President asks Congress to remove "Wind-kill" amendment

Letter from Under Secretary of Energy seen veiled veto threat

By Walter Brooks

This is a copy of the letter David Garman sent yesterday

David Garman, President George Bush's Under Secretary of Energy, has written a letter to both the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Commerce and Transportation committees urging that the so-called "Stevens-Young" amendment which would have stopped the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound be removed from the "final bill that will be presented to the President for signature."

In Washington DC such highly unusual language is used to threaten a veto by the President.

Garman's first paragraph makes the President's wishes clear;

"...the Administration would like to reiterate its support of wind-generated electricity, and express it's concerns about a provision in the bill that would inhibit the development of this clean, domestic, renewable energy source."

The Under Secretary goes on to itemize the "...five years of extensive evaluation and review at the federal, state and local levels - a review that has involved more than 17 federal, state and local agencies."

The two-page letter to Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye as well as Congressmen Don Young and James Oberstar, ends on an even stronger note;

"Indeed, the New England Independent System Operator (ISO) is counting on this project and the power it will supply.

More broadly, singling out wind generation in this manner could have a chilling impact of the continued investment and growth of this renewable energy resource...

We urge that this provision be removed from the final bill that will be presented to the President for signature."

The  entire letter is reprinted on the right above.

Republican Domenici and Democratic Bingaman sent letters as well
Join Forces to Oppose Final Passage of Coast Guard Conference Report    

Here is the text of the letter;

Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, have notified Senate leadership that they are left with no alternative but to oppose allowing the conference report on H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, to proceed to a final vote on the floor unless a provision in the report that runs directly contrary to Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is fixed.

The offending provision prohibits the construction of an offshore wind facility in the Nantucket Sound if the project is opposed in writing by the Governor of Massachusetts.  The governor has already publicly opposed the only project proposed for the Sound (Cape Wind), so this provision is tantamount to Congress terminating the Cape Wind project.

Both senators are strong advocates for renewable energy and believe the language in the Coast Guard bill will have a chilling effect on future investments in renewable energy projects on Federal lands.

In a May 3 letter to Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid, the two senators said they will seek to block final passage of the report unless both the House and Senate pass a correcting resolution to remove the offending provision or substitute the original provision from the House bill. The House provision does not give veto authority to a governor.

Section 388 of EPACT05, comprehensive energy legislation written by Domenici and Bingaman, gives the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, the authority to grant leases and rights of way for energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf, including wind energy.  The energy bill requires consultation with state and local governments but does not give them veto authority.

Domenici:

“The provision in the Coast Guard conference report is absolutely contrary to our nation’s growing preference for clean, renewable energy. It sets a terrible precedent. I think would it be a very bad idea to give states veto authority over the siting of renewable energy projects on federal land in a bid to stop a particular project. In the energy bill, we gave states a strong voice and a key role in siting renewable projects on the OCS. That is sufficient. I am pleased to join with my colleague and good friend Jeff Bingaman in opposing final passage of this conference report unless the problem is fixed.”

Bingaman:

“I oppose anti-renewable energy provisions in the Coast Guard conference report.  A fair process to review renewable energy projects in Federal waters already exists.  A regulatory review of the Cape Wind project is underway.  To invent a new regulatory process designed simply to deliver a negative result would chill future investment in renewable energy.  We need more energy sources like wind to moderate the high prices that Americans are paying for electricity, natural gas and home heating oil.  I hope we can move forward with a clean bill to reauthorize important Coast Guard programs and not have to hold them up for such an unjustifiable provision.”

Bill Wicker, Democratic Communications Director, Senate Energy & Natural Resources, 202.224.5243