wind farmer's almanac

A Declaration of Energy Independents

When in the course of modern events it becomes necessary for one people to assume greater control of their energy needs through indigenous sources provided by the Creator, a decent respect for humanity compels them to explain the rationale for their decision.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sources of energy are not created equal, that some are endowed with indisputable flaws, most especially fossil fuels. Among these are a fearsome toll in lives, restraints on liberty where oil is the only source of wealth, and the thwarting of happiness through ever-rising energy costs.

That to secure freedom from dependence on foreign energy, governments are instituted by men and women, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed and not from lobbyists in the fossil-fuels industry.

That whenever any form of government proves resistance to these truths, it is the right of the People to articulate that government's failure and advocate for new policies, based on the principle of self-reliance upon which our Nation was founded.

Greatest threat to Nantucket Sound? According to the Alliance, it's not Cape Wind -- it's Cape Cod

First question out of the box during Friday night's debate between Cape Wind's Mark Rodgers and Charles Vinick of the Alliance to Protect to Nantucket Sound, from Rodgers to Vinick -- what is the greatest ecological threat to Nantucket Sound?

Vinick's answer, at least the initial part, came as no surprise - that would be Cape Wind, he responded, "not because Cape Wind is going to degrade every aspect of our fisheries" or "challenge every aspect of the environment." But the project brings risks that are difficult to evaluate and quantify, he added.

Then Vinick got to the interesting part. There are other "major threats" to Nantucket Sound, he said, "and over a long period of time, they are going to be, I think in many ways, more serious" than Cape Wind. Vinick cited two specific examples - eutrophication, which is water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients, and run-off, as from roads, golf courses, farms, residents and businesses.

These are "very, very serious long-term problems," Vinick said, and the Alliance is working to mitigate them through water testing and research in its "Soundkeeper" program initiated last summer.

But if eutrophication and runoff are "more serious" long-term threats to Nantucket Sound as Vinick asserted, or at least in "many ways," why wouldn't an organization seemingly dedicated to protecting the Sound focus on these problems instead of turning nearly all its attention and resources to thwarting an offshore wind farm?

For those inclined who think that Vinick's remarks were anomalous, consider that much the same thing was asserted in an op-ed in the Providence Journal last October written by the Alliance's Susan Nickerson, under the headline, "Striving to give Nantucket Sound special protection."

Senate negotiators resolve differences on Cape Wind: permitting process to continue

... from a statement just released by the Senate Energy Committee -

SENATE NEGOTIATORS REACH AGREEMENT ON CAPE WIND LANGUAGE IN COAST GUARD BILL: Deal preserves integrity of Energy Policy Act siting process 

Washington, D.C. -– Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Pete Domenici and Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman announced that they have reached an agreement with Senators Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens on changes to a provision inserted at conference into H.R. 889, the Coast Guard appropriations bill, related to a controversial wind project in the Nantucket Sound.

The four senators have agreed to a concurrent resolution that will replace Section 414 of the conference report, which would have given the Coast Guard and the governor of Massachusetts final approval over the siting of the Nantucket Sound wind farm. The concurrent resolution drops any reference to the governor of Massachusetts and gives the commandant of the Coast Guard only the authority to spell out the terms and conditions for the wind project which are necessary for navigational safety. (emphasis added)

Chairman Domenici’s statement:

“I’m pleased that we’ve been able to address the concerns of my colleagues while preserving the integrity of the siting procedure we outlined in the Energy Policy Act. In this instance, the governor veto is gone and the Coast Guard is only allowed to address navigational safety concerns. For all future projects, we will use the siting model we created in the energy bill.

"That’s a sound model. It gives the Coast Guard and other federal agencies a voice; it gives local and state governments a voice; but it prevents local special interests from torpedoing a reasonable and much-needed energy project in federal waters.”

Senator Bingaman’s statement:

“The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to issue permits for alternative energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf. But it did not diminish the Coast Guard’s authority over navigational safety, and it expressly required the Interior Department to consult with the Coast Guard before granting leases for projects like Cape Wind.  The new language for Sec. 414 confirms the Coast Guard’s role for ensuring the navigational safety of the Cape Wind project.  This is an appropriate clarification to make and it ensures that Cape Wind’s proposal will receive a fair and unbiased consideration on the merits.”

The agreement was finalized late Tuesday with House and Senate leaders. The
House will, in the enrollment of the HR 889 conference report, pass a concurrent resolution that makes the agreed-upon changes. The Senate will follow suit.

Mass Audubon mulls wind power -- for its wildlife sanctuary in Wellfleet

A story I wrote about CPN's annual meeting, to be posted shortly at capecodtoday.com --

Mass Audubon, the largest conservation organization in New England, is planning to build a meteorological ("met") tower at its wildlife sanctuary in South Wellfleet to determine if the site is suitable for a wind turbine.

Jack Clarke, Mass Audubon's director of public policy and government relations, described Audubon's plans at Clean Power Now's annual meeting on Saturday in Hyannis.
"Our goal this summer is to have the greenest building in the state," Clarke said as guest speaker at the meeting, which drew 80 people from the Cape and islands and around the state. He said Audubon is already the leading purchaser of electricity generated by wind in New England.

The 1,100-acre wildlife sanctuary in South Wellfleet draws thousands of visitors every year to its pine woodlands, salt marshes, freshwater ponds, beaches and gardens brimming with hummingbirds.
"We are trying to do everything we can," Clarke said, with photovoltaics, hydrothermal and wind energy.

Clarke said Mass Audubon's tentative approval of the Cape Wind project, known as "the Mass Audubon Challenge," is not a challenge to Cape Wind alone.

In the course of one day last winter, Clarke met with officials from the Army Corps of Engineers "and challenged them to get it right," called Minerals Management Service" and challenged them to get it right," spoke with Cape Wind's Jim Gordon, Mass. Technology Collaborative's Greg Watson and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound's Susan Nickerson -- "and challenged them to get it right."

Cape Wind "will set the standard" for all other offshore wind projects in this country, Clarke said. "If we don't get it right with this project, I think the industry will be looking in other places and it won't be in the U.S."

Profiles in tax evasion

Alternative headline: It's a Beau-ti-ful Day in the Neigh-bur-hood ...

(Better alternative headline: Another Beau-ti-ful Day ... )

Simply awesome story in the Boston Globe today about Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound co-chairman and gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos, under this eye-opener of a headline: "Mihos paid Mass. no tax on his yacht: Avoided sales, excise levies with R.I. address."

Isn't Mihos the candidate always harping on the need for more local aid to towns and cities through increased revenue from the state?

Yet according to the Globe, Mihos, "a multimillionaire businessman, avoided more that $23,000 in Massachusetts sales tax and $1,320 in local excise taxes on his luxury motor yacht by forming a corporation in Rhode Island to purchase and own the boat."

"Rhode Island exempts yachts from sales tax and excise taxes," reports the Globe's Frank Phillips. "Massachusetts requires a state resident who purchases a yacht in another state, but berths it here, to pay a 5 percent sales tax."

"However, Mihos appears to have taken advantage of a provision that says a boat owner may be exempt from the Massachusetts sales tax if the boat remains out of state for the first six months after the sale," Phillips writes. "Mihos said the boat remained in Rhode Island for more than six months after he purchased it in January 1999. He said he then brought it to his home in the gated community where he lives on Great Island, across Hyannis Harbor from the Kennedy compound."

This is where it could get sticky for Mihos and his erratic campaign, which may succeed in doing nothing more than keeping Kerry Healey from getting elected -- "A separate provision in tax law says that a boat kept in Massachusetts waters for more than two weeks in a summer is subject to the excise tax, which, like the auto excise tax, is collected by local communities," Phillips writes.

"Boat owners are required under state law to report under oath to local assessors where their boat is moored for the summer season," according to the Globe.  "The Ashley is not listed on the tax rolls for the town of Yarmouth, according to the assessor's office."

Just out of curiosity, how often does Mihos take his "luxury motor yacht" to Rhode Island? "Once in a while," he tells the Globe.

Yes, Mihos isn't about to spend any more time in little Rhodie than necessary when he could be yachting on Nantucket Sound instead.

That toast you smell burning? It's not Cape Wind -- it's Mihos's candidacy.

(photo credit, Boston Globe)

Barney Frank changes position on Cape Wind; comes out in favor of the project

Big boost today in the form of Congressman Barney Frank describing his previous opposition to Cape Wind as mistaken.

While "the general principle of following the lead of my colleagues on matters that affect their particular districts physically is an important one," Frank wrote in an email to constituents, "it should not be allowed to override fundamental policy questions."

Here is Frank's statement in its entirety:

"I'm writing this response to the people who have been in touch with me about the issue of wind power, and most particularly, the proposal for the installation of wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.

"My initial response, as you know, was to support my Congressional colleague Bill Delahunt, in whose district this installation would be, and also Senator Kennedy, who has a strong interest in the Cape, in their effort to put a gubernatorial veto over this project into the Coast Guard bill.  I did it, as I have noted, not because of any opposition of my own, but because I was following the general principle of deferring to my colleagues on matters of  particular geographic interest to them -- particularly Congressman Delahunt in whose district this is -- in part because I have sought to maximize their help in matters critical to my own district, such as the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant in Fall River.

"I now believe that this was a mistake, because while the general principle of following the lead of my colleagues on matters that affect their particular districts physically is an important one, it should not be allowed to override fundamental policy questions.  This is one of those instances where a series of forceful and thoughtful arguments against my position from people in my own district and elsewhere did lead me to reconsider.  In addition, to their credit, Senator Kennedy and Congressman Delahunt took into account the arguments that were made, and while both of them are still convinced that there are sound reasons for opposing this project, they have agreed to dropping the proposal for a gubernatorial veto.  This means that no Congressional obstacle will be posed to this project."

What Tom Reilly doesn't want you to know about state ocean sanctuaries

Listen to state Attorney General Tom Reilly describe his reasons for opposing Cape Wind and you won't wait long to hear about state ocean sanctuaries.

Nantucket Sound, Reilly said in a recent gubernatorial debate on Channel 56 , "has been designated as an ocean sanctuary by the state of Massachusetts, by the Commonwealth.  "It's been designated that."

When challenged by Democrat Chris Gabrieli -- "that's why environmental groups support" Cape Wind? -- Reilly emphasized his earlier point -  "I'm talking about this as being designated by the Legislature, OK, the Legislature."

A lawyer speaking on Reilly's behalf at the Minerals Management Service public hearing in Dedham on May 27 continued along these lines, describing the sanctuary designation as "a clear expression of state policy about these waters."

