Cape Wind Offshore Wind Farm

STATUS:  In progress, with opposition
 
OPPOSITION:  Government officials (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Cape Cod Commission), celebrities (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), local residents (Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound)
 
PROSPECTS:  Likely 

BACKGROUND:  Cape Wind, the nation’s first proposed offshore wind farm, is perhaps the nation’s most infamous example of the horrors of NIMBY.  Since filing for its first permit in 2001, the 130-turbine project planned for Nantucket Sound has been forced to navigate through a gauntlet of permit-related hurdles.  Cape Wind received final environmental approval from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on March 30, 2007.  On January 14, 2008, The U.S. Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a highly favorable Draft EIS.  On January 16, 2009, MMS issued a highly favorable Final EIS on the project.  Cape Wind is set to receive a “super permit” from the Energy Facilities Siting Board that would satisfy nine required state and local approvals, as well as overturn a Cape Cod Commission procedural denial of the project.  The Minerals Management Service has not yet issued a favorable Record of Decision and Lease to Cape Wind.
 
At peak generation, Cape Wind will generate 420 megawatts of renewable electricity. This is enough to meet the needs of 420,000 homes.  Cape Wind is a $2 billion project.  It will create between 597 and 1013 jobs during the pre-operations stage, and 154 permanent jobs during operations. 

The project has faced strong opposition from some senior politicians in Massachusetts and a deep-pocketed and politically connected local group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.  It is reported that the Alliance has poured more than $15 million into fighting Cape Wind tooth and nail ever since the project was unveiled in 2001.  The Alliance says that the project poses a threat to public safety, would impact shipping lanes, and would adversely affect tourism and Cape Cod’s economy due to its impact on Nantucket Sound’s natural beauty.  Opposition groups and the Town of Barnstable sued to stop the project; on June 20, 2008 the Barnstable Superior Court dismissed four of five counts filed by those groups. The fifth count was not considered ripe for a ruling since the matter was still pending before a state agency.

The most recent development includes an effort underway by two Indian tribes, who are working in conjunction with the Alliance to Project Nantucket Sound, to designate the entire Nantucket Sound as an Indian historic property for listing on the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property.   Under this designation, all actions in the Sound, would become subject to the National Historic Preservation Act, including commercial fishing, marinas and wharves, cell towers, bridges, marine, transportation, and virtually every other activity. 

The two Indian tribes involved are the Mashpee Wampanoag and the Wampanoag of Gay Head.  The tribes claim the proposed wind farm would destroy a sacred site where their ancestors fished, hunted and possibly were buried. They also say it would obstruct their views and interfere with their spiritual well-being. They want the project stopped.  The MMS is currently working with the tribes to address this issue. 

LINKS:  Cape Wind Official Website (http://www.capewind.org/); Cape Cod Times (http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090313/NEWS/903130307); Associated Press http://www.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/article/indian_tribes_object_to_cape_wind_farm_proposal/19883/

Comments

[RON BEATY]

As a colonial-rooted Cape Cod native who firmly believes in the sanctity of our maritime heritage, I am writing to ardently express my steadfast support for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Based upon sensible logic, data and reasoning, I am also conversely opposed to the controversial Cape Wind Project which seeks to despoil and rob us of the pristine nautical legacy bestowed by our forefathers. As a result of the likely profound damaging regional financial, ecological and public safety consequences Cape Wind would wrought upon us all, it should not be allowed to proceed forward to fruition.

The project poses a cogent danger to essential air and sea navigation. Siting the project in Nantucket Sound is a breach of the public trust. Contrary to their sham claims, the cost of the electricity which the project will produce would not be cheap or competitive. It would be an unbearable fiscal burden hoisted upon us without our sanction or consent. Furthermore, it will represent a deleterious local economic blow by it's absconding of undeserved taxpayer-funded subsidies, forced real estate devaluations, and lost revenues from commercial and tourism activities. The proposed one hundred thirty wind turbines will perpetually cause unsightly visual contamination and distressing noise pollution. Finally, Cape Wind will unnecessarily endanger a critical marine and wildlife habitat.

Off-shore deep water wind has surfaced as a cost-effective and technologically feasible option in lieu of the Nantucket Sound situated Cape Wind Project. Cape Wind has chosen a location which possesses countless expenses as well as hazards to public safety, the marine environment, and the local economy. Deeper-water sites offer more powerful winds and the advantages of clean renewable energy without surrendering the irreplaceable natural beauty of Nantucket Sound.

More distantly sited off-shore locations guarantee the advantages of clean wind power without many of the harmful effects of close-shore siting. Furthermore, there would be little harmful impact upon air and marine navigational safety and local tourist-based economies.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) estimated a total off-shore wind energy resource of over 1000 GW. The potential for deep water locations greater than 30 m (or 100 feet) is
enormous. Approximately ninety percent of the off-shore wind potential in the United States resides in deep water.

With the aforesaid thoughtful rationales in mind, along with the inherently unfair and inequitable nature of the proposed Cape Wind Project itself, it must not become a reality which will forever doom our children and grandchildren to a ghastly socially inhumane legacy.

Ron Beaty
West Barnstable, MA

[David Dow]

The citizens of Cape Cod & the Islands need to move beyond the "Cape Wind" project and develop a strategy for becoming "carbon neutral". Part of the solution would be renewable energy development in the adjacent ocean. We could construct 2-3 large scale wind farms in federal waters and 10-12 small community projects in the state's coastal waters. We could do this without upgrading our connection to the New England Regional Grid. Communities onshore that support small wind farms in the adjacent ocean and serve as locations for bringing power lines onshore from large offshore renewable energy projects should receive some tangible community benefits.

Becoming "carbon neutral" strategies should also include: improving our public transportation system; reducing sprawl development; adopting "zero waste" approaches for solid wastes, rather than trash to energy incineration; installing solar panels and heating systems on the roofs of public buildings; improving building codes to encourage better efficiency; etc. We need to develop a vision for a transition to sustainability for our region and then develop a plan on how to meet these goals. We have wasted too much time debating the "Cape Wind" project and not focusing on our transition to sustainability.

[Barbara Durkin]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ‘Green Tape ties up energy projects’ states their, “Web site highlights Cape Wind, the nation’s first proposed wind farm planned for Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. This project can’t get off the ground because of opposition from activist groups who argue, among other reasons, that local ocean views will be spoiled.”

The “unreasonable opposition”, U.S. Chamber also cites, is far better informed about Cape Wind than is the “unreasonable proponent”, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Many EXPERT NIMBY(s)follow the principles of good stewardship. We stress reliance on Best Science and applicable laws that serve the interests’ of the public, Sovereign Nations as Federally Recognized Tribes, Public Trust, and public lands that include our ocean resource.

EXPERT NIMBYs jealously guard endangered species, archaeologically sensitive areas, Essential Fish Habitats, Sacred Land, public use rights, heritage trades, historic whaling ports, unique scenic vistas that include wild landscapes and the windows to our past, National Historic Landmarks, the unspoiled and the aesthetically pleasant from “sea to shining sea”.

Such are the features unique to Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket Island,
and this amphibious resource upon which we depend, Nantucket Sound.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that these values, rights and unique features, as well as public safety, are all threatened by Cape Wind.

The most important public policy decisions are made with priority consideration given to public safety. Zoning of our coastal waters has not yet been addressed. Zoning is police power that establishes order to avoid chaos that invites public safety hazards where zoning does not exist.

It most certainly does not serve the public interest to construct Cape Wind upon which the FAA has issued: "Determination of Presumed Hazard". The lead federal regulator, Minerals Management Service, final environmental impact statement represents that Cape Wind may alone cause 1.43 vessel strikes per year.

I would like to disclose that I live 1 ½ hours drive time away from Cape Cod. I am accurately described as a Cape and islands’ tourist. If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still wishes to identify me as an “EXPERT NIMBY”, I will proudly wear their label.

I have been conducting independent research on the subject of Cape Wind and wind energy for six years. My initial objection to Cape Wind was based on my opinion that 130, 440’ wind turbines installed there would lead to aesthetic degradation of this internationally recognized tourist destination location, a favorite of mine.

Consideration of the visual image of Cape Wind 130, 440’ proposed wind turbines over 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound offends me. And my right to Nantucket Sound aesthetic value is assured under the National Environmental Policy Act.

I consider the Cape Wind precedent-setting privatization of the submerged land of Nantucket Sound, and the proposed alternative development of our Outer Continental Shelf, to be an action that shifts public rights to our precious finite ocean resource to private entities, to be a very serious matter that presents conflicts that must be resolved before the fact.

Minerals Management Service, under new OCS rules, is now poised to divest the public of our “our” precious resource. Since Thornwald and the Vikings and Gosnold fished in Nantucket Sound, and named Cape Cod for the abundance of this fish, an active fisheries has continued here as practiced by at least three nations that include Federally Recognized Tribes.

Cape Wind’s proposed industrial scale wind facility represents a public safety hazard according to its users and experts of aviation and navigation as those most familiar with Nantucket Sound. First and foremost as a U. S. Chamber of Commerce identified “EXPERT NIMBY” from the State of Massachusetts, I reasonably object to this plan on that basis.

Thank You,

Barbara Durkin
EXPERT NIMBY

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/01/2762454-cape-wind-faa-notice-of-presumed-hazard-

http://bjdurk.newsvine.mobi/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/05/2400385-even-rich-nimbys-cant-afford-cape-winds-energy?mode=edit

[Barbara Durkin]

U.S. Chamber indicates they believe that a government of, by, and for the people, has perished the Earth. Your aim is clearly to silence the people.

As the Big Dig whistle-blower, Christy Mihos, says, "If you like the Big Dig, you'll love Cape Wind."

Mr. Carroll nails the issues above.
Barbara Hill, (above), cites a survey by the Civil Society that Clean Power Now funded, and she's their executive director.

Offshore wind energy adverse risks, costs, and market conditions have caused U.S. largest manufacturer of wind turbines, General Electric GE; and Royal Dutch Shell Wind; and World's Largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, to all abandon their offshore wind plans.

GE "discontinued" its offshore "prototype" 3.6 MW wind turbine that is specified by Cape Wind. Seventeen permit reviewing Agencies have for years been conducting taxpayer funded studies regarding the effects of this model on public safety, historic resources, endangered wildlife, the cost of energy, and many other values.

Royal Dutch Shell Wind has very recently announced that they will no longer invest in offshore wind as it's, "not economic".

Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse states, "the only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore", and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”

A "fair return" to the United States, by large scale deployment of wind turbines offshore, (mandated under the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Section 388 "H"), should not be expected warns GE, Vestas, and Royal Dutch Shell.

Offshore technology and cost challenges that GE, Shell, and Vestas have identified as significant enough for all three to retreat to shore, must be addressed in the interest of taxpayers' and ratepayers'.

Insurmountable obstacles identified by these former titans of offshore wind energy provide a harbinger of what should be expected if Cape Wind is permitted.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/cape-wind-navigates-shifts-in-market/#comment-45839

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy

World's largest manufacturer of wind turbines Vestas President and CEO Ditlev Engle stated of the Cape Wind project proposal to the Boston Globe:

"And, therefore, I am really wondering why anybody wants to put them up offshore because it’s twice the price. So just as an outsider, I am just scratching my head saying, “Why?”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/21/the_answers_to_him_are_blowing_in_the_wind/

Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse:

“The only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore,” and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

STOP CAPE WIND NOW!

[Barbara Hill]

The most recent public opinion survey conducted in March 2008 show 74% of the year round citizens on Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard support the Cape Wind project. Also a public opinion survey conducted in 2007 shows that 86% of Massachusetts residents support the project. After eight years of review, two major federal and two major state reports conclude that the project will have minor environmental and socio-economic impacts and significant public interest benefits. The marginal opposition group continues to trot out the tired arguements against the project all to no avail. On March 12 the project received a unanimous decision from the MA Energy Facilities Siting Board for all remaining state and local permits. We are expecting Interior Secretary Salazar to announce the Record of Decision leading to the lease sometime in the next month. Cape Wind will launch the offshore wind energy industry in this country and move us boldly in the direction of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, cleaning the air and mitigating the effects of climate change. We believe that tourists from around the world will visit Cape Cod to see the Cape Wind project, our symbol of energy independence and sustainability. And when that happens it is likely that the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce will advertise the fact that hotels, gift shops, and restaurants are powered by clean renewable energy from the Cape Wind farm to bring visitors to our lovely Cape Cod.

[Cliff Carroll]

The US Chamber should be ashamed of themselves. Another article, written by the private developers PR team that ignores the true risks that this 25 square mile 44 story industrial wind plant presents to the good people of Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. see www.windstop.org This project, the size of Manhattan New York is not offshore, it is just off the beaches in the middle of our rich fishing grounds and is presenting a USCG and FAA confirmed hazard to the radar systems of the ferry lines and the 400,000 flights a year that travel through this airspace. In the middle of this wind plant is a 10 story, 40,000 gallon transformer oil filled platform which will trhreaten our beaches and fishing grounds for the next 20 years. The USCG has told our fishermen they will have to leave the richest fishing grounds in the area and"Find somewhere else to fish". The project is being built in front of and on top of Tribal Religous sites and on top of the tribal burial grounds of the Wampanoag Indian Tribe.
The developer has never told us what the electric rates will be, although the MMS FEIS states that they may double our cost. This project is a no win for the people of Cape Cod and the Islands, it will destroy 10 times the year round jobs that it alledges it will create.
This project will get over $80,000,000 a year in state and federal subsidies.
The opposition is from the local people who's average income is only $23,000 a year. The project is opposed by the towns, the Indian Tribes, the Ferry lines, the 3 Airports and yes the CAPE COD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE!
Perhaps the management of the US Chamber should check with the local chapter before falling for the slick operators that intend to destroy one the most tourist based econmies in the country.