Wind Energy Tax Break Fails In U.S. Senate

DENVER (AP) — An attempt to extend a federal tax break for wind energy production and other alternative energy sources failed in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, but supporters say they will try again.

The vote was 49-49 on an amendment to another bill. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said the measure needed 60 votes to move forward.

The tax break will expire at the end of the year without an extension.

Bennet says Colorado will suffer a "huge economic blow" unless the tax break is extended. Democratic Sen. Mark Udall has said the wind energy industry will crash without it.

The Danish wind turbine maker Vestas has four plants and 1,800 employees in the state, company spokesman Andrew Longeteig said. In January, when Vestas announced it planned to lay off 2,335 people worldwide, it warned that 1,600 jobs in the U.S. could be at risk if Congress doesn't extend tax breaks for renewable energy.

Ron Rizzuto, a professor of finance at the University of Denver, said the wind energy industry is an important employer in Colorado. He said tax credits are important for the industry's survival because it hasn't developed its infrastructure.

The industry's importance to the state is "more the longer term potential of it and the near-term employment," he said.

Adam Bozzi, Bennet's spokesman, said this was the first vote on extending the tax break, and supporters will look for another chance to bring it to a vote. He said Bennet is optimistic it will be extended by the end of the year.

"Because we have until the end of the year, there's a habit of 11th hour movement," Bozzi said. "We're trying to get something done sooner because of the urgency that we've heard from Colorado."

The tax break is called a producer tax credit. It helps offset the cost of electricity production during a wind farm's first 10 years. Colorado lawmakers say it's helped drive economic growth in Colorado's wind industry.

The amendment that failed Tuesday also included tax credits for energy-efficient homes, biofuels and other initiatives.

___

Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAP

Comments

[ItsEmu]

03:20 PM on 03/23/2012

A wind energy tax break won't pass, but somehow they always manage to include subsidies for oil companies that are already making tens of billions in profit.

[GravitonX]

09:23 PM on 03/18/2012

"Because we have until the end of the year, there's a habit of 11th hour movement," Bozzi said.

Sometimes optimism turns into delusional hope when desperation sets in. The vote was 49-49. They need 60 votes, which they will never get. And, by all indications, the Democrats will not control 60 after November.

US wind energy...RIP.

[lonewolfwisconsin]

10:47 PM on 04/18/2012

You Cavemen have much to learn about human existance & evolution, which left you behind.

[GravitonX]

07:06 PM on 03/18/2012

Clean energy in the US is doomed. Even environmental groups have come out against clean energy. The US is a petro state.

[liberalindependent]

09:55 PM on 03/17/2012

If you lived where turbines are going up all around your house, where they will put farmers out of business because no crop sprayer can fly between the turning blades, where the community doesn't want the wind farm, and where the persons who own the wind farm will become wealthy from subsidies and taxes - you might feel differently. The turbines will surround my beautiful farm. They will kill the birds, geese, ducks and swans that currently nest on our ponds. The whoosh, the flicker, and the danger of ice chunks that fly off blades at 80 mph and travel a quarter of a mile are an intrusion on my life. All of these things will come to my home, not to mention the lowering of my property value and that of my neighers, and it makes me sick. Give me solar anyday. No moving parts, and the energy can be stored.

[lonewolfwisconsin]

10:48 PM on 04/18/2012

Good lord there are a LOT of IGNORANT folks out here...

[liberalindependent]

04:27 PM on 04/19/2012

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have wind turbines around your property? Are they a quarter of a mile away from your home? Explain please.

[nothingchanges]

11:41 AM on 03/15/2012

Want to make this article more meaningful? More informative?

List the Senators

How they voted

and how much money they got from the Oil, coal, or natural gas sectors.

Follow the money, and the truth will be revealed.

[Silken17]

03:48 PM on 03/15/2012

"Follow the money, and the truth will be revealed."

Yeah, but can you HANDLE the truth?!

Natural Gas companies promote solar and wind since those technologies usually use natural gas to back them up. Their 30% capacity factors (best case) insure that NG gets used 70% of the time.

Coal and oil companies promote solar and wind to take attention away from nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only real threat to these companies because it alone is the only practical alternative for base load power.

[blackwind]

12:30 AM on 03/16/2012

"Coal and oil companies promote solar and wind . . ."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when?

[idyl]

01:36 PM on 03/16/2012

Silken17 ... capacity factor has nothing to do with back-up or reserve capacity requirements? A 30% capacity factor means that wind energy (taken in aggregation) amounts to a portion of nameplate capacity. This impacts capital recovery on a wind farm, and not back-up reserve capacity requirements. If you want a larger output of energy from wind, simply build more wind turbines (also called "over-building").

Wind does not need to be backed up if wind forecasts are correct. If grid operators anticipate a 30% share from wind on a particular day (hour, or minute), and this is what they get (no back-up is required). Reserve capacity requirements are scheduled just like generation assets (and for the entire grid). It may be anywhere in the vicinity of 15% of peak demand (which is typical for most places in the US). If one generation resource fails to meet projections (due to unscheduled outages, wind forecast errors, volatile marginal fuel costs, labor shortages, drought, etc.), stand-by and spinning reserves are there to make up the difference. In short, if wind has a capacity factor of 30%, this does not mean it needs 70% of something else to work properly. All this means is that you won't be looking at nameplate capacity for resource planning needs, but wind performance data at a specific location and energy delivered (and where "capacity factors" play a role).

[idyl]

01:49 PM on 03/16/2012

Roll call vote is available here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00039

Democratic senators voting against the bill (to extend PTC for wind):

Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

Republican Senators voting in favor of the bill (breaking ranks with their own party):

None.

[Telemachus]

11:28 AM on 03/15/2012

Just going down the GOP's checklist here ...

Jobs? Check.

Eliminating "uncertainty" in the tax code? Check.

Boosting state & local economies? Check.

Ohhh, wait, now I see the problem. Competing with dinosaur industries that waste vast amounts of energy, load the atmosphere with CO2, have already enjoyed decades of subsidies that consistently suck up all available scraps from a stretched federal budget ... and most importantly, lavish all sorts of perks, bribes & campaign cash on incumbent legislators.

Game, set, match.

[doubleB]

12:35 AM on 03/15/2012

49-49? Which Dems voted against it? And have they had their heads checked?

[hpblue5011]

01:22 AM on 03/15/2012

What difference does it make? Every bit of wind energy needs to be backed up by a coal or natural gas power plant if you want reliable electricity at your 110v plug-ins

[doubleB]

01:40 AM on 03/15/2012

"Backed up" doesn't mean the back-up plants waste energy... Natural gas plants can be ramped up and down quickly to compensate if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Solar and wind are a good investment, as long as we put them in places were the resource is good and we're sensitive to the environment.

[idyl]

11:01 AM on 03/15/2012

Wind has a capacity credit of 30% in many locations. This means 30% of rated capacity doesn't have to be backed up with stand-by capacity reserves in resource planning. The amount of energy used to provide this back-up is even smaller, since many of these back-up plants are providing capacity and not electricity (except when needed).

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43433.pdf

Most studies estimate cost of efficiency losses from operation of spinning reserves to be in range of $5/MWh (added to cost of wind), which most consumers wouldn't even notice.

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Intermittency

[yeti7]

07:51 AM on 03/15/2012

One's that believe in protected our nations wildlife.

[doubleB]

10:36 AM on 03/15/2012

... says the natural gas proponent...

[Laurie Allen]

09:35 PM on 03/14/2012

WOW, just think if they gave as many tax breaks and subsidies they give big oil, what alternative energy companies could do. Not all of them fail like Solyndra. Some are doing wonders with what little they are given. But our politicians are bought and sold by big oil, big ag, and pharma, so we know where their loyalties lie.

[doubleB]

12:38 AM on 03/15/2012

Good points... Big Oil / Coal / Nuke have been getting subsidies for decades and decades... it takes time to build up an infrastructure and economies of scale. It's definitely not an even playing field, and Republicans have no intention of making it that way.

I find it funny how they'll tout fictional (temporary) jobs for an environmentally destructive pipeline, but when it comes to permanent jobs for a manufacturing industry that furthers clean(er) energy? Must filibuster!

[markkocaldo]

01:08 AM on 03/15/2012

WInd has received $hundreds of billion in lucrative feed in tariff subsidy worldwide - far more than nukes ever got. The economies of scale were realized years ago. Prices over the decade were rising slowly until Chinese dumping and the recession took effect.

[Silken17]

04:09 PM on 03/15/2012

"WOW, just think if they gave as many tax breaks and subsidies they give big oil, what alternative energy companies could do..."

Solar and wind would not exist if their subsidies were reduced to the levels received by fossil fuels and nuclear.
Subsidies per unit production­:

Solar: $775.64/me­gawatt hour
Wind: $56.29/meg­awatt hour
Geothermal­: $12.85/meg­awatt hour
Nuclear: $3.14/mega­watt hour
Hydro: $0.82/mega­watt hour
Coal: $0.64/mega­watt hour
NG/Petro: $0.64/mega­watt hour

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/08/03/eia-releases-new-subsidy-report-subsidies-for-renewables-increase-186-percent/

[trespanieli]

09:03 PM on 03/14/2012

The unconstitutional super majority PAC is alive and well, and still working its magic to boot America a little further down the road to mediocrity.

[maduck11111]

02:09 PM on 03/15/2012

Your right this is just another puzzle piece in downward spiral of America

[MilesToGo]

08:18 PM on 03/14/2012

Another vote is pending, but once again we see how beholden our senators are to energy corporations, which seek to control all energy policy and especially eclipse what they imagine are competitors--green energy alternatives--despite the energy corporate's lobby with its continual narratives about how wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuel needs. The inherent greed is staggering to say nothing about doing damage to the public good & commons.

[sheila]

09:15 PM on 03/14/2012

hate to tell you but some of the biggest investors in wilderness-killing Big Wind are the fine folks at Chevron, BP and Goldman Sachs. these aren't your birkenstock-wearing do-gooders, these are Big Energy at its most rapacious. don't be fooled. if it ain't owned by us and sited within the built environment, it is a very bad project for the environment and the economy...

[yeti7]

08:02 AM on 03/15/2012

GE is another big wind "investor" .

[hpblue5011]

01:25 AM on 03/15/2012

"its continual narratives about how wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuel needs"

Coal and oil can be continually feed. Tell me, what do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? July 2010 I drove from Colorado to Kansas to Nebraska to Iowa to Minnesota. Not ONE wind energy turbine was spinning in FIVE states.

[MilesToGo]

12:22 PM on 03/15/2012

The metrics of energy consumption prove indeed that wind & solar cannot and won't replace fossil fuels use. That hardly should eliminate garnering clean energy when and where possible. Here in Colorado, as with many places in the west, the sun shines over 320 days per year, and wind is a near constant. Often, too, when turbine blades aren't turning, it's because of some other reason besides wind not blowing, such as maintenance requirements.

[MichaelAKD]

07:27 PM on 03/14/2012

another reason to clean house this coming fall. i hope and pray the dems get a super majority in the senate, retake the house and of course retain obama for another term. that is the only way we will get anything done that matters.

[doubleB]

12:41 AM on 03/15/2012

likewise. unfortunately the only way all that'll happen is if the economy improves significantly... crossing my fingers;)

[yeti7]

08:03 AM on 03/15/2012

wind farms everywhere, right?

[byronic]

06:22 PM on 03/14/2012

The neanderthals on the right will dig up all the carbon and return the world to the hot, wet, place it was in the time of the dinosaurs.

[yeti7]

08:04 AM on 03/15/2012

and the left will kill off all our birds

[sdesign]

03:53 PM on 03/14/2012

So Here's the game. As they continue to push for the Keystone project, they need to knock out any possible competition to their oil friends. As far as a possible layoff of 1600? They will argue that Keystone will replace those jobs, though it would be in other states.

[Elias Maxwell]

06:52 PM on 03/14/2012

The Keystone Pipeline will NOT produce 1600 jobs over the entire length once in place. The jobs on the refinery end already exist as do the jobs producing the oil going in the pipe. It make no sense failing to extend tax breaks to make help make wind energy competitive. They do it for gas drilling all the time.

[sdesign]

07:01 PM on 03/14/2012

I agree, but they will make the lame argument anyway.

[hpblue5011]

01:27 AM on 03/15/2012

Competition? From the wind? That is laughable. Every bit of wind produced energy must be backed up by a REAL power plant, be it oil or coal fired.

[Hammer of Truth]

02:37 PM on 03/14/2012

Come on guys! you all know the oil lobby OWNS THE SENATE. What else would we expect here?

[WESmith]

02:53 PM on 03/14/2012

For every $1 in tax breaks the government gives to an oil company, the government receives $65 in revenue on average. For every $1 in tax breaks the government gives to so-called renewable energy, the government receives zero in revenue. Oil lobby doesn't need to own the Senate. They just have a better deal. We The People own the vast majority of oil in the US. We need oil companies to produce our oil so that we get royalties. Even if the royalties are low, the government taxes every step in the petroleum business. We The People are Big Oil. The oil companies just work for us. We The People make more than all 13,000 American oil companies combined. Quite a windfall, don't you think?

[idyl]

04:17 PM on 03/14/2012

Your talking points get all the facts wrong on renewables. Production tax credits apply to first 10 years of operation (and amount o 1.9 cents/kWh). Lots of taxes still collected on this basis. Most wind plants operate for 20 years or longer. Wind operators also pay State and local municipal taxes (when appropriate), and property taxes (when not waived to encourage wind development in a region). These can sometimes be significant, and be a deciding factor for State and local governments in deciding to seek out and encourage renewable energy development in their area. Jobs and revenue … renewables have a significant role to play here, and repealing federal tax incentives hurts local economies right at a time when they are most looking for some help.

[Hammer of Truth]

05:58 PM on 03/14/2012

And your occupation and employer would be?

[yeti7]

04:17 PM on 03/14/2012

they aren't going to renew this type because they are soon going to have to ban them. They are in complete violation of the migratory bird act and the protected bird species law.

[hpblue5011]

01:28 AM on 03/15/2012

I could care less about the birds, wind energy is just not reliable to begin with.

[idyl]

02:21 PM on 03/14/2012

Our energy system is top to bottom in subsidies. Agreeing to regulate fracking at the State level (and not the Federal level with tougher interstate air and water quality rules) is somehow NOT a subsidy? How about risk insurance and the Price-Anderson Act for nuclear. We act as if this is a level playing field, but it is not. This is a coordinated attack on a specific energy resource, there's no other way to see it.

[WESmith]

02:59 PM on 03/14/2012

Frack Fluid is made from the same chemical as K-Y Jelly, hydroxyethylcellolose. It is a food filler. The makers of the personal lubricant adds automobile antifreeze, propylene glycol, to make their product. Fracturing companies use sodium borate, available at drug stores, to crosslink the gel, then add sand or ceramic proppants.
Home owners put much worse chemicals down their drains followed by dispersants than fracturing companies use. Maybe it is the food preservative they have to use in frack fluid to keep bacteria from eating it that is evil.

[doubleB]

01:14 AM on 03/15/2012

So they natural gas industry won't publish what chemicals make up their fracking fluids, but you will?

[yeti7]

08:11 AM on 03/15/2012

propylene glycol isn't that also a laxative

[markkocaldo]

02:07 PM on 03/15/2012

Actually Price Anderson is nothing compared to the liability wind would face if people would be allowed to sue for the millions murdered and sickened by its deadly gas backup.

[idyl]

02:38 PM on 03/16/2012

Wouldn't you be suing natural gas operators in this instance?

If people would rather build a natural gas peaker rather than more expensive adiabatic CAES, pumped hydro, or chemical storage (NaS, liquid metal, something else), why would that be the fault of a wind developer?

So I take it you favor a carbon tax, or some other policy approach ("cap and trade") to make fossil fuel developers more accountable for their pollution?