In other words, pretty sacrosanct stuff to Reilly, or at least it would appear. Yet Reilly steers well clear of any references to the rationale for the designation. A look back to its origins explains why.

The Legislature approved the designation in 1970, shortly after two environmental catastrophes -- one in California, the other in Buzzards Bay.

In January 1969, a blowout on an oil rig six miles off Santa Barbara spewed 3 million gallons of oil into the ocean, killing thousands of fish, birds, sea lions and other marine life and befouling beaches for miles. The volume of oil spilled was more than 30 times greater that the Bouchard barge accident in Buzzards Bay in April 2003 (the photo at right shows oil from the Santa Barbara spill near the Golden Gate Bridge).

While many people cite the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962 as the birth of the environmental movement, others point to the disastrous oil spill off Santa Barbara as earning that distinction. The federal government's response was unequivocal -- Congress enacted the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), which was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The law led to creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in the summer of 1970.

California reacted by banning offshore oil rigs (a ban that lasted 16 years until after former California governor Ronald Reagan was elected president), establishing a state coastal commission and the nation's first environmental studies program at the University of California at -- fittingly enough -- Santa Barbara.

That same year, in September 1969, a similar disaster struck in Buzzards Bay, albeit smaller in scale. A Bouchard barge ran aground off West Falmouth, disgorging 168,000 gallons of oil. Nearly 40 years later, it remains the worst-ever oil spill in Buzzards Bay (the photo at left shows clean-up efforts after the '03 Bouchard spill in Buzzards Bay).

As occurred in Washington and California after the Santa Barbara spill, the Legislature in the Bay State wasted little time in responding. It passed the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act, which accorded state protection to all of Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound, Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay beyond the Commonwealth's three-mile offshore jurisdiction.

The law led to a years-long dispute with the federal government over whether all of Nantucket Sound would fall within state jurisdiction, with the dispute resolved by the mid-80s in favor of the federal control for areas of the Sound beyond the state's three-mile limit. In Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay, however, the state designation remained over the entirety of both bodies of water.

In 1977, further impetus for state control over all of Nantucket Sound was created when the US Interior Department proposed opening large tracts off offshore waters in the Northeast to oil drilling, including the rich fishing grounds of Georges Bank.

Again, the timing for fortuitous. Less than a year before the proposal was made, New England suffered its worst oil spill ever when the tanker Argo Merchant broke up on Nantucket Shoals in December 1976, spilling 7.7 million gallons of home heating oil.

It was one of several accidents in coastal waters involving ships and barges hauling oil during an unusually bitter winter. Only a month after the Argo Merchant disaster, yet another barge was spilling oil in an ice-choked Buzzards Bay. In a desperate attempt to contain the spill, the Coast Guard tried igniting the slick from helicopters and burned off a small portion of the oil. I still recall seeing the plume of black smoke from my mother's house in Buzzards Bay more than 10 miles away.

It took several years of determined effort by organizations like the Conservation Law Foundation to protect Georges Bank and other sites from oil drilling. But in the interim, and in the wake of an endless series of accidents involving oil spills, another incentive had been created to accord state protection to the entirety of Nantucket Sound -- to prevent oil pipelines connected to rigs on Georges Bank from passing through the seabed of the Sound en route to the mainland.

By the early 1980s, however, Georges Bank was ruled off-limits to oil and gas drilling and exploration, a prohibition in effect to this day (and upheld by a vote in the US House in late May).  The ban also undermined the state's request for national marine sanctuary status for Nantucket Sound, since oil pipelines would not be passing through the Sound in the absence of offshore drilling.

Looking back to the history of the sanctuary designation, it could hardly be more obvious that the legislation was enacted in response to a specific threat -- accidents involving offshore oil rigs and vessels transporting oil.

It is not without irony that Reilly frequently invokes the sanctuaries to justify stopping Cape Wind -- a project that would make us less dependent on oil.

The Alliance issues a fatwa

Finally dawned on me whom the Alliance is modeling itself after -- the late, hardly lamented Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.
You remember Khomeini -- that turgid cleric whose stern visage befouled our airwaves almost daily during the hostage crisis of 1979-81.
It is with Khomeini's vitriol toward Salman Rushdie that the Alliance is taking its cue for the pseudo-enviros recent machinations.
Back in 1989, Khomeini issued a fatwa against Rushdie for possessing the unmitigated Western gall to write a novel allegedly blasphemous of Islam, "The Satanic Verses."
Khomeini could have warned Rushdie that the novelist must never set foot in Iran again or risk execution, but the ayatollah went far beyond that. Khomeini wanted assassins to murder Rushdie anywhere in the world, an early warning that Islamists intended to spread their totalitarian intolerance beyond the Middle East. Rushdie has lived in fear ever since, rarely appearing in public.
The Alliance views Cape Wind in much the way that Khomeini loathed Rushdie (though with a crucial difference -- the Alliance is not homicidal, least not that I'm aware of).
But as with Khomeini, the Alliance is not content to protect the sanctity of Nantucket Sound, or Persia, as it were. Now the Alliance is going after infidels far beyond the Sound.

