'Good' energy projects will survive; 'bad' ones will not

The potential for offshore energy generation has yielded a large number of initiatives for better planning, better coordination and new standards for the siting and permitting of offshore energy projects; these initiatives may outnumber actual project proposals. For example, President Obama recently issued Executive Order 13,547, which sets up a National Ocean Council to lead to improved planning and coordination. The secretary of the interior recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the governors of 10 East Coast states to establish an Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium. And many states are undertaking ocean-zoning efforts, for example, the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008 and the resulting Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, inspired chiefly to guide the siting of wind energy projects. Whether or not many projects get permitted, public officials predictably will continue to propose similar initiatives to demonstrate leadership and concern.

This review of several recent projects offshore from Massachusetts suggests, however, that changing standards will not change a basic truth: Projects that regulators believe are “good” will survive despite significant environmental impacts, while projects that regulators believe are “bad” will die. This does not mean that the rules are meaningless. It means that agencies exercise their ample discretionary powers more favorably for projects that they and their political leadership perceive as beneficial and necessary.