VINEYARD GAZETTE | ONLINE

The maple wears a gayer scarf, The field a scarlet gown. Lest I should be old-fashioned, I’ll put a trinket on. - Emily Dickinson

State Rep. Tim Madden Joins Chorus of Critics Over Draft Oceans Plan

By JULIA WELLS

The draft Oceans Management Plan is a rush job, based on hastily-assembled data with little or no real analysis that is simply a means to an end: the rapid development of wind power generation in waters off the coast of Massachusetts, said Cape and Islands Rep. Timothy Madden this week.

And Mr. Madden said Vineyard residents are justified in their outrage at the plan, which effectively strips the Island of regulatory control over the development of wind power plants on the ocean that is its backyard, by diluting the powers of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.

“This was a very fast track and I am quite skeptical about the outcome,” Mr. Madden said in an interview with the Gazette on Wednesday afternoon. “But there was a method to the madness.”

Mr. Madden and Vineyard legislative liaison Nell Coogan said the original Oceans Act legislation, drafted more than two years ago, contained language protecting the powers of the MVC, but at some point along the way the language was removed. Mr. Madden, who was elected last fall, was not on Beacon Hill when the bill was passed. But Ms. Coogan was working as an aide to the Senate Ways and Means Committee at the time and was directly involved with the bill. And she said there was clear language protecting the powers of the commission. “It was in,” Ms. Coogan said. “[Cape and Islands Sen. Rob] O’Leary was clear about keeping it in. But at some point along the way it got stripped out, and we don’t know when or why.”

The remarks from the Cape and Islands legislative delegation in the House come just a week before state spokesmen are due to travel to the Vineyard for a second public meeting to discuss the increasingly controversial oceans plan, which aims to develop rules and regulations to accompany the Oceans Act. At a packed public hearing late last month that went on for some four hours, a wide array of Islanders aimed sharp criticism at the plan, calling it poorly drawn and politically motivated. Among other things, the plan has targeted two areas as the only places in state waters suitable for the development of commercial wind power: one off Cuttyhunk and the other off Noman’s Land.

Spokesmen from the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs said they would respond to the testimony, and that response is expected at the public meeting set for Wednesday, Oct. 21 at the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School cafeteria. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Madden said he plans to attend. But he said he does not expect that Ian Bowles, state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, will be present. “It will be someone else, someone much further down the ladder,” Mr. Madden said. “And I think you will get very guarded responses, it will be, ‘We’re not sure,’ that sort of thing.”

Mr. Madden was on the Vineyard Wednesday afternoon to attend an affordable home groundbreaking ceremony at Lambert’s Cove. He and Ms. Coogan stopped by the Gazette after the ceremony for a brief interview, and both were blunt in their concerns about the draft oceans plan.

The plan has drawn howls of protest from selectmen in all six Island towns. With the unanimous backing of the selectmen, two weeks ago the Martha’s Vineyard Commission voted to nominate a district of critical planning concern (DCPC) for the ocean waters around the Island. The nomination triggers an automatic building moratorium; a public hearing on the DCPC is set for Nov. 5. If the commission votes to designate the DCPC the building moratorium will continue for a year, possibly a recipe for more jurisdictional conflict between the Vineyard and the state. The commission also has submitted 12 pages of critical comments on the draft oceans plan, calling on the state to give the Vineyard more direct involvement. The public comment period on the plan ends Nov. 23; a final plan is due Dec. 31.

Island bird experts are among the many critics of the plan, claiming that the avian study for it used no data from the Vineyard.

Mr. Madden said this week that he believes the drafters of the plan simply lifted avian studies that were done by the Cape Wind developers who want to build a wind turbine plant on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.

And he said without question the chief architect of the oceans plan is Ian Bowles.

“This is Ian Bowles’s plan. Ian Bowles is very pro-wind and he wants to see these things get done, and done quickly,” Mr. Madden said.

He also said the highly controversial Cape Wind project, which was in the pipeline long before the oceans plan was drafted and has still not received final federal approval, has complicated the public process around the oceans plan. “Everything was so polarized already around Cape Wind that nobody was objective anymore. If Cape Wind wasn’t already out there we would have been able to have a good, objective airing [of the oceans plan],” he said.

Meanwhile, opposition continues to grow on the Vineyard. A delegation of Island leaders that includes one selectman from each town, one representative from the county and one from the tribe have formally requested a meeting with Gov. Deval Patrick. Mr. Madden said he is working to arrange the meeting but so far he has received no firm answer from the governor’s office. “The governor’s schedule is booked through October, and we are told they are working on something for after that. We want to make that happen, I think it’s a good thing to do; I’d like to think it’s going to happen. But I’ll believe it when I see it,” he said.

As the plan is now drawn, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission’s powers would be severely curtailed for reviewing commercial wind projects. The commission would be allowed to review the projects as developments of regional impact, but appeals of MVC decisions, instead of taking the usual route to a superior court, would go to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board, a board stacked with political appointments by the governor.

Also this week, a citizens group formed and has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the Chilmark Community Center. “Let Vineyarders Decide,” the group slogan declares.

“Right now you have a [plan] that kind of has a life of its own,” Mr. Madden concluded.

» Share Your Feedback

Reader Feedback

Friday, October 16, 2009 7:16am

It is interesting that the MV Commission might have regulatory powers over the oceans. If you look at any nautical chart of the Vineyard you will see that we are several miles off the coast - more than the 3 mile limit. Take a kayak ride and pretty soon you are in international waters. In any case, even in US waters, how does the Commission have power over the oceans surrounding the island? How far would it extend? 100 yards? 1 mile? 3 miles? 6 miles? line of sight from flat land? line of sight from the top of a lighthouse? middle of the Atlantic Ocean? Just curious.

- Frank Brunelle , VH

Friday, October 16, 2009 3:24pm

The Commission's authority extends to the same limit as the towns', essentially the 3-mile limit of state waters.

Mark London, MVC

- Mark London , Oak Bluffs

Saturday, October 17, 2009 5:38pm

I will trade you Oak Ridge Nuclear Lab, Nuclear Fuel Services, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant plus The Kinston Coal Plant for your wind farm. You should be glad you have wind, it could be much worse.

- Nathan Coggins , Jonesborough,TN

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:43pm

Government officials should carefully check plans before facilitating them! By the way,
Thank You for the post. I love to read interesting post that has knowledge to impart. These kinds of post are very helpful to me to increase my knowledge on different facts about life and other matters. I hope to read more articles from you and in return I will post also my articles in the forum so that others can benefit from it. Keep up the good work!

- Gold , Lakewood, California

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:15am

Do you really think our state reps are looking out for our best interest ?
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091017/NEWS/910170328

Wind turbine dealer misses restitution deadline

var isoPubDate = 'October 17, 2009'By BECKY W. EVANS
revans@s-t.com
October 17, 2009 12:00 AM

Former state Rep. Mark Howland, owner of a Freetown-based wind turbine company that was shut down for misleading consumers, has failed to pay nearly $500,000 in restitution to the state Attorney General's Office.

A consent agreement reached last October set a deadline of Oct. 9, 2009, for Howland of WindTech-Co. to pay $488,000 in restitution. Howland notified the agency on Oct. 8 that he would not be making the payment, said Attorney General's Office spokeswoman Jill Butterworth.

According to the agreement, Howland now owes $638,000 in restitution. The Attorney General's Office has the right to foreclose on his property, although Howland's attorney has asked for additional time to market the property.

Howland lost his former Freetown home at 15 Mohawk Ave. to the bank weeks before it burned in a suspicious fire last November. He owns three parcels of undeveloped land, totaling some 26 acres, off Howland Road in Lakeville.

"The deadline for Mr. Howland to pay the restitution is past due and the Attorney General's Office intends to take whatever action is appropriate to obtain money for consumers entitled to restitution," said Butterworth.

Howland did not return phone calls and e-mail seeking comment Friday.

In March 2007, the Attorney General's Office filed a complaint in Bristol Superior Court and received an emergency court order to shut down WindTech-Co. and place a freeze on Howland's bank accounts.

Howland was accused of violating the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by misleading consumers, making false and misleading representations in promoting the sale of wind turbines, failing to install turbines paid for by consumers and providing unsafe wind turbine installations. The Attorney General's Office identified more than 160 consumers, many in Southeastern Massachusetts, who were affected by the company's faulty wind turbines.

Under the consent agreement, Howland is prohibited from operating a business involved in the sale and installation of alternative energy systems, specifically wind turbine and hybrid wind turbine/photo-voltaic systems.

David Silvia of East Freetown said he purchased two defective wind turbines from Howland. He said he invested about $16,000 in the systems and has to date received about $1,200 in restitution from the Attorney General's Office.

Silvia said it was "kind of discouraging" to hear that Howland had failed to meet the deadline for the restitution payment.

"I was hoping the money would come through," he said. "I stretched myself pretty thin to do this. I thought it was the right thing for the environment."

After the defective turbines were removed from his property, Silvia purchased a larger turbine from another supplier. He said he has been mostly happy with that turbine and would like to install solar panels to further lessen his carbon footprint. To finance the project, however, he must wait until he receives full restitution

- Bill Carson , Marion

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:07am

Fast Track!!! Hmmm!! Must be drinking from the same fountain some of our new Washington elite some americans put in office!!!CHANGE??? It is change! no more change in your pocket!!! PUSH BACK AMERICA,even vinyarders!!!!

- Joe , Aquinnah

Print Article

Send link by email