Why Deepwater Wind could be the next 38 Studios


I am compelled to write after reading Deepwater Wind’s recent paid advertisement in the Block Island Times captioned “The Block Island Wind Farm: The Right Project for Block Island. Setting the Record Straight.” Deepwater has absolutely failed to “set the record straight.” The article is simply a continuation of the disinformation efforts of Deepwater, which result in the public remaining uninformed of the truth. 


There is no debate when it comes to the fact that Block Islanders need relief from the high utility rates they are compelled to pay.  However, forwarding the project proposed by Deepwater Wind, which calls for the construction of five wind turbines standing 660 feet tall covering 117 acres of ocean approximately three miles southeast of Block Island, is certainly not the solution.  The travel of the Deepwater Wind proposal, as it left the office of Governor Carcieri in 2010 with a ringing endorsement from his Economic Development Corporation, personifies a classic example of the “inside game” that has plagued Rhode Islanders for years. If you think that Governor Carcieri and the EDC’s 38 Studios project was a fiasco, stand by; we are about to be had once again, unless we, the citizen ratepayers, stand up and are counted. 

There are numerous reasons that can be voiced in opposition to Deepwater’s proposal; the most glaring being the fact that Rhode Island ratepayers will be compelled to pay 24.4 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity generated by Deepwater vs. the rate of 9.7 cents per kilowatt hour that consumers on the mainland currently pay. National Grid is compelled to pay over 200 percent more for power generated by Deepwater than the power it purchases from other traditional sources. I speak objectively about this outrage as I enjoy a residence on Block Island where rates will likely decrease and I also maintain a residence in Narragansett, where our electric rates will escalate.  Significantly, it is not simply a matter of what is good for me as a resident of Block Island; what is good for the consumers of our state as a whole is what counts.

Unfortunately, the Deepwater project is not only an incredible financial burden to the consumer; it has a tremendous negative impact upon private industry. For example, Toray Plastics of America, which employs more than 600 people in North Kingstown, will see its electric rates increase $260,000 per year.  This is not the type of initiative Rhode Island should endorse as we attempt to attract industry and resolve our unemployment crisis. The fact is we need an energy policy that will offer utility rates that will be attractive to private industry. Do not be deceived; Deepwater is not bringing jobs to Rhode Island.

Unfortunately, Deepwater’s impact upon our electric rates does not level off at 24.4 cents. Each year there will be a 3.5 percent increase in the cost of power generated by Deepwater, plus there will be additional fees for maintenance, and at the end of the turbines’ 15- to 20-year life span, we may be “on the hook” for costs attended to dismantling the turbines. The 3.5 percent annual increase will eventually drive the kilowatt per hour cost up to approximately 48 cents. Some have forecast that the Deepwater project, if approved, would be tantamount to burdening citizen-ratepayers with a $390 million increase over a 20-year period.

Deepwater’s most recent salvo has been an attempt to secure easements from the town of Narragansett that would permit them to bring their cable underground through the south beach parking lot and then tie into a series of 38 telephone poles, all of which will be 10 feet higher than traditional poles. Fortunately, the Narragansett Town Council has its “antenna up” and is now beginning to challenge Deepwater.

Argument has been made that it is time to “keep our money here instead of sending it to Saudi Arabia for oil,” a comment a lobbyist favoring Deepwater Wind shared with the legislature in 2010. His thoughts were absolutely erroneous. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the production of energy resulting from the utilization of petroleum fuels is under 1 percent, both in New England and nationwide. Natural gas, nuclear and coal are sources of energy that produce the majority of the region’s sources of electricity. Natural gas, which there is currently an abundance of, produces the highest amount, which is approximately 42 percent. Studies authored in the early 2000s indicated that hydroelectric sources produced 13 percent of New England’s energy. Certainly, there is no question that we all want to work toward becoming independent of fossil fuels; however, there is a sane, sound way of proceeding. Wind will not free us from our dependency on fossil fuel; it is rated as the most undependable source of alternative energy. As we know, the wind does not always blow; unfortunately, however, when it does “kick up a gale,” there is no method that technology has developed to store the excess power. In fact, if gale force winds prevail, the turbines more often are shut down as a safety measure. 

We need to join together as a region and develop a comprehensive, affordable, clean energy plan. Fortunately, it appears that our current governor has delegated staff to work toward that end. The random siting of wind turbines without a comprehensive affordable energy plan sets us back in achieving our goal of providing affordable energy to our citizens and to the industries that we so desperately need to attract. 

