The goal was to make wind politically "toxic,"...

[badtoworse]

93. Would it have made a difference if I cited the Energy Information Administration?

IER was only citing EIA analysis which I would expect to be unbiased.

My views are based on 30 years of experience in the Independent Power Business. I don't have a particular bias for or against any particular generating technology. I don't have any animus toward wind - I look at it objectively. It's expensive and it has it's own environmental impacts. I'm pretty familiar with it too because I've led the development of wind projects in Texas. We had trouble selling the power (too expensive even with a 1603 Grant, but in fairness, that was in 2010 and costs have come down some since then). The reality is that wind can't compete with $4.00 gas unless it gets $22 / MWh in tax credits. I don't see any reason why taxpayers should foot that bill when it looks like we have so much gas that we'll be exporting 6 - 8 Bcf/day of LNG in a few years.

As far as lifetime subsidies go, they fall into the sunk cost category, IOW, not relevant to decision making going forward. We'll just have to disagree about the definition of a subsidy - wind companies get to deduct operating costs, amortize development costs and depreciate equipment just like oil & gas companies do (and every other kind of business for that matter).