BigWind is NOT included in ‘how to improve Ohio energy competitivenss’ report


A new study is released by the Ohio Business Roundtable.  Entitled “Improving Ohio’s Energy Competitiveness,” this study represents a major analytical undertaking by McKinsey & Co. prior to the General Assembly reconvening to act on the renewable mandate freeze. The report recommends phasing out the mandates. “Richard Stoff, Roundtable president and CEO, defended the finding that renewable mandates, over the long run, would raise the cost of power. We have done the forecasting, it is our conclusion that over time mandates will result in higher prices that are passed on to the consumer,” he said in an interview. “In looking at these issues through a purely economic lens, it is our judgment that mandates ought to be phased out.”

On page 18 of the report, “Improving Ohio’s Energy Competitiveness,” the authors note:


“Renewables, especially wind, are expected to account for a growing portion of Ohio’s generation mix in the next 15 years (Exhibit 11). Renewables provided only 1% of Ohio’s and 3% of PJM’s power generation in 2014. By 2030, renewables are projected to represent 13% of Ohio’s total power generation. Ohio’s installed capacity for renewables is expected to almost double in the near future, thanks to new investments in renewable assets and improved efficiencies. Furthermore, the market-based adoption of renewables will accelerate as technology costs fall and certain customers prioritize renewable power.

Ohio’s geography and climate are not as suited to renewables as some other states, especially those in the southwest. Ohio’s year-round, frequent cloud cover is a challenge for solar power as an option for almost all of the state. Sustained winds are most common in the northern part of the state along Lake Erie and in west central Ohio, but the region lacks ample space to build wind turbines, and winds can be inconsistent.

Renewables, including solar and wind, are intermittent sources of power and increase demands on the power grid. Because power cannot be stored cost effectively after it is generated, a wind or solar farm that goes offline intermittently, when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining, must be replaced by other fast-starting gas, coalfired, or nuclear capacity. This adds complexity to managing a grid with a high share of renewables.”


(Yet another) reason why Ohio should CANCEL the Renewable Mandates

We hope that Governor Kasich reads this analysis by an economics professor because he has recommended Mr. Petricoff to the PUCO.  It is, yet another, example of renewable mandates INCreasing the costs of electricity for consumers. This anaylsis goes even farther, though, and it supports our view that increased electricity costs damage economies by affecting the poor, industry and reducing the labor force. Ohio does not need or want BigWind energy!! Do our legislators live in an alternate universe that does not see these realities????? Please ensure that they know the truth. Make a call, send a letter, help to inform them!!….

According to my new study published by the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s 15.7 percent RPS will increase state electricity prices by nearly 7 percent in 2020. Already, residential electricity prices are 29 percent higher in states with mandatory RPS than in states without them, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.

It’s not surprising then, that many states are facing blowback relating to their RPS’s.

At the end of May, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan vetoed a bill to raise his state’s RPS from 20 percent to 25 percent, noting he couldn’t support the soaring costs.

Last year, West Virginia and Kansas completely repealed their RPS’s. And the year before that, Ohio hit the pause button on its RPS.

In numerous statehouses, legislation has been proposed to either cut RPS’s or scrap the mandates completely.

With the soaring electricity prices associated with RPS, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. According to the Brookings Institute, wind power is twice as expensive as conventional power, and solar power is three times as expensive.

These higher energy costs are passed on to electrical ratepayers, depressing economic output and disproportionately hurting the poor, who spend a larger fraction of their incomes on electricity….

The economic costs associated with RPS go beyond heftier electricity bills for ratepayers.

Since energy is an essential factor of production and consumption activities, businesses pass along higher rates in the form of higher prices for customers.

As a result, net economic output in states with RPS’s is reduced – often by billions of dollars.

Our study concludes that New Mexico’s 15.7 percent RPS will reduce its economic output by $444 million in 2020. In neighboring Utah, the state’s 20 percent RPS leads to a $1.4 billion reduction in economic output in the same year.

Finally, we know that less economic output means fewer jobs. We anticipate RPS to cost thousands of jobs per state, varying based on each state’s unique labor market. For New Mexico, we estimate that RPS will cost our state nearly 3,500 jobs in 2020.

While the RPS does create some jobs in building and maintaining solar, wind and other renewable capacity, these job gains are dwarfed by the job losses caused by reduced economic output….

Source: Mandating renewable energy raises costs, cuts jobs

The Dark Side of Germany’s BigWind Transition


Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 8.56.19 PM

We blogged about this last year, in an article ‘To Heat or Eat’. Germans are now faced with such incredibly high electricity costs, thanks to BigWind, that they are now losing jobs and suffering from the lack of electricity. Who suffers the most with these policies? The poor, not the rich.  America, this is headed our way, unless we begin to speak with our neighbors, friends and family members who believe that ‘green’ energy is so ‘clean’ and cheap. Green energy will bankrupt our country, make our manufacturers look elsewhere for labor, and cause incredible inflation, as our electricity rates skyrocket. Will you speak with your family and friends about this truth?….

