Below is the full text of FHMNA’s response (written by President Dave Buzanoski with Board input) to The Falmouth Enterprise’s editorial published on 3/31/23 entitled “Thinking About a Mission Statement” which we emailed to you on 4/1/23.
This Letter to the Editor has been submitted for publication in the Enterprise this coming Friday, 4/7/23.
“A New Game in Town” (title changed to “Uninformed Editor” by Falmouth Enterprise staff when printed on 4/7)
I write with regard to The Enterprise editorial “Thinking About A Mission Statement” in the 3/31/23 edition. In one sense I get frustrated reading such an editorial, but on the other hand it demonstrates how many are ill informed.
Do you remember the childhood game “Rock, Paper, Scissors”? The nuovo version of this game is now “Climate, Environment, Community”. Any negative impact on the Environment or marine mammals… Climate wins. Any negative impact on a Community, or the people living therein… Climate wins again.
Our neighborhood association is a consensus-based organization. Not everyone agrees on everything, just like not everyone agrees with the editor. I was elected, and agreed to serve, because I agreed with each and every word of our mission statement, and if I didn’t, I would step down. I believe our mission is in the best interest of our residents and is consistent with the values and best interests of the Town of Falmouth. We completely understand the importance of climate action. However, the consequential and collateral negative impact on our environment which we have spent decades trying to protect, and impact on our communities and people cannot be ignored.
Our position from the start has been simple: an industrial application such as SouthCoast’s 1200MW cables does not belong in a residentially zoned densely populated community, and that goes for any of our similar coastal communities. We have endorsed the planned regional approach to transmission lines which has been promoted by numerous experts.
Can the editor tell me why cables via Falmouth Heights would be better for the climate or future generations than cables to an industrial location elsewhere?
Is the editor aware that the NE grid manager ISO/NE is currently conducting an “Interconnection Cluster Study” which has SouthCoast on hold?
Is the editor aware that the U.S. Dept of Energy is preparing an Atlantic Offshore Wind Transmission Study, not expected to be completed until end 2023?
Is the editor aware of the Joint State Innovative Partnership for Offshore Wind proposal which has been submitted to the U.S. Dept of Energy by CT/MA/RI/ME and supported by NH/VT?
As reported in the Boston Globe 3/29, the Healy administration is actively pursuing the proposed concept which would allow wind farms to share transmission lines to connect to the grid, save billions, and help avoid landfall conflicts.
With all due respect to the editor, there is nothing “modest or temporary about the negative impact” of 320,000 V cables undermining our beach, parks and roadways for 8.5 miles to a substation on Thomas Landers Rd. The inconvenience is temporary, but the negative impact is permanent.