Wind Tax Break Going Before US Senate Again

By: AP
By: AP

DENVER (AP) -- Supporters of extending a tax break for wind energy are trying again just two days after the U.S. Senate shot down a similar proposal.

A bipartisan group of senators from Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada and Oregon introduced legislation Thursday to extend the tax break for two years.

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

The Senate voted against the proposal on Tuesday. Colorado Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet warned that the budding wind industry in their state would suffer a serious setback without it.

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.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Lorelei on Mar 15, 2012 at 02:21 PM
    just read a report on Germany's wind power plants. They sold elctricity to France while their nuclear power wasn't enough, and generated thousands of jobs.All that without ruining the world for the rest of us.It is sustainable, livable and reliable. The narrow minded and conservative people are not.
    • reply
      by Nath on Mar 15, 2012 at 05:02 PM in reply to Lorelei
      Then why is Red China exempt from the Agenda 21 restrictions on pollution? They are the biggest single polluter, other than Mother Nature, on the planet.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Mar 15, 2012 at 06:59 PM in reply to Nath
        How is that relevant?
    • reply
      by E on Mar 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM in reply to Lorelei
      Narrow minded, or educated? The "facts" you spew are misleading. Both coal and oil cost more in Germany. They also have a much more established wind energy program subsidy free. That's not possible in the US yet. They also serve a population 4 times less than that of the US. It's ironic that libs call everyone who is smarter than they, narrow minded, don't you think?
  • by Juan on Mar 14, 2012 at 07:33 PM
    Blow Me!
    • reply
      by E on Mar 15, 2012 at 11:20 PM in reply to Juan
      Ha! I see what you did there.
  • by Mayor Ryan on Mar 13, 2012 at 04:25 PM
    If it fails in the free market, then it isn't worthwhile. Econ 101, compliments of Ron Paul.
  • by Nath Location: Colo Spgs on Mar 13, 2012 at 03:23 PM
    Heard the other day that wind power producers in Washington state were being paid to shut down their windmills because of the need to run hydroelectric dams hard to relieve the buildup of water behind the dams due to early snow melt. Also heard 75 Bald Eagles got whacked (killed) last year by windmills in the West Coast states. Green ain't all it's cracked up to be.
  • by frank Location: colorado springs on Mar 13, 2012 at 02:52 PM
    This is a tax credit, not a deduction. The wind industry gets most of the same deduction every other business gets, including energy. Energy does not get this credit. If wind can't stand on it's own, it should go away. We have no business favoring one business over another and adding to Obama's debt. Wind energy is more expensive than coal, gas or nuclear. It's good for politics, but not good for the consumer.
  • by tibercio Location: boulder on Mar 13, 2012 at 02:36 PM
    Did any of the 49 who voted against it also advocate for ending the $4 billion in annual tax breaks for the oil and gas industries? Of course not!
    • reply
      by E on Mar 13, 2012 at 03:08 PM in reply to tibercio
      Can wind energy survive without government subsidies that the oil industry does not get? Did the wind energy industry supply the US government with $6 billion last year in taxes? Of course not!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Mar 15, 2012 at 07:00 PM in reply to E
        Cost effectiveness of Wind vs. Coal are quite close. Something around 97:100 ratio between the two.
        • reply
          by E on Mar 15, 2012 at 11:13 PM in reply to
          True, but only when subsidized.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Mar 16, 2012 at 08:34 AM in reply to
          @E no it's not just when subsidized. I work as an engineer in the field. Often subsidies that people debate about are just used as extra money in the pocket as incentive to choose one technology over another. In fact it's the other way around, coal is only more cost effective because of their subsidies.
KKTV 520 E. Colorado Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Office: (719) 634-2844 Fax: (719) 632-0808 News Fax: (719) 634-3741
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 142537145 - kktv.com/a?a=142537145
Gray Television, Inc.