View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Do you find this site useful?

Keep it online and independent!

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

» »  SPECIAL OFFER !  « «
For a limited time, Mike Bond will send you a signed copy of his new book, Killing Maine,
for your donation of $100 or more to Wind Watch!

 For a donation of $10, he will give you the e-book. 

Resource Documents: Economics (166 items)


Also see NWW "economics" FAQ

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.

Date added:  November 25, 2014
Economics, U.S.Print storyE-mail story

Facts about the PTC and industrial-scale wind

Author:  Vermonters for a Clean Environment

1. Wind is a mature industry – it’s time for it to stand on its own. The Joint Committee on Taxation reports that between 1992 and 2015 [1], the cumulative cost of the PTC, without extension, will be approximately $17 billion with the bulk of this claimed by wind resources constructed since 2006. These costs are in addition to the anticipated $22.6 billion in direct cash outlays under the Section 1603 grant program now expired. Yet, after decades of government support of multiple kinds, the wind industry remains economically unviable.

2. The wind-sector slow-down is not tied to the end of the PTC. The wind industry insists it’s at risk of a slow-down without the PTC and jobs will be lost. But this view ignores crucial factors driving development in the United States. Demand for wind has eroded, in part, due to states meeting their renewable mandates. Lower natural gas prices have further reduced wind’s attractiveness as a ‘fuel saver’. Faced with these market conditions, wind developers are tabling projects. The Energy Information Administration [2] now forecasts flat growth in the wind sector for this decade regardless of what happens with the PTC.

3. Wind energy is costly, and government efforts to offset the cost distort the markets. Wholesale power contract prices for onshore wind are roughly two- to three- times the price of more reliable generation, making wind one of the most expensive power sources in the U.S. even after the PTC is factored in. The PTC offsets the high price of wind energy, giving the false impression that wind is competitive with other resources, but at 2.3¢/kWh, the subsidy’s pre-tax value (3.5¢/kWh) equals, or exceeds the wholesale price of power in much of the country. The size of the subsidy relative to wholesale prices is distorting competitive wholesale energy markets and harming the financial integrity of other, more reliable generation [3].

4. The industry’s job-creation claim is based on one-sided, simplistic modeling. The wind industry insists the PTC enables American jobs but ignores potential jobs that would be created given alternative spending of federal funds. Further, industry job forecasts fail to report on the more important net job creation. In states like Vermont, government models have shown that above- market energy costs tied to renewables reduce any positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment [4]. This is without taking into account additional costs associated with wind-related transmission build-out and grid integration costs associated with wind energy’s intermittency.

[1] M. Sherlock Testimony, April 2012.

[2] Energy Information Administration. EIA Reference case for wind energy, June 2012.

[3] Northbridge Group, Negative Electricity Prices and the Production Tax Credit. September 2012.

[4] Vermont Department of Public Service, The Economic Impacts of Vermont Feed in Tariffs. December 2009.

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  November 21, 2014
Economics, Grid, TexasPrint storyE-mail story

ERCOT Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan

Author:  Electric Reliability Council of Texas

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is the independent system operator (ISO) for the Texas Interconnection, encompassing approximately 90% of electric load in Texas. ERCOT is the independent organization established by the Texas Legislature to be responsible for the reliable planning and operation of the electric grid for the ERCOT interconnection. Under the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability construct, ERCOT is designated as the Reliability Coordinator, the Balancing Authority, and as a Transmission Operator for the ERCOT region. ERCOT is also registered for several other functions, including the Planning Authority function.

In June 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Clean Power Plan, which calls for reductions in the carbon intensity of the electric sector. The Clean Power Plan would set limits on the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, calculated as state emissions rate goals. For Texas, EPA has proposed an interim goal of 853 lb CO₂/MWh to be met on average during 2020-2029, and a final goal of 791 lb CO₂/MWh to be met from 2030 onward. EPA calculated the state-specific goals using a set of assumptions about coal plant efficiency improvements, increased production from natural gas combined cycle units, growth in renewables generation, preservation of existing nuclear generation, and growth in energy efficiency.

ERCOT has evaluated the potential implications of the proposed Clean Power Plan for grid reliability and conducted a modeling analysis of the impacts to generation resources and electricity costs in the ERCOT region. Based on this analysis, ERCOT anticipates that implementation of the proposed Clean Power Plan will have a significant impact on the planning and operation of the ERCOT grid. ERCOT estimates that the proposed CO₂ emissions limitations will result in the retirement of between 3,300 MW and 8,700 MW of coal generation capacity, could result in transmission reliability issues due to the loss of generation resources in and around major urban centers, and will strain ERCOT’s ability to integrate new intermittent renewable generation resources. The Clean Power Plan will also result in increased energy costs for consumers in the ERCOT region by up to 20% in 2020, without accounting for the costs of transmission upgrades, procurement of additional ancillary services, energy efficiency investments, capital costs of new capacity, and other costs associated with the retirement or decreased operation of coal-fired capacity in ERCOT. This summary report describes the results of ERCOT’s analyses.

Summary of ERCOT Concerns with the Clean Power Plan

ERCOT approaches this analysis from the perspective of an independent grid operator in a competitive market which has achieved significant success in using competition to drive efficient outcomes. Existing market policies and investments in transmission in ERCOT have incentivized market participants to maximize the efficiency of the generating fleet and develop new technologies including renewable generation. With recent investments in transmission, more than 11 GW of wind capacity have been successfully integrated into the ERCOT grid. The ERCOT region maintains a forward-looking open market and provides affordable and reliable electricity to consumers in Texas.

ERCOT’s primary concern with the Clean Power Plan is that, given the ERCOT region’s market design and existing transmission infrastructure, the timing and scale of the expected changes needed to reach the CO₂ emission goals could have a harmful impact on reliability. Specifically, implementation of the Clean Power Plan in the ERCOT region, particularly to meet the Plan’s interim goal, is likely to lead to reduced grid reliability for certain periods and an increase in localized grid challenges. There is a natural pace of change in grid resources due to advancing cost effective technologies and changing market conditions.

This pace can be accelerated, but there is a limit to how fast this change can occur within acceptable reliability constraints. It is unknown based on the information currently available whether compliance with the proposed rule can be achieved within applicable reliability criteria and with the current market design. Nevertheless, there are certain grid reliability and management challenges that ERCOT will face as a result of the resource mix changes that the proposed rule will induce:

Download original document: “ERCOT Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan”

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 13, 2014
Economics, EuropePrint storyE-mail story

Subsidy support of energy in EU countries, 2012

Author:  Ecofys

This study shows that in 2012, the total value of public interventions in 2012 in energy (excluding transport) in the EU-28 was €2012 113 billion: 10 billion to coal, 5 to natural gas, 7 to nuclear power, 8 to biomass, 15 to solar, 10 to on-shore wind, 2 to off-shore wind, and 5 to hydro.

Total support provided in the 28 Member States (in billion €2012), including EU level support – 2012

Total support provided in the 28 Member States (in billion €2012), including EU level support – 2012

The levels of support do not reflect the proportional use of each energy source, where, e.g., coal represented 17.5% of energy consumption, natural gas 23.5%, nuclear 13.5%, and all renewables 11%.

EU-28 gross inland consumption (as % of total Mtoe) in 2012 Source: Eurostat (preliminary data for 2012)

EU-28 gross inland consumption (as % of total Mtoe) in 2012
Source: Eurostat (preliminary data for 2012)

Thus, per mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) consumption, coal received 34 million € per mtoe, whereas all renewables received 216 million € per mtoe.

In terms of electrical energy, 1 mtoe is equivalent to 11.630 TWh. Therefore, coal’s 17.5% share of all (1,682.9 mtoe) energy consumption is 294.5 mtoe, which is equivalent to 3,425 TWh. Coal is used for more than electricity generation, however, and as seen in the next figure, it accounted for 27% of total 3,295 TWh electricity production, or 889 TWh – that is, only 26% of coal use was for electricity generation, and 26% of the subsidy to coal comes to less than 9 million € per mtoe.

EU-28 gross electricity generation (as % of total = 3295 TWh) (2012) Source: Eurostat (preliminary data 2012)

EU-28 gross electricity generation (as % of total = 3295 TWh) (2012)
Source: Eurostat (preliminary data 2012)

The next figure shows the share of each renewable energy source in the generation of electricity. Wind accounted for 26% of the total 799 TWh of electricity from renewable sources, or 208 TWh.

EU-28 Gross Electricity Generation by Renewable Energy (2012) Source: Eurostat (preliminary data 2012)

EU-28 Gross Electricity Generation by Renewable Energy (2012)
Source: Eurostat (preliminary data 2012)

Putting these data from disparate parts of this extensive report together, coal received a subsidy of 2.9 € per MWh of electricity generated. Wind – both on-shore and off-shore – received 57.7 € per MWh of electricity generated, or almost 20 times the subsidy of coal.

By similar calculations, the 2012 subsidies for electricity generation were 0.70 €/MWh for natural gas and 2.36 €/MWh for nuclear.

Source:  Progress towards Completing the Internal Energy Market – 2014

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 2, 2014
Economics, Technology, TexasPrint storyE-mail story

Texas Power Challenge: Getting the Most from Your Energy Dollars

Author:  Combs, Susan


Natural gas generation contributes the largest share of Texas electricity, particularly during peak demand. During off-peak times, when demand can be a half or two-thirds of the daily peak, many power plants stand idle; operating reserves are needed, however, when demand increases again, or to react to sudden losses of generation or transmission problems caused by equipment failure or bad weather.


On days when temperatures peak in the 60s, non-residential customers use more than two-thirds of the power generated in the ERCOT region. On the hottest Texas summer days, electricity demand by residential customers quadruples to more than half of the state’s total load, peaking in the late afternoon. This requires thousands of megawatts of natural gas generation to be fired up, a flexibility not available with wind generation that is dependent on weather conditions.

Renewables need conventional power backup

Diversifying Texas’ energy portfolio has put wind and solar generation on the grid but has created a new quandary for grid managers: where can power be obtained quickly when the wind stops or clouds reduce solar yields?


Wind generation is lowest during the summer months when energy demand is highest.


The proportion of electricity generated from wind during the hottest summer day of 2013:


Wind has reliability challenges

Renewable energy poses reliability challenges. The leading concern is whether it can provide electric power every second of every day. Major renewable energy sources are fundamentally limited in how, where and when they can be used; the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, so natural gas backup generation is needed.

Variability and intermittency

Wind power is tied to weather and thus produces variable energy output. Wind variability creates complications for grid operators working to integrate wind power into a grid not historically designed for fluctuations.

Historical wind generation data reveal that the peak production for the majority of Texas wind generation is at night and does not align well with the peak electricity demand during summer afternoons.

Transmission lines for wind

The 2005 Texas Legislature approved a major transmission project, the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ), to carry mostly wind energy generated in West Texas and the Panhandle to high-demand cities. The project was forecast to cost less than $5 billion but ballooned to more than $6.9 billion to build nearly 3,600 miles of transmission lines and dozens of substations.

The completed project has capacity to transmit about 18,500 MW of electricity to major load centers in ERCOT — that would serve more than 4 million Texas homes.

Consumers will pay for CREZ lines carrying wind energy for 15 to 20 years. The PUC estimates residential customers will pay roughly $5 to $7 per 1,000 kWh used. Based on the average household’s electricity use, that will cost $70 to $100 per year. An ERCOT official told the PUC in August 2014 that further expansion of the West Texas transmission grid could cost an additional $2 billion.

An ERCOT study is under way to provide new and improved transmission from Panhandle wind generation that extends outside its service area. The Panhandle Renewable Energy Zone could provide transmission lines (expanded from the existing CREZ) that would transport electricity to the populated areas of Texas where demand is increasing. No price tag has been identified for these new transmission lines.

The PUC has begun to study whether future transmission infrastructure costs should continue to be paid by all ratepayers or whether electricity generators — specifically renewables that are located far from where the energy is used — should be required to fund any of the costs.


September 23, 2014
Susan Combs
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Download original document: “Texas Power Challenge: Getting the Most from Your Energy Dollars”

Bookmark and Share

« Later DocumentsHomeEarlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Formerly at

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook