BOSTON (AP) — 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.

Also, 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 also 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.

Cape Wind has sold about three-quarters of its planned power output to two local utilities and aims to be producing power for homes and businesses in Massachusetts by 2015.

First, it must continue to lock down what financing it has and get more of it.

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 also said meeting the 5 percent costs milestone doesn't even 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.

"The rules are out there. You need to satisfy them, but there are different ways of doing it," he said.

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.

It may be a steeper climb for Cape Wind to secure more than $2 billion in financing by year's end to meet the conditions of the Danish pension fund PensionDanmark's $200 million investment.

Even if PensionDanmark comes through with a commitment, the project appears well short of the needed financing, said Parker. Cape Wind is pursuing a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, but it's unknown when a decision will be made.

Parker said she doubts Cape Wind can be financed without it.

Also, 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 also 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.

Cape Wind has sold about three-quarters of its planned power output to two local utilities and aims to be producing power for homes and businesses in Massachusetts by 2015.

First, it must continue to lock down what financing it has and get more of it.

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 also said meeting the 5 percent costs milestone doesn't even 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.

"The rules are out there. You need to satisfy them, but there are different ways of doing it," he said.

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.

It may be a steeper climb for Cape Wind to secure more than $2 billion in financing by year's end to meet the conditions of the Danish pension fund PensionDanmark's $200 million investment.

Even if PensionDanmark comes through with a commitment, the project appears well short of the needed financing, said Parker. Cape Wind is pursuing a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, but it's unknown when a decision will be made.

Parker said she doubts Cape Wind can be financed without it.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Top Renewable Energy Sources

    Renewable energy made up 9 percent of all energy consumed in 2011, according to the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>, and that number is <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2013).pdf">predicted to grow throughout the next decade</a>. Here's a breakdown of the top sources of renewable energy in the country, from wind to water and everything in between. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Solar Power - 2 Percent

    Solar power and photovoltaic cells make up the smallest percentage of U.S. renewable energy production, but its future looks fairly promising. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/warren-buffett-solar-power_n_2398816.html">invested $2.5 billion in Calif. solar company SunPower</a> earlier this year. Also, unlike other sources of renewables, energy can also be generated by small-scale solar installations (like on the rooftop of a home or business), and<a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8570"> declining costs</a> have made solar much more affordable. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Geothermal - 2 Percent

    Geothermal power captures naturally occurring heat from the earth to turn it into power. The renewable source is geographically dependent, <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3970">but the Western half of the U.S.</a> has many promising locations for power plants, <a href="http://www.geysers.com/">like The Geysers in Calif.</a>, the largest geothermal power plant in the world. The U.S. is the largest producer of geothermal power on the planet, but growth hasn't kept up with wind or solar development in recent years. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Waste - 5 Percent

    Believe it or not, burned garbage accounts for 5 percent of all renewable energy created in the U.S. each year. More than 29 million tons of municipal solid waste was burned in 2010 to create steam to spin turbines and generate power, <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7990"> and there are more than 75</a> waste-to-energy plants in the country. Emissions regulations have been in place at waste incineration plants since the 1960s, but the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ncer/publications/research_results_needs/combustionEmmissionsReport.pdf">EPA warned in a 2006 report that the toxins released</a> during the process could pose a serious environmental risk if not strictly enforced. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Wind - 13 Percent

    The amount of wind power has grown for each of the past three years throughout the U.S. and accounted for the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9931">largest growth in capacity</a> of any energy resource in the country last year. Wind turbines now supply more than <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-utilities-windpower-usa-idUSBRE89I0TX20121019">50,000 megawatts a year,</a> enough to power 13 million homes, according to Reuters. Federal tax credits, which were set to expire at the end of 2012, have made wind farms an attractive form of renewable energy. Congress <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davelevitan/2013/01/02/wind-power-tax-credit-survives-fiscal-cliff-deal/">approved an extension of the credits</a> through the end of 2013. After production, wind turbines are net zero, meaning they require no energy and produce no emissions. The only problematic thing generated in some cases other than clean power has been <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/wind-power-noise-pollution-maine_n_866182.html">a whole lot of noise</a>. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Biofuel - 21 Percent

    Biofuels, like ethanol, are created from organic matter like corn or soybeans. Gasoline in the U.S. contains 9 percent of the resource by federal mandate under the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm">Renewable Fuel Standard program,</a> and more than <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/us-should-change-biofuel-_n_1764735.html">40 percent of the corn crop</a> last year was turned into biofuel. The resource is slightly more unstable than other renewables because it depends on the productivity of farms - <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/us-should-change-biofuel-_n_1764735.html">drought or other environmental problems</a> can significantly lower yields and increase prices. On average, <a href="http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html">ethanol has 20 percent fewer emissions</a> than traditional gasoline but some types, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol">cellulosic ethanol,</a> cut greenhouse gas emissions more than 85 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Wood - 22 Percent

    Timber accounts for nearly a quarter of all renewable energy created in the country. <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/10/121022-wood-for-heating/">Rising energy costs </a>have led to an upswing in wood burning over the past decade, and nearly <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/winterfuels.cfm">20 percent of New England homes </a>use wood for heating, according to a National Geographic report. Although it may be a cheaper alternative, wood burning stoves and fireplaces<a href="http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/energyefficiency.html"> release more emissions of fine particles </a> than other home heating methods, according to the EPA. Burning <a href="http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/bestburn.html">good wood in an efficient burner</a> lowers toxic emissions and lost energy. Oh, and always have working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors handy. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • Hydroelectric - 35 Percent

    Almost all of the current hydroelectric power plants in the U.S. were <a href="http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/hydropower.cfm">built before the mid-1970's</a>, but it's still the highest producing renewable energy source in the country. In 2011, 8 percent of all power created in the U.S. came from hydroelectric sources, but it's also one of the most geographically dependent sources of energy. The Pacific Northwest gets more than half of all power via hydroelectric due to prime geography. <em>Information courtesy of the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.cfm">U.S. Energy Information Agency</a>.</em>

  • How To Really Go Renewable

    Watch this TED talk on the missing link in the future of renewable energy.