Wrong on wind credit I
How can the editorial “The wind energy credit: A shafting grows” (Jan. 5 and TribLIVE.com) bash the wind-energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) and not talk about tax credits for other forms of energy?
Historically, tax credits have been used to promote growth of new energy sources, from oil to natural gas to coal. U.S. government support for oil, natural gas and coal totaled more than $500 billion from 1950 to 2006, according to a study done for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
And while tax credits for fossil fuels are never-ending, the tax credit for wind power has typically been extended only for one to three years.
Despite that, wind power is still growing. In fact, new wind capacity reached 6,519 megawatts by Nov. 30, beating last year's 6,335 megawatts of natural-gas additions and more than double those of coal.
The fact is, with the PTC, wind power is just following the trail previously blazed by older forms of energy. Adding domestic, clean wind power to our energy portfolio adds jobs, boosts our economy and keeps our air cleaner for decades to come.
The writer is executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition (marec.us).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Blame judges
- Hiring in Westmoreland II
- Hiring in Westmoreland I
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- ‘Trust’ in God
- Fitz draws ire
- Pols’ real interest
- Knows, supports Corbett
- Article painted wrong picture
- Show appreciation
- Mitochondrial disease awareness