“It was a dark, dark day for us,” said Felix Kusicka, the mayor of Biblis, a small town on the eastern bank of the Rhine. For decades, the town’s main employer was a 2500-megawatt nuclear plant that supplied power to nearby Frankfurt. After the authorities ordered the plant shut down in 2011 following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, workers have dismantled the reactor cores and are taking the plant apart piece by piece.

With the shutdown, the town lost 50 percent of its corporate tax take and hundreds of jobs. House prices have fallen. Now, once-prosperous Biblis is shrinking. Stores have shut their doors and hotel rooms are empty. Biblis residents, bitter that even the Japanese are turning on their reactors again, call their town’s demise “the catastrophe after the catastrophe.”

The fate of Biblis is only a tiny sliver of the vast economic upheavals that began when Germany launched its energy transition that simultaneously phases out all nuclear power, winds down coal and other fossil fuels, accelerates the push towards alternative sources of energy, and builds the new grid infrastructure to make it all possible. The fact that Germany is a world leader in green power is by now familiar. Much less familiar is the price the country is paying for it, not just in cold hard cash, but in growing losses and dislocations across the entire economy….

Manufacturing companies, from chemicals maker BASF to carbon fiber producer SGL Carbon, have shifted investments abroad, where energy costs are often a fraction of Germany’s.

Losers include laid-off workers in these industries, but also millions of ordinary consumers. Their utility bills have skyrocketed, largely driven by subsidies for eco-friendly fuels. As much as the transition creates new jobs building wind turbines, farming biofuels or installing solar panels on rooftops, the changes are cutting a deep swathe through other parts of the economy. Germany’s “green” revolution has a dark shadow….

Ordinary consumers have seen their electricity bills double since the introduction in 2000 of a renewable-energy levy, slapped on every household’s electricity bill to subsidize the owners of wind turbines and solar panels…

Consumer advocates warn that a growing number of German families can no longer afford their electricity bills. Some 350,000 have had their power cut off, up 13 percent from 2011.

No one knows what the final bill will be…

Source: The Dark Side of Germany’s Energy Transition

Ohio AEP has been bullied by Sierra Club?

We have often noted that BUYERS for renewable power have not been especially active in Ohio. This is not surprising as the quality of the wind and sun is better elsewhere. Notwithstanding, activist groups like the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and others are training their guns on state battlefields. This week the news from Politico noted that green groups will redouble their efforts at the state level. The Sierra Club has already come to an agreement with American Electric Power (AEP) to purchase 900 MW of Ohio-generated renewable energy. Four hundred MW will be solar and 500 MW will be wind. This agreement is being fought at the PUCO. One issue is the cost to ratepayers. Ohio Consumers’ Council attorney, Kevin Moore asked, if the Sierra Club had performed a cost analysis of the proposed 500 megawatts of wind power and 400 megawatts of solar power. “No, we have not,” Kanfer said. Here’s why the cost matters: William Allen, AEP’s managing director of regulatory case management, said in regulatory filings that the utility would seek to recover costs associated with building solar and wind generation operations. The costs would be levied on customers.” That is after taking advantage of federal taxpayers subsidies and likely local tax abatement. Remember, we have showcased it many times, an excellent article from Forbes magazine. It shows that where there is the MOST wind turbine generated electricity, there are the HIGHEST electricity rates.  At any rate, we suspect there will be lots of wind developers lining up to sell Ohio generated wind to AEP if the deal is approved….

American Electric Power Company Inc. wants to build 900 megawatts of wind and solar electric generation projects in Ohio by 2020, but the plan’s cost to customers is unknown.

The concession by AEP to build the alternative energy projects is a big reason why erstwhile foe Sierra Club, which had labled the utility’s plan to assure profitability for its financially unstable Ohio coal plants a “bailout,” signed on to the income-guarantee proposal last month.

Nearly everyone can get behind replacing a dirty, outdated energy source with sunshine and breeze. AEP is taking an open approach to cleaner energy, and globally wind and solar accounted for about half of new generation capacity last year.
But how much would adding 900 megawatts of clean power cost ratepayers?…

This month the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which represents residential utility customers and an opponent to the AEP-Sierra Club agreement, questioned Nachy Kanfer, a deputy director for the environmental organization’s Beyond Coal campaign. OCC attorney Kevin Moore asked if the Sierra Club had performed a cost analysis of the proposed 500 megawatts of wind power and 400 megawatts of solar power.
“No, we have not,” Kanfer said.
Here’s why the cost matters: William Allen, AEP’s managing director of regulatory case management, said in regulatory filings that the utility would seek to recover costs associated with building solar and wind generation operations. The costs would be levied on customers….

What is the True Cost of Electricity? More thanks to the EPA

This data substantiates what we have been saying for years. BigWind will make our electricity rates skyrocket, which destroys jobs, families, and our way of life.  Americans need to stand up to this administration, this EPA, and this liberal agenda before it is too late….and it is almost too late!!! What will the Ohio study mandate committee decide to do with our renewable portfolio standard? Let us hope they use common sense. 

Today, the Institute for Energy Research released a first-of-its-kind study calculating the levelized cost of electricity from existing generation sources. Our study shows that on average, electricity from new wind resources is nearly four times more expensive than from existing nuclear and nearly three times more expensive than from existing coal. These are dramatic increases in the cost of generating electricity. This means that the premature closures of existing plants will unavoidably increase electricity rates for American families….

The LCOE-E framework allows for cost comparisons that are relevant for today’s energy policymakers. For example, when all known costs are accurately included in the LCOE calculations, we find that existing coal ($38.4), nuclear ($29.6), and hydroelectric resources ($34.2) are about one-third of the cost of new wind resources ($112.8) on average. By increasing the transparency of the costs associated with policies favoring new resources over existing conventional resources, we hope to inform policymakers with the best available data and raise the level of the electricity policy debate….

What is the True Cost of Electricity? – IER.

BigWind to influence next presidential campaign

Wind industry to flex political muscle in presidential campaign |

Charlie Brown said it best. AWEA is now ‘threatening’ to use their muscle (aka spend our tax dollars) to influence politicians in the upcoming election season. Haven’t they already been doing this for years? Does anyone else find it interesting that this industry is ENTIRELY dependent on our tax dollars and that they will now use those tax dollars to persuade politicians for more support? Let us not forget to remind our friends that the states with the most industrial wind projects have the highest increases in their electricity bills…..

The wind industry will begin flexing its political muscle in the run-up to the presidential elections, with the goal of holding politicians accountable for their support, or lack thereof, for wind-generated electricity.

“We are a big industry … we want to flex our muscle more,” said Mike Garland, president and CEO of Pattern Energy, speaking Wednesday to reporters on a panel with other industry officials from its Wind Power 2015 conference in Orlando, Fla. Pattern is a leading wind energy company that owns and operates facilities in three countries.

Garland, with the American Wind Energy Association, will begin holding town forums with presidential hopefuls on both sides of aisle to push them on their commitment to the renewable energy industry….

Garland said “we have been very collegial” in the past, but “we have to be more proactive” by interjecting the voice of the industry into the presidential debate in a much more visible way.

He said the wind industry will be much more assertive on the campaign trail, where the industry will seek to hold politicians “accountable” for their support and call them out when they don’t live up to their obligations.

Wind industry officials also will reach out to members of Congress to counter what the industry says are misconceptions about wind-generated electricity being unreliable and expensive. Garland and other officials say the facts show just the opposite — wind provides low cost electricity and makes the grid more reliable….

Wind industry to flex political muscle in presidential campaign |

Ohio Power Siting Board meets today to discuss BigWind extension

The suspense is just killing us. What will the OPSB decide in their meeting? Will they side with BigWind or the taxpaying, residents of Ohio?  It requires no effort, only a little knowledge of their past, to know that BigWind will prevail. This board loves BigWind.  What is stated, below, is noteworthy. Why does BigWind state they are struggling? Natural gas production and an ‘economic downturn’.  This is a elaborate way of stating that WIND TURBINES PRODUCE ENERGY THAT IS TOO EXPENSIVE…..

Hog Creek Wind Farm LLC has asked the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) to extend its Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from March 22, 2015, until March 22, 2018.

The Ohio board is expected to discuss and possibly act on the case during its upcoming meeting on March 9….

Hog Creek said that a three-year extension of the certificate is reasonable because the wholesale electricity market in Ohio “dramatically changed with the advent of increasing supplies of natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale plays. At the same time, there has been an overall, lower demand for electricity due to the general economic downturn.”

Together, these two factors resulted in lower prices that undercut Hog Creek’s ability to enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) for Hog Creek Wind’s energy and renewable energy credits sufficient to support construction and financing of the project….

Hog Creek also maintains that increasingly stringent regulation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the growing number of coal plant retirements point toward better market conditions for wind by 2018….(forced mandates!)

Hog Creek Wind seeks 36-month extension on certificate from Ohio board – Power Engineering.