The Green Power Partnership works with a wide variety of leading organizations — from Fortune 500® companies to local, state and federal governments, and a growing number of colleges and universities. The following Top Partner Rankings highlight the annual green power use of leading Green Power Partners within the United States and across individual industry sectors.

Using green power helps reduce the environmental impacts of electricity use and supports the development of new renewable generation capacity nationwide. Usage amounts reflect U.S. operations only and are sourced from U.S.-based green power resources. Organizations can meet EPA Partnership requirements using any combination of three different product options: (1) Renewable Energy Certificates, (2) On-site generation, and (3) Utility green power products.

Usage figures are based on annualized Partner contract amounts (kilowatt-hours), not calendar year totals. These rankings are updated on a quarterly schedule. Find out how your organization can partner with EPA today! To view a top partner list, select from the chart below:

It has become a cliche to call the seas around the UK the “Saudi Arabia of offshore wind.” The reasons for this are relatively straightforward. The ideal conditions for an offshore wind farm is a lot of wind and a not particularly deep stretch of water. The North Sea has both, so much so that more or less all of the planet’s offshore wind farms are located there. To demonstrate why the UK is rightly called the Saudia Arabia of offshore wind let’s first consider some simple geometry and then take a quick tour around the world and consider how the UK compares to other regions.

Roughly speaking offshore wind farms are currently restricted to regions where sea bed depth is no greater than 60 metres. And for obvious reasons you don’t want to build one too far from land. On a lot, though not all, of the planet coastal regions gradually get deeper until you get to the continental slope when the ocean gets deep quickly, which goes like this:

If we assumed for simplicity all coastlines on the planet are the same then the distance from shore at which offshore wind is viable will be the same. A simple consequence of this is that, all things being equal, the larger the land mass the lower the relative potential for offshore wind becomes. To show this consider two circular land masses, one much large than the other, with the blue region signifying the fixed distance from shore that offshore wind can be developed.

So, essentially a small island, e.g. the United Kingdom, should, all things being equal, have a significantly higher offshore wind resource than most other countries, which are almost all significantly larger, or have much smaller coastlines.

Of course all things are not equal. Two other factors are very important, average wind speed and sea bed depth. I will only consider sea bed depth, because it is this that gives the United Kingdom an added advantage.

At this point I should perhaps digress to explain how much sea would need to be covered in wind turbines to provide X% of a country’s electricity or energy supply. If you interested in subject this Ted Talk by David MacKay is a good primer. However the gist is this: the UK consumes about 1.25 watts of energy of per square metre, whereas wind farms produce about 2.5 watts per square metre. So, to get all of the UK’s energy needs from wind power you would need wind farms to cover roughly half the area of the UK.

Let’s begin with at the European scale and consider how the UK fares against the rest of Europe.

As I mentioned at the start, most offshore wind farms are restricted to regions where sea bed depths are less than about 60 metres. Below are the regions (coloured black) in the waters around Europe that are shallower than 60 metres.

European waters shallower than 50 metres

So, a huge swathe of the North Sea is available, along with the English Channel and parts of the Baltic Sea. The Atlantic Coast does not have a great deal of potential at this depth, and the Mediterranean is even worse. The North part of the Adriatic has some potential. The UK and Denmark are clearly the most favourable regions, and Holland is not too bad either.

Let’s say we could develop in waters 500 metres deep, which is pretty unlikely any time soon, but is a good indication of the absolute limits of fixed foundation wind farms. What then?

European waters shallower than 500 metres

This expands the range of offshore in the North of Europe greatly, but does very little to the potential in the south of Europe. Mostly it just confirms the advantage the UK and Denmark have over the rest of Europe in terms of their offshore wind resources.

The advantageous geography has already resulted in a proposal to build a wind farm, the Dogger Bank, in the middle of the North Sea. And at a distance from shore close to impossible in southern Europe:

Area of the proposed Dogger Bank wind farm in the North Sea

Let’s shift to America. Here are the regions deeper than 60 metres.

American seas shallower than 500 metres

What leaps out is how much more favourable the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico are compared to the Pacific regions. As before, let’s consider regions where sea bed depths are greater than 500 metres.

This improves things a lot in the Atlantic regions, but the Pacific still has little relative potential. This map shows that onshore wind should continue to dominate the US wind industry for some time.

American seas shallower than 500 metres

A quick comparison of US east coast waters shallower than 60 metres with the UK shows that the UK has significantly higher relative offshore wind than the US. (note however that energy use per square kilometre in the UK is about 3 times higher than in the US, so in a less rough guide to offshore wind you wind to adjust for that properly.) Essentially wind farms can be built further from the coast in the UK than almost the entire US eastern seaboard.

European and US eastern seaboard seas shallower than 60 metres

Moving to China, and its western neighbours. First consider Japan and Korea. The regions shallower than 60 metres are:

Japanese and Korean waters shallower than 60 metres

At this depth Japan has some, but limited offshore wind potential. Certainly not comparable with the North Sea. The western coast of Korea is reasonable. Quite clearly Japan’s potential seems to be much lower than the UK’s. (another digression: Japan has a higher energy use per square kilometre than the UK. It also has close to the highest level of forest coverage in the world, 68%. So, you can easily see that a nuclear-free Japan may have some problems going nuclear free. A subject I will cover in an upcoming post.)

Let’s push it up to 500 metres.

An improvement, but this indicates that offshore wind has some limits in Japan, and will probably need the development of floating turbines to give it a UK level of offshore wind potential.

Japanese and Korean waters shallower than 500 metres

China’s coast runs from Vietnam to Korea. Let’s have a look at that. The regions shallower than 60 metres are shown below.

China’s waters shallower than 60 metres

Sea bed depth then appears to be quite favourable for offshore wind in China. It’s also worth noting that the regions near the major population centres, such as Beijing and Shanghai appear to be even better than the rest of the Chinese coast. However, given the size of China, and its relatively small coastline it is clear its relative offshore wind potential is likely smaller than the UK’s.

For brevity I will skip the other major regions of the world, as I fear that while they back up the point that the UK has a much better offshore wind resource than most of the planet, the reader is likely to be getting slightly bored by the repetition.

A more detailed view of the UK’s offshore potential can be found in the Crown Estate’s Offshore Valuation.

Scottish ministers have given the go-ahead to an experimental offshore windfarm site near Aberdeen after ignoring Donald Trump’s angry threats of legal action to block the project.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the European offshore wind deployment centre (EOWDC) proposal, alleging the turbines will ruin the view from his £750m golf resort, which overlooks the North Sea and sits several kilometres north of the site’s boundary.

The billionaire property magnate again threatened to use his financial muscle to oppose the 11-turbine project in the courts using “every legal means” to defeat it. Despite recently announcing plans to build a second 18-hole golf course at his resort, he repeated his threat to put his entire project on hold because the windfarm threatened the financial viability of his resort.

In a statement, the developer attacked his former friend and ally Alex Salmond, the first minister. “This was a purely political decision,” Trump said.

“As dictated by Alex Salmond, a man whose obsession with obsolete wind technology will destroy the magnificence and beauty of Scotland. Likewise, tourism, Scotland’s biggest industry, will be ruined. We will spend whatever monies are necessary to see to it that these huge and unsightly industrial wind turbines are never constructed.

“All over the world they are being abandoned, but in Scotland they are being built. We will put our future plans in Aberdeen on hold, as will many others, until this ridiculous proposal is defeated. Likewise, we will be bringing a lawsuit within the allocated period of time to stop what will definitely be the destruction of Aberdeen and Scotland itself.”

Fergus Ewing, the Scottish energy minister, said the £230m project would be capable of generating up to 100MW of power, enough for nearly half of Aberdeen’s homes.

But he added that the project was chiefly designed to test and evaluate advanced new offshore wind power designs, potentially helping to find new breakthrough technologies. Scottish and UK ministers, who also support the project, believe it could be crucial to helping the UK exploit the £100bn offshore wind industry.

The 11 turbines, which have been reduced in number and location after objections from fisheries and aviation interests, are expected to be of different heights and designs. The project, owned by the Swedish power giant Vattenfall and a local business and university consortium, still needs marine consents and planning consent for an onshore sub-station.

Ewing said: “Offshore renewables represent a huge opportunity for Scotland; an opportunity to build up new industries and to deliver on our ambitious renewable energy and carbon reduction targets.

“The proposed European offshore wind deployment centre will give the industry the ability to test and demonstrate new technologies in order to accelerate its growth. [It] secures Aberdeen’s place as the energy capital of Europe.”

