Rhode Island’s much-heralded offshore wind mapping project does not include any recommendations for federal waters, the Providence Journal reported on Saturday.
The Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) — which has taken two years and cost more than $8 million — conducted research beyond the three-mile state boundary but is not allowed to extend the planning process into federal waters, according to Grover Fugate, executive director of the state’s Coastal Resources Management Council. Fugate said that he has received specific warnings from the federal government on this point, the Journal reported.
The chairman of that same council, however, told the Journal that he was “shocked” by the limited scope of the planning.
CRMC Chairman Michael M. Tikoian was quoted as saying that “the objective was to pinpoint spots and we were never, ever told that we couldn’t do that for the federal waters.
Tikoian said also that the council might decide to ignore the federal prohibition and include planning for federal waters.
“The call is the council’s to make,” the Journal quoted him as saying. “The work has been done. The information is there. We may just put it in and work it out with the federal government later.”
Boston Globe Pushes For Cape Wind Approval
The Boston Globe editorial page today called on Massachusetts regulators to approve Cape Wind’s power purchase agreement in order to keep the state on the cutting edge of the offshore wind industry.
The editorial acknowledged that electricity from offshore wind was more expensive than consumers are accustomed to, but it said the prices were reasonable and that Cape Wind will not “pocket Goldman Sachs-level profits.”
“Consumers are justified in asking if the state is right to require utilities to bring on costly renewable power like Cape Wind’s,” the Globe editorial staff wrote. “The answer is no if the goal is simply to keep utility costs as low as possible in 2010 — but yes if Massachusetts wants to be a future leader in renewable technology.”
30. August 2010 at 10:22 pm
“How many people are really trying to understand the greenhouse-gas reality of Cape Wind?
Check out Section 5.3.1.4.2, Page 5-51, of the final environmental impact statement (just Google “Cape Wind final EIS” and you’ll find it). In reference to New England’s energy consumption projected for the years 2004 through 2014, it says: ‘The potential reduction in the growth of CO2 emissions due to operation of proposed action would be about 1 percent of the total projected increase. Thus the proposed action would have the potential to very slightly reduce the growth in CO2 emissions in the New England area.’
So if, metaphorically speaking, we’re driving toward a brick wall at 100 mph, Cape Wind slows us down to 99 mph.
For this birds, fish, marine mammals, benthic infauna, fishermen, and Wampanoag traditions have to take it in the shorts?
Wonder where we would be if all the money that has gone into this project (including litigation and government staff time) had gone into home weatherization and other lasting energy efficiency measures instead?”