So much for that alleged lack of public support

Hard not to discern a pattern when it comes to polls on Cape Wind.
The most recent survey, released yesterday by the Newton-based Civil Society Institute think-tank, found that 81 percent of Bay State residents are in favor of the project -- as are 61 percent of residents on the Cape and islands.
Back in June 2005, a Cape Cod Times-WCAI poll showed an even 37-37 percent split between Cape Wind supporters and opponents on the Cape and islands, with the remainder undecided.
Last month, a State House News Service poll found 71 percent are in favor of Cape Wind across the state and 17 percent opposed.
The SHNS poll also found that 67 percent of the residents of counties in eastern Massachusetts -- Barnstable, Nantucket, Dukes, Plymouth and Bristol -- support Cape Wind while just less than 20 percent are opposed.
More on the latest survey at the institute's website, in today's Boston Herald and Cape Cod Times and a story I wrote yesterday for capecodtoday.com.

Gordon demolishes Koch's bogus claims

.... in a great "Guest View" column written by Cape Wind's Jim Gordon that ran in yesterday's New Bedford Standard-Times, in response to an op-ed by Alliance co-chairman and avid billionaire yachtsman Bill Koch.
One by one, Gordon undercuts Koch's spurious assertions, ending the column by pointing out that "Mr. Koch misrepresents meetings I had with him in 2002 and 2003. I met with Mr. Koch to seek his support for Cape Wind, but never approached him to invest in the project. It was Mr. Koch who eventually raised the subject of investing in Cape Wind and requested our economic analysis.
"After initial discussions, I began to doubt his intentions ..." (good call, Jim)  " ... and I did not, as he states, share any of Cape Wind's proprietary economic data."
"Finally," Gordon writes, "consider the first public comments on Cape Wind attributed to William Koch in the local press, which are quite revealing: 'I wish I'd thought of this! But as a businessman, I said I wouldn't have put it in my backyard -- I would have put it in someone else's backyard."
Koch, memorably, also compared the appeal of offshore wind power to that of a strip dancer. O-kay ...

A closer look at lobbying

The Cape Cod Voice casts a skeptical eye at lobbying on both sides of Cape Wind with a half-dozen stories in its current issue - coverage that I suspect has members of the Alliance wincing as they read.
For example, one of the stories by Doreen Leggett begins this way -
"Late last year, Charles Vinick, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, and a lobbyist working for a company owned by the Alliance's chairman of the board, Bill Koch, visited with Alaska Congressman Don Young.
"Shortly after, Young tacked anti-wind language onto a lengthy Coast Guard reauthorization bill -- without benefits of public hearings, or debates," Leggett writes.
"Vinick acknowledges that the meeting took place, but won't name the lobbyist who was with him in the congressman's office, except to say he works for Koch ..."
(when in doubt, obfuscate!) " ... an Osterville resident and owner of a mining company, whose opposition to a wind farm in Nantucket Sound brought him to the leadership in the Alliance," Leggett writes.

Sacred playground

An op-ed I wrote for today's Providence Journal -

WHY ARE YOU fighting the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound?, New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman supposedly asked his Senate colleague Ted Kennedy, of Massachusetts.
"This is Jack's sacred sailing ground," Kennedy responded to his fellow Democrat, according to columnist Robert Novak. (Novak's source was a congressional aide, although Kennedy and Bingaman have denied to Novak that the exchange took place.)
About the time I read Novak's column, in early May, I noticed a redesign of the Web site for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. Going to the site now, you first see a vista of windswept ocean. Then you hear an excerpt from Kennedy's inaugural address as the scene shifts to images of the library, the White House, and JFK.
I called the library and was told that the redesign had nothing to do with Cape Wind's proposal to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The idea, I was told, came from the husband of Caroline Kennedy, Edwin Schlossberg, a talented author and artist.
I'll take the library spokesman at his word, but anyone is free to draw his or her own conclusions. What I see is a subtle correlation being drawn between John Kennedy's experiences on Nantucket Sound and his ascension to the White House. How so?

MMS details plans to prepare Environmental Impact Statement for Cape Wind

The Minerals Management Service of the US Interior Department yesterday published a Federal Register notice describing the agency's plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cape Wind proposal.

"The EIS analysis will focus on the potential environmental effects of the development, operations and decommissioning on the proposed action area and alternatives," the notice states. "This NOI (Notice of Intent) also serves to announce the initiation of the written scoping process for this EIS," which will allow "federal, state, tribal, and local governments and other interested parties to aid the MMS in determining the significant issues, potential alternatives, and mitigating measures to be analyzed in the EIS and the possible need for additional information."

A key provision of the notice - "The MMS is considering potential alternatives to the proposed action such as : modifying the size of the development, phasing the development, and considering alternative sites." Alternative locations cited in the notice are south of Tuckernuck Island, Nantucket Shoals, Monomoy Shoals and east of Nauset Beach, which is described as a "Deepwater Alternative."

Written comments will be accepted by mail or through the MMS website no later than July 14. Mailed comments should be sent in an envelope addressed, "Comments on the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on the Cape Wind project, Minerals Management Service, 381 Elden St., Mail Stop 4042, Herndon, VA 20164.

MMS is also holding 10 public hearings -- what the agency is refers to as "scoping meetings" where comments can be submitted in person --  across the country between May 18 and June 8. The only hearing in New England was held May 25 in Dedham.

The launching of a new industry

Quincy developer Jay Cashman wants to build the turbines for his Buzzards Bay wind farms at the former Fore River shipyard in Quincy, as reported by the Patriot Ledger.

