First Meeting Summary

Thursday, October 10, 2002

Convenor: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

Facilitators: Dr. Jonathan Raab, Greg Sobel, Suzanne Orenstein

68 people attended the meeting, which began at 10:00 am and concluded at 4:05 pm. See the attached attendance lists.

Introduction / Agenda Review

Greg Watson, Vice President of Sustainable Development & Renewable Energy for the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), opened the meeting and welcomed the attendees. He then introduced the lead facilitator for the process, Dr. Jonathan Raab. Dr. Raab welcomed the group and introduced the goals and overall structure for the process. He reiterated the goals as follows:

To provide a forum to collect and share information to improve stakeholders’ understanding of the wide range of potential impacts and opportunities surrounding the proposed Cape Wind project and other potential offshore wind proposals.

To serve as a platform to inform other stakeholders including the broader public about these issues through a proposed February public forum and other means.

Dr. Raab further explained the process will involve five meetings, and is scheduled to conclude in February with a public forum. After Dr. Raab reviewed the agenda for the day, the attendees briefly introduced themselves.

I. Groundrules

Dr. Raab then went over the draft Groundrules, which had been distributed to all Stakeholders by email in advance of the meeting. He reviewed each Groundrule in detail, covering the sections for Stakeholders, Resources/Advisors, Facilitators, and Convenors. One Advisor from a regulatory agency clarified that participation in the process by an agency does not displace any future regulatory responsibilities, and many of the other Resources/Advisors indicated that they agreed with that observation. After all questions were addressed, there were no objections to the proposed Groundrules and they were adopted. 

II. Background to the Process

In response to a clarifying question, Greg Watson then offered a short history of the MTC and the origins of the Cape & Islands Offshore Wind process. One stakeholder asked if the process was intended to deal specifically with the Cape Wind proposal or other potential proposals as well. Another member suggested that the discussion could get too broad if the process addressed all issues relating to offshore wind and other renewable energy sources, and suggested that the focus should remain on the one concrete project currently under consideration, and the broader issues of offshore wind as they relate to this proposal.

Mr. Watson clarified that, while the stakeholder process will address issues relevant to future proposed projects the specific focus of this process is to provide information useful to the stakeholders as they prepare to respond to the draft EIS for the Cape Wind project.

Mr. Watson stated that the MTC understands the importance of the broader renewable energy discussion for the Cape and Islands, and plans to address those discussions in other forums. He referenced the upcoming public meeting MTC is convening on October 26th where a broader perspective on all renewable energy options on the Cape and Islands will be discussed. 

One stakeholder asked if MTC had or would provide any funds to support the Cape Wind project. Mr. Watson clarified that MTC had not provided any funds to Cape Wind, and currently no program exists that would fund a project like Cape Wind, but that the possibility remains that MTC may develop a funding program for which Cape Wind might be eligible for funds.

III. Breakout Groups

The attendees then split into three breakout groups to discuss potential benefits and impacts of off-shore wind development, both for the Cape and Islands and for society as a whole. The items noted in each of the breakout groups are attached to this summary as Appendix A.

After lunch, the three facilitators provided short summaries of the discussions that had taken place in their breakout groups. Several common threads ran through the lists compiled in the three breakout groups:

Potential Adverse Impacts

• Aesthetics, especially visual
• Effects on biological resources (avian, marine life, habitat alteration)
• Allocation of public resource to private developer
• Economic (fisheries, tourism, property values)

Potential Benefits

• Cleaner energy production
• Transition from fossil fuels
• Economic improvements (jobs, new technology)
• Avoidance of climate change

Questions

• Is the current regulatory structure adequate?
• What will the actual visual impact be?
• What other viable sites exist?
• What are the realities of wind power, e.g.: link between size of project and economic viability?
• What are the likely economic impacts of wind power on Cape ratepayers, and within the New England energy market?

In addition to these common threads, the breakout groups reported that, in their discussions, some of the topics listed as benefits might turn out to be adverse impacts and vice versa, for example, effects on tourism and water quality, and impacts on electricity prices. These issues require more study to determine in which category they might actually fall. Additionally, one group felt that the potential impacts appear to fall more on the Cape and Island communities than the benefits, which appear more societal. Another group found it hard to distinguish between local and societal potential impacts and benefits.

IV. Panel 1: Case Study: Cape Wind - What We Know, and What We Need to Better Understand

A panel of three speakers addressed the questions of what we know and what we need to better understand regarding the Cape Wind proposal.

Jim Gordon of Cape Wind provided a brief history of his company’s involvement in energy projects, beginning during the oil crisis of the mid-1970s, progressing into the construction of combined cycle natural gas power plants, and now moving into the development of wind generation projects. He explained how he had come to believe that wind is poised to become a big part of Massachusetts’ overall energy mix especially given the geopolitical challenges that come with imported energy. He also provided some detail on the current permitting process for the project.

Isaac Rosen of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound described some of his history on the Cape advocating on growth and development issues. He stated that Horseshoe Shoal is not the only location for a wind development, and that Cape Wind does not have property rights to develop the Shoal. He detailed the widespread opposition to the project, and concerns about effects on animals, noting that we won’t know the true impacts until the project happens. He also noted his concern over property issues, as he believes Cape Wind is trying to take ownership of a public resource. He observed that unilateral land grants are dangerous, and that we shouldn’t build anything offshore until we plan for use of the ocean as we do for zoning of development on land.

Maggie Geist of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod was the final speaker on the panel. Noting that many individuals and organizations on the Cape and Islands have heard both why society needs to use more renewable sources of energy, and why we need to be careful in which projects get approved. She noted that the Cape Wind proposal, albeit for a good cause, appears to infer private ownership of a public resource. She further noted the biological resource problems, especially the challenge posed by threats to endangered species.

She specifically pointed out some of the problems this proposal might create for the communities that host it, notably local impacts vs. global benefits and short term vs. long term costs. Noting the Cape and Islands as a test case, being the first offshore wind farm proposal in the US, she stressed it is even more important to engage in careful review, to help best advance the use of renewable energy. Conducting this review, she noted, will be a daunting task, but felt it has the potential to be very valuable to public stakeholders. She also noted the importance of aesthetics and visibility, and the difficulty in measuring the true effects in those areas.

The facilitators then summarized the points that came out of the three presentations and added questions and comments posed by the stakeholders, as well as the resources and public attendees. 

What do we know?

• Wind in NE is in mountains and offshore
• Other viable sites must exist
• Many groups oppose development on Horseshoe Shoal
• We need alternatives to fossil fuels

What do we need to know more about?

• Comparison of environmental impacts from the Cape Wind project and fossil fuel generation
• Actual visual impacts in horseshoe shoal (looking at both scale and viewshed issues) – ideally, we should get an accurate model or photo simulation
• How can the public best influence the review process?
• Economic impacts of the project, particularly its effects on:
  • Energy rates
  • Tourism
  • Jobs
  • Overall economic impact on the Cape and Islands
• Transmission related issues
• Why wind (as opposed to other renewables)?
• Why here?
• Information on other proposals – who, where, how compare?
• What’s the feasibility of offshore wind in deeper waters?
• If there are other locations, do we need this large a project in this location – what is the feasibility of other sites?
• If this is the only viable site, would the public support it?
• How does national and regional energy policy interact with local and national environmental and economic policy—and how does wind fit into this framework?
• What are alternative energy futures for the region?
• What are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd optimum sites?
• Can MTC support an academic, impartial fact finding on economic impacts?
• Look at municipal/public power use of wind generation

V. Panel 2: Current Studies and Processes

After the break one of the facilitators introduced a session focusing on updates for ongoing studies. Karen Adams, from the Corps of Engineers, provided an overview of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process now underway as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Her full presentation is available here.

One attendee noted that, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has recommended, in their comments on the Environmental Notification Form at least three years of avian studies. Ms. Adams acknowledged that three years of studies had been suggested, but suggested timing may not allow for that long a study period. She stated the difficulty of data collection due to seasonal changes. 

A question was raised regarding a Presidential executive order for energy related projects. She explained that that the Corps is currently under an Executive Order to expedite all energy-related projects. 

In response to a question regarding the current scope of work, Ms. Adams indicated that it is unlikely that the Scope of Work for the EIS will be formally amended, but reinforced that the scope was written in a way in which questions raised regarding the need for information could be considered and addressed, if possible. She explained that the Corps schedule indicates the earliest possible date for the production of the DEIS, EIS and issuance of a permit. The earliest the draft EIS could be issued is early 2003, and the final EIS could be issued in July of 2003, and the earliest the permit could be issued is September of 2003. 

Ms. Adams, in response to a question regarding the inclusion of economic impacts in the scope of work, stated that economic impacts will be included in the analysis, and the Corps will rely on applicants to provide their data, though all data will be thoroughly reviewed by the Corps.

Jack Clarke of the Massachusetts Audubon Society then presented information on the avian impacts study being conducted by Massachusetts Audubon Society. He described Massachusetts Audubon efforts to assess bird use of the Horseshoe Shoal area, especially for the species of concern. He further observed that the study will be done around the end of October, which should allow for the results to be presented at the next meeting.

Kristen Burke of the MTC then offered a short description of the wind mapping studies commissioned by the MTC and being conducted by AWS Scientific, who was unable to attend today. She distributed a map of wind resources for southern New England that had been generated from the study and indicated additional data will overlay information on ocean depth and transmission line proximity on the wind map for the entire New England region. The southern New England wind resource map and report is available on the MTC website. The additional data will be available the end of this calendar year, and Bruce Bailey of AWS Scientific is available for future meetings.

The final presentation came from Len Fagan, consultant for Cape Wind, regarding the data tower that is being constructed to gather information relevant to the project. His full presentation is available on the Stakeholder process web site. He provided detailed information about the design and construction of the data tower and the types of information that will be gathered when it is in operation.

VI. Wrap Up / Next Steps

Dr. Raab then summarized the meeting and discussed topics for future meetings. He proposed a list of topics based on both the break-out sessions and the presentations which was then edited and amended by the group:

1. This site vs. alternative (relative costs and benefits)
   • Cape Wind’s alternatives
   • Further offshore
2. Energy system – impacts on:
   • Energy supply
   • Electricity prices
   • Reliability/transmission
   • Other alternative energy options
3. Visual impacts
   • Look at Cape Wind & Alliance material – what would improve on that
   • Boat trip (optional)
   • Look at other windmills and wind farms (including visit to on-shore windmills and video of off-shore windfarms)
4. Economic impacts
   • Tourism – eco/traditional
   • Property values
   • Constructions, maintenance, operation jobs
   • Renewable industry
   • Yearly health cost impacts
   • Fishing
5. Avian / Habitat
• Fisheries and protected resources
6. Regulatory Authority / Jurisdiction
7. Impact of climate change on Cape & Islands
   • Timing of actions
   • Timing of impacts on Cape & Islands

The attendees then suggested presenters or approaches they thought would be useful.

Topic 1: Alternative Sites

• Bringing in Bruce Bailey and getting more detail on the mapping efforts conducted by AWS Scientific may provide a good opportunity to examine other sites. The wind resource map could be the basis for this discussion. 
• One Stakeholder inquired to what detail have other sites examined, and who will evaluate all of these sites. MTC volunteered to do some screening to gather the information available on other sites that have been proposed.

Topic 2: Energy

• One Stakeholder suggested that the convenors invite the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (MA DOER), the independent electricity system operator of New England (ISO-NE), and utilities (such as NSTAR). Other potential presenters include the NE Sustainable Energy Association, the American Wind Energy Association, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Labs, and local renewable energy organizations. Dr. Raab noted that many of these organizations were already participating as Resources/Advisors.
• Others were interested in an overview of what if any energy generation the Cape Wind project might displace

Topic 3: Visual Impacts

• There was some discussion about how the visual impact could accurately be estimated. Attendees suggested a variety of ideas, from weather balloons (to get a sense of how high the towers would reach) to videos and pictures from other existing facilities, to a scale diorama (sp??). There was some interest in a boat trip out to Horseshoe Shoal.

