The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Renewable Energy Tax Credit Legislation Voted Down in U.S. Senate


July 31, 2008  |  33 Comments

A bill introduced by Senate Tax Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) containing a one-year renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) extension and a small wind turbine investment tax credit has failed to move past a Cloture Vote in the U.S. Senate once again.

The American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) senior director of governmental & public affairs Gregory Wetstone said that the failure by the senate to move forward to consideration of the bill will cost the U.S. economy 116,000 jobs and nearly US $19 billion for the wind industry alone.

“Thoughtful Americans, including Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens, have recently put forth visionary proposals to address our greatest energy challenges with an enhanced commitment to renewable energy. But we have to begin by continuing the one major federal policy we have that promotes renewable energy — the renewable production tax credit,” Wetstone said.

Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) said that the solar industries are running out of time before they begin to lose contracts and projects get put on hold.

“Time is running out to extend the solar tax credits and without passage in the immediate future, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars will be lost in new solar investment. Already companies are putting projects on hold and preparing to send thousands of jobs overseas — real jobs that would otherwise be filled by American workers. Failure to extend the solar tax credits is a severe blow to an industry that has proven to be an economic engine for the U.S. at a time when we need it most,” Resch said.

The Senate bill, S. 3335, contains a one-year PTC extension at its current value. After December 31, 2009, any further extension would include the "presumption" of a cost cap, which would, through a complex formula, put a ceiling on the value of the credits of no greater than 35% of project value. The small wind ITC has a cap of US $4,000 per system. The 10-year cost for the PTC, including all technologies to which it applies, is projected to be approximately US $7 billion, while the ITC, which includes solar, would cost approximately US $907 million over 10 years.

The bill also includes provisions to extend through 2014 the tax credits for solar energy, fuel cell and microturbine property, as well as the residential energy efficient property tax credit. Marine renewable energies could also benefit from the bill as credits to build wave, tidal, current and ocean thermal energy conversion systems of at least 150 kilowatts (kW) are extended through the end of 2011.

The 10-year cost for the PTC, including all technologies to which it applies is projected to be approximately US $7 billion, while the ITC, which includes solar, would cost approximately US $907 million over 10 years.

33 Comments

Register To Comment
Dan Attanasio
Dan Attanasio
August 15, 2008
Aaron - See comment #10.
Aaron Parker
Aaron Parker
August 13, 2008
The article says that Reid helped author the bill. Why in the world would he vote nay on his own bill? The voting record for this vote is pasted below. I took it from the U.S. Senate website. His vote does not make any sense. Anyone have any insight? ( I had to cut some of it due to the 2,000 character limit.)


Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Not Voting
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Dan Attanasio
Dan Attanasio
August 11, 2008
The solution will require bipartisan resolve and cooperation.

From what I've read (at Senator Blunt's and Alexander's websites), the "Find More, Use Less" proposals circulating contain some of the right elements, like promoting plug-in vehicles, encouraging a resurgence of nuclear electricity generation, and extending the PTC. However, it's disappointing that the emphasis on renewables seems to take a distant back seat to expanding drilling. A deeper look into oil shale extraction element suggested on Blunt's website reveals that it is fraught with issues. Particularly, the EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) is extremely unattractive compared to other sources of energy, not to mention the environmental impact, and demand on water resources. Sure, there are hydrocarbons in the oil shale. But, look at what's required to get them out.

What is most disturbing about the "Find More, Use Less" proposal is in the name itself. It implies that energy is some sort of long lost treasure that needs to be "found". This couldn't be further from the truth. But because we are all products of the Fossil Fuel Age, this is all we have really known. And, this mindset (reinforced by cheap oil for decades) is largely responsible for the dilemma that we find ourselves in today.

In reality energy is not "hidden". It is ABUNDANT in the environment all around us. It doesn't need to be "found". It needs to be "harnessed". Naysayers claim that renewable sources could never provide the quantity of energy needed, and use current (Fossil Fuel Age) percentages of renewable energy produced to back-up their argument. When you run the numbers, the amount of renewable energy available is tremendous. Harnessing it means we need to apply technology. But that's not the real obstacle. The U.S. became a world economic power because of its ability to innovate and commercialize new technologies. We could do this if we wanted to. Clearly, we don't want it bad enough... yet.
john meredith
john meredith
August 3, 2008
RE: "...a Republican controlled government. "

get a grip, folks! This thread is characterized by hysteria and emotion.

The Democratic Party has been in control of both houses of Congress since January 2007.

The way Harry Reid is running the Senate, very little will get done. The Senate is a place that runs on collegiality more than anything else. You need 60 votes to anything important done.

Harry Reid has made agreements with the minority leaderhip on issues large and small and then he has flat-out broken his word. That is extremely rare in the Senate. Reid has created so much animosity among the members of the Senate the place is in gridlock.

At least the Senate has been voting on something. Check out the US House, where Nancy Pelosi's Democrats passed an adjournment motion on a party-line vote. Now they are on a 5-week vacation. The Republicans were the only people who stayed around to talk about solving our energy problems.

The Republicans are eager to vote on comprehensive "Find More, Use Less" legislation, while the Democrats support only "Use Less and Deploy Renewables."

"Find More, Use Less" would take the wind out of the sails of the futures speculators in the short term and because it includes both renewables and nuclear, it would solve our problems over the long term.

Simply doing "Use Less and Deploy Renewables" won't meet our national energy demands. It will give us $10 per gallon gas before Obama's first term is done. Electricity prices would go up 75% from present levels.

The only factor that would prevent such price spikes is a deep recession.

"Use Less and Deploy Renewables" is a fine and worthy thought but is simply not realistic. 2 Billion people in Asia discovered capitalism. For as far as you want to forecast, global energy demand will only go up.

The existing electricity grid, with additional capacity delivered by renewables alone won't be able to support all of the electric cars Americans are looking to buy.
Joe Wojcicki
Joe Wojcicki
August 2, 2008
A story:
A retiring uncle got an extra $50k into his savings. He asked everybody where to invest.
Around him there are thousands of financial advisors, and no solar experts. But a week ago he read something about PV panels. He asked family members what they know, and what they think about this installation. A young College student explained him that if he will have PV with a battery backup ( an inverter to get AC from DC) he could easily switch some of his house appliances to the energy backup and survive any of power outages as well as the time of hurricanes where in his area outages already were for several days. He still attended senior citizens' - retirement seminars and was not sure where to invest his $50k. The student told him that he will get $3k tax credit if he invest in solar today or $4k if he will do this in 2009. He decided to wait. The family said: if his very sick wife would still be alive they probably already enjoyed free kW hours from solar.
How many retirees would invest (more) if this PTC was extended? The only one "PTC" is USD inflation - the good side of a bad event. Of course it does not help food pricing.
Dan Attanasio
Dan Attanasio
August 2, 2008
Kevin A. - Not sure what your point is, exactly. Sure. Rig counts are going to fluctuate depending on all sorts of factors - one of the primary ones being the price of a barrel of crude. If rigs are going to be operated, they should be profitable. As an oil field matures, it becomes less profitable to operate the rigs. The price of a barrel of crude can dictate whether or not rigs can be operated profitably. Therefore, as you point out (I think), it makes perfect sense that there would be a correlation between the price of a barrel of crude and rig count. This is just one indicator of operations being driven for profitability. No surprise there. The oil industry has clearly demonstrated that it is very good at generating profits. It does this in a number of ways. One is to operate the appropriate number of rigs to maximize their profitability. Another is to take over the White House to ensure that government policies maximize their profitability.

The fact is that the U.S. has had dysfunctional energy policy for decades. It is certainly in our nation's best interest to develop and implement alternative energy technologies on a massive scale. Some would argue that this is not the responsibility of the government, and that market forces should sort it out. Although market forces will ultimately drive the growth, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to establish policies that will enable this.

- Excellent points in the posts above. Thanks to everyone for their comments, and for the informative links.
David Beck
David Beck
August 1, 2008
MMS collected $9.4 billion in oil and gas royalties in 2007, why cannot this revenue from US Oil and Gas resources be fully devoted to a US Renewable Energy Development Fund? It seams logical that revenue from what we are trying replace should pay for costs in development of its replacement.

The $9.4 billion was for 2007, will this revenue increase in 2008 in portion the increases in the sale price of oil and natural Gas? We as tax payers should be asking this question. Will the US share in the increased income from higher oil and gas prices, or does this big benefit go entirely to the Oil Companys?

The US government has to get serious about developing replacements for oil and gas to generate energy. This latest defeat in the Senate is just another example of the US government efforts to maintain the status quo rather than moving forward.
Sam Salamay
Sam Salamay
August 1, 2008
Why can't solar, wind and other renewables stand on its own without these tax credits? You would think the alternative energy manufacturers are making big profits. They should lower their margins for U.S. customers and raise their margins for overseas customers who have an existing bargain purchasing product due to the cheap dollar. Everyone is so sick of the president and the congress and unfortunately we only have an elephant or jackass to vote in. Life is too short. We all know Bush killed Hussein because Hussein went after Bush Sr. years back. We all know Big Oil executives are retiring in Abu Dabi on our money. The alternative for alternative energy is to find a way to prosper without incentives and government intervention. Soon, our firm, Energence Biofuels will announce our plan to end Big Oil without any need of our paid-off government to stop us. And we will spread the wealth to farmers and local communities here and eventually around the world.
Tom Lakosh
Tom Lakosh
August 1, 2008
There's no doubt the the PTC and RPS standards are "subsidies", apparently a dirty word but what they are is a recognition that the full health and environmental cost of conventional power generation is not reflected in the kwhs billed. The whole underpinning of capitalism is that information is freely and immediately available to all consumers so they can make an informed choice in their purchases. This is clearly not the case for power generation and transportation fuels that externalize the cost of pollutant effects. If you champion capitalism you must accept the burden of insuring that all costs, including health effects of mercury, particulates, hydrocarbons, warming evoked diseases, food crop displacement starvation and environmental effects of global population displacement, ecosystem degradation, land submersion, etc are all internalized in the cost of the kwhs and gallons of fuel.
If your a capatalist that doesn't accept the burden of insuring prices reflect the true cost of a commodity you're just a theif that causes harm to others for personal gain. If you really want capitalism to work, we need laws that require utilities, fuel suppliers and regulators to internalize all of the harmful effects of power generation and fuel use. Yes subsidies and mandates for promotion of RE are socialist, but if you step back and think of the regulatory cost of internalizing all of the externalities, it may just be more cost effective to directly manipulate the market with subsidies and mandates.
Barry Woods
Barry Woods
August 1, 2008
A great time to post the names of those who voted against this bill would be in late October, just befor the election. We would be able to justify voting against most of the incumbents.
Traves Ogilve
Traves Ogilve
August 1, 2008
Unbelievable, our leaders offer zero assistance for Renewable Energy while Exxon/Mobile reports earnings of 11.68 billion dollars for the second quarter of 2008. That breaks down to $1,485.55 profit for every second of the quarter. Is it me or is there something sickening about these facts? Domestic jobs are been lost, projects are moving oversees and our politicians have the audacity to identify off shore drilling as a viable energy solution. We the people need to stand up for ourselves, our children and all future generations. The immediate goal; reduce dependency on oil, minimize greenhouse gases and fund Renewable Energy technology. Big oil doesn't want anyone taking a share of their profits and by stomping out funding for Renewable Energy R&D they are doing just that.
Jennis Strickland
Jennis Strickland
August 1, 2008
Single product tax credits subsidize an exclusive group to the exclusion of other types of renewable energy products. It's favoritism. There should be a series of tax credits for development of renewable energy products across the board. In the alternative there should be credits for small business, emerging businesses, and developers of new technologies.

Tax credits for installation of renewable energy systems, both industrial and residential would also go a long way to jump start the market. Utilities will cross over as the cost of oil and gas rises. As Al Gore has recently pointed out, the cross over point of profitability was predicted to be when oil hit $58.00 a barrel.

Renewable energy systems will be the next growth market, paralleling the rise of IT and the internet. Their growth will fuel the economy for the next 20 years whether they are subsidized or not.
Salvatore Picciallo
Salvatore Picciallo
August 1, 2008
This is a joke. Renewable Energy is the only glimmer of hope this country has at remaining a superpower. The amount of electricians, plumbers, HVAC, and contractors that could be back at work tomorrow with the correct incentives for Solar Thermal, PV, and Wind alone would rocket this economy back to pre-2006 glory. Real estate is not coming back on it's own. What if every foreclosure is this country was mandated to have a complete energy efficiency overhaul...? How long will it be before investors start lining up to purchase those properties at 60 cents on the dollar? This stimulus would create jobs, increase property values, cut costs on heating oil and electricity, oh and by the way save our civilization and make it viable for our grandchildren. No big deal. Empires have fallen before, and so will this one if we don't act now. Equal R&D in Solar, Wind, Nat Gas, Nuclear, BioFuels, Battery Tech, and Cleaner coal gives us a fighting chance.

