The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Extend Wind-Power Tax Credit Now, So It Can Eventually Die

Mary Duenwald, Katy Roberts, Bloomberg Editors
August 23, 2012  |  18 Comments

Since U.S. President Barack Obama brought it up, repeatedly, last week during his campaign swing through Iowa, wind power has emerged as one of the most clear- cut issues of the political season.

Obama wants to renew the technology’s soon-to-expire federal production tax credit. Mitt Romney, his Republican opponent, wants to let the credit lapse.

Yet the best way to handle this is to find an option other than all or nothing. Yes, clean wind energy should receive continued federal support, as Obama says — especially at a time when the industry’s tens of thousands of jobs are helping the U.S. economy. But wind power should also be expected to make it in the marketplace on its own one day, as Romney would have it.

Onshore wind power has improved to the point where it is now the most competitive of all renewable energy sources except hydropower. According to recent estimates from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, it is on a path to reach “grid parity” — the point where its cost is equal to the baseline price of power on the grid — starting in 2016. In the long run, in other words, wind can be expected to thrive without the tax credit.

A clear plan to phase out the credit over the coming four years could actually be a gift to the wind industry, which has suffered from the federal program’s unpredictability, even as it has benefited from its support. The 2.2-cent tax credit, paid to wind-energy companies for every kilowatt-hour of power they produce, has brought the industry more than $1 billion a year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Yet over the two decades it has existed, Congress has allowed the credit to expire three times, and each time progress in building wind capacity has fallen precipitously.

With companies rushing to finish before another expiration on Dec. 31, building this year has reached a record high. About 11,800 megawatts worth of projects are expected to be completed this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Next year, construction is expected to plummet to 1,500 megawatts if the tax credit is not renewed. Even if Congress decides after the presidential election to extend it a year, the amount of building would be well under half what is anticipated for 2012, as it would take some time for the industry to ramp up its plans.

Renewing the tax credit would at least enable the wind industry to return to growth, adding 54,000 jobs over the next four years, according to the American Wind Energy Association, an industry trade group. Letting the credit expire, on the other hand, would mean losing 37,000 jobs in the sector.

The job market is not the main reason wind power is worth supporting. It’s a clean energy source, with a promising economic future as the cost per turbine continues to fall. Its prospects will become even brighter if natural gas prices, now extraordinarily low, rise in the coming years with increasing demand.

If Congress takes the easy route and simply extends the credits for a year or two, it would only perpetuate the wind industry’s boom-and-bust cycle. A smarter solution is to apply the longer-term planning that is critical to good energy policy.

Let the wind industry know the production tax credit will eventually die out, but over four years — so companies are able to plan their operations without the need to guess what tax support they will have.

Even smarter would be to ultimately replace the tax credit with market-based support for wind as well as other forms of clean energy. Many states now have so-called renewable portfolio standards, which require utilities to use a certain percentage of electricity generated by wind and other kinds of renewable power. These states set a target, in other words, and the market figures out the most efficient way to reach it.

One very good suggestion for a federal program along these lines has been proposed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico. This year, he introduced a bill that would establish a “clean energy standard,” requiring large U.S. utilities to derive an increasing share of their energy from cleaner energy sources — not only renewables such as wind and solar but also natural gas and even coal with carbon capture and storage. No federal expenditure would be required.

Politicians in both parties should find that a virtue. Republicans from the Great Plains and other areas where the wind industry is growing substantially already seem disposed to extend the production tax credit. They could do far more for the U.S.’s energy future if they considered longer-lasting ways to help the wind business succeed.

Copyright 2012 Bloomberg.

Lead image: Wind turbines via Shutterstock

18 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
August 29, 2012
lawrence-miles,

I certainly do appreciate your comment about the difficulty in attracting investors to fund early stage development of RE technologies. As the old saying goes, "Big companies don't develop new technologies, they just buy them".

