Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Save LBI’

The attached legal petition from Save LBI and Green Oceans, asserts that BOEM improperly amended OCS wind leases at the end of the previous Administration.

The amended language makes it more difficult to cancel leases by stipulating that an OCS wind lease must be suspended for 5 years before it can be cancelled, and that in the event of cancellation, the lessees must be compensated.

The sentence of concern:

Any cancellations are subject to the limitations and protections contained in subsections 5(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act (43 U.S.C. § 1334 (a)(2)(B) and (C)). (Those subsections are pasted at the end of this post in their entirety.)

(5(a)(2)(B) and (C) apply to the oil and gas program and neither the EPAct (Alternate Energy) Amendments to OCSLA nor the implementing BOEM regulations include the 5 year suspension provision or the compensation requirement.

Compensation could be very costly to the Federal govt (taxpayer) given the wild (irrational?) bidding for some leases and subsequent planning and development costs.

See Section 8 of this lease for an example of the amended language. Note that the lease changes are not highlighted or otherwise identified; nor was there any public notice of this change.

The petitioners are requesting that the new lease language be rescinded and that cancellation language in the lease be aligned with the regulations.

5(a)(2)(B) and (C) read as follows:

(B) that such cancellation shall not occur unless and until operations under such lease or permit shall have been under suspension, or temporary prohibition, by the Secretary, with due extension of any lease or permit term continuously for a period of five years, or for a lesser period upon request of the lessee;

(C)that such cancellation shall entitle the lessee to receive such compensation as he shows to the Secretary as being equal to the lesser of (i) the fair value of the canceled rights as of the date of cancellation, taking account of both anticipated revenues from the lease and anticipated costs, including costs of compliance with all applicable regulations and operating orders, liability for cleanup costs or damages, or both, in the case of an oilspill, and all other costs reasonably anticipated on the lease, or (ii) the excess, if any, over the lessee’s revenues, from the lease (plus interest thereon from the date of receipt to date of reimbursement) of all consideration paid for the lease and all direct expenditures made by the lessee after the date of issuance of such lease and in connection with exploration or development, or both, pursuant to the lease (plus interest on such consideration and such expenditures from date of payment to date of reimbursement), except that (I) with respect to leases issued before September 18, 1978, such compensation shall be equal to the amount specified in clause (i) of this subparagraph; and (II) in the case of joint leases which are canceled due to the failure of one or more partners to exercise due diligence, the innocent parties shall have the right to seek damages for such loss from the responsible party or parties and the right to acquire the interests of the negligent party or parties and be issued the lease in question;

Read Full Post »

As a boy, my grandfather owned a home “down the shore” on Long Beach Island (LBI). From the beach, all we saw were swimmers, surf fishers, porpoises, and an occasional vessel on the horizon. The offshore wind industrialization will change the island dramatically.

Attached is the release announcing Save LBI’s intent to sue. Their issues are summarized below:

  • Constructing and operating hundreds of wind turbines directly in a prime migration path for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
  • Operational noise from the larger and noisier turbines Atlantic Shores plans to build.
  • Cumulative impact of the East Coast wind-turbine projects on the right whale’s migration.
  • Interference with other uses of the ocean including fishing and national security.
  • No plan or capability, technically or monetarily, to remove turbines and other facilities at the end of their useful life, upon their failure during normal operation, or in the aftermath of a hurricane or other extreme storm event.
  • Failure to account for structural failures such as the Vineyard Wind turbine blade incident, the damage from such failures to the ocean and beaches, and how that damage will be remediated.
  • Excessive electric bill increases under the State’s Offshore Wind Energy Development Act.

The Endangered Species Act issues are similar to those that the Nantucket group ACK for Whales is trying to elevate to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps not the best choice of graphic if you want to sell the project as being environmentally benign and compatible with other uses.

Read Full Post »

This comment from Save LBI (Long Beach Island, NJ) on BOEM’s Renewable Energy Modernization Rule (proposed) highlights an important regulatory policy consideration:

Promoting the offshore wind program is a very high BOEM priority. The bureau is charged with deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030, which requires extensive advocacy. However, BOEM is also a core regulator for offshore wind projects, and the concern is that their regulatory role could be compromised by their advocacy priorities.

Per Notice to Lessees 2023 N-01, which arguably should have been published for public comment given its regulatory significance, BOEM has retained important responsibilities for wind project development and operations. These include review and approval of construction and operations plans, site assessment plans, and general activities plans. BOEM may also exercise enforcement authority through the issuance of violation notices and the assessment of civil penalties.

BOEM exists because in 2010 the Administration wanted to separate the OCS program’s leasing (sales/advocacy) and safety (regulatory/enforcement) functions. The intent was to avoid conflicting missions (or the appearance thereof) in the post-Macondo era. (More on this in an upcoming post.)

Ironically, the Save LBI comment describes BSEE as “a distinct unit within BOEM.” That may seem to be the case, but BSEE is actually a separate bureau in the Department of the Interior.

Read Full Post »