working against offshore wind,” said Louis Knight, an analyst at Third Bridge, a research firm advising private equity and other businesses. “Higher interest rates are adding to financing costs for these projects. There are other, cheaper ways to develop power in the U.S., most notably with solar and natural gas.”

But the main appeal of offshore wind for supporters, including environmentalists, many state governments and the Biden administration is precisely that it is not a fossil fuel business. The hottest Northern Hemisphere summer ever measured hit this year, according to the World Meteorological Organization and the European climate service Copernicus.

“The urgency to transition to clean, renewable energy is an irreversible reality,” read a statement signed Wednesday by nearly 40 environmental, labor and community groups from New Jersey who support offshore wind, including the state's chapter of the Sierra Club. “In a world of warming temperatures and extreme weather in likely the hottest year on record, maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel generation is not an option as the cost of climate inaction is undeniably high.”

Orsted's stock price was down over 26% at midday Wednesday. The company said it hopes to re-use some supplies it has already purchased, such as cable and steel, on other projects.

Power generated from the Orsted projects was intended to come ashore and connect with the electrical grid at the site of a former coal-fired power plant that was blown up last week.

The industry also faces stiff political headwinds, in New Jersey and nationally, most of it from Republicans, who have convinced the U.S. Government Accountability Office to look into the industry.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Republican who represents the area in southern New Jersey where Orsted's wind farms would have been built, exulted in the decision to scrap the projects.

“David defeated Goliath!” he said in a statement late Tuesday night, calling wind farms bad for the economy, the environment and electric customers.

Numerous resident groups also opposed the projects, citing similar concerns, and said they do not want to see the ocean horizon dotted with wind turbines.

“Without billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, these projects never made sense and could not stand on their own,” said Robin Shaffer, a spokesman for Protect Our Coast NJ, one of the most vocal opposition groups.

Despite the challenges, some wind projects are moving forward. Orsted said it is proceeding with its Revolution Wind project in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

In Virginia, a utility’s plans for an enormous wind farm off that state’s coast gained key federal approval Tuesday. Dominion Energy received a favorable “record of decision” from federal regulators who reviewed the potential environmental impact of its plan to build 176 turbines in the Atlantic, more than 20 miles (32 kilometers) off Virginia Beach.

Pro-wind groups including the American Clean Power Association and the Oceantic Network acknowledged the setback posed by Orsted's cancellations. But both were heartened by progress on the Virginia project and Orsted's decision to continue with Revolution Wind, and both said the future of the industry is promising.

And New Jersey still has several other offshore wind projects in various stages of development, with four new proposals submitted in August alone. They join the one remaining project of the three originally approved by the state, Atlantic Shores. That is a project by Shell New Energies US and EDF Renewables North America.

Atlantic Shores said Wednesday it remains committed to its project, though it hinted in a statement that it, too, is seeking additional help.

“We are actively engaging in conversations with the administration, regulators, and elected leaders across New Jersey to identify viable solutions that will not only preserve the progress made thus far, but also facilitate the successful execution of Atlantic Shores Project 1,” the company said.

___

Follow Wayne Parry on X, formerly Twitter, at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC

Energy company pulls the plug on two major offshore wind projects on East Coast

Ella Nilsen, CNN
Wed, November 1, 2023 

Wayne Parry/AP

Danish wind developer Orsted is halting the development of two massive New Jersey offshore wind projects due to cascading economic pressures, including skyrocketing interest rates and a supply chain crunch – two factors that have dogged wind energy projects up and down the East Coast.

The decision is ominous news for a nascent sector that could play a key role in solving the climate crisis, and one that is still trying to find its wings in the US, even as other major economies steam forward. It also deals a blow to President Joe Biden’s clean energy goals, which hinge in part on the massive potential for electricity generated from offshore wind.

Orsted Americas CEO David Hardy said the company was “extremely disappointed” to pull the plug on its development.

“Macroeconomic factors have changed dramatically over a short period of time, with high inflation, rising interest rates, and supply chain bottlenecks impacting our long-term capital investments,” Hardy said in a statement.

“As a result, we have no choice but to cease development of Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2.”

More: Inflation, interest rates and whales – why offshore wind projects are on the rocks

A company statement blamed long wait times for supplies needed to build the project and rising interest rates in the US. In addition to a strain on supplies like monopiles and other components, there are long wait times for the ships needed to construct the towering wind turbines in the ocean.

Mads Nipper, Orsted’s CEO, said in a statement the company will “now assess the best way to preserve value while we cease development of the projects.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a major proponent of the projects, blasted the company’s decision.

“Today’s decision by Orsted to abandon its commitments to New Jersey is outrageous and calls into question the company’s credibility and competence,” Murphy said in a statement, pointing to the company’s recent public statements about the project’s viability.

“I have directed my Administration to review all legal rights and remedies and to take all necessary steps to ensure that Orsted fully and immediately honors its obligations.”

Part of the reason the American industry has been slow to get off the ground – particularly compared to offshore-wind juggernauts like Europe and China – is US developers are essentially building it from scratch, industry experts have told CNN. And a combination of incredibly tight supply chains, lack of vessel availability and rising interest rates have made the first major US offshore wind projects very difficult to build.

Despite the Biden administration’s friendly posture toward offshore wind, the number of active turbines in US waters is still in the single digits, and the energy output lags significantly behind solar and onshore wind. There will be about 140 gigawatts of solar (including both utility scale and rooftop) installed in the US by the end of this year, Sam Huntington, director of S&P Global Commodity Insights’ North American power team, told CNN earlier this year, while offshore wind comprises a tiny 42 megawatts.

Two commercial-scale offshore wind projects – Vineyard Wind off the coast of Massachusetts and South Fork Wind off the coast of New York – are under active construction. The Biden administration announced earlier this week it approved plans for Dominion Energy to build what would be the largest offshore wind farm to-date in the US off the coast of Virginia. The Dominion project, known as Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, is planned to be a 2.6-gigawatt wind farm that could eventually generate enough electricity to power over 900,000 homes.

Before the Dominion announcement, Ocean Wind 1 was the largest project the administration had approved – expected to generate 1.1 gigawatts, enough to power over 380,000 homes. At the time, administration officials including Interior Sec. Deb Haaland had praised the project’s federal approval as a “milestone.”

White House spokesperson Michael Kikukawa reiterated there is still “momentum” for the US offshore wind industry.

“While macroeconomic headwinds are creating challenges for some projects, momentum remains on the side of an expanding U.S. offshore wind industry,” Kikukawa said in a statement, “creating good-paying union jobs in manufacturing, shipbuilding, and construction; strengthening the power grid; and providing new clean energy resources for American families and businesses.”

Biden's offshore wind agenda relied on plans that are being canceled

Timothy Puko, (c) 2023, The Washington Post
Wed, November 1, 2023
 

NIMBY

A slew of canceled offshore wind projects and contracts have jeopardized the Biden administration's push to expand the new industry and its promise of clean power for coastal states.

The latest setback came Tuesday night when the Danish developer Orsted said it is scrapping two large projects off the southern coast of New Jersey. Ocean Wind 1 and 2 became too expensive because of rising interest rates and competition for limited supplies and equipment, the company said. The projects had also become a hot-button political issue, with local grass-roots opposition and campaigns tied to fossil-fuel interests.

