Virginia agrees to compensate fishing industry for offshore wind damage – Watts Up With That?
by Steve Haner
Nine states, including Virginia, have agreed to create a large compensation fund to pay their private commercial and recreational fishing companies for damage caused by offshore wind turbines.
Guess where the money comes from. The announcement made on December 12 suggests that it is coming from the project developers, but of course in Virginia it is an exclusive utility guaranteed by law to collect all costs from its customers. Dominion Energy Virginia’s planned 176 turbines offshore wind power (CVOW) is becoming more and more expensive. In other cases and other states, the bill is also expected to reach energy consumers or taxpayers.
If the worst fears about the impact of CVOW on commercial fishing are proven correct, the shrinking continental shelf seafood supply is likely to drive up prices for these commodities. The goods are still arriving in shops and restaurants. People can pay more both ways.
In a move very reminiscent of how Europe works, the effort was made under the auspices of a Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs. The industry advocates and the wind dominates itand questions about which federal government has the authority to impose (not) this were dropped.
A variety of documents have been released, including this New information postedone scope document about this and information on how to submit industry or public comment at the end of January. It’s officially a information request (RFI) and may be followed by a request for proposal (RFP) to hire a full-time regional fund administrator to manage the funds and handle claims for decades to come. RFI notes:
As a reminder, this RFI is focused on money management, not funding. As a result, the questions that Countries encourage respondents to focus on include: How can States encourage developers’ participation in steering their compensation mitigation? for a regional fund? What mechanisms or procedures should be established to ensure administrative costs are kept at a fair but reasonable level? How should administrative costs be paid?
It is clear that in meetings to date, and all of which begin in June 2021, the fishing industry has been fairly clear about its concerns, which are also stated in the documents. The following bullet points are collapsed into paragraphs to save space:
Revenue may be lost due to: • Relocation from fishing area • Lease or project site survey • Before construction • During construction • After construction (operation and maintenance) • Decommissioning • Impact up or down for inshore fishing businesses • Transition from high yielding fishing grounds to less productive fishing grounds • Reducing catches in leased areas • Dumping fishing business activities (ships, shorelines). sea, etc.) • Dumping of permits.
Potential costs increase due to: • Need to buy new or modified gear • Need to buy new or modified navigation equipment (eg radar) • Increased fishing effort (i.e. slower towing in an array, more time to pull traps) within an array, etc.) • Transit time/cost around arrays or to new fishing areas • Increased insurance costs • Docking and unloading fees, as there is limited space competitiveness. production in ports and harbors will increase.
No cost estimates, initial or long-term, are included anywhere. With that list, the phrase “blank test” comes to mind. Proponents of the proposal say the main focus will be on preventing impacts by working with the industry on operating rules and site selection.
Although compensation is the last step to consider in relation to this mitigation hierarchy, States agree that the availability of this option is critical to ensuring the coexistence of industries. Strong and dynamic OSW energy and fishing industry. Experience to date with OSW energy locating and development in the region suggests that a standardized framework is needed to ensure compensation in addressing aggregate adverse economic impacts. fisheries in a fair and efficient manner.
As for concerns about endangered right whales, it’s not this or that individual wind project but the cumulative volume of wind farms up and down the entire East Coast, thousands of towers are planned, which causes concerns. They are especially concentrated in the fish-rich waters of New England.
Former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) signed a letter June 2021 to President Joe Biden endorsing his call for 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power or more, but raised concerns about damage to the fishing industry. After becoming governor, Glenn Youngkin also sent a letter on behalf of the fishing industry to federal agencies, expressing his strong support for the Dominion project. Virginia mercury did one story at the time about industry concerns.
Discussions among states, federal regulators and the industry about establishing a compensation fund and bureaucracy to manage claims began this summer, with the participation of the Government. Youngkin rights.
Unlike whales and other large marine mammals, which are super sensitive to sound and are killed on collisions with boats, commercial fish stocks are likely to thrive around turbines. But each new project will put dozens or hundreds of square miles of ocean beyond commercial fishing limits. The documents note that active proposals now total 43 gigawatts, and that the industry is currently looking at locations in the Gulf of Maine.
Related
