Monthly Archives: July 2021

The Danish offshore wind developer rsted announced Wednesday that it has submitted a bid to generate up to 760 megawatts of power with a proposed second offshore wind project off the coast of Maryland.

The project, called Skipjack Wind 2, is in response to the Maryland Public Service Commissions call for proposals for a second round of offshore wind projects in federal waters off the Maryland coast.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2019 expanded Marylands renewable portfolio standard to require that utilities get 50% of the electricity they sell to consumers from renewable sources by 2030. More specifically, it directed the Public Service Commission which regulates the states energy utilities to find Round 2 offshore wind projects that could provide at least 1,200 megawatts of power by 2030.

The application period for this round closed on June 21, and the PSCs consultant, ICF, has 30 days to review applications. The bids are confidential until then, according to Tori Leonard, spokeswoman for the PSC. It is unclear if any other companies besides rsted have submitted a bid for this round of offshore wind projects.

After the consultant reports to the PSC, the commission will review all applications and award offshore renewable energy credits to a project or projects for this round by Dec. 18, Leonard said.

rsteds new project proposal would power over 250,000 homes in the Delmarva Peninsula, according to the companys announcement.

rsted is privileged to already be a long-term partner to the state of Maryland as it works to meet its offshore wind goals, David Hardy, CEO of rsted Offshore North America, said in a statement.

We are proud to build, own, and operate wind farms across the world and will bring that same approach to Maryland. As such, these at least 30-year commitments we are making to the state are designed to provide long-term benefits to all of the communities that will be home to our facilities. In continuing to deliver on our commitments now, and well into the future, we will ensure that Marylands offshore wind industry will thrive for decades to come, he continued.

In 2013, the General Assembly passed legislation enabling offshore wind development and the Maryland PSC was designated by the federal government to award leases for offshore wind developments in federal waters. The commission finally approved two projects off the coast of Ocean City in 2017.

rsted is in the middle of developing one of these projects, called Skipjack Wind 1, which is to the north of Ocean City and about 19 miles off the coast. It could power 40,000 homes in the Delmarva Peninsula and is slated to start operating by 2026, company officials have said.

This project is currently under review for final approval by the federal government, as is the MarWin project by US Wind, which would generate 240 megawatts of power enough to power almost 80,000 for a year. It is 17 miles off the coast of Maryland and tentatively slated to start operating in 2024.

These projects would run cables under the ocean, connect to the electric grid on land and provide electricity to Maryland utilities, helping the state depend less on fossil fuels and reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2045.

Both projects have generated controversyin Ocean City, particularly among political and business leaders who believe views of wind turbines from the beach could hurt tourism and the real estate industry. But many other leaders in Delmarva believe the wind industry could be a powerful economic driver for the region.

rsted said it would host a virtual open house on its proposal to build a second phase of the offshore wind project on the evening of July 19.

[emailprotected]

See the original post:

Top Developer Submits Bid for Second Phase of Offshore Wind Project in Maryland Maryland Matters - Josh Kurtz

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has signed compromise legislation to permanently bar future development of offshore wind projects in state waters. At the same time, momentum is building behind her plan to develop, for research purposes, a 16-square mile wind farm in federal waters.

A previously approved, single-turbine wind project off Monhegan Island is moving forward. But otherwise, the new law will bar any other wind-energy development within state waters - about three miles of the coast.

Mills had initially proposed only a 10-year moratorium, but agreed to make it permanent after lawmakers negotiated a deal that aimed to strengthen the position of Maine lobstermen who are watching the emerging offshore wind industry muscle into their territory.

"The prohibition preserves state waters for recreation and other fishing where the majority of Maine's lobster harvesting occurs," says Dan Burgess, who directs the Governor's Energy Office. He says that within a week the administration will announce its preferred location for a 16-square mile area in federal waters where the state and private wind developers want to construct a wind farm of up to 12 turbines.

That project will research the commercial viability of novel floating-platform technology developed at the University of Maine, and its potential effects on ecosystems and fisheries. As part of the legislative deal, the administration agreed to allow at least two representatives of the lobster industry to be included on a panel that will guide the research.

"The research array allows us to conduct further research and answer those critical questions about floating platforms, and doing so in this way prior to any commercial development of considerations is important, and kind of puts Maine in the driver's seat as we think about floating offshore wind," Burgess says.

The project will be developed by major international energy companies and funded by Maine electricity consumers. The legislative package allows for state regulators to accept above-market prices, but at the "lowest reasonable cost" needed to make sure the project can get financing needed for construction and operation.

Meanwhile, the state is also formally launching a multi-year process to create a "Roadmap" for large-scale commercial wind development off Maine. Critics say that should have been done before moving the research project forward.

Continued here:

Maine Prohibits Offshore Wind Projects In State Waters - WBUR

NEW ORLEANS A report released today by the Center for Biological Diversity details how pervasive and damaging offshore fracking and other extreme oil and gas extraction methods have become in the Gulf of Mexico since 2010.

Based on an analysis of federal records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and published scientific studies, the report documents more than 3,000 instances of offshore fracking, 700 cases of acidizing offshore wells, and at least 66.3 million gallons of fracking waste dumped into the Gulf over a decade.

Chemicals used in offshore fracking and acidizing pose significant health risks to both humans and wildlife, including cancer, reproductive harm, neurotoxicity and even death. The increasing use of fracking could threaten the tourism and fishing industries, which account for about 2.85 million jobs on the Gulf Coast or about 10 times the number of jobs in the regions federal offshore fossil fuel industry.

Offshore fracking threatens Gulf communities and wildlife far more than our government has acknowledged. To protect life and our climate, we should ban these extreme extraction techniques, said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director at the Center. A decade into the offshore fracking boom, officials still havent properly studied its public health impacts. The failure to curb this major source of pollution is astounding and unacceptable.

Offshore fracking has become a near daily occurrence over the past decade. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, blasts water and chemicals into the seafloor to fracture rock and release oil and gas. Acidizing injects hydrofluoric or hydrochloric acid to etch pathways in rock walls and release the fossil fuels.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows companies to discharge unlimited amounts of fracking wastewater into the Gulf. An industry report to the EPA found that each frack releases about 21,480 gallons of fracking waste, including biocides, polymers and solvents, into the Gulf of Mexico.

These chemicals kill aquatic species in laboratory tests that simulate concentrations of the substances found near offshore platforms. Many chemicals used in fracking are known to harm reproduction and development, yet about 76% of the chemicals used in fracks havent even been studied for their impacts on human and wildlife health.

Despite the known health risks of many fracking chemicals and the lack of knowledge about many others, the federal government approves extreme well-stimulation methods at a rapid rate.

Todays report, titled Toxic Waters: How Offshore Fracking Pollutes the Gulf of Mexico, is available at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/pdfs/Toxic-Waters-offshore-fracking-report-Center-for-Biological-Diversity.pdf.

Read more:

Offshore Fracking Report Finds Toxic Pollution in Gulf of Mexico - Center for Biological Diversity

July 8, 2021 - United States lawyers may need to litigate trust proceedings involving businesses or family assets in offshore jurisdictions if the trust in question is domiciled in one of those jurisdictions. Disputes occur in a number of situations through the life of the trust.

This article addresses disputes that may arise in territories of the UK. These jurisdictions include the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Each jurisdiction has a separate jurisprudence but to a large extent it is based on the English common law especially in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. As such each jurisdiction is not bound by, but will take into consideration, judicial decisions in the other jurisdictions.

As trusts often concern private family assets there is generally a strong desire for trust litigation to be conducted in private. This desire for discretion can be seen, however, to be in conflict with the well-established two dimensional principle of open justice, that the (a) public is entitled to attend court proceedings and (b) media should not be discouraged from publishing fair and accurate reports of court proceedings. (UK High Court 2014 case of V v T).

The principle of open justice is clearly 'fundamental to the dispensation of justice in a modern democratic society' (UK Supreme Court 2013 case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury(No2). As a matter of public policy open justice deters inappropriate behavior by the court, maintains public confidence in the administration of justice, fosters the perception of judicial impartiality and reduces the likelihood of misinformation about court proceedings. Courts therefore exercise great caution when 'asked to make incremental incursions into the general principle of open justice' (UK Supreme Court 2019 decision of MN v OP).

Trust proceedings are, however, of a slightly different nature and one may ask in many cases whether there is really such a need for open justice in proceedings that very often concern private family matters. The essential question in sensitive trust proceedings will therefore always be whether the need for a private hearing outweighs the need for open justice. This decision can, however, be considered against the backdrop of whether open justice is quite so necessary in this context.

This does not mean that it is still not an important principle but the balance may tip in a different direction in the trust context rather than, for example, the criminal context where it would be very difficult to argue that open justice should not be paramount.

As noted above, offshore jurisdictions look for precedent in other offshore jurisdictions as well as from the English courts. For example, while there is no published judgment on the issue of confidentiality in trust proceedings in the BVI, the BVI court is generally willing to hear sensitive trusts cases in private especially blessing applications where the court is asked to sanction momentous decisions made by trustees.

The BVI court will also be guided by the jurisprudence in both the UK and in other offshore jurisdictions between which there has been a difference in emphasis when it comes to the approach to privacy in trusts cases. As will be discussed further below, in the jurisprudence of the offshore jurisdictions there appears to be greater acceptance that in appropriate cases it may be necessary and in the interests of justice for the matter to be heard in private although having regard to the competing fundamental rights of the parties and the interest of the public (V v T case; The Bermudan High Court 2017 case of Re G Trusts; the Cayman High Court 2018 case of Julius Baer Trust Company Ltd; and the Jersey Royal Court 2018 case of HSBC Trustees v Kwong).

The threshold for obtaining a private hearing in the UK is governed by Rule 39.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That threshold is a high one, as demonstrated by the restrictive approach adopted in the leading decision of V v T, which concerned an application for the variation of a trust under section 1 of the UK 1958 Trust Variation Act. In that case, the parties consented to a private hearing, submitting that an open hearing would risk the value of the trust's assets and the personal security of the beneficiaries. Mr. Justice Morgan, however, found that it was settled practice under the Act for applications to ordinarily be heard in open court, and that the concerns of the parties in that case did not constitute 'clear and cogent evidence' that a private hearing was necessary in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, Morgan J recognized the special position of minor beneficiaries under the trust and therefore agreed to implement partial privacy through anonymizing the judgment. The English Court of Appeal, the UK's intermediate appellate court, recently reiterated this approach, but was quick to reject the proposition that anonymity in trust cases should be considered a default position or the norm (2019 decision in MN v OP and others). The court stressed that there was no general exception to open justice in trusts matters and that the issue of whether or not the matter should be determined in private should be decided on a case by case basis.

The Court of Appeal's decision further underscored that where any anonymity was being granted, it would only be the minimum strictly necessary and to the extent needed to ensure justice in the case. This was the rationale used to support an order that references to minor beneficiaries should be anonymized (but this will expire when they turn 18). But all references to adult beneficiaries were to remain public along with identification of the settlement and the general nature of the trust and its provisions. Recognizing that such a limited order may still expose the identity of the minor beneficiaries, an additional prohibition on the publication of their identities (including on the Internet and social media) was added.

In general, the offshore jurisdictions appear to follow a less restrictive approach to applications for matters to be heard in private than in the UK. This does not mean, however, that these jurisdictions do not consider the principle of open justice. They are simply more willing to also consider whether or not this is necessarily of paramount importance in all cases when balanced against competing privacy considerations.

In this regard many of the offshore courts have considered the administrative nature of many trust applications. In this sense applications for variation, directions to trustees and blessings can be viewed as merely legal mechanisms of trust law to rearrange the basis on which the trust is administered. Accordingly, these can be seen as procedures of a more transactional nature and sometimes akin to, for example, the restructuring of a will where no public hearing would be required and the affairs would be regarded as confidential and subject to legal privilege (Bermuda High Court 2018 case of Re E Trust, the Royal Court of Jersey 2004 case of Jersey Evening Post v Al-Thani, Isle of Man case of Re Delphi and Re G Trusts).

These 'administrative' trust proceedings have been said to cast a 'quasi-paternal' role upon the courts which must be considered when striking a balance between open justice and the confidential business arrangements of settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries (Al-Thani). In Re G Trusts it was, for example, considered that there should be a presumption of privacy, as the public has no right to pry into the personal affairs of the trust.

Private hearings also provide certain practical benefits in trust proceedings, including encouraging interested parties to be more candid with the court. In this regard it has been recognized that if a party were to be concerned that sensitive information they were about to divulge could be seen by those with 'hostile eyes', they would be less likely to be candid and this would frustrate the underlying purpose of the court's paternal jurisdiction (Al-Thani). The additional anonymization of trust proceedings may also be necessary as full information about a case without names may be more helpful than publications of names with no details. (HSBC Trustees).

Following from the above the accepted practice in Jersey, the Isle of Man and Guernsey appears to be that applications for directions by trustees are often heard in private with the judgment then being published but in anonymized form. This too is the position in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, with the courts in these jurisdictions additionally being willing to seal the file from the public's view. (Re G Trusts, Julius Bear Trust, Re E Trust).

To date the BVI court appears to have followed the position in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda with regard to hearing directions applications in private and sealing the court file. In the case of directions applications, these are usually filed alongside an application to seal the file and the sealing application will generally be dealt with on paper.

From the above one can see that the offshore jurisdictions tend to approach the question of privacy in trust proceedings with more flexibility than the UK courts. The balancing exercise is still relevant but these courts are perhaps more likely to accord heavier weight to the need for confidentiality in certain proceedings relating to trusts.

It is, however, important to recognize that even following this approach there are still important safeguards in place. Kawaley J, who sat as a judge in both Cayman and Bermuda, makes a strong argument in favor of privacy, opining that since offshore jurisdictions promote the establishments of trusts for the legitimate conservation and protection of wealth, courts in offshore jurisdictions should be at least sympathetic to the need for confidentiality in trust proceedings (Julius Bear Trust).

Confidentiality orders will, however, only be made upon the understanding that the trust is genuine on its face, the interested parties are compliant with applicable tax and anti-money laundering obligations and none of them are or become subject to public investigations. There is therefore still a clear recognition in the offshore jurisdictions that whereas there may be some legitimate reasons for privacy in trusts cases this must still be balanced against the need for open proceedings.

Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Westlaw Today is owned by Thomson Reuters.

Peter Ferrer is Co-Head of the Litigation, Insolvency and Restructuring practice of Harneys. He can be reached at peter.ferrer@harneys.com. He is located in the British Virgin Islands office.

Claire Goldstein is a partner at the firm, specializing in trusts litigation, and can be reached at claire.goldstein@harneys.com. She is located in the British Virgin Islands office.

Tyrone Bailey is an associate at the firm and can be reached at tyrone.bailey@harneys.com. He is located in the British Virgin Islands office.

Read the original:

Balancing open justice and confidentiality in offshore trust proceedings - Reuters

The man in charge of ushering through Gov. Phil Murphy's ambitious plan to install hundreds of offshore wind turbines off the New Jersey coast, and fundamentally alter the Garden State's electricity grid, didn't have any experience when he took the job.

Joseph Fiordaliso is a former high school teacher from Essex County who took a long and winding political road to one of the most decisive positions in New Jersey's power sector. He has been, for the last three-and-a-half years, president of the state's Board of Public Utilities. That's the state agency in charge of regulating the power sector for New Jersey's 4 million residential, commercial and industrial energy customers.

"The learning experience over the last 16 years has been incredible," Fiordaliso said in an interview last week after the BPU unanimously approved two more offshore wind farms, bringing the total to three since 2019 to get the green light. "I feel like Im still in school. I got my education in energy on the job."

Fiordaliso, a Democrat, has served on the board since 2006 when his former boss, then Gov. Richard Codey, appointed him to the BPU as a commissioner. He served throughout the Corzine and Christie administrations, and was elevated to president of the BPU when Gov. Murphy took office. The BPU consists of five commissioners, including the president, who are nominated by the governor and approved by the state Senate. Commissioners serve six-year terms that are staggered so that no governor has complete control over the board, which is supposed to act independently of the executive and legislative branches.

Fiordaliso got his start in politics as mayor of Livingston, an Essex County suburb of Newark. He said he always wanted to become more political throughout his 15 years as a teacher at Bloomfield High School in North Jersey.

He left teaching and took a job as government relations director for Saint Barnabas Health System. Fiordaliso jumped into Democratic state politics fulltime when Codey, then a state senator representing parts of Essex County, asked him to run Codey's district office.

That eventually led to Fiordaliso's big break. Codey was New Jersey Senate president in 2004 when then-Gov. Jim McGreevey abruptly resigned.

"We ended up in the governors office," Fiordaliso said of Codey's ascension to governor because the senate president was next in line. "You never know where life will take you."

Joseph Fiordaliso, a Newark, New Jersey, native, is president of the state's Board of Public Utilities, which oversees approvals of offshore wind farms. The former high school teacher has been a BPU commissioner since 2006.

Codey served out the remainder of McGreevey's term, and appointed Fiordaliso to the BPU before leaving office in 2006. (Codey, the state's longest-serving legislator in history, is still a senator.)

Fiordaliso served in relative obscurity for more than a decade, including eight years under former Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

"During the Christie administration, they did very little, if any, initiatives for green energy," he said, noting that legislation allowing for offshore wind development off the Jersey coast was passed in 2011.

The prominence of the BPU and Fiordaliso, himself, changed dramatically when Murphy took over and made offshore wind expansion part of a big push toward making New Jersey's power supply carbon neutral by the middle of the 21st century.

With his promotion to president, Fiordaliso became the public face of what is now a multi-billion-dollar industry that New Jersey and other mid-Atlantic states are trying to build from scratch.

Only seven wind turbines currently rotate in American waters, but more than 1,500 are in planning or development stages from North Carolina to Massachusetts, including nearly 300 now approved by New Jersey for waters 10-14 miles off Cape May up to Long Beach Island.

The new power source will be costly for New Jersey's ratepayers, but environmentalists and lawmakers believe offshore wind is one of the best ways to combat climate change by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy to produce electricity. The current plan to approve 7,500 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2027 and build out the turbines by 2035 would provide power for half of the state's 3.5 million residential customers.

"I really believe we have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change, not for my generation, but for my grandchildren and their children's generation," Fiordaliso said.

On June 30, the BPU approved 2,658 megawatts in new offshore wind power through two wind farms expected to come online toward the end of the decade.

The new power adds to 1,100 megawatts approved in 2019. New Jersey now has signed off on the second-most offshore wind power of any state, behind only New York.

The two projects are a 110-turbine wind farm by Atlantic Shores, which is owned by European power companies Shell New Energies US and EDF Renewables North America, and a 82-turbine farm by rsted called Ocean Wind 2. Atlantic Shores' farm will be located about 10.5 miles off the coast of shore towns north of Atlantic City. rsted's Ocean Wind 2 will be nearly 14 miles off Cape May.

The massive amount of power still needs to get through federal permitting and navigate potential hurdles such as lawsuits from fishing interests and shore communities. None of the offshore wind farms are expected to begin construction until mid-2023 at the earliest, and the two newest projects are not expected to come online until 2027 at the earliest.

The renewable energy source will increase the cost of electricity for New Jersey ratepayers once the farms are built. Fiordaliso and others on the BPU said the agency will closely watch the costs associated with upcoming proposals. He also expects that offshore wind will become more affordable as supply chains for the turbines and the technology improve.

"Clean energy is expensive, no doubt about it," Fiordaliso said. "But you have to do something about (climate change). And it could lead to an economic boom. New Jersey has the potential to be a supply chain for the entire East Coast."

He and others touting New Jersey's aggressive approach to wind power hope their early investments set the stage for manufacturing jobs and new port terminals dedicated to turbine construction and shipping.

All of the fervor around the burgeoning industry has made Fiordaliso a familiar face in New Jersey politics, and the wind turbine brooch he wears on his lapel each BPU meeting clearly states his purpose.

"We wanted to promote wind power," he said of the brooch, which an aide found. "There is so much to do its almost mind-boggling, but you have to start somewhere."

Read the original:

Meet the Former High School Teacher in Charge of NJ's Offshore Wind Expansion - NBC 10 Philadelphia

LONDON The British government proposed on Tuesday a plan to make it possible to transfer asylum seekers out of the country while their applications are processed and to arrest those who arrive by boat across the English Channel, policies that rights groups say would violate international laws.

The plan, called the Nationality and Borders Bill, was brought forth by Priti Patel, the British home secretary, for a first reading in Parliament on Tuesday. It is the latest measure introduced by the government to fix the broken asylum system, as the Home Office described it in a statement.

Ms. Patel, in a statement ahead of the bills introduction, said that the bill delivers on what the British people have voted for time and time again for the U.K. to take full control of its borders.

It includes proposals to create a criminal offense of entering the country illegally, would give authorities more scope to make arrests and would make it easier to remove someone to a safe country while their asylum claim is processed, the Home Office said.

The plan, if it were to go into effect, would place Britain in the company of Denmark, which recently passed a law allowing for the offshore detention of refugees, and Australia, which has already put in place similar measures. In adopting what until recent years had been considered a fringe approach to the issue, the British government seemingly reversed decades of global leadership in the rights of refugees and asylum seekers.

The bill differentiates between refugees depending on how they journey to Britain, putting them in two distinct groups and basing their rights on their mode of arrival either through resettlement or via irregular means, which would be treated as a criminal matter.

The bill also introduces the option for asylum seekers to be moved to a third country while their applications are processed, but that would be contingent on international agreements that do not currently exist. Some fear that the plan could open the door for asylum seekers to be held in detention centers abroad, where their rights and safety could be at risk.

Andy Hewett, head of advocacy for the Refugee Council, which works with refugees in Britain, said the idea that migrants who, say, arrived by truck or boat were somehow less genuine than refugees who arrived by resettlement, for example, is completely false.

The refugee proposal already seems primed to emerge as the latest flash point in Britains simmering culture wars, stoked in large part by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Michelle Pace, a professor in global studies at Roskilde University in Denmark and an associate fellow at Chatham House, a British think tank, said, From a purely legal position, there is no way that these plans can actually be implemented. She noted that any policy that involved the expulsion of asylum seekers would violate the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Australia, Britain and Denmark are signatories.

So the question that we have to ask is in the case of the U.K. who is Priti Patel really addressing here? Professor Pace said, noting the public pressure on a government that has increasingly taken an anti-immigration stance.

Critics of the Johnson government say that it has made a practice of raising divisive cultural issues that it believes will translate into votes from the working class voters it has drawn away from the opposition Labour Party in recent years with Brexit being another prime example.

Frequently, apparently harsh or extreme measures have been leaked to the news media or introduced in Parliament with great fanfare, only to be forgotten, the critics say. In recent years, the government has proposed that voters be required to show photo identification, attacked the BBCs financing model and called for 10-year prison sentences for vandalizing statues. None of these measures are currently close to being enacted into law.

Now, critics say, new immigration measures at a time of falling immigration levels are the next to be teed up.

What is, in effect, the stance of this political gimmick, is that theyre trying to tell the general public, We are doing something about this, Professor Pace said.

More troublingly, she added, the moves were part of a broader shirking of international humanitarian obligations by established democracies that used to be defenders of those rights.

I just fear that as a global community, we are really dehumanizing the lives of those that, at the end of the day, are people like me and you, Professor Pace said.

The Times of London reported last week that representatives from the Home Office had met with Danish officials about potential cooperation at a processing center abroad, possibly in Rwanda, though that report has not been independently verified.

Lawmakers from the Labour Party quickly denounced the plan announced on Tuesday, with Nick Thomas-Symonds, who speaks for the party on domestic affairs, calling the measures unconscionable.

Advocates for refugee rights also condemned the proposals, saying that the bill was fundamentally at odds with the rights of asylum seekers under international law and did little to address other problems in the asylum process, citing as examples the huge backlogs in applications and inhumane conditions at existing processing centers.

Professor Pace said that she saw the recent push by Britain and Denmark for offshore asylum processing as part of a problematic policy shift and a worrying trend to target voters and appease those calling for a clampdown on migration amounting, she said, to the institutionalization of inhumanity.

Australias use of offshore detention centers for asylum seekers has long drawn condemnation, with reports of desperate living conditions and high rates of suicide among detainees, and critics say that some of the countrys practices contravene the Refugee Convention. But the Australian authorities have defended the policies as a necessary step to deter irregular migration.

Rights advocates dismissed the British plan as an inhumane and unrealistic political ploy that failed to address the countrys obligations to protect asylum seekers.

