THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF WIND POWER
A RESEARCH PAPER
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTERS OF URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNING
BY
MICHAEL W. DOTSON
DR. ERIC KELLY ‐ ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
OCTOBER 2009
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF WIND POWER
1 INTRODUCTION
1 JOB CREATION
2 DOMESTIC TURBINE MANUFACTURING
3 PROPERTY TAXES
5 LAND LEASE PAYMENTS
7 TRANSMISSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
7 CASE STUDIES
9 NOLAN COUNTY, TEXAS
9 LINCOLN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
11 CULBERSON, TEXAS
15 PROFILES OF THE TOP TWENTY STATES OF INSTALLED WIND
CAPACITY
17 TEXAS
17 IOWA
20 CALIFORNIA
23 MINNESOTA
26 WASHINGTON
29 COLORADO
32 OREGON
35 ILLINOIS
38 NEW YORK
40 iii
KANSAS
43 NORTH DAKOTA
45 OKLAHOMA
47 WYOMING
49 NEW MEXICO
51 WISCONSIN
53 PENNSYLVANIA
56 WEST VIRGINIA
59 MONTANA
60 SOUTH DAKOTA
63 MISSOURI
65 FEDERAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
67 RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS
67 PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT
69 BUSINESS INCENTIVE TAX CREDIT (ITC)
71 QUALIFYING ADVANCED ENERGY PROJECT INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
72 MODIFIED ACCELERATED COST-RECOVERY SYSTEM (MACRS)
72 QUALIFIED ENERGY CONSERVATION BONDS
73 RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE (REPI)
73 RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CREDIT
74 RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANTS
74 RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM (REAP) GRANTS & LOAN
GUARANTEES
74 CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS (CREBS)
75 ANALYSIS
76 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTALLED CAPACITY, POTENTIAL CAPACITY,
AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
76 iv
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
78 RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
79 INDIVIDUAL GROUP ANALYSIS
80 JOB CREATION
83 REGIONAL JOB CREATION FROM ADDED WIND CAPACITY
85 THE SOUTH
85 THE WEST
86 THE MIDWEST
87 THE EAST
87 ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
87 SUMMARY
88 APPENDIX
90 INCENTIVE PROGRAMS OF THE TOP 20 STATES WITH INSTALLED CAPACITY
90 REGIONAL & STATE EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS WITH ADDED WIND
CAPACITY
108 INCENTIVE PROGRAM CATEGORIES
118 GROUP ANALYSIS BY INCENTIVE
119 BIBLIOGRAPHY
127 v
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. COUNTY MAP OF TEXAS
9
FIGURE 2. COUNTY MAP OF MINNESOTA
11
FIGURE 3. COUNTY MAP OF OREGON
13
FIGURE 4. COUNTY MAP OF TEXAS
15
FIGURE 5. TEXAS YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
17
FIGURE 6. IOWA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
20
FIGURE 7. CALIFORNIA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
23
FIGURE 8. MINNESOTA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
26
FIGURE 9. WASHINGTON YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
29
FIGURE 10. COLORADO YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
32
FIGURE 11. OREGON YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
35
FIGURE 12. ILLINOIS YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
38
FIGURE 13. NEW YORK YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
40
FIGURE 14. KANSAS YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
43
FIGURE 15. NORTH DAKOTA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
45
FIGURE 16. OKLAHOMA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
47
FIGURE 17. WYOMING YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
49
FIGURE 18. NEW MEXICO YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
51
FIGURE 19. WISCONSIN YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
53
FIGURE 20. PENNSYLVANIA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
56
FIGURE 21. WEST VIRGINIA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
59
vi
FIGURE 22. MONTANA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
60
FIGURE 23. SOUTH DAKOTA YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
63
FIGURE 24. MISSOURI YEAR-END WIND POWER CAPACITY
65
FIGURE 25 NATIONAL YEAR-END WIND CAPACITY
71
vii
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1. POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT IMPACT OF A NATIONAL WIND
INVESTMENT OF $50 BILLION FOR 50,000 MW
5 TABLE 2. STATE GROUPS INCENTIVE PROGRAM TYPE BREAKDOWN
77 TABLE 3. STATE GROUP ASSIGNMENTS
78 TABLE 4. GROUP ONE INCENTIVE BREAKDOWN
80 TABLE 5. GROUP TWO INCENTIVE BREAKDOWN
81 TABLE 6. GROUP THREE INCENTIVE BREAKDOWN
82 TABLE 7. NATIONAL JOB CREATION FROM ADDED WIND CAPACITY
85 TABLE 8. SOUTHERN REGION EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
108 TABLE 9. WESTERN REGION EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
112 TABLE 10. MIDWESTERN REGION EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
114 TABLE 11. EASTERN REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
116 TABLE 12. INCENTIVE PROGRAM CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION
118 TABLE 13. GROUP ONE INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
119 TABLE 14. GROUP TWO INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
120 TABLE 15. GROUP THREE INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
121 TABLE 16. GROUP FOUR INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
122 TABLE 17. GROUP FIVE INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
123 TABLE 18. GROUP SIX INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
124 TABLE 19. GROUP SEVEN INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
125 TABLE 20. GROUP EIGHT INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
126 THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF WIND POWER
INTRODUCTION
For the regions of the United States, located in areas with strong wind resources,
investment in wind energy offers an opportunity for substantial economic development.
Investment in wind energy can provide a surge in jobs and local economic development
during two phases: the construction phase and the operations and management phase. The
impact can vary between communities and is dependent on level of local investment in
supplies and labor. The single largest economic development factor for these areas is
local or regional manufacture of wind turbines.
Generalized economic benefits from wind power focus on three areas of effect:
direct, indirect, and induced (Northwest Economic Associates 2004). Direct effect deals
strictly with the on-site jobs created through construction, maintenance, and the factories
producing needed materials. Indirect economic effects come from the secondary
businesses needed to support the primary employment such as banking, accounting, and
material suppliers. The induced effects of the economic activity are how the income
generated from the wind projects is spent for other goods and services.
Areas suitable for wind development can receive a modest to moderate boost in
economic activity from the construction phase of a project, which can then be carried
2
over into the operations and maintenance phase of the project (Northwest Economic
Associates 2004). Wind power can offer these communities an injection of money into
local tax coffers to improve existing infrastructure (S. Tegen 2008).
JOB CREATION
Job creation from wind energy is split into two phases, construction and
operations. The construction phase will typically be the period of a wind project that
produces the largest employment numbers. While the construction jobs are temporary,
they can provide a significant boost to a local economy during economic downturns.
While the length of the construction phase may vary depending on the size and scope of
the wind energy project, the generated employment can contribute economically in the
short-term.
The scope of localized employment from a wind project depends largely on the
size and training of the available workforce. Wind contractors generally will seek local
employees, if the local labor supply meets their requirements. Otherwise, a trained
workforce is brought in for construction phase. Employment during the maintenance
phase is also locally centered, if the workforce is skilled. Spending funds to train workers
is better spent on the permanent operations jobs associated with wind energy (S. Tegen
2008).
Materials and components as a part of wind energy can often be supplied at a
local level (Northwest Economic Associates 2004). The Job and Economic Development
Impact (JEDI) model’s default value assumes 78 percent of needed supplies are available
3
locally1. Non-turbine related materials consist of sand, gravel, asphalt, and concrete to
construct the necessary roads and foundations. Most of the non-turbine materials needed
for wind power are general construction items, so it is assumed that if the materials are
not available locally, then they can be supplied regionally.
The local supply of wind turbines and secondary components is the single largest
factor determining the scope of economic benefits for a community. As a percentage of
construction costs, wind turbines commonly account for 65 percent to 85 percent of the
total costs2. The remaining construction costs consist of construction labor and the
materials needed for road and foundation construction (S. Tegen 2008). Retaining this
money inside of the local economy can be tremendous asset for rural communities trying
to develop an identity inside of the new economy. An increase to 10 percent of turbine
material supply resulted in a 68 percent increase in economic benefits during the
construction phase of development (S. Tegen 2008).
DOMESTIC TURBINE MANUFACTURING
The impact of wind power reaches beyond the regions with high wind resources
to other areas within the chain of manufacturing. A strong investment in wind power has
the potential to drive the demand for turbine components up, creating a national market
suitable for increases in domestic production. Therefore, a national commitment to wind
1
The JEDI model is an economic development model, developed by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, to approximate the localized economic benefits of a wind project. Default values used in the
model are based on data from existing wind projects and used with site specific information is unavailable.
2
Includes tower, gearbox, rotors, and blades
4
energy would result in significant job creation nationwide based on the manufacture of
turbine parts as well as the construction and maintenance jobs created locally.
A 2004 study performed by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP)
attempted to evaluate the impact of a substantial national investment in wind power
(Sterzinger and Svrcek 2004). The REPP deconstructed a modern wind turbine into 90
components, and then identified 90 companies in 25 states that already produced the
necessary parts (includes tower, gearbox, rotors, and blades). The study’s authors
assumed that an increase in turbine demand from the national investment would expand
beyond these existing firms, so they projected the size and location of the created jobs.
The REPP used the NAICS codes associated with the necessary sectors for turbine
manufacturing and identified over 16,000 firms, spread out over all 50 states, operating in
one or more of the NAICS codes.
In their analysis, the REPP made a pair of assumptions regarding job creation
related to the megawatts (MW) of production. They first assumed a billion dollar
investment in rotors, generators, and towers for every 1,000 MW developed. The second
assumption is the creation of 30,000 jobs in manufacturing, 700 jobs in installation, and
600 jobs in operations and maintenance for every 1,000 MW developed (Sterzinger and
Svrcek 2004).
The study’s results found most of the jobs to be concentrated in the most populous
states, which also were the states that suffered from the most manufacturing job losses
between 2001 and 2004. The implication is that domestic investment in the wind industry
can act as a means to create much needed manufacturing jobs in these states.
5
Table 1. Potential Employment Impact of a National Wind Investment of $50 Billion for 50,000 MW
State
California
Ohio
Texas
Michigan
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
New York
South Carolina
North Carolina
Tennessee
Alabama
Georgia
Virginia
Florida
Missouri
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
Total
Manufacturing
Jobs Lost
Jan. 2001 May 2004
Employees
at Potential
Companies
Average
Investment
($ Billions)
318,000
165,500
169,600
129,300
131,500
63,500
155,200
68,300
130,500
56,800
156,600
59,700
45,300
65,700
57,500
56,800
36,700
84,900
38,800
65,400
102,255
80,511
60,229
66,550
57,304
53,064
50,304
48,164
47,375
20,532
30,229
28,407
21,213
20,898
20,201
24,008
23,634
27,955
26,131
22,535
4.24
3.9
2.98
2.85
2.84
2.77
2.54
2.32
2.18
1.65
1.55
1.41
1.19
1.18
1.13
1.12
1.08
1.07
1.02
0.97
40
Potential
Number
of
Created
Jobs
12,717
11,688
8,943
8,549
8,530
8,317
7,622
6,956
6,549
4,964
4,661
4,233
3,571
3,532
3,386
3,371
3,234
3,210
3,064
2,920
120,017
% Increase
of Total
Company
Employment
12%
15%
15%
13%
15%
16%
15%
14%
14%
24%
15%
15%
17%
17%
17%
14%
14%
11%
12%
13%
PROPERTY TAXES
Typically, wind turbines and other necessary equipment are considered
improvements that add value to the property to be taxed. Given the capital investment
associated with the equipment needed to supply wind energy, many states offer
incentives to reduce the property tax burden of the property owner. However, how
individual states address wind devices varies, impacting the property taxes the landowner
pays. Many states offer tax exemptions or abatements, which address the added value of
6
the wind equipment for a set period of years. According to the Database of State
Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), twenty-nine states currently offer
property tax incentives for wind installations. However, very few states offer a 100
percent exemption without an alternative valuation method, valuation reduction, or time
limit for the exemption. For instance, Montana offers a 50 percent tax reduction for the
first five years of operation. After that initial period, the tax reduction is lowered every
year until there is no reduction by the tenth year (DSIRE 2009).
Acknowledging the difference in approaches among states regarding property
taxes, the benefits of property taxes from wind projects are not equal among all states.
States focusing on job creation may offer tax incentives to spur industry growth and hope
to recoup tax revenue through alternate taxation methods such as a generation tax on the
wind power produced. Estimates for property taxes for a wind project can range from
$8,000-$9,000 per MW (S. Tegen 2008)3. The increased revenue from property taxes can
either boost the existing budget for needed infrastructure projects, or act to supplement a
decrease in property tax rates for other landowners (Northwest Economic Associates
2004). The overall increase in tax revenue can allow for an adjustment in the local tax
rate, which can lessen the individual tax burden. By paying lower taxes, local households
get to keep more of their money, which may then be redirected in the local economy.
3
The study’s author used the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Economic Development Database,
a component of their Wind Powering America Program. The data comes from interviews with project
developers, local tax assessors, and industry experts.
7
LAND LEASE PAYMENTS
Wind power can act as a means of supplemental income for farmers in the rural
United States. On flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant needs approximately 60 acres of
land per MW of installed power. However, only 3 acres or less is needed for installation
of the turbine, access roads, and secondary equipment. The remaining land can continue
to be used for farming or ranching (AWEA 2008). In instances where the land is not
bought outright by the wind developer, lease payments to land owners can range from
$2700-$2900 annually per MW (S. Tegen 2008). In Colorado, land lease payments can
range between $2000-$3000 per turbine, generally constituting between 2 to 3 percent of
a project’s annual gross revenue (Reategui and Tegen 2008). Comparative prices from
the top three sources of agriculture are $945/acre of corn, $571/acre of wheat, and
$574/acre of soybeans (S. Tegen 2008). As an income source, wind provides farmers
with a supplemental source of income, which can assist them economically through
periods of drought or other negative conditions undermining the farm’s profitability.
TRANSMISSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
While the availability of wind resources may be the central focus wind farm
siting, the proximity to existing utility systems for energy distribution is equally
important. Smaller scale wind projects, consisting of one or two turbines, are
recommended to connect at distribution level voltages, which does not require a
substation (AWEA Siting Committee 2008). For larger utility-scale wind farms, a
connection to high voltage lines is necessary because of the requirements in capacity,
8
which exceed the capabilities of the distribution system. Connection to the transmission
system often requires a substation, which can cost over a million dollars.
The proximity to three-phase power lines is essential to the success of a wind
farm. New construction of power lines can cost between $50,000 to $200,000 per mile
(AWEA Siting Committee 2008), although new construction in predominately rural areas
such as the Great Plains may cost below AWEA estimates. Generally, a wind developer
will choose several potential sites during the interconnection feasibility study for
discussion with the local utility provider as they determine the available capacity of the
utility system to handle the added load.
While the barriers to interconnection for the individual wind farm deal primarily
with money and financing, at a national level the power grid is ill equipped to handle the
anticipated growth of renewable energy (American Electric Power 2008). The national
energy infrastructure currently lacks the connections to distribute the wind energy to the
largest population centers on the East and West Coasts.
Proponents of modernizing the existing system to a smart grid recognize the
importance of developing a national system able to incorporate a multitude of energy
sources across the nation as opposed to relying on regional energy systems (American
Electric Power 2008). The adoption of a smart grid would provide the United States with
a flexible system that is responsive to areas producing excess electricity, which can be
redistributed to areas running at near capacity (American Electric Power 2008). Such
flexibility would open up the wind market in states, which could begin to export their
excess generation to neighboring states.
CASE STUDIES
NOLAN COUNTY, TEXAS
&"#$%&"'atlas+,%!"#$#%!#%&$#
TEXAS
TM
CO U N TIES
Dallam
M oore Hutchinson Roberts Hemphill
Hartley
Oldham
Deaf S mith
N EW MEX ICO
Parmer
Gray
W heeler
Randall Armstrong Donley
Collingsworth
Carson
Potter
Castro
O KLAH O MA
Childress
Hall
S wisher
Briscoe
Hale
Floyd
M otley
Cottle
Crosby
Dickens
King
Hardeman
Bailey
Lamb
Cochran Hockley
Dawson
Borden
S curry
Fisher
J ones
S hackelS tephens
ford
Andrews
M artin
Howard M itchell
Nolan
Taylor
Callahan
Ector
Reagan
Irion
Runnels
Tom Green
Palo Pinto
Eastland
Coleman Brown
M cCulloch
Crockett
S utton
Gillespie
Kinney
CH IH U AH U A
('&
)&&
W illiamson
Uvalde
Zavala
Frio
Lee
Guadalupe
Atascosa
Lavaca
E
X
I C
La S alle
M cM ullen
Karnes
J ackson
Victoria
Bee
Duval
J im
W ells
S helby
Nacogdoches
Angelina
Polk
S an
Augustine S abine
Tyler
S an
J acinto
Hardin
Orange
Liberty
Harris
J efferson
Chambers
Fort Bend
Galveston
Brazoria
M atagorda
Calhoun
Refugio
Live Oak
S an Patricio
W ebb
O
W alker
W harton
DeW itt
Goliad
Dimmit
Austin
Colorado
Gonzales
W ilson
Panola
Rusk
M ontgomery
W ashington
Fayette
Caldwell
Bexar
M edina
Brazos Grimes
Burleson
Bastrop
Hays
Comal
Gregg
Aransas
Nueces
Kleberg
%
'
(
)
*+
&
J im Hogg
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
N U EV O
LEO N
Hidalgo
Kenedy
W illacy
!
S tarr
D U RAN G O
Brooks
"
Zapata
#
CO AH U ILA
$
%
Albers equal area projection
M ilam
Travis
Blanco
Kendall
Bandera
Harrison
$
(&&
M averick
M
!"#$%
'&
Kerr
Real
S mith
er
Edwards
Llano
Cass
M arion
Upshur
Henderson
W all
Val Verde
Brewster
Coryell
Lampasas
Burnet
Bowie
Navarro
Kimble
Terrell
Presidio
M ason
Ellis
W ood
Van
Zandt
Titus
Camp
J asper
J eff Davis
M enard
Red River
Anderson Cherokee
Freestone
M cLennan Limestone
Houston
Leon
Falls
Trinity
Bell
Robertson M adison
Hamilton
M ills
Concho
Lamar
Hopkins
Rains
Kaufman
Hood J ohnson
S omervell
Hill
Bosque
Comanche
Hunt
Rockwall
Dallas
Tarrant
Parker
Erath
S an S aba
S chleicher
Pecos
Collin
Denton
Ne wton
Upton
Reeves
Coke
Fannin
Grayson
Cooke
A
Crane
M idland Glasscock S terling
W ise
IAN
W inkler
M ontague
J ack
De lta
Young
Gaines
W ard
Culberson
S tonewall Haskell
Clay
Archer
Throckmorton
U IS
Hudspeth
Kent
Garza
Lynn
Baylor
Knox
LO
Loving
Terry
W ilbarger W ichita
Foard
M orris
El Paso
Lubbock
Franklin
Yoakum
&
AR KA N SA S
&
Texas has 254 counties. There are 3071
counties in the U nited States. Counties
are the primary legal divisions of most
states and generally are functioning
governmental units. They are known as
"parishes" in Louisiana. In Alaska,
C ensus Areas are used for statistical
purposes,
while
the
principal
governmental units are boroughs.
M aryland, M issouri, N evada, and
Virginia also have independent cities,
government
units
outside
the
jurisdiction of any county.
S herman Hansford Ochiltree Lipscomb
Cameron
TAMAU LIPAS
The !"#$%&"'()#'"* of the U nited States of AmericaO
R
pagecnty_tx2.pdf INT E R IOR -G E OLOG ICA L S U RV EY, R E S TON , V IR G IN IA -2004
Figure 1. County Map of Texas
Location: Nolan County, Texas
Project Size: 2,500 MW (installed by mid-2008); 3 GW (planned by 2009)
Jobs Created: 1,124 (total direct jobs); 324 (permanent O&M jobs)4
4
Operations jobs statistics for 2008 and 2009 are based on on-site interviews conducted by New
Amsterdam Wind Source LLC with approximately 20 wind energy businesses with permanent operations
in Nolan County.
10
Taxes Paid: Cumulative property taxes paid totaled $30 million between 2002 and
2007
(New Amsterdam Wind Source LLC 2008)
Project Summary:
By mid-2008 Nolan County, Texas had installed a total of 2,500 MW of wind
power with a planned expansion to 3 GW by the end of 2009. Nolan County with a total
of 1057 wind turbines would rank fourth among states in the United States in terms of
installed wind capacity (New Amsterdam Wind Source LLC 2008). The scope of
installed wind power may not be equatable to other regions, but it should be noted as an
indication of the trends themselves. As of 2008, wind energy provided 1,124 direct jobs
in the Nolan County economy. Direct wind energy employment figures include both
construction and operations jobs. In 2008, wind projects provided 324 jobs, permanent
operation jobs accounting for roughly 29 percent of the total direct employment. The total
payroll from direct employment exceeded 45 million dollars with an average salary of
$40,038.
Between 2002 and 2007, cumulative property tax payments of roughly $30
million were paid to Nolan County, its school districts, and other jurisdictions. Payments
to Nolan County during this time frame were $4.8 million with $1.7 million in 2007
alone, school districts received almost $23 million, and other jurisdictions shared the
remaining $2.2 million. In 1999, Nolan County’s property tax base was $0.5 Billion and
estimates project the 2008 total taxable value of Nolan County to be $2.4 Billion. The
500 percent increase occurred over ten years with a 50 percent increase between 2007
and 2008.
11
LINCOLN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
&"#$%&"'atlas+,%!"#$#%!#%&$#
MIN N ESO TA
TM
MAN ITO BA
CO U N TIES
Kittson
C A
N A
D A
Lake
of the
W oods
Roseau
O N TARIO
M arshall
Koochiching
Pennington
Beltrami
Cook
Red Lake
N O RTH
DAK O TA
Polk
M ahnomen
Norman
Lake
Clearwater
Minnesota has 87 counties. There are
3071 counties in the U nited States.
Counties are the primary legal divisions
of most states and generally are
functioning governmental units. They
are known as "parishes" in Louisiana. In
Alaska, C ensus Areas are used for
statistical purposes, while the principal
governmental units are boroughs.
M aryland, M issouri, N evada, and
Virginia also have independent cities,
government
units
outside
the
jurisdiction of any county.
S aint Louis
Itasca
!"
Hubbard
Clay
Becker
W ilkin
Otter Tail
Aitkin
Crow
W ing
Carlton
Pope
(&
)(
Albers equal area projection
*&&
SO U TH
DAK O TA
Chippewa
Kandiyohi
M eeker
Hennepin
Renville
Lyon
Pipestone
M urray
Rock
Nobles
Redwood
Nicollet
S cott
Le S ueur
Dakota
Rice
Goodhue
W abasha
Brown
S teele Dodge
Blue Earth
Cottonwood
W aseca
W atonwan
J ackson
M artin
Faribault
W ISCO N SIN
Ramsey
Carver
S ibley
Lincoln
Anoka
W right
M cLeod
Yellow M edicine
Isanti
go
'(
S herburne
is a
&
Benton
Kanabec
S tearns
S wift
Lac qui Parle
MICH IG AN
W ashington
S tevens
M orrison
M ille Lacs
Douglas
Traverse
!"#$%
+)
Ch
Grant
ne
$)*
Pine
Todd
S to
'(
Cass
W adena
B ig
#
$%&
Freeborn
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
M ower
Olmsted
W inona
Fillmore
Houston
The !"#$%&"'()#'"* of the U nited States of AmericaOR
pagecnty_m n2.pdf INT E R IOR -G E OLOG ICA L S U RV EY, R E S TON , V IR G IN IA -2004
Figure 2. County Map of Minnesota
Location: Lincoln County, Minnesota (Lake Benton I, 1998)
Project Size: 107 MW
Jobs Created: 8 construction jobs; 31 operations and maintenance jobs
Taxes Paid: $71,800 (1999), $611,200 (2000), and $621,000 (2001)
Land Lease Payments: $501,125 annually
(Source: Northwest Economic Associates 2004)
Project Summary:
Lincoln County’s population last dropped 7 percent between 1990-2000. The
county per capita income in 2001 was 65 percent of state average with 12 percent of the
county residents living below poverty level. The wind project, Lake Benton I, went
online in 1998, creating 8 jobs and $98,000 in personal income during the construction
12
phase. Operations and maintenance of Lake Benton I required 31 jobs, creating a total
personal income $909,000. The wind project generated property tax payments of $71,800
(1999), $611,200 (2000), and $621,000 (2001). Total annual lease payments to
landowners came to $501,125.
13
MORROW & UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON
&"#$%&"'atlas+,%!"#$#%!#%&$#
O REG O N
TM
O regon has 36 counties. There are 3071
counties in the U nited States. Counties
are the primary legal divisions of most
states and generally are functioning
governmental units. They are known as
"parishes" in Louisiana. In Alaska,
C ensus Areas are used for statistical
purposes,
while
the
principal
governmental units are boroughs.
M aryland, M issouri, N evada, and
Virginia also have independent cities,
government
units
outside
the
jurisdiction of any county.
& '#(
")
CO U N TIES
W ASH IN G TO N
Clatsop
Columbia
W ashington
Yamhill
Clackamas
M orrow
Union
W asco
M arion
Lincoln
Baker
W heeler
J efferson
Benton
! "
#$%$
#
Gilliam
S herman
Polk
W allowa
Umatilla
Hood
River
M ultnomah
Tillamook
Linn
Grant
IDAH O
Crook
Lane
Deschutes
Douglas
M alheur
Coos
Harney
!"#$%
&
'&
(&
)&
*&
Albers equal area projection
Lake
Klamath
Curry
J osephine
J ackson
N EVADA
CALIFO RN IA
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
The !"#$%&"'()#'"* of the U nited States of AmericaO
R
Figure 3. County Map of Oregon
Location: Morrow & Umatilla Counties, Oregon (Vansycle Ridge)
Project Size: 25 MW
Jobs Created: 4 construction jobs; 6 operations and maintenance jobs
Taxes Paid: $243,000 (1999)
Land Lease Payments: $64,300 annually
(Northwest Economic Associates 2004)
Project Summary:
The Vansycle Ridge is a small wind project with a capacity of 25 MW. The scale
of this project resulted in a small number of jobs during the construction phase,
producing 4 jobs and $105,000 in personal income. The Vansycle Ridge project created 6
jobs and $104,000 in personal income for operations and maintenance. Property tax
14
payments from the project in 1999 totaled $243,000. Net revenue, after taxes, paid to the
landowners was $64,300.
15
CULBERSON, TEXAS
&"#$%&"'atlas+,%!"#$#%!#%&$#
TEXAS
TM
CO U N TIES
Dallam
Hartley
Oldham
Parmer
Hemphill
Carson
G ray
W heeler
Randall Armstrong Donley
Collingsworth
Potter
Deaf S mith
N EW MEX ICO
M oore Hutchinson Roberts
Castro
O KLAH O MA
Childress
Hall
S wisher
Briscoe
Hale
Floyd
M otley
Cottle
Crosby
Dickens
King
Hardeman
Bailey
Lamb
W ilbarger W ichita
Foard
Clay
Cochran Hockley
G aines
Dawson
Borden
S curry
Fisher
J ones
S hackelS tephens
ford
M artin
Howard M itchell
Nolan
Taylor
Callahan
Crane
Coke
M idland G lasscock S terling
Reagan
Tom G reen
Irion
Coleman
Brown
Comanche
Hamilton
M ills
Concho
M cCulloch
Crockett
S utton
G illespie
Kinney
CH IH U AH U A
'&
(&&
('&
)&&
Houston
W illiamson
Real
U valde
Zavala
Bandera
Comal
Caldwell
G uadalupe
Frio
Atascosa
Lavaca
Karnes
J ackson
Victoria
G oliad
E
Dimmit
X
I C
La S alle
M cM ullen
Bee
O
Duval
Live Oak
J im
W ells
Orange
Liberty
J efferson
Chambers
Fort Bend
G alveston
Brazoria
M atagorda
Calhoun
Refugio
S an Patricio
W ebb
Hardin
Harris
W harton
DeW itt
Tyler
S an
J acinto
M ontgomery
Colorado
G onzales
W ilson
Austin
Fayette
Polk
W alker
W ashington
Bastrop
Bexar
M edina
M adison
Brazos G rimes
Burleson
Lee
Hays
S an
Augustine S abine
Trinity
Robertson
M ilam
S helby
Angelina
Leon
Falls
Bell
Travis
Blanco
Kendall
Panola
Nacogdoches
Aransas
Nueces
Kleberg
%
'
(
)
*+
&
J im Hogg
N U EV O
LEO N
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Hidalgo
Kenedy
W illacy
!
S tarr
D U RAN G O
Brooks
"
Zapata
#
CO AH U ILA
$
%
Albers equal area projection
M averick
Anderson Cherokee
$
M
!"#$%
Kerr
Harrison
G regg
Rusk
r
Edwards
S mith
Henderson
W alle
Val Verde
Brewster
Cass
M arion
U pshur
Freestone
Limestone
M cLennan
Burnet
Llano
Van
Zandt
Bowie
Navarro
Kimble
Terrell
Presidio
M ason
W ood
Titus
Camp
J asper
M enard
Ellis
Coryell
Lampasas
S an S aba
S chleicher
Pecos
J eff Davis
Rains
Kaufman
Hood J ohnson
S omervell
Hill
Bosque
Erath
Rockwall
Dallas
Tarrant
Parker
Hunt
Ne wton
U pton
Reeves
Runnels
Palo Pinto
Eastland
Denton
W ise
Hopkins
A
W ard
Culberson
Ector
J ack
Collin
IAN
W inkler
Red River
De lta
Young
Andrews
Lamar
Fannin
G rayson
Cooke
U IS
Hudspeth
Throckmorton
S tonewall Haskell
M ontague
Archer
LO
Loving
Kent
G arza
Lynn
Baylor
Knox
M orris
El Paso
Terry
Lubbock
Franklin
Yoakum
&
AR KA N SA S
&
Texas has 254 counties. There are 3071
counties in the U nited States. Counties
are the primary legal divisions of most
states and generally are functioning
governmental units. They are known as
"parishes" in Louisiana. In Alaska,
C ensus Areas are used for statistical
purposes,
while
the
principal
governmental units are boroughs.
M aryland, M issouri, N evada, and
Virginia also have independent cities,
government
units
outside
the
jurisdiction of any county.
S herman Hansford Ochiltree Lipscomb
Cameron
TAMA U LIPAS
The !"#$%&"'()#'"* of the U nited States of AmericaO
Figure 4. County Map of Texas
R
pagecnty_tx2.pdf INT E R IOR -G E OLOG ICA L S U R V EY, R E S TON , V IR G IN IA -2004
Location: Culberson, Texas (Delaware Mountain)
Project Size: 30 MW
Jobs Created: 26 construction jobs; 11 operations and maintenance jobs
Taxes Paid: $387,000 (2001)
Land Lease Payments: $51,000 annually
(Northwest Economic Associates 2004)
Project Summary:
Culberson suffered a 9 percent decrease in population between 1990-2000 with
high unemployment rates, and a per capita income 55 percent of the state average. During
the construction phase of the wind project, 26 jobs were created with a $391,000 of
personal income. Most of the construction jobs created were held by non-residents, who
lived temporarily in the region. The operations and maintenance of the project required
16
11 jobs with a total personal income of $346,000. The project paid property taxes of
$387,000 in 2001. Total annual payments to landowners totaled $51,000.
PROFILES OF THE TOP TWENTY STATES OF INSTALLED WIND
CAPACITY
TEXAS5
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 7,113
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 1,651
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 1
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 2
Texas Year-End Wind Power Capacity
7113 7407
10000
4353
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
1992
2736
1096 1096 1290 1290
1000
184
184
100
10
nt
C
ur
re
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Figure 5. Texas Year-End Wind Power Capacity
5
All installed capacities based on 2008 American Wind Energy Association data
18
Financial Incentives6:
•
Corporate Deduction
o Solar and Wind Energy Device Franchise Tax Deduction
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Solar and Wind Energy Business Franchise Tax Exemption
•
Production Incentive
o Green Mountain Energy Renewable Rewards Buy-Back Program
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Systems Property Tax Exemption
•
State Loan Program
o LoanSTAR Revolving Loan Program
•
Utility Rebate Program
o Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative - Renewable Energy Rebates
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Building Energy Code
o Austin - Commercial and Residential Green Building Requirements
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Alternative Energy in New State Construction
o Austin - Green Building Requirement for City Projects
o City of Plano - LEED Standard for Public Buildings
6
A summary of selected financial incentive programs can be found in the Appendix. See the Database of
State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (http://www.dsireusa.org) for summaries of omitted
programs
19
o Dallas - Green Building Requirements for Municipal Buildings
o Frisco - Municipal Green Building Program
o Houston - Green Building Requirements for New Municipal Structures
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix and Emissions Disclosure
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Austin - Green Power Purchasing
o Dallas - Green Energy Purchasing
o Houston - Green Power Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Line Extension Analysis
o Line Extension and Construction Charges
•
Net Metering
o Austin Energy - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Austin - Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewable Generation Requirement
o San Antonio City Public Service (CPS Energy) - Renewables Portfolio
Goal
20
IOWA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 2,791
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 20
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 2
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 1
Iowa Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
2791
1000
242
324
242
634
472
423
1273
932
836
100
10
Figure 6. Iowa Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Corporate Tax Credit
o Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits (Corporate)
•
Excise Tax Incentive
o Energy Replacement Generation Tax Exemption
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
21
•
Personal Tax Credit
o Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Personal)
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Local Option - Special Assessment of Wind Energy Devices
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Property Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Systems
•
Sales Tax Exemption
o Wind and Solar Energy Equipment Exemption
•
State Grant Program
o Grants for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research
•
State Loan Program
o Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program
o Iowa Energy Bank
•
Utility Rebate Program
o Farmers Electric Cooperative (Kalona) - Renewable Energy Rebates
o Independence Light & Power - Renewable Energy Rebates
o Maquoketa Municipal Electric Utility - Renewable Energy Rebates
o Preston Municipal Electric Utility - Renewable Energy Rebates
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix Disclosure
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Guidelines
22
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
•
Net Metering
o Iowa - Net Metering
•
Renewables Set Aside
o Alternative Energy Law (AEL)
23
CALIFORNIA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 2,537
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 20
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 3
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 17
California Year-End Wind Power Capacity
10000
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
2537 2537
2025 2095 2149 2376 2439
1616 1616 1683 1823
1000
100
10
Figure 7. California Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Green Building Incentive
o San Bernardino County - Green Building Incentive
o Santa Monica - Expedited Permitting for Green Buildings
24
•
Production Incentive
o California Feed-In Tariff
•
State Rebate Program
o Emerging Renewables Program
o Self-Generation Incentive Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Building Energy Code
o Marin County - Single Family Dwelling Energy Efficiency Ordinance
o San Francisco - Green Building Code
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Green Building Action Plan for State Facilities
o Berkeley - Green Building Standards for City Owned and Operated
Projects
o San Diego - Sustainable Building Policy
o San Francisco - Green Building Requirement for City Buildings
o San Jose - Green Building Program
•
Generation Disclosure
o Power Source Disclosure Program
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o San Diego - Green Power Purchasing
o San Francisco - Renewable Energy Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
25
•
Net Metering
o California - Net Metering
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Public Benefits Funds for Renewables & Efficiency
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o California Renewables Portfolio Standard
26
MINNESOTA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 1753
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 275
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 4
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 9
Minnesota Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
1753 1753
338
320
291
273
896
745
600
558
1300
100
10
Figure 8. Minnesota Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Production Incentive
o Minnesota - Renewable Energy Production Incentive
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
27
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Wind and Solar-Electric (PV) Systems Exemption
o Sales Tax Exemption
o Wind Energy Sales Tax Exemption
•
State Loan Program
o Agricultural Improvement Loan Program
o Sustainable Agriculture Loan Program
o Value-Added Stock Loan Participation Program
•
Utility Grant Program
o Xcel Energy - Renewable Development Fund Grants
•
Utility Loan Program
o Great River Energy - Commercial Loan Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Sustainable Building Guidelines for New State Construction and
Renovations
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix and Emissions Disclosure
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Minnesota - Net Metering
28
•
Other Policy
o Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) Tariff
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Renewable Development Fund (RDF)
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewables Set Aside
o Xcel Energy Wind and Biomass Generation Mandate
•
Solar and Wind Access Law
o Solar and Wind Easements
29
WASHINGTON
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 1,375
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 70
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 5
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 24
Washington Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
818
1000
1163 1375 1375
390
180
228
244
241
100
10
Figure 9. Washington Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Green Building Incentive
o Seattle - Density Bonus for Green Buildings
nt
8
Cu
rre
20
0
7
20
0
6
20
0
5
20
0
4
20
0
3
20
0
2
20
0
1
20
0
0
20
0
19
9
9
1
30
•
Local Grant Program
o King County - LEED Grants Program
•
Production Incentive
o Chelan County PUD - Sustainable Natural Alternative Power Producers
Program
o Northwest Solar Cooperative - Green Tag Purchase
o Okanogan County PUD - Sustainable Natural Alternative Power Program
o Orcas Power & Light - Production Incentive
o Washington Renewable Energy Production Incentives
•
Sales Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Sales and Use Tax Exemption
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Green Building and Energy Reduction Standards for State Agencies
o Seattle - Sustainable Building Policy
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix Disclosure
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Clark County - Green Power Purchasing
o Seattle - Green Power Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
31
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
•
Net Metering
o Grays Harbor PUD - Net Metering
o Washington - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewable Energy Standard
32
COLORADO
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 1,068
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 0
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 6
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 24
Colorado Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1067 1068 1068
1000
231
223
100
61
22
291
231
61
22
10
Figure 10. Colorado Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Clean Energy Fund - New Energy Economic Development
33
•
Local Loan Program
o Boulder County - ClimateSmart Loan Program
•
Private Grant Program
o Energy Environmental Corporation - Grant Program for Non-profits and
Low Income Homeowners
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Renewable Energy Property Tax Assessment
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Local Option - Property Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Systems
•
Sales Tax Exemption
o Local Option - Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy
Systems
o Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Equipment
•
Utility Loan Program
o Gunnison County Electric - Renewable Energy Resource Loan
•
Utility Rebate Program
o Local Small Wind Rebate Programs
o Holy Cross Energy - WE CARE Rebates
o La Plata Electric Association - Renewable Generation Rebate Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Building Energy Code
o Aspen - Renewable Energy Mitigation Program
34
o Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Denver - Green Building Requirement for City-Owned Buildings
o Fort Collins - Green Building Requirement for City-Owned Buildings
o Greening of State Government
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix Disclosure
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Aspen - Green Power Purchasing
o Boulder - Green Power Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Mandatory Green Power Option for Large Municipal Utilities
•
Net Metering
o Colorado - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewable Energy Standard
•
Solar and Wind Access Law
o Solar, Wind and Energy-Efficiency Access Laws
35
OREGON
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 1,067
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 250
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 7
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 11
Oregon Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1067 1168
885
1000
259
218
157
438
338
263
100
25
25
10
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Figure 11. Oregon Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Tax Credit for Renewable Energy Equipment Manufacturers
36
•
Personal Tax Credit
o Residential Energy Tax Credit
•
Production Incentive
o Northwest Solar Cooperative - Green Tag Purchase
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Systems Exemption
•
State Loan Program
o Small-Scale Energy Loan Program
•
State Rebate Program
o Energy Trust - Community Wind Incentive Program
o Energy Trust - Small Wind Incentive Program
•
Utility Loan Program
o Columbia River PUD - Residential Renewable Energy Loan Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Contractor Licensing
o Renewable Energy Contractor Licensing
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Portland - Green Building Policy and LEED Certification
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Portland - Green Power Purchasing & Generation
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
37
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
•
Net Metering
o Ashland Electric - Net Metering
o Oregon - Net Metering
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Oregon Energy Trust
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewable Portfolio Standard
•
Solar and Wind Access Law
o Solar and Wind Access Laws
o Solar/Wind Permitting Standards
o Oregon - Model Renewable Energy Ordinance
38
ILLINOIS
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 915
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 201
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 8
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 16
Illinois Year-End Wind Power Capacity
10000
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
1000
915
699
107
100
991
107
51
50
10
Figure 12. Illinois Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Green Building Incentive
o Chicago - Green Permit Program
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
39
•
Private Grant Program
o Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation Grants
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Commercial Wind Energy Property Valuation
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Energy Efficiency in State Government
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix and Emissions Disclosure
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Illinois - Green Power Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Illinois - Net Metering
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Renewable Energy Resources Trust Fund
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Renewable Portfolio Standard
40
NEW YORK
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 832
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 20
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 9
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 15
New York Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1162
832
1000
425
370
186
100
48
48
48
48
18
10
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Figure
13. New York Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Energy Conservation Improvements Property Tax Exemption
o Local Option - Solar, Wind & Biomass Energy Systems Exemption
41
•
State Grant Program
o NYSERDA - Assisted Home Performance Grants
•
State Loan Program
o NYSERDA - Energy $mart Loan Fund
o NYSERDA - Home Performance with Energy Star Loan Program
•
State Rebate Program
o NYSERDA - On-Site Small Wind Incentive Program
•
Utility Rebate Program
o Long Island Power Authority - Wind Energy Rebate Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o New York - Energy Efficiency Standards for State Facilities
o New York City - Green Building Requirements for Municipal Buildings
•
Generation Disclosure
o Environmental Disclosure Program
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o New York - Renewable Power Procurement Policy
o Suffolk County - Green Power Purchasing Policy
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Long Island Power Authority - Net Metering
o New York - Net Metering
42
•
Public Benefits Fund
o System Benefits Charge
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Long Island Power Authority - Renewable Electricity Goal
o New York - Renewable Portfolio Standard
43
KANSAS
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 921
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 199
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 10
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 3
Kansas Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
921
1000
364
264
114
100
114
114
921
364
114
10
2
2
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Figure
14. Kansas Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Solar and Wind Manufacturing Incentive
44
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Property Tax Exemption
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Greensburg - Green Building Requirement for New Municipal Buildings
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Kansas - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Kansas - Renewables Portfolio Standard
45
NORTH DAKOTA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 714
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 0
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 11
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 1
North Dakota Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
714
714
345
178
100
66
10
98
66
5
3
Figure 15. North Dakota Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Personal Tax Credit
o Renewable Energy Tax Credit (Personal)
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
46
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Large Wind Property Tax Reduction
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Geothermal, Solar and Wind Property Exemption
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Net Metering
o North Dakota - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o North Dakota - Renewable and Recycled Energy Objective
47
OKLAHOMA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 708
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 123
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 12
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 8
Oklahoma Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
176
708
689
535
475
708
176
100
10
Figure 16. Oklahoma Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Corporate Tax Credit
o Zero-Emission Facilities Production Tax Credit
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
48
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Tax Credit for Manufacturers of Small Wind Turbines
•
State Loan Program
o Community Energy Education Management Program
o Energy Loan Fund for Schools
o Higher Education Energy Loan Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o High Performance Building Standards in State Buildings
•
Net Metering
o Oklahoma - Net Metering
49
WYOMING
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 676
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 0
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 13
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity):
Wyoming Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
676
285
100
141
91
73
285
288
288
676
288
141
10
Figure 17. Wyoming Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Sales Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Sales Tax Exemption
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
50
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Wyoming - Net Metering
51
NEW MEXICO
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 497
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 100
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 14
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 12
New Mexico Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
266
206
496
406
496
497
497
100
10
Figure 18. New Mexico Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Corporate Tax Credit
o Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Corporate)
o Sustainable Building Tax Credit (Corporate)
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
1
20
01
1
20
20
99
19
1
00
1
1
52
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Alternative Energy Product Manufacturers Tax Credit
•
Personal Tax Credit
o Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Personal)
o Sustainable Building Tax Credit (Personal)
•
State Bond Program
o Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Bond Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Energy Efficiency Standards for State Buildings
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
•
Net Metering
o Farmington Electric Utility System - Net Metering
o New Mexico - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o New Mexico - Renewables Portfolio Standard
53
WISCONSIN
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 449
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 54
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 15
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 18
Wisconsin Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
449
100
53
23
53
53
53
53
53
449
53
23
10
Figure 19. Wisconsin Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Energy Independence Fund Grant and Loan Program
nt
rre
Cu
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
1
54
o Focus on Energy - Business & Marketing Grant
•
Production Incentive
o Wisconsin Power and Light (Alliant Energy) - Advanced Renewables
Tariff
o Xcel Energy - Renewable Energy Buy-Back Rates
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Solar and Wind Energy Equipment Exemption
•
Sales Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Sales Tax Exemptions
•
State Grant Program
o Focus on Energy - Renewable Energy Grant Programs
•
State Rebate Program
o Focus on Energy - Renewable Energy Cash-Back Rewards
•
Utility Grant Program
o We Energies - Direct Financial Incentives for Not-for-Profits
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards for State Buildings
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Madison - Green Power Purchasing
o Wisconsin - Green Power Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
55
•
Net Metering
o Wisconsin - Net Metering
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Focus on Energy Program
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Wisconsin - Renewable Portfolio Standard
•
Solar and Wind Access Law
o Madison - Solar and Wind Access and Planning Laws
o Solar and Wind Access Laws
56
PENNSYLVANIA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 361
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 235
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 16
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 2
Pennsylvania Year-End Wind Power Capacity
10000
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
1000
361
129
129
129
20
03
20
04
20
05
294
366
179
35
35
20
01
20
02
100
11
10
Figure 20. Pennsylvania Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o DCED - Wind and Geothermal Incentives Program
rre
nt
Cu
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
00
19
99
1
57
•
Local Grant Program
o Metropolitan Edison Company SEF Grants (FirstEnergy Territory)
o Penelec SEF of the Community Foundation for the Alleghenies Grant
Program (FirstEnergy Territory)
•
Local Loan Program
o Metropolitan Edison Company SEF Loans (FirstEnergy Territory)
o Penelec SEF of the Community Foundation for the Alleghenies Loan
Program (FirstEnergy Territory)
o Sustainable Development Fund Financing Program (PECO Territory)
o Sustainable Energy Fund (SEF) Loan Program (PPL Territory)
o West Penn Power SEF Commercial Loan Program
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Property Tax Assessment for Commercial Wind Farms
•
State Grant Program
o DCED - High Performance Building Incentives Program
o High Performance Green Schools Planning Grants
o Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) - Grants
o Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Grant Program
•
Utility Grant Program
o PPL Electric Utilities - LEED Certification Partnership Program
58
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Generation Disclosure
o Fuel Mix Disclosure
•
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
o Montgomery County - Wind Power Purchasing
o Pennsylvania - Green Power Purchasing
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Pennsylvania - Net Metering
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Public Benefits Programs
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Pennsylvania - Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard
•
Solar/Wind Permitting Standards
o Pennsylvania - Model Wind Ordinance
59
WEST VIRGINIA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 330
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 0
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 17
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 32
West Virginia Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
330
330
146
100
66
66
66
66
66
10
Figure 21. West Virginia Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Special Assessment for Wind Energy Systems
•
Net Metering
o West Virginia - Net Metering
nt
re
Cu
r
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
60
MONTANA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 271
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 0
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 18
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 5
Montana Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
271
153
146
137
271
100
10
Figure 22. Montana Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Corporate Tax Credit
o Alternative Energy Investment Tax Credit (Corporate)
nt
rre
Cu
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
19
1
04
1
1
61
•
Industry Recruitment/Support
o Alternative Energy Investment Tax Credit
o Property Tax Abatement for Production and Manufacturing Facilities
•
Personal Tax Credit
o Alternative Energy Investment Tax Credit (Personal)
o Residential Alternative Energy System Tax Credit
•
Production Incentive
o Northwest Solar Cooperative - Green Tag Purchase
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Corporate Property Tax Reduction for New/Expanded Generating
Facilities
•
Property Tax Exemption
o Generation Facility Corporate Tax Exemption
o Renewable Energy Systems Exemption
•
State Loan Program
o Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program
•
Utility Grant Program
o NorthWestern Energy - USB Renewable Energy Fund
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Montana - Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
62
•
Net Metering
o Montana - Net Metering
o Montana Electric Cooperatives - Net Metering
•
Public Benefits Fund
o Universal System Benefits Program
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Montana - Renewable Resource Standard
•
Solar and Wind Access Law
o Solar and Wind Easement
63
SOUTH DAKOTA
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 187
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 51
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 19
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 4
South Dakota Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
187
187
98
100
44
44
44
44
10
3
3
nt
Cu
rre
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
Figure 23. South Dakota Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
Property Tax Assessment
o Small Commercial Wind Energy Property Tax Assessment
Property Tax Exemption
64
o Large Commercial Wind Exemption and Alternative Taxes
o Renewable Energy Systems Exemption
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o High Performance Building Requirements for State Buildings
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o South Dakota - Renewable, Recycled and Conserved Energy Objective
65
MISSOURI
Total Installed Capacity (MW): 163
Under Construction Capacity (MW): 146
Rank in U.S. (Existing Capacity): 20
Rank in U.S. (Potential Capacity): 20
Missouri Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
10000
1000
163
100
163
62
10
Figure 24. Missouri Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Financial Incentives
•
State Loan Program
o Energy Loan Program
re
nt
Cu
r
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
19
99
1
66
Rules, Regulations & Policies
•
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
o Life-Cycle Analysis and Energy Efficiency in State Buildings
•
Interconnection
o Interconnection Standards
•
Net Metering
o Missouri - Net Metering
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Columbia - Renewables Portfolio Standard
o Missouri - Renewable Electricity Standard
FEDERAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS
Twenty-five States currently have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in place,
requiring a certain percentage of an electricity supplier’s generated power to come from
renewable sources. The purpose of adopting such standards is to assist in creating a longterm, stable market for renewable sources. By stabilizing the renewable energy market,
the purpose of the program is to attract capital investment for renewable projects from
private developers. Renewable portfolio standards are designed to work in collaboration
with market forces to reduce energy costs with the benefits at the lowest costs (Nogee
2007).
While state efforts to promote a diverse energy portfolio are a meaningful step,
there is growing desire to move towards a federal RPS to erase differences among state
mandates or the lack of a standard in some states to create a larger, more robust market
(Cooper and Sovacool 2006). By creating a federal standard, the hope is to spur more
investment in renewable sources from an increased demand, ultimately yielding a varied
national energy supply.
Proponents of a state or federal RPS cite the benefits of expanded economic
development, the reduced dependence on foreign energy sources, lowered electricity
68
prices, and the reduction of greenhouse gases as reasons to institute such standards
(Fershee 2008). The issue of renewable energy deals with more than simply the argument
of supply and demand regarding energy, expanding into the discussions of national
security, environmentalism, and economic development.
From an environmental perspective, while electricity accounts for less than three
percent of domestic activity, the burning of fossil fuels for power production accounts for
more than 26 percent of smog producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one third of toxic
mercury emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide (Fershee 2008).
The transition to a greater proportion of renewable energy sources can help the United
States lessen its contribution to global warming while continuing to meet energy demand.
By securing a greater percentage of its energy supply from domestic renewable
sources, the United States can begin to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of
energy. Energy independence will allow the United States more flexibility in how it
interacts and deals with energy issues as some of the nations it depends on for energy are
politically unstable or hostile towards the United States (Nogee 2007). Shifting away
from the dependence of energy in areas of instability allows the country to minimize
fluctuations in globalized supply oil, natural gas, and coal.
The application of a federal level RPS could assist in economic development and
job creation. The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic
impact of a 20 percent RPS phased in by 2020. Their analysis projected the generation of
355,000 jobs in the manufacturing, construction, operation, and maintenance. Those
numbers are twice as many as produced by fossil fuels for a net increase of 152,000 jobs.
69
The jobs created would provide an $8.2 billion increase in income and $10.2 billion in
gross domestic product (Nogee 2007).
The additional emphasis on wind power, derived from the implementation of a
federal RPS, could create an increase in domestic demand necessary to facilitate wind
turbine manufacturing. A study conducted by Renewable Energy Policy Project
determined there are 16,000 firms in the across the nation with the potential to enter into
the necessary part manufacturing for the wind turbine sector. Considering the turbine
constitutes between 65 to 85 percent of the total project cost, manufacturing those items
domestically keeps that money in the national economy. The top twenty states, benefiting
from 80 percent of the total job creation would also be the same twenty states that
suffered 76 percent of the manufacturing jobs of the last four years (Sterzinger and
Svrcek 2004)7.
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) is a federal incentive program designed to assist
renewable energy project developers. The PTC offers wind developers a 2.1¢ per kWh
credit during the first ten years of operation. The costs of a wind farm are front-loaded
with a large capital investment in the construction phase of the project with minimal costs
associated with the daily maintenance and operation. The PTC offers developers a way to
recoup their investment at faster rate, making renewable energy a more viable investment
opportunity.
7
A state-by-state breakdown of the estimated job creation from the study can be found on p. 5.
70
Originally enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the PTC expired after
2001. The passage of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act in March 2002
renewed the PTC until the end of 2003. After its expiration, the PTC remained inactive
until October 2004 when it was revived as part of the Working Families Tax Relief Act,
which extended the credit through the end of 2005. Before its expiration, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 extended the PTC through 2007. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act
of 2006 extended the PTC for another year through the end of 2008. In late 2008, the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act extended the PTC through the end of 2009. With
the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in early 2009, the PTC was
extended for three years until the end of 2012.
However, while the existence of the PTC is important, the length of availability of
the tax credit is vital in encouraging investment. Short-term extensions and lapses of the
PTC destabilize renewable energy as an investment by creating uncertainty in the
availability of the PTC, therein discouraging the investment in future projects. A 50-MW
wind farm can be completed in eighteen months to two years, most of that time span is
for measuring conditions and obtaining necessary building permits with actual
construction occurring within six months. Without a multiyear extension of the PTC,
developers may choose not to begin construction of new projects because of the
uncertainty surrounding the project finances (Wiser 2007).
Since the establishment of the PTC as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the
tax credit endured two lapses, resulting in lower wind capacity installations the following
year. In 2001 and 2003, the PTC expired for a few months, but was ultimately extended
71
in subsequent legislation (Wiser 2007). The following chart illustrates the effect of
allowing the PTC to expire on installed wind capacity.
National Year-End Wind Power Capacity
Wind Power Capacity (in MW)
30000
22500
15000
7500
rre
nt
Cu
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
0
Figure 25 National Year-End Wind Capacity
BUSINESS INCENTIVE TAX CREDIT (ITC)
While the PTC has been the primary federal incentive in promoting the
development of wind energy, the financial crisis of 2008 destabilized the financing
markets for energy projects. In response, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 added a second incentive option to complement the PTC, the Incentive Tax
Credit (ITC), for renewable energy developers. Instead of choosing the PTC, wind
developers may choose the ITC to receive a 30 percent investment tax credit for
renewable facilities placed in service during 2009-10. Projects beginning construction
prior to 2011 and in service by 2013 are eligible for the ITC as well. Additionally, the
72
ARRA contained a provision allowing taxpayers, who are eligible for the Production Tax
Credit (PTC), to take a grant directly from the Treasury Department instead of receiving
the ITC. The ARRA removed a previous limitation on projects supported by subsidized
energy financing (DSIRE 2009).
QUALIFYING ADVANCED ENERGY PROJECT INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
The Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Investment Tax Credit, authorized by the
ARRA and administered through the Treasury Department, is aimed at industry
recruitment with an amount ceiling of 30 percent of qualified investment. Understanding
the importance of domestic turbine manufacturing in the economic benefits of wind
energy, the program provides an investment tax credit for any advanced energy project
that establishes, re-equips or expands a manufacturing facility, or produces equipment
needed in the production of wind energy. Total available funds for the program are
limited to $2.3 billion (DSIRE 2009).
MODIFIED ACCELERATED COST-RECOVERY SYSTEM (MACRS)
Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System is a cost depreciation measure with
the purpose of lowering the taxable income of operators of renewable systems. MACRS
establishes a set of class lives, ranging from three to 50 years, for a variety of property
types. Wind facilities fall under the 5-year schedule. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
contained a provision for 50 percent bonus depreciation for eligible renewable systems
placed in service during 2008. The passage of the ARRA in early 2009 extended the
bonus for systems placed in service through the 2009 calendar year. Under the bonus
depreciation, the owner is entitled to deduct 50 percent of the adjusted basis of the
73
property in 2008 and 2009. The remaining 50 percent is then depreciated over the
ordinary schedule. If a hypothetical wind project cost $2,000,000, then half of the project
($1,000,000) is eligible for deduction for 2009 while the remaining half is what is applied
to the normal MACRS depreciation schedule, which is then coupled with the 50%
deduction for the total deduction allowed in that tax year (DSIRE 2009).
QUALIFIED ENERGY CONSERVATION BONDS
Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds are a federal loan program for state and local
governments to finance certain types of energy projects. The advantage of these bonds is
that they are issued with, theoretically, a zero percent interest rate. The borrower is
responsible for only repayment of the principal with the bondholder receiving federal tax
credits instead of the traditional bond interest. Credits that exceed the bondholder’s tax
liability can only be carried over to the next year, not refunded. These bonds are different
from traditional tax-exempt bonds as the federal tax credits issued through the program
treated as taxable income for the bondholder. The ARRA of 2009 allowed a total bond
volume of $3.2 billion with the funds allotted to the states based on population size. An
allocation to large local governments is based on their percentage of the state’s overall
population (DSIRE 2009).
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE (REPI)
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive is a production incentive program
paying 2.1¢ per kWh to eligible renewable systems generating electricity over the first 10
years of operation. The REPI was designed to complement the PTC, available to only
businesses paying corporate taxes (DSIRE 2009).
74
RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CREDIT
The Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit is an incentive program is focused
on promotion of incorporation of renewable energy systems into the residential sector.
The credit was initially created to focus on the promotion of solar, but the Energy
Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 extended the credits to small wind energy
systems and pushed the year of eligibility to 2016. Under the program, individuals can
receive a 30 percent credit on qualified expenditures on systems serving that individual’s
home, although it need not be the primary residence. Qualifying expenditures include
labor costs of preparation and installation as well as necessary wiring (DSIRE 2009).
RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANTS
Renewable Energy Grants are part of a federal program administered through the
U.S. Department of Treasury. The program allows small wind projects (including
turbines with a capacity up to 100 kW) to receive a grant equal to 30 percent of the basis
of the system. Eligible wind systems must be placed in service by the end of 2012. As of
early 2009, the Department of Treasury has not released formal guidelines for these
grants. Additionally, the ARRA contained a provision allowing taxpayers, who are
eligible for the Production Tax Credit (PTC), to take the ITC or a renewable energy grant
from the Treasury Department instead of receiving the PTC (DSIRE 2009).
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM (REAP) GRANTS & LOAN
GUARANTEES
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 converted the Renewable Energy
Systems and Energy Efficiency Program into the REAP grant program. The focus of the
75
project remained focused on promotion of renewable energy and efficiency to rural
business and agriculture. Administered through the United States Department of
Agriculture, the program distributes grants and loan guarantees for energy efficiency
improvements and renewable systems. Funding for the program through 2012 is available
in the following amounts: $55 million for FY 2009, $60 million for FY, $70 million for
FY 2011, and $70 million in 2012. For the individual project, grant funding is limited to
25 percent of the project cost, the loan guarantee is capped at $25 million, and the
combined grant/loan guarantee cannot exceed 75 percent of the total cost (DSIRE 2009).
CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS (CREBS)
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds are primarily used by public sector groups, are
designed to finance renewable energy projects. CREBS can be issued by electric
cooperatives, state and local governments, and other approved lenders. The advantage of
these bonds is they are issued with, theoretically, a zero percent interest rate. The
borrower is responsible for only repayment of the principal with the bondholder receiving
federal tax credits instead of the traditional bond interest. Credits, which exceed the
bondholder’s tax liability, can only be carried over to the next year, not refunded.
Allocation for the credits has been reduction to 70 percent on the dollar. These bonds are
different from traditional tax-exempt bonds as the energy conservation bonds are treated
as taxable income (DSIRE 2009).
ANALYSIS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTALLED CAPACITY, POTENTIAL
CAPACITY, AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
This analysis on the relationship between a state’s installed wind capacity,
potential capacity, and its incentive programs focuses on the top 30 states in terms of both
installed and potential wind capacity. The examined states all possess a potential wind
capacity of over 1 GW or have installed substantial amounts of wind energy despite
minimal wind resources within their state. Breaking the top 30 states with installed wind
capacity into three groups of ten revealed a pattern where the higher ranking groups
possessed a larger average of total programs, both with the financial incentive programs
and rules, regulations, and policies8.
8
A listing of the programs in each category can be found in the Appendix
77
Table 2. State Groups Incentive Program Type Breakdown
Installed Wind
Capacity State
Rankings
States 1 to 10
TOTAL
AVERAGE
States 11 to 20
TOTAL
AVERAGE
States 21 to 30
TOTAL
AVERAGE
All Programs
Financial
Incentives
Rules,
Regulations, &
Policies
168
16
70
7
98
9
101
10
56
5
45
4
90
9
40
4
50
5
Group One has 25 percent more financial incentive programs than the next group of
states. Among the three groups, Group One has substantially more rules, regulations, and
polices than the other two groups, doubling their combined total. These numbers indicate
the top ten states with installed capacity generally have more incentive programs, which
may explain their higher rankings. However, these basic numbers fail to show where the
concentrations in specific programs exist to determine a relationship between a specific
incentive type and the individual groups.
In analyzing the incentives, the financial incentives are separated from the rules,
regulations and policies. The following table shows the state breakdown of the groups in
the analysis:
78
Table 3. State Group Assignments
GROUP ONE
GROUP TWO
GROUP THREE
GROUP FOUR
Texas
North Dakota
Indiana
Massachusetts
Iowa
Oklahoma
Michigan
Arkansas
California
Wyoming
Idaho
Arizona
Minnesota
New Mexico
Nebraska
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Nevada
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Maine
Oregon
West Virginia
Tennessee
Illinois
Montana
New Hampshire
New York
South Dakota
Utah
Kansas
Missouri
New Jersey
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS9
In comparing the groups, the analysis sought incentive categories where Group
One held a majority of the programs out of the groups. The assumption is that a
concentration of the incentive programs in a specific category in Group One suggests at
least a partial explanation in why the higher ranked states have larger installed capacities.
The results of the analysis found that following financial incentive categories were
concentrated in Group One:
9
•
Green Building Incentives (50 percent)
•
Private Grant Programs (100 percent)
•
Excise Tax Incentive (100 percent)
•
Production Incentives (56 percent)
Detailed tables of each group’s incentive program numbers can be found in the Appendix
79
•
Property Tax Exemption (38 percent)
•
State Loan Program (45 percent)
•
Utility Loan Program (75 percent)
•
Utility Rebate (53 percent)
•
State Rebate (50 percent)
Based on these programs, it appears these states have proactive private sectors, which are
contributing to the development of wind capacity. The total program numbers of private
grant programs and excise tax incentive is minimal, so it difficult to place any weight on
their influence in Group One’s installed wind capacity. However, it is noteworthy that the
utility-based programs are concentrated in Group One. These states also appear to place
importance on creating incentives such as the green building and production incentives to
encourage private sector to develop or incorporate wind energy. The loan programs
would be vital to wind developers in helping to finance the large capital costs of wind
energy.
RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
Using the same criteria as the prior analysis, the following programs were concentrated in
Group One:
•
Building Energy Codes (89 percent)
•
Energy Standards in Public Buildings (50 percent)
•
Generation Disclosure (62 percent)
•
Green Power Purchasing (45 percent)
•
Interconnection Standards (40 percent)
80
•
Mandatory Green Power Option (67 percent)
•
Public Benefits Fund (42 percent)
•
Renewable Portfolio Standards (42 percent)
These programs seem to indicate a state’s commitment to renewable energy by setting
standards for localities. Programs such as renewable portfolio standards set an
expectation that a state will diversify its energy production to include a given percentage
of renewable energy. Adoption of such a standard pushes states with wind resources to
commit to wind development with financial incentives. The other programs like
interconnection standards help to facilitate the integration of the generated electricity
from renewable sources. In total, Group One’s significant concentration of rules,
regulations, and policies in comparison to the other groups suggests a strong commitment
to renewable energy production.
INDIVIDUAL GROUP ANALYSIS
Table 4. Group One Incentive Breakdown
GROUP
ONE
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
RANKING
POTENTIAL
CAPACITY
RANKING
TOTAL
PROGRAMS
FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES
PROGRAMS
RULES,
REGULATIONS,
& POLICIES
Texas
Iowa
California
Minnesota
Washington
Colorado
Oregon
Illinois
New York
Kansas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
10
17
9
24
11
23
16
15
3
20
19
18
16
18
24
19
10
18
6
6
14
4
7
8
11
8
3
7
2
14
5
14
9
10
13
11
7
11
4
81
In this group, several states have installed capacity rankings higher than their
potential capacity rankings, which suggest they have aggressively pursued the
development of wind energy. Most notable of these states are Washington and Oregon,
who have potential capacity rankings in the mid-twenties, yet have developed significant
installed wind capacities. Iowa, which recently passed California in installed capacity,
has the most financial incentives for developers. Iowa has clearly focused on the
incentive side as it develops its wind resources. Kansas is only ranked tenth in installed
capacity, despite having the third largest capacity in the United States. Kansas has the
fewest program totals in this group, which may explain its underwhelming performance.
Table 5. Group Two Incentive Breakdown
GROUP
TWO
North
Dakota
Oklahoma
Wyoming
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
West
Virginia
Montana
South
Dakota
Missouri
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
RANKING
POTENTIAL
CAPACITY
RANKING
TOTAL
PROGRAMS
FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES
PROGRAMS
RULES,
REGULATIONS,
& POLICIES
11
1
6
4
2
12
13
14
15
16
8
7
12
18
22
7
3
12
18
22
5
1
6
9
14
2
2
6
9
8
17
32
3
2
1
18
5
18
11
7
19
4
6
3
3
20
20
6
1
5
This group of states has several underachievers regarding their installed and
potential capacities, most notably North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. Their low
82
populations, resulting in low tax revenues that make it difficult to finance incentive
programs at a state or local level, may limit these states. With limited resources, these
states likely depend on the federal incentive programs available as they develop their
wind resources. West Virginia, however, is interesting in its installed capacity despite its
low potential ranking and low number of incentive programs. One possible explanation
for their wind development is the balancing of West Virginia’s coal industry with its
limited wind resources.
Table 6. Group Three Incentive Breakdown
GROUP 3
Indiana
Michigan
Idaho
Nebraska
Hawaii
Maine
Tennessee
New
Hampshire
Utah
New Jersey
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
RANKING
POTENTIAL
CAPACITY
RANKING
TOTAL
PROGRAMS
FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES
PROGRAMS
RULES,
REGULATIONS,
& POLICIES
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
44
14
13
6
*
19
39
6
17
9
5
9
9
4
2
6
6
2
5
3
4
4
11
3
3
4
6
0
28
35
8
4
4
29
30
26
29
12
11
4
4
8
7
This group of states is generally closer together in terms of their two rankings,
which lessens the influence of the incentive programs in terms of quantity. For these
states, the structure of their individual programs may have a greater influence on their
installed wind capacities. Although, states like Nebraska still appear to suffer from it lack
of incentive programs, which like the Dakotas may be attributed to its low population and
tax revenue to sufficiently finance incentive programs.
83
JOB CREATION
The economic benefits of wind energy are concentrated in three principal areas:
job creation, tax revenue, and land lease payments. The scope and impact of those
localized benefits depend upon the size of the wind installation and the amount of needed
materials obtained from local businesses as the demand and interest in alternative energy
sources grows in the United States, expanded investment increases economic viability as
alternative energy becomes more cost competitive with traditional fossil fuel sources.
