Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

House Passes Renewable Tax Credit Bill

February 28, 2008 | 32 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Washington, D.C. [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax of 2008 (H.R. 5351) on Wednesday. The final vote was 236-182, with 11 members of the house not voting, and was largely split along party lines.

House Democrats spoke out in favor of the bill, saying that it will help push the U.S. toward energy independence. On the other side of the aisle, House Republicans spoke out against the bill, saying that it will do nothing more than single out America's domestic oil industry with higher taxes that will hurt the economy and the pocket books of consumers.

"Let's innovate, not mandate, and that's exactly what this legislation is about — providing the incentives for the private sector to lead our nation to energy independence," said Rep. F. Allen Boyd (D-FL) in a statment about the bill. "There is no doubt that ending our dependence on foreign oil and utilizing renewable energy sources will make our country and our economy stronger, and this bill gets us closer to those goals."

H.R. 5351 will increase investment in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and will pay for that investment by tax breaks for traditional energy companies. It is similar to the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (H.R. 2776) that passed the House as part of a bipartisan energy package in August 2007 but was stripped in order for the package to pass in the Senate.

"With 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in clean energy investment at risk from the looming expiration of the widely popular renewable energy tax credits, it is clear that prompt Congressional action on the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 is essential to one of the fastest growing areas of the American economy," said American Wind Energy Association Senior Director of Governmental & Public Affairs Gregory Wetstone.

The bill would extend through tax credits for newly built wind farms and other facilities that generate power from renewable sources such as landfills through 2011. The bill would also extend the 30 percent tax credit companies may claim for investments in solar and fuel cells through 2016. There would also be tax breaks for consumers buying plug-in hybrid cars and those building energy efficient homes.

"The bill extends and expands tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances. It does not add to our deficit, but rather repeals $18 billion in tax subsidies for Big Oil companies. By strengthening our renewable energy sector, the bill will help create the next generation of good-paying, green collar jobs and bring down energy prices in the long term,” said a statement issued by Speaker of the House Pelosi, Rep. Rangel and Rep. Hoyer.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power

32 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 32

daniel-fromhoff-77376

February 27, 2008

I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT JOHN IS CORRECT; WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET ANY MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION, BUT AT LEAST IT SHOWS WHERE WE ARE GOING.  I AM STILL COUNTING ON INVESTORS TO SUPPORT OUR START-UP AND GIVE US A CHANCE TO START PUTTING INDEPENDENT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ON BUILDINGS THIS YEAR.

Comment
2 of 32

john-moran-81750

February 27, 2008

I watched this on C-Span today. It was interesting. Congressman Hoyer was excellent. The republican argument rings hollow. Unfortunately, I doubt this will get through the Senate and I'm sure Bush will veto it either way. It will be interesting to see how McCain votes on this since he abstained from the last vote. His vote could have provided cloture. Please call your Senators to support this bill.

Comment
3 of 32

francis-bierman-81874

February 28, 2008

 I hope we finaly wake up and use less energy, Mr. Bush got what he wanted his $1.50 increase before leaving office. We had a very long time to get our act together it happen in the 70's and where are we today. The Government didn't do anthing and look at what we have now. I don't need the Government to tell me  to go out and buy a wind mill, but I do have a Government who has no laws on the books to go green, and get the permits needed to do my part in going green, and when applying I was asked how many jobs would go, I can't say what it was I said. But I did say if you keep raising my local taxes because Bush is cutting taxes I'll be able to keep up with taxes, if I get the wind mill

Comment
4 of 32

gamessier

February 29, 2008

Jim:  The existing grid is undergoing renovation already - no news there.  But NEW transmission lines are required to get remote wind power to load centers.  It WILL get done - just not overnight - NIMBY....Mr. Kerzner:  Biofuels was included in legislation passed in December, right?  As to external costs:  Question:  How will you apportion responsibility - liability - for those who continue to smoke, 44 years after the first Surgeon General's warnings?  And how do you offset the fact that life expectancy is up from 65 years in 1935 to 77-79 years today?             Tim:  Not one share Tim.   Garbage posts?  Feel free to challenge anything I've said.  Or are ad hominem attacks your best shot??

Comment
5 of 32

Tim-vesely

February 29, 2008

So George,  How much OIL stocks did you say you hold? must be alot,the garbage from your posts shows it. Are you sure your last name is not BUSH?.....

Comment
6 of 32

jim-eastburn-75658

February 29, 2008

George, Obama has talked about upgrading the grid.  It is now a hodgepoge of small fiefdoms with weak links that cost the well run utilities and the users.  We need to upgrade the grid to be able to send electricity long distances while minimizing line lose and to balance the varibility of wind/solar.

Comment
7 of 32

gamessier

February 29, 2008

Thank you Martin; I understand your point.  Wind and solar combined constitute well under 1% of the grid's generation.  It's widely dispersed. and easily covered by conventional generators' existing spinning reserve.  As RE density increases dramatically, both the composition and the reliability of grid power will increasingly be at the mercy of those same elements (wind & solar).  We're not ready, or even close, to swearing off fossil generators;  conventional generation, including nuclear's 19% (US), will be with us for a very long time.     Mr. Kerzner:  two thoughts.  ERoEI, and $Ro$I.  For new methods to be viable, they will have to meet both tests.  For example:  Having thus far failed to satisfy the second metric, cellulosic ethanol remains confined to the laboratory.

Comment
8 of 32

martin-lee-65392

February 29, 2008

George The amount of spinning reserve required is much less than people often think, Germany, Spain and Denmark all have high levels of wind power generation and don't need to add massive amounts of spinning reserve to the system to allow the wind generation.  It just does not drop off all of a sudden and forcasting is getting better with experiance.

Comment
9 of 32

gamessier

February 29, 2008

Phoenix Woman -  I share your enthusiasm for RE, including wind.  As we see with Cape Wind, NIMBY rules(Senators Kennedy & Kerry).  And regrettably, much of our wind capacity is distant from the population it would serve, meaning new transmission lines.  More NIMBY...                             30 gigawatts of wind?  If that's "capacity", then discount by 70% (non-dispatchable).   Moreover, conventional generators must maintain "spinning reserve" sufficient to back it up on a moment's notice.  Will that be coal, nuclear, or natural gas?  P.S.  US population is forecast to grow from 300 million today to 400 million in 2050.  P.SS.  We are ALREADY consuming oil from Alberta tar sands.

Comment
10 of 32

gamessier

February 29, 2008

Part 2 0f 2  High energy prices eliminate RE's price disadvantage (my original point.)  Here too, there are no miracles.  Expensive PV is already heavily subsidized.  Neither PV nor wind is dispatchable.  Corn ethanol is a dead end, cellulosic ethanol exists only in laboratories, and now biomass in increasingly suspect.  There are even environmental objections to hydro.Fortunately, high energy prices also contribute to conservation through demand destruction.  So far, that remains our very best option.  Like it or not, we will remain dependent upon conventional fuels for decades to come.  Avoid the temptation to "PUNISH" the generators that actually carry the load.  Subsidize RE?  Absolutely.

Comment
11 of 32

gamessier

February 29, 2008

Part 1 of 2 Global demand is certainly up;  supplies are both limited below ground, and  constrained above.  Only technical ingenuity (horizontal drilling, four-dimensional sounding, offshore, etc.) has slowed the decline of domestic production.  No miracles; just huge capital investment, which comes from profits.  At least that money stays in the US.   Want them to stop?  Fine.  Turn your car into a lawn ornament, and shut off your oil / gas-fired heat.      But the lower 48 are not bottomless wells (pardon that).  New domestic sources required, or dependence on foreign sources (OPEC, tar sands, etc) will only get much worse, very soon.

Comment
12 of 32

phoenix-woman-63139

February 29, 2008

George Messier:  ANWR's oil a) won't be out of the ground for a decade after the go-ahead was given, so it can't help us now, b) there's not that much of it, and c) it's going to go straight to Asia, not to the lower 48.  By the time ANWR oil came on line, we could have 30 gigawatts of wind farms, both on and offshore (great repurposing of old oil-rig platforms!) and 10 gigawatts of solar, both of which would do much more to make us energy self-sufficient.  Plus, if we're talking about oil, there are the Dakota reserves which are much easier to access and are being tapped right now.The world polysilicon shortage will be ending this year as new plants come on line.  Plus, new PV cell technology is already on the market that uses little to no polysilicon and is quite cheap ($1 per watt, comparable with coal).

