News - American Energy Alliance

President Obama, Ugly American?

November 14, 2014 by Dan Kish Leave a Comment

President Obama, while meeting in Myanmar, which consumes a total of about 45,000 barrels of oil per day and is working to produce and consume more energy to lift its millions out of poverty, trash talks the Keystone XL, which would deliver about 800,000 barrels of oil per day to the US.

In his speech, President Obama stated:

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf [Coast], where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”

Is this what the modern intelligentsia…the smart people…the sensitive people…look like? He looks much more like the proverbial “Ugly American.” Clueless.

Myanmar energy analysis: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=BM

Myanmar oil consumption by year: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=mm&product=oil&graph=consumption

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Keystone XL, oil, President Obama

The Tom SteyeR Street Institute

November 14, 2014 by Thomas Pyle 2 Comments

The Washington D.C. based think-tank, R Street, bills itself as a free market organization who takes a “pragmatic approach to public policy challenges” and favors “consumer choice; low, flat taxes; …and systems that rely on price signals rather than central planning.”[i] So why this group would back a terrible policy like the carbon tax, then, is baffling.

Or maybe not.

You see, in just the last 18 months, R Street has accepted over $580,000 from the Energy Foundation to “advance policy solutions for a stable climate.”[ii] The Energy Foundation is a “partnership of philanthropic investors promoting clean energy technology [with the goal of building] a new energy future by advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy.”[iii] And guess who a major “philanthropic investor” would be? That’s right, the billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.[iv]

It seems that, at least with respect to R Street’s support for a carbon tax, the old adage is true, “You get what you pay for.”

As we’ve highlighted in the past, there is nothing free-market about the all economic pain, no environmental gain carbon tax. It will stifle growth, harm the economy, and kill jobs.[v]

That’s why it is unfortunate that the folks at R Street have joined forces with the Energy Foundation, an organization that has financed the effort to advance costly government mandates and subsidies (like the wind PTC) for energy sources that would never be able to compete on their own in the marketplace, while at the same time encouraging the adoption of policies like the carbon tax that undermine our proven energy resources.

So, R Street, by teaming up with the Energy Foundation, you may think you are “coalition building”, “finding bipartisan answers”, or “working across the aisle,” but with respect to the carbon tax, it seems you’re just another sword-for-hire in the climate activists’ battle against American families and small businesses.

I’d hold it against you, but it is a free market. Right?

[i]http://www.rstreet.org/about/why-r-street/

[ii]http://www.ef.org/grants-database/#!/keywords=r%20street

[iii]http://www.ef.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2012_EF_Annual_Report.pdf

[iv]http://capitalresearch.org/2014/08/tom-steyer-the-new-paladin-of-the-left/

[v]http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/conservatives-shouldnt-trust-stelzer-carbon-tax/

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon swap, carbon tax, R Street, Tom Steyer

Progressives’ Reaction to China Deal Shows How to Solve the Climate Debate

November 14, 2014 by Robert P. Murphy Leave a Comment

Not surprisingly, progressives who have long favored a federal crackdown on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions jumped for joy over the announced deal between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. They are arguing that this is a huge rhetorical blow to the critics of U.S. action. But as I’ll show, I can use their own arguments against them, to “prove” that we don’t need Uncle Sam involved in the climate debate at all.

To set the stage, let’s quote from two progressive advocates of aggressive U.S. action. Here’s Paul Krugman’s reaction to the U.S./China deal:

I wish that I believed that logic and reason played any role in the politics of climate change. Because if I did, the news of the US-China deal on carbon emissions would be a moment for sudden new optimism.

After all, one of the main arguments the usual suspects make against action…is that nothing the US does can matter, because China will just keep on emitting…

So you could say that a major prop of the anti-climate-action campaign has just been knocked away. But as I said, it probably won’t matter; they’ll just come up with another excuse.

Or consider James West at Mother Jones, who links to a YouTube video showing Republicans citing China as a reason to refrain from unilateral U.S. cuts. West then writes:

The shock announcement of an ambitious and wide-ranging climate deal between the United States and China is leaving one vociferous group of politicians red-faced: those that have always used China as an excuse for delaying climate action.

The announcement between the two biggest emitters deals a blow to the oft-stated rhetoric that the US must wait for China before bringing domestic climate legislation. And vice versa: China has long used US inaction as an excuse too.

Not anymore.

Believe it or not, this is actually great news. Now that I understand where people like Paul Krugman and the folks at Mother Jones are coming from, I can resolve the whole debate over climate change and State action quite easily.

As the above remarks make clear, Krugman and the other interventionists are perfectly content to take it as gospel that the Chinese will follow through on their non-binding promise to have their emissions peak in the year 2030. The agreement itself says, “China intends to achieve the peaking of CO₂ emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030” (emphasis added). In the meantime, of course, U.S. industry and consumers will get smacked with the immediate damage of U.S.-imposed limits on emissions.

Well if that’s how these cats roll, then here’s my proposal: Rather than having the U.S. government impose taxes or mandates, instead we’ll just get the verbal agreement from various power plant owners that they promise to switch to totally renewable energy sources by the year 2030. To quote the climate deal, let’s just get them to say that they “intend” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They don’t have to do anything in the meantime, showing their progress toward that goal; we just want their word. And if 2030 rolls around, with a different group of shareholders and CEOs running these companies, they can ignore the previous “intention” of somebody sixteen years earlier with no penalties whatsoever.

I think today’s private-sector executives would be willing to go on record with such a pledge, if it meant that Paul Krugman et al. would be satisfied that the global climate threat had been solved once and for all and thus would leave them alone.

Is that a deal, guys? I would hate to think you apply one set of standards when evaluating a pledge from the head of communist China, versus analogous pledges from U.S. business leaders.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: China, climate change, Paul Krugman, progressives

Fowl Weather

November 13, 2014 by Mike Morrison 1 Comment

Filed Under: Blog, Cartoons

To Rein in Obama’s Climate Agenda, Speaker Boehner Should Oppose PTC

November 12, 2014 by Thomas Pyle Leave a Comment

Speaker of the House John Boehner issued the following statement today on President Obama’s climate deal with China:

“This announcement is yet another sign that the president intends to double down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact for America’s heartland and the country as a whole. And it is the latest example of the president’s crusade against affordable, reliable energy that is already hurting jobs and squeezing middle-class families. Republicans have consistently passed legislation to rein in the EPA and stop these harmful policies from taking effect, and we will continue to make this a priority in the new Congress.”

We welcome and agree with the Speaker’s statement. The “deal” with China is a sham and a fraud—requiring nothing on behalf of China and taking credit for environmental improvements that American businesses and American individuals have already made. We encourage the Speaker to make sure that his comments apply to those policies like extending the wind production tax credit (PTC). If the Speaker is serious—and we are confident that he is—the easiest thing he can do to protect American families and businesses from the president’s plan to takeover the electricity system and drive costs up for Americans is to prevent extension of the wind PTC.

It’s pretty simple. A vote to extend the wind production tax credit is a vote for the President’s plan.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: China, John Boehner, Obama, production tax credit, wind ptc

What if President Obama Supported Affordable, Reliable Energy?

November 12, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

In a hypothetical world, our President would support America’s energy boom wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

Until that day comes, Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon has provided us with a speech the President would give if he actually supported the energy that keeps our lights on.

“What you should’ve asked me is what I plan to do about it [climate change]. Here’s what I’m not gonna do. I’m not going to support policies that will cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket,” as the president has said. That’s not a serious solution. Not when hardworking middle class families are still struggling to make ends meet.

