First U.S. offshore wind energy project faces lawsuit

Jun 25, 2010 By Kim Geiger

Environmental groups plan to file suit in federal district court Friday arguing that the nation's first offshore wind energy project, approved recently by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, violates the Endangered Species Act.

The suit accuses the Obama administration of failing to protect and whales in approving the Cape Wind project, a set of 130 wind turbine generators to be installed on Nantucket Sound. The suit would mark the first legal challenge to the project since it was approved April 28 by Obama administration officials, who lauded it as a model of renewable energy production.

The plaintiffs, including Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Californians for Renewable Energy Inc. and the Texas group Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, argue that the Interior Department failed to adequately assess the wind turbine project for its potential harm to birds and whales migrating off the Massachusetts coast.

Jessica Almy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the Interior Department ignored recommendations from experts to require that shut down during the heaviest periods of .

She alleged the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation was removed from the proposal after the Interior Department received an objection from the project applicant, Cape Wind Associates.

Cape Wind Associates, owned by a private Boston-based energy company, wrote Interior in 2008 that the shutdown requirement was "not reasonable." The letter was sent to Interior's Minerals Management Service, currently under criticism for allegedly mishandling its oversight of offshore oil and gas drilling.

The shutdown requirement would have included hours when power generated from the project was most important and would harm the project's financial viability, the company wrote.

Mark Rodgers, communications director for Cape Wind, said, "The impact on birds will be minor and ... the threats we're imposing on from burning fossil fuels and from climate change are far more severe and need to be mitigated."

The plaintiffs also argue that the project could harm right whales, citing reports that nearly 100 were recently observed feeding near the proposed project site.

Rodgers said that of all the water bodies around Cape Cod, "the one with the least amount of whale traffic is Nantucket Sound."

Explore further: Old timey car to replace NYC horse carriages shown

3.8 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Proposed Nantucket wind farm in jeopardy

Apr 08, 2006

A tentative U.S. Senate agreement could give Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the final say on the wind farm project proposed for Nantucket Sound.

3 Questions: Stephen Connors on offshore wind farms

Apr 30, 2010

( -- Stephen Connors is director of the Analysis Group for Regional Energy Alternatives (AGREA) at the MIT Energy Initiative. He is a graduate of what is now the Wind Energy Center at UMass-Amherst ...

Salazar to decide on planned Cape Cod wind farm

Jan 13, 2010

(AP) -- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Wednesday he will decide by the end of April whether to approve a proposed wind farm off Cape Cod that has sparked a bitter, nine-year public fight.

Wind power: Obama's promises just hot air so far

Sep 09, 2009

President Barack Obama is still at least a year away from seeing wind turbines take root anywhere off the U.S. coast, even though his administration has promised to make offshore wind a priority, and even though developers ...

Mass. Cape Wind gets thumbs up, thumbs down

Apr 29, 2010

(AP) -- With federal approval behind them, developers of what would be the nation's first offshore wind farm still have a tough journey ahead before finally producing power in the waters off Cape Cod.

Recommended for you

Tiny power plants hold promise for nuclear energy

6 hours ago

Small underground nuclear power plants that could be cheaper to build than their behemoth counterparts may herald the future for an energy industry under intense scrutiny since the Fukushima disaster, the ...

Obama launches measures to support solar energy in US

6 hours ago

The White House Thursday announced a series of measures aimed at increasing solar energy production in the United States, particularly by encouraging the installation of solar panels in public spaces.

Tailored approach key to cookstove uptake

6 hours ago

Worldwide, programs aiming to give safe, efficient cooking stoves to people in developing countries haven't had complete success—and local research has looked into why.

Wireless power transfer achieved at five-meter distance

7 hours ago

The way electronic devices receive their power has changed tremendously over the past few decades, from wired to non-wired. Users today enjoy all kinds of wireless electronic gadgets including cell phones, ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2010
How interesting that there are so many special interest groups out there ready to sue that any progress on any project, green or not, is impossible. With CW, first it was the Kennedy - Cronkite et al NIMBY group and now the Californians for Renewable Energy Inc. and the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation. ???? HUH!

Cape wind may be a poor project both financially and environmentally, only time will tell, but it is obvious that the stupid keep on doing stupid things and the lawyers keep getting richer at everyone's expense.
5 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2010
Environmental groups are against Coal power. Ok. I can buy that.
They're against Oil power. Ok.
They're against Natural Gas. Sure. why not.
They're against Fission. I start to get iffy here.
They're against Fusion. They completely lose me here.
They're against Hydro-electric, despite it meeting every guideline that they themselves set for the "perfect" powersource.
They're against Geothermal... uh?
They're against Wind... wait... what? *Why*? What *possible* reason could they have to be against wind?

What are they rooting for? PV-solar. Yes, you heard correctly, PV-solar. Expensive PV-solar. Inefficient PV-solar. Dirty PV-solar. Those PV panels create truly unbelievable amounts of toxic waste during their manufacturing process. But they want us to use PV nonetheless. Why not wind? Cheap, efficient, clean. Better.

Why PV? Personally I'm thinking that a lot of environmentalists probably have shares in PV-solar companies. They're no better than the coal companies they claim to hate.
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2010
"Why PV? Personally I'm thinking that a lot of environmentalists probably have shares in PV-solar companies."

I think you're giving them far too much credit, most are just blindly following the pack... Oh and when they figure out that banks of PV panels are preventing the suns rays from reaching the earth and preventing living things from growing then they'll be against that too...
not rated yet Jun 30, 2010
Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds: Infrared monitoring shows that savvy seabirds steer clear of wind turbines:

More news stories

Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers

( —Four freshmen at the University of Pennsylvania have taken Apple's personal assistant Siri to behave as a graduate-level executive assistant which, when asked, is capable of adjusting the temperature ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Researchers discover target for treating dengue fever

Two recent papers by a University of Colorado School of Medicine researcher and colleagues may help scientists develop treatments or vaccines for Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis and other ...