CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power impact-of-PTC-expiration-graphic-350px-w-300x208

Published on August 20th, 2012 | by John Farrell

13

Phase-Out of the Federal Wind Tax Credit a Good Thing?

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

August 20th, 2012 by  

 
Energy and Environment News has a very long story on a new angle for the federal wind tax credit debate: a phaseout. This article raises several issues, apart from that policy strategy, that are worth a quick discussion.

1. Why Would Wind Compete with Natural Gas?

The article waxes long about the trials of the wind industry in the face of low natural gas prices, implying that utilities choose new natural gas power plants over wind power on the basis of price. I’m a bit skeptical.

Wind power is inflexible, meaning utilities have to take the power whenever the wind blows. Natural gas power plants have typically been flexible, used to provide peaking power to meet rapid changes in electricity demand. From the perspective of adding new power supply, the two aren’t competitors.

Or am I mistaken? Are there are a lot of utilities choosing to add new natural gas power plants as baseload/inflexible power that would otherwise have chosen wind power?

2. Are We Really Basing 20- to 40-year Electricity Prices from Natural Gas on Today’s Gas Price?

The article notes that natural gas power plants have a current levelized cost of $45-55 per Megawatt-hour, compared to $60-90 for wind projects that do not receive the federal tax credit (based on the quality of the wind resource). Since this is much less than estimates made last year, when gas prices were higher, one can only assume that the estimators believe that gas prices will remain forever low.

I’ll take that bet.

3. Why Would the Tax Credit Matter?

Most wind power in the U.S. has been either installed in states or the environmental attributes (renewable energy credits) sold to states with renewable energy mandates. Thus, the wind tax credit isn’t really the market-driver, but instead is transfer payment from federal taxpayers to electricity ratepayers in those states. Utilities in Minnesota, with a mandate for 25% renewable energy by 2025, for example, will have to meet that goal whether or not the contract for wind power costs 11 cents (without any federal subsidies) or 7 cents (with the credit and accelerated depreciation). Utilities in Iowa get to buy wind power very cheap, because the low-cost wind projects in that state use the federal tax incentives and then sell their renewable credits in neighboring states (e.g. Illinois).

I can think of a few reasons that the tax credit still matters:

  • Utilities are buying more wind power than they are required to, because it is so cheap.
  • Developers have projects that are financed based on the tax credit, and they fall apart without it.
  • Merchant wind power projects (selling into a competitive wholesale market) are relying on it.

If it’s the first, then the tax credit is going to slow the wind industry. If it’s the second, it’s largely a short-term problem. If it’s the third, it won’t really affect new projects so much as it will punish developers who chose to gamble on the longevity of the credit.

4. Could an Expiring/Phasing Out Credit Be a Good Thing?

In the short term, it will be bad for the industry, as illustrated by history in the adjacent chart from AWEA. But in the long run wind power will get cheaper and natural gas – a finite resource – will not. And one of the big logjams for renewable energy projects right now is an inability to actually use the federal tax incentive.

That’s because a lot of developers don’t carry the tax liability necessary to offset their power generation, and the list of big corporations that do is relatively short, giving them a lot of market power. In fact, in exchange for partnerships with wind projects to access the federal tax credits, these companies routinely get rates of return from 10% up to 49%. (I discuss this issue in more detail here).

The short supply of tax equity partners lets them charge high prices, increasing the cost to wind power developers of using the tax credits and perversely increasing the cost of electricity from wind power.

The tax credit has also created an environment where community-based wind power, with its multiplier to jobs and economic benefits (and political benefits), has an uphill struggle to compete. (There’s a great counter-example of a wind farm in South Dakota with 600 local owners made possible by the cash grant in lieu of the tax credit. I’ve also discussed how low-cost financing could allow solar developers to opt out of the federal tax credit and still lower the cost of solar energy by 25%).

If there’s no tax credit, however, there’s no high-priced tax equity market or artificial barrier to local ownership. And both of these changes may benefit the industry in the long run.

This post originally appeared on ILSR’s Energy Self-Reliant States blog.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

directs the Democratic Energy program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. His seminal paper, Democratizing the Electricity System, describes how to blast the roadblocks to distributed renewable energy generation, and how such small-scale renewable energy projects are the key to the biggest strides in renewable energy development.   Farrell also authored the landmark report Energy Self-Reliant States, which serves as the definitive energy atlas for the United States, detailing the state-by-state renewable electricity generation potential. Farrell regularly provides discussion and analysis of distributed renewable energy policy on his blog, Energy Self-Reliant States (energyselfreliantstates.org), and articles are regularly syndicated on Grist and Renewable Energy World.   John Farrell can also be found on Twitter @johnffarrell, or at jfarrell@ilsr.org.



  • Bob_Wallace

    Let me try to think things through as a utility owner who doesn’t give a fig about the climate. (I’m sure there’s one or two.)

    OK, the EPA has clamped down on coal plant emissions. It would cost a lot of money to upgrade an existing coal plant and new regulations could appear later on making it even more expensive, so time to shut down the old coal plant. (Or maybe the utility just needs more generation.)

    So, what to do? Natural gas generation is pretty cheap at the moment. LCOE for combined cycle gas is running $0.02 to $0.05/kWh. If one could lock in some gas futures at a reasonable price then you could build the NG plant and pay it off before gas prices might climb significantly.

    Wind is expected to fall from about $0.05/kWh to around $0.03/kWh. If that happens then one could install wind without subsidy in a few years for the present cost including the present $0.022/kWh FiT.

    Wind is variable. The utility will need some sort of fill-in, either storage or dispatchable generation. There’s no guarantee that affordable storage will be available in the next few years. A paid off gas plant is good fill-in.

    In about five years PV solar is expected to drop to under $0.10/kWh. When the price of solar drops below that of gas generation due to increasing fuel costs install a lot of PV and run gas as fill-in.

    So, shut down coal, build combined cycle gas. Later add wind and solar when the cost of NG fuel starts to hurt.


    Numbers from http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/

    • Bob_Wallace

      Some gas futures data…

      Sep 2012 $2.776/MMBtu
      Sep 2014 $3.911
      Sep 2016 $4.346
      Sep 2018 $4.849
      Sep 2020 $5.458

      If you bought eight years of gas futures you’d pay a median price of $4.117, 1.3x as much as the present price of gas.

      I think that this says that someone could build a NG plant and be fairly safe in expecting to pay it off in a few years.

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        where’d you get those numbers? same source? useful to have on hand..

  • http://twitter.com/MatthewLRose Matthew Rose

    I think keeping the wind credit in place until which time wind energy generation equals an annual 1% replacement in the total United States energy portfolio of carbon based power.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Wind is already over 3% of the total US electricity supply.

      • http://twitter.com/MatthewLRose Matthew Rose

        right, it is less than 2% of the US energy supply. What I was trying to get at, an “annual increase” of the entire energy portfolio. ex.

        2015 Wind Energy makes up “2.5%” of the entire US energy portfolio
        2016 Wind Energy makes up “3.5%” of the entire US energy portfolio.

        How about this: the US needs to change its energy portfolio so that 2-3% of the total US energy needs are added by new alternative energy generation every year. Due to it is not feasibly possible to replace all of the carbon energy market next year, and it has to be a long-term market sustainable business model, while enabling a complete transfer from carbon based energy to national security engendering alternative sources.

        How would you have written it?

        • Bob_Wallace

          I would have written about electricity, not total energy, as this article is about electricity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.t.peffly Matthew Todd Peffly

    Well lets cheer for all the other great thems the “even playing feild” boys are doing to help green energy.
    1) Keep the $500 Billion/year hidden support to coal for health external in the US. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/
    2) Keep the exist fossil fuel support in place (else it is raising taxes)
    The Great Energy Challenge also includes fossil fuel subsidy data from developed countries (Figure 1), bringing the total global value close to $500 billion for 2010.
    Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1kI4k)

    3) Add another big break for oil (see Romey pledge)

    And wind needs to justify getting any support every year, yea that makes it even.

    • Bob_Wallace

      You left out the ~$9 trillion we’ve spent (so far) fighting oil wars. And the cost of ‘homeland security’ – and the millions (billions?) of productive hours standing in line waiting for our privates to be fondled.

  • Jeff

    I think they should phase out the tax credit (im going to school to be a wind turbine technician) over a 10 year period with it dropping by 10% each year to encourage quick expansion and better quality

    • Bob_Wallace

      I suspect the wind industry would be fine with that.

      Especially if subsidies for fossil fuel generation were also dropped.

      And they could make it sweeter by requiring fossil fuels to pay their hidden costs – health, climate change, military costs we pay with our tax dollars and health insurance premiums.

      Wind would be a very happy industry. I suspect even solar would be fine with that plan…

Back to Top ↑