All Roads Lead Back To The Good Neighbor Agreement

I watched the performance on Tuesday night.

For mid-November on Nantucket, it wasn’t bad.

Granted, Nicole Kidman wasn’t on stage and Elin Hilderbrand was off-island. But to some, it did check several of the necessary politically correct boxes as the Select Board and the citizens of Nantucket stare down a mid-December mitigation deadline when BOEM is expected to issue its record of decision for SouthCoast Wind’s turbine project off Nantucket’s south shore.

Produced by Will Cook and Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners and directed by chairperson Brooke Mohr and the Nantucket Select Board, these entities put on a command performance of solidarity by using BOEM’s request for mitigation as a vehicle to redirect the growing angst and frustration in the Nantucket community surrounding the Select Board’s unwavering support of the Good Neighbor Agreement toward SouthCoast Wind.

Was it an effective strategy?

With Siskel & Ebert giving it two thumbs down, it appears the answer is a resounding “No.”

Instead, the evening’s performance only cemented the public’s fears that these two organizations are joined at the hip as they refuse to listen to the will of the people.

What gave it away at the outset was the evening’s playbill which was laid out to everyone who participated. By design, it narrowed the focus of the public forum to an unreasonable level by denying anyone wishing to comment the opportunity to couple the disastrous impact Vineyard Wind and the existing Good Neighbor Agreement has had on Nantucket with the mitigation proposal being offered for SouthCoast Wind.

Clearly, this nexus is the key to understanding what legitimate options Nantucket has moving forward. In addition to stifling the community’s ability to have what it desperately wants, Tuesday night’s myopic approach prevented what this community desperately needs. And despite the fact this forum was the ideal setting, especially with the legal firm that put us here to begin with in the room, speakers were routinely reprimanded when attempting to bring the Good Neighbor Agreement into focus as a compelling part of the larger mitigation discussion.

To be fair, the forum did produce some suggestions from the public as a response to BOEM’s woefully inadequate mitigation proposal. For example, the inclusion of an iron-clad emergency response plan, hundreds of millions if not billions set aside for decommissioning, ALDS upgrades, and moving all future turbines outside of Nantucket’s viewshed seemed to be the most popular.

But just as important as these mitigation suggestions were, there was another unspoken message that came through loud and clear that Chairperson Mohr and the Select Board tried hard not to hear.

And that is: All roads lead back to the Good Neighbor Agreement.

I know it.

You know it.

Those who sat through almost 3 hours of the “hybrid community forum” at the Public Safety Facility at 4 Fairgrounds Road know it.

Dozens of concerned citizens who participated via Zoom know it.

The over 2,000 individuals and the over 150 businesses who signed Jesse Sandole’s petition asking the Select Board to withdraw from the GNA know it.

Even the Maria Mitchell Association now knows it.

And while the Select Board refuses to acknowledge it, the obvious elephant in the room is the Good Neighbor Agreement.

By way of review, how does the Good Neighbor Agreement that was signed by the Select Board in August of 2020 and proposed to “establish a long-term relationship between Vineyard Wind and the Nantucket parties” play a role in today’s discussion about SouthCoast Wind and the mitigation proposal?

There are many connections; however, one of the most powerful is the fact that Nantucket, Tuckernuck and Muskeget are recognized as National Historic Landmarks. We are afforded the highest level of protection under the National Historic Preservation Act including Section 106 which deals with the mitigation consulting process.

However, when signing the Good Neighbor Agreement with Vineyard Wind LLC, Nantucket withdrew from the Section 106 consulting process for all of the offshore wind developer’s projects. In fact, the Memorandum of Agreement with Vineyard Wind 1 lists the Nantucket consulting parties as “Withdrawn” as required by the GNA. By abandoning this process that covered five separate projects outside of SouthCoast Wind, it set a dangerous precedent that continues to haunt Nantucket to this day.

For example, that decision enabled Vineyard Wind to dodge the full gauntlet of the consulting process; and ultimately, avoid real mitigation that actually could have done something to minimize the impact on Nantucket. Clearly, the protection afforded Nantucket through the National Preservation Act and Section 106 was priceless. However, in my opinion, with a stroke of the Select Board’s pen on the Good Neighbor Agreement, that protection was tossed away and we became advocates for Vineyard Wind even though the Select Board and Cultural Heritage Partners maintain that we received more through the GNA than we could have through the mitigation process.

Today, while we sit in silence, Vineyard Wind, New England Wind (2) and the other projects that are covered under the GNA are moving forward with their plans to build approximately 350 additional turbines off our south shore beaches without the fear of any official public backlash from Nantucket. Since we are now viewed as a “good neighbor” with Vineyard Wind, how can anyone take Nantucket seriously when we complain about SouthCoast Wind and BOEM’s mitigation proposal?

What further ties Vineyard Wind and the Good Neighbor Agreement to SouthCoast Wind’s mitigation discussion is the level of “adverse impact”.

Despite Will Cook’s attempt to dodge Veronica Bonnet’s question, the record of decision for NE Wind in April of 2024 lists Vineyard Wind’s adverse impact as “Major” while the adverse impact from SouthCoast Wind is considered “Moderate”.

Presently, Nantucket and Vineyard Wind do have a mitigation agreement in place covering the five separate projects under the GNA. It is an embarrassingly insignificant mitigation plan highlighted by painted turbine blades; and so far, a non-operating ADLS.

That precedent-setting mitigation plan includes a major adverse impact scenario. Clearly, it created a road map for BOEM’s mitigation proposal covering SouthCoast Wind and its moderate impact scenario on Nantucket. Knowing what the ceiling would be, we should have expected the floor and we got it with BOEM’s most recent proposal centered around “$150K to cover historic surveys and archaeological overviews.”

That’s a far cry from Tuesday night’s forum where the Nantucket community had visions of billions of dollars for mitigation and decommissioning, relocated turbines, and an air-tight emergency response plan dancing in their heads.

Frankly, Nantucket’s wish list does not seem unreasonable in light of the potential environmental and economic disasters that are sitting right off our south coast beaches. However, the idea of getting SouthCoast Wind and BOEM to agree to anything close to that is only a pipe dream when governmental officials reviewing this project are well aware of the moderate impact and view Nantucket as a “supporting party” of Vineyard Wind via the GNA.

Additionally, as international energy companies drop out of the wind farm race and the US falls well below various offshore wind benchmarks leading up to the 2030 deadline, do you really think the present administration is going to slow down the permitting process for SouthCoast Wind?

As one person told me a few weeks ago who is close to the negotiations, “Right now, the federal government is just trying to throw as many turbines into the ocean as possible before the election. After that, they don’t give a sh*t…”

Tuesday’s forum, while noble, was too little - too late. In fact, Will Cook admitted that the Memorandum of Agreement was circulated months ago and a public forum could have happened then. Instead, here we are today with less than four weeks to go before BOEM takes action paving the way for SouthCoast Wind to do its part in fulfilling Executive Order #14008 which calls for the production of 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030.

Nantucket has a proud history of fierce independence and unrivaled survival skills. We have scratched, clawed, fought, harpooned, negotiated, and protected our unique rights as an island community with a distinctive swagger through the test of time.

It’s in our DNA.

It’s our Quan.

In fact, Chairperson Mohr referred to that fighting spirit in her November 8th open letter to the Nantucket community when she wrote, “As your elected leadership, it is our responsibility to fight for our community and protect what makes us unique…”

It’s time to put those words into action.

This isn’t about “feeling good.” This is about survival.

The political climate has changed. The Select Board needs to get out in front of this and seize upon the growing sense of strength and the community’s desire to push back and do whatever it takes to stop this offshore madness including withdrawing from the Good Neighbor Agreement and initiating immediate legal action to protect Nantucket.

Laying down in silence and watching new turbines appear on our horizon on a regular basis while remaining a partner in the Good Neighbor Agreement is not the answer.

And, it’s simply not our style.