Topeka — Congress may have knocked the wind out of attempts in Kansas to increase wind energy, officials said.
The energy bill signed by President Bush stripped out future extension of production tax credits for wind energy and other renewables.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Topeka, said she voted against the bill because of that.
"This decision was one of the hardest I've had to make in Congress," said Boyda, whose district includes west Lawrence.
An earlier version of the bill passed by the House would have cut billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil companies and used that money to invest in biofuels and wind energy.
But the Senate removed those provisions.
"Biofuels and wind energy offer tremendous promise both for America's energy future and for the Kansas economy," Boyda said.
Jim Ploger, manager of climate and energy programs for the Kansas Corporation Commission, said the production tax credit will continue for 2008, but unless Congress acts to extend it further, then it will end.
Without the tax credit, Ploger said, wind development would slow down considerably.
"It plays havoc with financing," he said.
But Ploger said he has heard that when Congress reconvenes next year, there will be a push to extend the tax credit beyond 2008.
As it stands, the energy bill marks the first increase in auto fuel standards in 32 years.
The measure increases fuel efficiency to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Current standards are 25 mpg.
It also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
So once again the American public is smacked around by congress (na, this bunch doesn't deserve a capital "C").
We get to pay more for smaller "more efficient" automobiles. Yes, I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much "green house effect" is attributable to automobiles versus plain ol' water vapor.......
We get to pay more at the grocery for foodstuffs that will be diverted to Ethanol production.
We get to pay more for energy because Ethanol takes almost as much energy to make as it generates.
And as a last kick in the pants
We get to pay more for WATER because Ethanol takes an ungodly amount of water during production!
Thanks, congress! (said with the same tone as Peggy, Bud and Kelly to Al Bundy)
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
Reagrdless of the estimated supply, which is subject to debate, petroleum must become a small part of our energy mix within the next generation. We need a new vision to deal this and a realistic assessment of our situation. Almost everything we use daily is made from petroleum products, using it to shove tons of steel down public thoroughfares is a luxury we can no longer afford.
jlw53 (anonymous) says…
Sorry, Valkyrie. Pteroleum is NOT a luxury.
And Only is correct about the ethanol and food costs. Super bad idea for all but politicians and corn farmers.
Nuclear is by far the most efficient method for electricity, and if it's good enough for the ultra-liberal French, there is no reason we can't do it more efficiently and safely here. Wind could produce no more than 1-2% of our needs at best if you study the capacity calculations. Nice idea, but the cost of equipment and potential additional noise pollution is not worth the investment.
In spite of the "consensus" (as driven home consistently by the mainstream media), Global warming is an unproven myth and not worth considering. Air and water pollution are where we should concentrate our efforts, as they are everyday necessities for all living beings and plants.
Kropotkin (anonymous) says…
The only reasons anyone actually disbelieves the fact of global warming is because they're incredibly uninformed or terminally stupid. The same folks who paid for the alleged "controversy" propaganda are the ones who said that tobacco won't give you cancer.
Ethanol is certainly a boondoggle, however, and biofuels won't solve our problems. Only extraordinary conservation can help.
lounger (anonymous) says…
When is George W. Bully out of office again? A little over a year from now? Maybe the next prez will have a tiny amount of smarts and see that other ways of producing energy (besides oil) must be explored NOW! G.W. doesnt live in reality at all. Kansas WILL be a leading producer of wind power in the future when George porgie is (thank god) but a memorie.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Nuclear is by far the most efficient method for electricity,"
Only if you ignore how wasteful and potentially dangerous it is.