Download - Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)?

Does The

PTCMake Sense?

Alliance For Wise Energy Decisions8/21/12

(Professional Version)

Make SURE to View This Presentationin the FULL SCREEN Mode!

Click the “FULL” iconin the lower right hand corner.

Do NOT click on the Trianglebelow to run this presentation!

Instead, use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate.

This will allow youto proceed at your own pace.

Does The Production Tax Credit (PTC) Make Sense?This “Professional Version” is intended for Congressional Staffers and energy experts. We also have an abbreviated “Executive Version”.

The wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) has now been in existence for some twenty (20) years.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 originally enacted the Production Tax Credit and the first lapse came in June 1999. The PTC was extended in December 1999 until December 31, 2001. Once again the PTC expired in December 2001 and was not enacted again until March 2002 where it was then extended for another two years. At the end of 2003 the PTC expired for a third time until a one year extension was granted in October 2004. The PTC was extended through 2005 and also expanded the different types of renewable energies that would be included under the bill. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) modified the credit and extended it through the end of 2007. In December 2006, the PTC was extended for another year by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R. 6111). The PTC was extended yet again by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). The Wind PTC was extended an additional two years, expiring the end of 2012.

Every time the plea is that just a few more years will be necessary to get wind energy on its feet…

Our underlying message is that our energy decisions should be made on the basis of sound SCIENCE — not on what lobbyists say.

Hopefully you have already been to the “WindPowerFacts.Info” website, which has a collection of good reports on wind energy.

The future of this issue lies in whether or not citizens are properly educated about basic energy matters. After getting more up-to-speed, they need to do some Critical Thinking about this matter.

After citizens get more informed — and do some Critical Thinking — they will be in a much better position to express their more informed wishes to their federal representatives.

Anyone trying to educate their local citizenry and representatives, is welcome to use the material found here. If you have any questions after you go through this, we will be glad to respond to any emails you send to the PTCFacts.Info website.

References and credits are on the three slides at the end. The disclaimer, etc. are on the last slide. If you like what you see, please pass it on to other open-minded people, plus your federal representatives.

— ENJOY!

Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_1992

— Outline of this Presentation —

1 - Rationale for the PTC by its Advocates2 - Are Job Claims Accurate?3 - The Cost Per Job?4 - The NET Jobs picture.5 - Even More About Jobs.6 - The NET Economics picture?7 - What do Utility Companies Say?8 - Some Other Supporter Claims. — CONCLUSIONS —

Part 1:Benefits Claimed by Lobbyists

DOES EXTENDING THE PTC MAKE SENSE?

The Claimed Benefitsfor wind energy subsidies

have radically evolvedover the last twenty years.

20 Specious Claims:How the supposed

Benefits ofWind Energy

have continued to evolve, as they are proven to be false.

For a Scientific Assessmentof Wind Energy Realities, see:

EnergyPresentation.Info

The Wind Lobbyists’ Current Major Excusefor the PTC to be extended

are purported JOBs.

How do lobbyiststake advantage

of good legislators?

1 - By telling them what they want to hear, and 2 - by counting on the fact that few will take the time to really check things out!

They also know that

there isno penalty for making unscientific

claims.

What a Deal!

First we’re told that the planet is facing imminent catastrophe — then a lobbyist comes to our legislators with a solution!

The spiel is that they can do something consequential to help prevent this global disaster — and the legislator will gain some political points in the process.

It’s Lobbyists vs Science—and Science is Losing

The main concern here is that our energy & environmental policies are not based on science.

Instead these policies are being dictated by lobbyists (salespeople) who are representing those

with financial interests, or political agendas.

Some Carl Sagan Science Quotes To Ponder —

1 - Skeptical scrutiny is the means by which deep thoughts can be separated from deep nonsense.

2 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

3 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.

4 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for awhile, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

In short, our position is that — 1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and

2) these matters should be solved scientifically.

The Soundbite:Wind Energy = High Cost, Low Benefits

See EnergyPresentation.Info for some specifics.

— THE TAKEAWAY —Since there are no scientifically proven

net Technical, or net Economic,or net Environmental benefits for wind energy —the lobbyists are hanging their hat on JOB claims.

