Third Meeting Summary
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Convenor: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Facilitators: Dr. Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates, Ltd. and
Greg Sobel, Environmental Mediation Services
82 people attended the meeting, which began at 9:30 am and concluded at 3:30 pm. See the attached attendance list.
Introduction / Agenda Review
Greg Watson, Vice President of Sustainable Development & Renewable Energy for the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), welcomed the attendees, explained MTC’s background and role as convenor, and the goals for the process.
Jonathan Raab then introduced facilitation team and went through the day’s agenda. The attendees then went around the room and introduced themselves. Dr. Raab then briefly reviewed the meeting summary from Meeting #2 and noted that the list of edits made will be posted on the website.
Greg Sobel then explained the format for the morning’s discussions and introduced Karen Adams from the Corps of Engineers, who said a few words about the Corps public meeting taking place later that evening.
I. Discussion on Marine and Habitat Issues for Offshore Wind
Mr. Sobel introduced Susan Herz of Environmental Science Services, who provided details on the marine impact studies being conducted by Cape Wind. Her presentation is available here.
At the conclusion of the presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
Are there any studies on shellfish habitats and how they will be affected?
The surf clam is the only shellfish on the Essential Fish Habitat list, but the Division of Marines and Fisheries data contains information on shellfish, and an analysis of that data will be a component of the Environmental Impact Survey.
Regarding the resources that have already been identified, what do you think the impact of the wind turbines will be?
Research is still ongoing – Battelle’s info still being compiled – so it’s premature to make any conclusions. First we should get a good sense of the results and then we should be able to make some projections as part of the EIS.
Has work been done on comparisons between human and animal impacts, in particular endangered whales? For example, is there literature on or will Batelle examine the number of right whales killed by wind turbines in Europe and compare that to whale mortality from propeller strikes, entanglement, and/or other hazards?
Ms. Herz explained that she hadn’t seen a full draft report, but Battelle is definitely analyzing these threats and will put them into context with overall population numbers and mortality statistics from other sources. She made clear, however, that she didn’t know whether the specific comparison raised in the question will be discussed in the final report.
Assessing cumulative effects is often more difficult than assessing one-time impacts. How is ESS approaching that challenge?
That component is being developed to some degree, but it depends on getting the full results back. The methodology depends on the specific marine resource. Once all the data are in an estimation of cumulative impacts will be included. Looking at data from Europe will also be helpful
In layman’s terms, what’s the likely effect of the 170 turbines on fishing? How will you determine the effect from a project this large that hasn’t been built before elsewhere?
Baseline study modeling has been conducted by Woods Hole Group, and site specific scour engineering analysis is currently being conducted. The results from these analyses will be reviewed to determine the project’s effects on local circulation and physical oceanographic conditions.
What does “management alternatives to proposed action” mean?
Management alternatives to proposed action is a component typically included in biological assessments. For more specific information, refer to Karen Adams’ presentation just before lunch. Ms. Herz explained that she needed to check with Battelle to determine what that component will entail.
Erosion effects and coastal changes have been significant over the past few years, such as the changes in the Chatham Cut. Is anyone looking at the effect of the turbines on the Chatham Cut and erosion in general? Would this kind of development have a major effect?
A site-specific scour analysis is being performed to estimate the near-field erosion potential at representative turbine locations. Ms. Herz explained that she didn’t have the information with her, but that the Woods Hole Group had done some work in this area and they might be able to provide some useful data.
Will studies be conducted that focus on how long it will take for nature to heal itself? Referring specifically to the squid fishermen, will there be a study of how long it would take to recover from the construction of the turbines?
Squid run differently each year through Nantucket Sound, so it is difficult to determine how the squid population will be affected. Horseshoe Shoal is a dynamic area that will likely adapt to new circumstances quickly.
Has Battelle been hired by Cape Wind?
Yes. Environmental Science Services (ESS) is the primary contractor and is managing and coordinating Battelle’s technical studies.
Are there studies that have been conducted by organizations not hired by Cape Wind that these studies could be compared to?
Yes and no – it depends on which study is being referred to. There have been many studies in Nantucket Sound, but in some areas there are precious little data.
Are there other organizations looking into these issues?
Extensive literature reviews have been performed on all the topics under consideration, so that brings in a wide variety of perspectives. ESS is also working closely with the Corps and other agencies, so many different organizations, both public and private, are now looking at these issues.
What jumps out from the literature and inventory? Has anything been learned that is new or different?
Ms. Herz responded that she didn’t think any new or different lessons had been learned as of yet, but it was premature to make any conclusions. There is a lot of research going on, and it hasn’t yet been fully analyzed. However, it is important to note that the data results are showing that Horseshoe Shoal isn’t standing out as a unique resource, and for many resources there’s not a significant difference between the Shoal and surrounding areas in Nantucket Sound.
On the slide that lists the waves of recreational data, how large a time period does that information cover? Will such studies be repeated?
Battelle obtained data from 1990-2001 from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) program for those counties listed on the slide. Battelle will also be putting together summary figures and tables for the report.
Could you compare the damage to the sea bed from the monopoles and power cables against damage from the fishing industry, such as hydraulic trawling?
Estimating impacts to the seabed from pile driving and cable installation will be included in the EIS.
Please include tables focusing on different impacts from the wind project and how they compare to other impacts from other sources.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is doing an informal consultation evaluating impacts of this project, and the environmental baseline generated during that consultation will include tables of comparative effects.
The presentation makes clear that a detailed analysis is taking place for only one of the three possible sites within the Sound. Will this level of analysis be conducted for other sites?
Karen Adams of the Corps responded – Cape Wind is moving ahead with their research on the Horseshoe Shoal site on their own volition and at their own expense, but if other sites are identified they will also receive comparable examination.
The presentation notes that grab samples will be a component of the Biological Assessment -- will there be any examination of contaminants in the samples?
The benthic grab samples were collected by ESS for characterization of the benthic community. Geophysical and geotechnical surveys were conducted on Horseshoe Shoal and along the proposed and alternative submarine cable routes by Ocean Surveys, Inc. (OSI) and ESS in 2001. Sediment cores were obtained and samples were analyzed for chemical constituents. The chemistry data and results were provided in 2001 to the Corps. The results indicated that there were no contamination concerns and that the substrate is very sandy. From the 46 vibracores, no results indicated contaminants of concern above established sediment guidelines.
Didn’t the grabs only go 6 inches?
Yes, but the vibracore samples were advanced 12 to 18 feet deep. The full length of the core samples was analyzed, particularly if the samples were homogenous.
How can a study determine the impacts of lights on marine life? What about noise? Vibration? Foghorns?
There is a noise technical consultant who is doing an analysis of baseline noise conditions. Noise levels were monitored during the data tower installation, with a NMFS observer on board, and the noise generated was below approved levels. An assessment of expected noise and vibration associated with construction will be part of the EIS. There is information in the existing literature as to how fish and marine animals respond to noise and vibration.
Will you be able to tell which fish will be repelled and which will be attracted?
There is information in the literature on artificial reef communities that will be reviewed to help determine the effect of the monopiles on the fish community.
It’s clear from your presentation that there’s been a strong emphasis on data collection, but methodology is also important. Is there someone reviewing the methodology for these studies?
Most of the studies being conducted were requested specifically by the Corps. Cooperating agencies also review the studies and provide feedback on methodology.
Karen Adams from the Corps further elaborated that agencies like NMFS are monitoring all the data as it comes in and they tell the Corps if data is technically and methodologically sound.
There was a brief discussion of the variables involved in decommissioning – vibrations, electro-magnetic effects, etc. Could you talk about some of the other variables as well?
Cape Wind can better provide that information. Some of the other factors to consider include shading effects, light, electromagnetic (EMF) effects, noise, and vibration. From a construction standpoint, variables to consider include the diameter of the piles, cable type and length, jet plowing (for cable installation), installation of turbines, and vessel activity.
After the clarifying questions for Ms. Herz ended, the stakeholders had a short discussion of the information she presented. Each of the points made by one or more person is presented in the bulleted list below.
Methodology is an important point – if there are questions that people are raising then it is important to get a sense of “what are the tools we can use to answer this question?” As part of our outreach effort, we can work with our partners in the media to give the public a sense of what those methodologies are, or “Here is how they arrived at these assessments.” This information may be highly technical, but individuals deserve to know how results are being obtained.
With regard to comparative impacts (such as fishing versus turbine installation), one stakeholder observed that comparisons are not mutually exclusive. Wind turbine installation will not stop fishing. All of the environmental impacts together are what matters, so comparisons may not be that relevant in determining what course of action should or should not be taken.
Some of the offsets in terms of reduced pollutants from fossil fuels, reduced erosion, and global warming should also be considered. The wind farm should be compared to the no action case by incorporating these differential offsets.
We need to consider the effects on pleasure boating and non-commercial activity. What effect will the wind farm have on recreation fisheries and pleasure boaters? This gets to the effect of the wind farm on the regular person.
Thought needs to go into the effect of ice and ice floes on the turbines. Ice will inevitably accumulate on the blades -- what happens when it gets thrown off? (A process advisor noted that this issue will be included in the EIS).
Impacts upon current and sedimentation should also be examined.
A lot of literature has developed over the years on impact from oil spills, such as the spill off of the coast of Spain. Comparative analysis in the past has focused on fossil fuel pollution offsets after fuel is combusted, but there is also an offset from the reduced likelihood of a tanker spill off the coast of Cape Cod. These reduced risks to marine and fish resources should also be included in any assessment, and Cape Wind intends to look at this.
Habitat conversion should be studied. In this project, soft substrate areas will be replaced with hard substrate. This new habitat supports a different community, and will likely change predator/prey relationships. ESS should look at literature that examines artificial reefs and other related materials to determine likely effects.
The process should distinguish species being preserved for species protection versus species being preserved for commercial fishing and harvesting.
II. Follow Up Discussion on Avian Impact Issues for Offshore Wind
Mr. Watson then began the second discussion with a short status update on the Audubon study commissioned by MTC. The study is being circulated for peer review right now, and by 12/12 it should be ready for the public. It is a short study, just the beginning of the process, but it will likely provide useful information for the stakeholders.
Mr. Sobel then opened the discussion up to the attendees. The points made are presented below in a bulleted list.
One stakeholder noted that there is a mismatch between what wildlife agencies (both federal and state) recommended as a term of study (3 years) and the current EIS efforts being conducted for the Corps (less than 3 years). Several in attendance maintain that multiyear studies were preferable when possible. For instance, in one year a study may see a hundred eiders in a certain survey segment, and the next year there may be 100,000 in the same segment. Data collected over a few years is superior, the question is how necessary the additional data is to making a determination of impacts from the proposed wind farm.
One stakeholder asked Vernon Lang (from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), one of the presenters at the 10/31 meeting) if the USFWS is also requiring three years of study in the offshore wind project that has been proposed by the Long Island Power Authority. Mr. Lang replied that Long Island is not within his particular field office so he couldn’t offer particular details, but that the different FWS offices are in communication about the various proposed offshore wind projects. He also anticipated that the different FWS offices would be similar in their approach to such projects.
One stakeholder asked why land-based wind projects have not been subject to such detailed studies. Several advisors in attendance explained that because the proposed Cape Wind project triggers the NEPA process it is subject to much closer scrutiny. The smaller land-based installations do not trigger NEPA, so there are relatively few federal regulatory handles over those projects. The break point for requiring more detailed studies depends on the project.
Mr. Lang clarified that the USFWS still is of the opinion that 3 years of field studies on avian impacts would be the wisest course of action.
The greatest threat to migratory birds over their entire migratory range is habitat loss. Development on land, air quality impacts, and water pollution threaten avian species over their entire range. Individual deaths have less of an impact than overall loss of habitat.
One stakeholder noted that FAA has a working group on turbine lighting, and that national Audubon is involved. There is also a working group at USFWS that is involved in these issues, specifically Albert Manville in the Washington office.
In September, 2000 USFWS issued guidance on minimizing bird deaths from towers, and Audubon examined this guidance in its forthcoming study.
Karen Adams from the Corps made clear that no decision has been made as to how much data is required to resolve the avian question. Many different assessment activities are currently going on in parallel. Site screening is ongoing, even though Cape Wind is already doing data collection. A three to five year study on avian impacts may take place before a permit is issued.
When endangered species appear to be impacted by a proposed project a Biological Assessment must be provided under the Endangered Species Act. This assessment will be a recognizable part of the EIS. Much of the information in the assessment will overlap with other parts of the EIS, such as a description of the species, what is known about them, and likely effects from the wind farm development. CFR Sect. 402 (ESA Section 7 Regulations) describes the recommended content for a Biological Assessment. If NMFS feels the information gathered is not adequate they won’t perform the assessment.
Two websites with information on avian mortality were suggested by attendees:
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/
One stakeholder noted that birds are killed by a variety of human factors, including cats, buildings, cars, and other towers. His opinion was that in the end these human factors will show that bird kills from turbines is miniscule compared to other human endeavors. He also suggested that discussions should weigh human positive impacts of this project against negative animal impacts. Another stakeholder disagreed, noting that studies will go on forever if they are tasked with evaluating all impacts (human and avian) together.
Another stakeholder asked why this project is getting so much attention when other projects have been proposed. Karen Adams from the Corps clarified that right now, the Cape Wind project is the only project that has applied for a permit, so it is the only project that can be closely analyzed.
The avian focus has been on roseate terns and piping plovers, but the whole suite of birds should be looked at carefully, even if they are not on the endangered species list—scoters, long tail ducks, etc.
MA Audubon has conducted a worldwide literature search and is looking at offshore wind farms and they have found very little data regarding potential impacts of wind farms on coastal water birds. It is too early to tell what impacts will be based on the data that does exist. No one has done long term monitoring. Audubon is continuing to look for funding sources so that they can continue their studies.
Audubon clarified that it is neither a proponent nor an opponent to the proposed project, as did CLF earlier in the meeting.
The disappearance of beaches due to rising sea levels should also be taken into account when evaluating potential avian impacts.
NEPA is designed to take a broad spectrum of interests into consideration and balance those interests on a realistic basis to determine whether or not this project is in the public interest. All of the data collected is becoming part of the public record. The NEPA process is not designed to be an ongoing research program to benefit certain organizations. It will address all of the topics being discussed so as to support comprehensive, informed decision making.
One participant questioned the cognitive ability of birds to evade the blades of these turbines, especially as the turbine blade tip can move at 150 – 175mph for the class of turbines proposed for the Cape Wind project. He suggested an examination of existing research to estimate the impacts of blade movement on birds.
The focus of our analysis should be cumulative impacts as a percent of total impacts since just looking at incremental impacts doesn’t give us all the information that we need to make good decisions.
III. Karen Adams of the Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Adams gave a brief presentation on how the studies will be compiled into the draft EIS. She explained that the screening of preliminary alternative sites is happening concurrent with permit evaluation, and that the Corps has not come to any conclusion about which sites will make it through preliminary analysis. The plan is to screen out unsuitable sites and to develop a final list that will require more in depth analysis.
Ms. Adams also distributed a series of handouts prepared both for the Cape & Islands Offshore Wind process meeting and for the public meeting being held by the Corps later that night. Each handout offered a one page summary of various aspects being addressed in the EIS, such as birds, fish, and aviation. The issues raised to the NEPA/MEPA meetings last Spring are also included in the handouts.
Ms. Adams acknowledged that there is some frustration, as people think we should be further along than we are in the evaluation process. There is a minimum amount of time necessary to conduct this review. The Corps will not be able to issue a draft EIS in January, as the data would have to be available already, and some of that data is just being compiled now. ESS has been working with MEPA and the Corps to develop a table of contents for the EIS that combines the state and federal processes into a single document. The Corps has retained an independent consultant to help with the review of Cape Wind’s data: the Bioengineering Group.
The EIS will have several sections:
- Purpose and need
- Prelim screening of alternatives
- Comparisons with traditional plants
- State renewable energy options
- How alternatives were screened
Alternative sites are coming from the public and other agencies. First the list will be compiled and then data gathering and screening will take place.
The Corps is at least a month behind initial timeline, but there is no specific projection on when the draft EIS will be completed. The documents will possibly be available for review in February, and a public notice will be issued calling for a public hearing and comments in a 30 day period (though the Corps will be accepting comments all along in the process).
These meetings help the Corps to get a handle on all the issues, and the Corps does make adjustments as comments are heard. For example, the handouts are a direct result of comments from meeting #1. Some of the issues have not been dealt with yet.
The stakeholders then asked several questions of Ms. Adams.
Will we discuss what the alternative sites are at the next meeting? Does the evaluation of those sites need to be in the EIS? How can we only be a month behind if some of these studies haven’t happened?