The travel of the Deepwater project has been questionable from the onset. Power purchase agreements between a proposed generator of power such as Deepwater, and the distributor of such power, in our case National Grid, must be approved by the quasi-judicial body known as the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). On March 30, 2010, the PUC unanimously rejected the power purchase agreement proposed by Deepwater, noting that it was too costly to the ratepayers. Rather than pursuing a traditional appeal of the PUC ruling through the court system, Deepwater simply returned to the governor’s office and the EDC. Deepwater, the Carcieri administration and the governor’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) would not be denied. The governor and his Economic Development Corporation team, aided by the leadership of the General Assembly, developed legislation that widened the “goal posts” and compelled the PUC to give Deepwater “a second bite at the apple” and evaluate Deepwater’s power purchase agreement through new parameters. That “sweetheart legislation” was opposed by a myriad of proponents of good government. Responsible members of the General Assembly, such as Larry Ehrhardt, Eileen Naughton and certain public interest groups, joined then-Attorney General Patrick Lynch, myself and former Attorney General Arlene Violet in vigorously objecting to the Carcieri/EDC legislation creating a new, unique “standard of review” that the PUC was compelled to employ. Said standard was forwarded by powerful members of the General Assembly and promptly propelled into legislation in June of 2010. A scenario not unlike that surrounding the 38 Studios deal.  Believe it or not, that “sweetheart legislation” mandated the PUC to no longer consider the overall impact of the Deepwater project on the ratepayers. In August of 2010, forced to reconsider Deepwater’s application within the parameters of Carceri/EDC legislation, the PUC approved Deepwater’s power purchase agreement by a vote of 2-1. 

It is interesting to note that the governor’s chief of staff in 2010, Jeffrey Grybowski, is now Deepwater’s chief executive officer, while a former member of the New Shoreham Town Council is also on Deepwater’s payroll. 

Deepwater now wants to do more than force high electric rates upon us; it wants our Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) to waive $700,000 in fees, which Deepwater is required to pay the council to consider its application to construct the turbines in our coastal waters. This is a fee based on a formula that every permit applicant and every citizen applicant must pay to the CRMC. Deepwater certainly can afford this expense, particularly when you consider its anticipated profits.  Deepwater testified before the PUC that it will enjoy $435 million in free cash flow profit during the tenure of its operation. The Deepwater Wind Project is designed to provide an incredible rate of return to its investors – this is surely not a public works project. The project costs are currently estimated at $207 million, plus an additional $50 million for installation of the proposed cable. Significantly, there is a federal investment tax credit of 30 percent, which travels with this project.  Strikingly, Deepwater testified that it will make arrangements with the government so that it will give Deepwater and its capital providers over $55 million in investment tax credits on the very first day the project is operational. It appears now that the government will grant the investors a 30 percent investment tax credit once there is “a shovel in the ground,” as opposed to when the project becomes operational. Imagine if you had 55 investors and each of them owed $1 million in taxes due and payable to the government; each of the 55 investors could receive a $1 million tax credit, thereby eliminating the $55 million they collectively owed the government. Getting cash out of the project on its first day presents a handsome return to Deepwater, D.E. Shaw and its other investors. This payday will occur before a single light bulb is lit in Rhode Island by power promised by Deepwater. 

Clearly, there is no economic sense to the Deepwater Wind Project, unless, of course, you are the developer or a Deepwater investor. If this project is permitted to go forward, Wall Street interests will profit while the citizen ratepayers, the working men and women of Rhode Island, will, once again, as with 38 Studios, sustain another “hit to their pocketbooks,” and our efforts to attract private industry and jobs for our citizens will be set back once again.

To enhance the economic future of Rhode Island and to protect our precious environment, please “stand up and be counted”; voice your objection by promptly contacting the CRMC: council@crmc.ri.gov or call 783-3370, and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:  Michael.J.Elliot@usace.army.mil or call (978) 318-8561

James E. O’Neil is the former Rhode Island Attorney General.


6 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

TY for your research Mr. O'Neil. So far, 9 people have viewed your op-ed and I'm sure there will be more after they are done watching Honey Boo Boo, Amish Mafia, American Idol and Moonshiners, those highly intellectual and thought provoking television programs. The only thing I might add to your research is that the windmills themselves are very labor intensive on the repair front. I've been told about $500,000 dollars every two years or so. Another great deal for RI citizens who continue to have champagne taste with a swill pocketbook.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Disgusting. I want nothing more than to move far far away from this wretched excuse for a state! But I WILL be calling and voicing my objection!

