Op-Ed

Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Local Public Radio station becomes a forum for RFK Jr. distortion

By Carl Freeman

On August 25^th, Bobby Kennedy Jr. was a guest on the NPR morning show discussing a variety of issues.  I found myself agreeing with almost every point he made until the subject of putting a Wind farm in Nantucket Sound came up.

I am sorry to say that everything he claimed to be outraged about concerning Cape Wind was either a complete lie, or at least a distant relative of the truth.  I downloaded the podcast of ‘The Point', recorded his assertions (as noted by: RFKJr:""), after which I have written the truth behind each of his statements.

RFKJr: "Cape Wind will absorb all of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC's) for Massachusetts." 

CF: REC's are a Nationally traded commodity.  Cape Wind can't absorb all of the REC's for Massachusetts because there is no State allotment ceiling. Business law simply doesn't work that way.  REC's are a ‘virtual' commodity where we measure the amount of clean power produced and polluters buy them to get under regional emission caps.  REC's are designed to ignore state lines and address regional & National pollution.

 I have a5kW Photovoltaic array on my roof and have a 3 year contract with Mass Energy to sell them about $180.00 each year in REC's from the power I produce.  A ‘yes' or ‘no' on permitting Cape Wind has no ability to rescind my existing contract.

The intention of REC's was to ‘grease the rails' for clean energy to get a foothold and satisfy the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) that sets benchmarks of clean energy to be generated in the State.  The RPS target for 2009 is 4%, of that we currently derive less than 0.25% clean energy from State sources forcing MA to import the other 3.75% of our clean energy (at a higher cost) from surrounding States & Canada.  Here again is an example of how Cape Wind will lower costs IF WE LET IT.

RFKJr: "Photovoltaics (PV) for electricity installed on your own roof are 3 times cheaper than the power from the wind farm."

CF:  This clever verbal footwork is trying to hide the fact that wind farm power will cost the same as any other power.  Cape Wind can't MAKE ISO New England buy their power at a higher price. All power generators are paid the same for any given hour of power needed, this is called clearinghouse pricing.  Several wind farm opponents have been making this ridiculous claim for years.  The actual method of selling utility power simply doesn't work the way they claim it does.   Though, I suppose if you are fighting the ‘evil' wind farm, a few fibs are O.K.

I work in the field of photovoltaics. They are a great investment.  I encourage anyone with a south facing roof to look into investing in them.  Over the course of 35 years, your system will pay for itself 3 times over. (Hence the 3 times cheaper statement)

Even when Cape Wind provides 75% of our power, it will take years to fill in that other 25% with residential clean power.

RFKJr: "Cape Wind would control the wind; it would no longer be a Democratic power."

CF:  This sounds like rhetoric to scare people. Is he implying that Cape Wind would exclude anyone else from making money from wind power? Cape Wind would be the first American offshore utility selling power into the grid.  Currently 99.99% of energy comes from private corporations (Like Cape Wind).

Cape Wind would be the only major utility using wind to make electricity instead of fossil fuels.  Some day (Hopefully) all of our power will be clean & sustainable.  To imply that a man doggedly determined to bring utility scale clean power to America is somehow an impediment to future clean energy development, I'm not sure I can put my disbelief of such flawed thinking into words.

RFKJr: Claims "Currently there are 4 ½ million boats that travel through those waterways each year."

CF:  Hmmm, 4,500,000 divided by 365 days equals 12,328 boat trips each day that would be negatively impacted by a Windfarm.  Hmmm.  Even at low tide when its zero to 20 feet deep?  Hmmm.  I believe this is called exaggeration, or more specifically, a HUGE exaggeration.  At the shortest dimension the space between turbines is 6 football fields wide.  Any boat captains out there want to raise their hand and say:"I can't steer a boat between poles 1/3 of a mile apart?"  In the 30 year history of offshore wind there have been NO reported collisions with turbines.  Every turbine will be GPS marked.  Is there a reputable boat captain out there not using GPS these days? 

After 6 years, Denmark fishermen that work among Horns Rev or Nysted offshore wind farms have reported no issues with navigating among the monopoles.  Some have asserted that they provide a point of reference and help avoid the shallows, the same assertions made by the American Coast Guard about the Cape Wind project.

RFKJr: "Cape Wind will put every South Cape fisherman out of business."

