Bill Takes Aim at Wind Farm

Retreating Behind Closed Doors, Lawmakers Debate Amendment Tacked
Onto Coast Guard Bill That Would Ban Turbines

By IAN FEIN

The fate of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm hung in the
balance in Washington, D.C. this week, where a small group of
congressmen met behind closed doors to consider an amendment to a U.S.
Coast Guard bill that would effectively kill the controversial project.

Supporters and opponents of the wind farm are anxiously awaiting
final language on the amendment, which as proposed would ban turbines
within 1.5 miles of shipping lanes or ferry routes. If adopted, the
restriction would force Cape Wind Associates to abandon as many as half
of the 130 turbines they want to build on Horseshoe Shoal - a
prospect they say would make the project economically unfeasible.

A decision could emerge from the congressional conference committee
as early as today.

"It's been a very intense time," Cape Wind
spokesman Mark Rodgers said last night. "If this came to pass it
would represent the worst in Congress. Everybody's closed out.
It's a small number of people in a back room that are presumably
making this decision. All we have are rumors about what's
happening. Nobody knows for sure."

Rep. Don Young, a Republican from Alaska, proposed the restriction
last fall as an amendment to an $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization
bill. He added the amendment in a small conference committee of House
and Senate leaders as a legislative maneuver that avoids public hearings
or debate. The closed-door committee will, in effect, decide
unilaterally whether the restriction lives or dies.

The back door tactic of the amendment attracted widespread attention
and was criticized this week by U.S. Senators from both parties and in
newspaper editorials up and down the East Coast, including one in The
New York Times.

The amendment also comes at a time when the need for renewable
energy is high in the national consciousness. If built, the Cape Wind
project would likely be the country's first offshore wind farm.

Mr. Rodgers yesterday said the company is gratified by the number of
people who have spoken out against the amendment. "We think it
underscores not only support for developing more renewable energy in
this country, but also for a sense of fair play, and indignation that
all of this could come to an end by one stroke of a pen," he said.

Representative Young, the third-ranking Republican in the House and
chairman of the House transportation committee, has not spoken publicly
about his amendment. But in a five-page letter sent to other conference
committee members on Feb. 15, he indicated that the amendment is tied
specifically to Cape Wind.

"Nothing shows the need for my navigational safety standards
amendment better than the proposed Cape Wind project," Mr. Young
wrote. "I know others oppose the project entirely on a wide
variety of economic, environmental, and tourism standards. I am not
necessarily opposed to the project, but I am convinced we need a set of
objective navigational safety standards that will assure that wind
energy projects are properly sited with regard to navigational safety
and national security."

As proposed, the closest Cape Wind turbine would come within 1,500
feet of a shipping lane. Mr. Rodgers said the Young amendment is overly
restrictive because the federal government allows oil rigs to be sited
within 500 feet of shipping channels.

The two ferry companies that operate regularly in Nantucket Sound
- the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises - wrote
letters to the conference committee late last month in support of the
Young amendment. Both companies have opposed the Cape Wind project on
the grounds that it would pose a substantial hazard to safe navigation
in the Sound.

Mr. Rodgers said yesterday that turbines would be located about one
nautical mile from the Hyannis-Nantucket ferry route, and roughly half
of a nautical mile from the Vineyard-Woods Hole route.

The full text of the letter authored by Steamship Authority general
manager Wayne Lamson appears on the Commentary Page in today's
Gazette.

The Coast Guard as of yesterday had not issued an official statement
about the Young amendment. But Capt. Mary Landry, commanding officer of
the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Providence, R.I., told reporters
this week that the amendment was unnecessary because the Coast Guard
already had the authority to determine whether the turbines would pose a
threat to navigation.

The Coast Guard is listed as one of 17 cooperating agencies involved
in the federal review of the Cape Wind project.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in a draft environmental impact
statement on the project issued in November 2004, found that while the
project would result in minimal temporary impacts to marine navigation
during construction, once completed it would actually serve as a
navigation aid. The Corps noted that the turbines would be placed almost
a half-mile apart, allowing ample room for vessels to pass safely in
between, and that each turbine would have a specific identifiable number
and would be marked on navigation charts to serve as references for
mariners navigating in and around the Sound.

Congress in its Energy Policy Act signed into law last summer
transferred lead regulatory authority over the Cape Wind project from
the Army Corps to the Minerals Management Service, an environmental
agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Management
Service is expected to release a new environmental impact report on the
project sometime this spring, and hopes to make a final permitting
decision within the next year.

A service spokesman yesterday declined to comment on the Young
amendment, and said the agency is continuing to forge ahead with its
review.

The Young amendment is not the first legislative maneuver on Capitol
Hill aimed directly at Cape Wind; Sen. John Warner of Virginia in 2004
tried unsuccessfully to slip a moratorium on offshore wind farms into a
$447 billion defense spending bill.

But the move by Representative Young has attracted more scrutiny, in
part because of the distance between his constituency in Alaska and the
wind farm proposed off the coast of Massachusetts. Some have questioned
ties between Representative Young and a lobbyist hired by the Alliance
to Protect Nantucket Sound - a well-funded, Cape-based nonprofit
which was formed in opposition to the Cape Wind project and is regarded
as the developers' chief critic. Some of the language in the Feb.
15 letter authored by Mr. Young mirrors previous statements found in
Alliance publications.

Others have speculated about the involvement of Massachusetts
congressmen in the drafting of the amendment.

Cape and Islands Rep. William Delahunt and Massachusetts Sen. Edward
Kennedy, both vocal critics of the Cape Wind project, have through
statements made by their offices suggested that the Young amendment
deserves due consideration in the absence of a stronger federal
regulatory framework.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry - the 2004 Democratic
Presidential nominee - has in the last four years never taken a
stance on the Cape Wind project. But he stepped into the debate about
the Young amendment last Friday when he issued a brief statement that
said it would derail other potential offshore wind farm projects
elsewhere in the country.

"The Young amendment is an insult to Americans who care about
good government," Senator Kerry said in the statement.