The town of Edgartown moved this week to formally join the fight against Cape Wind, both out of specific concern about the impact of the project and a broader concern about the erosion of the powers of local government.
On Monday the selectmen authorized town counsel Ronald H. Rappaport to file a motion to intervene in the proceedings before the Energy Facilities Siting Board in support of the Cape Cod Commission and the towns of Yarmouth and Barnstable, which oppose Cape Wind.
The argument centers on whether or not the siting board — a state agency which is charged with ensuring a reliable energy supply — has the power to bundle and grant all the state and local permits needed to build its huge wind farm in Nantucket Sound.
The proponents of the wind farm want the siting board to do just that, as a way of making an end run around local agencies which are holding up the development.
Last fall the Cape Cod Commission denied the land transmission portion of the Cape Wind project, which is planned to come ashore in West Yarmouth. The commission has the power to review that portion of the project as a development of regional impact. When the commission found Cape Wind’s application needed more information, the developers refused to reply. In the end the DRI was denied for procedural reasons, i.e. an incomplete application. Cape Wind then appealed to the Energy Facilities Siting Board.
At issue in the dispute is who trumps whom, since both the commission and the siting board are state agencies.
A similar case was argued a few years ago in a dispute over whether the state affordable housing law, Chapter 40B, was exempt from review by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
The commission prevailed in the case.
In their motion on Monday, the Edgartown selectmen cited concerns about the effect of the wind farm on fisheries, commercial fishermen and commercial navigation.
The selectmen also expressed concern that the Cape Wind case could undermine the local review powers of the Cape Cod Commission, Yarmouth and Barnstable and establish a precedent which served to undermine its own powers.
The Martha’s Vineyard Commission also is seeking to intervene, although sources yesterday said the petition still was being drafted.
Both the petitions from the town and the MVC are belated; the deadline for intervention has passed.
The Edgartown petition, however, says there is good cause for this: that many of the potential negative effects of the Cape Wind project did not become clear until March 13, when they were enumerated at a public hearing on the Island.
That hearing, held by the lead federal permitting agency, the Minerals Management Service to get responses to its draft environmental impact statement, saw a large number of objectors, particularly local fishermen who claimed the EIS had grossly underestimated the effect on local fisheries.
The petition from the MVC is expected to address the broader principle of the erosion of the role of commissions like itself and the Cape Cod Commission. Both commissions were created by an act of the state legislature that grants them unique powers to regulate development. The Cape Cod Commission was modeled after the Vineyard commission, which was conceived in 1974.
“The town asserts that the Energy Facilities Siting Board lacks the power to supersede the CCC’s regulatory authority,” the petition says, citing the previous land court decision.
“In the event that the this board concludes that it may circumvent and override the CCC,
The town claims that a decision allowing the siting board to trump the Cape Cod Commission would undermine the authority of the MVC and would be detrimental to the town’s interests.
“The CCC’s mission, as articulated by the Massachusetts legislature and reaffirmed by numerous court decisions — is an express mandate to protect and preserve Cape Cod, and that mandate supersedes and trumps the more limited powers that the legislature delegated to the board,” the petition says.
“Any diminution in the powers of these towns over inherently local decisions would undermine the powers of Edgartown to protect its own environmental resources,” it also says.
And as Edgartown stakes out its opposition to one alternative energy project, it received a double dose of good news this week on another one which it is actively supporting: a plan to generate power from tidal flows in Muskeget Channel between the Vineyard and Nantucket.
On Monday, the federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted 36 months exclusive access to the area to allow initial testing of the financial and technical practicability and environmental feasibility of putting “tide engines” into the channel, to harvest energy from the strong tidal flows there.
The application of a private developer, which had sought exclusive access to the same area, was denied.
Coincidentally the Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Center at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, which is partnering with Edgartown and Nantucket in the project, received word that it had secured $250,000 in grant money toward the work.
“It was a good day,” said Kitt Johnson, chairman of the Edgartown energy advisory committee.
“ We now have our preliminary permit, and the request of the private developer has been denied. We have some money. That’s a tremendous step forward for Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket,” he said, adding:
“This gives us a period of three years’ exclusive right to do work and be first in line to get a license to operate generating facilities.