CF:  I'm not sure how Cape Wind COULD do this.  As proud as opponents are of their quote "Nantucket Sound, not for SALE." The technical name of the agreement between the Mineral Management Services and Cape Wind is called a "right of use" that clearly defines the footprint of the monopole as the only area under Cape Wind's control.  There is no right to prohibit or restrict boat travel of ANY kind in the waters around the Wind farm.  (In Denmark sail boats do a healthy business traveling within the wind farm for paying tourists.)

In light of this revelation, opposition forces have changed their story and now claim; fishermen will refuse to fish in the area based on "boating safety".  We'll see how long that lasts once the fish stocks increase from the 130 artificial reefs the wind farm ‘dangers' fade to distant memory.

RFKJr "The cables running between the turbines would present a hazard for fishermen's gear."

CF:  He would have a point, if it weren't for the fact the cables will be buried 8 feet deep.  This has been presented publically several times.   I am certain that the opposition is aware of the jet trenching of cables because of their adamant opposition to it.  I guess they want it both ways.  Or more accurately, they don't want it ANY WAY.

RFKJr talked about a solar concentrator farm in Southwest America he has been working to get up and working.  He implied it was such a great idea that Jim Gordon should abandon his proposal.

CF:  I commend him.  I believe solar concentrators are an excellent way to generate clean energy.  Unfortunately the sun resource in the Northeast is significantly less than the desert.  The cardinal rule of renewables is to tap the resource you have in abundance, around here it is the wind.  If RFKJr wanted to put solar concentrator farms in Massachusetts I would be glad to support his efforts.

That doesn't change the fact that Jim Gordon has been legally permitting a wind farm here going on 9 years.  Is Bobby saying we should stop a significant clean energy producing wind farm here just because another project might come along?  As previously stated, we are well below the required level of clean energy for Massachusetts now; a wind farm will help make up the gap.  We will still need more utility scale projects to achieve cleaner air, energy independence, lower prices, and local industry.  Currently there are no other large scale projects of any kind that have begun the permitting process in the New England area except for more wind farms. 

For some reason, wind farm opponents seem to breeze over these glaring facts.  Of all people, Bobby Kennedy Jr. should know this.  It just shows the degree of prejudice he apparently has against this specific project.

RFKJr "The grid could not handle the power produced by the wind farm."

CF: Independent System Operators - New England (ISO - NE, the organization charged with running our electrical grid) released an exhaustive report last year that determined that the percentage of wind power our system can accept is roughly 20% (as published in the Cape Cod Times).  Currently we get less than .03% of our power from the wind, Cape Wind would bring that number up to around 2-3%.  Again, we have a ‘disconnect' from the truth.

RFKJr "There is no legal framework for permitting a wind farm" 

CF: Well Bob, it has all of the permits needed, it is only waiting for final approval from Minerals Management Services.  Even though Denmark figured out how to permit offshore wind farms years ago with no lasting environmental impact, America felt obligated to reinvent the simple process over the last 8 years and released it last April.

 The President announced on April 22, 2009 that the Department of the Interior completed The Final Renewable Energy Framework to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-way for orderly, safe, and environmentally responsible renewable energy development activities, such as the siting and construction of offshore wind farms.

For the complete regulations go to: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/PDF/FinalRenewableEnergyRule.pdf

 RFKJr claimed "They are giving away coastline ‘Willy Nilly'".

CF: Wind farm opponents have a basic premise; that if you see wind turbine offshore, get to an emergency room ASAP.  They are dangerous and could cause ‘wind turbine appreciation' if stared at for more than a few seconds.

Has every home in view of a light house been ‘given away' to ruthless boat safety?  Has every beach in view of a sail boat mast been ‘given away' to sailing fanatics?  If they can convince everyone that domestic, clean energy is ‘ugly', they could still stop this project.  Enough accurate information about how a wind farm looks, sounds, and the environmental impacts have reached the mainstream lately that public sentiment has gone from 30% approval in 2002 to 71% in 2008 just on Cape Cod.

RFKJr "We should be building wind farms 20-30-40 miles offshore in 125' ft of water" 

CF: Anyone can propose such a project.  I suspect since they're still refining economically feasible deepwater technology, not a lot of corporations are knocking each other over YET to get their applications in.  Every mile from shore dramatically runs up the cost of project materials, time, permitting, and logistics not to mention the beating it would take from the much, much larger waves out in the deep.  A company builds this kind of project to make money.  Deep water will cost more than Cape Wind.  This point is irrefutable. 

There are several shallow water wind farms around the world; many more are on the way.  There are NO deepwater wind farms.  There are a few 1 or 2 turbine, deep water experiments going on, not revenue producing wind farms.

RFKJr "Ferry boats will have to steer around the wind farm."

The proposed location of the wind farm is 300 feet outside the shipping lanes.  (This is law)  If the ferry boat is way off course and in danger of stranding in the shallows of Horse Shoe Shoals, then it is possible it will have to steer around the wind farm.  Lucky for the ferry boat it will have a much better landmark of a monopole to warn it where the shallows are.

RFKJr "Airlines don't want it"

Cape Air flies over the sound more than any other airline.  Dan Wolf, president of Cape Air was initially against the project.  He went over to Denmark personally to see it and gauge reaction.  Upon his return he made comments that if the project passes environmental muster, he would strongly support the project.  This is consistent with almost everyone that has seen the Denmark offshore wind farm up close and personal.

RFKJr "Virtually everyone on Cape Cod is against the Wind farm"

On this point the Host, Mindy Todd brought up the fact that a majority of people on Cape Cod were FOR it. 

Then RFKJr said "Virtually every BUSINESS on Cape Cod is against the Wind farm" 

I don't have the time to personally ask every business owner on Cape Cod if they are for a Windfarm, but if you look at the number of tourists attracted by offshore wind farms around the world, I'm betting business will love it once it is here.

I stand behind my statements and would willingly debate RFKJr. anytime, anyplace about the facts surrounding the wind farm ‘controversy'.  I understand that Jim Gordon is treated with great disdain because he dared to propose a clean energy project in the Kennedy's private yachting waters.

If you notice on NPR, they always preface any wind farm stories by saying "the controversial wind farm project proposed for Nantucket Sound."  I wonder where the controversy is?  It has all of its permits legally earned after 8 years of grueling attempts by the Mega rich of Osterville to delay and derail it.  Alarming bird kill numbers have been dismissed by Mass Audubon.  It has received praise from the Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club, as well as several other responsible environmental groups.  The ‘controversy' always seems to come from stories that once delved into, yield little to no connection with reality.  NPR has had many discussion forums on the topic allowing representatives on each side of the debate to voice what they believe.  The sides are so far apart, they can't both be true.

Hmmm.  Strange that such a ‘controversial' project hasn't been investigated to see whose version of the facts is closer to the truth.  I suspect that some sizeable donations would be withheld if the real story were more generally reported.

When you assess Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s statements an alarming picture emerges; one of America's foremost environmental crusaders sings a different song when a visible project is in his back yard.  Real life examples of what ‘is' and scientific data suggests that he is poorly informed or just plain lying to get ‘his' way. 

I am sure Bobby would agree that America is way behind where we should be in producing clean energy.  It is such a shame he has misused his clout and name to sabotage the largest clean energy project so far in the world.

To end, I wish Bobby Jr. all the luck in the world developing clean energy, please be honest with us when it is developed in your family's backyard.

Carl B. Freeman
Renewable Energy Installer & Consultant
Orleans

4 comments »

Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod

It's time to get it done!

Why is even Canada a decade ahead of us? Above is the Wolfe Island EcoPower® Centre consists of 86, 2.3 MW wind turbines. Construction began in June 2008 and the facility achieved commercial operation on June 26, 2009. With a nameplate capacity of 197.8 MW, it is presently the second largest (MW) wind installation in Canada. It's in the middle of the Thousand Islands vacation area enthusiastically viewed by millions each season Photo taken from a cruise boat last week  by Walter Brooks. Ironically, this is the project origianlly funded by Joe "For Oil" Kennedy, see here.

Create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil at the same time

Having spent most of my career managing the manufacture of technical (including military) products, I realize U.S. manufacturing capability is crucial to our national defense. Many U.S. plants that would be capable of making defense equipment are now being demolished. Fortunately, wind turbine manufacturing is rapidly expanding, and, if and when required, can help fill that vacuum.

Massachusetts, with Cape Wind and the new National Large Wind Turbine Testing Laboratory, will create high-tech, high-paying jobs.

   Massachusetts, with Cape Wind and the new National Large Wind Turbine Testing Laboratory, will create high-tech, high-paying jobs, bringing together research, development, manufacturing and large installed turbines.  Another example is the New York Power Authority's "Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project", which is offering long-term contracts for offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie; this will also make that area a wind-parts manufacturing hub.

