Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Cape Wind Poison Pill Dissolves

June 22, 2006 | 13 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Congressional language described as a "poison pill" by supporters of the Cape Wind offshore wind project will be extracted from a broader legislative package in a new compromise reached by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"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."

-- Sen. Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM)

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Pete Domenici and Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman said they 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 the controversial 420-megawatt (MW) offshore wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound.

The news was revealed by a jubilant Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, speaking at this week's Renewable Energy Finance Form, held in New York.

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 that are necessary for navigational safety. Before this change, the legislation would have granted the Massachusetts governor veto power over Cape Wind and future offshore wind projects. Gov. Romney has publicly stated he is against the Cape Wind project, largely due to its location. He was widely expected to veto the project, should that right have been granted to him.

"In this instance, the governor veto is gone and the Coast Guard is only allowed to address navigational safety concerns," said Chairman Domenici. "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 said last year's federal energy bill gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to issue permits for alternative energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf, but that 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," Sen. Bingaman said. "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."

Other, Wind Power

13 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 13

peter-flannery-51005

June 22, 2006

There was a conference at the Massachusetts State House on Wednesday
concerning the future of Wind Power inland and aound the Cape. I was so impressed by the winners of the Windscape Compitition. They redesigned the Capewind project and wow that winner called e50 really had a great idea of reducing the farm down to 50 wind turbines,put into a circle with a viewing ramp around they turbines. Each turbine would represent a state and visitors could get information on the states
renewable energy projects. Lets go with this redisign, the costs are less and the turbines are larger so the power output will be the same as the original design.

Comment
2 of 13

peter-flannery-51005

June 23, 2006

Brian,

I think I was wrong about the turbines having the same total capacity of the current design. The e50 proposal also called for the reduction in electricity consumption for appliances and lighting.
The capacity for the turbines could then be lower based on the increase in effeciency of the appliances and lighting. ie they would have the same capacity to supply 70% of the Cape and Islands electricity consumption.

Comment
3 of 13

brian-crounse-34662

June 23, 2006

Peter,

I'm a proponent of the idea that the aesthetics of renewable energy is really important (b/c they have to be so big), but have you considered how impractical it would be for Cape Wind to redesign their project, given where they are in the permitting process (and how many times their enemies have almost killed the project)? For starters, how many years away from production are these magically huge (~8MW) turbines?

Also, I live in MA, and disagree with the Bush Administration about 99% of the time. This project is the 1%. It is very strange. I am also completed frustrated with Senator Kennedy and Governor Romney. It seems to me to be completely illogical to oppose this project, even on Nimby grounds.

Comment
4 of 13

kerry-beauchrt-51249

June 23, 2006

Make no mistake about who killed this amendment. The Bush administration two weeks ago stated publically that the Pres would veto any Coast Guard appropriation bill that contained that amendment. That was the writing on the wall that allowed Sen Dominici to scuttle the whole dirty business.

Comment
5 of 13

kerry-beauchrt-51249

June 23, 2006

All of the concerns voiced by Kennedy and the Mass Gov were transparent red herrings to
cover their desire to protect their property values. I now expect Kennedy to employ stooges to raise other objections (like radar concerns, etc.) while he presents a public face of non-interference. Expect some other new concern to surface from those who just happen to have a Kennedy connection.

Comment
6 of 13

rick-schwerdtfeger-41165

June 23, 2006

I think if you put all the turbines in a big circle, don't you have to be concerned about turbulent interference? If the circle is large enough to avoid that, it it practical to have a viewing ramp around the entire area? I still don't see what the fuss was about. The turbines would be so far off shore they would look like tiny popcicle stick figures on the horizon right?

Comment
7 of 13

roy-bauer-40438

June 23, 2006

Do you see what a little work and determination can do?
The United States is the best. When all are above one when only one plannet and billions of people count. Or when every living thing is on the line.

Comment
8 of 13

tim-lyden-47108

June 24, 2006

The Radar issue is BULL, there are dozens of wind farms in the South West, that are near Air Force bases & airports. No Problem

Comment
9 of 13

adrian-akau-36758

June 24, 2006

I think that the radar obstacle still must be seriously considered.

1. Radar should have new filters built in to handle any wind turbine generated signals.

2. Stealth technology should be applied to the blades or to the tips of the blades in order to reduce radar reflection.

I think that both of the above technological problems can be overcome to make it possible for wind generation and radar equipment to coexist in reasonable proximity.

Congress has been wise to prevent control of this issue to rest with a state governor because the issue is over control of areas beyond state boundaries. The Coast Guard should have jurisdiction in this matter.

adrianakau@aol.com

Comment
10 of 13

tom-gray-36391

June 24, 2006

The outcome on this amendment is a good one, and I think Senator Domenici has it right: we need a siting process that is based on fact and science.

Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
<a href="http://www.awea.org">www.awea.org</a>
<a href="http://www.ifnotwind.org">www.ifnotwind.org</a>

Comment
11 of 13

adrian-akau-36758

June 25, 2006

Tim. I hope it is all bull as you say. I hope this problem can be resolved by unbiased testing. If there is a problem, then I am sure a solution could be found. We need renewable energy development as well as National Security.

I would say that wind turbine development is actually a form of National Security since it ensures us of future energy supplies. Without adequate energy resources, we really cannot function as a viable, growing nation. Coal is too polluting and we don't want to end up like China.

China is making efforts to develop their wind resources because they realize that their push into industrialization has led to health endangering pollution of the worst sort. What is the sense of national wealth at the expense of so many who suffer the ill effects of pollution?

adrianakau@aol.com

Comment
12 of 13

paul-maher-50833

June 27, 2006

While I do not pretend to understand the science bethind the radar wind farm issue, it is difficult not to be highly sceptical.

This is a June 14th Renewable Access article:
"From Muskets to Missiles to Wind Turbines"

" The Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming is beginning construction this month on two 900 kW wind turbines to supplement the base's power needs. ..."

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=33227

While there may be technical problems here that need to be looked into, the radar issue, is just the latest in Sen Kennedy's (D-Massachusets) long term, consistent and committed opposition to Cape Wind.

Comment
13 of 13

adrian-akau-36758

July 1, 2006

Paul. If there is truly a danger of radar interference from wind generators, then the largest, most modern strategic missile facility in the United States is at risk and the US Air Force is ignorant of these risks.

Now since I don't believe that the US Air Force would be inclined to make such mistakes with radar, it would seem that the claims to this problem may not be as threatening as originally presumed.

Who are we to believe in this matter. The government has passed regulations to close down the development of just about all new wind farms in the US. Are they justified in doing so or is it because Ted and the Governor did not get their way? If this was such a big issue, why was nothing done until now? Does this mean that all US military installations in the future will not be allowed wind generators?

adrianakau@aol.com

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!