(These comments were submitted by Tom Stacy, founder and former managing director of Save Western Ohio, a former grass-roots 501 C4 organization.)

I should like to point out to visitors to your page http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/should-wind-tax-credit-stay-or.php#2236388 that those "experts" promoting the extension of the renewable energy PTC who have been granted permission to state their position, fail almost unanimously to address the central issue: that their economic success comes through looting and mooching from other tax payers. This is bad for our nation and works against needed commitment to a balanced budget. Frankly, it constitutes legalized robbery. When so-called "republicans" pander for legalized theft in the name of job creation, they abandon their basic economic and political principles.

Opportunity cost of tax dollar investment in uneconomic energy sources extends far beyond the PTC's raw distribution numbers. Every tax dollar funneled into this make-work industry leverages several investment dollars - not because free market choice makes the investment attractive, but because policies do. Those investment dollars are lost to capital projects that make America more competitive and more energy independent. The program is also co-dependent on state mandates and tax provisions - neither state nor federal assistance sufficient by itself to conjure economic success for renewables.

Furthermore, not one blogger has offered an "environmental benefit" justification for wind and solar - and for good reason. Panderers know that compared to investment in natural gas fired or nuclear powered electricity, wind and solar are a far costlier means of pollution mitigation when a fair value analysis is exposed. This is due to the indisputable reality that wind and solar are redundant investments and are dependent on the flexibility and existence of fossil fired plants. So wind and solar may save some fuel, but fuel cost is a minority component of the levelized cost of electricity as disclosed in the EIA electric power annual reports.

Subsidy dependent "experts" then, simply lie and twist their story so the public will not recognize that their real goal is to loot tax and investment dollars at the point of a gun. In a free market system, consumers have real choice and hold the leverage over producers. This is not so with recipients of unearned wealth courtesy of the PTC.

Save Western Ohio was dedicated to factual and disinterested community education about wind energy. The nonprofit group is no longer a formal entity in the state because its localized mission has been completed.

Tax policies should focus on driving innovation. Extending the cellulosic biofuels producer tax credit and accelerated depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property, and including algae-based biofuels levels the playing field with wind, solar and geothermal energy.

Tax policies should also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, and create high quality U.S. based career opportunities. Perhaps more than any other investment, biorefineries can help achieve these objectives by leveraging U.S. biotech innovation and agricultural productivity to revitalize domestic manufacturing.

A growing industry, industrial biotechnology, creates high-quality employment in research, development, science and engineering. The biobased products industry employs nearly 100,000 people today, according to an Iowa State CIRAS study, and it can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the future, with the right government policy. The biobased economy has the potential to generate upwards of $230 billion to the global economy by 2020, according to the World Economic Forum.

Innovative biotechnology processes provide significant new opportunities to revitalize manufacturing here in the United States. Advanced biofuel and renewable chemicals tax credits ensure these American-born technology innovations are deployed here at home. Producing affordable domestic alternatives to all products that come from foreign oil is vital to renewed economic growth and energy security. These tax credits give companies that are innovating a stable policy to bring commercial-scale alternatives to the market and play a key role in securing our energy future.

The production tax credit (PTC) has played a critical role in building the U.S. wind energy industry, offering clean electricity and jobs, and positioning U.S. manufacturers for a growing global market. It is well worth continuing for the time being, particularly at a moment when plentiful natural gas threatens to discourage investment in wind energy and other renewables.

One of the keys to clean, reliable, affordable electricity is maintaining a diverse supply. Indeed, rather than competitors, wind and natural gas should be viewed as important complements, helping to balance price and supply.

Energy subsidies have played an important part in America’s economic success, fostering growth in the coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power industries. In fact, Department of Energy subsidies for horizontal drilling and associated technologies have led to the current production boom in the natural gas industry.

Today, we face a new challenge. Our economy still needs plenty of electricity, but we must ensure that this electricity is cleaner than in the past. The electricity sector is responsible for about one third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Rising global emissions are driving climate change, and the consequences are here and now.

The PTC and renewable energy mandates in 31 states and the District of Columbia have been a powerful combination. Wind has gone from being practically no part of U.S. electricity generation to about 3 percent in the past 10 years. The United States now has more than 50 gigawatts (50,000 megawatts) of installed wind capacity, the equivalent of 50 large coal plants.

First enacted in 1992, The PTC has led to increased production and manufacturing advances. Economies of scale, improved efficiency and a diverse supply of global manufacturers have made wind power more affordable.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), U.S. domestic production of wind turbine components has grown twelvefold over the last six years. With more than 400 facilities in 43 states, wind energy is part of the rebound in domestic manufacturing that is one of the few bright spots in a weak economy. In 2011, there were more than 70,000 wind jobs, and this is projected to grow to more than 90,000 jobs in the next five years if the PTC is extended through 2016.

Much of America’s wind potential remains untapped. Wind resources are abundant in the Great Plains, Iowa, Minnesota, along the spine of Appalachian Mountains, in the Western Mountains and many offshore locations. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s just-released “Renewable Electricity Futures Study” projects that renewable energy resources could supply as much as 80 percent of total U.S. electricity in 2050, with wind turbines supplying nearly one third of our total power demands.

The tax credit has achieved many of its original aims, but with uncertainty around its renewal, that progress is faltering. There is little in the way of planned wind farm development for 2013. AWEA projects that as many as 37,000 wind industry jobs will be lost if the tax credit is not extended.

With China moving aggressively to dominate the global clean energy market, now is the time to build on this investment in manufacturing infrastructure, not cede ground. But wind farm developers need the price certainty provided by the PTC.

Continued support is especially critical in the midst of a natural gas boom that threatens to squeeze renewables out of the market. If our goal is a clean, affordable, reliable electricity supply, wind and natural gas both have important roles to play. In fact, they complement each other nicely. Natural gas power plants can serve as an effective hedge against wind’s natural intermittency. And wind farms are an effective hedge against the price volatility we’ve historically seen with natural gas.

No subsidy should last forever. Indeed, many subsidies enjoyed by other fuels should have been ended long ago.

Congress should extend the production tax credit, but at the same time establish an independent commission to review the full gamut of U.S. subsidies for all energy sources and recommend clear criteria and timelines for phasing out those that are no longer necessary. We must be judicious in our use of taxpayer subsides, and right now, continuing the PTC is a wise investment.

In 2011, for the first time in several years, the United States led the world by investing more than $48 billion in clean energy. The clean energy sector represents one of the fastest-growing industries globally, with investment increasing more than 600 percent between 2004 and 2011 (excluding research and development).

We're in danger of losing our place at the top, however. To maintain our lead amid fierce international competition and to continue to attract private capital, there must be policy certainty. While other nations have national policies to encourage the adoption of clean energy, we rely on a patchwork of state policies and cyclical federal tax incentives, one of the most important of which is to end in a year.

The production tax credit (PTC) is an effective tool to keep electricity prices low and encourage the development of proven clean energy projects. While not large--about 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour--it gives American businesses the certainty they need to continue to invest, build, and deploy. But it's set to expire at the end of 2013. Uncertainty about whether Congress will act to extend the PTC has already resulted in a sharp drop in investments in wind energy production, threatening the livelihoods of the more than 78,000 people nationwide who are in wind-supported jobs.

When Congress has allowed the PTC to expire in the past, wind installations declined by 73 to 93 percent. According to a December 2011 study by Navigant, a global consulting firm known for its expertise in energy issues, 37,000 wind-supported jobs would be lost if the PTC was not extended before 2013. Congress should enact a multiyear extension of this incentive, which provides certainty to the industry and would ensure the continued growth of renewable energy industries. Our country leads the world in clean energy venture capital investment, but without such strong policy commitments to clean energy as the PTC, it will be challenging to scale up new innovations. If demand for these modern technologies is not created in the United States, development of the clean energy industry will suffer.

There is no lack of political support. Karl Rove, who was a senior advisor to President George W. Bush, raised eyebrows recently when he joined with Robert Gibbs, who served as President Barack Obama's press secretary, to publicly support congressional action to extend financial incentives for development of wind energy. In endorsing the policy, Rove said, "My hope is that after the election, people say, look, let's start making some priorities, and find some things that we can agree on, and maybe one of them is the production tax credit." If political party operatives such as Rove and Gibbs, Republican and Democratic governors, and the Sierra Club can agree to extend this policy, Washington lawmakers from both sides of the aisle whould be able to do so as well.

Policy matters. Nations that have strong policy commitments to clean energy already reap the economic rewards. If the United States is to effectively compete in the global clean energy race, Congress should extend the PTC.

The Obama administration is making a final attempt to bolster the President’s promise of supplying our nation with cleaner, more efficient energy. But before Congress votes on extending a $12 billion federal tax credit for wind energy companies, it’s important for the Senate and House to recognize the implications encompassing their decision.

The extension, should it pass, provides tax breaks for wind companies; a niche within the energy industry that advocates say is essential to developing not only more wind farms, but also in supporting the thousands of jobs supplied by the manufacturers. Advocates claim the tax breaks are essential; without them, the wind turbine market will plummet by 80 percent next year.

Tax breaks are important to the energy industry. They help foster development and steer industries in a positive direction. The real question is whether the current administration will continue to favor some energy sources over others. If President Obama is serious about his “all the above” energy plan, he should be encouraging all forms of energy production, as opposed to selecting winners and losers for political expediency.

Wind, like other renewable forms of energy, is important and should be encouraged, but our nation must be careful to not to disfavor one form over another. Clean coal, natural gas and even other traditional forms of fossil fuel, such as oil, must all be given an equal opportunity for the foreseeable future. It is also important to recognize that if renewables such as wind and solar are given free reign, they cannot produce sufficient amounts of electric generation to replace traditional forms of energy.

If tax breaks are extended, they must be broadened for the entire industry, not just for those in vogue at the moment. Investment in energy can certainly help propel our economy forward, yet the president’s track record on this matter has been hardly stellar.

For example, the administration continues to block real infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7.2 billion project. Not only will the pipeline generate thousands of high-paying jobs and help offset our dependence on overseas oil, it will pump billions of dollars into our economy without increasing the debt. This is in direct contrast with the wind energy tax, which may reduce our nation’s tax revenues may be reduced by nearly $12 billion. Historically, credits for the oil and gas industry tend to generate more money than the credit itself, unlike the wind credit currently up for debate.

Tax credits can play an important role, but care must be taken that credits doled out by the federal government do not cost us more in the long run than they’re worth.

Congress should let the production tax credit for wind (and other sources of energy) expire. Wind is old electricity generating technology and after more than 30 years of subsidies, it is time for wind to grow up and compete on its own, instead of expecting to get paid by taxpayers to do its job.

Congress has been supporting wind production since at least 1978 on the premise that wind is an infant industry requiring a brief leg-up to become cost-competitive with coal, natural gas and other sources of reliable, affordable energy. But if wind is an infant industry, it has to be one of the oldest infant industries on the planet.

In 1882, Thomas Edison built the Pearl Street Station in New York City—a coal fired power plant. A mere 5 years later, a Scottish academic named James Blyth built a wind turbine to make electricity and run the lights on his cabin. After 125 years of generating electricity, wind should be ready to leave its government crib and stand on its own.

Wind lobbyists argue that the PTC is necessary to continue building wind installations, while also lobbying for mandates requiring utilities to buy wind electricity. This shows that wind is not ready for primetime, but is subsidy- and government edict-dependent. If wind can’t compete after 125 years without consumers being forced to both subsidize and purchase it, when will it be?

The PTC is so helpful to wind developers because the size of the tax credit is very large compared to the wholesale price of electricity. The production tax credit is 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced from wind (and other specified sources). The wholesale price of electricity is less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour in some markets and about 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in other markets. This makes the production tax credit worth 50 to 70 percent of the wholesale price of electricity. If Chevy Volts got the same treatment, the feds would be subsidizing each one to the tune of $19, 572 to $27,401 per car and people would be forced to buy them. (http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2013/options.html?style=200424007&sub=hatchback 50-70% of listed price)

Another problem with the PTC is that the electricity market is built to match electricity demand with electricity production, but the PTC gives wind producers no incentives for electricity production when electricity demand is high. When electricity demand is high, electricity generation is very, very valuable, but to wind producers electricity demand matters little; they make money when the wind blows, which often happens to be when electricity is least needed. The wind industry gets paid to make energy when it isn’t needed but doesn’t make it when it is needed, and still wants more subsidies and government to force consumers to buy its product. If that doesn’t sound like a government boondoggle, I don’t know what does.

The PTC doesn’t help Americans or America. The latest proposal would cost taxpayers $12.1 billion over ten years but it doesn’t help make the electricity grid more robust or economical. Now is the time for government to tell a 125-year-old infant to grow up.

A large and diverse spectrum of voices is rightly calling for the immediate extension of the production tax credit for wind. Supporters range from the United Steel Workers to the US Chamber of Commerce and include legislators as disparate as Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

Yet Mitt Romney has taken the extreme and irresponsible position that the production tax credit for wind energy should expire at the end of the year. If Romney’s allies in Congress get their way, the effects could be devastating. By refusing to renew the PTC, Romney and his congressional allies would put a stranglehold on domestic renewable energy that could lead to 37,000 Americans losing their jobs, according to a report from the American Wind Energy Association.

Since it was enacted under President George H.W. Bush twenty years ago, Presidents from Clinton to George W. Bush to Obama all signed legislation to renew these tax incentives. Even during times of heightened partisanship and political games, Congress has understood how vital the PTC is to strengthening our economy and the renewable energy sector. By incentivizing investment in wind energy, the PTC encourages innovation in clean, sustainable technologies and creates localized jobs that cannot be outsourced.

The PTC has helped lead to a 52 percent increase in wind installations since 2011. Today, sixty percent of wind turbine components are now domestically produced, compared to just 25 percent in 2005. Private investments in wind energy are helping lead the way in this growth, averaging $17 billion annually over the last four years alone.

An end to the PTC could turn back this progress and devastate local economies. Economic consulting firm Navigant estimates that a failure to renew the PTC would cut private investment in the industry by nearly two-thirds. Already, some states that have benefitted from a boom in clean energy jobs, like Iowa and Colorado, are grappling with uncertainty over the PTC’s extension. In Colorado, where the wind industry alone supports 4,000-5,000 jobs in the state, the elimination of the PTC would be a serious economic blow as many of those jobs would be endangered.

Wind power is already a huge victory for American manufacturing. The wind industry is on track to create 54,000 new jobs in the next four years and support 500,000 jobs by 2030. We cannot let Romney’s congressional allies bring an end to affordable, homegrown American wind energy that powers the US economy with jobs and investment. Congress should extend the PTC and continue the progress we’ve made in securing America’s clean energy future.

That the debate over whether to extend the PTC for wind power still wages on indicates that we haven’t really learned what it means to live in lean economic times. Is wind power really the best place for the United States to invest $1.1 billion plus in taxpayer dollars? With levelized costs increasingly on par with those for fossil power, energy from wind simply may no longer need these types of incentives. Consider the 30 state-based policies mandating increases in renewable investment, and the federal tax credit looks even more wasteful.

Proponents of extending the credit argue that you can’t strip it away for wind and expect this renewable source to compete with others eligible for the credit. They’re absolutely right; the credit should go completely. With a tax credit to support some of the most expensive kinds of energy, Americans pay for the increased cost of electricity first as taxpayers and then again as ratepayers.

