US offshore wind regulators are advancing their expanded environmental review of the pioneering $2.8bn Vineyard Wind array as “expeditiously as possible”, but won’t cut corners in their efforts to identify best practices for offshore wind project design in federal waters, Walter Cruickshank, acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), tells Recharge.

“Looking at the long-term, we really hope to set the foundation through this analysis that will allow later projects to be able to navigate the process more smoothly,” he says, referring to the agency’s detailed and lengthy environmental review of the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) that developers submit for each project as required by US law.

“That’s the goal. Vineyard is the first one out and there will be more after that, and it becomes, I won’t say routine, because there are always issues. But [the aim is] that people have a better understanding of what we’re looking for to approve a project,” he adds.

“The first project is always going to be a template. If you approve something for somebody and you decide later, 'I wish I had done something different', it’s a little harder to put the genie back in the bottle and tell someone else now they can’t do that,” says Cruickshank.

Interior secretary David Bernhardt ordered the review in August to supplement a completed draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 800MW project to be located south of Martha Vineyard island off the Massachusetts coast. BOEM is part of the Department of Interior (DOI).

It was prompted, in part, by a slew of public comments, some critical, regarding aspects of the draft EIS and strong concerns expressed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal agency which stewards national marine resources, that the document did not adequately address misgivings about Vineyard Wind expressed by the commercial fishing industry.

BOEM also now has access to a proprietary NMFS data base on marine resources that was unavailable when the draft EIS was written. This will be very use in informing the supplemental EIS and provind insight on a range of issues, he said.

There was also recognition at DOI that the draft EIS’ assessment of the cumulative impact of all potential offshore wind developments along the east coast had been limited to a few projects that had submitted COPs or would soon do so, or where a PPA had been awarded or announced.

“Clearly since that time the states have increased their goals dramatically with the other RFPs that have gone out. I don’t think it would be particularly defensible for us to say, only this subset is what we expect to happen. The expectations have grown. We need to make sure we’re covering that in the EIS for that to be a defensible document,” he says.

The expectations have grown. We need to make sure we’re covering that.

“This project is going to add to these other things that we expect to happen offshore that can impact various resources,” Cruickshank adds. Mid-Atlantic and northeastern states have now made offshore wind capacity commitments totaling about 22GW by 2035, triple their ambitions three years ago.

The decision caught Vineyard Wind – owned 50% each by Iberdrola’s Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners – off-guard, forcing it to scrap an aggressive timeline with construction start this year that would have allowed initial deliveries of electric power in January 2022.

It also generated a wave of uncertainty within the emerging industry whose ambitions have soared in the past several years, drawing in the largest global developers and opening a potential $70bn supply chain opportunity next decade.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that offshore wind is an important component of the President Donald Trump's America First energy strategy and sought to reassure the industry that DOI and BOEM remain committed to a permitting process that minimises ocean conflicts and establishes a strong underpinning for wind projects moving forward.

That strategy entails reducing burdensome federal regulations that Trump asserts have impeded the country from fully utilising all its domestic resources including coal and achieving energy independence from hostile nations and OPEC.

Cruickshank said he and Bernhardt are mindful that the Vineyard delay could complicate the project’s ability to qualify for the federal investment tax credit (ITC) worth 21% of Capex, or more than $500m.

“We’re certainly aware of that, but again, it’s more important that we get to the right decision than try to meet somebody else’s timeline,” he says. “I know there is some precedent for when there are permitting delays outside the control of the applicant for extenuating circumstances to extend the period.”

BOEM expects to complete the draft EIS supplement for Vineyard Wind in early 2020 with the support of all federal agencies. “That’s where we want to get to,” he said. It will then open a 45-day public comment period and work through those comments and address them.

When asked if he then expects BOEM to complete a final EIS for Vineyard Wind, the last step toward a Record of Decision that the developer and industry hopes will signify a long-awaited regulatory green light, Cruickshank said, “We will. Yes.”

Wind

US won't rush Vineyard permitting review: BOEM chief