Follow this blog:
RSS

Romney opposes wind tax credit

By | July 31, 2012, 5:39 PM PDT

Governor Romney's campaign called for an end to subsidies.

U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has taken a stance against renewing a tax credit that benefits wind turbine manufacturers. The Obama campaign hopes to make hay of Romney’s decision, which would affected manufacturing jobs in at least one swing state.

The Production Tax Credit (PTC), which subsidizes the wind energy industry, is due to expire at the end of this year. Mr. Romney today indicated that he doesn’t favor its renewal. Only Newt Gingrich made supportive statements during the Republican primaries.

A Romney campaign spokesperson said that Romney would “end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits,” and added that wind power will stand on its own if it’s viable.

(A note to Mr. Romney: The PTC was created under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and signed into law by Republican George H. Bush.)

President Obama’s campaign sought to draw a sharp contrast with Romney and cried foul on the “level playing field” claim. ”By opposing an extension to the wind production tax credit, Mitt Romney has come out against growth of the wind industry to support 100,000 jobs by 2016 and 500,000 jobs by 2030,” it said a statement.

“Meanwhile, he supports $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies for companies that have rarely been more profitable,” Obama’s spokesperson added. Vice President Joe Biden also went on the attack.

There’s also an upside for President Obama: Iowan voters. Iowa leads the nation in wind energy production, and projects such as Rolling Hills Wind Farm have generated over US$5 billion of private investment for the state with an estimated 4,000 jobs created.

Some of those replaced jobs lost in small town factories that were shuttered when the financial crisis hit. The wind power industry points to these jobs as a reason why the government should act to end its boom/bust cycle and says that past expirations have severely stymied business.

Both parties have favored ending subsidies - with Democrats seeking to end fossil fuel payouts and the Republican House caucus voting against renewables in lockstep. The GOP House recently began to investigate one wind energy project and stymied hearings on climate change.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Wind Turbines
It would indeed be a good thing to have a president that does not throw money away on poliitically correct boondoggles. The wind and solar "industries" are two that are ripe for the pruning.
Posted by midnighteye
1st Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Good for him.
The Obama campaign hopes to make hay of Romneys decision, which would affected manufacturing jobs in at least one swing state.

Let him. Decades of alternative energy subsidies going back to before Carter have brought us to the sad state of affairs we are in today. (My first professional programming gig was due entirely to wind turbine subsidies back in the early '80s) So let Obama stand up and continue to defend this policy after another 4 years of failed and corrupt green policy.

And David, when you point out that The PTC was created under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and signed into law by Republican George H. Bush, are you suggesting that Romney should continue bad policy simply because a party predecessor from 20 years ago (who was fired by the voters, by the way) thought it was a good idea? In any other context, you'd call such an approach to policy as regressive and moronic.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 1st Aug
+1 Vote
+ -
The right decision.
GE paid $0.00 corporate income taxes in 2011 because of green tax credits.

Rant all you want about decades of oil industry subsidies, NEVER has an oil business paid NOTHING in corporate income taxes.
Posted by Hates Idiots
1st Aug
+2 Votes
+ -
RE: Good for him and the right decision
Yes!

You know who is going to scream the loudest? The CEO of GE who is Obama's Job Czar....and just exported the whole xray division out of Wisconsin to China..

The odd thing is the greenie people who will moan the loudest are the same ones who protest getting rid of a prairie dog colony but don't seem to mind all of the avian species and bats that windpower chops up (not to mention they're a pain in the tush to live around). Without the rest of us paying for them, they'll never pay for themselves and be gone.

Hopefully he's elected, hopefully he'll put a stop to this kind if buffoonery!
Posted by GregGold
1st Aug
+1 Vote
+ -
Big Oil
"Meanwhile [Romney] supports $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies for companies that have rarely been more profitable".
Posted by theotherwill
1st Aug
-1 Votes
+ -
I say again.
GE paid $0.00 corporate income taxes in 2011 because of green tax credits.

Rant all you want about decades of oil industry subsidies, but NEVER has an oil business paid NOTHING in corporate income taxes.

I say, get rid of all subsidies and let the market go where it wants. If oil is really that expensive without subsidies than renewable energy will gain ground in the market.

I just hate my tax dollars going to ANY OF THEM.

With my tax dollars back in my pocket I'll be able to afford the higher prices for energy.
Posted by Hates Idiots
1st Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Natural gas is the way to go.
Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty, dangerous, expensive coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel cars,pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. Here are over 400 recent links for you: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbaKYme3bqOw0b6KMxXSjOLHLNeflalPy9gIAiTYFMQ/edit
Posted by ronwagn
1st Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Windmills - A Threat to Endangered Species
Windmills kill nearly half a million birds a year, according to a Fish and Wildlife estimate. The American Bird Conservancy projected that the number could more than double in 20 years if the administration realizes its goal for wind power. For years, the wind energy industry has had a license to kill golden eagles and lots of other migratory birds.
Over the past two decades, the federal government has prosecuted hundreds of cases against oil and gas producers and electricity producers for violating some of America's oldest wildlife-protection laws: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act.
But the Obama administration has never prosecuted the wind industry despite myriad examples of widespread, unpermitted bird kills by turbines.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawksas well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Actare being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.
So keep on pushing on this "green energy" while species are going extinct because people refuse to see the main reason why we are running out of fuel: OVERPOPULATION. We shouldn't focus on how we can rape our planet of more resources we should focus on reducing the world population and then all the problems will be solved.
Check this out: http://www.vhemt.org/
Posted by Albastru
4th Aug
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!