Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)?

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

Make SURE to View This Presentation
in the FULL SCREEN Mode!

Click the “FULL” icon
in the lower right hand corner.

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.

Does The Production Tax Credit (PTC) Make Sense?
This “Professional Version” is intended for Congressional Staffers and energy experts. We also have an abbreviated “Executive 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The Energy Policy Act of 1992 originally enacted the Production Tax Credit and the first lapse came in June 1999.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. If 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.

References and credits are on the three slides at the end. The disclaimer, etc. are on the last slide. 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

— 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 —

DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?

Part 1:
Benefits Claimed by Lobbyists

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

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

For a Scientific Assessment
of Wind Energy Realities, see:
EnergyPresentation.Info

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

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!

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

First we’re told that the planet
is facing imminent catastrophe
— then a lobbyist comes to our
legislators with a solution!
The spiel is that they can do
something consequential to help
prevent this global disaster —
and the legislator will gain some
political points in the process.

What a Deal!

It’s Lobbyists vs Science
—and Science is Losing
The main concern here is that our energy &
environmental policies are not based on science.
Instead these policies are being dictated by
lobbyists (salespeople) who are representing those
with financial interests, or political agendas.

Some Carl Sagan Science Quotes To Ponder —
1 - Skeptical scrutiny is the means by which deep thoughts can be separated
from deep nonsense.

2 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology,
in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

3 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science
there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.

4 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and
technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for
awhile, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and
power is going to blow up in our faces.

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
See EnergyPresentation.Info for some specifics.

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.


Part 2:
Are Job Claims Accurate?

Independent Studies
Have Concluded:
Wind Job Claims are Exaggerated

Fact:
Almost all US Wind Job Claims
come from One Source: AWEA
(Wind Industry Lobbyists).

Fact:
Industry Lobbyists have one
(and only one) Objective:
To Hype their Industry.

Fact:
Technical Data (e.g. job counts)
from such a Biased Source
is NOT Very Dependable.

The Lobbyist Marketing Pitch

The PTC is needed to “...save 37,000 jobs...”

A Sample Federal Jobs Report

“The stats were generated by AWEA”

A Sample Independent Study

“Green jobs studies make estimates using poor
economic models, based on dubious assumptions”


“‘Green jobs’ include: college professors teaching any environmental class,
clerks at bicycle repair shops, antique dealer employees,
Salvation Army workers, stores selling rare books and manuscripts,
consignment shop workers, used record shop employees,
garbage disposal workers, and even oil lobbyists.”

Do Real World Facts Correlate with AWEA Claims?

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


Part 3:
Cost Per Job?

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

A Sample Independent Analysis

“$135,000 to $270,000 per wind job”

The Congressional Figures

$12.2 Billion / 37,000 jobs
= $330,000 per wind job


$578,000
per green job


$1,600,000
per wind job


$9,800,000
per wind job


$34,000,000
per wind job

Part 3:
Cost Per Wind Job?

No matter how it is calculated,
the cost per wind job is extraordinarily excessive.


Part 4:
What are the Net Jobs?

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

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, e.g.:

Offshore Jobs Conclusions of Independent Experts #1:

$1,080,000,000

Conclusion: 5000± jobs LOST in one year alone
(due to a single offshore wind project).


Conclusion:
Net is 30,000 ±

jobs years
LOST
(again due to a
single offshore
wind project).


Conclusion: Net 4000± jobs lost in one year alone
(due to a single offshore wind project).

OK, Offshore Wind Clearly Results
in Net Job Losses.

What about Onshore Wind?

SAME THING!
Let’s Look at a Somewhat Typical
Onshore Wind Development:
the 80 MW Pantego Wind Project,
Proposed for Beaufort County, North Carolina...

Many wind projects are located on leased farmland.
One likely consequence is that some of the farmers
who have leases, will scale back their operation, or stop
farming entirely. This photo is one of many examples
where this appears to be exactly what happened.

We will assume a low 10% of local leasing farmers will cut back on their operations.

Here are the latest Beaufort County Tourism Jobs data...

There are all sorts of claims made about tourism impacts of wind development —
including the fantasy that people will specifically come to see industrial machines.
Would that be a claim if there was a new nuclear power plant built here? I think not.
Anyway, the Scottish government funded the most comprehensive study ever done
on the effects of wind development on tourism...