Comment
13 of 32

jim-eastburn-75658

February 29, 2008

BTW, Pres Bush in a press conference April 14, 2005 said that oil companies didn't need any incentive (tax subsidies) if oil hits $50.  Why the change Mr. Bush?http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/print/20050414-4.html

Comment
14 of 32

g-moser-75276

February 29, 2008

I truely believe that our energy future must  transition  towards  RE's.  Even if those that believe that oil will last for hundreds of years to come, and maybe it will, how are we going to solve the CO2 problem.  Lets remember this is about more than just cost.  I think about my kids children and wonder if they would be able to survive if we had GWB in office for the next 50 year.  Luckly that isn't possible but big oil still has a grip on Americans.  What will it take for us to truely wake up?  Cost, can we not believe that doing the right thing for the planet would be the reason?  It makes me upset to think that there is a huge part of the population that not only doesn't know where their energy comes from but probably doesn't care.  We need to educate our youth on the idea that sustainability is more importatnt than profits.  Who's to profit if the planet is in peril.

Comment
15 of 32

jim-eastburn-75658

February 29, 2008

I was watching MSNBC and Fox Wednesday night when it passed.  Did anybody else?  Both said that this bill would be paid by NEW taxes on oil companies.  To be honest though, Fox did point out that the oil companies in question made over $145 billion last year.  The release by the Dems specifically state the the bill will be paid by a REPEAL of current tax subsidies for big oil.  Isn't this dishonest reporting by the media?  And why?

Comment
16 of 32

paul-johnson-34828

February 29, 2008

George, you are correct Bush called for more domestic but ANWR is a short term fix that would have little effect on oil prices.  You are incorrect that you believe environmentalists are a major cause of high energy prices.  High energy prices are nothing more than a supply / demand imbalance.Developing nations are using more oil and the price has risen accordingly (with the help of a little market speculation).  Domestic supply of electricity is mostly coal driven.  Here, low prices in the 1990s has contributed to a lack of power generating capacity.

Comment
17 of 32

susan-olivier-80108

February 29, 2008

The reason oil is a cheaper source of energy in the US is because it is heavily subsidized. Calling for development of ANWR is like calling for the use of the Grand Canyon as a pump storage reservoir - it would be irreversible and is unnecessary. The fact is that fossil fuels are finite, so it would be a better long term plan to use them more sparingly. And this can be done by complementing the energy produced by fossil fuels with energy produced by solar, wind, biomass etc. And this is where the focus of any energy policy should be, if the policy makers are not too short sighted. As any honest person will admit, the market does not always coincide with a country's strategic needs, hence the need for subsidies and other incentives to get these strategic industries into the mainstream.

Comment
18 of 32

gamessier

February 29, 2008

Francis - President Bush has consistently called for increased development of domestic resources (ANWR, etc) to reduce dependence on foreign supplies.  He resolutely believes lower energy prices are essential to economic growth.   Anger over high energy prices is better directed at environmentalists, who have for years blocked development of new domestic supplies.  They understand even if you don't, that consumers will not pay higher costs for RE, if cheap conventional fuel is available down the street.  If global oil prices collapse(unlikely), pricey RE will falter.   And don't overlook the reality that corn ethanol, yesterday's green-blend du jour, is both an economic and environmental bust.

Comment
19 of 32

gamessier

March 4, 2008

Mr. Kerzner -As I understand it, the legislated goal for ALL BIOFUELS is some 36 B gallons by 2022, of which approx. 22 B gallons is NOT corn ethanol, so roughly 15% of CURRENT consumption(144 Bgal.).  Translation: in 2022, 85% of transportation fuel will STILL be petroleum.  Hence the need for NEW SOURCES, whether offshore, ANWR, etc.  Again, we are already receiving product from Alberta tar sands, and our current sources (Mexico, US) are declining at some 4.5%/year.  Our energy situation is more precarious than anyone in DC will admit.Economics is neither green nor brown; higher prices reduce RE price disadvantage, and simultaneously contribute to demand destruction.  The green community figured that out long ago.

