[MassHistPres] Wind Power Bait and Switch

[Bjdurk at aol.com]

Thank you, Ms. Carlson. 
 
The cost v benefits of Cape Wind are part of the package that was to save  
us $25 million, but will cost us and estimated $82 million more than we now  
pay.  There is the sacrifice of the integrity of NHLs, Tribal Cultural  
Property TCP, Sacred Land and a place deemed eligible for listing to  the 
National Register of Historic Places in the context of this National  Grid rate 
hike.  Or,  as Professor Tuerck Chair of the Economics  Dept. of Suffolk 
University notes in reference to ratepayer costs, "bait  and switch". 
 
Today's stunning development is that Martha Coakley as Attorney  General 
charged with protection of ratepayers, after reviewing the Cape Wind  National 
Grid Power Purchase Agreement, has offered 10% off the $82 million rate  
hike by Cape Wind.
 
_http://www.masslive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-136/128052034331
4870.xml&storylist=massnews_ 
(http://www.masslive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-136/1280520343314870.xml&storylist=massnews) 
 
Please note that D.P.U. (appointed by the Patrick Administration must  
approve the contract.  And, that TransCanada is suing the State of  
Massachusetts naming Secretary Bowle's, personally, as they contend that  the contract 
between National Grid and Cape Wind, to purchase 50% of Cape Wind  energy, 
represents a violation of the Constitution Commerce Clause.   TransCanada is 
challenging the Green Communities Act that eliminated out of  state bidders 
that would include TransCanada from supplying renewable energy at  a lower 
cost to Mass residents.  TransCanada calls the RFP (request  for proposals) 
process, "tainted".  As competition drives price  down, it would seem that 
TransCanada is in effect protecting ratepayers of  Massachusetts now facing 
more than triple current costs energy with in state,  highest priced, Cape 
Wind.  
 
This up charge does not reflect the $10 billion dollar wind  required 
transmission upgrade, (ISO NE Governors' Study figure), that  Secretary Bowles 
indicates (op-ed NYTs) should be wrapped around the cost of  energy, (triple 
current), by Cape Wind for National Grid ratepayers.   N.Grid now pays 9 
cents per kWh.  
Cape Wind levelized cost, over the 15 year contract, would be for 1/2  Cape 
Wind energy, 29 cents per kWh.  Factor 10% off per our  Attorney General, 
(seemingly oblivious to the TransCanada's constitutional  challenge of the 
Cape Wind contract).  
 
What I think the historic preservation community might wish to monitor  is 
the Wind Bill (land based) legislative process as it relates to SB 2260,  
further amended in the Senate, last the House for  concurrence.  This is a 
"super permit" for wind projects with no  exit strategy.  It's more aggressive 
than 40 B as there is one  decision maker, Ian Bowles as Secretary of the 
Energy and Environment, who will  appoint a yet to be named panel with ability 
to over-ride local control,  environmental protections, existing zoning, 
and other protections,  including historic.  
 
This is an except from a July 28, 2010 letter to Attorney General  Martha 
Coakley signed by by Representatives Peterson, Jones, Hill,  DiNatalie, 
Peake, Humanson, Evangalidis, Creedon, Polito, Gifford, Guyer, Kulik,  Smola, 
Pignatelli, Callahan and Webster expressing their concerns about the  
aggressive Wind Bill effects:  
 
 
"...If the EFSB issues an approval, no other state agency can issue any  
permit or do anything that would delay or prevent construction, operation or  
maintenance of the wind facility.  This EFSB process is non-adjudicatory,  
unlike any other EFSB proceeding.  
 
Section 69H of Chapter 164 is amended by this bill, with no inclusion  of 
public safety or health as factors to be considered.  
 
The recent Senate further amendment removed line 436-439 such that NO  ONE 
can revoke a permit or authorization given to a wind energy facility for  
failure to perform--not the ESFB, the wind energy permitting board or the  
municipality in which the facility is to be developed.  Once permitted  there 
is no recourse to the project owner's failure to abide by the  permit..."
 
Thank You, 
 
Barbara Durkin 
Northboro, MA  
Telephone:  (508) 612-4133



 
 
In a message dated 7/30/2010 6:58:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Carolmcarl at comcast.net writes:

Friends:


I'm quite surprised that I haven't heard comment here about the July 28,  
2010, OPINION artical in the Globe entitled "The great wind power bait and  
switch".    It was written by 2 Suffolk University economic  professors 
(David G Tuerck and Jonathan Haughton) and describes the huge  differences 
between what Cape Wind told us the cost to users would be (save  $25 million a 
year), and what the actual cost might be.  "Ratepayers  could end up paying $82 
million annually more than what they currently pay".  Rather than give you 
all the details here, I have pasted a link to the  Globe article below.  
It's well worth reading.  (I understand money  and costs in not what we usually 
write about here, but this info is a big part  of the overall picture of 
this Cape Wind project!)


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/28
/the_great_wind_power_bait_and_switch/


Carol M Carlson
Bedford,  MA




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100730/2e3c169b/attachment.htm>