By Neil Jaques

During the last week of October, wind developers, federal and state regulators, environmental advocates, and other regional stakeholders spent two days thrashing out a way to ensure greater clarity, certainty and coordination of Federal and state decision-making for offshore wind development in the Great Lakes.

The workshop, organised by the Obama administration and the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative in Chicago, focused on the siting of offshore wind power in the Great Lakes in response to growing opposition to offshore wind development in the region.

If all goes to plan, workshops of this nature could be key in helping developers and regulators avoid the kind of loggerhead scenarios recently experienced by Scandia Wind, a subsidiary of Norwegian firm Havgul Clean Energy.

The turbulent saga began when the company unveiled its ambitious plans to establish 1,000mw of projects in the Great Lakes via two 500MW farms situated outside the counties of Mason and Oceana, and Mukegon and Ottowa.

To get its plans off the ground in November 2009, Havgul Clean Energy approached the Great Lakes Wind Council (GLOW), an advisory body within the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth consisting of Governor-appointed state agency representatives and stakeholders to examine issues and make recommendations related to offshore wind development in Michigan.  

Scandia Wind’s next move was to take the project to local government officials, and a succession of six public meetings followed.

After listening to stakeholders, Scandia adapted its plans for the Mason and Oceana-based proposal to move from 2 to 4 miles offshore, but the county commissioners voted against Scandia even getting the green light to conduct baseline studies.

The backstory to all this differs wildly depending on who you ask.

Jumping the gun?

According to GLOW staff director Michael Klepinger, Scandia’s actions were an example of “how a developer steps in it in Michigan” by jumping the gun.

“I’m not clairvoyant but I could have told them, and I did tell them, that this was not going to work.”

Klepinger says GLOW was already well on the way to chart a game plan for offshore wind realisation in the Great Lakes, a process that would eventually result in a 29-person panel putting forth five sites deemed suitable for Requests For Proposals (RFP).

“We got conversation started, and the Michigan GLOW council was doing it in a way I believe was the only way. Or at least a good way. And then along came this developer that couldn’t wait to claim one of the best places, and get ahead of the game a little bit.

 “The population just wasn’t ready [for Scandia Wind], and the [political] leaders weren’t quite sure. Scandia basically did what the Cape Wind folks did and said ‘here’s a proposal, here’s all the benefits to it, and we’re going forward’.”

The other version

Scandia Wind refutes this sequence of events, professing that GLOW responded enthusiastically to the initial proposal and urged the company to ““take it local”.

“None of the GLOW council leadership was at one of our presentations and none of them ever told us to hold off, formally,” says Havgul Clean Energy project director and partner Harald Dirdal. 

The opposition that upset the political apple cart, he says, stems largely from older, well-heeled people with summerhouses, deep-seated concerns about visual impact and a predeliction for disruption tactics.

Dirdal points out that what transpired was a polished PR campaign that caught local politicians off guard while they were in the process of mulling over offshore wind facilitating legislation.

“It started the discussion and [GLOW] got scared. They were in the midst of trying to get legislation through and they were afraid that when the reality hit them that ‘yes, offshore windfarms are controversial’. They were afraid they’d have problems getting legislation through.

“When it hit the fan, they just ducked,” he added.

As a result GLOW started backtracking on its support for the project. Instead, the GLOW council leadership put a decision to the locals that they “really weren’t ready to make,” says Dirdal.

As for GLOW’s five proposed development sites, he is withering in his assessment, pointing out that the key metrics of wind speed and transmission capacity were not prioritised.

“Who wants to develop a site like that?” Dirdal asks incredulously.

“In addition, the [proposed] legislation is so bad I think hardly any developers -  maybe a huge utility could take a chance - but the vast majority of developers would never do it.”

Studies needed

Dirdal is keen to emphasise that for all the brouhaha, there is a strong contingent of local people, including GLOW members that want the studies to take place so that a balanced judgement can be made.

“It is important to keep in perspective the majority of the populace wants to learn what the studies will reveal. The GLOW Council’s failure to recognize the majority opinion, and instead respond only to the vocal minority, is truly disappointing.”

Scandia Wind believes both 500mw proposals are far from dead in the water, however, and hopes remain that this month’s elections in the US yield a stronger, more resolute political regime.

“We need to find the leaders who are able to understand we are prepared to invest $7-10m in studies to give them the facts,” says Scandia Wind CEO Steve Warner.

Warner argues that in lieu of hard facts, wind energy opponents continue to prey on the fears of the public and politicians to stunt any growth in the industry. Scandia, however, remains resolute in its ambition to develop offshore wind in the Great Lakes. “We are continuing to work under the assumption that the state wants offshore wind power.”

As things stand, offshore wind development in the great lakes is clearly not for the faint of heart. Only time will tell if processes like last week’s stakeholder workshop will smooth the way.

To respond to this article, please write to: Neil Jacques

Or write to the editor: Rikki Stancich