Marine Energy Environmental Permitting and Compliance Costs

Abstract

Costs to permit Marine Energy projects are poorly understood. In this paper we examine environmental compliance and permitting costs for 19 projects in the U.S., covering the last 2 decades. Guided discussions were conducted with developers over a 3-year period to obtain historical and ongoing project cost data relative to environmental studies (e.g., baseline or pre-project site characterization as well as post-installation effects monitoring), stakeholder outreach, and mitigation, as well as qualitative experience of the permitting process. Data are organized in categories of technology type, permitted capacity, pre- and post-installation, geographic location, and funding types. We also compare our findings with earlier logic models created for the Department of Energy (i.e., Reference Models). Environmental studies most commonly performed were for Fish and Fisheries, Noise, Marine Habitat/Benthic Studies and Marine Mammals. Studies for tidal projects were more expensive than those performed for wave projects and the range of reported project costs tended to be wider than ranges predicted by logic models. For eight projects reporting full project costs, from project start to FERC or USACE permit, the average amount for environmental permitting compliance was 14.6%.

The Permitting, Licensing and Environmental Compliance Process: Lessons and Experiences within U.S. Marine Renewable Energy

“…The overall method of this study followed the Eisenhardt approach for building theories from case study work by selecting cases, crafting instruments and protocols, entering the field, analyzing data, shaping hypotheses, and reaching closure (Eisenhardt, 1989 [6]). Qualitative and quantitative information was collected during interviews, workshops, and webinars with state and federal regulators and developers that have been involved in permitting or licensing a MRE project in the U.S. Additional details on the process of interview selection, surveying instrument and methodology, and organization of information of interest are described in Peplinski et al, 2021 [5]. Workshops conducted in the period 2017-2019 provide the foundational information for this study (Figure 1).…”

“…These projects are a start, but other projects, such as Admiralty Inlet, Igiugig, PacWave North and South, and OPT Reedsport, have been through the permitting process. The present Environmental Compliance Cost Assessment (ECCA) project, as described in Peplinski et al, 2021 [5], has focused on compiling and analyzing the available environmental permitting and compliance costs for a variety of U.S.-based MRE projects that have gone through permitting. This first-of-a-kind effort allows for the development of lessons learned and recommendations for early MRE development based on the understanding of the barriers to permitting, cost savings opportunities, and technical challenges.…”

Triton Field Trials: Promoting Consistent Environmental Monitoring Methodologies for Marine Energy Sites

“…Marine energy (ME), which includes wave, tidal, ocean current, free-flowing river, and ocean thermal energy conversion, is an emerging renewable energy source. However, the uncertainty surrounding the potential environmental impacts of ME commonly resulted in extensive and expensive environmental monitoring requirements for the first devices to be deployed at test sites and in fully energetic wave and tidal systems [1,2]. Current aquatic environmental monitoring technologies and methods may not be sufficient to answer the questions necessary to secure permits for deployment.…”

“…This can include low-level risk concerns for a device or location if regulators are unsure of how to quantify and assess potential effects when there is little other information for comparison. Data collection to address regulatory concerns adds to the time and cost of the permitting process [2]. However, consistently collected data from current projects may help to eliminate the need for extensive data collection at future deployments through data transferability (i.e., using information from one location or one device to inform the assessment of another) [6,7].…”

A Summary of Environmental Monitoring Recommendations for Marine Energy Development That Considers Life Cycle Sustainability

“…Although the evaluation of environmental impacts from these devices is a high priority for industry and regulators, opportunities to perform environmental monitoring have been limited because of the lack of deployed devices, resulting in high levels of uncertainty for regulators. Uncertainty of what will happen to the environment when an ME device is deployed leads to lengthy project-review periods used to gather sufficient knowledge about the environmental baseline and evaluate mitigation for potential risk-both of which result in significant project costs for developers [8,9]. To reduce uncertainty, data collection around operational ME devices is required (1) to fill knowledge gaps and (2) to validate models.…”