Public Power - January/February 2008 - (Page 30) Green Energy = Mean Energy? It depends on how the package is presented to the public. BY RON KEITH th growing pessure in states and Congress to boost the proportion of electricity needs met by renewable resources, a proposal to build a 170-MW off-shore wind farm that would enable Massachusetts to move closer to its renewable energy goals would seem like an easy sale. But the project, which could potentially have an electric generating capacity of 450 MW, encountered fierce opposition from some well-heeled opponents. The experience of Cape Wind is a cautionary tale for energy producers of any sort—green or otherwise. The Cape Wind story speaks to the importance of a meaningful public participation process. An off-shore wind farm would seem to be a welcome development in Massachusetts. The state enacted a renewable portfolio standard in 1997 that requires all electricity suppliers to make renewable resources a growing part of their power supply mix. The Massachusetts Electric Utility Act of 1997 required utilities to meet 1 percent of electricity needs from renewable resources by 2003. That threshold rises 0.5 percent a year, to 4 percent in 2009. After 2009, the requirement would continue to rise 1 percent a year until the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources decides to cap the requirement. In 2005, the requirement stood at a very modest 2 percent. Retail energy sales in Massachusetts were about 51.6 million MWh, of which 664,000 came from renewable sources. This amounted to a little more than 1.3 percent of total retail electricity sales. Utilities were required to meet the remaining renewable energy requirement by making alternative compliance payments (ACPs), cash payments to a fund for encouraging development and use of renewable energy resources. In spite of a requirement to have only 2 percent of the state’s retail energy sales 30 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2008 Wi come from renewable energy resources, and having nearly eight years to comply, the Massachusetts utilities had to meet more than 35 percent of their obligation through alternative compliance payments. Cape Wind project managers expect the project to generate 1.6 million MWh, nearly three times the amount of electricity produced by renewable resources in Massachusetts in 2005. The threat of global warming to Massachusetts in particular would seem to make meeting the renewable portfolio standard a high priority in the state. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientist on the potential effects of global climate change on the Northeast portrayed a dire future for the state. “Even as human pressures mount, wind and waves have been steadily reshaping Cape Cod,” the UCS report said. “The sea reclaimed three square miles of the shoreline between 1951 and 1990, and the peninsula has continued to lose an estimated 33 acres of land each year since then—about three-quarters of it to inundation by rising seas and the rest to active erosion by surf and storm waves According to U.S. Geological Survey projections, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island and Martha’s Vineyard are among the areas in the Northeast most at risk from accelerated sea-level rise The prospect of greater storm damage combined with the escalating value of the properties at risk recently prompted major insurers to cancel thousands of homeowners’ policies on Cape Cod. Sea-level rise also creates the potential for saltwater intrusion into freshwater wetlands and Cape Cod’s freshwater aquifer—especially when compounded by increased groundwater pumping to provide drinking water for a growing population. Continued ocean warming may cause the cod that were once such an important part of the local economy to disappear from the waters off the south coast of Cape Cod during this century. These waters are also likely to lose their lobster fishery by mid-century.” The Cape Wind project would consist of 130 wind turbines, each capable of generating 3.6 megawatts. The average output of the wind farm is expected to be 170 MW, but the expected maximum output could be as much as 454 MW. On Dec. 16, 2005, The New York Times published an editorial by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called “An Ill Wind off Cape Cod.” Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, outlined his opposition to the Cape Wind project. (He did not mention in his editorial, though he might have considered it common knowledge, that his family owns a compound in Hyannis Port on Cape Cod, with views of Nantucket Sound.) Offshore wind would be “twice as expensive as gas-fired electricity” and a wind farm would not be financially feasible without federal and state subsidies, Kennedy said. The “whirling turbines” could kill “thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks” every year and would disrupt fishing, he said. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University estimated that up to 2,533 tourism jobs would be lost, and the local economy could lose more than $1 billion due to the loss of tourism, Kennedy said. Primarily, Kennedy was concerned about the effects the wind farm would have on the “wilderness” of Nantucket Sound and Horseshoe Shoal. He evoked images of pods of whales, “harbor and gray seals lolling on the bars of Monomoy and Horseshoe Shoal,“ and “dark clouds of terns and seabirds.” He argued that the wind farm should be built farther offshore, away from Nantucket Sound. Save Our Sound (which also operates as the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound) represents opponents of the Cape Wind PUBLIC POWER
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.