| Filed under : |
All
> Topic
> Legislative
|
Gregg: Bill Doesn't Encourage Enough Conservation
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/politics/4661133/detail.html
Recent events confirm that “Big Money” interests in the US and Europe have discovered the enormously generous tax breaks and subsidies that are now available in the US for producing electricity with wind turbines. These organizations are moving aggressively to build “wind farms” and to seek more subsidies. Meanwhile, as more wind turbines are proposed in the US and other countries, ordinary citizens have learned that “wind farms” are not environmentally benign. Instead, wind energy has high economic, environmental, ecological, scenic and property value costs. Wind turbines produce only small amounts of electricity and that electricity is unreliable and low in value. Quite likely, many members of Congress, state legislators, governors, regulators and local officials don’t yet realize that they have been misled about the true benefits and costs of wind energy – or the extent of their combined generosity to the wind industry. In the US, “wind farms” are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy or economic benefits. The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to “wind farm” owners than the revenue from the sale of electricity they produce. These generous tax breaks and subsidies are at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers and are hidden in their tax bills and monthly electric bills. Government officials seem unaware or uncaring about either the large transfer of wealth to “wind farm” owners from ordinary citizens -- or the fact that large amounts of capital are being spent on projects that produce only small amounts of unreliable, low value electricity. As detailed below: · At least 10 large US and foreign companies are now working to build more “wind farms” in the US to take advantage of the exceedingly generous tax breaks and subsidies. · Facts demonstrate that advocates have consistently overstated the environmental benefits and understated the environmental, ecological and economic costs of wind energy. · The tax breaks and subsidies for “wind energy” already in place are providing huge benefits for a few companies but the wind industry is lobbying for even more. Despite the facts, it’s far from clear that legislators, local government officials and regulators will temper their enthusiasm for wind energy since so many have accepted as fact the false and misleading information distributed during the past decade by wind energy advocates. Also, they are well aware of wind industry lobbying power and campaign contributions.
Download: wind-tax-breaks.pdf
FAX MEMORANDUM FOR: Congressman John W. Olver SUBJECT: Why you should not be “perplexed” about Opposition to “wind farms”
"Senator James M. Inhofe Chairman Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.
In summary, there are serious problems with the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact statement (PEIS). The comments that follow are focused primarily on the portions of the draft that deal with the economics of wind energy development. The data and conclusions reflected in those parts of the draft are invalid because: · Major elements of the true costs of producing and delivering electricity from wind energy have not been taken into account. · The “economic model” underlying the economic analysis is defective. It is important that Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials recognize that much of the information relied on by those drafting the statement has come from organizations that promote wind energy development. This information is often biased and should not be relied on as a basis for BLM decisions. The net effect of the deficiencies is that the draft PEIS grossly overstates the potential benefits of wind energy while grossly understating the true costs. In fact, it is far from clear that the PEIS justifies any development of wind energy on BLM-administered lands. Any conclusions in that regard will have to await correction of the fundamental deficiencies in the economic analysis.
Download: 211 Wind BLM Draft EIS Comments.pdf
Note: As you probably know, the US Bureau of Land Management (US Department of the Interior) has been granting permission to build "wind farms" on US-owned, BLM-administered lands. Other proposed projects are now being considered. On September 10, 2004, BLM published a "Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) in the Federal Register with a request for public comments -- which were due (or had to be postmarked) yesterday. My comments are attached. (The first few paragraphs are quoted below if you'd like to avoid reading all 9 pages.) There is a lot of useful information in the draft PEIS (which you can find at http://www.windeis.anl.gov ). However, key parts of the draft are bad. The way the draft PEIS was developed is also a sad commentary on the way "our" federal government operates. BLM apparently contracted with the US Department of Energy's Argonne National "Laboratory" (ANL) to prepare the draft PEIS. The people at Argonne then contracted with none other than DOE's National Renewable Energy "Laboratory" (NREL) for a significant part of the work, including a so-called "Economic Analysis." Both ANL and NREL are 99% (if not 100%) financed with our tax dollars. NREL, of course, is the organization that has, for years, been developing, supporting and/or distributing highly biased "analyses" and "reports" about wind energy and has played a major role in misleading the public, media and government officials about the costs and benefits of wind energy. As a result, the so-called "Economic Analysis" in the DPEIS is just what you would expect -- as summarized below. Isn't it fun to see your tax dollars spent in this way? Glenn Schleede
In Washington, sometimes all you need to do to find out lobbyists' latest schemes to bilk the unwary taxpayer is attend a public meeting. What brings this to mind is Greenwire reporter Ben Geman's December 7 story recounting a recent Capitol Hill conference for journalists and congressional staff, sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).
http://techcentralstation.com/121004G.html
Note: analysis of ACORE's (American Council on Renewable Energy) latest attempt to force niche "renewable" energy technologies "down the necks" of consumers and taxpayers in the United States. It is a sad commentary that huge, profitable organizations or their subsidiaries -- such as General Electric, FPL Energy (Subsidiary of FPL Group), and BP Solar (Subsidiary of BP) -- should ask the electricity customers and taxpayers of the US to provide them with even more subsidies. They now want even more than the billions that have already been spend for R&D and the hundreds of millions that are continuing to be dolled out each year via tax breaks and other subsidies. The ACORE-promoted "renewable" technologies now appear to be among the most heavily subsidized of all US energy sources WHEN THEIR EXISTING AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO US ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT (based on US EIA forecasts through the year 2025). Glenn Schleede
Governor Jim Douglas today released for public review a draft policy on wind energy and other renewable energy development on state-owned lands... Large-scale commercial projects such as wind farms, however, would not be permitted on ANR lands.
Can wind replace oil, such as the ANWR field in Alaska?