“The technology is about 20 years behind wind at this point,” he admitted, “but the aim is to catch up.”
“We have a long journey ahead, but there wouldn’t be any journey at all if we hadn’t won this award.”
The next step is to provide the federal agency with a detailed work plan and a timeline for further work. That must be submitted with 45 days.
One cautionary note. The ruling from the Energy Regulatory Commission sought comments from other agencies, and noted that the federal Department of the Interior had expressed concern the tide engine idea could have significant adverse impacts on fish and other aquatic resources.
This article appears in April 4, 2008.
Thank you, my beloved Edgartown. If the people who say they care about the environment cared as much about people, they would let this thing go, realizing that the negative, irreversible impact this project has on the community – in so many ways – is far more damaging than so-called global warming. (my belief that in a just a few short years man-made global warming will come to be seen as the biggest hoax in history is a conversation for another day). There are alternatives to this project at this location, alternatives that are more appropriate and less damaging, divisive, and alienating. Thank you, Edgartown, may good sense and reason prevail.
If the Energy Facilities Siting Board is charged with “ensuring a reliable energy supply,” why isw it involving itself with wind-generated electricity.
Wind energy is amongst the least reliable energy sources. For every single watt that Cape Wind is planning to produce, conventional electricity generating plants will have to be standing-by ready to instantaneously replace the wind-generated electricity.
If the Energy Facilities Siting Board is truly concerned with “reliable” energy, it would stand in opposition to any wind power project which proposes to connect itself to the electric power grid.
Wow! The two previous comments are truly amazing.
The first person debunks Global Warming all on her own by waving a magic wand and declaring it a hoax. I hope she has informed the tens of thousands of scientists around the world who are completely unanimous on this one. We are lucky to have such an accomplished expert on hand!
The second writer declares that wind derived energy is the least reliable way to go. This leads me to wonder why the rest of the world (and large portions of our own country, by the way) are pursuing it at all. I hope he tells the folks over in Denmark that they are barking up the wrong tree since over twenty-percent of their electricity is wind-derived.
And finally-good luck to Edgartown. They are pursuing a technology which they admit is twenty years behind when compared with wind and has not gone beyond the testing phase anywhere in the world.
Do we have another twenty years to tinker around or should we be employing proven solutions as rapidly as is feasible?
The anonymous “Islandman” responds to me, “I hope he tells the folks over in Denmark that they are barking up the wrong tree since over twenty-percent of their electricity is wind-derived.”
Well, Islandman, Denmark is an usual case. They really derive hardly any of their own electricity consumption from wind. Yet, their wind power, unlike most, is not a complete waste. The Danes have a unique situation, allowing them to essentially ‘store’ their wind-generated electricity in Norwegian water.
I’m sure that sounds crazy, but it serves to demonstrate that alternative energy is incredibly complex. Wind Power is not at all the simple 4-2=2 that Cape Winds has sold to state agencies, newspaper reporter, and the public.
I suggest the following article to help one understand why wind power (and the Danish story in particular) is not even close to what its proponents claim it to be.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/31/194053/962
Pointing out that Danish-based wind farms necessitate a different approach to grid management does not support the claim that wind power is by nature unreliable.
Installed capacity for wind power is growing at double digit rates around the world and for good reason. In 2008 an estimated 100,000 MW of power will be achieved.
While no one has suggested that all our needs can be satisfied by wind power alone, the US only derives one percent of its total from wind. I believe that we would all be a lot better off if we can concentrate on getting that number up to ten or even fifteen percent nationwide during the next 20 years (while Edgartown tinkers with tidal power).
Have a look at www.earthpolicy.org/indicators/wind/2008.
The tens of thousands of wind turbines currently spinning around the world are not just giant pinwheels. They generate electricity without producing smog, carbon dioxide, mercury….
You can either get used to a new paradigm or burrow your heads deeper into the sand Vineyarders!
Is the public aware of the horrendous effects of these “environmentally clean” windfarms on the wildlife of the area? Have you seen a beautiful and probably threatened migratory bird sliced in half or maimed by these “clean machines?” They are like giant scissors. They are placed where the best windcurrents are – right where these birds travel, twice a year, following their migratory routes. Has research been done on the effects of the sound of these machines? On fish, shellfish and wildlife? There is a reason that they are not placed in a town or on a beach! The sound is unbearable!!! The results here in Norway have been disasterous – as far as preserving the nesting areas and the birds. What really counts here folks? Think about it!!
With all due respect to bird lovers like Ms. Pedersen, she makes it seem like windfarms are giant Cuisinart food processors. Yes, some birds will meet an untimely end, but it should be noted that many bird lovers also oppose urban skyscrapers (which are much greener than suburban office park sprawl), plate glass windows in homes, and what allegedly is the number one killer of birds in the world, cats.
Many ornithologists agree that the most serious threats to birds are the pollutants being spewed by non-renewable energy and related environmental damage caused by global warming.
Will windfarms meet all of the world’s energy needs? Of course not. But it can become a viable and vital resource that will help ween us away from consequences more serious than the one our neighbor in Norway describes.
I believe what Ms. Piazza is getting at is merely the underlying issues that concern Islanders and Cape Codders with regards to the Cape Wind project. I heed your warnings, Islander, but I must urge you to consider the innumerable other places that such a wind farm could take place. Please consider that Cape Wind is purusing this project for tax benefit reasons, not for the perservation of our Sound.
The simple matter, that will remain until this mess is resolved, is that some treasure the beauty and existence of Horseshoe Shoal while others respect the need for renewable energy–whereever it may lie.
While it’s paradoxically true that wind energy could in fact, one day, “save our sound,” I do not believe it should be done by sacraficing such a wonderful national treasure. I hope Cape Wind can respect those of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineayard, and Nantucket and look elsewhere to puruse their project. We love our Sound and we ask that you leave it alone.
Offshore windfarms have failed in Europe. The salt air environment will ultimately ruin the equipment. The company will declare bankruptcy and the investors will simply walk away. . Here’s a plan: require the company to post a bond equal to the cost of removal of the entire enterprise, once it fails. Otherwise –if built— we’ll see the corroding remnants of those units for decades.
Cape Wind is the right project in the WRONG place. “Island man” and Sed sound like they might have a vested interest in the project. Can they tell us why Cape Wind has never seriously considered other sites? Maybe Sed could look into a site near Boston! In any case, both of them seem so locked into the project in its present configuration that they have an “answer” for every argument against Cape Wind. So much for reasonable debate.
Regarding the birds (not to mention bats, that are presently experiencing a strange regional die-off as well!),how clever of Cape Wind to propose erecting their industrial windplant next to the Great Atlantic Flyway! Move over skyscrapers, you’ve got some serious competition coming! As to “the most serious threats to birds are the pollutants being spewed by non-renewable energy and related environmental damage caused by global warming”, do you really think Cape Wind will replace those facilities? Not likely; any power generated by CW will simply be added to the grid so we can continue to lead our wasteful lives of over-consumption. This kind of god-squad argument is suspect in any case, especially coming from people who are so invested in CW that they’d never even consider other options.
Yes, that was my point, that this is the wrong place for this project, for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it is simply wrong for a private enterprise to be defacing the Sound, albeit and especially under the guise of saving the planet. And to clarify, just because I don’t subscribe to the the prevailing (not unanimous – a Google search will provide ample material on the subject arguing both sides, and by the way, science, unlike politics, does not operate by consensus) man-made global warming craze does not mean I don’t think we should be good stewards of our Earthly home. I do, very much, and put my money where my mouth is every day of the week – and if the global warming scare drives us to become better stewards, great, but my point is, at what cost? As to the point of bringing our usage of windpower up to 20%, my question is, if this one project has caused such strife – and there are many, many stories of inland windfarms having ruined communities and people’s lives with strip-clearing, the relentless, un-bearable noise, strobe effects, caused by the sun shining through the spinning blades, plus damage to wildlife – creating more windfarms seems a dubious prospect. I am proud of Edgartown for standing up against Capewind. Let the tinkering begin.