The Biden administration had planned an expansion to generate 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by the end of the decade - projects that could not be undone by future administrations, with enough energy to power more than 10 million American homes and cut 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. East Coast states saw their construction as a way to spur new, union-friendly manufacturing jobs, adding more appeal for the administration's policymakers.

But the nascent industry has encountered numerous obstacles this year, with companies in recent weeks also moving to end contracts to sell power to utilities in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Those cancellations have helped put into limbo more than half of the offshore power under development nationwide - 18 gigawatts, largely along the Atlantic coast, according to a tally from Timothy Fox, vice president of research at ClearView Energy Partners. The rising costs and unprofitability of these developments - and tepid interest in more of them - could dash President Biden's hopes for offshore wind power, Fox and several industry lobbyists said.

"That tipping point is already past," Fox said. "With the cancellation of three different projects that are very huge, it seems unlikely."

Fox added the White House goal deserves credit for helping spark the industry's development to date. A White House spokesman, Michael Kikukawa, said in an email that the administration's strategy is producing results, including $7.7 billion in investment from the offshore wind industry since last summer, when the president signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which boosted climate spending.

"While macroeconomic headwinds are creating challenges for some projects, momentum remains on the side of an expanding U.S. offshore wind industry," Kikukawa said in a statement.

Kikukawa noted that last week New York announced what it called the state's largest-ever investment in offshore wind. That announcement - which came after the state had declined to renegotiate existing offshore wind power contracts - commits hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending to several projects. And the Interior Department on Tuesday granted environmental approvals to the largest project in the country, a 2.6-gigawatt development from Dominion Energy, more than 20 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach.

In its Tuesday announcement, Orsted said it will still move forward with its Revolution Wind project, a smaller joint venture to send power to Rhode Island and Connecticut. The onshore part of its construction was already underway, and, unlike with other projects, company executives say they can ensure timely access to the giant vessels needed to build these sites in the ocean, leaving them to believe Revolution Wind can still eke out profits.

Other Orsted projects in New York and Maryland are still in limbo, with talks with officials in those states ongoing, the company said in its statement. Orsted said that it is still committed to the industry but that its portfolio is also still under review, with more decisions due in the coming months.

"Macroeconomic factors have changed dramatically over a short period of time, with high inflation, rising interest rates, and supply chain bottlenecks impacting our long-term capital investments," David Hardy, chief executive of Orsted's Americas division, said in a statement. "We are extremely disappointed to have to take this decision, particularly because New Jersey is poised to be a U.S. and global hub for offshore wind energy."

Ocean Wind had been divided into two developments, the first of which alone included up to 98 wind turbines the size of skyscrapers about 15 miles offshore and enough new power for a half-million homes. Ocean Wind 2 would have doubled that capacity, going up to more than 2.2 gigawatts combined.

New Jersey Democrats had called Ocean Wind vital for meeting a state goal of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. State leaders have also attempted to make New Jersey into an industry hub, and Gov. Phil Murphy (D) on Tuesday slammed Orsted, pledging to ensure the company pays $300 million he said it promised to pay to support the offshore wind sector if it backed out of Ocean Wind.

"Today's decision by Orsted to abandon its commitments to New Jersey is outrageous and calls into question the company's credibility and competence," Murphy said in a statement. "I remain committed to ensuring that New Jersey becomes a global leader in offshore wind - which is critical to our economic, environmental, and clean energy future."

Ocean Wind had faced stiff opposition, especially from Republicans in coastal Cape May County. That included a lawsuit Protect Our Coast NJ filed against Orsted and the state in late July to block a tax break for the wind farm.

Leaders with the group said Wednesday that there is excitement and relief after Orsted's decision but also concern that the project will get revived. They asserted that offshore wind development could threaten fisheries and marine mammals, claims that contradict the conclusions of leading scientists.

"I'm optimistic, but we're just going to have a measured response to it," said Barbara McCall, a Protect Our Coast NJ board member.

Orsted also faced soaring costs. Offshore wind projects are multibillion-dollar investments, with full payoffs decades away. So interest rate hikes that governments have used to fight inflation have hit capital-intensive businesses, such offshore wind, especially hard. That led Orsted to reduce the estimated value of its assets by $900 million in the first nine months of 2023, company executives said Wednesday.

And with countries on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean trying to boost offshore wind, developers have pursued too many projects for the available supplies and equipment to build them. In Orsted's earnings call Wednesday, chief executive Mads Nipper said the giant vessels that build these wind farms were the central problem for Ocean Wind 1. Finding available vessels would have meant several years of delays and would have forced the company to redo many other contracts, probably increasing costs almost across the board, he said.

"It meant massive impact because of the uncertainty," Nipper said.

Company executives said Wednesday that Orsted would take a total write-down equaling $4 billion for the year through September, the vast majority of it tied to Ocean Wind 1 and 2. Company shares plummeted by 25 percent in trading Wednesday after that announcement.

In an interview with The Washington Post published Tuesday, the recently departed No. 2 at the Interior Department, Tommy Beaudreau, said the offshore wind industry has a long history of gradual growth despite major challenges. He also noted several other industries facing similar turmoil tied to the economy's rebound from the pandemic.

"It has overcome challenges before, and I truly believe it will overcome some of the economic challenges we're seeing today," Beaudreau told The Climate 202.

Lobbyists and ClearView's Fox said the Treasury Department is one avenue the Biden administration could use to improve the industry's fortunes. The department is still setting rules for tax breaks created by Congress in last year's climate-spending package, and one of its biggest remaining decisions applies to offshore wind.

The rules will affect how wind developers qualify for credits designed to boost the amount of steel and other materials used from U.S. manufacturers, and how much the wind-power supply chains will spur job growth. Developers and their advocates in Washington say the proposed rules are too restrictive. Looser rules could provide hundreds of millions of dollars more for each project, making many more of them viable, they said.

There are "real challenges with getting a new industry off the ground," the American Clean Power Association, a renewable-energy trade group, said in a statement Wednesday. "The news is also a reminder that we need strong partnerships with government and stakeholders, now more than ever."

Republicans cheer cancellation of New Jersey offshore wind projects

Rachel Frazin
Wed, November 1, 2023



Republicans are cheering the cancellation of two offshore wind farms that would have been built off the coast of New Jersey.

The company Orsted announced Tuesday it was canceling its planned Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects, which would have generated electricity via wind in the Atlantic Ocean.

The move was met with cheers from the GOP, including former President Trump, who has been particularly critical of wind energy over the years.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump criticized the projects as “horrendous” and congratulated GOP Rep. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.) on their defeat.

“Congratulations to a truly great Congressman, Jeff Van Drew, for his perseverance and success in defeating the horrendous Orsted Ocean Wind One & Two projects, which were to be built off the coast of South Jersey. This monstrosity required massive government subsidies, and ultimately, just didn’t work,” Trump wrote.

The former president has often railed against wind energy, including by spouting unfounded claims it causes cancer.

Van Drew, a former Democrat, also was among those who celebrated the cancellation. He wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, he was glad Orsted “has decided to pack up its offshore wind scam and leave South Jersey’s beautiful coasts alone.”

He called the move a “tremendous win for South Jersey residents, our fisherman, and the historic coastline of the Jersey shore.”

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) was also among those cheering the cancellation — saying he hoped other projects would similarly falter.

“Orsted’s decision was a first step in exposing the economic unsustainability and environmental dangerousness of ocean wind turbines … and Orsted’s pulling out of the deal may help slow and eventually halt similar projects off New Jersey’s coast,” Smith said in a statement.

