• 1 day Shell Oil Trading Head Steps Down After 29 Years
  • 2 days Higher Oil Prices Reduce North American Oil Bankruptcies
  • 2 days Statoil To Boost Exploration Drilling Offshore Norway In 2018
  • 2 days $1.6 Billion Canadian-US Hydropower Project Approved
  • 2 days Venezuela Officially In Default
  • 2 days Iran Prepares To Export LNG To Boost Trade Relations
  • 2 days Keystone Pipeline Leaks 5,000 Barrels Into Farmland
  • 2 days Saudi Oil Minister: Markets Will Not Rebalance By March
  • 2 days Obscure Dutch Firm Wins Venezuelan Oil Block As Debt Tensions Mount
  • 3 days Rosneft Announces Completion Of World’s Longest Well
  • 3 days Ecuador Won’t Ask Exemption From OPEC Oil Production Cuts
  • 3 days Norway’s $1 Trillion Wealth Fund Proposes To Ditch Oil Stocks
  • 3 days Ecuador Seeks To Clear Schlumberger Debt By End-November
  • 3 days Santos Admits It Rejected $7.2B Takeover Bid
  • 3 days U.S. Senate Panel Votes To Open Alaskan Refuge To Drilling
  • 3 days Africa’s Richest Woman Fired From Sonangol
  • 4 days Oil And Gas M&A Deal Appetite Highest Since 2013
  • 4 days Russian Hackers Target British Energy Industry
  • 4 days Venezuela Signs $3.15B Debt Restructuring Deal With Russia
  • 4 days DOJ: Protestors Interfering With Pipeline Construction Will Be Prosecuted
  • 4 days Lower Oil Prices Benefit European Refiners
  • 4 days World’s Biggest Private Equity Firm Raises $1 Billion To Invest In Oil
  • 5 days Oil Prices Tank After API Reports Strong Build In Crude Inventories
  • 5 days Iraq Oil Revenue Not Enough For Sustainable Development
  • 5 days Sudan In Talks With Foreign Oil Firms To Boost Crude Production
  • 5 days Shell: Four Oil Platforms Shut In Gulf Of Mexico After Fire
  • 5 days OPEC To Recruit New Members To Fight Market Imbalance
  • 5 days Green Groups Want Norway’s Arctic Oil Drilling Licenses Canceled
  • 5 days Venezuelan Oil Output Drops To Lowest In 28 Years
  • 5 days Shale Production Rises By 80,000 BPD In Latest EIA Forecasts
  • 6 days GE Considers Selling Baker Hughes Assets
  • 6 days Eni To Address Barents Sea Regulatory Breaches By Dec 11
  • 6 days Saudi Aramco To Invest $300 Billion In Upstream Projects
  • 6 days Aramco To List Shares In Hong Kong ‘For Sure’
  • 6 days BP CEO Sees Venezuela As Oil’s Wildcard
  • 6 days Iran Denies Involvement In Bahrain Oil Pipeline Blast
  • 8 days The Oil Rig Drilling 10 Miles Under The Sea
  • 9 days Baghdad Agrees To Ship Kirkuk Oil To Iran
  • 9 days Another Group Joins Niger Delta Avengers’ Ceasefire Boycott
  • 9 days Italy Looks To Phase Out Coal-Fired Electricity By 2025
Alt Text

Can Deep Water Wind Farms Power The World?

A recent study suggests that…

Alt Text

Tesla’s New Frontier: Batteries And Wind

Electric car builder Tesla and…

Alt Text

The Two Nations Leading The Wind Power Race

UK and China have joined…



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?

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