Ørsted and DNREC’s fantastical realization

On the morning of July 10, Ørsted suddenly announced that it had notified DNREC that it would no longer pursue the development of its interconnection facility in Fenwick Island State Park, stating: “[f]ollowing the completion of more thorough evaluations of the area proposed for the facility, Ørsted has determined that a large portion of the site is comprised of undisturbed wetlands.”

DNREC quickly followed suit, issuing a similar statement that: “There has been an understanding since the proposal was first made that significant negative impact to the environment, including wetlands at Fenwick Island State Park would not be acceptable to DNREC or to Ørsted.”

In other words, Ørsted and DNREC are peddling the story that after nearly six months of secret negotiations to build Ørsted’s interconnection facility literally on top of Fenwick Island State Park’s wetlands and nine additional months of a slick joint PR campaign selling the wetland site as “improvements” to Fenwick Island State Park (including through a carefully engineered “survey” of residents devoid of an option for public dissent), Ørsted and DNREC suddenly realized that Ørsted’s giant two-acre substation would sit atop “undisturbed” wetlands. 

If the secretly orchestrated project rollout and phony survey on park “improvements” wasn’t enough to cause you to question the motives behind the DNREC/Ørsted partnership, surely the sudden epiphany by these self-proclaimed environment stewards that building atop undisturbed wetlands actually destroys wetlands should be definitive proof. The only thing more fantastical than the abrupt realization that developing wetlands destroys wetlands is any expectation by DNREC/Ørsted that we believe the sincerity of their sudden concern. 

Ørsted didn’t scuttle its industrial development at Fenwick Island State Park to save Delaware’s coastal wetlands and, although DNREC now conveniently claims to have taken wetland destruction into account all along, the record is quite void of such sentiment prior to Ørsted’s withdrawal. Make no mistake, had it not been for the hard work, diligence and grassroots activism of stakeholders in Delaware’s coastal parks who exposed the lunacy (and hypocrisy) of the DNREC/Ørsted development plans, Ørsted would have dutifully reduced the park’s undisturbed ocean-to-bay wetlands by no less than 33% in pursuit of its interconnection facility and DNREC would have continued to eschew its public mandate to protect Delaware’s natural resources as money flowed over (and maybe under?) the table. 

But beware, this isn’t over. Ocean City, Md., has held strong in denying interconnection unless Ørsted moves its turbines farther offshore and Assateague Island National Seashore is sensibly off limits as a national park. As a public company with a duty to its investors to maximize shareholder value, Ørsted has all the reason in the world to cut Maryland out of the interconnection equation to avoid incremental costs. With DNREC unmasked as a pliable, money-hungry mark, Ørsted will certainly have another go at Delaware (undoubtedly with a more refined environmental impact message).   The moral of this story is that, no matter how you feel about wind energy generally, stakeholders in Delaware’s coastal parks need to stay alert and speak up as DNREC has proven its willingness to put conservation aside when the price is right.

The Danish are coming and DNREC is more than happy to open the gates, so we must continue to critically consider any proposal to breach Delaware’s shoreline. If we fail to do so, the next development proposal from DNREC/Ørsted might as well include a natural history museum in lieu of a nature center.