The company cited supply chain challenges that led to delays in construction and rising interest rates as its reasons for canceling the projects.

Orsted CEO Mads Nipper said in a statement the company still “firmly believe[s] the US needs offshore wind to achieve its carbon emissions reduction ambition.”

The projects had been supported by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D), who authorized a tax break for them earlier this year.

In a written statement, Murphy blasted the decision to walk away from the projects as “outrageous” and said it “calls into question the company’s credibility and competence.”

In New Jersey, the popularity of offshore wind has fallen in recent years according to Monmouth University polling, which found that just over half of New Jerseyans support it now, compared to more than three-quarters in 2019.

The Biden administration has embraced offshore wind as a method for combating climate change, saying it hopes that by 2030, the U.S. will generate enough offshore wind energy to power 10 million homes.

NIMBY IS ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES
Emotions buffet NJ coastal wind project in peek at US future





Suzanne Hornick walks from the surf in Ocean City N.J. on July 8, 2021. She is a leader of a residents group that opposes three offshore wind energy projects approved for the ocean off Ocean City. On Monday, March 7, 2022, she and many others voiced strong opposition to the project in a public hearing that could be a glimpse at the future of efforts to connect offshore power projects to the shoreline.

 (AP Photo/Wayne Parry, FILE)

WAYNE PARRY
Tue, March 8, 2022,

OCEAN CITY, N.J. (AP) — Some warned that God will be angry if windmills mar the pristine horizon, and some claimed climate change either isn't real or isn't caused by human activity.

Others said climate change is real, warning that humankind has to stop burning fossil fuels for energy, and some apologized for the “conspiratorial” comments of those opposed to offshore wind.

All this concerned the prospect of a single electrical cable from half of just one offshore wind project approved off the coast of New Jersey, where thousands of wind turbines are likely to be built in the coming years.

More than 200 people attended a virtual public hearing Monday night on two companies' joint plan to bring a power line ashore in Ocean City. Danish wind developer Orsted and PSEG plan to connect their offshore wind farm project to the power grid in two spots: the former Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey Township, and the former B.L. England coal-fired power plant in Upper Township.

The hearing concerned a plan to bring the line bound for Upper Township ashore in Ocean City.

If the level of emotion was any indication, America's offshore wind energy industry will face strong headwinds onshore, particularly in New Jersey, where one of the most intense gold rushes anywhere in the nation for the right to lease stretches of ocean floor for wind projects is underway.

Late last month, six companies bid a combined $4.3 billion for the right to build wind energy projects on the ocean floor off New Jersey and New York in the U.S. government’s largest such auction in history. That's in addition to three offshore wind projects already approved by New Jersey utility regulators.

“Go up to the boardwalk, and look out at the ocean,” said Nathan Brightbill, a meeting participant, who like many of those who spoke during a Zoom meeting did not give his hometown. “God created that. God doesn't want us to put tons of stinking windmills out there. It's immoral.”

“These will be totally visible from our shoreline,” said Cathy Ingham. “If they were 50 miles offshore and not visible, it would be less of an impact. We the people should have had a vote on this project, and our vote would have been ‘no.’”

The purpose of the hearing was to take public comment on the diversion of less than an acre of publicly owned recreational and open space land to bring the cable ashore in the southern part of the barrier island.

But despite repeated pleas from meeting moderators to limit comments to that topic, few complied. Instead, many inveighed against the wind farm project, the offshore wind energy industry as a whole, and some questioned the reality or severity of climate change and sea level rise.

Opponents raised concerns about potential effects from electromagnetic fields they suspect will be emitted from the cable, as well as what they consider to be the risks to birds, fish and other animals.

And a recurring theme was the seeming futility of it all in the wake of New Jersey lawmakers enacting a measure last year stripping local communities of the ability to block power lines from offshore wind projects coming ashore in their towns.

“This is being rammed through and imposed on residents without our buy-in,” said Robin Shaffer. “These are the basic elements of why ‘not-in-my-backyard’ exists.”

“You're coming in and taking land that belongs to the people of Ocean City, and doing what you want with it,” added Tony Butch. “It's happening too fast, too quick.”

Opponents who spoke at Monday night's hearing far outnumbered supporters. But those who favor wind energy said it's an important way to stop burning fossil fuel for energy.

“Offshore wind is an important tool in fighting climate change,” said Patty Cronheim of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. “The biggest threat to our ocean is not turbines; it's climate change.”

“I've heard many claims tonight that are simply not true,” added Marcus Sibley, an official with the New Jersey NAACP. “Climate change is real; it's impacting everything.”

Many speakers were angry that their questions to representatives of Orsted and PSEG were not answered during Monday's meeting. The companies said they will respond to each question once a public comment period ends in a few weeks.

But one thing seemed certain, according to speaker Tim Flynn.

“This is not going to be the end of people protesting this project,” he said.

___

Follow Wayne Parry on Twitter at http://twitter.com/WayneParryAC

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=NIMBY+WIND

NIMBY

The future of East Coast wind power could ride on this Jersey beach town

IS ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES

Kate Selig, (c) 2023, The Washington Post
Tue, August 8, 2023 

OCEAN CITY, N.J. - Known as "America's Greatest Family Resort," this beachside city now has a new distinction: It has become the epicenter of opposition to wind energy projects off New Jersey and the East Coast.

Residents of Ocean City and surrounding Cape May County, helped by an outside group opposed to renewable energy, are mobilizing to stop Ocean Wind 1, a proposal to build up to 98 wind turbines the size of skyscrapers off the New Jersey coast, which could power half a million homes.

Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post.

The future of East Coast wind energy could hang in the balance. If opponents succeed, they hope to create a template for derailing some 31 offshore wind projects in various stages of development and construction off the East Coast, a key part of President Biden's plan to reduce greenhouse emissions that are driving global climate change.


"We have a lot of leverage," said Frank Coyne, treasurer of Protect Our Coast NJ, which gathered over 500,000 signatures on a petition opposing proposed wind farms. "The objective is to hold them up and make the cost so overwhelming that they'll go home."

At issue in New Jersey are plans by Orsted, a Danish multinational corporation, to build Ocean Wind 1 - the largest offshore wind project to clear a key federal regulatory hurdle - about 15 miles off the state's Southern coast. The company has plans for a second project, already approved by state regulators.

New Jersey Democrats support both projects and see them as vital for meeting a state goal of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

"At the end of the day, it's imperative for our state's future," Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said in an interview. "It's the right step to take."

While a federal agency approved Ocean Wind 1 in July, the company still needs other permits to start construction. Meanwhile, opponents have hired law firms now pursuing legal action, including a lawsuit filed in late July by Protect Our Coast NJ against Orsted and the state to block a tax break for the wind farm.

Founded after Orsted received its initial state approval in 2019, Protect Our Coast describes itself as a grass-roots group, made up of "residents, homeowners, business owners, fishermen and visitors" united to "Protect Our Coast from industrialization." But it isn't completely a homegrown organization. Early on, the group received support from the Delaware-based Caesar Rodney Institute, a think tank that opposes many offshore wind projects and has ties to fossil fuel interests.

As part of their campaigns, both the institute and Protect Our Coast NJ have focused on whale mortality, arguing that offshore wind harms the environment more than helps it.

But in linking East Coast whale deaths to wind project surveys, these groups contradict what leading marine mammal scientists have concluded. "At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement.

