If Vineyard Northeast’s plan to build 160 wind turbines south of Nantucket comes to pass as currently proposed , Westport would likely be the first stop, literally and figuratively, for the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
If Vineyard Northeast’s plan to build 160 wind turbines south of Nantucket comes to pass as currently proposed, Westport would likely be the first stop, literally and figuratively, for the transmission cables that would bring its electricity to shore.
Town officials and advocates for and against have known for much of the year that a Westport landing was a possibility, along with a second proposed landing in Connecticut, as part of the plan that would bring wind-generated power to the regional grid.
But while the Westport landfall has in the past been referred to as an “alternative” landing site, it’s becoming increasingly clear to those following the issue that there’s not much “alternative” about it, and that it appears to them that Westport is ground zero for the project.
The project is currently before the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and as detailed in Vineyard Northeast’s proposed operation plan, Westport and New London, Ct. would each see electrical cables routed from the offshore farm.
According to Vineyard Northeast’s plan, the Westport cables — up two two high voltage DC cable bundles or up to three high voltage DC bundles — would make landfall at Horseneck Beach, and would then be routed under the Westport River to the Route 88 corridor. Depending on the cables’ configuration, the power could then be routed to a new electric substation in Westport before making onto the grid in Somerset or Fall River.
Though there is much federal and state regulatory review to complete, the plan states that when construction begins, development of the onshore sites would be the first thing done.
Pushback
Members of Westport’s newly created Offshore Wind Advisory Committee gave state regulators an earful on the project when they invited them to speak at the advisory board’s second meeting held last Thursday evening. Vineyard Northeast representatives were also invited to attend, but did not.
The room was packed as five Commonwealth officials spoke about the plans, the state’s regulatory climate and role, and what Westport can do to control its own destiny as the project moves through the regulatory process.
Some committee members who spoke, and many audience members who attended the two and a half hour meeting, said they are leery of Vineyard Northeast and state regulations. They worry about Westport’s ability to fight the project if it indeed comes here, and are concerned about the impact landfall here could have on the environment and the quaint, rural nature of Westport that relies heavily on fishing, shellfishing, tourism and similar industries.
They also said they need help from state regulators and scientists in getting accurate data on the project, as several said they have not been impressed with Vineyard Northeast’s outreach and transparency since it first proposed the offshore farm.
“Westport is front and center as the first landing place,” committee chairman Jake McGuigan said. “We were told .. .that it was going to be an either or proposition,” referring to the two landfall sites. “Then (earlier this year, it was) ‘No, we’re coming through Westport.’ That’s a concern. We don’t have the true facts (and we) can’t get it from Vineyard wind.”
Michael Judge, undersecretary for energy in the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environment, stressed that Vineyard Northeast has not yet approached the state with any plan.
But he noted that the state, in order to comply with clean energy benchmarks set by the legislature, is “legally obligated to ... enter into contracts with offshore wind projects.” Where the cables come ashore, he said, “is primarily driven by where the grid infrastructure exists, and the lowest cost.”
“We’re trying to move forward in a direction that balances a lot of different interests,” he said.
Given that, Judge noted, there are resources at the state level to help communities like Westport stay informed and get educated on the projects.
“What if a community just says ‘No’?”, Constance Gee, a member of the advisory board and the founder of anti-wind advocacy group Protect Our Westport Waters, asked.
“A community could propose that the permit be denied to the energy facility siting board,” Judge said. “The board would consider that and look at the specific reasons why the community is saying that the project should be rejected outright. It would be an adjudicatory process — the board makes the decision.”
“So the bottom line is, the commonwealth will take away any local control at the end?” board member Christopher Thrasher asked.
“I wouldn’t characterize it that way,” Judge replied. “There’s a lot of opportunities for communities to weigh in. If the facts that are being presented ... warrant a denial of the permit, the permit could be denied.”
That answer likely didn’t appease Thrasher:
“Given the commonwealth’s clear preference for fast tracking these permits and removing local control ... I can’t say I’m very satisfied with that answer.”
Note: The advisory committee’s next meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 16, at town hall.