Ohio BigWind news with ‘a little blood, sweat and tears- spinning wheel’

HONDA, Ohio turbines FAIL after 3 short years

HONDA, Ohio turbines FAIL after 3 short years

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-8-21-34-am screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-8-21-46-am

Today we were reminded of that old Blood, Sweat & Tears song – Spinning Wheel. “What goes up must come down, Spinnin’ wheel got to go ’round, Talkin’ ’bout your troubles it’s a cryin’ sin….” This time the spinning wheel is the rotor of the wind turbine at the Honda Transmission plant in Russell’s Point. It is laying on the ground near a very large crane that came to dismantle and repair the 160 foot blades, or gearbox or whatever isn’t working. These photos taken February 24th indicate some oil (or bat remains!) on the tower. The two Honda turbines were commissioned in December, 2013 – that is only about three years ago. We predicted this costly reality—long before the turbines were installed…

We also had to chuckle a little after notifying the local Urbana paper of the momentous news concerning EverPower’s (Kenton’s Buckeye Wind) impending sale. Dutifully, it was reported the next day – on page 10 under the feature about homeless dogs in need of adoption. Perhaps media bias isn’t limited to the New York Times.

Another chuckle came from the irony of the announcement by the Ohio EPA & Dept. of Health:

Ohio EPA: Director Craig W. Butler and Ohio Department of Health Director Richard Hodges announced Mosquito Control Grant funding to help relieve the spread of mosquito-borne viruses such as Zika, West Nile and La Cross Encephalitis. According to the release, 40 grants approximately $1 million in total are being issued in 27 counties for the following objectives: mosquito surveillance, larval control, adult mosquito control, community outreach, breeding source reduction, and additional proposed activities.

No grants were made to Hardin, Logan or Champaign Counties where mosquito eating bats are at risk. Auglaize County was awarded two grants for Minster and St. Marys. More detail can be found at http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/47/media/MosquitoControl/MosquitoControlGrantsRound3.pdf . Coincidentally, Bat Conservation International released breaking news from Biological Conservation that wind turbines are on track to decimate the entire population of hoary bats.

Lisa Linowes of Wind Action has written an article that notes “The budget report released by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) last month showed that wind-related credits will balloon to nearly $6 billion per year in 2020, a ten-fold increase from 2008. The IRS guidance went well beyond a mere interpretation of the statute, yet the change was never subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or any type of budget scoring.” Lisa believes that President Trump can overrule the IRS guidance which gave the wind industry four more years of feeding off the taxpayer to the tune of $6 billion annually. Everyone should call their Congressman and ask that the IRS illegal guidance be rescinded by the President.

The Dayton and Springfield paper gave prominence to an article favoring wind, solar and state mandates penned by Ned Ford. What they did not disclose was Ned Ford is the Energy Chair of the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club and a member of the Club’s national Global Warming and Energy Committee. Ford has been actively lobbying for electric utility efficiency strategies and renewables since 1983. His article is full of bad info or – what’s that Blood, Sweat & Tears called it? A cryin’ sin? Must be a sin of omission – as in there is no viable storage for renewables and there is no land upon which to build his dream of thousands of wind turbines.

And returning to the spinning wheel, the PUCO’s big wheel, Chairman Asim Haque addressed attendees at an energy conference in Columbus last week. “I think if you polled my staff today they would say, ‘We have felt somewhat oppressed from top down by, whether it’s commissioners or chairs, or whomever it is, to be able to do our jobs intelligently and appropriately.” Haque implored the group “Try to worry about Ohio before you worry about yourself.” Earth to Haque: come in please. The staff is oppressed? “Talkin’ ‘bout your troubles It’s a cryin’ sin.” “Talkin’ ’bout your troubles and you, you never learn….la la la.”.

Below is a link to a Master Resource article, that discusses the realities and fictional delusions pressed by BigWind. We encourage you to read through it and educate yourself.  Please call your congressman and share, what you learn, with him/her….

[Editor Note: This essay, the fourth in a series aimed at correcting the most harmful wind energy-related policies of the Obama era, examines how the U.S. Department of Energy has set aside its scientific objectivity and, instead, has assumed the role of chief advocate for wind power in the federal government.]

Since 2008, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has touted the technical feasibility of using wind energy to meet 20 percent of the nation’s electricity demand by 2030. In 2015, the agency refined its plan with the release of its Wind Vision, which further qualified the opportunity and laid the groundwork for the US to achieve 10 percent wind power by 2020, 20 percent wind power by 2030, and 35 percent wind power by 2050.

DOE and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) insist that the industry is on track to meet these goals, but even a casual look at DOE’s claims makes clear that the reports are more advocacy than reality….

via: https://www.masterresource.org/department-of-energymoniz/doe-breaking-federal-arm-wind-industry/


Will BigWind be TRUMPED?


It will take days, weeks and months to sort out the election of Donald Trump. Today there was a whole lot of spinning going on in the wind industry. We bring you a sample of media highlights – enjoy!

· The Lima paper claims that West Central Ohio -aka Ground Zero for Wind Development – played a big part in delivering Ohio for Trump. Check out the overwhelming percentage of votes for Trump in our wind-ravaged region.

· Bloomberg reports “If corporate rates fall, as Trump has pledged if he is elected Tuesday, investors will have less need for write-offs through tax-equity investments. With wind and solar projects expected to need $56.2 billion in capital during the next president’s first term, a slump in the tax-equity market may leave developers short.” “Can you get to a 15 percent rate and still have a tax-equity market?” Martin said. “It just doesn’t seem realistic.”

· Giant turbine maker Vestas saw their stock tank following the election. About 40% of Vestas market is in the US. “Shares in Vestas Wind Systems A/S plunged after U.S. voters unexpectedly propelled Republican nominee Donald Trump to the presidency, sparking concern that the renewable- energy industry will face future political headwinds.”

· Vestas, which had been very optimistic prior to the election was singing a different tune this morning. In a statement after the election, Vestas said it would not speculate on different scenarios for the US renewables market – but noted that wind enjoys strong public support in the US, even with Trump supporters. “Polls show that almost 80% of Trump supporters want more wind farms built in the United States,” Vestas said. This is delusional.

· The Washington Post reviews the agony of the green community. “We’re feeling angry and sad and contemplative,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.” “ Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, acknowledged that Tuesday was “clearly a disappointing night” for environmental activists. “I’ve been doing this work for 40 years, and there are times we’re very aggressively on offense, and sometimes we need to play defense,” Karpinski said, vowing that the community would continue to organize, litigate and pressure both companies and the government. “Despite what Mr. Trump might think, the climate crisis is real and not a hoax.. We need to do what we can at all levels to double down and make progress, in this country and around the world.” Look for more aggressive action at the state level!

· A pro-renewable pundit writing for Recharge tries see the “bright side” by asserting “If there’s one thing that’s long been clear when it comes to Trump and renewables, it’s that he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. That’s bad news on many levels, of course, but in a sense it’s also cause for optimism. Trump and his advisers are about to get an education in many areas, including the realities of the energy industry. When that happens he will come to understand that not only is blind opposition to wind and solar power irrational – it’s also terrible politics, even in the most conservative corners of the US.” SAY WHAT????

· Eenews reports “The specifics of what Trump will do to gut climate change work are unclear. But he has promised to eviscerate as many Obama executive orders and regulations as he can as soon as possible. That includes the electricity-sector climate rules known as the Clean Power Plan.” “I think it’s safe to say carbon regulation of the power sector is about to face a sea change,” Segal said.

· E&E News also reported “Gregg Small, CEO of Climate Solutions, a nonprofit based in Washington state, said Trump will be “devastating” to efforts to limit temperature increases worldwide. “There is no way to overstate the disaster this is for the world,” Small said. “It’s honestly hard not to break down in tears at what this means for the planet.” 

