"Wind Out of Their Sails," Feature Article, June 2006

FEATURE FOCUS: Offshore Technologies

wind out of their sails

Opposition to a project off Cape Cod poses big questions for offshore wind farms in the U.S.

by Jeffrey Winters, Associate Editor

there's a paradoxical situation playing out in Massachusetts, where the prospect of the first major offshore wind farm in the United States has created a political battle royal. Supporters and opponents of the project, known as Cape Wind and being developed by Environmental Management Inc., both lay claim to the same ostensibly liberal virtues—saving American jobs, preserving the environment, nurturing future generations.

After years of meetings and reports and investigation, opponents of the Cape Wind project may have found a silver bullet: language in a Coast Guard bill that would enable Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a vocal opponent of the project, to single-handedly revoke permission for continued work. Should this legislation pass, it would call into question the viability of offshore wind turbines for power generation in the United States. In spite of a reputation for liberal politics and environmental concern, Massachusetts politics may kill an entire class of renewable energy in its cradle.

When developers search locations for wind power exploitation, they keep an eye out for a few factors. Proximity to power markets is one, and availability of land is another. But the make-or-break variable is sustained wind speed. To be profitable, a wind farm must operate in an area with strong, dependable winds.

As it turns out, the best winds are found offshore, away from topographical obstructions such as hills and forests. Data from the Department of Energy has identified the wind potential for most locations in the United States. Aside from activity along some narrow ridgelines, the strongest, most sustained winds in the eastern half of the country are found off the coast of New England and in the waters of the Great Lakes.

Supporters of Cape Wind say the visual impact (simulated above) will be benign. Opponents (below) view it as intrusive.

The situation is similar in Europe, where the North Sea winds are superior to those on shore. For nations such as Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, which depend on wind power to supply an increasingly large fraction of their electricity demand, the high winds in shallow waters offshore have become an attractive resource. Indeed, according to the European Wind Energy Association, a trade group based in Brussels, there is more than 600 megawatts of offshore wind turbine capacity around Europe, including a 166 MW farm off the southern coast of Denmark. There are also plans for larger installations, including three wind farms totaling 1,800 MW in the Thames estuary east of London, in addition to an 80 MW farm there now.

The situation in the United States is quite different. At present, there are no offshore wind farms and, unlike the sustained European commitment to wind power, support from federal and state governments is much like the wind itself: periodic and unreliable. Thanks to the frequently shifting tax and regulatory environment, wind turbines are generally built in quick bursts. For instance, 2,424 MW of wind power capacity was built in 2005, but only 372 MW the year before.

An offshore wind farm can't be slapped together. The engineering and construction work underpinning offshore wind farms is more involved than what is needed terrestrially. According to Jim Gordon, president of Environmental Management Inc., his project has gone through reviews with 17 different agencies and countless hearings.

"For the last five years we have been developing this project. We've developed a 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement," Gordon said. "We have followed the rules. It took us years to get support for this."

The Cape Wind project would be impressive once completed: 130 turbines spread across 24 square miles of water between Nantucket and mainland Cape Cod. The peak generating capacity would be 420 MW, or enough, its backers say, to power three-quarters of the average demand on Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard.

Considering the concerns in the Northeast about conventional electrical generation from coal-fired boilers and nuclear plants, it would be easy to believe that a large, emissions-free generating facility would be widely welcomed. But while the Cape Wind project has lined up quite a bit of local support (including a number of local town councilmen and state assemblymen), the opposition has been surprisingly fierce.

One group that has come out against the wind farm is commercial fishermen. Once home to a great fishing fleet, the ports in southern New England have been battered by declining stocks and competition from imported fish. Boating and fishing groups contend that the 130 towers would be a navigation hazard and offshore construction could imperil the fisheries.

A much more high-profile opponent is made up of wealthy homeowners along the shore. The visual impact of the turbines against the horizon, they fear, could hurt both tourism and property values. Among those in this camp are Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In an opinion piece in The New York Times last December, the younger Kennedy wrote that while he supported offshore wind development, "I do believe that some places should be off-limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound."

This wind farm off Nysted in southern Denmark supplies as much as 166 MW of electricity. European countries are planning to add much more offshore wind capacity in the coming decade.

Another powerful opponent is Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has stated, "We want some say where it goes. When you have a project like Cape Wind, something that's surrounded by tourist areas and navigation areas and the like, it presents a real problem." He has also been quoted in the Cape Cod Times as saying of Cape Wind, "I don't like the project at all."

Given that stance, a bill before Congress would, if it becomes law, essentially kill Cape Wind. The bill, which reauthorizes spending for the U.S. Coast Guard, contains language that would enable the governor of Massachusetts to unilaterally block any wind farms off Cape Cod. The Coast Guard Commandant, the bill reads, "may not approve the construction of a [wind] facility . . . [if] the Governor of an adjacent coastal State . . . opposes the proposed location." No reason need be given for the opposition.

For Cape Wind, the legislation would be fatal; Gov. Romney has made it clear that he would kill the project if given the opportunity.

But the larger implication for offshore development could be equally dire. As Under Secretary of Energy David K. Garman wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders regarding the bill, "More broadly, singling out wind generation in this manner could have a chilling impact on the continued investment and growth of this promising renewable resource." The Bush Administration, he wrote, opposed the provision for that reason. As written, the bill is extraordinarily narrow, with only the governor of Massachusetts given the power to veto a wind project, and only in Nantucket Sound. An early proposal, however, would have restricted offshore wind turbines to locations more than 1.5 miles from navigation or shipping lanes.

Given the contentiousness of such development and the political pull of affluent homeowners, it's likely governors will be under huge pressure to block offshore wind farms everywhere, just as similar interests have derailed oil and gas exploration off the Florida coast. It's possible that if the gambit to block the Cape Wind project succeeds, other governors will demand the right to unilateral veto.