My advice, invest now in clean energy at these depleted values. The incentives will be back in the early spring and alot of Alternative Energy companies are going to experience a surge equivalent to the Tech boom of the late 90's. Our newly elected President will have no choice...There is NO ALTERNATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.
Salvatore Picciallo
Salvatore Picciallo
August 1, 2008
This is a joke. Renewable Energy is the only glimmer of hope this country has at remaining a superpower. The amount of electricians, plumbers, HVAC, and contractors that could be back at work tomorrow with the correct incentives for Solar Thermal, PV, and Wind alone would rocket this economy back to pre-2006 glory. Real estate is not coming back on it's own. What if every foreclosure is this country was mandated to have a complete energy efficiency overhaul...? How long will it be before investors start lining up to purchase those properties at 60 cents on the dollar? This stimulus would create jobs, increase property values, cut costs on heating oil and electricity, oh and by the way save our civilization and make it viable for our grandchildren. No big deal. Empires have fallen before, and so will this one if we don't act now. Equal R&D in Solar, Wind, Nat Gas, Nuclear, BioFuels, Battery Tech, and Cleaner coal gives us a fighting chance.

My advice, invest now in clean energy at these depleted values. The incentives will be back in the early spring and alot of Alternative Energy companies are going to experience a surge equivalent to the Tech boom of the late 90's. Our newly elected President will have no choice...There is NO ALTERNATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.
Tim Carlson
Tim Carlson
August 1, 2008
Not voting for bad legislation is not a bad thing. You can't overlook the negative provisions in an entire bill just because there are provisions in a bill you like. (Sort of like "We'll give you a 100% tax credit to install solar, but you have to sell your first born and make a donation to save the polar bears" type provisions). If they give you tax credits for solar energy, but push programs that drives your food prices up have we gained?

All you have to do these days is look at the comments coming from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed and I think you can see where the main problem is. They control what bills make it to a vote and their agenda is 100% politically motivated. Their attacks on "Big Oil" the current administration etc., are shrill and full of baloney at best. The only thing they care about is their own politcal agendas. There will be nothing passed until after the fall election. Particularily if it would end up giving any credit to the current administration. Think about it.

It would appear we're at a place where the Polar Bear is more important to the political and environmental elite than the rest of us are. As long as official policies revolve around getting votes, we'll have no real soloutions
Kevin Adell
Kevin Adell
August 1, 2008
Mr. Tim Carlson,
"attacks on "Big Oil" the current administration etc., are shrill and full of baloney at best. The only thing they care about is their own politcal agendas."
I am watching your presentation on C-Span. I agree with some of your positions. One topic was not covered. I did this research a couple of days ago because it seemed no one was looking at the nuts and bolts of production.

The Democrats say there is plenty of oil and land to drill on. The Republicans say the high price for gas is a supply and demand problem. I set off to look for information. I found some interesting charts on the Bakers-Hughes web site. They are a company that Provides products and services to the worldwide oil and gas industry.
Lets go back a few years. from 1973 to 1979 the price per barrel for oil was less than $10.
During that time the drilling count went from around 1,000 to 2,500 drilling rigs. In 1982 oil prices spiked to around $32 because of the Oil embargo. At the same time the drilling rig count peaked at 4,500 rigs. By 1986 the oil prices had dropped to around $32. The rig count had dropped to 1,900 rigs. From 1987 to 2004 oil bounced from $10 to $35 a barrel. On 4-23-1999 the drilling rig count hit a low of 448. In 2005 oil started going up as did the amount of drilling rigs. Oil passed $40 and the rig count went to around 1,500. As of July 11th 2008 more rigs have been brought online. Up to around 1,900 (equal to the 1986 levels). The price for a barrel is now around $135 per barrel.
It seems obvious to me that the oil companies deploy drilling rigs when it is in their own interests. It has nothing to do with national security or helping consumers. I encourage you to check out this web site and do the research yourself and respond. When the first oil crisis hit in the 70's the oil industry ramped up to 4,000 rigs. With our dependence on foreign oil growing from 25% back then to 60+% now, how can anyone explain the rig deployment dropping to 448 in 1999
Gary Resnikoff
Gary Resnikoff
July 31, 2008
It would be nice to publish a list or a link to those that voted against the bill.
Chris Podwoski
Chris Podwoski
July 31, 2008
Here you go Gary.

Here is the voting record of each Senator of the 110th Congress on the last 8 attempts to pass energy legislation that contained renewal of the tax incentives for renewables.

http://seia.org/Score%20Sheet%20110%20Congress%207.30.08.pdf
Brian Ballek
Brian Ballek
July 31, 2008
Thanks for that list Chris.

I counted 32 examples of "not voting" in that list. John Mc Cain alone accounts for 8 of them -- 25%. He failed to vote (for or against) for ANY of the 8 renewable energy bills mentioned in that list. So much for "straight talk". And this from the Senator from ARIZONA, possibly the sunniest state in the USA and home of First Solar, the current undisputed low cost leader of solar panel manufacturers (at least until MiaSole and NanoSolar begin shipping serious volumes).

But wait it gets worse! Senator Obama failed to vote for or against any of the last 5 bills. Together, McCain and Obama account for 40% of the times a Senator didn't know enough about the topic to support or reject a bill, or simply couldn't be bothered to do so.

I realize they have both been campaining and rather busy. But it makes me sick, all the same.
Chris Podwoski
Chris Podwoski
July 31, 2008
Noteworthy is the 12/13/07 vote that failed Cloture by one (1) vote. The only Senator not voting on the measure was John McCain.

What might have been that day...

Water under the bridge perhaps...
Brian Ballek
Brian Ballek
July 31, 2008
Not for me: McCain lost my vote that day. That single act of political cowardice cost him all credibility in my eyes.
Clay Hopmann
Clay Hopmann
July 31, 2008
This inaction of our politicians is so very sad! They are a sad lot. I remember the last vote where we only needed 8 votes. McCain, Hillary, Obama and Kennedy did not care to show up for this much needed bill. Maybe Kennedy was sick but the rest should have been there! Again, politicians are following the money! They could care less about the nation just as long as their pocket is full of cold cash. Those not supporting renewable energy should be ashamed of themselves. Our nation is on the verge of economic colapse with higher fossil fuel prices and as usual, the politicians are sleeping with their hand in the candy jar. It's time to push through as many solar systems as possible before the end of the year!

Very good previous posts! I agree 100%!

Keep up the message friends!
mike barz
mike barz
July 31, 2008
Well the grease and oil party is very powerful and unfortunately most have a R in front of their names. If you watch cspan it was clear who was bought.It cost the oil compaies 1.1 million for Mccain to change his mind about off shore drilling. But come November will see if we can change the direction that this nation is going.
Carl Leuschner
Carl Leuschner
July 31, 2008
While it wouldn't have mattered given the 51-43 outcome, can anyone explain why Reid voted "nay" on the cloture vote for the Senate version....a bill that he introduced?

The disconnect between McCain's campaign trail rhetoric and voting record (or lack thereof) assures he'll not get my vote.
Patrick Dugan
Patrick Dugan
July 31, 2008
On the bright side, there's stiff sufficient subsidies in key markets for the most competitive technologies to be profitable. Perhaps some voted against this measure because they felt money could be apportioned for renewables in a more efficient manner. Odds are those people are vastly outnumbered by the bought-and-paid-for.

My point is, the market can adapt, just not as comfortable as we would all like.
Chris Podwoski
Chris Podwoski
July 31, 2008
To Carl:

Reid's vote was a procedural one. He did so so that he could bring the vote up again in the future. Senate rules. He did the same in the 2/6/08 vote.

Seeing that they were one vote away from cloture that day (with McCain counting as a NV) he changed his vote to the opposing side so that he could bring the vote to the floor again if needed. On 2/6/08 the official vote ended up 58-41(1NV).
JOHN ROBBINS
JOHN ROBBINS
July 31, 2008
It would be interesting to know the logic used by those voting against this measure, in how they publicly explain their negativity towards alternative energy. With all the hysteria over securing a bunch of new oil fields on the outer continental shelf for their oil buddies, you would think that they would at least throw us a small bone to gnaw on. Hopefully, this is but the last seizure of insanity by a Republican controlled government. They had their opportunity to make something of their control of the presidency and congress, and utterly failed.
Jay Himlie
Jay Himlie
July 31, 2008
You don't need the carrot when you have gone to the stick.

Incentives and credits are carrots, mandates are sticks. 25 states now have mandatory requirements for utilities to construct renewable generation. Most states that don't have an RPS are considering one.

When renewable energy is required by law, how does the loss of this credit reduce jobs or cut into renewable energy construction? It doesn't.

Should auto manufacturers receive a credit for complying with CAFE standards? No, because it is a mandate, a legal requirement.