Comment
20 of 32

robert-frazier-76779

March 5, 2008

Actually George, good news!  we just broke ground last year for Americas first Cellulosic Ethananol plant in Georgia <a href="http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/798/" target="_blank">http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/798/</a>There is also one operating in spain.  Its not much but its a start and it once proven in the market for a few years to profit, it has potential to cause a building boom all over.  Kind of like how wind has taken off and had a 57% growth across the U.S this last year.

Comment
21 of 32

gamessier

March 6, 2008

36 B gallons of biofuels in 2022 means that 85-90% of transportation fuel will still be PETROLEUM - and that's based on CURRENT usage.  Where do you plan to get it?  Domestic oil production(lower 48) in decline since 1970; only advanced technologies have held imports to 60-61%.  Most non-OPEC oil producers are also in decline, and have begun to husband their resources.  Given the long lead times in bringing new sources on line, delay invites significant supply woes by 2020.Keep nuclear on line, and build more.  It's the cleanest base-load generator we've got; shrink coal first.  We've already crossed the bridge, and are consigned to safeguard plants, and waste repositories, for millenia to come. Another 50-75 years of generation hardly matters.

Comment
22 of 32

robert-frazier-76779

March 6, 2008

Nuclear is flawed.  Lets not replace one kind of toxic product for another.  I dont consider the benefit of efficiency being cancelled out by consumption because there will always be a rise in consumption, so its better to be more efficient to reduce the amount of damage done faster.  This is where industry standards groups and government need to step in and push along technology.  Energy star and LEEDS is a good example.  Did i pay $200 more for my energy star compliant TV?  yeah.  Does that make me a sucker, a zealot, or a person who wants to pay less of an electric bill?

Comment
23 of 32

robert-frazier-76779

March 6, 2008

Not to Dismantle, but stop proliferating.  Re-assigning subsidies and other funds from our old and dirty tech to invest and fund the transition to the newer clean tech is, i believe the best way.  Just like old software people keep using because they dont want to spend the money on the new version, you have to stop supporting the old version and make them upgrade.  Incentives help in either case.  consider it an upgraders rebate :)Like anything done in excess, ethanol is going to get out of hand. It wont replace gas, only supplement it.  Hybridizing and shifting peoples ideology away from "bigger is better" to "more efficient and saving money is better" is the key.  For a true replacement in infrastructure my money is on hydrogen.

Comment
24 of 32

gamessier

March 6, 2008

That IS good news Robert.  No one can read all these news stories on RE World without coming away encouraged.  But a smooth transition from fossil energy with minimal disruptions is essential.  It would be profoundly disruptive to dismantle the existing infrastructure on which we all depend, unless genuine alternatives are vetted and ready.  Lest that be seen as obstructionist, I offer our ongoing misstep with corn ethanol as reason for prudence.  (Some may wish to see nuclear energy as similarly flawed).  But the entrenched interests do not have a monopoly on scoundrels.    Caution:  Paradoxically, greater efficiency reduces consumption only in the short term.  Ultimately, it expands usage of the commodity in question, as new applications become economically viable.

Comment
25 of 32

gamessier

March 7, 2008

Part IIMy earlier comments about nuclear stand.  It provides 19% of current baseload, and is emissions-free.  If emissions situation is as critical as advertised, coal HAS to be trimmed first, not nuclear.  As you point out, we're already saddled with 10,000 years of storage; another 50-75 years of production is negligible.  Oil consumption 20% higher in 2020?  Thanks for making my point.  WHAT is your plan to produce it?  Oil has a lead-time of 8-10 years; time starts now.

Comment
26 of 32

gamessier

March 7, 2008

Part I Spare me the rhetoric; let's work the problem with your math.  CURRENT consumption is approx 215 B gallons year (gas + diesel).  So biofuels = 17% +/-;  no allowance here for anticipated growth (pop. + usage).  HYBRID count (15% in 2020) = ONLY 7-8% (not 15%) reduction in fuel consumption; owners will generally double current gas mileage, not eliminate fuel.HYDROGEN?  wishful thinking.  Possibly fleet applications only (no consumers), as infrastructure will not be in place other than for fleets.  How produced?   Electrolysis or natural gas reformation?   Using coal, or nuclear electricity?  Either way - still dirty; no emissions cut.  Please don't suggest wind;  greens are already over-committing wind production.

Comment
27 of 32

robert-frazier-76779

March 7, 2008

36 b gal div by 233 b gal (current +60%) = 15.4% of future consumption.By 2020 hybrids will account for 30%+ of sales and 15%+ of the total cars on the road.  as gas prices go up, demand will increase.  hybrids will lower the total oil use by another 15% by 2020.  Hydrogen will take 5-10% of total consumption by 2020.  maybe more with popularity?Nuclear will never happen.  not popular.  What are we supposed to do with the current 88,000 tons of waste we dont have in permanent storage?  and you want to add more?   its a security threat and a health threat for 10,000 years.After the above deductions oil use in 2020 will only be 20% higher than todays usage.  as we did in the early 1900s, we are seeing a technology revolution.  Get off the horse buggy and embrace the new technology.

Comment
28 of 32

robert-frazier-76779

March 10, 2008

ah! what happened to my paragraphs?  i hate word lol Thats ok i stand next to my comments on nuclear as well.  I can see the government wanting it because they want one grand solution.  They cant understand the concept of "little bits add up".  I think it’s generational nostalgia.  But in the end nuclear will be held back.  No one wants to live near it or wherever its waste ends up.  Small hydro, tidal, wave, solar, wind, and geothermal can all be considered base load without dealing with tons of deadly nuclear waste.Im not sure why you’re here if your not in support of using renewable energy.  Just here to humbug or debunk?  Thanks for the debate though it makes me research more!

Comment
29 of 32

robert-frazier-76779

March 10, 2008

Ah you were adding diesel in, got it.  17% is about right off current.  So 36B gallons will be almost 11% of future forecasts of 2020.  I did more study on hybrids and they are going to be a lot higher than i thought.  I show 30% of sales by 2015 or before with a 38% growth rate.  so by 2020 we are talking more like 90% or more vehicle sales.  that is going to reduce CO2 by more than 8%.Hydrogen is formed by natural gas right now in hundreds of homes from here to Japan.  It emits 30% less CO2 than a gas furnace and coal for heat/electricity.  Future hydrogen is coming from larger plants that use biogas from cattle, solar, and later by bacteria.

Comment
30 of 32

gamessier

March 11, 2008

Robert -Like you, I'm here because this is where the future is.  I just suffer fewer illusions than some on these boards.  Hydrogen from natural gas?  Well to exhaust, the overall process is no cleaner; and like oil, natural gas is finite, and under heavy global demand pressure for both baseload, and peaking plants.  That leaves electrolysis. Will that be coal, natural gas, or nuclear...?  Nuclear is the "bridge" to the future you envision; it's essential now to reduce coal-fired plants (think China, India).  All US efforts will count for naught if those two countries (2.5 Billion people) replicate our energy history.             Ditto your last.  Let's continue to "work the problem".  No time for rhetoric, villification.

Comment
31 of 32

phil-manke-79191

March 12, 2008

I just gotta kick in my part here. Again.. No mention of what Solar Thermal- the greatest gain for the investment dollar in solar, could do for the energy production scenario. How much energy is consumed in heating things, water and air and materials that could be laid off with solar thermal. It needs to be included in the mix of alternate energy options. At an installed cost of two dollars per watt, does anyone see the potential here? I do. Heating is done very efficiently with the sun, much more efficiently than electricity. Spread the word! solarmankeatyahoodotcom.

Comment
32 of 32

dave-aronson-81507

March 13, 2008

The future is in renewable fuels but as George Messier states we need a bridge to link the present situation to renewables. Part of that bridge can be additional oil if we allow drilling off Fl, the entire east coast and the entire west coast. Neculear will also be in the mix. Your comment.

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!