The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and 40 wind-power companies this week sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar pledging to adhere to the guidelines, which were developed over a five-year period by a Fish and Wildlife Service advisory committee that included industry officials, conservation leaders, representatives of American Indian tribes, and federal and state regulators.

Salazar unveiled the new guidelines in late March, calling them a common-sense road map for steering wind projects away from places where they would have an outsized impact on wildlife and providing developers certainty and flexibility (Greenwire, March 23).

The guidelines, which took effect in March, encourage wind developers to consult with FWS as early as possible to allow biologists to assess a project’s potential impacts. They call for developers to work with the agency to analyze potential project effects on migratory birds, bats, eagles and other species from collisions with turbines; habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation; wildlife displacement and behavioral changes; and increased predators and invasive plants.

“AWEA and its member companies hope that through proper implementation, we and the other stakeholders will be able to collectively ensure that wildlife is adequately protected, while we create an environment in which robust development of U.S. wind energy can continue for years to come,” Denise Bode, the national trade association’s CEO, said today in a statement.

In addition to AWEA, the two-page letter sent yesterday to Salazar was signed by 40 wind-power developers, including Iberdrola Renewables LLC, BP Wind Energy and Pattern Energy, whose Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Facility is the subject of a federal lawsuit filed this week by an American Indian tribe that says the project would destroy “culturally and visually significant lands and resources” (Greenwire, May 15).

In the letter, the companies state their support for the guidelines, and AWEA “commits to training its members on the Guidelines and urging adherence to them.”

“We should collectively be proud of the process that resulted in the development of these important siting guidelines, which hold this industry to a higher standard than is legally required and to a higher standard than any other energy industry in the country,” the letter said. “It is important to note that while no stakeholder got everything they wanted in the final version of the Guidelines, we believe they were developed through a fair and transparent process that resulted in a document that addresses the interests of all parties.”

The National Audubon Society, which participated in the FWS advisory committee meetings that helped devise the voluntary measures, praised the industry for its support.

“The pioneering collaboration that forged these first-ever federal guidelines proves industry and environmental groups can collaborate to benefit both the nation’s economy and our birds and wildlife,” David Yarnold, Audubon’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “It doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition.”

But not everyone supports the guidelines.

The American Bird Conservancy, which has been sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policies regarding birds and wind energy development, says the voluntary guidelines cannot be enforced and therefore have no practical impact on protecting the birds killed each year by spinning wind turbine blades and associated power lines and other structures.

“Nearly 175 conservation groups, scientific organizations and businesses are on record preferring mandatory standards rather than voluntary guidelines for wind energy,” said Kelly Fuller, ABC’s wind campaign coordinator. “ABC is concerned that the guidelines allow wind developers to self-certify compliance and to disregard [FWS's] suggestions simply by documenting reasons why they don’t agree with them.”

Fuller added, “Birds will be the losers with these guidelines.”

Under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), a clean energy advocate, Michigan made progress with Pruss — then director of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth — playing a key role

The Great Lakes Wind Council that he helped set up went as far as to produce draft legislation that would set up a regulatory framework for an offshore wind sector.

Now, Pruss is outside looking in.

In January 2011, Granholm left office after two terms and was replaced by Rick Snyder (R). With all eyes focused on economic recovery, offshore wind took a back seat. Outspoken public opposition in some quarters and the costs and engineering challenges associated with such projects haven’t helped.

It is a story that helps explain why there are no offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, despite estimates that the lakes could generate up to 700 gigawatts of electricity. Even 1 gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes and potentially avoid 2.7 million metric tons a year of carbon emissions, according to the Obama administration.

It’s not just Michigan that has yet to open a clear regulatory pathway for offshore wind. Other Great Lakes states — not to mention Ontario and Quebec in Canada — are in a similar situation.

Aside from a change in the political and economic climate, the states must find a way to issue permits for projects that have never been done before.

Even the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it has signed a memorandum of agreement with states to streamline federal regulations to free up wind developers is unlikely to have a huge impact in the short term, people involved in the issue in Michigan agree.

“It’s frustrating. It’s disappointing,” Pruss said. “But I remain optimistic.”