With this announcement, yet another component is in place for the emergence of a major new industry - offshore renewable energy - and southern New England can be one of its global hubs.

Cape Wind is no longer the only entrepreneur willing to risk its neck with a tangible proposal to build wind turbines off Cape Cod (tangible as opposed to the trial balloon floated by Winergy a few years back). And Cashman is also the developer who wants to build Cape Wind itself, if the project gets permitted.

Cape Wind's opponents have tried to sabotage the project through backroom machinations in Washington, an effort that may be dead in the water. A growing number of lawmakers in Congress are unwilling to kill a pioneering renewable energy project while their constituents are paying $3 a gallon for gas, yet another war looms in the Middle East and hardly a week passes without more evidence of global warming.

Is this the compromise they're talking about?

How about that, one day after Senator Ted Kennedy drops his demand for a governor's veto over Cape Wind, Minerals Management Service announced it is adding at least 18 months to its review of the wind farm, as described in today's Cape Cod Times.

"The new schedule puts the Cape Wind review in line with MMS plans to establish permanent rules for renewable energy projects on the nation's Outer Continental Shelf," writes the Times' Kevin Dennehy.

Which is why I wasn't doing cartwheels when I heard rumors of a potential compromise. Kennedy backing down meant a fairly quick other shoe dropping, and that's just what happened.

Having come up short in their attempts to legislate Cape Wind to its demise, wind farm opponents will now try to regulate it to death instead. And when that fails, what, self-immolation ...?

Not quite toast yet

"Just a few weeks ago, it looked as though Massachusetts was about to lose its one offshore wind project to a closed-door maneuver on Capitol Hill," reads an editorial in today's Boston Globe. "Now, support for that congressional garroting of the Cape Wind proposal is unraveling, and an entirely new wind project has been proposed for Buzzards Bay. Renewable energy may yet play a major role in meeting the state's increasing demand for electricity."

It was also only weeks ago that some of the wind farm's harshest critics were crowing that Cape Wind was "toast." What amazed me about their claim was not its potential accuracy, but its presumption.

Even after the dual setbacks of congressional conferees approving the Stevens amendment on April 6 and the lopsided Nantucket vote five days later, the battle had hardly ended.  If anything, it had just begun -- and Cape Wind and its many allies rose magnificently to the challenge.

Which is not to say that anyone on my side of the aisle should be crowing in victory - what we are seeing is far from that. It looks more like a call for a cease-fire from the other side, just in time for Memorial Day weekend when all involved can get reacquainted with their families and honor our fallen dead.

This formerly jaded Red Sox fan with the long memory won't be ready to declare victory until Cape Wind's turbines are spinning away, stabilizing our supply of electricity without befouling the air or exacerbating global warming, while parents holding children and armed with camcorders line the decks of ferries and point to that place where enough people summoned the courage to do what the late Robert F. Kennedy urged in another context --

If not here, where? If not now, when?

(and a tip of the hat to Cape Cod Times columnist Francis Broadhurst for reminding me of that great quote. The photo is of the Horns Rev wind farm in Denmark; photo credit, landesregierung.schleswig-holstein.de)

Kennedy vetoes governor's veto

A welcome development, as described in this story in today's Boston Globe --
"Senator Edward M. Kennedy has dropped his insistence that Governor Mitt Romney be given the power to veto a giant wind farm proposed off the coast of Cape Cod, in a shift that's expected to boost efforts to construct the Cape Wind project," writes the Globe's Rick Klein.
"Instead, Kennedy is proposing that the Coast Guard commandant be given final say over whether the wind farm can be constructed, after taking into consideration potential threats to navigation and public safety," Klein writes.
As to the actual wording of the new language, that remains to be seen.

Best B'Bay plan analysis so far

That it's coming from political analyst Jon Keller at cbs4boston Channel 4 comes as no surprise; Keller nails it as usual.

"When you heard that yet another wealthy Boston developer wants to sully our pristine shoreline with a massive wind farm development, you had to figure the fervent, red-faced denunciations by our leading pols were sure to follow," Keller says. "After all, they've been doing everything they can to kill the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound."

Instead, developer Jay Cashman's plan to build wind turbines "much closer to shore" in Buzzards Bay "is getting a warm reception from some of the same crowd," Keller notes. Ted Kennedy, for example, calls Cashman's plan "a welcome change."

To which Keller asks "the 64,000 question: what is the difference between the
Buzzards Bay project and the Nantucket Sound plan? The only obvious difference I can see is Nantucket Sound is fronted by the homes of the filthy rich, like Ted Kennedy, while Buzzards Bay serves a more blue-collar clientele."

"But that can't be it," Keller wryly observes. "This is Massachusetts, where politicians are true servants of the people, aren't they?"

Kick-starting the conversation - five years ago

As to be expected, a few passive aggressive observations in stories about the wind farms proposed for Buzzards Bay.

Congressman Bill Delahunt, for example, praised developer Jay Cashman's statement "that he will involve the community" - as if there's been little of that, on both sides of the aisle, for the Cape Wind proposal.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, also quoted in the Cape Cod Times, said he hopes "this proposal will start a thoughtful discussion in Massachusetts about which state waters are appropriate for alternative energy development" - implying, incorrectly, that Cape Wind would be situated in state waters.

Isn't Kennedy also implying that state waters are not quite so sacrosanct from "alternative energy development" as he's previously maintained?

