Wind power makes rich richer

Eleanor Tillinghast, Berkshire Eagle, June 17, 2006

______________________________________________________

IF YOU are a rich investor, wind turbines are a sign of success. For the rest of us, they are a monstrous sign of failure.

Let's say you have three or four homes, several cars, and a lavish income that allows you to invest a few million dollars in a hedge fund or private equity firm. You're just the person who can profit from the tax credits created especially for wind-generated electricity. These credits allow you to shelter profits from other investments so you pay less income tax. It's this kind of subsidy that enables companies like Goldman Sachs, whose recently departed chairman is worth $700 million, to sidestep paying any income tax at all.

It's also why oil companies like Shell and British Petroleum are jumping into the wind business. They can avoid paying taxes on their extraordinary profits from selling oil, while at the same time looking like "green" good guys for investing in wind. It's a win-win situation for big investors, but the rest of us pick up the tab. If they don't pay taxes to fund public services, then we are forced to make up the difference.

Not only do wind turbines shift tax burdens from the very rich to the average American, they also fail to produce significant benefits for the local community. Turbines cluttering Berkshire ridgelines may produce, at most, one or two permanent jobs here. But they will definitely ruin the quiet lifestyles of people who cherish their beautiful corners of the world. They will damage nearby property values. They will discourage second-home owners from settling or staying within view of the turbines. They will make tourists seeking scenic vistas and wilderness recreation turn toward places like Vermont where the locals have resisted wind turbines. In short, they will shift revenues out of the community and leave us with the costs.

They will leave us with another problem, too. More turbines. The very people promising we'll never see more than a few turbines in the Berkshires are also participating in the many meetings in the eastern part of the state focused on how to shoehorn more wind turbines onto our mountains.

Right now, the state is preparing a set of siting guidelines based on sham science in order to legitimize permitting more turbines in the Berkshires. The state wants to open public land for wind development. At least one state official has declared that private land can be taken by eminent domain for wind projects and associated transmission lines. A municipal utility in the town of Princeton, where two turbines are planned, recently filed with the state to exempt those from local zoning, allowable under state law. The state, the wind developers, and a few people and groups out here are methodically laying the groundwork for a lot more turbines in the Berkshires if we don't slam shut the door now.

The most specious argument is that destroying our mountains and jeopardizing our economy is acceptable because the wind energy will be used locally. Electricity produced by wind turbines could be used locally, it could also flow to Canada, as neighbors to a wind power plant in New York discovered. Half the output from the Hoosac turbines proposed in the Berkshire towns of Florida and Monroe will be sold to Connecticut. All the output from the turbines soon to be erected in Hancock will go to towns in the eastern part of Massachusetts that are thrilled to be buying electricity subsidized by the rest of us and praised as "green" in the bargain.

Meanwhile, we have hydroelectric plants that already provide green energy. Ironically, the Long Island Power Authority is buying 345 MW of hydro-generated electricity from Bear Swamp in the northern Berkshires and using the same language of the wind developers to tout its new source of "green" energy.

Wind turbines in the Berkshires are not a sign that we are finally dealing with our energy problems, they are a sign that we have failed to aggressively pursue better alternatives. Can we cut electricity use, reduce pollution, and save our mountains? Yes! Instead of shoveling millions of public dollars into the pockets of rich investors elsewhere, if our state used a fraction of that money to mail one efficient light bulb to each household in the commonwealth, we would save more electricity than produced by all the wind turbines now planned in the Berkshires. We could mail those for free and still save money. We could then use the remaining money to help towns, businesses, and homeowners cut energy consumption. Our money would stay local and its benefits would stay local.

Instead of destroying the mountains that make the Berkshires unique, let's focus on sensible alternatives that will be a true sign of success, not for the investors, but for us.

Eleanor Tillinghast is head of Green Berkshires, based in Great Barrington.