In a state as small as Rhode Island, and with as much prized shoreline, boating and fishing areas, it is easy to see why many developers would love to get their hands on any piece of land at all and turn it into the next great getaway or resort for tourists.
And although RI does rely on tourist business to some degree, selling our shoreline properties and quiet hamlet areas to the highest bidder certainly seems like unfair zoning habits.
The first and most important aspect in determining zoning laws and rezoning areas is in keeping the needs of the community at the forefront of any kind of progress.
As an example, a situation in Glocester RI that has been ongoing is the sale of a building located in an area that already has several small business owners trying to expand and provide more jobs, economic stability and ecologically sound products and practices to the small community. Attempts to purchase the building for the purpose of expansion however, have been fought by the town solicitors and zoning committee who would like the building to be purchased by a large land developer who has the workings for a hotel or other tourist attraction in mind.
The property is not zoned as residential, and residents have been fighting to keep it that way or the developers will have their way and rezone it for residential to build whatever they want, regardless of the needs or desires of the people of Glocester.
The residents of Glocester live there because it is a protected, small, controlled community where they can be sure of their surroundings and their needs being met. Allowing big business to overtake their community would undermine the growth, stability and sense of community that is inherent in an area like this.
Zoning laws and ordinances, when used wisely and with the community's interests and well-being in mind, are a great way to establish order to thriving towns and their citizens. However, when that right is abused, zoning rules can become the very thing that ruins an entire community.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
Showing posts with label zoning in RI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zoning in RI. Show all posts
Friday, January 14, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Greenhouse Gas Ruling in 2nd Circuit
In a recent 2nd circuit decision in Connecticut, the Court held that "States and private plaintiffs may sue utility operators under the federal common law of nuisance to abate carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming."
On its face the decision seems to be a landmark one, however, at 139 pages long, the only things for certain that have been conceded are that "the plaintiffs had standing, that they had stated public nuisance claims under the federal common law and that those claims were justiceable." There was no mention or decision reached on the merits of the claim, and it was specifically stated that common law claims were not above federal legislative or rulemaking powers.
Still, the case could highlight the beginning of notice by the judicial system of some of the more prevalent environmental issues facing us today, and how the judiciary can have an impact on which legislation is allowed to control our future.
The full article follows below.
2nd Circuit Allows Public Nuisance Suit Against Greenhouse Gas Emitters
Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., ____F.3d ____, No. 05-5104 (2nd Cir. 2009)
By James Rusk
States and private plaintiffs may sue utility operators under the federal common law of nuisance to abate carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions that contribute to global warming, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held this month. Although the 139-page opinion appears to open a new front in the fight over climate change, its full import is uncertain. The court held only that plaintiffs had standing, that they had stated public nuisance claims under the federal common law and that those claims were justiceable. It did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' claims, and it expressly noted that those common law claims could yet be displaced by federal legislative or rulemaking action. With that in mind, the case could prove more significant as an additional impetus for national greenhouse gas regulation than as a tool for judicial control of emissions.
Background
"There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one." –Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy In America
California and seven other states, as well as New York City, filed suit in 2004 against a group of electric power companies that collectively own and operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants in twenty states. Three private land trusts separately sued the same defendants, which allegedly are the five largest emitters of CO2in the United States and account for approximately 10 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' CO2 emissions contribute to a public nuisance under federal common law, resulting in various current and future injuries to plaintiffs' residents and property. They sought injunctive relief requiring defendants to abate the nuisance by first capping their CO2 emissions and then reducing those emissions by a fixed percentage each year.
