Economic Assessment of Proposed Brockton Clean Energy Facility

Click here for the Economic Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic Impacts – Citywide & Regional
The construction and eventual operation of the proposed Brockton Clean Energy facility (“the Project”) will create economic impacts for the city and the larger 3-county regional ‘Metro South’ economy which Brockton is a part of. The MetroSouth region consists of Bristol, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties. Plymouth County is where Brockton is located. Economic impacts include the direct spending associated with the Construction Phase and Operations and Maintenance & Phase activities, subsequent indirect impacts from cycles of businesses making purchases of local
supplies/services, and induced impacts from workers’ spending take-home wages where they live.

During the 26-30 month construction phase, the Project brings $368.6 million in total economic stimulus, new tax revenues and new job salaries. The economic impacts emerge as follows :
City of Brockton:

 

• Direct Construction Budget: $279.6 million of direct economic stimulus
• including 300 new construction jobs and $47 million in new wages;Indirect: $4.4 million of indirect economic stimulus including 22 new jobs and $1.7 million in new wages;
• Induced: $8.8 million of induced economic stimulus including 73 new jobsand $3.0 million in new wages;

Rest of Greater Brockton Region:

• $75.8 million of additional economic stimulus benefits in the 3-county region including 362 new construction-related and other required services jobs and $36.4 million in new wages;

During the 30 year Operation and Maintenance Phase, the Project brings $12.5 million in total economic stimulus, new tax revenue and new job salaries annually. The economic development can be outlined as follows:

City of Brockton:

• Direct Annual Budget: $6.1 million of direct economic stimulus including 22 new positions and $2.6 million in new wages
• Indirect: $3.4 million of indirect economic stimulus including 15 new positions and $1.7 million in new wages
• Induced: $816k of induced economic stimulus including 6 new positions and $388k in new wages

Rest of Greater Brockton Region:
$2.1 million of additional economic stimulus benefits in the 3-county region including 14 new operation-related and services jobs and $1 million in new wages.

The Project accomplishes three key outcomes – additional capacity of clean energy generation into the regional energy marketplace which itself has likely positive economic implications to energy customers; new revenues contributed by
the facility to the City of Brockton to support municipal programs; and economic development opportunities (vis a vis construction-related and annual O&M spending) for new business sales, household income creation and future in-fill of
suppliers to the city’s economy.

Brockton Enterprise – Clyde Barrow Commentary: Poll was accurate indicator of people’s views on power plant

Commentary: Poll was accurate indicator of people’s views on power plant

By Clyde Barrow
Brockton Enterprise
August 14, 2009

BROCKTON —

After reading The Enterprise’s story (“Power plant gets support,” Aug. 9) and editorial (“Survey says little about power plant,” Aug. 11) about the poll conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis on the proposed natural gas power plant, I am truly shocked by the misleading statements about the poll reported in your newspaper.

According to the editors of The Enterprise, the poll “has several major flaws,” but the only flaw I detected is that the findings were not to the liking of your editors, prominent public officials, and a few vocal residents who have long opposed the construction of the proposed power plant.

First, The Enterprise asserts that the “foremost problem is that the poll was commissioned and paid for by Advanced Power. So even though it was conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass-Dartmouth, it’s not fair to call it objective.”

The Center for Policy Analysis has no position on the power plant and, as an organization that has conducted polls on numerous issues over the last 15 years, we are politically indifferent to the final results. We report the facts objectively, although we are accustomed to the political reality that activists and politicians on any side of an issue will always criticize poll results when those findings reveal that they are not speaking for the public.

The objectivity of a poll has nothing to do with who paid for it, because objectivity is a function of the methodology employed in conducting the poll. As we documented to The Enterprise, the Center for Policy Analysis employed best practices in conducting the poll, including the use of a random sample telephone survey conducted with the most up-to-date polling technology available in the world. It is the same methodology used in virtually every poll conducted by every polling organization in the United States and we employ the same methodology in all polls regardless of the issue.

Thus, I am truly astounded by the remarkable ignorance about survey research demonstrated by (Kathryn) Archard, an instructor at Bridgewater State College, when she points out the obvious fact that “the number of respondents, 401, represents just 1 percent of the city’s voters and .4 percent of the city’s population.”

Pollsters and those who react to polls — like the media – are well aware that 401 responses is a standard sample size with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. This random sample is sufficient to guarantee that the results are an accurate measure of Brockton’s registered voters.
Furthermore, whether this or that respondent lives in Ward 4 is not relevant to the overall findings, because it wasn’t a poll of Ward 4, but a random sample cross-section of the entire city.

Finally, Mayor James E. Harrington commented that, “It’s always how you ask the questions.” He is correct. However, in this case, the question could not have been posed any simpler. One of the first questions in the poll — long before any statements were read for or against the project — was, “Do you favor or oppose the construction of a new natural gas power plant in Brockton’s Oak Hill Industrial Park?”

Our finding was that 41 percent favor its construction, 31 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are undecided. The question is fairly phrased and provides a scientifically valid measure of the views of registered voters. As for diesel fuel, our poll specifically asked a question about it — which the Enterprise failed to report — and we found that the use of diesel as a backup fuel did not significantly affect voters’ views about the plant.

The real problem with the Center for Policy Analysis poll is that public officials, newspaper editors and opponents of the plant must now confront the fact that more registered voters in Brockton support the construction of a new natural gas power plant in Brockton than oppose it. That is a fact. Now, please don’t shoot the messenger. The poll results are available at www.umassd.edu/cfpa under “What’s New!”

Clyde Barrow is the director of the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass- Dartmouth.

Brockton Enterprise – Christy Mihos Opinion: Brockton can benefit from power plant

OPINION: Brockton can benefit from power plant

By Christy Mihos
Brockton Enterprise
August 12, 2009

My Brockton roots run deep: I was born here, grew up here, graduated from Brockton High School, and went to college right next door at Stonehill. I played with my friends on Brockton’s once-safe streets and got my first job in a local store.

My family’s Brockton roots run even deeper. My forebears were embraced by Brockton, a working Gateway City that respected and helped people willing to work hard and build for their future. My grandfather opened Massachusetts’ first Christy’s store on Main Street and my father, mother, uncle, siblings and I turned that store into a region-wide chain of stores. It all started here, with the help and vitality of Brockton.

What makes me so sad about what I see today in Brockton? This great city built on hard work, manufacturing and a diverse commercial base now turns its back on industry, on construction jobs and on technological development. Factories once thrived in Brockton right up until the 1960s, making everything from shoes to electronic equipment, clothing and tools. Cheap overseas labor killed those industries. But just because those factories are gone, and those industries are not likely to return, does that mean Brockton should give up on industry altogether? Of course not!

This city did not enjoy its boom years because of handouts or stimulus programs. Brockton boomed because we made things the country needed and that need enabled tens of thousands of men and women to draw good paychecks from hard work in plants and factories.

In turn Brocktonians spent that money on their homes and in thriving local restaurants and stores. For this city to thrive again, Brockton’s political and business leaders need to actively identify and pursue both familiar and new industries. Only then will the jobs, taxes and economic ripple effects follow and enliven the city once again.

The key to the future of this region, and this country, is plentiful, affordable energy that is clean and, most important, domestically produced. North America has a plentiful supply of clean burning natural gas.

Massachusetts, which can be so tough environmentally, has long embraced natural gas plants and it’s time for Brockton to stop saying “no.” A natural gas pipeline already runs through the Oak Hill Industrial Park but it’s the cities of Cambridge, Braintree, Taunton, Weymouth and two-dozen other communities in this state that have welcomed and benefited from natural gas power plants in their communities. With each new natural gas plant that comes on line, Massachusetts comes closer to shutting down the notoriously dirty, old plants that still burn oil or coal. In fact, the state Department of Environmental Protection has actually traced a decline in this state’s air pollution to its increasing use of natural gas electricity generation.

Electrical energy is something that we increasingly need in Massachusetts. Communities that host natural gas facilities also have more jobs and tax revenue while helping the region meet our collective high – weather and technology related – New England energy demand.

Day by day, business leaders, city employees, union leaders and community activists are starting to learn the whole truth about the safety, reliability and value of the proposed Brockton Clean Energy natural gas plant proposed for the Oak Hill Industrial Park. Brockton missed the building and development boom of the 1980s because we could not solve a water supply issue in time. The lost opportunity cost the city jobs and new property tax revenue.

Stakeholders truly committed to this city do not want this to happen again. We are worried about our schools and public safety. Many wonder how Brockton can continue to grow its tax base, job market, and hope to stop working people and families from moving out. Saying “yes” to the Brockton Clean Energy facility means “yes” to jobs and new tax revenue that the energy generation industry provides, and “yes” to building our community.

As state revenues continue to decrease, Brockton will suffer the ill effects of losing local aid. This means that there be additional layoffs of police, fire, teachers and no chance for any property tax relief without new commercial industry. Brockton should stop fighting the power plant and help to get it going as soon as possible. It’s time Brockton took a meaningful step toward returning to the boom years.

Christy Mihos is a businessman, entrepreneur and candidate for governor.

Brockton Enterprise Commentary – Richard Lawton: Don’t let fear guide decision on power plant

Commentary: Don’t let fear guide decision on power plant

By Richard J. Lawton
Special to the Brockton Enterprise
July 15, 2009
The proposed construction of a 350-megawatt electricity generating facility on Oak Hill Way has created a passionate divide among community activists and the citizens of Brockton and surrounding towns.
On the one hand, the proposed electrical plant is the largest private creation of infrastructure in Brockton. It will create clean energy and hundreds of jobs, and provide a monetary windfall for Brockton and the regional economy. On the other hand, there are highly organized and financed groups such as Stop the Power and Clean the Air, as well as concerned citizens who profess that there are inherent risks to the health of the citizens in the area due to Co2 emissions and fallout from fine particle pollutants and that children are the most susceptible to the detrimental effects posed by the pollutants.
Historically, we have all born witness to climate and pollution theories designed to scare the public into fear and rash decisions. First, we all remember the “nuclear winter” as a scenario of doom that predicted the deprivation of sunlight to plants and animals and our ultimate extinction from the use of nuclear weapons. Second, the “acid rain” fears in the ’70s supported by government studies predicted an ominous threat to the environment and human health.
The immediate threat of global warming and the dangers of Co2 emission thereby depleting the ozone layer and causing greenhouse warming is the most recent doomsday scenario peddled by politicians to push through a political agenda — i.e., increased taxes. Last week saw the passing in the House of a tax bill engineered as Climate Control legislation known as the Cap and Trade bill or the carbon tax. In the original bill, it taxed everything that moved, including carbon gases emitted by cows.
The lesson to be learned is that there is much that we do not know. Without that basic honest humility, the public should remain skeptical of all extreme prognostications and fear initiatives peddled by organized groups, especially those which are being used for political gains.
The reality is, however, that we have an energy crisis in Massachusetts and the United States. Many people are unaware that we purchase much of our electrical energy from out of the state and out of the country. New Brunswick Canada is now constructing a 1,100-megawatt nuclear reactor that was approved in 2008 after a feasibility study revealed that the energy-strapped northeast was in need of electrical energy.
Canada is also capitalizing on our need for energy by exporting hydroelectric power. Quebec Hydro recently received regulatory approval to transmit power to this region through lines in Maine and New Hampshire. The question remains as to why we should be dependent on energy generated by Canadian companies and their workforce.
The crisis that now looms in our state and country is largely because of the neglect and bad decision-making of our leaders and citizens alike. The economic recession that we’re in is one of the longest and deepest since the Great Depression.
Somehow we allowed the United States to morph into a country that hollowed out its manufacturing base and sent it overseas. We refused to maintain and build infrastructure. The American dream is on life support. For the first time in memory, parents are worried that their children will not live better lives than they did.
A recent study by the Education Trust indicated that the U.S. is the only industrialized country in which young people are less likely than their parents to graduate from high school. What happened to America’s greatness?
In our self-destructive way, we have lost sight of how important the maintenance and development of infrastructure is to one’s long term prosperity. It’s not just about roads and bridges, but about our electrical grid, schools and technological innovation necessary for a world class industrial platform. We have suffered a loss of 5.7 million jobs. If we want any hope of recovery, we must focus on putting people back to work; rebuilding the infrastructure is the place to start.
No one can say with any certainty that the proposed power plant poses any risk of harm to us or our children. We can say that we all have to decide what kind of country we want the United States to be, what we want our children to experience and what steps we are willing to take to bring about that kind of change.
Lastly, there is no hope that help will come to save us from ourselves. This underscores our responsibility to one another to think of what is good for us all.
Richard J. Lawton of Easton is a member of the board of trustees for the University of Massachusetts and serves on the Committee for Science & Technology. He is chairman of the Energy Task Force made up of university professors and graduate students engaged in studying energy in Massachusetts and the region.

Brockton Enterprise: Company-sponsored survey says Brockton voters favor power plant project

Company-sponsored survey says Brockton voters favor power plant project

By Elaine Allegrini
Brockton Enterprise
August 8, 2009

BROCKTON – A recent survey of voters showed support for a power plant proposed for an industrial area on the south side, but opponents say the study is not representative of the city.

Advanced Power Services NA, which would build and operate the 350-megawatt plant, paid for the survey conducted by Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass-Dartmouth.

Barrow said 401 random registered voters in Brockton were interviewed by telephone for the study. The calls were made between July 12 and July 19.

According to the study:

41.4 percent of those interviewed favored construction of the plant.

30.9 percent opposed construction of the plant.

27.7 percent responded they did not know if they support or oppose the plant.

The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent, Barrow said.

The power plant has sparked active opposition among a number of residents, especially in Ward 4, where it would be built, and nearby Ward 3.

Top city leaders, including Mayor James E. Harrington and most of the City Council, oppose the plant.

The former mayor, John T. Yunits Jr., labor union leaders and some in the business community support the plant.

Proponents say the $350 million plant would bring much-needed tax revenue and jobs to the city. The state Energy Facilities Siting Board last month granted the final state license for the facility, but left zoning approvals in the hands of the city, effectively giving city officials the final say.

The City Council will meet Monday to consider asking the state Legislature to pass a bill that would ban power plants in Brockton.

In the UMass study, more than one-quarter of those interviewed – 27.7 percent – said they were not aware of the proposal.

“Proponents and opponents will tailor it to meet their desires,” said Councilor-at-large Todd Petti, the lone councilor who has come out in support of the plant.

“I believe it’s a credible poll and reflects a good sample of the city of Brockton,” he said.

But Stop the Power, a vocal group that continues to fight the plant, reviewed the survey and said it is skewed.

For example, the number of respondents, 401, represents just 1 percent of the city’s voters and .4 percent of the city’s population, said Kathryn Archard, who teaches at Bridgewater State College, and group leader Edward Byers.

Further, the questions state it would be a “natural gas power plant” instead of it being fueled by natural gas and diesel fuel, they said. According to Byers, Barrow came up with some of the questions, but Advanced Power had the final say as to what was asked.

“The questions themselves are invalid since they pose incorrect information to base the choice on,” Stop the Power said in a prepared statement.

Also, 10 statements pointing out potential benefits of the plant were raised to see if they might affect respondents’ opinions – but just six statements citing potential drawbacks were included. The statements pointing out the benefits were also far more detailed, including such information as how much tax revenue might be generated, while the statements outlining the drawbacks were much shorter and had no such information.

“This is a paid non-objective survey from a vested interested party and the results collected have not been independently verified or analyzed by an impartial expert,” Archard and Byers said in a statement.

Three city officials had not seen the study but asked The Enterprise about its findings. They questioned the study, how it was done and who was interviewed.

“It’s always how you ask the questions,” said Mayor James E. Harrington.

“You have to have a real analysis of where the information came from,” said Councilor-at-large Linda Balzotti, a candidate for mayor.

“You want to know where the people are from,” said Ward 3 Councilor Dennis Eaniri.

The study did not include the area of the city where those interviewed live, so there is no way to judge if the opposition was concentrated in any particular neighborhood, such as streets near the plant site.

But Jeremy Crockford, spokesman for Advanced Power, argued that the entire city will benefit from the increased tax revenue, additional jobs and other aspects of the project, so respondents were not asked where they lived.

The study also did not include any written conclusions, though Barrow and Crockford in their oral presentation at The Enterprise gave their analysis.

Contacted about that issue, Gary Langer, a polling expert with ABC News, said it is unusual not to draw conclusions as part of the written study, but that does not necessarily pose a problem.
“You can make sense of the results yourself, if given adequate disclosure,” said Langer.

The study also questioned voters about general city issues and priorities. It found that:

51.5 percent of those surveyed thought the “single most important issue facing Brockton today” is crime.

Education came in second, at 18.5 percent of those surveyed.

Economic development was third at 12.9 percent.

Poll takers asked about seven specific issues in the city, but did not include the power plant as one of them.

The company behind the plant is Boston-based Advanced Power Services NA, a subsidiary of the Swiss company Advanced Power AG.

The plant would be fueled using natural gas and diesel, and could power up to 250,000 homes. Advanced Power has said it hopes to open the facility in 2012.

The project has faced opposition from officials in Brockton and some of its suburbs amid concerns over possible health impacts and the location of the plant near homes and schools.

Next Page »