iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Great Lakes Offshore Wind Farms Agreement Reached Between 5 States And Federal Government

JOHN FLESHER   03/30/12 05:20 PM ET  AP

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — The Obama administration and five states announced an agreement Friday to speed up consideration of plans for offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been delayed by cost concerns and public opposition.

Under the deal, state and federal agencies will craft a blueprint for speeding regulatory review of proposed wind farms without sacrificing environmental and safety standards. The Great Lakes have no offshore wind turbines, although a Cleveland partnership announced plans last year for a demonstration project that would place five to seven turbines in Lake Erie about 7 miles north of the city, generating 20-30 megawatts of electricity.

Offshore wind projects have been proposed elsewhere in the region, including Michigan and New York, stirring fierce debate.

Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. New York Power Authority trustees last September abandoned a plan for private companies to place up to 200 turbines, each about 450 feet high, in lakes Erie and Ontario. The Canadian province of Ontario in February 2011 ordered a moratorium on wind energy development in its Great Lakes waters to allow more study of environmental issues.

Supporters describe the lakes' winds as a vast, untapped source of clean energy and economic growth.

"The goal ... is to cut through red tape so we can efficiently and responsibly evaluate offshore wind projects that have the potential to create American jobs and reduce pollution in our communities," said Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Administration officials said the region's offshore winds could generate more than 700 gigawatts — one-fifth of all potential wind energy nationwide. Each gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes while reducing demand for electricity from coal, which emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

Public resistance and logistical problems would pose formidable obstacles to approaching those levels, along with technical challenges such as preventing damage to turbines when the lake surfaces freeze in winter. Yet harnessing only a small portion of the Great Lakes' offshore wind could generate thousands of jobs, officials said.

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania signed the agreement. The other three states with Great Lakes coastlines — Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin — declined invitations but could join the partnership later, an administration official said.

The agreement is modeled after another between the U.S. Interior Department and 10 Eastern states designed to support wind energy production in the Atlantic and encourage investment in new offshore wind technology.

"This agreement will enable states to work together to ensure that any proposed offshore wind projects are reviewed in a consistent manner, and that the various state and federal agencies involved collaborate and coordinate their reviews," Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said developing offshore wind energy would "promote economic development and create jobs, while reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources."

Among 10 federal agencies taking part are the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Developers would need state and federal approval to establish offshore wind farms. State governments own the Great Lakes bottomlands within U.S. territory, while a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required to erect the turbines and all 10 federal agencies would review the plans. The agreement will encourage the agencies to avoid "a hodgepodge of different processes" causing needless delays, said David Poneman, deputy secretary of the Energy Department.

The deal "should lower yield costs and improve processing of permit applications, as each government unit learns from others' experiences," said Tim Rylan, president of Apex Offshore Wind in Charlottesville, Va., which is considering a Lake Erie project.

Offshore wind projects have been proposed elsewhere in the region, including Michigan and New York, stirring fierce debate.

Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. New York Power Authority trustees last September abandoned a plan for private companies to place up to 200 turbines, each about 450 feet high, in lakes Erie and Ontario. The Canadian province of Ontario in February 2011 ordered a moratorium on wind energy development in its Great Lakes waters to allow more study of environmental issues.

Supporters describe the lakes' winds as a vast, untapped source of clean energy and economic growth.

"This agreement among federal agencies and Great Lakes states is a smart, practical way to encourage the development of homegrown energy that will create jobs, power homes and reduce pollution in American communities," said Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Administration officials said the region's offshore winds could generate more than 700 gigawatts – one-fifth of all potential wind energy nationwide. Each gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes while reducing demand for electricity from coal, which emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

Public resistance and logistical problems would pose formidable obstacles to approaching those levels. Yet harnessing only a small portion of the Great Lakes' offshore wind could generate thousands of jobs, officials said.

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania signed the agreement. The other three states with Great Lakes coastlines – Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin – declined invitations but could join the partnership later, an administration official said.

The agreement is modeled after another between the federal government and Eastern states designed to support wind energy production in the Atlantic and encourage investment in new offshore wind technology.

"This agreement will enable states to work together to ensure that any proposed offshore wind projects are reviewed in a consistent manner, and that the various state and federal agencies involved collaborate and coordinate their reviews," Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said developing offshore wind energy would "promote economic development and create jobs, while reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources."

Among 10 federal agencies taking part are the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Developers would need state and federal approval to establish offshore wind farms. State governments own the Great Lakes bottomlands within U.S. territory, while a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required to erect the turbines and all 10 federal agencies would review the plans.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — The Obama administration and five states announced an agreement Friday to speed up consideration of plans for offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been dela...
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — The Obama administration and five states announced an agreement Friday to speed up consideration of plans for offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been dela...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 122
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:40 PM on 04/07/2012
According to my research - the media and pro-wind groups state the NIMBY response first. Actual people against these massive 450' structures are upset over the negative aspects of large Industrial Wind Sites to the environment and especially to the possibility of destroying our fresh water. We have many buried chemical areas (43) in the Great Lakes. By disrupting the sediment for tons of cement base structures has neighbors near the lakes quite worried.

Also - major bird kills that now go unreported. Apparently, the first six months after the completion of the Industrial Site on Wolfe Island, Canada - they had over 1800 bird and bat kills. Some of the neighbors in that area said it was sicking viewing all the dead bloody kills coming ashore on the U.S. side. What was the response from the Wind corporation - well, we don't need to continue counting.

Perhaps instead of the pros and cons groups attacking each other we should take a scientific approach to a better energy policy that doesn't destroy our environment. Every comment area for articles regarding wind energy ends up being just name calling on both sides. It becomes old.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
12:35 AM on 04/02/2012
stopped the wind turbine projects for more study

That is BS ... they were stopped because wind power will cut into oil profits.
02:06 PM on 04/02/2012
Given the amount of grants and subsidies that the Obama administration has allocated to green energy, I strongly doubt your 2nd sentence. The Great Lakes are near a bunch of states that Obama NEEDS TO WIN in November...so he's not going to alienate their residents if they stonewall the wind project. He'll wait until after the election.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
11:44 PM on 04/02/2012
It isn't Obama stopping wind projects. It is fossil fuel interests using those they have bought.
11:31 PM on 04/01/2012
This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.

http://chemicalconservative.blogspot.com/2012/04/wind-power-or-hot-air.html
10:04 AM on 04/02/2012
I wonder how much these guys get paid to shill for the big oil companies?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlonzoQuijana
02:29 PM on 04/01/2012
The NIMBYs will hate this. And I assure you, that whatever streamlined process is cooked up, the environmentalists will figure out a way to subvert it. Look for decades long law suit and permitting processes.
photo
crydespite
no-one is ever 'just saying'
11:11 AM on 04/01/2012
"Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. "

...in that order.

How short sighted.
11:32 PM on 04/01/2012
You seem short sighted as well. I am critical of the waste of taxpayer money on energy projects. The federal government wants to drive the market by restricting oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power while promoting wind and solar power. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to promote economic favoritism or invest in energy projects.

http://chemicalconservative.blogspot.com/2012/04/wind-power-or-hot-air.html
photo
crydespite
no-one is ever 'just saying'
07:49 AM on 04/02/2012
sorry madhero but it'll take more than someone's blog post (which can't even spell the President of the USA's first name) to convince me that the government is restricting oil etc. in order to "drive the market". It may be true that the government has put more money into renewable sources; but you should ask yourself why the oil companies, having made enormous profits - a tenth of a trillion dollars last year I believe - into exploration and exploitation. And of course there is the inconvenient fact that oil production domestically has gone up - repeat - UP - under Obama.

As to the responsibility of the federal government: I doubt that you believe the scientists, but it you do, you would realise that if we do not wean ourselves off of burning fossil fuels we will - along with the Chinese - take climate change to the point of irreversibility. Say goodbye to crops in the midwest, for example. Now, you may well feel that protecting crops in Idaho is the responsibility of Idaho; but when most of the carbon emissions which are threatening them come from more populated states nowhere near the midwest, I think it's clear that there is a federal role there. So please get off the "get government out of my hair" attitude and realise that there are some things which absolutely do need federal work.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Frano
‘Plausible Deniability’: NOT A FAMILY_VALUE!!
01:52 PM on 04/02/2012
"Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. "...in that order. How short sighted.

I fail to see why these wind farms couldn't be placed far enough off shore, (beyond the immediate visual horizon), such, that the NIMBY's, with their superficial ‘endless vistas' nonsense, could be easily appeased!

Which begs the question:
How superficial an existence does one have to lead to worry about the visual aspect of a few hundred to a few hundred-thousand off-shore wind-props, given such minor, ‘unimportant’ issues as continued harm-reduction within overall human existence??

On the other hand, untill the powers-that-be, (both 'religious' & 'secular-political') think of a way to hook wind & solar farms into humanity’s ongoing ‘mega-weapons-establishment’ (which passes for a national / international ‘policy-of-everything’), humanity's petroleum-addiction, and the imaginary national security threats, (invented to excuse a continuous-war-for-endless-profit national / international economic model), will continue!

