Extends termination of the state sales and use tax exclusion for certain alternative substances used as fuel by manufacturers. (OR NO IMPACT GF RV See Note)
The bill's impact on state laws is significant, as it modifies tax regulations to incentivize the use of alternative fuels. This change aims to support the manufacturing sector by reducing operational costs associated with fuel purchases, thus promoting economic activity in the state. Furthermore, as alternative fuels often have lower environmental impacts compared to traditional fossil fuels, the extension of this tax exclusion may contribute positively toward environmental policies by encouraging greener practices among manufacturers.
Senate Bill 168, sponsored by Senator Walsworth, seeks to extend the state sales and use tax exclusion for certain alternative substances used as fuel by manufacturers. Originally set to expire on June 30, 2012, the bill proposes to extend this exclusion until June 30, 2015. The aim of this legislative change is to provide ongoing financial relief to manufacturers who utilize alternative fuels, which include substances such as petroleum coke, landfill gas, and biodiesel. By extending this tax exclusion, the bill encourages more manufacturers to adopt alternative fuels, potentially leading to environmental benefits and promoting the use of less conventional energy sources.
General sentiment around SB 168 appears to be supportive among industry stakeholders, particularly within the manufacturing sector. Advocates argue that the extended tax exclusion for alternative fuels will lead to increased competitiveness and sustainability practices. However, there may be concerns from budget advocates regarding the implications of extended tax exemptions on state revenue. The discussions surrounding the bill highlight a balance between fostering an eco-friendly transition in energy usage and ensuring stable state finances.
Notable points of contention surrounding SB 168 may stem from differing opinions on the worthiness of maintaining tax exclusions. While proponents view it as an essential step toward modernization in energy usage within the manufacturing sector, critics may question the long-term revenues lost due to these exclusions and whether such fiscal policies effectively encourage meaningful changes in fuel consumption. This discussion underscores broader debates about state fiscal responsibility versus strategic investments in sustainable practices.