New framework

In October 2010, offshore wind energy in Michigan appeared to have considerable momentum.

It was then that the state wind council issued its 70-page report outlining what was needed to kick-start offshore wind energy on the portions of Lake Michigan, Lake Superior and Lake Huron that are under the state’s jurisdiction

As Pruss, who chaired the council, recalled, the consensus was that the existing permitting program “never envisioned the use of the bottomlands for offshore wind.”

The report recommended a legislative framework that would allow for the “most favorable” areas for leasing to be subject to public bids soon after the legislature took action.

Less than two years later, the report is languishing.

Snyder, while not overtly hostile to wind energy, has not exactly been a cheerleader for it either.

Although he signed the recent agreement with the Obama administration along with four other governors, he has also questioned the viability of offshore wind at present and said he would not support legislation that would clear a path for development.

“The technical and cost barriers to offshore wind are still very significant,” Snyder said in a statement. “We need the research efforts to bear more fruit before we redesign the regulatory framework we have in place. Our current system protects Michigan’s interests at this time.”

Pruss, who now works for 5 Lakes Energy, a clean energy consulting firm, concedes enthusiasm has waned.

“I think the administration is cognizant of Great Lakes issues as they pertain to wind energy,” he said. “They are mindful there is need for a new framework.”

As for the Legislature, it is “in two minds,” according to Pruss, in large part because of opposition from often well-heeled shoreline residents who do not like the idea of wind turbines ruining their views.

Icebreaker in Lake Erie

What’s happened in Michigan mirrors events in the other seven Great Lakes states.

From her corner office at the Great Lakes Commission, located incongruously in a suburban office park in Ann Arbor, Victoria Pebbles has a better perspective than most on obstacles facing offshore wind. All eight Great Lakes states are members of the commission, while Ontario and Quebec both play a role too.

Pebbles is staff director of the commission’s “wind collaborative” that, as she put it during a recent interview, “assumes wind is going to happen,” but the coalition is not promoting it.

Currently, none of the eight states has enacted wind-specific legislation. All are tackling the same issues as Michigan, albeit in different ways. Ohio, for example, believes it can tailor existing regulations.

It is also the state that is “furthest along,” according to Pebbles.

The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., known as LEEDCo, is planning a 20- to 30-megawatt pilot project, consisting of five to seven turbines, 7 miles offshore from Cleveland. But even that is only at the planning stage.

There is a reason why the Ohio project is called “Icebreaker.”

LEEDCo started with a pilot project in hopes of gradually winning public confidence, spokesman Donny Davis said.

“We are looking at this as a small initial demonstration project, as a means to building the industry in Ohio,” he said in an interview.

The small scale of the proposal also helps navigate the state bureaucracy. When it comes to seeking permits, the process will be fluid. Davis uses phrases like “open dialogue” and “collaborate approach” when describing how LEEDCo plans to proceed.

Icebreaker is the guinea pig that will help not just future developers but also state bureaucrats as they figure out how wind farms differ from other types of projects that require offshore leasing, Davis said.

Even if Icebreaker is more likely to happen than other projects in the Great Lakes, Davis says it is suffering from the same problems faced by similar efforts in Michigan, exacerbated by the fact that natural gas, not offshore wind, is the top priority for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R).

“It’s the same everywhere,” Davis said. “There hasn’t been a governor who is a table-pounder for offshore wind.”

‘Uncertain’

The Obama administration’s announcement last month of the memorandum of understanding seemed like an attempt to urge the states forward (Greenwire, March 30).

But its effect will be limited because the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Only with the cooperation of states is anything going to happen, and three states — Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin — didn’t sign the agreement.

Pebbles noted, however, the deal could help focus attention on what states need to do to because “it will expose where the gaps are and identify areas where legislation is needed.”

The states that did not sign “had no technical issues” with the agreement, Pebbles said. In the future, she added, “they can sign up, if they so desire.”

LEEDCo’s Davis downplayed that fact that Ohio did not sign the agreement, saying it only marks “preliminary discussions” and shouldn’t necessary hamper future growth.

Back in Lansing, Pruss still believes legislation will be needed to make Michigan a leader in the field.

In the meantime, the future remains cloudy.