The scheme has been made subject to a series of fresh conditions, to protect defence and civil aviation radar systems, avoid a military firing range at Black Dog, on environmental management and on protecting shipping and fishing in the area.

Trump’s opposition to the project led to open hostilities between him and Salmond, who had originally been a prominent cheerleader for Trump’s golf resort and hotel development and played a crucial role in it securing planning approval.

Trump’s attacks on Salmond’s vigorous support for wind power have put the two men in direct conflict and also soured Trump’s relationships with some of his most influential supporters in Aberdeen.

Several major figures and institutions who supported Trump’s resort – the North Sea engineering millionaire Sir Ian Wood, Robert Gordon University and Aberdeenshire council – are also directly involved in the EOWDC project.

They believe it could substantially support Aberdeen’s attempts to benefit from the billions of pounds being spent on renewable energy investment, particularly as an alternative to North Sea oil and gas.

Iain Todd, a spokesman for the project, made this clear, stating: “The Scottish government’s most welcome approval for the EOWDC is extremely positive news for both Scotland and the UK’s offshore wind industry as it helps position Scotland, the UK and Europe at the global vanguard of the sector.

“The decision also confirms Aberdeen city and shire’s status as a world-class energy hub, bringing with it significant economic benefits which will be pivotal to ensuring the region’s long-term prosperity.”

Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “Offshore wind will be a huge part of our energy future and this scheme is a big step forward.

“Well done to the Scottish government for standing up to Donald Trump’s threats and bluster.”

WASHINGTON — Five companies are interested in developing wind farms in the ocean off North Carolina, hoping to take advantage of what could be the East Coast’s most promising chance to create energy through giant turbines anchored to the sea floor.

The idea is embraced by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and the Sierra Club alike, who see North Carolina as the next potential center for renewable energy in America. But big obstacles remain before the whirling farms become a reality. Offshore wind is an expensive form of energy, and Congress is losing interest in federal subsidies to encourage it. There are no offshore wind farms in the United States, although they’re common in Europe.

The federal government asked companies in December if they’d be interested in North Carolina offshore wind development. Five responded positively in filings released Tuesday. One is Virginia Electric and Power Co., part of the Dominion utility that serves Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

“We responded we are interested, but there is a long way to go,” said Dominion spokesman Dan Genest. “We are interested. We would like to be a player. There’s a lot we have to learn, though.”

The federal government has to finish an environmental study before auctioning the offshore leases. The agency also needs to decide whether to change the areas considered for wind farms in light of newly released public comments. Those include the assertion of the World Shipping Council, a trade association that represents container vessels , that inviting wind farm proposals off Kitty Hawk, N.C., is “dangerous and imprudent” for shipping.

Two potential development areas are between Myrtle Beach, S.C., and Wilmington, N.C., while another is beyond the Outer Banks, across from the island towns of Kitty Hawk, Nags Head and Manteo. All potential areas are at least six miles from shore.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates suggest that North Carolina’s offshore wind potential is the highest on the East Coast. The five companies interested in leasing did not make binding commitments or detailed proposals. But Brian O’Hara, president of the North Carolina Offshore Wind Coalition, said their responses are still a good sign wind farms will be coming.

“I’m excited to see this level of interest. This is great,” he said. ”The chances are very good. I don’t think it’s a question of if, I think it’s a question of when.”

Wind farm development is not a fast process. O’Hara said it could be at least five years before the turbine construction would begin.

“There has to be some sort of agreement for where the power is going,” he said.

That’s the roadblock, said Bruce Hamilton, a California-based wind expert with the global firm Navigant Consulting. Offshore wind is much more expensive than other sources of electricity, Hamilton said, and utilities are not going to buy it unless there’s something forcing them to do so.

He said that means a requirement such as the one Maryland is considering. The Maryland legislature is poised to pass a bill requiring the state’s electricity providers to buy a certain amount of power from a proposed wind farm off Ocean City. It would increase monthly electricity bills for ratepayers by an estimated $1.50 a month.

“Absent those kinds of specific policies, offshore wind probably won’t make the short list – at least in the near term,” Hamilton said.

North Carolina has a law saying electric utilities must generate 12.5 percent of their retail sales from renewable energy or energy efficiency by 2021. But any offshore wind production is at least several years off and could be too late to be part of that mix. Also, some Republicans in the state legislature are trying to gather the votes to overturn that renewable energy requirement.

The federal government has an investment tax credit that would pay 30 percent of the construction for offshore wind projects. But the credit will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts. So it could be long gone by the time there’s North Carolina construction.

Other East Coast offshore wind farms have a head start on North Carolina, although they’ve run into problems. That includes a proposal for wind turbines off the coast of Atlantic City, N.J., made by Fishermen’s Energy LLC, which is among the companies to express interest in leasing waters off North Carolina.

Other companies who said they have an interest in North Carolina leases are EDF Renewable Energy, a subsidiary of a French company; Green Sail Energy of New Jersey, and Apex Wind Energy of Charlottesville, Va.

“We’re serious,” said Rob Propes, a development manager for Apex who is based in Raleigh, N.C.

Gov. Nikki Haley’s recent letter to Secretary of the Interior nominee, Sally Jewell, encourages her leadership to open opportunities for offshore energy production here in the Southeast (“Haley, 2 other governors appeal for offshore oil,” Feb. 15). In order for offshore energy production to truly benefit South Carolina and its neighboring states, some very important clarifications are in order.

Although there are two potential energy sources off our coast — offshore wind and offshore petroleum products — only one of these sources is the strategic choice that can yield the best return on investment. Informed offshore energy development for the Palmetto State prioritizes offshore wind energy and excludes offshore oil and gas based on economics — pure and simple.

Even ignoring the fact that President George W. Bush’s Department of Energy concluded that opening all of the U.S.’s offshore areas to drilling could only lower gas prices by 3 cents (by the year 2030) and the fact that geologists have long stated that the geologic conditions for large deposits of oil and gas do not exist off of South Carolina’s coast, offshore drilling is more a liability than an asset for South Carolina’s economy.

While economic impact studies have suggested that South Carolina may create a few thousand oil drilling jobs, it must be understood that these oil jobs would stand in direct conflict with the established and thriving in-state industries of tourism and fishing.

The University of South Carolina’s Moore School of Business estimates that 80,000 South Carolinians work in the coastal tourism economy and generate over $3.5 billion each year. Furthermore, an additional 6,000 South Carolinians work in fishing and generate approximately another $500 million per year.

As we saw with the BP Gulf oil disaster, one oil spill can decimate tourism and fishing industries for years to come.

Would it be wise to compromise our existing 86,000 tourism and fishing jobs for a few thousand potential drilling jobs?

Offshore wind energy, on the other hand, does not threaten tourism or fishing. In fact, Clemson University research recently concluded that beach-goers and other marine recreationists in the Grand Strand are supportive of installing offshore wind farms. It’s no coincidence that North Myrtle Beach, one of the most renowned coastal tourism cities in America, has recently declared itself a Wind Powered Economic Zone, seeking to supply 100 percent of its electricity from a nearby offshore wind farm in the coming years.

The economic potential for offshore wind in South Carolina is huge. We have the second greatest offshore wind resource along the East Coast, enough to become a power exporter. Clemson research has shown that developing one gigawatt of offshore wind (or about 225,000 homes’ worth of power), which is just a portion of our total resource potential, would create nearly 3,900 jobs, generate $366 million in output, and contribute $61 million in local and state taxes and revenue.

Furthermore, given our world-class port facilities, we have the capability to become an international hub for the wind industry, exporting materials, components, and technology up and down the East Coast and to Europe and Asia, where markets are waiting.

We laud Governor Haley’s leadership in partnering with neighboring states to develop our indigenous offshore energy resources, but we implore her to let facts guide her actions.And the facts are very clear: offshore wind, not offshore drilling, is the real opportunity for the Palmetto State.

There will be a CCU School of Coastal and Marine System Science Seminar on February 21; Dr. Rick Driscoll from the US Dept. of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado will be giving a seminar on offshore wind power issues on Thursday, February 21 at 2:30 PM in Room 100 at the Center for Marine and Wetland Studies. All are welcome!

Other Upcoming SCMSS Seminars/Public Forums:

March 1 – (Date Tentative-may be April 3 or 5, please stay tuned for final dates) Dr. Linda Rimer, US EPA Region 4, “Adapting to a Changing Human and Natural Landscape” at 2:30 PM Friday March 1, Room 100 Center for Marine and Wetland Studies.

March 22 – Dr. Geoff Scott- Director – NOAA Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research “Climate Change and Coastal Urbanization: Recipe fir Disaster for Coastal Ecosystem and Human Health”; at 2:30 PM Friday March 22, Room 100 Center for Marine and Wetland Studies.

March 26 – Public Forum on Utility Scale Wind Farm Potential of the Coast of the Grand Strand – to coincide with the South Carolina-Federal Task Force on Marine Renewable Energy to be held in North Myrtle Beach.

In this photo taken Jan 23, 2013, in Juneau, Alaska, Brandon Smith, the Alaskan Brewing Co.’s brewing operations and engineering manager, speaks to reporters about the company’s new boiler system. The brewery has installed a unique boiler system that burns the company’s spent grain the accumulated waste from the brewing process into steam which powers the majority of the plant’s operations. (AP Photo/Joshua Berlinger)

By JOSHUA BERLINGER — The Associated Press

JUNEAU, ALASKA — The Alaskan Brewing Co. is going green, but instead of looking to solar and wind energy, it has turned to a very familiar source: beer.

The Juneau-based beer maker has installed a unique boiler system in order to cut its fuel costs. It purchased a $1.8 million furnace that burns the company’s spent grain – the waste accumulated from the brewing process – into steam which powers the majority of the brewery’s operations.

Company officials now joke they are now serving “beer-powered beer.”

What to do with spent grain was seemingly solved decades ago by breweries operating in the Lower 48. Most send the used grain, a good source of protein, to nearby farms and ranches to be used as animal feed.

But there are only 37 farms in southeast Alaska and 680 in the entire state as of 2011, and the problem of what to do with the excess spent grain – made up of the residual malt and barley – became more problematic after the brewery expanded in 1995.

The Alaskan Brewing Co. had to resort to shipping its spent grain to buyers in the Lower 48. Shipping costs for Juneau businesses are especially high because there are no roads leading in or out of the city; everything has to be flown or shipped in. However, the grain is a relatively wet byproduct of brewing, so it needs to be dried before it is shipped — another heat intensive and expensive process.

“We had to be a little more innovative just so that we could do what we love to do, but do it where we’re located,” Alaskan Brewing co-founder Geoff Larson said.

But the company was barely turning a profit by selling its spent grain. Alaskan Brewery gets $60 for every ton of it sent to farms in the Lower 48, but it costs them $30 to ship each ton.

So four years ago, officials at the Alaskan Brewing Co. started looking at whether it could use spent grain as an in-house, renewable energy source and reduce costs at the same time.

While breweries around the world use spent grain as a co-fuel in energy recovery systems, “nobody was burning spent grain as a sole fuel source for an energy recovery system, for a steam boiler,” says Brandon Smith, the company’s brewing operations and engineering manager.

It contracted with a North Dakota company to build the special boiler system after the project was awarded nearly $500,000 in a grant from the federal Rural Energy for America Program.

The craft brewery is expecting big savings once the system is fully operational in about a month’s time. Smith estimates that the spent grain steam boiler will offset the company’s yearly energy costs by 70 percent, which amounts to about $450,000 a year.

Alaskan Brewing Co. makes about 150,000 barrels of beer a year. The beer is distributed in 14 states after recent entries into the Texas, Wisconsin and Minnesota markets. It brews several varieties of beer, but is best-known for its Alaskan Amber, an alt-style beer. The company is also known for its distinctive beer labels, including a polar bear on its Alaskan White Belgian-style ale.

Smith said he hasn’t been contacted by other breweries regarding implementing the project, but “absolutely” believes the system could be applied at other, bigger breweries that dry their spent grain.

Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world’s largest brewer, has been repurposing its spent grain for the past century, selling it to local farmers.

Mike Beck, director of utilities support at Anheuser-Busch InBev, told The Associated Press in an email that spent grains are not currently a viable energy source for its breweries. However, Beck noted that the company regularly investigates new technologies to see if they could be applicable to its operations.

Shown left to right in the accompanying photo are SCWF Executive Director Ben Gregg, Mayor Marilyn Hatley, and SCWF Board Chair Dan Scheffing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Contact: Pat Dowling, Public Information Officer

North Myrtle Beach Earns Government Conservationist Award from SC Wildlife Federation

North Myrtle Beach, SC – North Myrtle Beach Mayor Marilyn Hatley, City Councilman Greg Duckworth, and North Strand Coastal Wind Team member Monroe Baldwin attended the February 1 South Carolina Wildlife Federation’s (SCWF) 48th Annual Conservation Awards Banquet to accept the Government Conservationist Award.

The award presentation description noted that the North Strand Coastal Wind Team (NSCWT) is a grassroots group of organizations, businesses and individuals in and around North Myrtle Beach implementing education and advocacy efforts to promote wind energy development. With strong representation from numerous conservation organizations and municipalities, the Wind Team has had strong leadership from City Councilman Greg Duckworth, Economic Development Chair Monroe Baldwin, Chamber of Commerce member Marc Jordan, and Coastal Carolina Professor Paul Gayes.

Shown left to right in the accompanying photo are Councilman Greg Duckworth, Mayor Marilyn Hatley, Monroe Baldwin of the North Strand Coastal Wind Team.

As a result of the Wind Team’s advocacy, the City of North Myrtle Beach has declared itself a demonstration city for renewable energy and has dedicated itself to attracting renewable energy businesses and installations.

Peter Dejong/ASSOCIATED PRESS – In this July 27, 2006, file photo, wind turbines are seen in Dronten, the Netherlands.

By Aaron C. Davis, Published: February 4

After years of trying, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is poised to win approval from state lawmakers in the coming weeks for a field of towering windmills in the Atlantic Ocean.

But the tortured process of garnering support has left O’Malley (D) with a project so small — one able to generate just half the energy of a single power plant — that developers and banks probably won’t take the financial risk, experts predict.

That would leave Maryland in the same position as several other states, including Virginia, whose plans for offshore wind projects have been stalled by bureaucratic, financial and legal challenges. Not a single wind farm has been built in the Atlantic, although at least six have been proposed.

(Laris Karklis/The Washington Post/The Washington Post)

In Maryland, developers say they don’t think they could get necessary financing because the project would be too costly, given its reduced size and the scaled-back subsidy from Maryland households.

Peter Mandelstam, a leading offshore wind developer, said that despite O’Malley’s commitment, the finances of the governor’s plan “may make it difficult or, in a worse-case scenario, impossible to build a project off the coast of Maryland.”

Nationally, offshore wind energy has for years drawn widespread support among environmentalists and others, who say that it is a sustainable alternative to coal and gas. But it has proven enormously difficult to get the nascent wind industry up and going.

In Virginia, the state legislature in 2010 established an offshore wind development authority, but no subsidy program. The federal government expects to soon auction off an area about 27 miles off of Virginia Beach for turbines. But without billions in tax incentives or a subsidy to get the project rolling, regulators expect it will be a decade before a project comes to fruition.

O’Malley has rejected dire predictions that Maryland’s offshore wind project will never be built and has continued to push for the legislation.

But in announcing his third attempt to pass offshore wind legislation late last month, the governor acknowledged the difficulties that remain before his vision is a reality.

“There’s a saying in the Koran that everything is possible in God’s time, but nothing is for sure,” he said in response to a question about whether the project could begin in 2017, as his bill allows.

To win support from some lawmakers, O’Malley has embraced a financing model involving renewable energy credits that is unproven in the risky realm of offshore wind. To win over others, he has limited the cost of the subsidy to about $1.50 a month per household. The subsidy will amount to $1.7 billion over 20 years, in 2012 dollars.

Developers and industry analysts say those and other concessions will make the project reliant on further federal tax incentives or help from other states to make it profitable.

O’Malley’s initial plan was introduced just weeks after he was decisively reelected in 2010. Haggling over the issue drained some of the momentum from the start of his second term, and lawmakers declined to even bring it to a vote.

Analysts said at the time that the governor’s proposed subsidy to the industry would cost ratepayers twice as much as his staff had suggested to lawmakers.

Coming from O’Malley, who first won the governor’s office on a promise to lower residents’ electricity bills, the rate increase was seen as a reversal. Lawmakers also grew skeptical after learning that O’Malley’s former chief of staff was involved in one of eight bids to become the developer and get the subsidy.

To assuage concerns raised by utilities, O’Malley jettisoned a revenue model that banks rely on to fund nearly all on-land U.S. wind energy projects: a process that requires energy providers to purchase wind energy at a price set high enough for developers to turn a profit.

