Photo Credit: Architect of the Capitol
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (33) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
December 5, 2007

Energy Bill Update: A Washington Insider's View

Scott Sklar gives a comprehensive overview of the House Energy Bill
Washington, D.C. [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The Congressional Democratic leadership will soon bring to the floor a comprehensive set of policies to drive clean energy into the coming decades which face the risk of a presidential veto by including $21 billion in tax incentives paid for by repealing oil and gas industry subsidies.

So this is a game of "chicken" with the White House and some key Republicans who are spearheading the interests, primarily, of the electric utilities and fossil energy industries lobbying vociferously against these provisions.

The proposals, not yet firmed at this writing, extend the Production Tax Credit placed-in-service date for the Section 45 renewable energy production tax credit for four years (through December 31, 2012) for qualifying facilities: wind; closed-loop biomass; open-loop biomass; geothermal; small irrigation hydropower; landfill gas; and trash combustion facilities. It also includes a new category of qualifying facilities — those that generate electricity from marine renewables (e.g., waves and tides). The package caps the aggregate amount of tax credits that can be earned for qualifying facilities placed in service after December 31, 2008 to an amount that has a present value equal to 35% of the facility's cost. The proposal is estimated to cost $6.6 billion over 10 years.

Business solar, fuel cell, and microturbine investment tax credits are also extended. The 30% investment tax credit for solar and fuel cells, and the 10% credit for microturbines is extended for eight years (through December 31, 2016) and creates a new 10% investment tax credit for combined heat and power property. The package also increases the cap on fuel cell credits from $500 per half kilowatt hour to $1,500. The proposal is estimated to cost $602 million over 10 years.

Residential energy-efficient property is extended for six years (through December 31, 2014) and modifies the personal tax credit for residential solar electric, solar water heating, and fuel cell property. The modification raises the cap on the credit for solar electric property to $4,000. The proposal also adds a new 30% personal credit for residential wind property capped at $4,000. The proposal is estimated to cost $317 million over 10 years.

The Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) has new language that still requires a 15% RPS by 2020, with utilities allowed to meet up to 27% of that overall requirement with 4 of the 15 percent utilizing energy efficiency. The cost cap is lowered to 2.5 cents (from 3 cents in the House-passed Udall amendment). Municipal utilities and co-ops are still exempt.

The Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) package authorizes $2 billion for CREBs to be allocated equally among rural electric cooperatives, public power and governments for funding of section 45 eligible projects. The proposal is estimated to cost $550 million over 10 years.

Conservation and Energy Efficiency also has bond programs. The Conservation Tax Credit Bond package establishes a new category of tax credit bonds for green community programs and initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a national limitation of $3 billion, allocated to States and municipalities. The proposal is estimated to cost $864 million over 10 years. Qualified Forestry Conservation Bonds programs creates a new category of tax credit bonds for qualified forestry projects designed to acquire land subject to native fish habitat conservation plans for conservation purposes. The proposal is estimated to cost $161 million over 10 years.

Energy-efficient existing homes credit package extends the 10% investment tax credit for one year (through December 31, 2008) for expenditures to improve the energy efficiency of an existing home. Biomass wood stoves are added to the list of qualified energy efficient building property eligible for a $300 credit if the property has a heating coefficient of performance of at least 1.1. The proposal is estimated to cost $402 million over 10 years.

The Energy-efficient commercial buildings package extends the energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction for five years (through December 31, 2013). The proposal is estimated to cost $901 million over 10 years.

The Energy Independence and Security Act would require cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to achieve a minimum fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The first congressionally mandated increase in corporate average fuel economy standards, or CAFE, since 1975, it would boost the requirement from the current model-year levels of 27.5 miles per gallons for cars and 22.2 miles per gallon for light trucks and sport utility vehicles. This specific program is one of the provisions that has produced a White house veto threat.

The Cellulosic alcohol production credit creates a new production tax credit of up to $1.01 per gallon for the production of cellulosic fuel. The credit terminates on December 31, 2013. The proposal is estimated to cost $482 million over 10 years. The Bill also includes the extension of a biodiesel production tax credit; extension and modification of a renewable diesel tax credit: The package extends for two years (through December 31, 2010) the $1.00 and 50¢ per-gallon production tax credits for biodiesel. The package also extends through 2010 the $1.00 per-gallon production tax credit for renewable diesel.

Where’s the $21 billion for these incentives coming from? The following subsidies to traditional energy companies: The selected revenue raisers: 1) a repeal section 199 for the big 5 oil companies and freeze the deduction at 6% for the rest of the oil and natural gas industry (raises over $9b), 2) changes in basis reporting, 3) a coal excise tax, 4) repeal depreciation of gas distribution lines granted in EPACT’05, 5) G&G modification (except it to be House proposal of 5 year moving to 7 years), and 6) changes in FOGEI and FORI (package eliminates the distinction between foreign oil and gas extraction income ("FOGEI") and foreign oil related income ("FORI"). This relates to upstream production to the point the oil leaves the wellhead.

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) has vowed to filibuster this bill unless the oil and gas incentives are not touched and the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) is dropped. So this is a game of “chicken” with the White House and some key Republicans who are spearheading the interests, primarily, of the electric utilities and fossil energy industries lobbying vociferously against these provisions.
Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Reader Comments (33)
 
December 5, 2007
The oil and gas industry gets $21 billion in subsidies? Based on the amount of press coverage, you'd think ethanol was the only energy source that was subsidized.
Comment 1 of 33
No image available
December 5, 2007
I wish that I could say something in support of renewable energy that would not get squashed by the greed of oil and coal. If the people with capital were smart, solar and wind are here to stay!
Comment 2 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
I very much appreciate you publishing this important information, but I cannot say it enough: hire an editor, please! Aside from the grammatical contortions throughout, the penultimate paragraph proves essentially impenetrable.

Again, I thank you for making this information more widely known, as that is a great service. Renewable Energy Access is always the first site I check when I start surfing the web. I've been listening to the podcast faithfully for more than a year. I simply wish for an editor, as I'm tempted to write a comment like this for EVERY article on this site.
Comment 3 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
I wish the discussion was not a bash on "big" oil and their profits. If the discussion was alternatives, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I am looking to invest - that means make a return on investment - in wind and/or solar. I drive a VW Diesel and try to get bio whenever I can. Can we block special interest groups and lobby groups? If not, deal with it and find a way to work around them. Make your vote count, but not at the cost of freedoms and free markets.
Comment 4 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
We would only exhaust the uranium if we did not alter the technology in any way - this is not a reasonable assumption, as heavier use of nuclear power would lead to fuel cycles to use up more of the fuel, possibly including the use of uranium in a molten salt reactor- which could also use the waste that is currently being kept for storage in Yucca mountain as fuel.
Comment 5 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
If all of the Earth's current electricity were to come from nuclear energy, we would run out of Uranium in 20 years. The voting on this bill should be interesting. This is a crucial moment in history, we still have time to avoid disaster. The answer rises in the East every morning. A filibuster or veto should lead to sweeping changes next November.
Comment 6 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
SolarDave - I think Senator Domenici inserted an amendment into the Farm Bill for massive funding for nuclear industry. Note sure of its status....
Comment 7 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
Thanks for the article Scott-- I had been combing the net trying to find a summary of the latest version of the bill, and I gave up when I saw somewhere that it was 1000+ pages. I hope this can somehow make its way through the Senate before the inevitable veto. It will be interesting to hear Bush reconcile "America is addicted to oil" with "I'd like to keep it that way..." Does this bill say anything about nuclear?
Comment 8 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
"Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) has vowed to filibuster this bill unless the oil and gas incentives are not touched and the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) is dropped."