Ms. Adams clarified that the Corps is “at least” a month behind. They have just gotten to the point of listing prime alternatives. At the next meeting the primary alternative sites can be presented, and February is the earliest possible date for the availability of the draft document.
In the past the Corps has been criticized for its permitting (e.g. flood control) because it is considered inappropriate for an organization to be involved in reviewing projects it might participate in.
Ms. Adams explained that regulation is different for permitting and civil works. In civil works projects funding comes through Congress to study and build a public project (such as dams, etc.) – those types of activities involve the Corps getting funding from Congress. This permit is under the Corps’ regulatory program, so it’s a different matter. The Corps will not be involved with construction in any way.
The Corps is trying to take advantage of Massachusetts’ strong regulatory program, and the Corps is relying heavily on what the state is already doing.
MEPA calls for a joint process. Will there be a comment period on the final EIS?
Yes, there will be.
Will Cape Cod Commission information be included in the EIS?
Yes, it will be. A Federal consistency statement will likely be in EIS, probably in summary form. Typically it is a stand alone document. The MEPA consistency statement will also be folded into the EIR.
NOAA/Corps/EPA recently passed an agreement regarding condensed paperwork. MEPA/NEPA intends to bring all the information together, and the intent of this document is to encompass as much of this data as possible.
The Corps is addressing environmental impacts, but what about others? (Economic impacts, etc.)
The Corps is also addressing many social impacts, such as safety, navigation, flood control, aesthetics, and economics.
Is this project receiving an elevated level of scrutiny, like the Big Dig?
There is an unusual level of scrutiny, as this is an unusual project. The project is being reviewed in the absence of a comprehensive national marine policy.
It is rare for the Corps to do its own EIS – usually that is conducted by a cooperating agency. Usually only large municipal projects require an EIS from the Corps.
Can we quantify this scrutiny? How much money has been budgeted for this EIS project?
Ms. Adams made clear that she can’t speak for other federal agencies, as most have not specifically earmarked funds for this project. One item that is being called out in the Corps budget is the independent consultant, which is estimated to be $24k of work. However, the programs under which all these efforts are being undertaken already exist. The Cape Wind project team within the Corps consists of 6 people, many of whom spend a day a week on NEPA. Other agencies all have programs and commitments as cooperating agencies. They can’t do data collection, but they did commit to the review. However, as there is currently no budget for this fiscal year, any other federal agencies are currently operating with empty checkbooks.
In collapsing MEPA and NEPA requirements you noted that you were developing a “Table of Contents.” What does that mean?
Under state requirements the project proponent is responsible for providing the document. From the Federal side the applicant must provide data and analysis but the document comes from the Corps. To ensure the final document will satisfy both State and Federal requirements, a table of contents is being developed to fit all the pieces together into a coherent package.
Has the Corps given a permit to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) for their offshore wind project?
No one has received a complete application for a project aside from Cape Wind.
Winergy has filed, or is close to filing. Is there communication between Winergy and the Corps?
Winergy says that it will be sending an application soon.
IV. Marine Off-Shore Wind Farm Technologies and Economics
Professor Jim Manwell of the Renewable Energy Lab at UMass-Amherst gave a presentation on the economics of offshore wind technologies. He began his presentation by expressing his view that due to the combination of water depth and the wind regime, offshore Cape Cod is the “best possible spot in the country” for an offshore wind farm. This is a spectacular wind resource in protected waters. “Massachusetts is the Saudi Arabia of wind.” He further explained that with available technology in the industry, locating a wind farm farther offshore would be hard to justify. His powerpoint is available here.
At the end of his presentation, the stakeholders asked several questions of Dr. Manwell.
How far away are those towers in the picture in your presentation?
About a mile.
How much is distance from shore a constraint?
Not too much – depth is much more of a constraint. In Germany some developers are looking to site wind turbines up to 100 ft depth and cables 20 miles long, but this has not yet been done.
How do wind turbines fare in the open ocean as opposed to a more protected area?
The open ocean is really rough – just read The Perfect Storm. There are wind turbines in Blithe Harbor near England that are exposed to full force of the waves, so that’s not to say you can’t do it. In Europe most wind developments are in locations with some protection from open waves.
How fast is the technology evolving?
Turbines are getting larger for sure. The Germans now have a 4 MW rotor. But there are limits on size; the “square cubed law” dictates that power goes up as a square of the diameter and the weight goes up as the cube of the diameter, so the required size quickly becomes unsustainable.