Part 1:Benefits Claimed by Lobbyists?

Part 2:Are Job Claims Accurate?


Independent StudiesHave Concluded:

Wind Job Claims are Exaggerated

Fact:Almost all US Wind Job Claims come from One Source: AWEA

(Wind Industry Lobbyists).

Fact:Industry Lobbyists have one

(and only one) Objective:To Hype their Industry.

Fact:Technical Data (e.g. job counts)

from such a Biased Sourceis NOT Very Dependable.

The Lobbyist Marketing Pitch

The PTC is needed to “...save 37,000 jobs...”

A Sample Federal Jobs Report

“The stats were generated by AWEA”

A Sample Independent Study

“Green jobs studies make estimates using poor economic models, based on dubious assumptions”


“‘Green jobs’ include: college professors teaching any environmental class, clerks at bicycle repair shops, antique dealer employees,

Salvation Army workers, stores selling rare books and manuscripts, consignment shop workers, used record shop employees,

garbage disposal workers, and even oil lobbyists.”

Do Real World Facts Correlate with AWEA Claims?

— THE TAKEAWAY —Job claims from wind industry lobbyists

have very little credibility.Independent assessments have concluded

that they are wildly exaggerated.

Part 2:Are Job Claims Accurate?

Part 3:Cost Per Job?


Every Independent StudyHas Concludedthe Same Thing:

The Cost Per Job is OUTRAGEOUS!

A Sample Independent Analysis

“$135,000 to $270,000 per wind job”

The Congressional Figures

$12.2 Billion / 37,000 jobs= $330,000 per wind job


$578,000per green job


$1,600,000per wind job

— THE TAKEAWAY —No matter how it is calculated,

the cost per wind job is extraordinarily excessive.

Part 3:Cost Per Wind Job?

Part 4:What are the Net Jobs?


Almost AllIndependent Studies

Have Concludedthe Same Thing:

Wind Energy is a NET Jobs Loser

No Jobs claim has any meritunless it accurately considers the NET impact.

In their claims, there is zero evidence that AWEAhas burdened themselves with this obligation, e.g.:

Indisputable Jobs Fact

Offshore Independent Study #1

$1,080,000,000

Offshore Jobs Conclusions of Independent Experts #1:

Conclusion: 5000± jobs LOST in one year alone(due to a single offshore wind project).

Conclusion: Net is 30,000±

jobs years LOST

(again due to a single offshore wind project).


Conclusion: Net 4000± jobs lost in one year alone(due to a single offshore wind project).


OK, Offshore Wind Clearly Resultsin Net Job Losses.

What about Onshore Wind?

SAME THING!

Let’s Look at a Somewhat TypicalOnshore Wind Development:

the 80 MW Pantego Wind Project,Proposed for Beaufort County, North Carolina...

Many wind projects are located on leased farmland. One likely consequence is that some of the farmers

who have leases, will scale back their operation, or stop farming entirely. This photo is one of many examples

where this appears to be exactly what happened.

We will assume a low 10% of local leasing farmers will cut back on their operations.

Here are the latest Beaufort County Tourism Jobs data...

There are all sorts of claims made about tourism impacts of wind development — including the fantasy that people will specifically come to see industrial machines.

Would that be a claim if there was a new nuclear power plant built here? I think not. Anyway, the Scottish government funded the most comprehensive study ever done

on the effects of wind development on tourism...

BTW the Scottish Government is a promoter of wind energy, so they had a vested interest here. In any case the researchers concluded that

(even after taking into account new visitors to wind projects) that (not surprisingly) there would be a net decrease (“fall”) in tourism.

We’ll use the mid-number of 4% as the average.

Beaufort County Annual Job Impact

Due To the Proposed Pantego Wind Project

Important: Unlike in the Offshore Wind examples, this community did not have the money to fund a more comprehensive economics assessment.

As a result we do not have the figures for additional jobs lost due to higher rates of wind electricity, or to the cost of businesses funding the PTC.

When the big picture is objectively examined, a rather typical Onshore Wind Project

will be an annual NET JOBS LOSER!

Independent Green Jobs Study #1

Jobs Conclusions of Independent Expert #2:

Jobs Conclusions of Independent Experts #3:

— THE TAKEAWAY —In the typical case,

wind development & subsidy is a NET JOBS LOSER.

Remember: “NET” is a critical job indicator.

Part 4:Net Jobs

Part 5:Even More About Jobs


The fact isThat there is a lot more

to the job claims,than is immediately obvious.

Another Perspective on Claimed Wind Jobs

There is nothing — no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime —that does not create jobs. For example, tsunamis,

computer viruses and robbing convenience store clerksall create jobs.

So since that claim applies to allit is an argument in favor of none!

Instead of providing evidence of the merits of an enterprise, a jobs claim is

a de facto admission that one has a specious case.— energy attorney Chris Horner


The US has lost most of its jobs to other countries primarily due to economics:

low cost labor.

US businesses have one major economic benefit left to counter more job loss: low cost electricity.

Why would we voluntarily give this upby reverting to more expensive electricity sources???


David Brooksof the NY Timesgets this right:

green wind jobsaren’t the answer.


A top governmentofficial makes

a very blunt statement.Tax credits

don’t create wind jobs.


If Congress is determined to spend the $12.2 Billionthat just a one year PTC extension would cost,

an important question is:

What would be the job (and other) benefits of spendingthat same amount on another energy source?

According to the Congressional Budget Officeif the same $12.2 Billion were given to the gas industry,

over 9 times as many jobs would be created.


The United States can be a Leader in:

1) Eighteenth century ideas like horse transportation and wind energy (buggy-whip manufacturing, blacksmith, and windmill jobs)

OR

2) State-of-the art, Scientifically Sound energy solutions (like geothermal energy or Small Modular Reactors)


Should we have a tax credit to employ several thousand blacksmiths?



Should we have a tax credit to employ thousands making buggy whips?


Less Expensive Energyis a Proven Way

to create net jobs.

Subsidizing expensive energy is a counterproductive strategy


Inexpensive Energy is Proven to create net jobs.Subsidizing expensive energy is a counterproductive strategy

When Wind Lobbyists were arguing in 2011to extend the 1603 credit,

they were counting most of the same jobsthat they’re now attributing to the PTC.

How can each subsidy be responsiblefor the same jobs???


— THE TAKEAWAY —The jobs argument is a public relations ploy

to distract us from the realitythat wind energy is a very poor energy option.

Part 5:Even More About Jobs

Part 6:Net Economic Impact?


Almost AllIndependent Studies

Have Concludedthe Same Thing:

Wind Energy is a NET Economics Loser

$1,080,000,000

Conclusion: over $1 Billion lost in one year alone!

Offshore Economic Conclusions of Independent Experts #1:

Conclusion: More $ Hundreds of Millions lost!


In one county,property owners

will LOSE

$640,000,000±in real estate value!


Conclusion: Net is $900± Million lost!


Conclusion: There are no NET economic benefits!



According to Beacon Hill Institute,Cape Wind’s industrial wind plant would result in:

OK, Offshore Wind Also Resultsin Net Economic Losses.

What about Onshore Wind?

SAME THING!

Let’s Look at a Somewhat TypicalOnshore Wind Development:

the 80 MW Pantego Wind Project,Proposed for Beaufort County, North Carolina...

Here are the latest Beaufort County Tourism Income data...

Here is a government study by four independent PhDs, all acknowledged bat experts.After years of studying bats, they know that bats are not only major crop pollinatorsbut also major insect eaters. One bat can eat hundreds of thousands of insects a year.

Here are their conclusions of the crop loss to this county due to killed bats:

We’ll use their less than midrange, standard number.

Note that this $9+Million does NOT take into account the additional human health costs associated with things like an increase in mosquitoes.

The county’s website acknowledges that this is already a problem, and that mosquitoes spread such deadly diseases as West Nile Virus & Eastern Equine Encephalitis.

Fewer bats will result in more mosquitoes, and a likely higher incidence of human health problems.

Here is a study about local weather impact from wind development...

Beaufort County Annual Economic Impact Due To Pantego

This does NOT include additional financial losses due to: — The lower employment, — Tax reductions from nearby property devaluations, — Health effects from turbines, — Health effects from insect proliferation, — Higher cost of wind electricity, etc.

When the big picture is objectively examined, a rather typical Onshore Wind Project

can result in an annual NET ECONOMIC LOSS

of well over $12,000,000.

And There’s More.

The next few slides will just touch onSome ADDITIONAL Economic Costs.

Almost none of these are normally includedwhen the cost of wind energy

is being presented.

Does wind energy provide economical electricity ?NO, not compared to conventional sources.

Look at the economics from three perspectives — #1: Total Costs = higher than conventional sources. #2: Real Ratepayer costs = higher than conventional sources. #3: Taxpayer Subsidies = higher than all conventional sources, combined!

Wind energy is also a bad deal from an electricity point-of-view.

Because it has no Firm Capacity,Wind Energy MUST HAVE

a fast-responding, augmentingsource of power available 24/7/365.

NO other conventional source of electricity has this requirement!

The Total Cost Economic Perspective, part 1:#1

For a variety oftechnical and economic reasons,this fast-responding, augmenting

source of power is usually gas.

So, ALL calculations of wind’s costsMUST address the

WIND + GAS Package.


© john droz, jr.

Wind energy Economics should include extra transmission lines needed.(They almost never include this cost.)


Even On A Wind Lobbyist Site:

Texas would be $28 Billion better off without wind!

#1

Germany

Spain

US

Canada

Denmark

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bad Renewables %¢/KWH (2007

What’s the Correlation withHigher Wind Energy Usage

and Residential Electricity Rates?

#2

As we raise the cost of electricity, remember thatQuality of Life STRONGLY Correlates to Electricity Consumption

#2

$1,189 M $2,234 M $654 M $215 M$4,981 M

Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind

Annual Federal TAXPAYER Subsidies of Electrical Energy Sources: Totals

2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support]

$4,981 M

Note that the total 2010 subsidies for wind energy

exceed the totals for all the other conventional sources

COMBINED!

#3

In ADDITION to generous Federal subsidies (like the PTC),many states offer financial incentives for wind power, like:

1. Personal Tax Incentives 2. Corporate Tax Incentives 3. Sales Tax Incentives 4. Property Tax Incentives 5. Rebates 6. Grants 7. Loans 8. Industry Support 9. Bonds, and 10. Production Incentives.

On top of these financial incentives, state and local governments have established rules,regulations and policies (like RPS), with the purpose of encouraging or mandating the

development and increased sale and consumption of energy from renewable sources.

Yet all this still isn’t enough???

#3

E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-Gabout Wind Energy economics

is problematic!

— THE TAKEAWAY —In the typical case,

wind development is a NET ECONOMICS LOSER.

Remember: “NET” is a critical economics indicator.

Part 6:Net Economics

Part 7:What Do Utility Companies Say?


Utility Companies are regulated by the government.

As such they avoid saying anythingthat is not “politically correct”.

Despite this constraintthe TRUTH has a way of coming out.

“The (production tax credit) has been in place since 1992, I believe, and I think that’s enough time to jump-start an industry, 20 years.”

Exelon owns 38 wind projects. Their CEO, Christopher Crane,

recently stated:

“It doesn’t matter how clean it is,if it’s not affordable or reliable.”

President & COO of Duke’s US Electric business, says:

“Families would have to get used to only using power

when it was available, rather than constantly.”

When National Grid’s CEO was challenged about integrating wind energy, he said:

A major utility executive’svery disturbing assessment

“In the simplest of terms, special interest groups

and wind developers are asking you to pay more

for a less reliable product. And that just isn’t right.”

One of a series of ads from Idaho Power

“Integrating the variable capacity of wind energy

undermines the time-tested, science driven

technology plan required of all utilities.

And that just isn’t right.”

One of a series of ads from Idaho Power

More real world evidencefrom utility experts,about the real cost of

wind energy. They say:onshore = 2-3 times moreoffshore = 4-5 times more

Note: this does NOT includethe extra cost of the PTC!

This is an insightful series of articles by the CEO of Ohio’s

North Central Electric Cooperative,

Markus Bryant.

Regarding CO2 savings, these utility company reports say:

Regarding wind’s cost, these utility company reports say:

Regarding wind subsidies, these utility company reports say:

This is the most advanced Utility Company reporton wind energy, ever published.

Regarding jobs and economics, this study says:

— THE TAKEAWAY —When utility companies have the courage

to speak honestly about industrial wind energy,they are against it.

Part 7:What Do Utility Companies Say?

Part 8:Some Other Supporter Claims


Even though JOBS is their main argument for the PTC,

some other assertionsare periodically made...

Another justification put forward for the PTC:

“The PTC is not Another Solyndra.”

Objective perspective:That is correct — it’s much worse.

Per government figures, Solyndra cost taxpayers $0.5± Billion.A one year extension of the PTC will cost taxpayers $12.2 Billion.


“Wind developers only get paid the PTCwhen they produce electricity.”

Objective perspective:That is correct — but so what?

Why does it make sense to make an unreliable source of electricity more expensive?

Another justification put forward for the PTC:“Some manufacturing jobs will be lost.”

Objective perspective:That is correct — but that’s life.

Modernization is continually making certain products out-dated, which means jobs in those industries are lost.

Should taxpayers be subsidizing the jobs for those producing B&W TVs, 8-track tapes, horse carriages, hoola-hoops, etc?

Another justification put forward for the PTC:“Some landowners are making big profits.”

Objective perspective:That is correct — but at whose expense?

Another justification put forward for the PTC:“We need to have a phase-out of the PTC.”

Objective perspective:That is correct — but that’s already done.

All existing wind projects will continue to get paid the PTC,and they have a phase-out period of ten years from their start date.


“The Wind industry needs to have certainty.”

Objective perspective:That is correct — and it already does.

“Presumably, the PTC intends to support renewable energy due to the environmental, economic development, and energy security benefits that these sources provide...”

— Dr. Ryan WiserLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Senate Finance Committee Testimony March 29, 2007

Other justifications put forward for the PTC:

Unfortunately, not a single part of this PTC justificationhas been scientifically proven to be legitimate!

In fact…there is considerable evidence that every bit of it is FALSE.


“We need more time for wind to be competitive.”

Objective perspective:What difference is a year going to make? None.

What are we going to say about the jobs that will be “lost”at the end of next year? Will those losses be OK then?

We need to stop whitewashing a losing idea!

Does “modernizing” this 18th century ideamake it any less primitive?

Likewise...

— THE TAKEAWAY —When looking at the BIG PICTURE

these claims do NOT justify a PTC extension.

Part 8:Some Other Supporter Claims

CONCLUSIONS


* “Specialists term these synthetic government spending programs ʻtax expenditures.ʼ Tax expenditures are really spending programs, not tax rollbacks, because the missing tax revenues must be financed by more taxes on somebody else. Like any other form of deficit spending … a targeted tax break coupled with a specific revenue ʻpayforʼ means that one group of Americans is required to pay (in the form of higher taxes) for a subsidy to be delivered to others through the mechanism of the tax system.”

—Dr. Edward D. Kleinbard,Professor of Law at the Gould School of Law, UCLA

Attention Republicans:A PTC for 2013+ is a new TAX*

as such it violates the ATR Pledge

Attention Democrats:

A PTC for 2013+ is a TAX BREAK,that will primarily be usedby High-Income Taxpayers.

As such it is a violationof your party’s campaign for Tax Fairness.

BOTH Parties Should be in Agreement on the Fact that:

the PTC is a heavy taxpayer subsidyof an eighteenth century energy technologythat has no scientifically proven net benefits.

Attention Legislators:

What this all translates to is that BOTH Partiesshould be in FULL Agreement that:

our Energy Policy should be based on real science.

Attention Legislators:

Is an “All of the Above” Energy Policy wise?

Only if it makes sense to include:unreliable,

expensive, andenvironmentally destructive energy options!

We need an “All of the Sensible” Energy Policy.

— THE TAKEAWAY —Wind Energy is a net jobs loser and a net economics loser,

that has no scientific proof that it has anynet technical, economic or environmental benefits.

Why should US taxpayers pay for such a charade?

