Economists say Maryland needs wind energy, but fracking more

By Amanda Yeager

Capital News Service

Maryland energy policy remains in limbo, without major progress on offshore wind or hydraulic fracturing during the recent General Assembly session.

A bill that would have brought wind turbines to the state’s Atlantic coast collapsed for a second year in a row. And hydraulic fracturing, a natural-gas extraction process commonly called fracking, is on hold while an advisory commission examines its potential impacts.

fracking illustration by darthpedrius

Fracking illustration by darthpedrius

Both energy solutions inspire passion in the state’s legislators. Democrats overwhelmingly support offshore wind, with its promise of long-term renewable energy, while Republicans mostly favor hydraulic fracturing’s lower startup investment and quick profits.

Maryland fourth largest energy importer in the nation

           But economists versed in energy policy argue that political bickering should not overshadow the issue at hand: Maryland needs to find new solutions for its energy future. They say the state should consider a range of resources — not just offshore wind and natural gas, but land-based wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear, too.

The state currently imports about 30% of the electricity it consumes, according to a Public Service Commission report. That makes Maryland the fourth largest energy importer in the nation by percentage — trailing only D.C., Virginia and Delaware.

Officials are working toward a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert County, which would be the first new reactor approved in the country in a generation.

Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security Initiative, said polarized debate among legislators has created a false sense of having to choose between two distinct options.

“I think, on balance, it’s good to have a diversified energy base,” he said. He believes policymakers should be looking into both fracking and offshore wind, in addition to other energy sources.

Costs and benefits to wind and fracking

The economic costs and benefits of each option remain contested.

Proponents of fracking say it’s the better bet for the moment, with contractors eager to start tapping the vast natural gas reserves of Western Maryland’s portion of the Marcellus Shale, which spans 95,000 square miles from Tennessee to New York.

Offshore wind supporters counter that wind farms, while expensive to install, will ultimately provide the state with an endless supply of low-cost, sustainable electricity.

Opponents of the wind act are concerned about hikes to Maryland ratepayers’ monthly energy bills. This session’s wind legislation would have capped increases at $1.50 a month per household and 1.5% of the total electricity bill for commercial and industrial businesses.

Meanwhile, an effective moratorium has been placed on fracking while an advisory task force appointed by the governor investigates the legal, economic and environmental impacts of the controversial drilling practice. A bill to protect landowners against fracking-related water contamination passed this session, although legislation that would have collected fines from potential drillers to pay for the task force’s research never made it out of the Senate.

Fracking called more viable economically

For the moment, Ebinger thinks fracking is the more economically viable option.

“I think the sheer size of the shale gas resource in the country — but particularly in the Marcellus area near here — in my opinion would favor going the shale gas route while making sure, of course, that when the wells are drilled the casings that encompass the equipment are up to … standards,” he said.

Video by Richelle Gonzalez/Capital News Service

His concern with offshore wind is the economic burden it puts on ratepayers, particularly those who are already struggling financially. He said despite the cap, costs would end up falling on consumers in some way.

“The problem, when they say they’d put a cap on ratepayers (is) if the costs are there, they have to be paid by someone,” Ebinger said. “If they’re not paid by ratepayers, then they have to be paid by the state budget. Anytime you produce a commodity, those costs are being incurred somewhere along in the system.”

Anirban Basu, an economist and CEO of Sage Policy Group, a Baltimore-based economic consulting firm, agreed that consumers would end up shouldering the cost of wind farms one way or another.

“The fundamental issue is that requiring utilities to purchase offshore wind is very similar to requiring utilities to purchase very expensive energy and to then pass along those additional charges to the consumer,” he said.

Broadening the energy alternatives

Like Ebinger, Basu thinks the state should be broadening its range of energy alternatives. He is a fan of land-based wind turbines, which are cheaper to build and maintain than offshore turbines, although they produce less energy.

When deciding whether government should step in and support a particular industry, he said it’s important to ask one question: “Is there a sufficiently compelling social purpose such that the consumer should be required to pay more for the energy they consume than would be produced by the market mechanism?”

Offshore wind supporters say the environmental benefit is reason enough. And they counter cost-related concerns with predictions that offshore wind’s price tag will decline over time as the industry becomes established, and will eventually undercut the cost of other resources like coal and gas.

Peter Cramton, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland and a senior advisor at the Global Energy Policy Center, said costs associated with offshore wind would necessarily be high for a while, and that the industry would require government support to be competitive. But he predicted wind power would become more affordable within a matter of “a few years,” citing falling costs for wind turbines and other building materials.

“It’s true that in the early years (offshore wind) will be costly, but of course those costs will go down over time, and also it’s likely that fossil fuels will become more expensive,” he said.

The rising costs of coal and gas have been a main peg in O’Malley’s argument for the long-term viability of wind energy. Unlike nonrenewable energy sources, he says, the cost of wind will not increase because there is no shortage of the resource.

But a March 2011 report from Sage Policy Group, citing the Annual Energy Outlook published by the U.S. Department of Energy, argued claims that electricity costs will necessarily rise are misguided. The outlook shows a flat trend through the end of the projection, in 2035.

Environmental costs not factor in energy pricing

Frank Felder, an economics professor at Rutgers and director of the school’s Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy, said part of the reason wind energy is so expensive in comparison to other energy sources is because environmental costs are not factored into energy pricing. Natural gas prices, he said, don’t factor in the environmental cost of the carbon dioxide emitted when the fuel is burned.

“Without a meaningful pricing policy, offshore wind is just very expensive. It hasn’t been done in the U.S., so whether or not it’s worth it … that depends on how much it ends up costing and how much you care about greenhouse gases,” he said.

Still, he called fracking a “game changer,” and said it moves production away from coal-burning power plants.

“If you’re using natural gas to displace coal, which is definitely possible and probable, you’re getting an environmental benefit,” he said. “On the other side, there’s some risk to the water that has to be dealt with.”

Ebinger said the broader view of economists should be adopted by politicians.

“The problem with this whole debate is it gets so politicized,” he said. “I think as long as it remains a balanced discussion and we realize that we need all these sources to the greatest degree possible, let markets decide what to develop.”

About The Author

Len Lazarick

Len Lazarick was the founding editor and publisher of and is currently the president of its nonprofit corporation and chairman of its board He was formerly the State House bureau chief of the daily Baltimore Examiner from its start in April 2006 to its demise in February 2009. He was a copy editor on the national desk of the Washington Post for eight years before that, and has spent decades covering Maryland politics and government.


  1. Dale McNamee

    Let those who want wind power “pony up” the funds for it to be built and to support it, not the ratepayers/taxpayers ! How about it “greenies” ?

  2. Anita Schatz

    Congressman Andy Harris has been saying for some time now that Fracking is the way to go.  There is so much natural gas in MD that is there for the taking.

  3. Jean

    The Maryland PSC issued a report five or more years ago about Maryland’s internal and external (buy power) electrical power generation capacity being maxed out. However the rabid environmentalists have blocked every reasonable energy proposal as not being green enough, e.g. coal, natural gas, nuclear (800-1600 megawatt at each new power generation facility. Their solution 140 megawatt off shore wind mills.

    Thank Governor O’Malley, the EPA and maryland’s rabid environmentalists when the brown outs and electrical power rationing start! 

  4. JGwen

    Maryland went into this session with an outstanding debt of roughly a billion dollars. It emerged from the session theoretically addressing that debt and adding over a billion in new debt. The national debt is spiraling up by trillions, yet with the Ryan budget proposal for sanity under heavy attack. To this federal, state and local tax payer/rate payer … the need for Responsible Adults to address the situation is patently apparent!

    In terms of energy, we need to look to private sector venture capitalists identification of financially viable approaches for meeting our needs. Fracking appears to be a promising possibility in this regard.

    There remains substantial challenges to the “truth of the matters asserted” as relates to claims of anthropomorphic global warming, global warming and the impacts of various so called “environmental pollutants.” There are calls for steps to “stop the EPA’s abuse of science and to prevent its continued aggressive regulatory activity that destroys the economy and causes harm to Americans. It is posited that we have to hold the EPA to good scientific principles and stop the EPA’s overreaching and panic-mongering. ”

    In terms of solutions involving wind – T. Boone Pickens has advised “I’m in the wind business…I’ve lost my ass in the business.”  Pickens continued, “Obama needs explain‘Hey, we can get on everything green. We can get on everything renewable. Then the Cost of Power Will Go up Ten Times.’  John Rowe, (when) the CEO of the Chicago-based utility Exelon advised “offshore wind – is one of the two most expensive ways to procure energy I can think of, “And unfortunately unlike solar, it tends to come in thousands of megawatts rather than tens, so you can really throw money away on it. ”

    At this point in time, when Government debt appears to remain out of control, food and energy costs are escalating.  Taxation at both the National (expiration of “Bush” tax cuts, implementation of ObamaCare taxations, “Millionaire taxes,” et al.) and State and local level taxes and fees are spiraling up … it is hardly a time to aggressively pursue the most costly energy technology while it is still in its infancy.

    Studies by the private sector in Virginia and Texas will provide insights as to the viability and potential costs of “off shore wind.” Experiences from massive implementations in the United Kingdom will offer further insights. If experience dictates, additional refinements will be developed.

    To me the most desirable course of action would be to first get our National, State and Local Debt under control by living within our means and supporting private sector energy initiatives. Once returns to Balanced Budgets and acceptable debt levels are achieved, then we can return to the issues of whether there are/the extent of legitimate needs for so called “clean” energy sources, the state of the art of the related technologies, and better determine whether the related costs warrant our citizenry’s monetary burdens.