Even apart from its misconceptions about wind energy, your July 5 editorial, "Saving the Cape Wind Project,” seems like a strange one for the Washington Times.

As an avid reader of the Times for years, I had come to expect your editorials to be factually sound and to reflect a deep appreciation for smaller government, market forces over government subsidies, and government decisions based on rigorous benefit-cost analysis.

However, all these principled positions are overturned by a single editorial.

If the Times editorial staff had been paying attention to current information about “wind energy,” you would know that:

· “Wind farms,” including the Cape project, are being built primarily for their tax benefits and subsidies – not because of their energy or environmental benefits.

· Commercial wind turbines are huge (30 – 40 story) machines that produce very little electricity.

· The electricity that is produced is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and most likely to be produced when least needed (at night and in winter).

· Claimed environmental benefits of “wind energy” are greatly overstated and environmental, scenic and property value costs are greatly understated by DOE and the wind industry.

· Current federal and state policies promoting “wind energy” are faulty and are:
     a. Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a few large companies, and
     b. Misdirecting billions of capital investment dollars to energy projects (“wind farms”) that produce very little electricity.

Faulty “wind energy” policies – as well as other federal energy policies that the Times normally would be criticizing -- have been brought to us by the “heroes” of your editorial, Senators Domenici and Bingaman and a few others such as Grassley and Dorgan who daily demonstrate their allegiance to big government, big spending and big targeted tax breaks for special interests.

You should have suspected that something was wrong with your editorial when you endorsed the position of Greenpeace, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists and the Sierra Club whose positions are, more often than not, questioned by the Times.

You have fallen prey to popular wisdom about wind energy. The fact that a poll shows 80% of Massachusetts residents are in favor of the Cape Wind project is hardly surprising or convincing, given the years of false and misleading information from the wind industry and the US DOE. Normally, the Times would be willing to question such popular wisdom. Would the Times be equally respectful of the poll if it had showed that 80% of the folks in Massachusetts were opposed to construction of a nuclear or coal-fired generating plant or an
oil refinery?

I suspect that your editorial is little more than a desire to “stick it to” Senator Ted Kennedy for his apparent hypocrisy in opposing Cape Wind’s monstrous turbines in his front yard while condoning the huge, low output machines most anyplace else. Perhaps there is also some other reason for your exuberance in “playing up to” Senators Domenici and Bingaman.

It’s time for the Times to catch up with the truths about “wind energy.” In fact, “wind farms,” including the Cape project, make little sense from a national and public interest point of view.

Washington Times Editorial July 5, 2006 

New Mexico's senators, Republican Pete Domenici and Democrat Jeff Bingaman,
have shown how bipartisan leadership can produce real results as America
begins to confront its myriad energy challenges, especially those relating to
increasing dependence on hydrocarbons. Two recent developments confirm their
bipartisan success.

First, in embracing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent license for
the construction and operation of the New Mexico-based National Enrichment
Facility, Messrs. Bingaman and Domenici cashed a major nuclear-power policy
dividend from the 2005 Energy Policy Act that they shepherded through Congress.

Second, using their power and influence as chairman (Mr. Domenici) and ranking
minority member (Mr. Bingaman) of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, they succeeded in killing an ill-advised amendment attached to the
Coast Guard reauthorization proposal; in doing so, they removed a major hurdle
confronting America's premier offshore renewable-energy project.

Having already proceeded through nearly five years of Massachusetts and
federal regulatory processes, Cape Wind, if ultimately approved, would construct
130 wind turbines in a 24-square-mile area of Nantucket Sound. The project
could supply 75 percent of the electricity needs for Cape Cod and the islands
of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. In addition to being backed by Greenpeace,
the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Cape Wind project is supported by more than 80 percent
of Massachusetts residents, according to a recent poll of 600 respondents.

However, by giving Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, an avowed opponent, veto
power over Cape Wind, the controversial amendment would have effectively
destroyed the project. The negotiated settlement provides for the commandant of
the Coast Guard to "specify the reasonable terms and conditions [he]
determines to be necessary to provide for navigational safety" in the Cape Wind area.

Threatening a filibuster, Messrs. Domenici and Bingaman were determined to
enforce the siting and other regulatory provisions that they had meticulously
developed in last year's Energy Policy Act. Making the case that the act's
siting model was "sound," Mr. Domenici argued that it "gives the Coast Guard
and other federal agencies a voice; it gives local and state governments a
voice; but it prevents local special interests from torpedoing a reasonable and
much-needed energy project in federal waters." Mr. Bingaman said that the
agreement "ensures that Cape Wind's proposal will receive a fair and unbiased
consideration on the merits," which is all that Cape Wind has wanted from the
beginning. Thanks to the bipartisanship of New Mexico's senators, that
apparently will now happen.