Opinion: Developing floating offshore wind can help protect Maine’s seafaring culture, marine environment
The January 11 op-ed published here by Jack Merrill of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association was critical of offshore wind in Maine. As environmental, clean energy, and community advocates, we are responding with some additional perspective.
In November, Gov. Mills proposed the selection of a yet-to-be-determined 16-square mile area located some 20 to 40 miles off the coast to test and research floating offshore wind technology. Developed in close coordination with Maine’s fishing industry and other critical stakeholders to study potential economic and environmental impacts, the goal of the research turbines is to help Mainers understand how we could benefit from the ample wind resources offshore.
As part of that effort, Gov. Mills also recently proposed a 10-year moratorium on any new wind development in state waters up to three miles off the coast, keeping the focus on projects in federal waters, a ways from Maine’s coast.
As Mainers supportive of further research on the potential economic and environmental benefits of offshore wind, as well as supporters of a vibrant and long-lasting fishing and lobstering industry in Maine, we are responding to Mr. Merrill’s assertions with additional facts. Our response is focused on the two main pillars of Mr. Merrill’s opposition: the potential environmental impacts of floating offshore wind development and the potential cultural and economic benefits.
Climate change is the most serious threat to Maine’s economy and environment and harnessing offshore wind is critical to addressing it and protecting our state for generations to come. By harnessing the wind power from a very small fraction of the Gulf of Maine, we can power Maine’s economy and enable the clean electrification of heating and transportation.
There will be some environmental impacts from floating offshore wind arrays, but they will pale in comparison to the impacts of climate change, and by studying the potential impacts of offshore wind we can avoid, minimize and mitigate them.
The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the world’s oceans. If we don’t do something to combat warming waters, the environmental conditions in the Gulf of Maine will never be the same. The current fish and other species in the Gulf of Maine are present in large part because of the temperature of the water. As it warms, species that rely on colder water will be forced to move out, and those tolerant of warmer water will inevitably move in.
Since the 1980s, warming waters in the Gulf have actually improved conditions for Maine’s lobsters, helping make the fishery one of the most valuable in the nation. But as temperatures rise it will become simply too warm for lobsters to survive. The Gulf of Maine Research Institute predicts a 62% drop in the Gulf’s lobster population by 2050. Temperatures are also expected to become less suitable for other Maine fishery species, including cod, flounder and pollock, as well as shrimp, clams, oysters, and scallops. The impacts of these shifts on Maine’s lobstering and fishing workforce may be seismic.
Maine’s famous Atlantic Puffins, the only breeding colonies in the lower 48, may have to move further north to follow the fish they feed on.
Traditionally southern species like Black Sea Bass and Red Hake will likely take advantage of the warmer water and move in, permanently changing the species mix. We must address the challenge of warming waters by taking action on climate change if we want to protect Maine’s fishing and tourism industries. Thousands of people come to Maine in the spring and early summer to see puffins nesting on islands off the coast. Pelagic bird watching is certainly a unique and notable aspect of Maine’s economy.
As with most human activities, floating offshore wind will undoubtedly have environmental impacts and we need to study those impacts to better understand how to avoid or minimize them. Millions of birds migrate over the Gulf of Maine, and many more patrol the offshore waters looking for food.
How can we best site and operate turbines to avoid impacts to birds?
How can we control ship traffic associated with offshore wind to avoid vessel strikes with marine life?
How can we better understand and mitigate impacts to the benthic environment?
These questions and many more can only be answered with data and experience – data and experience that can be provided by building a small number of turbines for research purposes, as proposed by the Mills Administration.
Floating offshore wind has the potential to provide reliable, Gulf of Maine-based jobs for years to come.
There is no greater threat to Maine’s lobster industry and lobstermen than climate change, even with rapid shifts to renewable energy, it may be too late to stop the changing Gulf of Maine. We’ll need both wind and solar to turn the tide on climate change – these resources complement each other, and we cannot mitigate climate change with just one or the other.
Farming the winds of the Gulf of Maine is a way to protect the hard-working culture of coastal Maine and to ensure that there is reliable and good-paying work to be had off our coast and in our coastal communities. Offshore wind may sound like a new story in our state’s history, but it may actually be an opportunity to continue the hard-working culture that Maine is famous for.
The time is now for clean, renewable energy, and solar alone will not meet our demands or stop the climate from changing. Developing floating offshore wind in Maine can help protect both Maine’s seafaring culture and our marine environment.
Respectfully,
Acadia Center
Environment Maine
Ironworkers Local #7
Maine Audubon
Maine Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Council of Maine
New England for Offshore Wind
Sierra Club Maine
To read the full opinion piece in the Penobscot Bay Pilot, click here
A shocker in the plan to finally update residential solar rates: no complaints
Connecticut is on the verge of changing one of the key financial underpinnings for residential solar electric systems, and, for the first time in more than a decade, it appears no one is complaining.
The change is in how solar owners are compensated for the excess power their systems produce at certain times. The rates for how that is calculated and structured will be altered, but in exchange, systems will be allowed more flexibility to accommodate future larger electricity needs.
Solar systems obviously don’t make any power at night – but during the day, they often make a lot more power than the house they’re sitting on needs. For the most part, that power is sold back to the grid.
How a homeowner is paid for the power it sends to the grid has been a flashpoint for years. The battle has been between the utilities and just about everyone else.
On Jan. 20, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority released a draft plan for a new way to handle that compensation. It is open for comment until Feb. 2. Unlike previous ideas floated over the last several years, it has elicited initial reactions that are a head-snapping 180 degrees from what all parties have come to expect.
….
Amy McLean, Connecticut director of the advocacy group Acadia Center said she was “pleasantly surprised. It will be a better part of the solution going forward.”
Read the full article in The CT Mirror here
Vehicle Emissions Reduction Program Set to Start in the Northeast
The transportation sector accounts for nearly 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, so any effort to reduce emissions must include a focus on this sector. “Transportation pollution is becoming a growing crisis both because of its contribution to climate change but also because of the damaging health impacts it has on communities,” said Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director at Acadia Center.
Read the full article in the AAA Northeast Magazine here
Lamont Remarks on Killingly Plant Raise Eyebrows of Green Energy Proponents
Remarks Gov. Ned Lamont made this week opposing a controversial plan to build a new 650 MW gas-fired plant in Killingly raised eyebrows, and questions about how to reconcile his words with recent approvals by state regulators of new gas infrastructure.
The Killingly plant, which was first proposed by Florida-based NTE Energy in 2016, has become a key rallying point in the ongoing effort to promote new sources of renewable energy for Connecticut and to scale back – and eventually eliminate – power plants that burn fossil fuels.
“I don’t want to build Killingly,” Lamont told environmental advocates assembled for the League of Conservation Voters annual Environmental Summit on Tuesday. “I’m not interested in building Killingly, and I’m not sure that the market will say that we need Killingly.”
….
“It’s a good sign that the administration is clearly sending a signal that further investment in gas infrastructure in Connecticut is not welcome, and it is antithetical to the interests of Connecticut residents and inconsistent with the long-term climate plan of the state,” said Deborah Donovan, senior policy director at Acadia Center, a nonprofit dedicated to “equitable clean energy solutions.”
Read the full article in The Connecticut Examiner here
Conservative group criticizes transportation climate plan
PROVIDENCE — Rhode Island’s leading conservative advocacy group argues in a report released Tuesday that the costs of a regional program to cut transportation emissions would far outweigh the benefits.
The report released by the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity comes a month after Gov. Gina Raimondo signed Rhode Island onto the Transportation and Climate Initiative, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut and the District of Columbia as founding members of a cap-and-invest program aimed at helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
The initiative has won broad support from environmental and public health groups who say that cutting pollution from the transportation sector, which is responsible for about 40% of all carbon emissions regionally, will have far-reaching impacts.
….
Hank Webster, Rhode Island director of the Acadia Center, which signed the letter of support for the initiative released on Tuesday, said the center’s report aims to deceive policymakers by focusing on the 2019 legislation.
“Ignoring climate change and the rapid shift away from fossil fuels won’t help Rhode Islanders, and neither will false information,” he said.
Read the full article in The Providence Journal here
As lawmakers plan to send a new climate bill to the governor, state officials and lawmakers wrangle over the true costs
When Governor Charlie Baker this month vetoed a landmark bill to address climate change, he told lawmakers that his controversial decision was motivated in part by the legislation’s requirement that the state reduce emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by the end of the decade.
That target was only slightly more ambitious than a plan his administration released only a few days before, which sought to cut emissions by 45 percent over the same period. But that difference, he said, would cost the state a whopping $6 billion more.
….
Deborah Donovan, a senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center in Boston, said less pollution would result in fewer sick days, and retrofitting buildings would likely produce more jobs.
“It’s important to look at the full range of costs and benefits when setting our goals and creating a suite of policies that will get us there,” she said.
Read more from the Boston Globe here
Opinion: Newport opts for the best value
The Dec. 18 article “Newport opts for electric heat over gas” mischaracterizes the non-infrastructure solution and misleads the reader. The writer points to a table that looks only at National Grid’s estimate of total costs but says nothing of the economic benefits customers receive in each scenario. No rational consumer ignores the benefits when evaluating investment choices and the Newport and Portsmouth Councils made the correct decision when endorsing the non-infrastructure approach. To see the value proposition of each solution, one must simply read forward in National Grid’s own study to Figure 16 on Page 97. Examining this table, which includes proven and measurable near- and long-term benefits to consumers, one readily sees the non-infrastructure solution as the best value to replace the Old Mill Lane Liquefied Natural Gas facility in Portsmouth.
The reason is simple: much of National Grid’s projected costs of the non-infrastructure solution are in the form of incentives—ratepayer funds that go back into the hands of customers for home improvements that provide economic benefits through measures like weatherization and replacement of fossil fuel appliances. These measures increase home values and lower consumers’ overall energy needs. Weatherization methods, like insulation and draft sealing, help reduce the amount of heated or cooled air your home loses each season. Meanwhile, modern electric replacements of fossil fuel appliances deliver superior performance and safety at higher efficiency. For instance, electric heat pumps are at least 300% more energy efficient than even the best gas furnaces. Electric heat pumps also work in reverse to provide energy efficient air conditioning in the summer months—one system for all seasons.
Utilities earn more ratepayer money when they build new infrastructure, like gas mains to serve new customers. So it is no wonder National Grid doesn’t support a moratorium on new gas connections. Since your home already has the electricity to run electric heat pumps and other electric appliances, National Grid wouldn’t benefit as much financially from pursuing the non-infrastructure solution. Conversely, the utility proposals to build new gas infrastructure generally provide more financial benefit to the utility than to customers—they will enable National Grid to expand its customer base, sell more gas, and collect more revenue for shareholders.
Ultimately, National Grid will be spending your ratepayer dollars on a solution. Shouldn’t it be the one that reduces your energy needs, improves air quality through electrification, and increases safety by reducing our communities’ exposure to explosive and toxic gas?
Read the 0p-ed by Hank Webster, our Rhode Island Director in the Newport Daily News here.
Massachusetts drivers are starting to buy electric cars again
Clean transportation activists are praising Massachusetts’ efforts to expand its electric vehicle incentives while also arguing for changes that would put vehicles within reach for more households.
….
Electric vehicle sales are slowly rebounding in the state: In September, the number of new purchases submitted for an incentive payment more than doubled from the previous month, from 156 to 339. In October, the number edged up to 345.
These totals fall well short of the peaks reached in 2018, but those who follow the industry are cautiously optimistic, noting that vehicle sales across the board are starting to edge back up from COVID-driven slumps. And the electric vehicle market, they said, is recovering at a slightly faster rate than traditional internal combustion vehicles.
“There is some degree of recovery going on from COVID,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon programs director at the Acadia Center. “Obviously we have a long way to go there, but some people are buying cars again and a lot of those are [electric].”
Read the full article from the Energy News Network here
Commentary: Regional emission-reduction drive must be part of Maine’s transportation solution
One year ago, the Portland Press Herald ran my op-ed (Maine should take part in regional effort to cut transportation pollution, Dec. 29, 2019) calling for Maine to reduce its carbon emissions and transportation costs in “an economical, efficient, and equitable manner.” At that time, a consortium of Northeast and mid-Atlantic states had just announced the Transportation and Climate Initiative regional cap-and-invest plan designed to significantly reduce pollution from cars and trucks and provide critical funding for clean transportation solutions. The Maine Climate Council and its working groups were also rolling on an action plan to tackle the 54 percent of Maine’s greenhouse-gas emissions that emanate from its transportation sector. It was a New Year for environmental hope and progress!
Fast forward to today: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia stepped up and signed an agreement to participate in the Transportation and Climate Initiative. Under the agreement, participating states will focus on their specific priorities, including helping rural and low-income communities in need of more electric cars and trucks, public transit, walkable and bikable neighborhoods, less pollution and a modernized broadband network. In an accompanying statement, eight other states – Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and even North Carolina committed to continue work on the regional program while pursuing state specific initiatives to reduce emissions and provide clean transportation solutions.
Who’s missing? Maine.
The Maine Climate Council’s report, Maine Won’t Wait: A Four-Year Climate Action Plan, launched earlier this month, highlighted the urgency and scale of our transportation challenges, but failed to deliver adequate solutions. If Maine does not join the Transportation and Climate Initiative, where will the state secure funding for the strategies and actions laid out in the Climate Action Plan? If Maine does not join the conversation, how will we influence development of the model rule and ensure that the Transportation and Climate Initiative works for Maine, especially our rural communities?
Don’t get me wrong, Gov. Mills is and remains a climate leader and led Maine out of eight years of climate denial and rollbacks to steer Maine’s trajectory to more solar, wind, energy efficiency and beneficial electrification in buildings.
Participating in the Transportation and Climate Initiative with our peers across the region should be part of Maine’s transportation solution. By sitting on the sidelines, Maine could miss out on $50 million annually that would bolster our transportation system, support our people and boost our economy. The initiative is the only proposal on the table that guarantees reductions of emissions and provides sufficient, stable and sustainable investments to pay for clean, affordable vehicles, infrastructure and services that benefit all of Maine’s residents. This is a lost opportunity for leadership on two of Maine’s most critical challenges: reducing pollution from the transportation sector and funding investments to give all Mainers access to affordable, reliable, sustainable transportation options.
It’s important for Maine to participate so we can ensure that the program is designed to benefit the unique needs of a rural state. A recent study details enormous public health benefits from the Transportation and Climate Initiative, including up to $11 billion in annual health benefits, reducing racial health disparities, and avoiding up to 1,100 deaths and 4,700 childhood asthma cases. The Nature Conservancy has documented the clean-energy investments that could be made to expand access and affordability in rural communities using funds that come from a program like the Transportation and Climate Initiative. And surveys indicate that a majority of Mainers support engagement with the Transportation and Climate Initiative.
The good news is that Maine can still participate in the program and receive the cleaner air, improved transportation and strengthened economy that comes with participation – if Gov. Mills signs on in 2021. Maine needs to fully explore every investment opportunity available to create and grow good-paying jobs and rebuild the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Transportation and Climate Initiative’s commitment to direct at least 35 percent of the proceeds to underserved and overburdened communities could send a lifeline to rural parts of the state that are struggling to survive, let alone prosper. It is, once again, a new year for environmental hope and progress. Maine shouldn’t wait for transportation climate action!
Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here
Connecticut signs on to regional plan to cut transportation emissions
Connecticut has signed on to a ground-breaking plan that will help dramatically lower greenhouse gas and other emissions from transportation and at the same time bring badly needed revenue to the state’s transportation system — and the under-served communities that are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change.
Connecticut will join Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia as the first jurisdictions to commit to the carbon-cutting concept known as the Transportation and Climate Initiative and a final two-year push toward implementing a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, the way the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, has done for the power sector.
It took 11 years and a relentless slog of working groups, webinars, listening sessions, workshops, memorandums of understanding and other initiatives.
Like RGGI, TCI is a cap-and-invest program and will bring revenue into the state – an estimated $89 million in 2023, increasing to as much as $117 million in 2032. Across all four jurisdictions, the program is expected to bring in $288 million in 2023 alone. In 10 years, that number is expected to reach $380 million a year, and greenhouse gas emissions should be down by 26%, a hefty dent in the reductions the state committed to through its Global Warming Solutions Act.
….
“While we know that there are some who feel this isn’t enough of a commitment for these communities, we’re not going to say it’s fine,” said Amy McLean, who runs the Connecticut office of Acadia Center, the New England and New York environmental advocacy group that has pushed for TCI for years. “We do know that this commitment is a good starting point.”
“The most important thing about this effort,” she said, “is that it’s actually moving forward.”
But she cautioned that TCI is not a silver bullet and the other efforts the state has been making towards cleaner transportation – electric vehicle adoption especially, which has been slow and difficult – have to continue.
“All of these policies need to move forward at the same time,” she said.
Read the full article from the CT Mirror here
Follow us