Does the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) make sense? Is support for renewable electrical energies based on science or lobbyists influence? This is a very abbreviated version of the Professional Version slideshow which explains the Big Picture.

1. Does The
PTC
Make Sense?
(Executive Version)
Alliance For Wise Energy Decisions
8/21/12

2. Make SURE to View This Presentation
in the FULL SCREEN Mode!
Click the “FULL” icon
in the lower right hand corner.

3. Do NOT click on the Triangle
below to run this presentation!
Instead,
use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate.
This will allow you
to proceed at your own pace.

4. Does The Production Tax Credit (PTC) Make Sense?
This “Executive Version” is a VERY abbreviated edition of the more detailed “Professional Version” — which is intended for
Congressional Staffers and citizens with energy knowledge. References and credits are on the last three slides of the Professional Version.
The wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) has now been in existence for some twenty (20) years.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 originally enacted the Production Tax Credit and the first lapse came in June 1999. The PTC was extended in
December 1999 until December 31, 2001. Once again the PTC expired in December 2001 and was not enacted again until March 2002 where
it was then extended for another two years. At the end of 2003 the PTC expired for a third time until a one year extension was granted in
October 2004. The PTC was extended through 2005 and also expanded the different types of renewable energies that would be included
under the bill. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) modified the credit and extended it through the end of 2007. In December 2006, the
PTC was extended for another year by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R. 6111). The PTC was extended yet again by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). The Wind PTC was extended an additional two years, expiring the end of 2012.
Every time the plea is that just a few more years will be necessary to get wind energy on its feet…
Our underlying message is that our energy decisions should be made on the basis of sound SCIENCE — not on what lobbyists say.
Hopefully you have already been to the “WindPowerFacts.Info” website, which has a collection of good reports on wind energy.
The future of this issue lies in whether or not citizens are properly educated about basic energy matters. After getting more up-to-speed,
they need to do some Critical Thinking about this matter.
After citizens get more informed — and do some Critical Thinking — they will be in a much better position to express their more informed
wishes to their federal representatives.
Anyone trying to educate their local citizenry and representatives, is welcome to use the material found here. In you have any questions
after you go through this, we will be glad to respond to any emails you send to the PTCFacts.Info website.
If you like what you see, please pass it on to other open-minded people, plus your federal representatives.
— ENJOY!
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

5. — Outline of this Presentation —
1 - Rationale for the PTC by its Advocates
2 - Are Job Claims Accurate?
3 - The Cost Per Job?
4 - The NET Jobs picture.
5 - Even More About Jobs.
6 - The NET Economics picture?
7 - What do Utility Companies Say?
8 - Some Other Supporter Claims.
— CONCLUSIONS —

6. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 1:
Benefits Claimed by Lobbyists

7. The Claimed Benefits
for wind energy subsidies
have radically evolved
over the last twenty years.

8. 20 Specious Claims:
How the supposed
Benefits of
Wind Energy
have continued to
evolve, as they are
proven to be false.

9. The Wind Lobbyists’ Current Major Excuse
for the PTC to be extended
are purported JOBs.

11. How do lobbyists
take advantage
of good legislators?
1 - By telling them what they
want to hear, and
2 - by counting on the fact
that few will take the time
to really check things out!

12. They also
know that
there is
no penalty
for making
unscientific
claims.

13. In short, our position is that —
1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and
2) these matters should be solved scientifically.
The Soundbite:
Wind Energy = High Cost, Low Benefits

14. Part 1:
Benefits Claimed by Lobbyists?
— THE TAKEAWAY —
Since there are no scientifically proven
net Technical, or net Economic,
or net Environmental benefits for wind energy —
the lobbyists are hanging their hat on JOB claims.

15. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 2:
Are Job Claims Accurate?

16. Independent Studies
Have Concluded:
Wind Job Claims are Exaggerated

17. Fact:
Almost all US Wind Job Claims
come from One Source: AWEA
(Wind Industry Lobbyists —
whose job is to hype their industry).
AWEA: the PTC is needed to “...save 37,000 jobs...”

18. A Sample Independent Study

19. Do Real World Facts Correlate with AWEA Claims?

20. Part 2:
Are Job Claims Accurate?
— THE TAKEAWAY —
Job claims from wind industry lobbyists
have very little credibility.
Independent assessments have concluded
that they are wildly exaggerated.

21. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 3:
Cost Per Job?

22. Every Independent Study
Has Concluded
the Same Thing:
The Cost Per Job is OUTRAGEOUS!

23. The Congressional Figures
$12.2 Billion / 37,000 jobs
= $330,000 per wind job

24. A Sample Independent Study
$1,600,000
per wind job

25. A Sample Independent Study
$34,000,000
per wind job

26. Part 3:
Cost Per Wind Job?
— THE TAKEAWAY —
No matter how it is calculated,
the cost per wind job is extraordinarily excessive.

27. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 4:
What are the Net Jobs?

28. Almost All
Independent Studies
Have Concluded
the Same Thing:
Wind Energy is a NET Jobs Loser

29. Indisputable Jobs Fact
No Jobs claim has any merit
unless it accurately considers the NET impact.
In their claims, there is zero evidence that AWEA
has burdened themselves with this obligation.

30. Independent Wind Jobs Study

31. Offshore Jobs Conclusions of Independent Experts:
Conclusion:
Net is 30,000 ±
jobs years
LOST
(again due to a
single offshore
wind project).

32. (Other Offshore wind studies are cited in the Professional Version.)
OK, Offshore Wind Clearly Results
in Net Job Losses.
What about Onshore Wind?

33. (The details are explained in the Professional Version.)
SAME THING!
When the big picture is objectively examined,
a typical Onshore Wind Project
will be an annual NET JOBS LOSER!

34. (Several other Independent wind job studies are cited in the Professional Version.)

35. Jobs Conclusions of this Independent Expert:

36. Part 4:
Net Jobs
— THE TAKEAWAY —
In the typical case,
wind development & subsidy is a NET JOBS LOSER.
Remember: “NET” is a critical job indicator.

37. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 5:
Even More About Jobs

38. The fact is
That there is a lot more
to the job claims,
than is immediately obvious.
(Several other perspectives about wind job are cited in the Professional Version.)

39. Another Perspective on Claimed Wind Jobs

40. Another Perspective on Claimed Wind Jobs
There is nothing — no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime —
that does not create jobs. For example, tsunamis,
computer viruses and robbing convenience store clerks
all create jobs.
So since that claim applies to all
it is an argument in favor of none!
Instead of providing evidence of the merits of an
enterprise, a jobs claim is
a de facto admission that one has a specious case.
— energy attorney Chris Horner

41. Another Perspective on Claimed Wind Jobs
A top government
official makes
a very blunt statement.
Tax credits
don’t create wind jobs.

42. Another Perspective on Claimed Wind Jobs
If Congress is determined to spend the $12.2 Billion
that just a one year PTC extension would cost,
an important question is:
What would be the job (and other) benefits of spending
that same amount on another energy source?
According to the Congressional Budget Office
if the same $12.2 Billion were given to the gas industry,
over 9 times as many jobs would be created.

43. Another Perspective on Claimed Wind Jobs
Less Expensive Energy
is a Proven Way
to create net jobs.
Subsidizing expensive energy is
a counterproductive strategy

44. Part 5:
Even More About Jobs
— THE TAKEAWAY —
The jobs argument is a public relations ploy
to distract us from the reality
that wind energy is a very poor energy option.

45. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 6:
Net Economic Impact?

46. Almost All
Independent Studies
Have Concluded
the Same Thing:
Wind Energy is a NET Economics Loser

47. Sample Wind Economics Study

48. Economic Conclusions of these Independent Experts:
$1,080,000,000
Conclusion: over $1 Billion lost in one year alone!

49. Economic Conclusions of these Independent Experts:
Conclusion: More $ Hundreds of Millions lost!

50. Economic Conclusions of these Independent Experts:
In one county,
property owners
will LOSE
$640,000,000±
in real estate value!

51. (Other Offshore wind studies are cited in the Professional Version.)
OK, Offshore Wind Also Results
in Net Economic Losses.
What about Onshore Wind?

52. (The details are explained in the Professional Version.)
SAME THING!
When the big picture is objectively examined,
a typical Onshore Wind Project
will be an annual NET ECONOMICS LOSER!

53. And There’s More.
The Professional Version
has 8 extra slides that identify
Some ADDITIONAL Economic Costs.
Almost none of these are normally included
when the cost of wind energy
is being presented.

54. In ADDITION to generous Federal subsidies (like the PTC),
many states offer financial incentives for wind power, like:
1. Personal Tax Incentives
2. Corporate Tax Incentives
3. Sales Tax Incentives
4. Property Tax Incentives
5. Rebates
6. Grants
7. Loans
8. Industry Support
9. Bonds, and
10. Production Incentives.
On top of these financial incentives, state and local governments have established rules,
regulations and policies (like RPS), with the purpose of encouraging or mandating the
development and increased sale and consumption of energy from renewable sources.
Yet all this still isn’t enough???

55. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G
about Wind Energy economics
is problematic!

56. Part 6:
Net Economics
— THE TAKEAWAY —
In the typical case,
wind development is a NET ECONOMICS LOSER.
Remember: “NET” is a critical economics indicator.

57. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 7:
What Do Utility Companies Say?

58. Utility Companies are
regulated by the government.
As such they avoid saying anything
that is not “politically correct”.
Despite this constraint
the TRUTH has a way of coming out.

59. A major utility executive’s
very disturbing assessment
When National Grid’s CEO was challenged
about integrating wind energy, he said:
“Families would have to get
used to only using power
when it was available,
rather than constantly.”

60. One of a series of ads from Idaho Power
“In the simplest of terms,
special interest groups
and wind developers are
asking you to pay more
for a less reliable product.
And that just isn’t right.”

61. More real world evidence
from utility experts,
about the real cost of
wind energy. They say:
onshore = 2-3 times more
offshore = 4-5 times more
Note: this does NOT include
the extra cost of the PTC!

62. Regarding wind subsidies,
the CEO of Ohio’s North Central Electric Cooperative says:

63. This is the most advanced Utility Company report
on wind energy, ever published.

64. Regarding jobs and economics, this study says:

65. Part 7:
What Do Utility Companies Say?
— THE TAKEAWAY —
When utility companies have the courage
to speak honestly about industrial wind energy,
they are against it.
(There are several other Utility comments cited in the Professional Version.)

66. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
Part 8:
Some Other Supporter Claims

67. Even though JOBS is their
main argument for the PTC,
some other assertions
are periodically made...

68. Another justification put forward for the PTC:
“The PTC is not Another Solyndra.”
Objective perspective:
That is correct — it’s much worse.
Per government figures, Solyndra cost taxpayers $0.5± Billion.
A one year extension of the PTC will cost taxpayers $12.2 Billion.

69. Another justification put forward for the PTC:
“Some manufacturing jobs will be lost.”
Objective perspective:
That is correct — but that’s life.
Modernization is continually making certain products out-dated,
which means jobs in those industries are lost.
Should taxpayers be subsidizing the jobs for those producing
B&W TVs, 8-track tapes, horse carriages, hoola-hoops, etc?

70. Another justification put forward for the PTC:
“Some landowners are making big profits.”
Objective perspective:
That is correct — but at whose expense?

71. Other justifications put forward for the PTC:
“The Wind industry needs to have certainty.”
“The PTC needs to be phased out.”
Objective perspective:
Both are correct — and both are already done.

72. Part 8:
Some Other Supporter Claims
— THE TAKEAWAY —
When looking at the BIG PICTURE
these claims do NOT justify a PTC extension.
(Other supporter claims are cited in the Professional Version.)

73. DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?
CONCLUSIONS

74. Attention Republicans:
A PTC for 2013+ is a new TAX*
as such it violates the ATR Pledge
* “Specialists term these synthetic government spending programs ʻtax
expenditures.ʼ Tax expenditures are really spending programs, not tax
rollbacks, because the missing tax revenues must be financed by more
taxes on somebody else. Like any other form of deficit spending … a
targeted tax break coupled with a specific revenue ʻpayforʼ means that one
group of Americans is required to pay (in the form of higher taxes) for a
subsidy to be delivered to others through the mechanism of the tax system.”
—Dr. Edward D. Kleinbard,
Professor of Law at the Gould School of Law, UCLA

75. Attention Democrats:
A PTC for 2013+ is a TAX BREAK,
that will primarily be used
by High-Income Taxpayers.
As such it is a violation
of your party’s campaign for Tax Fairness.

76. Is an “All of the Above” Energy Policy wise?
Only if it makes sense to include:
unreliable,
expensive, and
environmentally destructive energy options!
We need an “All of the Sensible” Energy Policy.

77. — Conclusions —
Wind Energy is a net jobs loser and a net economics loser,
that has no scientific proof that it has any
net technical, economic or environmental benefits.
Why should US taxpayers pay for such a charade?

78. The wind PTC
makes as much sense
as the government
subsidizing ranchers
to have cows run
in the Kentucky Derby.