Will the Ohio legislature allow BigWind to thrive?

As the Trump Administration moves to cut federal programs and shift regulatory oversight to the states, the environmental left is moving to ensure state policies will favor renewables and especially wind. A spokesperson for the Ohio Environmental Council asserted in a recent article that the OEC “will also “double down” on holding Ohio policymakers accountable, whether it’s in the Legislature or at the local level. The OEC has already opened two field offices in Lorraine and Toledo and will open a third in Cincinnati.

With that in mind the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Wind developers still have their sights on Ohio and are hoping to persuade state lawmakers to return to the old setbacks. But will that happen? Or might there be a compromise that legislators and the industry can agree on, especially if those legislators see the wind industry attracting good jobs to the state as a result?” The paper goes on to remind readers that new applications for wind projects in Ohio must meet the property line setbacks and “That does not bode well for Apex Clean Energy of Charlottesville, Va., which has four wind projects in development in Ohio, but has yet to apply for permits with the Ohio Power Siting Board. If built as desired, the projects would generate $171 million in lease payments to landowners, $207 million in payments-in-lieu of taxes to local schools and $104 million in payments-in-lieu of taxes to counties and townships, according to Apex.” “Wind advocates hope the interest Amazon has shown in using renewable energy to power its new data centers in Ohio will convince enough Republican legislators to return to the old setbacks, sending a message that Ohio welcomes renewable energy and the companies that desire it.”

Noteworthy, as well, is this excerpt: “Are state lawmakers willing to revisit the setback issue? It appears so, although it will involve tough negotiations. Last year, House Bill 190 would have allowed counties in Ohio to override the state setback requirement, but the legislation died in the House. Then-Ohio Sen. Bill Seitz, who chaired the Senate Public Utilities Committee, said one problem he had with H.B. 190 was that counties responsible for deciding the setbacks also would have a financial interest in taxes generated by the project.” “The term-limited Seitz is now in the House of Representatives and chairing the Public Utilities Committee there. He said he would be willing to consider legislation that gives townships, but not counties, override ability, but that only township trustees who don’t have property included in the wind farm would have a vote.

But lobbyist Dayne Baird Payne said the wind industry wants a return of the old statewide setbacks, and if not, scientific evidence as to why the change was made. She said giving the authority to townships would be costly because wind developers would have to go before multiple townships as well as the Ohio Power Siting Board.” (We imagine the developers would think local township control would also be costly since they would undoubtedly sue any township that refused to allow their obliteration by industrial wind.)

Elsewhere, we were astonished to read that recently retired Vorys Attorney Howard Petricoff, who was appointed to the Public Utilities Commission but resigned when the Ohio Senate refused to confirm his nomination, was HIRED by the PUCO as their “chief analyst.” He will oversee four departments that do technical analysis for rate cases and other issues. This seems to be a real slap in the face of the legislature by the Kasich Administration and may foretell more battles to come.

We often argue the use of property line setbacks is essential as an extra measure of protection as industrial wind turbines continue to grow ever larger. Generally speaking, leaseholders and those who have signed setback waivers, have relinquished the right to object to the repowering of turbines with longer blades or other newer technology. Now comes NextEra to announce “We expect yet another major step-change in wind turbine technology through a combination of even taller towers and wider rotor diameters, which would further increase net capacity factors” NextEra sees the next generation models being in use in 2020 and providing such additional capacity as to eliminate the need for federal subsidies like the Production Tax Credit. Given that G.E. currently uses equipment that has 600’ towers and blades that sweep an area larger than a couple of football fields, anyone who thinks a 1,250 to 2,000 foot setback from a house is okay is nuts! Indiana is looking at state legislation that would impose 1.5 miles from sensitive receptors like schools and hospitals along with 2,220 feet from an occupied home but the legislation would also require an affirmative vote from the community before a wind factory could be built.

The two bills considered in the last Congress to prohibit wind facilities near military airfields have now been re-introduced in the new Congress. Senator Cornyn of Texas issued a statement saying “This bill will both enhance public safety in communities adjacent to military bases and help our military better train to defend our homeland.” “After discussing the safety concerns regarding nearby wind turbines with military leaders and pilots across Texas, I’m hopeful this bill can cut down on unintended radar interference in the future and ensure our pilots can continue to train in a safe and effective manner.” Existing wind projects would be grandfathered.

Getting back to the Trump Administration, there remains considerable uncertainty as to how policies will impact wind development. We hear that the President wants to pursue significant infrastructure projects that will create jobs. Some argue that those infrastructure projects should include greatly expanded transmission lines to move wind from the Midwest to population centers in the East, West and South. Last year, the Midwest (as defined by the U.S. Census and which includes Ohio) accounted for more than a third of the country’s wind power output. We urge all readers to read the articles about transmission.

Mike Fehr, MidAmerican’s vice-president for resource development, said that while several factors such as landowner and community support and wildlife considerations enter into decisions about where to locate wind turbines, transmission “is probably the first thing we look at. It’s the most limiting.” “Wind farms don’t have to be located directly on new transmission lines to benefit from their additional capacity, Fehr explained. As long as the new line is close enough to relieve transmission congestion in the general vicinity of a new generating facility, he said, it provides avenues for additional electricity to move freely out of the region.

Transmission capacity can even trump the quality of the wind resource.” Early in our introduction to wind, we recall being told developers follow transmission lines the way rats follow sewer lines. Guess so.

One company pursuing improved transmission is American Electric Power. “The Columbus electric utility is working on a plan for Statehouse legislators that will be “surgical in terms of its approach,” CEO Nick Adams said Thursday while discussing year-end financial results. He described it as a “clean slate.” The thrust of AEP’s plan is a focus on future development, including building new power generation with natural gas and renewables, and not focusing on getting subsidies for its remaining four coal-fired power plants. “AEP will not invest in new generation in Ohio unless we have clear (cost) recovery,” Akins said. The company also wants to make sure “we’re not lining up before the Ohio Supreme Court all the time,” he said. “That’s really what we’re after.” Manufacturing sites are some of the utility’s biggest customers in terms of power usage, and infrastructure like new transmission is a key part of AEP’s future plans.”

Important, too, is the movement of utilities like AEP to build their own wind. We have reported previously that AEP is the proposed purchaser for output from the Buckeye Wind project in Champaign County.  In addition to being a matter of concern for target communities, “This is a potentially worrying trend for IPPs such as Invenergy, Pattern and Enel Green Power, and one that is expected to gain steam in 2017. … Where once it made sense for rate-regulated utilities to meet their renewables mandates by signing a few one-off PPAs — or “filling the gap”, as one utility executive puts it — many increasingly see value in owning big wind fleets and passing the costs on to their ratepayers.” Can it get any worse?

We feel pretty certain that there will be lots of action in the world of transmission and proof is that AWEA’s lobbyist Rob Gramlich is leaving AWEA to launch a new consulting firm dedicated to building a more robust electricity grid. What’s that we said about rats?

All of this news is overwhelming. We continue to support those on the front line of the battle. For everyone else, we remind you that the best defense is an educated community that says “NO” to wind leases. You can’t have a wind project in your community unless people sign leases and no truly educated person would do that. Second best for now is to withhold tax abatement and “PILOT” payments. One day these tax incentives and subsidies will no longer be needed. How will we defend our homes and families then? By saying no to transmission and no to wind leases….

Ohio has enough wind to generate electricity on a large scale. What it lacks is a rulebook that allows developers to do just that.

In 2014, the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation that more than doubled the distance wind turbines have to be from unoccupied neighboring property, assuming the owner of that property doesn’t grant a waiver….

Source: Will the Ohio legislature allow the wind industry to thrive?


Financing BigWind Energy…anything BUT free

The major theme of today’s Wind News is on financing wind development. Uncertainty in markets, caused by federal or state policy, creates a reluctance on the part of the finance community because they cannot assess risk. With the inauguration of President Trump, a great deal of uncertainty has been introduced in the market. One area of concern is tax policy. An important report from Bloomberg states, “Wind-power skeptic Donald Trump’s proposed tax reform may have an unintended consequence: threatening wind farms’ balance sheets. The president-elect’s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate to as low as 15 percent may curb availability of an esoteric, but critical, clean-energy financing mechanism known as tax equity, according to a report Friday by the Chicago-based energy and infrastructure adviser Marathon Capital LLC. “ The article goes on to say, “In tax-equity deals, clean-energy developers sell a portion of their projects’ tax credits to companies — typically big banks — that can apply the credits to their own tax bills. It’s a critical part of part of the financing process, and debt deals are often structured around tax-equity commitments.” And “Now, it’s one of the most-discussed topics among wind developers, bankers, investors and attorneys. Even without a concrete proposal on the table, it’s affecting financing activity.”

Another financing strategy called the “yieldco”. In Ten Clean Energy Stocks for 2017, yieldcos are defined as “companies with a business focused on the ownership or financing of operating clean energy assets, and use most of the resulting cash flow to pay dividends to shareholders. Operating clean energy assets include wind farms, solar farms, biomass and biofuel plants, and other sustainable infrastructure which reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions. Yieldcos often have a developer “sponsor” which holds a majority of the Yieldco’s stock, and gives the Yieldco the first opportunity to buy many of the developer’s projects, called a “Right of First Offer” or ROFO. Because Yieldcos own existing infrastructure and sell renewable energy, they are much less dependent on the continuation of government subsidies for clean energy than many renewable energy companies that have to sell or install products to make a profit. The stability of Yieldco cash flows (and dividends) depend much more on counter-parties (usually investment grade utilities) living up to their obligations than on government policy.

Even wind farms, which often receive an ongoing tax subsidy in the form of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) are relatively safe. When the PTC has been allowed to lapse in the past, the change has only applied to new wind farms, not wind farms already in production. This stability and current low valuations led me to include six Yieldcos in the list for 2017.  The current low valuations mean that most Yieldcos cannot now issue new stock to fund acquisitions and grow quickly, but the resulting high dividends mean that there is significant protection against further declines because income investors do not require significant growth prospects to buy high dividend stocks as long as they believe the dividend is safe.”

To recap, there is uncertainty about lowered federal tax rates, uncertainty about rising interest rates, uncertainty about a possible repeal of the Production Tax Credit, uncertainty about the role of the federal government in mandating state energy policy and, in Ohio, uncertainty about state renewable energy mandates. We have been told by an industry representative that no new projects that must start from scratch will be built for the foreseeable future. Development will be focused on projects with leases that are in the pipeline right now as well as the repowering of existing wind projects.


This week Champaign Countians residing inside the footprint of EverPower’s Buckeye Wind received calls from an automated telephone survey group out of Columbus. The survey was very confusing and we think it would be difficult for anyone to understand. There were seven questions asking if you agreed or disagreed on a scale of 1 to 7. That in itself was confusing. How about yes or no? How about on a scale of 1 to 3? How about a choice “No Opinion” or “I don’t Know”? We believe the way the “survey” was constructed will allow manipulation of the survey results. We were called more than once so we know the initiative was flawed. Was the survey conducted to build an argument for PILOT? For modifying setbacks? For fighting against elimination of the Ohio renewable mandates? Only time will tell. We would be interested to know if anyone outside of Champaign County was called.

Here are the (approximate) questions:

Answer on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree

1. Agree or disagree: We need to scale down the use of coal

2. Agree or disagree: Expanded renewable energy increases jobs and economic growth

3. Agree or disagree: We need renewables in order to address climate change

4. Agree or disagree: Our faith tells us we need to support clean energy to be good stewards of the earth

5. Agree or disagree: Expanding renewables will enhance our national security

6. Agree or disagree: State government should establish Renewable Portfolio Standards (mandates)

7. Agree or disagree: State should let the free market work

In our last two issues, we discussed concerns about radar interference from turbines which could jeopardize military operations. And so it was with interest that we read the weather story in the Dayton Daily News about the Blue Creek Wind farm showing up on Doppler weather radar as a rain shower over Van Wert! This is an Avangrid (fka Iberdrola) project just like the one being contested in North Carolina. In a letter to the Trump Administration, North Carolina lawmakers objecting to the Amazon Wind Farm said, “No tears need to be shed for Iberdrola, which is the antithesis of the Make America Great again program.” The article also points out that President Trump dislikes Amazon owner, Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post. It could get interesting!

From the perspective of the wind industry, we read that Trump’s plan to turn over many policies and programs to the states may or may not help industrial wind.  Investors are watching the North Carolina fight as well as anti-renewable legislation in Wyoming.

In Ohio, AEP is rumored to be the possible buyer of wind generated by EverPower’s Buckeye Wind project. In a recent interview with Julie Sloat, AEP President, the following question was asked, “How optimistic are you about Ohio’s long-term alternative energy activity? “ Answer: AEP Ohio plans to build 900 megawatts of wind and solar capacity in Ohio over the next five years. Ohio has an exciting opportunity right now to take control of its energy future and map out a long-term energy policy to support economic development and spur more energy investment in the state, including alternative energy.” biz journals.com 1/20/17

While federal and state policies are in flux, one corner of the renewable world seems to be doing just fine. Jereme Kent’s Findlay-based ONE Energy that builds on-site wind for use by manufacturers like Whirlpool and the Ball Corp. has secured $80 million in senior and subordinated debt from Prudential Capital. 


The President’s choice for Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, testified in his confirmation hearing that he supports the phase-out of the Production Tax Credit. Notwithstanding, the headlines were that he supported the PTC! Fake Headlines! Media reports indicate “But there’s been speculation about whether the tax credit, which was renewed as part of a 2015 budget deal, could be a target for repeal in the case of a Trump tax reform package. ClearView Energy Partners, for example, didn’t rule out the idea in a research note after the election, considering dislike of the credits among some conservatives.”

Opinion seems divided over whether or not Rick Perry, nominee for Secretary of Energy would be good or bad for renewables. Some think bad as reports indicate “On the issue of climate change, Perry said he makes decisions based on sound science, especially when people’s lives are at stake but admitted to Senator Bernie Sanders that he doesn’t view climate change as a crisis nor does he believe that the U.S. should take the lead in transforming its energy supply away from fossil fuels.”

At 11:59 a.m. on Inauguration Day, the White House website was full of information about climate change and global warming, etc. One minute later at noon when President Trump took the oath of office – all such references were GONE. The President’s Energy Plan was posted saying in part, “Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well.”

It was interesting to us also that the final line in the new official America First Energy Plan statement was: A brighter future depends on energy policies that stimulate our economy, ensure our security, and protect our health. Under the Trump Administration’s energy policies, that future can become a reality. (Those are the same issues raised in the local telephone survey!)

Finally, the U.S. Department of Energy released a new report Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States. We don’t imagine many more reports like this will be coming out in the next four years…

pic: forthewind.files.wordpress.com/2012/05…

The ‘Spin Doctors’ of BigWind are in Ohio….


The Doctor is “In” – that is, the Spin Doctors of industrial wind. This past week the Spin Doctors were busy in their emergency rooms using the tools of their profession: truthiness (half truths) , proofiness, cherry-picking, fear mongering, false choices, weasel words and euphemism to save their hides.

“Spin (which is actually propaganda from a military perspective) is making us blind to what is happening. Being blind, we let our governments and big corporations get away with doing things that are unjust and to the detriment of the economy of the ordinary people and detrimental to democracy. Spin has been and continues to be used to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public.” http://www.truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info/2013/05/spotting-spin-some-tricks-of-trade.html

Reply comments on wind siting rules were submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board on November 8th. The Mid-American Renewable Energy Coalition and the Ohio Environmental Council took shots at GNU and UNU and vice versa. We were dumbfounded by the spinning served up by the windies and enviros. Dizzy! Take some Dramamine and visit the link, below, to read all of the reply comments. We will share some spin highlights….

Ø Cherry-Picking & Truthiness: “MAREC believes the Board should apply wind energy standards that are consistent with neighboring United States jurisdictions, rather than adopting rules from foreign nations whose rural landscapes and population densities are vastly different than in those areas where wind farms are proposed in Ohio. A cursory review of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan wind energy ordinances establishes that Ohio’s guidelines are already more restrictive than counties where wind farms both have and have not been built.”

MAREC lists four “cherry-picked” Indiana setback examples and suggests Ohio should emulate them. Yet, a more comprehensive list of 12 other Indiana counties reflects that 5 ban industrial wind facilities outright and five establish setbacks from property lines. The Indiana property line setbacks range from 1,300’ to 3,960’ (¾ mile). The two counties that measure from the residence have setbacks of 2640’ and 1,500’ from a non-participant residence. Our Indiana list also shows MAREC’s information about Tipton County is factually incorrect. Tipton revised their setbacks in July to 2640’ from residence, 1500’ from the property line within the Prairie Breeze development area and 1460’ from property line in the rest of the county.

If MAREC wants OPSB to apply wind energy standards “consistent with neighboring United States jurisdictions,” they would have to agree to enabling Ohio counties to ban industrial wind facilities outright as five Indiana Counties have done; establish setbacks from property lines as five counties have done; or lengthen setbacks from the residence as two have done. We recommend that readers use the MAREC chart and the Indiana list which reveals the dishonesty of MAREC when visiting with your local elected officials both at the state and county levels.

Ø Proofiness: Outight lying with numbers to mislead; quoting statistics out of context so that they mislead; distorting statistics; or using incorrect logic in order to mislead the audience.

“ It is MAREC’s view that the Board should acknowledge the original setback regulations “worked” considering there are nearly zero sound or shadow flicker complaints against the two existing wind farms in Ohio with over 5 years in operation. The Board should not adopt sound and shadow flicker impact setbacks from property lines.” (MAREC reply Page 3) In this instance, MAREC is deceptive because the wind leases and “good neighbor agreements” contain gag clauses that forbid landowners from complaining. This was recently reconfirmed in Hardin County when an EverPower representative peddling a good neighbor agreement advised that they would be free to complain but only to EverPower. Wind developers contractually suppress complaints and then defend their practices based on the assertion that there are “no complaints.” SPIN!

Similarly, MAREC asserts at page 15 of their reply that “Trade secrets: UNU argues an applicant should be required to submit to staff any post-certificate evaluation of shadow flicker impacts, including all supporting documentation; however, this information should not be protected by trade secret. MAREC disagrees – trade secret information should be protected in accordance with the statute.” Whether it is bird kills or shadow flicker intrusion, the wind industry works to manipulate or hide information that may be damaging to them and then relies on “proofiness” to spin their argument.

More general “proofiness” was revealed this week in the industry publication, Wind Watch, when the statistics used to assert public support for wind were exposed as misleading. “Seventy-seven percent of Trump supporters want more wind farms, but 69% want more coal mines, 66% want more offshore drilling, 58% want more fracking, and 55% want more nuclear. Trump supporters want wind farms, but that is only because they want more electricity whatever source it comes from. Whether it is ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ doesn’t seem to matter. The research also does not specify how much new wind capacity they would want, so they may only want a tiny amount.”

Ø Euphemisms –“ When part of a spin performance, euphemisms are usually used with other spin methods. With spin, euphemisms tend to be used when the intent is to manage the impressions of the audience so that they will not react to bad news in a way the spinner does not want.” http://www.truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info/2013/05/spotting-spin-some-tricks-of-trade.html

UNU’s Reply at page 14 states “Initially, MAREC objects to the Board’s use of the term “noise” and asks the Board to use only the term “sound,” contending that “noise” has “a negative connotation that indicates loud, harsh, or disturbing sound.” But make no mistake about it, the sounds imposed on the public by wind turbines are loud, harsh, and disturbing. The semantic niceties offered by the wind industry cannot disguise that fact. Acoustic engineers define “noise” as “unwanted sound.” Since no one desires the sounds from a wind turbine, not even the turbine’s host landowner, “noise” is the most appropriate term for turbine emissions in this rule.

We direct the reader’s attention to the timely article from Columbus Business First reporting that Ohio State University has been engaged in a research project called “Sounds of New York.” In this instance, the sound is not just “noise” but “noise pollution”. Whether one is in a quiet rural area or in a bustling urban environment, there is a point at which the increase in “sound” is unwanted and harmful. Important to note, also, is that human complaint data is considered to be important in understanding and responding to the problem. OSU acknowledges complaint data can “provide reliable information to support decision making”. But OOPS! Here we go back to “Proofiness”! In New York, complaint information is essential to addressing a problem while the wind industry hides complaint information and dares the public to disprove their “proof” that there are no complaints about noise or shadow flicker.

We could go on and on. Our message to all is EYES WIDE OPEN. Understand the tricks of spin and help your community to SEE how wind propaganda is being deployed to BLIND them to the truth….

In the Matter of the Ohio Power Siting Board’s Review of Rule 4906-4-08 of the Ohio Administrative Code.

Industry Code: GE-GAS & ELECTRIC
Purpose Code: BRO-Rule promulgation
Date Opened: 5/18/2016

View All
1 – 15 of 30 documents 1 / 2 First Previous Next Last
Date Filed Summary Pages
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. 14
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of The Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. 34
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation electronically filed by Amy M Milam on behalf of Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 7
11/08/2016 Reply Comments electronically filed by Mr. Christopher A. Walker on behalf of Union Neighbors United and Johnson, Julia F. Ms. and McConnell, Robert Mr. and McConnell, Diane Mrs. 44
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of the Ohio Environmental Council on Review of Rule 4906-04-08 and Proposed OAC 4906-4-09, Case No. 16-1109-GE-BRO electronically filed by Ms. Miranda R. Leppla on behalf of Ohio Environmental Council. 10
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC electronically filed by Teresa Orahood on behalf of Sally W. Bloomfield. 33
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of Greenwich Neighbors United electronically filed by Mr. Samuel C. Randazzo on behalf of Greenwich Neighbors United. 17
11/07/2016 Reply Comment electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of Ms. Katie Elsasser. 4
11/07/2016 Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of Mr. Gary Biglin. 2
11/04/2016 Reply to Initial Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of State Sen. Bill Seitz. 3
11/01/2016 Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of State Sen. Bill Seitz 33
10/28/2016 Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of Ohio State Historic Preservation Office, Ohio History Connection (SHPO) 3
10/24/2016 Initial Comments electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. 30
10/24/2016 Comments filed on behalf of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. 8
10/24/2016 Comments of 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC electronically filed by Teresa Orahood on behalf of Sally W. Bloomfield. 9…..


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….

Which candidate will force you to LOVE BigWind?

Could you still be undecided in this election? You are not alone.  If, however, like us, you are opposed to the renewable energy mandates, for whatever reason, Trump is your candidate.  Clinton will bring more BigWind industrial machines to our landscape, with no accountability for energy production.  Electricity rates will continue to skyrocket under her, as they have with Obama…

WASHINGTON (AP) — THE ISSUE: Energy independence has been a goal of every president since Richard Nixon. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have very different ways to achieve it.…

Clinton pledges that under her leadership, the U.S. will be able to generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years…

Trump vows to “unleash American energy,” allowing unfettered production of oil, coal, natural gas and other sources to push the U.S. toward energy independence and create jobs. Trump would sharply increase oil and gas drilling on federal lands and vows to revive the struggling U.S coal industry. He also would open up offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean and other areas where it is blocked.

Trump calls for rescinding the Clean Power Plan, a key element of President Barack Obama’s strategy to fight climate change, as well as a rule to protect small streams and wetlands from development. He also would cancel the 2015 Paris climate agreement and stop U.S. money going to U.N. global warming programs…

Wind and solar power have grown in recent years, thanks in part to support from Obama, but renewable energy sources accounted for just 10 percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2015. Renewable energy is generally more expensive to produce and use than fossil fuels. Clouds impair solar energy and calm skies slow wind farms.

Source: WHY IT MATTERS: Energy