New post on MidAmerican and Iowa wind farm property
tax at bleeding
heartland
Friday, February 22, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Distributed Solar
Saturday, February 16, 2013
MidAmerican property tax - part 2
Is MidAmerican Energy Company paying the correct
property tax amounts at its Iowa wind project sites? Part 2
I wanted to post an update on my effort to determine if
MidAmerican Energy Company is paying the correct amount of property tax at
their Iowa wind project sites. The Pocahontas county assessor agreed to let me
access their MEC wind farm property documents after initially declining to let
me see the records (see part 1).
I received about 80 pages listing construction costs of the
first phase of their wind project in Pocahontas County. The assessor informs me
that these items were not used to determine the value of MidAmerican’s wind
project. I also received 3 simple two page cover letters that MidAmerican sent
to the assessor that stated the value of each phase of the project, those
documents list the turbines, substation, land, and met tower. Since the 2 page cover
letters copies I received mentioned these are actually 5 page reports not 2 as
the assessor mentioned, I’m going to have to check with the assessor to
determine if there are additional documents that need reviewing.
What is problematic to me is what’s missing from this
process. The 80 pages of construction costs
MEC provided the assessor were probably capitalized by the utility and
depreciated. Therefore, they probably should be included in the counties tax
base. I sent an email to the assessor asking why there was no assessment for
the power cables connecting turbines to the substation. Her response was to
contact MEC and ask them. Other items not listed are construction insurance,
contract labor expenses, overhead, interest, accounting charges, etc. land pre
construction land easement cost, cost of compliance with regulations, etc. The
cover letters by MEC to the county do not itemize these costs, so it is
difficult for a taxpayer in the county to determine is this process was done
correctly.
As a rate regulated utility, MEC probably filed very
detailed cost recovery documents for this project at the Iowa Utilities
board. Access to these documents would
be an easy way for the county and its tax payers to determine the correct
property tax due the county by MEC. This process does not appear to have been
done.
I contacted Dean Crist at MEC and asked him for their
utilities board filings in order to help sort through this issue. I also asked
him to set up a meeting to discuss this in detail with interested parties from
the county. I’m paraphrasing his reply,
but essentially, this is the response I received. He did not agree to let me
and other tax payers see their IUB filings .He did say the cost recovery documents
would not be useful to determine the property tax due the county. He also mentioned the documents MEC filed
with the county were from the companies tax department, were correct, taking
all relevant costs into account. I have a rather lengthy email discussion concerning
the property tax ongoing with Mr. Crist and thought copying the entire dialogue
impractical here.
I disagree that the IUB cost recovery documents would be of
no use in this process. The companies’
assertion that the property tax amounts are correct is fine… Then they should
have no problem honoring requests from county tax payers for additional documents
supporting that claim. Their submissions for rate recovery to a third party (that
regulates the utility) should match the property tax submittals to Pocahontas County.
These documents should be very useful to this effort.
As is, a two page memo stating the value of a $ ½ billion
dollar wind project seems like an incomplete amount of effort by everyone
involved to determine the property tax value of this wind project. In fact, if
this process was also used at MEC’s other wind projects in Iowa; they should
all be reviewed more thoroughly.
I’m not going to give
up until I get more information. I find the fact that that the Utility does not
wish to allow access to information and the county initially did not want to allow
access to their information very troubling.
I may discover that this was done correctly. If so, fine. Then I wasted
a little winter downtime digging into this issue. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)