Wind Tax Credit is Redistribution to the Rich

Democrats are famous for pushing the idea that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. So, why are many of them lining up to support tax breaks for Big Wind's millionaires? Under the leadership of Harry Reid, lawmakers are pushing to extend the wind-energy industry's cash cow subsidy, the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Created in 1992, the Wind PTC was scheduled to expire at the end of last year. Now, wind industry cronies and their friends in the Senate are leading the charge to revive the PTC by ramming an extension package through Congress during this year's lame-uck session. Supporters of the Wind PTC claim the subsidy is crucial for the development of reliable, clean, and safe wind-driven energy. In reality, the PTC amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare for green energy investors on Wall Street. Warren Buffet said it best when explaining his logic behind investing in wind energy. During an investors presentation in Omaha last May, Buffet confessed, "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate...For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." While Warren Buffet may be thrilled to have the PTC help boost his bottom-line, hardworking American taxpayers have every reason to be less than pleased. That’s because the PTC lowers costs for industrial wind producers and utilities but sticks consumers with higher electricity bills.  Not only has the PTC wasted a colossal amount of taxpayer money since its inception in 1992, it’s also inflicted financial pain on millions of middle class Americans in wind energy states. Even with healthy subsidies from the federal government, an over reliance on industrial wind energy is raising energy prices in states across the nation. A recent analysis of the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s data found that nine of the 11 largest wind power states have seen their energy costs rise more than four times the national average. Ultimately, these costs are passed off to consumers, leaving your average Joe stuck with higher energy bills each month...more

Obama’s path toward energy poverty

by Tom Harris

In his inaugural address last week, President Obama demonstrated that he is putting people at risk with misguided climate and energy policies.

If there really were an increased threat from “raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms,” as the president indicated in his speech, then America would need more, not fewer sources of reliable and affordable energy to prepare for and cope with these hazards. More electricity would be needed to handle greater demands for air conditioning and heating. More power would be required to irrigate drought-ridden lands, build dikes, harden public infrastructure and relocate populations living on flood plains or in harm’s way due to tornadoes and hurricanes.

Yet instead of promoting the most reliable and least expensive energy technologies, such as coal-fired electricity generation, Mr. Obama encourages the least reliable and most expensive sources. It was certainly an understatement to say, as he did in the address, “The path toward sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.” He should have added, “and virtually useless,” because the sustainable energy sources he has most in mind are wind and solar power.

The president presents the transition to these technologies as an economic benefit. He asserted, “We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality.”

No, that is how you ruin a country’s economy.

Sustainable energy sources have had decades to mature. Energy from wind and solar power still costs between 3 and 10 times more than energy from conventional sources like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear. The government had to funnel billions of dollars into subsidies for “green energy” technologies just to keep them afloat during Mr. Obama’s first term, and some failed even then. The Energy Information Administration shows that for 2010, non-hydroelectric renewable electricity generation was still only 3.6 percent of all generation, but it received 53.5 percent of all federal financial support for the electric power sector.

No country, the United States included, can afford to sustain this indefinitely.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN