iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Phyllis Cuttino

GET UPDATES FROM Phyllis Cuttino
 

Investment Will Follow if Congress Renews the Production Tax Credit

Posted: 07/05/2012 5:55 pm

Congress has historically preferred to implement energy policy through a series of tax incentives rather than mandates. Although the efficacy of those different approaches are subject to debate, it is clear that the lack of a consistent energy policy hinders private investment, causes the loss of American jobs, and stymies business growth in the sector. Further, it is essential for Congress to provide certainty about the long-term availability of an incentive. One such tax policy that demonstrates the impact of uncertainty is the Production Tax Credit (PTC).

This tax credit has been wildly successful, helping to fuel 400 wind manufacturing facilities in 43 states and twelve-fold growth in domestic manufacturing of wind turbine components in the past six years alone. However, the credit could expire this year for the fourth time in two decades.

This uncertainty has put off investors and led to boom-and-bust cycles in the industry: Wind installations have declined by 73 to 93 percent in years without a PTC. Because of the long timelines (wind projects can take 9 to 16 months from groundbreaking to power generation), investors seeking new wind projects must look two to three years into the future to decide whether the costs and benefits warrant investment. As we've seen in the past, investors are wary of supporting new projects if the availability of the tax credit is uncertain. With the PTC's future once again in doubt, factories are already seeing a sharp decline in new orders for 2013 -- when the credit will have expired -- and layoffs have begun.

Transparency, longevity, and consistency -- TLC -- are critical signals to investors and essential factors to increase American jobs, support businesses, and create renewable power.

While we dither, other countries are moving ahead, providing strong policy signals and incentivizing the growth of the clean energy sector in their countries. Even oil-rich Saudi Arabia understands the opportunity and has announced its intention to become the "kingdom of sustainable energy." It also has set an ambitious renewable-energy goal.

As a result of our indecision, America could again lose its leadership position in a sector that we helped invent, innovate, and engineer. Why turn our back on a slice of the global economy that has experienced growth of 600 percent (excluding R&D) since 2004?

Congress should act now to extend the PTC rather than wait for an already over-packed lame-duck session after the 2012 election or a new legislative session in 2013. It would hardly be controversial. The PTC enjoys widespread, bipartisan support from groups as diverse as the National Governors Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, environmentalists, labor unions, and others. Members of the House and Senate have indicated their agreement that the PTC should be renewed.

Intermittent policies hurt the ability of the United States to consistently compete and turn clean energy innovation into manufacturing, deployment, and export opportunities. Congress should act now -- not wait -- to provide investors with the assurance that they need to fuel American investment, job, and business growth and to assure our global leadership in a rapidly emerging new sector.

learn more at pewenvironment.org
 

Follow Phyllis Cuttino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@PewEnvironment

FOLLOW GREEN
Congress has historically preferred to implement energy policy through a series of tax incentives rather than mandates. Although the efficacy of those different approaches are subject to debate, it is...
Congress has historically preferred to implement energy policy through a series of tax incentives rather than mandates. Although the efficacy of those different approaches are subject to debate, it is...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:57 PM on 07/06/2012
Man, why do you keep cheerleading for the dynamiting of ridgelines, SF6-spewing transmission, concrete and steel emissions and the death of raptors and bats and pretend you are working for jobs or for the planet? All Big Wind does is create an opportunity to burn WAY MORE FRACKED GAS!

This, in stark contrast to legitimate solutions like rooftop solar, efficiency upgrades and passive heating/cooling within the built environment which desperately need more people behind them. Unlike Big Wind and Big Solar, they do not kill endangered and critical species, they do not remonopolize and recentralize our grid, they do not threaten democracy, cost ratepayers and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and they do not emit huge amounts of GHGs in their manufacture and generation, nor do they require expanding the toxic natural gas extraction and combustion that Big Wind needs.

Seriously, we are so sick of hearing about how great Big Energy is and how Big Energy will solve all the problems that Big Energy is simultaneously causing. BP and Chevron and Goldman Sachs are some of the biggest investors in Big Solar, Big Wind and woops! Big Gas. Time for the greenwashing to end and legitimate solutions to be brought to the table, German style feed in tariffs for local solar
12:29 PM on 07/06/2012
The fate of the PTCs don't just impact wind, but also biomass. Although biomass currently represents over 50% of renewable energy production, it barely gets mentioned in the current debate.

The advantages to biomass plants are that they are not intermittent -- they run 24/7 not just when the wind blows; and biomass creates around 12 man years per megawatt during construction and around 2 man years of ongoing operations per megawatt over a 20-30 year term. In short, biomass is a jobs machine and it creates jobs in exactly the places we need jobs right now -- rural areas. Its "home grown power". With proper emissions technology, and closed-cycle fuel production, it is actually carbon negative.

Brazil has pioneered biomass power with over 27% of its energy mix driven by biomass, resulting in an industry with over 1 million workers.

Due to the current era of low-energy prices caused by shale gas, and the uncertainty of capital markets, the PTCs are incredibly valuable to get these projects done (PTCs for biomass do not expire until the end of 2013, but for pending facilities the time is already past because they take 24 months to construct).

In short, biomass power is on the cusp of taking off. It is a boom that could create thousands of local jobs where there is no wind or solar resource. But we need the PTCs.

So lets give a shout out to biomass and broaden the base of support for the PTCs.
06:46 PM on 07/05/2012
What bugs me is that coal costs us an extra ~250 billion a year in health care costs (I know that sounds impossibly high, but that's what multiple studies show ) If that were allowed to be factored in to the market cost of coal, wind would be much cheaper and it wouldn't need the subsidy. Why is it OK to skew the cost of coal by willful blindness and not offer wind just a small leg up? Why is it OK to subsidize oil and gas and not wind? It doesn't make any sense to me.
-PR