This document summarizes arguments against wind energy, including: 1) Wind energy relies heavily on government subsidies and does not make economic sense without them. 2) For every "green job" created by wind energy, several jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy due to higher energy costs. 3) Models used to predict job creation from wind overestimate jobs and fail to account for job losses in other sectors.

1. The Fallacy of Wind Energy Energy Integrity Project September 29, 2011

3. Outdated and unscientific “evidence” continues to be used to justify government spending “When the claim of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of green jobs are used as the basis for billions in new government spending, we ought to insist that those claims be backed by transparent documentation and sound methodology, not implausible assumptions and inconsistent definitions.” Dr. Andrew Morriss, Professor of Law & Business at University of Illinois’ Institute for Government & Public Affairs, March 16, 2011 http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-16-2009/0004989090&EDATE

4. Wind development does not make economic sense for anyone but wind developers “Up to two-thirds of the value of a wind project may derive from federal programs and tax subsidies, as the revenues from the sale of power may not be sufficient to pay for the project development and operating costs. These tax subsidies include combinations of accelerated depreciation, production tax credits (PTCs), investment tax credits (ITCs), federal cash grants and federal loan guarantees.” North American Windpower, June 2009 [1] Ed Feo of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, reported at an American Bar Association conference that just two of the federal incentives accounted for 2/3 of the economic value of a “wind farm”. [2] [1] http://www.wind-watch.org/quotes.php [2]http://apps.americanbar.org/environ/committees/renewableenergy/teleconarchives/121504/feoppt.pd

5. 2007 Subsidies http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf Page 16

6. 2010 Subsidies *The subsidy amounts and the MHW amounts are both reported. To get the subsidies per MWH simply divide one by the other. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/08/02/government-report-confirms-that-federal-energy-related-subsidies-have-increased-108-percent-in-3-years-wind-subsidies-increased-10-fold/

7. Total Subsidies http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/GreenJobs9222011.pdf US House Budget Committee “The Empty Promise of Green Jobs”

8. What kind of Product do taxpayers receive in return? “The downside of [wind] intermittency is clearly evident in the actual performance data of wind turbines already installed. Wind performs poorly across all traditional utility metrics for generating resources. For reliability, stability, forecast ability, proximity to load centers, and economics, wind power is a poor choice for large-scale power production.” --- Kimball Rasmussen, President & CEO, Deseret Power[1] “...Although the existing power grid can live with a 15 percent reserve margin…wind power must be backed up by almost 100 percent of other generation when the wind fails. In most cases this is gas peaking generation and in some cases coal. This means the true cost of relying on wind generation must also include the cost of a parallel back-up generation system to maintain a continuous supply of electricity to meet the load when the wind fails. The practical effect of this is wind can only supplement, not replace our current generating system.” “This operational “Tug of War” between wind and fossil fuel generators to match electric load leads to one final irony. Wind power doesn’t produce the reduction in greenhouse gases (CO2) that promoters claim. Since coal and gas plants must continually ramp up and down as wind power output varies, their fuel consumption and emissions generally increase because they operate most efficiently when running continuously...” --- Markus Bryant, General Manager , North Central Electric Coop [2] [1] http://www.hwecoop.com/advice/Rational%20Look%20Renewables%201%202.pdf [2] http://www.ncelec.org/emperorsColumn.aspx Part 7

9. How the “green jobs” agenda destroys jobs A study published by the Juan Carlos University of Madrid & backed by the Spanish government found that every green job created destroyed 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy due to redirected resources. Italy is experiencing a similar situation. A study by Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found: The amount of capital that generates one job in the renewable sector would generate either 6.9 or 4.8 jobs in the industrial sector or elsewhere in the economy, respectively. The study looked at just subsidies and not the energy value of the project which would have increased the numbers even more in favor of non-renewable jobs. The United Kingdom joined the renewable power band wagon and Verso Economics assessed the impact. They found that for every renewable job created in the UK, 3.7 jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/05/09/the-wind-experience/

10. More on “green job” fallacies “…The majority of these jobs are in manufacturing and construction. Per project, both are short-lived, and once in operation ‘most renewable energy facilities operate with a relatively small number of operations and maintenance employees…. The proportion of part-time positions is higher for renewable energy than for any other private-sector core area (35 percent).’” “Both the Brookings and the Washington data tell similar stories. Green or clean jobs are not objectively definable, and cases like the bus drivers tell us that they are easy to inflate. Under both studies’ definitions, renewable power jobs are small fractions of the total, and most will be short-lived construction work performed in the main by people with skills that are usable in almost any type of project.” “Washington’s wind units produce a higher fraction of the state’s power than those of most other states, but their existence has not created any discernible difference in Washington’s labor market performance…” http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/green-job-fallacies-ii/