BTW the Scottish Government is a promoter of wind energy, so they had a vested
interest here. In any case the researchers concluded that
(even after taking into account new visitors to wind projects) that (not surprisingly)
there would be a net decrease (“fall”) in tourism.

We’ll use the mid-number of 4% as the average.

Beaufort County Annual Job Impact
Due To the Proposed Pantego Wind Project

Important: Unlike in the Offshore Wind examples, this community did not
have the money to fund a more comprehensive economics assessment.
As a result we do not have the figures for additional jobs lost due to higher
rates of wind electricity, or to the cost of businesses funding the PTC.

When the big picture is objectively examined,
a rather typical Onshore Wind Project

will be an annual NET JOBS LOSER!

Independent Green Jobs Study #1

Jobs Conclusions of Independent Expert #2:

Jobs Conclusions of Independent Experts #3:

Part 4:
Net Jobs

In the typical case,
wind development & subsidy is a NET JOBS LOSER.
Remember: “NET” is a critical job indicator.


Part 5:
Even More About Jobs

The fact is
That there is a lot more
to the job claims,
than is immediately obvious.

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

The US has lost most of its jobs to other countries primarily
due to economics:
low cost labor.
US businesses have one major economic benefit left to
counter more job loss:
low cost electricity.
Why would we voluntarily give this up
by reverting to more expensive electricity sources???


David Brooks
of the NY Times
gets this right:
green wind jobs
aren’t the answer.


A top government
official makes
a very blunt statement.
Tax credits
don’t create 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.


The United States can be a Leader in:

1) Eighteenth century ideas like horse transportation and wind energy
(buggy-whip manufacturing, blacksmith, and windmill jobs)
OR
2) State-of-the art, Scientifically Sound energy solutions
(like geothermal energy or Small Modular Reactors)


Should we have a tax credit to employ several thousand blacksmiths?


Should we have a tax credit to employ thousands making buggy whips?


Less Expensive Energy
is a Proven Way
to create net jobs.
Subsidizing expensive energy is
a counterproductive strategy


Inexpensive Energy is Proven to create net jobs.
Subsidizing expensive energy is a counterproductive strategy


When Wind Lobbyists were arguing in 2011
to extend the 1603 credit,
they were counting most of the same jobs
that they’re now attributing to the PTC.
How can each subsidy be responsible
for the same jobs???

Part 5:
Even More About Jobs

The jobs argument is a public relations ploy
to distract us from the reality
that wind energy is a very poor energy option.


Part 6:
Net Economic Impact?

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

Offshore Economic Conclusions of Independent Experts #1:

$1,080,000,000

Conclusion: over $1 Billion lost in one year alone!


Conclusion: More $ Hundreds of Millions lost!


In one county,
property owners
will LOSE
$640,000,000±
in real estate value!


Conclusion: Net is $900± Million lost!

Offshore Independent Study #3

Conclusion: There are no NET economic benefits!

Offshore Independent Study #4

According to Beacon Hill Institute,
Cape Wind’s industrial wind plant would result in:

OK, Offshore Wind Also Results
in Net Economic Losses.

What about Onshore Wind?

Here are the latest Beaufort County Tourism Income data...

Here is a government study by four independent PhDs, all acknowledged bat experts.
After years of studying bats, they know that bats are not only major crop pollinators
but also major insect eaters. One bat can eat hundreds of thousands of insects a year.

Here are their conclusions of the crop loss to this county due to killed bats:

We’ll use their less than midrange, standard number.

Note that this $9+Million does NOT
take into account the additional human
health costs associated with things like
an increase in mosquitoes.
The county’s website acknowledges that
this is already a problem, and that
mosquitoes spread such deadly diseases
as West Nile Virus & Eastern Equine
Encephalitis.
Fewer bats will result in more
mosquitoes, and a likely higher
incidence of human health problems.

Here is a study about local weather impact from wind development...

Beaufort County Annual Economic Impact Due To Pantego

This does NOT include additional financial losses due to:
— The lower employment,
— Tax reductions from nearby property devaluations,
— Health effects from turbines,
— Health effects from insect proliferation,
— Higher cost of wind electricity, etc.

When the big picture is objectively examined,
a rather typical Onshore Wind Project
can result in an annual NET ECONOMIC LOSS

of well over $12,000,000.

And There’s More.

The next few slides will just touch on
Some ADDITIONAL Economic Costs.
Almost none of these are normally included
when the cost of wind energy
is being presented.

Wind energy is also a bad deal from an electricity point-of-view.

Does wind energy provide economical electricity ?
NO, not compared to conventional sources.
Look at the economics from three perspectives —
#1: Total Costs = higher than conventional sources.
#2: Real Ratepayer costs = higher than conventional sources.
#3: Taxpayer Subsidies = higher than all conventional sources,
combined!

#1 The Total Cost Economic Perspective, part 1:

Because it has no Firm Capacity,
Wind Energy MUST HAVE
a fast-responding, augmenting
source of power available 24/7/365.

NO other conventional source of
electricity has this requirement!


For a variety of
technical and economic reasons,
this fast-responding, augmenting
source of power is usually gas.

So, ALL calculations of wind’s costs
MUST address the
WIND + GAS Package.

Wind energy Economics should include extra transmission lines needed.
(They almost never include this cost.)

© john droz, jr.

#1 Even On A Wind Lobbyist Site:

Texas would be $28 Billion better off without wind!

What’s the Correlation with
#2
Higher Wind Energy Usage
and Residential Electricity Rates?
40

35 Denmark Bad Renewables %
¢/KWH (2007
30
Germany
25

20 Spain

15
US
10 Canada

5

0

#2 As we raise the cost of electricity, remember that
Quality of Life STRONGLY Correlates to Electricity Consumption

#3
$4,981 M
Annual Federal TAXPAYER Subsidies
of Electrical Energy Sources: Totals
2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011
[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support]

Note that the total 2010
subsidies for wind energy
exceed the totals for all the
other conventional sources
COMBINED!

$1,189 M $2,234 M $654 M $215 M $4,981 M

Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind

#3 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???

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

Part 6:
Net Economics

In the typical case,
wind development is a NET ECONOMICS LOSER.
Remember: “NET” is a critical economics indicator.


Part 7:
What Do Utility Companies Say?

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.

Exelon owns 38 wind projects.
Their CEO, Christopher Crane,
recently stated:

“The (production tax credit) has
been in place since 1992, I believe,
and I think that’s enough time to
jump-start an industry, 20 years.”

President & COO of Duke’s US Electric business, says:

“It doesn’t matter how clean it is,
if it’s not affordable or reliable.”

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.”

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.”

One of a series of ads from Idaho Power

“Integrating the variable
capacity of wind energy
undermines the time-
tested, science driven
technology plan
required of all utilities.
And that just isn’t right.”

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!

This is an insightful series of
articles by the CEO of Ohio’s
North Central Electric
Cooperative,
Markus Bryant.

Regarding CO2 savings, these utility company reports say:

Regarding wind’s cost, these utility company reports say:

Regarding wind subsidies, these utility company reports say:

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

Regarding jobs and economics, this study says:

Part 7:
What Do Utility Companies Say?

When utility companies have the courage
to speak honestly about industrial wind energy,
they are against it.


Part 8:
Some Other Supporter Claims

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

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.

“Wind developers only get paid the PTC
when they produce electricity.”
That is correct — but so what?

Why does it make sense to make an unreliable source of electricity
more expensive?

“Some manufacturing jobs will be lost.”
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?

“Some landowners are making big proﬁts.”
That is correct — but at whose expense?

“We need to have a phase-out of the PTC.”

That is correct — but that’s already done.

All existing wind projects will continue to get paid the PTC,
and they have a phase-out period of ten years from their start date.

“The Wind industry needs to have certainty.”
That is correct — and it already does.

Other justifications put forward for the PTC:

“Presumably, the PTC intends to support renewable energy due to the environmental,
economic development, and energy security benefits that these sources provide...”
— Dr. Ryan Wiser
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Senate Finance Committee Testimony March 29, 2007

Unfortunately, not a single part of this PTC justification
has been scientifically proven to be legitimate!
In fact…
there is considerable evidence that every bit of it is FALSE.

“We need more time for wind to be competitive.”

What difference is a year going to make? None.

What are we going to say about the jobs that will be “lost”
at the end of next year? Will those losses be OK then?

We need to stop whitewashing a losing idea!

Does “modernizing” this 18th century idea
make it any less primitive?

Part 8:
Some Other Supporter Claims

When looking at the BIG PICTURE
these claims do NOT justify a PTC extension.


CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Attention Legislators:
BOTH Parties Should be in Agreement on the Fact that:

the PTC is a heavy taxpayer subsidy
of an eighteenth century energy technology
that has no scientifically proven net benefits.

Attention Legislators:
What this all translates to is that BOTH Parties
should be in FULL Agreement that:

our Energy Policy should be based on real science.

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.

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?

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

References (for main data, quotes, etc.) — page 1
Slide 4: PTC History (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Wind_Energy_Policy#Wind_Production_Tax_Credit_.28PTC.29)
Slide 8: Wind Industry claimed benefits (www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-spin/)
Slides 11 & 25 & 45: AWEA- PTC Advances in Senate (www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=17487)
Slide 16: Carl Sagan quotes (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html)
Slide 26: Congressional Wind Report (www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42023.pdf)
Slide 27: Green Jobs Myths (www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/morriss-green-jobs-myths.pdf)
Slide 28: The Dirty Secret Behind Clean Jobs (cascadepolicy.org/pdf/pub/CleanJobsReport8.22.11.pdf)
Slide 29: Exploding the Green Jobs Myth (blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/exploding_the_green_jobs_myth/)
Slide 30: Are Job Numbers Pulled From Thin Air? (www.dailyenergyreport.com/2012/07/wind-energy-jobs-are-the-numbers-pulled-from-thin-air/)
Slide 31: Puffed Up Claims from the Wind Power Lobby (www.factcheck.org/2012/02/wind-spin/)
Slide 32: Wind energy job growth isn't blowing anyone away (articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/business/la-fi-green-jobs2-2010feb02)
Slide 36: Why We Need to Terminate Big Wind Subsidies (tinyurl.com/7q43sdl)
Slides 37 & 136: Cost of PTC - Senate Finance Commmittee (www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JCX.pdf)
Slide 38: Obama's Green Energy Disaster (docstalk.blogspot.com/2012/08/obamas-green-energy-disaster-578333-per.html)
Slide 39: Texas wind farm tax break program costs $1.6 million per job (tinyurl.com/23k6mzw)
Slide 40: $9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Wind Projects (cnsnews.com/news/article/9-billion-stimulus-solar-wind-projects-made-910-final-jobs-98-million-job)
Slide 41: Shepherds Flat wind farm: What's the cost to taxpayers? (www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/post_19.html)
Slides 46 & 47; 88-91: Global Insight NJ Study (www.nj.gov/bpu/pdf/announcements/njoswt.pdf)
Slides 48 & 49; 92 & 93: Acadian Consulting NJ Study (www.state.nj.us/rpa/docs/FACWReport%20v14%20(PUBLIC%20VERSION).pdf)
Slides 50 & 51: Cape Wind's Cost: Facts & Figures (www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/economy/)
Slides 55 & 98: NC Tourism Info (www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim)
Slides 56 & 57: Scottish Tourism Study (scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/07113554/0)
Slide 57: Another Good Tourism Study (www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file68577.pdf)
Slides 60 & 72: The Myth of Green Jobs (thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-green_jobs.pdf)
Slides 61 & 62: Green Jobs in the US Economy (oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/6-6-12-Full-Furchtgott-Roth.pdf)
Slides 63 & 64: Study of the effects on employment… (www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf)
Slides 65 & 66: Gresham’s Law of Green Energy (www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n4/regv33n4-3.pdf)
Slides 67 & 68: What the Job Counts Actually Tell US (tinyurl.com/9pd5wot)
Slide 73: Horner jobs quote (www.masterresource.org/2012/06/wimp-power-windpower/)
Slide 75: Where the Jobs Aren’t (www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.html)
— continued —

References (for main data, quotes, etc.) — page 2
Slide 76: DiNapoli - Tax Breaks Don’t Create Jobs (www.knickledger.com/2012/05/dinapoli-tax-breaks-dont-create-jobs/)
Slide 77: Congressional Budget Office Jobs Report (www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_18.htm)
Slide 81: Affordable Energy is Essential for Jobs (canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/40069)
Slide 82: Job Growth Expected from Cheap Gas (tinyurl.com/bttgzjf)
Slide 83: Common Sense Principles: Grow the Economy (www.popaditchforcongress.com/2012-issue-grow-the-economy.html)
Slide 84: Claims for 1603 jobs (www.bluegreenalliance.org/saveamericanjobs)
Slide 94: Third NJ Offshore Study (www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0228/1955/)
Slide 95: Beacon Hill Cape Wind Study (www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/economy/)
Slides 99 & 100: Agricultural Effects of Turbine Bat Deaths (www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/23069a/23069a.pdf)
Slide 99: Another Good Bat Study (www.francis.edu/uploadedfiles/renewable_energy/kunz.bats_and_wind.07.pdf)
Slide 101: Beaufort County Website (www.co.beaufort.nc.us/)
Slide 102: Turbine Effects on Local Meteorology (www.atmos.illinois.edu/~sbroy/publ/jweia2011.pdf)
Slide 110: Is Wind Energy The New Wedge Issue For Conservatives? (www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7757)
Slide 111: From IEA supplied data
Slide 112: Electricity vs Quality of Life (CIA World Factbook 2007: www.gelib.com/cia-factbook.htm)
Slide 113: Federal Subsidies - EIA 2010 Report (www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/)
Slide 114: State Wind Energy Subsidies, etc. (www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1837)
Slide 119: Exelon Against PTC (blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/even-wind-executive-doesnt-want-wind-tax-credit/)
Slide 120: Duke CEO quote (www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-11464937-13097&KPLT=2)
Slide 121: National Grid CEO quote (www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/wind-energys-brave-new-world-intermittent-power-national-grid/)
Slides 122 & 123: Idaho Power ad (www.getpluggedin.com/)
Slide 124: NC Utilities refuse wind deal (hamptonroads.com/2011/12/utilities-back-out-nc-wind-project-over-high-prices?)
Slide 125: Wind Expensive vs Fuel (www.dailyadvance.com/news/wind-expensive-versus-fuel-521695)
Slides 126-130: The Emperor’s New Clothes Column (www.ncelec.org/aboutUs/countrymag/clemperor.aspx)
Slides 131 & 132: A Rational Look At Renewable Energy (issuu.com/rational/docs/2992_rational_look_fin?mode=window&backgroundColor=#222222)
Slides 140 & 141: PTC is already phasing out, with certainty (blog.heritage.org/2012/08/01/wind-ptc-already-phasing-out-for-certain/)
Slide 142: PTC claimed benefits [Berkeley] (eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/wiser-senate-test-4-07.pdf)
Slide 148: The Hidden Hand of Government Spending (www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n3/regv33n3-2.pdf)
Slide 153: Dear Big Wind - It's Not You, It's Me (www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/04/Dear-Big-Wind-It-s-Not-You-It-s-Me)
— continued —

Credits (for graphics & photos) —

Header for PTCFacts.Info website: photo taken by Mike Fortuna
Slide 1: Philip Epp Painting - Wild Horses (www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/OFR/2006/OFR06_11/index.html)
Slide 12: Snake Oil Salesman (www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2009/10/27/joel-spolsky-snake-oil-salesman/)
Slide 13: Pinnochio (savevestas.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/new-vestas-campaign-postcard-take-and-distribute/ed_miliband-sw-1-2/)
Slide 14: Dr. Marvel Cartoon - John Terry creation (www.windtoons.com/)
Slide 54: Photo by John Droz, jr.
Slide 79: Blacksmith Shop (explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-CC6)
Slide 80: Save Buggywhip Industry (www.freespeechstickers.com/Save_Buggy_Whips__and.html)
Slide 109: Transmission Towers Photo - VNF (www.vnf.com/assets/htmlimages/Electric_transmission_lines.resize.jpg)
Slide 139: Roger Maynard Cartoon [edited title] (www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/he-has-your-wallet.jpg)
Slide 155: Cow Running in Derby (www.ntra.com/track/display/details/Ng) & (www.stillbreathing.co.uk/gallery/animals-in-sport/cowracing).

Stock Photos: Slides #80, 144, 145, 148, 149, & 150-152.
Numerous slides are gratefully credited to John Droz, who allowed us to freely borrow from his several presentations.

Note: Links are NOT clickable on slideshare presentations. Write down any urls you are interested in, or take a screenshot.

All information is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. If errors are noted, please send an email
to the PTCFacts.Info website, providing the scientific evidence of same and a correction will be made.
For questions, comments or permission to use any material in this presentation,
please also send an email to the PTCFacts.Info website.

Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)?

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (15)

Similar a Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)?

Similar a Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)? (20)

Más de John Droz

Más de John Droz (6)

Último

Último (20)

Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)?