Follow Us

Subscribe to our blog

Your email:

About AIM

A full-service resource for Massachusetts employers - issues, HR services, training, insurance. Visit our home page.

 HealthCostBlogIcon

Posts by category

AIM Business Insider

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Cape Wind Underscores Electricity Cost Issues Facing Employers

  
  
  
The controversial Cape Wind offshore generation project underscores a delicate balance faced by Massachusetts employers: How do you support environmentally friendly power generation when it carries a price premium and you already pay the highest electric rates in the country?

AIM has been quoted extensively in the national media during the past month on the feasibility of Cape Wind and other renewable energy projects. We believe it is important to state our position clearly.

The utility National Grid is currently negotiating with Cape Wind for a long-term power contract that could run as long as 15 years. With contracted prices expected to be in the 15-17 cent per kWh range, Cape Wind power will be almost double the going rate for power generated by highly efficient and clean natural gas fired power plants.

Massachusetts prohibited utilities from entering into long-term power contracts from 1997 through last year, when legislation again allowed such agreements for renewable power. The potential length of the National Grid/Cape Wind contract and the sheer size of Cape Wind add up to extensive price exposure for residential and business ratepayers.

AIM opposes long-term contracts for any type of power. The agreements lock utilities into prices that may not be to the long-term benefit of the ratepayer, who carries all the risk - if power prices later fall, the utility is obligated to pay the higher prices until the contract ends. The risk is particularly problematic for large and expensive renewable projects like Cape Wind.

The cost of power is nothing short of a survival issue for Massachusetts employers, who in some cases pay twice what competitors in other states pay to turn on the lights. AIM has worked for years to moderate the cost of electricity because skyrocketing rates reduce the competitiveness of Massachusetts employers and impede their ability to create jobs for the people of the commonwealth.

AIM believes that the most efficient (and hence the cheapest) renewable power should be purchased first to minimize costs to ratepayer. We should not be paying a premium for symbolic gestures. Buying the cheapest available renewable power - onshore or offshore; wind, solar or biomass - will produce the greatest environmental benefits at the cheapest cost to ratepayers.

Comments

For how long will this fanatasy about Cape Wind savings persist? In 2001 Cape Wind's CEO, Jim Gordon, said his project would produce $25 million in savings annually across New England. The capital cost for Cape Wind was projected at $650 thousand in 2001. Today his project costs, for 130 GE turbines that are no longer made, are estimated at well over $2 billion, but Gordon and his allies and consultants claim the annual savings will be $185 million; more than seven times the original boast. 
 
 
 
Even for the craftiest environmentalist this is stunning math. 
 
 
 
Gordon also claims this project will create as many as a thousand jobs. Where will they be? The turbines will not be made in Massachusetts, or even New England and the construction jobs will last only a short time. How can Massachusetts retain existing jobs, let alone grow new ones, if our power is going increase in cost because of long term purchase contracts for intermitent and extravagantly expensive power? How much more can our hospitals, colleges and universities, cities and towns, industry and homeowners afford? Add to the cost of wind energy itself the taxes needed to support the lavish federal and state subsidies poured into the pockets of private wind developers and it seems as if the sky is the limit. 
 
 
 
Is it now time to tell the truth about shallow water offshore wind? If it is such a great idea, why is Cape Wind the only project to have gone this far in the permit and review process after nine long years? Why is the Massacchusetts coast not speckled with wind farms?
Posted @ Monday, February 22, 2010 2:12 PM by peter kenney
This concept is ridiculous, as is the one of biomass which utilizes wood from our Massachusetts forests. Neither is an efficient method of producing energy. Both are subsidizded by tax dollars while costng us, the consumers more in energy costs. None of this type of so called "alternative energy" will solve our long term problem of dependancy on fossil fuels.
Posted @ Monday, February 22, 2010 5:15 PM by William C. Blanker
I would think that the utilities companies could include a clause in any rate contract that it is subject to adjustment should the rate rise or fall. I know this works in many other types of service contracts. Why can't rates be subject to market conditions much like financial contracts with APR's. Clearly something has to happen sooner rather than later. Fossil fuels are running out. If there are no alternative energy supplies in place before that happen we in New England are going to very cold in the winter.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:26 AM by John Horne
Nice article, Mr. Rio! Thank you. Cost and performance assumptions are based on the Cape Wind spec'd GE 3.6 MW wind turbine that is "discontinued" and obsolete.  
 
 
 
"Exposure" is indeed the operative word from the perspectives of businesses' and residential rate and taxpayers'.  
 
 
 
Cape Wind has a no "bid deal" for Nantucket Sound. Thusly, Cape Wind has not been "vetted" in a competitive bidding process. This scenario exposes the environment, rate and taxpayers to unacceptable risks. It's reprehensible that the regulators have never asked the question:  
 
 
 
Who are these guys, Cape Wind, EMI, UPC, First Wind, IVPC? 
 
 
 
http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/23/3941508-who-are-these-guys-cape-wind-emi-upc-first-wind-ivpc 
 
Posted @ Friday, February 26, 2010 7:55 AM by Barbara Durkin
Comments have been closed for this article.