(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...What is the amendment # of the bill filed by Rep Don Young of Alaska against Cape Wind Power Mass.?
This is concerning the Cape Wind project off Cape code Mass. It is an amendment to restrict projects within 1 1/2 miles of shipping lanes.
Posted in 
Tags: One Response to “What is the amendment # of the bill filed by Rep Don Young of Alaska against Cape Wind Power Mass.?”
This was a particularly mind-numbing investigation, but what I turned up was this– In the CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 889, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2006 (House of Representatives – April 06, 2006) under Title IV (Miscellaneous) of page H1660, section 414, ‘Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation,’ it says:
“Section 419 of the House bill requires the Coast Guard to provide an opinion in writing that states whether a proposed wind energy facility would create an obstruction to navigation in any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).”
“The Senate bill does not contain a comparable provision.”
“The Conference substitute adopts a provision that prohibits the construction of an offshore wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound unless approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard.”
——-
What made this tricky, other than the obtuse legalese everything is written in, is that there are five versions of H.R.889, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and even though I had read through the entire bill, I never found the above mentioned section 419. This was because I had read one of the versions that doesn’t have a section 419 listed under miscellaneous!
The Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House version of H.R.889 (Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005) states in section 419, ‘Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation’:
“In any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide an opinion in writing that states whether the proposed facility would create an obstruction to navigation.”
Of the eleven officially documented amendments to the bill (7 passed, 1 failed, 3 withdrawn), I found nothing to indicate Section 419, Cape Wind, or offshore wind energy facilities, meaning that it must have only been adopted through a conference proposal as sited in the April 6th report.
As best I can understand it, all that remains now of Young’s efforts to change the bill is the authorization of the Coast Guard Commandant to issue the final ruling on the safe proximity of a wind structure to the shipping lanes, not the originally proposed 1.5 mile restriction. This is the standard procedure that most countries that have these off shore windmills follow, allowing their coast guard equivalent to rule on their placement on a case by case basis. So, I’m not sure what’s so upsetting about this, unless they suspect that the US Coast Guard is in somebody’s pocket and will rule unfairly.
As an aside, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), in conjunction with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), has proposed new legislation that would give the govenor of Massachusetts the power to halt the Cape Wind project.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109jZo1MP:e232113:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-889
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109OUYEo2:e58155:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/07/cape_wind_is_dealt_a_setback/
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43890
Report this comment