|
Thanks for reading and
forwarding this
newsletter. Sign
up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A wind
turbine operates at
the South Fork Wind
Farm in the Atlantic
Ocean off of Long
Island, N.Y. on Dec.
7, 2023. Credit: Steve
Pfost/Newsday RM via
Getty Images |
|
|
The
U.S. offshore wind
industry felt a
malaise even before
President Donald Trump
returned to office in
January and signed an
order that froze
development of new
projects.
This halt to new offshore wind leases followed a
multi-year stretch in
which the industry
struggled with high
interest rates,
difficulty obtaining
parts and an accident
last year in which a turbine blade broke at the Vineyard Wind 1
project and dropped
debris into the ocean
south of Martha’s
Vineyard.
To help understand
this moment and what
may be next, I spoke
with Barbara
Kates-Garnick, a
professor at the
Fletcher School at
Tufts University
outside Boston and the
former Massachusetts
undersecretary of
energy in the
administration of Gov.
Deval Patrick.
I’m going to set the
table with some
research from
BloombergNEF, which
said in January, after
Trump’s order, that
the offshore wind
industry was “down but
not out” and had some
opportunities to make
progress.
The Biden
administration issued 11 permits for offshore wind farms;
four of those projects
are under construction
but not completed,
including the
806-megawatt Vineyard
Wind 1. Three projects
have been completed,
the largest of which,
the 132-megawatt South
Fork Wind off of Long
Island, finished construction last year.
|
|
|
The
offshore wind industry
can look forward to
completing the
projects under
construction, barring
some other obstacles,
including the
possibility of
additional challenges
from the
administration, said
Oliver Metcalfe, a
BloombergNEF analyst.
The remaining projects
that have permits are
going through the
process of obtaining
financing and other
planning, which could
be more complicated
with a federal
government that is
hostile to
development.
The Trump
administration has
taken several actions
in support of its
moratorium on offshore
wind leases, including
a decision this month
by the Environmental
Protection Agency to
pull back its
previously approved
air-quality permit for
the 1,500-megawatt
Atlantic Shores
project off of New
Jersey. The agency
cited the executive
order as a reason to reevaluate the project, which was
still in a
pre-construction
phase.
My conversation with
Kates-Garnick follows.
It has been edited for
length and clarity.
DAN GEARINO: How is
the U.S. offshore wind
industry doing right
now?
BARBARA KATES-GARNICK:
Very broadly speaking,
I would say the
offshore wind industry
in the United States
is in a period of
concern given these
[executive] orders and
given some of the
other economic
pressures that they
faced even before
these orders from
Trump came into being.
So I think it’s in a
difficult phase right
now, but I do have to
tell you that long
term, I think that
there is really an
important role for
offshore wind,
particularly in the
northeastern states.
|
|
|
| Barbara
Kates-Garnick is a
professor at the
Fletcher School at
Tufts University and
the former
Massachusetts
undersecretary of
energy in the
administration of Gov.
Deval Patrick. Credit:
Courtesy of Barbara
Kates-Garnick |
|
|
GEARINO:
I covered this stuff
all through the first
Trump administration,
and at that time they
did plenty to slow
down development of
offshore wind without
this kind of executive
order. Are there any
lessons from both the
challenges and the
progress that happened
during that time that
are helpful now, or is
this just a whole new
ballgame?
KATES-GARNICK: The
Trump administration
is understanding
better the role of the
bureaucracy and the
role of the agencies
in the permitting
process. So I think
this is, and I use
this word in quotes, a
“wiser” Trump
administration,
understanding the
levers of power that
they have now at their
disposal to slow down
the industry. They
have made a policy
choice with this
energy dominance theme
that they have moving
in the direction of
fossil fuel. So I look
at it sort of
holistically as part
of their broader
energy policy.
GEARINO: So as they
understand these
levers of power, have
they done about as
much as they can to
just really shut this
down?
KATES-GARNICK: I don’t
think they have shut
it down, because,
first of all, we have
the role of the
states, which have
these commitments for
a cleaner energy
future in 2030, 2050.
In many states, this
is even codified into
state law. So the
states need to find
these renewable
resources to make them
reach their goals, and
I don’t think that the
states, particularly
the coastal states,
are going to move away
from those goals and
aspirations. So there
is going to be a role
for offshore wind in
the future, but it is
hobbled in its current
situation. And the
other comment to make
is that offshore wind
is not a science
experiment. It is a
known industry in the
rest of the world. So
we do have a potential
industry out there
waiting for the Trump
administration to
leave, and I think the
states will play a
role in keeping it
going.
GEARINO: In a
practical sense, what
can states do?
KATES-GARNICK: I think
that the states can do
all sorts of things.
They can encourage
research.
Massachusetts has
great research
universities that are
undertaking research
into offshore wind.
Maine has created, or
is interested in,
floating offshore
wind. And there are
some projects up there
that are moving, you
know, under
consideration. I think
that the states can do
all sorts of things to
make a more hospitable
opportunity when
offshore wind comes
back to be a viable
resource. This is a
tough period now, but
the future is not
bleak.
GEARINO: The accident
at Vineyard Wind 1
obviously got a lot of
attention and was a
concerning situation.
To what extent do you
think it will be an
enduring problem for
public acceptance of
offshore wind?
KATES-GARNICK: I think
that that accident was
significant and
important. I am not
part of the industry.
I cannot speak to
anything that the
companies did. I don’t
know the technology.
But we know that when
there is a situation
like what developed
with the blade, it is
incumbent upon the
industry that is
affected to do a
really good job with
the community and
everything like that,
and I think that
becomes critical and
important. So I think
that is where the
impact of the blade
per se can be dealt
with, but how you
approach the community
and gain support is
complicated and
difficult and needs to
become a very high
priority for the
offshore wind industry
going forward. And
that’s an opportunity
during this hiatus
period to give
information, share
information and get
themselves better
known to the
community.
GEARINO: There are a
lot of reasons to be
pessimistic right now.
How optimistic are you
that the country is
going to be able to
deal with energy
challenges and the
need for an energy
transition?
KATES-GARNICK: I’m a
long-term believer
that the energy
transition is an
inevitable force. I am
a believer that we
will have technology
options and
opportunities. But I
get very concerned
when we make
short-term decisions
that delay the
movement forward to a
cleaner energy future.
|
|
|
Other
stories about the
energy transition to
take note of this
week:
Repealing the
IRA Would Cost Jobs
and Hurt Innovation,
Report Says:
The think tank Energy
Innovation has a new
report that seeks to
quantify the harm that
would be done if the
Trump administration
was to repeal most or
all of the Inflation
Reduction Act, as Ethan Howland reports for Utility Dive. A
repeal of the law’s
tax credits and
funding programs would
increase household
energy costs by $6
billion in 2030 and
about $9 billion in
2035, and it would
cost about 790,000
jobs by 2030. The
Trump administration
has indicated a desire
to repeal much of the
IRA, but it’s not
clear if enough House
and Senate Republicans
agree, which would be
needed to change the
law’s provisions.
Massachusetts
Is on the Leading
Edge of Turning EVs
Into Grid Batteries:
The Massachusetts
Clean Energy Center, a
state-run economic
development group, has
a pilot project that
will give out 100 free
EV chargers that will
be set up to allow a
flow of electricity
from vehicles to the
grid, as Jeff St. John reports for Canary Media. The
project is trying to
gain data and
experience to help
figure out the best
ways that large
numbers of EV
batteries sitting in
garages could be used
to support the grid at
times of high demand.
EPA Slashes
Grant Program that
Aims to Reduce
Construction
Material Emissions:
Among the many budget
cuts the Trump
administration has
implemented at EPA is
the cancellation of
grants under a program
that sought to measure
and reduce emissions
from construction
materials, as I wrote for ICN. The EPA listed $116 million
in cuts in an internal
document obtained by
the Sierra Club
through a record
request, but the grant
recipients, including
universities and trade
associations, haven’t
been formally
notified.
A Company
Accused of
Wrongdoing Has
Responded by Trying
to “Blow Up FERC”:
American Efficient of
North Carolina made
claims of energy
savings that turned
out to not be true and
now the company faces
severe penalties from
the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
The company’s response
is a court challenge
that seeks to curb
FERC’s authority and
independence, as my colleague Lisa Sorg reports.
Hyundai
Announces a $21
Billion U.S.
Investment: Hyundai,
the South Korea-based
automaker, has said it
will spend $21 billion
to expand its
manufacturing presence
in the United States,
including $5.8 billion
for a steel plant in
Louisiana, as Seema Modi reports for CNBC. The investment
will help the company
to reduce the effects
of tariffs and it
offers a signal that
Hyundai intends to
continue to increase
its market share in
the United States. The
EV portion of
Hyundai’s lineup has
been on the rise and
the company is likely
to be a major part of
a shift to electric
transportation. And as
I was finishing this
week’s newsletter, I
saw that the Trump
administration has announced a 25 percent tariff on imported
autos, which will take
effect on April 2, a
policy that gives an
advantage to companies
such as Hyundai that
aim to build most of
their cars for the
U.S. market within
this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