· Dan Shreve of MAKE summed it up well in ReCharge News: “Nevertheless, the impact to the US renewables sector is undeniably negative, but not necessarily in the near term. Conversely, the surprise win by Trump is likely to prompt an even more substantial order surge in the US to capitalize on existing Production Tax Credit (PTC) incentives, resulting in a more pronounced peak in demand through 2020 for the US wind market. This, of course, assumes that existing support mechanisms are maintained, and MAKE does not expect existing PTC/ITC (Investment Tax Credit for the solar industry) legislation will be impacted by the Trump win, given that elimination of the incentives would require overcoming a Democratic filibuster. The long-term health of the renewables sector is a different story altogether. President-elect Trump has gone on record numerous times to decry the science behind climate change and is not expected to support any renewables initiatives.

“It has been reported that the first weeks of the Trump presidency will likely be focused on rescinding and implementing a wide variety of executive orders. Unfortunately, this is very likely to include the CPP, as it was included as an executive order under Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The ongoing litigation in the US Court of Appeals and expected appeal to the Supreme Court would therefore be moot, and upwards of 55% of wind energy demand from 2020-30 could be eliminated.”

One thing is clear. Now is not the time to quit praying for our country. There are many issues/problems that need to be addressed in this new administration….

Iowa wind farm generates more tax credits than electricity-Ohio will too

The information below is not only true of Iowa, but also Ohio. Our BlueCreek industrial wind site does not have high production numbers (this is public info); in fact, there is no industrial wind site in Ohio that does! Our wind is not sufficient for producing large amounts of wind energy, but you would not know that if you listened to BigWind. BigWind is lobbying, hard, for reduced setbacks in Ohio, along with automatic tax breaks (PILOT), and promoting their ‘jobs’-ha, that’s a laugh. There is absolutely no comparison in the number of jobs that traditional fuels (natural gas and coal) create with their power plants. BigWind generates a handful of construction jobs and then, typically, less than a dozen once the site is up and running.  Wake up America. One Presidential candidate wants to ram these industrial monsters into our communities, while the other says NO.  This industry is raising, and will continue, to raise our electricity rates and that is terrible news for Ohioans, Americans, industry and our poor….

…the Warren Buffett-owned utility company MidAmerican Energy may soon build a massive new wind farm in Iowa. The thing is, electricity is far from the only thing it will generate. Known as “Wind XI,” the proposed 2,000 megawatt wind farm—Iowa’s largest ever—has the potential to produce a lot of electricity, but even more tax credits.

In total, Wind XI could generate up to $1.8 billion in tax credits for its backers over the next decade.

The winners? Warren Buffett; MidAmerican Energy’s other investors; and Facebook, Microsoft, and Google—MidAmerican’s biggest customers, who will receive tax benefits of their own for using wind energy. The losers? Taxpayers and other ratepayers footing the bill.
Unfortunately, this is part of an ongoing trend in wind energy across the country. It’s not the demand for more electricity that’s driving construction, but rather the government’s preferential tax treatment and counterintuitive energy mandates.

The demand for electricity in the U.S. has been nearly flat over past decade, due to slow economic growth and gains in energy efficiency. Despite the lack of new demand, new wind farms are popping up across the country because of the tremendous tax credits they generate for their owners….

And the tax credits Buffett mentions are substantial. Although MidAmerican Energy likes to note that Wind XI is not receiving any financial incentives from Iowa, that’s only half of the story. The federal government provides $23 in credits for every megawatt hour—the large-scale unit of production for energy– of electricity produced by wind and other alternative energy sources. Known as the production tax credit (PTC), this government giveaway means that MidAmerican’s new wind farm could generate $180 million in credits each year.

The federal government does even more than that to ensure green energy producers get ample benefits. MidAmerican Energy can use the PTC for up to 10 years, after recent regulatory changes expanding the life of the credit. In addition to the tax credits, government regulators set a fixed rate of return for MidAmerican Energy to charge its customers. MidAmerican will receive a guaranteed 11 percent return on equity for Wind XI, meaning it will rake in $395 million in profit over the roughly 30 year life of the project.

Another set of reasons why new wind farms are in high demand are energy mandates at both the state and federal level. Currently, 29 states have renewable portfolio standards mandating utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from sources such as wind and solar. On the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent carbon regulations—if eventually upheld by the Supreme Court—will shutter many traditional power plants, leaving wind farms to take their place.

In other words, government policy is doing everything in its power to set the stage for wind….

Source: Iowa wind farm generates more tax credits than electricity

Hearings begin. Will Ohio’s clean energy freeze melt?

Hearings were held in both the House and Senate this week on how to deal with the renewable energy mandates. In the House, Rep. Amstutz gave his sponsor testimony on HB 554 (attached). Among the points raised in the testimony were that the bill institutes an indefinite halt to the mandates justified by uncertainty in federal policy. The federal Clean Power Plan has been challenged in the US Supreme Court on the basis that the EPA has overreached its authority. If the court finds in favor of the EPA, Amstutz believes “there is a real question as to what, if any, credit Ohio could receive under the mandates of the federal Clean Power Plan from the policy mandates in our law from Senate Bill 221, which became effective in 2008.” Both Chairman Dovilla and Rep Amstutz said there was unanimous agreement that ALL forms of energy are needed.

During questioning, Rep Hagan asked what the difference with Seitz’s bill was and Amstutz replied his was narrower and only addressed the first point of the Energy Mandate Study Committee (EMSC) recommendations. Amstutz felt it important to deal in the “art of the possible” and simply tackle the freeze. Rep. Smith asked if the CPP was the only area of uncertainty and Amstutz said no but it was the overarching one. He added that he was there when the mandates were first enacted and it was definitely not a scientific process. Rep. Clyde said she was concerned about impacts on job development and Amstutz disagreed saying SB 221 was not the “gold standard” and issues related to jobs were down the road. Rep. Romanchuk wondered why energy efficiency was included and was told the two issues are related. Rep. Buchy thought rural electric companies who are not subject to mandates seem to be doing just fine in pursuing clean energy strategies. Rep. Hill, from coal country, expressed concerns about loss of coal jobs and the need for natural gas. He seemed inclined to want generation to occur inside the state of Ohio. Finally, Vice Chair Roegner said that Ohio is fertile ground for manufacturing the pieces and parts of renewable generators but that could be at risk if those manufacturers do not have access to affordable reliable power.

In the Senate, SB 320 was considered with sponsor testimony by Sen. Seitz (attached). He noted his legislation was designed to address the five broad recommendations of the EMSC:

Recommendation #1: Extend the SB 310 Freeze Indefinitely; Ø Recommendation #2: Provide an Expedited Process at the PUCO for the Review of New Utility Plans for Energy Efficiency; Ø Recommendation #3: Investigate and Ensure Maximum Credit for All of Ohio’s Energy Initiatives; Ø Recommendation #4: Switch from Energy Mandates to Energy Incentives; and Recommendation #5: Declare that the General Assembly Retains Statutory Authority with Respect to Energy Policy and Dispatch Protocols.

There were few questions for Senator Seitz but two notable moments in his “off script” remarks. First he noted that the definition of renewable energy would be expanded because, contrary to what wind and solar think, there are other clean energy sources that can play in the “sandbox”. Sen Seitz also said he is reasonable and invites negotiation. He noted that when the Governor’s office objected to an indefinite freeze, he put a limit of three years on it. He said they had other options like Jordan’s bill to terminate mandates now or the Amstutz bill to make the freeze go on indefinitely. He offered to include goals as well. Seitz feels incentives are better than mandates….

Legislative proposals that would extend a freeze on Ohio’s clean-energy standards got their first hearings on Wednesday, with one sponsor saying he seeks an “earnest discussion.” Lawmakers are continuing to push for the extension despite Gov. John Kasich’s objections to the idea, and the continuing opposition of environmentalists and many businesses…

Source: Hearings begin on extending freeze of Ohio clean-energy standards

A Supreme Rebuke of Ohio’s Renewable Energy Mandate


Big news last week as the United States Supreme Court issued a stay of the Clean Power Plan implementation until arguments against the CPP could be heard in federal court. What does this do for the states? Twenty-nine states filed suit against the CPP on the basis that the federal government was over-reaching beyond its legal authority, the plan would drive up electricity rates, hamper service reliability, and provide little environmental benefits. Some of those state attorneys general, including west Virginia and Kentucky, advised their states to immediately stop developing compliance plans.

In Ohio, we are waiting to see what Attorney General Mike DeWine does. At this point, DeWine was quoted in the media saying “This unlawful power plan is a power grab to force states into policies Congress has rejected and that would fundamentally alter the economies of states like Ohio,” Mr. DeWine said. “This stay is a significant victory, and the ‘Power Plan’ is yet another example of the Obama Administration overstepping its authority.” The big question is whether the Court’s ruling will have any impact on what the legislature does with Ohio’s Renewable Mandates. A judicial decision on the CPP will not be issued until sometime in 2017 but the legislature must act in 2016.

One trusted colleague looks at it this way: “The US Supreme Court’s grant of the stay may have the most immediate and largest impact on the business plans of electric utilities (like AEP, Duke and many others) that have been telling Wall Street that the CPP would help drive customer-funded investments in compliance hardware and contribute to a growth in shareholder earnings. Some utilities hoping to leverage the CPP to enhance earnings have focused on large investments in “renewable” forms of electric generation (mainly-utility scale wind and solar) with customers picking up the tab and environmental groups helping the utilities obtain needed regulatory approvals while claiming that all of this forced investment would someday and somehow be beneficial to customers. [The potential for the CPP to be leveraged by electric utilities to force electric bills and earnings higher was enhanced by Congress’ extension of bonus depreciation because bonus depreciation accelerates, in regulated states, the decline in “rate base” (the value of assets on which traditional regulation will allow utilities an opportunity to obtain a return on and of invested capital)]. While states like Ohio were challenging the CPP in court, many electric utilities were pushing forward with business models or plans to use the CPP as another means of pushing electric bills and earnings higher. “…

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday voted 5-4 to suspend implementation of the federal Clean Power Plan in the face of an ongoing court battle. Ohio is among more than two dozen states pushing for the CPP to be thrown out over their protests that the federal government overstepped its authority in releasing the rule. The plan is aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 2030 by 32% of 2005 levels. But opponents contend the plan will drive up electricity rates, hamper service reliability, and provide little environmental benefits….

Attorney General Mike DeWine, who in October filed to join the unfolding lawsuit, said in a statement Wednesday he was pleased by the development.

“This unlawful power plan is a power grab to force states into policies Congress has rejected and that would fundamentally alter the economies of states like Ohio,” Mr. DeWine said. “This stay is a significant victory, and the ‘Power Plan’ is yet another example of the Obama Administration overstepping its authority.”

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Craig Butler similarly praised the ruling.

“By staying U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the Supreme Court got it right,” he said. “The State of Ohio has pointed out the serious legal shortcomings of the federal Clean Power Plan on numerous occasions. We will evaluate the decision and determine how it will impact our plans moving forward.”…

Coal Association President Christian Palich called the ruling called it a victory for “Ohio coal families and energy consumers.”

“Congress and now our highest court have ruled against the illegal actions of radical EPA bureaucrats, bringing us one step closer to defeating this agenda and ensuring our energy grid has access to reliable and affordable power,” Mr. Palich said.

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, which filed an amicus brief supporting the stay, also applauded the ruling.

“In Ohio’s continued pursuit of building a healthy and diverse economy, few things are more important than preserving access to affordable, reliable and predictable sources of energy,” Chamber Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Charles Willoughby said in a statement. “Manufacturers and other businesses must have access to energy solutions that best meet their needs, free from government interference and overly burdensome regulatory controls that stifle healthy economic growth.”…


from: Statehouse News

Ohio Officials Applaud Supreme Court Ruling That Puts U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan On Hold

Additionally: The Supreme Court issues an historic stay on Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the Wall Street Journal writes in an editorial….

Source: A Supreme Carbon Rebuke

If (BigWind energy in OH) is so cheap, why do we have to FORCE peop’s to buy it?

A group of environmentalists and others, like the Farm Bureau, who are pushing for reinstatement of the renewable mandates have completed a tour of the state and issued a report that is getting a lot of media attention. In addition to pushing for reinstatement of the mandates, they are demanding repeal of property line setbacks established last year to protect property owners. Siting has never been considered by the mandate committee and it would be surprising to see it included in the Mandate Committee’s report . And as for the mandates, Senator Seitz is quoted in the Columbus Business First as saying ““I don’t think we’re likely to resume our march up Mandate Mountain, but I also don’t think we’re going to repeal where we are right now,” he said. “Let things unfold the next three years due to turbulence created by the U.S. EPA.” “Those that believe these things are important should be given every opportunity to put money where their mouth is,” he said. “Loud and clearly.”…

We aren’t quite sure how to interpret all of this but it could mean the Committee will recommend that those who want to use more renewable energy could do so on a voluntary basis and pay for it themselves instead of forcing higher costs on ratepayers and taxpayers. This would be an outcome we could live with for now….

…Ohio’s Energy Future Tour, a coalition of business groups and environmental advocates, issued a report on Wednesday calling on the state to lift a “freeze” on benchmarks for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and to make other changes that embrace clean-energy technologies….

There are two laws at issue.

• First is Senate Bill 310, passed last year, which placed a two-year freeze on state rules that require utilities to buy certain amounts of renewable energy and to meet targets for reducing energy use. The law has several other notable provisions, including a repeal of a rule that says utilities must buy half of their renewable energy from sources within the state.

• Second is a change to rules addressing placement of wind-energy turbines, a modification that was inserted into a larger budget bill last year. The change puts more distance between turbines and nearby buildings, which has the effect of reducing the number of turbines that can be installed for some projects….

Sam Randazzo, a Columbus lawyer for industrial businesses and a supporter of last year’s legislation, says the report is making requests that would lead to an increase in utility bills. He says the authors are straining their credibility when they argue that renewable energy is affordable and good for the economy, and also argue that renewable-energy mandates are necessary.

“If it’s so cheap, why do you have to force people to buy it?” he asked.

The legislative committee will issue its recommendations, and then it will be up to the General Assembly to decide what to do next. If lawmakers take no action, the freeze would lift next year….

Source: Clean-energy advocates want Ohio to alter course

24 Ohio Companies urge Kasich to support EPA…1 Ohioan sees RED!

A Buckeye responds to the lunacy in RED below. It is disappointing to see so many Ohio companies support this rhetoric. The list demands your attention. Will you continue to support them with your $? Or educate them about the truth?….

We, the undersigned companies and investors, have a significant presence in Ohio and strongly support the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants. These standards, also called the Clean Power Plan, are critical for moving our country toward a clean energy economy.

In other words, a clean energy economy boosts companies that would otherwise fail in a competitive economy. We would do well here to remember that coercing investment and expansion in inefficient economic activities comes at the expense of not investing in economic winners, among other impacts.

Our support is firmly grounded in economic reality. Clean energy solutions are cost effective ways to drive investment…

But if clean energy solutions are cost effective, then why is government force critical?  The answer is that without other people’s tax and rate dollars funneled to clean energy solutions investors, such investments are in fact not cost effective.

…and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gases are vital to all life on Earth and always have been. These gas concentrations are self-regulating under a wide variety of atmospheric events and trends. The arrogance of humans who believe we are capable of controlling and should reduce greenhouse gas concentrations is akin to believing an Eskimo woman’s linen drying line controls the northern lights or that native

American rain dances induce rainfall.

Increasingly, businesses rely on renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions to cut costs and improve corporate performance.

