Blog

Is the USA open for business?

2 May 11 - Martin McAdam, CEO

I was in the USA last week meeting potential investors and speaking at the Global Marine Energy Conference (GMREC) in Washington DC. 

Here's the number one thing I told everyone I met in the US: Marine energy - or marine hydro-kinetic energy as they call it in the States - represents a huge global opportunity.  (If it didn't then the hundreds of people who attend GMREC wouldn't have been there.)  The second thing I wanted to get across was the huge role the US has to play in taking advantage of that global opportunity because of its available resource, its technology capability and the availability of capital.

Money, money, money

To capitalise on that opportunity will take three things: Money, money and money.  Or, more specifically, private investment, government funding, and production incentives.  But along with money, there are a number of other key factors which will prove vital to the marine energy industry reaching its real potential in the USA: namely having the required grid infrastructure, the ability to grow a supply chain, a desire for economic development and, almost as important as money, a friendly and supportive permitting regime.

Energy security v permitting process

Why is a permitting regime so important? Ask anyone on a technology development programme and I'd wager that they'd put permitting and the associated delays up there as one of their biggest challenges. The balance of desires to move to a long-term secure energy future and the permitting effort to prove the first pre-commercial arrays needs to be taken into account. Anecdotally it is estimated that a permit for a wave energy array in California would cost in the region of $10m as you negotiate your way through 23 local, state and federal permits. Another example is the Cape Wind Project, admittedly a much more controversial project, which has been eight years in the permitting phase and cost somewhere in the region of $30m.

I don't have the cash to spend $10m (never mind $30m) on permitting - I would much prefer to spend that on the continued development of Aquamarine Power's Oyster technology - or head for a country or state where permitting costs a tenth as much. As I said, a balance needs to be struck between the permitting burden for the early arrays and the desire for energy security, commercial activity and technology development.

Economic development

Oregon is a state that is trying to get it right. The Oregon Wave Energy Trust is working hard to engage in the sea planning process and I'd urge you to read the recent online article 'Waiting for wave energy' in Oregon Business to find out more about this.

Economic development in the sea is not just about the traditional industries - it's also about the newer marine energy industries that can and will contribute to economic development. Fishing is a huge and vital industry. Energy is also a vital industry - there is room in our seas for both these industries and I ask regulators in the USA to engage with our industry.  Our objective is not to damage existing industries. Our objective is to produce clean, renewable energy that contributes not only to electricity export but underpins manufacturing industries.