Share this:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the son of Robert F. Kennedy, Sr., previous Attorney General and U.S. Senator. He is also the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy is an environmental lawyer who advocates environmental issues and is listed as counsel for the Riverkeepers Alliance. Mr. Kennedy has strongly supported renewable energy and opposes coal-fired electric generation. He has supported wind generation as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the environment. I have followed Mr. Kennedy on a number of these issues and found that I agree with his point-of-view only to the extent that neither of us want the beauty of nature to be harmed by electric generation or any other factor. On July 18, Mr. Kennedy authored an article in the Wall Street Journal on the controversial off-shore Cape Wind project. The wind project would cover 25 acres and consist of 130 large wind turbines stationed off the coast of Massachusetts. The Cape Wind Project, like all wind projects, is heavily dependent upon federal and state subsidies. The project is also apparently dependent upon contracts with Massachusetts electric utilities to purchase the wind power at prices much higher than the market price for electricity from other sources. The turbines apparently will be visible from the Kennedy Summer Home at Hyannis Port, Mass.. Mr. Kennedy argues that the Cape Wind Project is a ‘rip-off’ and Massachusetts electric rate payers will have to pay more than 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for the wind power while electricity from other sources is available for around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. He also states that the electric consumers taking power from the Cape Wind Project would be ‘getting fleeced’ in comparison to their neighbors in Vermont, who can purchase hydropower from Quebec Hydro. Mr. Kennedy bluntly states, ‘Whether you agree or disagree with the fishermen, homeowners and environmentalists who have fought Cape Wind for a decade, the fact is this project makes no sense for ratepayers and taxpayers.’ He concludes the article by stating, ‘Stopping Cape Wind is now about preventing us from buying into a boondoggle, from investing desperately needed federal, state and ratepayer dollars in a single project on public land for the benefit of a private developer when better and cheaper renewable energy – from wind and water power – is abundantly available.’ It is difficult to argue with Mr. Kennedy’s conclusions. The wind power from the Cape Wind Project is more expensive than electricity from other sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear — even with the subsidies. However, I will take Mr. Kennedy’s argument further. Most wind projects would not be built except for subsidies from federal and state governments. The cost of wind power is not competitive with the cost of existing fossil or nuclear electric generation if the cost of transmission is added to the cost of the wind power. It makes little sense to benefit private wind project developers with much-needed taxpayer and ratepayer dollars. Understand that wind projects, off-shore and on-shore, are opposed by some people and some communities. The projects don’t have the public profile of a Nantucket Sound project nor do their opponents have the same access to media sources as Mr. Kennedy. Also understand that wind power will increase your electric bill whether the wind power comes from the Cape Wind Project or an on-shore project. A portion of your tax dollars will also go to the developer of the wind project. If wind energy is so wonderful, why is it not competitive with other sources of electricity without government subsidies? While directing tax revenues and increased electric revenues to private developers may or not be a boondoggle, I agree with Mr. Kennedy: they appear to be a ‘rip-off.’

Advertisement