Create a national wind energy policy
Cape Cod Times My View: reader commentary
August 8, 2003
By EDWARD M. KENNEDY
In your editorial ("Fickle Winds," Tuesday,) you emphasize the need for an effective ocean zoning process like those in Great Britain, Denmark, and other European countries to regulate and guard the public's interest with regard to private energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
As I stated in my interview with the Cape Cod Times last March, I could not agree more.
I strongly support renewable energy, including wind energy as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and protecting the environment. When developed in a rational, cost-effective way, wind energy can be an important part in the nation's energy strategy.
In addition to the Cape Wind proposal for Nantucket Sound, a number of other coastal projects are under consideration in our state, as well as in Maryland, Delaware, New York, New Jersey and Virginia. These projects hold significant promise, but they also raise significant questions about the private development of public resources and the potential impact on local ecosystems and economies.
Unfortunately, in the absence of any specific federal, state or local policy on private offshore wind energy projects, we are forced with an ad hoc approach that neglects the public interest.
My family has a long history on Cape Cod. After growing up and raising my children here, I understand the enormous national treasure we have in the Cape. We have an obligation to preserve it for future generations, which requires us to know the impact of our decisions on the landscape, seascape, and environment.
I'm concerned that we are rushing to implement the Cape Wind proposal - the world's largest proposed wind farm, 130 turbines, 400 feet tall in the waters between the Cape and the Islands - with little understanding of its likely impacts.
There are currently no federal laws or regulations on the siting, construction, operation and maintenance of large-scale wind farms off our coasts. Our national treasures deserve better.
In the case of offshore oil and gas projects, private developers are required by federal law to compensate the states for their use of federal lands within a state's boundaries to ensure that the public receives a benefit from the projects - not just the energy company. Louisiana received more than $40 million in 2001 because of these federal rules, and the funds were then used to acquire and protect sensitive marine properties and to support state programs.
With regard to the Cape Wind proposal, the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce fears that tourism, the region's No. 1 industry, will suffer. Environmental groups are concerned that the large wind farm will harm wildlife. The Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership has come out against the project because of the significant damage it will cause to fishing beds and waterways. Citizens on the Cape and across the Commonwealth are opposed to the industrialization of the incomparable Nantucket Sound.
Yet, efforts to create rational rules for the development of offshore wind energy are being met with strong opposition in Washington. The energy industry and its allies in Congress and the White House are automatically opposed to any public interest regulation of wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
But their primary interest is not in fostering renewable energy, but in preventing the imposition of any rules that could be extended to other types of energy development.
The emerging industry of offshore wind energy production would do well to insist on the creation of some clear rules so that they can plan for the future. But, in Washington today, that kind of thinking is not in fashion. The prevailing attitude - on energy policies, tax cuts or any other issue - is to grab what you can.
For the past three years, we have witnessed a sustained and unprecedented assault on public interest laws governing development on federal lands by the Bush administration at the behest of the energy industry. Industry self-regulation is what they want. Against this reality, we have to find ways to ensure that Cape Wind's proposal meets the public interest.
For all communities along the Massachusetts coast, the stakes could not be higher. Other developers are watching. Cape Wind is now working on an environmental review to determine the effect of its more than $600 million proposal on Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind - and Cape Wind alone - has chosen this location.
At a minimum, as part of Cape Wind's environmental review, the federal government should require what is called a programmatic environmental impact statement for the development of large-scale wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelf. Such a study would look at the entire coastal area to determine which sites hold the most promise for wind energy development, and which sites should be protected against industrialization because of environmental or economic considerations.
That way, the federal government can inventory and designate the most appropriate location for such development, and we can be sure that the public - not just the private developers - have a voice in how public resources are used for private profit.
Ultimately, we need a national policy on wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf, but I have no illusions about the enormity of that task, given the current anti-regulatory attitude in Washington.
In the interim, we must do all we can to see that this first-of-its-kind project receives enough state and federal scrutiny to justify its going forward. So far, in spite of all the loud rhetoric on the issue, Cape Wind hasn't met that test, and I doubt they ever will. Until they do, the project should not go forward. Far more is at stake in the decision than our backyards, and I make no apology for opposing this project now.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Hyannisport, a Democrat, has served in the U.S. Senate since 1962.
(Published: August 8, 2003)