A legal challenge to the federal approval of Cape Cod’s proposed offshore wind farm has been filed, the first of an expected flurry of lawsuits attempting to stop the construction of the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound.

Ben Kelahan, Saint Consulting’s senior vice president for energy, wrote about the Cape Wind project last January, and discussed in a podcast how Cape Wind has helped lay the groundwork for other proposed projects.

Click here for The Boston Globe’s account of the latest legal challenges facing Cape Wind.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy for The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.co.biz, phone 703 531-8274

The agreement will allow Caithness Energy to proceed with the 845-megawatt, $2 billion Shepherds Flat wind farm near Arlington, Ore., touted as the largest wind farm project in the United States.

The Saint Report posted an article on this issue on April 16, and reporter Scott Learn writes in The Oregonian about the talks and announcement last week that the project will proceed.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy, The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz, phone (202) 210-4202   

The Pentagon is threatening to scuttle what promises to be the world’s largest wind farm, in eastern Oregon, arguing that the giant turbines could interfere with an Air Force radar system. See details in this Washington Post report.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy, The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz, phone (202) 210-4202

By Nick Keable,
Vice President, UK Operations, The Saint Consulting Group 

Assuming that the Tories do manage to come out of the General Election in control of the UK, and that is by no means certain at all, they have this week laid out their proposals for reform of the planning system.  And it’s big.  And radical.  And scary.

Most scary of all is the introduction of third party rights of appeal.  This could be truly horrible for the development sector.  Labour flirted with the idea earlier this decade but backed off.  In Scotland, they came close but stayed sane.  Let’s hope that this is an idea that can be seen off  as a ‘sacrificial layer’ of their proposals.  But maybe not.  The Tories are now the party of NIMBYism.  They are no longer the party of business.  And their ‘localism’ mantra is the driver for this new found love for third party rights, so it may be hard to disabuse them of the third party appeal concept.

The second fundamental fear is the impact of yet another – the third – round of planning system reform since 1997; all policy certainty shot to pieces, council officers sucked out of development control and into policy making, not to mention the inevitable ‘planning by appeal decision’ which during any transitional period always occurs.

There would be winners and losers in this new system. 

The losers would be regional government (which would be abolished), potentially developers of major infrastructure projects (whose planning regime would once again be controlled by politicians) and frankly all other developers (who will be impacted by the sclerotic affect of any change to the planning system, as well as a more difficult planning regime at the end of it all).

The winners are many: LPAs (which gain lots more power), county councils (which are being given a role once again), NIMBYs (who will find it much easier to campaign against development) and, of course, planning consultants (who will have to help us mere mortals understand what the hell is going on)!

See here our bullet point summary of the Tories’ proposals…

Short Guide to the Main Proposals in the Conservatives’ Planning Green Paper

National policy

Human Rights Act – Replaced by a new Bill of Rights

New primary legislation – Local Government and Housing Bill, Queen’s Speech 2010

New National Planning Framework – Will include all PPS’, debated and adopted by Parliament

Use Class Order – Replaced by “flexible zoning” ie freely change use within a range

Planning gain – New ‘Single Unified Tariff’ slimmed down S106, graded on development size.  CiL to be abolished

All Killian Pretty recommendations accepted.  New Killian Pretty Review to look at expanding permitted development

Regional/sub-regional policy

All RDAs to be abolished – Consulting with GLA on London

All RSS’ to be scrapped – Perhaps quickly by executive order

New sub-regional policy – County structure plans return but now called Infrastructure Plans

Local policy

LDFs replaced by local plans – Must use ‘collaborative democracy’ process to consult

Time limit for adopting new local plans – Otherwise national planning guidance conformant applications will get automatic approval

Plan changes – Removal of inspectors’ power to change new local plans at inquiry.  Instead, inspector reports to SoS for breaches of national guidance, SoS to decide, then LPA amends and resubmits

Transitional arrangements – LPAs can cull disliked ‘imposed policies’

Architectural/design standards – Must be included in new local plans

New ‘duty to cooperate’ – For statutory consultees on new local plans

Incentivisation – Let LPAs keep council tax/business rates increase and match it for 6 years.  Additionally, LPAs will retain some of the new Single Unified Tariff

Development control

New third party rights of appeal

But only 2 grounds for appeal – “Procedure” (dealt with by Local Government Ombudsman) and “in contravention of LDF” (dealt with by Planning Inspectorate).  JR process as per now

Pre-application consultation – Mandatory ‘collaborative design’, by enquiry by design, charettes etc for larger projects

Objections – Significant number of objectors triggers conformity assessment of application

Neighbour compensation – Pay off your objectors.  Parish councils considered neighbours

Councillor interests – Change to ‘predetermination rules’.  Let councillors oppose development openly

Parking – National standards to be abolished.  LPA to decide local standards

Major infrastructure

IPC – Becomes ‘Major Infrastructure Unit’ within Planning Inspectorate

Major linear projects – Via hybrid or private Parliamentary bills

Ministers’ final decision – Set time limit for making decision

Residential

Housing targets – Abolished. Use so called “Option 1 numbers”

Affordable housing – Local targets set by LPAs (125% council tax incentive)

Density – Scrap PPS 3 targets

Back gardens – Changed back to greenfield from brownfield

Retail

Needs test – Reinstated

Competition test – Must be taken into account

Minerals/Waste

Strategic planning – RSS responsibilities back to minerals/waste planning authorities

Education

New schools – Automatic right of change of use to education

D1 land cannot change use – Unless Education Secretary allows

Appeals – Dealt with by new Major Infrastructure Unit

Wind energy

LPA keeps business rates of operational wind farms for 6 years

Community ownership to be explored

Discounted electricity for communities in local vicinity to be explored

Mobile phone masts

End permitted development rights – All masts must have full application

Previously discussed emerging policy that did not make it into the Green Paper

Abolition of LPA centralized performance targets, Planning Delivery Grant, application timescales

‘Merton Rule’ expansion

TIFs or bonds

Referenda for controversial projects – Petition of 10% of local electorate

Abolition of GoL – All powers to Mayor, GLA or London boroughs

Other relevant emerging policy not discussed in the Green Paper

Cease Government support for Heathrow 3rd runway.  Promote high speed rail

U-turn on empty business rates

Mayors for 12 large cities

Nick Keable is vice president for UK Operations, The Saint Consulting Group, email keable@tscg.co.uk, phone +44 207 592 7050

Given the project’s continued struggles to begin construction and the advancement of other proposed projects along the Eastern seaboard, it seems unlikely that Cape Wind will be the first U.S. offshore wind farm to begin operations.

In SNL Energy’s latest podcast, Benjamin Kelahan, senior vice president and leader of The Saint Consulting Group’s energy practice, discusses why more states are throwing their support behind the offshore wind industry and how Cape Wind has helped lay the groundwork for other proposed projects. Kelahan says that although he remains cautiously optimistic about the sector, the costs associated with such facilities are a formidable hurdle to the sector.

Click on the link to hear the full podcast. For other Saint Report posts on wind energy, click here

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy for The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz, phone  703.442.8624

Getting major stakeholders on board early to support a wind farm proposal means identifying and mapping who they are, continually educating them about your project and mobilizing them to take some action to demonstrate their support. 

The passion and emotion surrounding these projects based on the issues drive expressions of support, and the experience of Bluewater winning public support for an offshore wind farm proposal in Delaware attracted much discussion at an American Wind Energy Association forum in Boston. 

The News Journal article reports on why this offshore project is heading the right direction based on motivated major stakeholders and the importance of engaging them early and often to reach the agreements necessary for offshore wind to start generating power. 

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy for The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz or phone  703 442-8624

Ben Kelahan, the senior vice president for energy for The Saint Consulting Group, repeated these points in a  panel discussion early this month at the American Wind Energy Association’s Offshore Wind Power Workshop in Boston.

Corina Rivera wrote a full report on the workshop in the SNL Energy Power Daily.

Ben Kelahan can be contacted by email at kelahan@tscg.biz or phone 703 442 8624

In a recent Boing Boing blog post on Re-thinking NIMBY, freelance j0urnalist Maggie Koerth-Baker reflected on why wind power could lead to new ways of defining (and dealing with) public naysaying.  As one who follows the effects of NIMBY all day, there are some real solid points Maggie makes in her “re-thinking NIMBY” post.  There is no question that wind farm developers need to employ all means of community outreach to balance some of the entrenched national groups and detractors that oppose wind turbines.

Perhaps the most salient point made is the attempts by those who have already driven a stake in the ground on the wind energy issue utilizing particular local fights to feed their positions and activism.  In most of the cases we’ve worked on, that comes down to special interest groups coming to town with fresh talking points and the ability to write a check to keep the opposition armed with yard signs, attorneys and professional planners. 

Another solid observation is the reliance upon polls to tell you the whole story.  As political professionals, we field polls all the time for clients.  However, we don’t use them as a crutch to serve as the necessary research to tell us whether a client can win in a community where they want to site a wind farm.  As we’ve reported before in The Saint Report, the Saint Index has documented for two years now that wind farms are the leading acceptable energy project respondents supported for their community.  Yet, we help developers overcome entrenched opposition every day.  That’s because a poll measures a respondent’s view under no emotional threat of some proposal that will change the status quo of their life on a day to day basis.  Someone coming to your door and telling you a wind farm is proposed across the street will.

On the ground field research is critical to assess how turbines will impact residents in nearby communities and most importantly, touch on those local lightning rod issues they care about most.

However, I don’t think Maggie gives local NIMBYs enough credit or due.  At Saint Consulting we see countless development projects each year killed or significantly delayed by the NIMBY factor.  And not just in cases where developers write them off as NIMBY but actually try to come up with legitimate plans to deal with their concerns.  The problem is, sometimes that’s not enough.  In a growing number of cases, it isn’t even close. 

The bottom line is developers need to take an “all of the above” approach: understand local opposition early; educate the key stakeholders and public officials; assess entrenched NIMBY forces and have a plan to mitigate their opportunity to stop your project.  But don’t expect that just dealing with the opposition fairly and continually will result in their support.  They may still oppose your application.  The next best thing is if you can at least get them to admit you’ve dealt with them in a transparent and honest fashion.  Although even if you have, the passion of opponents may still dictate their tactics in lobbing erroneous charges at you. 

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy, The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz phone          703 531 8274

As we’ve stated several times before (but it always merits repeating), overall public opinion about one particular type of industry doesn’t necessarily translate to the same level of support for a specific project on a particular site in towns and cities across America.  Wind turbines, natural gas-fired facilities, biomass plants – you name it – have all had their share of problems, regardless of the general public’s opinion about their particular brand of energy generation.  The public’s opinion as stated on the phone to a pollster and unmotivated by any NIMBY emotions about that use going in across the street can be deceiving.

Someone asked me the other day whether I thought the recent media coverage of the climate scientists’ email controversy (see Treehugger blog for a summary) would change much in terms of support for ‘clean energy’ projects.  Given the very parochial nature of support and opposition motivations for these projects in communities, the short answer is “no.”  However, I never resist an opportunity to talk about the power of the silent majority in land use and that many times the swing votes on controversial projects are locked in by the entry of voters and residents who don’t have an entrenched stake in the game.  When trying to get to ‘50 plus one’ on a land use vote, similar to highly contested political campaigns, most people know who their base is and if they’ll vote.  The question is, how will independent-minded, undecided voters act on the issue or election?  Or in land use cases, what do they think of my project and will they pressure local officials to approve or deny it?

In the climate change debate, the Washington Post recently ran another poll that solidified that the debate around global warming and climate change has become very partisan.

With a majority of all respondents believing some climate change is happening, Democrats beliefs are stronger and Republicans are more skeptical.  The farther left and right you are the stronger your feelings.  Recent debate and coverage of the energy bill (plus a lot of paid media) in Congress has somewhat impacted overall public opinion.  For local projects, that means that there are those that carry their partisanship and hard-held philosophical beliefs into township battles, but more so as a base of support to start organizing others with.  In tough cases, they’re countered by their counterparts on the other side of the aisle or energy debate.  You also still need them to motivate the various Democratic and Republican political caucuses on local boards and commissions in town that need those voters in a primary challenge and general election.  However, unattached and silent voters in town can turn a majority vote for or against you. Thus, given there has been some movement within independents on climate change based on public debate and recent information on climate change, there could be impact within that local constituency in town, so long as their feelings aren’t being lead by the typical NIMBY land use concerns.

A quick review of partisanship and a scientific poll locally to check the pulse of the community can be useful in some areas of your project, but it’s not something that you should rely on to tell you who might show up at your public hearing.

So, in typical consultants’ speak, my answer to the original question is still ‘no,’ but ‘yes.’

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy for The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.bz and phone 703.442 8624