Jeff Bingaman United States Senator from New Mexico

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly in opposition to one of the amendments the Senator from Tennessee has offered. It is amendment No. 3551.

I think one of the most important things we can do in order to encourage development of renewable resources is to encourage construction of power lines to bring the power from where it is produced to where it is needed. Many of the best areas for development of wind and solar power are in remote parts of our country. That is in the upper midwest Plains States or in the desert southwest in particular. Lack of transmission from these remote locations is seriously hampering the great potential for the generation of electricity from these resources. 

Power lines to such places are expensive and often face local opposition from landowners and residents across whose lands the lines have to be built. The farm bill, section 12302, attempts to address the problem by creating a tax incentive to encourage farmers and ranchers and landowners to allow transmission lines to be built across their property. Landowners receive a payment whenever they agree to the siting of a transmission tower on their land, and these payments are currently taxable. Section 12302 would make those payments tax exempt if the power that is carried on the lines comes primarily from a renewable generator that is eligible for the renewable production tax credit. Senator Alexander's amendment here would strike that section. The cost of that section, as I have been advised, is $91 million over 5 years--a little less than $20 million per year. 

It is clear from reports of the Western Governors' Association and many others that we are going to need substantial construction of new transmission lines throughout the West in the next several years if we are going to increase use of renewable energy. Transmission lines have more benefit than just to the generator. They enhance the reliability of the transmission system. They help break bottlenecks that make generation more expensive than it needs to be. They also can enhance local economies by opening areas that have been closed to development. My own view is that this tax exemption would help to encourage farmers and ranchers to seriously consider the siting of transmission lines in locations where it makes sense. 

Senator Alexander argues that wind power receives enormous subsidies under current law and under the Energy bill that is being debated. It is difficult, of course, to look into the future, but if you look at the last 5 years, according to a GAO report issued this year, the Department of Energy received $11.5 billion in funding for electricity-related research and development, and $6.2 billion of that went to fund nuclear power research and development and $3.1 billion went to fund fossil fuel generation. Mr. President, $1.4 billion went to all renewables--not just wind but all renewables combined. GAO also estimates that during that same period, fossil fuels received about $13.7 billion in tax expenditures, and renewables, about $2.8 billion. When new nuclear power facilities are built--and there are some now on the verge of being built--they will receive very generous tax credits as well under current law. I have supported those tax credits. 

I believe, as the Senator from Tennessee said, that nuclear power is an essential part of the solution to global warming and a central part of the solution to our future energy needs, but I believe alternative renewable power also fits in that category. For decades now, fossil fuel generation and nuclear power have received the lion's share of Federal support. If renewables are to take their rightful place in the market, we need to be providing support to them on an equal footing. I believe that an exemption extended to farmers and ranchers, who deserve adequate compensation when their land is used, is good public policy. 

I know the Senator from Tennessee is proposing that the funds involved here would be shifted over to a land grant research program that Senator Alexander wants to fund. That is a good program. I understand the managers of the bill are working on funding for this program to be included in--increased funding for this program to be included in the managers' amendment. I would argue that there are better places to look for paying for that program than from the incentives for farmers and ranchers to engage in such a worthwhile purpose. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on that amendment by the Senator from Tennessee. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor.