(The Town Meeting Article is printed below this letter.)
I write with regard to the Enterprise article on January 27, “Town Meeting To Vote On Mayflower Wind.” From the petition submitted, as you mention, Mayflower is not specifically mentioned, so hardly is this a vote on Mayflower Wind. (Note, especially now that Mayflower has changed its name to SouthCoast Wind Energy.) This petition is essentially a “carte blanche” permission to any wind developer who wants to do soil testing anywhere in Falmouth. I consider this to be ludicrous and an absolute abdication of responsibility to the people of the Town of Falmouth.
As we have repeated from the beginning of discussion of the Mayflower matter, we are not opposed to renewable clean energy as Ms. Carey seems to indicate. Furthermore, Ms. Carey apparently has used words similar to those the one dissenting member of the select board used: “This is for future generations and our kids and grandkids.” Does she really think that cable landfall at Falmouth Heights would benefit “future generations and grandkids” any more than a landfall at Brayton Point or the like? I believe she entirely misses the point; these cables do not belong in a densely populated residential community, period.
There are now multiple studies reflecting that a coordinated regional planned approach is necessary and in fact the six New England states have recently made a proposal to the US Department of Energy. The proposed approach is focused on developing more transmission for offshore wind, and building a coordinated transmission offshore to allow projects to connect back to the grid in more-strategic locations, and reduce the upgrades needed on land. Such a system could reduce rates and be more reliable and resilient than one in which wind developers independently plan how their projects connect with the transmission system, according to the proposal.
Healthy debate is a good thing; name calling and village against village are hardly constructive.
For residents located relatively far from the intended landfall site to be calling our community NIMBY, is in itself exactly the definition of NIMBY when they call for such a project to go in someone else’s community. I’ve yet to see any of these name-callers propose or volunteer their own communities as a landing site for this project.
This is a town-wide issue which will affect us all for decades, not just our neighborhood, but an approximately eight-mile route through the town to Thomas B. Landers Road, where a proposed oversized substation will be built.
Let’s get together on this and do what’s right for Falmouth.
Warrant for the April 10, 2023 Annual Town Meeting, Falmouth Enterprise, page 10:
ARTICLE 15: To see if Town Meeting will vote in favor of allowing offshore wind developers the right of entry to conduct soil investigations and studies to assess the feasibility of horizontal directional drilling in Town-owned parcels. This right of entry to conduct physical investigation agreements will grant offshore wind developers only temporary access to conduct said investigations and studies. Any offshore wind electric cable landing on or siting of facilities on any other Town-owned property must be approved by the Select Board or other Town bodies with jurisdiction over such matters.
The Agreement will allow the Town to better assess the feasibility of an interconnection with offshore renewable energy projects that would facility the decarbonization of the Massachusetts electric grid and assist the Commonwealth in achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 consistent with state climate law and the Climate Emergency declared by the Town of Falmouth in 2020.
On petition of Alessandro Bocconcelli, Linda Bowers, Rosemary Carey, Eleanor Ling, David Mark Welch, Scott Mueller, Matthew Patrick.