SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 2013
Moribund wind power projects in the north country and across the country received a one-year lifeline with $12 billion worth of taxpayer subsidized credits in the just-enacted legislation to avoid the fiscal cliff this week.
Developers managed to not only hold onto their expiring 2.2-cents per kilowatt hour credit but saw it broadened to their advantage and that of other alternative energy producers.
continue reading via this link to the Watertown Times
3 comments:
Another pointless editorial by the Times. How about taking a position regarding public policy rather than just reporting the news. In this case do Times editors think the extension of the tax credit was a good idea or a bad idea? Can you imagine the Times editorial on December 7, 1941 - "This morning the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii sinking four naval battleships, three cruisers, three destroyers and killing 2,400 U.S. servicemen." Okay, and what does all of this mean? Was this a dastardly attack? Should the U.S. declare war on Japan? Huh, huh, huh?
I had the same thought 2:24.
This is the third of three editorials over just a few weeks time where the paper has at least touched on the wind issue with some small measure of skepticism. We should be grateful for that after years of nearly total editorial silence on the subject.
Are the WDT editors getting ready to put their whole legs in the water and not just their toes on this very important local issue?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the WDT did a full length report on the possible and probable economic impacts of wind development in the Thousand Islands Region? And then wouldn't it also be wonderful if the paper offered some editorial thoughts on what their reporting found?
I keep hoping.
"Wouldn't it be wonderful if the WDT did a full length report on the possible and probable economic impacts of wind development in the Thousand Islands Region?"
Stay Focused, the recent WDT editorial condemning PILOTs as too much local fat added to the federal and state pork and gravy train more or less implied the editors had done some type of economic analysis. But, when was that story printed? Although I agree with the position the paper took on the wind porkfest, where was the comprehensive, factual reporting of the economics of wind? What kind of return on investment is expected by the big time investors in wind projects? Are local PILOTs really needed to make these projects "go" or is really all about getting a 28% return on their investment instead of a 22% return?
Isn't it a shame. We've been knocking our heads against the wind wall for seven years, there has been reams of paper printed about wind stories and yet we still haven't the vaguest idea if PILOTs are really needed or if they are added gravy to some Wall Street hedge fund operator who has no idea how industrial wind is destroying our rural landscapes and fracturing our rural communities. Goodbye!
Post a Comment