Introduction: Undergraduate Research Assistant Romulo Cabrera

Hello, my name is Romulo Cabrera, an Undergraduate Research Assistant at the Public Policy Center at Umass UMass Dartmouth. I come from Lawrence, Massachusetts, and am pursuing a degree in political science. I enjoy watching and playing soccer, as well as observing the developments happening within Latin America, especially Ecuador.

Working at the Public Policy Center will provide me with first-hand experience that is vital with what I want to achieve later on in my life. I would like to run for public office, both locally and federally. My goal is to run for Mayor of Lawrence and be able to provide opportunities to my city. Also, my end goal is to at least run for President of the United States.

After my undergraduate degree, I would like to further my education with a Ph.D. in political science. I am grateful for the opportunity that I have been granted and I am looking forward to collaborating with my colleges to help develop better policies for the public.

John F. Kennedy has been a very influential figure in my life, although I have never met him, I feel as if I can carry on his legacy. He showed the country how to defy the odds by becoming the first Irish & Catholic president in a predominantly Protestant country. Now, it is my goal to lead this wonderful country as the first Hispanic president.

I try to strive for everything with this one memorable quote by John F. Kennedy:
“Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try”.

Introduction: Undergraduate Research Assistant Tobey DaSilva

Hello everyone! My name is Tobey DaSilva and I am an Undergraduate Research Assistant here at the Public Policy Center. I am currently a sophomore at UMass Dartmouth who is pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in marketing and a minor study in photography and videography. Outside of school and work, I enjoy spending my free time playing the piano, taking photos, and spending as much time as possible with my close friends. As a Westport native, I have gained an immense appreciation for the natural world around us, and how vital its health is to our economy and wellbeing.

What inspired me to join the Public Policy Center’s team was the way they help the voiceless members of our surrounding communities through their research and analysis, which helps shed a light on issues that most people are entirely unaware of. It has always surprised me that in the age of digital information sharing, the global issues are magnified and studied, yet the area where one lives could be ignored entirely.

I have always loved New England. Whether it be because of the four seasons, or the distinct culture that east coasters share, my heart has never failed to find a home in this sometimes cold, but always beautiful region. That is why I am excited to work at this establishment. My placement as an Undergraduate Research Assistant will allow me to not only learn about the issues facing our communities, but it will also help me work towards improving them.

To summarize, I leave you with this quote by the great Henry David Thoreau. “How vain is it to sit down and write, when you have not stood up to live.”

Address Boston traffic while helping Gateway Cities?

The transportation system in Massachusetts faces a number of challenges. Roadway congestion, aging infrastructure, and unreliable rail systems present difficulties and inconveniences to commuters throughout the Commonwealth. Boston is ranked the eighth most congested city in the world, largely due to its geography, age, and density. Peak speed during the morning and afternoon commute is barely above 17 miles per hour. Additionally, a considerable number of bridges and roads have been found to be structurally deficient. Over 9 percent (9.2%) of bridges in Massachusetts were determined to be structurally deficient by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, and necessary repair costs on 4,768 bridges total an estimated $9.5 billion. The problem is also worsening as the state’s population and economy continue to grow, with travel times becoming longer and less predictable in recent years. Various obstacles have resulted in relatively slow progress on this issue. Potential solutions have been proposed by business organizationselected officials, and reports by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation(MassDOT). It is important to note that plans to improve transportation in Massachusetts will likely need to maintain focus on the state’s goal of reducing emissions in the sector. Tackling congestion and related problems will likely require coordination and collaboration between state agencies, policymakers, and the private sector. Addressing issues related to the transportation system may result in additional benefits, such as increased access to jobs, enhanced socioeconomic equity, and addressing sustainability concerns in the sector. 

Time of Day Travel Speeds

Source: INRIX Research

Congestion Relative to Free Flow, 7:00 – 7:59 AM

Source: MassDOT

In August 2019, MassDOT released its Congestion in the Commonwealth Report to the Governor. According to this report, the state has reached a “tipping point with respect to congestion.” Congestion is worsened by traffic incidents, which can result in rippling delays because of the high interdependence of road networks. The problems have extended outside of the Greater Boston area into local roads partly due to bottlenecks, transportation network companies, and poor traffic control systems. Congestion in the Greater Boston area is worst at 8 AM and 5 PM, with 72 and 92 percent of roadway miles experiencing congestion at those respective times. The issue has also impacted public transit, meaning that MBTA train and bus systems are struggling to keep up with higher demand and increased ridership. 

Source: MassDOT

Increased congestion has resulted from a good economy that has led to a growing population and labor force. However, traffic issues have also led to reduced access to jobs for many in the Commonwealth. MassDOT explains that, in addition to being a transportation issue, it is a land use and housing issue. High access communities are often more expensive to live in, making housing affordability and availability critical to maximizing access to job opportunities.

Proposals aimed at solving transportation-related issues often involve increased investment in public transit systems. The MBTA’s $8 billion dollar capital investment planis designed to help address some of these problems through investment in the Commuter Rail, Green Line Transformation, I-495/I-90 Interchange Improvements, and other projects. Forty four percent of investments will focus on reliability and another 29 percent will focus on modernization. These programs are intended to improve the consistency and predictability of wait times, and also increase capacity and ridership. Accomplishing this would work to reduce traffic congestion on highways and city streets via investment in the Commuter Rail and improvements in subway lines. Further, as a result of a recent vote by the Fiscal and Management Control Board, a resolution passed that seeks to “transform the current commuter rail line into a significantly more productive, equitable and decarbonized enterprise.”

Source: MassDOT

Transportation challenges have been addressed in other cities around the world through various means, which could be incorporated in potential solutions to similar issues in Massachusetts. Alleviating congestion and improving mobility could involve the implementation of new technologies. Traffic light timing, intelligent transportation system sensors, electronic road pricing, autonomous vehicles, and other technologiesmay present promising opportunities for reducing future congestion. Although there is no single solution to this complex issue, some of the recommendations made by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation include addressing bottlenecks, increasing MBTA capacity and ridership, producing more affordable housing near transit, and encouraging growth in less congested Gateway Cities. In July, the Baker-Polito Administration filed an $18 billion transportation bond billdesigned to invest in municipal partners, modernize the system, reduce emissions and improve resiliency, and address barriers to innovation. The bond bill is also aimed at supporting MassDOT’s recommendations through the implementation of a $2,000 per-employee tax credit to encourage telecommuting and remote work, as well as infrastructure investment and $50 million for the new Local Bottleneck Reduction Program. 

Solutions proposed by the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) coalition include pricing incentives to encourage public transit use and travel during off-peak times. As outlined by MassDOT, another way to accomplish this could be through growth in Gateway Cities, which present additional opportunities to help alleviate traffic issues. Outside section 87 of the FY 2019 state budget called for a study of MBTA Commuter Rail fares to assess the fairness of the distance-based fare system currently in place and the effect of fare price on transportation choices. The impact of public transit affordability is demonstrated by a MassINC study finding that many residents in Gateway Cities are unable to afford the Commuter Rail, with annual fare costs totaling up to 15% of median household income.

Source: MassINC

MassDOT explains that state policy and employers could work to promote job growth in these cities and encourage the development of high density and affordable housing near Commuter Rail stations and transit services. This could also incentivize relocation from more expensive areas of Greater Boston and low-density areas that are longer distances from employment centers. Smart tolling and congestion pricing mechanisms are also being examined as ways to mitigate congestion. Collaborative efforts will likely be needed to address the complex challenges associated with the transportation system in Massachusetts, and transit authorities, the private sector, state agencies, lawmakers, and municipalities continue to assess ways in which it can be improved.

Massachusetts Offshore Wind Bids: An Analysis of the Public Versions

The public versions of the bids in response to the Massachusetts 83C II RFP for offshore wind were released late Wednesday, September 4th. Three of four developers with offshore wind lease rights off the shores of Massachusetts submitted bids. They are Bay State Wind (a partnership of Ørsted and Eversource), Vineyard Wind (a partnership of CIP and Avengrid), and Mayflower Wind (a partnership of Shell and EDP Renewables). This leaves Equinor as the only developer with nearby lease rights not to submit a bid. The heavily redacted bids are quite lengthy, but the Offshore Wind Economics Project has read through them so that you don’t have to. We paid special attention to issues related to local economic development. If you are interested primarily in fishing and wildlife impacts, well, you’re both in and out of luck. You’re out of luck because they only get a cursory treatment here, but you’re in luck because these are the least redacted portions of the bids. It seems like the offshore wind developers are more than happy to brag about all of the things they are doing to engage the fishing community and prevent harmful environmental impacts. That makes sense, given that disseminating this information is a major part of improving public relations and that information related to supply chain development is a commercially sensitive part of business strategy. Anyway, let’s get into it.

Bid Strategy

The RFP required bidders to submit at least one proposal for 400 MW. Developers were allowed to submit additional bids for anywhere from 200 to 800 MW. The original enabling legislation mandated that for each round of offshore wind procurement (except the first), the cost must come in lower than for previous procurements. Given the looming expiration of the Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the very low price in Vineyard Wind’s winning bid in 2018, it was determined that future bids could be for higher amounts, provided that the increased cost was accounted for and justified. Massachusetts is somewhat unique among states procuring offshore wind in that their bid evaluation process is driven almost entirely by cost. However, there is mounting pressure to take local economic development effects into consideration.[1] These two factors (the ability to justify a higher cost and pressure to take steps to increase local content) have resulted in some developers offering a buffet of options, ranging from strictly low cost offerings to options with additional spending to support infrastructure and supply chain investments.

  • Bay State Wind offered two proposals: a 400 MW proposal as required and an “alternative bid.” Bay State was extremely guarded of their bid strategy, even redacting the megawatt size of the alternative option.
  • Vineyard Wind offered three options: a 400 MW proposal, a low cost 800 MW proposal, and an “enhanced local content” version of the 800 MW proposal.
  • Mayflower Wind provided four options: a 408 MW proposal and three 804 MW proposals. (Since 12 divides evenly into 408 and 804, perhaps they intend to use the 12 MW GE Haliade-X Turbine?). The three 804 proposals consist of a “Low Cost Energy” proposal at a price they assert will come in lower than any other offshore wind farm; an “Infrastructure and Innovation” proposal, which includes “strategic investments in port infrastructure, technology, and innovation;” and a “Massachusetts Manufacturing” proposal, which builds on the Infrastructure and Innovation proposals by adding on an investment in a new wind tower manufacturing facility somewhere in Massachusetts.

Staging and O&M Locations

It is now generally accepted knowledge that developing offshore wind in the United States will require a network of ports since no one location is ideal for supporting the full range of activities.[2] Furthermore, a lot more space is needed to support the full needs of the industry, with multiple large scale projects slated to be built in the coming years. Therefore, while it is likely that all three bidders are considering the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, it is also likely that they have additional locations in mind. Indeed, investments are already being made in other ports, such as Brayton Point in Somerset, MA[3] and New London, CT.[4]

  • Bay State Wind: Details on the locations of staging and O&M were redacted.
  • Vineyard Wind: While many details were redacted, it was revealed that in the “Enhanced Local Content” scenario, they intend to invest $14 million in Brayton Point for port and facility improvements to enable secondary steel fabrication and the final outfitting of transition pieces, plus up to another $5 million enable the final outfitting and coating of the offshore substation. The location of the O&M base was redacted, but the bid admits that there will be some “operational efficiencies” from their first wind farm Vineyard Wind I.
  • Mayflower Wind: The location of their staging port was redacted. They said they will use a Massachusetts-based port for O&M and that 75% of O&M jobs will be located in the Commonwealth. It appears they intend to use a Service Operational Vessel (SOV) in addition to some Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs).

Local Manufacturing

The pipeline of offshore wind projects has grown to the point at which we can expect some manufacturing of the primary components to move to the United States. Developers have limited control over the business decisions of the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers), but pressure from states to present high economic development impacts in bid proposals may incent developers to flesh out a deal in advance of submitting a bid.

  • Bay State Wind: Details on local manufacturing were redacted.
  • Vineyard Wind: While many details were redacted, it was revealed that they intend to source secondary steel materials locally.
  • Mayflower Wind: As a key feature of their “Massachusetts Manufacturing” 804 MW proposal, Mayflower Wind has promised to work with Marmen Inc. to locate a tower manufacturing in an Economically Distressed Area in Massachusetts.

Transmission and Storage

It appears that all three developers intend to use the “generator lead line” model of offshore wind transmission, in which the developer that wins the contract is also responsible for building the transmission system. This may change in future bids since the most recent Massachusetts offshore wind legislation permits separate proposals for transmission and generation and companies such as Anbaric Development Partners have been actively showing their interest in securing that business.

It appears that they are also in agreement on forgoing electricity storage. Bay State Wind and Vineyard Wind both redacted these sections, but the sections themselves are so short that it’s hard to imagine that they could contain much more than “sorry, not this time.” Mayflower left this section public, stating that electricity storage does not yet make economic sense. They cite data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which shows that the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of battery storage has been declining rapidly, but is still twice as expensive as offshore wind.[5]

Other Investments in Economic Development

For the first round of bidding, Bay State Wind actively promoted the investments they intended to make in local economic development, but this time they were much more reserved. Vineyard Wind was mostly consistent, in both cases not calling attention to their planned investments in the media, but keeping some details unredacted in the bid. One big change on the part of Vineyard Wind is that this time around they redacted the estimated job and economic impacts. Newcomer Mayflower Wind seems eager to stand out in the crowd and has made their interest in promoting local economic development known in a press release and has left some details unredacted.[6]

  • Bay State Wind: Details on investments and economic development impacts were redacted.
  • Vineyard Wind: Most details were redacted, but it was left public that both proposals include $12 million in direct funding for supply chain, workforce development, and low-income ratepayer initiatives.
  • Mayflower Wind: While they did not provide dollar amounts, Shell touted investments for “expanding South Coast ports” (someone should let them know that locals spell it Southcoast or SouthCoast), a Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC)-administered Offshore Wind Accelerator to foster innovation through “efforts and institutions like New Bedford Ocean Cluster, SeaAhead, and Greetown Labs,” MassCEC-administered training grants, and funding for marine science. Mayflower was the only company that did not redact the job impacts, claiming 10,680 jobs will be created in Massachusetts, including indirect and induced impacts. There are two problems with this number. (1) These are actually FTE job years, but in some cases they report them as individual jobs. To accurately count the number of jobs in Operations & Maintenance, for example, you would need to divide the job count by the approximately 25 years the wind farm is in operation. (2) Even correcting for the fact that these are job years and not individual jobs, this number is implausible. OSWEP rigorously assessed the job impacts of a similar proposal that we vetted through agreements with supply chain partners and came up with just over 3,658 FTE job years.[7] (This did include indirect and induced impacts and the possibility of tower manufacturing.)[8] How can Mayflower be putting forth a lower price while also creating almost three times as many job years? The biggest area of discrepancy with our analysis is in the operations phase, where they claim 4,350 direct FTE job years. On an annual basis, O&M supports about 80 direct year-round jobs (not including supply chain impacts). If they hire the standard size crew, the wind farm would have to be in operation for about 55 years to create the 4,350 jobs years purported by Mayflower. The standard rule of thumb is currently about 25 years.

Fishing Interests

All three developers left public many details about their efforts to engage the fishing community and minimize the potential impacts to the fishing industry. Interestingly, it now appears that Bay State Wind and Vineyard Wind are in agreement to orient the rows of turbines in an East to West layout. (This was previously a major point of contention between developers and different fisheries.)[9] Other measures made public by developers include burying the subsea cables in such a manner as to prevent interaction with fishing equipment and compensation for gear loss.








[8]  See Vineyard Wind Proposal Attachment 14 for supply chain letter of support from Ventower.


Gerrymandering – The Salamander that Could… and Did

Written By: Liz Anusauskas

In 1812 Elbridge Gerry, the Democratic- Republican Governor of Massachusetts, did something practically unheard of. He let Democratic-Republicans in Massachusetts use their political power to redraw district lines to ensure a victory for the Democratic-Republican Party in the state senate election. After Gerry signed a bill to make this kind of redistricting legal, a cartoon was put into a local newspaper that made the Boston district he had drawn look like a salamander. The name “gerrymander” comes from a combination of Elbridge Gerry’s name and the famous salamander from the cartoon.[1] Ever since then, politicians have been altering district lines to fit their needs.

Cartoon from 1812 depicting a salamander in the shape of the congressional districts surrounding Boston. This cartoon highlighted the absurdity of gerrymandering early on. [2]

As required by federal law and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the current system for drawing district lines takes population distribution, compactness of a district, and minority votes into account.[3] Every ten years the decennial census is administered to all citizens and the information gathered from that survey is used to both redistrict congressional lines and to reapportion the number of congressional representatives in each state. This census data contains important information that can tell those doing the redistricting how many citizens to put into each congressional district as well as the diversity of citizens that should be included in each district. A poor count by the census can lead to unfairly drawn districts and poorly apportioned states. In addition, census information is influential in determining federal funding for projects like schools, housing vouchers, and Medicare – and with 600 billion dollars of federal funding on the line, a dramatic miscount will lead to a poor dispersion of these funds.[4] However, a miscount can also give incumbent politicians an opportunity to map their districts in ways that guarantee future electoral victories, making the data from the census critical to this process.

In the 2018-midterm election, voters approved ballot measures in four states to prevent and limit gerrymandering. Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah all passed ballot questions to limit partisan redistricting. In Colorado, Michigan, and Utah voters approved the creation of an independent commission to draw congressional and legislative districts. In Missouri the people voted to appoint a state demographer and to use a statistical model for the redistricting process. Ohio passed a ballot measure that would ensure both parties are included in the process of approving new congressional districts. The push for these ballot questions showed the deliberate efforts of voters to curb gerrymandering before the 2020 Census, which will affect the results of the 2022-midterm election.[5]

Gerrymandering commonly occurs in two distinct ways, both of which heavily contribute to wasted votes. Wasted votes are defined as all the votes a party wins after they have won the majority. For example, if a party wins 80 percent of the votes, the 30 percent of votes won after winning over 50 percent are wasted. They are wasted because they are votes for a party that were not needed to win in a particular congressional district, but could have been influential in changing the results of another congressional district that hosted a closer race. The gerrymandering techniques that create wasted votes are known as “packing” and “cracking.” Packing occurs when politicians load up voters of the opposing party into one district leaving the rest of the districts empty of the opposing party’s voters. This creates easy, noncompetitive wins in the majority of the congressional districts. The party that has packed this district can then make other districts less competitive because the opposing party’s votes are “wasted” in the packed district. To crack districts, a party creates an artificially competitive district by dividing voters of the opposing parties into many districts so that they never hold the majority, but the districts seem a little more competitive. An easy way to tell if a congressional district has been gerrymandered is to look at whether or not it was a competitive district and to compare which party gathered the highest number of votes in the state with the number of seats in Congress they won.[6]

The graphic below showing results from Wisconsin elections from 2008-2012 highlights the fact that a party might gain the majority of votes, but still win less overall seats in the state assembly. Packing and cracking is further explained and visualized in the graphic under the Wisconsin chart.

These charts show how Wisconsin Democrats began with control of the state assembly prior to the 2010 census, but lost control after the subsequent redistricting that resulted from efforts by Republicans in 2010. From 2007 until 2010, Democrats controlled both the Governor’s seat and the Senate and in 2009 gained the majority in the House as well. In the 2010 election, Republicans won the Governor’s seat and the majority of seats in both the House and Senate giving them the power to redistrict congressional lines in their favor according to data from the results of the 2010 census. Ever since that year, Wisconsin Republicans have controlled all three majorities even in years when they do not garner the majority of votes. The only change to these results was during the midterm elections last fall when Democrats helped their governor get elected. [7] In the 2012 election, after the districts had been rearranged, the Democrats lost control of the state assembly even though they continued to get more votes in the state overall. In 2012, Democrats won 53 percent of the votes statewide, but Republicans won over 50 percent of the available seats in the state’s assembly. In 2016, Republicans garnered 53 percent of the votes statewide, but managed to win about 65 percent of the assembly seats. In a perfect world the percentage of votes statewide a party receives would be equivalent to the percentage of seats a party wins in the state legislature.
These two graphics show what packing and cracking look like using blue and orange houses to represent two different parties. Notice how the cracked districts look more competitive with more of the orange house spread out, but in the packed districts the only two districts that the orange party wins are the ones made up of only orange party voters.

The idea of wasted votes contributes heavily to one solution brought to the Supreme Court from Wisconsin: a call for gerrymandering to be identified according to the efficiency gap. In recent history, the Supreme Court has seen an abundance of cases citing significant gerrymandering and in each case the largest difficulty has been in finding proof that gerrymandering is the singular reason a party lost. The efficiency gap has been utilized in these instances to explore the idea that state legislatures, who agreed upon redistricted maps, understood that these maps would leave a lot of wasted votes for a specific party in the majority of congressional districts. To explain how this is identified I will use an example of Party A and Party B. Let us say that Party A always wins the majority number of votes by citizens across the state, but is the minority party within the state legislature (meaning it holds less seats in the assembly). Since Party A always wins more votes than Party B statewide, Party A argues that Party B gerrymandered the districts to ensure Party B wins more seats in the state legislature. To prove that Party B gerrymandered congressional districts, Party A shows that the efficiency gap is so wide that it benefits Party B. To begin, Party A looks at one of the congressional districts they won and subtracts the total number of votes cast for their party by the number of votes they need to win a simple majority in that district. This solution is the number of wasted votes in that district. This subtraction is done the same way in all the other congressional districts they won. In the districts they lost, Party B’s votes are subtracted instead. Party A the adds up the total number of wasted votes from each district, adds together totals for all the districts Party A and B won, and then subtracts Party B’s wasted votes from Party A’s wasted votes. This number represents the efficiency gap between the two parties that benefited Party B. The further the number is from zero the more wasted votes that party had. Since the number of votes that contributed to Party A’s wasted votes will be a negative number, the lower the efficiency gap is the more it is clear that Party B gerrymandered.  This example, highlighting how effective wasted votes can be, is important in explaining how gerrymandering can be a completely biased process.[8]

The Supreme Court has postponed three of the four cases about gerrymandering that started last year, to be addressed later this year, meaning a final verdict on these problems will not be heard for a while. In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court decided there was not enough evidence to prove redistricting from the efficiency gap and their three-part test. The Supreme Court ruled to hear the case after the North Carolina and Maryland cases have been heard. [9] In the case heard for League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania had success in changing congressional lines. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the General Assembly of Pennsylvania had to redraw the congressional districts in time for the 2018 midterm elections. The governor and legislature did not agree on the redrawn map so, the Pennsylvania Supreme court released the congressional map that was used during the midterm election.[10] North Carolina will see its case heard in the Supreme Court in late March after a panel granted the motion to stay the opinion to redraw the lines until further review. [11] All of these cases prove how difficult it is for courts to make decisions on gerrymandering and how each case of gerrymandering is uniquely different.

Another way to prove that gerrymandering contains a partisan bias was developed by two mathematicians. In 2014, Johnathan Mattingly and Christy Vaugh created a method to randomly simulate the drawing of congressional districts. Using the outcome of North Carolina’s 2012 election, in which Democratic House candidates received a majority of the vote but only won 4 out of 13 districts, they ran a bootstrap estimate of 100 simulations to determine how many Democratic candidates would win, on average, if districts were randomly drawn. They found that, for all simulations, the Democrats always won between six and nine seats – randomly drawn districts never produced a map where only four candidates triumphed. This proved that the probability of only four Democrats being elected was incredibly low, meaning North Carolina’s 2012 districts were unfairly gerrymandered, and did not reflect the “will of the people.”[12]

Independent commissions have become a common way for states to realign their gerrymandered congressional districts. Right now there are 13 states that use independent commissions as the means for drawing district lines. Instead of partisan commissions that could have a discernible bias, these independent commissions are usually made up of an equal number of Democrats, Republicans, and sometimes even a few independents. Whether these people are legislators, nonpolitical officials, or members of the public varies by state, but in every case an effort is made to decrease the effects of partisan bias. There are three types of commissions that are used by states that do not grant the full power of redistricting to the legislature: backup commissions, advisory commissions, and commissions who are tasked with drawing a plan for congressional districts. The number of people in these commissions and who nominates or appoints the people in the commission varies by state.[13]

In addition, Iowa uses its own method that is completely different than all of the other states. The Iowa commission is called the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission, and state law requires that the legislature vote on plans created by a group of nonpartisan legislative staff members. The commissioners are required to create electoral maps without looking at political or election data so they can focus on population size and fitting the correct number of state house and state senate seats into each district.[14]

This map shows the types of commissions that each state utilizes in their redistricting efforts. The states in grey do not have an independent commission. It is not updated to show the changes to commission type that resulted from the 2018 ballot questions.

One proposed solution to unfair gerrymandering is known as the “shortest splitline algorithm,” or splitline districting. Splitline districting uses mathematical equations to divide districts by straight lines according to population density. Using Census data to calculate population and state shape, splitline districting can be completed with a computer program created by Ivan Ryan or by using a mathematical equation to determine where to draw the lines.[15] The biggest problem with splitline districting is that it ignores all political and geographical boundaries meaning, it might divide a house or a yard making it hard to tell which district people are in. The equations used to divide districts is shown below.

To the right is what Massachusetts looks like with districts divided by the splitline districting method. Below is the most up to date version of what congressional district lines in Massachusetts look like.
Photo on the right is from:

North Carolina (shown below) has an even worse track record of gerrymandering. The original map depicts how district lines were drawn in 2014. The splitline districting used data from the 2009 population to map potential congressional district lines which is also shown below. The splitline map for Virginia is from: http://

In 2017 a team at FiveThirtyEight began The Gerrymandering Project to understand the effects gerrymandering had on people across the nation and to compare different ways people can lessen or increase the effects of gerrymandering. Galen Druke, a producer and reporter for FiveThirtyEight, traveled to Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, and California interviewing professionals, politicians, civilians, and those affected by gerrymandering in their state. He discussed things from the Supreme Court case that started in Wisconsin, to a drop in the number of competitive elections in Arizona. Throughout his podcast series he looked into ways that helped minimize the effects of gerrymandering and ways that seemed to help at first, but may have disadvantaged other groups in the effort to fix the system.[16]

The Atlas of Redistricting is a resource created by the team at FiveThirtyEight that highlights the differences in voting results when district lines are created with a specific bias in mind. This atlas compares the effects of Democratic and Republican gerrymandering, the current districts, proportionally partisan districts, majority minority districts, highly competitive districts, compact (by county splits) districts, and compact (by a mathematical algorithm) districts. Viewers are able to take a closer look at most individual states or change the entire nation to each type of district setting. Each type of redistricting method is also summarized and ranked by category to determine which one has the highest compactness rank, country splits, majority-nonwhite districts, competitive districts, and efficiency gap. This atlas can be useful in trying to determine the best methodology for redistricting and which type of redistricting causes the most amount of harm. Below are some of the maps created by FiveThirtyEight to show the results of different settings.[17]

These maps were created by FiveThirtyEight to show the differences in election results when district lines are drawn to fit specific needs. The top two compare current districts with those drawn to increase the number of competitive elections while the bottom two maps show election results if Republicans and then Democrats had full power to gerrymander. These maps can be found on FiveThirtyEight’s website here:

So far, congressional districts have been the focus of discussion because those are the districts that affect members in the House of Representatives nationwide and have a notorious history of being gerrymandered. The gerrymandered map by Democrats designed above by FiveThiryEight may look like it still has a lot of Republican districts, but many of those districts have a lower population density and therefore have fewer electoral votes in the Presidential election. In the example below, state and county borders are observed instead to highlight the fact that these borders, as well as congressional districts, can sometimes be misleading when showing election results because populations within these borders are not taken into account.

Cartograms rescale the size of states by a specific feature (in this case population) and are therefore better at representing election results by the number of people who voted for the Democratic or Republican candidates. This is useful when looking at Democratic districts, because urban areas and districts are more likely to vote for Democrats than rural, less populated areas. According to the PEW Research Center, the difference between the percentage of registered Democrats and Republicans is a lot greater in urban counties than in rural counties with Democrats being favored 62 to 31 in urban counties and Republicans being favored 54 to 38 in rural counties.[18] Below are some maps and cartograms created by Mark Newman from the University of Michigan, representing 2016 Presidential election results according to different factors. [19]

The maps above show election results from the 2016 election. The first one shows current state borders divided by states that went blue or red. The second map changes the shape of the US to adjust to the number of electoral votes that went to each candidate. For example, Illinois has 20 electoral votes and the majority of the population voted for Clinton, so the state of Illinois is blue and is bigger in the cartogram than in the original map since it represents more electoral votes.

Research was also conducted on the county level to show the differences in county results assuming everyone in a blue county voted for Clinton and everyone in a red country voted for Trump. The cartograms above highlight how populous some small blue districts are. Focusing in on Florida, the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade are small counties compared to the rest of the state, but much larger counties according to population which explains its explosion in the cartogram.

It is also important to take into account the fact that everyone in a county that went blue did not vote for Clinton. Just because the majority of the county voted for a candidate does not mean these districts were not competitive. This last set of maps above recognize this fact and make more competitive districts purple instead of simply red or blue. The cartographer used a scale that makes counties that voted 70 percent or more for Republicans or Democrats red or blue respectively and a county that received less than 70 percent of the votes for a single candidate a different shade of purple according to its competitiveness.[20]

The point of these cartograms is to show how easily districts can be misinterpreted. Whether you are looking at counties or congressional districts, the underlying issues that affect our elections need to be understood before one jumps to conclusions about interpreting these results. Election results do not always reflect true opinions and values of American voters. These two examples highlight the significant problems within our current system of voting and until direct action is taken to remove partisan bias and restore the power of one person’s vote, the democratic system will remain in jeopardy of misrepresenting its people.

Needless to say, improvements need to be made to our system of redistricting to ensure that politicians do not wield their political power to game the system. There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that district lines are fair and to give everyone an equal chance of winning. The independent commissions are a step-up from previous practices, and systems rooted in mathematical proofs or technological advancements that enable computer systems to calculate fair maps are another progressive way to improve the current system. Taking cases of gerrymandering to the Supreme Court is a quick way to make drastic changes and to create precedents for all other states to follow, but this should only be the beginning. Recognizing that partisan politics needs to be taken out of the redistricting process, public citizens, legislators, and researchers must come together to push for immediate change using fact based methods to prove the legitimacy of gerrymandering as well as the legitimacy of alternatives to contemporary redistricting methods. To do so requires a greater study of gerrymandering and the current suggestions for new redistricting methods. Until everyone has a full understanding of the problem that citizens and legislators truly face when a district is gerrymandered, it will be impossible to find the perfect solution. With the integrity of our nation’s elections at stake, investing time, energy, and resources into new ways to redistrict should be a top priority.