11. “Green jobs” and the JEDI model “A claim of “five million new green jobs” has become something of a national mantra. This promise of millions of green jobs is not supported by extensive studies performed by the DOE or NREL, at least in terms of the electric energy sector. In its highly developed JEDI model, the DOE calculates only 121, 417 gross number of direct jobs, or 2.4 percent of the five million jobs promised. What a disappointment!” “Additionally, this level of direct job creation—121,417 jobs—will not be achieved until 2030. JEDI also does not account for net job losses in the coal, oil, and gas sectors of the economy for each new job gained in the renewable sector.” “The JEDI model also fails to account for the dampening effect on the economy of significantly higher power costs associated with wind power.” [1] “[Dr. Robert Michaels] noted that JEDI is structured, by NREL’s own admission, in a way that makes any outcome other than job creation mathematically impossible…” “The ‘green jobs’ claim is logically insecure at best, and models like JEDI mask that insecurity by invariably finding that the jobs are created. Interestingly, however, I am aware of no published research in which the predictions of JEDI or a similar model for some project have been compared with the actual results.” [2] [1] http://www.hwecoop.com/advice/Rational%20Look%20Renewables%201%202.pdf [2] http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/green-job-fallacies-i/

12. Recent analyses reveal the fallacy of wind energy “The world depends on fossil fuels for an obvious reason: They are cheap, plentiful, efficient, and flexible. The preferred ‘green’ alternatives – solar, wind – are far more costly, less reliable, and largely unproven on a mass commercial basis. All rely on massive public subsidies from cash-strapped governments that are already straining under the weight of huge deficits. And in some cases are arguably more damaging to the planet than fossil fuels.” Edmonton Journal, April 23, 2009 http://afl.org/index.php/AFL-in-the-News/myths-fuel-the-eco-lobbys-emissions-slashing-green-jobs-fantasy-ideologically-driven-employment-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny.html

13. From The San Francisco Examiner “Implementing rigorous legislation in an effort to reduce our own nation’s emissions and effectively pushing manufacturing-intense industry to higher-emitting places like China may actually be more detrimental to the environment than maintaining those jobs on American soil. This damages the U.S. economy, exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and begs the question of whether, comparatively, any American job is a ‘green job.’” Julie Kaszton, October 20, 2010 http://www.pacificresearch.org/publications/how-the-green-jobs-agenda-destroys-jobs

14. ... from Time Magazine “Hopelessly uneconomic on any substantial scale, since it requires a conventional power back-up for when the wind stops blowing, forests of wind turbines are rightly regarded in most countries as an environmental monstrosity.” Nigel Lawson, May 21, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1808242,00.html

15. …and from The New York Times “There are no sound economic arguments to support an assertion that green energy policies will increase the total level of employment in the medium- or longer- term when we hold macro economic conditions constant. “The gigantic public investments in green energy may be stimulating innovation and helping the environment. But they are not evidence that the government knows how to create private sector jobs.” David Brooks, September 5, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.html

16. Dependence on Oil? http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm Table 7d

17. Siting Wind is subsidized at a much higher rate than any other form of energy.

18. or lack thereof…

19. “Local Control” Since the 2011 legislative session, Fremont County adopted a moratorium on wind development. Madison County has also adopted a one-mile setback for wind development. Residents in counties who don’t want wind development will still suffer the effect of increased power rates from decisions made in other counties. (e.g. Cedar Creek Wind Project) There are still no statutory protections for property owners who live near county lines. An example where “local control” has failed to protect citizens. On 11/29/2010, the Power County Commissioners amended their wind ordinance noise limit to 75 db. [1] The World Health Organization recommends a MAXIMUM year-round outside nighttime noise average of 40 db. “At levels over 40 db, ‘Adverse health effects are observed,’ and ‘many people have to adapt their lives to cope with the noise at night…’” [2] [1] http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=838 type “Wind Turbine Tower Facilities” in search box [2] http://tiny.cc/44jyl

20. A few other resources EnergyPresentation.Info – for a detailed examination of our electrical energy situation from a scientific perspective. MasterResource.org – a free-market energy blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy. Wind-watch.org – National Wind Watch “presenting the facts on industrial wind power”. Includes daily media headlines from around the world regarding wind energy. “A Rational Look at Renewable Energy” – Kimball Rasmussen President and CEO, Deseret Power (Utah) November 2010. Country Living magazine - “The Emperor's New Clothes” – a monthly column written by Markus Bryant , General Manager of North Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Ohio)