Like much of the Northeast, Maine wants to clean up its electricity supply with offshore wind power. It’s planning to build turbines far off the coast, and in May announced a plan to build a port on Sears Island where wind turbines could be assembled and then towed out to sea. The island, connected to nearby Searsport via a causeway, is largely protected from any development, and it’s a popular spot for birding and other outdoor activities.

The proposed site has sparked a uniquely nuanced local debate — less polarized and more personal than the pitched battles playing out over clean energy permitting in other parts of the country. Even some offshore wind supporters and climate advocates are conflicted and say Sears Island isn’t the right spot for a 100-acre wind facility, Annie Ropeik reports for the Energy News Network. 

That includes Belfast, Maine, resident Julianne Dow, who thinks the facility is better suited for a nearby oil and logistics terminal known as Mack Point.

“I’m very pro-union, I’m pro-offshore wind and pro having it here, and for the economic benefits for the region,” Dow said at a community listening session about the project. “But I’m also very pro maintaining Sears Island as a precious Midcoast resource.”

Birders, union workers, fishermen, and other coastal Mainers are similarly torn. Read the whole story, which we co-published with Grist and the Maine Monitor, here.

More clean energy news

🚘 Make way for EVs: The White House announces $1.7 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding will go to 11 car, motorcycle, truck and bus factories to help them reconfigure to make electric vehicles, provided those companies match the federal investment themselves. (E&E News)

📑 Fossil fuels’ 50-year playbook: A think tank’s report documents how the top U.S. gas lobbying groups and two European counterparts have used the same arguments for more than 50 years to promote the continued use of fossil fuels. (OpenSecrets)

📈 What’s raising electricity prices: Rising gas prices, grid infrastructure investments and utility business models that incentivize capital spending are the primary contributors to rising electricity costs, according to a recent report dispelling claims that clean energy is the culprit. (Canary Media)

🔋 Batteries’ toxic side effects: A peer-reviewed study finds lithium ion batteries are full of toxic forever chemicals that have contaminated the areas surrounding manufacturing and disposal sites, spurring the need to find alternative energy storage solutions and ramp up recycling efforts. (The Guardian)

🔌 Virtual reality: A new report finds virtual power plant programs like ones recently launched in California and Texas can shore up power grids against summer demand peaks faster and cheaper than building new generation. (Utility Dive)

⚡ Keys to decarbonization: A new academic paper warns the U.S. won’t be able to decarbonize the grid by 2050 if federal regulators don’t adopt significant grid reforms and implement a national transmission strategy. (Utility Dive)

💧 Cleaning up coal wastewater: Researchers extract rare earth elements and other valuable metals from groundwater flowing from old coal mines, potentially providing materials for clean energy technology while cleaning up poisonous mine drainage. (Associated Press)

🏭 Can a gas plant be stopped? New federal power plant emission rules and shifting economics around the cost of natural gas add uncertainty to Duke Energy’s plans to build a 1,360 MW gas-fired power plant in North Carolina. (Energy News Network)

📢 We want to hear from you! Send us your questions, comments, and story tips by replying to this email.

💸 Support our work: The Energy News Network is powered by support from readers like you. If you like Energy News Weekly, share it with a friend! Or give today and help us keep our news open and accessible for all.

📧 Want more energy news? Sign up for our daily digests.

The complicated, local politics of offshore wind is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This story was co-published by Energy News Network, the Maine Monitor, and Grist.

Ron Huber rifled through a thick folder full of decades of state environmental records outside a community hall in the tiny coastal Maine town of Searsport. For the longtime local conservation activist, the scene inside was a familiar one: dozens of neighbors, workers and environmentalists mingled over pizza and coffee, discussing the merits of a proposed industrial project that has potential to transform the local economy, but at the expense of a locally beloved natural area.

“We’ve seen these things rise and fall many times,” Huber said outside the event late this past spring. Conservationists have celebrated over the decades as plans for a coal plant and a liquefied natural gas terminal on Sears Island came and went without success. 

This latest proposal presents a new kind of conflict. Rather than pitting townspeople against a corporate polluter, this development would support clean energy and be integral to the state’s plan for cutting climate emissions.

In May, the state applied for a $456 million federal grant to build a specially designed port on about 100 acres of Sears Island to support Maine’s nascent floating offshore wind industry. About two-thirds of the 941 acre island is in permanent conservation, and the state retains an easement on the rest, which has been reserved for a potential port for years. 

“We’re not optimistic that this one’s going to die under its own weight,” Huber said, noting that the offshore wind port has far more popular support than previous development proposals. 

Visits to recent community events like this one show that, unlike the polarized fights over clean energy projects in other parts of the country, Maine’s wind port is creating more personal divides — challenging residents’ values around climate change, conservation and economic factors. It previews what could be coming as wind grows in the Northeast. 

Conflicting values

“My question is really about why we’re not actually all on the same team,” said Belfast, Maine, resident Julianne Dow inside the community hall, during a question-and-answer period with New England labor organizers. “I’m very pro-union, I’m pro-offshore wind and pro having it here, and for the economic benefits for the region. But I’m also very pro maintaining Sears Island as a precious Midcoast resource.” 

Dow and activists like Huber want the port built instead at a Sprague Energy-owned oil and logistics terminal across the water known as Mack Point. It was considered as an alternative in lengthy public processes in recent years, and Sprague and opponents of the Sears Island proposal have continued to urge reconsideration for it so far this summer. 

Offshore wind has taken some big steps forward in Maine this year. Federal regulators approved a state research array of floating turbines, which generate power in deep waters far offshore, and are nearing leasing for commercial projects. A new state law calls for Maine to procure three gigawatts of offshore wind by 2040, using union-standard labor to build the projects and a floating wind-focused port.

Formal environmental assessments and site analyses are still pending. But state port authority director Matthew Burns wrote in June that Mack Point’s “physical and logistical constraints, need for significant dredging, and increased costs to taxpayers for land leasing and port construction would result in an expensive and inferior port for Maine compared to a versatile, purpose-built port on Sears Island.”

Still, opponents worry that wetlands and forests on Sears Island could be disrupted by port construction, even if most of the surrounding ecosystem remains intact. 

“Because we have to sacrifice something, let’s sacrifice something irreplaceable, instead of cleaning up a dirty old existing port?” Huber said outside the event. “That’s just ridiculous.” 

Asked if he saw wind as a climate solution more broadly, Huber began to express doubts about how turbine arrays would affect the ocean ecosystem. Fellow opponent Lou MacGregor of Belfast cut in. 

“Right now, what we’re focusing on is protecting Sears Island,” MacGregor said. “We can get to whether we support offshore wind or not after we protect Sears Island.” 

‘Skills that pay the bills’

Scott Cuddy, who until recently was policy director of the Maine Labor Climate Council, emphasized at the recent event that his group is agnostic about the port’s location, focusing instead on the benefits it could bring. Under Maine’s wind procurement law, he said, the port’s labor standards will be the same wherever it ends up. 

“We desperately want to see this happen, because we need to fight climate change, and we need to do it with good jobs,” Cuddy said. 

Cuddy and other labor organizers said state studies indicate that the port project and new wind farms could bring thousands of jobs to coastal Maine towns like Searsport. Local leaders said it could be a boost for shrinking school populations, attracting families to stay in the town long-term. 

“I think there’s been a mindset for a long time among kids, especially in rural Maine, like this was the thing I always heard — ‘You got to leave the state if you want to get a good job,'” said Sam Boss, the director of apprenticeships, workforce and equity for the Maine AFL-CIO. “We’ve got to find ways to keep our people here. And if there’s good opportunities, people will stay for them.”

Boss, Cuddy and others answered locals’ questions about plans for training programs for young people to enter the trades, and the family-sustaining wages and benefits promised by the growing wind industry — both in short-term construction positions and into the future.

“These are the skills that pay the bills, and they’re skills that don’t go away. The work might change — you know, we went from nuclear power plants, to now we’re doing offshore wind power development. But the skills are transferable,” said Nicki Kent, a union electrician who came to talk about her experience working on offshore wind in Rhode Island. “We’ve just got to get screwdrivers and wrenches into kids’ hands.”