Horseshoe Shoal and Buzzards Bay, however, differ in a key respect, one that poses a major obstacle to Cashman: Horseshoe Shoal is situated in federal waters while all of Buzzards Bay is part of the state-designated Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary, as shown in the map above. The same state sanctuary that Kennedy and Delahunt often invoke to justify their opposition to Cape Wind. But Cape Wind wouldn't be in it -- all of Cashman's turbines would.

As to whether Cashman's proposal has merit, it's too early to tell, at least to this observer, but he deserves credit for his initiative.  But Cape Wind is also worthy of praise for kick-starting what has become a daily conversation for many of us, and this again applies to supporters and opponents of the project.

Five years after it entered the lexicon, Cape Wind has changed people's lives, mine included. And the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound still deserves to be judged on its abundant merit, regardless of what is proposed elsewhere.

(credit for map, Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown)

More on proposed Buzzards Bay wind farms

Media reports are referring to it as a wind farm, but it's actually three separate arrays of turbines off Fairhaven, Dartmouth and Naushon Island, as described in this story appearing in today's Cape Cod Times.

The Boston Globe also weighs in on the proposal, with a story to be found here.
(graphic credit, Boston Globe)

Wind farm proposed for Buzzards Bay

... as described in today's New Bedford Standard-Times (the same story appears in the Cape Cod Times, another Ottaway newspaper).

Patriot Renewables LLC, an energy subsidiary of Quincy developer Jay Cashman, "wants to build a $750 million offshore wind farm comprised of 90 and 120 turbines" off Fairhaven, Dartmouth and Naushon Island.

Cashman told the editorial board of the Standard-Times that "Buzzards Bay is an ideal site for an offshore wind project due to its average wind speed of 20 mph, sheltered location with a water depth of no more than 50 feet and proximity to existing transmission lines." (sound familiar?)

"You need wind, you need 50 feet or water or less, and connectivity," Cashman said.

(photo credit, Standard-Times)

Fortunately for the Attorney General, he wasn't under oath

Otherwise Tom Reilly could be looking at a perjury rap.
Here's what the state's top law enforcement official had to say about Cape Wind during Thursday's gubernatorial debate -
"That is a huge rip-off. Twenty-four square miles of Nantucket Sound are going to be given -– are proposed to be given to a private developer for absolutely nothing. With hundreds of millions, perhaps up to a billion, dollars in tax credit, they're going to go to that developer and those investors." (emphasis added)
(Follow this link to a transcript of the debate at boston.com)
Every now and then, an anti-Cape Wind jihadi like Reilly makes such an outrageous claim that you can't help but be awed by its chutzpah (yes, even jihadi can possess chutzpah). This is one of those moments. It begs to be recognized with an award of some sort, like the Tommy Flanagan (pronounced "Flan-A-ghn") Commemorative Cup, named for the compulsive liar played by Jon Lovitz on "Saturday Night Live."
Last year's energy act mandated that Cape Wind pay leasing fees to the federal government, with 28 percent going to Massachusetts.  Even if Reilly somehow managed to avoid reading that in the extensive media coverage of Cape Wind, and was never been told by his office or campaign or another revisionist like Congressman Bill Delahunt, Cape Wind's Jim Gordon spoke with Reilly about this several months ago -- and Reilly still cuts loose with a demonstrable falsehood.
Not only will Cape Wind pay leasing fees to the federal and state governments, it will also pay $9.5 million to the town of Yarmouth, where its cable will come ashore.
If this is Reilly's idea of "absolutely nothing," the man should not be allowed near the state treasury. Several million here, several million dollars there -- after awhile we're talking real money.
What's most pathetic about Reilly's bald-faced lie -- and that's what it is, unless the man pleads ignorance -- is that it shows how far he's willing to go to appease Ted Kennedy in getting elected governor.
It's also an example of how desperate Cape Wind's opponents have become. They've lost the battle of public opinion during the most consequential phase of the permitting.  How do they respond? By reverting to The Big Lie strategy so often exemplified by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
I'd suggest Tom Reilly should be ashamed of himself, but I doubt there's any left.

Monday morning roundup

Playing catchup after a hectic last few days -

- good news with the Sierra Club offering its preliminary approval of Cape Wind, along the lines of Mass Audubon's endorsement in March, and described in a story posted at the Clean Power Now site.

- great op-ed in the Providence Journal by columnist Solon Economou, titled "The Four Junketeers," about questionable corporate-paid travel for four Bay State congressmen, all of whom support the Stevens amendment (the column is also posted at the CPN site).

- Lead item in the Political Notes column of today's Cape Cod Times points out that coastal management legislation filed a while back by Barnstable state senator Rob O'Leary won't affect Cape Wind, but may play a role for other offshore projects rumored to be heading our way.

Sung to the theme of "The Beverly Hillbillies" ...

Come 'a listen to my story
'Bout a man named Ted,
Rich senator,
Kept his family well-fed,
Sailin' one day
He almost run a-ground,
When what should he see but
Cape Wind on the Sound.
Turbines, that is ...
Tall 'n bold ...
Pollution-free ...

Next thing ya know ol' Ted throws a fit,
Kinfolk in Congress say, we'll make the hit!
Backrooms on the Hill are the place you oughta be, 
Let's cut a deal for ANWR, drill it dry's can be.
Oil, that is ... Alaskan gold ... Alliance tea ....

... The Capitol Hillbillies! ..... (cue banjo) ...

Stalking that pesky wabbit

For those who missed it, Congressman Bill Delahunt cut loose with a May 12 op-ed in the Boston Herald that was stunning in its historical revisionism, even by the lofty standards of Cape Wind's opponents.
Delahunt claimed as "fact" that "tucked away in the energy bill that was signed into law last year was a cleverly written, innocuous provision that would exempt Cape Wind from many rules now being written to regulate emerging wind farms -- specifically federal competitive bidding requirements."
"This language was so artfully crafted," Delahunt wrote, "that I needed to enlist the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to decode it. Cape Wind's special exemption escaped the notice of Congress and the public. That is the real outrage."
I'll give our dutiful congressman the benefit of a doubt that his selective memory of the Cape Wind permitting process, with its considerable length and all, is unintentional. What we are witnessing could be an example of the onset of Irish Alzheimer's - forgetting all but the grudges. Backbencher pols from greater Boston are among those most vulnerable to this affliction.
Delahunt's claim to be shocked, shocked about this provision is all the more puzzling if you look back to its origins in 2002 as the Cubin bill, also known as the Cubin amendment, named for a congresswoman from Wyoming.

Outstanding op-ed by Conservation Law Foundation

The single best one I've read about the anti-wind machinations in Washington comes from CLF's Phil Warburg and Sue Reid, as published in yesterday's Cape Cod Times and posted at the Clean Power Now site.

"Opponents of the Cape Wind project have poured millions of dollars into a campaign aimed at substituting myth for fact regarding a project that could put Massachusetts where it should be -- at the leading edge of efforts to promote clean energy," Warburg and Reid wrote.

"Sadly, Sen. Edward Kennedy has become one of the most active purveyors of this anti-Cape Wind mythology, defying his own proud record as a longtime champion of sound enery policy."

Clean Power Now protest rally in Boston today

  ... at noon on Boston City Hall Plaza, with protesters arrayed in the shape of a wind turbine - as seen from Sen. Edward Kennedy's office in the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, at right in the photo, overlooking the plaza. Looks like we might get a break in the weather by afternoon.

Post-rally update: as described in stories at capecodtoday.com and the Cape Cod Times.

Kennedy is more over-the-top than usual about the wind farm in this article in today's Boston Herald. At one point he refers to Cape Wind as "Halliburton on the sea." Hmm, maybe he's confusing it with halibut ...

President Gore speaks from the Oval Office

... at least as envisioned by this great "Saturday Night Live" intro making the rounds on the Gore-envisioned Internet and posted at Crooks and Liars. Laugh-out loud funny.

Hat tip to the great Truth and Progress blog, which brought this to my attention.

Alliance demands probe of possible link between Cape Wind and lightning strike on Kennedy plane

  Wasting little time responding to an incident it deems "suspicious," the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is demanding a "comprehensive and time-consuming" congressional probe into Sen. Edward Kennedy's plane getting hit by lightning over the weekend.
"Consider at the timing of this -- just as Sen. Kennedy has become the poster child for the opposition," said Alliance spokesman Ernst Incorrigan. "We already know that radar interference from wind turbines has led to tragic accidents involving planes and boats in Europe. And eventually I might be able to cite an example."
"But until we take a hard long, look at this," Incorrigan said, "we can't rule out that the Cape Wind proposal - the proposal itself - is wreaking havoc on navigational systems and Mother Nature."
Congressman Bill Delahunt, speaking from the floor of the House,  joined with the Alliance in making the demand. "How many more planes, trains, boats, birds and God knows what else must get struck by lightning before we resolve this -- how many more, Mr. Speakah?!
Delahunt said the incident was "a perfect example of Cape Wind getting help from powerful friends in high places, moving unseen among the clouds, never saying a word but always present."
"The possibility of that type of thing at work makes me uncomfortable," Delahunt said, glancing skyward.

Bay State legislators urge Congress to stop efforts to kill Cape Wind

Sixty-nine Massachusetts legislators have signed onto a letter sent to members of Congress on Friday voicing opposition to the stealth amendment in the Coast Guard funding bill that targets Cape Wind.
"We believe putting wind turbines six miles off the shore in Nantucket Sound is a small price to pay to share the burden of supplying energy to the nation and reduce its consumption of fossil fuels," reads the letter, which was initiated by State Rep. Frank I. Smizik, D-Brookline, chairman of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture. "It will also provide the southern New England region with considerable benefits that cannot be discounted."
"In summary, the opponents have not articulated an argument based on facts and have used statements that cannot be documented to argue their case," the letter concludes.
Follow this link to read the letter in its entirety and the names of legislators who signed on.

The signs are everywhere, Senator

Sen. Kennedy's plane struck by lightning yesterday in western Massachusetts; all aboard safe and sound, as reported in today's Boston Globe.
As to be expected, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is demanding an immediate ban on lightning.
After an incident like this, Kennedy reminds me of King Lear, another imperious patriarch whose poor judgment leaves him at the mercy of the elements.