Opponents have also spread images that overstate how visible the proposed turbines would be from the shore and shared false allegations that the federal government authorized Orsted to kill hundreds of marine animals.

When asked about tactics, Barbara McCall, a board member for Protect Our Coast, said the group stands behind the information on its website.

While pro-wind environmental groups and Protect Our Coast NJ find little common ground, they agree on one thing - the ongoing fight will be pivotal for U.S. offshore wind projects, including more planned in New Jersey.

On Friday, developers proposed an additional four wind farms off the state's coast. In an apparent nod to coastal opponents, two of them would be much further offshore than the pivotal Ocean Wind 1 project.

"New Jersey is an example for the entire country," said Anjuli Ramos-Busot, the director of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter and a supporter of offshore wind energy. "If we are not able to build this, it will make it harder for other wind projects to succeed."

Coyne put it more succinctly. "Whatever happens here is like a domino," he said. "Right up the coastline."

- - -

A county dependent on tourism

In the summertime, tourists flock to the sandy beaches of Ocean City, transforming Cape May County. While the county is home to a mere 95,000 people, it draws more than 10 million visitors every year, and many of them crowd into Ocean City, with its two-and-a-half mile boardwalk, lined with amusement rides, pizza parlors and salt water taffy vendors.

While New Jersey is a blue state, Cape May County is decidedly red, with 43% of voters registering Republican, 25% Democrat and the rest listed as "other." The county voted for Donald Trump - an opponent of wind power - by wide margins in both of his presidential runs.

The county's political apparatus, including state representatives, are largely united against Ocean Wind 1. On the federal level, Rep. Jeff Van Drew - a former Democrat who switched parties for the 2020 election - is working to stop the project.

On a recent Saturday morning, a group of offshore wind protesters crowded onto the beach in Ocean City. Hundreds joined hands and formed a chain at the edge of the water that stretched from the fishing pier down the sand. Defiant, they cheered "stop the windmills" before breaking apart.

Former city councilman Michael DeVlieger attended with his daughter, son and two nephews. "It's hard not to be emotional about it when it affects every aspect of our lives," he said of the project.

Protesters cite myriad reasons for their opposition. They fear the project will irreparably harm the local economy, marine life and their seaside views. They say that Gov. Murphy and the Biden administration have steamrolled their community. Contradicting analyses of state regulators, they claim the project will cause electricity bills to significantly increase, even though the state estimates that, when operational, the wind farm will cause bills to rise by only about $1.46 a month for residential customers.

While Protect Our Coast NJ is one of the largest groups mobilizing against the wind project - its Facebook group includes more than 20,000 members - others are also preparing for litigation battles.

Cape May County has assembled a formidable legal team, led by retired judge and county Republican chairman Michael Donohue, who the county has brought on as its special counsel.

The team includes Marzulla Law, headed by a powerhouse couple, one of whom succeeded James Watt as president of the Colorado-based Mountain States Legal Foundation, after Watt became an embattled Interior Secretary in the Reagan administration. More recently, the Marzullas have been representing groups fighting East Coast wind projects, including Save Long Beach Island and the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, which is battling a wind farm under construction 15 miles off Martha's Vineyard.

It is not known how much the county is paying Donohue or the multiple law firms the county has assembled. County Commission Director Leonard Desiderio did not return a request for comment, and Donohue - who declined an interview request - said in a text the information is confidential, as did the Marzulla firm.

"We are positive, however, that all of what the County does will be a drop in the bucket when compared to what Orsted is spending . . . in an attempt to force the County to accept the project," Donohue wrote.

Not everyone in Cape May County actively opposes the project. When opponents staged their recent protest in Ocean City, local resident Andy Mortensen sat with his wife on the beach and poked fun at the assembly. "They're blocking my view more than the wind turbines will," said Mortensen, who added he hasn't yet taken a position on the wind project.

Further up the shore, Philip Pepe and Kathleen Hamilton Galante stayed clear of the protests. When the couple moved in 2019 to Brigantine - to the northeast of Atlantic City - no one was talking about offshore wind, they said. Now, they added, residents have rapidly adopted extreme views on the projects.

Pepe, a marine scientist by training, and Galante said they've paid a price for being publicly supportive of offshore wind. Galante said she has been especially targeted, including a time she was screamed at in a parking lot and another where she was told her support for offshore wind made her responsible for the whale deaths. She said she sometimes fears going out in public, and the couple is considering moving.

"It's really scary," Galante said. "People just can't come up and talk to you like a human being."

- - -

A new 'Save the Whales' movement

Since last winter, some conservative think tanks, law firms and politicians have seized upon a die-off of whales on the East Coast in their campaigns against wind energy.

On its website, the Marzulla firm has linked the "scope and intensity" of a proposed Massachusetts wind project to "the recent appearance of dead whales on Atlantic beaches, some of which are endangered species." While the Marzullas have long litigated against endangered species regulations on behalf of property owners, Roger Marzulla, in a statement, said the firm "has never opposed the listing of whales (or any other marine species) under the Endangered Species Act."

At a county public information session in June, Rep. Van Drew railed against the risks of a foreign developer controlling Ocean Wind 1 and attributed the deaths of the whales to offshore energy surveys. On his website, he says the offshore wind projects are being promoted "under the guise of stopping climate change."

Climate change is a real threat to the Jersey Shore, given that sea levels have risen at a rate more than double the global average, according to Rutgers University. But in their fight against the New Jersey wind project, Protect Our Coast leaders see the wind turbines as a bigger threat.

J. Timmons Roberts, an environmental studies and sociology professor at Brown University who has tracked campaigns across the country against offshore wind, said many local groups employ talking points that mirror those of dark money organizations opposed to renewable energy.

"People really need to know where the information is coming from," Roberts said. "It may be coming out of the mouths of local people, but a lot of it is being generated by the movement to stop the transition away from fossil fuels."

Roberts' researchers - building on work from DeSmog, journalists and others - have documented how money has flowed to organizations such as the Caesar Rodney Institute from fossil fuel interests and dark money groups - nonprofits that are not required to reveal their donors, but can be tracked through tax filings of groups that finance them.

At the center of the institute's anti-offshore wind campaign is David Stevenson, a former DuPont executive who served on Trump's transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency.

While some wind energy proponents have accused Stevenson of being the force behind Protect Our Coast NJ, he rejected that in a statement to The Post, denying that his organization had a hand in establishing or funding Protect Our Coast. Stevenson, however, acknowledged that Caesar Rodney initially served as a free "bank" for the group, receiving funds raised by Protect Our Coast and paying its bills with the money. He has also acknowledged his organization has received oil industry money, but says the amount is minor.

Stevenson said the institute has also provided Protect Our Coast with information on offshore wind. This included a report he assembled contending that three proposed New Jersey offshore wind projects would have emissions savings near zero - not the 7.2 million metric tons a year estimated by the state.

Despite the national forces at play, no one denies that Cape May County includes residents who genuinely fear the consequences of the proposed wind project - people like Robert Coste, who carefully chooses his words when he speaks about the project.

A 70-year-old, almost lifelong resident of Ocean City, he said he wants clean energy and cares about the environment. But he's become deeply concerned about the project the more he's read and heard from neighbors and politicians.

Gazing out to the sea, he leaned against a railing before sweeping his hands wide to indicate the scope of Ocean Wind 1.

"All this?" he asked, while shaking his head.

- - -

Wind farm construction underway

Nestled along the Delaware River in Paulsboro, about 65 miles northwest of Ocean City, a contractor for Orsted is welding, sandblasting and painting the steel tubes that construction crews will drive into the seafloor and serve as the base of Ocean Wind 1. The monopiles, as they are called, are nearly as long as a football field and wide enough to fit the fuselage of a 747 airplane. Outside, a 50-foot-tall American flag hangs on the EEW manufacturing facility, visible from the road.

While the project has faced mounting opposition, it was far different three years ago, when Orsted unveiled plans for the wind farm and the hundreds of jobs it could create. At an Ocean City council meeting that year, an Orsted representative praised the "warm welcome" and the "super progressive attitude" the company had received.

Now, despite the pending litigation, the company looks forward to breaking ground on onshore construction this fall. "We're confident," said Orsted spokesman Tory Mazzola.

In early July, the Biden administration signed off on Ocean Wind 1's plan for construction and operations - a regulatory milestone for the project. In the same month, Gov. Murphy approved a bill allowing Orsted to keep federal tax credits.

Yet while Orsted may seem to have the upper hand now, the East Coast has a long history of tripping up offshore wind endeavors. In 2017, a developer shelved the Cape Wind project, a plan for 130 turbines off the Massachusetts coast, after facing organized resistance from wealthy coastal homeowners. Those included members of the Kennedy family and William Koch, a billionaire who has contributed large sums to groups opposed to renewables and action on climate change.

Opponents of Ocean Wind say they are confident they can similarly prevail.

"We're not going to back down or give up," said Coyne of Protect Our Coast. "And that's the attitude you see growing."

It was set to be Nebraska’s largest wind project. Then the military stepped in.

A Nebraska county of only 625 people contained nearly 100 deep underground nuclear missiles, so the US Air Force halted a green-power project that would have revitalized its economy

Farmer Jim Young gestures to a missile silo on his land near Harrisburg in Banner County. Young and other landowners are frustrated by the Air Force’s decision to ban windmills within two nautical miles of these missile silos – a decision that has paused and may end the biggest wind energy project in Nebraska history. Photo by Fletcher Halfaker for the Flatwater Free Press

By Natalia Alamdari
September 16, 2022
Flatwater Free Press
Nebraska's important stories. Well told.

NEAR HARRISBURG–In bone-dry Banner County, clouds of dirt drift into the sky as rumbling tractors till the sun-baked soil.

In some fields, the ground is still too dry to start planting winter wheat.

“This is the first time in my life I haven’t been able to get wheat in the ground,” said Jim Young, standing in a field that’s been in his family for 80 years. “We get very little rain. And we get a lot of wind.”

Some of the country’s best wind, in fact.

That’s why 16 years ago, wind energy companies started courting landowners up and down County Road 14 north of Kimball — a deep purple smear through the Nebraska Panhandle on wind speed maps. The sign of high-speed, reliable wind.

With about 150,000 acres leased by energy companies, this county of just 625 people stood poised to become home to as many as 300 wind turbines.

It would have been the largest wind project in the state, bringing in loads of money for the landowners, the developers, the county and local schools.

But then, an unexpected roadblock: The U.S. Air Force.

A map of missile silos under the watch of F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne. Green dots are launch facilities, and purple dots are missile alert facilities. There are 82 missile silos and nine missile alert facilities in western Nebraska, an Air Force spokesperson said. F.E. Warren Air Force Base

Under the dusty fields of Banner County are dozens of nuclear missiles. Housed in military silos dug more than 100 feet into the ground, the Cold War relics lie in wait across rural America, part of the country’s nuclear defenses.

For decades, tall structures like wind turbines needed to be at least a quarter mile away from the missile silos.

But earlier this year, the military changed its policy.

One of many missile silos located in Banner County. Many of the silos are arranged in a grid pattern and spaced roughly six miles apart. Placed here during the 1960s, the Air Force silos, which house nuclear weapons, are now hampering a massive wind energy project. Photo by Fletcher Halfaker for the Flatwater Free Press

Now, they said, turbines now can’t be within two nautical miles of the silos. The switch ruled out acres of land energy companies had leased from locals — and wrested a potential windfall from dozens of farmers who’d waited 16 years for the turbines to become reality.

The stalled Banner County project is unique, but it’s one more way that Nebraska struggles to harness its main renewable energy resource.

Oft-windy Nebraska ranks eighth in the country in potential wind energy, according to the federal government. The state’s wind energy output has improved markedly in recent years. But Nebraska continues to lag far behind neighbors Colorado, Kansas and Iowa, all of whom have become national leaders in wind.

The Banner County projects would have grown Nebraska’s wind capacity by 25%. It’s now unclear how many turbines will be possible because of the Air Force’s rule change.

“This would have been a big deal for a lot of farmers. And it would have been an even bigger deal for every property owner in Banner County,” Young said. “It’s just a killer. Don’t know how else to say it.”

LIVING WITH NUKES

John Jones was driving his tractor when out of nowhere, helicopters whizzed past overhead. His tractor had kicked up enough dust to trigger a nearby missile silo’s motion detectors.

Jeeps sped up and armed men jumped out to inspect the potential threat.

“I just kept farming,” Jones said.

The people of Banner County have coexisted with the missile silos since the 1960s. To keep up with Soviet nuclear technology, the U.S. began planting hundreds of missiles in the most rural parts of the country, positioning them to shoot up over the North Pole and into the Soviet Union at a moment’s notice

.

Tom May examines the growth of his recently planted wheat. May, who has been farming in Banner County for more than 40 years, says his wheat has never been as impacted by drought conditions as it is this year. May, who had contracted with wind energy companies to allow wind turbines to be placed on his ground, says that an Air Force rule switch now won’t allow a single wind turbine on his land. Photo by Fletcher Halfaker for the Flatwater Free Press

Today, there are decommissioned silos scattered throughout Nebraska. But 82 silos in the Panhandle are still active and controlled 24/7 by Air Force crews.

Four hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles — ICBMs — are burrowed in the ground across northern Colorado, western Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana. The 80,000-pound missiles can fly 6,000 miles in less than a half-hour and inflict damage 20 times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima in World War II.

“If we ever get bombed, they say this is the first place they’re going to bomb, because of the silos that we’ve got here,” said farmer Tom May.

Every acre of May’s property sits within the two miles of a missile silo. Under the new Air Force rule, he can’t put a single wind turbine on his ground.

Wind turbine developers first came to Banner County about 16 years ago – men in polos and dress pants who held a public meeting for interested landowners at the school in Harrisburg.

Banner had what developers called “world-class wind.” Many landowners were eager – signing away their acres came with the promise of roughly $15,000 per turbine per year. The turbines were also going to pump money into the county and school system, said county officials and company executives.

“In Banner County, it would have reduced property taxes to damn near nothing,” Young said they were told.

Eventually, two companies – Invenergy and Orion Renewable Energy Group – finalized plans to put up wind turbines in Banner County.

Environmental impact studies were completed. Permits, leases and contracts were signed.

Orion had 75 to 100 turbines planned, and hoped to have a project operating by this year.

Invenergy was going to build as many as 200 turbines. The company had qualified for federal tax credits to start the project and had even poured the concrete pads that the turbines would sit upon, covering them back up with earth so farmers could use the land until construction began.