Topic 4: Economic Impacts

• Bring in someone who can model the economic impacts especially someone who has gone through a similar analysis, perhaps in the North Sea or other significant project.
• An attendee mentioned a recent Long Island Energy research study that generated a sizable document (300 pages) on wind energy. In particular the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority / Long Island Power Authority study was suggested as a helpful background document, and Gordon Rackie, the head of the consumer advisory panel for that study, might be the best contact to learn more about it. The website for the project was also mentioned: http://www.lioffshorewindenergy.org
• European experts who are further along in their studies might also be very helpful and informative for the Stakeholders.
• An expert on health costs and health effects, perhaps from the Harvard school of public health – Health Effects Institute or Johns Hopkins University.

Topic 5: Avian/Marine/Habitat

• Stakeholders were interested in more information on the avian question, in particular:
  • What avian studies has Cape Wind done so far, and what do they propose for the future?
  • What information is available from the Fish & Wildlife Service?
  • What does the Corps require for the avian portion of its EIS?
  • What has Mass Audubon learned in its study
• The stakeholders were interested in bringing in an avian expert who could speak to avian interactions with wind turbines. Dr. Kerlinger was mentioned, but it was noted that he is a paid consultant to Cape Wind, so hearing from other experts might also be desirable.
• Several Stakeholders also requests a quick overview of essential fish habitats from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and one Resource/Advisor noted that NMFS can provide data from their assessment tows.

Topic 6: Regulatory Structure

• A specialist on jurisdiction, such as a constitutional scholar or a Congressman.
• Someone like MMS, such as Walter Cruikshank

Topic 7: Climate Change

• There was some interest in learning more about the impacts of climate change on the Cape and Islands. One attendee noted that Woods Hole has done projections on sea level rise effects on Cape Cod (perhaps Dave Aubrey) and that EPA has also done a regional assessment of impacts from global warming.

Other topics:

• A Stakeholder asked that the process bring in someone from DOE to address the effects of reduced reliance on foreign energy sources. Another stakeholder opposed this suggestion.

One attendee requested that all experts brought in have no stated position on the Cape Wind project, but others suggested that as long as balanced perspectives were presented a stated position one way or the other should not invalidate the contributions of a presenter. The final agreement was to circulate information about experts before meetings, if possible, so that any perceived problems with bias can be addressed. Additionally, it was suggested that the resources and advisors present in the stakeholder process should be utilized for resource information and discussions within the group.

The meeting concluded with the facilitator proposing to circulate the meeting summary and agenda before the next meeting. It was noted that given the tight timeframe, there would not likely be much input from stakeholders to the next agenda but should be more time for input on subsequent agendas. The next meeting is scheduled for October 31.

Appendix A

Breakout Group Lists

Group #1 (Jonathan Raab, Facilitator)

Potential Benefits

• Renewable Energy
• Health Effects (air pollution)
• Climate Change Benefits (replacing fossil fuel use)
• Energy/Infrastructure Diversity
• Energy Security and Independence
• Sets Precedent ???
• Lower, More Stable Electric Prices ???
• Jobs—Construction, Maintenance, Operation
• Tourism ??? (eco-tourism)
• Emerging Industry w/Technology Transfer Benefits
• Location ???
• Inspire Other Communities to Pursue Renewables
• Hatchery Benefits (Fish/Birds)
• Private Property Value ???
• Public Familiarity ???
• Water Quality/Quantity ???
• Current/Sediment Transport???
• Alternatives Analysis/Learning
• Visual Impact ???

Note: ??? means one or more group member felt that the particular benefit or impact should appear on both the benefit and impact lists.

Potential Adverse Impacts

• Privatization or private use of a public resource (without framework to protect public interest)
• Bird/Avian impacts (in flight, watershed)
• Visual impacts night-lights on towers (???)
• Navigation – air & sea
• Fisheries / other marine resources (e.g. mammals)
• Noise
• Sets precedent ??? (wind and other offshore uses)
• Increased electricity prices to consumers (especially Cape Cod)???
• Jurisdiction – Narrow scope of local/state energy authority on near-shore actions
• Tourism ??? (traditional)
• Appropriateness of location ???
• Setback for renewable industry
• Private property value ???
• Currents / sediment transport ???
• Water quality ??? Quantity

Largest Potential Adverse Impacts

• Loss of Pristine Sound (Horseshoe Shoal)
• Visual Impacts
• Precedent—Property Rights
• Marine/Avian

Largest Potential Benefits

• Health Impacts
• Viable Renewables
• Decrease Dependence on Imported Fuels
• Global Warming Mitigation
• Make Folks Feel That They Did Something Good

Questions to Pursue

• What are local health benefits?
• Go out and take a look at visual impacts
• Impact global warming on Cape & Island
• Assess those appear on both benefit / impact
• What can we quantify and what is opinion?

Group #2 (Suzanne Orenstein, Facilitator)

Potential Benefits

• Rate-payer benefits from proximity to plant
• Transition away from fossil fuels
  • Public health
  • Climate change
  • Reduce forms of generation that harm environment, e.g. nitrogen deposition, Brayton Point, etc.
• Avoid climate change (Cape at risk)
• Energy choices that take into account true costs and benefits
  • Sustainable development for Cape
  • Job creation
  • Capital influx
• Increase reliability
• Renewables allow integration of energy, environment, and economic policy to optimize resource utilization
• Cape Wind project will add new technological capacity
• May create spinoff for new economic activity
• First offshore wind farm will create national expertise
• Export knowledge
• Jobs here and in other regions
• Supplying increased energy demand without adverse impacts from fossil or dependency on fossil
• Diversifies energy sources
• Will help stabilize energy prices – wind price is stable
• Aesthetics – interesting / symbolic
• Tourism draw?
• Community pride in environmental values

Potential Adverse Impacts

• Aesthetics:
• Property value impact? (closest land – Yarmouth, Great Island)
• Tourism
• Scale
• Visual impact (motion, height, width, light)
• Navigation:
  • Safety hazards (esp. foul weather)
  • Restricts areas for boating
• Noise: Will it be significant? (in constructionand maintenance phases)
• Proliferation of wind farms
• Potential to impact areas especially important to biodiversity
  • Conversion of habitat
  • Impact on species composition & community structure
• Size of project (boating, aesthetics, plant & marine life)
  • Height (aircraft)
• Sediment transport (shoaling, waves)
• Avian impacts / endangered species
  • Migratory birds in general
  • Roseate terns
  • Piping plovers
  • Long-tail duck
• Construction impacts
• Fisheries / marine mammals
  • Commercial exclusion zone?

Questions

• OCS allocation
• Realities in viewshed
• Is wind 100% reliable over long term?
• Renewables/wind
• Alternative site
• Size/economic relationship
• Subsidies
• Cape economic impacts re. energy

Group #3 (Greg Sobel, Facilitator)

Potential Benefits

• Decrease dependence on fossil fuels
• Decrease dependence on imported oil & dirty coal / nuclear
• Forces offshore wind public policy issues to be addressed
• Process for deciding Cape Wind proposal will define future processes
• Clean air and health benefits
• Global warming slowed
• Reduction of emissions as called for in Kyoto protocols
• Property value increase
• Open ocean site could have more benefits and fewer negative impacts
• Diversify fuel sources
• Economic advantage for local companies & workers
• Educational value of this debate
• Possible positive avian impacts
• Benefits and impacts not mutually exclusive
• Meets renewable energy portfolio standard with in-state generation
• Energy reliability / security
• Offshore impacts may be less than wind facilities cited on land
• Regional manufacturing of components to build the facility - getting up to speed with cutting edge technology/industry
• Undertaking new research on Nantucket sound that we wouldn’t have done otherwise
• Reduced NOx, acid rain, mercury providing cleaner air and water
• Economic benefits of municipal ownership
• Impervious terrorist targets

Potential Adverse Impacts

• Expensive – taxpayers & ratepayers
• Other interests at stake – pleasure craft use, aviation (commercial & private)
• Private use of a public resource – Nantucket sound
• Industrialization of natural public resource
• Public trust issue
• Environmental impacts
• Avian, navigation (air and sea), endangered and protected species, negative impacts on other species
• Undue burden on Cape and Islands
• Commercial fishing – loss of a most productive fishing area
• Impacts on recreation – boating
• Tourism (could be + or -)
• Economic impact / property values (visual pollution)
• Need better understanding of technical issues – how to connect with the grid & get it to market
• Tax benefits – artificial incentive?
• Negative impact for marinas and boatyards – layoffs at marinas
• If offshore wind fails here & now it reduces the potential for future projects

Questions and concerns

• Who decides? Who should have regulatory authority? Jurisdiction? (DOI, Corps, NOAA)
• Note that some of the potential benefits and potential adverse impacts can be restated as Questions to Pursue.
  

Appendix B -- Attendance List

Stakeholders

Greg Watson, MTC 

Isaac Rosen, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 

Margaret Geist, Association to Preserve Cape Cod 

Gary Blazis, Barnstable Town Council 

Chris Powicki, Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative 

Richard Lawrence, Cape & Islands Self Reliance Corp 

Charles Kleekamp, Cape Clean Air 

John O’Brien, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 

Margo Fenn, Cape Cod Commission 

Spyro Mitrokostos, Cape Cod Technology Council 

Fred Fenlon, Cape Light Compact 

Jim Gordon, Cape Wind 

Steve Burrington, Conservation Law Foundation 

Wayne Kurker, Hyannis Marina 

Rhonda Tewes, League of Women Voters 

Bill Veno, Martha’s Vineyard Commission 

Jack Clarke, MA Audubon Society 

Frank Gorke, MA Public Interest Resources Group

John Pagini, Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission 

Chris Neill, Sierra Club of Cape Cod 

Jack McCormack, Town of Yarmouth

Resources/Advisors

Judith Laster, MA Attorney General’s Office

Elizabeth Kouloharas, MA Dept of Environmental Protection

David Hill, MA Dept of Environmental Protection

David O’Connor, MA Division of Energy Resources

Truman Henson, MA Office of Coastal Zone Management

Sean McDermott, National Marine Fisheries Service, NE Regional Office

Stephanie Cunningham, MA Division of Marine Fisheries

Karen Adams, US Army Corp of Engineers

Kevin Blount, US Coast Guard

Richard Michaud, US Dept of Energy

Tim Timmerman, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1: NE

Vern Lang, US Fish & Wildlife Service, New England Field Office

Juliana Birkhoff, National Wind Coordinating Committee

Charlie Salimone, NStar

Dr. Anthony Rogers, U Mass, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory

Porter Hoagland, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Phil Dascombe, Cape Cod Commission

Alternates

Jean Cummisky, MA Division of Energy Resources

Peter A. Popko, US Coast Guard

Kim Damon-Randall, National Marine Fisheries Service, NE Regional Office

Christine Godfrey, US Army Corp of Engineers

Mary Grover, NStar

Tara Nye, Association to Preserve Cape Cod

Dennis Duffey, Cape Wind

Len Fagan, Cape Wind

Seth Kaplan, Conservation Law Foundation

Simon Perkins, MA Audubon Society

Observers

Senator Rob O’Leary, State Senator, Cape & Islands

Stephanie Cove, aide to Representative Atsalis

George Kovatch, private citizen

Peter White, private citizen, running for State Rep in Barnstable

Glenn Ritt, Publisher and Editor, Community Newspapers

Steve Dolan, NE Regional Council of Carpenters, Pile Drivers Union

Peter Morgan, Citizen

Journalist from the Inquirer & Mirror, Nantucket weekly

John Leaning, journalist from the Cape Cod Times

Camera crew from Channel 3, local cable company

Matt Pitta, news anchor, WQRC

Facilitators

Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates

Colin Rule, Raab Associates

Greg Sobel, Environmental Mediation Services

Suzanne Orenstein

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

Judy Silvia

Fara Courtney

Kristen Burke

Barbara Hill