Scotty's name always provokes notice!
Dems nameless in harsh report
Bigs spared as auditor slams use of consultants
Bigs spared as auditor slams use of consultants
Showing posts with label Rep. Delahunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep. Delahunt. Show all posts
Friday, May 17, 2013
Bad Memories From the Past: Phew!
Middleboro remembers Scotty Fearsome, sounding like Paul Revere in his endless pronouncement of 'It's Coming! It's inevitable! .....' representing the Mashpee Wampanog Fiasco in its first incarnation that evaporated. [In case you haven't noticed, Middleboro is still waiting!]
Scotty's name always provokes notice!
Scotty's name always provokes notice!
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Supporting Corrupt Candidates?
We can and must do better with weeding out questionable candidates. Former Rep. Delahunt needs to conduct his due diligence, readily available on the internet, before encouraging and supporting candidates.
At what point does the Party, any Party, have a responsibility to condemn this corrupt conduct?
Sutter was cheating the state; Sanctioned by Bar Ethics Committee [Politics]
The man who would be our Congressman stole services from his own DA's office
Accepted free services from a law firm he was paid to fight in court
By Walter Brooks
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter's present problem of jeopardizing the murder case against Jonathan Niemic is still simmering as new evidence is discovered of perhaps even worse ethical violations in this recent past.
While he answered Friday's charges by saying, "If Bill Keating wants to make this campaign about my record as district attorney against his record as district attorney and if he wants to make it about my integrity against his integrity, I would be happy to do that," his wish may to be diminished as his past comes back to haunt him.
A dozen years ago while serving as Assistant District Attorney in the same Bristol County DA's office, Sutter admitted to violating a state conflict of interest law in a case in which a defendant was represented by a private firm with which the prosecutor was doing business. Sutter admitted to the violation in a recently released legal settlement with the State Ethics Commission. The incident stemmed from his service as an Assistant DA before being elected to that office.
Then there's the money he and his wife improperly received as DA.
In 2009, the same year as the ethics violation above, Sutter's wife was forced to return $4,000 she was given as a present from a convicted embezzler.
Bottom line, Sam Sutter has several ethical blind spot and has trouble with telling the truth, telling the press this week, "I take great pride in my integrity and probity."
That word is defined as "adherence to the highest principles and ideals."
The complete text of his ethics violation sanction is below:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
Sutter, C. Samuel Docket No. 581
Docket No. 581
In the Matter of C. Samuel Sutter
Date: January 20, 1999 State Ethics Commission.
DISPOSITION AGREEMENT
This Disposition Agreement ("Agreement")is entered into between the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and C. Samuel Sutter ("Sutter") pursuant to Section 5 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final order enforceable in the Superior Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.40).
On February 10, 1998, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by
Sutter. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on July 22, 1998, found reasonable cause to believe that Sutter violated G.L. c. 268A.
The Commission and Sutter now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1.1. Sutter was, during the time relevant, a Bristol County assistant district attorney ("ADA").[1/] As such, Sutter was a state employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1.
2.Casey & Thompson P.C. is a law firm practicing inBristol County. John Casey ("Casey")and Bruce Thompson ("Thompson")are shareholders in the firm.[2/]
3.In December 1994, Sutter solicited legal advice fromCasey concerning his recent separation from his wife.[3/] BetweenDecember 1994 and March 14, 1995, Sutter and Casey consulted onseveral occasions regarding this matter.
4.On March 14, 1995, Sutter as an ADA represented the Commonwealth regarding a motion to dismiss in the district court asto which Thompson represented the defendant.[4/]
5.As of March 14, 1995, Sutter was still consulting withCasey regarding the above-described personal matter, and he expected that the law firm of Casey & Thompson would represent himon that matter if it continued. [5/]
6.Sutter did not disclose to his appointing authority, the District Attorney ("the DA"), his private relationship with thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson.
7.General laws chapter 268A, s.23(b)(3) prohibits astate employee from acting in a manner which would cause areasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances,to conclude that any person can improperly influence him or undulyenjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or thathe is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank,position or undue influence of any party or person.
8.By participating as an ADA in a matter in which thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson had an interest at a time when he had through his dealings with Casey a private relationship with Casey & Thompson in a personal matter, Sutter acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances to conclude that the attorneys at Casey &Thompson could improperly influence Sutter or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of Sutter's official duties, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.23(b)(3). [6/ 7/]
9.By way of mitigation, Sutter notes that on March 14, 1995, he was filling in the district court, received several files scheduled for hearing or trial for that day for the first time on that morning, and had no prior knowledge that Thompson would be representing the defendant until shortly before the hearing began.
