Could Congress Stop the Turbines?

Whether you're for or against the wind turbines in Orange, three letters will make a big difference: PTC. They stand for Production Tax Credit, an energy subsidy that has fueled wind turbine production on and off since the 1990s.

Without the tax credit, new construction of turbines plummets. This chart, made by the wind energy industry, proves the point. Every time Congress lets the tax credit expire, investment in wind energy practically stops.

Except this time. The PTC expired last year; but the wind industry thinks Congress will renew it this year. The House has already voted to extend the PTC. If the Senate proposes new language, the two houses will negotiate and the bill will be up for a vote by both the House and the Senate. 

Proponents say the tax credit is critical to fostering renewable energy until it can stand on its own. Opponents say the PTC encourages profiteers to make a quick buck by putting turbines in places where they don't make economic sense. Such as Orange.

Whatever side you're on, now's the time to let your representatives know where you stand. You can call Rep. Annie Kuster's office (226-1002) as well as those of our U.S. senators (Jeanne Shaheen 647-7500, Kelly Ayotte 622-7979). 

And email me with any comments you'd like to share with the town: webmaster@orangenh.US.

Jay

Comments

[Aimee & Colin Higbie]

Even though I don’t have all the details, it seems that I have more than enough information to conclude that this is not a good program for Orange or those of us who live here. Whether the goal is to protect our natural beauty, to keep taxes from skyrocketing, or to avoid a waste of tax dollars flowing to foreign and polluting entities in a grossly misapplied use of “green” tax credits, there is plenty of reason to oppose this program.

Let’s take these one at a time:

Destruction of our Natural Beauty
If you care about the natural beauty of our area, then it's pretty simple that we don't want to mar the view from Cardigan, probably our town's most significant feature. I must confess that I may be in the minority in that I think from a distance the windmills actually carry a certain majesty and aesthetic appeal. But in spite of that, there are places possessed of such natural beauty that even I would not want to replace it with a view of a technological marvel (or terror if you prefer). Just as we would probably all agree that nothing should be built that diminishes the pristine natural beauty of the Grand Canyon, Mount Cardigan is our local treasure.

My understanding is that the construction activity itself is also quite destructive. In order to build the windmills on solid platforms on a ridge, where the winds are strongest, roads must be built through our woods. Unless significant environmental care is taken, roads that run up a hill cause severe erosion problems. Based on reports from the other towns where these have been done, we have heard the opposite and that whole hillsides were destroyed. Even if that’s an exaggeration, there is clear environmental risk from this construction, and no clear environmental gain (see below – these wind mills may never even be used).

Tax Increases
There are also multiple cost concerns that could be critical to our town – costs of their removal when no longer used (which could come very soon if these windmills are not connected to the grid), fire insurance, maintenance fees, etc. According to other towns (this would be good to confirm), even the known costs for the mandatory activities significantly exceed the payment the builder paid to those towns. If correct, this would mean that for the privilege of replacing the beautiful natural views from Cardigan with fifty-story tall windmills, we would also see a major tax increase within a few years.

Not Really Supporting “Green” Programs or Renewable Energy
Even if your focus is on encouraging renewable energy growth, then this program does not necessarily help with that. Because the funding is from a government grant for merely building windmills rather than from natural economic forces or even a grant for generating power from wind, as far as I know (please someone correct me if I’m wrong on this) there is no certainty that these windmills being built will ever even be used or connected to the power grid. As noted above, Orange (read: us as taxpayers) become responsible removing the windmills if/when unused.

Worse, this government program, paid with our federal tax dollars, would be paid to a Portuguese company. I'm not sure why these funds are allowed to go to non-US company, but that seems to violate at least the spirit of driving innovation and economic growth in the American economy. This money, except for a relatively small amount for the actual installation labor, is all leaving the country. This is the opposite of promoting green entrepreneurialism, which was a key theme under which these programs were sold to taxpayers.

Worse still, the business model here should spook the capitalist just as much as the environmentalist. The building company is building and being paid with federal tax dollars, in the form of “Production Tax Credits” (PTC’s) for “green” construction. They then turn around and sell those PTC’s to other US entities who buy them as offsets to protect their own polluting activities. I think I heard that the PTC buyer here is a Connecticut company, but those specifics don’t really matter. This is textbook example of the economic distortion and unintended consequences whenever the government tries to get involved in the private sector.

In other words, our tax dollars are being sent to a foreign country, and resulting in damage to our local environment to build windmills, which may never be used, and then provide financial protection via PTC’s for further environmental damage by other American companies.

Taken together, unless there is proof that these windmills would be used to generate power and unless the builder is contractually bound to take all the recommended steps to protect against excessive erosion at the building sites, I don’t understand how anyone could possibly support this venture (except perhaps a land-owner receiving a plus-sized fee to sell to the Portuguese builder). Otherwise, there is basically no upside, and lots of downside.

- Colin