Asked whether a wind developer could pursue a Michigan project right now, Pruss pursed his lips.

“It’s uncertain,” he said.

John Beale/Post-Gazette

Wind turbines are used to produce electricity.

 By Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two big wind development projects on Appalachian ridges in Bedford and Clearfield counties have been canceled, and fewer new turbines will be spinning across the nation next year due to the possible end of a federal tax credit program that has driven development.

Some environmentalists are applauding the potentially lengthy lull in wind development, but the industry says more than half of the 75,000 people working to make and install turbines could lose their jobs next year. And layoffs have already started.

Iberdrola Renewables confirmed Monday that it will not build the 24 wind turbines it had planned on Dunning and Evitts mountains in Bedford County and the 40 wind turbines in the Clover Run project in Clearfield County.

Paul Copleman, an Iberdrola spokesman, said that without the federal Production Tax Credits, which will expire at the end of 2012, its two projects and many others in the state and nation won’t get built.

“We’re focusing on operation of existing wind power in 2012 rather than new building due to low energy demands and an uncertain regulatory landscape,” Mr. Copleman said. “The tax credits are a big part of it. They drive job creation and remain a critical component of our development efforts in the U.S.”

PTCs provide wind power developers with tax credits — of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour — for the production of renewable energy and have spurred investment in the small but growing component of the energy industry. They were previously allowed to lapse by Congress in 1999, 2001 and 2003, before action was taken to revive and extend them.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, which lobbies for wind power development, the first quarter of 2012 was one of the biggest for wind power development with the construction of 788 new turbines in 17 states producing 1,695 megawatts of electric power. That’s a 50 percent jump in installations from just one year ago.

The total installed wind power capacity in the U.S. is now 48,611 megawatts, with about 800 of those megawatts produced by turbines on Pennsylvania’s ridges.

There are 17 wind production facilities operating in Pennsylvania generating more than 2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year — enough to power nearly 240,000 homes. That’s still just a little less than 1 percent of the state’s energy needs.

“Wind power had been a big success story and it’s at risk now, especially the jobs in manufacturing,” said Ellen Carey, a Wind Energy Association spokeswoman. She said that without PTCs, wind industry employment nationwide could fall from 75,000 to 37,000, but if Congress acts to extend the tax credits, employment is projected to top 100,000. She said in 2005 about 25 percent of the parts of a wind turbine erected in the U.S. were made in the U.S. This year more than 50 percent of turbine parts are American made.

“The parts are big and hard to transport, so it makes sense to build them close to the building projects,” Ms. Carey said. “If we don’t have the PTCs we don’t have the certainty we need to build. That’s stopped some projects, and other companies are not placing orders or making parts. There have already been layoffs.”

According to a 2005 U.S. Energy Information Administration report, the lost tax revenue from extending the PTCs for wind from 2005 through 2015 would average about $1.6 billion a year.

While some environmental groups, such as the Clean Air Council, support wind energy as “a vital part of America’s shift to clean, domestic, renewable energy sources,” others are happy to see construction of the long-armed turbines stop.

Laura Jackson, a leader of Save Our Allegheny Ridges — an anti-wind turbine development group based in Bedford County — said it objects to the environmental impacts of wind turbines on birds, bats, forestland and watersheds.

“Ridges in this state are not suitable ecologically for wind or any other types of industrial development,” Ms. Jackson said. “The ridges are important flyways for raptors and birds, they’re steep and therefore ecologically sensitive, they’re a forested resource and they provide habitat for endangered species.”

Pennsylvania has no regulations for siting wind turbine projects. Instead it relies on voluntary guidelines negotiated by the state Game Commission and the wind power industry that have no enforcement provisions.

Ms. Jackson said many residents of the Dutch Corner Rural Historic District, which includes Evitts Mountain, were concerned that the wind project on that ridge would damage the aesthetic qualities that allowed the area to be designated one of the few “rural historic district” areas in the state in 2007.

“There are many people in the counties where the wind projects have been cancelled that are very happy,” Ms. Jackson said

As many as 20 wind projects are still in the planning stages in Pennsylvania, including the controversial Shaffer Mountain Wind project, which is under review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service because of its proximity to a maternity colony of Indiana bats, an endangered species in Pennsylvania.