According to Sutter, due to the time pressures of handling several cases that day on short notice and because he had been dealing only with Casey about his personal matter, it did not occur to him that his litigating a matter with Thompson would create an appearance problem.The Commission is not unmindful of the difficulties faced by an ADA in district court session and does find these circumstances to be somewhat mitigating. Nevertheless, it concludes that he had the opportunity and obligation to inform the judge that he had a conflict, obtain a continuance for the purpose of disclosing the conflict to the District Attorney, and have the District Attorney decide who should handle the matter.[8/]
10.Sutter cooperated with the Commission's investigation.
In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A by Sutter, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be served by the disposition of this matter without further
civil penalty. In disposing of this matter by this disposition agreement, Sutter waives all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Agreement in this or any other related administrative or judicial proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a party.
---------------------
[1/] From January 1994, to February 6, 1995, Sutter was the
Supervisory ADA at the Attleboro District Court. On February 6,
1995, Sutter was transferred to Superior Court. He continued to
appear in the Attleboro District Court to fill in for ADAs who were
ill or on vacation, but anew Supervisory ADA was appointed for the
Attleboro District Court.
[2/] The other major shareholder of the firm is not relevant
to these proceedings.
[3/] They had no prior attorney-client relationship.
[4/] The defendant was being prosecuted for operating under
the influence of alcohol. On February 28, 1995, Thompson filed a
motion to dismiss the case on various grounds. On March 14, 1995,
Sutter and Thompson engaged in an evidentiary hearing which
involved presenting witnesses and making oral arguments regarding
the motion. After the hearing, the judge took the matter under
advisement. While the matter was under advisement. Sutter took
steps so that the matter would be appealed in the event that the
judge allowed the motion. The judge did allow the motion to
dismiss, the Commonwealth did appeal, and the judge's decision was
eventually reversed by the Appeals Court and the case was remanded
back to the district court.
[5/] The law firm of Casey & Thompson did continue to
represent Sutter. Sutter has paid for a substantial portion of
these services and intends to pay the outstanding balance.
[6/] Section 23(b)(3) provides in relevant part: "It shall be
unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has
disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no
appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public
in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a
conclusion."
[7/] There is no evidence to indicate that Sutter provided
Casey & Thompson with any preferential treatment or that he
conducted himself other than in a professional manner regarding the
above described evidentiary hearing-
[8/] As a matter of public policy it is important that public
officials not engage in activity which creates the appearance that
their integrity has been undermined. In a recent decision and
order, In re Scaccia. 1996 SEC 838, the Commission stated its
position:
"Section 23(b)(3) is concerned with the appearance of a
conflict of interest as viewed by the reasonable person,
not whether the [public employee or official] actually
gave preferential treatment. The Legislature, in passing
this standard of conduct, focused on the perceptions of
the citizens of the community, not the perceptions of the
players in the situation." In re Hebert, 1996 SEC 800.
[I]n applying s.23(b)(3) to a public employee, [the
Commission] will evaluate whether, 'due to his private
relationship or interest, an appearance arises that the
integrity of the public official's action might be
undermined by the relationship or interest.' In re
Flanagan, 1996 SEC 757. See also In re Antonelli, 1982
SEC 10 1, 110 (evaluating precursor of s.23(b)(3),
Commission indicated major purpose of section to prohibit
public employee from engaging in conduct which will raise
questions over impartiality or credibility of his work).
Id. at 848.
This policy concern is especially applicable to our criminal
justice system where appearances of conflict of interest must be
avoided if our citizens' confidence in the integrity of the system
is to be maintained.
Page 927
End of Decision
DA Sam Sutter's misconduct may free murder suspect
Sutter misconduct may free murder suspect Jonathan Niemic
Bristol County DA and Congressional candidate makes egregious error
Boston Channel 5, WCVB, reports that murder suspect Jonathan Niemic could go free due to the misconduct of DA Sam Sutter in releasing telephone recordings between the defendant and his attorney.
Niemic is charged with fatally stabbing Michael Correia in October 2010.
The Standard-Times reports that Niemic's defense attorney, Robert M. Griffin of Walpole, is asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to "egregious prosecution misconduct."
Griffin said in his motion, "The conduct of the prosecution in this case was so egregious and prejudicial to the defendant so as to warrant dismissal of the charge now pending against him."
In 2003 Sutter's conduct freed two murder suspects
According to the WCVB report this is the second time Sutter's office has been accused of misconduct.
In 2003 murder charges were dropped against Shawn Hunt and Jonathan Pittman. Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson ruled that Sutter had "reckless disregard for the truth" and had "sought to the grand jury."
What will be effect on his challenge of Congressman Bill Keating
Samuel Sutter's attempt to unseat an incumbent member of Congress from his own party has been under a cloud since he announced his bid last month. His habit of lying was revealed ten days ago when he misstated his opponent's record twice in his announcement of his candidacy.
Many Massachusetts Democrats wondered what motivated Sutter who lives in a section of Fall River which is outside the 9th District.
That was solved when it was first reported here on February 20th that the former Congressman William Delahunt was the mastermind who urged not only Sutter to challenge Keating, but also encouraged former State Senator Rob O'Leary to run in the Democratic Primary in September.
O'Leary soon discovered that Keating's popularity was too great and dropped out within days.
Sutter's challenge continued until today when many party officials hope he will suspend his race.
That would give Sutter more time to attend to the conduct of his "day job" as District Attorney of Bristol County.
At what point does the Party, any Party, have a responsibility to condemn this corrupt conduct?
Sutter was cheating the state; Sanctioned by Bar Ethics Committee [Politics]
The man who would be our Congressman stole services from his own DA's office
Accepted free services from a law firm he was paid to fight in court
By Walter Brooks
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter's present problem of jeopardizing the murder case against Jonathan Niemic is still simmering as new evidence is discovered of perhaps even worse ethical violations in this recent past.
While he answered Friday's charges by saying, "If Bill Keating wants to make this campaign about my record as district attorney against his record as district attorney and if he wants to make it about my integrity against his integrity, I would be happy to do that," his wish may to be diminished as his past comes back to haunt him.
A dozen years ago while serving as Assistant District Attorney in the same Bristol County DA's office, Sutter admitted to violating a state conflict of interest law in a case in which a defendant was represented by a private firm with which the prosecutor was doing business. Sutter admitted to the violation in a recently released legal settlement with the State Ethics Commission. The incident stemmed from his service as an Assistant DA before being elected to that office.
Then there's the money he and his wife improperly received as DA.
In 2009, the same year as the ethics violation above, Sutter's wife was forced to return $4,000 she was given as a present from a convicted embezzler.
Bottom line, Sam Sutter has several ethical blind spot and has trouble with telling the truth, telling the press this week, "I take great pride in my integrity and probity."
That word is defined as "adherence to the highest principles and ideals."
The complete text of his ethics violation sanction is below:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
Sutter, C. Samuel Docket No. 581
Docket No. 581
In the Matter of C. Samuel Sutter
Date: January 20, 1999 State Ethics Commission.
DISPOSITION AGREEMENT
This Disposition Agreement ("Agreement")is entered into between the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and C. Samuel Sutter ("Sutter") pursuant to Section 5 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final order enforceable in the Superior Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.40).
On February 10, 1998, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by
Sutter. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on July 22, 1998, found reasonable cause to believe that Sutter violated G.L. c. 268A.
The Commission and Sutter now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1.1. Sutter was, during the time relevant, a Bristol County assistant district attorney ("ADA").[1/] As such, Sutter was a state employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1.
2.Casey & Thompson P.C. is a law firm practicing inBristol County. John Casey ("Casey")and Bruce Thompson ("Thompson")are shareholders in the firm.[2/]
3.In December 1994, Sutter solicited legal advice fromCasey concerning his recent separation from his wife.[3/] BetweenDecember 1994 and March 14, 1995, Sutter and Casey consulted onseveral occasions regarding this matter.
4.On March 14, 1995, Sutter as an ADA represented the Commonwealth regarding a motion to dismiss in the district court asto which Thompson represented the defendant.[4/]
5.As of March 14, 1995, Sutter was still consulting withCasey regarding the above-described personal matter, and he expected that the law firm of Casey & Thompson would represent himon that matter if it continued. [5/]
6.Sutter did not disclose to his appointing authority, the District Attorney ("the DA"), his private relationship with thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson.
7.General laws chapter 268A, s.23(b)(3) prohibits astate employee from acting in a manner which would cause areasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances,to conclude that any person can improperly influence him or undulyenjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or thathe is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank,position or undue influence of any party or person.
