Energy ‘Transition’: It’s a Federal Bribe (versus consumer demand)

From MasterResource

By Bill Peacock

“If Americans want to keep their gasoline-powered cars and their large refrigerators … be able to afford travel across their states and country … avoid European—and California—style energy poverty, their only hope is to convince politicians to end subsidies for renewables and all other forms of energy.”

It is common for advocates of renewable energy to complain about the subsidies given to fossil fuels. “We have heard testimony,” stated U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, “about the threat climate change poses to entire sectors of our economy.”

So, what are we, the federal government, doing to protect against these threats?  Actually, we are subsidizing the danger.  As we’ll hear today, the United States subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with taxpayer dollars.

Joining Sen. Whitehouse in this vein are groups like the International Monetary Fund, The Future is Electric, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Exaggerations

The amount of fossil fuel subsidies is very exaggerated. Whitehouse claims the U.S. subsidies in 2022 alone were $20 billion. The IMF estimated the amount earlier at $660 billion (for 2020). As the multi-year totals show in Figure 1, these claims are not accurate.

Source: Bennett, et al; U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation 2019 & 2023; U.S. EIA; Congressional Budget Office

Perhaps these claims are efforts to distract from massive renewable energy subsidies that are driving the “energy transition” from fossil fuels to renewables. As seen above, renewables received $74 billion from the U.S. government in 2010–19. They are expected to increase to $244 billion from 2020 to 2029.

The subsidies are the only reason that wind and solar generation exist on the U.S. grid at commercial scale. And are the primary reason that the U.S. grid is experiencing increasingly unsustainable levels of unreliability. The subsidies also represent a takeover of the U.S. electric grid by the federal government, following in the footsteps of the takeovers of Wall Street, health care, and education.

If Americans want to keep their gasoline-powered cars and their large refrigerators, if they want to be able to afford travel across their states and country, if they want to avoid European—and California—style energy poverty, their only hope is to convince politicians to end subsidies for renewables and all other forms of energy.

Rapid Growth of Renewable Subsidies

Energy subsidies from the U.S. government come in three forms: tax expenditures, direct expenditures, and research and development expenditures. Though the proportions vary based on the energy type, the vast majority of federal energy subsidies are in the form of tax expenditures, or tax credits.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculated each form of subsidy for each fuel source for the years 2016 to 2022. Figure 2 shows that for the seven-year period covered in the EIA report, renewable subsidies were more than three times greater than subsidies for fossil fuels: $83.8 billion to $25.8 billion. This relationship of the subsidies in the EIA report is reflected in our research.

        Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

As seen in Figure 1, Bennett, et al. found that from 2010 to 2019, renewable energy subsidies were more than double the subsidies for fossil fuels, $74.1 billion to $37.9 billion. Today that gap is widening. From 2020 through 2029, subsidies for renewables are projected to be $244.9 billion compared to $22.5 billion for fossil fuels. Federal subsidies for fossil fuels have decreased by 40%, while renewable subsidies are up by 230%.

         Source: Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation

While renewable subsidies increased from 2010 through 2022, their growth exploded after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed by President Joe Biden on August 16, 2022. Figure 3 shows that before the IRA became law, wind and solar generation subsidies from 2023 to 2029 were projected to total $66 billion. After the IRA, they are projected to total $174.8 billion. But this likely underestimates the level of subsidies. The original CBO estimates we use for 2028-29 have proven in earlier years to vastly understate actual costs. These increases in renewable subsidies contrast with the estimated decline in subsidies for fossil fuels over the same period (Figure 1).

The Takeover of the U.S. Electric Grid

The push for increased renewable subsidies in the IRA marked perhaps the final stage in the U.S. government’s 30-year effort to take over the U.S. electric grid. The effect the subsidies have had on the decisions made by investors in energy markets highlight the government’s success. The success is predicated on the fact that renewable energy subsidies are not only larger than subsidies for thermal generation in absolute terms but even larger on a per unit of electricity generated (Figure 4).

                                     Source: Bennett, et al

This points to the significant effect that renewable subsidies have on the profits of renewable energy generators. IBISWorld estimates that U.S. wind generators will receive $49.7 billion in revenue this year, with another $19.5 billion flowing to solar generators. At a combined $69.2 billion, this means the estimated $21 billion in federal wind and solar subsidies for 2024 will increase the return on investment for generators by 30% above what they earn for selling electricity. Generators in Texas, the nation’s leading generator of electricity from renewables, have experienced a similar boost. In 2018 federal and state subsidies for renewables totaled $2.5 billion. That added an additional 28.8% to Texas’ renewable generators bottom line above their revenue from sales.

These taxpayer-funded, government-guaranteed returns are the reason that renewable generation is swamping the U.S. electric grid and pushing investment in reliable thermal generation to the side. Investment in renewables grew from $29.4 billion in 2010 to $55.4 billion in 2019 as investors chased subsidized profits. An increase in renewable generation has predictably followed. In 2014, renewable generation totaled 279,242 gigawatt hours, only 6.8% of all electricity generated. By last year, renewable generation had increased 135% to 653,663 gigawatt hours. This equaled 15.6% of total generation. Meanwhile, generation from non-renewable sources fell by 7.6%.