Maryland would instead insert itself in the process of buying and selling renewable energy credits, a subsidy method largely untested on such a large scale.

In addition, to secure what might be crucial votes from a handful of African American lawmakers, the governor added millions in costs to help minority businesses gain a foothold in the industry.

At a news conference O’Malley called last month to announce his latest legislation, the governor painted a picture of a field of giant windmills, each as tall as the Washington Monument, rising 10 miles off the coast of Ocean City.

The site of the windmills — the tips of which might barely be seen from shore — would become a bustling construction area, employing more than 800 people. When built, he said, the project would be like a gleaming beacon for the state’s fight against climate change.

But when pressed by reporters, O’Malley acknowledged that he is now less optimistic that offshore wind development could begin as quickly as he hoped.

The governor also said that, given the apparent need for the industry to develop big projects that can gain cost advantages with size, he was no longer certain that any state on its own could succeed in spurring development of offshore wind energy.

“I don’t believe any one state can do this by itself,” O’Malley said. “Quite frankly, it will be very difficult” for a developer to meet the constraints set out in Maryland’s bill, he said.

Still, in advance of the bill’s first hearing Tuesday, O’Malley cast in grand terms the need for the subsidy and for the state to take a risk on green energy. He said the science of climate change shows it will be necessary for human survival.

“I do know this,” O’Malley said. “If we do nothing, large chunks of Maryland will be underwater in the foreseeable future. There will be drought, there will be famine and human pain, suffering and displacement — that’s the one thing we really do know for sure; 98.99 percent of all scientists agree.”

Massachusetts approved a wind project off the coast of Cape Cod in 2010, but the development has been fiercely opposed by some local residents and remains tied up in lawsuits. Delaware, Rhode Island and New Jersey also have approved state incentives.

In Delaware, a contract that Mandelstam won fell through last year when his company could not secure financing. Rhode Island hopes to complete a demonstration project by next year. In New Jersey, a small project slated as a precursor to a 1,000-megawatt wind farm also remains tied up in regulatory issues.

O’Malley’s new bill is modeled after the one approved in New Jersey.

Abigail Hopper, O’Malley’s energy adviser, said many of the ambiguities that have led to years of delays in New Jersey have been addressed, so Maryland should be able to move quickly.

Yet Hopper readily acknowledges that she and others in O’Malley’s administration also keep an eye on Capitol Hill, hoping a plan pushed by Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) could cut out some of the guesswork that has made private investment in offshore wind a risky business. Carper’s plan would cement the industry’s current 30 percent tax break until the first offshore wind farms are built.

“We need to provide the certainty to get these projects started,” Carper said. “After that, the industry is on its own.”

The global offshore wind power market, fuelled by the depletion of fossil fuel reserves, the declining cost of wind power generation and impressive investment from the UK, is expected to explode over the next decade, states research and consulting firm GlobalData.

The company’s new report* forecasts the global offshore wind power market to rocket from a 2012 cumulative installed capacity of 5.1 Gigawatts (GW) in 2012 to a far greater 54.9 GW by the end of the decade, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 34.5%.

The UK is a major player in the offshore wind power market thanks to its substantial financial commitment and ideal location, contributing more than half of the global installed capacity last year, with 2.7 GW.

Jonathan Lane, GlobalData’s Head of Consulting for Power and Utilities, says: “While risks for offshore developers remain, in particular the potential rationing of Contracts for Difference (CFD) under the levy control framework, the still nascent transmission regime and the competition from nuclear power, the UK government is firmly supporting offshore wind via the Energy Bill.”

Offshore wind is expected to make a large impact upon the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets and a major expansion is planned. Correspondingly, GlobalData expects the country’s offshore wind power installed capacity to hit 21 GW by the end of 2020, increasing almost 800% from 2012.

According to the firm’s latest report, the offshore wind power industries of several other countries are also expected to undergo massive expansion over the next decade. Germany, in particular, has plans to grow its offshore wind sector substantially in the future, announcing a target of 25 GW installed capacity by 2030 and 95 GW by 2050.

Between the 2012 and 2020, however, GlobalData forecasts the Germany’s offshore wind power installed capacity to climb from a modest 220 Megawatts (MW) to 8 GW.