[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S668-S671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PAYROLL TAX EXTENSION

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, there are reports in some of the 
newspapers this morning that there is an effort to try to slip into the 
negotiation about extending the payroll tax break for the next year a 
big loophole for the rich and for the investment bankers and for most 
of the people President Obama keeps talking about as people whose taxes 
he would like to raise. What I mean by this is I have heard there may 
be an effort to put into the payroll tax agreement a 4-year extension 
of the so-called production tax credit, which is a big tax break for 
wind developers. I cannot think of anything that would derail more 
rapidly the consensus that is developing about extending the payroll 
tax deduction than to do such a thing. We are supposed to be talking 
about reducing taxes for working people. This would maintain a big 
loophole for investment bankers, for the very wealthy, and for big 
corporations.
  We hear a lot of talk about Federal subsidies for Big Oil. I would 
like to take a moment to talk about Federal subsidies for Big Wind--$27 
billion over 10 years. That is the amount of Federal taxpayer dollars 
between 2007 and 2016, according to the Joint Tax Committee, that 
taxpayers will have given to wind developers across our country. This 
subsidies comes in the form of a production tax credit, renewable 
energy bonds, investment tax credits, federal grants, and accelerated 
appreciation. These are huge subsidies. The production tax credit 
itself has been there for 20 years. It was a temporary tax break put in 
the law in 1992. And what do we get in return for these billions of 
dollars of subsidies? We get a puny amount of unreliable electricity 
that arrives disproportionately at night when we don't need it.
  Madam President, residents in community after community across 
America are finding out that these are not your grandma's windmills. 
These gigantic turbines, which look so pleasant on the television ads--
paid for by the people who are getting all the tax breaks--look like an 
elephant when they are in your backyard. In fact, they are much bigger 
than an elephant. They are three times as tall as the sky boxes at 
Neyland Stadium, the University of Tennessee football stadium in 
Knoxville. They are taller than the Statue of Liberty in the home State 
of the Presiding Officer. The blades are as wide as a football field is 
long, and you can see the blinking lights that are on top of these 
windmills for 20 miles.
  In town after town, American residents are complaining about the 
noise and disturbance that come from these giant wind turbines in their 
backyards. There is a new movie that was reviewed in the New York Times 
in the last few days called ``Windfall'' about residents in upstate New 
York who are upset and have left their homes because of the arrival of 
these big wind turbines. The great American West, which 
conservationists for a century have sought to protect, has become 
littered with these giant towers. Boone Pickens, an advocate of wind 
power, says he doesn't want them on his own ranch because they are 
ugly. Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, Senator Warner, and Senator Scott 
Brown have all complained about the new Manhattan Island sized wind 
development which will forever change the landscape off the coast of 
Nantucket Island.
  On top of all that, these giant turbines have become a Cuisinart in 
the sky for birds. Federal law protects the American eagle and 
migratory birds. In 2009, Exxon had to pay $600,000 in fines when oil 
developments harmed these protected birds. But the Federal Government 
so far has refused to apply the same Federal law to Big Wind that 
applies to Big Oil, even though chopping up an eagle in a wind turbine 
couldn't be any better than its landing and dying on an oil slick. And 
wind turbines kill over 400,000 birds every year.
  We have had some experience with the reliability of this kind of wind 
power in the Tennessee Valley Authority region. A few years ago TVA 
built 30 big wind turbines on top of Buffalo Mountain. In the Eastern 
United States, onshore wind power only works when the wind turbines are 
placed on the ridge lines of Americas most scenic mountains. So you 
will see them along the areas near the Appalachian Trail through the 
mountains of scenic views we prize in our State. But there they are, 30 
big wind turbines to see whether they would work. Here is what 
happened:
  The wind blows 19 percent of the time. According to TVA's own 
estimates, it is reliable 12 percent of the time. So TVA signed a 
contract to spend $60 million to produce 6 megawatts of wind--actual 
production of wind--over that 10-year period of time. It was a 
commercial failure.
  There are obviously better alternatives to this. First, there is 
nuclear power. We wouldn't think of going to war in sailboats if 
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers were available. The 
energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats is trying to produce 
enough clean energy for the United States of America with windmills.
  The United States uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the 
world. It needs to be clean, reliable electricity that we can afford. 
Twenty percent of the electricity that we use today is nuclear power. 
Nearly 70 percent of the clean electricity, the pollution-free 
electricity that we use today is nuclear power. It comes from 104 
reactors located at 65 sites. Each reactor consumes about 1 square mile 
of land.
  To produce the same amount of electricity by windmills would mean we 
would have to have 186,000 of these wind turbines; it would cover an 
area the size of West Virginia; we would need 19,000 miles of 
transmission lines through backyards and scenic areas; so 100 reactors 
on 100 square miles or 186,000 wind turbines on 25,000 square miles.
  Think about it another way. Four reactors on 4 square miles is equal 
to a row of 50-story tall wind turbines along the entire 2,178-mile 
Appalachian Trail. Of course, if we had the turbines, we would still 
need the nuclear plants or the gas plants or the coal plants because we 
would like our computers to work and our lights to be on when the wind 
doesn't blow, and we can't store the electricity.
  Then, of course, there is natural gas, which has no sulfur pollution, 
very little nitrogen pollution, half as much carbon as coal. Gas is 
very cheap today. A Chicago-based utility analyst said: Wind on its own 
without incentives is far from economic unless gas is north of $6.50 
per unit. The Wall Street Journal says that wind power is facing a 
make-or-break moment in Congress, while we debate to extend these 
subsidies. So that is why the wind power companies are on pins and 
needles waiting to see what Congress decides to do about its subsidy.
  Taxpayers should be the ones on pins and needles. This $27 billion 
over 10 years is a waste of money. It could be used for energy 
research. It could be used to reduce the debt. Let's start with the $12 
billion over that 10 years that went for the production tax credit. 
That tax credit was supposed to be temporary in 1992.
  Today, according to Secretary Chu, wind is a mature technology. Why 
does it need a credit? The credit is worth about 3 cents per kilowatt 
hour, if we take into account the corporate tax rate of 35 percent. 
That has caused some energy officials to say they have never found an 
easier way to make money. Well, of course not.
  So we do not need to extend the production tax credit for wind at a 
time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar, at a time when 
natural gas is cheap and nuclear power is clean and more reliable and 
less expensive.
  I would like to see us put some of that money on energy research. We 
only spend $5 billion or $6 billion a year on energy research: clean 
energy research, carbon recapture, making solar cheaper, making 
electric batteries that go further. I am ready to reduce the subsidies 
for Big Oil as long as we reduce the subsidies for Big Wind at the same 
time.
  So let's not even think about putting this tax break for the rich in 
the middle of an extension of a tax deduction for working Americans 
this week. Let's focus on reducing the debt, increasing

[[Page S669]]

expenditure for research, and getting rid of the subsidies.
  Twenty years is long enough for a wind production tax credit for what 
our distinguished Nobel Prize-winning Secretary of Energy says is a 
mature technology.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a film review 
from the New York Times on February 3 entitled, ``Turbines in the 
Backyard: The Sound and the Strobes.'' This is about the movie 
``Windfall,'' about upstate New York communities that have experienced 
having these huge things in their backyards. An article by Robert 
Bryce, ``Why The Wind Is Full Of Hot Air and Costing You Big Bucks,'' 
an article from the Los Angeles Times on wind farms, and another 
article from February 2 in the Globe, ``Town turns off wind, opts for 
solar energy.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 2012]

          Turbines in the Backyard: The Sound and the Strobes

                           (By Andy Webster)

       We can all agree that energy independence is a worthy 
     objective, right? Alternative energy sources like solar power 
     can help free the United States from fossil fuels and the 
     grip of unstable Persian Gulf states. And wind power--wait, 
     not so fast, says ``Windfall,'' Laura Israel's urgent, 
     informative and artfully assembled documentary. An account of 
     rural Meredith, in upstate New York, when wind turbines came 
     to town, the film depicts the perils of a booming industry 
     and the bitter rancor it sowed among a citizenry.
       In 2004 residents of this once-flourishing dairy center 
     were approached by companies offering to pay a nominal fee to 
     erect turbines on their property while insisting on 
     confidentiality agreements (to keep competitors ignorant of 
     costs). Economically beset, some people, like Ron and Sue 
     Bailey, jumped at first. But others, like Keitha Capouya, now 
     the town supervisor, dug into the research and sounded an 
     alarm.
       Turbines are huge: some are 40 stories tall, with 130-foot 
     blades weighing seven tons and spinning at 150 miles an hour. 
     They can fall over or send parts flying; struck by lightning, 
     say, they can catch fire. Their 24/7 rotation emits nerve-
     racking low frequencies (like a pulsing disco) amplified by 
     rain and moisture, and can generate a disorienting strobe 
     effect in sunlight. Giant flickering shadows can tarnish a 
     sunset's glow on a landscape.
       People in Lowville, N.Y., farther north, express despair on 
     camera at having caved to the wind companies' entreaties; 
     Bovina, N.Y., banned turbines entirely. Meredith is riven by 
     the issue, which pits the Planning Board against the Town 
     Board and neighbor against neighbor. Former city dwellers 
     escaping urban anxieties are surprised to see themselves as 
     activists. Concerns like setback (the distance of turbines 
     from a property line) are debated.
       Government officials are seen only in glimpses of 
     television talk shows. Conspicuously absent are 
     representatives of corporations like Airtricity, Enxco or 
     Horizon Wind Energy (though the financier and wind advocate 
     T. Boone Pickens comes off as a wolf in good-old-boy 
     clothing). And despite Ms. Israel's inspired use of a local 
     demolition derby as a metaphor for Meredith's struggles, her 
     accelerated pacing almost overheats.
       But the film's implications are clear: The quest for energy 
     independence comes with caveats. Developers' motives must be 
     weighed, as should the risks Americans are willing to take in 
     their own backyard. Despite BP's three-month blanketing of 
     Gulf of Mexico beaches in crude oil; the nuclear disaster in 
     Fukushima, Japan; and the possible impact of hydraulic 
     fracturing (fracking) on the water table, energy companies 
     remain eager to plunder nature's bounty in pursuit of profit.
                                  ____


                   [From FoxNews.com, Dec. 20, 2011]

    Why the Wind Industry Is Full Hot Air and Costing You Big Bucks

                           (By Robert Bryce)

       The American Wind Energy Association has begun a major 
     lobbying effort in Congress to extend some soon-to-expire 
     renewable-energy tax credits. And to bolster that effort, the 
     lobby group's CEO, Denise Bode, is calling the wind industry 
     ``a tremendous American success story.''
       But the wind lobby's success has largely been the result of 
     its ability to garner subsidies. And those subsidies are 
     coming with a big price tag for American taxpayers. Since 
     2009, AWEA's largest and most influential member companies 
     have garnered billions of dollars in direct cash payments and 
     loan guarantees from the US government. And while the lobby 
     group claims to be promoting ``clean'' energy, AWEA's biggest 
     member companies are also among the world's biggest users 
     and/or producers of fossil fuels.
       A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under 
     section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable 
     energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has 
     corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest 
     winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on 
     AWEA's board of directors.
       An analysis of the 4,256 projects that have won grants from 
     the Treasury Department under section 1603 over the past two 
     years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine 
     companies--all of them are members of AWEA's board. To put 
     that $3.37 billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, 
     according to the Energy Information Administration, the total 
     of all ``energy specific subsidies and support'' provided to 
     the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 
     billion in oil and gas subsidies is being divided among 
     thousands of entities. The Independent Petroleum Association 
     of America estimates the US now has over 14,000 oil and gas 
     companies.
       The renewable energy lobby likes to portray itself as an 
     upstart industry, one that is grappling with big business and 
     the entrenched interests of the hydrocarbon sector. But 
     billions of dollars in 1603 grants--all of it exempt from 
     federal corporate income taxes--is being used to fatten the 
     profits of some of the world's biggest companies. Indeed, the 
     combined market capitalization of the 11 biggest corporations 
     on AWEA's board--a group that includes General Electric and 
     Siemens--is about $450 billion.
       Nevertheless, the clock is ticking on renewable-energy 
     subsidies. The 1603 grants end on December 31 and the 
     renewable-energy production tax credit expires on January 1, 
     2013. On Monday, AWEA issued a report which predicted that 
     some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the US could be lost by 2013 
     if the production tax credit is not extended.
       But the subsidies are running out at the very same time 
     that a cash-strapped Congress is turning a hard eye on the 
     renewable sector. The collapse of federally backed companies 
     like solar-panel-maker Solyndra and biofuel producer Range 
     Fuels, are providing critics of renewable subsidies with 
     plenty of ammunition. And if critics need more bullets, they 
     need only look at AWEA's board to see how big business is 
     grabbing every available dollar from US taxpayers all in the 
     name of ``clean'' energy. Indeed, AWEA represents a host of 
     fossil-fuel companies who are eagerly taking advantage of the 
     renewable-energy subsidies.
       Consider NRG Energy, which has a seat on AWEA's board. Last 
     month, the New York Times reported that New Jersey-based NRG 
     and its partners have secured $5.2 billion in federal loan 
     guarantees to build solar-energy projects. NRG's market 
     capitalization: $4.3 billion.
       But NRG is not a renewable energy company. The company 
     currently has about 26,000 megawatts (MW) of generation 
     capacity. Of that, 450 MW is wind capacity, another 65 MW is 
     solar, and 1,175 MW comes from nuclear. So why is NRG 
     expanding into renewables? The answer is simple: profits. 
     Last month, David Crane, the CEO of NRG, told the Times that 
     ``I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 
     years in the power industry that involved less risk than 
     these projects.''
       Or look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural 
     gas company, which also has a seat on AWEA's board of 
     directors. In 2010, the company emitted 116 million metric 
     tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that 
     of the Czech Republic, a country of 10.5 million people. And 
     last year, the company--which has about 2,000 MW of wind-
     generation capacity in the US--produced about 14 times as 
     much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did from wind.
       Despite its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has 
     been awarded $542.5 million in section 1603 cash so that it 
     can build wind projects. And the company is getting that 
     money even though it is the world's largest investor-owned 
     utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion.
       Another foreign company with a seat on AWEA's board: 
     Spanish utility Iberdrola, the second-largest domestic wind 
     operator. But in 2010, Iberdrola produced about 3 times as 
     much electricity from hydrocarbons as it did from wind. 
     Nevertheless, the company has collected $1 billion in section 
     1603 money. To put that $1 billion in context, consider that 
     in 2010, Iberdrola's net profit was about 2.8 billion Euros, 
     or around $3.9 billion. Thus, US taxpayers have recently 
     provided cash grants to Iberdrola that amount to about one-
     fourth of the company's 2010 profits. And again, none of that 
     grant money is subject to US corporate income taxes. 
     Iberdrola currently sports a market cap of $39 billion.
       Another big winner on AWEA's board of directors: NextEra 
     Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) which has garnered 
     some $610.6 million in 1603 grants for various wind projects. 
     NextEra's market capitalization is $23 billion. The subsidies 
     being garnered by NextEra are helping the company drastically 
     cut its taxes. A look at the company's 2010 annual report 
     shows that it cut its federal tax bill by more than $200 
     million last year thanks to various federal tax credits. And 
     the company's latest annual report shows that it has another 
     $1.8 billion of ``tax credit carryforwards'' that will help 
     it slash its taxes over the coming years.
       The biggest fossil-fuel-focused company on AWEA's board is 
     General Electric, which had revenues last year of $150 
     billion. Of that sum, about 25 percent came from what the 
     company calls ``energy infrastructure.'' While some of that 
     revenue comes from GE's wind business, the majority comes 
     from building generators, jet engines, and other machinery 
     that burn hydrocarbons. The company is also rapidly growing 
     GE Oil &

[[Page S670]]

     Gas, which had 2010 revenues of $7.2 billion. GE Oil & Gas 
     has more than 20,000 employees and provides a myriad of 
     products and services to the oil and gas industry.
       GE has a starring role in one of the most egregious 
     examples of renewable-energy corporate welfare: the Shepherds 
     Flat wind project in Oregon. The majority of the funding for 
     the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt project is coming from federal 
     taxpayers. Not only is the Energy Department providing GE and 
     its partners--who include Caithness Energy, Google, and 
     Sumitomo--a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, as soon as GE's 338 
     turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury 
     Department will send the project developers a cash grant of 
     $490 million.
       On December 9, the American Council on Renewable Energy 
     issued a press release urging Congress to quickly extend the 
     1603 program and the renewable-energy production tax credit, 
     because they will ``bolster renewable energy's success and 
     American competitiveness.''
       But time is running short. Backers of the renewable-energy 
     credits say that to assure continuity on various projects, a 
     bill must be passed into law by March 2012. If that doesn't 
     happen, they are predicting domestic investment in renewable 
     energy could fall by 50 percent. A bill now pending in the 
     House would extend the production tax credit for four 
     additional years, through 2017. The bill has 40 sponsors, 9 
     are Republicans. The bill is awaiting a hearing by the House 
     Ways and Means Committee.
                                  ____


                [From Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2011]

       Wind Farms Multiply, Fueling Clashes With Nearby Residents

                            (By Tiffany Hsu)

       Tehachapi, CA.--Donna and Bob Moran moved to the wind-
     whipped foothills here four years ago looking for solitude 
     and serenity amid the pinyon pines and towering Joshua trees.
       But lately their view of the valley is being marred by a 
     growing swarm of whirring wind turbines--many taller than the 
     Statue of Liberty--sweeping ever closer to their home.
       ``Once, you could see stars like you wouldn't believe,'' 
     Donna Moran said. ``Now, with the lights from the turbines, 
     you can't even see the night sky.''
       It's about to get worse.
       Turbines are multiplying at blistering speeds as wind 
     developers, drawn by the area's powerful gusts, attempt to 
     meet an insatiable demand for clean energy.
       Helo Energy plans to scatter 450-foot machines across 
     hundreds of acres in nearby Sand Canyon. A few miles away, 
     near the Old West Ranch enclave, Terra-Gen Power is building 
     the nation's largest wind farm with hundreds of turbines, if 
     not more. The project, Alta Wind Energy Center, is backed by 
     hundreds of millions of dollars from Google Inc. and 
     Citibank.
       Federal and local officials hail the Tehachapi Valley, a 
     harsh desert expanse about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, as 
     an alternative energy mecca that will help wean Americans off 
     fossil fuel. Kern County, home to the nation's largest 
     concentration of wind farms, is looking forward to millions 
     of dollars in much-needed tax revenue and has approved most 
     proposed installations.
       But wind projects aren't only proliferating in the region's 
     outskirts. Nearly 3,000 turbines, many of them bigger than 
     Ferris wheels, were installed across the country last year.
       The growth is being propelled by federal incentives and 
     state clean-energy mandates. In April, Gov. Jerry Brown 
     signed a law that requires California utilities to get 33% of 
     the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. As of 
     the first quarter of 2011, they're at 17.9%.
       But with thousands more wind projects on the drawing board, 
     they're increasingly generating opposition among local 
     residents. Less than 100 miles from Tehachapi in the Antelope 
     Valley, proposed turbine developments are facing similar 
     resistance. Across the country, Cape Cod, Mass., residents 
     and political heavyweights such as Sen. John Kerry waged war 
     against what could be the country's first offshore wind farm.
       And the issue isn't just with wind turbines, said Tom Soto, 
     an environmental activist and managing partner of Craton 
     Equity Partners.
       ``These large projects enter at their own peril without 
     involving the community,'' Soto said. ``Just because they're 
     renewables instead of landfills doesn't mean they're off the 
     hook.''
       Residents of Blythe, Calif., near the border with Arizona, 
     showed up at the recent groundbreaking of Solar Millennium's 
     massive solar plant there to protest its proximity to sacred 
     Native American sites. Gleaming mirrors will blanket nearly 
     6,000 acres, helping to generate electricity for Southern 
     California Edison.
       In San Diego County, critics have spent the better part of 
     a decade trying to block the Sunrise Powerlink transmission 
     network, which would bring electricity from far-flung solar 
     and wind farms.
       Activists there and elsewhere say that the fight is more 
     than a classic case of ``not in my backyard'' resistance. 
     Large, remote projects aren't the only solution to the 
     nation's energy woes, they say.
       City-dwellers could produce just as much clean electricity 
     without the transmission hassles, they said, using rooftop 
     solar panels, small wind turbines, fuel cells and other 
     adaptable forms of renewable energy generation.
       ``We're going to need to find space to place these 
     projects,'' Soto said. ``A successful portfolio will be 
     balanced, with some utility-scale projects and some urban 
     projects.''
       Tehachapi activist Terry Warsaw said he's worried his 
     community will soon be surrounded by turbines.
       ``Alternative energy has lulled us into a sense of 
     complacency,'' he said. ``The potential is here to take over 
     every ridge and every mountainside if the community isn't 
     careful.''
       Veterinarian Beverly Billingsley has been hosting anti-
     turbine community meetings in her new Sand Canyon barn, just 
     up the slope from where the cluster of 450-foot machines is 
     slated for construction.
       ``They are not benign things,'' she said. ``We've seen 
     turbines go berserk.''
       The machines get no more sympathy from Mother Mary 
     Augustine, who lives cloistered at the Norbertine Sisters 
     Monastery in a cradle of hills recently eyed for wind 
     development.
       ``Monstrous insects,'' she calls them. ``I look at the 
     propellers for a moment and my head gets dizzy.''
       It's not that they dislike alternative energy, residents 
     say. Many employ solar panels and smaller turbines to power 
     their homes.
       Lately, though, locals say that farm animals have begun 
     cowering as construction vehicles rumble across lawns and 
     surveyor helicopters roar overhead. There are worries about 
     turbine oil leaking into water wells and turbines obstructing 
     landing maneuvers at the local airport.
       ``Avian cuisinarts,'' said Sand Canyon resident April 
     Biglay. She worries that more turbines could slaughter birds 
     or cause ground vibrations that could decimate native 
     species.
       ``We are resembling hundreds of towns around the country,'' 
     she said.
       Last year, an older machine began spinning uncontrollably, 
     forcing authorities to shut down a main freeway for hours. 
     The resulting traffic was an anomaly in a community where 
     most jams are caused by high school football games and 
     meandering sheep.
       Fire is also a concern, with turbines' finicky electrical 
     wiring, long fire department response times and limited roads 
     on which to flee.
       And the turbines could topple in an earthquake, since 
     they're situated in sedentary soil directly on the Garlock 
     fault line, residents say.
       Some suggest that removing trees to make way for the 
     machines could lead to erosion and flooding.
       They also argue that the projects aren't helping the local 
     economy. Local residents say pickup trucks driven by 
     construction workers often have out-of-state license plates. 
     Each new project causes nearby property values to plunge as 
     much as 40%, city officials say.
       And because companies aren't required to dismantle the 
     turbines when they stop functioning, many will join the 
     hordes of ``mechanical dinosaurs'' that already crowd the 
     area, critics say.
       Other residents say they're tired of making sacrifices for 
     electricity that will go to other counties.
       ``It's a question of what you're willing to give up to be 
     green,'' said local lawyer Kassandra McQuillen of some recent 
     project plans. ``It's like proposing clear-cutting Griffith 
     Observatory or the cliffs of Malibu.''
       Residents say they've won some victories. Developer Terra-
     Gen yanked its 7,000-acre Pahnamid project last month after 
     opponents slammed plans to set up nearly 150 turbines on the 
     Tehachapi crests.
       ``It is not unusual for projects to fall by the wayside 
     early in the development process,'' Terra-Gen said in a 
     statement. ``The decision to pull back in an early stage on 
     the Pahnamid project was a result of several important 
     development concerns, including local opposition.''
       By the end of the year, the developer said it will have 
     invested $2.2 billion in Kern County, become the county's 
     third largest taxpayer with $30 million a year and made more 
     progress building its 1,100-megawatt Alta project.
       But with so many projects on the plate for the region, 
     Tehachapi city officials are urging Kern County to impose a 
     temporary moratorium on wind projects near homes. And the 
     city that has long been associated with the fields of 
     propellers is now trying to draw tourists by talking up its 
     chili cook-offs, historic downtown and pristine mountains.
       ``We've coexisted with the turbines for a long time,'' City 
     Council member Susan Wiggins said. ``But we don't want to 
     look like one big wind park.''
                                  ____


                   [From Boston Globe, Feb. 2, 2012]

               Town Turns Off Wind, Opts for Solar Energy

                            (By Robert Knox)

       At a time of accelerating production of both wind and solar 
     energy, Duxbury officials have decided to buy solar energy 
     produced elsewhere and take their own wind project off the 
     table.
       ``It's an opportunity to save money,'' Jim Goldenberg, 
     chairman of the town's Alternative Energy Committee, said 
     after town selectmen signed a 20-year agreement with a solar 
     energy company that plans to build its facility in Acushnet.
       The deal is expected to save the town up to $30,000 a year 
     in energy costs and supply

[[Page S671]]

     about 25 percent of the energy the town needs to run 
     facilities such as schools, Town Hall, and other buildings, 
     officials say. The producer, Pegasus Renewable Energy 
     Partners LLC of Marstons Mills, has yet to begin construction 
     of the solar farm. It's expected to take about a year to 
     begin producing power.
       Duxbury is also moving ahead on a plan to lease its capped 
     landfill to a private developer, American Capital Energy, a 
     national company whose customers include the Army, to build a 
     solar energy farm there. Town Meeting backed the project last 
     fall.
       The town's move to buy solar energy was made in conjunction 
     with the Alternative Energy Committee's decision to put a 
     hold on the possibility of building a wind turbine. The 
     decision comes at a time when neighboring Kingston is touting 
     the construction of five turbines within its borders. 
     Kingston officials said their town's wind and solar projects 
     together would earn up to a $1 million a year in new revenue.
       Until recently Duxbury was planning to build a wind 
     turbine, too. Goldenberg's committee had planned to seek 
     funding from Town Meeting to continue its feasibility study 
     of a wind turbine on town property next to its North Hill 
     golf course.
       But that plan came under attack by a group of residents who 
     said they feared that living near a turbine would undermine 
     their health, lower their property values, and alter the 
     neighborhood's residential character. They hired an attorney, 
     produced a report attacking the financial basis of the 
     project, and won a vote from selectmen urging the committee 
     not to seek funds for the project.
       Local wind power advocates cried foul. They said opponents 
     were relying on a corporate-quality website and dubious 
     information supplied by an anti-wind lobby with little 
     connection to the town.
       But Goldenberg said his group chose the solar option solely 
     based on a comparison of the economics of the wind turbine 
     project relative to the solar deals committee members have 
     been working on. The bottom line, he said, is that a wind 
     turbine on North Hill would produce electricity at $.155 per 
     kilowatt hour versus $.10 per kilowatt hour to buy solar, a 
     35 percent cost differential.

  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________