The Biden administration has its sights on 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind power by 2030 as part of its response to climate change and to advance economic development. Reaching that goal will require development off Delaware’s coast.
To date, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), has leased wind energy areas off New Jersey’s, Delaware’s, Maryland’s, Virginia’s and North Carolina’s coasts. BOEM recently identified additional ocean areas for potential future development, which it denominated the central Atlantic planning area.
Unfortunately, BOEM — unlike, for example, the U.S. Forest Service — lacks comprehensive planning authority. But as part of its efforts, BOEM held a Central Atlantic Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force meeting in February that included presentations by several federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Coast Guard (USCG).
I had hoped the agencies would not limit their remarks to near-term, parochial interests but, rather, would seek to advance the best interest of the nation as a whole, including full consideration of climate change and environmental justice.
That, however, did not occur, even though offshore wind-generated electricity would displace electricity that would in large part otherwise have been generated at coal and natural gas plants that emit greenhouse gases and conventional air pollutants like soot. Displacement would benefit individuals who live immediately downwind of such plants, who are otherwise exposed to increased risk of morbidity and mortality, and coastal communities.
Indeed, despite NOAA and NASA housing many of the U.S.’ preeminent climate scientists, the conversations took place in a climate-change vacuum and, in NOAA’s case, without regard to the imminent threat climate change and the concomitant northerly migration of fish stocks pose to commercial fishing and fishers.
A starting point is differentiating between sessile (e.g., clams, scallops) and mobile commercial catches (e.g., flounder). While BOEM should look to avoid sessile grounds given direct conflicts, with mobile species, fishers may be able to fish among wind turbines, and to the extent they cannot, an offshore wind project would act as a de facto marine protected area, potentially providing greater catch opportunities around its perimeter, with less effort. An emphasis on direct conflicts would underscore another issue raised by NOAA — that being overlap between portions of the planning area and coral reefs, which requires a hard look.
USFWS focused its comments on wind turbine threats to migratory birds and bats but did so without regard to the existential threat climate change poses to species. It is prudent to raise concerns regarding potential avian habitat displacement by offshore wind, and indeed, turbine siting must consider places to avoid. At the same time, while there are human populations and development on land, USFWS has not suggested depopulating land areas simply to avoid overlap. Thus, rather than highlight offshore coincidences, USFWS should direct BOEM’s attention, as our species-protection and environmental-evaluation laws do, on those effects that are biologically significant due to population status, distribution, adaptability, etc.
USCG spoke about potential impacts to commercial shipping, noting that ship captains try to run a straight shot and take the most direct routes. USCG also reminded that it was studying expanding those portions of ocean that would be designated foremost for commercial shipping. BOEM ought to make nearshore accommodations for tug and barge traffic, given safety concerns. But for other commercial vessels, there are typically substantial net economic benefits to having ships go around the best places to site offshore wind projects. On land, the nation has constructed roadways to facilitate commercial trucks and motorists to bypass cities, and many roads exclude large trucks, even though those roads offer direct routes. If it is good and considered fair for land-based commercial transport, why not water-based? And just as it is important to provide bridges for commercial trucks, the nation needs to provide access to ports, as was done with existing offshore wind siting around Delaware Bay. It is noteworthy that shipping lanes have been moved and portions of the Atlantic designated as areas to be avoided to decrease the probability of ship-whale collisions. The industry and USCG are to be commended for those actions. To do this with wind power, they just need the willpower.
Lastly, large-scale U.S. offshore wind power development and brewing conflicts underscore the benefits of Congress providing stronger ocean-planning authority and the need for it to act to advance equity regarding the billions of dollars that are raised from offshore wind power development — a recent lease auction raised $4.37 billion — as those funds are now deposited directly into the federal treasury. Congress should reallocate those funds retroactively, dedicating at least a portion to advancing a just energy transition for, among others, affected coastal communities and commercial fishers and low-income electricity ratepayers in the affected states, as they spend larger portions of their income on energy than others.
Jeremy Firestone is a professor in the School of Marine Science & Policy at the University of Delaware. He served as director of UD’s Center for Research in Wind (CReW) from 2011-22. He has undertaken offshore wind research since 2003 and co-teaches an online interdisciplinary course on offshore wind power.