It doesnt adequately deal with any of the issues, its just more saber rattling from Priti Patel, said Bridget Chapman, a spokeswoman for the Kent Refugee Action Network, a group in the southeastern part of England where many migrant boats that cross the English Channel from mainland Europe arrive.

Ms. Chapman said that Britain had a shared responsibility to accept people who were applying for asylum and should not rely on countries like Lebanon, Turkey and Mediterranean countries to hold them.

We cant outsource that to poorer countries, thats an abdication of responsibility, Ms. Chapman added. They are not unmanageable numbers.

The rising number of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats has been a rallying cry for anti-immigrant groups.

But migration experts say that the number of those boat crossings somewhere about 5,000, according to estimates from The Times of London and the BBC signals a shift in migration routes, rather than a surge in total new arrivals. While boat arrivals were up in the last year, the overall number of asylum applications was down, falling by 18 percent in 2020, compared with 2019.

Historically, migrants and asylum seekers hid in the back of trucks and crossed from ports in northern France or elsewhere in Europe as the main routes of irregular entry, a much less visible phenomenon. Increased patrolling of freight traffic, particularly coming from the French port of Calais, and the shutdown of other forms of travel during the pandemic shifted smuggling routes to the boat crossings, experts say.

The Refugee Council, the advocacy group, recently released a report on the huge backlog in asylum application processing in Britain, despite the drop in new applicants. According to that study, the number of people waiting for more than a year for an initial decision has risen almost tenfold in the last decade, to 33,016 in 2020, from 3,588 in 2010.

Mr. Hewett of the Refugee Council said that measures introduced so far have failed to act as a deterrent, adding that his organization and other refugee advocates would like to see a shift toward establishing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to obtain humanitarian visas.

Everything the government has done to date has failed, but they seem absolutely intent on following the same path, Mr. Hewett said.

Longer term, the plan potentially sets a dangerous precedent, he said.

What you could end up with is the majority of people fleeing persecution, being detained or housed in developing countries that dont have the infrastructure, Mr. Hewett said. That really undermines our global refugee protection system and the principle of responsibility sharing.

Read the original here:

U.K. Proposes Moving Asylum Seekers Abroad While Their Cases Are Decided - The New York Times

Fishermen in Morro Bay are about to get a much taller neighbor than the ancient volcanic mound that stands like a giant at the tip of the harbor.

Wind turbines are coming.

These things are as big as skyscrapers, says Chris Pavone, whos among roughly 120 fishermen who trap, troll, and drop lines off Morro Bay and Avila Beach.

We want fishing to continue into the future after we're gone, says Alan Alward (right), along with fellow fishermen Chris Pavone (left) and Tom Hafer (center). Photo by Kathryn Barnes/KCRW.

Hes worried about what could become the first offshore wind farm on the West Coast. Approved by the Biden administration, the project would bring roughly 200 floating turbines into the open ocean off the Central Coast.

Its a huge leap towards Californias goal of 100% clean electric power by 2045, but fishermen say a 399-square mile wind farm will become another place they cant fish, in addition to dozens of marine protected areas already out of bounds to them.

If you saw a map of where you can't fish, it's like a mosaic on the ocean, says Pavone. For me to make a really good day and make money, I'm driving an hour, hour and a half in my boat.

The turbines will sit 17 to 30 miles off the coast of southern Big Sur. Industry watchers anticipate theyll be taller than the Seattle Space Needle at roughly 700 feet, but from shore theyll look like faint lines poking out of the horizon.

The federal government granted permission to turn the Morro Bay call area into a wind farm. The Diablo Canyon call area did not receive permission. Courtesy of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

A visual simulation of what the turbines might look like from Piedras Blancas. Courtesy of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

The turbine platforms will be floating in waters more than 3,000 feet deep, deeper than turbines have ever known.

From the surface, you might not even know that it's floating, says Walt Musial, who studies future technologies in the offshore wind industry at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. It's supported by a buoyant foundation, and moored with cables to the bottom with anchors.

He says this project, along with a second project that got the green light near Humboldt County, will create the beginnings of a critical mass for the offshore wind industry.

Then California can think about having offshore wind become a significant contributor to its zero carbon policies, says Musial.

The need for this energy becomes more important when you factor in the decommissioning of nearby Diablo Canyon, the last nuclear power plant in California and a major energy supplier for the state. PG&E says it will discontinue its power operations in 2024 and 2025.

This wind farm is expected to power about 1 million homes thats more electricity than what Diablo is currently supplying California,

But the nuclear power plants closure will impact more than 1,000 workers.

The transition away from nuclear energy is a big impact to our region. It's about 1,500 direct jobs and 3,000 contracted jobs, says Melissa James, the CEO of REACH, a local economic action coalition.

The good news, she says, is nuclear power workers can be trained to become wind power workers. We have an energy workforce that will be willing and ready and able to move into and support the growth of this new industry.

A recent Cal Poly study commissioned by REACH found the wind farm could generate at least 650 jobs and about $250 million in annual economic impacts.

Fishermen are concerned that while the wind industry makes money, the fishing industry will lose money.

