article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (12) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
April 25, 2006

The Solar Subsidy Crutch or an Uneven Playing Field?

Critics of solar energy often cite the subsidies it requires to even come close to being cost effective with utility provided energy. How do you respond to such criticism? Specifically, can you quantify the subsidies that are provided to coal, natural gas and nuclear derived energy? Bob T. Charlotte, NC

There is no free market in energy in the United States, and in fact, we are one of the very few industrialized nations who subsidize our mature energy companies with mature energy technologies in mature energy markets.

Our government has directed billions of dollars of subsidies to the traditional energy industries, compiled by US General Accounting Office September 25, 2000 to The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Minority Member: Tax Incentives for Petroleum and Ethanol Fuels: Estimates of Revenue Losses Over Time Dollars in millions Tax incentive Summed over years Adjusted to year 2000 dollars Petroleum industry Excess of percentage over cost depletion a 1968-2000 $81.679-$82.085 billion. Expensing of exploration and development costs a 1968-2000 42.855-54.580 billion. Alternative (nonconventional) fuel production credit 1980-2000 8.411-10.542 billion. Oil and gas exception from passive loss limitation 1988-2000 1.065 billion. Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs 1994-2000 482-1.002 bilion. Expensing of tertiary injectants 1980-2000 330 million.

According to a 2003 US PIRG study on appropriations, federal government energy supply R&D expenditures from1948-1998 in federal appropriation for research and development expressed in 2003 dollars were: Nuclear energy $74 billion, Fossil fuels $30.9 billion, Renewables $14.6 billion, and Energy efficiency $11.7 billion.

The Energy information Administration (EIA) issued a report in 1999, where, in summary form, federal FY 1999 subsidies as
federal support for all primary energy are nicely listed at:
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/table_es1.html)

But the recently-passed Energy Bill is the most illustrative. The Joint Committee on Taxation advises Congress the extent of subsidies they passed in a report dated July 27, 2005 (http://www.house.gov/jct/x-59-05.pdf) - and the Cliff Notes version of the $11.525 billion of energy subsidies: $2.822 billion went to the oil and gas industries. Of the $5.06 billion that went to the electric utility industries an additional $1.14 billion went to nuclear decommissioning and an additional 278 million went to 'new' nuclear facilities, and 1.612 billion went to clean coal.

Now energy efficiency received $1.284 billion, and $2,747 went to extend the renewable energy tax credits for 2 years.

My annotated list of tax subsidies I regularly handout to policymakers are:

Oil Royalties on Federal Lands (May 1998), High Bill: "Royalty In-Kind" fee rather than "World Price" fee causes US Treasury to lose $330 million per year and $1.65 billion over 5 years (How an Oil Industry favor Wound Up in a Tornado bill. The Washington post. (Juliet Eilperin) May 2, 1998 Page A6.)

$10 Billion in Subsidies that Fuel Global Warming(November 1997) Mining Reclamation deduction $500 million/year Percentage depletion on oil, natural gas and coal (Cut $10 Billion in Subsidies that Fuel Global Warming to Fund Energy Alternatives and Economic Solutions. Friends of the Earth. November 1997. 12 pages.)

$880 million/year on Capital Gains and Treatment on Coal Royalties, and
Oil Imports, TaxPayer Subsidies and the Petroleum Industry (May 1995) Independent Oil and Gas Producer Exemption from Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) plus 58% of all federal subsidies ($21.1 billion directly promote fossil fuels of which $7.7 billion are tax benefits ( Oil Imports, Taxpayer Subsidies and The Petroleum Industry. Citizen Action (Ed Rothchild) May 1995. 20 pages.)

