"Voting Energy" - An Outreach Campaign
& Voter's Guide
In August 2006,
a survey
was issued to candidates seeking to represent Cape & Islands
voters at the county, state, and federal levels. Initial
results were compiled based on responses received in advance
of the Massachusetts primary in September. In total, 15 candidates
responded in advance of the general election in November, spanning
all parties and the races for governor, attorney general, federal
representative, state senate, state representative, and county commissioner.
Though the candidates
expressed divergent opinions on the wind project proposed for Nantucket
Sound and other project proposals, consensus
was apparent on a number of key issues relating to energy efficiency,
renewables, climate change, and sustainable development in the Cape
& Islands region. Agreement on the following points was nearly
universal:
- Fossil fuel reliance
threatens national security and is changing global climate. It
harms the economy, damages the environment, and poses threats
to the future of the Cape & Islands region. Local communities
should be “working aggressively” toward energy independence.
- Community-based processes
should guide siting and installation of large-scale offshore wind,
wave, and/or tidal projects not visible from land. Offshore renewables
projects sited in local waters should offer local communities
specific and substantive benefits.
- A Cape & Islands
renewable energy cooperative should be created with potential
to buy green power at wholesale rates, own and operate energy
projects and systems, and give residents and businesses direct
control over its decisions.
Also, there
was much agreement about the types of benefits that local communities
should receive from large-scale renewable energy projects sited
in the region. For detailed information on survey results, contact
Chris Powicki, 508.362.9599, chrisp@weeinfo.com
Unfortunately, not all
candidates in contested races completed surveys. Differences in
opinion among opposing candidates in the 2006 general election are
summarized below, in the form of a "Voting Energy" Guide:
4th
Barnstable District: Maloy vs. Peake
Barnstable, Dukes & Nantucket District: Powell
vs. Turkington
10th Congressional District of Massachusetts: Delahunt
vs. White
4th
Barnstable District: Maloy vs. Peake
Regardless of whether Aaron Maloy (R) or Sarah Peake (D) wins, communities
from Provincetown to Harwich will be represented by someone with
very progressive views on energy issues. Both candidates agreed
to the consensus points detailed above, they categorized current
and possible future adverse local impacts associated with continued
reliance on fossil fuels as “extreme,” and they indicated
that the region “could become electricity independent within
the next 10 to 15 years.” Further, both candidates offered
conditional support for the offshore wind project in Nantucket Sound.
The candidates
differed on the following questions:
- What’s
the best way to increase reliance on renewable energy? (Respondents
were asked to pick only two options among the four provided.)
Maloy offered support for policies designed to accelerate the
Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard and to increase subsides
for renewable energy technologies. Peake offered support for policies
designed to reduce subsidies for fossil fuel technologies and
to increase subsidies for renewable energy technologies.
- Do you
support the pending extension of the operating license for the
Pilgrim Nuclear Plant? Maloy answered no; Peake answered “unsure.”
- To meet
growing regional demand for natural gas, which of the following
do you support? (Respondents were asked to select among seven
options, including projects proposed for Fall River, for an island
in Boston Harbor, and off Gloucester.) Maloy only offered support
for “constructing LNG capacity elsewhere in New England”
and “exploring and possibly developing resources off the
coast of Massachusetts.” Peake only offered support for “expanding
existing pipelines to increase imports from elsewhere.”
Barnstable,
Dukes & Nantucket District: Powell vs. Turkington
Falmouth, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket residents can choose
among candidates with differences in opinion on numerous energy
issues:
- Jim Powell
(R) agreed to each of the consensus points defined above, whereas
Eric Turkington (D) affirmed all but one, opting to not express
an opinion on whether or not to form an energy cooperative offering
institutional capabilities required to maximize local benefits
from renewables development.
- Powell characterized
current and possible future adverse impacts associated with fossil
fuel reliance as “extreme,” while Turkington is the
only survey respondent viewing adverse impacts as “moderate.”
- Both don’t
believe the region can become electricity independent within 10
to 15 years, and both oppose the Cape Wind project. However, Powell
offered support for the proposed wind energy project in Buzzards
Bay.
- Turkington
is the only survey respondent who did not concur with the statement,
“I support immediate action to increase investment in renewable
energy.”
Turkington filled
out the entire survey, but he declined to make positive statements
about renewable energy in several other areas. The two candidates
offered differing opinions in response to the following questions:
- What’s
the best way to increase reliance on renewable energy? (Respondents
were asked to pick only two options among the four provided.)
Powell offered support for policies to increase subsidies for
renewables and to “increase the cost of fossil fuels to reflect
environmental, health, security, and climate considerations.”
Turkington supported only one option, reduced subsidies for fossil
fuels.
- To meet
growing electricity demand, what kinds of new, large-scale power
plants should be constructed in Massachusetts? Powell offered
support for natural gas, land-based wind, offshore wind, and bioenergy
facilities. Turkington did not support the construction of anything.
- To meet
growing regional demand for natural gas, which of the following
do you support? (Respondents were asked to select among seven
options, including projects proposed for Fall River, for an island
in Boston Harbor, and off Gloucester.) Powell offered support
for a range of options, including building an LNG terminal in
Fall River and exploring and possibly developing resources off
the coast of Massachusetts. Turkington only offered support for
expanded pipelines and for siting LNG capacity and resource development
elsewhere.
Finally, Powell
expressed interest in learning more about cleaner transportation
options, cleaner/green heating options, green power purchasing,
and solar/wind energy options for home or office use. Turkington
did not want to be bothered.
10th
Congressional District of Massachusetts: Delahunt vs. White
If Bill Delahunt (D) returns to the U.S. Congress or Peter White
(I) storms Capitol Hill, the Cape & Islands region will be represented
by someone with a progressive perspective on energy issues (no response
was received from the Republican candidate, Jeff Beatty). Both candidates
agreed to the consensus points detailed above, they categorized
current and possible future adverse local impacts associated with
continued reliance on fossil fuels as “serious” and “extreme,”
respectively, and they agreed that the region “could become
electricity independent within the next 10 to 15 years.”
They voiced
differing opinions on individual projects, with Delahunt opposing
Cape Wind, offering the prospect of support for the Buzzards Bay
wind project, and offering conditional support for relicensing of
the Pilgrim plant. White supports the first two and opposes the
latter. The candidates also offered differing opinions on the following
questions:
- What’s
the best way to increase energy efficiency? (Respondents were
asked to pick only two options among the four provided.) Delahunt
offered support for policies that increase standards and subsidies
for efficiency measures, while White offered support for increased
standards and reduced subsidies for fossil fuels.
- To meet
growing electricity demand, what kinds of new, large-scale power
plants should be constructed in Massachusetts? Delahunt offered
support for natural gas, land-based wind, offshore wind, bioenergy,
wave, and tidal facilities. White limited his endorsement to only
green options.
- To meet
growing regional demand for natural gas, which of the following
do you support? (Respondents were asked to select among seven
options, including projects proposed for Fall River, for an island
in Boston Harbor, and off Gloucester.) White did not endorse any
options, while Delahunt supported expanding pipelines to increase
imports and constructing LNG terminals off Gloucester and elsewhere
in New England.
Next Steps
Consensus findings from the survey will applied by participants
in the Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative (CIREC)
to support coordinated community planning activities being conducted
under grant funding from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Consistent with CIREC’s organizational objectives, these activities
are intended to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts associated
with energy supply and use in the Cape & Islands region.
For more information,
contact Chris Powicki, 508.362.9599, chrisp@weeinfo.com
Last updated
11.02.06
