GE Study Finds Tax Revenues from Wind Farms Offset Tax Incentive

You would think that members of Congress would be interested in maintaining a good stream of tax revenues. It seems that they have disconnected themselves from what is going on today and are still back in the previous century. That is due to the momentum of acquired ignorance.

adrianakau2aol.com

There is a unbelievable amount money waiting to be invested into companies and thier cutting edge technologies.But the one thing they need is a stable environment. On the news of a company making a breakthrough millions of dollars pour in.The stakes are very high.That's why you see articles like this one. So if ( by chance) they can pass a energy bill as faulted as it may be.. It will help stabilize the invest market, and the rest will take of it's self. So pass that energy a bill so companies can get on with the real business of turning all of those innovative idea's into real products.

GE EFS used the Federal Government's own discount rate in calculating the NPV of future tax revenues. Their analysis also only related to Federal cash flows and ingored the benefits at the state and local level.

While the $250m net benefit was only equivalent to 10% of the $2.5bn upfront cost of the PTC, it was still a compelling economic arguement, and one that the government had not previously analysed in such a sophisticated way.

Shame! Shame! GE should consider the foreign job loss by generating local US electricity with wind, solar, hydro.
Shame! GE should consider the foreign financial loss by local drilling and local refining in the pristine virgin territory of US of A.
Upon further education, Please reconsider. GE and Siemens are providing nuclear (power?) materials and high paying nuclear jobs to boost the local life style in Iran. The American gift program should gladly purchase GE Wind turbines in support of foreign jobs and nuclear materials to terrorist. Be proud to know that GE money and created new jobs go to the defense of Iran, Syria, Damascus, Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, The Eastern West Bank, and the westernized east City.

You do have to consider the source, but still give them credit for trying to boost interest in their product.

I see the comments from the two above, and both have merit, and both are tangled in the 'mess' we have of better information of the value(s) of a particular alternative energy model (in this example).

I read this piece as a 'marketing communications' document, and it provides some facts and some calculations, and it's got its 'spin' going just like a turbine. Of course, big duh, the tax incentives concerning "wind projects pump money into the US Treasury" in the long term, but HOW MUCH and if compared to other alternatives, is it worth it to provide - and continue after the end of this year - the tax incentives like they are? I read this as a sales pitch to continue the tax incentives.

I'm not fooled by the spin... I read the information, and processed it. It's a good PR piece, and it seems to encourage 'the people' to think. Good.

I think the tax incentives (these here, specifically) are a good idea, in the short term. I say, yes, provide incentives for companies to develop these markets. And encourage new job development in the USA (another part of daily life in the US that is another problem we're looking for help from Big Brother government in). But I also am aware that there's a compromise for OTHER services elsewhere in our economy, and/or an increase in taxes due, by going in that direction.

In a perfect market scenario, we would have zero tax incentives and we'd have companies that would 'make it or break it' completely on their own. However, in the short term, we're trying to jump-start the process by making it less painful for these little companies (yeah, like GE is little, others, too) to risk getting into the game.

So, for now, we have the US Congress, and local land-use laws and regulations and NIMBY lawsuits and all kinds of things to sort through. We're not dealing just with 'make it or break it' anymore. These aren't the risk-takers that built America to what it is now. That's too bad. That'd be too simple.

This is a very skewed, self serving study. As an example, it counts workers wages as all "new" revenue. This assumes that none of these workers would have had another job if the wind job did not exist. That is a big fallacy. They might have had to settle for a job that payed less, but not all of their wages would have been "new". Also, they give credit to the projects' income. Again, if there wasn't income from wind energy it would be replaced by income from coal or gas generated energy. Thus, not really any new income. I could go on but you get the picture. Anyone that has successfully completed a few college courses in economics could see the weaknesses in this study immediately.

My small privately held company is currently attempting to raise the cash necessary to build a 300 MW wind farm in west Texas, so I speak from that perspective. With respect to subsidies, absolutely every new technology that has ever been introduced has been heavily subsidized in one way or another. With respect to the employment numbers mentioned by the GE study, all of the jobs have to be considered new because worldwide, the fossil fuel generating plants are not generating the power necessary to avoid brownouts and blackouts, and they are a long way from losing any jobs to the renewable energy field. Building more renewable energy generation systems not only fills a serious gap, at this point it is simply helping to cover the additional demand put onto the system by population growth (Study that phenomenon for a while to understand why we need to get as far away from fossil fuels as we can), and it helps avoid additional pollution to our atmosphere. For those of you who are not into renewable energy right now I believe that over the next ten to fifteen years the following changes to our lives will occur: (i) The need to build an atomic energy generating plant will evaporate,and we will be calling for the decommissioning of all existing atomic energy plants; (ii) Fossil Oil will be used for lubrication only - and likely not at all - the oil companies also believe this, which is why they are capping off every well they drill here in America in order to charge more for the oil they refine; that is their method of subsidizing their entry into the renewable energy field. Food for thought: If the oil companies have a good internal method of subsidizing their entry into the renewable energy field (Higher Profits), why would they want the congress they control to continue providing any renewable energy tax credits - those tax credits can only help their competition. It was nice getting all of this off my chest - we look forward to hearing about new technologies!

Whether or not this report is completely accurate isn't that important. Wind's learning curve alone makes it worthwhile to support. The fact that it provides a lot of jobs is another. If the govt doesn't support the wind industry, will it save money? No, because then they have to pay all kinds of money to get local jobs in the states. What would all the extra compensation cost?

I see many liberal responses, in the tone of "no more subsidies" etc etc. But let's not forget that is not the way electricity generation works. Pretty much everything is heavily subsidized one way or another. Or in many ways, often.

Nuclear power wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for the huge govt subsidies. Wind wouldn't be the 6-8 cents per kWh power source it is today if it wasn't for the large incentives provided by the government after serious energy problems in the 70s.

The bitter truth for many strong liberals is that no power source has ever gotten off the ground without substantial subsidies. Even coal, often claimed to be the most competitive of large scale power sources, is still heavily subsidized today. That's not even taking into account the externalities - pullution and greenhouse gasses. Sorry, but the world of electricity generation has never worked in a liberal way, and there's no reason to think this is going to change in the forseeable future.

Nor should it necissarily change. As long as the benefits outweigh the costs - not just in the near term, but also strategically. That's one of the reasons why we have a government, isn't it?

'Vestas calls for greater focus on onshore wind'
"As new report warns that the cost of offshore wind farms will soar, leading turbine manufacturer urges politicians and media to turn attention to onshore wind"

James Murray, BusinessGreen, 30 May 2008

"Vestas, the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, has today urged political leaders to focus more on increasing capacity from onshore wind farms, amid warnings that the cost of installing offshore wind turbines will continue to rise."

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

http://www.londonarray.com/category/press-releases/

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=9512

I am all for onshore wind farms, and I am yet to be convinced that offshore wind farms are the way to go; and I say that because unless the government owns it, I don't want any private party putting up a wind farm within the legal limits of our shoreline: Onshore wind farms have turbines that break down from time to time - and there are regular maintenance schedules to keep up with. If you build it under water for the currents you will have major costs associated with maintenance issues, let alone the cost of replacing any that are damaged over time. If you build it on top of the water - you'll get good wind - particularly during a hurricane. I know that many business owners think that is what insurance is for - but you can buy insurance for a car that you intend to drive over a 100 foot cliff too. Anyway, anyone planning on building wind farms offshore should be ready for the lawsuits that may be coming from parties who think that private enterprise should be taxed heavily for intruding anywhere within the 200 mile economic zone.