Consequences of convictions--couldn't think of better place for residences to wake up to these realities and go :scared WTF have I done!!!!
:0008 Thank you Franks-Kerry and Kenedy
Cape Wind shock
National Grid projects $1.4B more for power
<!--//Byline box//-->
By Jay Fitzgerald
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Consumers will have to pay at least $1.4 billion above market rates for electricity generated by the controversial Cape Wind project, new projections show.
National Grid, which has negotiated a long-term contract to buy half the power from the proposed wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, filed for the first time its own detailed projections on how much extra its ratepayers will have to cough up for the renewable-energy project - and the numbers are huge.
The utility?s data confirms previous Herald estimates that the entire 15-year National Grid-Cape Wind contract would cost its ratepayers about $3 billion, a number that has stunned many observers.
But until yesterday, National Grid hadn?t fully stipulated how much more expensive Cape Wind?s electricity will be compared to power from other conventional sources.
Now the estimates are in: $700 million to $1 billion extra, even after calculating in so-called ?suppression-price savings? provided by National Grid.
Because National Grid is buying only half of Cape Wind?s energy, that means all Bay State customers would end up paying a total of $1.4 billion to $2 billion extra for the wind-farm?s power, assuming other utilities buy the second half of Cape Wind?s energy at the same rate as National Grid.
?It?s stunning,? Robert Rio, a senior vice president at Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said of the newly filed numbers at the state Department of Public Utilities. The agency is now reviewing National Grid?s rate request.
?We?re committing ratepayers to a rate shock,? said Rio, arguing that National Grid?s estimates are probably too low, if anything.
But Ron Gerwatowski, deputy general counsel for National Grid, defended the numbers as being necessary to promote renewable enery and cut down on use of fossil fuels.
?We think we have the better argument,? said Gerwatowki. ?There are additional benefits here.?
:0008 Thank you Franks-Kerry and Kenedy
Cape Wind shock
National Grid projects $1.4B more for power
<!--//Byline box//-->
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Consumers will have to pay at least $1.4 billion above market rates for electricity generated by the controversial Cape Wind project, new projections show.
National Grid, which has negotiated a long-term contract to buy half the power from the proposed wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, filed for the first time its own detailed projections on how much extra its ratepayers will have to cough up for the renewable-energy project - and the numbers are huge.
The utility?s data confirms previous Herald estimates that the entire 15-year National Grid-Cape Wind contract would cost its ratepayers about $3 billion, a number that has stunned many observers.
But until yesterday, National Grid hadn?t fully stipulated how much more expensive Cape Wind?s electricity will be compared to power from other conventional sources.
Now the estimates are in: $700 million to $1 billion extra, even after calculating in so-called ?suppression-price savings? provided by National Grid.
Because National Grid is buying only half of Cape Wind?s energy, that means all Bay State customers would end up paying a total of $1.4 billion to $2 billion extra for the wind-farm?s power, assuming other utilities buy the second half of Cape Wind?s energy at the same rate as National Grid.
?It?s stunning,? Robert Rio, a senior vice president at Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said of the newly filed numbers at the state Department of Public Utilities. The agency is now reviewing National Grid?s rate request.
?We?re committing ratepayers to a rate shock,? said Rio, arguing that National Grid?s estimates are probably too low, if anything.
But Ron Gerwatowski, deputy general counsel for National Grid, defended the numbers as being necessary to promote renewable enery and cut down on use of fossil fuels.
?We think we have the better argument,? said Gerwatowki. ?There are additional benefits here.?
