[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Massachusetts wind farm stumbled on shorebirds  

Credit:  By MARIMER MATOS | Courthouse News Service | July 12, 2016 | www.courthousenews.com ~~

Construction of the first off-shore wind farm in Massachusetts has a hit a snag with the D.C. Circuit chiding regulators about plans to protect shorebirds.

The Cape Wind Energy Project was created to fulfill the state’s renewable-energy requirements but the green ambition has failed to satisfy other environmentalists who say the construction of 130 windmills will pollute the scenery, kill sea birds and harm whales.

Among those who filed suit in Washington are Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. They accused federal regulators of rubber-stamping the project in contravention of half a dozen U.S. laws.

Though U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled for the agencies in 2014, the D.C. Circuit revived two claims last week.

One of the claims involves the lack of a plan for seabirds the turbines will harm.

Though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that the turbines will kill 80 to 100 endangered roseate terns and 10 threatened piping plovers over the 20-year lifespan of the project, the agency nevertheless said Cape Wind’s activities would not “jeopardize the continued existence” of any listed species.

Both Cape Wind and the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management objected when the service suggested that someone turn off the windmills occasionally during periods of poor visibility.

Known as feathering, this process could help “reduce the risk of collision” by birds flying through the wind farm.

The service heeded the objections and did not include feathering in the incidental take statement that the service prepared with recommendations to minimize harm to Nantucket Sound birds.

Based on the exclusion of the feathering option, the environmentalists said that the incidental take statement violated the Endangered Species Act.

Reviving this claim last week, the D.C. Circuit called it arbitrary and capricious for the service to disregard submissions by the environmentalists on this point.

The court also revived a claim that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relied on “inadequate geological surveys” in preparing a statement about whether the seafloor can support the turbines.

The bureau must supplement its environmental impact statement with adequate geological surveys before Cape Wind may begin construction, but the court found it unnecessary to halt the project.

“Delaying construction or requiring Cape Wind to redo the regulatory approval process could be quite costly,” Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for a three-person panel.

Citing the need for Massachusetts to meet renewable-energy requirements, Randolph declined to vacate Cape Wind’s lease or other regulatory approvals based on the violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Cape Wind is expected to generate 75 percent of electricity for Cape Cod and neighboring islands.

Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins concurred in the ruling.

The decision comes one year after the Boston-based First Circuit revived an unrelated challenge to Cape Wind – this one alleging that Massachusetts forced an energy company to buy overpriced wind-turbine electricity.

Joined by businesses and individuals opposed to Cape Wind, the Cape Cod town of Barnstable said Massachusetts cut a deal that required NStar Electric to buy electricity from Cape Wind, though cheaper energy was available out of state.

Claiming that the increased energy costs will cost consumers $1 billion over the lifespan of the 15-year contract, Barnstable said the “power-purchase agreement” came to pass because the state Department of Energy Resources “threatened to erect various regulatory roadblocks to the merger unless NStar executed a contract to buy electricity from Cape Wind on substantially the same terms and conditions that another of the Commonwealth’s utilities, National Grid, had agreed to several years earlier.”

Source:  By MARIMER MATOS | Courthouse News Service | July 12, 2016 | www.courthousenews.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.