Spending Dirty Energy Koch $$$ to Oppose Clean Energy

The Beat Goes on for the Dirty Energy Koch Brothers!

CAPE WIND

Wind farm opponents to file appeals

Wind farm's detractors seek to overturn prior rulings

Opponents of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm will appeal a federal court decision upholding approvals for the project and a finding by state officials that allows Cape Wind and NStar to install new electrical equipment at a switching station in Barnstable.

By Patrick Cassidy
pcassidy@capecodonline.com Posted Dec. 3, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

Opponents of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm will appeal a federal court decision upholding approvals for the project and a finding by state officials that allows Cape Wind and NStar to install new electrical equipment at a switching station in Barnstable.

The pending appeals mark the latest in a long line of challenges to the 130-turbine project, which was first proposed in 2001.

In mid-March U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton tossed most of the challenges to the Department of Interior's 2010 approval of the wind farm but sent two findings on birds and whales back to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for further action.

The plaintiffs in the case – the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the town of Barnstable and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) – had argued that the federal government’s approval of the project was rushed, influenced by political pressure and violated the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and other federal laws.

Now that the federal agencies have responded to Walton’s remand order and the judge has made a final decision in favor of the federal government’s approval of Cape Wind, the plaintiffs are preparing an appeal.

“At this point we are in a position where we can appeal whatever issues we want to appeal,” said Audra Parker, president of the alliance.

An appeal could come as soon as this week, she said.

“The judge has affirmed those findings,” Barnstable Assistant Town Attorney Charles McLaughlin said. “It’s ripe across the board for appeal.”

The town will also be appealing the state Energy Facilities Siting Board’s approval of changes to the interconnection of the wind farm to the electric grid at an NStar switching station in Barnstable, McLaughlin said.

The installation of new equipment at the station would increase the amount of dielectric oil at the site by 1,534 gallons and the town had asked that an oil containment system be installed, similar to one at another NStar transformer in West Barnstable, McLaughlin said.

“They refuse to do that here,” McLaughlin said, adding that if one gallon of oil makes it into the groundwater it has the potential to contaminate 5 million gallons of water.

Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said “doom and gloom” predictions by McLaughlin about the potential for a major oil spill are “highly misleading.”

The non-PCB, nonhazardous insulating oil will be factory sealed in a series of 288 separate canisters containing either 4.5 or 7.8 gallons each, according to information provided by Rodgers.

Cape Wind and NStar have developed an oil response plan in case something goes wrong and will install two layers of trap rock at least 3 feet deep separated by a geotextile membrane, which goes beyond industry standards and will reduce the rate at which any spill might flow through the ground, according to Rodgers. By the time emergency responders arrive at the site, the oil will only have traveled 3 to 4 feet deep in an area where the groundwater is 50 to 75 feet below the surface, according to Rodgers.

The alliance, the town of Barnstable and several businesses are also awaiting a decision from a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel on whether a power purchase agreement between the offshore wind energy developer and NStar is constitutional.

In May, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns ruled in favor of Cape Wind, NStar and state energy regulators, who argued the suit was barred by the 11th Amendment of the Constitution, which restricts lawsuits in federal court against a sovereign state for past actions.

The alliance, Barnstable and the businesses appealed that decision, hiring well-known constitutional law attorney Laurence Tribe to take their case.

In 30-page brief filed last month, plaintiffs argued that the approval of the power purchase agreements by the state, although a past action, constituted an ongoing violation of federal law and that the state had forced NStar into agreeing to the contract with Cape Wind as a condition of the utility’s merger with Northeast Utilities.

“Ultimately we’re challenging Cape Wind’s high price contract with NStar,” Parker said.

Parker and other opponents of the project are hoping that time runs out on Cape Wind before it secures the financing needed to start construction.

The company’s contracts with NStar and National Grid expire if construction hasn’t begun by the end of 2015 and Cape Wind President Jim Gordon has said previously that he needed to close on financing by September so as to meet those construction deadlines, she said.

Gordon was using the information he had at the time when he estimated what would be needed to meet the deadlines, according to Rodgers.

“I’ve been saying for a while now by the end of the year and of course that’s approaching,” Rodgers said, adding that Cape Wind is confident it will secure the needed financing in the coming weeks.

He also dismissed the continued legal challenges facing the project.

“Project opponents including the alliance and the town have now lost 26 legal decisions and we’re past the point where weak appeals of strong decisions will impact us,” Rodgers said.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20141203/NEWS/141209788/101015/NEWSLETTER100





 

The Shills, Cape Wind & Perpetuating Ignorance!

A few folks are comfortable behaving like sheep following the Judas Goat in their ignorance.....

....accepting and spewing misinformation .....

An article was posted that included an interview with Mark Rodgers of Cape Wind, here:

Offshore winds soon to power Cape Cod: Part 2

 It's important to note that there are companies that actually employ people to write PROPAGANDA opposing or supporting ANY issues.  

 

I call them SHILLS!  Sometimes, as in the case below, they take a KERNEL OF TRUTH, misstate and embellish it.  T. Boone Pickens liked to limelight, was inclined to speak volumes.  Much of it may be found HERE and elsewhere.  

To those who believe we can drill our way out of our dilemma and dismiss Peak World Oil Theory, Mr. Boone, who made his fortune in oil, had this to say:

Pickens is an outspoken believer in the so-called peak oil theory that holds that maximum world production has peaked at about 85 million barrels a day — vs. current demand of about 86 million barrels a day — and will never rise much above that even with lots of new drilling and production.