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

I will be calling and voicing my in FAVOR of. This is a scare tactic opinion posted by Mr. O'Neil. This resistance to moving toward our future independance from the limited fossil fuels remaining is not the majority opinion anymore. Many people are so tired of being a slave to the oil companies. As I write this gasoline prices continue to rise to record levels for this time of the year. There is no explanation or reasoning for it other than greed. I cannot believe people still are buying suv's and pickups that they do not need that get terrible gas mileage than complain about gas prices! People are not using sound financial thinking. Gas prices are never going to be low ever again. The start up cost for wind and solar do seem high than dirty cheap energy on the short term. Long term the economic and environmental benefits will be priceless. I'm surprised Mr. O'Neil didn't mention the NIMBY opinion, I was waiting for it but it never came in this particular article. As we continue to pay billions upon billions to pay for the natural disasters that are plaguing this world we nickel and dime the long term solutions. Thankfully the President is aware of the problem we face with global warming and is a strong advocate to do something. Leading the way for our transition to alternative energy. Whether you like it or not the country and the world is heading in a more sustainable direction. So it will create jobs to make, construct, install, and maintain alternative energy projects. Not unlike any expensive mining operation, or oil rig, or oil tanker.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Mr. Sapatoni, Are you auditioning for SNL? Getting a little over your skis aren't you Mikey, after all, Mr. O'Neil is a former federal prosecutor and RI Attorney General who put away bad guys, wise guys, labor racketeers, crooked politicians and the like while you took up space at Harvard on the Hill, CCRI. However, .I will stick with your written facts as you have presented them here in an attempt to interject some reason.

" This resistance to moving toward our future independance from the limited fossil fuels remaining is not the majority opinion anymore. " REALLY? Where is your source attribution? Memo to Mikey...We are about to become a net exporting energy country. Check the Lundberg news letter, the petroleum Institute, any energy desk expert from JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, or any other expert who actually covers the industry. THAT MEANS REAL JOBS!

You say there is no explanation for rising gas prices other than greed...Earth to Mikey...Production is down for at least two obvious reasons; Several refineries have had reductions in production due to the horrible weather around the country, including NEW JERSEY. You remember, Super storm Sandy, and the blizzard? Also the switch over from heating oil to summer grade fuel drives costs

"I cannot believe people still are buying suv's and pickups that they do not need that get terrible gas mileage than complain about gas prices! "

REALLY? Perhaps you would care to share with us how many Toyota Prius cars are owned and driven by the Sapatoni family? Talk the talk, then walk the walk...

"The start up cost for wind and solar do seem high than dirty cheap energy on the short term." Did you ever attend ANY of the hearings when this trojan horse legislation was foisted on the RI public how it was going to reduce energy costs and create jobs at Quonset Point? When Rep. Larry Earhardt was one of the very few people who did his homework and asked the tough questions, including about rate front-loads, and never got straight answers, were you there, did you watch the hearings on Capitol TV?

I get it Mikey...Your next original thought would be your first. You'd rather throw out talking points from God knows where and present them as fact. I suppose in your world natural gas is a terrible idea as alternative energy as well? You being a big time labor family and staunch Democrat interested in job creation, I suggest you educate yourself about energy, and especially the potential for Quonset point in utilizing the natural gas right off our coast. You best have a conversation with some of former Gov. Phil Noel's inner circle. They will give you an education about nat. gas and how many jobs could be created right here...PLEASE, no more tilting at windmills. Obama's henchmen have thrown $85B at alternative energy projects and have little to show but Chapter 11filings. Obama's energy policy is connected at the hip with large campaign contributors from these so called GREEN energy companies with nothing to show for it Think of it as STUDIO 38 with billions of dollars involved...The bankruptcy records are in the public domain. I suggest you look and see what a rouse this GREEN energy investment has turned into.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Your not looking into the future at all. You don't care about the environment. Very short minded and not thinking outside the fossil fuel box. Refineries have been closing prior to Sandy so lets be honest about that. Why? they are too expensive. Prius vehicles in the U.S. alone are now numbering over 1 million sold. Ford is now rolling out sedans that get 30-40 mpg. Yes the U.S. currently is exporting more than importing yet that means oil is not staying here in the U.S. and certainly isn't lowering any prices. The reason why exports are up is North Dakota's recent boom if you will. Natural gas is wonderful except for fracking is ruining our fresh ground water. There are jobs to be had in alternative energy but you cannot see past the fossil fuel smog in your head. I'm not going into my background on here because people don't care really. I don't care it was written by the former RI Attorney General. That means nothing to me. Studies have been written by thousands of scientists globally regarding global warming and people still dis-credit them so it doesn't matter on the source. The fact is you are part of the remaining stubborn population that is refusing to except alternative energy is the future. Thank God our President is not in the pockets of "big oil". Before he leaves office he will have this country in a totally different direction and away from fossil fuels. The next President no matter if Republican or Democract will have to continue this path because we can't afford not to.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

The "sheeple" will never believe anything other than their liberal point of view so don;t bother. They are to busy watching American Ido.....I mean, The Environment, to be bothered.....

Saturday, February 23, 2013