Grassley-Conrad bill would extend ethanol tax credits through 2016
04 May 2011
US Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) introduced a bill—the Domestic Energy Promotion Act of 2011— that would extend, through 2016, at descending levels, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, or VEETC, which is also known as the blenders’ credit. It also would extend, through 2016, the alternative fuel refueling property credit; the cellulosic producers’ tax credit; and the special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property.
The bill also has the original co-sponsorship of Senators Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Al Franken of Minnesota, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Ethanol already represents nearly 10% of the US fuel supply. The Senators said they introduced their legislation because it would provide the certainty that’s necessary for the additional private investment and job creation that will help further develop ethanol.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) applauded the bill for its extension of the availability of the cellulosic biofuel tax credit.
We commend Senator Grassley for recognizing the need for long-term, stable tax policies in helping to attract investment the construction of new advanced biofuel biorefineries and for his efforts to extend the current cellulosic biofuel production tax credit. Few advanced biofuel companies have been able to make use of this credit to date. A more comprehensive federal policy that mitigates the risks of investment in new, innovative technologies could help achieve the national goals of reducing reliance on foreign oil, increasing energy security, creating domestic jobs, and improving the environment. Such a policy would provide flexibility for next generation biorefineries through a choice of investment or production tax credits and increase eligibility for emerging, cutting-edge technologies such as algae, renewable chemicals and biobased products. Tax incentives would then help to build a robust, sustainable renewable industry.
—Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO’s Industrial and Environmental Section
Every politician is still pushing in own local agenda regardless of what is good for the nation.
Posted by: HarveyD | 04 May 2011 at 04:52 PM
All American biofuel companies should operate with zero corporate taxes and zero capital gains taxes.
Posted by: ejj | 04 May 2011 at 06:29 PM
I would like it phased out for corn grain and phased in for cellulose. If the second half of the RFS is suppose to be cellulose, let's provide some incentives for what we want.
Posted by: SJC | 04 May 2011 at 08:53 PM
Right one SJC.
Posted by: HarveyD | 05 May 2011 at 08:16 AM
It sounds like they are providing lots of incentives for cellulose, but it may be like pulling on a mule that just won't budge. They can put cellulose processing front ends on existing ethanol plants, but it costs. We can put in gasification and synthesis plants, but it costs.
Posted by: SJC | 05 May 2011 at 08:44 AM
Really NOT GREEN! US and worldwide GLUT of gasoline will continue to put price pressure on lame, low BTU, hard-to-transport, diesel and water-sucking, driveability problem inducing ethanol. Its embarrassing to be a midwesterner and an ADM stockholder sometimes. If anything, more biodiesel production should be encouraged.
Posted by: fred | 05 May 2011 at 10:35 AM
Everyone seems to have an opinion about what could and should be done. It is time to get past the words and actually make some of this happen.
Posted by: SJC | 06 May 2011 at 08:36 AM