  

It's important to remember that T. Boone Pickens was a SWIFT-BOATER, which defines his willingness to accept NONSENSE and FABRICATIONS for political purposes.  FROM a NYT article, Pickens Drops Plan for Largest Wind Farm: 

The Texas Panhandle was to be the site of the original wind farm.

 

Mr. Pickens has said in the past that he had to delay his wind plans due to the financing difficulties that have hit wind farms across the country in the last nine months, along with a fall-off in natural gas prices.

The latest scaling back, according to the Dallas paper, is due to transmission constraints. Texas plans to build about $5 billion worth of transmission lines to help carry the wind from the western part of the state, but they will not go where Mr. Pickens had hoped. Originally, he had even planned to build his own transmission lines.

 

  In other words, it would seem that the Oil Genius planned to construct a Massive Wind Farm where there was no DEMAND, NO GOVERNMENT-FUNDED TRANSMISSION LINES.  It doesn't sound like the Epitaph for Wind Energy as much as a BAD BUSINESS DECISION. And then the attack from the CLUELESS JO SHILL:     

Joe

Outrageous LIE'S. [sic]  It been proven over and over that Wind Farms are a farce and don't produce even remotely the energy that these liberal morons profess.

T. Bone Pickens the wealthiest Oil Barren in the U.S. spent over a billion dollars to build a Wind Farm in West Texas where the wind velocity is the highest in the U. S.

IT FAILED and Pickens stated WIND POWER doesn't work and is a joke.

Let not also remember that these morons want to increase your electric bills here on the Cape & Islands by 4 times what your paying now per kilowatt hour.

Cape & Island taxpayers NOW need to be heard immensely to prevent this disgusting fleecing of everyone's wallet to feed there own coffers.



What is always significant in defining SHILLS is their unfounded political attacks and name-calling....WITH EASILY DISPROVEN 'FACTS'....


liberal morons

disgusting fleecing of everyone's wallet to feed there own coffers



 
ANYONE can conduct an internet search and find an article the supports or discredits ANY issue without adequate substantiation.

Such appears to be the case with Cape Wind and Wind Energy.


Wonder what the Dirty Energy Kochs pay for this service?


Posted reply:

You are sadly misinformed about T. Boone Pickens and need to do further research.

T. Boone Pickens sought personal gain without conducting his due diligence.

This from the NYT:

"The latest scaling back, according to the Dallas paper, is due to transmission constraints. Texas plans to build about $5 billion worth of transmission lines to help carry the wind from the western part of the state, but they will not go where Mr. Pickens had hoped. Originally, he had even planned to build his own transmission lines."

In other words, he acknowledged planning a Wind Farm where there is NO DEMAND!

Your Dirty Energy Electric bill just increased 37%. You were just fleeced!

There is additional information available to those who attempt to inform themselves of the facts.

Both Wind Energy and Solar Energy are declining in cost, increasing in efficiency as the market continues to grow.

Instead of believing the right-wing propaganda you are consuming, you might consider Renewable Energy, here's a most recent article:
http://www.renewableenergyworl...

Or a personal favorite, Rocky Mountain Institute: http://www.rmi.org/

You will note that RMI also highlights making buildings MORE EFFICIENT.

This isn't a matter of those dastardly liberals fleecing you to line their pockets. It seems to be a matter of your willingness to preserve your own ignorance and create enemies where none exist.


 

Cape Wind eyes Rhode Island port

Cape Wind eyes Rhode Island port

 

 

By Patrick Cassidy

pcassidy@capecodonline.com

July 16, 2014

NORTH KINGSTOWN, R.I. — Cape Wind Associates, LLC now has options to lease port facilities in both New Bedford and Rhode Island to stage the construction of the wind farm the company wants to build in Nantucket Sound.

Which port it will use, or whether it will use both, however, remains an open question and a bone of contention for the project's opponents.

Related Links

• Read ongoing coverage of the wind farm debate

The option

Cape Wind lease option at Quonset Business Park in Rhode Island:

• 11.6 acre and 2.2 acre parcels
• One-year option to lease for $5,000 per acre (not including smaller parcel), or $4,833 per month
• 50 percent of option payments goes to lease payments if Cape Wind exercises its option
• One-year lease with two one-year extensions possible
• $15,000 per acre per year for 11.6-acre inland parcel
• $25,000 per acre per year for 2.2-acre terminal parcel
• $229,000 per year total

"That's still to be determined," Cape Wind Vice President Dennis Duffy said after the Quonset Development Corp. board of directors voted 7-1 Tuesday to approve the lease option with the company for two parcels of land at the 3,207-acre Quonset Business Park in the Ocean State.

The option to lease the 13.8 acres of land will cost Cape Wind $5,000 per acre for a year, or $4,833 a month, according to Steven King, the corporation's managing director.

"They cannot extend the option," he said after the half-hour meeting. "They have 12 months."

Cape Wind could, however, reapproach the board after the option runs out, King said.

If Cape Wind chooses to exercise the option to lease, it would cost the company $229,000 per year in rent for the land, he said. If the company decides to rent the property, half of the option payments will go toward the lease payments, he said.

Cape Wind officials already have signed an option-to-lease for property at the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, which is currently under construction, but have remained circumspect about which port they will use or whether they will use both.

On Tuesday, New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell said city officials "have been aware for a while that Cape Wind will be exploring an option to lease with Quonset."

"This news comes as no surprise to us," he said. "Until things are finalized in New Bedford, it makes sense for them to take that approach. But we remain confident that Cape Wind is on track to use New Bedford."