Extra Links Addressing Other Issues and Explaining Other Pieces of the Gerrymandering Problem

Awareness for gerrymandering has improved following its immediate effects on recent elections, and a multitude of resources and videos have been produced. One of the better explanatory videos is from CP Grey here: . The Washington Post also does a good job at explaining how it works here:

Another fun piece of evidence is the Gerrymandering Gallery which has a few pieces of “art” (severely gerrymandered districts):

Turning gerrymandering into a game is a perfect way to grab people’s attention. The USC Game Innovation Lab created the Gerrymandering Game in which you are tasked with redrawing the lines while pleasing a multitude of different bureaucrats on all sides of the political spectrum. Not only do you learn how redistricting works, but you also get a better sense of the political pressure people face when trying to redraw lines. Play here:

Another way state legislatures tilt the scales in their favor is to use their power to gerrymander areas with prisons. Prison gerrymandering is when districts are drawn around prisons in states that do not allow prisoners to vote, but count them in the district as though they have the ability to be a part of the electorate. This takes away the power of a persons’ vote because the district of eligible voters will be incredibly small since the district accounts for the number of people imprisoned. You can learn more about this problem here:


[1] Trickey, Erick.(2017, 20 July). Smithsonian. Where Did the Term “Gerrymander” Come From? Retrieved 2019, February.

[2] N/A. Wikipedia. Gerrymandering. Retrieved 2019, February.

[3] Knudson, Kevin. (2015, August 3). The Conversation. Can math solve the congressional districting problem? Retrieved 2019, February.

[4]N/A. (2019, February 26). National Conference of State Legislatures. 2020 Census Resources And Legislation. Retrieved 2019, February.

[5] Neely, Brett and McMinn, Sean. (2018, December 28). National Public Radio.Voters Rejected Gerrymandering in 2018, But Some Lawmakers Try to Hold Power. Retrieved 2019, February.

[6] Druke, Galen, host. (2017, November 30). FiveThirtyEight. Why Can’t We Just Burn Gerrymandering To The Ground? Retrieved 2019, February.

[7] N/A. Ballotpedia. Party control of Wisconsin state government. Retrieved 2019, February.

[8] Cameron, Darla. (2017, October 4). The Washington Post. Here’s how the Supreme Court could decide whether your vote will count. Retrieved 2019, February.

[9] N/A. (2019, February 4). The Brennan Center. Gill v. Whitford. Retrieved 2019, February.

[10] N/A. (2018, October 29). The Brennan Center. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 2019, February.

[11] N/A. (2019, March 7). The Brennan Center. Rucho v Common Cause. Retrieved 2019, March.

[12] Knudson, Kevin. (2015, August, 3). The Conversation. Can math solve the congressional districting problem? Retrieved 2019, February.

[13] Underhill, Wendy. (2019, January 2019). National Conference of State Legislatures. Redistricting Commissions: Congressional Plan. Retrieved 2019, February. http://

[14] N/A (2018, April 6). National Conference of State Legislatures. The “Iowa Model” for Redistricting. Retrieved 2019, February.

[15] Written by the Center for Range Voting; algorithm invented by Smith, Warren; program to produce the images by Ryan, Ivan; data sourced from the US Census Bureau. “Splitline Districting of all 50 States + DC + Puerto Rico.”

[16] Druke, Galen, host. (2017, November 30). FiveThirtyEight. Why Can’t We Just Burn Gerrymandering To The Ground? Retrieved 2019, February.

[17] Bycoffe, Aaron; Koeze, Ella; Wasserman, David; Wolfe, Julia. (2018, January 25). FiveThirtyEight. The Atlas of Redistricting. Retrieved 2019, February.

[18] Parker, Kim; Horowitz, Juliana; Brown, Anna; Fry, Richard; Cohn, D’Vera; Igielnik, Ruth. (2018, May 22). Urban, Suburban and Rural Residents’ Views on Key Social and Political Issues. Retrieved 2019, February.

[19] Newman, Mark. (2016, December 2).
Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems. Maps of the 2016 US Presidential Election Results. Retrieved 2019, February.

[20] Newman, Mark. (2016, December 2).
Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems. Maps of the 2016 US Presidential Election Results. Retrieved 2019, February.

Introduction: Undergraduate Research Assistant, Sal Balkus

Hi everyone! My name is Sal Balkus, and I am an Undergraduate Research Assistant at the Public Policy Center. I am from Franklin, Massachusetts, and I am currently a freshman at UMass Dartmouth, majoring in Data Science. I also serve on the university’s Honors Council, and I enjoy rock climbing and hiking with the Outdoor Club.

Working at the PPC provides an exciting opportunity for me to do social science research and apply my data analysis and statistics skills to a variety of data. I am passionate about all things data science and I hope to pursue graduate study, as well as a career in the field. As such, I am very glad that I am able to work a job on campus that is relevant to my future career goals and yields valuable experience that will aid me in the future.

Introduction: Undergraduate Research Assistant Liz Anusauskas

Hello, my name is Liz Anusauskas and I am an Undergraduate Research Assistant (Class of 2021) at the Public Policy Center at UMass Dartmouth. I will be a sophomore at UMass Dartmouth this fall, majoring in Political Science and Economics. I love playing frisbee, but every Saturday morning you will find me at the local Farmers Market in Worcester. I am from the central Massachusetts town of Auburn, where I have lived most of my life.

I wanted to work at the PPC because I am hoping to gain a better understanding of the work that goes into local projects and how that translates into large-scale state and nationwide effects. I have been thinking about pursuing public policy after I complete my undergraduate degree and I am looking forward to working with the wonderful people I have met here thus far to gain more experience in the field.

Are you up to it? What’s it like to work on a wind turbine?

The first working offshore wind farm in the U.S. has been producing electricity for more than a year, with its five 6-megawatt turbines spinning three miles off of Rhode Island’s Block Island, the first “toes in the water,” so to speak, eliminating the islanders’ reliance on diesel energy, and sending the surplus into the New England grid.

The future of offshore wind off the East Coast and in the Northeast particularly, where several states are setting the pace for the rest of the country, draws closer each day to the installation of utility scale offshore wind farms, with hundreds of turbines, gigawatts of energy, and thousands of jobs.