If renewable energy solutions cut costs, then why is it a requirement that governments must force other taxpayers and utility rate payers to participate in defraying the cost of such investments while the return on those investments accrues only to the voluntary private investors?

Businesses have always been free to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency with their own funds, and will do so if they truly believe it improves their corporate performance. This letter, from a group including already flourishing, large companies, demands perpetual handouts from the rest of us in order to ensure their profits, while using the feeble excuse of environmental benefit for all.

In 2014, a study by Ceres, Calvert Investments and the World Wildlife Fund revealed that 60 percent of Fortune 100 companies have set their own clean energy targets and have saved more than $1 Billion a year in the process.1.

If these companies “set targets” without intending to seek government forced handouts from hard working American taxpayers and ratepayers, then such targets are further evidence that edicts from government such as the clean power plan are unnecessary. But if these companies’ targets were set to take advantage of taxpayers and rate payers in order to make their targets’ fulfillment profitable, that is reason for American tax and rate payers to insist government cease and desist such unfair wealth transfers, and to boycott the private companies who promote such selfish activities at the expense of others.  And if the savings to the Fortune 100 companies totaled more than $1 Billion, what was the value of the subsidies and mandates paid by tax and rate payers in support of those investments?

Clear and consistent policies

Translation: “Government continuing to collect money in the form of rates and taxes and giving that money to powerful and profitable corporate entities…”

…can send market signals that help businesses and investors plan for the future.

Translation: “…contaminates and distorts markets, helping greedy businesses such as those signing this letter to collect even more revenue in the future that they did not earn without the fear that government will ever realize its mistakes and correct them.”

We are seeking long-term policies that provide businesses the certainty needed to transition to a clean energy economy.

Translation: “We want permanent, ongoing access to money we did not earn.”

Electric power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the United States and the Clean Power Plan will be pivotal in reducing their emissions….


Carbon is not pollution. Furthermore, the statement is conspicuous in its placement here. The letter is intended to force states to force their rate and taxpayers to pay for otherwise uneconomic investments in green energy so that the companies authoring this letter can profit by them. The letter is not an affirmation of belief in the purported perils of purported “global warming”. It is about wealth transfer from anyone else, to them.  The paragraph did not go on to say that financially harming electric power plants will not harm ratepayers.  And for good reason: nobody would accept that assertion as true.

We are already experiencing increased frequency and intensity of storms, warmer temperatures, extreme precipitation, and changes in weather patterns that will continue to put trillions of dollars of institutional investors’ assets at risk and require companies to be innovative at adapting to these changes….

Weather patterns have never been consistent and never will be. What the authors are really asking for is an imaginary and free “insurance policy” against weather anomalies which forces real and ongoing costs on American taxpayers and ratepayers with no proof and little hope of measurable gain to society or the environment but very certain gain to the already profitable and powerful authors.

We are encouraged that the Plan allows states to use a number of flexible strategies to comply with the standards. States can build on successful clean energy policies already in place…

The EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) used existing state mandates for renewable energy as a starting point from which to impose additional economic harms to states. This is a strong incentive for states to repeal their mandates prior to EPA finalizing CPP rules, and to claim that had they known

EPA would use existing standards as a starting point for imposing economic harm then they would have never passed the mandate laws to begin with, opting for a lower base line in eventual federal regulatory controls.

Evidence shows that emissions reductions can be achieved without long-term economic harm or damage to the reliability of our electricity system. 2 3


If that is true, then the free market will naturally lead utilities, businesses and individuals to invest in these non-damaging technologies without government force. What the statement intends to convey is that somehow wasting functional power plant infrastructure and replacing it with new power plants, or investing billions in upgrades to power plants is somehow free or that investors in conventional power plants should be forced to absorb those expenses without passing them on to ratepayers. This is a passive aggressive attack on the technologies on which our civilization and global leadership were built, and a simultaneous attack on the very concept of free enterprise.

24 Ohio Companies and Investors Urge Gov. Kasichs Timely Implementation of EPAs Clean Power Plan — Ceres.