• 7 hours U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 9 hours Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 11 hours Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 13 hours EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 15 hours Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 15 hours Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
  • 3 days Trump Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Back to Congress
  • 3 days Texas Shutters More Coal-Fired Plants
  • 3 days Oil Trading Firm Expects Unprecedented U.S. Crude Exports
  • 4 days UK’s FCA Met With Aramco Prior To Proposing Listing Rule Change
  • 4 days Chevron Quits Australian Deepwater Oil Exploration
  • 4 days Europe Braces For End Of Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 4 days Renewable Energy Startup Powering Native American Protest Camp
  • 4 days Husky Energy Set To Restart Pipeline
  • 4 days Russia, Morocco Sign String Of Energy And Military Deals
  • 4 days Norway Looks To Cut Some Of Its Generous Tax Breaks For EVs
  • 4 days China Set To Continue Crude Oil Buying Spree, IEA Says
  • 5 days India Needs Help To Boost Oil Production
  • 5 days Shell Buys One Of Europe’s Largest EV Charging Networks
  • 5 days Oil Throwback: BP Is Bringing Back The Amoco Brand
  • 5 days Libyan Oil Output Covers 25% Of 2017 Budget Needs
  • 5 days District Judge Rules Dakota Access Can Continue Operating
  • 5 days Surprise Oil Inventory Build Shocks Markets
  • 5 days France’s Biggest Listed Bank To Stop Funding Shale, Oil Sands Projects
  • 5 days Syria’s Kurds Aim To Control Oil-Rich Areas
  • 6 days Chinese Teapots Create $5B JV To Compete With State Firms
  • 6 days Oil M&A Deals Set To Rise
  • 6 days South Sudan Tightens Oil Industry Security
  • 6 days Over 1 Million Bpd Remain Offline In Gulf Of Mexico
  • 6 days Turkmenistan To Spend $93-Billion On Oil And Gas Sector
  • 6 days Indian Hydrocarbon Projects Get $300 Billion Boost Over 10 Years
  • 6 days Record U.S. Crude Exports Squeeze North Sea Oil
  • 6 days Iraq Aims To Reopen Kirkuk-Turkey Oil Pipeline Bypassing Kurdistan
  • 6 days Supply Crunch To Lead To Oil Price Spike By 2020s, Expert Says
  • 7 days Saudi Arabia Ups November Oil Exports To 7-Million Bpd
  • 7 days Niger Delta State Looks To Break Free From Oil
  • 7 days Brazilian Conglomerate To Expand Into Renewables
  • 7 days Kurdish Independence Could Spark Civil War
  • 7 days Chevron, Total Waiting In The Wings As Shell Mulls Majnoon Exit
  • 7 days The Capital Of Coal Is Looking For Other Options
Alt Text

Can Deep Water Wind Farms Power The World?

A recent study suggests that…

Alt Text

The Two Nations Leading The Wind Power Race

UK and China have joined…

Alt Text

Tesla’s New Frontier: Batteries And Wind

Electric car builder Tesla and…



MasterResource is a blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy.Precisely because energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy –…

More Info

Texas Wind Power - Good Money After Bad?

The cost of building transmission for expensive wind power in Texas is coming in nearly 40 percent higher than initially promised. Instead of $4.9 billion, as estimated in 2008, the transmission lines are now expected to cost $6.8 billion, according to a report prepared by the RS&H infrastructure consulting firm for the Texas Public Utility Commission.  This amounts to approximately $800 per household in the state, or at least $5 per month per ratepayer.

Cost Gaming

The report states several factors caused the initial underestimate of transmission line construction costs. For example, the initial estimate assumed transmission lines would be built in direct, straight lines from point to point. However, the new report notes transmission lines must often follow roads, fences, terrain features, or property lines instead of direct lines between two connecting points.

The initial cost estimates also failed to account for inflation and financing costs on loans to build the transmission lines.

The report warns the final price tag could rise still higher by the time the project reaches its estimated December 2013 completion date.

More Intervention; Good Money after Bad

The $800 per-household expenditure is merely the cost of building the transmission lines. Wind power is more expensive to produce than conventional power sources, so Texas consumers will also pay electricity premiums every year.

“This is the kind of situation that only happens when government mandates a technology that is not very useful and it’s too expensive for the market,” said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis.

Wind power can’t compete, so government rushed in to promote it. But government did not properly account for the fact that that the wind turbines will be built far away from where demand was. It’s like a nightmare version of Field of Dreams. Wind boosters built their turbines and counted on the fact that legislators would not let them be built in vain—sort of: If we build it, the wires will come – at other people’s expense.

It was typical government intervention where one mandate creates a problem that requires another mandate to address. “By requiring a set amount of so-called green energy to be purchased, the Texas government bet big on wind power, ostensibly the cheapest of the so-called green energy sources,” Burnett adds. “But did it occur to anyone in government that you’d need a whole new infrastructure to deliver the new energy?”

Inefficient Transmission, Not Only Inefficient Generation

Because the wind farms are being built in remote areas, much of the power will be lost in the course of transmitting it to distant urban areas. This is not the case with a coal-fired power plant that can be built relatively close to an urban center, or a gas-fired plant which can be built even closer to the end users.

As a result of a stringent state mandate (the Enron provision in Texas’s 1999 electricity restructuring law) on top of federal subsidies, Texas now leads the nation in production of wind power. States Bill Peacock, vice president of research for the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Texas was definitely in a unique position. Without the subsidies our wind power capacity couldn’t have grown so fast. Despite the high cost of the transmission lines, with the federal subsidies the marginal cost of wind power is essentially zero, which gives providers the ability to bid negative into the market and still make a marginal profit. As a result, the cost of electricity has gone up but the price to produce it has gone down,” explained Peacock.

What is the opportunity cost, the foregone alternative, of the multi-billion-dollar Texas investment in wind power? Lower electric rates past, present, and future is one answer. Or, as Peacock surmised:

There’s no question Texans would be paying less for energy and there would be more capacity if the state had spent the money instead on nuclear, coal-fired, or natural gas power plants. The main problem has been the federal subsidies. Without them we wouldn’t be the leading generator of wind power. Also, without the federal subsidies no one would be building the transmission lines, because no one would be able to make a profit on wind power.

Rent-seeking political capitalists … special-interest government. More government intervention addressing the problems created by prior intervention. It’s all there with the government-created Texas windpower boom.

By. Kenneth Artz

Kenneth Artz writes for the Heartland Institute based in Dallas, Texas. This piece originally appeared in the November issue of Energy & Climate News.

This article was provided by MasterResource

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on November 11 2011 said:
    Nice overview of the problem. Big wind energy is unreliable, disruptive to the power grid, exorbitantly expensive, and the machines tend to break down decades before their time.But wind is fashionable to those in power, as long as they do not have to live too close to the whining monstrosities, or see the dead bats and birds on the ground below.
  • Anonymous on November 11 2011 said:
    Was all that part of the T.Boone Pickens plan/scam ?Did he build the turbines and then dump the expensive part onto the taxpayers ?
  • Anonymous on November 11 2011 said:
    Terribly biased "journalism". No figures on cost of any power, no pros and cons, no data. If anyone studies the CREZ process that was taken to decide on where and IF to build these lines, they will see that it was done very professionally with data and costs in mind, deciding which route was the best VALUE for the cost. It is a long term investment in infrastructure. In 20 years, in 50 years, the fuel for wind turbines is still free, what will the price of natural gas or oil be for instance? Most ppa's right now with wind power are selling kwh cheaper than natural gas, or on par, and much cheaper than the future predicted market. Subsidies have spawned the boom, I agree, but lets take all subsidies away from all energy sources and see where we stand. Lastly, it is a downright lie to state that wind turbines were built waiting for power lines. Projects at the end of the line are waiting for line construction in order to get built. I encourage anyone reading this to study the facts.
  • Anonymous on November 14 2011 said:
    :P Well said DCarr. I love the comment about taking all of the subsides (and tax breaks) away. I live 2 hours away from those wind farms (which are a monstrosity in the middle of monoculture fields) in TX and I have asked if I could pay more for wind generated electricity. No they say. I would prefer that to mountain capping, oil spills(with chaemical coverups), gas frackers covering the terrain, & injection wells disposing of chemical waste. We are in the middle of all these options literally. I don't want any ones baby born with birth defects from coal plant emissions, drinking contaminated water, breathing nasty air or eating yuck-o-fish. As for the birds, we believe small scale, closer sourced combos of wind & solar should be opted for by those who can.
  • Anonymous on November 15 2011 said:
    This is the article on wind that I should have seen before my new textbook went to the publisher. Yes, there are probably some regions where wind power makes sense, and in those regions it should be used. But if you take the sad case of Sweden, for ideological reasons the intention is to employ it in situations where it is at a clear disadvantage to nuclear and hydro.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News