A controversial amendment that critics say would open up Buzzards Bay to unlimited wind turbine development was quietly slipped into a House energy bill last week, with some legislators unaware they had voted in favor of it.
Many saw the fingerprints of Boston developer Jay Cashman on the amendment, which the House speaker’s office denied. Mr. Cashman and Speaker Salvatore DiMasi are close personal friends, which Rep. DiMasi publicly disclosed in a letter to the House clerk last March.
The amendment, if approved by the Senate next year, removes a major obstacle to Mr. Cashman’s proposal to place up to 120 wind turbines in Buzzards Bay. It changes a state law to allow renewable energy projects in five areas of the Massachusetts coast, including Buzzards Bay, that are defined as ocean sanctuaries.
Development in the sanctuaries has been limited to gas and electric transmission lines, unless it is deemed a “public necessity.”
The amendment was filed after a House deadline and was not posted on the Legislature’s Web listing of pending amendments last Thursday.
It was tucked into a bundle of consolidated amendments that were voted on together with no debate. The consolidated amendment was introduced last Thursday night by Rep. Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
The text of the amendment caught many people by surprise after the energy bill was approved unanimously by the full House.
“We are terribly discouraged by this,” said Peter Shelley, a vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation and director of CLF’s Massachusetts Advocacy Center. “The public interest involved on both ocean management and renewable energy policy development is very high. That whole public interest is being mauled by this legislative process of introducing secretive amendments that are not subject to debate.”
The CLF, Audubon and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay all have objections to the substance of the amendment.
Mr. Shelley said CLF had spoken to several legislators “who had no idea what they were voting on because this was not debated. It was not made public. “¦ They would have had a different take on it had they known.”
Rep. DiMasi’s spokesman, David Guarino, said the Ways and Means Committee had broad power to amend bills.
He said the text of the consolidated amendment was available to members for 15 to 20 minutes. He said Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, the House chairman of the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, was there to answer questions.
“The text of the amendment was fully and readily available to the members, and several of the members asked about it and had conversations with Chairman Dempsey before they voted on it,” Mr. Guarino said. “We think it was entirely appropriate. The bill is now moving to the Senate. There will certainly be debate on all facets of this there.”
Several people close to the legislative process who wished not to be identified said Mr. Cashman was behind the amendment, but Mr. Guarino denied it was a favor to Mr. Cashman. The measure has the support of Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration.
Mr. Guarino said Mr. Cashman’s friendship with Representative DiMasi “had no impact on this at all. The goal of the amendment is to encourage projects in general along the coastline. It was not directed to affect any single project.”
Mr. Cashman was not available for comment. Elizabeth M. Isherwood, a spokeswoman for Patriot Renewables, developers of the proposed Buzzards Bay Wind Farm, said Mr. Cashman viewed the amendment as “a clarification of the statute.”
“From his point of view, I know this is not something that is supposed to benefit him, but to clarify existing legislation because the legislation is confusing,” she said.
Patriot Renewables released a written statement Tuesday night that read: “Some would use the (Ocean Sanctuaries Act) to close the door on wind, tidal and other renewable energy technologies making more than 90 percent of the commonwealth’s coastal waters off limits to renewable energy. We don’t believe this was the intent of the Legislature when they passed the Ocean Sanctuaries Act and we don’t believe it represents sound public policy at a time when the need for renewable energy has never been greater.”
Mr. Cashman contributes lavishly to political candidates across the state, and gave Rep. DiMasi the maximum $500 annual donation in 2004 and 2005.
Rep. DiMasi disclosed he was “close personal friends” with Mr. Cashman in a letter to House Clerk Steven James last March. Rep. DiMasi said his wife, Debbie, and Mr. Cashman’s wife, Christy, are also close friends who have a business relationship.
“The Cashmans, my wife and I socialize frequently,” Rep. DiMasi wrote. “They have been guests in our home, and we have been guests in theirs. The relationship between Debbie and Christy is very close. As a result of that relationship, Jay and I have grown close, notwithstanding the fact that we are both mindful of the potential for conflict arising from our respective positions.”
Rep. DiMasi noted in his letter that Mr. Cashman had construction and development interests before state government, including “legislation related to wind energy.”
Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, said through a spokesman last weekend that fishermen in her district were upset by the amendment, and she would handle the energy bill differently in January.
Critics said the amendment conflicted with the goals of an ocean management plan proposed by Sen. Robert O’Leary, D-Barnstable. Sen. O’Leary’s bill has passed the Senate and is awaiting a House vote.
Mr. Guarino emphasized that wind, hydroelectric and other renewable projects would still face state and local reviews under the amendment. He said the change would clear up conflicts in the law that specifically allowed traditional generating facilities, but not renewable ones, in ocean sanctuaries.
Robert Keough, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said the amendment did not originate from the governor’s office. However, Secretary Ian Bowles agrees with House leaders that it is needed to spur renewable energy.
“We believe that this is a positive step that will clear the way for additional renewable energy in state waters,” Mr. Bowles said in a statement. “Taken together with comprehensive ocean management planning, this proposal will allow for the use of state waters for renewable energy in a manner that protects the environment and the interests of our fishing community, and also offers clean energy choices for the citizens of the commonwealth.”
By David Kibbe
Standard-Times staff writer
21 November 2007
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding