Politics Who owns the wind? We do, Wyoming says, and it's taxing those who use it

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by dawg, Aug 14, 2016.

  1. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Staff Member

    Reputations:
    540,702
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    119,509
    Likes Received:
    90,796
    la-1470185149-snap-photo.jpg

    Not long after it became clear that the robust winds that blow down from the Rocky Mountains and across the sea of sagebrush here could produce plenty of profit in a world that wants more renewable energy, some of the more expansive minds in the Wyoming Legislature began entertaining a lofty question:

    Who owns all of that wind?

    They concluded, quickly and conveniently, that Wyoming did.

    Then, with great efficiency for a conservative state not traditionally tilted toward burdening the energy industry, they did something no other state has done, before or since: They taxed it.

    In the four years since Wyoming began taxing power generated by wind turbines, it has collected a little less than $15 million in revenue.

    No, that is not much money in a resource state rocked by the simultaneous decline in the prices of coal, oil and natural gas, a state trying to close a budget gap that could reach $500 million.

    But now, as one of the world’s largest wind farms is about to begin construction here on a project aimed at providing clean electricity to nearly a million homes in California and the Southwest — potentially transforming this fossil fuel state into a major player in renewables — some powerful state lawmakers are looking to raise those taxes.

    And some in the wind industry, which has long benefited from incentives and subsidies, say they are worried. The company that has spent nine years trying to build the wind project says higher taxes could further delay or even halt the plan.

    “Just about every legislator we’ve met with asks us, ‘You tell us how much we can tax you before we put you out of business,’” said Bill Miller, chief executive of the Power Co. of Wyoming, which is planning the wind farm. “I just shake my head and say, ‘Zero.’”

    He said the state was at risk of “taxing this project out of existence.”

    The rest

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sej-wyoming-wind-tax-snap-story.html
     
    sstressed, Gogol Boobdello and XuXu like this.
  2. Vincenzo69

    Vincenzo69 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    69,363
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    14,182
    Likes Received:
    17,823
    Oil lobby's attack on renewable energy
     
  3. Stew Nod

    Stew Nod Hello VIP

    Reputations:
    313,789
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    55,652
    Likes Received:
    41,351
    Scumbag bottom feeders
     
  4. Stew Nod

    Stew Nod Hello VIP

    Reputations:
    313,789
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    55,652
    Likes Received:
    41,351

    Ya think?
     
    XuXu likes this.
  5. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Staff Member

    Reputations:
    540,702
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    119,509
    Likes Received:
    90,796
    You cant have private citizens producing clean energy that allows them to make a profit also. How dare you.
     
  6. SalsMasterShake

    SalsMasterShake Mouthpiece VIP

    Reputations:
    49,639
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,755
    Likes Received:
    6,685
    They are systematically ruining solar in Arizona as well. In the last election, the main utility company here went negative against 2 pro-solar corporation commissioner candidates and bankrolled 2 of their "conservative" candidates.

    Solar's been butt fucked ever since in a state that should have a panel on every roof...
     
    babybear, Mr Pink, XuXu and 1 other person like this.
  7. R.P. McMurphy

    R.P. McMurphy Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    199,092
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    41,581
    Likes Received:
    40,972
    ...california now owns ultraviolet light in the state and all solar panel owners have been stealing a state owned commodity. you know its coming.
     
  8. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Staff Member

    Reputations:
    540,702
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    119,509
    Likes Received:
    90,796
    I was just thinking that people with solar panels can probably expect a tax also. why not? they also own the sun right?
     
    XuXu, Humongous and Stew Nod like this.
  9. SalsMasterShake

    SalsMasterShake Mouthpiece VIP

    Reputations:
    49,639
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,755
    Likes Received:
    6,685
    Exactly.

    The utility company also ran ads saying how people with panels were "ripping off" the rest of us :facepalm:
     
    XuXu, Humongous and dawg like this.
  10. Vincenzo69

    Vincenzo69 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    69,363
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    14,182
    Likes Received:
    17,823
    I heard on a conservative talk show recently they were talking about solar panels being dangerous.
     
  11. SorryBoff

    SorryBoff Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    83,511
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    9,966
    Likes Received:
    13,812
    The day will one day come when every home has its own source of renewable energy and power plants will only be there to fill the gaps.

    Then the govt will tax everyone and they'll all pay just as if they were using only power from the utility companies.
     
    Hatfield and wife is a whore like this.
  12. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    394,009
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,359
    Likes Received:
    26,991
    Taxing the wind?

    JFC. :facepalm:

    I swear to God, government could fuck up a wet dream.
     
  13. Dorb

    Dorb Lovable Old Pig VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    125,319
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    17,538
    Likes Received:
    18,595
    Oil, coal, and the railroads that haul it.
     
    XuXu and Humongous like this.
  14. Dorb

    Dorb Lovable Old Pig VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    125,319
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    17,538
    Likes Received:
    18,595
    What the hell is next???
    Taxing my pig farts? :mad:
     
    Head Censor likes this.
  15. Anyonenow

    Anyonenow Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    119,578
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,481
    Likes Received:
    5,597
    It's ALL Political

    Here is the Republican Platform 2016
    https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
    Page 26

    Summary For the TLDR crowd: "Drill Baby Drill"

    A New Era in Energy

    Our country has greater energy resources
    than any other place on earth.
    Our engineers and miners, the
    men and women whose labor
    taps the forces of nature, are
    the best in the world. Together,
    the people of America’s energy
    sector provide us with power
    that is clean, affordable, secure,
    and abundant. Their work can
    guarantee the nation’s energy
    security for centuries to come if,
    instead of erecting roadblocks,
    government facilitates the
    creation of an all-of-the-above
    energy strategy.
    We applaud congressional
    Republicans for doing just that
    through far-sighted legislation.
    Both Houses have passed bills that will modernize
    pipelines and the electric grid, protect the grid from
    disruption, expedite energy exports, and lower
    energy costs. A Republican administration will
    build on those policies to find new ways to store
    electricity, a breakthrough of extraordinary import.
    Planning for our energy future requires us to
    first determine what resources we have in reserve.
    Thirty years ago, the world’s estimated reserves of
    oil were 645 billion barrels. Today, that figure is 1.65
    trillion barrels. The more we know what we will have
    in the future, the better we can decide how to use it.
    That is why we support the opening of public lands
    and the outer continental shelf to exploration and
    responsible production, even if these resources will
    not be immediately developed. Because we believe
    states can best promote economic growth while
    protecting the environment, Congress should give
    authority to state regulators to manage energy
    resources on federally controlled public lands within
    their respective borders.
    The Democratic Party’s energy policy can be
    summed up in a slogan currently popular among
    its activists: “keep it in the ground.” Keeping energy
    in the earth will keep jobs out of reach of those
    who need them most. For low-income Americans,
    expensive energy means colder homes in the winter
    and hotter homes in the summer, less mobility in
    employment, and higher food prices. The current
    Administration, and particularly its EPA, seems
    not to care. Its Clean Power
    Plan — the centerpiece of the
    President’s war on coal — has
    been stayed by the Supreme
    Court. We will do away with
    it altogether. The Democratic
    Party does not understand
    that coal is an abundant, clean,
    affordable, reliable domestic
    energy resource. Those who
    mine it and their families
    should be protected from the
    Democratic Party’s radical anti-
    coal agenda.
    The Democratic Party’s
    campaign to smother the U.S.
    energy industry takes many
    forms, but the permitting
    process may be its most damaging weapon. It takes
    an average of 30 days for states to permit an oil or
    gas well. It takes the federal government longer than
    seven months. Three decades ago, the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM) leased 12.2 million acres.
    In 2014, it leased only one-tenth of that number.
    Our nuclear industry, cleanly generating almost 20
    percent of our electricity from its 99 plants, has
    a remarkable safety record, but only a handful of
    plants have been permitted in over three decades.
    Permitting for a safe, non-polluting hydroelectric
    facility, even one that is being relicensed, can take
    many years because of the current President’s
    hostility to dams. The Keystone Pipeline has
    become a symbol of everything wrong with the
    current Administration’s ideological approach.
    After years of delay, the President killed it to satisfy
    environmental extremists. We intend to finish that
    pipeline and others as part of our commitment to
    North American energy security.
    Government should not play favorites among
    energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon
    forget the current Administration’s subsidies to
    companies that went bankrupt without producing
    a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration
    now requires the Department
    of Defense, operating with
    slashed budgets during a time
    of expanding conflict, to use its
    scarce resources to generate 25
    percent of its electricity from
    renewables by 2025. Climate
    change is far from this nation’s
    most pressing national security
    issue. This is the triumph of
    extremism over common sense,
    and Congress must stop it.
    We support the
    development of all forms of
    energy that are marketable in a
    free economy without subsidies,
    including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and
    hydropower. A federal judge has struck down the
    BLM’s rule on hydraulic fracturing and we support
    upholding this decision. We respect the states’
    proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic
    fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal
    drilling, and we will end the Administration’s
    disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with
    respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste.
    We encourage the cost-effective development of
    renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass,
    biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private
    capital. The United States is overwhelmingly
    dependent on China and other nations for rare earth
    and other hardrock minerals. These minerals are
    critical to advanced technology, renewable energy,
    and defense manufacturing. We support expediting
    the permitting process for mineral production
    on public lands. We support lifting restrictions to
    allow responsible development of nuclear energy,
    including research into alternative processes like
    thorium nuclear energy.
    We oppose any carbon tax. It would increase
    energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at
    the families who are already struggling to pay their
    bills in the Democrats’ no-growth economy. We
    urge the private sector to focus its resources on the
    development of carbon capture and sequestration
    technology still in its early stages here and overseas.
    American energy producers should be free
    to export their product to foreign markets. This
    is particularly important because of international
    demand for liquefied natural
    gas, and we must expedite
    the energy export terminals
    currently blocked by the
    Administration. Energy exports
    will create high paying jobs
    throughout the United States,
    reduce our nation’s trade
    deficit, grow our economy, and
    boost the energy security of
    our allies and trading partners.
    We remain committed to
    aggressively expanding trade
    opportunities and opening
    new markets for American
    energy through multilateral and
    bilateral agreements, whether current, pending, or
    negotiated in the future.
    Energy is both an economic and national
    security issue. We support the enactment of
    policies to increase domestic energy production,
    including production on public lands, to counter
    market manipulation by OPEC and other nationally-
    owned oil companies. This will reduce America’s
    vulnerability to energy price volatility.
     
    XuXu likes this.
  16. Anyonenow

    Anyonenow Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    119,578
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,481
    Likes Received:
    5,597


    Well...since you mentioned it:
    I remember laughing when I first heard about it.
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/11/republicans-warn-of-a-federal-tax-on-cow-flatulence/

    Even in Australia:
    History
    In 2003, the tax was opposed by MP's of the ACT Party[2] and the National Party. but eventually they proposed an alternative solution, as described below. Shane Ardern, a National Party MP, drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament as part of a protest against the tax.

    In 2004, a consortium of the livestock industry agreed to pay for a portion of this research (just not via taxation), and the government reserved the right to reconsider the tax if they or the industry withdrew from the agreement.[3]

    In New Zealand, farm animals account for approximately 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions, according to two official estimates,[4] and the Kyoto treaty may compel New Zealand to pay penalties if gas levels are not brought down. Research shows that the world's livestock produce are a significant contributor to global emissions[5] (NZ exports a significant degree of its dairy and meat, as noted in Economy of New Zealand.)

    In 2004, whilst the Labour Party's coalition still led parliament, New Zealand's livestock farmers agreed to contribute to related scientific research, and to fund an unspecified portion of the costs of the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium.[3][6][7]

    In September 2009, the National-led government announced that a push would be made for the formation of a Global Alliance to investigate methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to agriculture. Simon Upton, a former National Party MP and Minister for the Environment, was appointed as a special envoy to liaise with other countries on the issue.[8]

    Controversy
    The tax was described by livestock farmers and other critics as a "flatulence tax"[9] or "fart tax"
    [10] (though these nicknames are misleading, since most ruminant methane production is a product of the burping of methane produced by bacteria in the first stomach (the rumen) rather than of flatulence[6]), and the president of the Federated Farmers contended that the government was trying to make the livestock industry pay for the "largesse" of others.[9]

    In contrast, those who endorse such taxes contend that the end result is that if one consumes a larger amount of the products which increase healthcare costs (in a system where citizens share each other's medical costs) – or those whose habits damage the environment, or if one's animals require antibiotics constantly to ameliorate disease-prone conditions, antibiotics which breed super-bugs that may also attack humans – then one would merely be paying for their own largesse, and the costs to society that their habits cause (and the opposition argues that one should pay more, commensurately, as one does or consumes more of what harms others in his society)[11] (see also Pigovian tax).
     
    Dorb likes this.
  17. R.P. McMurphy

    R.P. McMurphy Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    199,092
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    41,581
    Likes Received:
    40,972
     
    scoobyla likes this.
  18. Afganistand

    Afganistand Motivationally Deficient VIP

    Reputations:
    42,177
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    5,061
    Sooooooo,

    If the gubmint owns the wind,

    Can you sue them for wind damage?
     
  19. SuperFarts

    SuperFarts Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    47,139
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,148
    Likes Received:
    9,642
    [​IMG]
     
    CrucifiedAGT likes this.
  20. R.P. McMurphy

    R.P. McMurphy Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    199,092
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    41,581
    Likes Received:
    40,972
    ...you could sue them but you wouldnt win.