Citizens of Massachusetts clearly prioritize green energy at the polls and in their lives. According to data collected in 2011 by The MassINC Polling Group, 87 percent of residents want to see more reliance on solar power, while 86 percent want to see more reliance on wind generation. According to preliminary data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 6.5 percent of Massachusetts power is renewable or from other alternative sources, and the administration of Gov. Deval Patrick has set a goal of 25 percent by 2020. In Massachusetts, we even want our vices to be green: the planned Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs “will be energy efficient, environmentally sustainable, and healthy for our employees and our guests.”

The state’s Cape Wind offshore wind farm project appeared to be an early innovator in green energy when it was first proposed in 2001. “We had a vision for Cape Wind because we wanted to demonstrate you could produce significant amounts of electricity, displace a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, create new green jobs, and start a pioneering effort to get people thinking about this offshore wind resource that we have,” Jim Gordon of Cape Wind Associates wrote recently. The firm intends to construct state-of-the-art windmills off the coast of Nantucket Sound, offering a model for other New England energy producers to follow. According to its promoters, Cape Wind would be locally sourced energy, create many jobs for the Massachusetts economy, allow the state to close its dirtiest power plants, and reduce energy prices.

The process of scientific inquiry revels in debate, discussion, and discourse. Public comment and peer review of how the government selected, weighed, and combined the integrated assessment climate models, what those models mean, and the appropriateness of the various assumptions and inferences made to deal with economic and scientific uncertainty will not only add credibility to future government climate policies, but encourage advances in scientific understanding of these complex issues.

But many Cape Cod residents came out in full force against the project, denouncing the proposed 400-foot-tall windmills for cluttering the picturesque views of Nantucket Sound for those who own oceanfront property. To be sure, the opponents were a narrow, affluent group, but even after consideration of the costs and benefits for all stakeholders, it was very difficult to show the project would deliver overall benefits for the Massachusetts economy. The property value losses resulting from the project would not be negligible; our organization estimates that they would total about $1.35 billion. And under reasonable assumptions, tourism spending in Massachusetts would decline by $57–$123 million per year as a result of the altered Nantucket Sound seascape. But the state government eventually determined that the project would still be worth it; the $1.35-billion reduction in property values will allegedly be offset by the benefits of a sustainable energy future for Massachusetts. The project could begin construction in the coming months, though it is facing funding issues.

Leaving Cape Wind behind / While Cape Wind proponents have spent the last decade slowly answering public concerns and receiving further promises of public support, the world has left the project behind. It has become obvious that the project offers no net benefits for the state. The world of 2001 featured increasing energy prices, and coal-fired generation still comprised a significant proportion of the energy portfolio of Massachusetts. But in 2013 the alternative to Cape Wind isn’t coal; it’s natural gas. According to the EIA, less than 6 percent of electric power production in Massachusetts was coal-fired in 2012–2013, while in 2001 coal accounted for nearly 29 percent. Natural gas accounted for a little over 30 percent in 2001, but almost 69 percent in 2012.

Cape Wind’s costs also compare unfavorably with other renewable sources and current Massachusetts electricity prices (9–10 cents per kilowatt-hour). TransCanada’s Kibby Wind Farm currently sells its green energy for 10.5 cents per kWh. Quebec exports its hydroelectric power for as cheap as 6 cents. In contrast, Cape Wind has contracts in place that currently sell its power for 18.7 cents per kWh, and that price automatically increases by 3.5 percent per year. After 10 years, the price will be 26.4 cents per kWh. If this is the future of energy, the future is dystopian.

These excessive rates are just the most egregious example of the subsidies, both explicit and implicit, that Cape Wind will need to survive. Cape Wind also depends on federal tax credits. The Investment Tax Credit will likely earn Cape Wind about $780 million, and speculative estimates put the value of what it will receive from the Production Tax Credit well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Cape Wind also has asked the federal government for a $300 million loan guarantee because it cannot find a private investor who takes its financials seriously. (For more on wind subsidies, see “The High Cost of Low-Value Wind Power,” Spring 2013.)

There are many better options for green energy in New England than the Cape Wind project—including other wind projects and Canadian hydroelectric power. Massachusetts deserves better.