The Cape Wind project, often anticipated as the first U.S. offshore wind farm as they await final federal sign-off, plans to erect 130 turbines 5-13 miles from Cape Cod and Nantucket.  New Jersey and Delaware have recently received leases from the Department of Interior to explore the feasibility of large wind farms 12-18 miles from the coastline.  Deepwater Wind, a recipient of two of these federal leases also plans to build a two-phase farm in partnership with Rhode Island offshore with 8 turbines near Block Island and an additional 110 turbines 15-18 miles in federal waters to generate power for sale to the electrical grid. Bluewater Wind, also recipients of two of the federal exploratory leases, seek to build two large projects 14-18 miles off the coast of New Jersey and Delaware, using similar technology to Cape Wind. New York power companies are looking into developing a wind farm 13 miles off the Rockaways. Massachusetts has proposed a 120 turbine farm 48 miles off New Bedford.

New structural designs will be required for offshore wind farms built further away from the shore and the farther from the onshore electrical grid the more expensive to build. With only one deep-water project currently existing in the world 12 miles off the east coast of Scotland in roughly 150 feet, the increased costs and viability of these projects are still being determined.  Furthermore, we want to ensure that siting, irrespective of how far off the coast, is done in a manner that is sensitive to pre-existing environmental conditions and natural resources.

Everyday, the potential for this technology to produce significant amounts of clean renewable energy is becoming more tangible. Whether you ascribe to the notion that farther is better or closer is tried and true, I would submit that the objective is progress and we need the application of both technologies. We should continue to move forward as opposed to waiting on the "perfect" technology at the expense of not moving at all.  These technologies should not be perceived as being mutually exclusive from one another. As we learn from smaller projects that are sited more closely to the shoreline, we in a more cost effective manner, learn invaluable lessons about each new domestic generation of offshore wind technology while emphasizing careful planning and siting.

International Offshore Wind Happenings:

-December 2007, the world's first floating turbine was launched off the cost of southern Italy. This prototype wind energy unit was placed 11 ½ miles off the coast in deepwater, 371 feet by Blue H.

-Lynn and Inner Dowsing, as of May 2009, became the world's largest operational offshore wind farm.  Located off the coast of Lincolnshire, England it generates 194 MW using 54 wind turbines.  This project is able to power roughly 130,000 homes; built in 59 feet of water, roughly 3.2 miles from the shoreline.

-The initial world leader in offshore wind power generation was Horns Rev in Denmark.  Built in the North Sea, and capable of producing 160 MW.   It is anticipated that Horns Rev and Nysted offshore wind farms will increase their wind power to 50% by 2025. These offshore wind farms are owned by Vattenfall, who this year purchased Nuon to create one of the largest power companies in northern Europe and an energy company that plans to be climate neutral by 2050.

Recent Domestic Wind Developments:

-On June 23, 2009 Secretary Salazar announced the five exploratory leases for offshore wind development off New Jersey and Delaware coasts.

"This is tremendous news for New Jersey and I thank Secretary Salazar and the Obama Administration for issuing these leases which are so critical to getting the development of our offshore wind turbine projects underway," said Governor Jon S. Corzine. "New Jersey's Outer Continental Shelf is a resource that holds a great promise for our energy independence and should be considered a haven for the clean, renewable and environmentally friendly energy that wind power provides. This is a major step for the State in meeting its goal of 1000 megawatts by 2013 and 3000 megawatts by 2020."

"The development of clean energy will be a major part of our economic recovery and will help lay the foundation for long-term economic security for our families, our state and our nation," said U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). "We should be proud that New Jersey has led the way in the effort to harness the tremendous potential that offshore wind in the Atlantic has to generate clean electricity. This lease is a step toward lowering energy costs for families, creating innovative 21st Century industry jobs and reducing our reliance on dirty energy."

-Click here to view Secretary Salazar's testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works before the U.S. Senate on July 7, 2009. Salazar describes the Department of Interior's efforts to develop the renewable energy industry in response to climate change.

"Companies are investing in wind farms off the Atlantic seacoast, solar facilities in the Southwest, and geothermal energy projects throughout the west.  These new energy sources produce no greenhouse gases and, once installed, they harness abundant, renewable energy that nature itself provides."

At first blush, this Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU), seems to provide clarity for the respective roles of these regulatory bodies on the OCS. Essentially, the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) will have jurisdiction over offshore wind projects.  FERC will have oversight of projects designed to generate electricity from waves, tides, and ocean currents (hydrokinetic).  

But the MOU also reserves for MMS the role of issuing leases, easements, and rights-of-way for hydrokinetic projects, and provides that FERC will not authorize any project that has not first obtained such authorization from MMS.  This statement of shared authority - while resolving, in large part, a long-simmering dispute between the agencies that has hindered development of offshore renewables - prompts some additional questions and reactions concerning the rules for developing hydrokinetic energy:

1. Further clarity is needed with respect to understanding which issues and policies each agency is responsible for.  For example, which issues are considered in MMS's leasing decision-making process?  And how does this differ from the review FERC will conduct as part of the licensing process?
2. Similarly, it is not clear whether the two agencies' reviews will be concurrent, or whether FERC will defer consideration of applications until MMS has made its decision.  And, if the reviews are concurrent, how will they be coordinated?
3. Under the MOU, hydrokinetic projects on the OCS will not be allowed within National Marine Sanctuaries, National Monuments, the National Park System, or the National Wildlife Refuge System, because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) prohibits MMS from authorizing renewable energy projects in such areas.  But OCSLA does not apply in state waters, where hydrokinetic projects are subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (FPA).  Will FERC apply the FPA to provide equivalent protections in state waters?  (FPA regulations do not exclude, for example, National Marine Sanctuaries, many of which are located in state waters.)
4. Will MMS consider lease requests anywhere on the OCS on a case-by-case basis, or does it intend to identify in advance, and make available for leasing, those areas where renewable energy development is most likely to be compatible with the protection of marine ecosystems? While it is encouraging that section E requires participating agencies to coordinate to "ensure that hydrokinetic projects meet the public interest, including the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and marine resources and other beneficial public uses," the threshold for doing so remains vague, at best. It will be necessary to define in much greater detail the "adequate protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and marine resources and other beneficial public uses," to enable all stakeholders and citizens to vet projects that hold promise for our nation with respect to renewable energy but, if not sited, designed, and operated properly, may compromise our oceans' natural resources that we hold in public trust.  Moreover, since the Department of Interior and FERC are the only parties to the MOU, it remains to be seen what role will be afforded to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the nation's premier oceans stewardship agency, which possesses the most relevant knowledge and expertise concerning protection of our marine ecosystems.
5. Section C provides that FERC will not issue "preliminary permits" for hydrokinetic projects located on the OCS (which grant a permit-holder priority to apply for a license in a given area). What will come of the many preliminary permits that FERC has already granted (with little or no prior environmental review)?
6. Section III addresses the handling of hybrid (wind/hydrokinetic) projects and projects that straddle the boundaries between state waters and the OCS very lightly. An agreement "to work together to the extent practicable to develop policies and regulations" for such projects is, again, encouraging, but does not set forth the specific guidance that industry or environmental advocates seek in furthering their efforts to promote sustainable renewable energy in an environmentally sensitive way.

On the whole, it is encouraging to see coordination and cooperation by two of the main federal agencies with authority over our offshore renewable energy future. However, practically speaking, a lot remains to be seen with respect to how these efforts will be carried out.

In fairness, this is only a MOU. However, our energy demands are real and present. While there is much reason to be encouraged by this endeavor, more clarity is needed. In the spirit of change and new leadership; one can only hope that the execution of this MOU matches the great intention set forth in this shared effort.