1 00:00:09,130 --> 00:00:10,990 GUEST SPEAKER: I convened this meeting 2 00:00:10,990 --> 00:00:12,823 because I believe that the review is limited 3 00:00:12,823 --> 00:00:14,104 as it stands now. 4 00:00:14,104 --> 00:00:16,270 And in order for the Environmental Impact Assessment 5 00:00:16,270 --> 00:00:17,920 to be effective, it needs to consider 6 00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:20,530 a number of other alternatives in order 7 00:00:20,530 --> 00:00:23,110 to provide a larger scope for the project impacts, 8 00:00:23,110 --> 00:00:26,160 both positive and negative. 9 00:00:26,160 --> 00:00:29,450 The draft Environmental Impact Assessment, as it stands now, 10 00:00:29,450 --> 00:00:31,480 considers the number of turbines, 11 00:00:31,480 --> 00:00:33,700 the location of the turbines, and a very limited 12 00:00:33,700 --> 00:00:36,530 no-build option. 13 00:00:36,530 --> 00:00:39,040 This alternatives analysis fails to create 14 00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:41,050 a clear vision of the situational context 15 00:00:41,050 --> 00:00:42,530 of the project. 16 00:00:42,530 --> 00:00:44,584 In this presentation, I will be discussing 17 00:00:44,584 --> 00:00:46,750 ways in which we can revise the Environmental Impact 18 00:00:46,750 --> 00:00:50,239 Assessment so that it better evaluates all alternatives 19 00:00:50,239 --> 00:00:52,780 and I will provide arguments for why it is necessary to spend 20 00:00:52,780 --> 00:00:55,270 the time and money to do so. 21 00:00:55,270 --> 00:00:58,350 First, we need to define the goal of the project 22 00:00:58,350 --> 00:00:59,790 if we are to effectively evaluate 23 00:00:59,790 --> 00:01:01,420 alternative approaches. 24 00:01:01,420 --> 00:01:03,130 Alternatives analysis should paint 25 00:01:03,130 --> 00:01:06,400 a picture of the multitude of options 26 00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:08,202 available to reach this goal. 27 00:01:08,202 --> 00:01:09,910 So I believe that the goal of the project 28 00:01:09,910 --> 00:01:12,130 is to provide energy for the growing electricity 29 00:01:12,130 --> 00:01:13,670 demand in the region. 30 00:01:13,670 --> 00:01:16,900 And studies have shown that new energy facilities will 31 00:01:16,900 --> 00:01:19,360 need to be built within the next 15 years 32 00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:23,080 to meet this growing demand. 33 00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:27,090 So we should use this goal to frame to project evaluation. 34 00:01:27,090 --> 00:01:29,250 And sending a clear goal at the beginning 35 00:01:29,250 --> 00:01:31,690 helps to consider better alternatives. 36 00:01:31,690 --> 00:01:34,060 And it's necessary to take a step back 37 00:01:34,060 --> 00:01:38,810 and to see the project and its impacts in the larger context. 38 00:01:38,810 --> 00:01:41,770 So if we all agree to this, that the goal is to meet the growing 39 00:01:41,770 --> 00:01:44,350 electricity demand, we must determine that this product 40 00:01:44,350 --> 00:01:45,180 is the best option. 41 00:01:45,180 --> 00:01:46,870 And the Environmental Impact Assessment 42 00:01:46,870 --> 00:01:48,400 is the way that we'll do that. 43 00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:51,820 So to do this, we need to make three major revisions 44 00:01:51,820 --> 00:01:54,550 to the Environmental Impact Assessment. 45 00:01:54,550 --> 00:01:57,100 One, we need to consider alternative forms 46 00:01:57,100 --> 00:01:59,240 of energy production and their environmental, 47 00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:04,030 economic, and social impacts if this plant is not to be build. 48 00:02:04,030 --> 00:02:06,340 So if we do not build offshore wind, 49 00:02:06,340 --> 00:02:09,240 we would build wind farms on land. 50 00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:11,400 And what will the land use impacts of that be? 51 00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:15,490 Will we need to build a natural gas plant to meet demand, 52 00:02:15,490 --> 00:02:17,240 or is solar an option? 53 00:02:17,240 --> 00:02:20,460 So we need to really consider the greater alternatives. 54 00:02:20,460 --> 00:02:23,020 It will be difficult to do a full Environmental Impact 55 00:02:23,020 --> 00:02:25,720 Assessment of all of these theoretical alternatives. 56 00:02:25,720 --> 00:02:28,660 We can pick a few items to focus on, for instance, carbon 57 00:02:28,660 --> 00:02:31,530 emissions or land use. 58 00:02:31,530 --> 00:02:36,040 Second, we need to consider the impacts of wildlife 59 00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:40,540 and coastal communities based on cumulative impacts, 60 00:02:40,540 --> 00:02:43,930 if this project isn't built and other clean energy products are 61 00:02:43,930 --> 00:02:47,200 not built and we're not meeting our greenhouse gas emission 62 00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:49,290 targets. 63 00:02:49,290 --> 00:02:52,630 Third, if this project is perhaps 64 00:02:52,630 --> 00:02:54,300 the best way to meet our energy needs, 65 00:02:54,300 --> 00:02:56,290 then we need to consider alternative ways 66 00:02:56,290 --> 00:02:59,620 to mitigate the impacts from this project on wildlife 67 00:02:59,620 --> 00:03:01,315 and navigation. 68 00:03:01,315 --> 00:03:04,630 Some mitigation efforts could include 69 00:03:04,630 --> 00:03:07,980 moving the wind farm further offshore or presenting-- 70 00:03:07,980 --> 00:03:11,110 providing better long term monitoring. 71 00:03:11,110 --> 00:03:13,747 So including all of these alternatives 72 00:03:13,747 --> 00:03:15,330 in the more comprehensive alternatives 73 00:03:15,330 --> 00:03:19,030 analysis will lead to two major benefits. 74 00:03:19,030 --> 00:03:22,050 One, it will increase the opportunity for public buy-in 75 00:03:22,050 --> 00:03:24,925 by making a more transparent process. 76 00:03:24,925 --> 00:03:26,800 This is really important for complex problems 77 00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:29,170 like energy development. 78 00:03:29,170 --> 00:03:32,200 And by including a more comprehensive analysis, 79 00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:34,570 or alternatives analysis, the project 80 00:03:34,570 --> 00:03:37,420 will be less likely to be fought later on. 81 00:03:37,420 --> 00:03:39,550 Because the public will be better able to use 82 00:03:39,550 --> 00:03:43,600 this document to see the decision-making process. 83 00:03:47,081 --> 00:03:49,580 The public will see that the Environmental Impact Assessment 84 00:03:49,580 --> 00:03:52,190 did not just consider the impacts of the proposed 85 00:03:52,190 --> 00:03:55,330 pre-design project that was already going to happen 86 00:03:55,330 --> 00:03:57,490 but will see it in a greater context 87 00:03:57,490 --> 00:03:59,590 of the different alternatives that 88 00:03:59,590 --> 00:04:02,320 were considered along the way. 89 00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:05,410 This will, while spending this money upfront, 90 00:04:05,410 --> 00:04:08,500 it will be expensive to do all of these extra studies, 91 00:04:08,500 --> 00:04:12,110 it will be important in saving money down the pipeline 92 00:04:12,110 --> 00:04:14,971 in delays and litigation. 93 00:04:17,620 --> 00:04:19,720 And second, because there is not much precedent 94 00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:21,944 for Environmental Impact Assessments of offshore wind 95 00:04:21,944 --> 00:04:24,890 in the United States, we have the opportunity 96 00:04:24,890 --> 00:04:27,520 to set the standards for evaluation. 97 00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:29,860 This project will set best practices, 98 00:04:29,860 --> 00:04:32,620 so let's make them best practices 99 00:04:32,620 --> 00:04:37,990 and establish mitigation and monitoring practices as well as 100 00:04:37,990 --> 00:04:41,770 the robust alternatives analysis that I proposed. 101 00:04:41,770 --> 00:04:44,080 Again, we should, we should be sure to engage 102 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:45,560 the public around this alternatives 103 00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:48,700 analysis during the review of this draft, the comments 104 00:04:48,700 --> 00:04:51,160 on this draft Environmental Impact Assessment, 105 00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:54,930 so that there's public buy-in and support of the project 106 00:04:54,930 --> 00:04:57,880 and that the public understands what alternative options would 107 00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:00,530 look like. 108 00:05:00,530 --> 00:05:04,770 So finally, we need to recognize that, internally as the EPA, 109 00:05:04,770 --> 00:05:07,115 that Environmental Impact Assessments are not 110 00:05:07,115 --> 00:05:11,030 unbiased and purely scientific, but that they operate 111 00:05:11,030 --> 00:05:12,900 within a political framework. 112 00:05:12,900 --> 00:05:16,610 So because of this and because of our recent decision 113 00:05:16,610 --> 00:05:19,670 to limit greenhouse gas emissions in power plants, 114 00:05:19,670 --> 00:05:21,320 we need to create a better framework 115 00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:24,620 for analyzing alternative energy projects 116 00:05:24,620 --> 00:05:27,620 and present a better framework for analyzing 117 00:05:27,620 --> 00:05:31,430 all of those impacts and risks. 118 00:05:31,430 --> 00:05:34,730 We cannot encourage clean energy development at a great cost 119 00:05:34,730 --> 00:05:36,171 to local ecosystems. 120 00:05:36,171 --> 00:05:37,670 But we must create a system in which 121 00:05:37,670 --> 00:05:43,370 a sound case for wind generation can be made, including-- 122 00:05:43,370 --> 00:05:46,340 So this, by doing this, we need to examine, 123 00:05:46,340 --> 00:05:48,710 have an assessment that examines all other options, 124 00:05:48,710 --> 00:05:53,180 including meeting energy needs from less clean sources. 125 00:05:53,180 --> 00:05:55,130 So for these reasons, I recommend 126 00:05:55,130 --> 00:05:57,770 revising the draft Environment Impact Assessment 127 00:05:57,770 --> 00:05:59,050 to include these comments. 128 00:05:59,050 --> 00:06:00,900 Thank you.