EVERYONE CALL THIS SENATOR - FROM ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
LET HIM KNOW TAX BREAKS FOR RECORD PROFIT MAKING OIL COMPANIES ARE NOT OK. URGE HIM TO SUPPORT RENEWABLES.

Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)
(202) 224-6621
Comment 9 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
The oil and gas sectors have for years made excellent profits. These returns will should continue for years to come. However, for some odd reason I feel there are certain groups that believe renewables will instantly replace those profits and the need for oil and gas. This is not the case. There are many products that require those resources, and yes even renewables require them during their production phases.
At any rate the point being is without advancement in renewable technologies (most importantly installed systems), it negatively impacting our economy in the world marketplace. The Fed needs to help industry understand this. The latest Energy Act appears to be doing so. Hence, large oil companies and DOW movers agressively entering the renewable space. Good job, a little push is good sometimes.

JB
www.nrgmanager.com
Comment 10 of 33
No image available
December 6, 2007
To put more pressure on the Washington, we should spread more information about the oil and gas subsidies. Info about those credits should help us understand why Domenici et al are so protective of them, and that might make it easier to get them removed.

I'm always baffled that the oil and gas companies aren't more interested in alternative energy development. Redirecting our tax incentives away from oil and gas to alternatives could still benefit those giants (and all the rest of us) if they would just open their hearts, minds, and collective capital to the renewable sources we must ultimately be using for 100% of our energy soon. It's that, or we will likely not be needing any energy at all - we won't be here.
Comment 11 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
If I may, ask a dumb question?
The very first paragraph of this article... I would guess that, simply put, this means that the bill runs the risk of being vetoed as is, because the oil and gas industry will have to do without $21 billion in subsidies.
My question is... If it passes as is, whats to stop the oil and gas industry from "passing the buck" to the public in general in an effort to cut its losses?
And this is for what? An allready over priced alternative energy that needs government tax incentive money so that the average Joe can afford to put it on his house?
I would think that somebody is missing the bigger picture here by focusing on their desires of the future and blinding themselves of the past.
For thousands of years, human beings survived on Earth without utilizing all of this energy. We are testimony to that fact. After all, the change only happened about 150 years ago.

The Prayer at Valley Forge. Just think about it, wiil ya?
Comment 12 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Subsidies for big oil with the record profits they sport? What an embarrassment. We need to target those leaders who persist in denying the critical nature of the energy crisis we are now in. They are leading us to ruin while a few get rich.
Comment 13 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Renewable Energy fine ! just be prepared to pay more for energy, clean water and the current lifestyle enjoyed.There is no free lunch--in the meantime the US must remain competitive in the world market.
Belt tightening in all respects will eventualy get us there--does the general public have that patience and resillience?
Comment 14 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Two days after OPEC refuses to raise production the US Senate refuses to pass an energy bill that includes provisions for renewable energy (see headlines below).

Note the date: December 7th, 2007.

We need leaders who will demonstrate faith in American innovation and industry by voting for an energy bill that supports renewable energy. We can have clean power produced in the USA, clean power consumed in the USA, with clean power revenues staying in the USA. This is common sense to the American people - why does the logic elude our "leaders"? ASK THEM!

OPEC Refuses to Raise Production
by Reuters on Wednesday, 05 December 2007

Energy Bill Hits Senate Roadblock
GOP aims to strip tax, renewable electricity provisions
By William L. Watts, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:22 p.m. EST Dec. 7, 2007

Email your Senators, House Representatives and others. We owe it to our children, our grandchildren and theirs.
http://www3.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/
Comment 15 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Fundamentally, policies and investment in infrastructure are always good for the US economy. Look at the railroads, water projects, semiconductors, oil, mining, and the Internet. Renewable energy is, at its foundation, an infrastructure change of the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Let's get on with it.

~Marc Bryan
Piedmont California
Comment 16 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
This is for all those looking for some information to support the economic sense of RE take a look at report here http://www.next10.org/pdf/GII/Next10_FullFindings_EN.pdf This details how California's policies since the 1970s have resulted in effective changes in energy efficiency, GHG reduction, and profitable businesses. Some (most?) of these are models for the nation. First a few points:
- energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances resulted in savings of $56 billion by 2003 and will produce an estimated $23 billion savings on power bills by 2013. People spend these savings on other things than energy.
- electric bills take only a 1.8 percent slice out of the state economy, down from 2.5 percent in 1990.
- The CA per capita amount of GHG is half the per person amount of fellow Americans, and less than the Japanese, Germans and British.
Comment 17 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Part III -Let us ask government to provide EQUAL incentives to all RE (including off-grid) and harsher regulations against all forms of high pollutant power equipment used in the industrial development, agriculture, construction, and home use. Examples are power generators, lawnmowers, power tools, generators, off road vehicles, etc.. that are used daily but are not regulated for the noise and pollution they create. Why are such gross pollution sources neglected and why does a remote autonomous home not get insentives and greet credits?
Comment 18 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Part II - All this talk of rebates does not address the fundamental need for equal and fair distribution of government subsidies to autonomous, self sustainable, and Off-Grid use. Why does rebates come for electric companies that want to pay excess power generation at the lowest rate when they charge double or more for time of use rates?
Comment 19 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Why does all these discussions and notes omit the bigger picture? The basic need is to create, with urgency, a distributed generation capability for all habitants of USA (and the world). Governments delegate the definition of incentives to stakeholders who have vested interests not to let the cat loose and defines constraining RE regulations that benefits the big boys with big money and omits the needy and so called lower income groups and those areas where power is needed without the expense of an infrastructure.
Comment 20 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
So many of these big well funded so-called "renewable energy" companies are more interested in aquiring market share than making a profit. Their strategy is simple, low-balling their competitors and making it hard for smaller, mostly independent, RE installers to compete. And the independant installers are the ones who were the pioneers, the ones who drove the market from it's off-grid roots. Those are the start-in-the-garage companies that pushed module and inverter manufacturers to improve product standards and quality. The pioneers worked with the National Electric Code writers to make PV a recognized, respected and well regulated industry in the US. So now that the hard work is done, these deep pockets want a piece of the action, a great big piece of the action.
Jim Duncan
North Texas Renewable Energy
Comment 21 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
STEVE Comment 3:
The oil industry does not need to be in the RE industry. Their deep pockets will allow them to low-ball their bid proposals and make it tough for independent PV installers to compete.
Jim Duncan
North Texas Renewable Energy
CONTINUED...
Comment 22 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
I grew up in Japan where energy resources were poor. So I am very sensitive for energy use. Renewable energy should be used more intensively. When gasoline prce becomes $6, 7, or higher, we have very grave social situation.
We should start building a nation-wide energy efficient, reliable, same high speed train system driven by renewable energy. This guarantees transport of people and goods throughout US even oil is gone completely in the middle of the 21 C.
We should make wake-up call to politicians who areopposing any constructive energy bills.
Comment 23 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Warren - Please document your "5 times more per kwhr" statement. And can someone please tell me what exactly the subsidies and tax braks are for oil and gas. I think we often opinionate with a great lack of information. Some real data would be useful.
Comment 24 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Thanks Jay for pointing out where the buck stops. The customer or tax payer ultimately pays. I can tell you that renewables even with incentives will cost you close to 5 times more per kwhr than you are currently paying. Why doesn't government mandate we all drive a Volvo, it's a much safer car than my Escort Wagon. Go dig out your last electric bill and take it time 5 then come back here and tell me how much that would impact your other spending. We are building great city's with our money in the middle east while we set on mountains of energy right here at home. Of course we all want something for free!
Comment 25 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Wow capped at $4000 for residential credit. Delaware is currently at a $50% max $30,000 cap.

What a joke
Comment 26 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Energy conservation
Just remember, corporations don't pay taxes--people pay taxes.
It has been my observation that those in favor of restrictions, somehow believe that utilities will absorb the costs, cut profits, and keep the price of electricity steady. Electricity is a commodity that everyone needs, and everyone will pay a higher price--perhaps a MUCH higher price.
It would be interesting (shocking?) to see a realistic projection regarding future electricity prices and the effect on the economy in general from the various legislation being proposed.
New laws should be a result of well-reasoned thinking, not knee-jerk reactions or bandwagon jumping.
I don't see any analysis of the downside risks to the economy of pulling out all of those billions in higher electricity costs and investing them only in energy-related projects.
Comment 27 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
More corporate welfare programs,nothing more.
NO NUKES is GOOD NUKES !!
NO INCUMBENTS IN 2008!!
Comment 28 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
It isn't hard to imagine clean water being the most sought after resource in the near future, especially with the potential effect global warming may have on its supply. It's already the most important molecule on our Planet, although human stewardship wouldn't make that obvious. With this in mind, water intensive nuclear power plants could have a much shorter lifespan than todays advocates might envision. No water, no cooling. Perhaps our legislators might consider an energy policy that would provide long term usage rather than short term profitability. Renew; To make new again or as good as new, to restore to the original or a sound condition. Duh! I suggest that Senator Domenici be REQUIRED to filibuster the energy bill so that CSPAN can record, for hour upon hour, the unbelievable ignorance of this elected official. Hey Pete, who's in your wallet?
Comment 29 of 33
No image available
December 7, 2007
Thanks to all of you out there for calling your congressmen/women and senators after the "dropping of renewables" from the energy bill in October.

This house version (in the story above) looks to be a winner for renewable energy.

Senator Pete Domenici (R - NM) should visit a town in his home state called "Truth or Consequences," and contemplate the meaning of this energy bill for the American people.
Then, maybe he'd have the guts to tell the lobbyists for the coal, oil, and nuclear industries to "back off."

I for one will gladly reinstate tax credits for the oil industry the next time a barrel of crude oil trades below $20.

Who insures nuclear plants? No one. Uncle Sam's holding the bag (a radioactive bag)....which means we're all holding the bag.......no thanks.

Coal....50 percent of our electricity. Dirty. Not Clean.
Comment 30 of 33
No image available
December 9, 2007
For Mike (#26):

Your larger point about RE in the USA is spot on.

As to OPEC refusing to increase production:

a: Oil producing nations only get to pump it once, so oil in the ground is like money in the bank. They will pump in accordance with THEIR needs and wants, not in accordance with Americans' "pain at the pump."
Moreover - a case can be made that much of the price run-up is drivn by a combination of factors:
- geopolitical
- speculators
- governments building strategic petroleum reserves
- a shortage of refinery capacity (US).

If the US "feels the need" for additional crude, what's stopping US from opening up Alaska, and offshore sites?
Comment 31 of 33
No image available
December 10, 2007
I sent an email to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) through his website, not that it will make any difference. But it is the best I can do, I think. Besides having my own solar panels (www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg) Most of our senators and congressmen, our president, and the supreme court and the media are all bought by the oil and healthcare industry. This is 1984.
Comment 32 of 33
No image available
December 11, 2007
to: Thomas Schmidt (30) who asked about impact on consumers of repealing Oil&Gas tax breaks:

As the industry is quick to point out whenever someone calls for an investigation of price-gauging, prices for crude and prices at the gasoline pump are set by market supply and demand. Repealing these tax credits will decrease industry profits by narrowing the spread between costs and market prices.

The relationship is amply illustrated by the fact that since this group of tax benefits was granted in 2005, both consumer prices and industry profits have increased. The original rationale for the tax breaks was not to lower consumer prices, but rather to incentivize exploration and new production. This might have been a reasonable point in 2005, but prices have doubled since then, providing all the incentive that is needed for domestic production.
Comment 33 of 33
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Alpha Technologies Garrad Hassan America Inc. Solar Power International 2009 PennEnergy Canadian Solar Inc. Clayton Power
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo