Time ticking on Mass. offshore wind farm
By The Associated Press
Published: Sunday, Dec. 1, 2013, 6:57 p.m.
BOSTON — As it seeks investors, a project off the Massachusetts coast that aims to be the nation's first offshore wind farm must reach fast-approaching benchmarks or risk missing out on hundreds of millions in critical funding.
To qualify for a tax credit that would cover a major portion of its capital costs, Cape Wind either must begin construction by Dec. 31 or prove it's incurred tens of millions of dollars in costs by then.
A $200 million investment — the only one of a specific dollar amount Cape Wind has announced — is conditioned on whether developers can fully finance the rest of the project by year's end.
With less than two months until the deadline, Cape Wind isn't publicly discussing financing efforts. It has yet to start on-site construction and isn't detailing how it can qualify for the tax credit, only that it expects to.
Even if Cape Wind fails to qualify, spokesman Mark Rodgers said, “We will move this project forward, we will secure financing, and we will construct the project.”
The 130-turbine, $2.6 billion Cape Wind project was proposed for Nantucket Sound in 2001 and touted as a large, clean energy source near a high-demand coastal area. It's been delayed by a thick bureaucracy and opponents who say the project will ruin the sound and threaten wildlife and maritime traffic.
Of two major federal tax subsidies available to renewable energy projects, Rodgers said Cape Wind is pursuing one, an investment tax credit, which could cover a hefty 30 percent of its capital construction costs.
But to qualify for the credit, the project must have begun construction by Dec. 31. Alternatively, Cape Wind can qualify if developers incur 5 percent of the wind farm's cost by year's end.
If the project doesn't qualify for the credit, Cape Wind would be left to fill a huge financing hole. And under its deals with the utilities, failure to obtain the credit would increase the starting price of its power from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to 22.7 cents, with 3.5 percent annual increases.
It's unclear how that would impact the average utility customer's bill. But estimates when the utilities struck their deals — and Cape Wind's starting price was projected at a lower 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour — indicated their average ratepayers would pay about $1 to $1.50 extra per month for Cape Wind's power.
Any further bump in price is sure to inflame critics, who frequently note that Cape Wind's power is far more expensive than other energy sources, including more than double that of land wind.
Though Cape Wind hasn't started erecting turbines in Nantucket Sound, IRS regulations provide other ways to qualify as having begun construction, said Arnold Grant, a tax law expert at Reed Smith, which helps develop renewable energy projects but isn't tied to Cape Wind.
For instance, if an offshore wind farm's turbine supplier is doing significant work off-site, that can count toward having begun construction.
Grant said meeting the 5 percent costs milestone doesn't require the company to spend the money by Dec. 31. The delivery of goods from a large equipment contract, for example, can help a company meet the threshold, even the company hasn't paid the contract by year's end.
The bottom line, Grant said, is that companies looking to qualify for the investment tax credit can usually figure it out.
Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a Cape Wind opponent, said the fact construction hasn't started in the sound speaks to Cape Wind's slow progress, whether it gets the credit or not.
“They can't begin physical construction in Nantucket Sound, so any other means of wasting taxpayer money on Cape Wind would be obtained through a loophole,” Parker said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Patriots’ back Nevada rancher; Reid labels them ‘domestic terrorists’
- IRS, other agencies award contracts to license plate tracking company
- Health care law enrollee passwords at risk for Heartbleed Internet security flaw, feds warn
- Del Taco customers mistakenly charged thousands for fast-food meals
- Ohio couple married for 70 years dies just 15 hours apart
- Drug crime reclassification to help ex-cons get vote rights
- Washington’s snowy owl recovers from apparent bus crash, returns to wild
- Fox fires exec who used email to plan aid
- First date in New Jersey ends with him pilfering her TV and Yorkshire terrier
- Automaker GM’s wait on Saturn Ion safety recall took years
- Mauling puts bears back on firing line in Central Florida