Pavone worries that getting displaced from another section of the ocean will lead to more fuel costs, fewer fish brought to market, and ultimately, more people dissuaded from becoming fishermen at all.

Fishermen along the Central Coast catch rock cod, albacore tuna, salmon, prawns, swordfish, black cod and more. Photo by Kathryn Barnes/KCRW.

And its not just the wind farm itself that could disrupt the ocean. Theres also talk of a new deep sea port going in along the Central Coast to transport and service these turbines. Itll add more local jobs, but Pavone says the construction of a port will disturb the underwater habitat.

I know the fish would be scared and they would move, he says. When they show up here with their big boats and their rumbling engines and their sonar pinging the bottom and trenching the bottom, that screws everything up, sometimes for years.

Some local residents arent happy about the proposed wind farm. This sign that reads Help Protect Morro Bay was set up along the road. Photo by Kathryn Barnes/KCRW.

So far, only one prospective wind developer has met with the fishing industry to address these impacts. Castle Wind has formed a Mutual Benefit Agreement to minimize the impacts of the project on the members of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermens Organization and the Port San Luis Commercial Fishermens Association.

Well create a fund for the benefit of the fishermen, and effectively it becomes a revenue sharing agreement, says Alla Weinstein, the CEO of Castle Wind. If her company wins the bid for a lease, shes prepared to compensate each individual fisherman and set up a fund that the fishermen associations can manage and use at their discretion for things like boat improvement, scholarships, and infrastructure repairs.

Pavone and the other fishermen are happy with this agreement, and hope itll act as a model to use with other developers.

The federal government is expected to open the bidding auction next year. The project will likely get split into several parcels and leased to multiple wind developers.

The turbines will position the Central Coast to lead the country in renewable energy. San Luis Obispo is already home to Topaz Solar Farm, one of the worlds largest solar farms, and Morro Bay could soon host the worlds largest lithium battery.

The city of Morro Bay and Vistra Corporation have reached a tentative agreement that would set the foundation for the worlds largest battery storage facility. It would stand where the citys now defunct power plant is, home to a trio of smokestacks that have been an iconic part of the Morro Bay skyline since the 1950s. Photo by Kathryn Barnes/KCRW.

In the meantime, fishermen like Pavone are enjoying their quiet harbor while they can, and making sure they keep their seat at the table when construction begins.

Read more:

'I know the fish would be scared': How California's first offshore wind project will affect the fishing industry - KCRW

On a clear morning in early June, cotton sacks filled with shucked scallops hit the scale at Gambardellas dockside warehouse in Stonington, Connecticut. Theyre being offloaded from the Furious, a scallop boat just back from a 12-day trip.

Owner and longtime fisherman Joe Gilbert runs four scallop boats out of this dock. Up in the wheelhouse of the Furious, he indicated on a chart where in the future, this same trip might be a lot more difficult to navigate.

This entire area here is slated to be a wind farm, he said. Its an area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

In its pursuit of green energy, the Biden administration has given strong backing to the nascent offshore wind industry in the U.S. While Europe has 20 years of experience developing offshore wind, its relatively new in North America.

Last month saw thefinal approval for the very first commercial-scale project, Vineyard Wind, off the coast of Massachusetts just one of 14 projects being considered off the Atlantic coast.

But these arent empty seas. Plenty of other ocean users have concerns about the massive steel turbines being erected offshore, not least commercial fishing, which is a multimillion-dollar industry in New England.

TheResponsible Offshore Development Alliancehas taken the lead in advocating for the fishing industry. Its major concern is that fishing vessels could strike one of the massive wind farm turbines in bad weather. In addition, the spinning blades interfere with the radar vessels use to find their catch. And fishermen like Gilbert worry that the structures will alter the ocean ecosystem as they change current patterns and cause formerly distinct layers of water to mix.

Were racing forward without the proper science to evaluate if this is good or if this is bad, said Gilbert.

But there is research from Europe, according to Amanda Lefton, director of the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

While offshore wind is new to us in the United States, its certainly not a new technology in other places, she said.

The federal agency is in charge of leasing tracts of the ocean for wind projects.

As we actually seek to look at what will we actually lease, were even further narrowing those areas to try and do our best to avoid conflicts with ocean users, Lefton said.

Orsted, a Danish giant in the wind farm business, has five projects planned for the Atlantic coast. John OKeeffe, the companys head of marine affairs in North America, said the concerns of the fishing industry have been incorporated into the process.

Its a good storyline to say you had no input, but the reality is theres been input for years, he said.

Orstedrecently signed an agreementwith one fishing industry group based in Waterford, which will use its vessels for research and liaison as the turbines are placed offshore in the companys Revolution, South Fork and Sunrise wind projects.

The spacing that is agreed to is the largest spacing in the world, OKeeffe said. One nautical mile spacing. It does not exist anywhere else.

But the coexistence of these two industries is still in doubt. Inits part of a recent approval of one project, the federal Army Corps of Engineers said the difficulty of navigation means that commercial fishing likely will be abandoned within the new wind farms.

Back in Stonington, thats exactly what Joe Gilbert fears.

Were afraid were going to lose our livelihoods. This is an existential threat to us, he said.

Gilbert wants to know why the turbines must be dropped on top of fishing grounds in the first place. Hed like to see them sited in deeper water far from shore.

Some Atlantic coast wind farm companies are in talks to establish compensation funds for economic damage to commercial fisheries as part of the federal approval process.

This story is a production of New England News Collaborative. It was originallypublishedby Connecticut Public Radio on July 5, 2021.

Go here to see the original:

Fishing Industry Wary Of Future As Offshore Wind Comes To New England - WBUR

Spains energy and environment ministry has launched a consultation on a marine energy roadmap that includes a target of 1-3GW of floating offshore wind by 2030. The consultation opened yesterday (7 July) and will close on 6 August 2021.

As well as being a key plank of the energy transition at a national, European and global level, Blue Energy is also an industrial, economic and social opportunity for Spain, the ministry stated.

Floating technologies are improving rapidly and are expected to become more cost-competitive by 2030. The sector is at an inflection point, the paper states, with commercial-scale rollout being a key factor in driving costs down.

Costs of small-scale floating projects are currently in the 180-200/MWh range but could fall to 80-100/MWh by 2025 for early commercial-scale projects, and halve again to 40-60/MWh by 2030 as the sector matures.

A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the US projected the cost of floating offshore wind to come down to around 40% of the 2019 fixed-bottom figure by 2050.

In recognition of the financial hurdles developers have to face at present, however, the Spanish white paper recommends providing at least 200 million of government funding in the 2021-2023 period to support research and development.

Floating offshore wind will not only allow Spain to generate large amounts of green energy, but also feed synergies in strategic sectors such as shipping and civil engineering, the paper says.

The energy ministry estimates that port infrastructure will require investment in the region of 500 million to 1 billion to support the rollout of large-scale floating offshore wind.

Floating platform manufacturer Saitec Offshore Technologies recently announced plans for a 45MW pilot project off Spains Basque coast, while Iberdrola is planning more than 1.2GW of floating offshore wind capacity across two sites.

Follow this link:

Spain aims for 1-3GW of floating offshore wind by 2030 - Windpower Monthly

Subsea 7 will combine its renewables business unit with Oslo-based OHT, creating a pure-play renewables company focussed on offshore wind.

The combined company will be headquartered in Oslo and renamed to Seaway 7 ASA. It will initially retain OHTs listing on Oslos Euronext Growth market with plans for future listing on Oslo Brs.

Ownership will consist of Subsea 7 owning 72% and OHTs shareholders 28% of the combined company. Seaway 7 is expected to employ around 600 people with an active fleet of ten vessels and two additional high-specification vessels under construction. Its offering will include installation of wind turbines, foundations, offshore substations, submarine cables and heavy transport.

The closing of the merger is subject to approval by the shareholders of OHT. The combination has the recommendation of OHTs Board of Directors. Songa Corp and Lotus Marine AS, with stakes of 51.1% and 25.6% respectively, have also agreed to approve the transaction. Approval by Subsea 7s shareholders is not required.

Closing is anticipated for end of the third quarter of 2021

The Board of Seaway 7 ASA, chaired by Rune Magnus Lundetr, will comprise four directors nominated by Subsea 7 and one nominated by OHTs largest shareholder, Songa Corp. Its executive team will be led by Stuart Fitzgerald as Chief Executive Officer, as well as Torgeir Ramstad and Steph McNeill holding executive roles.

Subsea 7 brings to the table a fleet of two heavy lift vessels, two cable lay vessels and an installation support vessel and experience installing over 700 foundations, more than 30 substations and over 800 kilometers of submarine cables since 2009. Subsea 7s business in floating wind is not part of the transaction.

OHTs fleet consists of five heavy transportation vessels for large offshore wind structures, as well as two high-end installation vessels currently under construction. The first, due for delivery in 2022, is a state-of-the art wind turbine foundation installation vessel equipped with dynamic positioning and a unique smart deck for efficient installation of monopiles and jacket foundations. The second is a jack-up heavy lift vessel capable of installing the largest wind turbines, as well as wind turbine foundations, and is due for delivery in 2023.

This transaction represents an important next step in Subsea 7s Energy Transition journey that will accelerate and enhance value creation for our shareholders, said John Evans, Chief Executive Officer of Subsea 7. As a listed company with a comprehensive fleet and experienced management team, Seaway 7 ASA is positioned to forge an enhanced growth trajectory as a global leader in offshore wind. Subsea 7 looks forward to working closely with Seaway 7 as it launches this next exciting chapter in its evolution.

Torgeir E. Ramstad, Chief Executive Officer at OHT, commented: This is a very significant event in the growing Renewables industry. Subsea 7 is a highly respected company and we are delighted that it sees OHT as a natural partner in creating a new global leader in renewables. We are committed to translating the leading capabilities that the combined company will offer into benefits for clients within the offshore fixed wind industry.

View original post here:

Subsea 7 and OHT to Combine Renewables Businesses, Creating Offshore Wind Giant - gcaptain.com