Technical Report

NREL/TP-500-44344

Revised June 2009 

Economic Development Benefits 

from Wind Power in Nebraska: 

A Report for the Nebraska 

Energy Office 

E. Lantz
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-500-44344

Revised June 2009

Economic Development Benefits 

from Wind Power in Nebraska: 

A Report for the Nebraska 

Energy Office 

E. Lantz

Prepared under Task No. WER9.8501
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following individuals for their support and assistance throughout 

the course of this work: Larry Flowers, director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 

(NREL’s) Wind Powering America program, for funding and supporting this analysis; Michael 

Milligan (NREL) for analytical support and review; and Suzanne Tegen (NREL) for reviewing early 

versions of this report. As well, thanks to John Hansen of the Nebraska Farmers Union for sharing 

the nuances of the wind energy market and policy landscape in Nebraska and Ken Lemke of the 

Nebraska Public Power District for reviewing the final report.

Authors note on the updated report

This updated report has been issued because the prior version mislabeled the equity payments shown 

in Table 2. Data were labeled as total equity payments while in reality these values represented the 

annual equity payments (from operating the total installed capacity expected under each scenario). In 

order to accurately reflect the total equity payments, these values should be increased by a factor of 

20 to account for the expected operating lifetime of each wind facility. Because these data were 

mislabeled, this also resulted in the miscalculation of the reported annual equity payments noted on 

page 16 of the prior report. 

Rather than issuing this updated report with the updated values for the equity payments, further 

reflection has led the author to remove all reporting of equity payments. This decision was made 

because it was determined that this metric is not adequately explained in the body of the report and 

the author believes that removing these values from the reported data will reduce confusion when 

interpreting the results. 

Please be aware that this update does not affect any other totals or values reported in the work. One 

category of data was merely mislabeled in the final results so all other results remain as they were 

originally reported. 

E. Lantz
iv

Table of Contents

Report Summary..................................................................................................................................1

Wind Power: A Growing and Maturing Industry with a Role for Nebraska................................3

Quantifying Nebraska’s Economic Development Impacts..............................................................4

Classifying Economic Development Impacts....................................................................................4

Methodology Overview.....................................................................................................................5

Construction-Period Results..............................................................................................................8

Operations-Period Results...............................................................................................................10

Total Economic Impacts..................................................................................................................13

Analysis and Conclusions..................................................................................................................13

Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................17

Appendix I: Detailed Modeling Methods......................................................................................AI-i

Appendix II: Supplemental Discussion....................................................................................... AII-i

Wind Energy and Public Power Expanded..................................................................................AII-i

Modeling and Analytical Considerations ...................................................................................AII-ii

Manufacturing and Economic Development ............................................................................ AII-iii

Caveat ....................................................................................................................................... AII-iii

Appendix III: JEDI Model Inputs..............................................................................................AIII-i

Appendix IV: Detailed Results for Traditional Low and C-BED High scenarios (1,000 MW 

and 7,800 MW).............................................................................................................................AIV-i

List of Figures

Figure 1. Direct, indirect, and induced construction period jobs from 7,800 MW of wind energy 

construction in Nebraska (For a summary of key assumptions associated with individual scenarios, 

see Table 1)........................................................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 2. Short-term jobs supported by manufacturing and construction of 1,000 MW of wind power in 

Nebraska .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3. Direct, Indirect, and Induced long-term jobs from operating wind power plants built in 

accord with the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report; up to 7,800 MW. ......................................................... 11

Figure 4. Annual economic output from operating wind power plants built in accord with the 20% 

Wind Energy by 2030 report; up to 7,800 MW.............................................................................................. 11

Figure 5. Long-term jobs resulting from operations of 1,000 MW of wind power.................................... 12

Figure 6. Annual economic output from operations and maintenance at wind power plants................ 12

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Analytical Scenarios..................................................................................................... 7

Table 2. Summary of Lifetime1 Impacts ........................................................................................................ 13

Table 4. Capacity Factors and Cost Inputs*.................................................................................................... i

Table 5. Landowner and Property Tax Payments ........................................................................................... i

Table 6. C-BED Modeling Implications............................................................................................................. i

Table 7. Percentage of Project Expenditures Directed to Nebraska............................................................ ii
1

Report Summary

Wind power constituted more than 35% of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2007. Common 

drivers of wind power include Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), the federal production tax 

credit (PTC), and rural economic development benefits. Continued expansion of the wind industry 

into Nebraska would bring new employment and economic development to Nebraska and the 

country. This report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) focuses on the 

economic development impacts that would result in Nebraska from development and operation of 

wind power in the state as envisioned in the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) report 20% Wind 

Energy by 2030. Under the national 20% wind scenario, 7,800 megawatts (MW) of new wind power 

is added in Nebraska.1

Economic impacts are estimated with NREL’s Jobs and Economic Development (JEDI) Wind model 

and include direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Direct impacts accrue from expenditures in the 

wind industry.

A practical first step to building 7,800 MW of wind is completing 1,000 MW. 

We also include the estimated economic impacts to Nebraska from building 1,000 MW of wind 

power.

2 Indirect impacts accrue in supporting industries as a result of increased demand for 

basic goods and services.3 Induced impacts result from reinvestment and spending by direct and 

indirect beneficiaries.4

Jobs values are defined as construction-period jobs, operations-period jobs, and average employment 

impacts. All jobs totals include direct, indirect, and induced jobs. Construction-period jobs are 

defined as short-term, 1-year jobs, and include those jobs resulting from Nebraska-based 

construction and manufacturing.

In some cases, depending on the structure of the local economy, indirect and 

induced impacts may be greater than direct wind industry impacts. 

5

 1 As of October 2008, Nebraska had 117 MW of installed wind capacity.

Operations-period jobs are full-time jobs that exist for the 

operating lifetime of the wind power facility; typically this is 20 years. Average employment is 

defined as the average jobs — direct, indirect, and induced — supported by wind development and 

operations over the full construction and operations period. This period is defined as 40 years for the 

7,800 MW built in accord with the national 20% wind scenario and 22 years for the 1,000-MW 

analysis. All results are expressed as ranges and are based on the four possible development 

scenarios foreseen for Nebraska. Primary variables contributing to the range of impacts are the role 

of Nebraska manufacturing, the prevalence of Nebraska project ownership, and the availability and 

utilization of Nebraska labor.

2 Direct beneficiaries generally include wind energy developers, construction companies, operations and maintenance 

personnel, landowners, and equity investors. For additional examples, see Text Box 1, Text Box 2, and page 7 of this 

report.

3 Indirect beneficiaries include material and component suppliers as well as accountants and legal personnel. 4 Induced benefits are often associated with increased business at local restaurants and retail establishments. In short, 

they include all increases in economic activity driven by increased spending of direct and indirect beneficiaries. 5 Construction-period jobs are inherently short-term. One construction-period job is defined as one 2,080-hour working 

period or one full-time job for 1 year. The annual construction-period employment impact varies depending on the 

length of the construction process and the number of individuals employed. Two construction-period jobs can be 

satisfied by one worker working 2 years or two workers working 1 year. Manufacturing jobs are included in 

construction-period jobs as 1-year jobs because Nebraska-based wind development will only support manufacturing jobs 

during the development and construction process. However, unlike the construction industry, manufacturers may employ 

fewer total employees for a longer period of time (i.e., ten workers for 10 years as opposed to 100 workers for 1 year).
2

The results of this analysis indicate that the development and construction of 7,800 MW of wind 

energy in Nebraska by 2030 will support 20,600 to 36,500 construction-period jobs5

. Operating 

7,800 MW of wind energy is estimated to support 2,200 to 4,000 operations-period jobs.6 On 

average, Nebraska’s economy is estimated to see a boost in economic activity ranging from $140 

million to $260 million7

Assuming development and operations over a 40-year period, the average employment impact from 

building 7,800 MW in Nebraska is 1,600 to 2,925 full-time jobs.

annually from construction-related activities between 2011 and 2030. An 

additional annual economic contribution of $250 million to $442 million is estimated from operating 

7,800 MW of wind capacity. Annual land-lease payments to Nebraska landowners during operations 

of 7,800 MW are estimated to range from $27 million to $32 million, and annual property tax 

payments by wind farms are expected to be on the order of $29 million.

8

Economic development impacts from constructing 1,000 MW of wind power in Nebraska are 

estimated to be approximately 2,300 to 4,200 construction-period jobs

Total lifetime economic output to 

Nebraska is estimated to be $7.8 billion to $14.1 billion when assuming a 20-year operations life for 

all wind facilities.

9

 6 Operations period jobs are long-term jobs that last for the life of the wind facility; typically this is 20 years.

with a total constructionrelated economic output of $260 million to $514 million. Operating 1,000 MW of wind power is 

estimated to support 264 to 515 full-time jobs over the operations-period (20 years) and contributes 

$30 million to $57 million annually in economic activity. Land-lease payments are estimated to be 

$3.5 million to $4.1 million annually, and local property tax revenues are estimated to be $3.7 

million annually.

7 All dollar values are 2008 dollars.

8 Assuming 7% of turbines (by cost) installed in Nebraska are Nebraska-built in the low case and 14% are built in 

Nebraska in the high case.

9 Again, these are short-term jobs. One construction-period job is equivalent to one 2,080-hour working period.
3

Text Box 1: Expected Direct Impacts from Proposed Nebraska Wind Projects

Crofton Hills Wind Farm – 42 MW 

Bloomfield, Nebraska

Expected online date: 2009

• Stably priced electricity for approximately 13,000 Nebraska residences

• Lifetime local property tax payments of $3.2 million

• Work for 50 construction workers

• 4 permanent, direct, O&M jobs

• Landowner lease and project revenue payments in excess of $300,000 annually 

• Project revenue payments to Nebraska individuals and businesses that are at least 33% of gross power 

production revenues

Elkhorn Ridge Wind Energy Project – 82 MW

Bloomfield, Nebraska

Expected online date: year end 2008

• Stably priced electricity for approximately 25,000 Nebraska residences

• Total investment of $140 million with initial estimates that 15% ($21 million) will be invested 

specifically in Nebraska goods and services

• Lifetime property tax payments of $5.7 million

• Land-lease payments in excess of $325,000

• More than 100 construction workers over the 9-month construction period

• Project revenue payments to Nebraska individuals and businesses that are at least 33% of gross power 

production revenues

Compiled by the author from developer press releases

Wind Power: A Growing and Maturing Industry with a Role for 

Nebraska

The wind industry10

The rapid emergence of the U.S. wind industry has just begun to have an impact on Nebraska. Two 

proposed projects, highlighted in Text Box 1, demonstrate a few of the impacts Nebraskans can 

expect from wind industry growth in their home state during the next 12 months. 

has become one of the most rapidly growing power generation industries in the 

country. In 2007, wind generating capacity growth was 45%, and wind energy constituted 35% of all 

new U.S. power generation capacity, second only to natural gas (Wiser and Bolinger 2008). Further, 

in the second quarter of 2008, the United States became the world leader in energy produced from 

wind power (Real de Azua 2008). A variety of factors drive the current high pace of growth, 

including state Renewable Portfolio Standards, the federal Production Tax Credit, and the economic 

competitiveness of wind power (Wiser et al. 2007 and 2008).

 10 Here defined as businesses related to the development, construction, and operations of wind power plants and 

including all associated manufacturing industries that produce wind-power-related components.
4

However, Nebraska’s excellent wind resource — among the top ten in the country — places it in 

prime position to capitalize on continued growth in the industry. This potential is highlighted in the 

recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report 20% Wind Energy by 2030,11 where Nebraska 

could build more than 7,800 megawatts (MW) of wind power in a national scenario where 20% of 

U.S. electricity consumption is met by wind energy.12

Achieving this high level of wind energy development would have a dramatic impact on Nebraska’s 

economy13

The primary analysis of this report is based on the 7,800-MW capacity to be built in Nebraska under 

the 20% wind scenario. However, to better appreciate the near-term impacts that can be gained from 

building wind power, this report includes an analysis of the economic development impacts of 

building 1,000 MW of wind energy.

; and while it is an ambitious goal, such development is not unprecedented. Since the late 

1990s, more than 5,500 MW of wind power have been installed in Texas, and the state added 1,708 

MW in 2007 alone (Wiser and Bolinger 2008). Further U.S. installations have doubled, growing 

from 10,000 MW to more than 20,000 MW in the past 2 years (Clendinen 2008). Nevertheless, 

building approximately 7,800 MW of wind power would require a concerted effort and significant 

investment. Additional transmission will also be required to reach this level of wind development. 

However, this analysis does not consider the economic impacts of building new high-voltage 

transmission development; nor do we consider the electricity rate impacts or integration costs 

associated with wind energy.

Quantifying Nebraska’s Economic Development Impacts

Classifying Economic Development Impacts

Local impacts accrue in Nebraska when spending on new wind farms is directed to Nebraska-based 

individuals, institutions, government, and businesses. Wind energy resources in Nebraska are 

generally abundant in rural areas.9 Harvesting wind energy resources presents a prime opportunity 

for rural communities to capture investment and increase revenues.

Impacts are classified in this report as direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Direct impacts (see Text 

Box 2 for examples) go to companies engaged in development, construction, and operation of wind 

farms. Direct beneficiaries from wind energy include project developers, road builders, concretepouring companies, construction companies, turbine erection crews and crane operators, operations 

and maintenance personnel, landowner lease recipients, and project owners who receive revenues 

from power sales.

 11 This report and additional literature are available at http://20percentwind.org. 12 This is still only a fraction of the full Nebraska wind energy potential. Nebraska high-resolution wind maps show 764 

GW of Class 3 wind is available in the state and 157 GW of Class 4 wind is available. www.windpoweringamerica.gov. 13 This report only considers the economic development impacts from building and operating wind energy. We do not 

consider the electricity rate impacts or the integration costs associated with wind energy. For additional information on 

integration costs, refer to http://www.uwig.org/.
5

Text Box 2: Wind Power’s Direct Local Impacts

Weatherford Wind Energy Center – 147 MW

Weatherford, Oklahoma

Owned by FPL Energy

Power Purchaser: American Electric Power

Date Online: 2005

• $300,000 annually in land-lease payments

• $17 million in lifetime property tax payments

• 150 construction workers

• 6 permanent O&M workers

• City economic development manager estimates local benefit at greater than $1 million during 2005

• Local construction firm received nearly $300,000 in revenue from the project

• United Rentals revenue increased $70,000 during a 5-month period when heavy construction 

equipment was required

• FPL has made commitments of:

o $150,000 to the local school district

o More than $75,000 to the City of Weatherford

o $30,000 to Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Compiled by F. Oteri, NREL (www.windpoweringamerica.gov)

Spending on wind projects also has indirect impacts from supporting industries that are driven by the 

increase in demand for goods and services from direct beneficiaries. Indirect beneficiaries include 

construction material and component suppliers, accountants and legal personnel who assess project 

feasibility and negotiate the contract agreements, banks financing the projects, wind turbine 

component manufacturers, and manufacturers of maintenance equipment and repair parts. 

Finally, induced impacts result from reinvestment and spending by direct and indirect beneficiaries. 

These induced impacts are often associated with increased business at local restaurants and retail 

establishments but also include child care providers and any other entity that is impacted by 

increased economic activity and spending from direct and indirect beneficiaries. 

Methodology Overview

NREL’s Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (JEDI) Wind Model (Appendix I) was used to 

estimate economic development impacts. This input-output model relies on 2006 industry 

multipliers.14 To capture the potential range of impacts, which depend on future developments in the 

industry and the amount of time over which the primary analysis is based, this analysis applied four 

economic development scenarios for Nebraska. These scenarios were derived from wind projects 

under development in Nebraska and interviews with Nebraska power and wind industry 

stakeholders.15

 14 Industry multipliers are derived from the changes in economic activity associated with changes in demand for goods 

and services in the year in which the multipliers were calculated. As such the industry multipliers are based on a 

snapshot of the economy from 2006. Industry multipliers can and do vary over time. Uncertainty associated with these 

results is increased by multiplier variability over time.

The four scenarios cover high and low Nebraska economic impact analyses for two 

15 Industry stakeholders include wind developers active in the state, the Nebraska Public Power District’s (NPPD’s) 

economic development group, NPPD’s renewable energy project managers, and the Nebraska Farmers Union.
6

Text Box 3. Community Development, Wind Energy, and Public Power Working Together through CBED

In 2007, Nebraska signed into law a category of wind development focused on local communities and so named 

Community-Based Energy Development, or C-BED. The C-BED development model supports Nebraska’s public power 

model by facilitating wind power development in Nebraska that is capable of capturing the Production Tax Credit (PTC) 

by providing the greatest rural economic development impacts to the state1 and providing the potential for lower-cost wind 

energy.2 As such, C-BED projects are perceived as a benefit to public power because they enhance public power’s 

prerogative to support rural development3 and support least-cost energy development while encouraging Nebraska 

ownership in wind energy projects and maintaining consistency with Nebraska’s traditional citizen-owned public power

system.4

1 This is shown in this analysis.

2 C-BED projects qualify for state sales and use tax exemptions (Nebraska Revised Statutes 77-2704.57). This has the potential to reduce capital costs if 

all other cost parameters are competitive with projects that are not eligible for the sales and use tax exemption. In Nebraska, sales and use tax is often in 

the range of 6% to 7%. Depending on what is purchased in Nebraska, this benefit could be very significant. Further lower development costs may result 

from less opposition to C-BED projects because of their increased impacts for local communities. 3 Public power districts have a state mandate to consider economic development when making development decisions. By promoting rural economic 

investment and development, C-BED projects help meet this mandate. This analysis will demonstrate how much greater economic development results 

from C-BED projects as opposed to those that rely on traditional development structures. This mandate is highlighted in the Nebraska Revised Statutes 

70-625 and 70-625.01. 4 C-BED projects require 33% of wind farm gross sales revenues to flow to qualifying Nebraska individuals or businesses. Frequently this is 

accomplished by obtaining local equity to finance a portion of the project, and it ensures that Nebraskans continue to maintain a stake in new power 

generation facilities in the state

dominant project ownership models. Two dominant ownership models were considered because of 

Nebraska’s Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) policy (Text Box 3) and uncertainty 

about its role in future development.

Under the first ownership model, it is assumed that C-BED projects become the dominant 

development model for wind in Nebraska.16 This increases the economic development impacts of 

wind projects by ensuring that a portion of the profits from a wind farm remain in Nebraska and by 

potentially encouraging increased reliance on local labor, capital, and materials. In addition, these 

projects are given financial and property rights incentives to facilitate development, which may 

enhance their ability to provide lowest-cost wind energy (Nebraska Revised Statutes 70-1901-1909; 

77-2704.57).17

The early precedent for C-BED dominance is strong. The first two projects to successfully negotiate 

power purchase agreements with the Nebraska Public Power District, since the policy went into 

effect, are C-BED projects. Nebraska wind industry stakeholders frequently believe that C-BED is 

generally the more favorable development model because of its ability to support and fulfill public 

power mandates (Text Box 3).

(For a detailed discussion of the attributes of C-BED and how C-BED projects are 

modeled, see Text Box 3 and Appendices I and II).

18

 16 This scenario assumes 80% of projects built in Nebraska are C-BED. This is believed to be a conservative scenario for 

a C-BED-dominant scenario due to the preferred financial and property rights treatment reserved for C-BED projects. 

Some Nebraska stakeholders believe that more than 90% C-BED development is a likely future for Nebraska. 17 In addition, Nebraska utilities are required by statute to evaluate C-BED projects when considering new renewable 

energy generation. Annual reports detailing these efforts are filed and posted on the utility Web site (Nebraska revised 

statutes 70-1905 and 70-1906). 18 Including lowest-cost energy, consideration of economic development, and specific consideration of C-BED projects 

for renewable energy development.
7

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how large a role C-BED projects will play in the long term. The 

second dominant ownership model assumes C-BED projects only have a marginal role in wind 

power development. This development trajectory is labeled Traditional Development and is based 

on the popular Independent Power Producer (IPP) model that has been applied throughout the 

country.19

High and low scenarios for each dominant ownership model are included to capture the range of 

development impacts that are likely to result when considering the availability and cost of local 

labor, local manufacturing capacity, and local raw materials. High and low scenarios reflect 

variability in the percentage of Nebraska goods and services that are used on wind power projects in 

the state (Table 1). (For detail on the variability between modeling parameters for the high and low 

scenarios, see Appendices II and III).

Table 1. Summary of Analytical Scenarios

All four scenarios are used to model slightly more than 7,800 MW of additional wind power 

capacity to be built in Nebraska during the period 2011-2030, as projected in the 20% Wind Energy 

by 2030 scenario. The ranges presented here may be interpreted as high and low boundaries to the 

economic development impacts. 

For analyzing the impacts of 1,000 MW, the same four development scenarios presented in the 

primary analysis are applied with a few exceptions. First, the modeling of 7,800 MW assumes that 

construction begins in 2011. As such, wind manufacturing facilities are able to be built in Nebraska 

and become operational prior to the large growth in wind development that is observed between 

2011 and 2018 in the national 20% wind scenario. However, when considering the impacts of 

building 1,000 MW in the next 1 to 4 years, it is less likely that local blade and tower manufacturing 

will be capable of supplying significant levels of towers and blades. Nevertheless, the Katana 

 19 In this case, we assume that only 10% of the projects built are C-BED. Projects developed in this development 

trajectory still allow public power entities to capture the value of the PTC. However, this analysis suggests that they may 

not support the mandate for economic development to the degree that C-BED projects will nor will they qualify for the 

sales and use tax exemptions available to C-BED projects. These two facets may limit the competitive capacity of 

traditionally developed projects.

Scenario Description1

Projects 

Designated as 

C-BED (%)

Average 

Construction 

Local Share2

Average 

Operations Local 

Share2

Scenario 1 C-BED High 80% 25% 58%

Scenario 2 C-BED Low 80% 15% 42%

Scenario 3 Traditional Development High 10% 24% 57%

Scenario 4 Traditional Development Low 10% 13% 37%

1 The high and low designation refers to the preference for local (Nebraska) labor and materials exercised during the construction and 

operations period. The two table columns on the right highlight the differences among scenarios in this parameter. In general, this 

captures the availability and utilization of local labor and materials. This factor is primarily driven by the availability of local labor and 

materials, but where feasible, a moderate increase in preference for Nebraska labor and materials is allowed in the C-BED scenarios. 

This difference is more pronounced during the operations period.

2 The average local share value refers to the average percentage of direct expenditures that are expected to remain in Nebraska under 

each scenario. This does not reflect the impacts of project ownership. Percentages are calculated values based on the percentage of 

project cost for individual modeling parameters and the Nebraska share of labor and materials that is modeled for each individual 

parameter.
8

Summit tower manufacturer (noted in Text Box 4) is already producing in the state, and so the high 

scenarios (C-BED and traditional) assume that 25% of towers used in this 1,000-MW analysis could 

be supplied by Nebraska-based tower manufacturing. Low scenarios assume that output from 

existing tower manufactures is not included in the first 1,000 MW of Nebraska wind development. 

As well, for the 1,000-MW analysis, current market prices for equipment and maintenance are 

applied rather than the projected20

All monetary values are constant 2008 dollars. All totals include direct, indirect, and induced 

impacts. Construction-period impacts are the total construction-period impacts regardless of the 

length of the construction period. Annual construction period impacts can be determined by dividing 

the total construction-period result by the length of the construction period.

market prices that are used when analyzing development under 

the national 20% wind scenario. 

21

Jobs values are defined as construction-period jobs, operations-period jobs, and average employment 

impact. Construction-period jobs are defined as short-term, 1-year jobs, and include those jobs 

resulting from Nebraska-based construction and manufacturing.

Operations-period 

impacts are annual impacts that last throughout the operating life of a wind power plant; typically 

this is 20 years. 

22

Construction-Period Results

Operations-period jobs persist for 

the full 20-year operating lifetime of the wind power facility. Average wind-related employment is 

defined as the average jobs supported by wind development and operations over the full construction 

and operations period. This period is defined as 40 years, from the time of first construction to final 

operations, for the 7,800 MW built in accord with the national 20% wind scenario. For the 1,000-

MW analysis, this period is defined as 22 years (2 years for construction and 20 years for 

operations).

Construction of a single wind power plant often presents a short-term dramatic infusion of money 

into local communities. However, development of 7,800 MW of wind would require years of 

construction. Construction-period jobs23

 20 Projected market prices assume a decline in real prices due to technological advancement, economies of scale, fewer 

supply chain bottlenecks, and increased industry efficiency.

resulting from 7,800 MW of wind farm construction are 

shown in Figure 1. The average employment impact from construction and manufacturing between 

2011 and 2030 is 1,030 to 1,825 jobs. Total economic output from building these wind power plants 

is estimated to be on the order of $2.8 billion to $5.2 billion.

21 That is, construction-period time varies from a matter of months to more than a year depending on the size of the 

development, local topography, contractor availability, etc. If the construction period lasts more than 1 year, annual 

construction-period impacts may be determined by dividing construction-period impacts by the number of years required 

for construction. 22 Construction period jobs are inherently short-term. One construction-period job is defined as one 2,080-hour working 

period or one full-time job for 1 year. The annual construction-period employment impact varies depending on the 

length of the construction process and the number of individuals employed. Two construction-period jobs can be 

satisfied by one worker working 2 years or two workers working 1 year. Manufacturing jobs are included in 

construction-period jobs as 1-year jobs because Nebraska-based wind development will only support manufacturing jobs 

during the development and construction process. However, unlike the construction industry, manufacturers may employ 

fewer total employees for a longer period of time (i.e. ten workers for 10 years as opposed to 100 workers for 1 year). 23 This value is the total number of 2,080-hour labor blocks or single-year jobs supported by construction and 

manufacturing.
9

Construction Period Jobs Added to the Nebraska Labor 

Force from Building 7,800 MW of Wind Power

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2010

2012

2014201620182020202220242026

2028

2030

Short-term Job Additions

CBED High

CBED Low

Trad High

Trad Low

Figure 1. Direct, indirect, and induced construction period jobs from 7,800 MW of wind energy 

construction in Nebraska (For a summary of key assumptions associated with individual scenarios, 

see Table 1 and appendix III)

Building 1,000 MW of wind in Nebraska over the next 1 to 4 years will also have large impacts in 

Nebraska. Construction-period jobs resulting from 1,000 MW are shown in Figure 2. Total 

construction-period economic output is estimated to range from $260 million to $514 million across 

the four 1,000-MW development scenarios.
10

Construction Period Jobs Added to the Labor Force from 

Building 1,000 MW of Wind Power

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

CBED High Trad High CBED Low Trad Low

Short-term Jobs 

Induced Impacts

Indirect Impacts

Direct Impacts

Figure 2. Short-term jobs supported by manufacturing and construction of 1,000 MW of wind power in 

Nebraska

Operations-Period Results

Operations-period impacts persist throughout the life of the wind power plant.24

Long-term jobs throughout the development period are shown in Figure 3. This graph represents the 

growth in jobs supported by operating wind power plants as new capacity is added. By 2018, 

operating wind power plants are expected to support roughly 2,200 to 4,000 full-time workers for as 

long as these projects continued to operate, estimated at 20 years. Economic activity from plant 

operations would follow precisely the same trend as operations jobs. The magnitude of economic 

activity resulting from operating 7,800 MW is shown in Figure 4. 

In Nebraska, statelevel impacts from operating wind power plants are enhanced by the state’s C-BED policy, which 

encourages project financing to be structured so that revenue from power sales flows into Nebraska 

communities. 

 24 Wind power plants are typically financed on a 20-year operations period. This analysis assumes operations jobs exist 

throughout the 20-year timeframe. 
11

Employment Impacts from Operating Wind Power Plants 

in Nebraska 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

20112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030

Long-term jobs

CBED High

CBED Low

Trad High

Trad Low

Figure 3. Direct, Indirect, and Induced long-term jobs from operating wind power plants built in 

accord with the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report; up to 7,800 MW

Economic Output from Operating Wind Power 

Plants in Nebraska

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

20112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030

Millions of 2008 dollars

CBED High

CBED Low

Trad High

Trad Low

Figure 4. Annual economic output from operating wind power plants built in accord with the 20% 

Wind Energy by 2030 report; up to 7,800 MW
12

Operating 1,000 MW of wind power also produces noteworthy economic impacts. Long-term jobs 

supported by 1,000 MW of operations are shown in Figure 5, and the annual contribution to 

economic activity from operating 1,000 MW of wind is shown in Figure 6.

Employment Impacts from Operating 1,000 MW of Wind 

Power Plants in Nebraska

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CBED High CBED Low Trad High Trad Low

Long-term jobs

Induced Impacts

Indirect Impacts

Direct Impacts

Figure 5. Long-term jobs resulting from operations of 1,000 MW of wind power

Annual Economic Output from Operating 1,000 MW of 

Wind Power Plants in Nebraska

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

CBED High CBED Low Trad High Trad Low

Millions of Dollars

Induced Impacts

Indirect Impacts

Direct Impacts

Figure 6. Annual economic output from operations and maintenance at wind power plants
13

Total Economic Impacts

Assuming a total lifetime of 40 years (2011-2050) – from the beginning of construction until the 

final plant halts operations – average employment impacts from 7,800 MW are 1,600 to 2,925 fulltime jobs. Total economic output of 7,800 MW from construction and 20 years of operations is 

estimated at $7.8 billion to $14.1 billion. Assuming 20 years of operations, total land-lease payments 

are estimated to range from $547 million to $641 million and total tax contributions are expected to 

be on the order of $570 million (Table 2).

Assuming a 2-year construction period and 20 years of operations, the average employment impact 

from building and operating 1,000 MW is 345 to 659 full-time jobs. Economic output from 

construction and 20 years of operations for 1,000 MW is estimated to range from $868 million to 

$1,640 million. Total land-lease and tax payments for 1,000 MW over the 20-year operations are 

estimated at $70 million to $82 million and $73 million respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of Lifetime1 Impacts

All dollar values are millions of 2008 constant dollars Low2 High3

7,800 MW

Average Employment 

Impact Total Jobs Impact (Direct, Indirect, and Induced) 1,600 2,925

Direct Wind Industry Jobs 840 1,580

Financial Impacts

Total Economic Output $7,800 $14,100 

Total Land-Lease Payments $547 $641 

Total Property Tax Payments $570 

1,000 MW

Average Employment 

Impacts Total Jobs Impact (Direct, Indirect, and Induced) 345 659

Direct Wind Industry Jobs 184 363

Financial Impacts

Total Economic Output $868 $1,640 

Total Land Lease Payments $70 $82 

Total Property Tax Payments $73 1

Average annual impacts for 7,800 MW assume a 20-year construction period and 20 years of operations for a total 

lifetime impact spread over 40 years. Average annual impacts for 1,000 MW assume a 2-year construction period and 20 

years of operations for a total impact spread over 22 years. 

2

Low results represent the traditional development low scenario. 3

High results represent the C-BED high scenario.

Analysis and Conclusions

Fundamentally, it is the investment in Nebraska from wind energy development and the financial 

returns that flow back to Nebraska businesses, individuals, and government that drive the state’s 

economic development impacts from new wind power. Increasing reliance on local labor, materials, 

and manufacturing25

 

25 This analysis assumes that 7% of turbines (by cost) installed in Nebraska are Nebraska built in the low cases and 14% 

are built in Nebraska in the high case.

 and increasing the level of Nebraska-based ownership in the projects would 
14

increase economic development impacts. Likewise, reductions in the local investment and Nebraska 

financial returns would diminish the state’s economic development impacts. 

In addition to the share of the initial investment that remains in Nebraska, it is estimated that if the 

C-BED development model becomes dominant in Nebraska, approximately 26% of all wind energy 

production revenues will flow to Nebraska-based individuals and businesses as equity returns.26 In 

contrast, if the traditional development model dominates, only 3.3% of project revenues are expected 

to remain in Nebraska.27

One factor that could potentially reduce the impacts of wind power development is increased 

consolidation and specialization in the industry. This will diminish development impacts if it results 

in very high reliance on out-of-state contractors for construction and O&M labor. Such a scenario is 

possible if Nebraska construction companies do not embrace wind development or if the 

development period is chaotic with periods of rapid and stagnant growth that do not facilitate the 

development of a skilled local labor force or encourage manufacturing investment.

Such divergence is a large factor in explaining variability between the CBED results and the traditional scenario results.

28

 

26 Assuming 80% of the projects are C-BED, the minimum revenue stream for each C-BED project is 33%. 

In addition, if 

project owners consolidate operations and routine monitoring of wind farms to centralized stations 

around the country and rely heavily on short-term contracted crews to perform unexpected 

maintenance, O&M impacts could be decreased below the values presented in this analysis.

27 For the purpose of this analysis, local project revenues are modeled as a 9% return on investment. 28 This latter condition is symptomatic of the broader U.S. condition. Based on uncertainty regarding the PTC, investors 

have been hesitant to invest heavily in wind energy manufacturing. This has begun to change, but anecdotal evidence 

clearly indicates that sporadic growth is a barrier to manufacturing investment.
15

Text Box 4: Economic Development and Manufacturing Impacts

In Nebraska:

Katana Summit

Columbus, Nebraska

Tower Manufacturer

• Constructed a 250,000-square-foot manufacturing facility

• Began production in 2008 and expects to manufacture approximately 

300 towers per year in 2008 and ramp up to 400 to 600 towers per 

year by 2010

• Plans to employ 100-120 workers at full production levels

• Represents an investment of $20 million

Examples from elsewhere:

TPI Composites

Newton, Iowa

Blade Factory

• In October 2007, Newton lost 1,800 jobs when Maytag closed its 

manufacturing facility 

• Less than 2 months later, TPI Composites chose Newton as the site 

for its blade-manufacturing facility

• The plant will employ about 500 workers at an average wage of 

$13.40 an hour

• Newton, the state of Iowa, and Jasper County provided nearly $4 

million in incentives for TPI Composites to locate the facility in 

Newton 

• The plant is expected to open in the summer of 2008

Compiled by F. Oteri, NREL (www.windpoweringamerica.gov)

However, there is also the possibility that Nebraska impacts could exceed those laid out in the high 

scenarios. Previous research shows that construction materials and wind turbine manufacturing are 

generally more instrumental in driving economic development impacts than where project-related 

labor is sourced (Lantz and Tegen 2008). As a result, an increase in Nebraska-based wind-turbinerelated manufacturing 

coupled with increased 

reliance on local 

materials would cause the 

economic development 

impacts to be higher than 

those projected in this 

analysis. Text Box 4 

highlights the impacts 

that manufacturing is 

already producing in 

Nebraska and Iowa. Text 

Box 5 uses Iowa as a case 

study to demonstrate how 

significant the impact of 

local manufacturing can 

be. Further, if an 

increased number of 

Nebraska’s projects 

utilize C-BED incentives 

or if C-BED projects 

exceed the minimum 

qualifications necessary 

to be granted C-BED 

status, this will also 

increase the share of

project revenues that flow 

to Nebraska individuals 

and communities and 

increase in economic 

development impacts. 

Based on the added financial incentives associated with a qualifying C-BED project, the potential 

for reduced public opposition, and the increased protection from eminent domain, there are 

significant reasons to believe that without future policy changes the C-BED development model will 

become the dominant wind development model in Nebraska. If this occurs, the level of C-BED 

projects and C-BED impacts could exceed those that are estimated here. 

In conclusion, the economic development impacts to Nebraska from wind power on the order of that 

expected under the DOE’s report, 20% Wind Energy by 2030, are estimated at $7.8 billion to $14.1 

billion dollars in economic activity and an average of 1,600 to 2,925 full-time jobs between 2011 

thru 2050. In addition, building 1,000 MW of wind can provide $870 million to $1,640 million in 

economic activity and provide jobs for an average of 345 to 649 people for the next 22 years. 
16

Text Box 5: The Role of Iowa’s Manufacturing in Shaping Economic 

Development Impacts

Iowa is a leading state in terms of installed wind power capacity. In addition, it is the 

leading state for large-scale wind power manufacturing. Presently, there are six major 

existing or planned manufacturing facilities in Iowa which, when completed, will have the 

capacity to supply more than 1,000 MW of turbine blades and turbine generator 

components.1 In addition, out of current proposed projects in Iowa, it is estimated that 

13% have selected turbines that could be manufactured by facilities in the state.2 Based on 

this information, we developed three scenarios for Iowa that demonstrate the potential 

economic development impacts that in-state manufacturing can provide from Iowa’s next 

2,400 MW of wind power. The figure below highlights the results of local manufacturing 

on economic development.

Total economic development impacts in Iowa 

(2,400 MW of development)

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

 0% IA manfacturing 13% IA manufacturing

(current proposed projects)

 35% IA manufacturing

(increased utilization of current

manufacturing capacity)

Millions of Dollars

Landowner Payments

Property tax payments

Operations Period

Construction Period

1 Two tower manufacturers have announced plans to build production facilities in Iowa; however, 

recent developments suggest that one of these proposed facilities may not be built. It is possible 

that these facilities will also produce at least 1,000 MW of turbine towers annually. However, 

potential production numbers from these facilities is not yet known. 

2 Data provided by personal communication with a major wind power developer in Iowa and a 

database of proposed projects maintained by Global Energy Concepts 

http://www.globalenergyconcepts.com/

However, achieving the 

highest levels of 

economic development 

impacts results from 

increasing local 

ownership of wind 

power projects and 

attracting new wind 

power manufacturing to 

the state. In addition, 

maintaining a wind 

energy capable 

workforce and 

attracting new windrelated manufacturing 

is of a great benefit 

because of its ability to 

secure Nebraska 

economic benefits from 

development that 

occurs outside the state. 

However, the 

competitive nature of 

the wind industry 

suggests a supportive 

policy environment for 

wind energy in 

Nebraska will increase 

the likelihood that 

Nebraskans are able to 

capitalize on the 

economic development 

impacts described here.
17

Bibliography

(2006). Stimulating Wind Energy in Nebraska’s Panhandle. Wind Energy Survey Report. Panhandle 

Area Development District. (PADD). Gering, NE. 

http://www.nepadd.com/Wind%20Energy%20Report.pdf Accessed October 15, 2008.

(2008) 20% Wind Energy by 2030. DOE/GO-102008-2567. 

http://20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report Accessed October 15, 2008.

Clendenin, J.; Belyeu, K.; (2008). U.S. Wind Energy Installations Surpass 20,000 Megawatts. Press 

Release. American Wind Energy Association. Washington D.C. 

http://awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Installations_Surpass_20K_MW_03Sept08.html Accessed 

October 15, 2008.

Lantz, E.; Tegen, S. (2008). Variables Affecting Economic Development of Wind Energy. NREL 

Report No. CP-500-43506. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43506.pdf Accessed October 15, 

2008.

Nebraska Revised Statues 77-2704.56 and Chapter 70.

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/laws.php?mode=show_sta Accessed October 15, 2008.

O’Connell, R.; Pletka, R.; (2007). 20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United States: A 

technical Analysis of the Energy Resource. Overland Park, KS: Black and Veatch. 

http://20percentwind.org/Black_Veatch_20_Percent_Report.pdf Accessed June 9, 2008.

Real de Azua, C. (2008). Looming Expiration of Federal Incentive Threatens wind Power’s Newfound Growth: AWEA Second Quarter Market Report. American Wind Energy Association. 

Washington D.C. 

http://awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Quarterly_Market_Report_080508.html Accessed 

October 15, 2008.

Wiser, R.; Barbose, G. (2008). Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States. LBNL-154E. 

Berkelely, CA. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl154e-revised.pdf Accessed October 15, 2008.

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M. (2008). Annual Report on U.S. Wind power Installation, Cost, and 

Performance Trends: 2007. DOE/GO-102008-2590. Berkeley, CA. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43025.pdf Accessed June 9, 2008.

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; Barbose, G. (2007). Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to Build a 

Durable Market for Wind Power in the United States. LBNL-63583. Berkeley, CA. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/63583.pdf Accessed October 15, 

2008.
AI-i

Appendix I: Detailed Modeling Methods

To analyze the economic development impacts of wind power, literature reviews and 

interviews were conducted to obtain data for economic development impacts modeling. 

Applicable information was acquired from Nebraska electric industry contacts, state tax 

officials, wind power project developers, and press releases of proposed wind facilities. 

This information was compiled and utilized to develop the four scenarios considered in this 

report.

Acquired data were applied to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) 

latest Jobs and Economic Development Impacts Wind (JEDI Wind)29

The JEDI model is an input-output model tailored to the wind industry and based on 

economic multiplier data (2006) from the Minnesota Implan Group (MIG). Economic 

development impacts are estimated based on the relationship between investment in windrelated industries and the respective changes in economic activity. Industry multipliers are 

based on a snapshot of the Nebraska economy in 2006 and reflect industry relationships at 

that time.

model to estimate 

economic development impacts of wind power development that could occur from 

development on the order of that expected under the DOE report 20% Wind Energy by 

2030. 

For the purpose of modeling project revenues expected to accrue from C-BED incentives, a 

9% return on equity is assumed in both the high and low scenarios. Revenues are modeled 

as a return on equity investment with a repayment term of 20 years. Nebraska equity is 

considered to constitute 33% of project financing. For the purpose of modeling, the 

remaining 67% of project financing could be in the form of non-Nebraska equity or debt. In 

addition, it was assumed that 50% of revenues that flow to Nebraska entities were 

reinvested or spent in Nebraska. For additional information on specific inputs into the JEDI 

model, see Appendix IV.

These results represent the total economic development impacts resulting from wind 

development. They do not represent the net benefit of wind development relative to any 

other specific generation resource, nor do they incorporate costs, rate or integration, to 

electricity consumers.

 29 http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi.html
AII-i

Appendix II: Supplemental Discussion

Wind Energy and Public Power Expanded 

Nebraska’s status as a public power state has provided electricity rates that are among the 

lowest in the country, and public power has served Nebraska residents successfully for 

many years.30

C-BED legislation specifically addresses the two primary barriers to wind energy 

development that previously existed in Nebraska. First, public power, as a result of its taxexempt status, is not able to qualify for federal wind energy support in the form of the 

federal Production Tax Credit (PTC).

The state’s Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) legislation, 

signed into law in 2007, provides policy mechanisms that allow wind energy to support and 

reinforce public power’s mandates. 

31

Second, the vast majority of wind power development around the country has been carried 

out by Independent Power Producers (IPPs) who contract power sales with retailers 

through Power Production Agreements (PPAs). While IPPs selling power to Nebraska’s 

public power districts would allow the public power retailers to capture the PTC, IPPs have 

been hesitant to invest in Nebraska due to legacy statutes that date back to Nebraska’s 

transition to a 100% public power state. During this era, the legislature gave public power 

districts and municipalities the authority of eminent domain over privately owned power 

assets in order to move the state to public power. With these statutes still a part of the 

Nebraska code, IPPs have not been willing to undertake the potential risk of asset 

condemnation by Nebraska’s public power districts (PADD 2006). However, C-BED 

legislation requires that electric suppliers in the state limit their power of eminent domain 

when they have contracted a PPA for 10 years or more from a C-BED project (Nebraska 

Revised Statutes 70-1909). 

As a result, wind power owned by Nebraska’s 

public power utilities is less competitive with traditional power generation resources. 

Projects that qualify for the PTC are generally competitive with wholesale energy markets 

around the country (Wiser and Bolinger 2008). This conflicts with public power’s leastcost mandate because it hinders the competitive nature of wind power. C-BED projects are 

owned and operated by taxable entities and therefore, are theoretically capable of providing 

power at rates that are competitive with prices observed at wholesale trading hubs. 

Further, as C-BED projects are shown to have enhanced economic development impacts, 

encourage Nebraskan ownership, and potentially reduce costs through additional state sales 

 30 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (eia.doe.gov), the average retail price for 

electricity in Nebraska in 2006 was 6.07 cents/kWh (total electric industry). This places it well below the 

national average of 8.90 cents/kWh and gives it the status of sixth-lowest retail electricity rate in the country. 31 While there is a federal mechanism for support of wind power owned and operated by tax-exempt entities 

(the Renewable Energy Production Incentive), it has remained significantly underfunded and has not provided 

the support that the legislation allows for.
AII-ii

and use tax exemptions, they support public power mandates of economic development and 

least-cost power production. 

Modeling and Analytical Considerations

Modeling 7,800 MW of wind development over a 20-year period presents a variety of 

challenges. A primary challenge is forecasting how the wind industry will evolve and 

mature over this time period and estimating the ability of Nebraska labor, services, and 

materials to capture demand for wind development in the state. For this reason, the high 

and low scenarios for the two types of development models were developed. 

The increased economic impacts that arise from C-BED projects are primarily the result of 

gross power sales revenues that flow to Nebraska residents and businesses. Simply

requiring revenues from project operations to remain in-state provides a significant boost to 

economic development in the state. Additionally, because revenues from a successful wind 

project are required to go to Nebraska entities, they are also more likely to be reinvested 

and spent in Nebraska. Spending profits from energy sales in Nebraska further stimulates 

indirect and induced impacts from wind farm operation. These modeling efforts assume 

that 50% of project profits that flow to Nebraska residents and businesses are spent or 

reinvested in Nebraska.

Furthermore, in modeling of C-BED projects, it is assumed that projects are successful and 

profitable. In effect, payments to equity at an assumed interest rate are modeled as project 

expenditures, and such an approach requires a profitable project. It is also assumed that 

PPA negotiations take into consideration the tax credit benefit that is accrued by wind 

farms that qualify for the PTC. Therefore, the gross revenues from a PPA may not capture 

the full value of a wind power project. Regardless, all Nebraska-based entities that receive 

a portion of PPA revenues as individual equity holders receive a 9% return on investment 

(ROI) annually. Nine percent is chosen as it represents a reasonable annual ROI for 

individuals and small business that may consider investing capital, labor, or services in a 

wind farm. Finally, it is assumed that project developers only meet the minimum 

requirements to qualify for C-BED projects. In fact, developers may exceed these 

minimum expectations with the effect of increasing economic development impacts. In 

addition to accounting for PPA revenues in the C-BED model, a moderately increased 

reliance on local materials and services is incorporated.32

 32 This is due to the more active participation of local stakeholders and the potential for local ownership that 

may exercise a preference for local labor. However, in cases where private developers already utilize all 

available in-state resources, labor, and materials, this extra boost to local economies may not occur simply 

because the skills and resources do not exist. One possible example here is in consideration of turbine 

availability. In the current world of wind turbine scarcity, Nebraska developers may secure turbines from any 

company that can deliver them. However, in a less scarce turbine supply scenario, which we envision as the 

industry matures, developers may prefer Nebraska-manufactured equipment to reduce transportation costs. 

Nevertheless, if all Nebraska-manufactured equipment is directed elsewhere, neither C-BED projects nor 

traditionally developed projects will be capable of procuring locally manufactured equipment and therefore 
AII-iii

Constants throughout all scenarios include property tax payments and landowner leases. In 

addition, manufacturing tends to be correlated with demand for wind turbines rather than a 

specific development model. As a result, the high and low manufacturing parameters are 

the same in both the traditional and C-BED development models. During the O&M period, 

both the high scenarios rely 100% on local labor. Generally, the high O&M scenarios are 

similar because experience suggests that when feasible, even corporately developed and 

owned projects utilize as much local labor and materials as possible, simply because it is 

economically efficient. As a result, it is assumed that those materials that cannot be 

procured locally by corporate developers are unlikely to be procured by C-BED projects 

simply because they are unlikely to be available from local vendors. This includes services 

such as insurance or specialized wind turbine tools and parts. For additional information in 

regards to modeling inputs, see Appendix III.

Manufacturing and Economic Development

In Iowa, wind-turbine-related manufacturing is already producing large economic impacts. 

In contrast, Nebraska is only now beginning to experience the economic impacts of windenergy-related manufacturing with the June 2008 opening of the Katana Summit LLC 

manufacturing facility for wind turbine towers. 

Manufacturing has an immense potential to increase the economic impacts that can accrue 

in Nebraska from building wind power both in Nebraska and the surrounding region. A few 

of the primary manufacturing opportunities include wind turbine blade manufacturing, 

tower manufacturing, and drive train assembly. These three categories of development 

represent the types of manufacturing facilities that have been rapidly expanding in Iowa, 

Colorado, and elsewhere. Iowa is expected to provide each of these specific services in the 

near future and has virtually achieved a full supply chain of major wind turbine 

components. In addition, wind turbines (especially the drivetrains) consist of numerous 

subcomponents, including bearings, gearboxes, and power generators (each consisting of 

multiple machined subcomponents). As a result, the opportunity for wind turbine 

manufacturing presents an array of possibilities.

Caveat

This analysis is based on the construction of a specific capacity of wind power in Nebraska. 

Fundamentally, this analysis only applies if this development occurs. Developing this 

magnitude of wind power may require new policy, at either the state or federal level, and is 

very likely to require new transmission. No presumptions or recommendations about how 

to achieve this specific installation capacity are made. These results merely represent what 

is estimated to be the impacts if Nebraska builds this specific volume of wind power. Any 

changes or deviations from the actual inputs summarized in Appendix IV will change the 

results.

 no differences will exist in this parameter regardless of preferences for or against Nebraska-based 

manufacturing.
AIII-i

Appendix III: JEDI Model Inputs

Table 4. Capacity Factors and Cost Inputs*

Capital Costs 

(2008 $)

Capacity 

Factor

O&M Cost 

$/kW (2008$)

2012 1717 42.2% 24.86

2014 1717 43.3% 25.25

2016 1675 43.8% 23.97

2018 1675 44.1% 24.05

2020 1632 44.1% 22.85

2022 1632 44.1% 22.85

2024 1632 44.1% 22.85

2026 1632 44.1% 22.85

2028 1632 44.1% 22.85

2030 1546 44.1% 22.24

*All cost values are 2008 dollars and are derived from O'Connell 

and Pletka 2007; O&M costs include fixed and variable costs

Table 5. Landowner and Property Tax Payments

Table 6. C-BED Modeling Implications

Low (2008 $/MW) High (2008 $/MW)

Property Tax ($/MW) 3,648 3,648

Landowner Lease Payments ($/MW) 3,500 4,100

Traditional 

Development C-BED Projects

Development that Qualifies as C-BED 10% 80%

Assumed C-BED Project Rate of Return 9% 9%

Percentage of PPA Gross Revenues to 

Qualifying Nebraska Entities 33% 33%
AIII-ii

Table 7. Percentage of Project Expenditures Directed to Nebraska

Traditional Development Model C-BED Development Model

Low High Low High

Construction Materials

Raw Materials 65% 95% 80% 100%

Transformer 0% 0% 0% 0%

Electrical Supplies 10% 50% 30% 70%

HV Line Extension 10% 50% 30% 70%

Construction Labor

Foundation 100% 100% 100% 100%

Turbine Assembly and Erection 30% 80% 60% 90%

Electrical 30% 50% 50% 70%

Management 10% 40% 60% 80%

Turbine Equipment and Manufacturing

Turbine 0% 0% 0% 0%

Blades 15% 35% 15% 35%

Towers 25% 50% 25% 50%

Other Construction Costs

HV Sub/Interconnection 80% 100% 80% 100%

Engineering 15% 50% 30% 70%

Legal Services 50% 75% 75% 100%

Land Easements 100% 100% 100% 100%

Site Certificate/Permitting 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percentage of Total Construction Investment 

that Remains in Nebraska 13.4% 23.8% 15.1% 24.9%

O&M Personnel

Field Salaries 80% 100% 80% 100%

Administrative 50% 100% 75% 100%

Management 80% 100% 100% 100%

O&M Materials

Vehicles 100% 100% 100% 100%

Misc. Services 50% 80% 60% 80%

Fees & Licenses 100% 100% 100% 100%

Utilities 100% 100% 100% 100%

Insurance 0% 0% 0% 0%

Transport Fuel 100% 100% 100% 100%

Tools and Basic Supplies 30% 70% 40% 70%

Spare Parts 0% 6% 0% 9%

Percentage of Total O&M Spending that 

Remains in Nebraska 36.6% 57.1% 42.0% 57.5%
AIV-i

Appendix IV: Detailed Results for Traditional Low and C-BED High 

scenarios (1,000 MW and 7,800 MW)

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Nebraska – Economic Impacts 

from 1,000 MW of new wind development (Traditional Low Scenario)

Payments to Landowners: 

• $3.5 million/yr

Local Property Tax Revenue:

• $3.7million/yr

Construction Phase:

• 1,228 short-term jobs

• $150 million to local economies

Operational Phase:

• 141 long-term jobs

• $18 million/yr to local 

economies

Construction Phase:

• 1,088 short-term jobs

• $109 million to local 

economies

Operational Phase:

• 122 long-term jobs

• $13 million/yr to local 

economies

Wind energy’s economic “ripple effect”

Construction Phase = 1-2 years

Operational Phase = 20+ years

Total economic benefit = 

$868 million

Local jobs during 

construction = 2,316

Local long-term jobs = 

264

Direct Impacts Indirect & 

Induced Impacts

Totals 

(construction + 20yrs)
AIV-ii

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Nebraska – Economic Impacts 

from 1,000 MW of new wind development (C-BED High Scenario)

Payments to Landowners: 

• $4.1 million/yr

Local Property Tax Revenue:

• $3.7million/yr

Construction Phase:

• 2,177 short-term jobs

• $308 million to local economies

Operational Phase:

•290 long-term jobs

• $32.5 million/yr to local 

economies

Construction Phase:

• 2,021 short-term jobs

• $206 million to local 

economies

Operational Phase:

• 226 long-term jobs

• $24 million/yr to local 

economies

Wind energy’s economic “ripple effect”

Construction Phase = 1-2 years

Operational Phase = 20+ years

Total economic benefit = 

$1.6 billion

Local jobs during 

construction = 4,199

Local long-term jobs = 

515

Direct Impacts Indirect & 

Induced Impacts

Totals 

(construction + 20yrs)
AIV-iii

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Nebraska – Economic Impacts 

from 7,800 MW of new wind development (Traditional Low Scenario)

Payments to Landowners: 

• $27 million/yr

Local Property Tax Revenue:

• $28 million/yr

Construction Phase:

• 10,301 short-term jobs

• $1.7 billion to local economies

Operational Phase:

• 1,166 long-term jobs

• $144 million/yr to local 

economies

Construction Phase:

• 10,325 short-term jobs

• $1.1 billion to local 

economies

Operational Phase:

• 1,005 long-term jobs

• $106 million/yr to local 

economies

Wind energy’s economic “ripple effect”

Construction Phase = 1-2 years

Operational Phase = 20+ years

Total economic benefit = 

$7.8 billion

Local jobs during 

construction = 20,626

Local long-term jobs = 

2,171

Direct Impacts Indirect & 

Induced Impacts

Totals 

(construction + 20yrs)
AIV-iv

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Nebraska – Economic Impacts 

from 7,800 MW of new wind development (C-BED High Scenario)

Payments to Landowners: 

• $32 million/yr

Local Property Tax Revenue:

• $28 million/yr

Construction Phase:

• 17,795 short-term jobs

• $3.2 billion to local economies

Operational Phase:

• 2,269 long-term jobs

• $255 million/yr to local 

economies

Construction Phase:

• 18,713 short-term jobs

• $2.0 billion to local 

economies

Operational Phase:

• 1,769 long-term jobs

• $188 million/yr to local 

economies

Wind energy’s economic “ripple effect”

Construction Phase = 1-2 years

Operational Phase = 20+ years

Total economic benefit = 

$14.1 billion

Local jobs during 

construction = 36,508

Local long-term jobs = 

4,038

Direct Impacts Indirect & 

Induced Impacts

Totals 

(construction + 20yrs)
F1147-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

Revised June 2009

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Economic Development Benefits from Wind Energy in Nebraska: 

A Report for the Nebraska Energy Office (Revision)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

E. Lantz

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-500-44344

5e. TASK NUMBER

WER9.8501

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-500-44344

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This report focuses on the economic development impacts estimated from building and operating 7,800 MW of new 

wind power in Nebraska. This level of development is on the scale envisioned in the Department of Energy (DOE) 

report 20% Wind Energy by 2030. A practical first step to building 7,800 of wind is completing 1,000 MW. We also 

include the estimated economic impacts to Nebraska from building 1,000 MW of wind power.

Our primary analysis indicates that the development and construction of approximately 7,800 MW of wind energy in 

Nebraska by 2030 will support 20,600 to 36,500 annual full-time equivalents (AFTE). In addition, operating the full 

7,800 MW of wind energy could support roughly 2,000 to 4,000 full-time workers throughout the operating life of the 

wind facilities (LFTE). Nebraska’s economy is estimated to see an average annual boost in economic activity ranging 

from $140 million to $260 million solely from construction and development related activities between 2011 and 2030. 

An additional boost of $250 - $442 million annually is estimated from operating 7,800 MW of wind capacity.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

wind energy; economic development; economic development benefits; Nebraska; jobs; JEDI; Jobs and Economic 

Development Impacts model 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18