How tall were the towers in the picture in your presentation?
Typically at least 60 meters high – conceivably 80 or 90 meters. You can have lower towers in the water than on land as there is less windshear. As you get closer to the surface the wind dies down, and you obviously don’t want to hit the water or anyone below the tower.
What’s optimal placement?
Turbines can’t be right next to each other. The wake of a wind turbine is like the wake of a boat – there’s not much wind there. There are lots of complicated rules to optimize placing.
One rule on land: if wind direction is constant, each row should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart downwind and 3 rotor diameters apart sideways (so for a 100 yard rotor you need at least 1000 yards between the windmills downwind and 300 yards apart sideways). You can get 90-95% of energy if the placing is right.
There is less turbulence offshore, so the turbines last longer. The effective distance is longer offshore between windmills, as the wakes don’t get as large as fast.
How high tech is wind?
Rotors are high tech, like 747s. Though the turbines are simple in concept, making it all work almost all the time under difficult conditions is the trick. There are lots of high tech parts. There are control computers all over the turbine, and some rotors now have variable blade pitch, so you can turn the blade to get less power in high wind situations.
Turbine technology involves fiberglass, polymers – turbine designers are specialists. There are roles for many subspecialties. These windmills need to be designed to be sturdy, as conditions can get extremely harsh.
There is an upper limit to the efficiencies of a turbine rotor. The current efficiencies are pretty good – generators are now in the 90% range. They can get better, but they’re not bad.
Can you quantify efficiency losses for AC cables over distance?
You can get the majority of electricity to shore if you’re within 5-10 miles. Prof. Manwell didn’t have firm efficiency numbers, but he estimated efficiency for current AC cables to be in the 90% range.
Direct Current (DC) wind turbine transmission is coming soon, though some of the problems have yet to be addressed (such as the big power converters required). In a long AC transmission line there is a kind of “foam” buildup that can decrease efficiencies, but in DC there is no reactive power so the “foam” phenomenon doesn’t happen.
General Electric (GE) is developing wind energy systems, and Winergy has said that it plans to use GE turbines.
Isn’t it true that European wind farm development is funded by the government?
Yes – that’s why they’ve made so much progress. We gain from European work and experience.
How do they figure out cable costs and likely output?
They know roughly but not exactly. Computer models help to predict how to get costs down and efficiencies up. Installation is much more complex and costly than line maintenance.
Find the power rating for your turbine, plug in your average wind speed, and you’ll have a good idea of your likely output.
How much will a turbine cost?
A typical 2 MW offshore turbine today is about $2 million. (Representatives from Cape Wind in attendance confirmed that the cost per turbine will likely be in the upper range of what Prof. Manwell presented in his powerpoint, which was $1,200 to $2,000 per Kw).
Is total installed cost inclusive of the cabling?
These numbers are a very broad range, so the cost with cabling would likely be within the ranges presented.
Could MA become a leader in this technology at this stage, which would have economic benefits for MA?
We’re late in the game, but we’re not out of the game – GE’s coming in gives us a big boost, and there’s talk about GE going into Quincy shipyard. If wind development goes into deep water then you’d need a lot more than Quincy shipyard.
Are the Europeans correct in saying for every MW of generation you’d have 22 jobs?
If turbines really come to be, somebody’s going to have to build them, and that somebody is going to need to be near them, but I don’t know the exact numbers.
The Danes right now are the world leaders in wind technology, though they are now being passed by the Germans.
Do these projected costs reflect any production incentives?
No.
Is the payback longer for on-shore installations than in offshore?
Not necessarily. Generally speaking winds are less on land. The capacity factor on land is between 20-25%.
Are incentives required to make wind energy economically sustainable?
Traditionally there has been less than a 10% profit margin. What is essential is the cost of energy and the value of energy. Those are the two components that determine the profit margin.
One presumption is that if tax credits go away then wind energy is not competitive. However, the wholesale price of electricity may look a lot different 10 years out from now. Incentives are there to level the playing field in the short term.
The reality is that right now wind energy is only happening in the world in places where incentives exist.
If we had oil out there, we’d have oil rigs. What’s the reason for the lack of windmills?
This technology wasn’t available 10 years ago. In Prof. Manwell’s opinion the Department of Energy has been asleep at the switch. They just didn’t believe it would ever be viable. They weren’t paying attention to what was going on in the offshore wind energy world. Looking now at what its potential is, and moving from high costs to doable costs, we didn’t have effective leadership laying the groundwork.
The low cost of gas and oil over last 10 years has also inhibited the push toward renewables.
There is huge potential for offshore wind in Massachusetts and this region, especially with the promise of going further offshore in the future. If we look at the way technology has developed in other fields we can observe that it develops incrementally. Unless we get the experience of tapping a resource we can access now we won’t gain the experience and knowledge necessary to tap potential that’s out there in the future.
V. Next Steps / Future Meetings
Dr. Raab noted that the next meeting will take place in the same room at the Cape Codder resort on December 12. Visual impacts will be discussed in the morning and alternative sites will be in the afternoon. After that our last meeting will be in January, where we will discuss economic impacts, climate change, and jurisdictional issues. The public forum will probably be in February.
Appendix A
Cape & Islands Offshore Wind Meeting #3 Attendance List
Stakeholders
Greg Watson, MTC
Margaret Geist, Assn. to Preserve Cape Cod
Jaci Barton, Barnstable Land Trust
Gary Blazis, Barnstable Town Council
Chris Powicki, CIREC
Megan Amsler, Cape & Islands Self Reliance
Charles Kleekamp, Cape Clean Air
John O’Brien, Cape Cod Chamb. of Comm.
Spyro Mitrokostos, Cape Cod Technology Council
Fred Fenlon, Cape Light Compact
Jim Gordon, Cape Wind
Peter Borrelli, Center for Coastal Studies
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, MASSPIRG
John Pagini, Nant. Plan. & Econ. Dvt Comm.
Chris Neill, Sierra Club of Cape Cod
Jack McCormack, Town of Yarmouth
Resources / Advisors
Margo Fenn, Cape Cod Commission
Phil Dascombe, Cape Cod Commission
Judith Laster, MA Attorney General’s Office
Jean Cummiskey, MA DOER
Truman Henson, MA Office of CZM
Joan Muller, MA Office of CZM
Carolyn Mostello, MA Natural Heritage & En Spec.
Jack Terrill, NOAA Fisheries
Kim Damon-Randall, NOAA Fisheries
Karen Adams, US Army Corp of Engineers
Tim Timmerman, US EPA
Vern Lang, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Charlie Salamone, NStar
Mary Grover, NStar
Mary Schumacker, WHOI
Stakeholder Alternates
John Donelan, Alliance to Protect Nan. Sound
Tara Nye, Assn to Preserve Cape Cod
Len Fagan, Cape Wind
Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind
Simon Perkins, MA Audubon Society
Observers
Sharon Young, Humane Society of the US
Jessica Almy , Human Society of the US
Erica Bollerud, Aide to Senator O’Leary
Erin Heskett, IFAW
Don Root, Race Point Lighthouse
Peter Whitlock, Private citizen
Richard Wolf, Private citizen
Richard Payne, Private citizen
Ken Molloy, Private citizen
Emil Sol, Private citizen
John Powers, Private citizen
Howard Penn, Private citizen
Mathias Craig, Private citizen
Patty B. Haney, Private citizen
Jim Freeman, Private citizen
Ken Lima, Private citizen
Jeff Mather, Private citizen
Bert Russo, Private citizen
Alice Bonacci, Private citizen
Paul Doherty, Private citizen
Barbara Cross, Private citizen
Mort Steinan, Private citizen
Mr. & Mrs. Pat LaMarca, Private citizens
Pat Freeman, Private citizen
Bill Mick, Private citizen
Frank Mann, Private citizen
Bob Falkin, League of Women Voters
Ellen Falkin, League of Women Voters
Wendy Buessler, League of Women Voters
Ole Tangen, Fjordlight Productions
Glenn Ritt, Community Newspapers
Craig Olmsted, Cape Wind
Rick Elrick, Town of Barnstable Councilor
Jack Coleman, Cape Cod Times
John Leaning, Cape Cod Times
Facilitators
Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates
Colin Rule, Raab Associates
Greg Sobel, Environmental Mediation Serv.
MTC
Fara Courtney, MTC/Good Harbor Consulting
Kristen Burke, MTC
Barbara Hill, MTC