energy

The headline news is that the governors of Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia signed a compact on Thursday to collaborate and advance offshore wind projects and to promote the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast as hubs for the industry.

In reality, it’s another twist in the tortured debate over bringing wind turbines to Maryland’s waters.

The announcement by Maryland Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) of his pact with Virginia Gov. Ralph S. Northam (D) and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) was pure Hogan, on-brand with his oft-repeated message of bipartisanship and collaboration.

“Maryland has been leading the charge when it comes to real, bipartisan, common sense solutions and we are proud to continue setting an example for the nation of bold environmental leadership,” Hogan said in his statement. “Joining this multi-state partnership to expand offshore wind development will further our strong record of supporting responsible energy projects that provide jobs, clean air benefits, and energy independence.”

Creation of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Transformative Partnership for Offshore Wind Energy Resources (SMART-POWER) provides a framework for the three states to cooperatively promote, develop and expand offshore wind by removing regulatory burdens and providing economic incentives for the industry and related construction and supply operations.

It’s a nod to the potential of offshore wind energy at a time when states are scrambling for economic rejuvenation and job growth and are feeling intense pressure to address climate change.

“Harnessing the power of offshore wind is key to meeting the urgency of the climate crisis and achieving 100% clean energy by 2050,” Northam said.

The governors cited a U.S. Department of Energy study estimating that Atlantic Coast offshore wind projects could support up to 86,000 jobs, $57 billion in investments, and provide up to $25 billion in economic output by 2030. Virginia leaders in particular have aggressively promoted offshore wind in recent years, and the state’s largest power company, Dominion Energy, signaled this year that it plans to put more resources into developing its clean energy portfolio.

In a statement, the Sierra Club hailed the agreement.

“This partnership between Mid-Atlantic States is only the start of unlocking the region’s massive potential for clean affordable offshore wind energy,” said David Smedick, the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal senior campaign representative. “The region must move quickly to attract investment in this burgeoning industry and help ensure we bring clean energy and family-sustaining, union jobs to Maryland.”

But Hogan’s own record and rhetoric on two long-proposed offshore wind projects off the coast of Ocean City have been decidedly mixed — and some environmental groups have grumbled for years that he and his administration could be doing more to promote offshore wind. A year ago, when the Maryland Department of Environment issued a detailed draft proposal about how the state would reduce greenhouse emissions, environmentalists and their allies in the General Assembly argued that offshore wind notably received short shrift — a contention that state Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles pushed back on.

Maryland has two offshore wind projects under review by the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The Skipjack Wind Farm Project, to be built by Ørsted Offshore North American, is set to be located 19.5 miles off the coast of the northern part of Ocean City and adjoining Delaware beach towns.

Also under consideration is the MarWin Wind Farm project, which would be situated roughly 17 miles off the Ocean City coast, proposed by U.S. Wind.

Both projects were enabled by the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013, which was heavily promoted by then-Gov. Martin J. O’Malley (D) and passed by the Democratic supermajorities in the General Assembly after a years-long legislative fight. But after receiving approval from the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) in 2017, the wind projects have proceeded at a sluggish pace — and amid increasing vocal opposition from political and business leaders in Ocean City, Maryland’s No. 1 tourist town.

Ocean City hired Bruce C. Bereano — arguably the most enthusiastic Hogan supporter in the Annapolis lobbying corps — to try to derail the proposals or push them farther offshore, and hired Timothy F. Maloney, a former state lawmaker and close Hogan friend, for some legal work related to the wind turbines, even though Maloney had no prior experience arguing cases before the PSC.

In the past year, Ørsted has had to fend off a challenge in the PSC after the company announced that it would be using larger turbines than it had originally said it would — to meet changing standards in the industry. The PSC, whose commissioners all have been appointed by Hogan, could have simply noted the change but instead initiated a lengthy hearing process to gauge community opinion — a process endorsed by the Hogan-controlled Maryland Energy Administration.

In August, the PSC signed off on Ørsted’s bigger turbines, at the MEA’s recommendation. But the PSC proceeding may have delayed the project’s completion by almost a year.

Without knowing how long the federal regulatory process will take — and the outcome of the presidential election could make a difference — both Ørsted and U.S. Wind said they hope to turn the turbines on in 2023, which seems like an optimistic estimate.

Both Ørsted and U.S. Wind issued statements Thursday that applauded the three-state wind energy compact.

Brady Walker, Ørsted’s Mid-Atlantic manager, hailed the governors’ “forward-thinking approach,” and said the company is “excited to engage with their effort to grow this new American industry.”

Salvo Vitale, the U.S. Wind country manager, said the agreement will be good for both Maryland and the region.

“We believe this strategic multi-state partnership will be critical leverage right now as many regions compete to attract the larger economic development that comes with the full offshore wind manufacturing supply-chain,” he said. “Locally based supply chain options will bring cost savings to Maryland rate-payers as we expand offshore wind development. We stand ready to be a creative and dynamic partner, with global expertise, as we work together to meet Maryland’s renewable energy goals, while creating high-quality jobs and driving significant local investment in the Baltimore area and across Maryland.”

Notably, neither company said Thursday’s announcement would improve the prospects for their projects in Maryland’s waters.

By Josh Kurtz

The proposed Eastern Shore Pipeline Project, which would bring fracked natural gas from Delaware into Somerset County, runs primarily through low-income communities of color, a recent analysis by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network found.

Out of the 40 census blocks surrounding the proposed pipeline route through Maryland, only four were not identified as potential environmental justice populations. There are especially large majority minority and low-income populations concentrated around Salisbury in Wicomico County, where the proposed pipeline project would begin. The study also found a large census tract with over 70% minority population and 24% of low-income residents adjacent to the proposed pipeline in Somerset County.

The natural gas pipeline already exists in Delaware and Wicomico County in Maryland, but this project would extend it from Wicomico to Somerset County, one of three counties in Maryland that do not have access to natural gas and have missed economic opportunities because of it, according to Daniel K. Thompson, executive director of the Somerset County Economic Development Commission.

With an unemployment rate at 9.1% and the highest poverty rate in the state at 23.4%, Somerset County would greatly benefit from access to natural gas, as it would provide additional tax revenue, decrease local businesses’ energy costs and help create more jobs, Thompson said. Mountaire Farms, the chicken processing company that is waiting to invest an additional $5 million and add five to seven new jobs, as well as Somerset Crossing, a development project in Princess Anne that will create 75-100 new jobs, will benefit immediately after natural gas is made available in Somerset County, Thompson said.

“Somerset County has many challenges such as high unemployment, high poverty rates, high energy cost, etc. Therefore, why should one of the most challenged counties in Maryland not have access to natural gas, when other counties enjoy the benefits?” he said.

Environmentalists argue that expanding gas infrastructure is short-sighted, as companies like the Chesapeake Energy Corporation (not affiliated with Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, the pipeline company) filed for bankruptcy this summer and many more are expected to do so by the end of next year. Rather, electrifying buildings is a lower cost alternative compared to gas and leads to lower energy bills in the long-run, according to Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., an energy consulting firm.

“It is economically foolish to build the very expensive polluting infrastructure of gas pipelines and equipment, which is already outpriced by highly competitive and non-polluting solar and wind,” John Groutt of the Wicomico Environmental Trust said in a statement. “The pipelines will become worthless stranded assets within a very few years, leaving Maryland taxpayers to continue paying for it for years to come.”

The two major recipients of the extended pipeline are the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) and the Eastern Correctional Institution, a medium security state prison. The Maryland Environmental Service signed a contract with Chesapeake Utilities to build the pipeline last year, which now needs to obtain wetlands permits from the Board of Public Works in order to begin construction.

Currently, the Eastern Correctional Institution generates heat by burning wood chips, while UMES generates heat by burning propane and oil.

“We’ve long sought a more environmentally friendly source of energy to provide electric and thermal needs for ECI, and natural gas seemed like a natural clean, reliable source of energy,” said Dan Faoro, spokesman of Maryland Environmental Service. “It’s far cleaner than the wood-chips that they’ve been using.”

The proposed pipeline in Somerset would only increase the state’s overall gas use by .0001%, said Justin Mulcahy, a spokesman for Chesapeake Utilities Corporation. “While this is an incremental project in the context of Maryland, it provides major environmental and economic benefits for Somerset County,” he said.

Even so, it is not smart to replace dirty sources of energy with another, environmentalists claim. “Fracked gas is just as bad, if not worse, than coal over a 20-year time frame,” Anthony Field, the Maryland campaign coordinator of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said during a news conference this week.

Jailynn Britt, a student at UMES, sees the proposed pipeline project as a “grave injustice,” threatening the soil and water that UMES, a historically black college and university, depends on for its agriculture research. “This pipeline provides no sustainable benefits to the school,” she said in a press conference Tuesday.

Although MES called the procurement process “exhaustive and competitive,” alternative energy proposals were not considered from the beginning. In its request for proposals, MES asked specifically for a “natural gas pipeline” to supply the Eastern Correctional Institution and UMES campus.

Without looking into alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy, MES cannot claim that natural gas is the cleanest and most effective energy source for the prison and the university, environmentalists said.

In July, the Maryland Board of Public Works unanimously voted to pay contractors more than $500,000 to upgrade facilities at the Eastern Correctional Institution so that it could accept gas as a fuel source. But environmentalists pointed out that this was awarded before the correctional institution obtained the permits needed for construction by the state. The Board of Public Works may decide on the wetlands permit for the first portion of the pipeline as early as next Wednesday.

The CCAN report also found that Salisbury is particularly a high-risk area, not only because of how dense the population is, but also because the pipeline project envisions building a renewable natural gas facility there, which would convert organic material from the poultry industry, such as manure and food waste, into renewable natural gas. But this incentivizes more waste production, Field said.

However, since excess organics produce greenhouse gas emissions that flow into local waterways, converting excess organic material into fuel “will help protect the environment and keep local waterways clean,” Chesapeake Utilities Corporation spokesman Mulcahy insists. Otherwise, he said, the excess organic material would have been sent to a landfill, where it would decompose and release greenhouse gas emissions that are used as fertilizers or incinerated, which contributes to air pollution.

Still, environmentalists claim that renewable natural gas is expensive and limited in supply. A report by Earthjustice and Sierra Club found that the total potential supply of renewable natural gas cannot replace even a portion of the existing demand for fossil gas by 2040. Furthermore, large-scale farms that produce lots of waste are dangerous sources of methane, a strong greenhouse gas.

“While states across the country are moving away from gas, Maryland put its thumb on the scale for gas, foregoing the opportunity for comprehensive review of alternatives,” Field said.

By Elizabeth Shwe

Hogan Signs Regional Compact to Promote Offshore Wind — But Md. Projects Move Slowly

Environmental Justice Advocates Sound Alarm Over Eastern Shore Pipeline

Sections

More