Documents
Tax Breaks & Subsidies and USA
All > Location > USA (202)
Any of these categories
Editor's Note: This provides a good overview of the production tax credit, capacity factor, renewable portfolio standards, renewable energy certificates. and accelerated depreciation. Readers are encouraged to visit the author's site via the link below for the most current version, e.g. the author is planning to update the production tax credit information to the current prevailing rate of 1.9 cents per kWh.
••Benefits and challenges.
••Equity and debt structures.
••Sponsor/Investor issues.
••Debt/equity issues.
A necessary step in any attempt to understand the outlook for US energy supply and demand
Comments by Glenn Schleede for The owners and members of Associated Electric Cooperative, Incorporated At their 2004 Annual Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri
At the same time, there has been a growing interest in community wind power development. While the notion of community wind varies, these projects are generally smaller scale (less than 20 MW), and are locally initiated and owned. Projects range from single turbines erected by municipal utilities, school districts and tribal reservations to larger multi-turbine installations owned by one or more local investors and landowners. These projects may capture and retain more of the economic benefits locally (both construction-related and ongoing returns) and drive continued reinvestment in the communities. As a result, community wind projects often enjoy more favorable community support than large-scale commercial projects.
There have been numerous publications and conferences on community wind development, but less specific attention on options for project structuring and financing. The goal of this handbook is to identify critical financing issues and present several possible financing models that reflect the differing financial positions and investment goals of various project owners/developers.
The handbook includes six sections:
• Section I describes various models for community wind power ownership.
• Section II examines sources of equity and debt financing and the steps necessary to secure this financing.
• Section III identifies federal grant and loan programs and state incentives for wind power development.
• Section IV reviews the federal tax incentives supporting wind power projects, the impact of these incentives on project economics, and limitations on utilizing these incentives.
• Section V examines power purchase agreements and the value of green tags to community wind power projects.
• The Appendix contains a list of operating community wind projects in the United States and a list of project consultants and financing resources.
As proposals to build “wind farms” have proliferated, however, the adverse impacts of wind energy are becoming clear to a growing number of citizens, consumers and taxpayers. They are learning that “wind energy” has adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts. They are learning that many of the claimed benefits of wind energy are misleading or false, and that the true costs of wind energy are higher than advertised -- with those higher costs falling on taxpayers and electric customers.
It has come to my attention that an employee of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Mr. Larry Flowers:
1. Asserted, during public “forums” on wind energy held on March 25, 2003, in Ludington, Michigan, that I am in some way associated with the coal industry and, therefore, my analysis and writing concerning wind energy should not be considered credible. Over 150 people attended these public forums.
2. On March 27, 2003, distributed via email to one or more participants in the Ludington forums the attached undated, unsigned paper which questions the independence of my work, questions the truthfulness of my claim that my work on wind energy is self-financed, and makes other false and misleading statements. Mr. Flowers’ email forwarding the paper includes the following statement: “MI wind colleagues: here is a brief piece written in response to Glen [sic] Schleede misinformation. I suggest you distribute this to participants in the Ludington meeting…”