But you're wrong when you say I've never tried. I've been trying for several years to secure funding to bring a RE technology to market. It's not sexy or high-tech, but it's lower cost, more efficient and more reliable than the status quo. The problem I have is that getting it beyond the paper stage will cost more money than I can raise with angel or seed investors, but it appears too risky for larger VC's. But I'm sure that if I ever manage to raise enough funds to get it out of the lab, I won't have any lack of interest from the OEM's.
lawrence Miles
lawrence Miles
August 27, 2012
Anonymous 15of16, I seriously believe that if you come up with new wind technology that holds the promise of producing lower cost electricity than other wind turbines to say nothing of conventional generation technologies, you will not be successful finding investors to fund your development effort. If you have pockets deep enough to fund your development and demonstration efforts you might be successful. If not, forget about it. Clearly, you've never tried.
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
August 27, 2012
For those promoting Coal and NG (and Nuc) power, water is an issue to consider. In the arid southwest water is in short supply. Even here in TX with all our natural gas that just heats water to steam to turn a turbine. What if you don't have water? What if you have lots and lots and lots of wind but a shortage of water? We need a balanced approach to energy in this country. Wind is non-poluting as opposed to Coal, NG, and nuclear. Wind doesn't require massive amounts of water like coal, NG, and nuclear. The biggest drawback to wind is that it is intermittent and unpredictable. Solar on the other hand is intermittent but highly predictable. It'll produce the most power during the peak usage times of day when demand is highest. Kind of a (Duh!) thing that makes solar great. Production timed closely to demand! When we get rid of the depletion allowances for oil and gas wells, then we can talk about removing wind and solar subsidies. Oil and gas get a 'tax expenditure', which is probably more favorable than what wind and solar get anyway. I agree that lifespan and tax depreciation schedules should be equalized between wind, solar, and conventional power plants. They should all last just about as long.
ANONYMOUS
August 27, 2012
mike-holly,

Why do you say there is little incentive to develop new low-cost renewable energy technologies? On the contrary, there is the same exact incentive as any other business has: the profit motive.

Do you seriously believe that if I came up with a new renewable energy technology that had lower costs than conventional sources that no investors would be interested in it?

It's silly to think of oil or gas or energy companies as being singularly focused on one source of revenue. They're all profit oriented business enterprises, and they will sell whatever type of product or service that they think will make them money.

I have no problem with tax write-offs for private R&D expenses. But we need to stop huge hand-outs of taxpayer dollars. Everyone needs to have some "skin in the game".
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 24, 2012
US energy policy must first get rid of utility monopolies and their deregulated monopoly spinoffs (for example with feed-in tariffs). Currently, there is little incentive to develop new low-cost renewable energy technologies because these monopolies could take it whenever they wanted.
Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey
August 24, 2012
To greg pfahl

I agree with you that we need a consistent coherent energy policy in this country. It needs to be a 20 to 50 year policy with goals to allow us to become totally independent of any other country for our energy needs. It should use all forms of energy and not be focused on feeding the large international energy companies.

If we ever get a president who is not an empty shirt, them maybe we will get one as congress is not able to do that for us.
Greg Pfahl
Greg Pfahl
August 24, 2012
mike-holly, thanks for the clarification, and also good points anonymous. I should point out that I am not a tax accountant and so I do not personally spend my time in the tax code. I do like the way of putting it as "an interest free loan to the facility owner." Aren't there also other benefits to traditional energy sources that are not available to wind or solar such as intangible drilling cost deductions, etc.?

I try to stay unbiased as to energy sources, but my main point here is that I would like to see a longer term and consistent energy policy in this country.
ANONYMOUS
August 24, 2012
It's unfortunate (because of their ability to circulate their views) but the folks at Bloomberg do not understand either the high true cost or the low true value of electricity from wind.

If any of you want to undestand these issues, there's a rather elementary paper on the issues posted at:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/true-cost-of-electricity-from-wind-is-always-underestimated-and-its-value-is-always-overestimated/
ANONYMOUS
August 24, 2012
Mr. Gregpfahl,

You'd better brush up on yourtax depreciation rules. Wind get 5-year double-declining balance accelerated depreciation (5-yr-200%DB). Most traditional (fossil, coal, gas) generation must use 20-year, 150% DB. As I recall, simple cycle gas turbine & IC peakers can use 15 yr., 150% DB.

Look at the appendices to IRS publication 946.

There is a big difference between 5-yr 200% DB and 20-yr, 150% DB in cash flow. In effect, accelerated depreciation provides an interest free loan to the facility owner.
lawrence Miles
lawrence Miles
August 24, 2012
"According to recent estimates from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, it is on a path to reach "grid parity" — the point where its cost is equal to the baseline price of power on the grid — starting in 2016." If there is a four year path to grid parity what is it that cannot be accelerated to achieve parity much sooner?

As gregphafl states above, "Smart businesses do not plan in 1 to 3 year increments." How long has the PTC been around and how many times has it expired? If the PTC is extended for four years, what will happen in the next four years to once again put off grid parity and once again lead the industry to clamor for just another four years?

The wind industry has had twenty years of PTC support to bring the 3-blade upwind technology to parity with grid electricity. It is past time to stop subsidizing technology that has reached the end of the trail and focus on development of lower cost wind technology. It can be done.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 24, 2012
The NREL claims the PTC is worth 30% and accelerated depreciation is worth 25% of the capital cost of the windmills.

The 30% cash ITC was set to be equivalent to the PTC. The 2.2 cents PTC amounts to 3 cents or 3.7 cents before tax minus a finance charge.

Accelerated depreciation (worth the time value of money) is not available to all energy sources equally. Wind power is 5 years compared to fossil fuel sources are 20 years.
Greg Pfahl
Greg Pfahl
August 24, 2012
Related to comment 5 above, "30% of the cost of capital costs of the windmill" is not PTC, I believe you are thinking of ITC, which is a different argument than this article presents. Accelerated depreciation methodology has been around for decades and should not be an argument related to energy as it is available to all business. Similar with the bonus depreciation put in place in more recent years, it is generally technology agnostic. Also in either of the depreciation cases, these do not cost the governments anything until you factor in the time value of money; they do not change the overall deductions for a project or business,only the timing in which they are received.

One of the key points I see in this article and very much support is that we need a long-term or at least a mid-term energy policy in this country. Smart businesses do not plan in 1 to 3 year increments.
Louis Shaffer
Louis Shaffer
August 24, 2012
Prof Charles - are you serious? There are many studies on the end to end time to recover the energy used for building a wind turbine and also much on operation and maintenance. These are much lower impact on environment than new coal or other plants. Do you think there is little impact on birds and people when we go for oil offshore? Do you think there is more metal in a wind farm than an oil rig? I think you can easily inform yourself in these areas. The real sad truth is that we as a people refuse to let the people who actually know something make decisions. Instead, we rely on fear and half truths from those with a lot of money and a very selfish intest in making more to doing what we have always done and expecting things to be better - then wondering why they are worse.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 24, 2012
The national debt eats the costs as big companies and the rich get tax loopholes for 30% of the capital cost of the windmills through the PTC and another 25% of the capital cost through accelerated depreciation. State debts also typically eat another 10% of the capital costs through state accelerated depreciation.

Moreover, the ratepayers eat the total costs of the added transmission costs which are triple those of other generation sources due to the lower capacity factor. The integration (backup) costs are also paid for by the ratepayers.
Charles Rop
Charles Rop
August 24, 2012
These are huge machines. How much coal and other fossil fuels are burned in the manufacture of each machine? What rare-earth elements are used and where do they come from? What happens 20 years from now when each machine reaches the end of its life? How much oil is contained in the head? How much concrete is used in the footings and what is the environmental impact from start to finish? How many animals, birds and plants are destroyed with one machine through the 20 years of its life? What is the impact on human health? What will this industry do to my utility bills? How much of our precious and very limited open space is cluttered up with these machines?
I would like to see some actual investigative journalism instead of uninformed opinions that fail to address the real questions.
Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey
August 24, 2012
My understanding is that they get an investment credit of 30% for just building them and then the dead hulls are left standing there for others to clean up. Who eats those costs?
Louis Shaffer
Louis Shaffer
August 24, 2012
Wind and PV solar would be competitive very quickly when we stop subsidizing fossil fuels. As a country, we need to push very hard to get off of oil and onto clean electricty, generated locally. This is not rocket science, it is about vision. The points in this article are very correct. Like all businesses, the key to successful investment and growth is to know where things will be so that you can do the financial justification.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 23, 2012
Wind power must really be desperate to result to this con job. The mandates mean utility monopolies must build or purchase wind power by 2020, regardless of the subsidy (2.2 cents which is worth 3 cents after tax). If the subsidy is enacted for four and only four more years, it is obvious the utility industry will go on a buying spree of excess and expensive capacity before the final deadline. Before anymore wind power is built, the government must come up with a legitimate wind integration study documenting the full costs.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 12
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • Met Office
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • Admirals Bank
  • Intertek
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Schneider Electric
  • ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information