NREL Analyzes Production Tax Credit Extension Implications for U.S. Manufacturing

Apr 17, 2014

Reading Time : 7 min

The report notes that U.S. manufacturing of wind components was motivated by the high cost of importing such large parts from abroad. That same factor makes it difficult for U.S. factories to shift from the domestic market to exports. Thus, more wind component factories are likely to close, resulting in the loss of manufacturing jobs, if there is not a meaningful extension of the PTC.

The report makes the insightful observation that a refundable PTC (i.e., one that can be converted to cash without regard to tax liability), as the President has proposed, would have the same cost to the Treasury as the traditional PTC, while providing more benefit to wind developers. This is because a refundable PTC would eliminate the need for costly tax equity transactions with banks and corporations with tax appetite. Unfortunately, this observation appears lost on Congress which has a negative knee-jerk reaction to refundable tax credits. 

Key excerpts from the report are below:

  • Through 2012, more than 60 gigawatts (GW) of land-based wind generation capacity have been installed nationally, including an average of 8.7 GW per year from 2008 through 2012. To meet recent growth in demand for wind capacity, the wind industry has invested heavily in U.S.-based manufacturing facilities. In 2012, an estimated 550 U.S.-based manufacturing facilities produced turbines, blades, towers, and their components. Of these, over 60 were dedicated suppliers to the wind industry. Due to growth in U.S. manufacturing capacity, the estimated import fraction for new plant installations has steadily declined from 75% of total turbine costs in 2006-2007 to less than 30 percent in 2012.
  • Current and near-term state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) targets have largely been met and are not expected to support more than 1–3 GW per year of new wind construction through 2020. Abundant new sources of low-priced natural gas have altered the competitive landscape in the power sector, and the modest economic recovery, coupled with successful energy efficiency investments, has limited growth in demand for new electricity generation of all types.
  • Under a scenario in which the PTC is not extended and all other policies remain unchanged, wind capacity additions are projected to be between 3 GW and 5 GW per year from 2013–2020.
  • U.S. wind power manufacturing production generally aligns with average annual wind power capacity additions from 2008 to 2012. In the absence of U.S. domestic demand for new wind capacity, global markets are unlikely to offer many opportunities for U.S.- based manufacturers. Given the limited export market, a reduction in domestic wind power deployment is likely to have a direct and negative effect on U.S.-based wind turbine manufacturing production and employment.
  • In the current low-priced natural gas regime, modeling results indicate that future wind deployment will be relatively low unless additional incentives are provided that result in wind being cost competitive with existing gas-fired generation.
  • U.S. wind capacity is estimated to supply approximately 4.4 percent of the nation’s electricity demand.  Utility-scale wind capacity has been installed and is operating in 39 states; in 9 of these states wind generation exceeds 12 percent of in-state electricity demand, and in 3 of these states—Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas—wind is estimated to supply more than 20 percent of electricity.  Moreover, in 2012, wind power was the largest single source of new electric power generating capacity, constituting more than 40 percent of total U.S. additions.  Installations in 2012 represented approximately $25 billion in new investment.
  • In 2012, an estimated 550 U.S.-based manufacturing facilities produced turbines, blades, towers, and their components. Of these, more than 60 were dedicated suppliers to the wind industry. Due to growth in the U.S. manufacturing capacity, the estimated import fraction for new plant installations has steadily declined from 75 percent of total turbine costs in 2006–2007 to less than 30 percent in 2012. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that employment from manufacturing has also grown over time. Approximately 25,500 individuals were employed in U.S.-based wind turbine component and equipment manufacturing facilities, and total U.S. wind industry employment—including manufacturing and facility installation, operation, and maintenance—was estimated at approximately 80,000 in 2012.
  • Current and near-term state renewable portfolio standard targets have largely been met and are not expected to support more than 1–3 GW per year of new wind construction through 2020. Abundant new sources of low-priced natural gas, resulting largely from advancements in production techniques for shale reservoirs, have altered the competitive landscape in the power sector. And, the modest economic recovery, coupled with successful energy efficiency investments, has limited growth in demand for new electricity generation of all types.
  • The PTC has provided substantial assistance to the U.S. wind industry. The presence of the PTC enables wind power project developers to reduce the price at which their electricity can be sold, effectively making them less costly for power purchasers and ultimately consumers. Current estimates indicate that the PTC reduces contracted prices for wind power by approximately $20/MWh (2012 dollars) or roughly 25 percent –50 percent.
  • The on-again, off-again historical policy environment has created substantial uncertainty and deployment volatility. Past PTC expirations have resulted in reductions in yearon- year installations between 73 percent and 93 percent. The impact of such boom and bust cycles is diverse. Most notably, short-term planning timeframes associated with PTC uncertainty can discourage investments in domestic manufacturing capacity, deployment capability, component orders, and private sector research and development.
  • In its most recent assessment, which includes the PTC extension through year-end 2013, the Joint Committee estimates forward-looking tax expenditures associated with credits for wind energy to be approximately $7.7 billion cumulatively for fiscal years 2013–2017.
  • Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have mandated that a certain amount or percentage of generation capacity come from renewable energy sources. Historically, state RPSs have been a critical driver for wind capacity. While it remains difficult to discern precisely how much wind capacity is a direct result of RPS policies, 83 percent of wind installations in 2012 occurred in states with an RPS.
  • Under certain conditions, wind power is directly competitive with other electricity generation sources and procured based on immediate or projected cost savings. To date, the PTC and other federal tax incentives (e.g., accelerated depreciation) have boosted wind power’s economic position relative to alternative generation sources, enabling wind to be lower cost than other generation technologies in some regions (e.g., Texas). Wind is also sometimes credited as a hedge against potential natural gas price escalation.
  • Utilities, corporations, and others can make investments in wind power to supply voluntary green pricing programs because of a preference for wind or non-emitting energy sources or for various other reasons. This demand driver is not considered in the analytical modeling work conducted here.
  • State tax and other incentives and state or regional carbon markets have also supported wind installations in the past but are generally considered to be secondary drivers.
  • Trade flows of wind products are generally limited in the global industry due to relatively high shipping costs for major turbine components. As a result, foreign direct investment in regions with strong demand for wind products is common as the cost structure of the industry favors regional manufacturing hubs. In the United States, the factory gate prices for components like blades, which are labor-intensive to produce, also tend to be higher than the prices of the same goods manufactured in many other regions, further limiting export opportunities from U.S.-based facilities.
  • Given the limited export market, a reduction in domestic wind power deployment is likely to have a direct and negative effect on U.S.-based wind turbine manufacturing production and employment.
  • The effects of reduced demand for 2013 equipment deliveries became evident as early as 2012 as year-over-year employment in wind manufacturing fell by nearly 5,000 workers, and 12 facilities exited the U.S. wind market.
  • Under nearly all conditions analyzed, a PTC that expires or ramps down prior to 2022 is unlikely to generate levels of wind deployment consistent with the 2008–2012 5-year average.
  • At the same time, stable wind deployment is only one of many objectives that might be served by a PTC extension. Other factors, although not explored in this study, could also be considered as objectives and include:
    • Greater certainty for foreign and domestic investment in U.S. industry
    • Sustained conditions for continued technology innovation
    • Reduced electric sector greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and water use
    • Greater diversity of electric generation sources • Reduced electric sector demand for natural gas, potentially enabling reduced pipeline congestion in critical regions, lower gas prices, or increased exports
    • Maintained or improved global competitiveness of U.S.-based manufacturing
    • Maintained or reduced cost of generation as a key economic input to U.S. economic competitiveness.
  • Chiefly, the PTC, in its current form, is widely recognized as costly to monetize due to lack of financial market fungibility and constraints to tax equity supply. In contrast, a refundable form of the credit would obviate the need for project sponsors lacking tax appetite to rely on third-party tax equity, with its associated transaction costs. As such, this refundable form could result in a higher level of wind deployment for the same cost to the federal government. Alternative policies, such as opening public capital vehicles (e.g., master limited partnerships) to wind power technologies or federal carbon standards, also offer the opportunity to support wind deployment and provide associated manufacturing and installation-related employment support at potentially lower total cost.
  • Modeled PTC extension options that ramp down and cease support by year-end 2022 appear to be generally insufficient to support deployment close to recent levels and therefore may be insufficient to sustain the current industry domestic manufacturing and supply chain through 2020.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

April 15, 2025

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO)1 directing several federal agencies and subagencies that regulate energy, environmental, and conservation matters,2 including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to establish conditional sunset dates for “regulations governing energy production.” The stated objective of the EO is to require agencies to periodically reexamine their regulations to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. For FERC, the order covers regulations promulgated under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA)3, as amended, while DOE must consider regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), as amended (collectively the Covered Regulations).4 To the extent the DOE has been directed to promulgate regulations under various sections of the NGA, FPA and FUA, and FERC has been directed to promulgate regulations specific to the statutes attributed to the DOE in the EO, the EO is silent. The EO expressly does not apply to those “regulatory permitting regimes authorized by statute.”5

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

April 10, 2025

On April 8, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to take steps to expand the use of its emergency authority under Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 202(c) to require the retention of generation resources deemed necessary to maintain resource adequacy within at risk-regions of the bulk power system regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).1 The EO appears to envision a more active role for DOE in overseeing and supporting the resource adequacy of the grid that deviates from the historic use of Section 202(c) and touches on issues at the intersection of state and federal authority over resource planning.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 10, 2025

On March 5, 2025, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) approved Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC’s (GPLNG) request to extend a deadline to begin exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its terminal facility currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas for 18 months, from September 30, 2025, to March 31, 2027 (the Order). The Order amends GPLNG’s two existing long-term orders authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG to countries with which the United States does and does not have free trade agreements (FTA).1  The Order does not amend the authorizations’ end date, which remains December 31, 2050. Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the DOE may authorize exports to non-FTA countries following completion of a “public interest” review, whereas exports to FTA countries are deemed to be in the public interest and the DOE is directed to issue authorizations without modification or delay.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 4, 2025

Join projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat at Infocast’s Solar & Wind, where he will moderate the “Tax Equity Market Dynamics” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 13, 2025

Oil & gas companies continue to identify and capitalize on opportunities related to the deployment of new energy technologies, with their approaches broadly maturing and coalescing around maximizing synergies, leveraging available subsidies and responding to regulatory drivers.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 11, 2025

On January 30, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. (Stronghold) resolving an investigation into whether Stronghold had violated the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tariff and Commission regulations by limiting the quantity of energy made available to the market to serve a co-located Bitcoin mining operation.1 This order appears to be the first instance of a public enforcement action involving co-located load and generation and comes at a time when both FERC and market operators2 are scrutinizing the treatment of co-located load due to the rapid increase in demand associated with data center development.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 5, 2025

2024 was about post-consolidation deal flow and a steady uptick in activity across the oil & gas market. This year, mergers & acquisitions (M&A) activity looks set to take on a different tone as major consolidation plays bed down.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 30, 2025

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a capital resurgence, driven by stabilizing interest rates and renewed attention from institutional investors. Private equity is leading the charge with private credit filling the void in traditional energy finance and hybrid capital instruments gaining in popularity. Family offices are also playing a crucial role, providing long-term, flexible investments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.