LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Report cites benefits from Mass. green campaign; Sees some benefits, no drag on state’s economy from ’08 law 

Hibbard, the report’s lead author, was appointed by Patrick as chairman of Department of Public Utilities and served from 2007 through 2010, when the agency wrote rules to implement provisions of the Green Communities Act. Hibbard said the report was a “rigorous, objective review” — and not biased. “Virtually all of those [Green Communities Act] measures were installed, constructed, or approved after my departure from DPU,” he said.

Credit:  By Jay Fitzgerald, Globe Correspondent | The Boston Glove | March 04, 2014 | www.bostonglobe.com ~~

The state’s landmark law to promote energy efficiency and renewable power sources such as wind and solar is projected to produce a modest economic benefit in coming years, including the creation of about 16,000 jobs, according to new report released Tuesday.

The report by Analysis Group, a Boston economic and financial consulting firm, is believed to be the first detailed look at the economic impact of the state’s Green Communities Act, passed in 2008 with the primary aim of promoting renewable energy and cutting greenhouse gas emissions blamed for accelerating climate change.

The study found that the programs put in place by the law, and financed with $2.7 billion in higher electric and natural gas rates, would create enough economic activity to cover those costs and yield a net benefit of $1.2 billion over about 15 years.

The lead author of the report acknowledged the projected economic benefits are relatively small in a state with a $400 billion economy and a workforce of about 3.3 million people. But Paul Hibbard, vice president at Analysis Group, said the study shows the Green Communities Act is not a drag on the state’s economy, as some critics have contended, and is even helping it a bit.

“In the big scheme of things, these numbers may not look large,” Hibbard said. “But they’re still positive numbers.”

The report, funded by the Barr Foundation, a charitable nonprofit that has made fighting climate change a priority, focused solely on the economic impact of the law and did not consider potential environmental and health benefits.

Alan Clayton-Matthews, an economist at Northeastern University, agreed that $1.2 billion in net economic activity and 16,000 jobs add up to “virtually no impact” on the broader economy. But, he said, the potential pluses of a cleaner environment and resulting health improvements are probably incalculable.

“The fact is, it appears to be not costing the state economic growth, and that’s sort of nice,” said Clayton-Matthews, who was not involved in the report.

Robert Rio, vice president at Associated Industries of Massachusetts, a business group that has been highly critical of Governor Deval Patrick’s environmental initiatives, said the report’s findings are “probably pretty close to the truth.”

“The economic benefits are quite modest – which is why I think the report is right,” said Rio.

But he warned that not all the requirements of the Green Communities Act have been implemented. Goals yet realized, such as increasing the use of expensive offshore wind power, could quickly offset the relatively small benefits, he said.

“What we fear moving forward is that the more costly items [in the act] still have to be implemented – and that could hurt,” Rio said.

The Analysis Group study looked only at the programs implemented since the law was passed six years ago.

The study uses economic models to estimate the economic pluses and minuses from 2010 through 2025.

Some of the report’s findings:

■ The energy-efficiency program and other components of the act are largely paid for by utilities, which in turn recover the costs by charging higher electric and natural gas rates.

■ Despite the upfront costs, the study said, efficiency programs will cut consumption by enough energy to power about 5 million homes for a year, thus providing a net savings for consumers.

■ The reduction in demand will eliminate the need to build power plants that burn natural gas and other fossil fuels.

■ The energy-efficiency programs have created jobs for workers who install insulation, lighting, heating systems, and other equipment to conserve energy.

These modest economic gains seem to fall short of boasts by the Patrick administration that the governor’s environmental polices have created hundreds of clean-energy firms and up to 80,000 new jobs.

But Richard K. Sullivan Jr., state secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said the Green Communities Act is one of just many energy and environmental initiatives that are boosting the state’s economy.

They include the Clean Energy Jobs Act and the Global Warming Solutions Act, also passed in the early years of the Patrick administration.

Sullivan added that more benefits from the Green Communities Act will be realized as more programs, such as solar and wind projects, kick into gear.

Hibbard, the report’s lead author, was appointed by Patrick as chairman of Department of Public Utilities and served from 2007 through 2010, when the agency wrote rules to implement provisions of the Green Communities Act.

Hibbard said the report was a “rigorous, objective review” – and not biased.

“Virtually all of those [Green Communities Act] measures were installed, constructed, or approved after my departure from DPU,” he said.

Source:  By Jay Fitzgerald, Globe Correspondent | The Boston Glove | March 04, 2014 | www.bostonglobe.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky