“By rescinding WEAs, BOEM is ending the federal practice of designating large areas of the OCS for speculative wind development, and is de-designating over 3.5 million acres of unleased federal waters previously targeted for offshore wind development across the Gulf of America, Gulf of Maine, the New York Bight, California, Oregon, and the Central Atlantic.”
On Tuesday morning, the Nantucket Select Board blasted Vineyard Wind and gave the company 2 weeks to respond to their 15 demands. The Nantucket Current provides good coverage of the press conference. The specific demands are listed below.
Text emergency notifications to designated Town officials within 1 hour.
Alert the same officials when blade monitors detect anomalies.
Share with Nantucket the content of any written communications with or from federal agencies regarding project failures that have impacts on Nantucket.
Email detailed monthly project updates to the Select Board and Town Manager.
Present updates and take public questions at Select Board meetings upon request and no less than quarterly.
Respond to written questions from the Select Board within three business days.
Provide relevant project reports within 1 week of submission to any agency.
Share all studies or data reports on adverse effects within five business days of receipt.
Disclose correspondence with regulatory agencies within 15 business days.
Notify the Town if the company is asserting any confidentiality claims to shield public disclosure of reports or data in regulatory filings.
Pay liquidated damages ($250,000) per violation of the above communication protocols.
Pay liquidated damages ($25,000) per turbine per day) for each day that turbine lights are on without the Aircraft Detection and Lighting System (ADLS) being active.
Within 2 months, initiate a process to seek public input on new emergency response plans—including blade failure scenarios.
Establish and maintain a $10 million escrow fund to ensure coverage of cleanup costs from future failures.
Permanently suspend new projects if any future incident forces beach closures or shellfish harvesting bans for seven consecutive days or 14 total days in any 6-month period.
I observed the press conference on the Town’s YouTube channel, and my sense is that this may be Vineyard Wind’s last chance to amicably resolve these issues. Board member Dawn Hill, who now regrets signing the increasingly unpopular Good Neighbor Agreement with Vineyard Wind, didn’t hold back when she said:
“These wind turbines are bigger, brighter, and much more impactful than we ever thought, and not to mention the environmental hazard from failures. But my choice would be with our new, federal administration to really wake up and try and put an end to these things, because they’re not worth it to the coast of the United States.”
The attached petition from Save the East Coast Inc. et al requests that NOAA revoke the Empire Wind Letter of Authorization using the emergency authority delineated at 50 C.F.R. § 216.106(f).
This is a strong filing, but revocation would be difficult given the extensive development activity to date and the Administration’s decision in May to allow the project to go forward.
Vineyard Wind is now sending power from 17 turbines to the Massachusetts grid, up from four in May.
According to satellite images, it appears at least 40 of the project’s 62 turbines are in the water as of this month.
Can’t tell how many blades are from the Canadian plant that manufactured the blade that failed, and therefore need to be removed and replaced.
A cross-examination of past detailed maps from Vineyard Wind and new satellite images suggests that about 22 of the 40 seemingly installed turbines are likely complete.
A second turbine installation vessel, the new Danish jack-up Wind Pace, has arrived and is assisting the Sea Installer, the primary installation vessel.
Given the absence of updates from Vineyard Wind and its regulators, the excellent reporting by local media like the New Bedford Light and Nantucket Current is much appreciated.
Turbine tower components stand tall at the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal in April 2025. Credit: Eleonora Bianchi / The New Bedford Light
Nantucket Current:Nantucket officials and attorneys will hold a press conference next Tuesday, July 29th, at 9:30 a.m. regarding “Vineyard Wind’s failure to meet its legal and public commitments to the community.”
“BSEE’s comprehensive and independent investigation is ongoing,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an email to the Current on Tuesday. “There is no timetable for the completion of the investigation, as BSEE focuses on ensuring that the investigation is thorough and complete.”
Debris from the failed Vineyard Wind blade littering the south shore of Nantucket in July 2024. Nantucket Current photo.
Nantucket reached a settlement agreement (attached) with turbine manufacturer GE Vernova (GEV), praising that company while criticizing Vineyard Wind (VW), the lessee and operator:
“The Town of Nantucket commends GE Vernova for its leadership in reaching this agreement. By contrast, the Town has found Vineyard Wind wanting in terms of its leadership, accountability, transparency, and stewardship in the aftermath of the blade failure and determined that it would not accept Vineyard Wind as a signatory to the settlement,”the town stated Friday morning.
Comments:
For a relatively modest sum ($10.5 million) paid by the contractor (GEV), the agreement further limits the Town’s ability to hold Vineyard Wind, the lessee and operating company, accountable. See sections 4, 5(a), and 9 of the agreement.
The Town’s ability to challenge the project was already compromised by their unpopular “Good Neighbor Agreement.”
What ever happened to operator responsibility? This fundamental tenet of the OCS oil and gas program also applies to offshore wind. Vineyard Wind should be the party that is fully accountable for the damages associated with their project. VW can seek compensation from GEV, but VW is the accountable party.
Can you imagine if BP had attempted to stay on the sidelines while Transocean and other contractors settled claims associated with the Macondo blowout? Unthinkable!
Nantucket should have insisted on VW’s participation, rather than excluding them.
What does the lessor, the Federal govt, have to say about damage compensation? Are civil penalties forthcoming? When will we finally see the BSEE investigation report!
Given the investigation’s significance, not only for Vineyard Wind, but for other offshore wind projects planned or under construction, how is the delay in issuing the report acceptable?
Keep in mind that the lengthy and complex National Commission, BOEMRE, Chief Counsel, and NAE reports on the Macondo blowout were published 6 to to 17 months after the well was shut-in.
Radar interference is one of the key issues in the law suit against the Empire Wind project. Congressman Smith’s press release (attached) focuses on that issue.
Along with other charges, the attached complaintasserts that awarding a wind lease to Norway’s Equinor, violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA):
As an agency or instrumentality of Norway, Equinor cannot receive a lease on the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore wind turbine development or generation of electric power.
While other elements of the complaint appear to have merit, the charge against Norway does not. Here’s why:
US subsidiaries of foreign companies have long held leases under the OCS Lands Act.
Equinor US Wind is the US subsidiary holding the wind lease.
Equinor USA E&P holds interests in OCS oil and gas leases in the Gulf of America. BOEM credits 548,389 barrels of oil production to Equinor for 2023.
Chinese state-owned CNOOC has been an oil and gas lessee in the Gulf of America.
US subsidiaries of Shell and BP, both foreign corporations, are the top 2 producers in the Gulf. Although not government owned, there is nothing in OCSLA that distinguishes between US subsidiaries of private and govt owned companies. Woodside (Australia) and Eni (Italy) are also important Gulf producers.
The plaintiffs second count (excerpt below) seems to have more merit. The bulk of the filing pertains to this count.
BOEM never completed its “necessary review”, see Stop Work Order, April 16, 2025, and, instead, reinstated the Empire Wind work permit on May 19, 2025 without any explanation or finding, stating as follows: On April 16, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a Director’s Order to Empire Offshore Wind LLC to halt all ongoing activities related to the Empire Wind Project on the outer continental shelf. That Order is hereby amended to lift the halt on activities during the ongoing review.
The complaint goes on to discuss the reasons why the plaintiffs believe the review was indeed necessary and should have been conducted.