Texas is also experiencing a renewable takeover. ERCOT, which manages about 90% of the Texas grid, forecasts renewable generation will increase by 58,654 megawatts through 2029 (wind by 3,628 megawatts, solar by 36,868 megawatts, and batteries, which also receive billions in subsidies, by 18,158 megawatts). Thermal resources, however, will only increase by 1,074 megawatts. Renewables are projected to make up 98.2% of new generation on the Texas grid over the next five years.

Ohio is another state that is going through the energy transition. The Solar Energy Industries Association reports that commercial solar facilities in Ohio have 2,822 megawatts installed, an increase of 1,300 megawatts from last year. Ohio ranks 15th in the nation for installed solar generation, up from 32nd from 2023. And farther ahead than Texas or Ohio is the renewable takeover in California. Wind and solar now make up 45.6% of in-state generation, far ahead of thermal generation’s 33.6%. Most of the rest comes from hydroelectric generation.

The Cost of the Energy Transition

The shift to renewables has come at great cost to Americans. In California, for instance, wholesale electricity prices were the highest in the nation last year at $67 per megawatt hour. Residential prices in California are also the highest at 34.3 cents per kilowatt hour, more than double the national average of 16.4 cents. Texas is not far behind. Residential prices are up 27% since 2021, though at 14.7 cents still well behind California.

But wholesale prices are a different matter. Wholesale prices last year were just behind California’s at $65. If Texas keeps that up, residential price hikes will follow. In Ohio, the cost of installing solar has reached $3.7 billion, a heavy price for generation facilities that are operational for less than half the day. Residential prices in Ohio are up 40% over the last decade, to 16.6 cents. The high cost of renewables extends to all Americans. Renewable subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $318 billion from 2010 through 2029 (see Figure 1). The average annual cost from 2023 to 2029 will be about $30 billion.

The increased cost of electricity is not confined to price and tax hikes. The reliability of the U.S. grid is also taking a beating. It is a well-known fact that the reliability value of renewable energy declines as its grid penetration increases. This should not be surprising given the fact that renewables can only generate electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. This “intermittent” nature of renewables imposes a great burden on grid reliability. Texas, with its Winter Storm Uri blackouts, is the current poster child for what renewables can do grid reliability, but California is no stranger to this. Reliability costs, however, go well beyond the economic costs of blackouts (estimated to be between $80 billion to $130 billion in Texas for Uri). Over the last 10 years, Texas politicians and regulators have forced consumers and taxpayers to pony up on average about $5.8 billion a year as they try to incentivize new natural gas-fired generation that can come online when renewables fail. And the reliability problems caused by a reliance on renewables are responsible for California’s sky high electricity prices.

Conclusion

When politicians take over markets, bad things happen. Costs increase, consumer choices are thwarted, and well-connected businesses get rich off taxpayers. We see all these things happening in the U.S. energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables. The only way to eliminate these and other harms is to let the market work and eliminate all energy subsidies—federal and state—in America.

—————————–

Bill Peacock is the policy director of the Energy Alliance. The Energy Alliance (www.theenergyalliance.com) is a project of the Texas Business Coalition to raise awareness of issues about the energy market that matter the most to consumers: Reliability, Affordability, and Efficiency.

4.9 12 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keitho
Editor
August 29, 2024 10:42 pm

The number that really matters to taxpayers is the subsidy per unit of energy delivered and that looks horrible for wind and solar. What would be interesting is the amount of federal and state revenue each energy source generates thus showing the net subsidy/ tax situation for each fuel type.

August 30, 2024 1:42 am

I have read that some of the major oil companies purchased large wind and solar facilities soon after they were completed, in order to harvest the subsidies, which probably the only reason to invest in commercial wind and solar. Are these counted as unreliable subsidies or as fossil fuel subsidies?

Since there are large subsidies for “carbon” capture and sequestration, it is likely that major FF companies bought into some of that honey pot. There are also large subsidies for developing “green” hydrogen processes and for some other “biofueles”. Again, are these counted by who is mining them or by the nature of the project? These are not strictly FF subsidies.

In addition, it seems that some FF powered electrical generation has been subsidized as a last ditch effort to prevent blackouts, after the plant has been driven into insolvency by regulations favoring unreliables. I suppose this is counted as subsidizing fossil fuels but it seems unlikely that any of that money reaches any fossil fuel company.

If there are official claims of subsidies for FF companies, surely the particulars are identified somewhere. Are there actually any US subsidies for things that are strictly oil, gas, or coal but not projects to reduce CO2 production from those fuels or to support backup power from otherwise unfunctional FF powered electrical generation plants?

Why would there be actual subsidies for the production of substances (fossil fuels) that virtually every one in the world wants more of than are available?

Reply to  AndyHce
August 30, 2024 6:46 am

“If there are official claims of subsidies for FF companies, surely the particulars are identified somewhere. Are there actually any US subsidies for things that are strictly oil, gas, or coal but not projects to reduce CO2 production from those fuels or to support backup power from otherwise unfunctional FF powered electrical generation plants?”

Good questions.

A detailed list of subsidies for fossil fuels should be provided. I suspect, as you do, that the production of coal, oil and natual gas is not being subsidized by the federal government, nor should it be. Coal, oil, and natural gas producers can stand on their own if given a level playing field.

So what are these subsidies supposedly given to coal, oil and natural gas producers?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 30, 2024 7:12 am

Click on any of the embedded links for ‘Bennett, et al’ and you’ll get much more detail. For example re. oil and gas they note:

‘More than 90 percent of oil and gas subsidies quantified
in this paper come from tax expenditures, and 76 percent
comes from three specific tax expenditures: expensing of
intangible drilling costs, excess of percentage cost over
depletion, and master limited partnerships (MLPs). The
classification of each of these tax provisions as subsidies is
often challenged, and we count them as subsidies in this
analysis for the sake of completeness and consistency with
the rest of our work, not to make a definitive claim on their
status.’

Clearly, there’s room to debate whether any of these actually rate as ‘subsidies’ in comparison to the obvious subsidies ladled out to renewables.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 30, 2024 8:38 am

Room for debate because “for the sake of completeness and consistency” the average person (me) has a hard time making sense of these ‘yuge’ $$ numbers.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 31, 2024 3:27 am

“Clearly, there’s room to debate whether any of these actually rate as ‘subsidies’ in comparison to the obvious subsidies ladled out to renewables.”

Those are not subsidies, they are tax breaks.

The difference is subsidies are money that the government gives out to various entities. With tax breaks, the government does not pay a company any money, instead, the company pays the government less than it would without the taxbreak.

Government spends taxpayer money for subsidies. Government does not spend taxpayer money for tax breaks.

Government is not subsidizing the production of coal, oil, or natural gas. So the Climate Alarmists are lying when they claim otherwise.

Denis
August 30, 2024 2:11 am

What do you mean by “subsidy?” Are you including asset depletion allowances, mandatory insurance programs and such or you just meaning payments by a government to encourage something? A definition of what you mean would help understanding.

oeman50
Reply to  Denis
August 30, 2024 6:39 am

Yes, the enviros create self-serving definitions of the term to influence the outcome.

Scissor
August 30, 2024 5:03 am

They need to begin using scientific/engineering notation to report government spending.

guidvce4
August 30, 2024 6:21 am

Stop the subsidies. Period. Let the market decide the winners and the losers. Not the politicians.

Tom Halla
August 30, 2024 6:24 am

Failure to define what a “tax subsidy” is makes the discussion fruitless. Ordinary accounting rules are sometimes called “subsidies”.

Lars Tovander
August 30, 2024 7:09 am

Note, Facebook does not like this article. If you post it they will remove it. 😞

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Lars Tovander
August 30, 2024 11:34 am

Nothing fortifies Democracy like hiding the truth.

August 30, 2024 8:11 am

A taxpayer viewing figure 4 draws only one obvious conclusion, that taxpayer funds should only be dispensed to encourage fossil fuel and nuclear development. A liberal politician draws a different conclusion, that there is much more graft and influence to be had in renewables than in energy sources that can stand on their own without government interference.

August 30, 2024 8:56 am

Starting with testimony that climate change is a threat to the economy why do Whitehouse and his colleagues assume that the problem is that such change is due to fossil fuels? The next logical step would be to establish the cause for climate change which Congress has not done. Without this objective basis subsidies are nothing more than a political exercise.

Paul Seward
August 30, 2024 9:36 am

“The subsidies also represent a takeover of the U.S. electric grid by the federal government, following in the footsteps of the takeovers of Wall Street, health care, and education.”

This was the most chilling statement in the article. Beware of the cancerous creep of socialism, communism and fascism.

Reply to  Paul Seward
August 30, 2024 9:47 am

Tip of the iceberg. Most people are ignorant of the fact that the State’s primary source of power is its ability to ‘print’ money ex nihilo.

Sparta Nova 4
August 30, 2024 10:17 am

A BLM add appeared on cable while I was watching a movie. It addressed freedoms. One of the freedoms specifically of interest was the freedom to travel anywhere in the country. Interestingly enough the image presented was a gas station.

That made me pause. There are segments of society that are economically challenged. With their freedom to travel the country be increased with EVs? IMHO the answer is negative.

August 30, 2024 10:58 am

Follow the money. $82/MWh of subsidies for solar. This is fantastic for the makers, distributors and installers of solar systems. Lousy for everyone else. It’s pretty easy to see which people and organizations our leaders favor.

Bob
August 30, 2024 7:43 pm

The government is worthless when it comes to picking winners and losers. If the government is partial to wind and solar you know they are losers, get rid of them. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid.

Verified by MonsterInsights