Joe's Comments

Stephen:

Great question. Project opponents often do bring strong third voices in. Having a celebrity endorser is a long way from the kind of third voice engagement I would encourage, and that helps to avoid the problem you mention.

Your third voices should be parties that you have pitched the project to and they have come away from that meeting saying: "I like this, because..." Jobs. Climate impact. And let us not forget some of the "old school" issues that have fallen by the wayside: business and business interests can still be very supportive in instances where they see capacity additions as bolstering reliability or capacity.

Whoever comes to the table with you, the risk of backfire is eliminated if every party comes to the table in good faith and with their interest made public. Most times it won't be a secret to anyone, so there is little use in tip-toeing around -- which only adds an air of sleaziness anyway.

I would point to SDG&E's Sunrise PowerLink engagement as an example where 3d voices were used well. Sure, a lot of your support might come from obvious, self-interested parties. So will your opposition!

Mike -- not sure if you're on target that its a submarine tactic, but I do think you point out a major issue: wider deployment and integration of renewables is not compatible with every element of our regulatory system and structure.

Doug:

Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm sorry, I cannot see how the question of streamlining permitting can be considered to be based on an over-generalization. In no less a bill than the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the investigation of ways to streamline permitting and approvals on a national basis. That was four years ago...and four years after Cape Wind received its first project approval.

That project was put on further hold today with the announcement of another round of review by the National Register of Historic Places. I think that the Natl Register does important work, but the notion that at this point they should be holding the construction of a renewable energy facility that has been proposed for a decade is a foreboding omen for the prospects of this country transitioning to a greener energy blend. And, we could go around the country and point to similar delays (look just south to Paddock-Rockcdale for an example of a project that has been ongoing for more than 3 years).

As to your Texas example, it was the lack of transmission based on the inability to site new lines that inspired EPAct 2005's "national corridors of interest" study and led to the FERC backstopping rules.

That is to say nothing of the fact that - the polar opposite of a generalization - the Texas example is an outlier. Texas is not connected to the other 47, there has not been a disintegration of the generation and distribution businesses, and it is the largest, most resource-full state vis-a-vis per capita consumption.

Definitely, there are different situations all over the country as a community-by-community case goes. But, largely - as reflected in three currently proposed Senate bills and as passed in Waxman-Markey in the House - the issue of permitting and siting is one of the most obstructive policy-related delays to renewable expansion in the US.

Great numbers, thanks for bringing them to my attention. I think you have to give a lot of credit to the stimulus investment of $11 Bn for helping spur VC confidence in the sector.

From a political perspective, if tonight's elections are any solid indication of what has been CW, the WH and the Dems are not doing enough to connect those dots for the American people: i.e., stimulus investment in CT bridged the gap and restored confidence and brought private capital back.

The overwhelming smoothness of the campaign has been absent as the governing has begun, and just in these past few weeks, there have been inexplicable new slip-ups (Afghan run-off, Gitmo H1N1 vaccine story, and the House Speaker's bills on health care and climate). All of it will have a trickle down effect on energy legislation, and let's hope that VCs are ready to weather another storm (if we are looking at a "W" shape) and stick with clean tech in the face of political slackening.

2009 has been fascinating...sounds crazy, but 2010 is shaping up to be even more interesting!

Two additional points of note on this discussion:

1) I am sure that Anon and others will be dismissive of its findings, but the US Offshore Wind Collaborative did release its "Path Forward" report on the future of the technology this morning. It is available for pdf download at http://usowc.org/pdfs/PathForwardfinal.pdf

2) To Barbara's points, I would not contend - nor should any developer operating in a credible, good faith manner - that all concerns about impact should be disregarded in the push for more renewable power. Quite the contrary. My professional goal is to find a way to enable conversations about those impacts. Still, clean energy professionals, investors and regulators - and evidently the media - are growing weary of scare tactics, misdirection and other ploys which are rightly characterized as NIMBY tactics. Witness the Boston Globe's editorial response (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/27/a_cynical_gimmick_against_cape_wind/) to the latest challenge to Cape Wind, an effort to characterize Nantucket Sound as sacred ground for a local indigenous American tribe. We should all reject the use of "laugh-out-loud bogus," "contrived," transparently cynical" "gimmicks" in our discourse over these projects.