New Bedford Wind Energy Center Director Matthew Morrissey echoed the mayor, saying, "Cape Wind has long stated that if the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal is ready, their preference is to use it."

"We fully anticipate that New Bedford will be the principal if not the sole hub of Cape Wind's deployment," he said.

Before the vote, King told his board — which has also entered an option to lease with Deepwater Wind for a separate piece of property — that one port is not large enough to accommodate all of the work. Deepwater Wind has two projects it is planning to build, including a demonstration project off Block Island and a larger 200-turbine project in the ocean southwest of Martha's Vineyard.

Cape Wind already has submitted a $10,000 down payment on the option, King said.

 

The project is expected to generate 50 to 100 jobs on the site, he said, adding that, while there is no requirement that those jobs be given to Rhode Island residents, he expects local workers would be employed there. He said the expectation is that the lease would run for three years total, including two one-year extensions.

Cape Wind will need to make some improvements to the sites, including leveling the inland location where it would store components prior to them being taken by ship to Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound and adjustments to the sea wall at the terminal site to accommodate heavy loads of components, King said.

The cranes at Quonset, which can lift 150 metric tons, are not large enough to move all the components Cape Wind will use, and the company will have to supply an alternative, King said.

"It's been a tough project, but I'm happy to say that we've obtained all the permits," Duffy told the board.

Cape Wind expects to close on finances for the project by the fall, he said.

"I think there's a lot of work to be done to site the project," King said after the meeting about the potentially competing lease options. "They probably need more than one property."

James Rugh, the only board member present to vote against the lease option with Cape Wind, declined to comment on the reasons for his vote after the meeting, mouthing "no comment" behind the closed window of his car as he drove away.

On Monday, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound President Audra Parker said that if the company uses Quonset, indications by company officials that they would use New Bedford will be another broken promise that the project will provide local jobs in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center spokesman Matt Kakley wrote in an email that the quasi-public agency, which is building the New Bedford port, has been in discussions with Cape Wind since the start of the terminal project and expects to sign a lease with the wind farm developer in the near future.

Cape Wind is still facing an outstanding appeal of a federal lawsuit filed by the alliance and others as well as continued opposition on several other fronts, including in Congress where House lawmakers last week included a provision in a energy and water bill that would prohibit the Department of Energy from providing a $150 million loan guarantee for the project that was conditionally approved July 1. That bill is not expected to make it past the Senate.

"It's clear from a number of areas that opposition to Cape Wind is increasing largely because of its high cost, its burden to ratepayers and taxpayers, and its shipping jobs overseas," Parker said.

Ariel Wittenberg of The Standard-Times contributed to this report.

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140716/NEWS/407160332/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

 

Wind farm opponents fight lawsuit dismissal after losing 26 lawsuits & appeals

Wind farm opponents fight lawsuit dismissal

By Patrick Cassidy

pcassidy@capecodonline.com

June 03, 2014

Opponents of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm have appealed the dismissal of a federal lawsuit challenging an energy contract for the project.

The lawsuit, which is the latest in a string of failed challenges to the project, claimed state regulators' approval of an above-market contract to sell power from the project to NStar, which delivers power to Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and other parts of the state, violated two clauses of the U.S. Constitution: the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

The suit was filed against Cape Wind, state officials and NStar by the town of Barnstable, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and several individuals and businesses.

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns found on May 2 that the plaintiffs, who had sued officials at the state Department of Public Utilities and the state Department of Energy Resources, were barred from doing so under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, which restricts lawsuits in federal court against a sovereign state for past actions.

In addition, he found that, even if the lawsuit had passed the 11th Amendment test, it still would have lost on the merits.

On Monday, Hyannis Marina Inc., Jamie Regan and the Alliance filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. The town of Barnstable filed a separate notice of appeal.

In an emailed statement, Alliance President Audra Parker reiterated many of the claims from the original lawsuit.

"Our case alleges that NStar was coerced into signing a no-bid contract that violates federal law, discriminates against affordable green power producers from out of state, and burdens small businesses and municipalities with unnecessarily high electricity costs," she wrote.

There have been no other filings related to the appeal so far, said attorney Matthew Price, who represents the group that includes the Alliance.

"The project opponents have lost 26 lawsuits and appeals against Cape Wind and seem determined to lose another one," Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said.

Cape Wind first proposed a wind farm in the Sound in 2001. Company officials have been gathering financial support for the project, which is expected to cost more than $2.6 billion, and said earlier this year that they expect to begin onshore cable construction by the end of the year and ocean-based construction by 2015.

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140603/NEWS/406030324/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

Goose-Stepping Kochs!

If you place the "R" next to your name, maybe you should re-think your affiliation!

The Wealthy Wacko Extremists, the Dirty Energy Koch Brothers have overtaken the Party, dictating policy and far too many candidates represent their perspective, including Charlie Baker and the Sock Puppet Scooter Brown.

The Tea Baggers I know have expressed their uninformed opinions to me too frequently, failing to conduct ANY due diligence.

Please do your homework!

Middleboro suffers from elevated childhood asthma rates because we're DOWN WIND of too many DIRTY ENERGY plants, inter alia.

It's time for CLEAN ENERGY, CLEAN ENERGY JOBS and it's time for the U.S. to lead the world!

Judge dismisses latest anti-Cape Wind law suit

Judge Stearns noted that the lawsuit would violate the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

 

Article | Op Ed | May 3, 2014 - 12:00pm

 

The Federal Court's decision rejected all claims against the State of Massachusetts, NSTAR and Cape Wind.

Federal Judge dismisses Lawsuit that challenged Cape Wind

Suit on NSTAR Power Purchase Agreement is the 26th failed legal attempt of opponents to stop project

By Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind

Cape Wind once again has defeated the latest efforts of opponents to block America's first offshore wind farm. Federal Judge Richard Stearns last night dismissed project opponents' latest lawsuit which challenged Cape Wind's Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with NSTAR. The District Court's decision rejected all claims against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, NSTAR and Cape Wind.

Judge Stearns noted in his decision that the lawsuit would violate the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that gives states immunity from being sued for past actions in Federal Court. Judge Stearns also rejected the premise of the opponents' lawsuit: "The allegation that DPU dictated that NSTAR procure power from Cape Wind at a specified price is misleading and ultimately untrue." While Judge Stearns identified the 11th Amendment as sufficient grounds to dismiss the lawsuit, he noted it could also have been dismissed on various other grounds.
Judge Stearns concluded his Decision by observing:

"But in this case, the Governor, the Legislature, the relevant public agencies, and numerous courts have reviewed and approved the project and the PPA with NSTAR and have done so according to and within the confines of the law. There comes a point at which the right to litigate can become a vexatious abuse of the democratic process. For that reason, I have dealt with this matter as expeditiously as possible."

Cape Wind President Jim Gordon said, "This important legal victory provides further momentum for Cape Wind to secure project financing and produce the energy, economic and environmental benefits to the region and the United States by launching a domestic offshore wind industry."

Bill Koch, Chairman and largest funder of the opposition group, and a coal and petroleum coke billionaire, has stated publicly that his organization's strategy is "delay, delay, delay" and to try to use the courts to serve his strategy. Taxpayers have had to bear a considerable cost of staff time at agencies and courts defending against Koch's litigation.

Today's decision marks the 26th failed legal action brought by project opponents.
George Bachrach, President of the Environmental Leagues of Massachusetts, said, "It is obvious that project opponents have just been using the courts to delay this important project and to try to disrupt their efforts at securing financing; it is gratifying to see, for the 26th time, their lawsuit get rejected." Bachrach continued, "I call on the Town of Barnstable to stop taking Bill Koch's money and filing these frivolous lawsuits and appeals and recognize the benefits of mitigating climate change and the new jobs that Cape Wind will provide. The Cape and Islands are most susceptible to the impacts of climate change, Barnstable can be a leader here -- it's time to work together for a better future."

The case citation is: Town Of Barnstable, Massachusetts, et al., v. Ann G. Berwick, et al., Civil Action No. 14-cv-10148-RGS, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Click here to read Judge Stearn's Decision

Click here to review Cape Wind's Litigation History

Related Content:

 

Cape Wind's new website reflects phase shift

Cape Wind signs major cable contracts

Cape Wind wins long list of court decisions

We're not at the end of the wind energy pipeline

Court rules for Cape Wind, ending a decade of failed opposition

 

 

 

 

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2014/05/03/25234-judge-dismisses-latest-anti-cape-wind-law-suit

 

 

Cape Wind triumphs in lawsuit, but Kochs won't quit

The article at the bottom explains the Dirty Energy Koch Brothers' efforts to thwart CLEAN WIND ENERGY, even funding the legal expenses of Barnstable.

If you're still mindlessly goose-stepping to Kochs' Propaganda, you might want to consider their goals and lies, after all, the Kochs fund the Tea Baggers' Propaganda.





The Sinister Reason The Koch Brothers Oppose Obamacare 

Published on Mar 29, 2014

"Americans for Prosperity — the group backed by David H. and Charles G. Koch that has been pouring millions of dollars into competitive Senate races to the rising alarm of Democrats — was also among the politically active groups on the ground in this month's special House election on Florida's Gulf Coast.

But its agenda had little to do with the fate of David Jolly, the Republican candidate who won that race. The group's ground troops — including those who knocked on doors, ran phone banks and reached out through social media to gauge ways to motivate voters — were part of a much greater project, with a prize much larger than a congressional seat."* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

*Read more here from Carl Hulse and Ashley Parker / NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/...

**********

The Largest Online News Show in the World. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party. 2. Young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations. (American Heritage Dictionary)

The Young Turks (Winner - Best Political Podcast & Best Political News Site of 2009) were the first original talk show on Sirius satellite radio and the first live, daily webcast on the internet. But that is not the revolution.

We are a rare show that combines all of the news that people care about in one place. We are not afraid to talk about politics and entertainment and sports and pop culture. But that is not the revolution either.

The real revolution is in daring to be honest with people. We don't patronize our viewers or lie to them. We have real conversations and deliver the news honestly.

Download audio and video of the full two hour show on-demand + the members-only post game show by becoming a member at http://www.tytnetwork.com/tytmembership. Your membership supports the day to day operations and is vital for our continued success and growth.

Join The Young Turks Network mailing list http://www.tytnetwork.com/member-opti...

or Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungt...

Like Us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks
Follow Us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Support TYT for FREE by doing your Amazon shopping through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=theyoungtu...

Get your TYT Merch: http://shoptyt.com or http://theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com/

Cape Wind triumphs in lawsuit

 

By Patrick Cassidy

pcassidy@capecodonline.com

May 04, 2014

 

BOSTON — A federal judge has ruled in favor of Cape Wind in the latest lawsuit challenging the 130-turbine offshore wind energy project planned for Nantucket Sound.

 

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns on Friday granted several motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the project's opponents, including the town of Barnstable, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and various businesses and individuals.

Related Links

• Click here to read the full Cape Wind court ruling

The lawsuit filed in January claims that the approval by state regulators of an above-market contract to sell power from the project to NStar, which delivers power to Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and other parts of the state, violated two clauses of the U.S. Constitution: the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. The suit was filed against Cape Wind, state officials and NStar.

 

The plaintiffs argued that NStar was forced to sign the contract with Cape Wind as a condition for the state approving a merger between the utility and Northeast Utilities and that the state infringed on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction over setting wholesale electricity rates.

 

"Both sides in the dispute claim the mantle of environmentalism, although for present purposes, plaintiffs have doffed their green garb and draped themselves in the banner of free-market economics," Stearns wrote in the 28-page ruling, which lays out a succinct overview of the project's long legal history.

 

Stearns found that the plaintiffs, who had sued officials at the state Department of Public Utilities and the state Department of Energy Resources, were barred from doing so under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution, which restricts lawsuits in federal court against a sovereign state for past actions.

 

In addition, he found that, even if the lawsuit had passed the 11th Amendment test, it would still have lost on the merits.

 

"The allegation that DPU dictated that NStar procure power from Cape Wind at a specified price is misleading and ultimately untrue," Stearns wrote in a footnote.

 

In a final footnote, Stearns resorted to some of the strongest language to date regarding the use of the courts in the 13-year fight over Cape Wind.

 

"If instead of a judicial robe, I were to wear the hat of John Muir or Milton Friedman, I might well conclude that the Cape Wind project should have been built elsewhere (or not built at all), or that the NStar-Cape Wind contract should never have been approved," Stearns wrote. "But in this case, the governor, the Legislature, the relevant public agencies, and numerous courts have reviewed and approved the project and the PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) with NStar and have done so according to and within the confines of the law. There comes a point at which the right to litigate can become a vexatious abuse of the democratic process. For that reason, I have dealt with this matter as expeditiously as possible."

 

In an email Saturday to the Times, Alliance president Audra Parker pledged to appeal the decision.

"(Friday's) ruling is based on a legal technicality that does not address our claim that state regulators acted illegally," Parker wrote. "The state's action forcing NStar to purchase Cape Wind power at more than three times the price of competing green energy producers is a clear violation of federal law and one that puts an unfair financial burden on consumers. The NStar-Cape Wind contract is unconstitutional."

 

Barnstable assistant town attorney Charles McLaughlin said Saturday that he needs to review the decision and consult with his clients and the Alliance to determine the next steps.

 

The Dirty Energy Kochs are funding Barnstable's legal challenge.

 

 

The case is the latest in a long line of legal challenges to the 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

 

The Alliance is awaiting final action on two outstanding matters in another federal lawsuit and considering future appeals, Parker said this week after a hearing on the motions to dismiss. The two outstanding matters relate to a federal judge's ruling in mid-March that threw out most of the opponents' challenges to the Department of Interior's 2010 approval of the wind farm project but sent two findings on birds and whales back to federal agencies for further action.

 

In a statement released Saturday morning, Cape Wind president Jim Gordon said Friday's decision "provides further momentum for Cape Wind to secure project financing and produce the energy, economic and environmental benefits to the region and the United States by launching a domestic offshore wind industry."

 

Gov. Deval Patrick called Friday's decision another significant step forward for what will be America's first commercial offshore wind project.

 

"We hope (Friday's) decision sends a positive signal to everyone that this important project has been properly approved at every level of government," Patrick said in a statement released through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. "Now is the time for this industry to take hold in the United States with Massachusetts as a hub. It's time for Cape Wind to deliver the long-awaited

environmental benefits and jobs to Massachusetts."

 

The project, which is expected to cost at least $2.6 billion, has made headway recently in securing financing.

 

In March, Cape Wind officials announced that, with The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., they had added Natixis and Rabobank as "lead arrangers" for the project. The banks expect to provide more than $400 million in debt themselves in addition to $900 million in potential financing from other sources.

 

Staff reporter Mary Ann Bragg contributed to this report.

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140504/NEWS/405040338/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

 

Welcome to Cape Koch! ....Again!

"Cape Koch" protest rocks both bridges Friday

Judge skeptical of Cape Wind challenges

 

By Patrick Cassidy

pcassidy@capecodonline.com

April 30, 2014

 

BOSTON — Plaintiffs in the latest Cape Wind-related lawsuit to find its way into a federal courtroom faced an uphill battle Tuesday.

 

"Having read the briefs carefully I start and almost end with the 11th Amendment," U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns said at a hearing on a motion to dismiss the challenge of a state-approved contract between the offshore wind energy developer and NStar.

 

Stearns said he doubted the plaintiffs — which include several Cape Cod businesses, individuals, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and the town of Barnstable — could get past the constitutional amendment which generally gives states immunity from being sued.

 

The lawsuit filed in January by Cape Wind's opponents claims that the approval by state regulators of the contract to sell power from the project to NStar, which delivers power to Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and other parts of the state, violated two clauses of the U.S. Constitution: the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

 

"First, it constituted illegal discrimination in favor of an instate business, in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint.

 

"Second, it constituted illegal regulation of wholesale electricity sales, in violation of the Federal Power Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

 

State regulators used their power to approve a proposed merger between NStar and Northeast Utilities as leverage to force the utility to agree to the terms of the contract with Cape Wind, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued in briefs and during Tuesday's hearing at the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston.

 

But Stearns questioned whether the state was capable of forcing NStar to agree to the contract.

 

He also wondered aloud repeatedly during the hearing where the state's actions tread on federal jurisdiction under the Supremacy Clause since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must still approve the wholesale pricing in the contract and also whether the plaintiffs had standing in the Commerce Clause argument.

 

Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Timothy Casey, not surprisingly, took up Stearns' reasoning in his argument defending officials from the state Department of Public Utilities and state Department of Energy Resources.

 

The only exception to a state's sovereign immunity is when a future violation of federal law is contemplated, Casey said.

 

The approval of the Cape Wind NStar contract is a historical fact and not a future action, he said, echoing Stearns' opening comments.

 

The Supremacy Clause argument fails because the contract itself provides that Cape Wind will seek the required approval for its wholesale rates from FERC later and the federal agency has already found that a similar contract between Cape Wind and National Grid had not encroached on its jurisdiction, Casey said.

 

The state addressed its traditional role of approving retail rates while FERC retains its power to approve wholesale rates, he said.

 

And the plaintiffs role as consumers doesn't give them standing under the Commerce Clause, Casey said.

 

Matthew Price, who represented all of the plaintiffs except the town of Barnstable, countered that the contract represented an ongoing violation of law for its 15-year-life, using the analogy of a state employee who is fired for his political views.

 

"It's not a purely historical act in that the contract will continue to exist for the next 15 years," Price said.

 

On the question of state versus federal jurisdiction, Price argued that all the plaintiffs need to prove is that the state had caused a wholesale price to be set by its actions.

 

"NStar did not want to enter into this contract and refused tooth and nail for years to do so," he said.

 

The case was different from the finding with National Grid because that utility had not been forced into the contract, Price said.

 

"When Congress has reserved this field exclusively for the federal government, any state action within it is preempted," he said.

 

The state may have negotiated what it wanted out of the contract but it isn't clear that it forced NStar to agree to it, Stearns said.

 

"Why isn't NStar standing with you?" Stearns said about NStar's lawyer sitting with Casey and Cape Wind lawyer David Rosenzweig. NStar was named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

 

"That's a question for NStar," Price said. "Maybe they don't care because they're not the ones bearing the cost."

 

The clear pass through of the project's above-market cost to consumers is why the plaintiffs are able to claim harm under the alleged violation of the Commerce Clause, Price said.

 

The Department of Energy Resources was a party to the DPU contract review but had no ability to force NStar to accept the contract's terms, Rosenzweig said.

 

The Department of Energy Resources was a party to the DPU contract review but had no ability to force NStar to accept the contract's terms, Rosenzweig said.

 

"You can't have coercion when you don't have actual authority," he said.

 

The Cape Wind contract was only one of a dozen aspects of the merger that the department negotiated with NStar, Rosenzweig said.

 

And DPU, which had the authority to approve the contract, had no role in those negotiations, he said.

NStar was under pressure to close the merger with Northeast Utilities and the energy resources department's support was clearly important in that effort, Price said.

 

Stearns, however, continued to balk at the idea that any pressure on NStar was unlawful.

 

"I'm not speaking as an environmentalist because I'm not one and it's not my job as a judge," he said.

Stearns said, while it was too important a matter to decide immediately, he expected to have a decision on the motions to dismiss within the next few days.

 

The case is the latest in a long line of legal challenges to the 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

 

Alliance president Audra Parker said her organization is awaiting final action on those matters and considering future appeals.

 

Cape Wind officials declined to comment after Tuesday's hearing.

 

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140430/NEWS/404300351

 

 

The Dirty Energy Koch Brothers have generously funded Cape Wind Opposition and Climate Change Deniers.

According to Walter Brooks, it appears Clean Energy will finally be on its way to Cape Cod!

Cape Wind wins long list of court decisions

Court rules against the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the Town of Barnstable, the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

 

Article | News | March 15, 2014 - 6:00am | By Walter Brooks

 

Four major legal decision are a big set back for several anti-wind farm groups.

More major legal victories for Cape Wind

Big set back for several anti-wind farm groups

In a whole series of major legal victories for the Federal Government and for Cape Wind, United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton today issued rulings against project opponents in their four lawsuits that had challenged Cape Wind's permitting approval by the U.S. Department of Interior.

This consolidated case comprises four sets of interrelated claims concerning several administrative decisions made by federal agencies approving the construction of various aspects of an offshore wind energy project in Nantucket Sound, which is the first project of its kind in the United States.

In his rulings, Judge Walton upheld the Department of the Interior's review and approval of Cape Wind, a thorough and comprehensive permitting process that took 10 years. The Court soundly rejected the plaintiffs' request to vacate the granting of the nation's first offshore wind lease by the Department of the Interior to Cape Wind.

Long list of opponents claims are rejected

Judge Walton rejected a long list of legal claims project opponents had raised, including arguments over navigational safety, alternative locations, alternative technologies, historic preservation, Native American artifacts, sea turtles, and the adequacy of the project's environmental impact statement and biological opinions. In two narrow instances, Judge Walton has asked Federal agencies to clarify its findings on whales and birds. The order indicates that the case is administratively closed until the Court is provided with the clarifications. Cape Wind expects these two compliance actions to be minor agency administrative actions that will not impact Cape Wind's financing schedule.

"These are incredibly important legal victories for Cape Wind. It clears the way for completing the financing of a project that will diversify New England's electricity portfolio by harnessing our abundant and inexhaustible supply of offshore wind," stated Cape Wind President Jim Gordon. "It will help pave the way for other coastal regions to utilize this clean energy resource for energy independence, a healthier environment, and new jobs," Gordon continued.

While the Court upheld the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service that impacts to right whales would be "insignificant or discountable" and that whale presence would be "rare, sporadic and extremely limited in duration and frequency," it nonetheless directed the agency to issue a statement of the volume, however unlikely, of potential whale incidents that would raise the need for further consultation with the agency. With respect to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Court directed the agency to confirm that its decision regarding a proposed operational restriction was arrived at through an independent determination.