Nonetheless, backers of the proposal are seeing brighter prospects that companies that rely on the expiring production tax credit, or PTC, may not have to wait until the eleventh hour for a reprieve. Lawmakers and industry lobbyists see a growing interest in the House and Senate tax-writing committees to get a PTC bill to the floor before November, and some point to the uptick in activity from conservative PTC opponents as a sign that the move to extend the credit is gaining some steam.

“I have been cautiously optimistic that one way or another we’ve got at least a 50 percent chance of passing the PTC before the election,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) told E&E Daily yesterday. “It has broad bipartisan support; the business community is focusing on the consequence we’re already seeing, a dramatic dropdown in economic activity. And I think almost everybody thinks that it’s ultimately going to be extended.”

Blumenauer, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said there is “significant interest” among his fellow tax-writers to get a PTC extension to the floor quickly, but he cautioned that the path for such legislation remains unclear because of other pending business such as the transportation bill and election-year politicking.

“I think people are cautious because you have to separate the real work from the stuff that people have to go through for political measures,” he said. “But I’m optimistic that something will happen. It should happen.”

Blumenauer and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) have introduced a bill to extend the PTC through 2016 that has garnered 99 co-sponsors from both parties.

“I think at some point people would like to show a little progress before the election,” Blumenauer added. Extending the PTC “would seem like a no-brainer. … Show some bipartisan progress and we can do something.”

Several wind industry lobbyists, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly, said yesterday they also sensed growing interest on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee to act on a PTC extension before November but cautioned that it was too soon to say whether those efforts ultimately would be successful.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the PTC’s strongest proponents among House conservatives, said he saw growing support for the credit to be extended, judging by the increase in opposition from opponents of the measure.

“I do think that we’re picking up some momentum for the wind production tax credit. Part of my measure is because some of the others are starting to push back a little bit harder than they otherwise would, so they can see we’re picking up some momentum,” King said in a brief interview yesterday.

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal has run several recent items targeting the PTC and other renewable incentives, while anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, last week lent his support to a competing bill that would eliminate the PTC and several other energy tax breaks.

In his speech yesterday, Boehner cautioned that “any sudden tax hike would hurt our economy” and pledged that the House would vote before the election on a bill to prevent tax hikes while creating a mechanism to ensure Congress tackles “broad-based reform” next year (E&ENews PM, May 15).

It remains unclear where temporary tax extenders like the PTC will fit into the plan Boehner has outlined, which was seen primarily as a call for an early vote to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all earners. However, industry backers say the logic Boehner laid out in his speech should easily apply to their tax treatment, as well, because a higher tax bill would cost the industry jobs and damage its contribution to the broader economy.

The American Wind Energy Association says 37,000 jobs will be lost this year if the PTC is not extended immediately.

Beyond the economic argument for an immediate extension, the combination of a short-term PTC extension that could fit into Boehner’s tax package and an eventual phaseout is one that has gained favor among many Republican backers of the credit, as well as the chairman of a key House subcommittee overseeing temporary extenders (E&E Daily, April 27).

“What we really need is an extension of the production tax credit and coupled with that extension an agreement that we’ll come back at the end of that period of time with a plan to phase the credits down,” King said. “And who can say no to all of that?”

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) stopped short of explicitly endorsing an extension to the production tax credit for wind, a 2.2 cents-per-kilowatt-hour incentive that’s set to expire at year’s end. But he noted the industry should be part of the “all of the above” energy mix Republicans would like to see.

“I have a district that actually produces oil, it produces wind, solar, geothermal. … I think we need a little of all of it to be able to get there” to energy independence, McCarthy said in a press briefing. “You get stability when you take away the uncertainty.”

McCarthy’s comments came a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he would bring a bill to the floor before November’s election to prevent “the largest tax increase in American history.” It remains unclear whether the PTC would be included in that legislation, which seems primarily aimed at maintaining rates for all earners from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but PTC supporters are growing more optimistic about their chances (E&E Daily, May 16).

