The bill would have required utilities to sign long-term power purchase agreements with offshore wind developers.

“This is a massive, complex idea,” said Shaun Adamec, a spokesman for Gov. Martin O’Malley. The bill is “essentially creating a multibillion-dollar industry for the state of Maryland. So it’s at least understandable that there are legislators that want to take some time to look at the implications of it.”

Lawmakers raised objections to the additional cost that would be passed on to ratepayers. O’Malley seemed to assuage some of these concerns with an amendment that capped any additional monthly cost, but proponents still could not move the legislation forward.

“I think everybody liked the idea of wind turbines off our shore, and everyone wished it was cheaper than conventional fossil fuels today,” said Malcolm Woolf, director of the Maryland Energy Administration. “But it’s not, and no one can guarantee future electricity prices. People liked the jobs, but were concerned about the potential ratepayer impact.”

RI Supreme Court Hears Standing Arguments In Deepwater Wind Case

The Conservation Law Foundation and two manufacturers told the Rhode Island Supreme Court Wednesday that they have standing to challenge a power purchase agreement for National Grid to buy electricity from Deepwater Wind’s Block Island wind farm, the Providence Journal reported.

State regulators initially rejected a contract between the two parties. Lawmakers then revised the criteria for reviewing the project and regulators subsequently approved an altered deal last August.

If the court declines to hear the case, the issue will be settled. If they take the case and reject the power purchase agreement, the wind farm could be substantially delayed and the framework the state legislature established for reviewing these power purchase agreements would be struck down. Justices questioned why the Conservation Law Foundation — a pro-renewable energy organization — would oppose the new policy over a procedural issue.

“You’re attacking the policy,” Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell told the foundation’s attorney. “If we reject this and agree with you, we’re back to no policy.”

Siemens Chief Says Cape Wind Might Start Building This Year

The chief executive of Siemens AG — Cape Wind’s turbine provider — said Wednesday that the wind farm near Massachusetts could start construction this year, Dow Jones reported.

“We are hoping to see this thing get started by the end of the year,” Siemens Corp.’s Chief Executive Eric Spiegel said. “It’s been a nine-and-a-half year battle.”

A leading environmental law group said last month that Massachusetts officials exceeded their legal authority when they delegated offshore wind regulation to regional planning agencies.

In a Nov. 23 letter to Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) outlined what it claims are inconsistencies between the Massachusetts Draft Ocean Management Plan prepared by Bowles’ office and the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008.

Under the Oceans Act, Bowles is responsible for developing and executing the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, which identifies zones for large-scale offshore wind farms in state waters. A draft was issued in June and a final version is due on December 31. That plan was supposed to put Massachusetts on the cutting edge of offshore wind development in the United States.

In a letter to local legislators last month, Bowles indicated that Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod officials would retain the power to determine the “appropriate scale” of offshore wind projects in their waters. If granted regulatory authority, these regional planning agencies could effectively veto any proposed offshore wind developments within their zones.

The CLF argued that this delegation of duties went against the letter and spirit of the Oceans Act.

“These ‘commitments’ are contrary to the Oceans Act and thus cannot be made,” the CLF wrote in a letter submitted as part of the public comment period.

CLF officials did not specify what action they would take if their concerns were ignored in the final plan.

The Foundation also complained about the lack of transparency leading up to Bowles’ decision.

“We strenuously object to the highly questionable ‘procedure’ by which the Secretary has short-circuited the public comment period and done unique violence to the clear intent of the Oceans Act with respect to open and transparent public process,” the CLF letter read.

Bowles’ office declined comment on specific criticisms of the Ocean Plan.

“There were a number of comments filed during the public comment period,” EEA spokeswoman Lisa Capone said. “They will all be considered as EEA develops a final plan in order to submit it by the Dec. 31 deadline.”

Some ocean management experts downplayed Bowles’ decision to delegate regulatory authority. Richard Delaney, executive director of the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, believes that integration of state, regional and local governments is essential to cohesive ocean management.

“I see plenty of opportunity for the parties to still coordinate on definitions of ‘appropriate scale’ and best siting options,” Delaney said in an email.  “The political and ecological realities are that even within a ‘comprehensive state ocean plan’ there are ecological features and issues that differ significantly region by region along the Mass coastline and to which the plan must be sensitive.”