iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

South Dakota Wind Energy Could Benefit From Tax Refund Scheme

First Posted: 03/ 2/2012 7:22 am Updated: 03/ 2/2012 11:40 am

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A measure that would refund about half the construction taxes for large wind energy projects and an environmental upgrade at Big Stone Power Plant now awaits the signature of South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

The House voted 52-16 to accept the Senate's version of the bill, which would provide tax refunds beginning in January 2013 for wind energy projects or environmental upgrades at power plants costing more than $50 million. Supporters said it would usher along a couple of wind energy projects and would help Big Stone Power Plant make environmental upgrades required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The bill would not interfere with a public vote in November on a more general economic incentive plan that the Democratic Party referred to the ballot. That law would use a different method of refunding construction taxes to a wider range of projects.

Rep. Roger Solum, R-Watertown, said South Dakota's sales taxes and contractor's excise taxes during construction are far higher than those in surrounding states. Until the state's tax bill is lowered, he said, companies may build large wind energy projects elsewhere.

"These things are taken into consideration when they start making a decision to build a wind farm," Solum said.

Rep. Steve Street, D-Revillo, said the state needs to assist the Big Stone Power Plant with the $500 million of environmental upgrades to its coal-fired plant on the South Dakota-Minnesota border. Construction taxes would be passed on to the plant's electricity customers, so a tax break will help many families in the state, he said.

But House Democratic Leader Bernie Hunhoff of Yankton said the tax refunds for the Big Stone project could amount to $10 million or more, which means the state will have less money to spend on schools and other priorities. Hunhoff said he has no problem with the part of the bill giving tax breaks to wind farm projects, but the Legislature should wait until next year to deal with the issue.

The bill approved by the House on Thursday would take effect next year regardless of the outcome of November's vote on the referred law.

Daugaard and others have said the ballot measure for the new business grant program has created uncertainty about state incentives that could hurt South Dakota's efforts to attract new companies and help existing ones expand.

Current South Dakota law gives partial refunds of sales taxes and contractor's excise taxes to large construction projects, but that law expires Dec. 31, 2012. Last year, the Legislature approved Daugaard's plan to replace the refund law with a new program that would take 22 percent of the receipts from the contractor's excise tax — about $16 million a year — and put the money into a fund that a state board could use to give grants to large construction projects.

The state Democratic Party collected enough petition signatures to put the new grant law to a public vote in the November election. Democrats argue that taking 22 percent of the contractor's excise tax each year forfeits money that should go to other priorities.

A House committee last week passed a bill that would have repealed last year's law and replaced it with a similar one. That move would have cancelled the November vote, but earlier this week, the House killed that proposal.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Jessica Leader  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 34
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
06:17 PM on 03/04/2012
Yay! Something good may happen, maybe, or maybe it won't. OK then, gee thanx AOL, I guess, kind of.
02:17 PM on 03/04/2012
Overall, it seems to me that fossil fuels remain the best choice to meet our energy needs. It carries the ball for us while we chitter chatter daily about all the other possibilties and debate pluses and minuses of them. Yes, they contribute, but they can't fill the gap.

We have an oversupply of natural gas available which, if utilized properly, would diminish the need for millions of bbs. of oil daily, but nearly no discussion of it by government or the press.
08:07 PM on 03/02/2012
Wind power stinks.

It is too expensive to make any profit. It kills large numbers of bats and birds. It doesn't work just when you need the power the most, when it is icy cold because wind tends to die in those conditions.

Wind power makes sense only in the "wind corridors", where sustained wind blows year round. Well, that's where the bats, insects and birds fly during migration, riding the winds to save energy for the long flights. Wind power is a terrible idea.

Nuclear and solar. Do what will generate reliable and non-carbon based energy.

By the way, if you "follow the money" for this tax writeoff, I am sure you will find pork barrel politics at the bottom of it. C'mon...Congress does nothing out of the goodness of their hearts.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:57 PM on 03/03/2012
Wind is cheap.