McCarthy, the third-ranking member of House leadership, pointed to ongoing efforts in the Ways and Means Committee to examine all 103 temporary tax extenders set to expire at the end of this year and declined to say explicitly whether he thought the PTC should be part of a pre-election tax package.

A Ways and Means spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment yesterday.

The lawsuit filed late yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego by the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation says the proposed wind project’s 112 turbines would cause “irreparable injury” by destroying “culturally and visually significant lands and resources.” It accuses the Bureau of Land Management of essentially ignoring the tribe’s concerns.

The lawsuit comes just days after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed a record of decision (ROD) authorizing San Francisco-based Pattern Energy Group LP to build the Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Facility on more than 10,000 acres of BLM land in Southern California’s Imperial County (Greenwire, May 14).

The Quechan Tribe, which wants a federal judge to throw out the ROD and to order a temporary injunction blocking construction until the lawsuit is resolved, has scheduled a news conference today in front of Pattern Energy Group’s offices in La Jolla, Calif., to announce their action.

The ROD Salazar signed Friday approved a scaled-down version of the project proposal that proponents say sought to avoid culturally significant landmarks. BLM consulted with as many as 14 area American Indian tribes and cut more than 2,200 acres from the project boundaries after an extensive archaeological and cultural survey uncovered numerous ancient tribal artifacts and sacred locations.

The Quechan Tribe, which has about 3,500 members in California and Arizona, was among those consulted by BLM. But according to the 33-page complaint, the tribe’s efforts to participate in the permitting process were “impaired by Interior’s failure to exchange and share information with the Tribe, and Interior’s failure to consider or incorporate the Tribe’s comments and concerns in the planning process.”

The tribe had expressed numerous concerns to BLM in the months leading up to Salazar signing the ROD, according to the lawsuit, which says the project site “contains geoglyphs, petroglyphs, sleeping circles, milling features, agave roasting pits, ceramics and rare artifacts,” and that “construction of the current [project] design without direct impact to sites and artifacts will be impossible.”

Ronda Aguerro, the Quechan Tribe’s vice president, wrote in a Dec. 9 letter to BLM California State Director Jim Kenna that the project area “holds tremendous spiritual essence for the Quechan Tribe.” And Aguerro pointed to the project’s location near Carrizo Mountain, an area “recounted and held sacred in our Creation Story, songs, and other oral traditions.”

“To allow a project of such magnitude to be erected next to one of our sacred sites — which helps form our identity as Quechan — would be a desecration of our culture and way of life,” she wrote.

John Bathke, the tribe’s historic preservation officer in Yuma, Ariz., said in an interview that despite the religious and spiritual significance of the site, BLM never made any serious attempt to address the tribe’s concerns.

“BLM did consult, but what the federal law and the directives have asked for is meaningful consultation. We met with them, but they didn’t listen to our concerns,” Bathke said. “The meetings with the federal government have been a mere formality and have not resulted in any meaningful protections of our cultural resources. It appears the current administration wants to approve this and many other projects as part of their [election] campaign, and basically renewable energy is coming at the expense of Indian culture.”

Erin Curtis, a BLM spokeswoman in Sacramento, Calif., said the agency does not discuss pending litigation and declined to comment.

Pattern Energy Group plans to begin construction of the Ocotillo Express project this month with a goal of bringing the wind power plant online by year’s end. It is not clear how the lawsuit will affect those plans.

Matt Dallas, a Pattern Energy Group spokesman, said the company would not discuss the lawsuit or how it could affect the project.

But in an emailed statement sent today to Greenwire, Pattern Energy Group CEO Mike Garland said the company stands by the project, calling it “a major step towards both implementation of the President’s renewable energy agenda and fulfillment of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.”

Garland added that “the reduced project size and footprint illustrates Pattern’s commitment to not only listen to the concerns of the local community and Native American Tribes, but to also take concrete steps to address those concerns through revisions to the project plans, even to the extent of significantly reducing the project size.”

Renewables challenges

The Quechan Tribe lawsuit is the latest legal challenge targeting a number of already-approved renewable power projects on BLM land in Southern California.

Indeed, the Quechan Tribe in late 2010 filed a federal lawsuit challenging Interior’s approval of Tessera Solar’s Imperial Valley Solar Project near El Centro, Calif., citing damage to cultural resources and allegations that federal regulators ignored the tribe’s concerns.

