Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation on the credit for biomass stoves and boilers.
Description: This bill increases the allowable amount of the energy efficient home improvement tax credit for biomass stoves and boilers.
Sponsors: Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]
Target Audience
Population: People investing in biomass stoves and boilers for their homes
Estimated Size: 1000000
- Biomass stoves and boilers are primarily used in residential settings in colder climates where heating is essential, and other heating options might be more expensive.
- This type of amendment would appeal to homeowners looking to improve energy efficiency and reduce heating costs.
- The bill would impact manufacturers of biomass stoves and boilers, potentially increasing demand for their products.
- Retailers who sell biomass stoves and boilers, and contractors who install them, would notice increased business from homeowners taking advantage of the tax credit.
- More broadly, such legislation might encourage greater awareness and adoption of renewable energy sources among the general public.
Reasoning
- The adoption of biomass stoves and boilers is geographically limited within the U.S., with higher concentrations in the Northeast and rural regions due to the local availability of biomass resources and colder climate conditions.
- The primary beneficiaries will be homeowners in these regions who can take advantage of the tax credit to make energy-efficient improvements as well as manufacturers and retailers involved in the supply chain.
- Because the policy is a tax incentive, it will primarily benefit those who have both the means to invest in a biomass stove or boiler after the rebate and the need for supplemental or primary heating solutions.
- Most immediate impacts in wellbeing will be seen in reduced heating costs (economic impact) and potentially improved environmental comfort, leading to higher life satisfaction over several years.
- Long-term impacts will see the benefits stabilize as the initial surge in adoption diminishes and new units reach their end of life without further policy incentives.
- Not all potential users will be influenced by the policy due to other pre-existing economic or technological constraints. Commercial adoption or those without tax liabilities would have a muted response.
Simulated Interviews
school teacher (Vermont)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is great because it can help me save on my heating bills.
- I've been considering a more efficient stove, but the cost was prohibitive without an incentive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
software engineer (New York)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good initiative but doesn't impact me directly since I rent and live in the city.
- I'm supportive of cleaner energy but I wish renters had more options too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
retired (Maine)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This tax credit is really beneficial for me. I've wanted to switch from oil to biomass for years.
- This incentive makes the switch more feasible financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
environmental activist (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see policies supporting renewable energy, even if it doesn't impact me directly.
- I hope similar incentives can be created for more diverse renewable energy systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
small business owner (Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased demand for biomass units should give a boost to my sales.
- It’s good for those trying to reduce their carbon footprint and helps my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
public health nurse (Alaska)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living off the grid, every reduction in energy cost helps.
- This kind of policy feels like a step towards more sustainable living choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
environmental scientist (Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reinforces the importance of renewable resources.
- It may boost local markets for biomass, though I've already converted my own systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
farmer (Montana)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A policy like this can provide much-needed relief from high energy costs.
- Switching to more efficient equipment is possible with these credits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
electrical engineer (New Hampshire)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives us the opportunity to upgrade our heating before next winter.
- Saving on heating bills will really help our budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
retailer (Illinois)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is good for business as it could lead to increased sales of energy-efficient products.
- Promoting green energy is important, and this kind of policy supports that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $145000000 (Low: $95000000, High: $195000000)
Year 3: $140000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $190000000)
Year 5: $130000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $175000000)
Year 10: $110000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $155000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness of the tax credit in stimulating demand largely depends on consumer awareness and the cost-benefit balance of installing biomass stoves.
- The environmental benefits of increased biomass usage, such as reductions in fossil fuel consumption, might not directly translate into fiscal savings.
- Market dynamics, including the availability of biomass materials and the infrastructure for distribution, could moderate the impact of the legislation.