Current estimates based partly on European experience since 1991, indicate offshore wind energy costs of under 6 cents per kWh. http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/Offshore-Wind/Offshore-Wind-Energy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Cost_trends wind 6 cents.

Offshore wind is my preference because the wind is great and the birds, bats and insect5s do'nt go there.

Onshore is ok in remote areas, away from migratory paths, and building, cats and cars kill a million times as many birds as windmills.

rooftop solar, offshore wind, efficiency and waste bio char bio fuels is the combination that can provide out energy needs forever, 24/7 carbon negative, safe, clean and cheaper.

Nuclear power is trillion dollar cancerous disasters, million year cancerous wastes, and civilization ending proliferation.

Solar is cheaper than nukes, waste and wind half that, and efficiency half that if not profitable.

Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!

Green energy is far faster to install than nuke: by the time you can finish one nuke, the price of green energy will have dropped in half again.
11:24 AM on 03/05/2012
You must have missed the hidden costs glossed over in the ocean energy website. They stated at the bottom of the web page that standby generators must be maintained for periods of low wind. Those costs are not included in the calculations of $/KW.

Stand-by generators. Think about that and the expense of maintaining two systems in parallel.

Nuclear and solar. They can provide reliable and steady power that the grid needs.

Oh and that trillion dollar cancer comment? Balony. Our worst nuclear accident (TMI) resulted in precisely no deaths and no cancers. Chernobyl was run by corrupt commies that almost tried for a meltdown with 1950s nuclear technology. And the record of deaths from that meltdown is considerably less than those doomsayers at the Sierra Club speculate about.

Want more? How about the Japan earthquake and tsunami? The worst earthquake on record (for Japan) hitting the nuclear power plants followed by a 40 foot wall of water. No meltdown. And those are 40 year old plants. I understand that the primary reactor vessels were breached but the secondary vessels held (And the tertiary vessels were not needed).

Nuclear doesn't always mean uranium...thorium will work and you can't make atomic bombs out of that. The proliferation you refered to also happens in the absence of nuclear power plants...North Korean doesn't have nuclear power plants.

In short, solar and nuclear are the way to go. Forget the fickle winds.
07:16 PM on 03/05/2012
I think the comments are closed, I still can't directly respond to your last comment.
Here is the quote:
Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear: [...] What we have now been able to confirm through the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is that the initial explosions at Fukushima were very likely ejections of core material into the atmosphere and a vaporization of some portion of those cores [...]
Huh, "very likely". If true, then that would mean that there would be uranium or plutonium found contaminating the food/soil/water. No mention of that was made in the report by the IAEA. I am afraid that the speculations of this fellow are not bourne out by the evidence collected by the IAEA.

"Very likely" does not mean that the investigators found core materials. It means that they thought there was a possibility of core materials being ejected. None were found according to the report. Do you have any other evidence that core materials were found outside the containment vessel?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
01:00 PM on 03/04/2012
The tragedy in this is, bats and some birds are in the eco-nomy of protecting mankind from deadly disease pathogens that cause global disease pandemics. Bats and birds are strands in the web of all life or biodiversity as they are the creators and supporters of their ecosystem, every and all reasons man exists, the breath of all life.

For the construction of these frantic, swirling swords, they have to rape the ecosystem, the habitat/homes, food, shelter, cover and nurseries of all animal biodiversity as the plant biodiversity will be sliced away. They also have to build roads for access for the construction of these planet killing monsters.

The new energy technologies are only green when constructed where people actually live. Solar on rooftops, in shopping centers, parking lots, old factories and in cities. I read of a school tapping into geothermal energy right under the school building. A shopping center erected house size solar panels in its parking lot [green], but destroying and raping ecosystems and killing their biodiversity is madness, and more damage to Earth because of transmission back to where folks actually live! Insanity and expediency.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
02:17 PM on 03/02/2012
It's naive to think that big wind or big solar are the "answer." Big anything is never the answer. If energy has to be transported by grid to distant customers, requiring the loss of wilderness, public land and private property, condemning customers to indefinite dependence on large corporations that own the energy, costing the taxpayer to clean up what they can of the infrastructure mess entailed, then we must think twice about it. To be sustainable or democratic, energy sources must be local. Solar panels on every roof is one, but not the only solution to local, democratic energy supply.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
csuciadams
Planner/Engineer Extraordinaire
06:12 PM on 03/02/2012
While I agree that local sustainability, on almost every level, is very important. There are certain needs, such as large factories and certain events, that require immense amounts of energy. Also, there is a very large fluctuation between minimal and peak energy demand. Those large draws of energy need large sources, which are often times more efficient.

Furthermore, many sources of substantial amounts of energy must be concentrated in a one place as to not "pollute" all areas. That is why we went from burning coal in everyone's home to doing it in one place. Wind farms are sometimes the same way, a windy corridor is the place to put those turbines, the more the better.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
09:30 PM on 03/02/2012
The pinnacle of Western culture preceded the Industrial Revolution and the requirement for energy centralization. What is it about the present that makes that peak energy supply so necessary? Germany (as far as I know) has to a great degree countered that need for centralization through smart planning and the radical use of distributed energy. They aim to use a combination of viable alternative-energy sources in tandem, applying them to each building, and using the building as the energy source that can be shared on a grid. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will correct me.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:02 PM on 03/03/2012
Rooftop solar is great, and already cheaper than nukes.

Efficiency is super cheap, and inherently distributed to the individual building level.

Waste bio char is also great, and is the necessarily backup to wind and solar. Waste bio fuels are inherently better distributed, to the town level, maybe the block level in cities, but probably not the home level.

Wind is best big, and offshore near the big cities where the grid connect is not a big deal.

Individual wind is not a good idea yet, since the small turbines are noisy and kill more birds and bats proportionally than do the big on land wind turbines.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
06:27 PM on 03/03/2012
Right or wrong, you always have an interesting perspective. Thanks. I don't know much about bio char. Can you help with a slight bit more information. I hear great things about hemp. What's your thought on this?
01:25 PM on 03/02/2012
Wind, solar wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.

The price of wind and solar have dropped by 50% in the last 5 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
csuciadams
Planner/Engineer Extraordinaire
06:17 PM on 03/02/2012
While that is a mix of the total need, the output of those really is paltry compared to our demand. I did some calculations a few years back and found it would take hundreds of thousands of windmills, taking up thousands of square miles to power the country. And that couldn't even work because they only generate power 1/3 of the time in the best of conditions. While they can probably do 10-15% of our demand, wind is necessary, but not the solution.

Solar on the other hand has a pretty unlimited technological ability to increase in efficiency, I think it is around 30%, and some can get even 50% return on energy!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:05 PM on 03/03/2012
Actually bio mass as as large as nuclear power. Wind and solar is small because they are new. They are already cheaper than nukes.

Rooftops alone are enough for existing solar panels to produce more than the peak electrical load, and 30% of our electrical needs. That doubles with plug in hybrids charged during the day.

Wind is already producing 24% of Denmark electricity and expanding.

Sweden got 34% of it's energy from green sources.

rooftop solar offshore wind efficiency and waste bio fuels use ZERO LAND.

In fact, waste bio char save dump land, and is massivly carbon negative if you use the char as fertilizer.

Please learn about what's really going on.

Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
01:18 PM on 03/02/2012
The problem with South Dakota is location. They have lots of energy but the customers are far away. We need a dual focus on infrastructure (say more cheaply transport the energy to Chicago and Denver) or an alternative end user (say pulling hydrogen from water or carbon from sequestered CO2).

I vote for a smart grid and carbon-extraction from CO2. The carbon can be burned more cleanly in coal-like plants and the plant waste (CO2) can be recaptured for carbon-extraction.

If a hydrogen economy ever gets rolling, we can switch to hydrogen extraction. Extraction isn't cheap. The smart grid might be cheaper.