Below is the full text of 2 Letters to the Editor published on 1/13/23 and the Enterprise Editor’s note to the first one:
”Mayflower’s Power Play” (Daniel Shearer)
Enterprise – Editor’s note
”Thumbs Down On Mayflower” (Carol Ziemian)
Mayflower’s Power Play
After I wrote my previous Letter to the Editor, which was published in the Friday, January 6, 2023, edition concerning Mayflower Wind, the Town of Falmouth, and an editorial in the Enterprise, I received further information about Mayflower Wind’s attempts to obtain a carte blanche waiver for studies and construction of their cable through Falmouth Heights. Mayflower Wind has filed a petition for exemption from all Falmouth regulations and bylaws with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities for the construction and operation of new transmission facilities for delivery of energy from offshore wind farms. A further indication of their disregard for the concerns of the citizens of Falmouth.
Daniel H. Shearer
Old Dock Road
West Falmouth
Enterprise – Editor’s note: The Enterprise is working to research the specific zoning exemptions that Mayflower Wind has filed for with the Energy Facilities Siting Board, which are numerous. (We will report those findings in a future article.) However, the petition is not “a carte blanche waiver for … construction of their cables through Falmouth Heights,” if that is interpreted to mean that Falmouth does not have the ability to deny Mayflower permission to land their cables in Central Park or in the parkland along Worcester Avenue. According to Falmouth town counsel, if Town Meeting votes to deny Mayflower Wind an easement through town land in Falmouth Heights (which their current plans call for), state law does not allow the Energy Facilities Siting Board, or any other regulatory agency, to override that decision. Company officials say that, under Article 97 of the state constitution, they need Town Meeting approval to move forward with their current plans.
Thumbs Down On Mayflower
I applaud Daniel H. Shearer’s letter on January 6 as insightful concerning Mayflower Wind not being an American corporation. They have no skin in the game. They do not understand the densely populated residential nature of the Heights, the all-inclusive nature of her beaches and their value to the seashore Town of Falmouth. Their proposals give little to no consideration for those who have invested in and have come to love Falmouth and have shaped her traditions. Mayflower’s interest is driven by greed as it seeks the least-expensive route for its project.
Mr. Shearer’s support for the 4-1 select board decision of December 19 to deny Mayflower Wind access to town property to study landfall sites for its electric cables is spot-on. I attended the June 8 public forum and the select board meeting on December 19 and I am grateful that Falmouth residents were provided an opportunity by our select board to raise our voices and/or visually express our opposition for the Mayflower Wind Project. This is the best of all worlds and is what democracy is all about. Its substitute, “democrazy,” demonstrates the opposite, the worst of all possible worlds.
The article by Noelle Annonen in the January 10 E-edition of The Falmouth Enterprise, “Mayflower Wind Still Plans To Land Cables in Falmouth,” says, “Mayflower Wind plans to refile more detailed plans with the Energy Facilities Siting Board, which includes changes to the proposed transmission technology from high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) to high-voltage direct current (HVDC). Furthermore, it says, “The change from HVAC to HVDC current will reduce the footprint of the project’s inland substation from 15 acres to 6 acres, according to the company.”
The article quotes community liaison coordinator for Mayflower Wind Kelsey Perry: “The recent select board vote does not impact Mayflower Wind’s plans or timeline to refile the project’s EFSB petition.” Ms. Perry also told the Enterprise that Mayflower Wind was in the midst of surveying the sites and needed to finish work at the identified locations with the updated access agreements. She said the work must be completed in sequential phases. The company refrained from conducting site studies between Memorial Day and Labor Day to keep its promise to the town that it would not disrupt the tourist season.
How sad is this? The company promised to be forthcoming, answer our questions and hold public forums which we requested to be held on Saturdays so more residents could attend, and it never happened. Now we are supposed to believe their pause was to show respect for our tourist season. Please, spare us the insult to our intelligence. Mayflower’s delay was not motivated by their concern for the people of Falmouth; it was motivated by the hope for more American subsidies to finance their project due to increased costs driven by inflation and possible supply chain shortages.
Carol A. Ziemian
Amherst Avenue