Cape Wind to hike MA utility rates by up to $382M over 15 years

[wtmusic]

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 04:28 PM - Edit history (2)

"Nstar ratepayers could see their electricity bills balloon by as much as $382 million over 15 years under a merger deal with the state that forces the utility to buy energy from Cape Wind — a power premium that dwarfs a one-time $21 million customer credit touted yesterday by the Patrick administration.

<>

An analysis by the state Department of Public Utilities — the regulatory agency that will review Nstar’s new merger deal — found National Grid customers will likely be hit with “above-market costs” of $420 million to $695 million over the 15-year contract.

That means Nstar’s portion of Cape Wind would hike costs for the utility’s 1.6 million customers by $231 million to $382 million."

http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20220216cape_wind_deal_may_jolt_rates_nstar_mega-merger_gets_boost_from_pact

[One_Life_To_Give]

1. $15.91 per year or 250%

$382million over 15 yrs only comes out to $15.91 per customer each year. If that is a 250% increase they have alot of frugal customers.

[FBaggins]

2. I suspect they mean an increase on just that proportion of the portfolio.

IOW, those kWhs will cost them that much more... not their entire bill.

But this should come as no surprise. The first few projects can't possibly avoid high costs and delays. That's the nature of the beast. You can't get to the projects that make sense (on their own merits) unless someone builds the first few.

Cape Wind is outrageously expensive... but still needs to be built.

[txlibdem]

8. Definitely needs to be built

And many more to add to it!

[Yo_Mama]

10. Yes, it's the long term outcome rathr than the short term outcome that matters

An important distinction.

Nonetheless the Board of Public Utilities does have the mandate to monitor costs for consumers. Those aggregate costs have to be kept in "reasonable" territory.

[kristopher]

11. The information in the OP is spun in accord with standard rightwing messaging.

No one should expect anything else from the Herald.

[wtmusic]

4. I think I misread the article

An alternative reading makes more sense:

"That means Nstar’s portion of Cape Wind would hike costs for the utility’s 1.6 million customers by between $231 million and $382 million."

Subject adjusted accordingly.

[kristopher]

3. Thank you for yet again sharing the view from the rightwing press.

The comments for that article are well worth reading, they are solidly in support of your position, wt.

For balance, I recommend:

Utilities agree to buy Cape Wind power in merger
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/02/15/utilities_agree_to_buy_cape_wind_power_in_merger/?page=full


You might not like this one, however, since it includes phrases like, "environmentalists praised the agreement"...

[Dead_Parrot]

5. We're back on the "anyone who I disagree with is a right-winger" ploy, are we?

Well, it been a while, probably time to dust it off. Maybe this time you'll convince someone.

[kristopher]

6. Are you saying the OP is not from a rightwing rag?

Or that it was not presented as an offering of legitimate opinion?

[Dead_Parrot]

7. I'm saying...

..that stuff like "The comments for that article are well worth reading, they are solidly in support of your position, wt." suggest that a) you've run out of science-based arguments and are down to ad hominems, and/or b) you've forgotten what a embarrasing fail it was last time you did it.

Still, don't let that stop you. Lay on, Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries "Hold, enough!"
(Exeunt, fighting.)

[FBaggins]

9. No... it wasn't presented as an offering of "legitimate opinion"

It isn't an opinion piece.

It merely reports on an analysis done by that undoubtedly rightwing propaganda teeam at the Department of Public Utilities.

[madokie]

12. Pretty much what Kristopher is saying

I don't get you guys/gals who can in the face of what is happening in Japan today, right now, can still support nuclear going forward from this point onward.

I'd be all for nuclear energy if not for the baggage it carries. That wouldn't be so bad except that the industry and shills for the industry try to brush it off as nothing to see here move along when its plain to see for those willing to look, that yes, there is something to see here after all. No amount of crying foul is going to change the fact that nuclear energy is dangerous and should not be used in its present form. We've got over a hundred nuclear power plants that all are nearing or have passed their designed lifetime. We're playing with fire as its only a matter of time before we have another situation here. We got lucky twice, TMI and Davis-Besse. The next time we may not be so fortunate. On top of it all many of our nuke plants are sited near heavily populated areas. Sometime for an experiment try to evacuate a few hundred thousand, maybe a million or two, people and pets in an hour or so, can't be done and there's no getting around that fact. I'm sorry but to continue to use nuclear energy in the face of what we know for a fact can happen is not smart. I realize a lot of people in this world die each day due to air pollution and I also realize that most of them are in whats called third world countries where they heat and cook over open indoor fires. All of the air pollution here in the states is not from burning fossil fuels to get our electricity as some would want us to believe.

We don't just have to have nuclear energy to survive. Right now less than a fifth of our electrical energy comes from nukes anyway and that figure is even dropping as we travel onward on this train of time.

Plus fossil fuels doesn't carry the same imminent danger as nuclear energy does. Solar, wind and geothermal is where we should be spending our time, efforts and money on going forward from here.
peace

[FBaggins]

13. Sorry Madokie... I have no idea where that comment is coming from.

For the record, I support Cape Wind. We can expect it to cost much more than future offshore wind projects, but as I said above, that's the way it has to be or you never get to those future projects.

Kris is trying to treat the OP as if it's "spin"... but regardless of the paper's political orientation, the article simple isn't an opinion piece. It accurately reports what the Dept of Public Utilities estimates. Both republicans and democrats who oppose the project point to those numbers, but that doesn't make it spin just because kris would rather avoid the facts.

So that's the post you're replying to... but you jump right off and question why anyone would support nuclear power? Frankly, I can't see anything in your reply that is responsive to what I posted (or what kris posted)... or in any way related to the thread you posted it on.