Several groups file amici curiae papers in support of Cape Wind

These legal challenges were heard by the Court on a consolidated basis and were fully briefed in August, 2013. Environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Conservation Law Foundation of New England, and the Massachusetts Audubon Society intervened by filing amici curiae papers in support of Cape Wind and the government.

The four legal challenges decided today were originally filed in 2010 by the opposition group to Cape Wind (Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound), the Town of Barnstable, the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The failed lawsuits had challenged Cape Wind's permitting approvals by Federal agencies on the grounds of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Birds Treaty Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coast Guard and the Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.

Cape Wind's comprehensive and rigorous permitting review by seventeen Federal and State agencies spanned ten years and produced an administrative record of over 400,000 pages. The key findings of these reviews were that Cape Wind would provide significant environmental, economic and energy benefits to Massachusetts and the nation.

Prior to today's decisions, Cape Wind has consistently won a series of legal challenges brought by project opponents, largely funded by coal and petroleum coke magnate William Koch. Most recently with a victory in Federal Court upholding the FAA's 4th approval of Cape Wind in January of this year.

Cape Wind was represented by Geraldine Edens and Christopher Marraro of BakerHostetler.
Link to today's Court Decision.

Cape Wind will be America's first offshore wind farm and will help catalyze a domestic offshore wind industry and related supply chain. Cape Wind is the first U.S. offshore wind project to be fully permitted, and to have been issued a commercial lease and received approval for its Construction and Operations Plan by the U.S. Department of Interior. Cape Wind has secured long term power purchase agreements with National Grid and NSTAR, the two largest electric utilities in Massachusetts. Cape Wind is currently in its financing phase; significant investments have already been announced.

For more information please visit: www.capewind.org.


http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2014/03/15/24515-cape-wind-wins-long-list-court-decisions


FROM CAPE COD TIMES:
Cape Wind lawsuits dismissed
 

Dirty Energy Kochs et al Continue Clean Energy Fight

Great comments from Walter Brooks about the frivilous lawsuits that have prevented Clean Energy!

U.S. Court of Appeals upholds FAA’s approval of the Cape Wind project... again

Renewable energy opponents have lost all 12 legal decisions

Article | News | January 23, 2014 - 6:00am | By Walter Brooks

Court gives Cape Wind another thumbs up.

Cape's clean energy future moves closer

Legal victory for Cape Wind, FAA approval upheld

Several seasonal, trophy homeowners in Osterville, abetted by a decade-long editorial jihad in the local daily, lost yet another lawsuit in their relentless effort to stop America's renewable energy revolution.

Cape Wind reported today that the renewable energy company had again defeated the efforts of its opponents to block the country’s first offshore wind farm.

All the opponents argument are rejected by the court

In a significant decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) approval of the Cape Wind project, rejecting every argument that had been advanced by the project’s opponents.

In a news release Cape Wind Communications Director Mark Rodgers said, “The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the Town of Barnstable and their financial backer - coal billionaire Bill Koch - have failed yet again in their continuing campaign to use the courts to delay the financing of Cape Wind.”

“The court’s definitive decision is an important legal victory that brings America that much closer to launching its offshore wind industry, a keystone in America’s renewable energy future,” Rodgers continued.

Opponents have lost all 12 legal decisions

This decision takes on even greater importance because this was the same court that had previously provided project opponents their sole and temporary relief, those opponents have lost all 12 legal decisions in other courts.

On October 28, 2011 this court had remanded the FAA’s third Determination of No Hazard (DNH) back to the FAA to better explain the rationale for its decision.

On February 9, 2012, the FAA issued a Public Notice of its reinstated project review, indicating its conclusion that “none of the turbines would have an adverse effect on the use of air navigation facilities or navigable airspace.”

On August 15, 2012 the FAA issued its 4th DHN which project opponents challenged, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound pronounced confidence their challenge would be successful -- this is the case decided today in favor of the FAA and Cape Wind.

Cape Wind was represented by Geraldine Edens and Christopher Marraro of BakerHostetler.

Related Content:

Have you no sense of decency sirs, at long last?

Cape Wind will boost state’s economy [Globe Editorial]

And a child shall mislead them

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2014/01/23/23701-us-court-appeals-upholds-faa%E2%80%99s-approval-cape-wind-project-again

New lawsuit seeks to void Cape Wind contract

Yet another frivolous lawsuit by anti wind farm opponents - "A renewable energy wind farm signals the end of the dream of Cape Cod living" for Joe Keller and his anti-wind farm friends

Article | News | January 22, 2014 - 4:00pm | By Targeted News Service, Walter Brooks

 

 

Something seems terribly wrong when the Town of Barnstable spends taxpayer dollars to contest Cape Wind in court.

CAPE WIND FACES NEW FEDERAL LAWSUIT

The suit against Massachusetts regulators, NSTAR, and Cape Wind says the State discriminated against out-of-state power companies - despite their lower costs - by pressuring NSTAR to buy power from an in-state energy company, Cape Wind. Massachusetts regulators also exceeded their authority in setting wholesale rates for this contract, an action reserved for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court by the Town of Barnstable, businesses like the Keller Company and Hyannis Marina, and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, alleges commerce clause violations and illegal regulation of wholesale electricity sales under the U.S. Constitution.