Belfast resident Daniel Cowan was taking diligent notes on the back of an envelope while his teenage sons listened from the audience. A Navy veteran now pursuing a degree through the GI Bill, Cowan said he was curious about the possibility of wind industry jobs that could help him and his kids stay in Maine. 

Cowan empathized with attendees who were opposed to building the port on Sears Island, but said he thought the project’s benefits sounded like they would outweigh the costs.

“You’re going to destroy something no matter what you do. I love Sears Island, I think it’s great, I love walking my dogs out there. But I don’t think that’s going to change,” he said. “The world is coming to an end one way or another, and how fast we get there makes a difference.” 

Support from anti-wind groups

The island itself is connected to the mainland by a long causeway, bisected at its start by rail lines that snake around the coastline toward nearby Mack Point. The causeway juts out into Penobscot Bay, and Sears Island opens up at its end, an oval of land covered in trees and flanked by sandy, seaweedy shores. 

On a Saturday morning not long before the Searsport labor dinner, a large group of birders gathered at the gate where the causeway’s pavement continues into the forest. They had come to scout for the tiny, colorful songbirds that rest on the island each year amid long migrations between Canada and the tropics. 

Near the edge of the woods, someone had spray-painted the asphalt road with “Wassumkeag,” the indigenous Wabanaki name for the island. Hand-lettered signs with the web address for the advocacy group Alliance for Sears Island read, “Wind power = Good? On Sears Island = Bad!” 

The state does not plan to site wind turbines on Sears Island itself. Workers at the proposed port would help build and assemble towers and blades in pieces, towing them far out to sea for final assembly. 

Still, anti-wind groups have seized on the proposed project. Lobstermen affiliated with the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), a Maine-based advocacy group founded in 2023 that focuses partly on opposing offshore wind, spoke out against the port at the recent jobs event. 

“My concern is only that in trying to affect climate change, that we’re going to cause more damage to the environment than climate change is already causing,” said NEFSA officer Dustin Delano, a commercial fisherman from Friendship, Maine. 

NEFSA has since posted signs where the island causeway intersects with the heavily trafficked Route 1 that read “Keep Sears Island wild.” Similar signs showing a crossed-out wind turbine bore the name of Rhode Island-based Green Oceans. Since its founding in 2022, it has focused mostly on opposing Revolution Wind, currently under construction in waters between Rhode Island and Connecticut. 

Many who joined the recent birding trip seemed unaware that Maine’s plans for Sears Island did not involve actually erecting turbines there or close to shore. Others expressed doubts about wind generally. Some did not want to discuss the issue at all, focusing instead on peering through binoculars at the Northern parula, black-throated green warbler or hermit thrush chirping in the trees along the road. 

A few people mentioned concerns that wind projects could harm whales. Scientists have found no evidence to support this claim, which has been linked to fossil fuel-funded disinformation campaigns. Green Oceans’ campaigns in Rhode Island have mimicked the delay and disinformation strategies of climate denialist groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, according to Brown University research. 

Climate impacts close to home

The threat of climate change to ecosystems like Sears Island’s, meanwhile, is very real. The Gulf of Maine is one of the fastest-warming water bodies in the world, swelling sea levels, threatening the lobster fishery and leading to more frequent, destructive storms. Maine saw a state-record four federal disaster declarations in 2023 and has received two more already this year. 

The warming trend may affect the migratory birds that draw crowds to Sears Island each year. Warming temperatures are reshaping the length and timing of Maine’s seasons, which, combined with declines in insect populations driven by agriculture and other factors, could threaten the birds’ success, studies show. 

“If you look at decades and decades of patterns, you’ll see that birds are arriving one to two weeks earlier,” said William Broussard, a Midcoast Audubon board member who led the recent Sears Island trip. “If they get here early, they might not have the insects that they depend on to be out, because maybe the trees aren’t leafing out… and that can be really tough.” 

Midcoast Audubon hasn’t taken a position on the wind port issue. It’s a chapter of Maine Audubon, which separately supports the project but is not advocating for one site over the other. Maine Audubon is likewise independent from the National Audubon Society, which advocates for “responsibly sited renewable energy,” including wind, as a climate solution.

‘A terrible dilemma’

Marge Stickler, a birder from Belfast, said she wished the port would be built at Mack Point instead. “I have mixed feelings about what they’re doing here,” she said. “I love coming here… it’s a special place.” 

She had read an opinion piece earlier this year by activist Bill McKibben, founder of the climate groups 350 and Third Act, that urged Mainers to support the wind port even on Sears Island. McKibben wrote for Mother Jones last year that solving climate change will require a new “yes in my backyard” mindset. 

“McKibben wrote that you have to look at the climate as a whole, and this may be a good thing to have here,” Stickler said. “I’m not sure — why did he write that for Maine, he lives in Vermont, but… he said it’s better to have it and it’s better to have it here, maybe.” 

Dave Andrews, a retired engineer from South Bristol, Maine, struck a different tone as he trailed after the other birders. He’d worked on Superfund cleanups and brownfield solar projects in his career, and said he’d often heard “not in my backyard” sentiments from neighbors who were worried about viewshed impacts or a change in a place’s character. 

“If it’s a Walmart shopping center, I guess you have a valid statement,” he said. “But when it comes to something like this, this is a different balance.” 

Andrews called the port’s siting a “terrible dilemma.” But he felt swayed by the urgency of climate change and the fact that the project would leave much of Sears Island intact. As permitting and siting progress in the coming months, he said he hoped others who love the island would be able to accept the sacrifice.

“I don’t think there is a choice,” he said.

This story has been updated to clarify Maine Audubon’s position on the project and to correct Scott Cuddy’s title.

Offshore wind port siting raises new conflicts for coastal Mainers, environmental activists is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Welcome back to Energy News Weekly!

While the clean energy news cycle definitely slowed down over the holiday weekend, we did get a steady wave of offshore wind industry updates.

Last week, Delaware lawmakers sent a bill to the governor that would require the state to buy offshore wind power for its public utilities to use, and federal officials authorized a 2.6 GW wind project off the Massachusetts coast and a 2.8 GW facility off New Jersey. They’re just the latest in a string of big wind moves this year, including the federal government’s announcement of four lease auctions for offshore wind plots in the coming months.

Even if they’re built quickly, these planned wind farms won’t get the Biden administration to its goal of deploying 30 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, the American Clean Power Association predicts in a new report. The clean energy think tank instead estimates there will be about 14 GW installed by then, with 4 GW being constructed at the moment.

But there’s a big bright spot in the report: The U.S. is projected to quickly catch up and reach the 30 GW goal by 2033, and then accelerate to nearly 40 GW by 2035.

That is, unless Donald Trump wins the election and disrupts offshore wind as he has pledged to do. While wind projects already under construction will likely remain on track, a Trump administration could stall reviews of new facilities, install a moratorium on new offshore wind leases, and reconsider projects that are currently facing lawsuits, Bloomberg details.

— Kathryn Krawczyk

Sponsored Link
New Research Data on Climate Justice Solutions
Frontline climate groups are securing climate policy wins and developing clean energy projects that have the potential to dramatically reduce emissions and benefit millions, according to new analyses from The Solutions Project (TSP) and external research partners. Learn more here.

More clean energy news

🚧 LNG speed bump: After a judge ends the Biden administration’s pause on new liquefied natural gas projects, observers say the 6-month delay may end up being “little more than a speed bump” for the growing industry, as it didn’t affect terminals under construction and only delayed a few projects. (Grist)

💸 IRA achievements: The Inflation Reduction Act has spurred billions of dollars in clean energy investment as it nears its second birthday, and forthcoming tax credit guidance is set to further accelerate its impact. (Utility Dive)

⛰️ Decarbonization goes west: A Western governors group’s decarbonization report calls for pioneering industrial and natural carbon capture and sequestration efforts, but says little about reducing fossil fuel burning or transitioning to clean energy. (Inside Climate News)

🏠 Getting efficient: The U.S. Energy Department has made a “ton of progress” this year on boosting home energy assessments, advancing energy-saving building codes, and promoting efficiency upgrades and electric appliances, advocates say. (Utility Dive)

🔌 Hassle-free electrification: New research shows how households can avoid costly electric panel upgrades if they install efficient devices and stick to a “watt diet” when buying electric appliances. (Canary Media)

⚡ What FERC got done: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission started 2024 with only three of five commissioners but managed to enact major transmission, cost allocation and other rules in the first half of the year. (Utility Dive)

🌧️ Coal ash enforcement update: A judge rejects utilities’ arguments that the U.S. EPA’s coal ash storage restrictions apply only to rain and not groundwater, effectively opening the door for stricter enforcement. (Grist)

🔋 One of a kind: A titanium plant under construction in West Virginia will be powered by solar panels and battery storage, marking one of the first microgrid-powered industrial plants in the country. (Canary Media)

📢 We want to hear from you! Send us your questions, comments, and story tips by replying to this email.

💸 Support our work: The Energy News Network is powered by support from readers like you. If you like Energy News Weekly, share it with a friend! Or give today and help us keep our news open and accessible for all.

📧 Want more energy news? Sign up for our daily digests.

Good news/bad news for offshore wind is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

It’s become a biannual tradition.

Since 2021, when North Carolina adopted a law requiring Duke Energy to zero out its carbon pollution, advocates have spent every other year poring over the company’s plans for supplying this state of 11 million with clean electricity. 

As of late last month, the first phase of the new ritual is now complete: citizens turned out by the hundreds to public hearings around the state and submitted written comments; and dozens of organizations, businesses, and large customers filed testimony to the state’s Utilities Commission, charged with approving or amending Duke’s plan by year’s end.  

A review of these comments shows clear dissatisfaction with Duke’s plan, which critics say is too reliant on gas and unproven technologies and too dismissive of resources like solar and battery storage.  

But there are also a few powerful institutions pulling in the opposite direction. And their voices could grow louder in the coming months, as the state enters the next phase of in-person, expert witness hearings. 

The law requires Duke to cut its carbon pollution by 70% by 2030 and at least 95% by midcentury, in line with scientists’ recommendations for avoiding catastrophic global warming. The statute directs regulators on the Utilities Commission to develop a plan to make that happen and to update the blueprint every two years.

Even as the popular, bipartisan measure moved through the legislative process, some critics worried it gave too much deference to Duke and did not make clear that regulators — not the utility — would chart the state’s path to a decarbonized electricity sector.

Still, after Duke in 2022 issued its first Carbon Plan proposal — a document covering hundreds of pages and including four different pathways for achieving net zero — a host of outside stakeholders put forward their own plans for the commission to mull, hoping the panel would pick and choose from them or even craft its own blueprint.

But in the end, after months upon months of expert hearings, public input, and thousands of pages of written testimony, the commission adopted Duke’s plan with few edits. 

This first Carbon Plan order was largely nonbinding. But after regulators sided with Duke on virtually every major issue — from how much the company should drive energy efficiency to how much solar it can connect annually to the grid — advocates this year are taking a slightly different tack. 

Rather than devise their own painstaking models to compete with Duke and its army of lawyers, engineers, and other experts, this time most organizations are starting with the company’s portfolios and critiquing key elements.

‘Most reasonable, least cost, least risk plan’

As in the lead up to the first Carbon Plan, this year Duke has proposed multiple routes to zero carbon by midcentury, with one clear preference. Offered in January after predicting a steep rise in electricity demand, that pathway is to add over 22 gigawatts of renewable energy and battery storage in the next decade, including from ocean-based wind turbines.

In the same time frame, the company wants to shutter most of its coal plants and add nearly 9 gigawatts of new gas plants, nearly three times the immediate build-out it proffered two years ago and one of the largest such proposals in the country. It also envisions two small nuclear plants of 300 megawatts each, about a seventh the size of the state’s largest nuclear plant outside Charlotte.

The company seeks to exploit exceptions in the state’s law to achieve a 70% cut in carbon emissions by 2035 instead of 2030. And while its plans to zero out its pollution are vague, they rest partially on building more nuclear reactors by 2050 and fueling any remaining gas plants with hydrogen – a technology still under development.

Still, Duke’s focus is on the immediate term. In its January filing, it sought support for “pursuing near-term actions that align with [its preferred pathway] as the most reasonable, least cost, least risk plan to reliably transition the system and prudently plan for the needs of…customers at this time.”

‘Imperative that the 2030 target be met’ 

Numerous commenters questioned that assertion, including the company’s premise that ratcheting down emissions more slowly than the law prescribes presents a “lower execution risk.” 

Perhaps most notably, the Clean Energy Buyers Association, a group of 400 major corporations from a range of sectors with their own sustainability targets, argued forcefully against delaying the 2030 target. 

“The ability of [our] members that are Duke customers to meet their clean energy commitments depends in large part on how clean Duke’s resource mix is,” the association’s Kyle Davis said in written testimony. He went on to say regulators should “only” approve a near-term plan that would allow Duke to cut its pollution 70% by decade’s end. 

Similarly, a group of local government Duke customers with climate goals, including major cities Raleigh and Greensboro and small college towns Boone and Davidson, noted that Duke’s energy mix would dictate whether they could meet their aims.

“Due to the urgency of the climate crisis and the implications to the health and well-being of the constituents we serve,” the cities and counties wrote, “it is imperative that the 2030 target be met in the timelines specified in [the law.]”

Testifying for the office of the Attorney General Josh Stein, expert witness Edward Burgess noted that the commission has not yet abandoned the 2030 deadline and that, according to the law, the 70% cut could only slip past 2032 under “very specific conditions” that have not been met.

Regulators haven’t authorized a nuclear or wind project that has been delayed beyond Duke’s control, he asserted, and a delay wasn’t necessary to maintain the “adequacy and reliability of the existing grid.”

Recognizing Duke’s latest increased demand projections, Burgess urged commissioners to “set a clear directive for Duke to achieve the Interim Target by no later than 2032.” Otherwise, said the witness for the attorney general, the public interest would be harmed by the “increase [in] the cumulative tons of CO2 emitted, which would remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.”

‘Arbitrary limits on battery and solar’

The process by which Duke maps its generation plans over the next decade is complex and time intensive. But it’s aided by a computer modeling program that weighs various factors including costs to produce an optimal generation mix.

This method produces more solar and battery storage each year than Duke thinks is possible or appropriate to connect to the grid, so the company imposes manual limits on the computer program. Critics call that step unnecessary and damaging to the project of curbing carbon emissions in a least-cost manner. 

“Solar [photovoltaic] is the cheapest source of carbon-free electrons on the grid now and for the foreseeable future,” testified expert witness John Michael Hagerty on behalf of the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association. “All things being equal, the more generation… that Duke can get from solar PV instead of other resources, the cheaper it will be for Duke to comply with carbon reduction targets.”

Michael Goggin, an expert witness for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and clean energy groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, analyzed other grid operators around the country and estimated that Duke could connect around 4 gigawatts of solar and storage annually, compared to the upper limit of 2.8 gigawatts suggested by the utility.

“Duke’s arbitrary limits on solar and battery interconnection should be greatly increased if not eliminated,” Goggin wrote. “These limits do not reflect reality, and there are many potential solutions to the interconnection challenges Duke claims in its attempt to justify these limits.” 

Pleading for more offshore wind

While numerous commenters were happy to see Duke move much more ambitiously toward offshore wind than it did two years ago, they noted the utility’s projected 2.4 gigawatts — enough to power about a million homes — fell significantly short of the near-term potential in ocean wind areas off the state’s coast. 

“The Carolina Long Bay projects have the potential to reach more than 2 gigawatts, and the Kitty Hawk Projects have the potential to reach nearly 3.5 gigawatts,” two employees of wind company Avangrid testified. “Therefore, there is additional offshore wind resource beyond the Preferred Portfolio request available to North Carolina.”