But discussions with the military starting in 2019 brought the projects to a screeching halt.

Wind turbines pose a “significant flight safety hazard,” an Air Force spokesman said in an email. Those turbines didn’t exist when the silos were built. Now that they dot the rural landscape, the Air Force said it needed to reevaluate its setback rules. The final number it settled on was two nautical miles — 2.3 miles on land — so helicopters wouldn’t crash during blizzards or storms.

The distance was necessary to keep aircrews safe during “routine daily security operations, or critical contingency response operations, while also co-existing with our fellow Americans who own and work the land around these vital facilities,” a spokesman said.

In May, military officials traveled from Wyoming’s F.E. Warren Air Force Base to break the news to landowners. On an overhead projector at Kimball’s Sagebrush Restaurant, they showed enlarged photos of what helicopter pilots see when flying near turbines in a snowstorm.

For most landowners, the news came as a gutpunch. They said they support national security and keeping service members safe. But they wonder: Is eight times as much distance necessary?

“They don’t own that land. But all of a sudden, they have the power to strike the whole thing down, telling us what we can and can’t do,” Jones said. “All we’d like to do is negotiate. 4.6 miles [diameter] is way too far, as far as I’m concerned.”

Off County Road 19, a chain link fence separates a missile silo entrance from surrounding farmland. Young parks across the road and points over a hill to a meteorological tower put in by an energy company.

There are acres of farmland between the missile silo and the tower. The tower Young is pointing to appears as a small line on the horizon, topped with a blinking red light.

“When you can land a helicopter on top of any hospital in the country, they’re saying that this is too close,” Young said, pointing to the missile silo and the distant tower. “Now you know why we’re pissed, right?”

WIND ENERGY IMPROVING, BUT STILL LAGGING

Nebraska built its first wind turbines in 1998 — two towers west of Springview. Installed by the Nebraska Public Power District, the pair were a test run for a state whose neighbor Iowa had been promoting wind energy since the early 1980s.

A map of wind facilities in Nebraska shows wind speeds throughout the state. The dark purple band cutting Banner County in half indicates where the two wind projects would have gone. Courtesy of the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy

By 2010, Nebraska was 25th in the country at producing wind-generated power — the bottom of the pack among windy Great Plains states.

The reasons fueling the lag were uniquely Nebraskan. Nebraska is the only state served entirely by publicly owned utilities, mandated to deliver the cheapest electricity possible.

Federal tax credits for wind farms only applied to the private sector. With a smaller population, already cheap electricity and limited access to transmission lines, Nebraska lacked the market to make wind energy worthwhile.

A decade of legislation helped change that calculus. Public utilities were allowed to buy power from private wind developers. A state law diverted taxes collected from wind developers back to the county and school district — the reason the Banner wind farms may have shrunk taxes for county residents.

Now, Nebraska has enough wind turbines to generate 3,216 megawatts, moving to fifteenth in the nation.

It’s modest growth, experts said. But with new federal legislation incentivizing wind and solar energy, and the three largest Nebraska public power districts committing to going carbon neutral, wind energy in the state is expected to accelerate.

The biggest obstacle now may be Nebraskans who don’t want wind turbines in their counties.

The turbines are noisy eyesores, some say. Without federal tax credits, they aren’t necessarily a financially wise way to generate electricity, said Tony Baker, legislative aide for Sen. Tom Brewer.

In April, Otoe County Commissioners imposed a one-year moratorium on wind projects. In Gage County, officials passed restrictions that would prevent any future wind development. Since 2015, county commissioners in Nebraska have rejected or restricted wind farms 22 times, according to energy journalist Robert Bryce’s national database.

“The first thing we heard out of everyone’s mouth was how, ‘We don’t want those damn wind turbines next to our place,’” Baker said, describing visits with Brewer’s Sandhills constituents. “Wind energy tears apart the fabric of communities. You have a family that benefits from it, wants it, but everybody that neighbors them doesn’t.”Many wind turbines can be found near Banner County in neighboring Kimball County. This area of Nebraska is one of the best places in the United States for consistent, high-speed winds, energy experts say. Photo by Fletcher Halfaker for the Flatwater Free Press

John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said pushback over wind farms has ramped up in recent years. But it’s a loud minority, he said. Eighty percent of rural Nebraskans thought more should be done to develop wind and solar energy, according to a 2015 University of Nebraska-Lincoln poll.

“It’s that NIMBY problem,” Hansen said, using the acronym meaning, “Not in My Backyard.” It’s, “‘I’m not against wind energy, I just don’t want it in my area.’ Their goal is to make sure that no project gets built, period.”

For Nebraska towns facing shrinking populations, wind turbines can mean economic opportunity, Hansen said. In Petersburg, the influx of workers after a wind farm was built led a failing grocery store to instead build a second location, he said. It’s the equivalent of a part-time job for farmers who agree to turbines.

“It’s like having an oil well on your land without all the pollution,” said Dave Aiken, a UNL ag economics professor. “You’d think it would be a no-brainer.”

In Banner County, the economic benefit would have bled into the surrounding area as well, landowners said. Crews building turbines would have bought groceries and stayed in hotels in neighboring Kimball and Scotts Bluff counties.

Now, the landowners aren’t entirely sure what’s next. Orion said the Air Force decision rules out at least half its planned turbines. It still hopes to have a project running in 2024. Invenergy declined to detail any future plans.

“This resource is just there, ready to be used,” Brady Jones, John Jones’ son, said. “How do we walk away from that? At a time when we’re passing legislation that would vastly increase investment in wind energy in this country? That energy’s got to come from somewhere.”

The Flatwater Free Press is Nebraska’s first independent, nonprofit newsroom focused on investigations and feature stories that matter.

By Natalia Alamdari
Natalia Alamdari has worked at newspapers throughout the country. Her reporting has taken her to small town shooting ranges in Missouri, contentious school board meetings in Delaware, and aquariums in Texas. Working at the Flatwater Free Press is a return to Nebraska — in college, she spent a summer interning at the Omaha World-Herald. She is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia and native Texan. When she’s not reporting, you can probably find her baking, petting her cat, or trying out a new crafty hobby.

NIMBY
Build begins on Wyoming-to-California power line amid growing wind power concern



RAWLINS, Wyo. (AP) — Portrait photographer Anne Brande shoots graduation and wedding engagement photos at scenic spots throughout southeastern Wyoming's granite mountains and sprawling sagebrush valleys, but worries what those views will look like in a few years. Wind energy is booming here.

“Dandelions in my yard, you know, when there's four or five, it's OK,” Brande said. “When my whole yard is dandelions, I'm just not too excited.”

In a state where being able to hunt, fish and camp in gorgeous and untrammeled nature is a way of life, worries about spoiled views, killed eagles and disturbed big-game animals such as elk and mule deer have grown with the spread of wind turbines.

On Tuesday, state and federal officials will break ground on TransWest Express, a transmission line that will move electricity from the $5 billion, 3,000-megawatt, 600-turbine Chokecherry and Sierra Madre wind farm to southern California, a place legally mandated to switch to clean energy. The wind farm will be the country's biggest yet.

Federal regulators gave the go-ahead to TransWest in April. The International Energy Agency and other experts say wind power is crucial to attaining a carbon-neutral world by 2050. Developers here estimate they'll prevent between 7 and 11 million tons of carbon dioxide a year and provide enough carbon-free electricity to power 1 million homes.

But in Wyoming, despite extensive wildlife studies and lengthy federal environmental reviews, there's more skepticism about wind power than when the projects were first proposed 17 years ago.

“I think it’s just as simple as too much of a good thing,” Brande said.

As elsewhere, opposition to wind farms in Wyoming correlates with proximity to homes and cabins: Chokecherry and Sierra Madre is massive but isolated, and has generated less opposition than some others. But Brande and rural property owners opposed a 500-megawatt, 120-turbine wind farm soon to be built near the Colorado state line. They lost, but the matter reached the Wyoming Supreme Court.

The contentious county approval process included a five-hour public hearing in a packed courtroom in Laramie in 2021. Residents expressed a range of concerns, from turbine blades killing birds to construction blasting damaging home foundations.

In neighboring Carbon County, the county commission on June 6 held off permitting for a 280-megawatt, 79-turbine project called Two Rivers, after hearing from people with concerns. Commissioners told the developers to get federal approval first.

The local opposition to a wind farm is a recent development in an area that previously welcomed the economic benefits with few questions, Carbon County Commission Vice Chairman Sue Jones said. Named for its coal reserves that once fueled steam engines, Carbon County adopted an official seal in 2021 that features a wind turbine.

Yet county officials recently required wind farms to turn off their red warning lights except when aircraft approach, responding to public complaints.

The regulation wasn't retroactive. But PacifiCorp, which serves customers in Wyoming, Utah and the Pacific Northwest, retrofitted its wind turbines in the area with the on-and-off pilot warning system anyway, Jones said.


“The companies do try to be good neighbors," Jones said. "But it is starting to show and it is reaching a point where maybe it’s too much. It’s affecting wildlife habitat. It’s affecting the birds and the bats.”

In just four years, wind generation capacity in Wyoming has doubled, adding about 600 turbines — the bulk of them in the southeast — since 2020, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Chokecherry and Sierra Madre alone will double that amount again — and at least five more wind farms are planned, according to a 2022 University of Wyoming report.

If they all stay on schedule, Wyoming could soon vault from 14th to among the top five states for wind energy, though wind energy is booming elsewhere, too.

Almost 60% of electricity generated in Wyoming, wind power included, isn't used here but goes to other states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Increasingly the state's wind energy is coveted by utilities in California, Arizona and the Pacific Northwest.

TransWest Express will move the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre electricity 732 miles (1,178 kilometers) from south-central Wyoming to just outside Las Vegas. Along the way, it will cross northwestern Colorado and Utah, with conversion from direct to alternating current in central Utah.

The wind farm and transmission lines, both projects of The Anschutz Corporation owned by Denver oil and gas billionaire Phil Anschutz, are scheduled to come online around the same time, starting in late 2027.

The transmission line's direct-current section allows efficient, long-distance electricity transfer with no tie-ins to other power lines, while the alternating current segment is less efficient but connects to the rest of the grid.

Wyoming wind averages almost 13 mph (21 kph) day and night, year-round, matching well with daytime solar generated elsewhere. But so far there aren't a lot of ways to get wind power from Wyoming onto the western U.S. power grid, said Roxane Perruso, TransWest Express executive vice president and chief operating officer.

“So we’re going to enhance the ability to move renewables and other power, carbon-free power in the future, around the grid," Perruso said.

Paralleling TransWest Express in places, Pacificorp's Gateway South transmission lines connecting Wyoming wind farms to southern Utah are scheduled for completion next year. Pacificorp's Gateway West lines, already partly built across southern Wyoming, will stretch all the way to the Pacific Northwest sometime after 2030.

While wind power benefits the climate, environmentalists are split over its costs to wildlife. In Wyoming, wind farms pose a risk to golden eagles and sage grouse, a chicken-sized, ground-dwelling bird that tends to avoid high structures that can provide perching spots for predatory birds, said Erik Molvar, of Laramie, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project.

"The real answer is to incentivize the siting of solar panels in urban areas where the electricity’s actually going to get used," Molvar said.

Power Company of Wyoming, the Aschutz subsidiary building Chokecherry and Sierra Madre, spent years working with federal regulators on ways to minimize harm to sage grouse and golden eagles, such as tweaking turbine locations to reduce bird collisions. But eagle deaths at wind farms are a common problem, one that often goes unprosecuted.

Wyoming's position as the country's top coal-producer and a major source of oil and gas, meanwhile, has meant an uneasy relationship with wind at times. Wyoming is the only state that taxes wind energy, a $1 per megawatt-hour charge lawmakers have discussed raising to $4 or more.

And local resistance could grow. People often don’t appreciate what a wind farm with its turbines, lights, roads, power lines and substations will look like, said Jones, the Carbon County commissioner.

“You really have no idea what that’s like until it’s there. And then you go, wow. It’s an industrial area. A different kind of industry, but an industrial area,” Jones said.

Mead Gruver, The Associated Press

NIMBY, ITS ABOUT VIEW & PROPERTY VALUES

Maine Bars Wind Projects Encouraging Floating Farms Further Offshore

Maine recently demonstrated a prototype for its offshore wind farms (New England Aqua Ventus)

PUBLISHED JUL 14, 2021 7:41 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

Marine has taken the unusual step of prohibiting the installation of offshore wind projects from the state’s waters. Following through on a previous promise to protect the state’s waters, Governor Janet Mills signed into law the bill last week, which however leaves open the possibility of wind farms further offshore, and according to the governor positions Maine as the first state to encourage floating offshore wind farms.

“This legislation cements in law our belief that these efforts should occur in Federal waters farther off our coast through a research array that can help us establish the best way for Maine to embrace the vast economic and environmental benefits of offshore wind,” said Governor Janet Mills. “I applaud the Legislature’s strong bipartisan support of this bill, which I believe demonstrates that offshore wind and Maine’s fishing industry can not only coexist but can help us build a stronger economy with more good-paying jobs and a brighter, more sustainable future for Maine people.”

The bill won support in the Maine Legislature based on the arguments that the local waters needed to be preserved for recreation and the commercial fishing industry. They highlighted that 75 percent of Maine’s commercial lobster harvesting occurs in the waters that will be protected under the legislation. The final bill was a compromise that sought to meet the concerns of the fishing industry, wildlife, and environmental organizations and concerns about the environmental impact and appearance of the wind turbines close to shore while preserving a path for Maine to participate in the emerging industry.

The governor was challenged to walk a tightrope to support the bad while also encouraging the development of offshore wind to help the state’s energy and economic policies. The Gulf of Maine is home to some of the highest sustained wind speeds in the world. This makes power generation from offshore wind a key opportunity for Maine both to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the more than $4 billion Maine residents are estimated to spend each year on fossil fuels to heat their homes.

Governor Mills highlights that last month Maine passed another bill that advances the creation of the nation’s first research area for floating offshore wind in federal waters of the Gulf of Maine. The University of Maine is leading research into floating offshore wind technology. Mills is proposing a smaller-scale research array, which will contain up to 12 turbines, that plans to use innovative floating platform technology developed by the University of Maine and a public-private partnership with New England Aqua Ventus, a joint venture of two leading global offshore wind companies, Diamond Offshore Wind and RWE Renewables.

Research from the array they said will inform the development of floating offshore wind in the United States and leverage Maine’s ability to take advantage of its home-grown energy resources in the Gulf of Maine. Maine enacted legislation authorizing the Maine Public Utilities Commission to negotiate a contract with a transmission and distribution utility to purchase up to 144 megawatts of energy from the proposed floating offshore wind research array in the Gulf of Maine.

