Recent Comment
Share
EcoGeek is a technology blog...the folks at EnviroWonk do the hard work covering politics. But sometimes, the politics are just too important to ignore.
Today the Senate approved an amendment to the U.S. Housing Bill that will, if passed in the House and signed by President Bush, will extend the Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for another eight years. Very simply, the ITC gives companies buying solar panels a 30% tax break on the money they spend on panels.
The recent energy bill, passed several months ago, initially included the ITC, but Bush threatened to veto any legislation that reduced subsidies for big oil, so it was removed. The more recent bill is unclear about where the money will come from, leading to concerns that it will be vetoed in the House, as it would be adding to the deficit. If it makes it to the president, however, the bill is likely to be signed this time because he can't make the "But it will increase gas prices" claim.
The solar industry continues to fret about the current ITC's scheduled lapse. Many solar energy projects that have begun will not be financially viable without the ITC, and many others are waiting to see if the ITC is passed before being begun. All together, the ITC would cost about $0.50 per year for the next eight years. It would also likely tip the solar industry into profitability, and create a massive rush to invest in solar projects. It really pisses me off that this has taken so long to pass. Already the solar industry is suffering, and we can't even pay for it with Exxon's subsidies. Obviously, they need the help, since they only made $11 billion last quarter.
Via the Solar Energy Industry Association
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Hank, April 11, 2008
As for gas taxes, in the U.S. those are used only for maintenance and building of roads and highways. It's simply the easiest way to charge people based on how much they use the roads. Somebody's got to pay for those trillions of dollars of highways...and it sure-as-heck shouldn't be the folks riding bikes.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Larry, April 11, 2008
Reassigning incentives to an industry that has major positive environmental, national security, job creation, and energy independence consequences for the country IS an appropriate use of taxpayers money.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, April 11, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Enrique, April 11, 2008
Why is that we can continue to subsisdy the oil companies but not the solar nascent companies? Politics and power.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Drew, April 11, 2008
FYI - Tried to follow on thru to "EnvirWonk" and it linked right back here.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cyrus, April 11, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, April 11, 2008
I completely agree. It's not about punishing the oil companies, it's about stopping handouts from tax-payers' pockets.
Again, they are not receiving any handouts, they just aren't being taxed as much. The government already gets more in taxes than the company does after all taxes are accounted for. Further, I have my own belief that companies shouldn't be taxed at all and we should just have a consumption (sales) tax.
Now, if you ARE so against "stopping handouts from the taxpayers pockets", shouldn't you be against this bill as well? After all, it is subsidizing companies in the same way. The only difference is which companies benefit.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kevin, April 11, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hank, April 11, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cyrus, April 12, 2008
Now, if you ARE so against "stopping handouts from the taxpayers pockets", shouldn't you be against this bill as well? After all, it is subsidizing companies in the same way. The only difference is which companies benefit.
True, It might just be better to keep the Government's nose out of business altogether.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, April 12, 2008
Hank, that $6B has been payed over and over again in income and fuel taxes. If you want to argue about giving the Solar Industry $6B, that's one thing. But that isn't even what this bill will do. It will make a portion of the price of solar panels tax deductible. There is a difference.
To argue that the oil companies are receiving money is one thing. Not, charging/taxing/other them as much is something else. The second is happening here, not the first.
Also, there is really no reason that the tax deductions have to be made up with increased costs on oil. In fact, it doesn't even offset it with a tax on the same area. A tax on Coal would make much more sense. After all, solar is largely going to replace coal generated power. It is NOT going to replace gasoline, diesel or anything else that comes from crude oil.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I think something is missing from this.
Which is a profit margin of 10%, not a lot compared to others. I can find companies that make more money for their size if you want. Do you wish to tax those ones more as well? If you want to pay for these subsidies by charging a tax, do a direct tax increase on gasoline and diesel. Not on company profits.
The government has been collecting $10s of billions in taxes on fuel each year. Use that. Either way, taxing oil makes no sense when it is not used in any major way for electricity production.