Conclusions

The wind PTCmakes as much sense

as the government subsidizing ranchers

to have cows runin the Kentucky Derby.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.) — page 1Slide 4: PTC History (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Wind_Energy_Policy#Wind_Production_Tax_Credit_.28PTC.29)Slide 8: Wind Industry claimed benefits (www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-spin/)Slides 11 & 25 & 45: AWEA- PTC Advances in Senate (www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=17487)Slide 16: Carl Sagan quotes (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html)Slide 26: Congressional Wind Report (www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42023.pdf)Slide 27: Green Jobs Myths (www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/morriss-green-jobs-myths.pdf)Slide 28: The Dirty Secret Behind Clean Jobs (cascadepolicy.org/pdf/pub/CleanJobsReport8.22.11.pdf)Slide 29: Exploding the Green Jobs Myth (blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/exploding_the_green_jobs_myth/)Slide 30: Are Job Numbers Pulled From Thin Air? (www.dailyenergyreport.com/2012/07/wind-energy-jobs-are-the-numbers-pulled-from-thin-air/)Slide 31: Puffed Up Claims from the Wind Power Lobby (www.factcheck.org/2012/02/wind-spin/)Slide 32: Wind energy job growth isn't blowing anyone away (articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/business/la-fi-green-jobs2-2010feb02)Slide 36: Why We Need to Terminate Big Wind Subsidies (tinyurl.com/7q43sdl)Slides 37 & 136: Cost of PTC - Senate Finance Commmittee (www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JCX.pdf)Slide 38: Obama's Green Energy Disaster (docstalk.blogspot.com/2012/08/obamas-green-energy-disaster-578333-per.html)Slide 39: Texas wind farm tax break program costs $1.6 million per job (tinyurl.com/23k6mzw)Slide 40: $9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Wind Projects (cnsnews.com/news/article/9-billion-stimulus-solar-wind-projects-made-910-final-jobs-98-million-job)Slide 41: Shepherds Flat wind farm: What's the cost to taxpayers? (www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/post_19.html)Slides 46 & 47; 88-91: Global Insight NJ Study (www.nj.gov/bpu/pdf/announcements/njoswt.pdf)Slides 48 & 49; 92 & 93: Acadian Consulting NJ Study (www.state.nj.us/rpa/docs/FACWReport%20v14%20(PUBLIC%20VERSION).pdf)Slides 50 & 51: Cape Wind's Cost: Facts & Figures (www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/economy/)Slides 55 & 98: NC Tourism Info (www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim)Slides 56 & 57: Scottish Tourism Study (scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/07113554/0)Slide 57: Another Good Tourism Study (www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file68577.pdf)Slides 60 & 72: The Myth of Green Jobs (thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-green_jobs.pdf)Slides 61 & 62: Green Jobs in the US Economy (oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/6-6-12-Full-Furchtgott-Roth.pdf)Slides 63 & 64: Study of the effects on employment… (www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf)Slides 65 & 66: Gresham’s Law of Green Energy (www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n4/regv33n4-3.pdf)Slides 67 & 68: What the Job Counts Actually Tell US (tinyurl.com/9pd5wot)Slide 73: Horner jobs quote (www.masterresource.org/2012/06/wimp-power-windpower/)Slide 75: Where the Jobs Aren’t (www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.html)

— continued —

References (for main data, quotes, etc.) — page 2Slide 76: DiNapoli - Tax Breaks Don’t Create Jobs (www.knickledger.com/2012/05/dinapoli-tax-breaks-dont-create-jobs/)Slide 77: Congressional Budget Office Jobs Report (www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_18.htm)Slide 81: Affordable Energy is Essential for Jobs (canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/40069)Slide 82: Job Growth Expected from Cheap Gas (tinyurl.com/bttgzjf)Slide 83: Common Sense Principles: Grow the Economy (www.popaditchforcongress.com/2012-issue-grow-the-economy.html)Slide 84: Claims for 1603 jobs (www.bluegreenalliance.org/saveamericanjobs)Slide 94: Third NJ Offshore Study (www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0228/1955/)Slide 95: Beacon Hill Cape Wind Study (www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/economy/)Slides 99 & 100: Agricultural Effects of Turbine Bat Deaths (www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/23069a/23069a.pdf)Slide 99: Another Good Bat Study (www.francis.edu/uploadedfiles/renewable_energy/kunz.bats_and_wind.07.pdf)Slide 101: Beaufort County Website (www.co.beaufort.nc.us/)Slide 102: Turbine Effects on Local Meteorology (www.atmos.illinois.edu/~sbroy/publ/jweia2011.pdf)Slide 110: Is Wind Energy The New Wedge Issue For Conservatives? (www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7757)Slide 111: From IEA supplied dataSlide 112: Electricity vs Quality of Life (CIA World Factbook 2007: www.gelib.com/cia-factbook.htm)Slide 113: Federal Subsidies - EIA 2010 Report (www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/)Slide 114: State Wind Energy Subsidies, etc. (www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1837)Slide 119: Exelon Against PTC (blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/even-wind-executive-doesnt-want-wind-tax-credit/)Slide 120: Duke CEO quote (www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-11464937-13097&KPLT=2)Slide 121: National Grid CEO quote (www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/wind-energys-brave-new-world-intermittent-power-national-grid/)Slides 122 & 123: Idaho Power ad (www.getpluggedin.com/)Slide 124: NC Utilities refuse wind deal (hamptonroads.com/2011/12/utilities-back-out-nc-wind-project-over-high-prices?)Slide 125: Wind Expensive vs Fuel (www.dailyadvance.com/news/wind-expensive-versus-fuel-521695)Slides 126-130: The Emperor’s New Clothes Column (www.ncelec.org/aboutUs/countrymag/clemperor.aspx)Slides 131 & 132: A Rational Look At Renewable Energy (issuu.com/rational/docs/2992_rational_look_fin?mode=window&backgroundColor=#222222)Slides 140 & 141: PTC is already phasing out, with certainty (blog.heritage.org/2012/08/01/wind-ptc-already-phasing-out-for-certain/)Slide 142: PTC claimed benefits [Berkeley] (eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/wiser-senate-test-4-07.pdf)Slide 148: The Hidden Hand of Government Spending (www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n3/regv33n3-2.pdf)Slide 153: Dear Big Wind - It's Not You, It's Me (www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/04/Dear-Big-Wind-It-s-Not-You-It-s-Me) — continued —

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1837




Header for PTCFacts.Info website: photo taken by Mike FortunaSlide 1: Philip Epp Painting - Wild Horses (www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/OFR/2006/OFR06_11/index.html)Slide 12: Snake Oil Salesman (www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2009/10/27/joel-spolsky-snake-oil-salesman/)Slide 13: Pinnochio (savevestas.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/new-vestas-campaign-postcard-take-and-distribute/ed_miliband-sw-1-2/)Slide 14: Dr. Marvel Cartoon - John Terry creation (www.windtoons.com/)Slide 54: Photo by John Droz, jr.Slide 79: Blacksmith Shop (explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-CC6)Slide 80: Save Buggywhip Industry (www.freespeechstickers.com/Save_Buggy_Whips__and.html)Slide 109: Transmission Towers Photo - VNF (www.vnf.com/assets/htmlimages/Electric_transmission_lines.resize.jpg) Slide 139: Roger Maynard Cartoon [edited title] (www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/he-has-your-wallet.jpg)Slide 155: Cow Running in Derby (www.ntra.com/track/display/details/Ng) & (www.stillbreathing.co.uk/gallery/animals-in-sport/cowracing).

Stock Photos: Slides #80, 144, 145, 148, 149, & 150-152.Numerous slides are gratefully credited to John Droz, who allowed us to freely borrow from his several presentations.

Note: Links are NOT clickable on slideshare presentations. Write down any urls you are interested in, or take a screenshot.

All information is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. If errors are noted, please send an email to the PTCFacts.Info website, providing the scientific evidence of same and a correction will be made.

For questions, comments or permission to use any material in this presentation,please also send an email to the PTCFacts.Info website.

Credits (for graphics & photos) —

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/OFR/2006/OFR06_11/index.html

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/OFR/2006/OFR06_11/index.html

http://www.windtoons.com

http://www.windtoons.com

http://www.vnf.com/assets/htmlimages/Electric_transmission_lines.resize.jpg

http://www.vnf.com/assets/htmlimages/Electric_transmission_lines.resize.jpg

Download - Does The PTC Make Sense (Professional Version)?

Top Related