8.By participating as an ADA in a matter in which thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson had an interest at a time when he had through his dealings with Casey a private relationship with Casey & Thompson in a personal matter, Sutter acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances to conclude that the attorneys at Casey &Thompson could improperly influence Sutter or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of Sutter's official duties, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.23(b)(3). [6/ 7/]
9.By way of mitigation, Sutter notes that on March 14, 1995, he was filling in the district court, received several files scheduled for hearing or trial for that day for the first time on that morning, and had no prior knowledge that Thompson would be representing the defendant until shortly before the hearing began.
According to Sutter, due to the time pressures of handling several cases that day on short notice and because he had been dealing only with Casey about his personal matter, it did not occur to him that his litigating a matter with Thompson would create an appearance problem.The Commission is not unmindful of the difficulties faced by an ADA in district court session and does find these circumstances to be somewhat mitigating. Nevertheless, it concludes that he had the opportunity and obligation to inform the judge that he had a conflict, obtain a continuance for the purpose of disclosing the conflict to the District Attorney, and have the District Attorney decide who should handle the matter.[8/]
10.Sutter cooperated with the Commission's investigation.
In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A by Sutter, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be served by the disposition of this matter without further
civil penalty. In disposing of this matter by this disposition agreement, Sutter waives all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Agreement in this or any other related administrative or judicial proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a party.
---------------------
[1/] From January 1994, to February 6, 1995, Sutter was the
Supervisory ADA at the Attleboro District Court. On February 6,
1995, Sutter was transferred to Superior Court. He continued to
appear in the Attleboro District Court to fill in for ADAs who were
ill or on vacation, but anew Supervisory ADA was appointed for the
Attleboro District Court.
[2/] The other major shareholder of the firm is not relevant
to these proceedings.
[3/] They had no prior attorney-client relationship.
[4/] The defendant was being prosecuted for operating under
the influence of alcohol. On February 28, 1995, Thompson filed a
motion to dismiss the case on various grounds. On March 14, 1995,
Sutter and Thompson engaged in an evidentiary hearing which
involved presenting witnesses and making oral arguments regarding
the motion. After the hearing, the judge took the matter under
advisement. While the matter was under advisement. Sutter took
steps so that the matter would be appealed in the event that the
judge allowed the motion. The judge did allow the motion to
dismiss, the Commonwealth did appeal, and the judge's decision was
eventually reversed by the Appeals Court and the case was remanded
back to the district court.
[5/] The law firm of Casey & Thompson did continue to
represent Sutter. Sutter has paid for a substantial portion of
these services and intends to pay the outstanding balance.
[6/] Section 23(b)(3) provides in relevant part: "It shall be
unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has
disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no
appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public
in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a
conclusion."
[7/] There is no evidence to indicate that Sutter provided
Casey & Thompson with any preferential treatment or that he
conducted himself other than in a professional manner regarding the
above described evidentiary hearing-
[8/] As a matter of public policy it is important that public
officials not engage in activity which creates the appearance that
their integrity has been undermined. In a recent decision and
order, In re Scaccia. 1996 SEC 838, the Commission stated its
position:
"Section 23(b)(3) is concerned with the appearance of a
conflict of interest as viewed by the reasonable person,
not whether the [public employee or official] actually
gave preferential treatment. The Legislature, in passing
this standard of conduct, focused on the perceptions of
the citizens of the community, not the perceptions of the
players in the situation." In re Hebert, 1996 SEC 800.
[I]n applying s.23(b)(3) to a public employee, [the
Commission] will evaluate whether, 'due to his private
relationship or interest, an appearance arises that the
integrity of the public official's action might be
undermined by the relationship or interest.' In re
Flanagan, 1996 SEC 757. See also In re Antonelli, 1982
SEC 10 1, 110 (evaluating precursor of s.23(b)(3),
Commission indicated major purpose of section to prohibit
public employee from engaging in conduct which will raise
questions over impartiality or credibility of his work).
Id. at 848.
This policy concern is especially applicable to our criminal
justice system where appearances of conflict of interest must be
avoided if our citizens' confidence in the integrity of the system
is to be maintained.
Page 927
End of Decision
DA Sam Sutter's misconduct may free murder suspect
Sutter misconduct may free murder suspect Jonathan Niemic
Bristol County DA and Congressional candidate makes egregious error
Boston Channel 5, WCVB, reports that murder suspect Jonathan Niemic could go free due to the misconduct of DA Sam Sutter in releasing telephone recordings between the defendant and his attorney.
Niemic is charged with fatally stabbing Michael Correia in October 2010.
The Standard-Times reports that Niemic's defense attorney, Robert M. Griffin of Walpole, is asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to "egregious prosecution misconduct."