Federal Energy Subsidies (April 1993) 1989 dollars per year (low estimates) Tax Exempt Bonds for public power $1.14 billion and Tax Exclusion for electric coops $403 million, Percentage Depletion: Oil & Gas $390 million, Gas and Oil Exemption: passive loss restrictions $135 million (Federal Energy Subsidies: Energy, Environmental and Fiscal Impacts. Alliance to Save Energy. (Douglas Koplow) April `1993. 91 pages)


Federal Energy Subsidies (November 1992) Revenue Loss by Type: FY'92 Tax Deferrals: $100 million ($20 million for expensing), Tertiary injectants and $80 million in working Interest in oil and gas properties). Income Reducing Measures $870 million ($745 million in excess percentage over cost depletion exclusion and $125 million on interest waiver on state and local bonds relating to energy) (Federal Energy Subsidies: Direct and Indirect interventions in Energy Markets. Energy Information Administration. Report # SR/EMEU/92-02)

Beyond the usual subsidies, I have not found revenue loss reports for the overseas oil refinery credit given to the oil companies so they have had favorable tax treatment to move their refineries overseas. How ironic now that Congress and the President lament that the oil industry then actually did move our oil refineries off shore. However in February 2006, the New York Times reported that the federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years. New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government. Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011.

Various experts say the subsidies range from 2-3 cents per kilowatt hour and around 50 cents per gallon of gasoline for direct subsidies, and that's not counting our military expenditures specifically directed toward protecting sea lanes for our oil tankers and the oil fields of our suppliers overseas.

So in response to your question on "how do I justify subsidies to clean energy?" - to compensate for the tens of billions of dollars of your taxes propping up older, polluting technologies. A sad situation, isn't it?
Reader Comments (12)
 
No image available
April 26, 2006
I'd like to know where you can get electricity at 7 cents a kilowatt hour like the first comment notes.

My PG&E bill includes tier 4 prices above 0.30 $/kWh and an average price around 0.18 $/kWh.

My 5600 W grid tied system is going to pay for itself in 4 years or less, considering PG&E's prices

Does anyone honestly think these utility electric prices are going to be any better in the years to come???

Does anyone honestly think the price of PV is going to come down substantially???

I don't think so.

The time to move to a Solar Economy is now...
Comment 1 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
I am no accountant but...
Assumtions..
$9.00/Watt installed PV (this is a high price and no Subsidies!)

a 1000 W (1 kW) system costs <$9,000>

5 sun hours per day (Annual average for Central Latitude Continental US, and an easy number to calculate)

For every 1 our of full sun hitting 1000 PTC PV watt, you produce 1 kWh

so...
5 sun-hours x 1 kW = 5 kwh per day produced by a 1kW PV system

365 days/year x 5 kwh/day = 1825 kWh/year

year $ lifetime
year 1 : $9000 / 1825 kWh = $4.93/kWh
year 2 : $9000 / 3650 kWh = $2.46/kWh
year 10: $9000 / 18250 kWh = $0.49/kWh

(for year 20 we will add $1000 mantinance, high but honest)

year 20: $10000 / 36500kWh = $0.27/kWh

year 30: $10000 / 54750kWh = $0.18/kwh

this system has produced 54750 kwh @ $0.18/kWh over the course of 30 years!!!
Does anyone really believe that they will only be paying $0.18/kWh in 30 years??!!
Comment 2 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
This is an area where I think the RE community has made a substantial strategic mistake. We get defensive about taking a pro subsidies position. A more powerful response to people who get on the high horse about subsidies is to request that they name a few world leading, US based industries that did not receive subsidies (its pretty tought to do). There is a reasonable arguement against subsidizing mature industries. However it is short sighted political posturing to suggest that developing industries, RE in particular, with many compelling benefits to this country, be left on life support while other countries scoop up the market and become the dominant players.

Those self riteous folks who scream no to subsidies are mysteriously silent when it comes to those that they support. We need to have the political stamina and tenacity to "Out" them and take it to them. There is no time like the present to do so.
Comment 3 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
Other "external costs" beyond military expenditures should also be factored, such as health care and environmental clean up. Studies show these two additional factors each cost our economy apx $100,000 billion per year. The study shows that we currently pay between $7 and $17/ gln at the pump but only $3 of that is what we complain about.
Comment 4 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
I want to add a couple of points to the discussion.
First, if we add in the military cost, we might as well toss in the environmental externalities (deaths and other health impacts) as subsidies given to the fossil industry.
Second, the question of cost of solar power v. conventional should acknowledge that we are talking only about the most basic situation of comparing solar with grid power. There are many other market niches, mostly off-grid, where solar is the more cost effective. Those niches are growing as solar closes the cost gap with grid power.
Third, the question of "how much are the subsidies" begs the question of when we should use subsidies. Seems to me subsidies should be used only to support the future we want AND if the subsidies are necessary to encourage that future. Using those criteria, the subsidies for solar are too small, and the subsidies for the fossil industry are inexcusably too large.
Comment 5 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
If one is considering the subsidies provided to the multinational petroleum industry, how can one not include the many appropriations to the Defense Department?

Our billions of "defense" dollars frequently go to securing oil rich nations' "loyalty" to a managed international market that is tilted in our favor. This cost needs to be added to every gallon of gasoline and other petro product we demand here.

In short, defense expenditures are a subsidy to big oil.
Comment 6 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
I agree with Tom that solar PV is not the only supply answer, but I sense it is part of the answer. And though that solar PV electricity is 5 times more expensive than CURRENT grid-power costs, how much will it be once the system has paid for itself? --ZERO, if grid-connected /no batteries are involved.
Comment 7 of 12
No image available
" Solar might work one day but the tech has to drop by a factor of 10 in price ".
The immediate way out till tech costs drop is by value addition to solar power.
We have established that large scale fresh water supply to coastal cities by seawater desalination using solar PV energy,at 100MLD scales and more are cost effective. Our small proof-of-concetp tech demonstator is working, but we don't know how to take this forward into industry and commerce even though compelling demand exists.
Comment 8 of 12
No image available
April 26, 2006
So "various experts" say electricity is subsidized 2 - 3 c /kwh. Take that as a fact. (It may be less than this).

You did not answer the question. How does solar power, at $0.50 to $1/kwh delivered, compete with regular electricity at 5 cents (with a 2 - 3 cent subsidy) that means 7 - 9 cent electricity? It can't. Imagine your electricity bill at about 5 times what it is now.

Solar might work one day but the tech has to drop by a factor of 10 in price. Considering how all the electronic goods we buy seem to go down in price by large amounts every year, this may happen soon.

There are real initiatives that can actually save $ and lower oil dependence, and clean up the environment. Replacing all the oil furnaces in the US with Geothermal over the next 5 years would do more than wind, solar and other subsidized renewable energy sources combined.
Comment 9 of 12
No image available
June 14, 2006
Clayton: What studies? Joe: Seattle area is nearly so cheap, but who else has their hydro?
Also, don't forget 9/11: If our military presence in Saudia Arabia is counted, add about $1 trillion to the cost of oil (infrastructure damage, economic and direct military costs). 9/11 cost me personally several grand in lost sales of macadamia nuts when the Japanese refused to fly for awhile (Hawaii).
Comment 10 of 12
No image available
June 15, 2006
After all of the number crunching and brough haw-haw concerning the cost of utilizing electrical energy, there is an ultimate question we must all ask ourselves.
Humanbeings had been capable of surviving on the planet Earth for thousands of years without utilizing electrical energy. The simple fact that we are still here today is testimony to that fact. The question is.
Why is it that within the past 100 years humanbeings on the planet Earth cannot survive without utilizing electrical energy?
Comment 11 of 12
No image available
November 15, 2006
No utility industry has had more subsidies and perks than nuclear power. In order to get the industry going, congress had to come up with a way to indemnify the industry from being sued in the event of an accident (Price Anderson Act). Look at your homeowners insurance policy and you will see. This law virtually leaves the public holding the bag and carrying the coffin in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. In the event of a nuclear accident, the Price Anderson Act allows nuclear operators to cause hundreds of billions in damage, enormous loss of life and sickness, yet escape full responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It summarily gets renewed every time it comes up for renewal.
Comment 12 of 12
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Lectrus ATAS International, Inc. KACO new energy, Inc. focus solar OPEL Solar, Inc. Garrad Hassan America Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo