opinion

Wind consistently cited as lowest-cost energy option

Re: "Time to rethink Maryland's energy policies," June 14

Last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released analysis that answers the question recently posed by Dan Ervin: What is the most cost-effective way to reduce carbon pollution and comply with EPA's Clean Power Plan?

Across a range of scenarios in that analysis, wind energy consistently emerged as the lowest-cost option for reducing pollution, accounting for 57 percent of the optimal compliance portfolio, followed by energy efficiency, solar and natural gas generation.

The study cited by Ervin also shows wind to be the best emissions reduction tool, once its outdated assumptions are updated to the latest government figures on power plant cost and performance.

Time to rethink Maryland's energy policies

In its annual comparison of the cost of all sources of electricity, Wall Street investment firm Lazard separately calculated wind to be the lowest-cost generation option.

American utilities are already using wind energy to keep costs low for ratepayers, while cutting emissions by the equivalent of taking 28 million cars off the road.

Despite having wind resources that are often half as productive as those in the United States, Germany and other European countries have successfully used wind to drastically reduce pollution.

Germany has cut its emissions intensity by 13 percent, a figure Ervin correctly notes would be higher if Germany were not phasing out its nuclear fleet for unrelated reasons.

Denmark obtains more than a third of its electricity from wind, cutting its electric-sector carbon intensity by 40 percent during the last decade, while Portugal and Spain have cut their emissions intensity by 30 percent by reaching 20 percent wind.

Andrew Gohn is director of eastern state policy at American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C.