BOSTON — Federal regulators on Friday said they’re seeking offshore wind developers who want to build inside a newly redrawn zone of ocean off Massachusetts, which they pitched as a prime spot for wind farms.
Regulators had originally proposed opening up a larger area south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. But after objections, including from commercial fishermen whose businesses would be affected by fields of turbines, they cut the area by more than half, to about 850,000 acres.
On Friday, they announced the redrawn boundaries in a press event inside a massive wind turbine test facility in Boston’s Charlestown neighborhood.
Offshore wind is stalled in the U.S., which doesn’t yet produce a watt of energy from it. But the hope Friday was the new wind energy zone off Massachusetts can be a catalyst for the local industry.
“We know the offshore revolution for wind is going to begin right here,” said Barbara Kates-Garnick, the state’s Energy Undersecretary.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is beginning an environmental review of the area, similar to one just completed in the mid-Atlantic states. It hopes that by next year, it can award interested developers exclusive rights to build inside different areas of the zone. That can help projects attract financing and ultimately speed up growth of a new offshore industry, said BOEM director Tommy Beaudreau.
Green energy officials have long talked about the potential in offshore wind, which blows strong enough off the Atlantic coast to power hundreds of millions of homes. But the wind is expensive to get at. Only one offshore project has won a federal lease, the Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound, and that took 10 years amid relentless opposition.
Friday’s announcement is part of broad federal effort to streamline the approval process for offshore wind.
Beaudreau said the idea, drawn from some lessons learned after Cape Wind, is to deal with potential obstacles now, “so we don’t run into problems down the road and disputes down the road that can really delay things.”
“Hopefully, what comes out of that process is less dispute and less conflict,” he said.
In 2010, regulators first proposed an area of Massachusetts for wind energy project. But they soon heard from fishermen who complained it encroached on their fishing grounds, as well as areas that had long been shut to them to protect various species.



Here is a far more local wind story from this week.
First Wind merger faces strong headwinds with the Maine PUC
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/first-wind-merger-faces-strong-headwinds-with-the-puc-1
The First Wind merger received 1,100 words of BDN coverage back in May:
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2011/05/02/business/first-wind-deal-could-alter-energy-landscape/
Please, please, please cover this. People’s lives are getting ruined. Many of them are your readers.
I posted the PDF of the motion…. Here and elsewhere. This has the attention of some very important people.
Until other perfect storms roll on by with 100 foot swells :-/
I wonder who is going to get sued when a boat runs into one of these things and people die. I know, it is the vessels commander who is responsible and yet……
broad federal effort to streamline the approval process for offshore wind.
DEP streamlines on shore wind in Maine…
stop federal aid to low density wind. 1000 mw hydro plant replaces 4000 Grid scale WIND turbines.
First Wind merger faces strong headwinds with the Maine PUC
http://api.ning.com/files/Qx6a0LN-EZJReyW2Ez*CT8jfn7VYnYpli*N069eHxb8WV2wO4KBZ2pr6BBhIw4Os5Fd-F5L0HZMEXtNzPyWHUJ5n9-mk2IxF/easyfile_doc242789.PDF
Public Advocate Eric Bryant moves for dismissal with prejudice in the matter of petitioners Bangor Hydro Electric and Maine Public Service due to numerous violations of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
“First Wind merger faces strong headwinds with the Maine PUC”BDN, why aren’t you covering this story? I realize it’s easier to pull the news out of the AP’s hat, but what happens in the oceans off of Massuchetts is less critical to Maine residents than what’s happening in our backyards. Don’t be afraid to practice real journalism. Your readership deserves no less.
I’d like to know who owns the newspaper and why they find it more important to cover the state of Massachusetts over their home base of Maine? One of the biggest stories in Maine is under your nose and you choose not cover it. Who are you protecting and why? Does Angus King own shares in BDN? Why does the BDN put blinders on when First Wind and Angus King are in the Hot Seat with the PUC? I encourage the public to read the transcript that exposes the illegal approach to the PUC and how First Wind tried to influence the decision of the PUC. If you can’t play by the rules, you should be thrown out of the game. Good Bye First Wind.
There is no public benefit with which First Wind is associated.
Barbara, these are the same players from 1998-2000 minus enron energy services. This is where the rubber hits the road if they look back in time a bit. The Public Advocate is directly over the target.
doggonit:
Agreed! These are ENRON players at First Wind.
Enron market manipulation was to have been addressed by the FERC Chair appointed by President George Bush, Patrick Wood III.
Wood’s tenure as FERC Chair sparked the HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION on NOVEMBER 12, 2002
‘ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH: FERC’S OVERSIGHT OF ENRON CORPORATION–VOL. I’
SENATOR LEVIN (dialogue next link,with Patrick Wood FERC Chair testimony to Government Affairs Committee Hearing on Enron ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH: LEVIN:
“Enron has exposed how, all too often, corporate executives have walked away from corporate disasters with millions in their pockets, often from exercising stock options, while pension funds, investors, employees, and creditors have lost everything.
Today’s hearing provides another painful lesson in corporate abuse. The spotlight today is on U.S. energy markets and how lax government oversight failed to protect U.S. consumers and markets from false data and price manipulation by corporate wrongdoers.” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg83483/html/CHRG-107shrg83483.htm Wood’s failure to address corporate abuse by Enron is the subject of this blistering letter by: The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR)
http://cwd.grassroots.com/energy/fs/?postId=3360&pageTitle=FTCR’s+Letter+to+FERC+CHairman+Pat+Wood%2C+IIImic FTCR’s Letter to FERC Chairman Pat Wood III After Wood’s Dismissive Reaction to Enron Tapes Exposing Energy Market Manipulation
The Director of First Wind is Patrick Wood III.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/patwoodiii