The PTC became a threatened species as soon as the first RPS was passed. It has now become endangered because half the states have followed suit.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!
Richard Masters
Richard Masters
July 31, 2008
When the true renewable industry tries to transform the unused "commodities" of wind and sunshine into energy, it is fought tooth and nail.
Obviously, it would be good for the United States to bring its immense wealth of renewable energy online. This flood of additional energy would have a dramatic effect of lowering fossil fuel prices as the transition to an electric economy progresses. But the U.S. government consistently and deliberately obstructs this transition by maintaining a grossly inadequate financing environment for the significant capital expenditures necessary to stimulate the build-up of a renewable energy infrastructure - all the while encouraging the rapid depletion of our remaining petrochemical reserves (estimated at only 2% of global supply) as if no future generations of Americans (or our military) will ever need them.
Just drill, suck and sell until it's gone.
This does not make sense.
The reason for this is simple. In addition to the Executive, the oil industry has bought a substantial segment of the U.S. Congress, known as the Republican Party, to make sure the United States remains an oil economy enabled by a taxpayer-funded but industry-directed military. As a former Republican and Central Committee member, it is clear to me that these individuals are complicit in what is essentially the overthrow of the United States government - from one based on a constitutional democracy to one run through proxy by industry, for the goals and profits of those industries and to the detriment of U.S. citizens, the economy and needs of future generations.
Any Jeffersonian patriot would be outraged by the abdication of responsibility by the Republicans. Luckily for them, our constitution provides for a peaceful revolution every four years where traitors can be removed without bloodshed. Hopefully, this will work one more time.

See my article The Big Fat Stinking Rat
http://www.hydrogencommerce.com/big_fat_stinking_dead_rat.htm
mike barz
mike barz
July 31, 2008
Hi Jay! Don't tell any one but I can think of seven companies that have reduced there work force because they didn't pass the energy bill. The other thing is it really slows investments in renewable's. The cost is in the billions...
mike barz
mike barz
July 31, 2008
I'm with you Masters.
Brian Ballek
Brian Ballek
July 31, 2008
To Jay Himlie,

RPS Standards are all well and good but be very careful with the assertion that they are a replacement for the PTC. They aren't. Here's why:
1. RPS Standards are directed at utilities. They do absolutely nothing for private individuals who may want to put solar power on their own roofs.

2. Utilities work with centralized generation. They buy the cheapest power they can get and transport it long distances over power lines, with resulting transmission losses. The PTC encourages distributed generation: lots of little solar power and small wind generators all over the place, generating power right when and where it's needed. With no need for costly expansion of transmission lines.

3. RPS Standards are requirements for the future, e.g. "X% of power from renewables by 2017" The PTC allows folks to act N-O-W, i.e. when we should be acting. Some utilities will diligently work to fulfill their RPS Standards. But cynic that I am, I think most of them will simply wait until it's too late to meet the standards and then claim that proves the standards were never achievable in the first place.

Also remember that all RPS Standards are not created equally. Some have teeth, some don't. The good ones (there are very few) set a short term requirement, growing every year until the long-term requirement is met. The brilliant ones (only one or two that I know of) tack on a "carve-out" specifically for solar power to make sure that utilities do their part to drive up volumes and drive down the cost.

RPS Standards are a good thing and I look forward to seeing one enacted in each of the 50 states. But they are definitely no replacement for the PTC. For a real replacement of the PTC (something allowing Mr. and Mrs. America to help push energy independence to fruition) you can't beat feed-in tariffs.
Teddy Raggo
Teddy Raggo
July 31, 2008
It is too sad in this country that to run for office, a person needs millions to get there. I would love to see each and every one of the bums get thrown out. Perhaps we could get people that are really serious about running this country do it, and when they do not do the job we will throw them out. I am sick of the talk of alternative energy, then getting the lip service from the morons in Washington DC that say we cannot afford a program like this. With Exxon making untold billions, why not have them pay the subsidy.?Great news came out on the use of Hydrogen power today. I am sure the patents will be bought out or dissapear. We are owned in this country by oil companies and run by a bunch of folks that could not keep a job in the private sector, where you are actually expected to produce results. Too bad Obama (who couldn't run a burger king) and Mccain, who is already owned by special interests, are the only alternatives that we have in this great country.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Richardson RFPD, Inc.
  • US Solar Institute
  • SolarReviews
  • Greenpower Capital
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • ImagineSolar
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information