From the play itself; Act III, Scene I -

The Earl of Kent: Who's there, besides foul weather?
A Gentleman attendant on Cordelia: One minded like the weather, most unquietly.
Kent.: I know you. Where's the King?
Gent.: Contending with the fretful elements;
Bids the wind blow the earth into the sea,
Or swell the curled waters 'bove the main,
That things might change or cease, tears his white
          hair,
Which the impetuous blasts with eyeless rage
Catch in their fury, and make nothing of,
Strives in his little world of man to outscorn
The to-and-fro conflicting of wind and rain.

An example of why blogs can no longer be ignored

The Daily Kos, one of the most widely read blogs in the country, posted a great article today about wind power that demolishes many of the bogus claims routinely trotted out by naysayers. Worth your time and not a suggestion I make lightly.

Two out of three ain't bad

Three opinion pieces in Bay State media today on the project -
The Falmouth Enterprise, a weekly that has previously editorialized against Cape Wind, holds its nose in disdain with what we're witnessing now.
"There's an old saying that there are two processes that a person is advised not to watch: making sausages and making laws," reads the editorial. "The behind-the-scenes maneuvering to kill the Cape Wind project is a prime example of law-making run amok."
Across Buzzards Bay over at the New Bedford Standard-Times, former Whaling City Mayor John Bullard, now president of the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, takes Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank to task, Kennedy for conspiring against Cape Wind, Frank for enabling.
"I am finding it harder and harder to believe it is possible for someone to favor renewable energy and oppose Cape Wind," Bullard writes in an op-ed in today's S-T. "Cape Wind is a real proposal. It will provide enough energy for 75 percent of the Cape demand. Until I see Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Frank (and the undecided Sen. John Kerry) support an equally real alternative, then I don't believe they are committed to reducing greenhouse gases."
The Boston Herald, meanwhile, runs an op-ed against Cape Wind by Congressman Bill Delahunt, an unlikely candidate for any sequel to "Profiles in Courage." More on Delahunt's disingenuousness in a post to follow.

Sen. Stevens defends his opposition to Cape Wind (wink, wink)

Sen. Ted Stevens made numerous claims about Cape Wind in his remarks on the Senate floor; some were even true. The project is proposed for Nantucket Sound, for example, and its turbines will extend 417 feet from water to the highest blade.
Elsewhere, however, Stevens ran hard aground on the sandy shoals of reality.

For example -

"When you look at this area, it is 24 miles across, more than half the size of Boston Harbor itself. That is going to be the site of this enormous facility. As I said, it is larger than any similar kind of wind energy project in the world. It really is a small area of federal jurisdiction, completely surrounded by the mainland and islands of Massachusetts." (emphasis added)

You know, one of those enormous small areas that demand our attention by virtue of their immense minute size.

Stevens denied nefarious motives for his curious opposition to Cape Wind. "It is not an issue based on friendship, nor any past favors or future favors. It is strictly a provision based on my long-held belief that states should have a final say on projects which will directly impact their land, resources, and their constituents" - such as ANWR, Senator, especially with black gold, aka Alaska tea, pushing $75 a barrel?

"Some in the press have claimed this provision is embedded in 'obscure legislation to be passed in the dead of night.' Mr. President we hear this all the time, but the Coast Guard Authorization bill is hardly 'obscure legislation' and there is nothing secretive about this bill."
Agreed, the Coast Guard bill is hardly "obscure legislation." Yet such a claim is a parody of toga-clad senatorial indirection. Surely the honorable lawmaker can distinguish between a $8.7 billion funding bill and an obscure, poison-pill amendment slipped into a $8.7 billion funding bill in the dead of night. Then again, maybe he can't.

House and Senate conferees, Stevens intoned, were a "bicameral, bipartisan group (which) negotiated language requiring the Coast Guard to assess the potential navigational impacts of the proposed offshore power plant."
Actually, Senator, the Coast Guard is already doing that, as required by the alleged dearth of federal laws pertaining to proposed offshore wind projects, and the Coast Guard will continue such scrutiny, as required by those same allegedly ephemeral laws.
But just in case the Coast Guard returns with a verdict of not guilty for Cape Wind, much like Audubon did when it came to birds, you and Sen. Kennedy want to give veto power to Gov. Mitt Romney, an avowed hanging judge.

"The project was amended so that it does not touch the state jurisdiction at all," Stevens goes on to claim, conveniently neglecting to mention that the Cape Wind turbine array was "amended" as requested by the same state he claims has no voice or authority in this process. This was done after Cape Wind opponents cited the presence of rocks exposed at low tide a few miles offshore as requiring the state to redraw the boundary of its coastal jurisdiction. Curiously, Cape Wind's opponents weren't interested in this curious anomaly occurring anywhere else on the Bay State's coastline.

Stevens goes on to play the public safety card, a safe bet whenever a scoundrel in Congress tries his hand at poker - "According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, this facility will be located in the flight paths of thousands of small planes."

Excuse me, Senator, but there's another word for that type of facility - it's known as an airport.

Texas plans nation's largest offshore wind farm

So reads the headline of this story in today's USA Today. News of the new proposal out of Texas, six months after another off the shores of Galveston, comes one day after the US Dept. of Energy reported that the American wind industry is on track for another record-breaking year, with 3,000 megawatts of new capacity installed to surpass last year's record of 2,400 MW.

A Bay State-Alaska deal on ANWR?

This would explain it - word out of Washington that Congressman Don Young is claiming the reason he and Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens are leading the charge against Cape Wind is because Ted Kennedy vowed to help them get the green light to drill for oil in ANWR - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
W