Figure 3-5 shows the13 projects that have advanced significantly in the U.S. permitting process at press time for this report. As the map indicates, most of the initial activity is concentrated in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. Despite this, offshore wind is being considered in most U.S. coastal regions including the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and the West Coast. The depth of the water on the West Coast, however, will preclude near-term development in spite of a very good wind resource because deepwater wind turbine designs are not currently commercially available.
Figure 3-5. Proposed U.S. offshore wind projects and capacity showing projects with significant progress
Proposed U.S. offshore wind projects can be divided into two regulatory groups; those in federal waters (i.e., outside the 3-nm state boundary) and those under state jurisdiction (see Section 7 for ocean jurisdictions). This distinction dominates the current and near-term market today because of the perceived differences in regulatory uncertainty and timing. State projects are typically near shore and have marginally lower wind resources, but some developers are willing to accept these disadvantages to avoid the perceived regulatory delays associated with the federal process
through the BOEM. For large-scale offshore wind development, there are not enough viable sites in state waters to achieve the 54 GW of offshore wind described by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) 20% by 2030 wind scenario (DOE 2008). In the short term, it remains to be seen if states will pave an accelerated path to regulatory approval. Long-term solutions lie with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which is responsible for reducing the uncertainties associated with potential risks to the marine environment, and making the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement’s (BOEM; formerly the Minerals Management Service [MMS]) permitting process more predictable (see Section 8).
Two projects in federal waters were granted special status under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which was initiated in part to address the need for offshore wind energy regulations and establish a federal program. Currently, Cape Wind (off Cape Cod, Massachusetts) is the only project that still holds that status; however, the project was in the approval process for 9 years.
On April 29, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, granted Cape Wind a commercial lease in federal waters (McConville 2010). Because the project was proposed before federal rules emerged, Cape Wind had to comply with the original ad hoc rules of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as well as the new BOEM rules (see Section 7). The exact permitting and agency consultation timelines for offshore projects that proceed along a normal course in the
federal BOEM process are currently unknown because no project has gone through it. The apparent timeline is much longer than the siting of other energy facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Table 3-3 describes most of the U.S. offshore wind development projects. Although many more proposals have been made, the projects listed in the table are more advanced, meeting one or more of the following criteria: they have been approved by their state, received an interim lease from BOEM (2010), or granted a BOEM lease.
Table 3-3. Selected Offshore Wind Energy Projects (Federal and State Waters) Developer Projects with BOEM Lease (Federal)
Cape Wind Associates, Nantucket Sound, MA
468 130 5.2–13.8
In 2001, the permitting process began under the USACE. In 2005, MMS gained regulatory authority and issued a final environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2009. Also in 2009, the state and local permitting process was finalized and a long-term PPA was negotiated with National Grid. In April 2010 the project was approved and a commercial lease offered.
For further information, see Section 7.
NRG Bluewater Wind, Atlantic City, NJ
350 TBD 15–18
In June 2009, MMS awarded NRG Bluewater Wind an interim limited lease.a It has also received a meteorological (met) tower rebate from the state, and has since begun baseline surveys (NRG Bluewater Wind 2010a).
Garden State
GSOE is a subsidiary of the Public Service Enterprise Group and Deepwater Wind. GSOE won a competitive solicitation by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in the fall of 2008 and received a met tower rebate from the state. MMS awarded an interim limited lease in June 2009, and the developers began conducting baseline surveys shortly thereafter (GSOE 2008).
Developer
MMS awarded an interim limited lease in June 2009. Fishermen’s Energy received a met tower rebate from the state and began
baseline surveys in August 2009. Fishermen’s proposes to develop the projects in two phases (Fishermen’s Energy 2007).
In 2008, NRG Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power negotiated a PPA for 200 MW. In 2009, MMS awarded an interim limited lease and NRG Bluewater Wind began conducting geophysical studies for a met tower installation. The project is anticipated to be 450 MW; 293 MW has been initially contracted (NRG Bluewater Wind 2010b).
Southern Company,
Savannah, GA 10 3–5 TBD
In 2007, a 2-year collaborative study with the Georgia Institute of Technology concluded that conditions were favorable but costs and the regulatory environment were preclusive. In 2008, Southern Company was offered an interim limited lease that has not yet been executed (Georgia Institute for Technology and Southern Company 2005).
In 2007, Hull received funding from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to support permitting and siting analyses for a community project. In 2009, Hull received roughly $1.5 million in funding through Congressionally Directed Projects in 2009 (Manwell 2007).
Developer
In 2008 Deepwater awarded a competitive solicitation for a project. In 2009, Deepwater began studies for demonstration project in state waters. National Grid has agreed to a 20-year PPA (Deepwater Wind 2010).
Fishermen's Energy, Atlantic City, NJ
20 6 3
Fishermen’s Atlantic City Offshore Wind Farm is the first phase of a two-phase project (see federal project described previously). The wind farm is located in the New Jersey Ecological Baseline Study area. State permits are under review (Fishermen’s Energy 2007).
In June 2009, UNC completed a study for the North Carolina General Assembly on offshore wind. In October 2009, Duke Energy signed a contract with UNC Chapel Hill to install turbines in the Pamlico Sound (Duke Energy 2010). Three turbine demonstration projects were cancelled in August 2010. It is not clear how this will be resolved.
Coastal Point signed its first lease with Texas General Land Office (GLO) in 2005. Texas GLO awarded four competitively leased areas in 2007. A met tower was installed and began collecting data in 2007. The developer plans to begin construction on a project in 2010
(Baryonyx Corporation 2009).
The Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force spearheaded research on a
demonstration project in Lake Erie. JW Great Lakes Wind released a final feasibility study for the Great Lakes Wind Energy Center in April 2009. The task force established LEEDCo, which recently completed an agreement to purchase five 4.0-MW turbines from General Electric (Cuyahoga County Department of Development 2010).
Developer
In 2009, NYPA selected five firms to perform technical studies. In December 2009, NYPA issued a request for proposals (RFP) to select developers for projects of at least 120 MW (and up to 500 MW) in the state waters of Lake Erie or Ontario. They received five responses to the RFP (NYPA 2010).
Source: Energetics Incorporated. Offshore Wind Energy Database. Unpublished.
aAn interim limited lease term is 5 years. It does not allow for turbine construction and does not guarantee that a commercial lease will be granted.