The Governor’s Energy Office is also promising to move forward with a strategic plan for Maine’s offshore wind industry and the country’s first research area for floating offshore wind, located in the Gulf of Maine. The office is identifying a preferred site for the research array, in advance of submitting a formal application for the area to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) later this summer. The GEO is also developing an Offshore Wind Roadmap for Maine, a strategic plan for developing an offshore wind industry in the state, which they are promising to complete by the end of 2022.

Unintended consequence:
Wind turbines are impacting the health of Ontarians

ByM.Gaudin, North Stormont

There is a real possibility of a future with hundreds of Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) surrounding the greater Ottawa area. Quite a picture. Let me tell you a story.

I live in the small community of North Stormont, just south of Ottawa. I have lived and worked in the Ottawa area for 25 years. The call of a rural life was strong when I bought our home in this peaceful community. I had hoped to retire here. I loved it here.

But the joy is gone. I keep my windows closed to try to eliminate the unearthly noise from the turbines. The insidious infra-sound makes me queasy like seasickness and feel off-balance if I go outside.

In 2015, an international wind company came into our area and signed wind leases with a bunch of property owners to build an industrial wind project. Knowing what we all learned from years of peer-reviewed research since the Green Energy Act of 2009, many were opposed to the project so close to our homes.

During this time, people continued to object. Noise and health incident reports have been continuously filed with both Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) and the Eastern Ontario Health Unit. The turbines erected are prototype Enercon E138s, too big and too clustered by the homes in this high-density rural area with schools and seniors' residences. We also learned about the situation in other Ontario wind projects; none of it was protective of the people's health. The people in North Stormont are experiencing what so many in every other Ontario wind turbine project are experiencing with no help from any government agency. The Ministry of Health (MOH) states that the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) has authority over the project; MECP refers people back to the MOH.

I continue to write to the Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) to fix it while a stream of civil servants and Ontario ministers send the same boilerplate responses month after month, delay after delay of action, and meanwhile, people of all ages are harmed daily from the turbine emissions. At no point does any ministry take responsibility for helping the people. How is this possible in Canada?

The formal incident reports sent to the government are of cardiac events, sleep disturbance, high annoyance levels, vertigo, dizziness, migraine, and ringing in the ears. It’s just some of the noise nuisance issues reported. And it started happening in my community as soon as the project began operating.

Sure, industry types and government civil servants state that wind turbines aren’t the cause. That’s to protect the billion-dollar global wind industry. People who receive financial benefits for leasing their land may also be harmed, but their lips are sealed under a gag order from the wind company.

Also concerning is how government-paid regional Medical Officers of Health live in the same communities, hearing the same concerns saying there is ‘no evidence’ of health problems from wind turbines. But there is evidence. The people are the evidence, and it’s serious.

They are not NIMBYs, just ordinary everyday people in rural Ontario. In my community, too many health incidents occur almost simultaneously. So what should one think when the only new addition to our small, tight community was the giant 29 -turbine wind project? Evidence!

We knew that one older woman Stephana Johnston in the Clear Creek Ontario wind project, had said: “All the advice I have been given by everyone who has learned about the physical health effects which started …when the last six of the group of 18 IWT's surrounding my home within a 3 km radius were put into action is that I SHOULD NOT LIVE any longer in the home I had built in 2004….”

But no remedy was ever provided because of the decades-old promulgation of the notion that the projects are safe and benign on the Ontario landscape. Yes, some people love wind turbines. They say they are graceful and majestic and the answer to climate change. But they do not have them as neighbours.

So, part of your freshly minted Energy Evolution Strategy vision is to transform Ottawa into a thriving city powered by clean, renewable energy. The modelling draft document indicates that the minimum results required to meet the 100% scenario for the electricity sector shows wind generation reaching 3,218 MW by 2050. “That is approximately 710 large scale turbines”... in the Ottawa area, according to advocacy organization Wind Concerns Ontario.  How do the non-urban outer reaches of Ottawa feel about that?

Let’s look at the big picture here. As far back as the early 2000s, politicians have been lobbied, enticed, persuaded, or paid to promote “green energy.” Virtually every lawmaker in every major jurisdiction in the western world decreed they’d be the ‘leader in green energy’ production, mainly by Industrial Wind Turbines [IWT].

Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, with the advantage of a majority government; newly formed environmental organizations; wind industry investors; oil and gas companies, and supportive media outlets, grabbed this trend by the tail, cheering the creation of the Green Energy Act (GEA). Hundreds of millions of incentive dollars went to Liberal Party executive insiders to get the ball rolling.  Finally, in September 2009, McGuinty passed the industry-led law with much fanfare but also much concern.

Concern, you ask? Prior to the approval of the GEA, there were rural Ontarians already exposed to pre-GEA IWT projects sponsored by the Governments of Canada and Ontario, heavily influenced by lobby groups.

ABOVE: A wind turbine located roughly 0.5 miles from a rural Ontario home. (PHOTO: Bonny McKeough)

In 2009 those rural Ontarians bravely came forward to disclose what industrial wind had done to their health, homes, and livelihoods. Many were farmers. Some lost their livestock to strange and horrible health problems not seen before. Others residents were affected by massive pressure pulses emitted from the giant turbine blades near their homes. For some, sleep became such an impossibility that many abandoned their homes to survive. That doesn’t sound too environmentally friendly now, does it? That was 13 years ago.

Fast forward to today, where the outer Ottawa area will become part of the solution to the Energy Evolution Strategy. Here is the scenario: wind energy proponents will knock on your door and ask to lease your land for their turbines. If you lease property to ‘be green or make green,’ you will sign a non-disclosure agreement preventing you from declaring any medical issues that, more likely than not, will arise. If you complain to the proponent or the Ministry of Environment in charge, you will get no resolution of your problems. They will advise you to see a doctor, though. If you become ill and complain, you will be described as a NIMBY or anti-environment.

Recently Australian courts have sided with residents surrounded by a wind project who described their ongoing health symptoms and were believed.

On March 25, 2022, the Australia Supreme Court from Victoria issued a precedent-setting decision which held that operational noise from the Bald Hills Wind Farm was causing a nuisance to two local residents at night time and ordered the operator of the Bald Hills Wind Farm to: “...pay a total of AU$260,000 in damages to the two residents.”

“The Court applied established principles at common law to determine that operational noise from the wind turbines at night amounted to a private nuisance because it caused a substantial interference with the two residents' use and enjoyment of their land.”

So, this is no time to cheer if you live anywhere near where the gigantic turbines are to be located. Adverse health effects, including heart palpitations, vertigo, nausea, and chronic sleep disturbance, were reported to the government over ten years ago and are still a serious health scourge today as wind turbines in Ontario are still operating.

In Ontario today, over 6000 incident reports have been submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Environment. This calls for a remedy to the agonizing problem of wind turbines. So beware, Ottawa. The Australian Supreme Court also held that: The public interest in the operation of the wind farm did not outweigh the need to abate the nuisance.

History will show that if you do not pay attention to the details surrounding socially ‘acceptable’ solutions such as industrial wind projects, those green dreams will likely become a nightmare.

---

For more information on industrial wind farming, visit https://www.windconcernsontario.ca or https://www.wind-watch.org

Photo: iStock

By: OLM Contributor