Uncertainty and the Impacts of Offshore Wind
by
Drew Bush
Dr. Michael Orbach, Advisor
May 2011
Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in
the Nicholas School of the Environment of
Duke University
2011
Dr. Michael Orbach
1
I. ABSTRACT
In November 2010, the Obama Administration announced plans to streamline the
process for permitting offshore wind farms on the Atlantic Coast. Despite the prevalence
of offshore wind farms in places such as Europe, offshore wind remains an untested
commercial technology in the United States that holds a variety of impacts for human
communities and the coastal environment.
My research examines the potential impacts of the Cape Wind Project located on
the Southeast Coast of Cape Cod to the region’s economy, aesthetics, marine mammals
and sea birds. Utilizing an uncertainty analysis, this project examines any gaps in
knowledge and works to uncover the perceptions stakeholders located on Cape Cod and
national offshore wind energy experts have of the project’s impacts.
This study confirms that wind energy professionals and stakeholders possess
differing degrees of knowledge and form their opinions differently. Perhaps of more
interest, though, is the finding that in many cases the individual experts and the members
of both groups agreed on their answers. In particular, our two groups agreed about the
level of impact to sea birds, the importance of impacts to marine mammals, the fact the
project would alter perceptions of the region (albeit for different reasons), and the
potential for the project to generate economic growth.
However, differences between the two groups existed on what type of aesthetic
impact the project might have, the overall economic impacts of the project to the Cape
Cod region, the impacts to tourism, whether or not the process in approving Cape Wind
was inclusive, and the types of marine mammals and which behaviors would be
impacted.
These answers indicate that further research work needs to be done on the impacts
of offshore wind energy to the human community’s sense of aesthetic and into how
offshore wind can alter local and regional economies. It appears such findings either have
not been communicated or are simple not understood by the either group of experts, and
that further work in understanding and communicating them could make siting offshore
wind farms far easier.
2
II. TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. Introduction
5
IV. The Cape Wind Project
A. Total Ecology
B. Insitutional Ecology
C. Biophyiscal Ecology
D. Human Ecology
7
9
10
12
15
V. Examining Uncertainty
A. Introduction
B. Methods
i. Constructing the Survey
ii. Recruiting Respondents
iii. Initial Phone Contact
iv. Data Handling
C. Sources of Error and Response Rate
D. Results
i. Demographics
ii. Testing My Respondents
iii. Cape Wind's Impacts
a. Aesthetics
b. Economics
c. Marine Mammals
d. Sea Birds
e. Additional Questions
E. Discussion
i. Aesthetics
ii. Economics
iii. Marine Mammals
iv. Sea Birds
v. Additional Questions
vi. Phone Elicitations
17
17
19
19
20
21
21
21
23
23
26
27
27
29
33
38
39
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. My Research
B. Recommendations
i. Regional Planning
ii. Moving Offshore Wind Farms Further Offshore
iii. Increased Research and Monitoring
iv Identify An Instrument to Convey Legal Interests &
Allocation Methods
v. One-Stop Shopping
vi. Multiple-Use Planning
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
3
51
51
VII. Other Works Not Cited
51
VIII. Appendix A: The Survey
57
IX. Appendix B: Excerpted Quotes from Phone Elicitations
68
4
III. INTRODUCTION
This past November, the Obama Administration announced plans to streamline
the process for permitting offshore wind farms on the Atlantic Coast.1 In making his
decision, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar noted that the "lessons of the Cape Wind
Project" helped inform how his agency would open more coastal waters for leasing. Yet
the legacy of the decades-long fight over Cape Wind remains unknown.
The strident debate over the project uncovered a clash between the divergent
values of local and international communities and their perceptions of the project’s
impacts. Opponents worry about how Cape Wind might change a tourism-based economy
dependent on unblemished oceans and beaches, and the potential damage the project
could do to sea birds and marine mammals including whales and porpoises. In contrast,
many supporters dream of a clean energy future that lessens the country’s dependence on
unreliable foreign energy sources and the region’s contribution to global warming.
Projects such as Cape Wind do hold potential. On the East Coast of the United
States, offshore wind energy could help provide a direct source of energy for a region
dependent on imported power. In fact, a September report by Oceana found that offshore
wind could provide 127 GW of electricity on the East Coast, or an equal amount of
power to that currently generated in Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New
Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Maryland, Florida, New York, Georgia,
Maine and New Hampshire.2 Looked at nationwide, this represents enough power to heat
every home in the country and then some.3
Worldwide wind energy has since become "the fastest-growing sector of the
electric power industry" with a growth in production rate that has exceeded 30 percent.4
While Cape Wind would represent the first offshore wind farm in the United States, nine
1
Taylor, Phil. "Interior to Speed New Offshore Wind Leasing in Mid-Atlantic." The New York Times.
November 23, 2010.
2
“Untapped Wealth: The Potential of Offshore Energy to Deliver Clean, Affordable Energy and Jobs.”
Oceana. Released: September 28, 2010. http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/cleanenergy/offshore-wind-report/report
3
“Untapped Wealth: The Potential of Offshore Energy to Deliver Clean, Affordable Energy and Jobs.”
Oceana. Released: September 28, 2010. http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/cleanenergy/offshore-wind-report/report
4
Hoagland, P and M.E. Schumacher, H.L. Kite-Powell and J.A. Duff. "Legal and Regulatory Framework
for Siting Offshore Wind Energy Facilities." Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Final Report, June 2006.
5
European countries currently have 830 wind turbines installed in 39 offshore wind farms
totaling 2,063 Megawatts of grid-connected power.5 Huge potentials for further
development also exist in places such as the North Sea and the East China Sea.
The future of offshore wind energy in the United States hinges on the legacy of
legislation designed to encourage the development of renewable energy. Compared with
other areas of the world, renewable energy sources got a slow start in the United States.
During the 1950s, the country produced most of the energy it consumed. However, as the
1960s dawned, the nation gradually began to import more fuel in order to feed energy
consumption that no longer could be supplied from domestic sources. 6 In the 1970s, this
imbalance reached critical proportions as the country imported far more fuel, particularly
petroleum, and faced reoccurring oil crises.
In response, Congress passed the 1978 Public Utilities Regulatory Act to encourage
the development of renewable energy sources by requiring utility companies to purchase
energy from small-scale energy producers.7 This single law created more than 12,000
megawatts of non-hydro renewable energy and has been called the "most effective single
measure in promoting renewable energy" by the Union of Concerned Scientists.8
Despite this legislation, renewable energy sources failed to grow dramatically in the
United States. In subsequent decades, prices for fuels dropped causing utility companies
to ignore small energy producers they no longer needed as extra energy sources.9 In the
1980s, President Ronald Reagan’s administration believed past energy decisions "added
to the burden of the budget"10 and stripped the Department of Energy's research and
“Policy/Projects: Offshore Wind.” The European Wind Energy Association. (Accessed on November 2:
http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=203)
6
History of Energy in the United States. Energy Information Administration.(Accessed on November 12:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html)
7
Miranda A. Scheurs, Henrik Selin and Stacy D. Van Deveer. "Governing Carbon: Renewable Energy and
Climate Change." Transatlantic and Environment and Energy Politics: Comparative and International
Perspectives. Ashgate Publishing, 2009. 144-185.
8
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). Union of Concerned Scientists. (Accessed on December
5: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/big_picture_solutions/public-utility-regulatory.html)
9
Miranda A. Scheurs, Henrik Selin and Stacy D Van Deveer. "Governing Carbon: Renewable Energy and
Climate Change." Transatlantic and Environment and Energy Politics: Comparative and International
Perspectives. Ashgate Publishing, 2009. 144-185.
10
David Narum. "A troublesome legacy: The Reagan Administration's Conservation and Renewable
Energy Policy." Energy Policy. 20 (1): 40-53 January 1992.
5
6
development funding for renewable energy and conservation programs.11 In fact, not until
the 1992 Energy Policy Act did renewable energy sources again receive federal support.
In recent decades, renewable energy development has again become more urgent as
scientists began linking the burning of fossil fuels to global warming.
Four years after the debate over Cape Wind began in earnest, the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 changed the regulatory structure for permitting offshore wind farms. Yet no clear
consensus has emerged on how to balance the competing concerns over the project.
Instead the claims of participants have turned more acrimonious.
This paper will examine the development of the Cape Wind Project with an
emphasis on exploring the human values at stake and the ways in which a policy process
might better address the concerns of local communities. The first section of the paper will
examine the human, institutional and biophysical ecologies involved in the debate over
the Cape Wind Project. In the paper’s second section, I will demonstrate how further
research into the uncertain impacts of a project such as Cape Wind—such as the
uncertainty analysis I conducted in the summer of 2010 at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution—can help create a better informed policy process for
permitting offshore wind energy. Finally, I will explore avenues for research that improve
upon my own work, and develop a set of policy recommendations for permitting offshore
wind that draw upon this research.
IV. THE CAPE WIND PROJECT
The Cape Wind Project on the southeast coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts
represents the first major offshore wind project planned for the United States' offshore
waters. The 130 turbines of Cape Wind would be located five miles from the nearest
point of land, and each turbine would be 258 feet tall and aligned in a grid pattern of
parallel rows with turbines about six football fields apart and the rows about nine football
fields apart.12 As the first project of its kind, the 420 Megawatt project on the southeast
coast of Cape Cod spawned an impassioned debate that pits the public policy goals of a
11
Michael E. Craft and Regina S. Axelrod. "Political Constraints on Development of Alternative Energy
Sources: Lessons from the Reagan Administration. " Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 13 Issue 2. December
1984. 319-330.
12
“Cape Wind Basics.” Cape Wind Project. (Accessed on November 20: http://www.capewind.org/FAQCategory4-Cape+Wind+Basics-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm)
7
clean, sustainable energy future against the economic, environmental, public safety and
cultural values of local and regional communities.13 Much of the debate centers on the
perceived impacts of Cape Wind on the values residents of the Cape Cod region hold for
a natural oceanscape, their tourism-based economy and pre-existing uses of the space the
wind farm will occupy in Nantucket Sound.
Despite these concerns, Cape Wind gained environmental approval in April of
2010 when the Department of the Interior gave the project a green light. 14 Later in 2010,
Ken Salazar, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, called an October press conference to sign
the leases granting the backers of Cape Wind the ocean space on which to construct the
project. In addition, the project’s backers inked a contract with National Energy Grid to
buy the electricity that Cape Wind will generate for a starting price of 18.7 cents per
kilowatt hour after they were forced to negotiate this slightly lower rate in a 15-year
contract with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. 15 These rates, which can
increase 3.5 percent each year, represent about double the rates from current energy
sources.16 However, the debate over the project itself started much earlier.
The primary opponent of Cape Wind, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound,
formed when the project was originally proposed in 2001 with a stated objective of
protecting "Nantucket Sound in perpetuity through conservation, environmental action,
and opposition to inappropriate industrial or commercial development."17 In particular,
this group, and the many different constituencies it represents, voiced concern with Cape
Wind's location in an Atlantic Flyway that federally protected birds, turtles and mammals
live and migrate through. In addition, the group opposes the higher cost of power from
Cape Wind, the project’s possible economic and aesthetic impacts, and potential public
safety concerns for boaters and commercial airlines.18 Prominent figures opposed to Cape
Wind included the late Senator Ted Kennedy and former CBS News Anchorman Walter
13
Barrett, John et al. Blowing in the Wind: Offshore Wind and the Cape Cod Economy. The Beacon Hill
Institute at Suffolk University. October 2003. Pages 1-53.
14
Krasny, Ros. "Cape Wind, First US Offshore Wind Farm, Approved." Reuters. Boston. April 28, 2010.
15
Ngowi, Rodrique and Jay Lindsay. "Mass. Regulator Approve Offshore Wind Deal." Bloomberg
Businessweek. Boston. November 22, 2010.
16
Id.
17
Mission Statement. Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. (Accessed on November 30:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6891/content_item/aboutus)
18
Id.
8
Cronkite whose families both own homes in the area.19
With the start of the two-year construction phase of the project only awaiting the
outcome of several court cases, public opinion of the project remains mixed. When last
surveyed in 2007, University of Delaware researchers Jeremy Firestone and Willett
Kempton found that the "overwhelming majority of the population expects negative
impacts from the project."20 Firestone and Kempton also concluded that supporters of
Cape Wind tended to be younger and better educated while opponents were more likely
to earn over $200,000 a year and see Cape Wind during their daily routine. Such a
finding isn’t surprising given what’s at stake for the human community and the region’s
natural environment.
A. Total Ecology
Large industrial projects located in coastal waters can impact many different
aspects of the natural environment, the social fabric of human communities and the
structures of policy-making institutions. So far, state and federal bureaucracies have
processed such large-scale development piece-meal even as the federal government
moves toward a marine spatial planning process driven in part by offshore energy
development. This piece-meal process in the United States includes "thirty-five coastal
states and territories [that] operat[e] under dozens of statutory authorities shaping coastal
and ocean policy."21 Which federal or state workers possess jurisdiction over a specific
project depends on the location of the project, with many projects subjected to the
jurisdiction of more than one authority.22 The following sections will examine the various
statutes and institutions that impact the planning of Cape Wind and the human and
natural communities the project will effect.
Brown, Steve. “Ted Kennedy’s Motives Questioned in Opposition to Wind Project.” CNSNews.com.
July 7, 2008.
20
Firestone, Jeremy and Willett Kempton. Public Opinion about Large Offshore Wind Power: Underlying
Factors. Energy Policy. 35. 2007. Pages 1584-1598.
19
21
Mary Turnipseed, Stephen E. Roady, Raphael Sagarin and Larry B. Crowder. "The Silver Anniversary
of the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone: Twenty-Five Years of Ocean Use and Abuse, and the
Possibility of a Blue Water Public Trust Doctrine." 36 Ecology Law Quarterly 1. 2009.
22
Megan E. Higgins. The Legal and Policy Issues Regarding Permitting Offshore Renewable Energy
Projects." Lecture at the International Submerged Lands Management Conference. Traverse City, MI.
October 27, 2008.
9
B. Institutional Ecology
When Cape Wind's backers first submitted their proposal for the project to the
federal government in November 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers undertook
responsibility for conducting an environmental impact statement as the lead agency
designated under the River and Harbors Act of 1899.23 In August 2005, however,
President George W. Bush signed the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave the
Secretary of the U.S. Interior Department the authority to issue leases, easements and
rights-of-way that support the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from
sources other than oil and gas on the outer continental shelf.24 This act amended the uses
specified for offshore waters under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCLA) of
1953 specifically to encourage renewable energy research and development programs.
Later in 2006, the Secretary designated the Minerals Management Service (MMS)—now
the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Regulation and Management—the lead agency in this
process.
Working in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Bureau drafted the Renewable Energy and Alternative Uses of Existing Facilities
guidelines so that the appropriate coastal areas could be leased, completed an
Environmental Impact Assessment25 of the guidelines in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and published the new rules into the federal register
in April of 2009.26 The finished rules divide the nation's coasts into regional offices such
as Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, while these offices subdivide the regions into 26 outer
continental shelf planning areas.27 Cape Wind's backers suddenly had to deal with an
entirely different agency in order to gain approval for their project, a process that
23
"Cape Wind." Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement." (Accessed on
November 12: http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/renewableenergy/CapeWind.htm)
24
Guidelines for the Minerals Management Service Renewable Energy Framework. July 2009. U.S.
Department of the Interior. (Accessed on November 1: http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/08/renguidebook_03august2009.pdf)
25
Hill, Maurice L. "MMS Renewable Energy Program." Lecture at Stanford Law School's Conference on
Climate Change and Marine Systems: Managing for Resiliency. April 10, 2009.
26
Federal Register, Part II, Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 30 CFR Parts 250,
285, and 290.
27
Guidelines for the Minerals Management Service Renewable Energy Framework. July 2009. U.S.
Department of the Interior. (Accessed September 20: http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/08/renguidebook_03august2009.pdf)
10
stretched over a decade and included changes in the presidential administration, the death
of Senator Kennedy, stakeholder meetings, and various lawsuits. In April 2010, the
Department of the Interior approved the final Cape Wind Environmental Impact
Statement at its location on Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket Sound.28
Yet the commercially untested state of offshore wind in the United States
exacerbated the problem of trying to determine Cape Wind's environmental impacts.
Excluding hydropower dams on rivers, renewable energy sources supply less than three
percent of power in the United States.29 Since Cape Wind marked the first project to be
undertaken, more than 140 federal ocean-related statutes came into play when examining
the project's impact.30 The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 gave the Corps of Engineers
the authority to issue permits for the project's impacts on navigable waters or for permits
to dredge.31 Meanwhile, under the 1972 Clean Water Act, parts of the project that may
discharge water needed a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from
the Environmental Protection Agency.32 Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(OCSLA) of 1953 the Bureau handled leasing for all these projects.33 Finally, the 1953
Submerged Lands Act made the Coast Guard the primary permit authority for
navigational purposes including regulations covering commercial fishing near turbines.34
Given the intersecting nature of federal statutes concerning offshore wind, a variety
of federal agencies also hold regulatory power over Cape Wind. The primary agencies
that hold jurisdiction in federal waters include the Army Corps of Engineers, the National
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Regulation
and Management. However, other agencies such as the Coast Guard, the National Marine
28
"Cape Wind." Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement." (Accessed
September 20: http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/renewableenergy/CapeWind.htm)
29
Official Energy Statistics from The U.S. Government. The Energy Information Administration. 2007.
(Accessed September 20: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html)
30
L.B. Crowder. "Resolving Mismatches in U.S. Ocean Governance." Science. Vol 313. 4 August 2006.
617.
31
Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. CRS Report for Congress. February
20, 2007. (Accessed September 20:
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/3144/RL33883_20070220.pdf?sequence=1)
32
Id.
33
Chapman, Peter F. "Offshore renewable energy regulation: FERC and MMS jurisdictional dispute over
hydrokinetic regulation resolved?" Administrative Law Review. 61.2 (Spring 2009): 423 (17).
34
C. McGowin. "Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy: Renewable Energy Technical Assessment Guide." The
Electric Power Institute. December 2005. (Accessed September 20:
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001011884)
11
Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and numerous state and local agencies play a role in the permitting process.35
Massachusetts also possesses a federally recognized shoreline management program in
accordance with the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act and needed to give consistency
approval to the project—which it did in January of 2009.
Furthermore, many of the usual environmental statutes for projects of this nature
applied as well. The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service required consultation under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, the 1972 Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the 1934 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the 1918
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.36
C. Biophysical Ecology
Cape Cod consists of an ecosystem where different variables converge. On the
shores and waters of Cape Cod, the temperate zone and the sub-boreal zone meet, sandy
coastlines give way to rocky habitat and an upwelling of nutrients offshore means a home
for shorebirds, turtles, whales, dolphins, seals, ground fish, sponges, periwinkles, sea
urchins and sand dollars. Many leading ecosystem analysts for the Gulf of Maine where
Cape Cod is located lament “our failure to think of the region as an interconnected whole,
as an ecosystem”37 that shares physical and biological processes. Impacts to Cape Cod
will affect the entire Gulf, but the areas adjacent to Nantucket Sound where Cape Wind
will be located can be expected to experience the primary effects.
The geography of Cape Cod formed after the advance and retreat of the last ice
sheet, the Laurentide Ice Sheet, approximately 25,000 years ago. 38 In fact, the Islands of
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket mark the furthest advance of this ice sheet.39 Lobes of
the glacier occupied the three major basins of Cape Cod down to the bedrock. In contrast,
deposits left behind by the glacier created the major land features after waves and
35
Id.
Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. CRS Report for Congress. February
20, 2007.
37
Conkling, Philip W. “An International Commons.” From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy: An
Environmental Atlas of the Gulf of Maine. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1995.
38
Oldale, Robert N. Geologic History of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Field Survey, Woods
Hole Field Center, Massachusetts.
39
Id.
36
12
currents formed bays sheltered from open ocean by barrier spits and islands. 40 In some of
these bays, marshes grew and so far continue to keep pace with rising sea levels. Due to
its origins in the glacial period, the sea bottom around Cape Cod consists of "practically
unaltered glacial boulders and gravel" while some shores that have been exposed to
strong wave action have become sandy.41
Cape Coders refer to the area most directly impacted by Cape Wind as outer Cape
Cod. This "backside" of Cape Cod gained notoriety in the 1800s due to the tendency of
many shoals located within it to shift during dramatic winter storms, causing ship wrecks
when captains learned of a shoal’s new location. From Provincetown to Monomoy Point,
the coast of outer Cape Cod stretches 60 miles and includes the Cape Cod National
Seashore.42 The rest of the outer Cape consists primarily of Nantucket Sound and
Vineyard Sound. Each sound varies, with the average depth of Vineyard Sound between
36 and 102 feet, while the average depth in Nantucket Sound is closer to 96 feet.43
Nantucket Sound compromises a great deal more area, while Vineyard Sound is only 17
miles in length and three to six miles in width.44
Many types of animals use Nantucket Sound including water birds, shorebirds,
migrating land birds, shellfish, humpback whales, fin whales, and North Atlantic Right
whales, loggerhead turtles, Kemp’s ridley turtles, leatherback turtles, gray seals, dolphins,
porpoises, and seals.45 However, both the Massachusetts Audubon46 comments on
endangered birds and the Army Corps of Engineers comments on other species conclude
that the project doesn't pose a threat to any of these species aside from causing them to
avoid the area during the two-year construction phase.47 Most studies posit that wildlife
40
Id.
Bowers, George M. A Biological Survey of the Waters of Woods Hole and Vicinity, Volume 1.
Washington, D.C: Bureau of Fisheries, 1911.
42
"Outer Cape Cod."Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies." (Accessed on December 4:
http://www.coastalstudies.org)
43
Bowers, George M. A Biological Survey of the Waters of Woods Hole and Vicinity, Volume 1.
Washington, D.C: Bureau of Fisheries, 1911.
44
Id.
45
"Animal/Bird/Marine Organism Impacts." Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. (Accessed on
November 28: http://www.masstech.org/offshore/CapeWindFAQs/wildlife.html)
46
Allison, Taber D. and Clarke, Jack. Final Position on the Cape Wind Energy Project. MassAudubon.
June 24, 2010.
47
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (Accessed
September 20: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/deis.htm)
41
13
will instead move to many of the surrounding areas that already play an intertwined role
in the biophysical ecology of Nantucket Sound.
Cape Cod Bay to the Northeast consists of beaches, wetlands and offshore water
that provide an environment filled with many different types of organisms. The surface
waters of the bay encompass 604 square miles and the bay reaches a maximum depth of
206 feet.48 Surrounded by approximately 300 miles of shoreline, Cape Cod Bay provides
a home for two endangered birds, the Roseate Tern and the Piping Plover, and feeding
grounds for North Atlantic Right whales.49 Humpback whales also visit the area to feed
on schooling fish between April and December.50
Buzzards Bay’s, in contrast, sits on the Southeast side of the Cape Cod peninsula
and is about 28 miles long and eight miles wide, with depths of 18 feet at its head and
108 feet near its mouth. 51 It connects to Cape Cod Bay through the Cape Cod Canal.52
The Northern end and Western shorelines are “very irregular, being indented by a
considerable number of estuaries” that contribute large quantities of fresh water at certain
times of year.53 The Bay also supports many shellfish and finfish. The bay’s linkages to
freshwater sources make it particularly subject to man-caused pollution, and it plays an
important role in filtering pollutants before they reach the ocean.54
Stellwagen Bank compromises a unique ecosystem because it serves as boundary
between the Gulf of Maine to the East and Massachusetts Bay to the West. The bank
consists of an approximately 850 square mile underwater plateau of sand and gravel that
was formed by the same glacier that created Nantucket, Cape Cod and Martha's
Vineyard.55 Stellwagen Bank's shallow depth, combined with waves and currents,
provide ideal conditions for phytoplankton growth for a much more significant portion of
48
"Cape Cod Bay."Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies." (Accessed on December 4:
http://www.coastalstudies.org)
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Bowers, George M. A Biological Survey of the Waters of Woods Hole and Vicinity, Volume 1.
Washington, D.C: Bureau of Fisheries, 1911.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Press Release. “Environment Massachusetts Warns That Buzzards Bay Is At Risk of Increased
Pollution.” Environment Massachusetts. February 2010.
55
"Stellwagen Bank."Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies." (Accessed on December 4:
http://www.coastalstudies.org)
14
the year than surrounding waters.56 For centuries, fisherman fished the area for Atlantic
Cod, Silver Hake, Yellowtail Flounder, lobster, sea scallops, squid and ocean quahogs.
Recognizing that the area could not sustain such a pace of exploitation, it was designated
the Gerry E. Studds-Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary in 1982. Only limited
fishing now takes place on the bank.
D. Human Ecology
In a book about Cape Cod first published in 1864, Henry David Thoreau writes that
"the root problem of defining Cape Cod is the basic fact that the Cape is not so much a
piece of geography as a state of mind and an attitude toward life."57 Thoreau goes on to
note that this attitude is an intensely personal one that can begin at the shingles of a
centuries-old house that's never "known the touch of paint" or at the "first sight of the
waves pounding against the long reaches of the outer beach."58 For those who continue to
call the piece of North America that the Pilgrims first landed on home, Thoreau's
characterizations still ring true albeit with a few changes in livelihood.
Cape Cod’s growth in the number of residents calling it home has consistently led
the state of Massachusetts since 1920.59 Sixty five percent of residents of the three
counties that include Cape Cod and the Islands earn between $25,000 and $99,999 a year,
a measure that ranks Barnstable County around 10th in poverty levels.60 However, much
of the wealth of Cape Cod is found amongst seasonal residents. In fact, more than six
million visitors come to Cape Cod annually and they spend approximately $1 billion,
constituting 43.9 percent of the region’s economic base.61 The next two largest
contributors to Cape Cod’s economic base include retirees (15.3%) and business services
56
"Physical Oceanography. "Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary." December 8, 2010. (Accessed
on December 7, 2010: http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/about/sitereport/oceanog.html)
57
Thoreau, Henry David. Thoreau's Guide to Cape Cod. Edited by Alexander B. Adams. New York: The
Devin-Adair Company, 1962.
58
Id.
59
“Population Estimates—2004.” The Cape Cod Commission. (Accessed on November 2:
http://www.capecodcommission.org/data/CapeTrends-Population042805.pdf)
60
Cape and Islands Census 2000. The Cape Cod Times. Data taken from the 2000 Census conducted by the
United States Census Bureau. (Accessed on November 1: http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/census/)
61
Northcross, Wendy. “Presentation to the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.” Cape Cod Chamber
of Commerce. January 30, 2003.
15
(11.1%).62 This economic picture is driven by the fact that the Cape Cod and Island
population nearly triples from an estimate of just over 200,000 people yearly to more
than 500,000 people in the summer months.63 This huge influx of tourists and
summertime homeowners causes 90.5 percent of employed Cape Coders to work in the
service sector including information services, leisure and hospitality, and financial
service activities.64
While Cape Cod’s picturesque beaches and shorelines have traditionally brought
visitors to the region, some products of the Cape possess iconic status across the nation.
These industries include lobsters, cranberries and the shellfish industry (primarily oysters
and clams).65 In recent years, though, the lobster and fishing industries have declined
with dramatic cuts expected for the region’s lobster harvest66 and the Cod, which gave
the region its name, subject only to severely limited fishing.67
In terms of attitudes about Cape Wind, the residents of the region hold sharply
divergent views. In particular, a 2007 survey conducted by University of Delaware
researchers Jeremy Firestone and Willett Kempton on Cape Wind determined that the
"overwhelming majority of the population expects negative impacts from the project."68
Yet these views diverged widely with supporters of Cape Wind tending to be younger
and better educated while opponents were more likely to earn over $200,000 a year and
see Cape Wind during their daily routine. A great number of residents also believe the
project could help the region gain notoriety as the first place in the United State to
embrace an iconic symbol of the long-awaited clean energy future.69 However, a sizeable
62
Id.
Id.
64
“Jobs on Cape Cod—Part Two.” Cape Trends Update 2006. The Cape Cod Commission. (Accessed on
October 30: http://www.capecodcommission.org/data/trends98.htm)
65
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. “The Cape Cod Commission.” (Accessed on
November 1: http://www.capecodcommission.org/econdevel/CEDS/CEDS2009/FINALCEDS095YEARUPDATE.doc)
66
Rappaport, Steven. “Drastic Cuts Proposed for Southern New England Lobstering.” Fenceviewer.
December 6, 2010.
67
“NOAA Restricts Commercial Mackerel, Cod Fishing in Western Aleutians to Protect Western Steller
Sea Lions.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. United States Department of Commerce.
(Accessed on December 2: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101208_sealion.html)
68
Firestone, Jeremy and Willett Kempton, Jonathan Lilley, Tracy Rouleau, and Phillip Whitaker. "The
Offshore Wind Power Debate: Views from Cape Cod." Coastal Management. 2005. 33:119–149.
69
Bird, Lori and Mark Bolinger, Troy Gagliano, Ryan Wiser, Matthew Brown and Brian Parsons. Policies
and Market Factors Driving Wind Power Development in the United States. Energy Policy. Vol. 33. 2005.
1297-1407 pp.
63
16
number of Cape Coders worry that the presence of an industrial-scale wind farm in
Nantucket Sound might impact coastal property prices, commercial fishing, and the
tourism-based economy.70
V. Examining Uncertainty
A. Introduction
To better understand projects such as Cape Wind, policymakers must understand
how well both local experts involved in the siting process and offshore wind energy
professionals understand the impacts and uncertainties imposed by wind farms.
Conducted during the summer of 2010 at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on
Cape Cod, this study utilizes an uncertainty analysis approach pioneered by Roger M.
Cooke to critically examine how well these two groups understand and evaluate the
impact the Cape Wind Project could have on the Cape Cod region's economy, aesthetic
values, sea birds and marine mammals. In undertaking such an approach, I wanted to
understand differences in knowledge between stakeholders and experts in the wind
energy field, the level of accuracy in each group's knowledge, and differences in opinions
between the two groups and between respondents of differing backgrounds within each
group. The study recognizes that not every respondent could possess expertise in every
subject area covered by the study. Consequently, this research attempts to ascertain the
knowledge of the groups as a whole while also focusing on particular respondents in only
the areas where they identified as experts.
This study adds to a growing body of research on offshore wind farms. Other
researchers have focused on the ecological and economic impacts of offshore wind
projects more broadly. For example, Bryan Snyder and Mark J. Kaiser from Louisiana
State University's Center for Energy Studies concluded that "like onshore wind, it is clear
that offshore wind does have ecological impacts with the potential for population level
effects."71 The researchers explain that despite the costs of offshore wind, individual
project impacts and expenses can be mitigated by carefully choosing specific sites for
70
Bogen, Karen and Rebecca Crow and Mary Ellen Colton. 2005 Cape Cod Resident Survey: Final Report.
Center for Survey Research. University of Massachusetts, Boston. April 4, 2006.
71
Snyder, Brian and Mark J. Kaiser. Ecological and Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Offshore Wind
Energy. Renewable Energy. 34. 2009. Pages 1567-1578.
17
each project. In particular, bird populations could be compromised by the improper siting
of wind farms in areas where, coupled with other effects, a wind farm poses and
ecological danger.72
Similarly, a 2006 study conducted by researchers at Collaborative Offshore Wind
Research into the Environment in the German Bight concluded that marine mammals
could be impacted by the noise associated with the construction of offshore wind farms
but no conclusion could yet be drawn as to the impacts during a wind farm's operation.73
Consequently, each wind farm must be examined based on its unique habitat rather than
relying on previous studies.
Other researchers have investigated the impacts wind energy could have on
property prices and tourism. A group of researchers at the Renewable Energy Policy
Project issued a 2003 report entitled "The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property
Values" which tracked property values in the viewshed of onshore wind turbines and
found that "property values increased faster in the viewshed in eight of the ten projects."74
Studies conducted in Scotland noted that offshore wind farms only had minor impacts to
resource-driven tourism in the area and, in some case, gave tourists a new reason to
visit.75
This study departs from examining the impacts of the Cape Wind Project on one
single aspect of research or from attempting to ascertain public opinion. Cooke's method
of uncertainty analysis utilizes the opinions of 8 to 20 experts on the basis of each
respondent's knowledge and ability to judge relevant uncertainties on a given subject.
While this method may not be perfect, it allows for a better understanding of a subject
with many unknowns. In addition, Cooke's method also allows the uncovering of gaps in
knowledge or disparities in expert opinion.
72
Drewit, Allan L. and Rowena H.W. Langston. Assessing the Impacts of Wind Farms on Birds. British
Ornithologists Union. 2006. pages 29-42.
73
Kafeman, Rudolph and Werner Piper, Frank Thomsen, and Karin Ludemann. Effects of Offshore Wind
Farm Noise on Marine Mammals and Fish. COWRIE. Hamburg, Germany. July 6, 2006.
74
Sterzinger George and Beck Frederic, Kostiuck Damian. The Effect of Wind Development On Local
Property Values. Renewable Energy Policy Project. Analytical Report. 2003.
75
The Scottish Government. The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism. March 12, 2008.
Web Published Only.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/07113554/0
18
Because future policy decisions about off-shore wind projects will rely heavily on
the opinions and views of these two diverse groups of experts, decision-makers need a
more comprehensive understanding of the uncertainty involved with trying to ascertain
the impacts of a project such as Cape Wind. This study, however, will not be
representative of all offshore wind energy experts or any given population but instead
seeks to elucidate how different types of experts understand and gauge the impacts of a
project such as Cape Wind. I hypothesize that experts and stakeholders possess differing
degrees of knowledge, form their opinions differently, and even differ in opinion among
themselves depending on their level of expertise on a given subject.
B. Methods
i. Constructing the Survey
For this study, I first designed an online survey utilizing Qualtrics Survey
Software to implement Cooke's method of expert uncertainty analysis. In preparing to
construct this survey, I consulted a wind energy professional and a leader in the
stakeholder meetings surrounding Cape Wind to ascertain which topics held the most
relevance for my survey and to elicit new ideas.
The survey began with nine demographic questions designed to elicit information
about each respondent that may be a predictor for later opinions about Cape Wind or
could potentially bias such answers. These eight questions tackled subjects such as
whether a given respondent supports or opposes the Cape Wind Project and the
occupation of each respondent. However, I did not ask whether respondents lived on
Cape Cod and the Islands (a potentially interesting linkage to explore) in favor of instead
asking whether a respondent lived within five miles of the ocean.
The next five questions of the survey were "Seed" questions about an already
completed project or study for which an answer already exists. Each of these "Seed"
questions was derived from pre-existing literature on offshore wind farms in Europe or
from studies conducted on onshore wind farms in the United States. Respondents were
asked to score their answers to these five "Seed" questions on a Likert scale which I then
examined to determine how accurate each respondent's answers were when compared
with already established results.
19
Finally, this survey then posed 40 Likert scale and follow-up questions on the
main topics of my survey: the impacts of Cape Wind on the Cape Cod region's economy,
ocean aesthetic, sea birds and marine mammals. These questions sought explore how
well my experts thought a given subject was understood and to ascertain their opinions on
the degree of impact Cape Wind could cause in each area. Many of these questions were
followed by open answer and ranking questions designed to better understand why a
given respondent chose a certain level of impact or to otherwise gain a more specific
understanding of a given response.
Please see Appendix A for a copy of my survey instrument.
ii. Recruiting Respondents
Two groups of respondents were recruited to take part in this study. The first
group consisted of national offshore wind energy professionals. The second group
consisted of the stakeholders who I considered expert due to their involvement in the
development process for Cape Wind. The first group of respondents was chosen based on
their background, education, areas of expertise and current affiliations in order to
generate a random sample of offshore wind energy experts. In choosing experts, I sought
to gain a similar sized group of experts in each of the topics the survey touches upon—
economics, aesthetics, sea birds and marine mammals. For the second group, I selected
individuals from organizations already indentified in literature and meeting records from
the numerous community stakeholder workshops conducted on Cape Cod and in
Massachusetts regarding the Cape Wind Project.
For both groups of respondents, I sought to ensure the respondents had diverse
backgrounds and roughly equal amounts of Cape Wind detractors and supporters. In both
cases, I always sought to have my originally chosen respondent complete the survey but
did substitute in new individuals in cases where a given respondent no longer worked for
an organization or turned out not to have the appropriate background for the study. In
addition, in cases where respondents did not answer their phone or return a voicemail
asking them to participate, I called back twice and sent one email asking for their
participation before substituting a new individual.
20
iii. Initial Phone Contact
Prior to administering the survey, I contacted each respondent over the phone in
order to elicit opinions about which issues they felt were most important to study in
relation to Cape Wind and to determine their level of expertise on each topic the survey
covered. These phone conversations also played an important role in eliciting a
respondent's opinions about Cape Wind outside of the subjects covered in the survey.
iv. Data Handling
Finally, in the data analysis phase, I weighted the answers of each respondent on
the last section of the survey by utilizing their scores to the five "Seed" questions in the
second part of the survey. Each question in the "Seed" section consisted of Likert scales
with five points. Respondents who correctly identified the right answer received a five,
while those one step away received a four, those two steps away received a 3 and so on.
Respondents who did not answer a "Seed" question received a zero for that question. In
this manner, my respondents were graded on their answers to the "Seed" questions and
could score anywhere between 0 and 25. These values were used to weight later Likert
questions in the last section of the survey in order to calculate weighted mean answers
and weighted variances for each question pertaining to Cape Wind.
I have used a variety of weighting schemes depending on the emphasis I hoped to
give the “Seed” questions in ascertaining a given respondent’s knowledge. For the
purposes of this report, I used a standard weighting scheme that only results in very
minor differences between the overall group’s answer to each Likert question.
C. Sources of Error and Response Rate
Before administering the survey, I hypothesized that possible sources of error in
this study included a respondent's unfamiliarity with the literature on individual projects
or studies used for "Seed" questions and the likelihood that most respondents would not
be expert in every subject the survey tackled. These conclusions were born out when a
few respondents took part in the initial phone conversations but then declined to complete
the survey because they felt they did not hold expertise in many of the questions.
However, a significant number of respondents did take the survey and scored well on the
21
"Seed" questions. I understood the risk of placing questions on a survey with “right” or
“wrong” answers, but felt it represented one possible way in which to ascertain the
knowledge base of my respondents. In order to account for areas where some respondents
simply did not hold expertise—particularly stakeholders—we also examined our data
without weighting responses according to our "Seed" section. The comparison between
the weighted and non-weighted analyses added additional depth to the findings of this
study as did my examination of answers from respondents in areas in which they self
identified as experts.
An unforeseen source of error included the tendency of respondents opposed to
the Cape Wind Project and within my stakeholder group to complete only portions of the
survey due to their belief it was biased for tackling the topic of aesthetics in relation to
Cape Cod and the Islands.
As I learned, many of these respondents felt unfairly
portrayed in the highly politicized debate over Cape Wind as opponents of the project due
to its impact on their coastal views when, in fact, most named concerns over Cape Wind's
public safety, economic, cultural, environmental, and other impacts as central to their
opposition. However, an even number of respondents opposed to and supportive of the
Cape Wind Project completed this survey in my stakeholder group.
By contrast, my wind energy experts did not express a similar bias in my phone
elicitations, but every single one of these experts supported Cape Wind. Perhaps this
indicates a bias within the field itself, but I can't draw such a conclusion from this study
because my sample is not representative of the entire field of wind energy professionals.
Despite these sources of error, I obtained a significant response rate using
Cooke’s methodology and only needed to send out one round of reminder emails to
ensure I gained enough respondents in each group to be within the range of 8 to 20
experts. In particular, we concluded the survey implementation phase of the study with
13 respondents for my wind energy professional group and 14 in my stakeholder group.
One other noticeable phenomenon in each group is the tendency of a large
number of respondents to take part in the initial phone conversation but then not complete
the survey. For breakdowns of the total numbers of respondents contacted please see
Table 1 and Table 2.
22
Table 1. Survey Response Rate for Wind Energy Professionals
Number
Definition
36
Total Contacted
7
Did Not Want to Participate
12
No Answer to Repeated Messages
17
Completed Initial Phone Conversation But
Not Survey
13
Completed Survey
36%
Response Rate
Table 2. Survey Response Rate for Stakeholders
Number
Definition
35
Total Contacted
8
Did Not Want to Participate
6
No Answer to Repeated Messages
21
Completed Initial Phone Conversation But
Not Survey
14
Completed Survey
40%
Response Rate
D. Results
i. Demographics
My most important demographic variable asked respondents whether or not they
supported or opposed the Cape Wind Project. This variable often proved a reliable
predictor of responses to later parts of the survey where a subjective opinion might be
required. In my wind expert group, every respondent supported Cape Wind while my
stakeholder group showed an even split with seven respondents opposed and seven
supportive.
I also posed a series of questions that helped us understand other factors that
might influence whether a given individual supported or opposed Cape Wind. In
particular, the majority of business owners who utilized the ocean as a resource opposed
23
the project while only one opponent of the project did not own a home located within five
miles of the ocean. All of my respondents owned their homes, both supporters and
opponents took part in activities related to Cape Wind, and nearly all my respondents
used the ocean for personal recreation.
My respondents held a variety of professions as summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3. Profession and Work Affiliation for Wind Experts
Respondent Profession
Work Affiliation
1
Louisiana State University, Center for
Researcher
Energy Studies
2
Program Director
Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
3
Public Policy Director
Massachusetts Audubon Society
4
Professor
University of Delaware
5
Marine Biologist
Woods
Hole
Marine
Biological
Laboratory
6
Researcher
University of Massachusetts, Boston,
Urban Harbors Institute
7
Professor
Louisiana State University, Center for
Energy Studies
8
Professor
University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Wind Energy Center
9
Wind Turbine Research and National Renewable Energy Lab
Development
10
Urban
and
Environmental University of Massachusetts, Boston,
Planner
Urban Harbors Institute
11
Biologist
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
12
Manager
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth,
Marine Renewable Energy Collaborative
13
Management/Communications Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition
for Trade Association
24
Table 4. Profession and Work Affiliation for Stakeholders
Respondent Profession
Work Affiliation
1
President
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
2
Renewable
Energy Cape and Islands Self Reliance
Advocate
and
Educator
3
Renewable Energy
Clean Power Now
4
Real Estate Broker
Association of Realtors on Cape Cod
5
Realtor
Century 21 Realtors
6
Retired
College Cape Light Compact
Professor
7
Lawyer
Cape Cod Commission
8
Business Owner
Hyannis Marina
9
Researcher
Woods Hole Research Center
10
Environmental
Sierra Club of Cape Cod
Activist
11
Environmental
Conservation Law Foundation
Advocate
12
Mortgage
Banker— Member of General Public (Opponent)
Real Estate Broker
13
Mechanical Engineer
Member of General Public (Proponent)
14
Communications
Cape Wind
In my initial phone interviews, each of my respondents also ranked their relative
expertise with the aesthetic impacts of Cape Wind, the economic impacts, the impacts on
sea birds, and the impacts on marine mammals. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate how each
respondent ranked himself in each of these categories.
25
Figure 1. Familiarity with Survey Topics Among Wind Experts
Figure 2. Familiarity with Survey Topics Among Stakeholders
ii. Testing My Respondents
To gain a better understanding of my respondents' levels of expertise, I posed five
"Seed" questions drawn from existing research that gave us an understanding of each
respondent's familiarity with existing case studies documenting the impacts of offshore
wind farms. Figure 3 represents a typical seed question utilizing a five-point Likert scale.
Respondents received a score based on their distance from the correct answer.
26
Figure 3. The Survey's First Seed Question
For my analysis, I calculated averages and variances for each Likert question in
the last section of the survey. I also utilized the "Seed" section to determine weighted
averages and variances based on how each respondent fared in this section. In all but one
case, the weighted responses to my Likert questions varied from the non-weighted
responses but not enough to change the collective answer of the group. Using exponential
weighting and different scales for weighting, I’ve found very different responses between
the weighted and non-weighted answers of the group. However, I will not report those
findings in this report as they are still preliminary and awaiting publication in an
academic journal.
iii. Cape Wind's Impacts
a. Aesthetics
The respondents in my study found that the aesthetic impacts of Cape Wind were
"Known" as opposed to "Very Well Known or "Not Known At All." My respondents
who self-selected as aesthetic experts did not agree with this consensus. In particular, the
majority of self-selected experts in the offshore wind energy professionals group felt the
impacts to be "Well Known" while those in the stakeholder group felt the opposite, that
aesthetic impacts were "Little Known."
An important contrast also existed between the two groups as a whole when they
were asked to identify whether they felt the aesthetic impacts would be negative or
positive. A clear majority of the stakeholder group selected the answer "Negative" while
a majority of wind energy professionals selected "Other" or "No Impact." When asked to
explain their answers, the wind energy professionals felt such an answer would be hard to
judge without any other existing offshore wind farms within the United States. In
contrast, all seven respondents in the stakeholder group that chose "Negative" also
27
opposed the Cape Wind Project. Figures 4 and 5 summarize the responses of the two
groups.
Figure 4. Whether Aesthetic Impacts Are Negative/Positive for Wind Energy Professionals
Figure 5. Whether Aesthetic Impacts Are Negative/Positive for Stakeholders
Asked to quantify the degree of aesthetic impact, the majority of respondents felt
there would be "Some" impact regardless of whether this impact was negative or positive.
The notable exception included those respondents in the stakeholder group who felt there
would be "Much" negative impact.
28
The majority of respondents also felt Cape Cod would be the most impacted due to
its location with beaches overlooking Cape Wind and the higher number of people living
in the area. Martha's Vineyard received the second ranking while Nantucket was thought
to be the least impacted.
Figure 6 summarizes the spread of weighted answers for each of the above Likert
scale questions.
Figure 6. Aesthetic Likert Scale Questions Spread to First Standard Deviation. Categories marked
with a "P" represent my wind energy professionals' answers while those with an "S" represent the
answers of my stakeholders. The first category marked "Und" represents the first question about
how well aesthetic impacts are understood. The next two categories marked "Neg" and "Pos"
represent the questions that attempt to gauge the level of negative or positive aesthetic impact.
b. Economics
An important contrast existed between my wind energy professionals and
stakeholders when asked how well understood they felt the impacts of Cape Wind to the
Cape Cod region's economy might be. In particular, my wind energy professionals felt
the impacts to be "Known" while my stakeholders felt they were "Little known."
Both groups thought different areas of the economy might be impacted by Cape
Wind. My offshore wind energy professionals felt the project would enhance the region's
ability to attract a green energy industry, change long-term fixed energy prices, and
perhaps increase tourism. In contrast, stakeholders tended to mention negative impacts
such as increased electricity rates, impacts to existing tourism, decreased property values,
and consequences for the commercial fishing industry.
29
When asked whether the impacts of Cape Wind on coastal property prices were
understood, the response from the group as a whole varied depending on whether we
weighted the respondents answers based on their answers to the "Seed" questions. With
weighting, the group's answer was "Little Known" while the non-weighted response of
the group was "Known."
Interestingly, supporters and opponents of Cape Wind did not agree on any single
answer. However, only two respondents, who both lived in a home within five miles of
the ocean and opposed the Cape Wind Project, marked the answer "Well Known." In
general, respondents in both groups wrote that not enough was known about this topic,
but those who scored higher when tested by my "Seed" section felt less confident that the
impacts were understood.
A majority of my survey group also indicated that there would be "Neither"
positive nor negative impacts on coastal property prices due to Cape Wind. However, all
seven respondents who opposed the Cape Wind Project disagreed and felt there would be
negative or very negative impacts on coastal property prices. Finally, not one single
respondent thought there could be "Very positive" impacts to coastal property prices.
Figure 7 summarizes my responses.
Figure 7. Whether Aesthetic Impacts Have Negative/Positive Property Price Impacts
The majority of respondents also felt Cape Cod would experience the highest
30
impact to property prices due to its location nearest to Cape Wind and the higher number
of people living in the area. Martha's Vineyard received the second ranking while
Nantucket was thought to be the least impacted.
When I pursued the question of how Cape Wind might impact tourism, I found
my two groups held very different opinions. A majority of wind energy professionals felt
domestic tourism spending might increase with Cape Wind while a majority in my
stakeholder group felt the exact opposite. However, self-identified economic experts in
the stakeholder group felt differently than the group as a whole because a majority of this
subset believed Cape Wind would increase tourism to the region. In contrast, respondents
who owned a business that relies on the ocean as a resource felt most strongly that
domestic tourism would decrease with Cape Wind.
Figures 8 and 9 summarize the different responses between the groups.
Figure 8. Domestic Tourism-Driven Spending Will Increase/Decrease—Wind Energy Professionals
31
Figure 9. Domestic Tourism Driven Spending Will Increase/Decrease—Stakeholders
The majority of respondents also felt Cape Cod would experience the highest
impact to tourism due to its location nearest to Cape Wind and the higher number of
people living in the area. Martha's Vineyard received the second ranking while Nantucket
was thought to be the least impacted.
The majority of my respondents also favored the idea that Cape Wind could
positively benefit the region's economy. In particular, only two offshore wind energy
professionals rejected this idea while six opponents of Cape Wind also rejected this idea.
Figure 10 summarizes answers to this question.
Figure 10. Respondents Who Believed Cape Wind Could Have A Positive Impact on the Cape Cod
Economy
32
For those who answered "Yes" to the above question, I then asked by how much
Cape Wind might benefit the region's economy. A majority of the group chose the range
of "$51 to $100 million." A majority of self-identified economic experts felt Cape Wind
could have a positive impact on the region's economy. However, nearly all of my
respondents wrote that this was a very hard estimate to make even if they believed Cape
Wind would create jobs, add to tourist revenue, or generate more marine traffic.
Figure 11 summarizes the spread of weighted answers for each of the above
Likert scale questions.
Figure 11. Economic Likert Scale Questions Spread to First Standard Deviation. Categories marked
with a "P" represent my wind energy professionals' answers while those with an "S" represent the
answers of my stakeholders. The first category marked "Und" represents the first question about
how well aesthetic impacts are understood. The next two categories marked "Prices" and "Incr"
represent the questions about impacts to coastal property prices and how much Cape Wind might
increase the economy in the region.
c. Marine Mammals
My respondents as a whole felt the impacts of underwater noise generated during
Cape Wind's construction and operation on marine mammals was "Known." However,
the self-identified experts in each group felt even more strongly that the impacts on
marine mammals were "Well Known" and "Very Well Known."
The next set of questions considered the construction and operation of Cape Wind
separately for their impacts on marine mammals. With regard to impacts on marine
mammal behavior during the construction phase, my respondents felt there would be
"Some" impact. All my respondents felt the feeding habits of marine mammals would be
the most effected, although members of my stakeholder group were less precise in their
33
answer and thought other behaviors could also be impacted. Figure 12 summarizes
responses to this question.
Figure 12. Which Aspects of Marine Mammal Behavior Will Be Affected by Construction
When asked to explain how they chose their answers, most respondents mentioned
that marine mammals would simply avoid the areas of construction, and that Cape Wind
would also seek to have them avoid the area during construction by use of "pingers."
Others felt there were few marine mammals located in Nantucket Sound.
My two groups diverged when asked which marine mammals would experience the
most impact from Cape Wind's construction. More wind energy professionals feared the
impacts to whales and porpoises than in the stakeholder group, although both also felt
seals would see adverse impacts. Figure 13 summarizes the responses.
34
Figure 13. Which Marine Mammals Will Be Most Affected by Construction
With regard to impacts on marine mammal behavior during the operation phase,
my respondents felt there would be "A Little" impact. The self-identified experts in the
wind energy professional group felt even more strongly, unanimously selecting an answer
"Not at all." Again, all my respondents felt the feeding habits of marine mammals would
be the most effected, although members of my stakeholder group again were less precise
in their answer and many thought breeding habits would be equally impacted.
Both my groups saw the relative impacts of underwater noise during the
construction and operation phases of Cape Wind similarly. Both agreed the construction
phase would hold the most impacts, but my wind energy professionals more strongly
followed this pattern. Figure 14 summarizes responses to this question.
35
Figure 14. Which Aspects of Marine Mammal Behavior Will Be Most Affected by the Operation of
Cape Wind
When asked to explain how they chose their answers, most respondents felt noise
associated with Cape Wind would have little to no impact on marine mammal behavior,
although a few mentioned impacts to whales or how the project would increase substrate
space for species marine mammals feed upon. My two groups again diverged when asked
which marine mammals would experience the most impact from Cape Wind's
construction. More wind energy professionals feared the impacts to porpoises than in the
stakeholder group which worried about the impacts to whales and seals. Figure 15
summarizes the responses.
36
Figure 15. Which Marine Mammals Will Be Most Affected by the Operation of Cape Wind
Finally, when asked the potential impact of Cape Wind on the well-being of
marine mammal populations on the East Coast of the United States, my respondents
overall felt there would be "No Impact At All."
Figure 16 summarizes the spread of weighted answers for each of the above
Likert scale questions.
Figure 16. Marine Mammal Likert Scale Questions Spread to First Standard Deviation. The first
category marked "Und" represents the first question about how well the impacts on marine
mammals are understood. The next two categories marked "Con" and "Oper" represent the
questions which attempted to gauge the level of impacts the construction and operation phases might
have on marine mammals. Finally, the category of "Well" represents the question about whether the
impact of Cape Wind could threaten the well-being of marine mammals on the East Coast of the
United States.
37
d. Sea Birds
My respondents felt the impacts of Cape Wind on sea birds were "Known."
However, the self-identified avian experts in the stakeholder group held disparate
answers which ranged from "Very Well Known" to "Not Known At All."
Respondents were then asked how accurate they felt a recent Massachusetts
Audubon report was that stated Cape Wind did not pose an "ecologically significant
threat" to birds in Nantucket Sound. My respondents chose the answer of "Accurate" for
this question as opposed to "Not At All Accurate" or "Very Accurate." Only opponents of
the Cape Wind Project chose the answer that the report was "Not at all accurate," with
three opponents choosing this answer choice. A majority of my self-identified avian
experts felt that that the Audubon report was "Very Accurate."
When asked to explain their answer, respondents noted that Audubon had done
years of field work and analysis "before taking that position," that studies in Europe had
indicated the offshore wind farms don't kill lots of birds, and that Massachusetts
Audubon had a strong reputation and the organization's findings were consistent with
reports from other locations. Opponents told a different story, noting that Massachusetts
Audubon had been given the bird monitoring contracts by Cape Wind and, suddenly,
changed their reports about the impacts on birds.
My stakeholder and wind energy professional groups diverged in their opinions
over whether the tendency of birds to avoid areas occupied by wind farms constituted an
ecological problem. My wind energy professionals largely chose the answer "Not Very
Significant" while my stakeholders found this problem to be "A Little Significant." This
difference between the groups stems from my stakeholder group containing opponents of
the project who found this problem to be more significant than other respondents.
When asked "Why or why not," respondents indicated that a Danish report shows
wind farms are good neighbors to birds, and that such an effect would only be
troublesome for birds if there were many more offshore wind farms or if Cape Wind's
footprint was larger. In contrast, some respondents noted that they've personally seen
migrating birds in the would-be footprint of Cape Wind, avoidance of wind farms could
increase distance to food sources, and that during harder winter months, bird strikes could
increase.
38
Figure 17 summarizes the spread of weighted answers for each of the above Likert
scale questions.
Figure 17. Sea Bird Likert Scale Questions Spread to First Standard Deviation. Categories marked
with a "P" represent my wind energy professionals' answers while those with an "S" represent the
answers of my stakeholders. The first category marked "Und" represents the first question about
how well the impacts on sea birds are understood. The next category marked "Rep" represents the
second question about the Audubon report. The two marked eco represent the question on whether
bird avoidance of areas occupied by wind farms represents and ecological problem.
e. Additional Questions
In addition to the main four topics tackled above, the survey also examined three
other questions pertinent to the planning of Cape Wind. My stakeholder group disagreed
with my wind energy professional group when asked whether the process leading up to
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's approval of permits for Cape Wind in April of 2010 felt
inclusive. In particular, my wind energy professionals thought the process had been
"Adequate" while the stakeholders surveyed felt the process has been "Somewhat
Adequate."
The difference in answers between the two groups again derived from the answers
of opponents of the project in the stakeholder group who largely felt disenfranchised by
39
the process leading up to Cape Wind's approval. The vast majority of proponents of the
project felt the project had been adequately inclusive or better.
Figure 18 summarizes the spread of answers to this question.
Figure 18. Process Until Salazar Decision Likert Scale Questions Spread to First Standard Deviation.
The category with an "P" on the end represents my wind experts' answers while the one with an "S"
on the end represents the answers of my stakeholders.
Respondents held a variety of opinions on why the process felt inclusive,
including the long-term public debate, political pressure through the development of
citizen's groups, scientific studies, many stakeholder meetings, physical visits by
government officials, and two Environmental Impact Statements (and many reviews). In
answer to how the process was exclusive, a few respondents felt the Wampanoags did not
have enough interactions with the Department of the Interior, some respondents felt there
were meetings but that their complaints fell on "deaf ears," that wealthy interests held the
most sway in the planning process, and that too much of the process occurred at the
federal level rather than with state agencies or local stakeholders.
In my next section, a majority of my respondents agreed that Cape Wind would
alter the way in which they or others view the Cape Cod region. Figure 19 summarizes
the responses to this question.
40
Figure 19. Do You Believe Cape Wind Will Change The Way You View the Region?
In explaining their answers, respondents noted both negative and positive
changes. On the negative side, respondents noted that it would turn a natural sanctuary
into an "industrial zone," or that Cape Cod would become a less desirable area with
"more conflicts for mariners." In contrast, those who felt positively about the change
thought it would appear to be a place where a meaningful scale of renewable energy will
be deployed with little impact on community and ecology, that outsiders would view the
Cape Cod community as a "symbol of energy independence," and that Cape Cod could
have the potential to illustrate that offshore wind farms are viable.
A final open-ended question asked respondents to say what trade-offs they felt
were inherent in devoting this ocean space to Cape Wind. Responses varied across the
board, but a large majority of respondents mentioned how commercial fishing would be
pushed out of the area occupied by Cape Wind. Other trade-offs mentioned included the
desecration of Wampanoag burial grounds, impacts to navigation, extra fuel burn by
airlines and ferries, waste management, and impacts on avian and marine mammals
species. However, many also noted positive trade-offs such as this projects lessoning of
dependence on fossil fuels and how that applies to climate change.
41
E. Discussion
This study uncovers multiple differences in knowledge between stakeholders and
wind energy experts and between different members of each group. Overall, the study
confirms that wind energy professionals and stakeholders possess differing degrees of
knowledge and form their opinions differently. Perhaps of more interest, though, is the
finding that in many cases the individual experts and the members of both groups agreed
on their answers.
In particular, using a standard weighting scheme, the only place we found our
“Seed” questions to alter the overall group answer was on how Cape Wind might impact
coastal property prices. Similarly, our two groups agreed about the level of impact to sea
birds, the importance of impacts to marine mammals, the fact the project would alter
perceptions of the region (albeit for different reasons), and the potential for the project to
generate economic growth.
However, differences between the two groups existed on what type of aesthetic
impact the project might have, the overall economic impacts of the project to the Cape
Cod region, the impacts to tourism, whether or not the process in approving Cape Wind
was inclusive and the types of marine mammals and which behaviors would be impacted.
These answers indicate that further research work needs to be done on the impacts
of offshore wind energy to the human community’s sense of aesthetic and into how
offshore wind can alter local and regional economies. It appears such findings either have
not been communicated or are simple not understood by the either group of experts, and
that further work in understanding and communicating them could make siting offshore
wind farms far easier. In contrast, the Cape Wind Project illustrates that experts of both
varieties do understand the impacts of the project to marine mammals and sea birds,
although the level of understanding is more precise in our wind energy professional
group (and particularly among self-identified experts in this group).
It’s important to note that the most important predictor variable of later responses
turned out to be whether or not a given stakeholder supported or opposed the Cape Wind
Project, indicating that members of our stakeholder group allowed their political leanings
to influence their answers. Similarly, the lack of a wind expert who opposed Cape Wind
may indicate a bias in the field whereby wind experts marked more favorable answers;
42
however, the wind energy professionals in this study appear to have nuanced opinions
that were explained when asked.
In addition, members of the stakeholder group were much more willing to identify
themselves as experts in a given subject—particularly economics and aesthetics—but
often scored much worse on the "Seed" section of the survey that tested their knowledge.
Such a finding remains consistent with the characteristics of the two groups and the fact
that members of the stakeholder group do, most likely, hold superior knowledge when
compared with the general public.
To better understand the places in which disparities of opinions existed between
members of the groups and between the two groups, I examine each section separately
below.
i. Aesthetics
The aesthetic section of my study demonstrated that no consensus exists among
either wind energy experts or local stakeholders on the aesthetic impacts of Cape Wind.
Each question resulted in contrasts between the opinions of members of each group,
between the two groups, and with preceding and following questions on aesthetics.
Overall, wind experts felt the general public knew about the aesthetic impacts of
Cape Wind, but generally, as a group, respondents did not hold opinions because they
believed that without any established offshore wind farms in the United States there was
no data to study or that aesthetic opinions were subjective. Interestingly, the wind experts
felt this way despite previous public opinion polls on Cape Wind and studies
documenting public attitudes about offshore wind in Denmark and elsewhere in Europe.76
77
In contrast, stakeholders largely held much more intense opinions despite the absence
of knowledge, with those opposed to the Cape Wind Project expressing the most
vehement and negative view of the aesthetic impacts of the project.
In trying to quantify the level of aesthetic impacts by tying it to coastal property
prices, the survey revealed a lack of knowledge as most survey respondents felt little was
76
Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Willingness to Pay for Reduced Visual Disamenities From Offshore Wind
Farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007. 35(8): 2059-71.
77
Firestone, Jeremy and Andrew D. Krueger and George R. Parsons. Valuing the Visual Disamenity of
Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances From the Shore: An Application on the Delaware
Shoreline. University of Delaware. Newark, DE. April 2010.
43
known about this subject despite the work of economists at the Beacon Hill Institute on
this exact subject.78 Clearly, the question of aesthetics when applied to Cape Wind
reveals areas where increased study may broaden the knowledge base, but the dynamics
of the Cape Cod community and the first-of-a-kind nature of Cape Wind make this an
issue that holds a great degree of uncertainty.
ii. Economics
On economics, my stakeholder and wind expert groups disagreed on nearly every
question, with my stakeholder group possessing a wider spread of answers primarily due
to a split among those who opposed and supported Cape Wind. This lack of consensus
demonstrates a disparity in knowledge and a difference in how the members of these two
different groups form opinions.
In particular, the stakeholder group disagreed with my wind experts and felt much
more strongly that the economic impacts of Cape Wind were not well understood. This
lack of understanding did not translate into a lessening of intensity of opinion, with a
large number of stakeholders—most who opposed Cape Wind—believing it could
decrease domestic tourism-driven spending and may have no positive impact on the
region's economy. My wind experts were more inclined to believe Cape Wind could have
a positive impact on domestic tourism-driven spending perhaps because they knew of
literature such as that documenting increased interest in beach tourism for proposed wind
farms in New Jersey and Delaware.79
Despite the political leanings of respondents, a majority in both groups did report
that Cape Wind could have a positive impact on the economy of Cape Cod, with
opponents and supporters of the project choosing both "Yes" and "No" to this question.
This response may result from the varying ways in which respondents saw the impacts of
Cape Wind on the economy, from its ability to help the region attract a green energy
economy, the negative and positive impacts it could have on tourism, impacts on
78
Barrett, John and Jonathan Haughton and Douglas Giuffre. Blowing in the Wind: Offshore Wind and the
Cape Cod Economy. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. October 2003. Pages 1-53.
79
Firestone, Jeremy and Willett Kempton and Andrew Krueger. Delaware Opinion on Offshore Power:
Interim Report. January 16, 2007. 1-16 pp.
44
electricity prices, and the negative and positive impacts it might have on commercial
fishing and recreational boating.
Overall, this section of my study reveals that my two groups possessed differing
degrees of knowledge about both how well the economic impacts of Cape Wind on the
region's economy were understood and whether those impacts could be positive or
negative. In addition, faced with an absence of knowledge or a degree of uncertainty over
possible outcomes, my stakeholders in particular were willing to form an opinion based
only on their own sentiments regarding Cape Wind. It should be noted that my wind
experts may also conclude positive opinions due to their involvement in the wind energy
field, but I can't prove that conclusively through the data in my study.
iii. Marine Mammals
When examining the impacts to marine mammals, the knowledge base for both
groups of respondents appeared much more secure with both groups feeling the impacts
were known. In fact, those who called themselves experts on marine mammals believed
the impacts to be better known than the group as a whole.
In addition, most respondents believed marine mammals would be most affected
during the construction of Cape Wind, but that even these effects would be minimal and
mainly cause marine mammals to avoid the area (altering their feeding and migratory
patterns). Such opinions agree with existing literature that documents the impacts of the
construction and operation of large offshore wind farms comparable to Cape Wind.80 81 In
general, those who held expertise in the study of marine mammals felt the operation of
Cape Wind would hold no impact while those who did not identify as expert felt low
frequency noise could impact whales.
The responses to this section indicate both a high degree of knowledge about the
impacts of offshore wind farms on marine animals and very little disparity of opinion. Of
course, the expert group once again demonstrated more cohesiveness in their answers
80
Bailey H, Senior B, Simmons D, Rusin J, Picken G, and Thompson PM. Assessing underwater noise
levels during pile-driving at an offshore wind farm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2010 Jun; 60(6):888-97. Epub 2010 Feb 11. University of Aberdeen, Institute of Biological and
Environmental Sciences, Lighthouse Field Station, Cromarty, Ross-shire IV11 8YJ, UK.
81
Kafeman, Rudolph and Werner Piper, Frank Thomsen, and Karin Ludemann. Effects of Offshore Wind
Farm Noise on Marine Mammals and Fish. COWRIE. Hamburg, Germany. July 6, 2006.
45
while the stakeholders gave a much wider array of answers. I can once again explain this
difference between the groups as resulting from some stakeholders’ willingness to allow
their opinions to dictate their answers. Interestingly, both groups felt seals and porpoises
would be the most affected species which also are the two groups most commonly
spotted in Nantucket Sound.82 Considering that the protection of marine mega fauna
historically attracts a great deal of attention, the higher level of knowledge about the
impacts of wind farms on such species isn’t surprising.
iv. Sea Birds
Both groups again agreed that the impacts on sea birds could be well-described
indicating that both groups of respondents felt the knowledge level on this topic to be
quite high. The high levels of knowledge in this area may result from a longstanding
debate on the impacts of both terrestrial and offshore wind farms on birds.83 84
Interestingly, though, stakeholders who opposed Cape Wind perceived this debate
differently and believed that birds could be adversely impacted. Such opinions were
complicated by a report by Massachusetts Audubon that stipulated Cape Wind did not
pose an “ecologically significant threat” to birds in Nantucket Sound. This caused many
stakeholders who did not believe the Audubon Society to explain their answer by saying
the group was in the pocket of the Cape Wind developers. In fact, on all three questions,
the stakeholder group held much wider arrays of opinions than the wind expert group.
While most members of each group felt the direct impacts of offshore wind farms
on birds to be understood, some disparity of opinion did exist when considering bird
avoidance behavior in relation to Cape Wind. Perhaps because the literature exploring the
impacts on birds due to avoidance behavior isn’t conclusive, some respondents felt
offshore wind farms could be good neighbors while others disagreed. Some degree of this
confusion may also stem from the fact that offshore wind farms can vary greatly in terms
of what kinds of birds share the space depending on where they’re located.
82
Army Corps of Engineers. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Section 5: “Environmental Resources
and Consequences for the Applicant’s Proposed Alternative.” November 8, 2004.
83
Allison, Taber D. and Clarke, Jack. Final Position on the Cape Wind Energy Project. MassAudubon.
June 24, 2010.
84
Drewit, Allan L. and Rowena H.W. Langston. Assessing the Impacts of Wind Farms on Birds. British
Ornithologists Union. 2006. pages 29-42.
46
v. Additional Questions
When asked whether the process leading up to the approval of Cape Wind
adequately engaged local communities, wind experts and stakeholders possessed very
different answers. Stakeholders opposed to Cape Wind felt disenfranchised by the
process because they felt it had been conducted with a predetermined outcome in view.
Interestingly, although both supporters and opponents in the stakeholder group hailed
from Cape Cod itself and participated in planning surrounding Cape Wind, only
opponents express this feeling of exclusion.
Finally, highlighting the controversial nature of Cape Wind, the majority of
survey respondents felt Cape Wind would alter the way they or others view the region.
However, respondents varied greatly on whether this would be a negative or positive
change. Perhaps more indicative of the change most respondents felt was coming, 11
respondents believed building Cape Wind meant loosing traditional commercial fishing
activities while only five respondents felt multiple-uses could still exist. The next most
cited trade-off included the impacts on navigation whether it was to the ferries running to
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, recreational boating or marine transportation.
vi. Phone Elicitations
Held prior to distribution of the survey, the phone elicitations indicate respondents
held a wide variety of ideas about the Cape Wind project. Not surprisingly, the wind
expert group expressed different perceptions of Cape Wind than the stakeholder group. In
particular, seven of the wind experts noted the importance of Cape Wind as a first-of-akind project that would generate international attention and get the United States on the
path of sustainable, clean energy future. Not one single stakeholder noted the importance
of Cape Wind from a trend-setting stance although two respondents did talk about Cape
Wind as a means for helping to achieve carbon free energy generation in the United
States.
However, both groups did agree that one of the major impacts of Cape Wind to
consider would be the impacts on sea birds and marine organisms. Overall, two
respondents in the wind expert group talked about the impacts to birds and marine
47
mammals while three stakeholders mentioned the same topics. Three stakeholders also
talked about the impacts to energy supply both from the negative viewpoint of cost and
the positive perspective of cleaning up air quality. Four of the wind experts also
discussed this topic from the starting point that rate payers may pay more but that clean
energy was necessary to avoid climate change and clean up the air. Similarly, economics
also made up a key talking point for some respondents, with four stakeholders talking
about both the negative and positive economic effects posed by the construction of Cape
Wind and one energy expert discussing the positive impacts it might hold in the longterm. Finally, one wind expert and two stakeholders discussed the aesthetic impacts of
Cape Wind.
Other issues discussed include the impacts of Cape Wind on tourism, air traffic
control, Native American burial grounds, the fishing industry and public safety. Each of
these discussions differed greatly with some people feeling tourism would drop
precipitously if Cape Wind is built while others felt there wasn’t much fishing on
Nantucket Sound anyway that could be impacted.
Specific quotes from these interviews can be found in Appendix B.
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. My Research
No panacea exists to make future debates over offshore wind farms less politically
challenging. To some extent, however, all of the policy alternatives described below
could help create a process that better acknowledges the values at stake in siting offshore
wind farms. Most of these processes derive in part from lessons learned in the debate
over Cape Wind. While options such as moving wind farms further offshore should be
reserved for unique cases in which such action is deserved, considerations involving
multiple uses of leased areas or regional planning must immediately be incorporated into
any streamlined process adopted by Secretary Salazar.
More importantly, though, the Cape Wind Project serves an important role as the
first project of a kind which can be monitored and researched to help inform future
projects. Through the completion of such studies, policymakers can help better ascertain
how accurate perceptions of the impacts posed by an offshore wind project might be and
48
determine which values are truly at stake. If such results—coupled with the above
processes examining wind farms in their proper context—were communicated to the
public competently, it could be an effective tool for both choosing appropriate sites and
explaining to local communities why they might have a wind farm in their backyard.
In particular, the human impacts of offshore wind remain a thorny issue. More
research must be done on the economic impacts and aesthetic impacts and the way these
changes might affect concerned communities. By better communicating this information,
policymakers can better warn potential opponents ahead of time how their community
was chosen. In addition, some additional work must be done to communicate how each
site differs biophysically and effort put into communicating this to the general public who
might not fully understand the nuances of the environmental impacts—and instead return
to them as a sounding drum of opposition as has occurred in the Cape Wind debate over
the last decade.
B. Recommendations
The streamlining of any offshore wind energy development process requires many
considerations in order to make the process accountable for the impacts of such projects
and considerate of local and regional communities’ concerns. Below are a few general
recommendations will help to define the true nature of the lessons Secretary Salazar may
have learned from the Cape Wind Project.
i. Regional Planning
The Secretary of the Interior must take into account regional geographical,
geological and ecological impacts when thinking about where to site offshore wind
farms. For example, offshore wind farms might not directly harm bird populations but
they could severely impact populations if alternative areas along the coast also possess
hazards.85 Regional planning must also take into account the locations of offshore wind
farms with respect to regional and national energy markets, other broad uses of the ocean,
85
Drewit, Allan L. and Rowena H.W. Langston. Assessing the Impacts of Wind Farms on Birds. British
Ornithologists Union. 2006. pages 29-42.
49
the environmental sensitivity of the region, and the impacts on coastal states.86
ii. Moving Offshore Wind Farms Further Offshore
In a 2010 study, researchers at the University of Delaware utilized a willingness-topay approach to determine the feasibility of moving a wind farm far enough offshore to
be out of the viewshed on the coast of Delaware.87 The research concluded that in some
cases residents would be willing to pay extra energy rates simply to move the wind farm
out of the coastal viewshed.88
iii. Increased Research and Monitoring.
Treat the siting of “the first generation of wind farms” as “a kind of
experiment.”89 Utilize research on the human impacts of the project coupled with
monitoring of wind farms such as Cape Wind to determine the actual environmental,
social and economic impacts of the project. In such a manner, the true intersection
between the perceptions of offshore wind farms and their impacts can be teased-out and
utilized in any future planning processes.90
iv. Identify An Instrument to Convey Legal Interests and Allocation Methods
An instrument that “conveys the legal interests or rights” to undertake wind power
development must be clear and exclusive in order to avoid delays like those that
prolonged the approval process in the case of Cape Wind.91 The government should
develop models that simulate the operation of wind farms in different areas and estimate
86
Hoagland, P and M.E. Schumacher, H.L. Kite-Powell and J.A. Duff. "Legal and Regulatory Framework
for Siting Offshore Wind Energy Facilities." Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Final Report, June 2006.
87
Firestone, Jeremy and Andrew D. Krueger and George R. Parsons. Valuing the Visual Disamenity of
Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances From the Shore: An Application on the Delaware
Shoreline. University of Delaware. Newark, DE. April 2010.
88
Id.
89
Hoagland, P and M.E. Schumacher, H.L. Kite-Powell and J.A. Duff. "Legal and Regulatory Framework
for Siting Offshore Wind Energy Facilities." Marine Policy Center , Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. Final Report, June 2006.
90
Beaudry-Losique, Jacques and et. al. "Creating An Offshore Wind Industry in the United
States: A Strategic Work Plan for the United States Department of Energy, Fiscal Years
2011-2015." U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Wind & Water Power Program. September 2, 2010
91
Id.
50
their potential resource rent. A process such as the proposed auctions should be used to
allocate access to a natural area in a manner that provides adequate compensation to the
public through government collection of rent.
v. One-Stop Shopping
Although the legal statutes currently governing the siting of offshore wind farms
are various and complex, moving toward having the Bureau of Ocean Management,
Regulation and Enforcement take the lead in any process constitutes the right step for
streamlining the permitting process. A single consolidated process would be infeasible
because it would require “drastic jurisdictional changes that few regional governments
would accept and few national legislatures would attempt.”92 In addition, such a
consolidation might cause the public benefits of tourism, fishing, and aesthetic
preservation to be sacrificed in any streamlined process that removed complex
considerations.
vi. Multiple Use Planning
Any process must incorporate the opportunity costs of siting an offshore wind
farm into the planning so that provisions for consideration include the “alternative uses of
the ocean.”93 Such deliberations must examine whether competing uses will be excluded
by the wind farm, and the economic value of such uses in comparison to the value of
building the wind farm.
VII. Other Works Not Cited
1. Alison, Alessi and et. al. Cape and Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative:
Promoting A Sustainable Future. November 3, 2009. CIRENEW.
92
Hoagland, P and M.E. Schumacher, H.L. Kite-Powell and J.A. Duff. "Legal and Regulatory Framework
for Siting Offshore Wind Energy Facilities." Marine Policy Center , Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. Final Report, June 2006.
93
Id.
51
2. Aspinall, Willy and Roger M. Cooke. Expert Judgment and the Montserrat Volcano
Eruption. International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management.
Vol. 3. 1998. Pages 2113-2118.
3. Aspinall, Willy. A Route To More Tractable Expert Advice. Nature. Macmillan
Publishers Limited. 2010..
4. Bird, Lori and Mark Bolinger, Troy Gagliano, Ryan Wiser, Matthew Brown and Brian
Parsons. Policies and Market Factors Driving Wind Power Development in the United
States. Energy Policy. Vol. 33. 2005. 1297-1407 pp.
5. Bogen, Karen and Rebecca Crow and Mary Ellen Colton. 2005 Cape Cod Resident
Survey: Final Report. Center for Survey Research. University of Massachusetts, Boston.
April 4, 2006.
6. Burke, Kristen and Fara Courtney, Barbara Hill, and Greg Watson. Cape and Islands
Offshore Wind Public Outreach Initiative. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Progress Report. December 2002.
7. Burnham, Michael. Energy Policy: Corporate Heavies Urge Tripling US. CleanEnergy Funding. E and E Publishing. June 10, 2010.
8. Bynum, Marvin C. Testing the Waters: Assessing Wisconsin's Regulatory Climate for
Offshore Wind Projects. Marquette Law Review. Marquette University Law School,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. March 2010.
9. Charles River Associates. Analysis of the Impact of Cape Wind on New England
Energy Prices. Boston, Mass. February 8, 2010.
52
10. Clarke, Steven and Fara Courtney, Katherine Dykes, Laurie Jodziewicz, and Greg
Watson. U.S. Offshore Wind Energy: A Path Forward. U.S. Offshore Wind
Collaborative. October 2009. Pages 1-52.
11. Cooke, Roger M. Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in
Science. Oxford University Press, New York. 1991.
12. Cooke, Roger M and et. al. On the Performance of Social Network and Likelihoodbased Expert Weighting Schemes. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol 63.
Issue 5. 2008. Pages 745-756.
13. Enzensberger, N and M Wietschel and O. Rentz. Policy Instruments Fostering Wind
Energy Projects—A Multiperspective Evaluation Approach. Energy Policy. 30. 2002.
Pages 793-801.
14. Firestone, Jeremy and Willett Kempton, Jonathan Lilley, Tracy Rouleau, and Phillip
Whitaker. "The Offshore Wind Power Debate: Views from Cape Cod." Coastal
Management. 2005. 33:119–149.
15. Giuffre, Douglas and Jonathan Haughton and David G. Tuerck. Free but Costly: An
Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound. Beacon Hill Institute: Suffolk
University. March 2004.
16. Global Insight. Economic Impact Analysis of the Cape Wind Off Shore Renewable
Energy Project. Prepared for Cape Wind Associates. Lexington, MA. April 2, 2003.
17. Haughton, Jonathan and David G. Tuerck. Subsidies to a Wind Farm in Nantucket
Sound. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. Boston, Massachusetts. May
2006.
53
18. Hoagland, Porter. Which way will the wind blow? Marine scientists have a key role to
play in the debate over wind farms in the coastal ocean. Oceanus Spring-Summer 2005,
v43 i1, p56(4).
19. Hoagland, Porter and M.E. Schumacher, H.L. Kite-Powell, and J.A. Duff. Legal and
Regulatory Framework for Siting Offshore Wind Energy Facilities. Final Report. Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution. June 2006.
20. Krosnick, Jon A. The Climate Majority. The New York Times. Stanford, California,
June 8, 2010. Op-ed.
21. Krupnick, Alan and Richard Morgenstern, Michael Batz, Peter Nelson, Dallas
Burtraw, Jhih-Shyang Shih, and Michael Williams. Not A Sure Thing: Making
Regulatory Choices Under Uncertainty. Resources for the Future. February 2006.
22. Lew, Daniel K. and Douglas M. Larson. Valuing Recreation and Amenities at San
Diego County Beaches. Coastal Management. 33: 71-86. 2005.
23. Madsen, P.T. and M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. Wind Turbine
Underwater Noise and Marine Mammals: Implications of Current Knowledge and Data
Needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 209. March 15, 2006. 279-295 pp.
24. Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership. "Why Horseshoe Shoals Should be the Last
Place to Site a Massive Wind Factory."
www.fishermenspartnership.org/pdf/HORSESHOE-SHOAL.doc
25. Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism. The Economic Impacts of Travel on
Massachusetts Counties November 2009. U.S Travel Association. Washington, DC.
26. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center.
Introduction to Survey Design and Delivery. Charleston, South Carolina. 2007.
54
27. Operate, A/S and et. al. Danish Offshore Wind—Key Environmental Issues.
Copenhagen: DENA, 2006.
http://193.88.185.141/Graphics/Publikationer/Havvindmoeller/index.htm
28. Oppenheimer, Michael and Brian C. O'Neill, Mort Webster, Shardul Agrawala. The
Limits of Consensus. Science. Vol. 317. 14 September 2007. Pages 1505-1506.
29. Parker, Richard A. and Louis M. Rea. Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A
Comprehensive Guide. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 2005.
30. Perkins, Simon., Jones, Andrea., and Taber, Allison. Survey of Tern Activity Within
Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts, During Pre-Migratory Fall Staging. MassAudubon.
Division of Conservation Science and Ecological Management. January 8, 2010.
31. Press Release. Cape Wind Signs Agreement to Buy Siemens 3.6-MW Offshore Wind
Turbines. March 31, 2010.
http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10
86
32. The Scottish Parliament, Information Center. Tourism in Scotland. Research Note.
August 10, 1999.
33. Sierra Club. Guidelines on Offshore Renewable Energy and Transmission Projects.
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/wind_siting.aspx
34. Sorensen, Hans Christian and Kars Kjeld Hansen, Karin Hammarlund and Jens. H.
Larsen. Experience with and Strategies For Public Involvement in Offshore Wind
Projects. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. Vol. 1, No.
4. 2002. Pages 327-336.
55
35. Tyshenko, Michael G. and Shalu Darshan. Summary Report of the Expert Elicitation
Workshop Results for Iatrogenic Prion Disease Risk in Canada. PrioNet Canada.
Universite
Canadienne.
Ottawa,
Canada.
November
18,
2009.
36. Bennett, James F. and et. al. Cape Wind Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Minerals
Management
Service.
January
2009.
http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWindFEIS.htm
37. Bennett, James F. and et. al. Cape Wind Energy Project: Environmental Assessment.
U.S. Department of the Interior. April 28, 2010.
38. Wickerhsam, Jay. Sacred Landscapes and Profane Structures: How Offshore Wind
Power Challenges The Environmental Impact Review Process. Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review. Vol. 31:325. Pages 327-347.
39. Zickfield, Kirsten and Anders Levermann, M. Granger Morgan, Till Kuhlbrodt,
Stefan Rahmstorf, David W. Keith. Expert Judgements on the Response of the Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation to Climate Change. Climatic Change. 22 March
2007. 235-265 pp.
56
VIII. Appendix A: The Survey
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
IX. Appendix B: Excerpted Quotes from Phone Elicitations
Wind Experts
“It’s the first offshore wind farm in the United States through the NEPA process and it’s
setting the standard by which other offshore wind farms will be reviewed.”
“My impression is the conservation issue will center mainly on birds, migratory birds and
some local birds, which is mainly true of projects such as those in Denmark.”
“I regret that this thing is being put where it is, it is one of few visually pristine areas on
the New England coast and I think it’s unfortunate it's going where it is going.”
“The reality is…the rest of the world will have a higher opinion of it.”
“The other impacts brought up by the opposition, I can't think they would be really
significant. The impact on fish or on birds, I can't see any of this.”
“The [impacts] that come to mind would be impacts on birds and sea creatures…Just
because a species isn't endangered doesn't mean that gross amounts of takes are
justifiable.”
“But obviously the one that got the most press is the visual impact.”
“It will have a positive [economic] influence because I think it will create jobs and attract
some interest in that area.”
“I certainly feel like given the amount of oil we end up using locally and nationally,
starting something that will help reduce that is probably the biggest impact.”
68
“The groundbreaking nature of it.”
“I tend to think about things in a comparative context. So I tend to think about air
pollutants and human health issues avoided, climate change, and then I guess I would
also just say social acceptance issues.”
“I always point out to people that the problem with any project like this, any large energy
project, is that the benefits are very broadly spread and the costs are local.”
“We need to get new, clean energy generation facilities installed and operated so we can
in fact reduce our reliance on fossil fuels in general. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and
when you look at renewable energy, you don't have to drill or mine, you just have to
construct something. The Cape Wind Project places generation near where the load is.
It’s not like onshore wind where you have to take energy from where the resource is and
transport it to New York.”
Stakeholders
“This is a big a negative for the cape and islands community, as well as for rate payers
throughout Massachusetts.”
“I think of it in terms of green house gas emissions reduction.”
“I would suspect people will want to come here, to take a boat out, sail around them, hear
about what these things do and how to do them in their own community. It’s not only
tourism but also an educational benefit.”
“Because it has been in the news more recently, the economic impact, that our electric
rates will increase… and that is a concern because people's budgets are already stretched.
And as much as I applaud the use of green energy, which I personally use in my homes, I
69
think it’s really a private developer’s windfall who gets several hundred million dollars of
public lands for private gain.”
“It’s a real insult to the Wampanoags to interfere with their burial grounds and their
ceremonies.”
“Environmentally, I think its total nightmare. If it weren't for subsidies, it wouldn't hold
merit on its own. It's pretty important that it be financially feasible without subsidies and
all sorts of financial trickery.”
“Economically, I think it is important in creating jobs—not just in the sense of the direct
jobs that Cape Wind will create in the region. It’s that offshore clean energy is going to
be a big industry in the United States in the years to come.”
“For visitors around the world, it will be a reason for visitors to come here.”
“First of all, when you think about an industrial sized wind farm, there are environmental
concerns that have gotten a lot of attention…the other concerns are potentially economic
and when you have that many turbines out there, there is a visual impact associated with
that.”
“We could do so much more through conservation and efficiency projects than could
have ever be accomplished by Cape Wind.”
“People come here to look at an unbroken horizon.”
“It will have a devastating impact on the fishing industry, pleasure boating industry,
marinas that support the pleasure boating industry, big ferry lines, and on airports.”
70
“I think the biggest impact is going to be the energy generation…it provides an example
for people around here that they can get a hold of. It doesn't mean much for Cape Cod but
the truly huge scale nature of the project is sort of like a game changer.”
“Our group supports Cape Cod and the Islands becoming carbon neutral.”
“I think the biggest thing to realize is that a few years down the line, after it’s up and
running, it just won't be a big deal.”
“The most important thing to me, is just using natural wind, there are no emissions of any
type.”
“The other thing is they are very graceful, from my particular point of view.”
“I really truly believe there is no positive benefit to Cape Wind because of a poorly
chosen location
‘They’ve never spoken to a first responder.”
71