Justiceability
In a consolidated action, the district court dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims on the ground that they presented a non-justiceable political question. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 406 F.Supp. 2d 265, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). In the district court's view, deciding plaintiffs' complaints would require a balancing of the environmental and social costs of greenhouse gas emissions against the economic and social costs of reducing those emissions. According to the court, that balancing was impossible to perform without first making an "initial policy determination" of a type that was clearly reserved to the elected branches of government and which those branches had so far refused to make. Second Circuit slip op. at 13, 31.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although the issue of climate change "may have political implications," plaintiffs' claims did not present a nonjusticeable political question. Plaintiffs sought to limit emissions from specific power plants to redress alleged injuries caused by those emissions, not to "establish a national or international emissions policy." Id. at 22-23 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the case was essentially just a complex common law nuisance action, which the federal courts "have successfully adjudicated . . . for over a century." Id. at 24. Seen in this light, the resolution of plaintiffs' claims would not require the judiciary to overstep its constitutional boundaries. Id. at 22-23. Nor did the failure of the political branches to make an "initial policy determination" regarding CO2 emissions mean that the federal courts lacked the competence to decide the case or that plaintiffs should be denied any relief. Id. at 32-34.
Standing
Having decided that the district court dismissed the case in error, the Court of Appeals went on to determine that both the states and the trusts had made allegations sufficient to establish standing, at least at the pleading stage. The defendants had argued that plaintiffs could not establish either causation or redressability because global warming is caused by the aggregate effects of emissions around the world, most of which would not be reached by any remedy the court could provide. Significantly, the court rejected this argument. Second Circuit slip op. at 57-64. As the court noted, however, standing is relatively easy to establish at the pleading stage, where the court presumes that the plaintiffs' general allegations embrace the specific facts necessary to support a claim. But plaintiffs eventually must allege and prove specific facts sufficient to support injury, causation and redressability, to survive a motion for summary judgment and prevail at trial. Id. at 37.
Claims Under Federal Common Law
In the third and longest portion of its opinion, the Second Circuit considered whether plaintiffs could state a valid claim for public nuisance under the federal common law. The court looked to the Restatement to define a public nuisance under federal common law as "an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public." The court concluded that the states had stated a valid claim under this standard, based on their allegations of ongoing and future injury to public comfort and safety, natural resources and public property, and ecological values. Second Circuit slip op. at 67-70. The court also held that the trusts had stated a "private" claim for public nuisance, by alleging a harm sufficiently different from that suffered by the public at large. In the process, the court rejected the argument that only a state (or the federal government) may bring a public nuisance claim. Id. at 80-101.
Finally, the court held that plaintiffs' claims under federal common law had not been displaced by federal legislation or regulation. The federal Clean Air Act does give the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") the authority to regulate CO2 emissions as an "air pollutant," as the Supreme Court recently held in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). However, the EPA has not yet made the necessary findings to exercise that authority with respect to emissions from defendants' power plants. The EPA has proposed to make findings that would allow it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as automobiles. But those proposed findings would not, by themselves, impose any legal requirements on CO2 emissions, nor would they apply to stationary sources such as power plants. Accordingly, the Clean Air Act, at least currently, does not "actually regulate" CO2 emissions or "speak directly" to the issue raised by plaintiffs, so as to displace the federal common law that otherwise applies. Second Circuit slip op. at 114-117.
Conclusion
The Second Circuit allowed the plaintiffs' suit to proceed, remanding to the district court for further proceedings. However, the court disclaimed any opinion as to whether regulation of greenhouse gases by EPA under the Clean Air Act would displace plaintiffs' federal common law claims, "if and when such regulation should come to pass." Id. at 119. Moreover, the opinion necessarily omits any discussion of the climate change bills currently under consideration by Congress. With those limits in mind, it is possible that non-judicial events soon will limit the legal significance of the court's holding. As the court stated in conclusion, "'It may happen that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance. But until that comes to pass, federal courts will be empowered to appraise the equities of the suits alleging creation of a public nuisance' by greenhouse gases." Id. at 139 (quoting Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 106 (1972).
This article was originally posted on Sheppard Mullin's Climate Change and Clean Technology blog, which can be found at www.cleantechlawblog.com.
James Rusk is an associate in the Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.
Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers.
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval, you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
On its face the decision seems to be a landmark one, however, at 139 pages long, the only things for certain that have been conceded are that "the plaintiffs had standing, that they had stated public nuisance claims under the federal common law and that those claims were justiceable." There was no mention or decision reached on the merits of the claim, and it was specifically stated that common law claims were not above federal legislative or rulemaking powers.
Still, the case could highlight the beginning of notice by the judicial system of some of the more prevalent environmental issues facing us today, and how the judiciary can have an impact on which legislation is allowed to control our future.
The full article follows below.
2nd Circuit Allows Public Nuisance Suit Against Greenhouse Gas Emitters
Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., ____F.3d ____, No. 05-5104 (2nd Cir. 2009)
By James Rusk
States and private plaintiffs may sue utility operators under the federal common law of nuisance to abate carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions that contribute to global warming, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held this month. Although the 139-page opinion appears to open a new front in the fight over climate change, its full import is uncertain. The court held only that plaintiffs had standing, that they had stated public nuisance claims under the federal common law and that those claims were justiceable. It did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' claims, and it expressly noted that those common law claims could yet be displaced by federal legislative or rulemaking action. With that in mind, the case could prove more significant as an additional impetus for national greenhouse gas regulation than as a tool for judicial control of emissions.
Background
"There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one." –Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy In America
California and seven other states, as well as New York City, filed suit in 2004 against a group of electric power companies that collectively own and operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants in twenty states. Three private land trusts separately sued the same defendants, which allegedly are the five largest emitters of CO2in the United States and account for approximately 10 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' CO2 emissions contribute to a public nuisance under federal common law, resulting in various current and future injuries to plaintiffs' residents and property. They sought injunctive relief requiring defendants to abate the nuisance by first capping their CO2 emissions and then reducing those emissions by a fixed percentage each year.
Justiceability
In a consolidated action, the district court dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims on the ground that they presented a non-justiceable political question. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 406 F.Supp. 2d 265, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). In the district court's view, deciding plaintiffs' complaints would require a balancing of the environmental and social costs of greenhouse gas emissions against the economic and social costs of reducing those emissions. According to the court, that balancing was impossible to perform without first making an "initial policy determination" of a type that was clearly reserved to the elected branches of government and which those branches had so far refused to make. Second Circuit slip op. at 13, 31.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although the issue of climate change "may have political implications," plaintiffs' claims did not present a nonjusticeable political question. Plaintiffs sought to limit emissions from specific power plants to redress alleged injuries caused by those emissions, not to "establish a national or international emissions policy." Id. at 22-23 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the case was essentially just a complex common law nuisance action, which the federal courts "have successfully adjudicated . . . for over a century." Id. at 24. Seen in this light, the resolution of plaintiffs' claims would not require the judiciary to overstep its constitutional boundaries. Id. at 22-23. Nor did the failure of the political branches to make an "initial policy determination" regarding CO2 emissions mean that the federal courts lacked the competence to decide the case or that plaintiffs should be denied any relief. Id. at 32-34.
Standing
Having decided that the district court dismissed the case in error, the Court of Appeals went on to determine that both the states and the trusts had made allegations sufficient to establish standing, at least at the pleading stage. The defendants had argued that plaintiffs could not establish either causation or redressability because global warming is caused by the aggregate effects of emissions around the world, most of which would not be reached by any remedy the court could provide. Significantly, the court rejected this argument. Second Circuit slip op. at 57-64. As the court noted, however, standing is relatively easy to establish at the pleading stage, where the court presumes that the plaintiffs' general allegations embrace the specific facts necessary to support a claim. But plaintiffs eventually must allege and prove specific facts sufficient to support injury, causation and redressability, to survive a motion for summary judgment and prevail at trial. Id. at 37.
Claims Under Federal Common Law
In the third and longest portion of its opinion, the Second Circuit considered whether plaintiffs could state a valid claim for public nuisance under the federal common law. The court looked to the Restatement to define a public nuisance under federal common law as "an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public." The court concluded that the states had stated a valid claim under this standard, based on their allegations of ongoing and future injury to public comfort and safety, natural resources and public property, and ecological values. Second Circuit slip op. at 67-70. The court also held that the trusts had stated a "private" claim for public nuisance, by alleging a harm sufficiently different from that suffered by the public at large. In the process, the court rejected the argument that only a state (or the federal government) may bring a public nuisance claim. Id. at 80-101.
Finally, the court held that plaintiffs' claims under federal common law had not been displaced by federal legislation or regulation. The federal Clean Air Act does give the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") the authority to regulate CO2 emissions as an "air pollutant," as the Supreme Court recently held in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). However, the EPA has not yet made the necessary findings to exercise that authority with respect to emissions from defendants' power plants. The EPA has proposed to make findings that would allow it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as automobiles. But those proposed findings would not, by themselves, impose any legal requirements on CO2 emissions, nor would they apply to stationary sources such as power plants. Accordingly, the Clean Air Act, at least currently, does not "actually regulate" CO2 emissions or "speak directly" to the issue raised by plaintiffs, so as to displace the federal common law that otherwise applies. Second Circuit slip op. at 114-117.
Conclusion
The Second Circuit allowed the plaintiffs' suit to proceed, remanding to the district court for further proceedings. However, the court disclaimed any opinion as to whether regulation of greenhouse gases by EPA under the Clean Air Act would displace plaintiffs' federal common law claims, "if and when such regulation should come to pass." Id. at 119. Moreover, the opinion necessarily omits any discussion of the climate change bills currently under consideration by Congress. With those limits in mind, it is possible that non-judicial events soon will limit the legal significance of the court's holding. As the court stated in conclusion, "'It may happen that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance. But until that comes to pass, federal courts will be empowered to appraise the equities of the suits alleging creation of a public nuisance' by greenhouse gases." Id. at 139 (quoting Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 106 (1972).
This article was originally posted on Sheppard Mullin's Climate Change and Clean Technology blog, which can be found at www.cleantechlawblog.com.
James Rusk is an associate in the Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.
Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers.
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval, you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Ocean Zoning in RI ~ The First Offshore Wind Farm Set to Sail
In 2008, the Commercial Fisheries Center of RI newsletter dealt with, in startling detail and formality, the issue of an offshore windfarm and not only what that meant for the fishing industry in RI, but also for the much broader and controversial topic of ocean zoning. Did RI want to be the first in this, and would that necessarily mean the best as well?
With the advance of the wind farm project, the much deeper issue of ocean zoning got its first chance at debate in, appropriately enough, the Ocean State. The newsletter projected that by the year 2010, this year in fact, the coastal waters of the State would be mapped and zoned for uses beyond the fishing industry.
The wind farm was to be funded with $3.2 million from the "Renewable Energy Fund" belonging to RI, and reimbursed by the farm developer at a later date. Construction of the equipment that will be used to determine the exact location of the wind farm is only now being assembled for placement. The precise location of the future wind farm in the waters off the coast of North Kingstown has not been determined yet and will be subject to the readings on wind speed and direction gathered by this preliminary piece of equipment.
This RI Zoning and Ocean Zoning project will set the precedence for how other coastal communities will determine size, location and other critical factors in the placement of their own wind farms. Estimated projections for the East Coast alone are in the 50,000 turbine range with the advance and initiation of this technology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
With the advance of the wind farm project, the much deeper issue of ocean zoning got its first chance at debate in, appropriately enough, the Ocean State. The newsletter projected that by the year 2010, this year in fact, the coastal waters of the State would be mapped and zoned for uses beyond the fishing industry.
The wind farm was to be funded with $3.2 million from the "Renewable Energy Fund" belonging to RI, and reimbursed by the farm developer at a later date. Construction of the equipment that will be used to determine the exact location of the wind farm is only now being assembled for placement. The precise location of the future wind farm in the waters off the coast of North Kingstown has not been determined yet and will be subject to the readings on wind speed and direction gathered by this preliminary piece of equipment.
This RI Zoning and Ocean Zoning project will set the precedence for how other coastal communities will determine size, location and other critical factors in the placement of their own wind farms. Estimated projections for the East Coast alone are in the 50,000 turbine range with the advance and initiation of this technology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Deepwater Wind Farm Ocean Zoning Issue Grows
RI Ocean Zoning issues continue with proposed Deepwater wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island that would connect Massachusetts and New York as well through undersea networks. The wind farm is the largest proposed of its kind in the country.
The full article follows below.
Size doubled of proposed wind farm in R.I. Sound
December 8, 2010
By Alex Kuffner
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Deepwater Wind has applied to federal authorities to build the largest proposed offshore-wind farm in the United States, a 200-turbine project in Rhode Island Sound.
The 1,000-megawatt project, called the Deepwater Wind Energy Center, replaces a 350-megawatt, 100-turbine proposal that was put forward by the Providence-based company two years ago. Under the new plan, Deepwater would also build an undersea transmission network that would stretch from Massachusetts to New York and connect to multiple states to which the company could sell its power. The wind farm would cost an estimated $4.5 billion to $5 billion, and the transmission system an additional $500 million to $1 billion.
Deepwater submitted an application on Oct. 27 to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) to lease a 270-square-mile area between Rhode Island and Massachusetts that is the subject of a development agreement between the two states. The wind turbines would rise about 525 feet above the water but would be at least 18 miles from mainland Rhode Island, far enough out to sea that they would be barely visible from land, according to Deepwater.
BOEMRE, an arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior, has authority over the project because it would be located in federal waters. Deepwater planned to announce the new proposal on Wednesday in advance of a federal workshop on Friday with Massachusetts and Rhode Island officials in which the project is expected to be discussed.
Deepwater executives said the company decided to expand the size of its proposal for a number of reasons, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s Nov. 23 announcement that the federal government would expedite permitting for qualifying projects on the East Coast. The first leases to developers could be issued in late 2011 or early 2012.
“The White House and the Department of the Interior are throwing a lot of resources at the permitting process,” Deepwater chief administrative officer Jeffrey Grybowski said. “We want to take advantage of that federal momentum.”
Related links
But technological developments were the driving factor in the change in plans. Next-generation turbines that can produce more power are now being built in Europe. Using those machines improves the economies of scale for developers.
“There is this growing realization that the technology is changing fast,” said Deepwater chief executive William M. Moore.
By using more powerful turbines than those envisioned in 2008, Deepwater would be able to triple its wind farm’s capacity while only doubling the number of turbines. Over the last two years, manufacturers have brought 5-megawatt turbines on to the market in place of machines ranging from 3 megawatts to 3.6 megawatts that have typically been installed in Europe and China and are proposed as part of the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Massachusetts.
On a trip last month to Europe, Moore and other representatives of the company met with manufacturers that have built 5-megawatt turbines and are developing 6-megawatt ones. They include Areva Renewables, of France, and REpower Systems, of Germany, which both have 5-megawatt turbines in operation at the Alpha Ventus project off Germany.
Deepwater is also considering using larger turbines in a demonstration project the company is developing in state waters off Block Island, said Moore. Instead of the originally proposed eight turbines, the company is now looking at installing only five turbines as part of the wind farm planned about three miles southeast of the island.
That project is scheduled to go on line in 2012. It is still awaiting approvals from Rhode Island authorities. Although state regulators signed off on an agreement Deepwater reached with utility National Grid for the sale of power from the wind farm, the contract has been appealed to the state Supreme Court. Objectors have questioned the contract’s high price of power, which is more than double what National Grid pays for energy from conventional sources.
The Deepwater Wind Energy Center would be more cost-effective than the Block Island wind farm, said Moore. That is expected to translate into prices that would be a third lower than the rate of 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour that National Grid agreed to pay for power from the Block Island project, he said.
The multi-state transmission network would create several potential buyers for Deepwater’s power. Rhode Island is a limited market. It has about half a million customers and is dominated by one utility — National Grid. Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York have more utilities and many more customers. Spreading the power around to multiple markets also ensures that no single state must absorb the higher cost of offshore wind power alone, Moore said.
Although federal agencies would have primary authority over the transmission line, state agencies would have oversight of any interconnections to land. And state regulators would review any proposed power-purchase contracts.
The cost of the 200-turbine wind farm, at up to $5 billion, dwarfs the $1.3-billion price tag of the original 100-turbine project. Although credit markets have yet to fully recover from the recession, Deepwater executives are confident of tying up financing from lenders. They pointed to the recent decision by a group of European commercial banks to lend $1.7 billion for the expansion of a wind farm off Belgium.
Moore also said that “it will only be a matter of time” before more capital partners are brought on board. Deepwater’s primary backer is D.E. Shaw & Co., a global investment and technology-development firm with $20 billion in investment capital as of Oct. 1.
The larger project is not expected to increase the number of jobs — estimated at up to 800 — that would have come with the 100-turbine project. But instead of a two-year construction cycle, the window would stretch to four years or more, guaranteeing construction and assembly jobs for a longer period. Moreover, a larger project would improve the chances that manufacturers of turbines and components would open factories near Deepwater’s staging area in Quonset Point, North Kingstown, said Moore.
The wind farm would be located within Massachusetts and Rhode Island’s “area of mutual interest,” federal waters directly south of Sakonnet Point between Block Island to the west and Martha’s Vineyard to the northeast.
Although the federal government, through BOEMRE, has formally requested proposals in other states, including Delaware and Maryland, it has not issued a so-called request for interest in Rhode Island or Massachusetts. But the agency is accepting unsolicited bids from developers.
One other company, Neptune Wind, of Massachusetts, has submitted a proposal to build a wind farm in the area of mutual interest. According to its website, Neptune is proposing a 120-turbine project with a 360-megawatt capacity.
Deepwater’s turbines would be installed in four phases, with construction starting in 2014. The first 50-turbine phase would go on line in 2015. Subsequent phases would follow in consecutive years.
The proposed project area is irregularly shaped to avoid fishing grounds, shipping lanes and glacial rock formations. Grybowski said the site selection comports with Rhode Island’s recently approved ocean-zoning document, known as the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). Under the agreement between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, development in the area of mutual interest would be guided by the SAMP.
“They’ve collected a lot of data and we think this is consistent with that data,” he said.Other key offshore-wind proposals in the U.S.
•Cape Wind Associates has won federal approval for a 468-megawatt project off Massachusetts.
•NRG Bluewater Wind has proposed a 350-megawatt project off New Jersey and a project of up to 600 megawatts off Delaware.
•Fishermen’s Energy has proposed two projects totaling 350 megawatts off New Jersey.
•Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between Deepwater Wind and PSEG Global, has proposed a 350-megawatt project off New Jersey. Key points about Deepwater Wind
•Founded in New Jersey; moved its headquarters to Providence in 2010.
•Selected by the State of Rhode Island as its preferred developer of offshore-wind power in 2008.
•Proposes building a five- to eight-turbine demonstration wind farm in state waters near Block Island by 2012.
•Proposes building a 200-turbine wind farm in federal waters in Rhode Island Sound starting in 2014.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
The full article follows below.
Size doubled of proposed wind farm in R.I. Sound
December 8, 2010
By Alex Kuffner
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Deepwater Wind has applied to federal authorities to build the largest proposed offshore-wind farm in the United States, a 200-turbine project in Rhode Island Sound.
The 1,000-megawatt project, called the Deepwater Wind Energy Center, replaces a 350-megawatt, 100-turbine proposal that was put forward by the Providence-based company two years ago. Under the new plan, Deepwater would also build an undersea transmission network that would stretch from Massachusetts to New York and connect to multiple states to which the company could sell its power. The wind farm would cost an estimated $4.5 billion to $5 billion, and the transmission system an additional $500 million to $1 billion.
Deepwater submitted an application on Oct. 27 to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) to lease a 270-square-mile area between Rhode Island and Massachusetts that is the subject of a development agreement between the two states. The wind turbines would rise about 525 feet above the water but would be at least 18 miles from mainland Rhode Island, far enough out to sea that they would be barely visible from land, according to Deepwater.
