An altered path?

Well it seems well worn topics are nonetheless still in the news.  The Standard Times  has an article today on action in Falmouth relative to continued and expanded operation of the its two turbines. Wicked Local Cape Cod has a bit more detail on the story.

It is not officially a done deal at this point, however it seems that it soon will be.  At the root of it, well money.  Operation at twelve hours a day is costing Falmouth money.  Not simply in lost revenue, but in actual payout for loans and maintenance and operation.  

At this point in time, it seems the Falmouth selectmen have also essentially abandoned the "removal" option.  It seems the board as resigned itself to the results of the spring election against paying for removal.  I do in fact use the phrase "against paying for removable" because given the question put forth to the voters, it is pure speculation to argue that it was in favor of the turbines.  The question was clearly phrased in terms of paying for the cost of removal.

The town wide vote was overwhelmingly against paying for removal however.

Much of what is said here will have been touched upon before (thus the "well worn" designation).  It is still very relevant.  

Much of what goes on in Falmouth is very relevant to here in Fairhaven. The difference between the two communities is extremely significant however.  That difference is the fact Falmouth owns its turbines. Fairhaven does not.  Thus whatever resolution that may eventually happen in Falmouth, may not be possible in Fairhaven.

Cost of removal in Falmouth as noted in the various articles and in the past is $12.2 million to $15.2 million. Cost to do so in Fairhaven would be at least 25% more.  Falmouth doesn't have to worry about a loss of profit claim.  Fairhaven does.

As a note, the lower figure of around $5 million tossed out by some for removal in Falmouth assumes a forgiveness of grants and loans from the government entities involved, from what I can gather.

That is the hard line "money fact:".  No escaping it.  No disguising it as just $150,000 per year loss.

There is one caveat though:

A finding, a sustainable decision, an appeal proof determination that the turbines operate in violation of the law, with no possible mitigation. Either something like that is needed or a change in the law that can be applied retroactively.

Threat of lawsuits is not a reason to shut them down otherwise.  Shut them down and you are going to be sued no matter what.  It has always been, and remains a red herring argument based on existing regulations and laws.

Laws and regulations do however change.  If that happens, whether there can be a retroactive application becomes the issue. It becomes crucial in fact.  If and when that happens.

Also, and just as importantly, no one should forget that the testing being conducted is not final.  Everyone seems to be so quick to hang their hats on the results released in May.  The mitigation plan has not yet be proven to work.  The final results and analysis are not out.  Those little points, whether there is compliance, or whether a mitigation plan can bring the turbines into compliance are not established.

It is what it is folks, and it is still a mess.

No matter how many times you travel down a road, there always seems to be something new along the path.

Be safe.