1) 0.3% is a typo in the report. If you look at their numbers, you see it’s actually about 0.7% of power sector CO2 emissions.
2) That number is averaged over 2015-2035, but obviously the CO2 savings grow over time as more investments are made. So in 2035, the reduction is about 2%.
3) The 2% reduction in 2035 is not the total contribution from renewables, but the contribution from only the renewables that wouldn’t have been built without the tax credit.
4) The savings from the PTC/ITC are reduced because of renewable portfolio standards. In states where renewables are already mandated by law, the tax credit is redundant. If the RPS wasn’t in effect though, the PTC/ITC would have about double the effect.
5) The average retail cost of electricity is projected to be 0.2 cents / kWh lower in 2035 due to the PTC/ITC. This falls into the “While this does not represent the social cost…” category.
6) The PTC/ITC applies to rooftop and utility solar as well, The subsidy for rooftop solar is larger than for wind because the the higher costs of rooftop solar. So were the analysis restricted to wind only, the cost would be lower.
7) This is the big one! The ITC is an upfront credit, and the PTC only applies for ten years. But renewables generate electricity for decades. The report calculates $250 / ton by dividing the cost of the ITC/PTC through 2035 with the emission reductions through 2035. But nearly all of the renewables subsidized over that period will continue to generate after 2035, further reducing emissions! In fact, I’d bet that the majority of their emissions reductions will occur after 2035. That’s actually just bad methodology I think.

I still agree that there are more efficient ways to reduce CO2 emissions. The ITC/PTC reduce the cost of clean energy instead of increasing the cost of dirty energy, so they actually encourage us to consume slightly more. They also do nothing to address the position of gas vs coal or efficient vs inefficient plants. Clearly a carbon tax would be more effective and more efficient. But the PTC/ITC is not nearly as costly as that report implies.

“The reduction in CO2 emissions associated with the [wind] PTC/ITC is, however, small, amounting to about 0.3 percent of CO2 emissions from the energy sector in the Reference scenario. If the revenue lost as a result of the PTC/ITC is divided by the reduction in CO2 emissions, just under $250 in revenues are lost per ton of CO2
reduced. While this does not represent the social cost of reducing the ton of CO2
emissions …. the fiscal cost per ton of CO2 reduced is high relative to other, more efficient approaches.”

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18299”

GE coined the ¨Industrial Internet¨ term, but can´t claim the concept, part of the ¨Internet of Things.¨ Both depend on pervasive low-level computing power in microcontrollers harnessed to sensors.

ARM of Cambridge, England, is the leading designer of the cheap, power-stingy processor cores inside these. It has licensed >41 billion copies to date of its various core designs, of which the majority are embedded in gadgets of all kinds. You find their processors inside PV inverters and intelligent thermostats like NEST.