With 'poison pill' language removed, Icebreaker developer begins to look ahead to project's future

The Lake Erie offshore wind project ‘Icebreaker’ isn’t a done deal but a recent decision by the OPSB opens a wide berth for its developers to finally realize a plan that’s been in the works for almost a decade. 

The OPSB’s 17 September meeting on “poison pill” language in the May approval of the wind farm ended with a swift reversal of fortune for LEEDCo, the project’s development company. 

Despite a draft ruling that leaked days before that suggested the Board would reject LEEDCo’s June request for reconsideration, the Board voted unanimously to remove the language — which would have required the wind farm to “feather” its turbines eight hours a day for eight months a year to avoid damage to birds and bats — after Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Mary Mertz introduced the motion.

LEEDCo President Dave Karpinski said he was shocked by the outcome and remains mystified at how the Board arrives at decisions. The meeting represented “quite a turn of events,” Karpinski said in an interview with New Project Media. 

Before Mertz introduced the motion to strike the language, Board Chairman Sam Randazzo introduced the leaked draft ruling to keep it in place. 

“And Mary Mertz, the head of the Department of Natural Resources, said, ‘Well, I’ve got another thought and I’d like to make a different motion.’ So the Chairman withdraws his motion, she motions that the poison pill condition be removed. She said, ‘Look, I’ve looked at this and I think it’s not necessary and … I move that it be removed.’ And then there’s a second, then probably 30 minutes of discussion followed or more,” Karpinski said. “There was a lot of fireworks, I guess I would say.”

Randazzo, despite voting for Mertz’s motion, filed a dissenting opinion defending the language, Karpinski said.

“He voted against his own dissenting opinion at the end,” he said.

In the 30 minutes between the motion to remove the language and its approval, State Senator Sandra Williams and State Representative Jeffrey Crossman, both non-voting members of the Board who have previously spoke up to question Randazzo’s handling of the approval process, were active in the discussion, Karpinski said. Another non-voting member, State Senator Steve Wilson, read a comment from the president of the Ohio Senate supporting the project, he said.

It was Mertz’s staff at DNR that had made the recommendation initially that a feathering condition was unnecessary and that the project did not represent any serious threat to birds or bats. Mertz did not respond to a request for comment. LEEDCo’s working theory, Karpinski said, was that Mertz didn’t know that the feathering language going against the DNR’s recommendation made it into the final approval after years of deliberation on the matter. 

Certain wildlife damage mitigation conditions made it through the vote on 17 September, including one that would notify the state if the turbines strike more than 21 birds in a 24-hour period. 

The 20.7 MW, USD 126m wind project, which is intended as a pilot project for future freshwater offshore wind development, is still not out of the woods. The revised document will be voted on likely next month and then the opponents can appeal the changed order. They’ll have a 30 day window to file an appeal and then the Board will have another 30 day window to vote on that. 

“So we’re looking at possibly the end of the year before that’s exhausted,” Karpinski said. “And then the opponents could file an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.” 

Any timeline on the beginning of construction will be on hold until those processes conclude, he said. Given the ersatz nature of the last four months of the approval process, Karpinski said he’s hesitant to make any definitive statements on how the process will wrap up. 

Both Karpinski and Rep. Crossman hold concerns over how decisions are handed down by the OPSB.

“The Power Siting Board is not really well known by the public and it does impact energy policy in the state of Ohio,” Crossman said in an interview with New Project Media. “So it was … an important moment to shed some light on what happens there and how they operate really at the direction of the PUCO chair.” 

The approval process is not welcoming to renewable developers, Crossman said. 

“How can a developer have confidence in Ohio’s process if I can’t even get a straight answer out of the chairman about how they came to slip that language in there,” Crossman said. “You tell me: If you’re a developer looking to invest in Ohio, what gives you confidence that the process is going to be fair, going to be transparent … that (you’re) going to get a fair shake.”