In accordance with notice of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council’s Planning & Procedures subcommittee, a meeting was held on Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. utilizing the Zoom Platform. All members, staff and participants were present on Zoom.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Jennifer Cervenka, Chair
Don Gomez
Patricia Reynolds
Angelo Liberti, RIDEM

STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Willis, Executive Director
James Boyd, Acting Deputy Director
Leah Feldman, Coastal Policy Analyst
Anthony DeSisto, Legal Counsel

 

Call to Order. Chair Cervenka called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.

Item 4.A – 650-RICR-20-00-1.3.1(S) Submerged renewable energy cables within state waters. J. Willis and J. Boyd explained travel of the proposed regulations, primarily the need to address this issue within the larger context of the development of a Narragansett Bay SAMP (Bay SAMP). J. Boyd explained the detailed role of the Cable Working Group in the development of these proposed regulations notable their latest set of comments as of October of 2020. He also explained the importance of crafting these regulations vis-à-vis offshore wind and cable landings in state waters. The renewable energy developer Ørsted is also participating in the Cable Working Group and is commenting on these proposed regulations, as their forthcoming project, Revolution Wind, will have its cable travel into and through Narragansett Bay. Chair Cervenka asked if these regulations, while being addressed in the larger context of the Bay SAMP, will stand on their own. Staff stated that they will albeit they will be located under the umbrella of the Redbook. Mr. Gomez asked about a cable route up the Sakonnet River. J. Boyd explained that there is still a significant amount of research needed for this area of the Bay, as passage here is physically restricted in the Tiverton Basin but the location of the former Brayton Point power station on Mt Hope Bay poses an attractive landing spot for offshore cables. To address the future regulatory issues of using the Sakonnet as a cable corridor, staff is acknowledging that route but holding off on proposing regulations at this time to consider research. Mr. Gomez asked what impact a cable route into Massachusetts waters poses. Staff noted that MA CZM would also become a regulator. The ACOE would be the primary federal regulator when cables came into state waters. Ms. Reynolds asked if the regulations are considering additional cable routes through state waters. J. Boyd explained that there are no other cable routes proposed for RI waters at this time. J. Boyd presented the remaining offshore lease sites under control of various renewable energy developers and their proposed cable landfall locations in the region. Mr. Gomez asked if the CRMC would regulate cables in federal waters. Staff explained that if any renewable energy project was located within the CRMC’s GLDs the CRMC would have federal consistency authorities. Further it would have the same authorities to review the cables if just the cables were located therein. Chair Cervenka asked if there are stakeholders that have not participated. J. Boyd explained that the Cable Working Group is a very inclusive group of industry, state and federal partners, NGOs, Universities, renewable energy interest groups, and fisher groups, all of which have been vocal in the work-up to these proposed regulations. In fact all these groups have commented on the various drafts of the proposed regulations. Chair Cervenka thanked staff for ensuring the wide range of stakeholder participation and reminded staff that in its larger effort of developing the Bay SAMP to also ensure the stakeholder base is a robust one.

Chair Cervenka acknowledged two members of the public who were participating via Zoom and then asked if either had any questions. Only Mr. Capizzo spoke and made a positive comment on the inclusiveness of the stakeholder process.

Mr. Gomez seconded by Ms. Reynolds moved to approve the proposed revisions as presented and begin the rule-making process. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 5.A - Proposed Legislation RIGL46-23-7 et seq. J. Willis explained that each year the Administration seeks from its agencies potential revisions to existing legislation and/or the development of new legislation. He further explained that these proposed revisions to the CRMC’s enabling legislation are to increase its fine capabilities from a maximum fine of $2,500 to $10,000 and that a significant reason for which is that the agency’s current fine structure is so low that violators of the Program often simply absorb the fine as a cost of doing business. These proposed changes would make violations of the program more significant and work to reduce the number of serious violations to the Program. Any proposed legislation is required to be submitted to the Administration for their consideration into their legislative package. Ms. Reynolds asked if the revenue generated stays with the Program. J. Willis explained that its goes to the General Fund. Mr. Gomez asked if RIDEM had similar fines. J. Willis stated that RIDEM’s fine capabilities are significantly higher.

Chair Cervenka asked if the development of an Administrative Fine Program would be part and parcel to this effort. J. Willis stated that it would. He also noted that if the legislation doesn’t pass staff will still develop such a program.

Ms. Reynolds seconded by Mr. Gomez moved to approve submitting the proposed legislation to the Administration as presented. All voted in favor of the motion.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Gomez, seconded by Ms. Reynolds, moved to adjourn. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M Willis, Deputy Director

 

CALENDAR INDEX