Only months ago, Rhode Island's bid to build the nation's first offshore wind farm seemed dead in the water. The state's Public Utilities Commission this spring rejected a proposed pricing agreement between Deepwater Wind — the project's developer — and a power distributor, in part due to lobbying by the Energy Council of Rhode Island, whose membership includes Brown.
Despite continuing legal obstacles, the project moved one step closer to fruition. Since the commission ruled against the project in April, both houses of the General Assembly — with the support of Gov. Donald Carcieri '65 — have passed legislation to put the project before the commission for a second review.
Many legislators argued that the project would put Rhode Island on a path to energy independence and prove a long-term financial boon to the state. Some, however, expressed concern that the legislation would place an onerous burden on taxpayers to the benefit of a single entity — Deepwater Wind.
Last month, the commission voted 2–1 to approve the project, paving the way for the construction of an eight-turbine wind farm off the coast of Block Island. The project could eventually be expanded to include 106 additional turbines.
One factor in the proposal's rejection last spring was opposition from the Energy Council of Rhode Island, a lobbying consortium representing 30 of the state's largest energy users, including the University. Chris Powell, Brown's director of sustainable energy and environmental initiatives, is a member of the group's board.
Powell described the University's position on the Deepwater Wind project as "officially neutral," stressing that although the energy consortium represents Brown, it does not necessarily reflect the University's thinking on the matter.
"We're one member," Powell said. "We can make our comments known, but at the end of the day, it is a democratic organization."
Powell added that his council membership has not influenced Brown's thinking on the matter.
The proposal was initially rejected because the pricing agreement between National Grid — a power distributor — and Deepwater Wind would have charged more for wind power than the prevailing rate for other sources. The proposal included an initial price of 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour, with a 3.5 percent increase over each year of the 20-year agreement. The average wholesale price paid for other sources of energy, meanwhile, is 7.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Total additional costs to consumers could eventually rise to $500 million.
According to Amy Kempe, the governor's press secretary, the legislature made changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the commission. The revised proposal allows any future energy savings from the project to be returned to consumers as rate decreases, she said. In addition, the recently approved deal emphasizes what she called the "economic development and environmental" benefits of the proposal.
She added that the governor would continue to support the project for several reasons, including its economic development potential, positive environmental impact and his desire to reduce Rhode Island's dependence on foreign and non-renewable sources of energy.
Although the proposal has moved forward, it still stands on shaky ground. Several legal obstacles still stand in the project's way — Attorney General Patrick Lynch '87 has appealed the commission's ruling to the state Supreme Court, calling it "outrageously bad." The Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental group, has filed a separate appeal to block the project. Toray Plastics America and Polytop Corp. — two large consumers of electricity concerned with the cost of wind energy — filed a third appeal jointly.
In a press release, Lynch blasted the proposal as a "sweetheart deal" for Deepwater Wind that will "force (Rhode Islanders) to buy overpriced electricity for the next 20 years in order to subsidize one company" without creating jobs. Lynch also said that the deal would benefit Deepwater Wind "at the expense of hardworking Rhode Islanders, our state's business community and sustainable economic development."
Kempe said that Lynch's opposition to the Deepwater Wind deal was political in nature, but that she could not understand why the Conservation Law Foundation would challenge the project, given what she described as the deal's environmental advantages.
"It's disappointing," she said.
