The long-awaited Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Cape Wind application to place 130 wind turbines in the waters of Nantucket Sound is finally out. Written by the United States Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS), it endorses the project.

The report totals 2,000 pages of text, maps, and charts/graphs. It contains five appendices where the real substance of the report is to be found. After wading through this document completely three times -- and in sections many more -- I can only say it is embarrassing that such a document is actually credited to a U.S. government agency.

Whether one supports or opposes the Cape Wind proposal this DEIS is a disaster. More important, for those who know little of the Cape Wind proposal, or of the history of the project's public comment and government review, the MMS does not present a compellingly complete analysis of the Cape Wind proposal.

Although the MMS DEIS seems to clear the way for Cape Wind to build its Nantucket Sound wind farm, CapeCodToday.com will be printing remarks made by experts in the wind-energy/finance fields that identify many serious flaws in the DEIS and in the methods and information used to paint a healthy picture of the Cape Wind project. MMS's own peer review raises serious questions about how MMS arrived at the conclusions their report contains.

When down is up

Let us start with Appendix F, which deals with the economics of the project. It is authored by Robert S. D. Mense of the Economics Division of the MMS and is dated May 25, 2007. (The report was released in January of 2008.)

Mense begins by telling how he developed a Microsoft cash-flow spreadsheet to accomplish his economic analysis. In layman's terms, Appendix F is intended to be a thorough cost/benefit analysis. It should be noted that the project's proponent, Jim Gordon of Boston, said early and often in his presentations in support of the wind farm that one of the main reasons for supporting it was the fact that it would save money for electric consumers in New England.

His original claim was that Cape Wind would save $25 million across New England, or twelve cents per month per household. As the permit review process wore on, Gordon's costs predictably rose until now we see a very different forecast. When it became clear two or three years ago that Cape Wind's cost escalation had cancelled out its production savings, the new Cape Wind position became the "downward pressure" the wind farm would exert on regional and local energy prices.

Page one of Appendix F in the MMS report says in its fourth paragraph: "Economic performance was measured in terms of cost of energy..." This is a devastating statement in light of the fact that, on page 17 of Appendix F, Mense writes that Cape Wind electricity will cost 12.2 cents per kilowatt hour (KWH) but that the average price for a KWH of electricity from the New England grid for January of 2007 was 5.87 cents. In other words, Cape Wind's electricity will cost more than twice what it claims to be able to compete with. In order to read this cost data one must go to the last full page of text in Appendix F.

The simple fact is that, even according to MMS, Cape Wind's electricity will raise New England electric rates.

How is that for "downward pressure?"