Federal Offshore Wind Legislation -- Missing the Mark?

Offshore wind has tremendous potential to generate clean energy to meet our needs, generate jobs, and reduce global warming pollution.  To get off the ground, this budding industry needs political support and there are some improvements that can be made to address delays in the regulatory process.  However, we must carefully avoid “Trojan Horse” legislation – such as two bills recently introduced by Representatives Wittman and Hastings -- that mask attacks on a cornerstone environmental law with the guise of promoting offshore renewable energy. 

The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, of 1969 is a hallmark law, written with the goal of establishing a national framework for environmental protection measures.  When used correctly, environmental organizations view NEPA as a critical tool for enabling good offshore wind projects to be permitted and developed by exploring the full consideration of the impacts to the natural and human environment.  NEPA additionally requires that all federal agencies disclose these impacts to interested parties and the general public, a level of transparency highly valued by all parties involved.

Two legislators, presumably of course, seeking to advance a clean energy agenda to create jobs here in America and curb our dependence on foreign fuels, Representative Wittman and Hastings have set forth legislation that allegedly seeks to advance offshore wind, unfortunately, the wrong way.  What the offshore wind industry needs most is clarity in the regulatory process, federal funding to fill data gaps on potential natural resource impacts, and consistent federal investments in critical financial incentive programs – similar to what is provided for other forms of generation. These bills seriously compromise the scope and application of NEPA; directly diluting the robust evaluation of environmental impacts that these projects may impose.

As an example, the Wittman legislation seeks to exempt NEPA’s application to the meteorological site testing and monitoring projects. The Hastings legislation significantly narrows the application of the comment process afforded by NEPA, “a Federal agency shall only consider public comments that specifically address the proposed action or the no action alternative (or both) and are filed within 30 days after publication of a draft environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement.” Offshore wind projects require adequate public engagement and limiting comment periods can lead to unnecessary litigation for parties who do not believe that their concerns have had an appropriate period to be heard and reviewed.

NRDC is a staunch supporter of offshore wind, we support the Cape Wind project, have weighed in on BOEMRE’s Smart from the Start Initiative, and work with other developers, stakeholders and the Administration.  We have helped to evaluate the best way forward in advancing offshore renewable energy technology – in a way that protects the environment and prevents conflicts with other ocean uses.   Moreover, the offshore wind industry understands the importance of NEPA as a precautionary measure that can curb future litigation for poorly sited projects that would otherwise add undue costs to their development timeline and damage the reputation of an otherwise promising and plentiful domestic renewable energy technology. Ironically, industry did not seek this legislation out. Many of them have worked diligently to engage environmental stakeholders and understand the high costs of chipping away at tools like NEPA that provide environmental safeguards that could cost more in the long-run; they understand that there are no short cuts to proper siting as we understand that continuing to ignore the benefits of this local energy resource is costly.

Good projects can be permitted and developed within the existing NEPA framework which provides options for expedited action. Legislative exemptions from NEPA do not serve industry or our natural resources and confuse the national energy debate in a larger context. This legislation, if passed as drafted, is ill supported and the result could set detrimental precedent. Tomorrow, the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will hold a hearing on these proposed bills. NRDC opposes the recently proposed “Cutting Federal Red Tape to Facilitate Renewable Energy Act” (H.R. 2170) and “Advancing Offshore Wind Production Act” (H.R. 2173). While we look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders to advance offshore wind, we hope that these considerations are incorporated in the current language so that we can advance offshore wind legislation that won’t miss the mark.