Search
Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive new posts in your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share

Like what you see? Share!

Twitter

DISCLAIMER: This blog is published for general information only - it is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. While we welcome you to contact our authors, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you.

Entries in Wind (89)

Monday
Jul062015

Foundations for First U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Head for R.I. 

The following was originally posted by Christopher Monroe on Verrill Dana’s Maritime Law Blog, Law on the Water Line: www.atlanticmaritimelaw.com.

Recent reports from the Associated Press indicate that massive steel foundations for the Nation’s first offshore wind project will soon leave fabrication facilities in Houma, Louisiana, destined for Block Island, Rhode Island. According to Deepwater Wind, the 5-turbine Block Island Wind Farm is scheduled to be online during the third quarter of 2016 and could supply most of Block Island’s power.

The full article can be read here.

Monday
Apr062015

New Misguided Opponent of Renewables: Famous Novelist Jonathan Franzen

In a lapse of fact checking and logic, the normally rigorous New Yorker magazine published a lengthy essay by noted novelist and bird watcher Jonathan Franzen that, among other things, called wind and solar power “blights on the landscape” that should be abandoned in favor of bird sanctuaries because “drastic planetary overheating is a done deal.”

The crux of Franzen’s argument is summed up about halfway through his piece: “The Earth as we now know it resembles a patient whose terminal cancer we can choose to treat either with disfiguring aggression or with palliation and sympathy. We can dam every river and blight every landscape with biofuel agriculture, solar farms, and wind turbines, to buy some extra years of moderated warming. Or we can settle for a shorter life of higher quality, protecting the areas where wild animals and plants are hanging on, at the cost of slightly hastening the human catastrophe.”

As was immediately pointed out in several incredulous critiques of Franzen’s article, he mistakenly thinks that renewable energy and other strategies for fighting climate change preclude conservation of current animals and ecosystems

In particular, Franzen lashed out at Audubon based on his belief that the organization has lost its way by preferencing the the fight against climate change over protecting birds.  Audubon CEO David Yarnold’s excellent response is nicely encapsulated by his line that “our members can walk and chew gum at the same time.” 

Franzen also wants to give up on climate change because the problem is too big for any one person’s actions to have any effect: “The scale of greenhouse-gas emissions is so vast, the mechanisms by which these emissions affect the climate so nonlinear, and the effects so widely dispersed in time and space that no specific instance of harm could ever be traced back to my 0.0000001-per-cent contribution to emissions.”

He probably thinks voting is a waste of time too.

For more thoughtful and hilarious takedowns of Franzen’s “thinkpiece,” read Climate Progress and Get Energy Smart Now

 

Tuesday
Mar182014

Cape Wind Court Remands on ESA Claims, Denies MBTA Claim

A federal district court has issued an 88-page split decision in the litigation challenging federal approvals of the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound.  On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the federal defendants and developer Cape Wind Associates on all but two claims, rejecting numerous arguments advanced by a large group of project opponents that had been consolidated into one suit.  However, as a result of the plaintiffs’ success on those two claims, both of which were based on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the matter has been remanded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for further action before the Cape Wind project can go forward.

The Court found that FWS violated the ESA by not independently determining that curtailment of turbine operations was not a reasonable and prudent measure to require of the project.  The record contained the agencies’ reasoning behind not requiring curtailment (it would undercut the project purpose and scope by significantly reducing electricity generation), but the reasoning was attributed to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Cape Wind, not to FWS.  The Court found that the ESA requires FWS to make that determination independently.  This may be a case of form over substance, with the defect curable on remand by some wordsmithing. 

Potentially more problematic was that the Court found that NMFS violated the ESA by not issuing an incidental take statement related to endangered right whales.  NMFS found that the project was “not likely to adversely affect right whales and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of right whales” but did not categorically state that take would not occur.  The Court held that, because incidental take “may occur,” NMFS was required to include an incidental take statement with its biological opinion.  The significance here is that, in the context of formal consultation, anytime take of a listed species “may occur,” no matter how unlikely, the Court has found that it is arbitrary and capricious not to issue an incidental take statement. 

However, perhaps of most significance to other wind power developers was the Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ claim that BOEM violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by approving the Cape Wind project, even though it was acknowledged that the project, once operational, was likely or even assured to result in take of protected migratory birds.  The Court stopped short of finding that the MBTA never applied to an agency acting in a regulatory capacity, as in this case with BOEM approving the activity of a third party that would result in take of birds protected by the MBTA.  Rather, the Court found that there was not a sufficiently reasonable certainty that take under the MBTA would occur because the project has yet to be built, stating: “Even if the taking of migratory birds takes place at some point in the future, it is clear that no such taking has yet occurred and is not imminent at this point because construction of the Cape Wind project has not begun and the wind turbine generators that might take migratory birds are not operational.”

This is the second case in which a court has addressed the application of the MBTA to the federal approval of a wind power project.  This fall the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Salazar rejected a similar MBTA claim by wind power opponents. 

Friday
Oct112013

Energy News Roundup: October 5-October 11

This week in regional energy news …

Friday
Sep272013

Energy News Roundup: September 21-September 27

This week in regional energy news …

Friday
Sep202013

Energy News Roundup: September 14-September 20

This week in regional energy news …

Friday
Sep132013

Energy News Roundup: September 7-September 13

This week in regional energy news …