Is she referring to the Grand Meadow wind installation (it's NOT a farm) that Xcel said produces less electricity than promised, has had the underground cables burning up, is having the gear boxes in the 3 year old project's turbines replaced at $360,000.00 a piece? THAT project. If Xcel is learning how to "integrate wind energy" at a "low cost to customers" why are they asking for hefty rate increases despite demand being down? Xcel is putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pageant worthy. Let's drop the Trade Secret status on PPA's and actual production so the public can see what we're getting for all of our subsidy money!

What Xcel plants were on spinning reserve to make room on the grid for electricity during the night? This is the time of lowest electrical demand. What about the wind from all the OTHER wind facilities in MN on Feb 17? How much of that electricity was dumped on the MISO market at a loss AFTER the utilities had already paid the high price to the Wall Street Banksters on their 20 year contracts?

Oh no, using wind instead of a fossil fuel. The Koch brothers are going to be very upset! Better bust out all the FoxNews/ teaparty "think tank" talking points!

Wow! We got all that free electicity! Is that why our electric bill are going up? I don't know how much more "free" I can withstand!

Wind energy will always be subsidized energy. Higher electric rates for all, Big money for the polically connected. It is intermittant, it doesn't scale, and it only survives because of Green religious propaganda. Spain here we come.

"Oh no, using wind instead of a fossil fuel. The Koch brothers are going to be very upset! Better bust out all the FoxNews/ teaparty "think tank" talking points!"

If you looked into the cost of wind, you would rethink you comment. Your electricity bill each month is higher because of mandated wind power.

If wind were viable, everyone would be for it.

Have you seen the reports on how devestating wind power is to waterfowl and birds? Not very environmentally friendly.

I closely track wind power so here are a couple of facts: Best overall generation rate from wind is Texas, a very windy state with 15,000 MW's. Yearly overall average is 32% of nameplate MW's, summer average is 8% because of seasonal calm winds. The bottom line is a lot of energy when you don't need it. The article also touts saving from not having the expense of fueling coal plants, they conviently forgot nuclear which only fuels every 2-3 years. I am not opposed to wind power but I don't think goverment subsidizing both the build and output is right. It makes windmill owners rich using my tax dollars and is a stealth charge on my utility bill. If the real costs customers pay were known we would likely have less windmills.

Every single energy source is subsidized somehow in out country. Petroleum products like gasoline are subsidized through huge tax breaks. Further, do you think we would have invaded Iraq if Iraq had not been sitting on one of the biggest oil fields in the world? The cost of that war, depending on your source, is from 1-2 trillion dollars. Thats a pretty big subsidy right there. Gauging the real cost of global warming and pollution is, admittedly, difficult. That does not mean it does not exist and should not be a factor in gauging the cost of energy. The science of global warming is as solid as the science of global roundness. Get your head around it. So, yeah, we can handle a little wind subsidy if it means not having to engage in another oil war and slowing down the effects of burning fossil fuels.

Any of you naysayers ever heard of a dam? Built by the government with electricity sold (at a profit) by various business entities. That's a subsidy too and has worked well for all involved.

Lots of poor info being thrown around here. Yes, wind has technical problems, just like every other form of generation. Here is a Strib link to a 16 month / $200,000,000.00 coal turbine repair in MN, makes $360,000 seem like a bargain. http://www.startribune.com/business/172394411.html?refer=y Wind is not more expensive than coal when you consider all of the subsidies that coal and other fossil fuels receive in the form or negative externalities. (climate destabilization, mercury emissions, environmental and human health at mine sites, haze, soot, etc) To not factor in these costs is being proactively naive. These are real costs that we charge to the future and our health. http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201303/wind-power-turbine-technology-clean-energy.aspx, As for the rate increase, those are because of sluggish demand and repairs needed at nuclear facilities. So keep in mind, your bill could be less if demand is down a larger percentage than rates are up. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22189249/xcel-energy-granted-9-interim-electricity-rate-hike 7th post and I am the first to cite a source. Get with it.