The state’s Department of Commerce has taken a keen interest in offshore wind because of its vast potential for economic development. Jennifer Mundt, an assistant secretary at the Department, implored regulators and Duke to “set a path forward… that directs the deployment of at least 6.0 gigawatts of offshore wind by the mid-2030s.” 

Such development is achievable with the Carolina Long Bay and Kitty Hawk areas, she said, and “will unlock billions in capital expenditures and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for North Carolinians, and boost Duke towards its mandate to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century – a true win-win-win scenario.”

A pair of experts testifying for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association noted that Duke would benefit from being a “second mover” on offshore wind in the United States: it could learn from the many other projects underway on the Eastern seaboard without putting ratepayers at risk. 

In contrast, John O’Brien and Philip Moor warned that for small modular nuclear reactors, “it is unclear when the Companies will be a second mover… the only approved project design…has been cancelled, and the closest designs… are under development by TerraPower and the Tennessee Valley Authority.”

Skepticism of new gas and ‘advanced’ nuclear

Indeed, while most clean energy advocates believe large, existing, emissions-free nuclear power plants can play a vital role in curbing carbon pollution, several say Duke’s near-term pursuit of as-yet unproven small modular reactors over more readily available alternatives is a mistake.

“Given the long lead-times, nuclear experts have found that [small modular reactors] will do nothing to address climate change, as the technology is too little, too late,” Grant Smith, senior energy policy advisor with Environmental Working Group, testified on behalf of his group, Durham nonprofit NC WARN, and others.

Numerous stakeholders criticized Duke’s plan to build 10 new gas plants in the next decade, half of which would be large baseload plants forced by new federal rules to run 40% of the time or less. Not only would Duke customers be on the hook for these underutilized plants, critics argued, they’d also be subject to erratic fuel prices.

“In North Carolina, this volatility was at the heart of hundreds of millions of dollars of recent fuel cost increases approved by the commission,” expert witness Evan Hansen testified on behalf of Appalachian Voices. “The Companies’ proposed aggressive build-out of natural gas-fired power plants will only increase their exposure, and their ratepayers’ exposure, to the future volatility of natural gas prices.”

The company’s strategy of converting gas plants to run on hydrogen molecules separated from other compounds as late as 2049 also strains credulity for some. 

“Duke’s general plan to build new natural gas-firing facilities and then transition those facilities to 100% hydrogen-firing faces significant technical uncertainty, infrastructure hurdles and costs,” testified William McAleb for the Environmental Defense Fund. The plants, he said, “are not necessary to maintain grid reliability, may never be co-fired with hydrogen, and will likely raise rates.”

The Clean Energy Buyers Association also suggested that Duke’s plan to supply its members with gas-fired electricity could backfire, causing the state to lose economic development projects and the utility to lose new customers.

“Some of the new load that Duke is forecasting may not materialize if Duke increases the carbon intensity of its resource mix as it has proposed to do in this docket, since some of the customers bringing new load… have clean energy targets,” the association’s Davis wrote. 

If that happens, he said, “and Duke overbuilds with fossil fuel capacity, it would result in higher costs for existing customers and make it more difficult for existing customers to meet their sustainability targets.”

Amid all this criticism, support for Duke’s approach stood out, especially where the timeline is concerned.

Testifying for the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Industrial Rates, a powerful consortium of manufacturers and other large Duke customers, Brian Collins asserted, “there is increased cost and risk in reliably meeting the interim 70% target by 2030. As a result, I recommend that the Commission not require Duke to meet the 70% emission reductions target by 2030.”

Public Staff, the state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate, believes that compliance with the interim pollution cut is possible by 2034 but not before. And the state’s 26 electric cooperatives, which buy electricity wholesale from Duke, expressed some concern about the speed of transmission upgrades necessary to add renewable energy to the grid fast enough. 

A technical conference is scheduled for next week in Raleigh, and what is likely to be weeks of expert-witness hearings begin July 22.

Groups urge N.C. regulators to push Duke Energy on solar and wind, pump the brakes on new gas is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article was originally published by the Maine Morning Star.

The International Energy Agency has estimated that offshore wind could generate $1 trillion in worldwide investments in the next 15 years. 

Gov. Janet Mills said, “the time has come to bring some of that investment to Maine.” 

Mills announced at a press conference Tuesday afternoon that Sears Island in Searsport is the preferred site for a designated port to support the state’s budding offshore wind industry because of its economic and environmental opportunities. The turbines will be fabricated and assembled at the dedicated port.

Within Searsport, there were two potential locations: Sears Island and Mack Point. Both are in Penobscot Bay and have garnered conflicting reactions from the public. Since Sears Island is undeveloped, proponents see it as a blank canvas ready to be transformed into an offshore wind port. But opponents argued against clearing more natural land over the redevelopment of Mack Point. 

Mills laid out half a dozen reasons why she believes the 941-acre Sears Island is the best choice financially and environmentally for the people of Maine, although she emphasized that she didn’t make the decision lightly. 

Why Sears Island?

Since the state already owns the land, it will minimize upfront costs and eliminate the potential for leasing, making Sears Island more cost-effective in the short- and long-run, Mills said. She didn’t provide an exact number, but Mills said the entire project could ultimately cost several hundreds of millions of dollars.

The island also has the required physical characteristics, namely a large, level surface with access to deep water. 

Knowing that some people may be unhappy about the decision, Mills said she has hiked the island and circumnavigated it by boat so she understands the appreciation for the island. In 2009, the state put about 600 acres — two-thirds of the island — into a permanent easement. That portion will remain untouched by the port, which will be built on about 100 acres outside of the protected area. 

Searsport and the surrounding region has faced economic challenges in the past decade after a paper mill closed and took more than 500 jobs with it. 

“We have not recovered from that loss,” said James Gillway, town manager of Searsport. “Offshore wind will change that.”

Representatives from Maine State Chamber of Commerce, Maine Conservation Voters and Maine Audubon were also present at the press conference in support of the announcement. Sen. Chip Curry (D-Waldo) also spoke about the opportunities this will offer by creating a new industry to “strengthen families up and down the Midcoast” with good-paying jobs.

“Offshore wind will be essential to our transition away from expensive and dirty fossil fuels, and to realize this incredible opportunity, we need port infrastructure,” said Beth Ahearn, director of government affairs for Maine Conservation Voters, who was also part of the 19-member Offshore Wind Port Advisory Group.

Organized by the Maine Department of Transportation, the advisory group met six times between 2022 and 2023 to explore prospective sites and help inform the governor’s decision.

Investing in ‘homegrown’ energy

Maine relies on natural gas to support much of its energy needs, so diversifying power sources can help stabilize prices for ratepayers, said Dan Burgess, director of the Governor’s Energy Office. 

“This is an investment in Maine-made, clean energy that we think will stabilize rates,” Burgess said of offshore wind. He added, “the more we can do homegrown, the better.”

In a statement, Sean Mahoney, vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation Maine, which was also part of the advisory group, said, “Offshore wind will grow our economy and help us meet our obligations to ditch polluting fossil fuels. It’s critical that this process is now moving forward and we’re one step closer to getting this clean energy on the grid.”

In November, a coalition of organized labor and environmental groups voiced support for building a new port for offshore wind, highlighting benefits such as job-creation and the use of innovation developed by Maine people. They also stressed the urgency of moving forward with the project for environmental reasons. 

The state is still waiting for the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to publish a final map showing where offshore wind can be developed in the Gulf of Maine.

In the meantime, Maine DOT will begin applying for state and federal permits. That process is expected to take about a year. Construction, however, will take multiple years. Mills estimated it could wrap up in 2029.

Searsport stood out from the start

Even before the governor’s decision, Searsport stood out among the other options. 

While the water is plenty deep, there isn’t enough space in Portland, so it wasn’t a viable option, explained Kathleen Meil, senior director of policy and partnerships for Maine Conservation Voters. 

Eastport, another potential location, would require going through Tribal land and has a lot of rock, granite and other materials that would need to be blasted. 

“So, that leaves us with Searsport,” Meil said in an interview with Maine Morning Star last week. 

With limited options, Maine governor announces site for offshore wind port is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.