Resource Documents: Economics (172 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Analysis of the Economic Impacts of the wpd Fairview Wind Project on the Collingwood Regional Airport and the Regional Economy
Author: Malone Given Parsons; Cormier, Charles; Metro Economics; and Aerocan Aviation
In short, we conclude that the Collingwood Regional Airport is fulfilling its intended function as an economic engine and is attracting business expansion proposals that would deliver very substantial economic benefit to the South Georgian Bay region. Approval of the current wpd Turbine Project would be fatal to business expansion, such that, on balance, the offending turbines should be moved or wpd’s Renewable Energy Act Application denied.
January 8, 2016
Prepared By: MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD.
In Association With:
Charles Cormier, Aeronautical Information Consultant
Aerocan Aviation Ltd.
The Township of Clearview
The Town of Collingwood
Author: Ontario Society of Professional Engineers
Original Goals for Electricity System Transformation
- Reduce CO₂ emissions from power plants:
- Phase out coal plants and build new efficient CCGT gas plants.
- Restart 4 nuclear units at Bruce A and 2 units at Pickering A.
- Add wind, solar, bio-energy and small hydro generation.
- Refurbish nuclear units as they reach end of design life.
- Create new green energy sector jobs:
- FIT program to accelerate deployment of renewables.
- Create 50,000 jobs in new green sector.
- Keep transformation costs within 1% per year in additional costs:
- Install smart meters with Time-of‐Use (TOU) rates.
- Encourage peak reduction and load flattening.
- A careful engineering analysis and grid simulation would have shown that the policy goals could not have been economically accomplished because:
- Backup generation is required for wind and solar. Consequently wind and solar are displacement energy sources.
- The total value of displacement sources to the consumer is only the economic value of the displaced fuel. For hydroelectric and nuclear it’s 0.5 cents/kWh. For natural gas it’s 4 cents/kWh plus a carbon reduction benefit of 1 cent/kWh for each $30 per ton CO₂ of environmental costs.
- The policy to eliminate coal in Ontario reduced the carbon reduction benefit of wind and solar by 2.5× because gas is cleaner than coal. …
Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants?
- Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation.
- Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors.
- Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment.
- Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America.
- When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear genera,on to make room for more natural gas genera,on to provide flexible backup.
- Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO₂ emissions/kWh.
- Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO₂ emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO₂ emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO₂ emissions will double (2013 LTEP data).
- In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO₂ emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.
Author: Lang, Peter
Wind’s effectiveness and CO2 avoidance cost
This submission focuses on the effectiveness of wind turbines at reducing CO2 emissions from electricity generation in Australia and the impact of the effectiveness on the estimates of abatement cost ($/tonne CO2 avoided) by wind energy.
It is often assumed that effectiveness of wind energy is 100%, i.e., 1 MWh of wind energy displaces the emissions from 1 MWh of the conventional energy displaced. But it is usually much less, and values as low as 53% have been reported. To be clear, 53% effective means wind turbines avoided 53% of the emissions that, in the absence of wind, would have been produced by the generators that were displaced by wind generation.
Empirical analyses of the emissions avoided in electricity grids in the U.S. and Europe indicate that (1) wind turbines are significantly less effective at avoiding emissions than is commonly assumed and (2) effectiveness decreases as the proportion of electricity generated by wind turbines increases.
Unfortunately, neither the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) nor the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) collect the CO2 emissions information needed for an accurate empirical estimate of effectiveness. Without good data for the emissions from power stations at time intervals of 30 minutes or less, estimates of emissions avoided by wind are biased high and have large uncertainty, i.e., we don’t know what emissions reductions are actually being achieved by wind generation. …
23 March 2015
Author: U.S. Energy Information Administration
“The changing mix of direct expenditures between FY 2010 and FY 2013 was primarily driven by ARRA’s Section 1603 grant program. Between FY 2010 and FY 2013, the renewable share of direct expenditures increased from 37% to 65%, while the end-use technologies share dropped from 41% to 27%.”
From 2010 (see previous report) to 2013, the subsidies for wind increased from 5.453 billion dollars, 4.105 billion of that ARRA related (ie, up-front grants instead of 10-year tax credits), to 5.936 billion, 4.334 billion ARRA related. (Table ES2)
Between those same years, the outlay to coal went from 0.936 billion to 1.075 billion dollars, natural gas and oil from 2.918 billion to 2.346 billion, and nuclear from 1.893 billion to 1.660 billion. Spending for conservation declined from 7.069 billion to 1.964 billion dollars, and for end use (such as LIHEAP) from 8.505 billion to 3.116 billion. (Table ES2)
From 2010 to 2013, in terms of trillion BTUs, energy production from coal decreased from 21,657 to 20,209, from natural gas increased from 24,105 to 28,353, from oil increased from 11,530 to 15,342, from nuclear decreased from 8,318 to 8,117, and from wind increased from 863 to 1,549. (Table ES3)
Per unit of BTU of total energy (not just electricity), therefore, the federal subsidies for wind totalled $3.83 per million BTUs, the equivalent of $13.08 per MWh. Coal received the equivalent of 18¢ per MWh, natural gas and oil 18¢, and nuclear 70¢. In converting from actual production to BTUs, however, the EIA applies assumed efficiencies or, when efficiency isn’t appropriate, capacity factors. Considering only electricity production, wind received $35.33 per MWh produced, whereas coal received 57¢, natural gas and oil 60¢, and nuclear $2.10. (Tables ES4 and ES5)
“Wind energy received the largest share of direct federal subsidies and support in FY 2013, accounting for 37% of total electricity-related subsidies.” In return, wind generated 4.1% of the country’s electricity production in 2013. Coal received 6% of the total electricity-related subsidies and generated 39% of the country’s electricity in 2013. For natural gas and oil, the respective figures were 4% and 28%, and for nuclear 10% and 19%. (Tables ES4 and ES5)
Note: Not all subsidies impacting the energy sector are included in this report.
For example, Section 199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, referred to as the domestic manufacturing deduction, provides reductions in taxable income for American manufacturers, including domestic oil and gas producers and refiners. Taxpayers generally are permitted a 9% deduction for domestic production activities. The deduction is reduced to 6% for qualified production activities income attributable to the production refining, processing, transportation, or distribution of oil, gas, or any primary product thereof. The Section 199 manufacturing credit applies to oil and gas producers along with a variety of other U.S. manufacturers. While domestic oil and natural gas companies utilized this provision to reduce their tax liability, other industries, including traditional manufacturing sectors and other activities such as engineering and architectural services, sound recordings, and qualified film production, also took advantage of it.
Accelerated depreciation is the set of tax rules that allow businesses (both energy and non-energy) to deduct from their taxable income the declining value of business-related investments, such as equipment and machinery. Accelerated depreciation provides a subsidy only to the extent that the amount of depreciation specified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exceeds the true economic “wear and tear” costs. Most empirical studies of economic depreciation have found evidence of some type of accelerated economic depreciation affecting various industries, although the exact pattern varied from study to study. This report, consistent with earlier editions, includes the impacts of accelerated depreciation schedules identified as specific to the energy sector, but excludes schedules with applicability beyond the energy sector.
Subsidized credit for energy infrastructure projects is frequently provided by export credit agencies and multilateral development banks. However, entities such as the Export-Import Bank of the United States also provide support to non-energy industries including aerospace, medical equipment, non-energy mining, and agribusiness.
Tax-exempt municipal bonds allow publicly owned utilities to obtain lower interest rates than those available from either private borrowers or the Treasury. However, while they are used by energy industries such as electric utilities, the group of eligible borrowers also includes water utilities, telecommunication facilities, waste treatment plants, and other publicly owned entities.
The tax code allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries. If a multinational company is subject to a foreign country’s levy, and it also receives a specific economic benefit from that foreign country, it is classified as a “dual-capacity taxpayer.” Dual-capacity taxpayers cannot claim a credit for any part of the foreign levy unless it is established that the amount paid under a distinct element of the foreign levy is a tax, rather than a compulsory payment for some direct or indirect economic benefit. Major oil companies are significant beneficiaries of this provision. However, this tax provision is also available to non-energy industries.
The tax code also provides special treatment for some publicly traded partnerships (PTP). Section 7704 of Title 26 of the U.S.C. generally treats a publicly traded partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. For this purpose, a PTP is any partnership that is traded on an established securities market or secondary market. However, a notable exception to Section 7704 occurs if 90% of the gross income of a PTP is passive-type income, such as interest, dividends, real property rents, gains from the disposition of real property, and similar income or gains. This would include gains from natural resource sales. In these cases, the PTP is exempt from corporate-level taxation, thus allowing it to claim pass-through status for tax purposes. As with many other tax provisions, the tax treatment of PTPs is not exclusive to the energy sector.
Another type of program not addressed in this report is associated with energy-related trust funds financed by taxes and fees. Examples include the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the Pipeline Safety Fund, the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, the Nuclear Waste Fund, and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. By tying trust fund collections to products and activities responsible for the damages they address, the cost of programs for remediation and prevention of those damages can be reflected in the market price of energy use and production. If the fees or taxes collected by trust funds have been set appropriately, the funds will have sufficient resources to meet their obligations with the result that no subsidy is involved. However, if the fees or taxes are set too low, energy companies are receiving an implicit subsidy. These programs are not addressed in this report because of the difficulty in determining the sufficiency of the funds to meet potential liabilities and the fact that there is no direct federal budgetary impact in FY 2013.
This report also does not include or attempt to quantify the value of limits to liability in case of a nuclear accident provided by Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Price-Anderson Act. The Price-Anderson Act requires each operator of a nuclear power plant to obtain the maximum amount of primary coverage of liability insurance. Currently, the amount is about $375 million. Damages exceeding that amount would be funded with a retroactive assessment on all other firms owning commercial reactors based upon the number of reactors they own. However, Price-Anderson places a limit on the total liability to all owners of commercial reactors at about $13 billion. (pp. xi-xiii)