Public Power - January/February 2008 - (Page 31) project. It counts among its supporters some very powerful people, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, state Senator Robert O’Leary and U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, along with organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States, the Cape & Islands Harbormasters Association, and a number of regional chambers of commerce. Save Our Sound contends that Massachusetts does not need the energy Cape Wind would produce because the state actually had an energy surplus in prior years. The group recommends land-based wind farms and energy conservation as alternatives to Cape Wind. It also raises the issue of aesthetics, an intangible that nonetheless is a very real concern for the organization. It refers to Cape Wind as the “industrial ruin of a pristine environment.” The worries of those who own vacation homes in Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod, or Nantucket are understandable. Given the high value of some properties in this region, Cape Wind might lower the tax base if it had a negative impact on the region. However, economic impact studies by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information Center show that wind farms have a positive economic effect on communities. One study looked at wind farms in three states—Minnesota, Oregon and Texas—and found that the projects “contributed to significant increases in employment, personal income, tax income, and landowner net revenues.” There is little doubt tax subsidies help spur the construction of wind farms. During the years the federal production tax credit was suspended, the construction of wind farms essentially stopped, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Environmental groups are less concerned than homeowners about the threat to wildlife posed by an offshore wind farm. The National Audubon Society said it www.APPAnet.org “strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming… Every source of energy has some environmental consequences. Most of today’s rapidly growing demand for energy is now being met by nat- and cost savings across the country, saving businesses, organizations, and consumers about $14 billion in 2006 alone. Over the past decade, Energy Star has been a driving force behind the more widespread use of such technological innovations as LED traf- “If we don’t find ways to reduce these emissions, far more birds—and people—will be threatened by global warming than by wind turbines.” ural gas and expanded coal-burning power plants, which are this country’s single greatest source of the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming. If we don’t find ways to reduce these emissions, far more birds—and people—will be threatened by global warming than by wind turbines.” The Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace all support wind farms. The World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace directly support the Cape Wind project. Save Our Sound has suggested the region does not need the energy; that conservation of electricity is the answer to the region’s growing energy demands. But, it is very unlikely that conservation alone would work. As mentioned earlier, energy demand is closely linked to economic growth: As the economy grows the demand for energy grows. Even if the economy goes into a downturn, the DOE is estimating energy demand will increase by 28 percent by 2030. Since 1992, DOE and the EPA have made a concerted effort to increase energy conservation and efficiency through their joint Energy Star program. During this time, the energy efficiency of our electronics has increased and the public is more aware of our need to conserve electricity. The program has been very successful. “Energy Star has successfully delivered energy fic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use.” Yet, demand for electricity continues to grow. More efficient electronics and conservation programs alone are not likely to stem this growth, so for the foreseeable future the United States must seek additional sources of power generation. On first glance, all the arguments raised against Cape Wind seem to have some merit. However, on closer examination these arguments don’t stand up. The region needs the power. The state needs the renewable power to meet its RPS requirement. The region is likely to gain jobs and, potentially, some high-skilled jobs. The wind farm is likely to have an overall positive effect on the local and state economy, and would probably have a positive effect on the tax base. And, while there would be some negative impact on wildlife, studies indicate it is likely to be relatively small and more preferable when balanced against the threat of global climate change and pollution that would result from fossil fuel power plants. It is possible to see some validity to some of the arguments opponents of Cape Wind have put forth, but when balanced against the alternatives—nuclear, coal, gas or no new generation at all—most of the negatives JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2008 31 http://www.APPAnet.org
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.