Oily bedfellows

Analysis: linking fossil fuel interests and the Alliance

By Jack Coleman

• Bill Koch: owner of a major energy conglomerate that includes oil, natural gas and petroleum interests - and co-chairman of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
• Doug Yearley - board member of Marathon Oil - and former president of the Alliance.
• Congressman Don Young of Alaska - a key leader in the "historic battle for approval of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline," according to his website - and author of legislation to derail the offshore wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound.

Notice a pattern here?

Most people will, unless they are members of the Alliance or its shadow organization, windstop.org, otherwise intelligent people unwilling to connect the dots.

If you have followed the vigorous debate about the Cape Wind proposal, now entering its fifth year for a project which is allegedly not getting nearly enough federal oversight, chances are that you've heard quite a bit about potential harm to birds, seals, fish and other wildlife.

Histrionics hiding well-heeled oil interests

Give Cape Wind's opponents credit where credit is due - they've largely succeeded in hiding the actual basis for their histrionics about the project. It would hit their well-oiled and emissions-wealthy leaders where it hurts most - their bottom line.

Not the project itself, mind you, but what it represents - genuine seismic change, a paradigm shift along the lines of what occurred a century ago with aviation and the automobile.

A story in yesterday's Cape Cod Times reported that a "closed-door committee of the US House of Representatives is considering whether to restrict wind turbines within 1 1/2 miles of shipping and ferry lanes, a policy that could cripple the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.

"The proposed restriction, confirmed by sources on both sides of the controversial Cape debate, is being considered as part of an $8.7 billion Coast Guard authorization bill," wrote Kevin Dennehy and David Schoetz of the Times.

"House officials said the restriction is being pushed by US Rep. Don Young, an Alaska Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

But Congressman Young won't talk

"Repeated calls to Young's office this week were not returned, and a spokesman for the Alaska congressman told a Washington reporter this week that Cape Wind supporters speculating about the restriction were being 'paranoid.' But a staff member for US Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman, said yesterday the restriction threatens to derail the wind farm.

"Delahunt, who opposes the Cape Wind project, did not push for the language," according to the Times. "We're not sure what motivated Chairman Young," said Steven Broderick, a legislative aide to Delahunt, "but we're pleased by it."

The specific language of the amendment would "prohibit the establishment of any offshore wind energy facility within 1.5 nautical miles of a shipping channel or commonly used route for a licensed or regulated ferry system" and "establish standards for the siting of such facilities."

Cape Wind Associates wants to build 130 wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoal in the middle of Nantucket Sound. At their closest point, the turbines would be situated within 400 yards (that's four football fields or a 1/4 mile) of a shipping lane south of the shoal and within a mile of a ferry route east of the project.

The amendment also states that "the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall, within six months after the date of the enactment of this Act and in consultation with the Governors of the affected coastal states, promulgate regulations to ensure that offshore wind energy facilities do not pose a threat to marine safety, navigation, national defense, and national security."

The amendment concludes by stating, "no offshore wind energy project shall be approved before the promulgation of such regulations."

Winds farms proposed elsewhere but not Alaska

In addition to the Cape Wind project, offshore wind farms have been proposed off the coasts of New York, Georgia and Texas, but not Alaska, where one would presumably pique Young's interest.

"Just hours after being sworn in to the United States House of Representatives in 1973, he found himself leading a historic battle for approval of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, Often citing this as the single most important achievement of his career" - Young's web site

But while the Times was unable to cite a rationale for Young's transparent attempt to thwart Cape Wind, a quick visit to the congressman's website (see Young's web site here ) might have proven helpful.

"Just hours after being sworn in to the United States House of Representatives in 1973," Young's website boasts, " he found himself leading a historic battle for approval of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline."

Often citing this as the single most important achievement of his career (emphasis added), Congressman Young stated, 'Next to statehood itself, the most historical legislation passed that affected every Alaskan then, now, and in the future, was the passage of the pipeline legislation."

Young's website also notes that he is the third ranking Republican member of the House, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, vice-chairman of the Resources Committee and the only congressman for the largest state in the country.

The smoking gun linking Young and the Alliance?

A little more online digging uncovers the possible smoking gun linking Young with opposition to the Cape Wind project. Guy Martin, a well-connected lobbyist with Perkins Cole DC's Environment Group, has been pushing hard for the Alliance down in Washington.

Over half the Alliance lobbying budget, $440,000, went to Guy Martin's firm.

For example, the US Senate Office of Public Records (see report here ) which keeps tabs on how much money is spent on lobbyists, shows the Alliance has paid $440,000 to Perkins Cole since 2002. This out of a total of $840,000 for lobbying in Congress as of last June, the records show (including the lobbying firms of Loeffler Tuggey and O'Neill Associates, but not including the recently hired Patton Boggs).

An interview with Guy Martin appears at the website of LitSite Alaska, "a Web community promoting literacy, cultural diversity, and well-being throughout Alaska." (see story here .)

After Young was elected in 1973, Martin says in the interview, "Bill Egan and John Havelock, the governor and the attorney general at the time, asked me to open the first state office for Alaska in Washington. The reason being, they didn't have anybody there to represent the state in the upcoming Trans-Alaska Pipeline debate (emphasis added). So I did that."

"I actually took a little, first-floor townhouse on Capitol Hill, and opened what was really a two- or three-person office. It was the first state office, and we worked pretty much exclusively on the pipeline, although we worked on offshore leasing issues and coastal zone management and other things that were important to the state," Martin says in the interview.

A relationship going back three decades

So at the same time Young first goes to Washington to serve as Alaska's only congressman, a position he retains to this day, a future lobbyist for the Alliance opened an office close to the Capitol. The first major priority for both men - the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, a project that would become a huge boondoggle for the fossil fuels industry.

Oil rigs can be sited within 500 yards of a shipping channel (but not turbines)

In other words, this unavoidable connection between Young and Martin extends back more than three decades - and given Young's power in Congress, is sure to be cited by Martin to any potential clients.

Back in September, Young added similar language to the same bill to give the Coast Guard greater oversight of offshore wind farms. The bill was approved by the House with the amendment, but the Senate did not approve similar language, according to today's Boston Globe.

Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers described Young's proposal to the Globe as unfairly punitive since oil rigs can be sited within 500 yards of a shipping channel. The restriction is also unnecessary, Rodgers said, because the Coast Guard already has the authority to determine whether projects like Cape Wind pose a threat to mariners and shipping.

See a related story in today's Boston Globe here.

Jack Coleman is a writer, editor and blogger who writes in support of the Cape Wind project at the wind farmer's almanac blog.