Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind Energy Project
Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University|February 17, 2005
The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has studied the Cape Wind proposal in considerable detail, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Reference file no. NAE-2004-338-1:
1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced).
2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data.
3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable.
4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated.
The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has studied the Cape Wind proposal in considerable detail, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Reference file no. NAE-2004-338-1:
1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced).
2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data.
3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable.
4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated.
