We’ve written about Cape Wind in our blog many times, (as well as on sister site ScopeCrepe)- from an environmental perspective and a project management perspective. Many, many lessons learned here. Textbook examples of stakeholder management (and mismanagement). Stakeholder interaction. And from a green PM perspective – the effect of environmental projects on the economy. 1,000 construction jobs, and an unspecified number of new PM jobs are expected to be added by this $1B, 130-turbine project. 75% of Cape Cod’s electrical power needs are expected to be served by Cape Wind’s contribution to the grid.
On April 28, the project received Federal approval. See the story published in today’s Boston Globe here. There are already almost 100 moderated comments on the story. UPDATE: The Globe has a good video here as well.
From Sustainable Business:
Cape Wind Receives Federal Approval for First Offshore Wind Farm
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on Wednesday approved the Cape Wind offshore wind farm, completing the last regulatory step for the project which was first propsed for Nantucket Sound about eight years ago.
The project has been delayed throughout the permitting process by opposition from coastal residents who fear the wind turbines, which will be erected five miles from shore, will devalue coastal properties and affect tourism.
Salzar said the developer of the $1 billion wind farm must agree to additional measures to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction and operation of the facility.
“After careful consideration of all the concerns expressed during the lengthy review and consultation process and thorough analyses of the many factors involved, I find that the public benefits weigh in favor of approving the Cape Wind project at the Horseshoe Shoal location,” Salazar said in an announcement at the State House in Boston. “With this decision we are beginning a new direction in our Nation’s energy future, ushering in America’s first offshore wind energy facility and opening a new chapter in the history of this region.”
The Cape Wind project is expected to be the first wind farm on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, generating enough power to meet 75% of the electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island combined.
A number of similar projects have been proposed for other northeast coastal states, positioning the region to tap 1 million megawatts of offshore Atlantic wind energy potential, which could create thousands of wind jobs in manufacturing, construction and operations and displace older, inefficient fossil-fueled generating plants.
Is everyone happy with this?
Um, no.
From the “Save Our Sound” web page:
Coalition of Stakeholder Groups Announce Cape Wind Lawsuits
Native American Tribes, Commercial Fishermen, Environmental Groups, Towns and Others Will File Suit to Bar Industrial Wind Project from Nantucket Sound
Hyannis, MA – A wide ranging coalition of stakeholder groups will immediately file suit in response to Secretary Salazar’s ruling to approve the Cape Wind project.
“While the Obama Administration today dealt a blow to all of us who care deeply about preserving our most precious natural treasures – this fight is not over,” said Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. “Litigation remains the option of last resort. However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act. We will not stand by and allow our treasured public lands to be marred forever by a corporate giveaway to private industrial energy developers.”
Lawsuits will be filed on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups – including the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Three Bays Preservation, Animal Welfare Institute, Industrial Wind Action Group, Californians for Renewable Energy, Oceans Public Trust Initiative (a project of the International Marine Mammal Project of the Earth Land Institute), Lower Laguna Madre Foundation – against the federal Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service for violations of the Endangered Species Act.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, along with the Duke’s County/Martha’s Vineyard Fishermen Association, will also file suit against the federal Minerals Management Service for violations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Town of Barnstable has filed a notice of intent to file a lawsuit on the same grounds. And the Wampanoag tribe is preparing to mount a legal challenge to the project for violations of tribal rights. Additional legal issues include violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Secretary Salazar’s decision ignores the recent positions taken against the project by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the National Park Service, which ruled recently that Nantucket Sound was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places which, like our national parklands, would provide it a higher level of protection from industrial development.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recommended that Secretary Salazar deny or relocate the proposed Cape Wind project because its effects would be “pervasive, destructive, and, in the instance of seabed construction, permanent.”
The ACHP called on Secretary Salazar to either deny the project or relocate it to a nearby alternative such as the compromise location outside of Nantucket Sound approximately ten miles south of the proposed site. The compromise location, South of Tuckernuck Island, has gained the support of every stakeholder involved, including Native American tribal leaders, state and federal historic preservation agencies, environmental groups, cities and towns, elected officials, airports, ferry lines, chambers of commerce and many others.
