Thursday, April 27, 2006
Kerry 'Blowing in the Wind' on Turbines
Both sides in the bitter fight over a proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm are pressing hard as a showdown in Congress looms on a measure that could kill the project, but one key vote is still up for grabs: that of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Unlike the Bay State's other leading politicians, Kerry, a leading Senate voice on environmental causes, has yet to take a stand on the controversial plan to put 130 wind turbines off the Cape Cod coast.
"These are uncharted waters," said Kerry spokeswoman April Boyd on Wednesday. "We want to see the final environmental impact studies on the project. Those studies are still under way on this proposed first-in-the-nation project."
Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and Cape Cod's congressman, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, oppose the project. Only one of the five gubernatorial candidates supports the wind farm.
The proposal for the nation's first offshore wind farm has been under review by various federal and state agencies for nearly five years.
On Capitol Hill, an amendment targeting the Cape Wind Associates project was quietly slipped into the $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill that could doom the wind farm. The measure was approved by a House-Senate conference committee earlier this month. It is unclear when the House and Senate will vote on the measure.
U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was a key backer of the amendment. The measure gives veto power over the project to the governor of Massachusetts.
Kerry is still reviewing the bill and has not reached any decision.
"We're studying the conference report," Boyd said. "No vote has been scheduled yet."
The senator wants to allow the government review process to continue before deciding if he supports the wind farm, Boyd said.
Kerry's indecision stands in stark contrast to the stand of Kennedy, whose staunch opposition to Cape Wind has made him a lightning rod for environmental groups and other project backers.
Groups such as Greenpeace are attacking Kennedy's opposition to the project, running cartoon-style TV ads that mock the senior senator.
Kennedy has drawn particular scorn from project backers for making a personal appeal to the Republican Stevens in favor of the anti-Cape Wind amendment. Cape Wind backers are quick to note that Kennedy owns an oceanfront Cape Cod home and often sails on Nantucket Sound.
Kennedy, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press Wednesday, bristled at the charges, saying the state should have a strong say, not Cape Wind president Jim Gordon.
"People ought to be concerned with the back-room deal that was given to Cape Wind," Kennedy said. "(Gordon) has just looked to come in on a financial grab for 24 square miles of property."
Cape Wind benefited from a provision tucked into the sweeping energy bill Congress passed last summer that exempted the project from competitive bidding, Kennedy said. Cape Wind will also get about $280 million in government subsidies, he said.
"They won't have to bid for it," Kennedy said. "That is the real outrage. I'm not going to be quiet on this issue."
Cape Wind denied Kennedy's charges.
"There was no backroom deal with Cape Wind," said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers. "There was a provision to make sure Cape Wind wasn't penalized."
The energy bill provision reflected about $20 million in development work Cape Wind had already put into the project, Rodgers added.
The fight over Cape Wind, meanwhile, has intensified on Capitol Hill in recent weeks.
New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a renewable energy advocate, plans to oppose the measure on the Senate floor.
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., has also voiced concern about the amendment.
On the House side, U.S. Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., has come out against the amendment, saying a Coast Guard bill should not be a vehicle for setting the nation's energy policy.
Because the Coast Guard bill was approved by a House-Senate conference panel, Cape Wind supporters will face difficulty stripping the amendment from the overall bill or altering it.
Both sides in the bitter fight over a proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm are pressing hard as a showdown in Congress looms on a measure that could kill the project, but one key vote is still up for grabs: that of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Unlike the Bay State's other leading politicians, Kerry, a leading Senate voice on environmental causes, has yet to take a stand on the controversial plan to put 130 wind turbines off the Cape Cod coast.
"These are uncharted waters," said Kerry spokeswoman April Boyd on Wednesday. "We want to see the final environmental impact studies on the project. Those studies are still under way on this proposed first-in-the-nation project."
Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and Cape Cod's congressman, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, oppose the project. Only one of the five gubernatorial candidates supports the wind farm.
The proposal for the nation's first offshore wind farm has been under review by various federal and state agencies for nearly five years.
On Capitol Hill, an amendment targeting the Cape Wind Associates project was quietly slipped into the $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill that could doom the wind farm. The measure was approved by a House-Senate conference committee earlier this month. It is unclear when the House and Senate will vote on the measure.
U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was a key backer of the amendment. The measure gives veto power over the project to the governor of Massachusetts.
Kerry is still reviewing the bill and has not reached any decision.
"We're studying the conference report," Boyd said. "No vote has been scheduled yet."
The senator wants to allow the government review process to continue before deciding if he supports the wind farm, Boyd said.
Kerry's indecision stands in stark contrast to the stand of Kennedy, whose staunch opposition to Cape Wind has made him a lightning rod for environmental groups and other project backers.
Groups such as Greenpeace are attacking Kennedy's opposition to the project, running cartoon-style TV ads that mock the senior senator.
Kennedy has drawn particular scorn from project backers for making a personal appeal to the Republican Stevens in favor of the anti-Cape Wind amendment. Cape Wind backers are quick to note that Kennedy owns an oceanfront Cape Cod home and often sails on Nantucket Sound.
Kennedy, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press Wednesday, bristled at the charges, saying the state should have a strong say, not Cape Wind president Jim Gordon.
"People ought to be concerned with the back-room deal that was given to Cape Wind," Kennedy said. "(Gordon) has just looked to come in on a financial grab for 24 square miles of property."
Cape Wind benefited from a provision tucked into the sweeping energy bill Congress passed last summer that exempted the project from competitive bidding, Kennedy said. Cape Wind will also get about $280 million in government subsidies, he said.
"They won't have to bid for it," Kennedy said. "That is the real outrage. I'm not going to be quiet on this issue."
Cape Wind denied Kennedy's charges.
"There was no backroom deal with Cape Wind," said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers. "There was a provision to make sure Cape Wind wasn't penalized."
The energy bill provision reflected about $20 million in development work Cape Wind had already put into the project, Rodgers added.
The fight over Cape Wind, meanwhile, has intensified on Capitol Hill in recent weeks.
New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a renewable energy advocate, plans to oppose the measure on the Senate floor.
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., has also voiced concern about the amendment.
On the House side, U.S. Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., has come out against the amendment, saying a Coast Guard bill should not be a vehicle for setting the nation's energy policy.
Because the Coast Guard bill was approved by a House-Senate conference panel, Cape Wind supporters will face difficulty stripping the amendment from the overall bill or altering it.
