more activism!
The long-sought offshore windfarm that would provide power to 75% of Cape Cod and the islands (Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard) is in jeapordy in Congress.
Advocates of wind power, especially those from Washington, Alaska, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Maine, should consider contacting their senators....
Renewable Energy folk? Everyone else? This means you. : ) Let's help our earth out this weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://capewind.org/news565.htm
As early as next week, a decision will be made in Washington DC that could kill the Cape Wind project - but there is still time for you to act to prevent this from happening.
At the urging of wind farm opponents, Congressman Don Young of Alaska is introducing an amendment that would kill Cape Wind to the Conference Committee working to finalize the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, H.R. 889. (More details about this amendment and our response to it are provided below.)
There are four key Senators that can stop this amendment. It is extremely important to contact these Senators as soon as possible and make them realize how much public support there is for Cape Wind.
The best thing you can do is to CALL these Senators, and / or compose your own letter to FAX to them. If you can't do either of those things but could send an email instead, please do so.
Senate Subcommitte on Fisheries & the Coast Guard
Phone
Fax
Email Webform
Senator Olympia Snowe, Chair (Maine)
(202) 224-5344
(202) 224-1946
http://snowe.senate.gov/contact.htm
Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member (Washington)
(202) 224-3441 (new)
(202) 228-0514 (new)
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/
Senate Commitee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
Senator Ted Stevens, Chair (Alaska)
(202) 224-1251
(202) 224-1259
http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Senator Daniel Inouye, Co-Chair (Hawaii)
(202) 224-0411
(202) 228-0303
http://inouye.senate.gov/webform.html
Senators from Massachusetts
Senator Edward Kennedy
(202) 224-4543
(202) 224-2417
http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.html
Senator John Kerry
(202) 224-2742
(202) 224-8525
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.cfm
-------------------------------------------------
What the Young Amendment would do to Cape Wind
The Young Amendment would ban offshore wind farms within 1 1/2 nautical miles from a shipping channel or ferry route and require the Coast Guard to come up with a lengthy new rulemaking process for offshore wind farms and navigation. The amendment would require the removal of so many wind turbines that Cape Wind would not be an economically viable project, the apparent goal.
Why this is Amendment is bad public policy (see below for explanations of each of these points)
The Young Amendment is unfair to wind power, it is unneeded, it is based upon a false justification, it ignores the successful experience in Denmark, and it is contrary to the pledges of Members of Congress to reform their practices in light of recent lobbying scandals.
Amendment is Unfair to Wind Power
While this Amendment would bar wind turbines from being 1 1/2 nautical miles from shipping channels, offshore oil and gas rigs are allowed to be located as close as 500 feet to shipping channels. The requirement of the Coast Guard to develop new rules for reviewing offshore wind would be a major delay and setback to the entire wind industry. This amendment is contrary to the goals of President Bush and members of Congress who have recently been calling for the greater development of wind power in the United States.
Amendment is not needed
Under existing law, the US Coast Guard already has the authority to review Cape Wind and any other offshore wind farm proposal for sea navigation safety. The Coast Guard has been reviewing Cape Wind since 2001 and their review of Cape Wind is ongoing. The Coast Guard opposes this amendment.
Amendment backers rely upon one justification, and it is false
The justification offered for this amendment is a recent British report that gives their Coast Guard a framework for how to review offshore wind farms and sea navigation issues and issues involving radar. Of great importance - the British report only calls for a 500 meter (approximately 1/3 nautical mile) buffer zone between offshore wind turbines and shipping lanes. Beyond that distance, the report calls upon the British Coast Guard to review each project on a case-by-case basis and avoided a "one size fits all" approach. In addition, the British report was mostly concerned with proximity of offshore wind turbines to major international shipping lanes, by comparison the amount of large vessel traffic in Nantucket Sound is very small. Congressman Young is invoking this British study for justifying his Amendment, but then he ignores the British study by more than quadrupling the size of the British buffer zone and by taking authority away from the experts in the Coast Guard to make these decisions on a case by case basis.
