Skip to main content

View Diary: Wind Week Interview #1: Paul Gipe/Wind Works(rescued) (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  are you finding that a tariff is better (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, A Siegel, jlms qkw

    than the production tax credit, to grow wind power?
    Are you looking for state level wind lobbyists, or activists? What does that involve?

    •  ART's Work the Best (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, A Siegel, dotcommodity, jlms qkw


      These work MUCH better than the quotas (Renewable Portfolio Standards, RFP's) and subsidies (Production Tax Credit = PTC, Modified Accelerated Credit Recovery System = MACRS). The PTC only works with people/entities who have passive (= rental, for example) income in the 35% tax bracket. Both incentives are aimed at those who pay huge amounts of taxes, which happens to be the upper crust of the income pie. There are also considerable leagl/financial expenses trying to get companies in an arrangement to use these incentives. In effect, you often have to bribe really rich people to invest in wind projects. Furthermore, these incentives result in lower tax revenues for the government, while not really doing much for the price of electricity.

      And when you combine the present PTC/MACRS/RPS system with dergeulated (= highly variable marginal pricing), things get really ugly. Smaller investors/companies rarely need apply, even with pooled resources.

      Lastly, forcing the price of renewables down means that there is less incentive to invest in these projects, also not good. ART markets allow for stable, predictable pricing, lower costs by providing for defineable future cashflows, and they democratise the marketplace, by allowing regular people to pool resources and invest in these projects. And the way that the proposed ART law has been written for Michigan, this ART method or the existing subsidized PTC/MACRS system can be used.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site