You know, some of my opponents are out there literally arguing that we should stop drilling for oil tomorrow, and see if we can get by on wind turbines, or solar panels, or algae. Yes, algae. You know, the stuff that grows on ponds. Go figure.”

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear that kind of rhetoric from the White House instead of what we currently get? Stiles continues:

“Now, I understand that there are Democratic donors—some of them billionaires—who have investments in these sorts of companies and would do pretty well for themselves if my opponents got their way.

But I’m not interested in helping a handful of rich guys get even richer. I’m interested in making sure that hardworking Americans aren’t breaking the bank to heat their homes, or fill up the minivan. I would rather they spend that money on groceries, tuition, or maybe starting a new business.”

The entire piece is worth a read. You can find it on the Free Beacon’s website.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: affordable energy, climate change, President Obama

Obama’s Climate Photo-Op: Business As Usual

November 12, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on President Obama’s climate deal with China:

“President Obama’s back room climate deal with China is a perpetuation of the status quo disguised as meaningful policy change. While China makes empty and non-binding promises that it ‘intends to try’ to halt its emissions growth a decade and a half from now, President Obama promises to accelerate the pace by which his policies raise our energy costs and harm our economy.

“Similar to past agreements, this deal will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, let alone global temperatures. But it will surely stifle our economy and harm American families, particularly the poorest among us and those on fixed incomes.

“The reality is that a growing chorus of developed and developing countries is standing opposed to Obama’s reckless climate agenda. India, one of the fastest growing emitters, is noticeably absent from this deal because its leaders refuse to sacrifice its economic well-being at the altar of climate change.

“Voters sent a clear message in the midterms: enough is enough. Instead of listening to the American people, the president seems intent on distracting the public from the shellacking his policies took at the polls by doubling down on his failed energy and climate agenda. Americans want their elected leaders to focus on jobs and the economy, not a costly climate change agenda.”

###

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: China, climate, Obama

A Vote for the Wind PTC is a Vote for President Obama’s Climate Agenda

November 12, 2014 by Thomas Pyle 14 Comments

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon lose his grip on a chamber he dominated for seven years. Before giving up the reins, however, Reid will dictate the Senate’s agenda during the lame duck session. At the top of his to-do list is a tax extenders bill that includes an extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).

We already explained why Congress should reject any effort to extend the wind PTC during the lame duck session. In short, the PTC is a flawed policy that harms American families and threatens power grid reliability. We also explained how the PTC is integral to President Obama’s climate agenda, the foundation of which is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon dioxide rules for existing power plants.

A vote by Congress to extend the wind PTC is a vote in favor of the status quo, which the American voters rejected by giving Republicans control of the Senate. Opposing the Obama-Reid energy agenda doesn’t have to wait until the new Congress is sworn in—it can begin by opposing the wind PTC during the lame duck session.

Taking on Obama’s Energy Agenda Now

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said a top priority of his is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.” He can take action on this goal even before the new Congress is sworn in by opposing the wind PTC.

In April, the Senate Finance Committee passed a tax extenders package that includes a retroactive extension of the wind PTC, which lapsed at the end of last year. The full Senate has not taken action on the package, though Sen. Reid is intent on passing the extenders during the lame duck.

If soon-to-be Majority Leader McConnell is indeed serious about reining in the EPA, he should start by opposing an extension of the wind PTC in the lame duck session. In fact, rejecting the PTC is just about the only action the Senate can take during the lame duck to “rein in” the EPA.

Don’t “Clear the Decks” if the Decks Include the Wind PTC

The incoming 114^th Congress is eager to show that it can govern. McConnell and his staff have indicated that they want to “clear the decks” for the incoming Congress. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton said that the election gives Republicans a “chance to govern on energy and environmental policy.”

If Republicans want to be effective in the lame duck session, they must resist attempts to include the wind PTC in a tax extenders package, even if it helps to “clear the decks.” Cutting a deal that includes the PTC would support the agenda that the next Congress is tasked with unraveling.

Republicans should not trade in their values for a clean slate. The American people gave Republicans a majority in the 114^th Congress to push back against Obama’s overreach, including his energy agenda. The new Congress will push to invalidate the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations under the Congressional Review Act and use the appropriations process to stall the rule. Unfortunately, these efforts will ring hollow if Senate Republicans allow Sen. Reid to revive the wind PTC in the lame duck session.

Conclusion

On October 2, President Obama made sure the American people knew that his policies were on the ballot. He said, “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” The American people have spoken and they repudiated President Obama’s policies by voting out a large number of Senators and Representatives in President Obama’s party. Opposing the wind PTC is the first step Congress can take toward fulfilling that mandate. Given the strong connections between the PTC and the President’s climate agenda, a vote to extend the PTC is inexcusable.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: climate change agenda, harry reid, lame duck, Mitch McConnell, President Obama, tax extenders, wind production tax credit, wind ptc

Wind PTC Inextricably Linked to EPA Power Plant Rules

November 11, 2014 by Thomas Pyle Leave a Comment

An earlier article explained that for President Obama, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and the national environmental lobby, the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is at the top of the to-do list for the lame-duck session that will close out the 113^th Congress. While lawmakers debate the PTC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing its first regulation on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants—the foundation of President Obama’s broader “climate” agenda. These two policies—the wind PTC and the most recent EPA regulations on power plants—not only independently support the administration’s climate agenda, but also reinforce each other in important ways. Therefore, if Republicans in Congress truly want to rein in the EPA, they must reject any attempt to revive the wind PTC.

The EPA’s Regulation of CO2 Emissions from Existing Power Plants

As we detailed in a recent report, EPA regulations will close a staggering amount of affordable and reliable power plants—upwards of 72 gigawatts in total. That is enough to reliably power over 44 million homes. These closures will do very little for the climate, but will impose staggering new costs on American families and businesses.

The latest of these regulations, EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from existing natural gas and coal power plants, attempts to “address” climate change by imposing state-specific mandates for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, it requires states to develop and submit their own implementation plans to the EPA to reduce global carbon dioxide levels by 1.5 percent by 2050.[1]

EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas and coal plants will cost upwards of $366 billion and raise electricity rates for many electricity consumers by double digits. In terms of climate benefits, the regulation is designed to reduce global temperatures by a paltry 0.018 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

To establish its state-by-state carbon dioxide mandates, EPA applied a four-part formula to each state’s electricity sector and assumed that, if each state could implement the required changes, the result would be an overall 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (individual states have varying targets). EPA refers to the four parts of its formula as “building blocks.” Each state must do the following to meet EPA’s mandates:

Building block 1: Increase fuel efficiency at existing coal plants by 6 percent

Building block 2: Increase capacity factor of natural gas plants to 70 percent

Building block 3: Increase use of renewables, such as wind and solar power

Building block 4: Reduce total demand for electricity by 1.5 percent per year

EPA’s Plan Supports the Wind Industry

Building block 3 essentially imposes a renewable electricity mandate on all states, even states that have not implemented their own. To put it bluntly, this would be a massive handout from the EPA to the wind industry. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the lobbying arm of the multi-billion-dollar wind industry in the U.S., is licking its lips at the prospect. AWEA’s CEO Tom Kiernan proclaimed, “Wind energy is one of the biggest, fastest, cheapest ways states can comply with the forthcoming EPA rule limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants.”

The Department of Energy agrees that the EPA is inflating the wind industry. In its recent Wind Technologies Market Report, the Department wrote: “Although the lack of long-term federal incentives for wind energy has been a drag on the industry, the prospective impacts of more-stringent EPA environmental regulations on fossil plant retirements and energy costs may create new markets for wind energy.”

According to AWEA, however, the EPA should go even further to support the wind industry. In recent Congressional testimony, Tom Vinson, AWEA’s Senior Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs, stated: “While AWEA supports the draft rule, we believe the details of the proposed building block 3 significantly underestimate the amount of cost-effective reductions that are available now and in the immediate future from renewable energy sources; and, as such, that the final rule can and should require emissions reductions that go further….”

National environmental groups echo the same message. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report that complements AWEA’s position and suggests the renewable energy targets in the EPA regulation are too modest. The UCS report calls for an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from 30 percent to approximately 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Perhaps incidentally, the Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz’s Chief of Staff, Kevin Knobloch, is the past president of the UCS. The Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign supports the PTC, as does the League of Conservation Voters’ scorecard.

In other words, wind industry advocates say the EPA mandates are absolutely necessary to sustain the wind industry. Again, according to Vinson: “This rule is behind only the production tax credit and state renewables mandates as a potential market driver for wind energy.”

The Wind PTC Supports EPA’s Existing Source Rule

The PTC hides the cost of mandating unrealistic amounts of renewables (building block 3) and encourages states to implement renewable power mandates—that is why the Administration wants Congress to extend it. It is no accident that the same groups who advocate for President Obama’s climate plan are pushing aggressively to revive the PTC. They know EPA regulations will simply be too costly without big subsidies to wind power.

With the PTC in place, states that mandate increasing amounts of generation from renewables will get some help from taxpayers (you and me). The crucial link between the wind PTC and the EPA rule is that the PTC makes “building block 3” appear to be affordable on our electricity bills when, in reality, it merely jacks up our tax bill.

The PTC is also a “foot in the door” in the power shift from the states to the federal government. Much like a federal mandate for renewables, the PTC favors wind power above reliable sources even when the grid rejects intermittent wind-generated electricity. Unfortunately for the President and his agenda to increase the cost of electricity, most voters don’t trust the federal government to run the power grid, and most are pretty confident that the states—who have been regulating the electricity system for more than a hundred years—should keep doing that job.

Conclusion

There is no getting around the massive costs and miniscule benefits of the EPA’s new regulations on natural gas and coal-fired power plants. However, the wind PTC hides those costs from consumers and enables the Administration to claim that its “building blocks” are affordable. At the same time, the EPA regulations are a huge boon to the wind industry, which struggles in the absence of subsidies and mandates. The back-scratching taking place between the wind industry and the Administration on these policies is obvious once all the facts are considered. Stay tuned to Energy Townhall to learn how rejecting the wind PTC is the only meaningful vote this Congress will have against the Administration’s energy agenda.

[1] EPA’s plan will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. electric power sector by about 30 percent. But carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas and what matter is global levels, not merely U.S. emissions. According to the assumption here, if the world follows the IPCC’s RCP 6.0, the reduction caused by EPA’s plan will be 1.5 percent by 2050.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: AWEA, CO2 emissions, EPA, power plant rule, PTC, wind production tax credit

The Wind PTC: What It Is And Why Congress Should Reject It

November 10, 2014 by Thomas Pyle 3 Comments

When Congress returns for the start of the lame duck session this week, they will discuss whether to approve a retroactive extension of the expired Production Tax Credit (PTC), which primarily benefits foreign and domestic wind companies. For a host of reasons, they shouldn’t. Most importantly, they shouldn’t because the PTC is inextricably linked to the proposed EPA regulation of carbon dioxide on existing power providers, and therefore a vote in favor of reinstating the PTC is a vote in favor of President Obama’s climate agenda. I will explain why this is the case in subsequent blog posts, but first a brief review of the history and function of the PTC is in order.

In April, the Senate Finance Committee approved an $84 billion extension of roughly 60 expired tax provisions. The measure contains no offsets and includes a retroactive extension of the wind PTC, which expired at the end of 2013. The House has taken a piecemeal approach to the expired tax provisions, and it has not put forward an extension of the PTC.

The most vocal and active proponents of an extension of the wind PTC include wind industry lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and national environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. The PTC’s opponents include the American Energy Alliance (my organization and the publisher of this blog), a growing group of think tanks, and many power grid experts and utility CEOs.

Background and History of the PTC

The PTC was initially enacted through the Energy Policy Act of 1992 as a temporary measure that expired in July 1999. Since the credit’s establishment, the measure has been temporarily extended seven times by subsequent pieces of legislation: the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999; the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004; the Energy Policy Act of 2005; the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.^[1]

Senator Chuck Grassley, the original author of the PTC language, has repeatedly said the PTC is a temporary subsidy to get the wind industry on its own two feet. In 2003, when the subsidy was already 11 years old, he predicted, “we’re going to have to [subsidize wind] for at least another five years, maybe for 10 years. Sometime we’re going to reach that point where it’s competitive.” Now, another 11 years later, he’s asking for more subsidies because wind still can’t compete.

Who receives the PTC? The credit goes to owners of wind turbines for the first ten years of operation of any qualifying wind facility. For the first twenty years of the PTC’s existence, facility had to be operating before the PTC expired in order to qualify to receive the credit. However, in the most recent extension (through the 2013 calendar year), Senator Grassley expanded the qualification language to include facilities that had started “construction” before the PTC’s expiration.

In response to the language change, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released guidelines that defined “construction” in terms of financing as well as physical work. As a result, a developer can circumvent the need to physically start construction of a project and instead rely on mere financing in order to qualify for the PTC. Going one step further, the IRS also said a wind facility would qualify if it is placed in service before January 1, 2016, which amounts to a two-year extension of the PTC (through calendar years 2014 and 2015) under the original terms of the legislation.

Basic Function and Purpose of the PTC

Wind is an expensive way to generate electricity. Without the support of the PTC and other subsidies, wind turbines cannot compete with conventional sources. Some wind facilities would have been built without these subsidies, but nowhere near as many facilities as have actually been constructed.

The PTC is not a subsidy to consumers. Rather, it is a business subsidy that goes to developers of industrial wind turbine facilities and works through the mechanism of project finance. It lowers the cost of industrial financing and offers big investors like Warren Buffett a convenient way to lower their tax rate. As Buffett recently commented, wind turbines “don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

The PTC functions by providing a tax credit on a per-kilowatt-hour basis to businesses that operate qualified wind facilities. Originally, the credit was disbursed at a rate of 1.5 cents per kWh (in 1993 dollars), but it has been increased in order to keep up with inflation. When it expired in 2013, the PTC had been raised to 2.3 cents per kWh for wind technologies.

To put the size of the subsidy in context, the PTC offers the equivalent of 30% to 50% of the average wholesale price of power, depending on the region, for the entirety of a ten-year period. This subsidy is so substantial that wind producers can afford to pay the grid to take their unwanted power and still make money. This phenomenon is known as negative pricing, and it threatens the long-term reliability of the power grid.

It is no surprise that a subsidy so large would drive businesses to build wind turbines, and the data reflects the wind industry’s reliance on the PTC. When the PTC has been available, installations have jumped. When it has expired, as it did in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2013, installations fell off sharply. For instance, between 2012 and 2013, installations of new wind capacity fell from 13,000 MW (2012) to only 1,100 MW (2013).

Source: American Wind Energy Association

In essence, the PTC is a catalyst that gets uneconomic wind power projects built. It is particularly effective at financing projects that would not otherwise be built.

Conclusion

Congress should reject any attempt to revive the wind PTC. Since 1992, this taxpayer-funded subsidy has been extended seven times, yet wind energy remains scarce and expensive. While it lines the pockets of wealthy investors, the wind PTC raises energy prices on American families and threatens grid reliability. Much worse, the PTC is integral to the success or failure of even worse public policy, namely the EPA’s power plant rule. Stay tuned to Energy TownHall to learn how.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: AWEA, production tax credit, wind energy, wind ptc