Wind Energy Economics in West Virginia (Part 1 of 2)

[Part 1 of 2}

Wind Energy Economics in West Virginia

A description of the environmental, scenic and property value implications and an analysis of the economic benefits and costs associated with existing and proposed “wind farms” in West Virginia

Glenn R. Schleede*
January 20, 2003


Executive Summary
Existing and Proposed “Wind Farms” in West Virginia
Benefits Claimed by “Wind Farm” Developers
Electricity from the “Wind Farms” would be Exported and Sold at Negotiated Rates
The Huge Machines Produce Very Little Electricity
1. FPL Energy’s Mountaineer Energy Center (Backbone Mountain)
2. Potential output from all three “wind farms”
Electricity from Wind has Less Real Value than Electricity from Reliable Generating Plants
1. Wind energy low value and reliability
2. Contrast with “dispatchable” generating units
“Wind Farms” must be Backed up by Dispatchable Generating Units, which adds to the Full, True Cost of Wind Energy
Electricity from “Wind Farms” Makes Inefficient use of Transmission Capacity and adds to the Burden of Keeping Electric Systems (Grids) in Balance
Wind Energy Advocates Generally Understate the True Costs of Electricity from Wind Energy
Federal and State Subsidies are now Contributing to “Windfall” Profits for “Wind Farm” Owners
1. Two generous federal subsidies
a. Accelerated depreciation
b. Federal Production Tax Credit
2. Subsidies provided by West Virginia
a. Reductions in “wind farm” owners’ corporate net income tax liability
b. Business & Occupation tax break for “wind farms”
c. Industrial Expansion and Industrial Revitalization Credit offset for B&O tax
d. West Virginia Business Franchise Tax
e. Property tax break for “wind farms”
Income for “Wind Farm” Owners from the Sale of the Electricity
Claimed Economic Benefits for West Virginia Claimed by “Wind Farm” Developers
Wind advocates’ Claims of Environmental Benefits are Exaggerated
Potential Adverse Environmental, Scenic, Property and Economic Impacts
1. Scenic impairment: the “ugly as billboards” issue
2. Property value impairment
3. Adverse impact on tourism, recreation, second home and retirement home opportunities
4. Environment, health and safety issues
5. Potential loss of coal mining and related jobs
Summary Comparison of Economic Benefits and Costs for “Wind Farm” Owners and for West Virginia
Table: Summary of Estimated Economic Implications
The Value of Subsidies to “Wind Farm” Owners Exceeds Income from the Sale of Electricity
The REAL Markets for Electricity Generated from Renewable Energy are Very Small
Principal Conclusions from the Analysis Described in the Paper

Executive Summary

West Virginia already has one “wind farm” in operation, another has been approved and a third is awaiting approval. Such “wind farms” have far-reaching implications for the people of West Virginia –and other states where they are being considered.

The description of key environmental, scenic and property value implications and the analysis of economic benefits and costs associated with existing and proposed “wind farms” in West Virginia in the body of this report are provided to help increase public, media and official understanding of key issues.

Important conclusions include the following:

  • The huge machines produce very little electricity and that electricity is of less value than electricity produced by reliable generating plants.
  • “Wind farms” must be backed up by dispatchable generating units and impose extra costs and burden on transmission and electric system management, adding to their true costs.
  • “Wind farm” advocates generally understate the true costs of the electricity they produce and overstate both their environmental benefits and economic benefits to states and localities.
  • In early years, the value of federal and state subsidies for “wind farms” substantially exceed the income that “wind farm” owners will receive for the electricity they produce.

Special attention should be given to the summary of economic benefits and costs on [Table] page 16 of the analysis. Not all factors can be priced precisely but the bottom lines are clear:

  • Anyone who believes that “wind farms” produce significant economic benefits for West Virginia simply has not considered all the factors that must be taken into account.
  • The truly significant economic benefits flow to organizations elsewhere; i.e., to the “wind farm” owner and to the suppliers of the wind turbines and other components –all of whom are located in other states or other countries.

The analysis demonstrates that the real motivation for construction of “wind farms” in the U.S. is the value derived from generous federal, state and local tax benefits and other subsidies –not environmental benefits. “Wind farms” are not environmentally benign.

Wind Energy Economics in West Virginia


One “wind farm” is already operating in West Virginia, the Public Service Commission has approved another, and a third is awaiting PSC approval. Wind farm advocates claim that wind energy is good for the environment and can provide significant economic benefits to the people of West Virginia.

Meanwhile, opposition to “wind farms” has grown in many areas of the U.S. and Europe, as more people are learning that environmental and economic benefits of wind energy are often overstated, and costs to consumers and taxpayers, and adverse impacts on environmental, ecological, scenic and property values are often understated.

To help shed light on key issues, this paper focuses on recent and pending “wind farm” developments in West Virginia. Among seldom recognized facts that are explained are the following:

  • · The huge machines produce very little electricity.
  • · Electricity from wind turbines is unreliable, must be backed up by reliable generating units, and imposes extra costs on transmission and grid management.
  • · Wind energy advocates understate the true costs of electricity from wind energy.
  • · Claims of environmental benefits are often exaggerated.
  • · Adverse impacts on environmental, scenic and property values are often overlooked.
  • · “Wind farm” owners receive large profits due to federal and state subsidies that shift costs from “wind farm” owners to taxpayers and consumers.
  • · The potential economic benefits to West Virginia are very limited.
  • · Actions are needed to protect the interests of citizens, consumers and taxpayers when “wind farms” are considered.

Existing and Proposed “Wind Farms” in West Virginia

One “wind farm” is operating in West Virginia. A Certificate has already been issued for a second “wind farm” and an application is pending before the state Public Service Commission for a third project. The application for a fourth project, Dominion Mt. Storm, apparently has been withdrawn.

The three projects are summarized1 in the following table, along with estimates of the annual electricity production (in kilowatt-hours – kWh), assuming that they operate at a 30% capacity factor.2 All projects are to be in the Tucker-Grant-Preston County area on high mountain ridges (3,000 ft. or higher).

Existing and Planned “Wind Farms” in West Virginia
Owner or Developer Status Site area3 No. of turbines Rated capacity of each turbine (kW) Total Capacity

in kilowatts (kW)

Est. Annual Product. at 30% capacity factor –in kWh
FPL Energy’s Mountaineer

Energy Center

Operating 4,400 acres4 44 1,500 66,000 173,448,0005
Mt. Storm Wind Force PSC cert. 8/29/02 20 sq. miles6 166 1,500 249,000 654,372,000
NedPower Awaiting PSC cert. 8,000 acres7 200 1,500 300,000 788,400,000
Total     410   615,000 1,616,220,000

Benefits Claimed by “Wind Farm” Developers

The owners and/or developers of the projects claim that the “wind farms” will produce clean electricity, offset emissions associated with electricity produced by generating plants using fossil-fuels, and provide economic benefits to West Virginia and the areas where the projects are located. The claimed economic benefits are jobs, tax revenue, and rental payments to owners of the land where the windmills and associated cabling and facilities are located. Each of these claims is evaluated in the pages that follow.

Electricity from the WV “Wind Farms” would be Exported and Sold at Negotiated Rates

The “wind farm” owners or developers have indicated that their projects will be “Exempt Wholesale Generators” (EWGs) and they expect the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve negotiated rates for the sale of their electricity output. They have indicated that electricity would be sold in surrounding states8 and, apparently, not in West Virginia.9

Since the true costs of electricity from wind are higher than the cost of electricity from other sources, exporting the wind-generated electricity will mean that electric customers in other states –not the customers in West Virginia– will bear the higher costs.

Exporting electricity is not unusual for West Virginia. During 2000, West Virginians used only about 30% of the electricity produced in the state.10

The huge machines produce very little electricity

The 410 existing and proposed turbines are huge machines, ranging in height from about 300 feet to a potential 465 feet. For comparison, the State Capitol in Charleston is 292 feet, the U.S. Capitol in Washington is 300 feet, and the Statue of Liberty is 157 feet.

1. FPL Energy’s Mountaineer Energy Center (Backbone Mountain).

If FPL Energy’s recently completed 66-megawatt (MW) “wind farm,” with its 44 wind turbines spread over 4,400 acres, achieves an annual 30% capacity factor,11 it will produce 173,448,000 kWh of electricity each year (i.e., 66,000 kW x 8760 hours x .30).

That sounds like a lot of electricity but, in fact, it is equal to:

  • · 19/100 of 1% of the 92,783,000,000 kWh of electricity produced in West Virginia during 2000.
  • · 1.5% of the 11,595,559,000 kWh of electricity produced during 2000 by Dominion Virginia Power’s nearby Mt. Storm coal-fired generating plant.
  • · 5.66% of the 3,066,000,000 kWh that would be produced annually by a new 500 MW (500,000 kW) gas-fired combined-cycle generating unit in base-load service and operating at a relatively modest 70% capacity factor. Many such generating units –which occupy only a few acres– are being built around the U.S.12 The total capital cost of such a plant would be about $268 million, assuming a cost of about $536,000 per MW.13

2. Potential output of all three “wind farms.”

If all three “wind farms,” including all the 410 wind turbines (that would be spread over 30 to 40 square miles) that are summarized in the above table achieve a 30% capacity factor3 they would produce 1,616,220,000 kWh of electricity per year.

Again, this may sound like a lot of electricity but, in fact, it would be equal to:

  • · 1.7% of the electricity produced in West Virginia during 2000.
  • · 39/100 of 1% of the electricity consumed in the 5 nearby states (MD, VA, DE, NJ, OH) and District of Columbia that import electricity, in part from West Virginia. Electric utility sales during 2000 in those states totaled 414,455,004,000 kWh, with about 20% imported.14
  • · 13.9% of the 11,595,999,000 kWh of electricity produced during 2000 by Dominion Virginia Power’s nearby Mt. Storm coal-fired generating unit.15

One new 265 MW (265,000 kW) gas-fired combined-cycle generating plant occupying only a few acres and operating at a 70% capacity factor would produce slightly more electricity –1,624,980,000 kWh– than the output calculated above for all three “wind farms” (i.e., 1,615,220,000 kWh). Such a plant would have very low emissions.

Electricity from wind has less real value than electricity from reliable (“dispatchable”) generating units

Electricity cannot be stored in any appreciable amounts. Instead, it must be produced as it is demanded (e.g., when someone turns on a light, television or air conditioner in a home). The real “value” of a kWh of electricity varies widely, depending on when it is generated, where it is generated, and its reliability.

  1. Low wind energy value and reliability.

Electricity from wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from traditional energy sources because electricity from wind is:

  • · Intermittent – i.e., available only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. No electricity is produced when the speed is below the minimum of the range or above the maximum. For example, the NEG Micon 1.5 MW turbines used in FPL Energy’s 66 MW Mountaineer Energy Center apparently begin producing electricity when the wind reaches about 3 meters per sec or 8.9 miles per hour, achieve rated capacity at about 15 m/s or 33.6 mph, and cut out at 25 m/s or 55.9 mph.16
  • · Highly variable or volatile – Electricity output varies widely as wind speed changes. For a 300 MW (300,000 kW) “wind farm,” the amount of electricity would vary from 0 to 300,000 kWh and would fluctuate from minute to minute within that range.
  • · Unpredictable – The availability of the electricity at any moment cannot be predicted accurately. It could be predicted accurately only to the extent that momentary wind speeds at turbine locations could be predicted accurately.
  • · Largely uncontrollable – The electricity output from wind turbines is largely subject to wind conditions, rather than being “controllable” by electric system dispatchers.
  • · Counter-cyclical with electricity demand. Wind tends to be strongest during winter months and at night – which are periods when the demand for electricity in the region tends to be lowest.
  1. Contrast with “dispatchable” generating units.

Because electricity must be produced as it is demanded by users of electricity, most generating units must be immediately available 4 and controllable so that they can be turned on, increased (“ramped up”) in output, decreased in output, and turned off. Such generating units are called “dispatchable.” Their output is more valuable than electricity from wind turbines because the output can be counted on when needed and maintained at relatively steady levels. While the times required to start up, ramp up and shut down differ, generating units powered by traditional energy sources –coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy and hydropower– are largely dispatchable.17

“Wind farms” must be backed up by dispatchable generating units, which adds to the full, true cost of wind energy

Electric systems (“grids” or “bulk power” systems) must be kept in balance on a real time basis to maintain system reliability ―e.g., in terms of frequency, balance between demand and generation (supply), and load on particular transmission lines.

Because the output from wind turbines is intermittent, highly variable, largely uncontrollable and unpredictable, other generating units (i.e., “dispatchable” units) must be kept immediately available to “back-up” the wind turbines by increasing or decreasing their production of electricity. Units serving this backup role must be on line (connected to the grid and producing electricity) and running below their peak capacity and efficiency, or in a “spinning reserve” mode (i.e., connected to the grid and synchronized but not putting electricity into the grid).

The generating units serving this role incur costs that they would not normally incur if they were not serving the backup role, including fuel and operating costs and extra wear and tear on the units as they are ramped up and down. These “backup power” costs are a part of the full, true costs of electricity from wind. If the “wind farm” owner does not pay for those extra costs, they would have to be absorbed by the purchaser of the electricity and passed on to electric customers. The true costs would constitute a subsidy to the “wind farm” owner.

Electricity from “wind farms” makes inefficient use of transmission capacity and adds to the burden of keeping electric systems (“grid”) in balance

Electricity from “wind farms” makes relatively inefficient use of transmission capacity and adds to transmission costs. Transmission capacity must be available that is equal to the maximum capacity of the “wind farm” for those times when the “wind farm” is producing at full capacity.

Mountain top “wind farms” in West Virginia probably will have average annual capacity factors in the range of 25% to 35% which means that any lines serving those “wind farms” exclusively would be utilized only 25% to 35% of the time. Of course, the transmission lines will be used at higher capacity factors if the generating units serving in the backup role are close by and served by the same transmission lines. The added cost of inefficient use of transmission capacity is also a part of the full, true cost of electricity from wind.

In addition, the unfavorable characteristics of electricity from wind –intermittence, high variability, very limited predictability and limited controllability ―add to the burden of grid management. Actions must be taken by system managers –some with automatic controls and some manual– to keep the system (or “control area”) in balance and keep transmission lines from becoming overloaded. The added grid management burden is also a part of the full, true costs of electricity from wind.

If the added costs and burden imposed on transmission capacity and grid management are not paid for by the “wind farm” owner, they would have to be absorbed by the electricity purchaser 5 or the electric system serving the “wind farm,” and passed on to electric customers. These costs would become an additional subsidy to the “wind farm” owner.

Wind energy advocates generally understate the true costs of electricity
from wind energy

Wind industry advocates readily admit that electricity from windmills costs more than electricity from traditional energy sources; i.e., natural gas, oil, coal, hydropower, and nuclear energy. (Otherwise they probably would not continue to lobby for the generous federal and state subsidies that are discussed below.)

However, the wind energy industry, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and other advocates of wind energy seldom admit the full, true costs of wind energy. In fact, the true costs for electricity from “wind farms” –which costs end up in electric customers’ monthly bills, include:

1. The price paid by the electric utility to the “wind farm” owner for the electricity.

2. The cost of providing “backup” services for the intermittent electricity from the wind turbines discussed above.

3. The capital and operating cost of transmitting the electricity from the point where it is purchased from the “wind farm” owner to the electric distribution system. As explained above, transmission and associated grid management costs are higher for electricity from intermittent, volatile sources such as wind than for electricity from stable, dispatchable generating units.

4. The normal capital and operating costs of a utility’s electric distribution system (e.g., substations, wires, transformers, meter reading, billing and other customer service costs).

The extra costs associated with electricity from “wind farms” (i.e., those costs identified in paragraphs 2 and 3, above) vary widely depending on:

  • · Wind conditions and characteristics of the electricity output from the “wind farms” (e.g., intermittence, variability).
  • · The electric systems (“control areas”) into which the electricity is sent (e.g., the type of generating units serving the backup role and their energy sources).

These are real costs. There should be a clear understanding how they are to be determined and who will bear those costs. As indicated above, if these costs are not borne by the “wind farm” owners, they will have to be absorbed by the purchaser of the electricity or the electric system serving the “wind farm.” In one way or another, these costs will be passed on to electric customers served by the electric system. The added cost borne by any one customer may be small, but the total costs can be significant and should not be ignored.

Federal and State Subsidies are now contributing to “Windfall” Profits
for “Wind Farm” Owners

The costs enumerated above are NOT the full costs of electricity from “wind energy.” The federal government and some state and local governments –including West Virginia ―now provide very generous tax shelters and other subsidies for “wind farm” owners.

Due to generous subsidies –in addition to the income received from the sale of electricity– “wind farms” have become highly profitable ventures for organizations with income to shelter from federal and state corporate income taxes.

It is important to keep in mind that all federal and state tax shelters and other subsidies shift costs and/or tax burden from “wind farm” developers and owners to taxpayers who must continue to pay taxes and/or to electric customers. The added burden and costs are then hidden in tax bills or monthly electric bills.

The subsidies available to “wind farms” in West Virginia include:

  • · Federal accelerated depreciation
  • · Federal Production Tax Credits
  • · Reduction in West Virginia Corporate Net Income Tax (due to federal accelerated depreciation).
  • · 87.5% to 93.75% reduction in West Virginia’s Business and Occupation Tax.
  • · 91.67% reduction in West Virginia property taxes.

Those generous subsidies provided by the federal and West Virginia governments are described and, to the extent practicable, quantified in the pages that follow.

1. Two generous federal subsidies. The federal government now provides two generous tax shelters for “wind farm” owners. These subsidies shift costs (i.e., tax burden) from “wind owners” to remaining taxpayers.

a. Accelerated depreciation. One very generous subsidy available to companies with income to shelter is 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation (5-yr.; 200% DB) that can be used be to calculate depreciation for tax purposes. Five-year 200% DB can be used for capital costs of facilities using wind to produce electricity for sale. Nearly all other electric generating facilities18 must use 20-year depreciation, so “wind farm” owners have a tremendous advantage.

This shelter has been generous since it was first adopted in 1981. It became even more generous as a result of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 which provided a special 30% depreciation deduction in the first year before taking advantage of 5-year 200% DB. The special 30% deduction applies to qualifying assets purchased after September 10, 2001 and before September 11, 2004, provided those assets are placed in service by January 1, 2005.

Five-year double declining balance (5-yr. 200% DB) depreciation as it existed prior to the change enacted in 2002 permitted sheltering the depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable income shown in the first table below. The table below is based on an assumption that the capital costs of a “wind farm” is $300,000,000 ―which is the approximate mount that NedPower has estimated for its proposed “wind farm” in West Virginia.

Specifically, the table shows for each year:

  • · The percentages and amounts of capital costs that could be deducted from otherwise taxable income, and
  • · The reduction in tax liability, assuming a 35% marginal corporate income tax rate.


% of investment Recovered Income that can be sheltered Reduction in Tax Liability
(assuming 35% rate)
First 20.00% $ 60,000,000 $21,000,000
Second 32.00% $ 96,000,000 $33,600,000
Third 19.20% $ 57,600,000 $20,160,000
Fourth 11.52% $ 34,560,000 $12,096,000
Fifth 11.52% $ 34,560,000 $12,096,000
Sixth 5.76% $ 17,280,000 $ 6,048,000
Total 100% $ 300,000,000 $105,000,000

The next table shows the same factors under the even more generous accelerated depreciation made possible by the 2002 Act.

Year % of investment Recovered Income that can be sheltered Reduction in Tax Liability
(assuming 35% rate)
First 44.00% $ 132,000,000 $46,200,000
Second 22.40% $ 67,200,000 $23,520,000
Third 13.44% $ 40,320,000 $14,112,000
Fourth 8.064% $ 24,192,000 $ 8,467,200
Fifth 8.064% $ 24,192,000 $ 8,467,200
Sixth 4.032% $ 12,096,000 $4,233,600
Total 100% $ 300,000,000 $105,000,000


If the “wind farm” were sold to a new owner, that new owner would be able to utilize the generous accelerated depreciation benefits to “recover” its capital investment.

b. Federal Production Tax Credit. The second generous federal subsidy available to “wind farm” owners is the Production Tax Credit of $0.018 per kWh of electricity generated during the first 10 years of a wind project’s life.19 At the current rate of $0.018 per kWh, NedPower’s proposed 300 MW “wind farm” would receive a tax credit (i.e., a direct deduction from its federal income tax bill) of $14,191,200 per year if the turbines produce at an average 30% capacity factor (i.e., 300,000 kW x 8760 hrs. x .30 x $0.018). The rate, originally $0.015 per kWh, is adjustable each year for inflation.

Organizations owning “wind farms” must have substantial taxable income to take advantage of these two federal tax shelters.20 That is one reason why small companies specializing in “wind farm” development sell off their projects to larger companies early in the life of their projects. For example, FPL Energy purchased the 66 MW “wind farm” (now called the Mountaineer Energy Center) from the initial developer, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation. The annual report of the FPL Group, the parent of FPL Energy and Florida Power & Light Company, makes clear that the FPL Group has substantial income that can be sheltered from federal corporate income taxes through its investments in “wind farms.”

2. Subsidies provided by West Virginia. In addition to the generous federal tax shelters, the State of West Virginia also provides subsidies that contribute significantly to the profits of “wind farm” owners. These include:

a. Reductions in “wind farm” owners’ West Virginia Corporate Net Income tax liability. West Virginia taxes net corporate income at a rate of 9% but “it is a federal conformity tax in that the starting point in computing West Virginia taxable income is the federal taxable income of the corporation.”21 Thus the generous federal accelerated depreciation deduction described earlier reduces the taxable income basis used when applying West Virginia’s 9% corporate net income tax rate.

The amount of West Virginia corporate net income tax that can be avoided due to the federal accelerated depreciation benefit cannot be estimated accurately without knowing a lot of details about the “wind farm” owner and its parent and affiliate organizations. The impact on the owners’ West Virginia Corporate Net Income tax liability could be as much as 9% of the owners’ federal accelerated depreciation deduction in the particular tax year due (i.e., the amount shown in the tables presented earlier on page 7).

b. Business & Occupation Tax Break for “wind farms.” Most electric generating units (except peakers) are valued at 40% of nameplate capacity for purposes of calculating their West Virginia B&O tax liability. However, due to a special tax break enacted in 2001, wind generators are valued at only 5% of their nameplate capacity.22 This tax break significantly reduces a “wind farm” owners tax liability.

Specifically, at the current tax rate of $22.78 per kW, a 300 MW (300,000 kW) “wind farm” that is:

  • · Valued at 40% of capacity (300,000 x .4) or 120,000 kW would owe B&O taxes of $2,733,600 (i.e., 120,000 x $22.78).
  • · Valued at 5% of capacity (300,000 x .05) or 15,000 kW would owe B&O taxes of $341,700 (i.e., 15,000 x $22.78), thus saving the owner $2,391,900.

c. Industrial Expansion and Industrial Revitalization Credit Offset for B&O Tax.

The Industrial Expansion and Industrial Revitalization tax credit can be used to offset up to 50% of the Business & Occupational tax liability. It appears that the potential tax of $341,700 identified above for a 300 MW “wind farm” with a capital investment of approximately $300,000,000 would easily qualify to offset 50% of the estimated B&O tax liability, or $170,850, reducing the owner’s annual B&O tax liability to $170,850.

d. West Virginia Business Franchise Tax. It appears the potential liability for West Virginia’s Business Franchise Tax for a “wind farm” would be zero, assuming that the owner of the facility was 100% engaged in electric generation.23

e. Property Tax Break for “wind farms.” Normally, in West Virginia, assessed valuations for property tax purposes are set at 60% of fair market value. However, a special tax break enacted in 2001 for “wind farms” provided that assessed valuations would be set at only 5% of fair market value.24 This, of course, results in a significant reduction in:

  • · The amount of the tax that would be due on the “wind farm” owner’s property.25
  • · The annual revenue that would be received via the property tax by Grant County, the school Board and other organizations that receive portions of the property tax revenue.

The following table shows the impact of the special tax break for “wind farms,” assuming:

  • · The fair market value of the wind turbines and other facilities that would be built by NedPower is $300,000,000, and
  • · The tax rate will remain the same as Grant County rate for the period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002; i.e., $1.56940 per $100 of assessed valuation.26
Valuation Percentage Assessment Grant County Tax Rate

per $100 of assessed value

Estimate of Annual Property tax
60% $180,000,000 $1.56940 $2,824,920
5% $  15,000,000 $1.56940 $  235,410
Lower Revenue     $2,589,510

The following table shows the revenues that would flow to the various recipients, assuming the same assessed values, tax rate and distribution of tax revenues as that applicable to the July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002 property tax year:

  Recipients of revenue and percent shares
State County Schools Hospital Bond School Levy*
Valuation % Total Revenue .7% 33.3% 52.1% 2.2% 11.7%
60% $2,824,920 $19,774 $940,698 $1,471,783 $62,148 $330,516
5% $   235,410 $  1,648 $  78,392 $  122,649 $  5,179 $  27,543
Lower Revenue $2,589,510 $18,127 $862,307 $1,349,135 $56,969 $302,973
* A special levy that required the approval of the voters in Grant County.

The above losses in revenues may be offset in part by special contributions in lieu of taxes by the NedPower. Officials of that company have testified that its project “will increase Grant County’s annual ad valorem tax revenues by at least $500,000 per year.”27 That amount is substantially more than suggested by the above table but substantially less than would be paid if the special tax break had not been enacted.

NedPower officials have also testified that “NedPower has created public-private partnerships with Maysville Elementary School and Union Educational Complex to provide funds annually to support scholastic and extra-curricular activities at those schools.”28 The Grant County News has reported that NedPower has promised the two schools “an annual royalty from wind-generated power sales, up to $350 per turbine.” That could come to $35,000 per school [annually] once all turbines are in operation.”29

Information is not available to show whether the reduced tax revenue that would accrue to the various recipients would be adequate to cover the additional costs that would be incurred due to the construction and operation of the “wind farm” (e.g., county costs for road maintenance, police and fire protection).

[Continue to Part 2 of 2.]

1 Primary data sources: WV Public Service Commission case files: 00-1209-E-CN, 01-1664-C-CN, 02-1189-E-CN, and 02-1295-E-CN.
2 “Capacity factor” for an electric generating unit is the amount of electricity produced over a certain period, say 1 year, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) divided by the generating unit’s rated (or nameplate) capacity times the hours in the period; e.g., 8760 for a year.
3 These are the areas over which the turbines would be sited, as claimed by developers. Actual “footprints” for individual windmills take up much less acreage.
4 FPL press release, June 26, 2002.
5 The calculation of estimated annual output is simply the rated capacity of the turbines (66,000 kW for the FPL Energy project) times 8760 hours per year times 30% (i.e., 66,000 x 8760 x .30 = 173,448,000 kWh).
6 US WindForce web site:, Jan. 9, 2003.
7 Site acreage to be leased, according to Niessen, Hieronymus, Direct Testimony to West Virginia Public Service Commission, Case No. 02-1189-E-CN, Oct. 17, 2002, p. 7. Mr. Niessen described the site as “approximately 14 miles long by ½ mile wide in some places,” p. 9.
8 Owners and developers have stated electricity would be sold in the PJM (Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland) region which includes part of all of VA, MD, PA, NJ, DE and DC and the ECAR region which includes part or all of OH, MI, IN, PA, VA, and KY.
9 Since electricity from wind energy is substantially more expensive than electricity from other WV generating facilities, the fact that the electricity will not be sold in WV helps reduce adverse economic impacts on WV.
10 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) web site.
11 “Capacity factors” (defined in footnote 2, above) vary widely among wind turbines and “wind farms” for a variety of reasons, including wind conditions, the characteristics of the wind turbine, their location, and whether the blades are fouled (e.g., with bugs).
12 For another comparison, 2,365,200,000 kWh of electricity will be produced annually by Dominion Virginia Power’s new 540 MW gas-fired combined-cycle Possum Point generating plant that is expected to begin operation in late spring of 2003, if that plant operates only on an intermediate load basis and only achieves a 50% capacity factor. (According to Dominion, two oil-fired generating units at the Possum Point station will be retired and coal will no longer be used in two coal-fired units now operating at the station.) This highly efficient, low-emitting plant will occupy only a few acres.
13 Based on EIA “Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003,” January 2003, Table 40, Page 73.
14 Data Source: US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
15 EIA, Electric Power Monthly, April 2001, Table 56A, page 147.
16 NEGMicon web site; technical data for Model NM72C/1500 wind turbine.
17 Within the electric industry, such units are said to have both an energy value (kWh of electricity) and a “capacity” value (ability to produce kW when needed). Wind turbines have virtually no predictable capacity value.
18 Simple cycle combustion turbines use 15-year, 150% declining balance depreciation for tax purposes.
19 The federal Production Tax Credit for commercial wind energy facilities is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003. However, bills were introduced in the last (107th) Congress to extend the credit either indefinitely or for five years and an extension now seems likely to pass during the current Congress (108th).
20 Often the desired result is achieved when doing accounting for tax purposes by consolidating the financials of parent organization, subsidiaries (including limited liability companies) and/or affiliates (e.g., shares of partnerships or joint ventures).
21 West Virginia 2002 Corporate Net Income Tax/Business Franchise Tax (Booklet), Page 7.
22 West Virginia Code 11-13-2o.
23 West Virginia Code 11-23-17(b).
24 West Virginia Code 11-6A-5a.
25 Under the terms of paragraph 8 of the Lease Agreement proposed by NedPower, the Lessee (NedPower) “…shall be responsible for payment of all taxes assessed against its equipment, machinery, or other property on the Leased Premises.” A provision with unknown impact in paragraph 8 of the Lease Agreement provides that the “Lessor will cooperate in the designation of the leased areas as separate tax parcels if helpful to reduce the tax burden.”
26 Information obtained by telephone from Mr. Mitch Earl, Grant County Assessor’s office.
27 Niessen, Hieronoymus, Direct Testimony to the Public Service Comm. of West Virginia, Oct. 17, 2002, Page 15.
28 Op. Cit. Page 16.
29 Grant County News, “Wind power proponents stage open house event.”
* Used with permission of the author.
Glenn R. Schleede, President
Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc,
P.O. Box 3875
Reston, VA 20195


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s