…Excepting, of course, national economic policies to make sure every last job possible is outsourced to our 'enemies', (…China? …Russia? …N. Korea? …Non-christian religions, {like polytheism & Islam}?), of any given moment!
photo
Winterseeker
For the trees...we need them, not vice versa.
09:57 AM on 04/01/2012
Lets see if the next step can be achieved as well, actually getting the turbines up and running - and if we are talking jobs, it would be nice to see if some mandate on the U.S side for local production (already addressed in Ontario) is put in place.
11:33 PM on 04/01/2012
I would rather not see us waste more taxpayer money. We cannot afford ridiculous projects such as this.

http://chemicalconservative.blogspot.com/2012/04/wind-power-or-hot-air.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldwolf49
Religion is a tool of the evil.
07:55 PM on 03/31/2012
This is something that could NEVER have gotten through by anyone if there was a republican president. Thank you to the states and to O for FINALLY making it happen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlonzoQuijana
02:30 PM on 04/01/2012
Nothing happened. Just a "streamlined" process. Good luck with that. The NIMBYs will defeat this new process in the fist few law suits.
11:34 PM on 04/01/2012
I am glad that you are happy our federal government is driving the market and wasting taxpayer money.

http://chemicalconservative.blogspot.com/2012/04/wind-power-or-hot-air.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldwolf49
Religion is a tool of the evil.
11:53 PM on 04/01/2012
"conservative" blog = incorrect information. Maybe your screen name should be manhore.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackYowe
I am a classical- liberal woman and a Jeweler.
05:46 PM on 03/31/2012
There has been so much bickering here on the eastern shore of Lake Erie over Wind Power. I was not aware off shore was an option. The area around Westfield NY is blocking windpower on its shores after it was proposed for Chautauqua County.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldwolf49
Religion is a tool of the evil.
07:54 PM on 03/31/2012
Blocking it because it "doesn't look pretty".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackYowe
I am a classical- liberal woman and a Jeweler.
08:53 PM on 03/31/2012
I think so. They keep saying its about birds but the science is just not there to say these turbines will bother birds.
ItsGettingWeird
(or is it just me?)
12:01 PM on 03/31/2012
Three years ago, I drove through Oklahoma on a stretch of highway that was flanked by dozens of giant wind turbines. Very impressive.

A local resident explained to me that farmers receive residual income of about $6000 per windmill, each year, which helps a lot in years with bad harvests.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrispychilla28
08:38 AM on 03/31/2012
"Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish".

Well guess what, oil spills and other natural disasters caused by our depedence on archaic fuels do even more harm.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackYowe
I am a classical- liberal woman and a Jeweler.
05:47 PM on 03/31/2012
I think they are really cool looking.
g9
conservation ,Your grandchildrens future
07:32 PM on 03/31/2012
I fan you because they look better than grandchildren's lungs after the pollution of coal..
They look better than factories ...N.I.M.B.Y. Polluting toxins in Texas that poison the air all the way to Fla. ...
They look better than being held hostage by a group of people that need to go back to camel herding , instead of extorting the world over oil..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrispychilla28
08:53 PM on 03/31/2012
I agree.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldwolf49
Religion is a tool of the evil.
07:55 PM on 03/31/2012
Right on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:43 AM on 03/31/2012
Just made the 8-hour drive from Copenhagen back to Amsterdam, and you just can't believe how many wind-power sites you see in Denmark, Germany and Holland along the way. Shameful how far behind we are on this.
07:40 AM on 03/31/2012
I live next to Lake Ontario and have sailed many years on the lake.

I question the cost of turbines in the lake, in my area it does get deep quickly, these towers may be in 30-40' of water.

And what would be the additional cost of building towers which can withstand the pressure from ice packs? We can get 5-10 miles of ice extended from the shore and with a strong northerly wind, this ice pack can shear off structures. Of course it can be done but at what cost?

For large cities on the Great Lakes, a more efficient use of capital may be to use the lakes as a source of chilled water. Toronto does this to reduce AC cost.

As a sailor, I also question the reliability of the wind. When a high pressure system moves in, it is dead calm for multiple days.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlonzoQuijana
02:32 PM on 04/01/2012
It is not good for base load at all. You need coal and nukes for that. Of course, the EPA has just issued rules that make for a de facto ban on new coal plant construction.
12:19 PM on 04/02/2012
Lots of options for baseload wind ... it's simply far more cost effective to burn some fossil fuels instead.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.009
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:25 AM on 03/31/2012
The more we build sustainable e. the better. Nice to see that AOL figured out how to share good news.
11:35 PM on 04/01/2012
Wind energy is hardly sustainable.

http://chemicalconservative.blogspot.com/2012/04/wind-power-or-hot-air.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
03:20 PM on 04/02/2012
I suppose you think a CONservative opinion in print proves that. Ha!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
06:07 PM on 04/03/2012
Actually it is, and I don't take the word of bloviating bloggers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
04:03 PM on 03/30/2012
"Supporters describe the lakes' winds as a vast, untapped source of clean energy and economic growth."

Let's give it a shot. Many of our big cities are on the water.