Jobs created directly from wind energy occur over the construction and operation
phases of the wind project. The construction phase generally creates more jobs while
maintenance jobs last throughout operation of the wind project. Although the largest
employment numbers come from construction phase may be temporary, they represent a
significant boost to struggling local economies. The availability of a skilled local
workforce within the project area is a central factor in the economic benefits of wind
energy. The lack of a properly trained workforce results in the project developers
outsourcing the work outside of the project area. A locally provided workforce offers a
high probability of the workers’ incomes being reinvested in other local businesses.
While job creation may be the most recognizable economic benefit of wind
energy, the availability of necessary materials and components from local sources can
provide the largest economic gains. Specifically, the availability of wind turbine
components provides the greatest economic benefit as turbines generally constitute 65 to
85 percent of the total project cost. The study performed by the Renewable Energy Policy
Project (REPP) identified existing suppliers of the needed turbine parts and materials
within the United States. The study concluded most of the manufacturing jobs created
84
through a large, national investment in wind energy would occur in the states which lost
the most manufacturing jobs between 2001-2004. The report estimates a billion-dollar
investment per 1000 MW, creating 3,000 manufacturing, 700 installation, and 600
operation jobs.
In 2008, the United States’ installed wind capacity was roughly 25 GW. With the
passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Energy Information
Agency (EIA) adjusted its 2009 Energy Outlook to account for the impact of the ARRA.
In regards to the impact of the ARRA on wind energy, the EIA determined that the
installed wind capacity by 2030 would increase by 67 percent over the numbers prior to
the ARRA. By 2030, the EIA estimated the United States would have roughly 68 GW
installed wind capacity.
The economic impact of a large national investment in wind energy could provide
a substantial boost in job creation and reinvestment in local economies. Using the rough
estimates of the REPP study for job creation, the following table illustrates the potential
job creation numbers, if the United States doubled its current installed capacity of 25 GW
to 50 GW or the EIA estimate of 68 GW by 2030. Examining the potential job creation
from a national investment in wind industry against the current installed and potential
capacities illustrates which states have embraced renewable energy. Not all states have
the wind resources for development, but it is important to identify the states with
undeveloped resources and missed employment gains. The following table outlines the
potential job creation figures associated with the wind capacity expansion estimates.
85
Table 7. National Job Creation From Added Wind Capacity
Approximate
Installed
Wind
Capacity
(GW)
1
50
68
Estimated
Investment
Cost
(In Billions)
Manufacturing
Jobs Created
Installation Jobs
Created
Operations &
Maintenance
Jobs Created
1
50
68
3,000
150,000
204,000
700
35,000
47,600
600
30,000
40,800
REGIONAL JOB CREATION FROM ADDED WIND CAPACITY
THE SOUTH10
In the South, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia are the only states with
substantial, currently installed wind capacity. Of those states, both Texas and Oklahoma
have significant wind resources to allow for greater expansion, which brings significant
employment opportunities. By doubling its current wind capacity, Texas could create
over 75,000 total jobs, or 100,000 by meeting the EIA estimate. For Oklahoma, doubling
their current capacity would yield 7,500 jobs and the EIA estimate 10,000 jobs. Both
Texas and Oklahoma, despite their rankings of current installed capacity, have the wind
resources to produce higher capacity numbers, creating more jobs than these estimations.
West Virginia has an excellent ratio of installed capacity to potential capacity,
maximizing their wind resources. By fully developing their potential capacity, West
Virginia could create over 3,000 total jobs. For the rest of the states in the region, they
either lack the needed wind resources for development, or they have yet to significantly
10
Tables detailing the job creation figures for each region can be found in the Appendix
86
develop their resources. Most of these states do not have the capacity on par with
Oklahoma or Texas, but they could still yield enough development to produce substantial
localized employment gains.
THE WEST
In the West, several states possess substantial installed wind capacities, indicating
strong support for renewable energy. While California may only rank seventeenth in
potential wind capacity, the state has maximized their resources with a strong
commitment to promoting alternative energy sources. By doubling their existing capacity,
or meeting the EIA estimate, California could create 26,000 to 36,000 total jobs. In the
Pacific Northwest, Oregon and Washington could generate 11,000 to 15,000 and 14,000
to 19,000 total jobs respectively.
For Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they are currently underutilizing the
available wind resources with moderate investments in wind energy. Each of the states
has a significantly larger capacity potential with at least seven times the capacity of
California. With the expansion of their current capacity, Colorado could add 11,000 to
15,000 jobs, New Mexico 5,000 to 7,000, and Wyoming 7,000 to 9,000 jobs. Even
though these job creation numbers are significant, they are disproportionate to the states’
potential capacity and the amount of jobs that could be created with a greater overall
investment, exceeding current EIA projections. Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah all
have greatly underutilized wind resources, leaving their job projection estimates
negligible.
87
THE MIDWEST
In the Midwest, Iowa and Minnesota are the two states with considerable
currently installed wind capacity, each with over 1,500 MW. Through expansion of their
current capacities, Iowa could create between 29,000 to 40,000 jobs and Minnesota
between 18,000 and 25,000. The next cluster of states, including Wisconsin, Michigan,
Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio all have moderate amounts existing wind capacity, but all
have underutilized wind resources representing a missed opportunity for larger job
creation numbers. Both Dakotas have tremendous potential wind capacities, which could
serve as a dramatic boon to their economies. North Dakota has a larger potential wind
capacity than Texas, yet rank only eleventh in existing capacity. If North Dakota and
South Dakota developed enough wind capacity to match Texas’s current capacity, they
could potentially generate between 75,000 – 100,000 jobs.
THE EAST
The East lacks a wind powerhouse of the other regions, either in installed or
potential capacity, but New York, Pennsylvania, and Maine all have the potential to
develop moderately sized wind farms for job growth. However, only Pennsylvania and
New York have existing installations that impact the EIA projections. If both of these
states were to double or meet the EIA projection, New York could create between 8,000
to 12,000 jobs and Pennsylvania could create between 3,000 to 5,000 total jobs.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
Aside from job creation, a large national investment in wind industry will create
economic benefits through gained tax revenue and land lease payments. Estimations
88
place tax revenue at between $8,000 to $9,000 per MW, but that does not take into
consideration tax abatements offered to wind developers. However, for areas that
desperately need the tax revenue for local infrastructure or schools, even 50 percent of
those estimates would be meaningful. Taking into account that many property tax
abatements are extended to developers for the first 5 to 10 years of operation, wind
energy can provide a long-term boost to local tax coffers.
For land owners, specifically farmers, wind energy can act as a supplementary
source of income in addition to farming. Depending on the scale of turbine, most farms
can accommodate turbines into their land without disrupting agricultural uses. For
farmers in areas with wind resources, wind energy can serve as another cash crop, which
can stabilize the landowner’s income during periods of instability or dormancy for the
agricultural side of their income.
SUMMARY
For a national investment in wind energy to occur, both local and state
governments must create incentive programs to stabilize wind energy as a viable
investment for the private sector. For wind energy to continue to grow, or exceed, at its
current pace in the United States, the government or utility loans to help wind developers
with the large initial investment during the construction phase must continue.
By establishing renewable portfolio standards, investment in renewable energy
becomes a central strategy for states and their electric utilities to meet the energy goals.
By setting goals with a time frame, renewable portfolio standards encourage innovative
solutions from the public and private sector without prescriptive government
89
intervention. The benefit of such a strategy is that it allows private utilities the public
relations boost with their investment in energy diversity while supporting other private
wind developers.
With the current emphasis on reducing carbon emissions to counteract the
environmental damage of global warming, and the instability surrounding oil prices and
supply, renewable energy is beginning to gain support. The additions to installed capacity
post-2001 demonstrate the beginning of the shift towards greater energy diversity in the
United States. With the extension of the of the Production Tax Credit until the end of
2012, wind installations should continue to grow at substantial levels to provide increased
economic boosts to encourage greater investments, resulting in greater installed
capacities than current estimates. The hope of such increases is that it stimulates
accelerated wind development in states, which currently underutilize their available wind
resources as these states see the potential economic benefits gained in Texas, California,
and Iowa.
APPENDIX
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS OF THE TOP 20 STATES WITH INSTALLED
CAPACITY
TEXAS FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Austin - Green Power Purchasing
o Under the city’s Climate Protection Plan, Austin’s goal is power all city
facilities with renewable energy by 2012.
•
Austin - Renewable Portfolio Standard
o Under the city’s Climate Protection Plan, Austin’s goal is to procure 30
percent of its energy from renewable sources. In compliance with the
climate plan’s goal, Austin has doubled its wind energy portfolio.
•
Dallas - Green Energy Purchasing
o Beginning in September 2007, the City of Dallas has purchased
approximately 40 percent of the needed electricity consumption by its city
facilities from green energy, primarily from wind energy.
•
Houston - Green Power Purchasing
o The City of Houston purchased enough renewable energy credits to
account for roughly 27 percent of annual electricity consumption by city
facilities.
91
•
Texas Renewable Generation Requirement
o The goal of the renewable portfolio standard is to provide 5,880 MW by
2015, roughly 5 percent of the state’s electricity demand.
IOWA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program
o Administered by the Iowa Energy Center, the program offers loans to
individuals or groups building renewable energy systems. If approved, the
50 percent of the loan is provided at 0 percent interest, while the
remainder is at market rate. The maximum loan amount is $1 million with
a repayment period of up to 20 months. In 2008, the AERLP supported 80
projects with funds totaling almost $11 million.
•
Alternative Energy Law (AEL)
o Iowa requires its two utilities to provide or purchase a total of 105 MW of
renewable generating capacity.
•
Farmers Electric Cooperative (Kalona) - Renewable Energy Rebates
o The cooperative offers rebates of $1,000/peak kW for wind systems with a
maximum rebate of $5,000. Some wind projects may be eligible for a
production incentive, paying at a rate of $0.20/kWh for up to 10 years.
•
Independence Light & Power - Renewable Energy Rebates
o Wind systems with capacities of 20 kW or less are eligible to receive a
rebate covering 25 percent of the project cost, capped at $10,000.
92
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o All electric utilities operating in Iowa, including those not rate-regulated
by the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), are required to offer green power
options to their customers. Maquoketa Municipal Electric Utility Renewable Energy Rebates
o Wind systems with capacities of 20 kW or less are eligible to receive a
rebate covering 25 percent of the project cost, capped at $10,000.
•
Preston Municipal Electric Utility - Renewable Energy Rebates
o Wind systems with capacities of 20 kW or less are eligible to receive a
rebate covering 25 percent of the project cost, capped at $10,000.
•
Property Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Systems
o Added value from a wind energy system to a property is exempt from
taxation for a five-year period, so long as the primary function is on-site
power generation.
•
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit
o There are two available production tax credits: Iowa Code § 476B and
Iowa Code § 476C. For wind energy facilities only, Iowa Code § 476B
provides a 1.0¢/kWh production credit, which can be applied towards any
state tax. Owners receiving exemption from property taxes, the local
option special assessment of wind energy devices, or the sales tax
exemption for wind energy equipment are ineligible to receive this PTC.
The minimum and maximum eligible capacities are 2 MW-450 MW. For
93
wind energy, Iowa Code § 476C provides a 1.5¢/kWh production credit,
which can be applied towards any state tax. The maximum capacity for a
wind system is 180 MW.
• Wind and Solar Energy Equipment Exemption
o This statute exempts from the state sales tax the total cost of wind energy
equipment and all materials used to manufacture, install or construct wind
energy systems. The exemption does not apply to equipment used to
construct a plant to manufacture wind energy systems.
CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
California Feed-In Tariff
o The production incentive allows eligible customers with renewable
systems, with a capacity up to 1.5 MW, to enter into a 10, 15 or 20-year
standard contract with a utility company to sell electricity back to the
utility. The sale price is based on market price table with an adjust price
according to hourly demand. Any customer participating in this program is
ineligible for any other state incentive program. The program was created
to meet California’s renewable portfolio standard.
•
Emerging Renewables Program
o The Emerging Renewables program is a state rebate to promote the
installation of small wind systems to the grid. Eligibility is based on being
a customer of a utility contributing funds. Rebates levels for small wind
projects are as follows: $2.50/W for first 7.5 kW and $1.50/W for
increments greater than 7.5 kW and less than 30 kW. Renewable systems
94
installed on affordable housing projects are eligible for rebates 25 percent
above the standard level up to 75 percent of the total system cost. Other
incentives earned by the project will reduce the rebate by at least 5
percent.
•
Renewables Portfolio Standard
o California’s RPS requires electricity retailers to increase their renewable
energy sources by 1 percent, so by 2010 20 percent of their total retail
sales will come from renewable energy.
•
San Diego - Sustainable Building Policy
o As an incentive for private sector construction, projects that generate a
portion of their own energy using renewable sources and exceed Title 24
energy requirements receive an expedited permitting process. Residential
projects must provide at least 50 percent of their projected total energy use
utilizing renewable energy resources in order to expedite the ministerial
process, while commercial and industrial projects must provide 30
percent.
•
San Francisco - Renewable Energy Purchasing
o In 2001, voters passed Propositions B and H, which allowed the city to use
revenue bonds to fund renewable energy `. Proposition B appropriates
$100 million for renewable energy installation and energy conservation on
public properties. The funding was to provide roughly $30 million for 30
MW from wind generation. Proposition H amended the city charter
95
allowing general revenue bonds to be used for renewable energy and
conservation measures without the need for a ballot initiative.
•
Self-Generation Incentive Program
o This state rebate program offers $1.50/W for electricity generated from
wind projects with a minimum size of 30 kW. The maximum eligible
project size is 5 MW, but the compensation is capped at 3 MW, but at a
reduced rate once they surpass 1 MW. For projects that receive other
incentives funded by California investor-owned utility ratepayers, the
SGIP incentive is discounted by the amount of the other incentive.
MINNESOTA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) Tariff
o Each public utility in Minnesota is to create a 20-year power purchase
agreement for community-owned renewable energy projects.
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o Each electric utility must offer its customers the option to purchase green
power.
•
Renewable Development Fund (RDF)
o Xcel Energy offers production incentives up to 200 megawatts of windgenerated electricity.
•
Renewable Portfolio Standard
o Xcel Energy must provide 30 percent of its total retail sales from
renewable energy, including at least 25 percent from wind energy by
2020. For other utilities the goal is 25 percent by 2025.
96
WASHINGTON FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Clark County - Green Power Purchasing
o Clark County purchases 10 percent of its electricity from renewable
energy.
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o All electric utilities serving more than 25,000 customers must offer the
choice of purchasing green power.
•
Renewable Energy Standard
o Washington’s goal is to provide 15 percent of its power from renewable
sources by 2020.
•
Seattle - Green Power Purchasing
o The City of Seattle’s municipal utility, City Light, must meet demand
growth with no net increases in greenhouse emissions. City Light
purchases 175 MW of wind energy annually.
COLORADO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Local Small Wind Rebate Programs
o Three electric cooperatives and one municipal electric utility provide
rebates for grid-tied small wind projects. The Governor’s Energy Office
provides matching funds. The rebates vary from $2-$3/W with a
maximum of $10,000 or 50 percent of the installed system cost.
•
Aspen - Green Power Purchasing
o Aspen set a goal in 2005 to purchase 75 percent of their energy from
renewable sources by 2010. Every year since then they planned to increase
97
their supply by ten percentage, so long as the cost does not exceed
$388,800 annually, and to increase renewable energy purchases by another
sixteen percent in 2006 at a cost not to exceed $240,200 annually. As of
December 2006, Aspen had accomplished its goal to provide 75 percent
non-carbon electricity.
•
Boulder County - ClimateSmart Loan Program
o Boulder County issues bonds to finance renewable energy improvements
to homes. Loan amounts range from $3,000 to $50,000 with a limit of 20
percent of the actual property value or $50,000, whichever is less.
•
Clean Energy Fund - New Energy Economic Development
o This program provides grants, loans, and other incentives to attract
manufacturers of renewable energy products.
•
Gunnison County Electric - Renewable Energy Resource Loan
o This low-interest loan program is open to individuals in the service area
for approved renewable energy projects. Recipients can receive up to
$25,000 over 10 at a fixed interest rate, determined at the time of the loan.
•
Holy Cross Energy - WE CARE Rebates
o This utility incentive offers a $2.00/W for energy from renewable sources.
A limitation on the incentive is a maximum of either 50 percent of the
total system cost that cannot exceed $20,000.
•
Local Option - Sales Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Systems
o In 2007, Colorado authorized counties and municipalities to offer property
and/or tax rebates to property owners that install renewable systems.
98
•
Mandatory Green Power Option for Large Municipal Utilities
o Municipal electric utilities with a service population over 40,000
customers are required to offer an optional green-power program, which
allows customers the choice to opt-in and support renewable energy. This
program is a component in the effort to meet Colorado’s renewable
portfolio standard goal of 10 percent of 2020 retail sales.
•
Renewable Energy Standard
o Passed by ballot initiative in 2004, Colorado established a state renewable
portfolio standard (RPS). The Colorado RPS requires specific percentages
of renewable energy on a yearly basis, so that by 2020 the state generates
20 percent of its total retail electricity sales from renewable sources.
OREGON FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o All electric utilities must offer its customers the option of purchasing
green power.
•
Oregon Energy Trust
o The program offers financial incentives for small-scale renewable energy
projects with a 20 MW capacity or less.
•
Portland - Green Power Purchasing & Generation
o The goal is to provide 100 percent of needed power for municipal facilities
by renewable energy by 2010.
99
•
Renewable Portfolio Standard
o Oregon’s goal is for large utilities to provide 25 percent by 2025 and small
utilities to provide 10 percent by 2025.
ILLINOIS FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Illinois - Green Power Purchasing
o In 2007, Illinois established goals for state agencies to purchase 5 percent
of their power by the end of 2009.
•
Renewable Energy Resources Trust Fund
o The RERTF provides grants and incentives to renewable energy projects.
The fund dedicates $100 million for support of renewable energy
development through 2015, supplying $5-5.5 million per year for projects.
•
Renewable Portfolio Standard
o Illinois plans to provide 25 percent of its retail electricity from renewable
sources by 2025 with 75 percent of that energy coming from wind
production.
NEW YORK FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Long Island Power Authority - Wind Energy Rebate Program
o The LIPA offers rebates to electric customers, who install grid-connected
wind systems. For 2009 the program held a budget of $1.2 million.
•
NYSERDA - Energy $mart Loan Fund
o The New York Energy $mart Loan Fund, administered by the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA),
100
provides reduced-interest rate loans through participating lenders to
finance renovation or construction projects that improve a facility’s energy
efficiency or incorporate renewable energy systems.
•
NYSERDA - On-Site Small Wind Incentive Program
o The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) provide incentives for eligible small wind systems. Incentive
payments are not paid directly to the owner of the wind system. Instead,
they are paid to eligible installers that have been approved to participate in
this program, but the entire incentive must be passed on to the owner of
the wind system by the eligible installer.
KANSAS FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Renewable Energy Property Tax Exemption
o Any value from renewable energy equipment is exempt from property
taxes.
NORTH DAKOTA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Geothermal, Solar and Wind Property Exemption
o North Dakota exempts wind systems from local property tax assessments
for the five years following installation.
•
Large Wind Property Tax Reduction
o Presently, all centrally assessed wind turbine electric generation units
constructed after June 30, 2006, and before January 1, 2011, are valued at
1.5 percent of their assessed value, as are units which were constructed
after April 30, 2005, and before July 1, 2006, and for which a power
101
purchase agreement (PPA) was executed after April 30, 2005, and before
January 1, 2006. For the latter, the reduced valuation is applicable only
over the life of the original PPA. All other centrally assessed wind
generation units are valued at the 3 percent level indicated in the original
law.
•
Renewable Energy Tax Credit
o The taxpayer can claim an income tax credit of 3 percent per year for five
years for the cost of equipment and installation of wind system.
OKLAHOMA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Tax Credit for Manufacturers of Small Wind Turbines
o Oklahoma offers an income tax credit to the manufacturers of small wind
turbines for tax years 2003 through 2012. The credit amount varies based
on the turbine's square footage of rotor swept area. The credit was $25.00
per square foot produced in 2003, $12.50 per square foot produced in
2004, and $25.00 per square foot produced each year from 2005-2012.
The credit is transferable during the ten years following the year of
qualification.
•
Zero-Emission Facilities Production Tax Credit
o Facilities meeting the qualifications can receive a state income tax credit
for ten years. The amount varies on the year placed in operation and the
when electricity is generated.
102
WYOMING FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Renewable Energy Sales Tax Exemption
o Renewable technology generating electricity qualifies for an exemption of
sales tax.
NEW MEXICO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
o New Mexico investor-owned utilities (IOUs) are required to offer a
voluntary program for purchasing renewable energy to customers.
•
Renewable Portfolio Standard
o The State of New Mexico’s RPS requires IOUs to provide 20 percent of
total electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020 and 10 percent
from rural electric cooperatives.
WISCONSIN FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Focus on Energy Program
o Ten percent of Wisconsin’s public benefits fund is invested in renewable
energy.
•
Madison - Green Power Purchasing
o Madison’s goal is to purchase 20 percent of its electricity by 2011.
•
Renewable Portfolio Standard
o Wisconsin has a statewide target of 10 percent of its electricity from
renewables by 2015.
103
•
Wisconsin - Green Power Purchasing
o Wisconsin has a statewide target for state facilities purchasing or
generating 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2012.
PENNSYLVANIA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Metropolitan Edison Company Sustainable Energy Fund Grants
o The program supports the development and use of renewable energy and
clean-energy technologies. The maximum grant is $25 thousand.
•
Metropolitan Edison Company Sustainable Energy Fund Loans
o The program supports the development and use of renewable energy and
clean-energy technologies. The maximum loan is $500 thousand.
•
Penelec Sustainable Energy Fund of the Community Foundation for the
Alleghenies Grant Program
o The program supports the development and use of renewable energy and
clean-energy technologies. The maximum grant is $25 thousand.
•
Penelec Sustainable Energy Fund of the Community Foundation for the
Alleghenies Loan Program
o The program supports the development and use of renewable energy and
clean-energy technologies. The maximum loan is $500 thousand.
•
Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) – Grants
o The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) issues periodic
funding solicitations to provide support for innovative, advanced energy
projects, and for businesses interested in locating or expanding their
104
alternative-energy manufacturing or production operations in
Pennsylvania.
•
Property Tax Assessment for Commercial Wind Farms
o Tax assessors when setting property values exclude wind turbines and
related equipment from property tax assessments.
•
Sustainable Development Fund Financing Program (PECO Territory)
o The SDF provides financial assistance to eligible projects in the form of
commercial loans, subordinated debt, royalty financing, and equity
financing. The Sustainable Development Fund provides financial
assistance for the following types of ventures:

Companies and ventures that generate electricity using renewable
energy sources;

Manufacturers, distributors and installers of renewable energy,
advanced clean energy and energy-conserving products and
technologies; and,

Companies and organizations that are end-users of renewable
energy, advanced clean energy and energy-conserving products
and technologies.
•
West Penn Power SEF Commercial Loan Program
o The program supports projects promoting renewable and clean energy.
Funding includes loans, equity investment, subordinated debt and royalty
financing.
105
WEST VIRGINIA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Special Assessment for Wind Energy Systems
o For the purposes of property tax assessment, utility-owned wind projects
are considered to have a value equal to their salvage value, with certain
limitations. This incentive effectively lowers the property tax base on
utility-owned wind turbines from 100 percent of fair market value to as
little as 24.95 percent of fair market value. This results in an effective
property tax rate on wind turbines that is 24.95 percent of the effective tax
rate on most other types of newly constructed electricity-generating units.
•
Tax Exemption for Wind Energy Generation
o Reduction of Business and Occupations (B&O) tax from 40 percent to 12
percent of generating capacity.
MONTANTA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Alternative Energy Investment Tax Credit
o Commercial and net metering alternative energy investments of $5,000 or
more are eligible for a tax credit of up to 35 percent against individual or
corporate tax on income generated by the investment.
•
Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program
o This program offers loans to individuals and groups, who install
alternative energy systems. The maximum loan is $40,000 with a
repayment period of up to 10 years. The interest rate for 2009 was 3.5
percent.
106
•
Corporate Property Tax Reduction for New/Expanded Generating Facilities
o If approved for the tax reduction, facilities generating over 1 MW from
renewable energy are taxed at 50 percent of its taxable value for five years
after the construction
•
Generation Facility Corporate Tax Exemption
o Renewable facilities generating less than 1 MW are exempt from property
taxes for the first five years of operation.
•
Northwest Solar Cooperative - Green Tag Purchase
o NWSC will purchase wind energy at a rate of $0.02 per kilowatt-hour
•
Property Tax Abatement for Production and Manufacturing Facilities
o Eligible facilities and equipment are assessed at 50 percent of their taxable
value.
•
Renewable Energy Systems Exemption
o Montana's property tax exemption for recognized non-fossil forms of
energy generation or low emission wood or biomass combustion devices
may be claimed for 10 years after installation of the property. The
exemption is allowed for single-family residential dwellings up to $20,000
in value and for multifamily residential dwellings or a nonresidential
structure up to $100,000 in value
•
Residential Alternative Energy System Tax Credit
o Residential taxpayers who install an energy system using a recognized
non-fossil form of energy on their home after 12/31/01 are eligible for a
107
tax credit equal to the amount of the cost of the system and installation of
the system, not to exceed $500. The tax credit may be carried over for the
next four taxable years.
SOUTH DAKOTA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Large Commercial Wind Exemption and Alternative Taxes
o In lieu of property taxes, wind farms with a minimum capacity of 5 MW
pay alternative annual taxes of $3/kW of capacity and 2 percent of the
gross receipts of the wind farm. Partial rebate available for cost of
transmission line and collector system equipment that is located in SD and
serves and eligible facility.
MISSOURI FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
•
Energy Loan Program
o The Energy Loan Program is available for energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects for public and governmental buildings and
structures. Loan amounts are based on projected energy savings, resulting
in monetary savings that is used to repay the loan.
108
REGIONAL & STATE EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS WITH ADDED WIND
CAPACITY
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
MARYLAND
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
0
0
0
0
SOUTH
DELAWARE
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Total Potential Capacity
CAPACITY IN MW
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
Table 8. Southern Region Employment Projections
0
197
0
338
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
VIRGINIA
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
0
0
0
0
Total Potential Capacity
0
1,380
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
WEST VIRGINIA
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
0
0
0
0
330
Total Potential Capacity
594
0.56
Doubled Existing Capacity
594
1,782
416
356
2,554
EIA Projection (2030)
NORTH CAROLINA
Installed Capacity (2008)
594
1,782
416
356
2,554
Total Potential Capacity
835
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
59
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
SOUTH
CAPACITY IN MW
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
109
SOUTH CAROLINA
GEORGIA
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
171
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
FLORIDA
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
0
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KENTUCKY
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
34
0
0
TENNESSEE
Installed Capacity (2008)
29
Total Potential Capacity
186
Doubled Existing Capacity
58
174
41
35
249
EIA Projection (2030)
79
237
55
47
340
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
0
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
SOUTH
CAPACITY IN MW
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
110
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
0
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
OKLAHOMA
Installed Capacity (2008)
709
Total Potential Capacity
82,700
Doubled Existing Capacity
1,418
4,254
993
851
6,097
EIA Projection (2030)
1,928
5,784
1,350
1,157
8,290
TEXAS
Installed Capacity (2008)
7,116
Total Potential Capacity
136,100
Doubled Existing Capacity
14,232
42,696
9,962
8,539
61,198
EIA Projection (2030)
19,356
58,068
13,549
11,614
83,231
ARKANSAS
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
2,460
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
Installed Capacity (2008)
0
Total Potential Capacity
0
Doubled Existing Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
EIA Projection (2030)
0
0
0
0
0
SOUTH
CAPACITY IN MW
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
111
LOUISIANA
112
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
IDAHO
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MONTANA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
WYOMING
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
NEVADA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
UTAH
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
COLORADO
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
WEST
CAPACITY IN MW
Table 9. Western Region Employment Projections
75
8,290
150
204
450
612
105
143
90
122
645
877
272
116,000
544
740
1,632
2,220
381
518
326
444
2,339
3,182
676
85,200
1,352
1,839
4,056
5,517
946
1,287
811
1,103
5,814
7,908
0
5,740
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2,770
40
54
120
162
28
38
24
32
172
232
1,068
54,900
2,136
2,905
6,408
8,715
1,495
2,034
1,282
1,743
9,185
12,492
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
ARIZONA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
NEW MEXICO
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
ALASKA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
WASHINGTON
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
OREGON
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
CALIFORNIA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
HAWAII
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
WEST
CAPACITY IN MW
113
0
1,090
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
497
49,700
994
1,352
2,982
4,056
696
946
596
811
4,274
5,814
3
*
6
8
18
24
4
6
4
5
26
34
1,375
3,740
2,750
3,740
8,250
11,220
1,925
2,618
1,650
2,244
11,825
16,082
1,067
4,870
2,134
2,902
6,402
8,706
1,494
2,031
1,280
1,741
9,176
12,479
2,517
6,770
5,034
6,846
15,102
20,538
3,524
4,792
3,020
4,108
21,646
29,438
63
*
126
171
378
513
88
120
76
103
542
735
114
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
WISCONSIN
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MICHIGAN
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
ILLINOIS
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
INDIANA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
OHIO
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
N. DAKOTA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
S. DAKOTA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
MIDWEST
CAPACITY IN MW
Table 10. Midwestern Region Employment Projections
395
6,440
790
1,074
2,370
3,222
553
752
474
644
3,397
4,618
129
7,460
258
351
774
1,053
181
246
155
211
1,109
1,509
915
6,980
1,830
2,489
5,490
7,467
1,281
1,742
1,098
1,493
7,869
10,703
131
30
30
30
90
90
21
21
18
18
129
129
7
416
14
19
42
57
10
13
8
11
60
82
714
138,400
1,428
1,942
4,284
5,826
1,000
1,359
857
1,165
6,140
8,351
187
117,200
374
509
1,122
1,527
262
356
224
305
1,608
2,189
INSTALLATION JOBS
CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE JOBS
CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
NEBRASKA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
KANSAS
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MINNESOTA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
IOWA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MISSOURI
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
MIDWEST
CAPACITY IN MW
115
73
99,100
146
199
438
597
102
139
88
119
628
856
815
121,900
1,630
2,217
4,890
6,651
1,141
1,552
978
1,330
7,009
9,533
1,752
75,000
3,504
4,765
10,512
14,295
2,453
3,336
2,102
2,859
15,067
20,490
2,790
62,900
5,580
7,589
16,740
22,767
3,906
5,312
3,348
4,553
23,994
32,633
163
5,960
326
443
978
1,329
228
310
196
266
1,402
1,905
116
INSTALLATION JOBS
CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE JOBS
CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
MAINE
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
VERMONT
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MASSACHUSETTS
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
RHODE ISLAND
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
CONNECTICUT
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
EAST
CAPACITY IN MW
Table 11. Eastern Regional Employment Projections
47
6,390
94
128
282
384
66
90
56
77
404
550
25
502
50
68
150
204
35
48
30
41
215
292
6
537
12
16
36
48
8
11
7
10
52
69
5
2,880
10
14
30
42
7
10
6
8
43
60
1
109
2
3
6
9
1
2
1
2
9
13
0
571
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INSTALLATION
JOBS CREATED
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
JOBS CREATED
TOTAL JOBS
CREATED
NEW YORK
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
PENNSYLVANIA
Installed Capacity (2008)
Total Potential Capacity
Doubled Existing Capacity
EIA Projection (2030)
MANUFACTURING
JOBS CREATED
EAST
CAPACITY IN MW
117
832
7,080
1,664
2,263
4,992
6,789
1,165
1,584
998
1,358
7,155
9,731
361
5,120
722
982
2,166
2,946
505
687
433
589
3,105
4,223
118
INCENTIVE PROGRAM CATEGORIES
Table 12. Incentive Program Category Distribution
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
CORPORATE DEDUCTION
PERSONAL DEDUCTION
RULES, REGULATIONS, & POLICIES
CONTRACTOR LICENSING
PERSONAL TAX CREDIT
INDUSTRY
RECRUITMENT/SUPPORT
STATE BOND PROGRAM
BUILDING ENERGY CODE
ENERGY STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC
BUILDINGS
GENERATION DISCLOSURE
GREEN POWER
PURCHASING/AGGREGATION
INTERCONNECTION
MANDATORY UTILITY GREEN POWER
OPTION
LINE EXTENSION ANALYSIS
GREEN BUILDING INCENTIVE
NET METERING
LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM
PUBLIC BENEFITS FUND
LOCAL LOAN PROGRAM
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
LOCAL REBATE PROGRAM
WIND ACCESS LAW
PRIVATE GRANT
WIND PERMITTING STANDARDS
CORPORATE EXEMPTION
CORPORATE TAX CREDIT
EXCISE TAX INCENTIVE
PRODUCTION INCENTIVE
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
SALES TAX EXEMPTION
STATE GRANT PROGRAM
STATE LOAN PROGRAM
UTILITY GRANT PROGRAM
UTILITY LOAN PROGRAM
UTILITY REBATE PROGRAM
STATE REBATE PROGRAM
119
GROUP ANALYSIS BY INCENTIVE
Table 13. Group One Incentive Distribution
GROUPS
CORPORATE
DEDUCTION
PERSONAL
DEDUCTION
CORPORATE
EXEMPTION
CORPORATE
TAX CREDIT
EXCISE
TAX
INCENTIVE
50%
0%
0%
11%
100%
2
0
0
1
1
0%
0%
50%
56%
0%
0
0
1
5
0
0%
50%
0%
22%
0%
0
1
0
2
0
50%
50%
50%
11%
0%
2
1
1
1
0
4
2
2
9
1
GROUP 1
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 2
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 3
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 4
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL #
OF
PROGRAMS
120
Table 14. Group Two Incentive Distribution
GROUPS
PERSONAL
TAX
CREDIT
INDUSTRY
SUPPORT/
RECRUITMENT
STATE
BOND
PROGRAM
GREEN
BUILDING
INCENTIVE
LOCAL
GRANT
PROGRAM
17%
24%
0%
50%
33%
2
4
0
3
1
42%
41%
50%
0%
67%
5
7
1
0
2
17%
29%
50%
17%
0%
2
5
1
1
0
25%
6%
0%
33%
0%
3
1
0
2
0
12
17
2
6
3
GROUP 1
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 2
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 3
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 4
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
121
Table 15. Group Three Incentive Distribution
LOCAL
LOAN
PROGRAM
PRIVATE
GRANT
PRODUCTION
INCENTIVE
PROPERTY
TAX
ASSESSMENT
% OF TOTAL
17%
100%
56%
33%
# OF
PROGRAMS
1
2
9
3
% OF TOTAL
83%
0%
19%
56%
# OF
PROGRAMS
5
0
3
5
% OF TOTAL
0%
0%
13%
0%
# OF
PROGRAMS
0
0
2
0
0%
0%
13%
11%
0
0
2
1
6
2
16
9
GROUPS
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
% OF TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
122
Table 16. Group Four Incentive Distribution
GROUPS
PROPERTY
TAX
EXEMPTION
SALES TAX
EXEMPTION
STATE
GRANT
PROGRAM
STATE
LOAN
PROGRAM
% OF TOTAL
38%
36%
15%
45%
# OF
PROGRAMS
8
4
2
9
% OF TOTAL
29%
18%
38%
25%
# OF
PROGRAMS
6
2
5
5
% OF TOTAL
29%
36%
31%
30%
# OF
PROGRAMS
6
4
4
6
5%
9%
15%
0%
1
1
2
0
21
11
13
20
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
% OF TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
123
Table 17. Group Five Incentive Distribution
UTILITY
GRANT
PROGRAM
UTILITY
LOAN
PROGRAM
UTILITY
REBATE
PROGRAM
STATE
REBATE
PROGRAM
% OF TOTAL
25%
75%
53%
50%
# OF
PROGRAMS
1
3
9
5
% OF TOTAL
75%
0%
0%
10%
# OF
PROGRAMS
3
0
0
1
% OF TOTAL
0%
0%
18%
30%
# OF
PROGRAMS
0
0
3
3
0%
25%
29%
10%
0
1
5
1
4
4
17
10
GROUPS
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
% OF TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
124
Table 18. Group Six Incentive Distribution
CONTRACTOR
LICENSING
BUILDING
ENERGY
CODE
ENERGY
STANDARDS
FOR PUBLIC
BUILDINGS
GENERATION
DISCLOSURE
% OF TOTAL
100%
89%
50%
62%
# OF
PROGRAMS
1
8
19
8
% OF TOTAL
0%
0%
13%
8%
# OF
PROGRAMS
0
0
5
1
% OF TOTAL
0%
11%
21%
23%
# OF
PROGRAMS
0
1
8
3
0%
0%
16%
8%
0
0
6
1
1
9
38
13
GROUPS
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
% OF TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
125
Table 19. Group Seven Incentive Distribution
GROUPS
GREEN POWER
PURCHASING
INTERCONNECTION
STANDARDS
MANDATORY
UTILITY
GREEN POWER
OPTION
LINE
EXTENSION
ANALYSIS
% OF TOTAL
45%
40%
67%
100%
# OF
PROGRAMS
10
12
4
1
% OF TOTAL
18%
23%
33%
0%
# OF
PROGRAMS
4
7
2
0
% OF TOTAL
23%
23%
0%
0%
# OF
PROGRAMS
5
7
0
0
14%
13%
0%
0%
3
4
0
0
22
30
6
1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
% OF TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
126
Table 20. Group Eight Incentive Distribution
GROUPS
NET
METERING
PUBLIC
BENEFITS
FUND
RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO
STANDARD
WIND
ACCESS
LAW
WIND
PERMITTING
STANDARDS
31%
42%
42%
43%
17%
13
5
13
3
1
26%
25%
26%
43%
17%
11
3
8
3
1
33%
25%
23%
14%
17%
14
3
7
1
1
10%
8%
10%
0%
50%
4
1
3
0
3
42
12
31
7
6
GROUP 1
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 2
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 3
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
GROUP 4
% OF
TOTAL
# OF
PROGRAMS
TOTAL # OF
PROGRAMS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Electric Power. "Interstate Transmission Vision for Wind Integration." 2008.
http://www.aep.com (accessed July 2009).
AWEA Siting Committee. "Wind Energy Siting Handbook." American Wind Energy
Association. February 2008. http://www.awea.org/sitinghandbook/ (accessed July 2009).
AWEA. "Top 20 States with Wind Energy Resource Potential." American Wind Energy
Association. 2008. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Top_20_States.pdf (accessed
February 2009).
—. Wind Energy and the Environment. 2008.
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html (accessed September 22, 2009).
Cooper, C, and B. Sovacool. "Green Means ‘Go?’ – A Colorful Approach to a U.S.
National Renewable Portfolio Standard." Electricity Journal 19, no. 7 (2006).
DSIRE. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. 2009.
http://www.dsireusa.org/ (accessed April 2009).
Fershee, Joshua P. "Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry." Energy Law Journal 29, no.
1 (2008).
New Amsterdam Wind Source LLC. Nolan County: Case Study of Wind Energy
Economic Impacts in Texas. Case Study, West Texas Wind Energy Consortium, 2008.
Nogee, Alan. "Response to the Dingell/Bourcher Letter of May 24, 2007." Union of
Concerned Scientists. 2007.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/PDF/selected_legislation/U
CS%20Response%20to%20Dingell-Boucher%20RPS.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
Northwest Economic Associates. Assessing the Economic Development Impacts of Wind
Power. National Wind Coordinating Committee, 2004.
Reategui, S., and S. Tegen. "Economic Development Impacts of Colorado's First 1000
Megawatts of Wind Energy." Conference Paper, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
2008.
128
S. Tegen, E. Lantz. "Variables Affecting Economic Development of Wind Energy."
NREL/CP-500-43506. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008. 30.
Source, New Amsterdam Wind. Nolan County: Case Study of Wind Energy Economic
Impacts in Texas. Case Study, West Texas Wind Energy Consortium, 2008.
Sterzinger, George, and Matt Svrcek. "Wind Turbine Development: Location of
Manufacturing Activity." Technical Report, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 2004.
Wiser, Bolinger, and Barbose. " Using the Federal PTC to Build a Durable Market for
Wind Power in the United States." The Electricity Journal 20, no. 9 (November 2007):
77-88.