“It is a shame that the Obama Administration chose political expediency over developing a project in an environmentally responsible place that can actually be built,” said Parker. “The compromise location would have avoided years of litigation and allowed this project to move forward.”
Secretary Salazar left unaddressed the growing concerns in Massachusetts over the project’s energy costs to ratepayers and its overall cost to taxpayers.
Earlier this month Rhode Island rejected a deal between National Grid and an offshore wind project that would have set a rate that was nearly triple the current cost for electricity. The electric utility tapped to buy power from Cape Wind, National Grid, has failed to reach a similar agreement on the cost to ratepayers of Cape Wind’s energy.
Most estimates have put the cost of Cape Wind energy at two to three times the current rate for conventional power. This comes on top of the $10 billion ISO New England recently announced would be necessary to upgrade the region’s electrical grid and transmission facilities as a result of Cape Wind and other wind projects.
Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles recently expressed concern over the project’s energy costs as did the state’s largest business group, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
Consumer anger is also palpable. In a recent survey conducted by the University of Massachusetts, a majority of consumers said they would not pay more for electricity produced by wind turbines. Much of the support for wind energy was based on the false assumption that offshore wind will lower electric bills. At the projected Cape Wind power rate, nearly 80 percent of respondents registered opposition to the project.
What do YOU think?
You can certainly familiarize yourself with the opposite ends of this spectrum by going to the two sites Save Our Sound and Cape Wind.
We suggest that you go either to the Boston Globe article or the Cape Cod Times and comment directly to the most local coverage. And of course, you’re welcome and encouraged to comment here.
UPDATE: Also, see this interesting posting by the Green Skeptic about the Cape Wind approval juxtaposed with the Deepwater Horizon oil well spill.
Pushmi-pullyu
What will motivate you and your organizations as you move into this new year and set strategy?
In terms of setting projects and programs to become leaner, more efficient, and to reduce your impact on the environment, will you be pushed into this by regulation, legislation, laws, and limits? Or will incentives from government, or better economics of doing things the right way have a pull on you and your projects? Or, perhaps, it’s about image – an image that your advertising is projecting, which needs to match your actual way of behaving and performing?
Resolutions are set at the end of December, looking forward towards January. Just as January is based on the Roman god Janus, with a forward and backward-looking face, the Pushmi-Pullyu, a creature from Dr. Dolittle, is the inspiration for this posting.
This is a good time to think about these forces which pull and push your organization – and thus your projects – in different directions. Your PMO sits at a key point in the organization’s ability to execute portfolios, programs and projects, all of which should be tied firmly to the enterprise’s mission and values. In our book (“Green Project Management“, CRC Press) we explore Interface Carpet and the way in which Ray Anderson made environmental commitments and how that in turn drove programs and projects for his enterprise – yielding tremendous savings in reduced waste, improvements in employee morale, and a better product.
Those of you who are sharp-eyed readers will have noted that the word “limits” above is a hyperlink. And, in typical PM, Type A Personality fashion, you may have already clicked on that link and noticed that it was from a story in today’s Boston Globe. This was another inspiration for today’s posting – the PUSH side of the equation. But even in this story, the PULL comes out. Let’s break it down for you, using some pull quotes from the story:
PUSH:
“Over the next decade, the plan aims to bring greenhouse gas emissions to levels that are 25 percent below those in 1990, the maximum possible limit allowed under the state Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008. That legislation mandates an 80 percent reduction in statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”
PULL:
“Under the new plan, the state would cut at least an additional 7 percent through new initiatives and incentives, including a pilot program to make auto insurance cheaper for people who drive fewer miles.”
This story is interesting enough to read separately from the blog posting and we suggest you do just that by clicking here.
However we also – as is our habit – would like to share a a couple of resources with you that resonate to this same theme – Pushmi-Pullyu.
Below is a chart from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change‘s Climate Change 101:
Note the large number of “PULL” aspects to this chart – reasons to move towards acting with greenality, based on logic and necessity rather than mandate. We think 2011 may be a key year for enterprises to realize this pull, and for governments to do whatever they can to accentuate and incentivize based on these pulls, while bringing out the mandates and limits – the pushes - where necessary.
As usual – it’s all about balance.
May 2011 be a very balanced year for all of you.
Cheers!