November 23rd, 2010
02:26 AM ET

Massachusetts OKs power deal for offshore wind project

The nation's first proposed offshore wind farm got another big boost Monday, when Massachusetts' utility regulator approved a 15-year power purchase between the project's developer and its first client, National Grid.

Developers still need to secure permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Still, Monday's announcement marks a major milestone for the effort, giving the project a much-needed revenue stream ahead of planned construction.

"It is abundantly clear that the Cape Wind facility offers significant benefits that are not currently available from any other renewable resource," Ann Berwick, chair of the state utilities department, wrote in a press release. "These benefits outweigh the costs of the project."

The Cape Wind project, which has bitterly divided residents and power brokers in Massachusetts for the past decade, consists of 130 wind turbines to be located off the coast in the iconic Nantucket Sound.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a champion of green energy and recreational sailor whose family compound in Hyannis, Massachusetts, would overlook the turbines, was among those who opposed the effort. But it had the support of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, and, ultimately, President Obama's administration.

Post by:
Filed under: Environment • Politics
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. LOW LYF


    November 23, 2010 at 4:00 am | Report abuse |
  2. what

    Use solar,ruin the nantucket for wind crap 1 billon ea, sure politicans love green (money).greed,cheaper to use solar

    November 23, 2010 at 6:10 am | Report abuse |
  3. termlimits

    "These benefits outweigh the costs of the project." Why don't they ask the taxpayer about the costs? A holes!

    November 23, 2010 at 6:42 am | Report abuse |
  4. Homer Simpson

    because what you the taxpayer wants does not matter, there is money to be made, and your going to pay for it want or not, nice policy guys, who is benefiting? And who owns or works for that co.

    November 23, 2010 at 9:35 am | Report abuse |
  5. The Dude

    What you taxpayers want is big, fat gas guzzling SUVs and an unsustainable lifestyle built on waste, selfishness and disregard for the planet... morons all.

    But you'll still have Dancing With The Stars.

    November 23, 2010 at 9:47 am | Report abuse |
  6. Homer Simpson

    even homer drink less beer, whats this sustainability thingy?

    November 23, 2010 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
  7. Homer Simpson

    how much fuel does nascar use every year? Practice, time trials, r&d, race day, transportation for all things involved? Racing worldwide? Wow! What a waste! Who really is going to care who's car is faster when we have no fossil fuels?

    November 23, 2010 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
  8. Richard in Texas

    Low lyf. Forget coal let's go back to wood. Its plentiful and renewable. How green is that!

    November 23, 2010 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  9. Richard in Texas

    Just build the thing. What is the worst that can happen? Job creation and clean power ?

    November 23, 2010 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
  10. The Dude

    @Richard... Fukinabubba! As long as new hardwoods are planted every year equal, in number, to the amount cut down for firewood it is carbon neutral. Obviously not a solution for city dwellers, but for us in the burbs it works quite well.

    Coal and oil, which is basically "grave robbing", has never been good karma.

    November 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |