As Jeffrey M. Grybowski of Deepwater Wind has a vested interest in an offshore wind project that I criticized, it is not surprising that has chosen to spin the facts to his advantage ("Offshore wind power has a bright future in Md.," July 18). In contrast, I have no such vested interest — other than a concern over the state spending my money and that of other residents in a wise and efficient manner.
In my commentary ("Md. offshore wind projects may hurt, instead of help, environment," July 13), I acknowledged that his company's project will spend money and create jobs in Maryland, but that is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is at what cost? And I submit that at $200,000 per job per year, the cost is way too high.
Mr. Grybowski states that his project will deliver "clean, cost effective renewable power." Well, at least he had one out of three right. The power will indeed be renewable. But really, how can he seriously claim that it will be cost-effective when it will cost Maryland residents about three times as much as equally clean renewable energy from onshore wind or large-scale solar photovoltaic? He really can't.
He incorrectly states that the Maryland Public Service Commission's consultant found that Skipjack's economic, environmental and health benefits will be greater than its costs. That's not true. The consultant never compared the benefits with the costs. In fact, under oath he recommended that the PSC not quantify the monetary value of the benefits, so how could he have made that comparison?
Also, contrary to his claim that the project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions across the region, on page 160 of his report, the consultant unequivocally stated: "Thus overall emissions in PJM would increase due to the Skipjack Plant." Now perhaps Mr. Grybowski disagrees with the consultant's findings, and that's OK. But If so, he should present the evidence supporting that belief, rather than attacking me for pointing out what the consultant reported.
Lastly, I have to wonder if he read my commentary which clearly stated that "increasing regional emissions will contribute to global warming which will harm the state." This directly contradicts the writer's assertion that I do not know that carbon emissions contribute to global warming. If he is going to criticize my knowledge, he should at least do it in a way that is not so transparently baseless.
So I have to ask, who is not providing "an honest interpretation of independent research?" Me or him?
Send letters to the editor to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include your name and contact information.