   A utility-scale wind turbine has 8,000 parts - many are similar to airplane components. Fifty-five U.S. wind turbine assembly or component manufacturing facilities were announced, added or expanded in the last few years. Regional new jobs will also result from wind farms planned offshore of New England and nearby states.  ISO New England's recent study concluded electricity prices will be decreased by wind-generated electricity.  

We are decades behind Europe in using offshore wind.

   Several more-southern east coast states also plan offshore wind farms, which will make the seaboard a major clean-power producer. The short distance to large electricity-using cities increases savings (power losses decrease with shorter transmission-line distances).  A recent study by Stanford University and Delaware University concluded the Atlantic Ocean stretch from Cape Cod to North Carolina has sufficient wind energy to generate 330,000 megawatts of electricity - almost twice the current energy demand of those nine states.

   We are decades behind Europe in using offshore wind.  For defense, health, economic and other reasons, we've got to catch up, and we've got to do it FAST!

Jim Liedell
Yarmouth Port, MA

23 comments »

A Carbon Tax, Not Cap-and-Trade

Editor's note: The following Op-Ed originally appeared in the Boston Globe on Sunday, October 18, 2009.

By Charles Kleekamp and Barbara Hill   

The Waxman-Markey bill on climate change that recently passed the House is a train wreck waiting to happen. Intended to reduce global warming and achieve energy independence, it is totally inadequate in its reliance on a flawed cap and trade system, and the recently released Senate version called the Kerry-Boxer bill follows the same track. Like the House bill, the Senate version represents the further transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the nuclear and fossil-fuel industries - a result of their immense power and influence.

To successfully confront the climate change crisis and the nation’s addiction to fossil fuels, we at Clean Power Now endorse a straightforward carbon tax instead of the cap and trade schemes.

Both bills impose a legal limit or “cap’’ on greenhouse gasses emitted each year. The trading part is based on issuing emission allowances, or permits, to various industries for each ton of greenhouse gas they emit. However, the fatal flaw in Waxman-Markey is the misguided government giveaway, for free, of 85 percent of all allowances, particularly to coal-related industries. For example, the most egregious source of carbon dioxide emissions is coal-fired electrical generating plants, which account for one-third of all such emissions.

To mollify the powerful coal lobby and coal state representatives, this government giveaway provides little or no incentive to phase out old coal-fired plants anytime soon, and may diabolically increase their profits.

A lesson is to be learned from the 2005 European Union Emissions Trading Scheme that likewise gave away 95 percent of its emission allowances. The result was that EU electric utilities earned windfall profits while continuing to pass on higher energy costs to industrial and residential consumers. The EU told the US Government Accountability Office that “it could not be certain [the trading scheme] resulted in any reduction of emissions.’’

To successfully confront the climate change crisis and the nation’s addiction to fossil fuels, we at Clean Power Now endorse a straightforward carbon tax instead of the cap and trade schemes. To neutralize the impact on consumers, revenue from the carbon tax would be used to reduce payroll taxes, increase Social Security benefits, and fund renewable energy efforts that create new jobs and new industries particularly in the wind and solar sectors. This would amount to a tax shift with enormous societal benefits.

Others are supporting this as well. Elaine Kamarck, chairwoman of the US Climate Task Force and a former adviser to Al Gore, recently said in Politico, “Congress can go back to Al Gore’s original idea about how to deal with climate change: Raise taxes on carbon, and cut taxes on work. A carbon tax shift is one of those rare ideas that can take a political liability and turn it into a political asset; it allows Congress to vote for a tax cut and a tax increase while putting into place the financial incentives we need to transition to a noncarbon future.’’

A carbon tax is aimed at taxing the upstream source of carbon where it is produced, like coal mines, oil and natural gas wells, as well as shipping terminals and pipelines for imported fuel. Each pound of carbon embedded in the fuel would be taxed based on the fact that every pound of carbon consumed as fuel results in the emission of 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide. Starting at a tax rate of $15 per ton of emitted carbon dioxide and progressively increasing until the goal of 80 percent reduction is achieved by 2050 is a good place to start.

The senators and representatives who are charged with leading the nation’s energy policy should remember that politics is first the art of the possible and secondly the art of compromise. That means that starting from an already compromised position leads only to deeper compromises.

Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
President, Clean Power Now

Barbara Hill
Executive Director, Clean Power Now

   Clean Power Now is a non-profit grassroots organization informing citizens and empowering them to support viable renewable energy projects and policies, and to secure their local and regional benefits.
   We believe that the timely development of such projects, in conjunction with energy efficiency and conservation, will bring about a clean, healthy environment, an improved economy and a more secure, sustainable America.
As such, Clean Power Now supports Cape Wind, America’s first proposed offshore windfarm.
   Clean Power Now is a founding member of theClean.org, a nationwide network of clean energy and community based efforts to phase out reliance on fossil fuels and move toward efficiency and a clean energy economy.

12 comments »

Medical Marijuana- Science Versus Politics

How medicla marijuana helps very ill Cape Codders

by Matt Allen, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance.

Don Parker is a father who holds down two jobs in the Cape Cod area.  Though he looks like a healthy middle-aged man, since childhood Parker has suffered from cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) - prolonged, debilitating bouts of vomiting which can leave him bed ridden with nausea, dehydration, and migraine headaches.  The cause is unknown, making CVS very difficult to treat.

Countless prescription medicines have either failed to help or caused side effects that were too severe to bear. Only one medicine has really helped him: marijuana.

But while several other New England states have given legal protection to medical marijuana patients like Don, Massachusetts has not. That could change soon, but it will require our legislators to put science and compassion ahead of politics.

"If I have access to medical marijuana, my intake of other prescription medicines decreases, and most importantly it effectively address the muscle stiffness and tremors that cause me pain and keep me up at night." - Ken.

When flare-ups occur, Don has to call in sick to work.  But with the help of medical marijuana, he has excelled in his field as an electro-mechanical technician and is able to live a normal day-to-day life.  In fact, he has not had any serious symptoms in months

Don says that using a small amount of marijuana every few days is enough to keep his symptoms at bay.  But when he doesn't have access to medical marijuana, the vomiting begins and he can't work.

"I've suffered from this condition all my life, and I've never used cannabis socially," he says. "I don't even drink.  It wasn't until I was in my late twenties that I tried medical marijuana after a friend suggested it might help me with my migraines."  When he tried medical marijuana to address his headaches, he found that the most severe symptoms of CVS disappeared for days.  Now his symptoms only re-emerge when he has no medicine, and he resents the fact that he had to suffer for so many years without the knowledge that medical marijuana could help him.

Thousands of patients across Massachusetts suffer from conditions like chronic pain, HIV, or cancer, and find themselves in a similar situation.  For example, Ken (who asked  us not to use his full name for fear of legal repercussions), a resident of southeastern Massachusetts, was first diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the1970s.  A former drummer in a successful band, he noticed the symptoms when he began to lose control of the muscles in his bass drum foot while he was playing.  

MS is a degenerative disease that causes pain, muscle spasms, and extreme muscle stiffness that leaves many patients wheelchair-bound.  Ken has known about the benefits of medical marijuana for years, and finds it is the most effective medicine at reducing spasms.  "If I have access to medical marijuana, my intake of other prescription medicines decreases, and most importantly it effectively address the muscle stiffness and tremors that cause me pain and keep me up at night,"  he explains. Ken would like to be able to grow marijuana in his home, but could lose his public housing and face felony charges if he does.

A recent poll by Channel 7 News and Suffolk University found 81 percent support for legal medical marijuana in Massachusetts, including 76 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of voters over age 65. With such high approval ratings among the public, plenty of studies supporting the efficacy of marijuana as medicine, and so many public health organizations endorsing the issue, why have our legislators been so slow to act?

In a word, politics - and antiquated politics at that. Much of the political landscape around medical marijuana was defined in the 1980s when the toughest anti-drug laws were passed.  At the time, anyone who opposed harsher drug laws was cast as soft on crime. Some politicians see medical marijuana in this context and are afraid to support it.

Opponents often bring up specious arguments about medical marijuana.  They cite lack of FDA approval, failing to note that federal government has blocked the very research that would be needed for the FDA to approve marijuana as a medicine.  They say that no medicine is smoked, ignoring the fact that vaporization technology has made smoking medical marijuana a non-issue. And amazingly, despite a dozen years of evidence proving otherwise, they say that legalizing medical marijuana will "send the wrong message to kids," encouraging teen drug use.

In fact, none of the 13 states where medical marijuana programs currently exist, has documented an increase in marijuana use among youth since the medical marijuana law took effect. Even in California, where the lack of regulation has led to problems, teen marijuana use has dropped like a rock since the state's medical marijuana law passed in 1996.

Patients like Don and Ken hope that medical marijuana in Massachusetts - known as HB 2160 - will finally move forward soon. If it doesn't, some are considering leaving the state rather than continuing to suffer without legal access to their medicine.  

"I hope they do something soon.  I love Massachusetts," says Don, "but when my son grows up I might have to move to Rhode Island for medical reasons."   Ken echoes, "I've definitely thought about it... I've lived in Massachusetts for all my life and I'd hate to leave, but the worse my condition gets the more I think about moving to California."

6 comments »

Why the American Clean Energy and Security Act Doesn't Cut It!

Why the American Clean Energy and Security Act Doesn't Cut It!

By Sarah Cote

Clean Power Now, a local non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to educating and empowering citizens to support viable renewable energy projects and policies, is vastly disappointed in the American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES). It passed the House of Representatives on June 26th by a narrow margin of 219-212.

This bill, which could very well set our nation's precedent for action on climate change, will be introduced to the Senate this Wednesday, September 30th. Clean Power Now is teaming up with the CLEAN Network - Citizens Lead for Energy Action Now- and calling on its collaboration of 140 organizations nation-wide to encourage activists to contact their Senators immediately and tell them that ACES just isn't good enough! Both Clean Power Now and the CLEAN believe that this bill fails to adequately address global warming, fails to encourage true economic and energy security for Americans and continues the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the fossil fuel industry.

Please contact your Senator today and tell them that the Senate Bill must:

• Allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do its job. Under its current state, ACES strips the EPA of its authority to regulate carbon.
• Invest our money in true energy solutions. We cannot afford to continue to pump money into the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. A serious investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy are the least costly and most effective ways to an energy policy that builds our economy, creates jobs and reduces carbon emissions.
• Put a cap on carbon consistent with science based goals and set up a transparent and equitable system to regulate it. As Senator Byron Dorgan (D-NE) said, he does not have "any interest in supporting legislation that will establish a trillion-dollar carbon trading securities market." The cap and trade system in ACES is a costly way to not solve our problems.

Without substantial changes, Clean Power Now and CLEAN will continue in their opposition to this Bill and encourage our political leaders to either make significant changes to the Bill or vote against it! Our government needs to take a stand against the fossil fuel industry interests and put their money where their mouth is when it comes to making changes in the way our country uses energy.

Please visit www.theclean.org for more information and talking points and to contact your Senator today.

Sarah Cote
Executive Assistant
Clean Power Now

1 comment »

Mihos needs to cut ties with anti-wind farm bloc

Christy is still tilting at the windmill

By Ron LaBonte.

Massachusetts could use a man like Christy Mihos who, if elected governor, would shake up the status quo on Beacon Hill and likely lower taxes.

However, in my opinion, he’ll never make governor if he continues to align himself with William Koch, Glen Wattley and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. I wonder if Mr. Mihos has read Dennis Duffy’s Sept. 21 “My View” in the Cape Cod Times. Many thinking people have read it.

Why kill your chances of being governor for the sake of not having to look at the tops of wind turbines 6 miles away?

Ron LaBonte, Chatham

11 comments »

Is this governor completely tone deaf?

New, interim U.S. Senator for the Commonwealth

By Christy Mihos.

Patrick doesn't understand what a real emergency is -
Law does not support "emergency" declaration.

Adding insult to injury, Governor Patrick has ended this sordid political drama on Beacon Hill through granting high office by declaring an emergency. The emergency in the Commonwealth right now is due to a sinking economy and a state house where ethical standards have plummeted during Deval Patrick's leadership. Someone should tell the governor where the real fire is," said Mihos.

Is this governor so completely tone deaf that he believes voters support the tactics he's used these past few days to change the law regarding the appointment of a new, U.S. senator?"

According to media reports, Governor Patrick has said he will declare an emergency so that he can immediately appoint a new senator today. Mihos said he concurs with the letter sent by the state G.O.P. to State Secretary Bill Galvin, urging the secretary to be cognizant of the fact that state law does not facilitate Patrick declaring an emergency for this purpose.

If the media were to take a careful look at state law and past legal decisions, they will see that declaring an emergency for purposes of this political appointment is simply not legal.

Christy Mihos, Yarmouth.

18 comments »

Healthier days are on the way

Your health and renewable energy

By Richard Bartlett

These days it's all about health care. Locally it has long been all about the wind farm. But for those who have good long-term memories, the two are easily combined.

Cape Wind's contribution to cleaner air would save 12-15 unnecessary deaths locally per year with  5,000 fewer cases of asthma.

Remember back in the early days of the wind turbine debate the American Lung Association and Harvard School of Public Health issued the results of their study.

They said Cape Wind's contribution to cleaner air would save 12-15 unnecessary deaths locally per year, and with the reduction in pollution 5,000 fewer cases of asthma would occur annually. Victims of pollution are not reported as such, but they are among those dying from heart attack, asthma, and lung cancer.

So due to all the obstructionist shenanigans about 75 of our neighbors died before their time. That is quite a burden on the consciences of those politicians and oceanside MacMansion dwellers who have dedicated their political capital and millions of dollars to block or delay progress.

With Obama leading the health care movement it's not just about insurers and big Pharma. Personal responsibility for a good lifestyle and illness prevention are crucial. Breathing cleaner air is certainly a part of this regimen. Ask your doctor if this isn't true.

So as soon as Sec. Salazar locates his fountain pen we can all happily take a deep breath.

Richard C. Bartlett, Cotuit

Leave a comment »

Who is this tax-evader -- and how stupid can he be?

Mass. state rep dodges new sales tax on liquor

 The Massachusetts State Rep's car parked last weekend at at New Hampshire Liquor Store.

Has there ever been a better poster child for "Do as I say, not as I do"?

By Citizens for Limited Taxation

The car in the photo belong to:
Rep. Michael J. Rodrigues (D-Westport)
Joint Committee on Public Service, Vice-Chair
House Committee on Ways and Means
Joint Committee on Housing
We wonder if these photos will appear on his website . . .

We just received the photo above and the report below from a CLT member. We left the observer/photographer anonymous by request.

So which state representative drives the below Ford with Massachusetts license plate House 29? Will he be paying the Massachusetts use tax on all that booze he bought? I'll bet he will now . . . since being caught red-handed.

Has there ever been a better poster child for "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Who is this tax-evader -- and how stupid can he be?

Chip Ford

As my family and I were driving back from York Beach my wife asked me to pull off at the NH liquor store on 95 south at the Mass border. When I pulled around to get a parking space you can imagine my surprise to see what I could only assume to be a Mass state rep's car. He also had a Deval Patrick/Tim Murray sticker on his back window-so I assume he's a democrat who voted in favor of the recent sales tax hike.

So the guy comes out with a couple of cases of booze in his carriage and loads them into his car.

So the guy comes out with a couple of cases of booze in his carriage and loads them into his car. I asked him if this was "official" business or personal. He was surprised by my questioning and asked what business is it of mine as to what he's doing. I told him I was a Mass citizen. He said it was personal-I pointed out the state car with official plates and he said it was "his".

I didn't ask him WHY he was in NH purchasing alcohol instead of supporting Mass businesses and the 6.25% tax they just levied on us common folk...

He had his wife with him. I left ahead of him and as I was driving down 95 into Mass doing the speed limit, he blew by me doing about 75 in the left lane.

I guess those who pass the laws need not abide by them. You would think that after hours of testimony from Mass businesses saying how the increased tax and the alcohol tax would hurt them by causing people go to NH would have had an effect on these weasels. But, alas, it's proof again that they have no conscience and only serve their own interests and themselves.

So, who was this guy? I didn't even want to make him feel good or important by asking. He asked where I was from and I didn't answer him. I got into my car and drove away.

20 comments »

Pulling the plug on Cape Light Compact basic service

Save money and send a message by pulling the plug on Cape Light Compact Basic Service

by Chris Powicki, Water Energy & Ecology Information Services

As of July 1, 2009, tens of thousands of residents, homeowners, and businesses still served by the Cape Light Compact’s power supplier, ConEdison Solutions, began paying the highest electric rates in the state—by far.

The Compact has purposefully kept Cape and Vineyard consumers in the dark about its above-market rates, even though it was formed to protect their interests. Meanwhile, utilities and other power suppliers in Massachusetts are advertising prices that have dropped to levels not seen since before Hurricane Katrina, and consumers throughout the Commonwealth and New England are enjoying much-needed rate breaks.

The Compact was formed to protect the interests of consumers. Whose interests is the Compact protecting when it issues a newsletter on July 1 – the day its new power supply rates went into effect – without even mentioning its prices, which are by far the highest in the state? What happened to the rate reduction promised by the Compact in a news story earlier this year?

Fortunately, you too can realize substantial savings through a little research and a single phone call.  Read on …

Rate & Knowledge Gaps

In the aftermath of Katrina, Compact officials left local consumers exposed to Category 5 market forces. Now, in the wake of a global economic collapse leading to sinking electricity prices, Cape and Vineyard consumers are in danger of missing the boat on lower rates thanks to the Compact’s procurement and disclosure practices.

The gap between the Compact’s basic rates and the basic rates of NStar is unprecedented—3.5 and 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for residential and small business consumers, respectively. Aggravating this situation is the Compact’s status as a municipal aggregator, which has relieved it of rate approval requirements faced by utilities and of disclosure requirements faced by both utilities and competitive power suppliers. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office of Ratepayer Advocacy has been asked to look into these issues.

Sure, you can visit the Compact’s website for information on power supply rates, but most consumers don’t even know they are served by the Compact’s chosen supplier, let alone why, how much they are paying, and whether better options are available. To check, get out your latest NStar bill – if your bill includes two pieces of paper, the top of the second sheet will identify the Compact’s supplier, ConEdison Solutions (unless you previously switched suppliers).

How ConEdison Solutions became your supplier is a complex story, but here are the basics (skip down to the next heading if you want to learn how to save money right now): Under electricity deregulation, your bill includes both delivery and generation charges. As your utility, NStar bills you for transmitting and distributing the electricity you consume; it owns and operates poles, wires, and switching stations and is responsible for all “Delivery Charges” and “Delivery Services” listed on your bill. As a municipal aggregator, the Compact was given the authority to choose ConEdison Solutions as your “default” supplier several years ago by elected officials in the town where you live or operate a business. As your supplier, ConEdison Solutions bills you (through NStar) for buying the electricity you consume from a power plant; it acts as a broker and is responsible for all “Generation Charges” and “Generation Services” listed on your bill.

In other areas of Massachusetts, utilities like NStar are the default suppliers, their supply rates are subject to regulatory approval, rates must be reported to all consumers via regular mailings, and consumers are free to look for better options in the deregulated marketplace. Here, the Compact chooses your default supplier, its rates are not subject to regulatory approval, and it is not required to notify you about them. However, you are still free to look for better options, and there has never been a better time to do so.

Money-Saving Options for Compact Consumers

Right now, you can save money by opting out of the Compact’s basic supply service and taking one of the following actions: 

• Switch to NStar Basic Service, with rates about 38% lower than the Compact’s basic rates. The average residential consumer using 600 kWh per month could save about $20 monthly; businesses can save even more. Consumers switching to NStar service must remain there until at least December 31, 2009 to avoid a potential reconciliation charge (or credit). Visit NStar’s website for information and contract terms.
• Switch to NStar Green, with rates at least 17% lower than the Compact’s basic rates. The average residential consumer could save about $12 to $16 per month while supporting wind energy; businesses can save even more. Consumers switching to NStar service must remain there until at least December 31, 2009 to avoid a potential reconciliation charge (or credit). Visit NStar’s website for information and contract terms.
• Switch to Compact long-term, fixed-price service, with rates about 15% lower than the Compact’s basic rates. The average residential consumer could save about $10 per month; businesses can save even more. Consumers switching to the fixed rate are required to commit through July 2011 but might be relieved of this obligation if the Compact’s basic rate drops below the long-term rate. Visit the Compact’s website for information and contract terms.
• Switch to a competitive supplier, with a range of options available in the marketplace. To access a list of competitive suppliers, visit NStar’s website. Pricing and contract terms offered by individual suppliers should be carefully reviewed.

Taking Action

To switch to a lower-priced supply option, call the Compact’s supplier, ConEdison Solutions, at 800-381-9192; you will need a copy of your electric bill. To register your opinion on the Compact’s disclosure practices and supply rates, call the Compact at 508-375-6636, call town offices and ask for your Compact Governing Board representative, petition your Board of Selectmen or Town Council, and call the Massachusetts Attorney General’s consumer hotline at 617-727-8400.

Based on the advice presented above, a struggling nonprofit recently opted out of the Compact so it can save hundreds of dollars over the next few months, and informed consumers are enjoying much lower rates. Through NStar Green, I’m saving money even though I choose to pay a small premium over NStar’s basic rate to ensure that the electricity used by my home and business—produced largely by fossil plants—is being offset by power generation from a wind farm in upstate New York.

Switching supply service will not preclude you from taking advantage of the Compact’s energy efficiency programs. Generous incentives on light bulbs, appliances, insulation, and other efficiency measures can be accessed by calling 800-797-6699 and scheduling a free energy audit.

Chris Powicki is a consumer advocate and energy activist, and he is principal of Water Energy & Ecology Information Services, a consultancy based in Brewster.

1 comment »