The latest Quechan lawsuit comes at a time when the Obama administration is making a concerted effort to improve consultation between Interior agencies and American Indian tribal leaders — in part because of the legal challenges from tribal activists (Land Letter, Feb. 23).

In the last two years, BLM has approved eight solar projects in Southern California that collectively would cover more than 31,000 acres and, if built, would be capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 1.2 million homes.

But most of those solar projects are now the subject of federal lawsuits filed by American Indian activist groups concerned about the projects’ effects on cultural sites and desert ecosystems.

In December 2010, a group of activists called the La Cuna de Aztlán Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee joined a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The lawsuit claims BLM and Interior failed to properly examine damage to sacred cultural sites in approving six large-scale solar projects — including the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project and the 370-megawatt Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (Greenwire, Jan. 3).

And La Cuna de Aztlán in January joined several other groups in another federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In it, the groups are challenging the use of BLM land to connect the 150 MW Rice Solar Energy Project, which lies on private land, to the power grid operated by the Western Area Power Administration.

In December 2011, Salazar allowed Santa Monica, Calif.-based SolarReserve LLC to use 150 acres of BLM land to connect the Rice Solar plant to the power grid (Land Letter, Dec. 15, 2011).

Among the allegations in the second lawsuit is that Interior failed to properly consult with the tribes as required under the National Historic Preservation Act.

The Quechan Tribe’s lawsuit filed yesterday also includes references to correspondence between top federal and state regulators, some of whom express concern about the Ocotillo Express project’s impacts to cultural resources.

Among them is an April 24 memo to Kenna, the BLM state director, from the California State Historic Preservation Officer in which he wrote that he was “concerned and troubled with the process being followed [by BLM] to approve renewable energy undertakings in California,” according to the lawsuit.

That same day last month, according to the lawsuit, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation wrote Kenna that it also had concerns with the Ocotillo Express project, describing BLM’s schedule for tribal consultation as “aggressive.”

The lawsuit also questions BLM’s efforts to “fast track” the project, stating that “Interior arbitrarily set a project approval deadline of May 2012 and unlawfully rushed [the project review] process to meet that goal, failing to adequately evaluate the impacts associated with” the project “in order to reach a pre-determined approval decision.”

Bathke, the Quechan Tribe’s historic preservation officer, said the group is not against renewable energy, noting that the use of so-called green energy “is in line with traditional Indian values in terms of having a harmonious relationship with the Earth. It’s just the manner of siting and environmental review, and this project lacked both proper siting and the appropriate environmental review.”

“Any sudden tax hike would hurt our economy, so this fall — before the election — the House of Representatives will vote to stop the largest tax increase in American history,” Boehner said in a speech at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation in Washington. “This will give Congress time to work on broad-based tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and businesses while closing deductions, credits and special carve-outs.”

Boehner was silent on whether the production tax credit (PTC) for wind, solar and geothermal power would hitch a ride on the tax-cut extension package he plans to bring to the House floor before lawmakers face voters in November. Presumed to be a part of that bill, however, is an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all earners — a move likely to ground the House’s proposal in the Senate, where most Democrats align with the White House in seeking to roll back those benefits for wealthier Americans.

One sign that the PTC could get extended until 2013, when Republicans presumably would seek to end it as part of a comprehensive tax overhaul, came last month when a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee said he is open to that option (E&E Daily, April 27).

That committee “will work out the details” of a plan to advance broad-based tax reform next year, Boehner said today, “but the bottom line is: If we do this right, we will never again have to deal with the uncertainty of expiring tax rates.”

The Ohioan likened his party’s pending tax-reform technique to congressional trade promotion authority, used to set a time frame for free-trade agreements to receive floor votes in both chambers without amendments.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took a dim view of the House bill’s future in his chamber, saying that “the tea party direction of the Republican Party is driving them over a cliff” and predicting that partisan divisions would prevent “much of anything” from falling into place until after Election Day.

Reid added that he hopes to see a post-election session as productive as the one that concluded 17 months ago, when lawmakers and the president reached a massive tax deal that extended several of the same renewables and efficiency credits now in limbo as 2013 approaches (E&E Daily, Dec. 17, 2010).

The ensuing campaign season has seen repealing oil industry tax breaks become a prominent message for President Obama and his party, ensuring that fossil fuel companies will be as active as renewables interests in anticipation of a 2013 push to overhaul the tax code.

Boehner also laid down a marker for the Capitol’s second showdown in two years over raising the federal debt limit, which could be reached before the election. As he did last year, anteing up in negotiations that brought the government to the brink of shutdown, Boehner vowed that any increase in the borrowing ceiling would have to come with corresponding spending cuts that are larger in size.

“This is the only avenue I see right now to force the elected leadership of this country to solve our structural fiscal imbalance,” he said.

That promise drew immediate rebukes from Democrats such as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), who noted that Boehner’s conference already is moving to undo part of the trillion-dollar spending “sequester” envisioned for 2013 by last year’s debt deal.

“So while it sounds good, the execution of [Boehner's debt-limit] principle does not seem to be very disciplined,” Hoyer told reporters today.

House Republicans have focused their sequester-prevention efforts on the military, leaving intact a multibillion-dollar discretionary spending cut that is set to wallop U.S. EPA, the Energy Department and the Interior Department, among other agencies (E&E Daily, July 28, 2011).

The Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) would connect offshore wind farms up and down the Atlantic coast, consolidating up to 7,000 megawatts of power along a single, 300-mile high-voltage transmission line.

The Interior’s issuance of a “determination of no competitive interest” means that both that the AWC and its federal regulators can skip a lengthy bidding and auction process. However, the absence of other interested parties also underscored the ambitious nature of the venture, which comes at a time when the cost of offshore wind power is estimated at nearly two and a half times that of its onshore counterpart.

To proceed, the project will need a commitment from its prospective clients, said AWC CEO Bob Mitchell. Going forward, it will be up to states along the Atlantic coast. States such as New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, where potential wind farm sites have already been cleared by environmental review, will have to make their interest in offshore wind power clear to the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, he said.

“The biggest issue we have in front of us is that we need to get PJM to factor the AWC into their [plans for future transmissions],” he said. “If you don’t do that, you don’t build your line.”

Once states have affirmed their commitment, “then I’ll start promoting the project to our investors,” Mitchell added.

A low-wire act

Many state officials have already indicated an interest in offshore wind, Tommy Beaudreau, the chief of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said in a conference call with reporters.

“The governors up and down the East Coast are extraordinarily interested in broadening out their energy portfolio with offshore wind,” he said. “We have seen a level of engagement and interest by the governors … in getting steel in the water.”

Although the American Atlantic coastline harbors potential for as much as 1,000 gigawatts of offshore wind power, the United States has yet to embrace the technology to the same extent as European countries like the United Kingdom and Denmark. Were the AWC to move forward, said Mitchell, America could effectively leapfrog the competition to become a global leader in the technology.

There are advantages to running wind power through an offshore backbone transmission system on the scale of the AWC, he said. Having multiple power generating stations running their currents through a single avenue alleviates the problem of wind power’s inconstancy, because even if the wind isn’t turning turbines at one station, it’s likely to be blowing elsewhere along the coast.

“There’s also a major congestion problem, particularly in the transmission lines between New York and Washington, D.C.,” he said. Routing some of that power through the AWC would help alleviate costly delays, he added.

Atlantic Grid Holdings projects that the first operational segments of the AWC could come online by 2016 or 2017; the project is expected to take around a decade to complete.

Letters to the Editor:

Your recent editorials on the federal wind-energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) and renewable portfolio standard (RPS) (“Gouged by the Wind,” May 5 and “Windy Republicans,” May 7) are off the mark. The wind-power industry is an American success story that is helping us build our manufacturing base, create jobs, lower energy costs and strengthen our energy security.

As a country, we should support energy diversity and development of all domestic resources, creating an “all of the above” energy strategy. To that end, our state and national energy plans have long relied on varying policies and incentives, such as the PTC and RPS, to deploy technologies that ensure a diverse domestic energy fleet.

Iowa has long played a leadership role in developing wind power—a clean, domestic, affordable resource. During my first term as governor, I signed the first RPS in the country, and it continues to drive billions in private investment in Iowa, as well as helping electric consumers. Some years later, Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote the PTC. Today, Iowa is seeing the economic benefits flowing from those policies, which have attracted billions of dollars in private investment first hand. Our state is receiving 20% of its electricity from wind farms at stable and dependable rates, and there are over 215 wind-related businesses operating in 55 counties across Iowa, providing jobs for more than 5,000 workers. This success has been replicated across the nation, with more than 470 factories in 43 states producing parts for the industry.

The Production Tax Credit was originally developed and enacted into law with strong bipartisan support that continues today. Congress should act urgently to extend the PTC and provide the certainty wind companies need to continue investing in Iowa’s and the nation’s future.

Gov. Terry E. Branstad

Des Moines, Iowa

Salazar signed a record of decision (ROD) late Friday for the Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Facility, which calls for stringing together 112 wind power turbines across about 10,000 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Southern California’s Imperial County.

The project, proposed by San Francisco-based Pattern Energy Group LP, would have a maximum capacity to produce up to 315 megawatts of electricity — enough to power about 94,500 homes. The company estimates the wind farm will offset more than 400,000 tons of carbon dioxide or the equivalent of the annual emissions of 65,000 cars.

Pattern Energy Group, which earlier this year finalized a power purchase agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E), plans to begin construction this month and bring the plant online by the end of the year.

“Pattern is proud to become part of the Imperial Valley,” Glen Hodges, Pattern Energy Group’s senior project manager, said in an emailed statement today sent to Greenwire. “Pattern is focused on being a responsible community partner by respecting the land, its resources and the people of the Imperial Valley.

The project Salazar approved is a dramatically scaled-back version from the 465 MW proposal originally submitted by Pattern Energy Group that called for 155 wind turbines over nearly 13,000 acres (Greenwire, March 13).

Pattern Energy Group and BLM worked together to reduce the project’s footprint by 2,285 acres after consultation with as many as 14 area American Indian tribes, and after an extensive archaeological and cultural survey uncovered numerous ancient tribal artifacts and sacred locations. As a condition of the ROD, these acres are formally designated “as unsuitable for future wind energy development,” according to the agency.

Pattern Energy Group was able to reduce the proposed project’s footprint by agreeing to install more powerful wind turbines that can produce more megawatts per turbine, according to BLM.

The final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project released in March concluded that the scaled-back alternative would result “in the complete avoidance of physical effects to all archaeological resources identified during the archaeological survey.”

“We have heard from members of Congress, local and state officials and members of the community who feel passionately about this project,” said Jim Kenna, BLM California state director. “After careful consideration and environmental review, we have worked with interested parties to create a project that protects the important cultural values of the area and produces clean energy on American soil to power the population centers of Southern California.”

Ocotillo Express would be a major milestone in BLM’s ongoing efforts to significantly expand wind power production on federal land in California. Not only would it be the largest wind farm on BLM land, it also would mark the first time the agency has approved construction of a wind project in California since 2005.

The Ocotillo Express project would connect directly to the Sunrise Powerlink 500-kilovolt transmission line, which would cross the proposed wind farm site, allowing the plant to ship electricity to load centers across Southern California (Greenwire, March 13).

Pattern Wind Energy has agreed to a number of formal steps designed to address concerns about wildlife habitat fragmentation and potential effects to birds, including raptors and golden eagles.

The project would also displace a number of sensitive species, including the flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl and peninsular bighorn sheep. Pattern Energy Group has developed a detailed “avian and bat protection plan” and “eagle conservation plan.”

For bighorn sheep, the project would directly affect some critical sheep habitat, though the land in question is unoccupied. The company has agreed to a mitigation plan that includes hiring on-site biologists during construction and revegetating areas after construction within the essential habitat area

The company would also install a 50-foot-tall “biological monitoring observation tower” offering high-resolution video and night-vision images to help monitor bighorn sheep migrating through the area. The tower would also be equipped with an advanced radar system designed to track sheep as well as migratory birds, raptors and eagles, allowing the wind farm to power down specific turbines when birds are approaching, according to BLM and company officials.