Pelosi wants to kill the future of Solar Power in the US!

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by mikeski, Nov 12, 2007.

Page 1 of 2
  1. mikeski

    mikeski New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    14
    0
    0
    Please help!

    Pelosi and Reid have proposed a bill that will eliminate the federal tax credits (FTCs) for Solar Power projects in the United States. This is a trade for higher CAFE standards. We shouldn't be so worried about CAFE standards, high gas prices will provide the same motivation as the higher CAFE standards. Elimination of the FTCs will have a devastating effect on the US solar power industry.

    PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK AND CALL YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE, ENCOURAGE THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL.

    http://capwiz.com/re-action/callalert/inde...241&type=CO

    Thanks,
    Mikeski
     
    #1 mikeski, Nov 12, 2007
  2. Neicy

    Neicy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    834
    19
    0
    Location:
    Wakefield, MA.
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    XLE
    Nowhere on the link does there appear any Bill # to support. I always read the text of the bill before contacting my representatives in Congress. Do you have a number?
     
    #2 Neicy, Nov 12, 2007
  3. Allannde

    Allannde Just a Senior

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    874
    138
    0
    Location:
    Washington State
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neicy @ Nov 12 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]538543[/snapback]</div>

    I totally agree with Neicy. This looks like a bum steer.
     
    #3 Allannde, Nov 12, 2007
  4. IsrAmeriPrius

    IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    4,333
    7
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    #4 IsrAmeriPrius, Nov 12, 2007
  5. mikeski

    mikeski New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    14
    0
    0
    My career is focused on developing large scale Solar Energy Projects in California and a few other select states with attractive rebate programs. Simply put the value federal tax credits available for large scale projects account for approximately 30% of the cost of the project. Solar power sales are already challenging to commercial customers. Without the tax credit most projects currently under consideration by my customers will be disqualified for other facility improvements that bring no benefit to the environment.

    Pelosi is walking a thin line. She probably wants both the CAFE standards and the solar FTCs but she knows Bush and company will kill the bill. She has chosen the CAFE standards over solar. My argument is high gas prices will provide the same results as the CAFE standards (people always follow the money). I feel her better choice would have been the renewal of the FTCs.

    Here are a few more links:
    http://www.seia.org/
    http://www.calseia.org/
    http://seia.org/ITC_Conference_Factsheet.pdf
    http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=710
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x2264813
     
    #5 mikeski, Nov 12, 2007
  6. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,194
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Mikeski,
    I completely understand where you're coming from on this issue and do not blame you for being concerned and soliciting support.
    That said, the CAFE standards go far beyond simple fuel efficiency and while higher gas prices may, indeed, be some incentive for the public to push for more fuel efficient vehicles I think most of us believe that far greater immediate and near-future good can arise from implementation of said standards.
    I do not want to see the solar FTC lost either and realize it could devestate your business...but often compromises must be made...I think it's better to get the long term plan chisled in stone (CAFE standards), then we can try to reestablish the solar FTC later on.
     
    #6 efusco, Nov 12, 2007
  7. zenMachine

    zenMachine Just another Onionhead

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    3,355
    300
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    We need both. Why can't we put the pressure on the folks that are opposing raising CAFE standards instead?
     
    #7 zenMachine, Nov 12, 2007
  8. madler

    madler Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    289
    13
    0
    Location:
    Pasadena, California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), CAFE standards will have a much larger immediate effect on CO2 emissions than solar ITCs. However we shouldn't be trading those things. We should be doing both. And then some.

    The solar ITCs are a critically important investment in our eventual replacement energy source. The Sun is the only source out there that could physically, economically, and politically replace fossil fuels. The solar ITCs get that industry rolling now, so we'll have it then.

    It's too bad congress can't show actual leadership, as opposed to making bargains with the devil.
     
    #8 madler, Nov 13, 2007
  9. MarinJohn

    MarinJohn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    3,945
    304
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Nov 12 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]538733[/snapback]</div>
    Now here is a statement which will find very little opposition on either side of the aisle. In the end of the day it is only the devil who wins in DC.
     
    #9 MarinJohn, Nov 13, 2007
  10. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 13 2007, 09:28 AM) [snapback]538941[/snapback]</div>
    DC - Devil City? :lol:
     
    #10 TimBikes, Nov 13, 2007
  11. n8kwx

    n8kwx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    236
    1
    0
    Location:
    Arlington Heights, IL - NW Chicago Suburb
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    The existing tax credits (for residential) were quite limited.

    They expire in the next year or so.
    They were limited to $2000. (Most residential systems cost way more than $6000).

    The only thing I would have to say about CAFE is that there must be no separate classification (or sliding scales) for "light trucks" (SUVs). Otherwise the bill is gutless.
     
    #11 n8kwx, Nov 13, 2007
  12. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 13 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]539172[/snapback]</div>
    The Flex-fuel loophole should also be eliminated. It's a travesty.
     
    #12 tripp, Nov 13, 2007
  13. madler

    madler Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    289
    13
    0
    Location:
    Pasadena, California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 13 2007, 06:43 PM) [snapback]539172[/snapback]</div>
    The bill was to extend the residential tax credits for six years and eliminate the $2000 limit. It would also permit claiming the tax credit against AMT.
     
    #13 madler, Nov 13, 2007
  14. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 13 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]539172[/snapback]</div>
    There is a case to be made for things like pick-up trucks used for construction & the trades that have a need for a large size. This is why I really favor a fuel tax over CAFE. The trades will simply pass on their fuel costs to their customers, while the rest (i.e., non-commercial users) will think twice about larger vehicles because they have no need and the fuel cost will get exorbitant. Plus, with a gas tax there are no real loopholes -- other than using less.

    The other problem with CAFE is that improved mileage may only encourage additional driving. A gas tax will always have the effect (to one degree or another) of discouraging driving.
     
    #14 TimBikes, Nov 14, 2007
  15. n8kwx

    n8kwx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    236
    1
    0
    Location:
    Arlington Heights, IL - NW Chicago Suburb
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 14 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]539296[/snapback]</div>
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not a CAFE supporter. It is not the best way to solve the problem. But since congress won't talk sense...

    The problem is that the CAFE route "light truck" or weight classifications, make trucks more attractive, and cars less attractive.

    It is my opinion that this "loophole" is a huge factor in SUVs displacing the "traditional" family car. Cars had to shrink, but trucks didn't!
     
    #15 n8kwx, Nov 14, 2007
  16. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 13 2007, 11:02 PM) [snapback]539312[/snapback]</div>
    I agree. I had also read that the new CAFE standards would rely on "footprint" size, not weight. So you may soon see a lot of really wide SUVs and cars ...
     
    #16 TimBikes, Nov 14, 2007
  17. mikeski

    mikeski New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    14
    0
    0
    UPDATE:

    The investment tax credits are back in the bill.

    Thanks,
    Mike
     
    #17 mikeski, Nov 16, 2007
  18. n8kwx

    n8kwx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    236
    1
    0
    Location:
    Arlington Heights, IL - NW Chicago Suburb
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mikeski @ Nov 16 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]540588[/snapback]</div>
    Is there still a $2000 limit for individual (non-business) systems?
     
    #18 n8kwx, Nov 16, 2007
  19. madler

    madler Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    289
    13
    0
    Location:
    Pasadena, California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 16 2007, 06:41 PM) [snapback]540748[/snapback]</div>
    The House says no limit, and furthermore both individuals and businesses would be able to deduct against AMT.

    The Senate would raise the limit to $4000, and does not permit deduction against the AMT.

    These differences will eventually be negotiated in conference. The story isn't over yet.
     
    #19 madler, Nov 17, 2007
  20. WARHORSE

    WARHORSE New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    418
    0
    0
    Location:
    SoBe, FL
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Great and Kerry wants to stop the USA's ability to refine oil out of coal

    I guess Kerry wants us to remain oil dependent
     
    #20 WARHORSE, Dec 6, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2