KELO reports numbers from the American Wind Energy Association ranking the states on their wind power generation capacity. The following table shows the top five states in total wind power capacity, wind power added in 2007, and wind power a percentage of state generation capacity:
| State Wind Power Rankings, 2007 | |||||
| Wind Power Capacity | Wind Power Capacity | Wind Power Capacity | |||
| Texas | 4446 | Texas | 1618 | Iowa | 5.5% |
| California | 2439 | Colorado | 776 | Minnesota | 4.6% |
| Minnesota | 1299 | Illinois | 592 | New Mexico | 3.9% |
| Iowa | 1271 | Oregon | 447 | Oregon | 3.5% |
| Washington | 1163 | Minnesota | 405 | South Dakota | 2.6% |
| Source: American Wind Energy Association, Annual Rankings Report, April 2008 | |||||
Note that South Dakota is 17th overall in wind power capacity, at 98 megawatts. Minnesota added five times that much capacity just last year.
Again, why are we behind Minnesota? It's not like Minnesota has more wind: we rank 4th in the nation for wind energy potential. Check this PDF from AWEA, and you'll see that Minnesota ranks 9th; Texas ranks 2nd, with just 1.16 times South Dakota's wind potential, but has 45 times our capacity.
Funny thing: most of the states beating us in building wind power also have corporate and personal income taxes. (Washington has neither; Texas has a franchise tax.) So tell me again: how do income taxes kill jobs and opportunities?
If you want more wind farms in the state? here's an idea, let's get rid of property taxes on any plots of land that are used to produce wind energy. We need to be lowering taxes to create economic develop, not creating new ones than then using that money to incentivize the creation of windmills.
ReplyDeleteAs a self-employed, perpetually struggling writer, I moved to South Dakota in part because of the lack of a state income tax. I shall be opposed to such a tax until my dying breath.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as an environmentalist, I am all in favor of wind energy. Why are we not, as a state that ranks near the top in terms of favorable climate for small business startups (because of our low taxes, dadburn it!), doing more to attract private activity in the wind energy department? Since when does the development of wind power (or any other new alternative energy source) have to be undertaken by the government? This is America, after all. Private enterprise is our thing!
The property-tax reduction idea is a good one. I would also like to see it become easier for individual wind-power contributors to sell their excess back to the utility. If we had many hundreds of individual wind-power generators hooked into the grid, along with plenty of commercial ones, the diversity of the grid, and therefore its fault tolerance (also called fail-safe potential), would improve as well.
But not if we start taxing people out of our fair state. The added burden of a state income tax, both in terms of cost and time spent on new paperwork, would give me (for one) incentive to look West. Wyoming is only 14 miles from my doorstep.
I'd love to get into a good hearty debate about the state income tax issue. Again, I think it would be poisonous to our economic climate. I do understand, however, that there are some rational arguments for it. So much more the fun of a good clean fight.
Dear editor, please e-mail me if you would like to don your fencing costume and take me on! Mybe-mail can be accessed via my Web site, below.
My pencil is sharpened!
Heard you on SDPB by the way. Jolly good show.
Stan Gibilisco
Lead, SD
www.sciencewriter.net
Matt, my point is that income tax and economic development are obviously not mutually exclusive. To propose that tax handouts for corporations are essential for economic growth runs counter to the evidence. Taxes and labor costs in South Dakota are already at the bottom of the barrel, and we offer one of the best wind supplies in the country, yet wind power investors still won't flock here. Something other than tax incentives is missing form the picture.
ReplyDeleteSo Stan, are you really better off paying steadily rising property tax rather than a percentage of your perhaps fluctuating, perhaps meager writer's income? And for the record, I'm not looking for an income tax on top of current taxes: I'm looking to replace the regressive sales and property taxes with a progressive income tax. Get the tax system on a fairer, less arbitrary basis, and we might have more revenue and draw better businesses and workers. When our tax structure only attracts businesses who want to dodge taxes, we end up with a poorer state and a poorer culture.
Cory,
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, "the tax system on a fairer, less arbitrary basis, and we might have more revenue and draw better businesses and workers."
Let's say we have your idea of a progressive income tax like we do on the federal level. If someone chooses to work very hard, get a great education, be productive and make a great income, why should we punish them by making them not only pay a higher percentage of tax on their income? Shouldn't we be rewarding those who are productive members of society and providing employment to others, not punishing them?
I wuold be in favor of a flat tax, because we would all pay the same percentage. Alternatively, I would be more in favor of everyone paying the same dollar amount of taxes. It's not reasonable that just because someone is more productive that they should have to pay more.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, property taxes here in Lead are steep -- among the highest in South Dakota.
ReplyDeleteReplacing the property and sales taxes with an income tax? That is a fabulous idea. But I fear that in reality, things would not happen that way. I simply do not trust government to control its appetites without constant oversight and resistance from the people.
Counties would keep their sales tax and maybe even boost them; property taxes might go down a bit, for awhile, but they would never go away. One might as well try to get rid of the prairie dogs.
As for why we can't attract businesses -- that is a topic for another rant on my part. Simply put, this state is not a sexy place, and people are scared of the things they have heard about our winters.
Aloha,
Stan Gibilisco
I agree with Matt. If you work hard and earn more, you pay higher income taxes to the feds. If you slough off, you pay nothing and get money back on top of it. Something wrong with this somehow.
ReplyDeleteI liked the idea of a fair tax. Everyone pays it. If you want to purchase something expensive, you pay a higher tax on that item. But everybody pays something for the privilege of living in this great country.
The only way an income tax would MAYBE have a chance in SD is if you did away with property taxes and sales taxes at the same time with the promise that they would nevermore return. Ha! Never will happen.
The more money you give to a gov't, the more it will spend. Same thing as moving to a larger house. You will fill it up with more stuff just because you have more room.
Nonnie