Figure 1: Installation of the last blade on the five turbines of the Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island. Photo courtesy of Deepwater Wind.

For a look at what a utility scale facility might look like, it’s handy to turn to YouTube, where offshore wind developers, manufacturers, vendors, and others have documented utility scale offshore wind in the establish European industry beginning at the end of the last century.

The massive pieces assembled to complete a turbine can weigh hundreds of tons, and their arrays will occupy hundreds of acres. The work of installing and operating a wind farm is a big job, with tasks both familiar and exotic.

To get a look into a utility size offshore wind farm, I’ve scouted out a couple dozen YouTube videos showing a number of the activities associated with them. I’ll start with those that deal with the work performed by the folks who work on offshore wind farms.

Take a look at an 8-minute video published in 2016 by Samuel Hawkins depicting a wind farm worker’s helicopter transfers to and from a turbine on his last day of work on the U.K.’s Westermost Rough wind farm off the eastern coast of Great Britain. It documents an OSW technician’s last day offshore, and shows some helicopter hops from turbine to turbine, the embark/disembark process, and a great perspective of the transfer process.

A video from the Betendiek wind farm, a German North Sea project about 25 miles west of the Denmark German border, offers a look at the Operations & Maintenance workers, pilots, and emergency responders going through some offshore training. They perform drills for medical evacuations, hard helicopter landings, and helicopter fires (without real fire or other emergencies, so fear not for the workers). The video was produced by Deutche Windtechnik, which operates the farm, in 2016.

Another video from the Westermost rough farm demonstrates the deceptively mundane act of transferring workers to and from their duty stations. It’s a task that takes place over and over, all day, every day. For the people who work these O&M jobs for offshore wind farms, wherever they may be, the process becomes routine. For the uninitiated, being delivered to and retrieved from the massive wind turbines looks more like an extreme adventure vacation. Some of the training and experience the OSW workers undergo is seen in this video from 2015, also by Samuel Hawkins.

Speaking of extreme, this Weather Channel video documents the mind-boggling work of an onshore turbine technician whose path into the field began while mountain climbing with her father as a child.  In the 2017 video, she is seen dangling from the hub of a turbine in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in order to repair the tip of a blade that had been struck by lightning. She looks very comfortable, despite operating power tools while hanging from a rope tied to the hub.

A 2015 video published by Lars Bulow shows a crew transfer by boat rather than helicopter. It’s not a fancy video, and it’s less than 5 minutes long, but it offers another look into this exotic, growing field of offshore wind power.

Finally, a 6-minute video from Broadcast Media Services in 2014 fills in the gaps of what goes on between the crew transfers. “The best part of the job?” the subject asks: Being on top of the turbine. “On a clear day, you can see 40 miles.” The worst part? “When you have to use the toilet you have to climb all the way back down to the boat.”

These several videos show some of the routines, requirements, and extremes experienced by those who work on the turbines in this blossoming industry. Are you up to it?

What the Offshore Wind Industry Could Mean for Massachusetts

Residents of Massachusetts and other states along the Eastern seaboard are experiencing the arrival of a new base industry for the state—offshore wind. Offshore wind is a distinct industry from onshore wind, owing to the vastly larger size of the wind turbines and the logistical complexities of working out on the ocean. The largest turbine on the market—the 12 MW turbine designed by General Electric—stands at 853 ft. The Prudential Building by comparison (not including the antenna), towers over much of Boston at 749 ft. With the arrival of this industry will come well-paying, white and blue-collar jobs in regions of the state that have relatively high unemployment. The industry also has the potential to expand the Commonwealth’s advanced manufacturing sector and create new markets for the state’s maritime and marine technology sectors.

The offshore wind industry got its start in Europe in places like Denmark and Germany. It then crossed the North Sea to the United Kingdom. As will be the case for Massachusetts, the UK offshore wind industry found its home ports in some of the more beleaguered cities of the country—places like Hull and Grimsby. These cities are similar to the Gateway Cities along the SouthCoast of Massachusetts—having lost their traditional industries but possessing untapped potential in their industrial ports. Now they are home to various facilities to serve the OSW industry: from operations & maintenance facilities to training facilities, from research facilities to factories. These facilities serve the OSW industry across Europe and create ripple effects in other areas of the economy.

Despite the relatively short distance between England and their blade facility in Denmark, Hull eventually became home to a Siemens blade manufacturing facility that now employs over a thousand workers. Originally, Hull was slated to become home to a nacelle factory, but the blade factory was a better match for the local workforce. Key leaders in Massachusetts have learned from this experience and are working to ensure that the Massachusetts workforce is prepared to seize emerging job opportunities. The workforce study commissioned by the Mass Clean Energy Center and being prepared by the PPC, Bristol Community College, , and Mass Maritime is a key step in that direction, by giving workforce development professionals the information they need to prepare the local workforce for the near term construction and operations & maintenance jobs.

Factors that will determine the speed and size of OSW industry growth in Massachusetts include the cost of the electricity produced by OSW as well as more generally, the size of the pipeline for new projects, the availability of shore-side infrastructure, and the extent to which the state obtains first mover status, which can lead to agglomeration effects as the supply chain co-locates. The cost of OSW is dropping rapidly, with the first subsidy-free OSW farm poised to be built in the Netherlands. According to a study conducted by the University of Delaware, OSW costs in Massachusetts will get down to 10.8 cents per kilowatt by 2027 (the deadline to procure 1,600 MW in OSW power). This is still much higher than for natural gas (5 cents per kilowatt), but costs will continue to fall as the local supply chain develops and technology improves.

The movement of the supply chain to Atlantic Coast is likely to happen much more quickly here than in the U.K. owing to the cost of transporting the massive components across the Atlantic (needless to say a longer trip than across the North Sea) and the emerging size of the U.S. market. While manufacturers we interviewed are keeping their location considerations close to the vest, they consistently noted that the U.S. is a major emerging market that is too big to ignore. When Siemens made their decision to open a blade facility in England there was estimated to be a 5 MW pipeline of projects, though this estimate turned out to be optimistic. Our analysis conservatively estimates a pipeline in the Northeast U.S. of about 4.6 MW of nameplate capacity, depending on capacity factors, although this is a small fraction of the total available resource in the existing wind energy areas.

It is clear that the ability to take advantage of the potential of the OSW industry in Massachusetts relies heavily on the ability of our workforce, infrastructure, and business leaders to anticipate industry needs and emerging opportunities. Done right, the potential for the state is substantial. According to a study by the PPC prepared for Vineyard Wind, average wages for occupations in the industry are over $80,000 , which compares favorably to the state average wage of about $67,000. Jobs range from white-collar legal and finance positions; to scientific and technical positions; to well-paying, blue-collar construction jobs; to long-term, stable jobs in operations and maintenance. Significantly, according to the PPC’s analysis of the Vineyard Wind project, about 90 percent of the Massachusetts jobs will be located in the Southeastern part of the state—an area that has fewer job opportunities than in Greater Boston and that includes sub-regions such as Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod, which struggle with the seasonal nature of their tourist-driven economies.

Furthermore, there is the potential to remediate and renew shoreside industrial sites such as the recently closed Brayton Point power plant in Somerset and Eversource/Sprague Oil site in New Bedford. Both must be used for water-dependent industrial uses given their location in Designated Port Areas, but would be very expensive to clean up for reuse. The companies in the offshore wind industry, which must locate by the water due to the size of the components, have the incentive to turn these properties around.

OSWEP is tracking these trends in an effort to inform an evidence-based industrial strategy. One year ago, the thought of local manufacturing related to offshore wind was a pie-in-the-sky idea to many. Today, it has been exciting to see how developers are already making commitments to procure some of the components locally, including crew transfer vessels for local boat builders Gladding-Hearn and Blount Boats and batteries from NEC Energy Solutions in Westborough. There has even been discussion of manufacturing some of the major turbine components on the SouthCoast, including towers, monopile foundations, and transition pieces. Ultimately, there will be OSW-related activity all along the Eastern seaboard and windfarm development will require a network of ports. However, the competition between states is fierce and there is a need for bold and quick action if Massachusetts wants to win the race.

Ready Player One – OSW Energy Price Parity? Game Over!

Massachusetts has the largest offshore wind (OSW) potential of any state in the contiguous United States. While many states are sparring for a piece of the OSW pie, it can be argued that Massachusetts is furthest along. Currently, three offshore wind developers have lease agreements to build projects in the federal waters south of
Martha’s Vineyard, and a decision on the first development is expected to be awarded by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources on April 23. With developers promising a construction start in 2021, the Massachusetts lease area will likely host the first large-scale offshore wind farm in the nation.

There are many factors driving development stateside: the presence of vast amounts of wind energy located relatively close to shore, in shallow water, and with significant population density close to these areas; the desire to diversify the country’s energy portfolio; environmental benefits of clean renewable energy; developers and manufacturers looking to open new markets; and the potential job and economic impacts for states. While each of these factors is a crucial element in the industry’s development, the primary catalyst driving OSW’s emigration from across the Atlantic are commitments by individual states to require power purchase agreements specifically for OSW. (Click here to learn more about state actions). As a result, the United States now has an OSW project pipeline worthy of European developers’ attention, especially knowing that these targets represent only a fraction of the total energy resources available off our Atlantic shores.

In the Bay State, the 2016 Act to Promote Energy Diversity directed Massachusetts electricity distribution companies to procure 1,600 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind by 2027. Other states, including Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, have also set targets for OSW procurement. As of March 2018, the total amount of offshore wind set to be procured in the United States was between 4,595 MW and 4,745 MW of nameplate capacity, depending on capacity factors. Without these mandatory power purchase agreements, it is unlikely that interest in U.S.-based OSW would be developing at such an exponential rate, particularly since the U.S. does not offer energy subsidies that spurred much of the OSW development in Europe. Without the subsidies, OSW energy prices in the U.S. are still much higher than traditional fuels such as oil, gas, and hydro power.

However, offshore wind is becoming increasingly less expensive to produce. Costs have fallen more than 30 percent in the 15 years since the first wind farm opened. The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) from offshore wind, which averaged about $240 (U.S.) per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2001, fell to approximately $170/MWh by the end of 2015.”1 Recently, the price has dropped even further, bringing the LCOE down to $126/MWh in the second half of 2016. This is down 22 percent from the first half of 2016, and 28 percent from the second half of 2015. Subsidy-free wind farms are now being built in Germany and The Netherlands, with the auction results suggesting LCOEs in the range of $60/MWh to $100/MWh by 2020.2

Technological improvements and improved logistics will remain a key ingredient in lowering energy costs. The cost of financing will also decline as more projects enter the pipeline and investors perceive less risk in financing future projects. A larger pipeline will also spur supply chain efficiencies and lead to a more experienced workforce for subsequent projects, which become more efficient as workers learn by doing.3 State investments in infrastructure and workforce development may also help to reduce costs.

Thus, the question about price parity going forward is not if, but when. Admittedly, unless you have a flux capacitor and an old DeLorean, predicting the future is difficult. These are exciting times for the industry, and concrete answers to how quickly the industry will move and what it will look like in 10 years remain to be seen. But if the present is a predictor, it seems that U.S. OSW development advances more quickly than expected compared to even a month before (albeit much too slow for some). Just today, Bay State Wind (a joint venture between Ørsted and power company Eversource) announced that it signed a deal with a European manufacturer to build wind turbine components in Massachusetts (see: Importantly, if we want prices in the U.S. to quickly catch up to those overseas, we need to work quickly to continue to build the supply chain and logistics capacity here in the states.

Even though the task of building this industry in the U.S. while simultaneously working to drive down costs may seem daunting, the award is a win-win-win for many of the Commonwealth’s economic development, environmental, and energy goals. Clean renewable energy at the same or lower cost than fossil fuels, the promise of new jobs that run the gamut from blue collar trade workers to white collar scientists, and a new and expanding supply chain that supports both traditional manufacturing and the innovation economy? Game on!

[1] International Renewable Energy Agency. (2016). Innovation Outlook: Offshore Wind. Abu Dhabi.

[2] International Renewable Energy Agency. (2016). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017. Abu Dhabi.

[3] Kempton, Willett; Stephanie McClellan and Deniz Ozkan. (2016). Massachusetts Offshore Wind Future Cost Study. University of Delaware Special Initiative on Offshore Wind: Newark, DE.