Griffin said in his motion, "The conduct of the prosecution in this case was so egregious and prejudicial to the defendant so as to warrant dismissal of the charge now pending against him."
In 2003 Sutter's conduct freed two murder suspects
According to the WCVB report this is the second time Sutter's office has been accused of misconduct.
In 2003 murder charges were dropped against Shawn Hunt and Jonathan Pittman. Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson ruled that Sutter had "reckless disregard for the truth" and had "sought to the grand jury."
What will be effect on his challenge of Congressman Bill Keating
Samuel Sutter's attempt to unseat an incumbent member of Congress from his own party has been under a cloud since he announced his bid last month. His habit of lying was revealed ten days ago when he misstated his opponent's record twice in his announcement of his candidacy.
Many Massachusetts Democrats wondered what motivated Sutter who lives in a section of Fall River which is outside the 9th District.
That was solved when it was first reported here on February 20th that the former Congressman William Delahunt was the mastermind who urged not only Sutter to challenge Keating, but also encouraged former State Senator Rob O'Leary to run in the Democratic Primary in September.
O'Leary soon discovered that Keating's popularity was too great and dropped out within days.
Sutter's challenge continued until today when many party officials hope he will suspend his race.
That would give Sutter more time to attend to the conduct of his "day job" as District Attorney of Bristol County.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Time to support the future
Cape Wind would have/should have been producing clean wind power long ago were it not for vested interests such as the Dirty Energy Koch Brothers, and the wealthy "Don't Spoil My View" crowd including the late Senator Kennedy, the Senator's lackey former Congressman Delahunt, Christy Mihos.
It has long been time to move beyond parochial views and support a clean future.
Canal power plant tax deal with town ends soon
TODAY's quotes: “The number of days that the canal plant was operational in 2011 was significantly lower than in years prior to the short-term upgrades." - Paige M. Kane, GenOn.
“Offshore wind holds incredible potential for our country. We’re moving full-steam ahead to accelerate the siting, leasing and construction of new projects.” - Ken Salazar, DOI.
How much is the canal power plant worth?
What is the cost to Cape Cod health
Read about the recent Cape Cod meeting about the $360 million cost of keeping this plant open.
You can see it for miles as you head off Cape, and it is a significant polluter of our air which is among the nation's worse according to the American Lung Association, but it pays 5 percent of all the taxes in Sandwich, the most conservative town on this sandspit.
The GenOn canal power plant's 5-year agreement with Sandwich expires at the end of next year, and town official are already preparing for negotiations on a new deal.
Whether that GenOn $2.5 million fee will go up or down probably depends mostly on the cost of oil which the plant uses rather than the less expensive natural gas.
The Sandwich Enterprise reports that because the cost of oil is significantly higher than natural gas it has placed a strain on the power plant’s ability to compete with other suppliers.
Unit #1 at the canal plant is representative of the most efficient fossil fueled plants of the 1970 era. It's an oil fueled super-critical steam unit optimally designed to best operate between half load and full load. Boiler steam is produced at 3,600 psi at 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit to drive the nominally rated 560 megawatt (MW) capacity Westinghouse turbine/generator.
Meanwhile, back at the wind farm
At the same time the Obama administration made fresh moves this week to boost the prospects for offshore wind energy after a tough year in the U.S. for the renewable energy source.
MarketWatch reports that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a press conference on Thursday, “Offshore wind holds incredible potential for our country. We’re moving full-steam ahead to accelerate the siting, leasing and construction of new projects.”
No big offshore wind turbines reside in the U.S, even while plenty of them now crank out oodles of renewable, emission-free power in Europe. The short list of probable offshore wind farms in the U.S. recently fell from two to one.
The current front runner in America remains Cape Wind off the coast of Cape Cod, with Cape Wind President Jim Gordon vowing in a recent interview to start construction in 2013 after a more than 10-year legal battle.
It has long been time to move beyond parochial views and support a clean future.
Canal power plant tax deal with town ends soon
TODAY's quotes: “The number of days that the canal plant was operational in 2011 was significantly lower than in years prior to the short-term upgrades." - Paige M. Kane, GenOn.
“Offshore wind holds incredible potential for our country. We’re moving full-steam ahead to accelerate the siting, leasing and construction of new projects.” - Ken Salazar, DOI.
How much is the canal power plant worth?
What is the cost to Cape Cod health
Read about the recent Cape Cod meeting about the $360 million cost of keeping this plant open.
You can see it for miles as you head off Cape, and it is a significant polluter of our air which is among the nation's worse according to the American Lung Association, but it pays 5 percent of all the taxes in Sandwich, the most conservative town on this sandspit.
The GenOn canal power plant's 5-year agreement with Sandwich expires at the end of next year, and town official are already preparing for negotiations on a new deal.
Whether that GenOn $2.5 million fee will go up or down probably depends mostly on the cost of oil which the plant uses rather than the less expensive natural gas.
The Sandwich Enterprise reports that because the cost of oil is significantly higher than natural gas it has placed a strain on the power plant’s ability to compete with other suppliers.
Unit #1 at the canal plant is representative of the most efficient fossil fueled plants of the 1970 era. It's an oil fueled super-critical steam unit optimally designed to best operate between half load and full load. Boiler steam is produced at 3,600 psi at 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit to drive the nominally rated 560 megawatt (MW) capacity Westinghouse turbine/generator.
Meanwhile, back at the wind farm
At the same time the Obama administration made fresh moves this week to boost the prospects for offshore wind energy after a tough year in the U.S. for the renewable energy source.
MarketWatch reports that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a press conference on Thursday, “Offshore wind holds incredible potential for our country. We’re moving full-steam ahead to accelerate the siting, leasing and construction of new projects.”
No big offshore wind turbines reside in the U.S, even while plenty of them now crank out oodles of renewable, emission-free power in Europe. The short list of probable offshore wind farms in the U.S. recently fell from two to one.
The current front runner in America remains Cape Wind off the coast of Cape Cod, with Cape Wind President Jim Gordon vowing in a recent interview to start construction in 2013 after a more than 10-year legal battle.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Cape Wind
Cape Cod Today, which has done a spectacular job presenting information about Cape Wind, offers Democrats disagree over wind energy Obama vs. Kennedy and Delahunt over Cape Wind
.
Of course, "aides to Mr. Kennedy made a point of saying Friday that an obstructed view was not among the senator's concerns."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Delahunt Shills For Opposition To Cape Wind
To any unfamiliar with Cape Wind, Cape Cod Today offers this synopsis --
The proposed project would consist of 130 wind turbines generating up to 468 megawatts of power. Backers say Cape Wind could meet 75 percent of the power demand on Cape Cod and the Islands. Cape Wind Associates has proposed building the wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in federal waters in Nantucket Sound. The site is about five miles south of the Cape.
Walter Brooks and Jim Kinsella adequately discredit the shills --
New effort to "poison the well" as Federal report is about to be released
Delahunt's office, Peter Kenney, Alliance manipulate the media again
.
Within hours of the release of the final review by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service on the proposed Cape Wind project, the "usual suspects" have been rounded up by the fossil fuel interests who control the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and apparently the Cape Cod Times newspaper as well. It is an added irony that the MMS is the federal agency which Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman William Delahunt conspired to take over the survey of the Cape Wind project three years ago after the United States Army Corps. of Engineers (USACE) review was published which extolled the virtues of Cape Wind.
.
It's time for Cape Wind.
.
It's time to wean ourselves off DIRTY ENERGY.
.
The proposed project would consist of 130 wind turbines generating up to 468 megawatts of power. Backers say Cape Wind could meet 75 percent of the power demand on Cape Cod and the Islands. Cape Wind Associates has proposed building the wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in federal waters in Nantucket Sound. The site is about five miles south of the Cape.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, composed of wealthy Cape residents averse to having their view obstructed and sailing course interrupted, largely funded by DIRTY ENERGY, have enlisted a cast of toadies to do their bidding, including the lackluster, but loyal Rep. Delahunt.
Walter Brooks and Jim Kinsella adequately discredit the shills --
New effort to "poison the well" as Federal report is about to be released
Delahunt's office, Peter Kenney, Alliance manipulate the media again
.
Within hours of the release of the final review by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service on the proposed Cape Wind project, the "usual suspects" have been rounded up by the fossil fuel interests who control the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and apparently the Cape Cod Times newspaper as well. It is an added irony that the MMS is the federal agency which Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman William Delahunt conspired to take over the survey of the Cape Wind project three years ago after the United States Army Corps. of Engineers (USACE) review was published which extolled the virtues of Cape Wind.
.
It's time for Cape Wind.
.
It's time to move forward and support the project that makes sense for Cape residents and should represent our recognition of the importance of alternative energy.
.It's time to wean ourselves off DIRTY ENERGY.
.
It's time our elected officials stopped shilling for Dirty Coal and start representing the people's interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