The Alliance pays for Barnstable's lawsuits

The suit alleges that state regulators refused to support NSTAR’s merger with Northeast Utilities until NSTAR contracts to buy energy from Cape Wind. “We understand the need for green sources of energy, but it is unfair to be forced to pay three times the cost of other green energy for Cape Wind,” Keller Company President Joe Keller said in a statement relating to the suit against Massachusetts regulators, NSTAR and Cape Wind.

Something seems terribly wrong when the Town of Barnstable spends taxpayer dollars to contest Cape Wind in court. 87% of the Cape's citizens want to see the wind farm built just as it has been proposed, and are frustrated that it isn't already operational.

In April 2012, the Department of Public Utilities announced its approval of the NSTAR-Northeast Utilities merger. Among the merger settlement agreements was a provision requiring NSTAR Electric to purchase 129 megawatts of electricity from Cape Wind.

Yet another frivolous lawsuit by opponents

"This is a frivolous legal complaint with no merit. The opposition group was unsuccessful in challenging a nearly identical power contract between Cape Wind and National Grid and they will fail again here," Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said in a statement.

"After careful review, the Department of Public Utilities found that Cape Wind was ‘cost effective’ by providing unique benefits that exceeded the cost of its power." A spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs declined comment, deferring to the attorney general's office.

While power grid operators in New York and the mid-Atlantic states have recently been struggling to meet demand and asking their customers to conserve energy, New England's grid operator has encountered relatively few problems so far this winter.

Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, said the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound would be an ideal solution to New England's winter power woes. He notes, correctly, that Cape Wind operating at full capacity could produce the same amount of power as a natural gas plant and at far less cost. The same would also be true in the summer, when demand for electricity peaks.

Another anti-wind farm screed on golf and greed

Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound fund-raiser and real estate broker Joe Keller, is the author of a letter to the editor of Commonwealth magazine which states, "Ten years ago, I told my wife, Devonia, that if Cape Wind gets built, it signals the end of the dream of Cape Cod living which originally brought us here. We feel very strongly that, although alternative energy is hugely important, this is the wrong place for it! When we stand on the tee of hole 15 at Hyannisport or pull out of Osterville Harbor on a beautiful day, the last vision we will want to see and hear are 130 turbine towers..."

Related Content:

Cape Wind foe pays Barnstable legal bills

Secret anti-wind farm Alliance fundraising bared

Barnstable's Improper Lawsuit

Fighting Cape Wind $1 million at a time

Environmental Group spurns Alliance

What’s the Alliance trying to hide this time?

Alliance stripped of Soundkeeper designation

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2014/01/22/23688-new-lawsuit-seeks-void-cape-wind-contract

Cape offshore wind energy foes suffer setback

By Patrick Cassidy

pcassidy@capecodonline.com

January 23, 2014

 

Just as a new lawsuit was filed challenging Cape Wind, another one was beaten back.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday denied a petition by wind-farm opponents appealing the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of the proposed Nantucket Sound project.

Related Links

• Cape Cod Times wind energy coverage

 

The federal court decision came only a day after opponents filed a new lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts challenging a power-purchase agreement between NStar and Cape Wind.

 

In the latest legal decision, the court found that the circumstances surrounding concerns over the effect of the turbines on aeronautical radar had changed since the same court rejected an earlier "no-hazard" finding by the FAA and that tests of a new radar system had addressed those concerns.

 

"In January 2012, the FAA upgraded the ASR-8 radar and beacon at Otis Airfield by digitizing the output with a TDX-2000 processor," according to the court finding. "The FAA had concluded in the aeronautical study that the installation of the TDX-2000 would not only address existing radar issues ... but also reduce unwanted returns from the wind turbines."

 

The court also found that the FAA was not required to perform or participate in an assessment of the environmental impacts of its no-hazard determination.

 

"The Alliance to Protect Nantucket, the town of Barnstable and their financial backer — coal billionaire Bill Koch — have failed yet again in their continuing campaign to use the courts to delay the financing of Cape Wind," company spokeswoman Mark Rodgers wrote in a statement about the decision.

 

Koch, who owns property in Osterville, is a major donor to the alliance, which is the primary Cape Wind opposition group.

 

Alliance President Audra Parker said on Wednesday that the court's decision is no green light for Cape Wind.

 

"The hurdles are still enormous," she said, adding that the project has still failed to secure necessary financing.

 

Although she thinks the alliance is unlikely to appeal the Court of Appeals decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, Parker said the decision leaves questions about the effect of the project on planes flying under visual flight rules.

 

A spokesman with the FAA said the agency has received the latest Court of Appeals decision and is reviewing it.

 

The FAA approved the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in May 2010. But after the alliance and Barnstable officials appealed the decision, the Court of Appeals sent the project back to the agency in October 2011 for more review. In the 2011 decision, the court found the FAA had overlooked its own rules in making its determination.

 

The project also drew scrutiny from GOP lawmakers who claimed that President Barack Obama's administration had exerted pressure on the FAA to approve the wind farm.

 

In August 2012, the FAA issued a new finding that the project posed no hazard to aviation.

 

Parker said opponents are still optimistic they will ultimately defeat the project. And, as dismissive as Cape Wind is of the lawsuits brought against it, the earlier FAA decision is proof that those challenges are not frivolous, Parker said.

 

In the suit filed Tuesday, the alliance, the town, and several businesses and individuals sued state officials, Cape Wind and NStar, claiming the project violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

That case is different from earlier challenges of the power contracts because it challenges the project based on a violation of the Federal Power Act, Parker said.

 

In addition, there are still several consolidated cases pending in federal court that challenge the approval of the project by the Department of the Interior.

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140123/NEWS/401230322/-1/NEWSLETTER100