The PTC is one of many energy-specific tax credits that have proven to be wasteful, engender inefficiency, reduce incentives for innovating newer, better technologies, and encourage investment decisions based upon the availability of government expenditures. Importantly, relying on tax credits reduces the price of installed energy and perpetuates a preference for least-cost sources, leaving new market entrants at a constant and significant disadvantage to incumbents.

Renewable energy should and will constitute an important part of our energy future, making it very important that we pick the correct federal policies to help these technologies succeed. Such a policy would equalize the tax treatment of all energy technologies and would prioritize a stable marketplace that allows investors to make decisions on a true, long-term cost basis. With certainty, predictability, and equity in energy markets, fuels will openly compete to deliver a diverse and reliable network of supply.

There is a growing awareness of the damage done to our health, environment, and pocketbooks through our reliance on fossil fuels. These effects can be reduced by increasing the production of energy from renewable resources such as wind, biomass, and geothermal energy and extending the production tax credit (PTC).

Extending the PTC is a highly effective way to increase investment in renewable energy. The PTC offers a 2.1 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for the production of energy from the wind and other renewable energy sources and levels the playing field for renewable energy with fossil fuels and nuclear, which have been the recipients of the vast majority of federal energy incentives over time. By supporting renewable energy technologies, the PTC helps unlock a nearly unlimited source of domestic energy while supporting investment in a market projected to grow to more than $2 trillion by 2020.

My bipartisan bill, H.R. 3307, provides a clean, 4-year extension of the existing production tax credit for wind, biomass, geothermal, small irrigation, landfill gas, trash, and certain hydropower projects. The current incentive is set to expire next year for wind and in 2013 for other renewable energy forms. Advocates note that historically, financial lenders hesitate in providing capital for projects before the tax credit expires because of the uncertainty created by the pending expiration of the credit, preventing projects from coming online.

Thousands and thousands of jobs depend on the extension of the PTC. Vestas, the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, with its North American headquarters in Portland, has warned that failure to extend the PTC would cause the U.S. wind turbine market to fall by 80 percent next year and force Vestas alone to cut 1,600 U.S. jobs. Furthermore, there is a risk of the U.S. market dropping from about 11 gigawatts of wind energy in 2012 to just over 2 gigawatts in 2013 if the PTC is abolished. Not only Oregon, but communities all across the US will suffer this loss of energy production and unemployment.

The world is in the midst of an energy revolution. Due to rising fossil fuel prices, the instability of oil rich regions, and the increasing dangers of global climate change, communities all over the planet are looking for new, modern, sustainable sources of energy. The United States should lead the way in investment and innovation that will pay dividends both economically and environmentally for decades to come by extending the PTC.

Regrettably, the media has caricatured the current debate over energy tax credits as revolving – almost exclusively – around the production tax credit for wind. Yes, assessing the potential for wind-induced energy and the role federal tax credits can play in encouraging it is important.

But the future of crucial energy efficiency measures is also at stake in the debate – and they’re not dependent on technological development. Installing greater levels of insulation and instituting other initiatives that save energy and create jobs are available right now. Recent experience shows that home- and business-owners welcome these incentives and are eager to put them to use.

Regardless of how we get our energy, it’s in America’s best economic interest to conserve it. The most effective way to save energy is never to use it in the first place. Installing and upgrading insulation is perhaps the most tried-and-true method to save energy and it supports thousands of manufacturing and installation jobs in the process.

That’s why the energy efficiency agenda is gaining bipartisan traction on Capitol Hill, despite election-year headwinds. Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that we have the wherewithal to promote greater energy efficiency. We don’t have to wait on the development of expensive or elaborate technology.

Beginning with the extension of existing tax incentives, the list of bipartisan energy efficiency vehicles on the Hill is formidable.

• The leaders of Capitol Hill’s two committees with jurisdiction over revenue matters, House Ways and Means and Senate Finance, have pledged to extend tax code provisions 25C and 45L, both of which encourage home- and business-owners to invest in greater energy efficiency.
• The Bennet-Isakson SAVE (Sensible Accounting to Value Energy) Act (S. 1737), continues to attract cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
• The Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 1000) also has strong backing from Senators from both parties.
• A House counterpart to Shaheen-Portman, the Smart Energy Act coauthored by House Energy and Commerce Committee members Charlie Bass (R-NH) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), is now poised for mark-up.
• Congresswoman Nan Hayworth (R-NY) is spearheading bipartisan efforts to strengthen the popular PACE (Property-Assessed Clean Energy) programs.

More than 40 million American homes and tens of thousands of businesses are under-insulated. If those homes were properly insulated, the U.S. would save the equivalent of nearly 220 million barrels of oil a year – more than 30 times the amount of oil lost in the tragic Gulf of Mexico spill.

Should the energy efficiency initiatives outlined above become law, construction and renovation workers across the country would quickly be put back on the job. Contractors need a boost: their jobless rates remain close to double the national average.

Efficiency is the most reliable “renewable” in our energy arsenal. Promoting efficiency will do more than husband energy. It will spark jobs, help us cut down on utility bills, and strengthen American energy independence. That’s been called a key component of a “no regrets” policy – good for the U.S. economy regardless of your views on other energy issues. No matter where policymakers come down on energy, they should be pushing efficiency. Now.

# # #

Kate Offringa is President and Chief Executive Officer of CNAIMA, the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.

Submitted on behalf of Jeremy Twitchell, Third Way

The prospect of renewing the wind production tax credit is already stirring debate. Given the strong, bipartisan support for the credit’s extension, this debate is more of a reflection of how polarized our energy debate has become than the merits of the credit.

But beneath all of the back-and-forth, there are three simple numbers that create the narrative of a tax credit that has been singularly successful in its purpose, but must remain in place in order for wind power to reach equal footing.

123%. That’s how much wind’s share of the U.S. energy mix grew from 2008 to 2011. Wind now provides about 3% of our energy, and is second only to natural gas in terms of how fast it has grown in the last four years. The current production tax credit, which has been uninterrupted since 2005, has allowed wind to thrive in the U.S. Installations have grown in seven out of the eight years since, and costs have dropped to the point that analysts are forecasting all-time lows as soon as next year.

75,000. That’s how many jobs the U.S. wind energy industry supports, a number that could be cut in half if the PTC is not renewed. With the economic recovery still tenuous and both parties talking about job creation, a policy that on its face would eliminate tens of thousands of American jobs in a rapidly growing sector is inadvisable.

1. That’s the number of industries voluntarily exploring a phase-out of their own federal tax benefits. While PTC supporters agree that a short-term extension is urgently needed, many have acknowledged that the wind industry will soon be able to stand on its own two feet, and should do so when that time comes. The oil and gas industry, by comparison, argues that their exclusive tax credits should remain permanent to avoid disruption to the industry—indicating that this will never be able to sustain itself without government assistance.

By all accounts, the PTC has been a successful federal policy. With public support, the wind industry has given the U.S. a new supply of affordable clean energy, added tens of thousands of jobs to the workforce, and positioned itself to be self-sustaining in the next 4-5 years. But withdrawing this support just before wind becomes competitive with incumbent energy sources would undo most of the gains from the PTC and preclude the U.S. from enjoying the benefits of an industry with tremendous growth potential.

So whether or not you like the PTC; whether you agree or disagree with the bipartisan Congress that created it; the country has made a significant and successful investment in it. Those advocating for pulling the plug right now are actively trying to turn a successful investment for the American economy into a colossal waste, overnight.

A Romney Iowa campaign spokesman sounded reasonable in discussing the fate of the wind production tax credit in late July when he told the Des Moines Register that, as president, Mitt Romney would “allow the wind credit to expire … and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits.”

That statement would indeed be reasonable if in fact the wind production tax credit was responsible for dramatically tilting the U.S. energy playing field. The truth is quite the opposite, with long-mature electricity generation sources such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear continuing to enjoy extensive public subsidies that sharply skew the power playing field in their favor. Newer, still-evolving sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power, meanwhile, have to fight for time-limited public support, even though they provide enormous public benefits from cleaner air and reduced global warming pollution.

Failing to extend the wind production tax credit—especially while continuing excessive taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear—would exacerbate this imbalance.

This economic disparity is now well understood. Recent analyses document that Congress has historically spent substantially more to encourage fossil fuels and nuclear power than renewables. A September 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) provides a snapshot. It found that between 2002 and 2008, the government gave fossil fuels $72.5 billion, corn ethanol $16.8 billion, and renewable energy $12.2 billion in subsidies. In other words, 71 percent of federal subsidies went to oil, natural gas and coal, while only 12 percent went to renewables.

The ELI study did not include nuclear energy, but a September 2011 study by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm, did. It found that the oil and gas industry enjoyed an average of $4.86 billion in subsidies per year from 1918 to 2009. The nuclear industry—which to this day would not be economically viable without significant government support—benefited from an average of $3.5 billion in subsidies a year from 1947 to 1999. Even biofuels pulled in an average of $1.08 billion a year between 1980 and 2009. But the newer kid on the block—renewable electricity—averaged $370 million a year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009.

The DBL Investor study left out coal because the authors didn’t have access to information quantifying federal and state coal subsidies that go back to the early 1800s. But another analysis, a January 2011 Harvard Medical School report showed that in 2008 alone, coal received an estimated $3.2 billion to $5.4 billion in subsidies. That report calculated the “life cycle” cost of coal in 2008—including its impact on miners, public health, the environment and the climate—at $175 billion to $523 billion, with a best estimate of $345 billion.

The goal of all energy sources competing on the merits, without government help, is a worthy aspiration, but it is a fantastic expectation that none of the mature power-generating sources we rely on heavily today ever had to meet. Our national and state governments have been playing an important role in energy development for more than 200 years.

The relevant question is whether our government should continue to underwrite extremely profitable, mature industries—especially highly polluting ones—at the expense of nurturing new, promising low-carbon alternatives. The answer is a resounding no.

This view was echoed by an August 5 editorial in the Des Moines Register.

Renewables currently generate about 5 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 they have the potential to produce more than 40 percent, with half coming from wind. That would just about replace the share currently generated by coal, which is responsible for more than 80 percent of U.S. utility sector carbon emissions. That would go a long way to driving down incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular disease that comes from exposure to soot and smog and protect us from the worst consequences of global warming.

If we want to level the playing field with integrity, we would end federal subsidies for coal, nuclear and oil and gas, and increase support for wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables, which have received modest public investment in comparison.

Industrial wind turbine subsidies are driving eagles and other majestic birds to extinction

Craig Rucker and Paul Driessen

In 2009, the federal government fined ExxonMobil for the unintentional deaths of 85 birds in five states during a five-year period.

Meanwhile, well over 500,000 birds and countless bats are killed annually by wind turbines, according to the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and other experts. The slaughter “could easily be over 500” golden eagles a year in our western states, says Save the Eagles International biologist Jim Wiegand.

Bald eagles are also being butchered. The two species body count could soon reach 1,000-per-year.

Supposedly “eco-friendly” wind turbines are sending some of America’s most important and majestic sovereigns of our skies to the edge of extinction: eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, whooping cranes, condors, herons, egrets, snow geese, bats that protect crops by eating insects, and many more.

And yet, in the course of three decades, the government has never prosecuted or penalized a single wind turbine company for this rampant, widespread and growing eco-slaughter. Instead, it subsidizes the slaughter – to the tune of $2,200-per-megawatt via the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) alone, plus additional state and federal financial assistance, without which the industry would not survive.

One could accurately say wind turbines represent the only truly shovel-ready projects on the Obama Administration energy agenda – with wind project operators employing “slice, shovel and shut up” tactics to help hide the evidence of how extensive the slaughter has actually become.

With Congress preparing to vote on extending the PTC yet again, it is time to assess how worthless wind energy actually is for generating electricity – and how destructive it is of vital wildlife species.

Industrial wind energy fails every test for judging sensible, responsible, sustainable energy policies. It requires perpetual subsidies to survive. By taking tax revenues from productive sectors of the economy, to generate expensive, unreliable electricity, it kills two to four jobs for every “green” job created. Turbines harm people’s health and well-being and lower property values of nearby homes.

Big Wind requires vast land and raw materials for turbines, transmission lines and mostly natural gas-fired backup generators. Mining and processing rare earth metals for turbine magnets devastates agricultural and wildlife habitat areas and severely harms human health in China, where most of the “green” turbine manufacturing jobs are actually created.

Wind is equally worthless for preventing “dangerous” climate change. Backup fossil fuel generators must run on standby constantly – and full-bore 70-80% of the time, when the wind isn’t blowing at required speeds – emitting carbon dioxide every minute. Manufacturing all the concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and other components of turbine blades, towers and power systems, transmission lines and towers, and backup generators also requires voluminous hydrocarbon fuels and emits gigatons of carbon dioxide.

Meanwhile, China, India and other developing countries are burning coal (and emitting CO2) at ever-increasing rates, to generate electricity and improved living standards for their people.

But the bird and bat butchery is the most unconscionable and unsustainable aspect of wind pseudo-power.

In the 86-square-mile area blanketed by California’s Altamont Pass wind turbines, no eagles have nested for over 20 years, and golden eagle nest sites have declined by half in surrounding areas, even though both are prime eagle habitat, Wiegand notes. Wildlife expert Dr. Shawn Smallwood estimates that 2,300 golden eagles have been killed by Altamont turbines over the past 25 years.

The wind industry keeps the publicly acknowledged death toll “acceptable” by having crews: search around turbines that are not operating; search only areas close to turbines, deliberately missing birds that were flung further by the impact or limped off to die elsewhere; search for carcasses only every 2-4 weeks, allowing coyotes, vultures and other scavengers to carry most evidence away; not count disabled or wounded birds and bats; and remove carcasses under “slice, shovel and shut up” guidelines.

These “deliberately flawed” methodologies are compounded by turbine site security that makes independent investigations almost impossible, adds American Bird Conservancy analyst Kelly Fuller. Amazingly, Fish & Wildlife does not require that even the low-balled raw data be made public, and what little does get released is often further filtered, massaged and manipulated.

The FWS turns a blind eye to all of this. Now it is going much further.

It wants to grant “programmatic take” permits, allowing turbine operators to repeatedly, systematically and “inadvertently” injure, maim and kill bald and golden eagles, without fear of penalty – turning what has been outrageously selective (non)enforcement of bird protection laws into a 007 license to kill. While the new rule is “not specifically designed” for the wind industry, it will be by far the biggest beneficiary.

The FWS says it can do this based on illusory “advanced conservation practices” that are “scientifically supportable” and “represent the best available techniques to reduce eagle disturbance and ongoing mortalities to a level where remaining take is unavoidable and incidental to otherwise lawful activity.” The Service also claims “mitigation” and other “additional” measures may be implemented where necessary to “ensure the preservation” of eagles as a species. What bunk.

When it wants to restrict development, the FWS defines species, subspecies or “distinct population segments” for sage grouse and other wildlife – or labels a species “imperiled” in a selected location, even when it is abundant in nearby locations. With eagles, the proposed “take” rules strongly suggest that the Service could easily claim the presence of eagles in some parts of the Lower 48 States or even just Alaska would ensure their “preservation,” even if they are exterminated or driven from numerous habitats.

Attempts to “mitigate” impacts or establish new population segments will mean imposing extra burdens, restrictions and costs on land owners and users outside of turbine-impact areas. Nor are only eagles affected.

Endangered whooping cranes are also being “sliced” back to the verge of extinction. Since 2006, installed turbine capacity within the six-state whooping crane flyway has skyrocketed from 3,600 megawatts to 16,000 MW (some 8,000 turbines) – and several hundred tagged and numbered whooping cranes “have turned up missing and are unaccounted for,” says Wiegand.

Incredibly, another 136,700 MW of new bird Cuisinarts (some 55,000) are planned for these six states! “The whooping cranes will be gone within 5 years,” Wiegand is convinced. “By then there will be so many turbines with so much rotor sweep, it will be impossible for them to survive.”

How can the American people allow this to happen? And do it for such an expensive, unreliable, harmful and worthless energy source? The crony corporatism and vote buying need to end.

Voting to extend the PTC, or allow wind turbines in or near important bird habitats and flyways, brings the ultimate extinction of majestic and vital species closer to reality in locations all over the United States.

No members of Congress should want that on their conscience. No Americans should tolerate it.

_______

Craig Rucker serves as the executive director of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org); Paul Driessen is CFACT’s senior policy advisor and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Congress should absolutely extend the wind tax credit – and do so swiftly.

Voters overwhelmingly want more clean energy now and they support the policies that accelerate renewable energy deployment.

Today, the U.S. solar and wind industries already employ more than 200,000 people at thousands of companies in all 50 states. Both industries have growth and created jobs, despite a slow economic recovery. And with stable federal policy these industries will only grow as prices continue to fall.

For over a century, every major energy source – petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas and renewables – has been developed due in large part to favorable federal policy that includes incentives. Without federal assistance of these fuel sources, it is unlikely that our nation would have grown to the economic superpower that it is today.

However, there has been an imbalance among policy incentives. According to a recent summary by GOOD magazine, between 2002 and 2008, renewable energy got $12.2 billion in government incentives compared to $70.2 billion obtained by fossil fuel industries in the same time period.

Incentives have worked for our energy sector and recently, the PTC has worked to drive deployment of wind. But history shows the market stalls during years of on-off policies. Businesses simply cannot plan for growth, complete multi-year projects and obtain financing in an uncertain policy environment. Wind development and its extended supply-chain are creating jobs and attracting private investment across the nation, when our economy needs it most.

Wind and solar power diversify our nation’s energy portfolio with a domestic, clean source that benefits consumers and investors. And costs are coming down making wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy more affordable every day.

Indeed we need to develop a broad suite of domestic energy sources that includes renewable energy and we need policies like the wind production tax credit.

Guaranteed market shares. Large subsidies both direct and indirect. Exemptions from environmental requirements that have shuttered other industries. Applause of the sort that would have made Stalin blush. A virtual idolatry in the collective cult vision of the usual suspects, that vast Beltway herd of independent minds.

Such are the blessings enjoyed by “renewable” energy generally, and wind power in particular, courtesy of the deep thinkers in Washington and a number of state capitals, and of the right-minded everywhere. And yet notwithstanding all the hype, wind power accounted for all of 2.9 percent of American electricity production in 2011, while receiving 42 percent of all federal financial support for the electric power sector. Solyndra and similar cronyism fiascos may garner the headlines, but the real scandal is the utter waste of taxpayer and consumer dollars attendant upon this largesse enjoyed by the producers of wind power.

No matter: Hope springs eternal indeed, in particular when it is Other People’s Money being spent. The most prominent example of that support is the federal production tax credit for wind power, created in the 1992 Energy Policy Act---yes, two decades ago---as a purported tool with which to overcome market rigidities, to level the playing field, and to allow the infant wind industry to establish a foothold. That wind power remains utterly uncompetitive is illustrated by market behavior in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012, periods when the expiration of the PTC loomed large: Private investment in wind facilities dried up.

This dismal competitive performance is instructive. Why has wind power’s market share remained so small despite substantial policy support? There are three reasons that are inherent in the nature of the technology, that is, that make current subsidy policies futile. To wit:

• - The unconcentrated energy content of wind flows. Relative to fossil or nuclear fuels, the energy content of wind (and sunlight) is diffuse, the upshot of which is the massive investment in land needed to make wind power even technically practical. A semi-reliable 1000 megawatt wind farm requires on the order of 250 square miles; a comparable gas-fired plant needs about 10-15 acres.
  
  

• - Because of this enormous land requirement, appropriate sites for wind farms are limited, and the best (lowest-cost) ones obviously have been used first. That means that scale economies and learning efficiencies, even if still available, are irrelevant: At the industry level, average production costs must rise as newer sites prove less suitable than earlier ones, and as large additional transmission costs must be incurred to send wind power to consumers. In contrast, conventional power plants, in principle, can be sited virtually anywhere, and fuels can be transported to the plants. That is why wind “capacity factors”---reliability---have decreased monotonically over the last decade, by about 40 percent.
  
  

• - Do we really need to note that the wind does not always blow? It is, in a word, intermittent; but the need for electricity is unrelenting. So backup generating capacity---coal, gas, and nuclear plants---is needed to avoid blackouts as more and more wind turbines are connected to the grid. Suffice it to say that the backup capacity is not free---consumers have to pay for it---and because the coal and gas plants have to be cycled up and down depending on wind conditions, they cannot be operated efficiently. The net effect is higher costs, less reliability, and more---yes, more---air pollution. Thus have we achieved the perfect green trifecta, one of many such fruits of modern environmentalism.

The production tax credit is a figurative rathole: costly, environmentally destructive, and a repository of perverse incentives. Among the latter is the implicit reward that it represents for innumerable interest groups seeking favors from Washington, not a salutary effect. It deserves a quick and final burial.

The U.S. wind energy industry not only supports 75,000 jobs across the country but also has emerged as an important energy source. By the end of this year, seven states will get more than 10 percent of their total electricity from wind. Two states, South Dakota and Iowa, currently generate more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind power. On its present track, the wind industry will produce at least 20 percent of the entire country's electricity by 2030, probably more.

That won't happen, though, if Congress doesn't extend the American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit. Instead, the U.S. wind industry will contract -- losing as many as 37,000 U.S. jobs in the process.

Of course, after a summer of extreme heat, drought, and wildfires (in June, the lower 48 states were 2 degrees F. warmer than the 20th century average), it seems especially foolhardy to put the brakes on wind power, which can help to replace carbon-polluting coal and natural gas power plants.

Opponents of the tax credit say they don't want to support energy subsidies (unless, of course, those subsidies are already going to Big Oil). Apparently, the loss of thousands of American jobs means little to them when weighed against the interests of the Koch brothers, the American Petroleum Institute, and a fossil-fuel industry that could spend up to $1 billion during this election.

Of course, dirty energy industries have to spend that kind of money because their message (dirty energy is better than clean energy; killing clean energy jobs is better than creating clean energy jobs) is an insult to common sense.

Advocates for wind and other clean energy sources, on the other hand, don't have a billion dollars. Not even close. What we do have on our side, though, is the truth. We need wind power. We need the energy it produces and the jobs it supports. And if we care about stabilizing our climate, then we need clean energy from wind to replace carbon-polluting energy sources like coal, gas, and oil.&

Last week’s most perplexing political flip-flop was Mitt Romney’s announcement that he favors raising taxes on the wind industry. That’s right, Romney is not only in favor of a tax increase on wind companies, he wants a tax increase so steep that everyone concedes it will be a major league job killer.

Romney’s explanation was that he wanted to “create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits.” Of course, when asked earlier in the year about proposed elimination of tax provisions favorable to the oil and gas industry, Romney was opposed. He claimed he didn’t even know which tax breaks oil might get, even though his campaign was running political ads attaching President Obama’s call to eliminate $4 billion of them.

Since these ads carry, by law, the tag line, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message” his refusal to confirm this stand when asked directly is more than tad weasley. (In case Romney has forgotten what he was talking about in the ad, the tax breaks in question include one that siphons money from the US Treasury directly to the governments of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and another that is explicitly allowed to all energy sources EXCEPT renewable ones.)

Nonetheless, Romney’s chief energy campaign advisor, oil man Harold Hamm, commented, “The tax provisions that let us keep our own money to reinvest in drilling are crucial to keep this energy revival going.”

So Romney wants a level playing field – well, level for oil, gas and coal, and really, really rocky for everyone else. More bizarre, however, was that Romney ran his ads against the wind industry in Iowa, the state where the industry is strongest, generates more than 20% of the electricity, and employs more than 7000 workers. This led Republican Governor Terry Branstad to blame Romney’s stand on his “east-coast” advisors , and to say that Romney “needed to be educated.” The same day Romney took his stand a new poll in Iowa showed that 59% of independents and 41% of Republicans would be likely to vote AGAINST a Presidential candidate who supported tax increases on wind.

That may be because the proposed tax increases on wind have already put 3000 of Iowa’s 7000 wind jobs at risk. Nor did Iowa’s senior Senator, Republican Charles Grassley, take kindly to Mitt’s proposal to kill his state’s biggest job creator --- Grassley calls himself the father of the pro-wind tax provisions, and initially claimed Romney must have been misquoted because he was “in Poland, not Iowa” when the news broke. A day later, with Grassley’s support, the Senate Finance Committee voted, on bi-partisan lines, against the wind industry tax increase.

So perhaps.you can take one state off your list of “too close to call battlegrounds”in the Presidential race this November. President Obama is 7 electoral votes closer to re-election.

What’s strangest of all is that this business tax increase is being enthusiastically supported by folks like Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth. Tax increases, it turns out, are bad in Chocola’s view, if they are for dirty sources of energy, but not for clean ones.

But the voice whose silence speaks the largest volumes in Grover Norquist, author of the infamous “I will never raise a tax” pledge. Norquist historically counts anything that raises taxes paid by business – even if it involves the elimination of a tax credit, like the Production Tax Credit for wind – as a violation of the pledge.

So he ought to be pounding Romney for trying to kill jobs by raising taxes on wind. But so far – silence. (Norquist actually supported an earlier proposal to raise taxes on wind – but that one was tied to cutting taxes to other businesses, so at least it was consistent with Grover’s stance.)

Once again, the Romney campaign and the hard-but-hired right are demonstrating that none of their values or principals can stand up against one simple fact: they are bought and paid for by coal and oil, by the economy of the past, and nothing else much matters.

The federal production tax credit for wind energy (PTC) should be extended — and reformed. The debate over the fate of the PTC, whether to extend in its current form or allow it to expire outright on December 31 of this year, is not without nuance. Opponents of the credit argue that energy sources should be cost competitive without subsidy — a reasonable concern. Proponents of extension argue, also correctly, that all major sources of energy generation have received significant federal support for development and deployment. Reorienting the credit to prioritize innovation and cost declines caters to both camps, by extending the credit and making it smarter.

The backdrop of the debate is impressive: wind capacity has doubled since 2008, and costs for wind-generated electricity are lower than ever before. The PTC, along with other public policy supports including state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards and the Treasury’s Section 1603 cash grants, has helped drive this tremendous progress in the American wind market.

But despite this growth, wind developers remain dependent on public subsidies for sustained deployment. Projections show that annual wind capacity additions in 2013 will drop over 80% from 2012 levels with the loss of the PTC, and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) expects 37,000 jobs in the wind industry to be lost if Congress does not extend the tax credit.

The writing is on the wall: the recent boom in the American wind market is at risk of turning to bust. Dependence on federal subsidies does not foster a dynamic and competitive market, and while wind is close to price-competitive with natural gas, there are other non-price barriers standing in the way of true market maturation for the wind industry.

The PTC, then, should be extended and reformed. As we recommended in our widely acclaimed April 2012 report “Beyond Boom and Bust,” co-authored with experts at the Brookings Institution and the World Resources Institute, public clean energy subsidies should be re-oriented to prioritize cost declines and performance improvements. The PTC, which has offered the same value per kilowatt-hour since its inception in 1992 and has endured the prototypical boom-and-bust fate since then, is a prime target for reform.

PTC reform comes in many different flavors. One option, favored by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and others, is an annual phase-out, in which the value of the credit would gradually decline over several years. Other ways to structure this “exit ramp” for the production subsidy would be to gear the credit to aggregate deployment milestones, or extend the full-value PTC only for wind installations at sites with lower wind speeds.

All of these designs would encourage accelerated cost improvements in the wind sector, and prepare developers for a market without perpetual subsidy support. But with wind electricity already close to natural gas prices, the arguably more important effect of the phase-out would be to wean the wind industry off its conventional form of project finance: tax equity. Because wind developers typically do not have sufficient tax appetite to monetize the PTC on their own, they often have to partner with large financial institutions (banks, mostly) to finance large wind projects. These tax equity arrangements have high transaction costs, and as renewable energy project finance demand grows, tax equity markets will be strained to provide sufficient capital to developers.

Alternative sources of project finance are currently limited, but experts are coming out of the woodwork with innovative ideas. Last year, Third Way’s Clean Energy Program proposed opening up clean energy projects to master limited partnerships (MLPs), which are business structures that lower the tax liability and the cost of capital for investors. The Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program has a forthcoming proposal for state clean energy banks, which would leverage state and municipal investment via a suite of financial tools and partnerships. And last week, the Clean Energy Group partnered with the Council of Development Finance Agencies to announce new research into the role that bond finance can play in deploying clean energy.

These and other proposals open up wind and other clean energy markets to a more diversified set of capital markets and mitigate the vulnerability imposed by perpetual dependence on federal tax credits. In the short run, a gradual phase-out of the PTC will encourage further cost declines and technology improvements. In the longer run, smart policy can build a bridge from today’s higher-cost and subsidy-dependent markets to a vibrant, fully mature American wind industry.

The wind tax credit, the production tax credit, and the related push for renewable performance standards should be relegated to a scrap heap of flawed ideas. The “off-fossil” energy agenda that is the foundation for alternative energy subsidies has not worked. It has wasted money and imposed unnecessary costs on the economy while fossil energy has demonstrated it can and will remain the dominant source of energy for decades to come. In its latest Annual Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates fossil energy will provide almost 75 percent of our energy needs in 2035.

The production tax credit was sold on the basis of helping renewables to get a leg up as infant industries. Well, these industries have reached adulthood and still cannot stand on their own without government help. Where there is strong wind, there are not users. The only way to compensate for wind being intermittent is to add to base load capacity, which raises costs.

It is also hard to justify the tax credit when 30 states have renewable mandates, which also make little sense. Eliminating the production tax credit means more tax dollars to the US Treasury.

The helping hand of subsidies has become a source of an addiction. Not only do wind developers / operators get the tax credit, but by successfully lobbying to get renewable mandates in 30 states, they have guaranteed a fool proof way of obtaining healthy profits. This approach is a legal form of theft.

Subsidies that target favored types of energy or industries have become an economic cancer, and like human cancers they do real damage. There is an abundance of evidence that subsidies waste scarce resources, distort investment decisions, and do real economic harm.

We have seen the allure of government largess entice more and more companies and charlatans to seek profit through legislative provisions and regulations instead of the market place. Crony capitalism has become a growth industry.

Our economy and our citizens have realized great benefits because of advances in technology, and innovation that are the result of market forces and the opportunities they create. A growing reliance on federal hand-outs dulls those forces, misuses human capital, and has the unintended consequence of retarding economic growth.

While eliminating the credit is necessary, it is not sufficient. It is necessary to eliminate renewable energy mandates as well. There is no environmental or energy justification for such mandates and subsidies in an era of abundant natural gas, which, along with technology advances, is pushing the carbon intensity of the economy ever lower and contributing to job growth and new investment opportunities. If the real objective of renewable energy subsidies and mandates is lower emissions, we are achieving them by shifting from coal to gas.

Government actions that enrich rent-seekers and venture capitalists do so not only at the expense of the economy but also on the backs of those who can least afford the higher costs those actions produce – the poor. A recent report from the Manhattan Institute, The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates, cites Barbara Alexander of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory who points mandates increase energy prices, which most directly affect the poor. The study also cites a former federal regulator who notes that mandates amount to a “back-end way to put a price on carbon.”

These mandates, which essentially are carbon taxes, have caused electricity prices to jump 31.9 percent in states with a National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) than in those without. The Heritage Institute, among others, analyzed the impact of renewable energy mandates and concluded that they have a significant negative impact on jobs and GDP. Politicians who claim that they want to get the economy moving again but who also push for renewable performance standards are either hypocritical or manifesting a major case of cognitive dissonance.

As we have seen time and time again, government tends to do a poor job of picking winners and losers. Wind and production tax credits are prime examples of policies that have not only failed to achieve the objective, they have punished other industries and imposed costs on taxpayers. If lawmakers truly want to affect change, they are best to work with industries to set goals and then allow all players to compete on a level playing field.

83 percent of all voters, 84 percent of Independent voters and 63 of Republican voters support clean energy says a recent Sierra Club report. A march polling study by Yale and George Mason Universities found that 92 percent of Americans believe that developing clean energy should be a priority for Congress and the President.

Critical point—the PTC extension is not just about wind power—it’s about clean energy. Wind is clearly the largest PTC-supported industry, but biomass to electric, geothermal, municipal waste-to-energy and some hydro-electric power are all supported by the PTC, which also expires for all non-wind technologies at the end of 2013.

The energy industry in the U.S. is not a free market. Regulation and subsidies (both direct and embedded) make the barriers to entry for new technologies more difficult in energy than in any other industry. Providing economic support for new technologies to gain the level of technical efficiency and scale necessary to compete on this uneven playing-field remains vital over the near-term, and the only way we can reasonably hope to grow a new energy industry.

A significant majority of Americans want greater diversity in energy sources, long-term protection from fuel volatility, more non-greenhouse gas emitting technologies incorporated into the generation mix, and increasing they are aware of the need for less water-demanding sources of energy (clean energy uses a fraction of the water compared with the extraction and use of fossil fuels). Americans want clean energy. All of which begs the question – why would someone campaign against clean energy?

The Production Tax Credit (PTC) as well as the extension of all expired and expiring tax incentives for clean energy should be a priority for Congress. Senate Finance Committee action last week demonstrated the clear bipartisan support for extending important business tax policies, including the PTC.

Smart federal tax policy has been an effective, efficient tool to encourage private sector investment, reduce costs for consumers and industry, spur technological innovation and enhance the viability and deployment of a variety of clean energy options, while assisting the natural gas, renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors in adding hundreds of thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy.

By way of example, the shale gas revolution that is providing so many benefits across the United States was supported, in part, by federal tax policy; tax credits for investments that make our homes and businesses more energy efficient have helped consumers save money, helped clean energy industries become more competitive, and have successfully stimulated the energy efficiency market.

Federal tax policy has helped 1) lower the cost of wind power by more than 90%, 2) provide wind power to the equivalent of over 12 million American homes, and 3) foster economic development in all 50 states;[1]

As a result of effective tax incentives, the U.S. solar industry grew by 85 percent in Q1 2012 over the first quarter of 2011, currently employs over 100,000 American workers, and the price of a solar panel fell 47 percent since the beginning of 2011.

Continued support for clean energy tax policies, as well as other business tax incentives, is in the best interest of American taxpayers and supports a well-reasoned national energy strategy that improves our economic conditions at home and strengthens America’s competitiveness in the global marketplace.

[1] http://www.awea.org/issues/federal_policy/upload/PTC-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Even when Congress gets something right, they end up doing it wrong. The production tax credit (PTC) that the renewable energy companies have enjoyed (on and off) for the past few years is just one more example of short-term policy bickering affecting long-term energy and economic benefits.

Let’s talk first about what they got right. Wind turbines are among the most successful type of projects supported by the PTC. Because of the tax credit and buoyed by the advent of renewable portfolio standards in many states, technological advancements and increased interest in wind energy, developers have invested more than $1 billion in wind farms in Illinois alone! These projects are collectively responsible for more than 13,000 direct and indirect jobs during manufacturing and construction as well as nearly 600 permanent jobs throughout rural Illinois.

Thirteen major wind power companies have their global or U.S. headquarters in Chicago and another 100 companies in Illinois are dedicated to the wind energy supply chain.

Now let’s talk about what they did wrong. In the past, when Congress has let the wind component of the PTC to expire, installations have decreased by 73 to 93 percent the next year. This sharp decrease means a parallel cut in job openings, property tax payments and lease payments in just this industry alone.

This back and forth status of the PTC enjoyed by wind companies has had a yo-yo effect on the production and supply chain. People get tired of hearing this, but the business community wants predictability (or as much as possible) from its government. What has happened with the PTC has been the exact opposite.

So what should Congress do? It should extend the PTC four years with a ramp down to zero by the end of the fourth year. That will allow the market to prepare for a predictable and reasonable end to tax credits and they will plan and react accordingly. The wind industry has come so far in such a short time. Manufacturers believe they can get to grid parity with other forms of energy in those four years and would rather have a ramp down and predictability than simply another year-long extension with yet another battle looming on the horizon.

We’re at the cusp of something special in this industry and, certainly, an on-again, off-again yearly battle filled with economic uncertainty cannot result in the ultimate maturity of this important new economic and energy resource.

I read the other day that the era of “fast suits” for swimming (such as Speedo’s LZR Racer introduced in February 2008) was put to an end by the very same Olympic Committee that originally approved their use in the games. The technical superiority of fast suits, it was concluded, was an unfair advantage in the Olympic-sense since the suit’s performance overshadowed the performance of the athlete. And, after all, performance of the athlete is what the Olympics are all about. The Committee didn’t abandon all of the technical tricks, however, they just required that the suit cover a smaller amount of the swimmer’s body so that fast suit benefits would not sway race results as much as the swimmers’ own ability and technique. Perhaps this type of compromise is what should be applied to the wind industry as it awaits final resolution of the extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC).

Like the Olympic swimmers that must work tirelessly to compete – and cannot rely solely on external factors – in order to win, the wind industry must do the same. Dedicated efforts by Olympic swimmers have resulted in World and Olympic records that are better than some of the “fast suit” resulting race times. Thus, contrary to what we might have previously thought possible, today’s Olympic swimmers have surpassed their artificially enhanced predecessors of the past.

This is a strong demonstration of the full-on application of competitive forces that can produce results equal to, or better than, artificial enhancements. How does that apply to the wind industry? It could be said that the PTC and “fast suits” have something common: If everyone else has a fast suit and you do not, then you are at a disadvantage. And, if the wind industry doesn’t have the same opportunities and benefits as other energy technologies have had to mature, then it too will always be at a disadvantage.

The wind energy sector is experiencing rapid technological progress, and it can be argued that the progress is being achieved from the continued sales interest due in large part to the existence of the PTC in the United States. Without the PTC, the rate of progress would no doubt be slowed, if not all together diminished. Why should we be concerned? Because wind energy is a very smart diversity play since wind is a very low marginal cost fuel. As long as the wind blows, we will benefit from the fuel diversity. It’s not just nice to have an alternative to CO2 production that seems so benign, it’s smart. So why postpone the PTC extension if we believe it helps the industry move more rapidly to higher levels of innovation? By postponing the implementation of the extension, we are delaying the recovery of the wind sector—because the return to normal takes time.

All of this is not to say that the wind industry cannot stand on its own, but instead suggests that to proceed to the equilibrating point (the point at which a tax benefit is no longer needed) faster, we should let the swimmers use their “fast suits” for a while. Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee voted to renew the PTC for one more year. In the past, the renewal has always come at the last possible minute in order to avoid layoffs and a general decline in the renewable energy space since the “PTC flu” infects the entire industry if it infects any of the alternative energy producers. In order to win the clean energy race, it’s imperative to see beyond the November elections, and maintain our focus and dedication while we suit-up to win the race that really counts.

As I'm sure most readers know by now, the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) advanced last Thursday, winning strong bipartisan support from the Senate Finance Committee.

We applaud the Committee for this act of leadership to move critical policies forward in a difficult environment. This was an extremely important step to provide critical certainty to keep people at work in wind energy manufacturing and construction.

The Committee's action also exemplifies one of the key reasons why the PTC should be extended: even in the midst of a hard-fought Presidential election campaign, this incentive is one of the few pieces of legislation that continues to attract bipartisan backing.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as a very broad-based coalition that includes groups as diverse as the National Governors Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Edison Electric Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation, environmentalists, labor unions, and others, are supporting an extension of the PTC.

They support it because they know it means:

- Building a brand new manufacturing industry that has grown in the past few years to provide tens of thousands of jobs in nearly 500 factories from coast to coast, increasing the value of domestic content in wind turbines 12-fold since 2005.

- Breathing new life into the economies of dozens of hard-pressed rural communities across America's heartland, from the shot in the arm that local restaurants and hotels receive when a wind farm is under construction to the long-term land rental payments to farmers and ranchers that give them a new, dependable source of income and allow them to stay on the land.

- Diversifying America's electricity generation portfolio with a new energy resource that uses no fuel and cannot be depleted.

- Protecting electricity ratepayers by providing affordable, stably-priced power over the long term that is not subject to fuel price volatility.

- Extending a tax incentive that has been a proven "force multiplier," attracting up to $20 billion a year in private investment.

- Supporting development of a new, clean energy source that emits no pollution and uses virtually no water--a critical advantage in times of extreme drought like the one we are seeing this year.

For all of these compelling reasons, continuing to provide stable, predictable tax policy for America's wind energy industry is just common sense. Congress should extend the PTC at the earliest opportunity.

Here in the Midwest Heartland there is strong bipartisan support for the production tax credit (PTC) for wind power. Both Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin of Iowa are strong supporters, as are both Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk and both South Dakota Senators Tim Johnson and John Thune. That’s because the on-the-ground reality is that wind power development, incentivized by the PTC, is good for job creation, good for rural economic growth and good for the environment.

President Obama strongly supports extension of the PTC for wind power. Presumptive Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s ideological opposition is just tone deaf in swing states such as Iowa, Colorado, Michigan and Ohio. Iowa’s Republican Governor Terry Branstad says that Romney “needs to be educated” on the value of the PTC. Let’s hope.

In the Midwest, the PTC is not a partisan issue because we are seeing the job creation and economic development benefits from wind power, we understand that nuclear and coal power generation also receive federal subsidies, and we know that harvesting wind resources helps the rural farm economy and provides cleaner air benefits for everyone. That’s practical reality, not ideology.

Extending the PTC is a jobs bill. Over the last two years, the Environmental Law & Policy Center has studied the wind power supply chains in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, respectively. There are more than 1,000 businesses involved in the wind power supply chain, and they employ thousands of workers whose jobs and livelihoods are tied to wind development. http://elpc.org/2011/07/31/supplychainreports

The PTC is a federal investment that stimulates local tax revenue. A recent study by the Center for Renewable Energy at Illinois State University looked at the impact of the state’s 23 largest wind farms. Researchers found that these projects generate $28.5 million in annual property taxes. They also create $13 million in extra income for landowners who lease land to wind developers. Those tax dollars support local schools and local fire and police departments. That additional income is spent boosting local economies.

We’re optimistic that Congress will pass a reasonable extension to the PTC for wind power later this year because common sense and the on-the-ground reality of job creation, economic growth and environmental quality benefits together are strongly persuasive and will prevail. The strong bipartisan political support will carry the day, but, as we all know, “it don’t come easy.”

In the midst of the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle, George W. Bush was a keynote speaker extolling the virtues of an energy policy anchored by renewables like wind. His father signed into law the 1992 Production Tax Credit. Many Republicans who actually represent the jobs created in part through this public investment support the extension of the wind tax credit. But the polarized presidential campaign standard of requiring your candidate to oppose every policy of your opponent―nevermind the merit―has Mitt Romney on the wrong end of energy and fiscal policy with his opposition to extension of the wind production tax credit, merely because Obama has made support of clean energy a centerpiece of his Administration.

In the last three years, wind energy capital cost is down 20% while productivity is up 20%. The levelized cost of solar and wind have already achieved parity with traditional fossil fuels in parts of the country, and these costs will only continue to decline. Those familiar with energy finance understand the benefits of having renewable fuels like wind and solar in a portfolio, as renewables’ steady returns improve risk-return. Third-party power purchase agreement financing is playing a bigger role in the development of clean energy markets, but the mirage of current low-cost natural gas is blocking renewable energy market penetration, even though natural gas (unlike wind and solar) will become crushingly expensive in the years to come. Our economic competitors like Germany and China have bet heavily and are winning on renewables, with Germany―a high-wage, manufacturing export economy with stronger GDP growth than the US over the past 3 years―producing a quarter of its power from renewables, with the biggest share from wind. But renewables face barriers to entry in part due to the huge entrenched advantages enjoyed by fossil fuels and nuclear.

Our staccato approach to clean energy, with hysterical debates on the eve of key components’ expiration dates, is no way to invest in an era of sustainability. Thankfully, key bipartisan coalitions in Congress (and statehouses) are ignoring the nonsense from the Romney campaign and some form of the wind production tax credit will pass during the lame duck session. But after the election silly season has concluded, let’s understand that America’s household consumers, manufacturers and small businesses all win with dedicated investments in clean energy, which means looking past the era of the production tax credit. Public Citizen’s three part reform plan includes long-term financing for clean energy R&D and deployment paid for in part by a consumer-friendly price on carbon; deregulated electricity markets like PJM making space for renewable project developers to freely enter into long term contracts; and focusing on consumer-owned, small scale, distributed energy generation.

In light of the massive existing subsidies for petroleum and nuclear energy, the policy idea to allow the wind energy production tax credit expire is not only absolute poor public policy but an extreme act of hypocrisy. The May 2011 International Energy Agency study on the costs of wind reported, "Between 1980 and the early 2000s, significant reductions in capital cost and increases in performance had the combined effect of dramatically reducing the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for onshore wind energy. Data from three different historical evaluations, including internal analysis by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as well as published estimates from Lemming et al. (2009) and the Danish Energy Agency (DEA) (1999), illustrate that the LCOE of wind power declined by a factor of more than three, between 1980s and the early 2000s . An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found dozens of companies that had a negative tax balance between 2008 and 2010, while making billions in profits. During these years of negative taxation, 32 companies in the fossil-fuel industry -- from Exxon Mobil and Peabody Energy to ConEd and PG&E -- transformed a tax responsibility of $17.3 billion on $49.4 billion in pretax profits into tax benefits of $6.5 billion, a $24 billion windfall. The official corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, but subsidies and dodges make that figure meaningless. The overall tax rate for top utility companies from 2008 to 2010 was 3.7 percent the 2011 report found according to a Grist review. According to oil expert Todd Neeley, he listed 23 federal oil subsidies, 26 state oil subsidies, ranging (in 2010 dollars) from $133.2 - $280.8 billion dollars annually, or a minimum of 96 cents per gallon of gasoline produced. The 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists released a report about the subsidies for nuclear power. The report, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced.
The absolutely only reason the wind PTC was being questioned, is that some Members of Congress (and candidate Romney) want to show they are different from President Obama by ardently not supporting anything perceived as "green energy" . Thank goodness, we have some Republican and Democratic statesmen still left in the US Congress that are trying to bring some energy balance and parity in the marketplace.