Dear 60 Minutes:
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
No comments:
Post a Comment