BOEM’s long list of approved departures from the renewable energy regulations includes the eyebrow-raising approval of Vineyard Wind’s request to shortcut the review of design, fabrication, and installation reports.
Contrary to the regulations, Vineyard Wind was authorized to begin the fabrication of facilities before BOEM “received and offered no objections to the their Facility Design Report (FDR) and Fabrication and Installation Report (FIR).” The approval letter is attached, and excerpts (emphasis added) are pasted below. [Note: The requirement that was then at §585.700(b) is found at §585.632 in the current regulations.]
“Vineyard Wind requests a regulatory departure from §585.700(b) requiring that fabrication of approved facilities not begin until BOEM provides notification that it has received and has no objections to the submitted Facility Design Report (FDR) and Fabrication and Installation Report (FIR). Vineyard Wind proposes to fabricate, but not install the following project elements:
1) Monopile foundations;
2) Electrical service platform;
3) Export cable;
4) Inter-array cables; and
5) Wind turbine generator facilities.
….allowing these fabrication activities to take place earlier in time would allow Vineyard Wind to adhere to its construction schedule, maintain its qualification for the Federal Investment Tax Credit, and meet its contractual obligations under the Power Purchase Agreements with Massachusetts distribution companies.
30 cfr 585.103 requires that a departure provide safety and environmental protection equal to or greater than the provision in the regulations that is waived. BOEM’s letter fails to explain how allowing fabrication to begin before fundamental design and fabrication reports are submitted and reviewed meets this test.
It’s noteworthy that GE Vernova has attributed the Vineyard Wind turbine blade failure to a fabrication issue. The FIR is thus particularly pertinent, because it addresses quality assurance measures, significant factors in the Vineyard Wind blade failure.
Perhaps even more troubling is BOEM’s response to subsequent requests by other companies to waive the FDR and FIR requirement (example). In these responses, BOEM asserts that their “current interpretation” is that no departure is needed because “the regulation prohibits only fabrication and installation activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) itself.” How does that make sense given the important activities, including the fabrication of turbine blades and other turbine components, that take place onshore?
In their letters approving the Vineyard Wind and other departures, BOEM implies that their review of these reports is unnecessary because “the design and fabrication of these components would occur under the supervision of the approved CVA” (Certified Verification Agent). That assertion misconstrues the role of the CVA. These agents, nominated and funded by the operator, provide third party oversight that is complementary to, not a substitute for, BOEM/BSEE project reviews.
According to this memo, DNV was the CVA for Vineyard Wind. Their insights on the turbine blade failure will presumably be included in BSEE’s investigation report.
The Vineyard Wind and other departures reinforce concerns that BOEM’s commitment to promoting offshore wind and accelerating development influenced their regulatory decisions. This concern, along with the division of responsibilities between BOEM and BSEE, should be part of the Vineyard Wind investigation. Hopefully, the investigation panel will be accorded a high degree of independence.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 