When it comes to relationships, Congress is a big tease. Or so it must seem to the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. Just when they think they’re about to go to the altar with the federal government, Congress becomes the runaway bride.
Everyone who’s anyone acknowledges that energy efficiency and renewable energy are indispensable to America’s future. They promise greater energy independence, clean air, steady prices, infinite supplies, a lower trade deficit, and a way to begin minimizing the suffering that will result from global climate change.
Due to the urgency of global warming, the future must start now with rapid diffusion of the clean energy technologies that are ready for market. We must also expedite the development of new efficient and renewable energy technologies and the industries that make, sell and service them.
To compete on the same playing field as oil, gas and coal — our entrenched and heavily subsidized carbon fuels — the clean energy technologies need federal help, including subsidies. For example, to help embryonic renewable energy industries reach viability, Congress implemented a Production Tax Credit (PTC) as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and scheduled it to expire in 1999, seven years later. Since 1999, Congress has extended the credit for 1-2 years at a time and has allowed it to expire three times. It currently is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, along with a bundle of other tax benefits to encourage the use of more efficient windows, furnaces and building insulation.
The result of this on-again, off-again subsidy has been boom-bust cycles for wind energy and the other technologies covered by the credit. Each time the PTC is renewed, renewable energy projects begin to blossom. Then, months before the next expiration date, investment stops because of uncertainty. In an analysis of the PTC’s impact on the wind industry, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concluded:
Due to the series of 1- to 2-year PTC extensions, growing demand for wind power has been compressed into tight and frenzied windows of development. This has led to boom-and-bust cycles in renewable energy development, under-investment in wind turbine manufacturing capacity in the U.S. and variability in equipment and supply costs, making the PTC less effective in stimulating low-cost wind development than might be the case if a longer-term and more-stable policy were established.
LBNL found that a longer extension of the PTC — 10 years, for example — would bring the installed cost of wind power down by up to 15% compared to off-again, on-again credits in place today, and would create more local economic development and jobs. The cost of a 10-year extension is estimated at $5.75 billion, a pittance compared to current tax breaks for the fossil and nuclear industries. By way of comparison, subsidy expert Doug Koplow at Earth Track estimates that federal energy subsidies totaled nearly $50 billion for fossil fuels in 2006, while nuclear energy received $9 billion.
The Congressional tease may be the result of some paternalistic micro-managerial impulse on the Hill. Or it may be the Members’ way of keeping these young industries on a short leash so they have to court Congress again every two years. Or it may be that Congress just doesn’t understand business.
For a new industry to get a foothold in the marketplace, it must attract capital to build its plant, buy its equipment, establish its supply chains and so on. To attract that capital, it needs a stable and sustained market for its products. It needs “patient capital” to get across the “Valley of Death” – that period in which a new technology is market-ready but not yet market-competitive, in part because it hasn’t achieved economies of manufacturing scale.
In some cases in the past, Congress has forced an incentive to expire so quickly that it was only available for a few months by the time the government’s rulemaking process was done. In other cases, Congress’ sunset date has simply been unrealistic. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a credit for new energy-efficient commercial buildings. But to qualify, the buildings had to be designed, financed and built to the stringent specifications of the credit within two years. As a result, few buildings were able to take advantage of the credit.
Some people argue the federal government should not be in the energy subsidy business at all. When it comes to federal subsidies for the production and consumption of oil, coal, gas and nuclear power, I agree. Mature industries are parasitic industries when they continue taking taxpayer money they don’t need. Public subsidies are particularly bad when they encourage bad behaviors — for example, continued dependence on disappearing resources or continued emissions that threaten permanent damage to the Earth’s ecosystems. Today, we taxpayers are subsidizing greenhouse gas emissions.
However, when an industry is in its infancy and its maturation is clearly in the nation’s interest — as most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies clearly are — it is sound public policy to help it rise to its feet and traverse the Valley of Death. To mix metaphors, the nation can benefit from a marriage between the government and critical new industries. What an emerging industry does not need is a runaway bride.
Congress has had a long affair with oil, gas and coal. It’s time to break it off, to stop flirting and to settle down for a long-term relationship with the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries.
– Bill B.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
It’s good to identify the players in only having the production tax credit (PTC) for such short lengths. The republicans played it well, getting credit for having the PTC when they were in control of congress and now when the democrats are in control it is used as a bargaining chip. Republicans were not going to sign on to the PTC if there was a role back of the fossil fuel tax reductions republicans gave the fossil fuel companies in 2005. Not having the PTC would have angered the democratic base (what, we have a PTC when the republicans are in power, we don’t have it when the democrats are in power?) and allowed them to use it as a bargaining chip to save the fossil fuel tax reductions.
Tax philosophically, I’m for a reduction of sales, property and income and trade those tax reductions for a carbon tax. The government doesn’t start with a pile of money so it can then give tax breaks where it thinks it might be needed. Every tax break had to have had money come in from something else first. Simplify the whole government tax game by not reducing taxes on what you may want to subsidize, but tax first that which you may what to reduced usage of.
Yah, I know, it’s not as easy as all that. Doing it is another matter.
Imagine an inverted Exhibit 2 in the Earth Track reference you cite. 66% of the $49 to $100 billion going to conservation would increase the supply of all of the others (relative to demand) far more than the money they are getting today.
How odd. The Production Tax Credit has been enacted and renewed by Congresses and Presidents of both parties. I suspect the three lapses were due to institutional torpor rather than opposition to the policy. What is actually involved in making sure the congress renews PTC before it expires? Does it have to be part of a larger bill? Is there a particular subcommittee in either house that has responsibility? Where can we get details about the subsidies? How much are they? Who has taken advantage of them? What have they actually accomplished? What are the additional side benefits of the policy? What can be done to make PTC permanent?
“…federal energy subsidies totaled nearly $50 million for fossil fuels in 2006, …”
“_b_illion…”, surely?
Reminds me of the phrase “back when a million dollars/pounds was a lot of money”.
Yes, $50 billion is the correct amount for fossil fuel subsidies in 2006. Sorry for the slip, and thanks for the correction.
Some people seem to think that not all subsidies are created equal. For example, greens hold that subsidies for “renewables” are good, but subsidies for nuclear power are very bad. Both renewables and nuclear power do not emit CO2, and thus can be a part of a global warming solution.