BOEMRE, an arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior, has authority over the project because it would be located in federal waters. Deepwater planned to announce the new proposal on Wednesday in advance of a federal workshop on Friday with Massachusetts and Rhode Island officials in which the project is expected to be discussed.
Deepwater executives said the company decided to expand the size of its proposal for a number of reasons, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s Nov. 23 announcement that the federal government would expedite permitting for qualifying projects on the East Coast. The first leases to developers could be issued in late 2011 or early 2012.
“The White House and the Department of the Interior are throwing a lot of resources at the permitting process,” Deepwater chief administrative officer Jeffrey Grybowski said. “We want to take advantage of that federal momentum.”
Related links
But technological developments were the driving factor in the change in plans. Next-generation turbines that can produce more power are now being built in Europe. Using those machines improves the economies of scale for developers.
“There is this growing realization that the technology is changing fast,” said Deepwater chief executive William M. Moore.
By using more powerful turbines than those envisioned in 2008, Deepwater would be able to triple its wind farm’s capacity while only doubling the number of turbines. Over the last two years, manufacturers have brought 5-megawatt turbines on to the market in place of machines ranging from 3 megawatts to 3.6 megawatts that have typically been installed in Europe and China and are proposed as part of the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Massachusetts.
On a trip last month to Europe, Moore and other representatives of the company met with manufacturers that have built 5-megawatt turbines and are developing 6-megawatt ones. They include Areva Renewables, of France, and REpower Systems, of Germany, which both have 5-megawatt turbines in operation at the Alpha Ventus project off Germany.
Deepwater is also considering using larger turbines in a demonstration project the company is developing in state waters off Block Island, said Moore. Instead of the originally proposed eight turbines, the company is now looking at installing only five turbines as part of the wind farm planned about three miles southeast of the island.
That project is scheduled to go on line in 2012. It is still awaiting approvals from Rhode Island authorities. Although state regulators signed off on an agreement Deepwater reached with utility National Grid for the sale of power from the wind farm, the contract has been appealed to the state Supreme Court. Objectors have questioned the contract’s high price of power, which is more than double what National Grid pays for energy from conventional sources.
The Deepwater Wind Energy Center would be more cost-effective than the Block Island wind farm, said Moore. That is expected to translate into prices that would be a third lower than the rate of 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour that National Grid agreed to pay for power from the Block Island project, he said.
The multi-state transmission network would create several potential buyers for Deepwater’s power. Rhode Island is a limited market. It has about half a million customers and is dominated by one utility — National Grid. Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York have more utilities and many more customers. Spreading the power around to multiple markets also ensures that no single state must absorb the higher cost of offshore wind power alone, Moore said.
Although federal agencies would have primary authority over the transmission line, state agencies would have oversight of any interconnections to land. And state regulators would review any proposed power-purchase contracts.
The cost of the 200-turbine wind farm, at up to $5 billion, dwarfs the $1.3-billion price tag of the original 100-turbine project. Although credit markets have yet to fully recover from the recession, Deepwater executives are confident of tying up financing from lenders. They pointed to the recent decision by a group of European commercial banks to lend $1.7 billion for the expansion of a wind farm off Belgium.
Moore also said that “it will only be a matter of time” before more capital partners are brought on board. Deepwater’s primary backer is D.E. Shaw & Co., a global investment and technology-development firm with $20 billion in investment capital as of Oct. 1.
The larger project is not expected to increase the number of jobs — estimated at up to 800 — that would have come with the 100-turbine project. But instead of a two-year construction cycle, the window would stretch to four years or more, guaranteeing construction and assembly jobs for a longer period. Moreover, a larger project would improve the chances that manufacturers of turbines and components would open factories near Deepwater’s staging area in Quonset Point, North Kingstown, said Moore.
