<p>Developers who plan to build the nation’s first industrial-scale offshore wind farm south of Martha’s Vineyard saw their first major setback this week.
Developers who plan to build the nation’s first industrial-scale offshore wind farm south of Martha’s Vineyard saw their first major setback this week, when the Edgartown conservation commission voted to deny the construction of two undersea cables that would connect the 84-turbine, 800-megawatt wind farm to mainland Massachusetts.
The conservation commission voted 5-1 Wednesday night to deny the cables.
Edgartown conservation commission voted Wednesday to deny the undersea cable that would connect wind farm to the mainland.
Edgartown conservation commission voted Wednesday to deny the undersea cable that would connect wind farm to the mainland.
The surprising vote puts the giant renewable energy development on hold and marks the first denial of a project that has already received approval from a half-dozen regulatory agencies throughout the Cape and Islands, including the Cape Cod Commission, the Nantucket conservation commission, and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
But after hearing hours of testimony from about a dozen fishermen at a hearing two weeks ago, the conservation commission arrived at a different conclusion Wednesday.
Commissioners said their concerns with the project’s unknowns outweighed the potential benefits represented by the wind farm’s substantial investment in renewable energy.
“This is new stuff,” said commissioner Jeff Carlson. “I think it needs more work, and we’re right in the crosshairs of it.”
Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, the portion of the undersea cables that would run approximately one mile off the eastern shore of Chappaquiddick fall under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission.
Reached by telephone after the vote, Vineyard Wind spokesman Scott Farmelant could not immediately say whether the company would appeal the decision. He confirmed that this was the project’s first denial during the extensive ongoing permitting process.
In a statement issued later, Mr. Farmelant reacted neutrally. “Vineyard Wind appreciates the efforts of the Edgartown conservation commission and local stakeholders for its very detailed project review process,” it said in part.
If there is an appeal, it would go to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Meanwhile, an environmental review of the wind farm at the federal level has also slowed. A statement posted on the Vineyard Wind website on July 10 confirmed that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will delay the release of a final environmental impact statement for the wind farm.
“We understand that, as the first commercial scale offshore wind project in the U.S., Vineyard Wind will undergo extraordinary review before receiving approvals,” the statement says in part. “As with any project of this scale and complexity, changes to the schedule are anticipated.”
At the public hearing two weeks ago, the Edgartown conservation commission listened to nearly five hours of back-and-forth testimony that pitted commercial fishermen who depend on the Muskeget Channel’s fish-rich waters for their livelihood against climate activists who felt their own livelihoods were threatened by the existential threat of climate change. More than 20 members of the public spoke, driving a wedge between the two groups, fishermen and climate activists, both focused on different aspects of environmental advocacy.
Charted location of proposed wind farm 14 miles south of the Vineyard.
Charted location of proposed wind farm 14 miles south of the Vineyard.
The heated and at times passionate hearing prompted the commission to close discussion and wait two weeks to vote.
Speaking at length on Wednesday night Mr. Carlson outlined his concerns, most of them rooted in testimony from commercial fishermen during the public hearing.
“I listen to the people who are out there all the time,” he said. “These are guys out there in a boat trying to make a living out there. They know how the current works. They know the sand works, and when I listen to them, and I hear this . . . I just feel unintended consequences are all over this.”
He expressed doubts about Vineyard Wind’s proposed construction timeline and said there were unknowns about the effects of silt displacement on benthic habitats. He also raised further concerns about the cables emerging from the sea floor, citing an incident with a wind farm cable near Block Island.
Representatives from Vineyard Wind countered those claims, saying that the project’s draft environmental impact statement predicted minor environmental disturbance from the cable installation and that the current project bore little resemblance to the one near Block Island. Vineyard Wind plans to bury the cables five to eight feet beneath the seafloor using hydro-plow technology.
Rachel Pachter, a Vineyard Wind employee in charge of the project’s extensive permitting process, said the company was also working on proposed mitigation measures for fishermen, if unintended consequences result from the project.
But in the end commissioners sided squarely with fishermen concerned about the project’s unknowns.
“I rely heavily on testimony from fishermen who are out there every day,” said commissioner Geoffrey Kontje.
Mr. Carlson went further.
“I think everybody is really anxious about global warming, and they are looking past what the unintended consequences of this are to the fisheries of this area,” Mr. Carlson said. “What you don’t know, you don’t know.”
Commissioners then voted to deny the project, with Christina Brown casting the lone dissenting vote. Ms. Brown is a member of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, which voted unanimously to approve the project earlier this year.
It is not known whether the denial by the conservation commission and delay of the final EIS will affect the schedule for construction on the wind farm, due to begin this year.
The race to build offshore wind farms in both Atlantic and Pacific waters off the U.S. coast has spawned a broad web of new policy and regulatory efforts at the federal level. In southern New England alone there are currently seven offshore wind energy leases totaling more than 900,000 acres. “The demand for wind energy has never been greater,” the acting director of BOEM said in a lengthy message posted last month on the agency’s website titled “The Path Forward for Offshore Wind Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.”
Headquartered in New Bedford, Vineyard Wind has also opened an office in Boston and plans to have a small operations center in Vineyard Haven in the Packer wharf complex. The wind farm is expected to generate some employment on the Island, and a workforce training program has begun through ACE MV, the Island adult education program.
Comments
So that decision was made by
Carol formerly ChilmarkSo that decision was made by bowing to the (ill informed) wishes of some fishermen against “climate activists”? Why not listen instead to actual scientists? WHOI is right across the Sound. That environmental impact statement, reviewed by all of those other regulatory agencies, was prepared by scientists. Mr. Carlson, you know who else is “out there every day” and knows a lot more about the movement of sands, silt and impact on marine life than those fishermen? Marine. Scientists.
And – really, you think “climate activists” were the only people who want this project? How about virtually every geophysicist in the world? How about the 73% of Americans (Yale Univ. poll, Jan. 2019) who agree that global warming is a serious problem? Kiss those beautiful tidal ponds - the nurseries of those fishermen's catch - goodbye. Sea level rise of 1 meter will do them in.
That so-called conservation commission has a serious deficit when it comes to sound judgement.
I applaud the Commission for
Jeanne West TisburyI applaud the Commission for their brave decision and don’t think that fishermen who have fished these waters for generations should be relegated to a dismissive “ill informed” moniker as if their livelihoods and concerns for the disruption to the natural environment are irrelevant.
Of course their concerns are
Carol formerly ChilmarkOf course their concerns are not irrelevant, but they are ill-informed. I grew up with guys who fished those waters; several of my MVRHS friends. Good people, but absolutely NOT a source of expertise on anything except how to pull fish out of those waters. Plenty of expertise resides at Woods Hole. The fact that the Commission went to 12 fishermen for expert opinion is mindblowing. A conservation commission that eschews science, embraces the loudest voice in the room. Incredible, and depressing.
Climate change is a fantasy
Robert Fargo EdgartownClimate change is a fantasy created by the left wing loonies so that they can achieve their desired goal of overthrowing capitalism!
Our waters have long been
William ExPBA NYC, ChilmarkOur waters have long been over fished since the days of Whaling and now with global warming impacts this is you decision. Living in a bubble!
Typical. We want to save the
Mike Oak BluffsTypical. We want to save the environment. But not in my backyard. Oh the hypocrisy. No plastic bags!! Oh, but wind power - this is NEW stuff. They’ve had wind power for decades offshore in Copenhagen. Such a group of very little minded people. Very, very small minds.
“What you don’t know, you don
Mr. B Chilmark“What you don’t know, you don’t know.” Perhaps it is better said that "What you don't know, you can learn about." As Mr. Carlson's remark stands, it seems an rhetorical excuse to justify doing nothing.
Shameful and ignorant
Other Mr.B ChilmarkShameful and ignorant NIMBYism, plain and simple.
This is unreal.
James R. EdgartownThis is unreal.
First I agree that the gazette choosing to characterize people who support this project as "climate activists" is not accurate and polarizing. The people who support this project are just that, supporters.
Where are all of the fishermen, recreational, commercial and shell fishermen on this island who recognize global warming? Where are you in this conversation? Get involved and stand up!
This isn't about fishermen vs. "climate activists". This is about humanity vs. a problem that we created. And we as humans have the ability to fix this.
If we think we have a problem with national elections, we are mistaken. It starts at a local level. I'm ashamed of the commissioners and their justification for denying the project considering we have a handful of cables running that provide our island with energy primarily from fossil fuels. Shame shame shame on them.
James, well said.
ECS ft lauderdaleJames, well said.
So now we are listening to
Paulli D EdgartownSo now we are listening to fishermen about the impact on marine life in the sound? Just as they did in RI, these fishermen want a payout just in case they overfish the water, and then they can blame it on the Wind Farm. The Conservation Commission is NOT qualified to even be talking about this, so why are they being asked? The MV electric rates continue to increase as the NIMBY's continue to shut down coal, nuclear, and other fossil fuel plants. Wind right now may not be the final answer, but it is a solution based on our best available technology.
"Wind right now may not be
Islander Too"Wind right now may not be the final answer, but it is a solution based on our best available technology."
I think this is the crux, and the problem.
Because if wind energy is not the "final answer," it is a very expensive "mistake."
Actually, the best available "technology" is to REDUCE energy use, that is, produce NEGAWATTS.
Furthermore, we should be developing ocean- and current-based energy capture.
I don't knkow whether the Conservation Commission made the "right" decision, but I believe their decision is valid.
THIS IS THE BEST APPROACH TO
Marie Jane Boston MATHIS IS THE BEST APPROACH TO THE INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE AGENDA; know all there is to know BEFORE allowing this destructive element into our great Atlantic Ocean: "Commissioners decided that their concerns with the project’s unknowns outweighed the potential benefits represented by the wind farm’s substantial investment in renewable energy." (An appeal to MADEP? From all appearances MADEP certainly does seem anti-wind turbine "victim" and very pro wind industry. WHY WOULD THAT BE? Commissioners should add that question to the "unknowns list". Important question to know the answer to.)
COPENHAGEN?? Denmark is Industrial-Wind-Turbine-Agenda-Central. ASK the people of Denmark what the industrial wind turbine has meant to them. Scratch and pull back and expose the underbelly; it is not what it appears. If you've never "electricity mapped" before, give it a try .. Start in "Denmark" and work your way around Europe; Who uses coal, oil, biomass, nuclear, hydro and where does it come from .. ?
electricityMap | Live CO2 emissions of electricity consumption
www.electricitymap.org
Wasn't it scientists who said
Jim NYCWasn't it scientists who said DDT was really great and harmless? Or who endorsed spraying malathion that wiped out the lobster fishery in Long Island Sound? Hard to believe that there still is a desire to entrust everything to scientists --- they only know what they can prove and they don't test all parameters or all perspectives. Hurrah for the ECC --- hurrah! ---- so right -- there are too many "known unknowns" and too many "unknown unknowns"! More data, more study and deeper consideration required!
I applaud the decision of the
Jane EdgartownI applaud the decision of the Conservator Commission. Besides the fishermen's concerns, wind energy is not proven at this point. A giant offshore wind farm (the nation’s first industrial-scale, 84-turbine wind farm) would be an enormous mistake at this point in its development. Do you know how tall each of these structures are above-water? How much space under-water they take? The wind doesn't blow all the time, so power utilities have found that in order to balance out the variable load from wind they have to invest in keeping fossil-fuel-burning plants on standby. When those plants are not running at full capacity they are not as efficient. Just last year in Europe, several reports that Ørsted is faced with the distressed repair of over six hundred offshore wind turbines supplied by Siemens. Five hundred of these are in British waters, and somewhat over one hundred are offshore Denmark, with a further 80 in German waters.Dong" It now appears that all have erosion problems on the leading edges of their blades, requiring removal and reconditioning. The counter arguments go on. In 25 years or more from now, it may make sense for new designs and efficiency will make an offshore wind farm feasible. But there are no advantages today - hidden and costly expenses now just surfacing; enormous environmental disfigurement of our oceans (above and below the water's surface) not to mention the death of birds and water animals. Nice idea but premature. If wind is such a desirable form of energy, let's all vote for the entire island to become 100% dependent of wind energy and not on propane or oil. Everyone ready to do that?? Didn't think so.
Thank you Edgartown
Ken Rusczyk Oak BluffsThank you Edgartown Conservation Commission!!! I want and love Global Warming! I hope to be able to plant citrus trees in Oak Bluffs some day soon. You have helped my dreams to come true.
Way to go Mr. Carlson! Too
SaveOurFish ChappyWay to go Mr. Carlson! Too often decisions like these are made in a rash, hasty manner, bowing to public pressure citing a "greater good". There are no conclusive answers to the crucial questions surrounding this project, only best guesses and estimates that may or may not stand up over time. The commission is spot on to reject this proposal. Their is inconclusive evidence as to what impact this project will have on our fisheries, which many working-class islanders depend on to make a living and which also serve as a key draw for tourism to the island and its surrounding waters, a key part of the island economy. Bravo to the commission on this decision and looking after our island!
How do you feel about the
James R. EdgartownHow do you feel about the cables coming to shore to power MV? Or the cable that runs from Edgartown to Chappy? That's what they decided on. A cable. We all live with them everyday and nobody even cares about the existing ones. Can you at lease acknowledge that? Bravo if you can do that.
Those cables don’t run up
SaveOurFish ChappyThose cables don’t run up Muskeget Channel. This one does, and that channel is a key fishery for local fisherman. Not to mention the tidal and current influence in those waters (where there are numerous historical shipwrecks accordingly) that could potentially expose the cable and worsen the impact on aquatic and benthic life. Look up what’s happened with the undersea cable for the wind farm off of Block Island - it didn’t turn out well.
What is key fishery in
James R EdgartownWhat is key fishery in Muskeget for local fishermen? Black Sea bass? Give me a break. If anything the local fishermen I’ve spoken to tell me there are a few surf clammers (not anyone who lives on island) who fish in Muskeget and the damage they do to the channel year after year after year would be worse than this one time event. Think about this next time your enjoying your NE clam chowder. The narrative that you and the fishermen against this project are pushing is misleading.
What's misleading is
SaveOurFish ChappyWhat's misleading is characterizing a draft EIS as evidence and fact, when it is an informed guess at best, and ignoring the issues created by an undersea cable from a similar project in our area with strong tides/currents. If fisherman weren't concerned , they wouldn't have shown up at the meeting and spoken up. The wider network of area fisherman know about the serious implications the undersea cable has had on fishing around Block Island. Good questions deserve good answers, and there haven't been any in relation to this project.
I'm glad the board made a
deshandra brown edgI'm glad the board made a prudent decision. Now I'd like to see the state do the same thing and allow increased sizes of the natural gas pipelines to bring clean cheap abundant natural gas to the region so our electric bills don't soar for the annual 6 month gouge from January to June due to increased costs of generation from politicians playing to their base of tree huggers.
Right ON !
Bob G. NHRight ON !
I applaud the bravery of the
Island Observer Vineyard HavenI applaud the bravery of the Edgartown Con Comm. This was the correct decision. Not enough questions have been asked about this project, and many people (whose hearts are in the eighth place)are making huge assumptions about what they perceive to be the potential beneficial aspects of this project, without asking the hard questions to truly understand what is going on. It’s okay to ask real questions in a major industrial energy project of this scale.
we'll never know what will
bobwe'll never know what will happen with anything with 100% certainty, so better off never doing anything ever!
Looks like junk science has
Up Island West TisburyLooks like junk science has won again. The applicant can simply get a superceding order from the DEP, which they will. Has anyone ever seen one dead fish from a buried power line?
Plenty of lawns on the south
MWG EdgartownPlenty of lawns on the south shore, I'm sure some of these well wishing folks would get together and plop 80 some odd wind turbines in them. Save a lot on the cost of marine construction, not to mention the maintenance associated with wind and salt water.
Here, on the Vineyard, we
Ted VHHere, on the Vineyard, we have many homes located almost directly under the lines that power the Vineyard. I guess those fish are smarter than we are.
Cable goes before all island
logic TisburyCable goes before all island elected body, the commission, is passed. a handful of non elected, appointed, folks who are way out of the intended purview of their board and do not posses the knowledge or understanding of the materiel they are passing judgement on, yet are willing to disregard the words of scientist, you know the smart guys that figure out airplanes, cell phones and artificial hips, for the word of not so scientific fisherman who believe you won't catch fish if you bring bananas or say pig on the boat.
How can anyone who can see the logic in that or the democracy of this travesty,
Finally all you folks who say this project isn't the solution or the times not right, why don't you step up with a shovel ready solution in our back yard, no NIBY ideas please, you will find its a lot easier to tear down ideas then to push a solution ahead.
Add new comment