Amendment ignores successful experience in Denmark
Denmark has had several years of successful experience of wind farms located close to major international shipping lanes with no reports of accidents or negative impacts upon safe sea navigation. Offshore Copenhagen, the Middelgrunden wind farm is just 1/4 nautical mile from a shipping channel that has 25,000 ships pass by the wind turbines each year. The Nysted offshore wind farm is 1 nautical mile from the main shipping channel that connects the Baltic Sea with the North Sea with 60,000 ships passing by each year.
Amendment goes against pledges of Congressional leaders to reform their practices
Leaders of both parties and in both chambers of Congress have pledged to reform their practices to make the lawmaking process more transparent and to reduce the influence of special interests and lobbyists. Members of the Senate and Congress truly committed to this reform cannot support this Amendment. Congressman Young is offering this Amendment to the Conference Committee working to finalize the budget for the Coast Guard. The purpose of a Conference Committee is to "resolve differences" between legislation passed in the House and Senate. In this case, NEITHER the House or Senate had considered or passed this amendment. Trying to get it inserted into the Conference Bill at the 11th hour prevents close scrutiny, the opportunity for hearings, and removes most of the members of these Coast Guard Committees from being able to vote on it.
The only backers of this Amendment are people who oppose the Cape Wind project who happen to be well-funded, well-connected, and influential. The organization that formed to oppose Cape Wind, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, has spent one-million dollars to lobby Congress and two of their lobbying firms have field offices in Alaska.
The following organizations OPPOSE the Amendment: (partial list)
American Wind Energy Association, National Ocean Industries Association, Maritime Trades Council, Seafarers International Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Conservation Law Foundation, U.S. PIRG, Greenpeace, Woods Hole Research Center, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Environment Maine, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Friends of the Earth, American Lung Association's Maine and Massachusetts Chapters, Clean Power Now.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT DURING THIS IMPORTANT TIME.
Please feel free to contact me at anytime should you have any questions.
Laura Martin
Community Relations
Boston office
Cape Wind Associates, LLC
75 Arlington Street; Suite 704
Boston, MA 02116
phone: 617-904-3100
fax: 617-904-3109
Cape Cod office
Cape Wind Associates, LLC
923 Route 6A; Suite G2
Yarmouth Port, MA 02675
phone: 508-375-9495
fax: 508-375-0787
Advocates of wind power, especially those from Washington, Alaska, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Maine, should consider contacting their senators....
Renewable Energy folk? Everyone else? This means you. : ) Let's help our earth out this weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://capewind.org/news565.htm
As early as next week, a decision will be made in Washington DC that could kill the Cape Wind project - but there is still time for you to act to prevent this from happening.
At the urging of wind farm opponents, Congressman Don Young of Alaska is introducing an amendment that would kill Cape Wind to the Conference Committee working to finalize the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, H.R. 889. (More details about this amendment and our response to it are provided below.)
There are four key Senators that can stop this amendment. It is extremely important to contact these Senators as soon as possible and make them realize how much public support there is for Cape Wind.
The best thing you can do is to CALL these Senators, and / or compose your own letter to FAX to them. If you can't do either of those things but could send an email instead, please do so.
Senate Subcommitte on Fisheries & the Coast Guard
Phone
Fax
Email Webform
Senator Olympia Snowe, Chair (Maine)
(202) 224-5344
(202) 224-1946
http://snowe.senate.gov/contact.htm
Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member (Washington)
(202) 224-3441 (new)
(202) 228-0514 (new)
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/
Senate Commitee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
Senator Ted Stevens, Chair (Alaska)
(202) 224-1251
(202) 224-1259
http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Senator Daniel Inouye, Co-Chair (Hawaii)
(202) 224-0411
(202) 228-0303
http://inouye.senate.gov/webform.html
Senators from Massachusetts
Senator Edward Kennedy
(202) 224-4543
(202) 224-2417
http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.html
Senator John Kerry
(202) 224-2742
(202) 224-8525
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.cfm
-------------------------------------------------
What the Young Amendment would do to Cape Wind
The Young Amendment would ban offshore wind farms within 1 1/2 nautical miles from a shipping channel or ferry route and require the Coast Guard to come up with a lengthy new rulemaking process for offshore wind farms and navigation. The amendment would require the removal of so many wind turbines that Cape Wind would not be an economically viable project, the apparent goal.
Why this is Amendment is bad public policy (see below for explanations of each of these points)
The Young Amendment is unfair to wind power, it is unneeded, it is based upon a false justification, it ignores the successful experience in Denmark, and it is contrary to the pledges of Members of Congress to reform their practices in light of recent lobbying scandals.
Amendment is Unfair to Wind Power
While this Amendment would bar wind turbines from being 1 1/2 nautical miles from shipping channels, offshore oil and gas rigs are allowed to be located as close as 500 feet to shipping channels. The requirement of the Coast Guard to develop new rules for reviewing offshore wind would be a major delay and setback to the entire wind industry. This amendment is contrary to the goals of President Bush and members of Congress who have recently been calling for the greater development of wind power in the United States.
Amendment is not needed
Under existing law, the US Coast Guard already has the authority to review Cape Wind and any other offshore wind farm proposal for sea navigation safety. The Coast Guard has been reviewing Cape Wind since 2001 and their review of Cape Wind is ongoing. The Coast Guard opposes this amendment.
Amendment backers rely upon one justification, and it is false
The justification offered for this amendment is a recent British report that gives their Coast Guard a framework for how to review offshore wind farms and sea navigation issues and issues involving radar. Of great importance - the British report only calls for a 500 meter (approximately 1/3 nautical mile) buffer zone between offshore wind turbines and shipping lanes. Beyond that distance, the report calls upon the British Coast Guard to review each project on a case-by-case basis and avoided a "one size fits all" approach. In addition, the British report was mostly concerned with proximity of offshore wind turbines to major international shipping lanes, by comparison the amount of large vessel traffic in Nantucket Sound is very small. Congressman Young is invoking this British study for justifying his Amendment, but then he ignores the British study by more than quadrupling the size of the British buffer zone and by taking authority away from the experts in the Coast Guard to make these decisions on a case by case basis.
Amendment ignores successful experience in Denmark
Denmark has had several years of successful experience of wind farms located close to major international shipping lanes with no reports of accidents or negative impacts upon safe sea navigation. Offshore Copenhagen, the Middelgrunden wind farm is just 1/4 nautical mile from a shipping channel that has 25,000 ships pass by the wind turbines each year. The Nysted offshore wind farm is 1 nautical mile from the main shipping channel that connects the Baltic Sea with the North Sea with 60,000 ships passing by each year.
Amendment goes against pledges of Congressional leaders to reform their practices
Leaders of both parties and in both chambers of Congress have pledged to reform their practices to make the lawmaking process more transparent and to reduce the influence of special interests and lobbyists. Members of the Senate and Congress truly committed to this reform cannot support this Amendment. Congressman Young is offering this Amendment to the Conference Committee working to finalize the budget for the Coast Guard. The purpose of a Conference Committee is to "resolve differences" between legislation passed in the House and Senate. In this case, NEITHER the House or Senate had considered or passed this amendment. Trying to get it inserted into the Conference Bill at the 11th hour prevents close scrutiny, the opportunity for hearings, and removes most of the members of these Coast Guard Committees from being able to vote on it.
The only backers of this Amendment are people who oppose the Cape Wind project who happen to be well-funded, well-connected, and influential. The organization that formed to oppose Cape Wind, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, has spent one-million dollars to lobby Congress and two of their lobbying firms have field offices in Alaska.
The following organizations OPPOSE the Amendment: (partial list)
American Wind Energy Association, National Ocean Industries Association, Maritime Trades Council, Seafarers International Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Conservation Law Foundation, U.S. PIRG, Greenpeace, Woods Hole Research Center, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Environment Maine, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Friends of the Earth, American Lung Association's Maine and Massachusetts Chapters, Clean Power Now.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT DURING THIS IMPORTANT TIME.
Please feel free to contact me at anytime should you have any questions.
Laura Martin
Community Relations
Boston office
Cape Wind Associates, LLC
75 Arlington Street; Suite 704
Boston, MA 02116
phone: 617-904-3100
fax: 617-904-3109
Cape Cod office
Cape Wind Associates, LLC
923 Route 6A; Suite G2
Yarmouth Port, MA 02675
phone: 508-375-9495
fax: 508-375-0787