The wind farm would be located within Massachusetts and Rhode Island’s “area of mutual interest,” federal waters directly south of Sakonnet Point between Block Island to the west and Martha’s Vineyard to the northeast.
Although the federal government, through BOEMRE, has formally requested proposals in other states, including Delaware and Maryland, it has not issued a so-called request for interest in Rhode Island or Massachusetts. But the agency is accepting unsolicited bids from developers.
One other company, Neptune Wind, of Massachusetts, has submitted a proposal to build a wind farm in the area of mutual interest. According to its website, Neptune is proposing a 120-turbine project with a 360-megawatt capacity.
Deepwater’s turbines would be installed in four phases, with construction starting in 2014. The first 50-turbine phase would go on line in 2015. Subsequent phases would follow in consecutive years.
The proposed project area is irregularly shaped to avoid fishing grounds, shipping lanes and glacial rock formations. Grybowski said the site selection comports with Rhode Island’s recently approved ocean-zoning document, known as the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). Under the agreement between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, development in the area of mutual interest would be guided by the SAMP.
“They’ve collected a lot of data and we think this is consistent with that data,” he said.Other key offshore-wind proposals in the U.S.
•Cape Wind Associates has won federal approval for a 468-megawatt project off Massachusetts.
•NRG Bluewater Wind has proposed a 350-megawatt project off New Jersey and a project of up to 600 megawatts off Delaware.
•Fishermen’s Energy has proposed two projects totaling 350 megawatts off New Jersey.
•Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between Deepwater Wind and PSEG Global, has proposed a 350-megawatt project off New Jersey. Key points about Deepwater Wind
•Founded in New Jersey; moved its headquarters to Providence in 2010.
•Selected by the State of Rhode Island as its preferred developer of offshore-wind power in 2008.
•Proposes building a five- to eight-turbine demonstration wind farm in state waters near Block Island by 2012.
•Proposes building a 200-turbine wind farm in federal waters in Rhode Island Sound starting in 2014.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
Friday, October 29, 2010
RI Land Use Ordinances and Zoning
Land use in Rhode Island can be a difficult area to navigate without legal assistance. The state is known for its conservation efforts, especially with regard to wetlands, and sustainable eco-systems as these native habitats provide shelter and a steady food supply to the wildlife in the various areas of RI.
Prior to the development of any real estate project, or commercial or residential development of any kind, check to be sure that the zoning ordinances and land use requirements are suited to your needs, and that the kind of development you intend to install will be permissable under those ordinances.
Remember that inherited property rights may not carry forward with the title if the laws concerning land use have changed since the initial purchase. This is particularly true of coastal and lakefront homes that were perhaps grandfathered into old ordinances and laws, but will no longer be permitted the same use under the newer and stricter environmental and land use ordinances in the State.
Consulting with one of the experienced zoning and land use attorney at Miller, Scott and Holbrook, Newport zoning and real estate attorneys, will provide you with the information you need to make the most informed legal decision when purchasing land, or examining land use permissions and restrictions in RI.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
Prior to the development of any real estate project, or commercial or residential development of any kind, check to be sure that the zoning ordinances and land use requirements are suited to your needs, and that the kind of development you intend to install will be permissable under those ordinances.
Remember that inherited property rights may not carry forward with the title if the laws concerning land use have changed since the initial purchase. This is particularly true of coastal and lakefront homes that were perhaps grandfathered into old ordinances and laws, but will no longer be permitted the same use under the newer and stricter environmental and land use ordinances in the State.
Consulting with one of the experienced zoning and land use attorney at Miller, Scott and Holbrook, Newport zoning and real estate attorneys, will provide you with the information you need to make the most informed legal decision when purchasing land, or examining land use permissions and restrictions in RI.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport RI Real estate Lawyers handling real estate closings for commercial and residential conveyance and refinancing, Purchase and Sale negotiation and drafting, title issues, tax matters, and all complex zoning and real estate law issues. As Personal Injury Lawyers we also handle all matters of personal injuries. Contact our office at (401) 847-7500 or visit the website at Miller, Scott and Holbrook for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)