You get what you pay for


At first glance, the LA Times’ most recent solar power expose looks like perfect fodder for the drumbeat argument from many GOP lawmakers to end federal subsidies for renewable energy projects. Big corporations building utility-scale solar in California, it points out, have been receiving huge direct and indirect payouts from the federal government, from loans to tax credits to “cheap” federal land upon which to build, and some are making huge profits. Not only that, it goes on, but California ratepayers could shell out 10 to 50 percent more for power under the state’s aggressive renewable energy approach.

"What's happening in California is a tragedy, on every front," San Diego-based electrical engineer and power plant consultant Bill Powers told the Times. "It's a huge waste of money…. I see a lot of this as just an old fashioned rip-off."

If indeed companies are making bank, why should we be paying them? Are we just padding corporate profits at the expense of regular Joes? Could they do it without the infusion of government cash? It’s possible and even likely that the answer is yes in some cases. But the bigger picture is more complex and nuanced.

For an example, look at what’s going on with the Production Tax Credit, which provides wind developers a 2.2-cent credit against their tax burden for each kilowatt-hour of energy they produce, keeping electricity rates low and encouraging development of new projects. The credit might not sound like much, but its existence is closely tied to how well the industry does in the U.S. Every time the credit threatens to sunset – as it has repeatedly done in the past and is again this December -- new investment in wind farms dries up. As 47 House Republicans called this month for the PTC to be allowed to die (sub required) – pointing to the Solyndra debacle for justification and arguing in a letter that, "Twenty years of subsidizing wind is more than enough" – hundreds of workers had been or were being laid off from major wind turbine manufacturers operating in the U.S., such as Siemens and Vestas. If you look at the American Wind Energy Association’s fact sheet for the PTC, you’ll see why: The trade group is forecasting a 100 percent drop in the amount of new wind power installed next year.

The math is simple: If no wind power is being installed, then nobody’s ordering turbines, and if nobody’s ordering turbines, then the workers who make their living building them are SOL (pardon my acronymed French).

As Joshua Green put it so astutely in his 2009 Atlantic article exploring why the U.S. has been so far behind the rest of the world on clean tech:

Plotted on a graph, the history of clean-energy production in the United States resembles the blade of a saw, rising and falling each time subsidies came and went. (In contrast) Japan, Germany, Spain, and Denmark show smooth, upward-sloping yield curves, a reflection of consistent government policy.

That consistency is important, and is often blatantly ignored in debates about whether fossil fuels or renewable energy receive better support from the feds. A recent post on The Scribe, an investigative branch of a news blog from the conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, gleefully trots out what it calls a “devastating chart” from the Congressional Budget Office to debunk “the myth that oil companies uniquely or excessively benefit from the tax code.” The Scribe rightly points out that renewable energy has, in terms of energy-specific federal tax incentives, been much better supported than fossil fuels since 2008. Indeed, the CBO found that thanks to temporary massive bumps from the stimulus act, as well as Obama’s other renewable energy programs, renewable energy, conservation and efficiency initiatives accounted for a whopping 78 percent of federal tax incentives for energy in 2011.

But that same Congressional Budget Office report clearly shows that that disparity is a recent development, and unless something changes, it’s not likely to last. From 1916 to 2005, the CBO says, U.S. energy subsidies in the form of tax breaks were primarily used to boost domestic oil and gas production. Up until 2007, in fact, fossil fuels were typically the beneficiaries of two thirds of relevant tax incentives, amounting to billions of dollars per year. And unlike the major recent tax breaks and incentives for renewables – most of which will have expired by the end of next year – those that benefit fossil fuels are permanent and thus offer the industry consistency and certainty that helps it grow and thrive.

In fact, reports the Associated Press, the shale gas revolution currently raging across the country might not have been possible without significant (and consistent) government support:

Over three decades, from the shale fields of Texas and Wyoming to the Marcellus in the Northeast, the federal government contributed more than $100 million in research to develop fracking, and billions more in tax breaks.

Now, those (in industry who helped pioneer hydraulic fracturing) say their own effort shows that the government should back research into future sources of energy – for decades, if need be – to promote breakthroughs. For all its success now, many people in the oil and gas industry itself once thought shale gas was a waste of time. "There's no point in mincing words. Some people thought it was stupid," said Dan Steward, a geologist who began working with the Texas natural gas firm Mitchell Energy in 1981.

In the end, the spat about who gets more incentives and what is financially sustainable is, perhaps, irrelevant, and misses the point. The implicit assumption in such discussions often seems to be that the direct expense of energy is ultimately the most important factor to consider – that, if renewable energy does require more support than fossil fuels to remain financially solvent in both the short and long term, then it may not the best way to invest public resources and in fact, may be wasteful. But that accounting ignores the impact of fossil-fuel-derived energy on our quality of life – from the ravages of climate change to urban kids who get asthma from smog – not to mention on the landscape. As the CBO writes, “Without government intervention, households and businesses do not have a financial incentive to take into account the environmental damage or other costs to the nation associated with their choices about energy production and consumption.”

A better world seems like something worth paying for, and paying for consistently, doesn’t it?

Sarah Gilman is the associate editor at High Country News

Image of a concentrating solar plant courtesy Flickr user Green MPs.

High Country News Classifieds
    Stellar seed-saving NGO is available to serious partner. Package must include financial support. Details:
    Available for site conservator, property manager. View resume at
    Starting Salary: Grade C, $19.00 to 24.00 per/hour Location: Albuquerque or Gallup, NM Status: Full-Time, Non-Exempt Benefit Eligible: Full Benefits Eligible per Personnel Policies Program...
    The Grand Canyon director, with the Grand Canyon manager, conservation director, and other staff, envisions, prioritizes, and implements strategies for the Grand Canyon Trust's work...
    Great Old Broads for Wilderness seeks a part-time Administrative Assistant to support the organization's general operations. This includes phone and email communications, office correspondence and...
    Built in 1901, The Crazy Mountain Inn has 11 guest rooms in a town-center building on 7 city lots (.58 acres). The inn and restaurant...
    by Edith Tarbescu. "One Will: Three Wives" is packed with a large array of interesting suspects, all of whom could be a murderer ... a...
    The Program Director will oversee the programmatic initiatives of The Salazar Center, working closely with the Center's Director and staff to engage the world's leading...
    Salary Range: $70,000-$80,000. Location: Denver, CO, Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Missoula, MT or potentially elsewhere for the right person. Application Review: on a rolling basis....
    Position Description: Full-time seasonal positions (mid-March through October) Organizational Background: Colorado Canyons Association (CCA) is a 10 year old nonprofit organization fostering community stewardship of...
    Position Description: Part-time, year-round bookkeeping and administration position (12 - 16 hours/week) $16 - $18/hour DOE Organizational Background: Colorado Canyons Association (CCA) is a 10...
    San Isabel Land Protection Trust seeks a full-time Land Steward to manage and oversee its conservation easement monitoring and stewardship program for 42,437 acres in...
    Ventana Wilderness Alliance is seeking an experienced forward-facing public land conservation leader to serve as its Executive Director. The mission of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance...
    The Quivira Coalition ( is a Santa Fe-based nonprofit that builds resilience on arid working lands. We foster ecological, economic, and social health through education,...
    "We all love this place we call Montana. We believe that land and water and air are not ours to despoil, but ours to steward...
    The Development Director is responsible for organizing and launching a coherent set of development activities to build support for the Natural History Institute's programs and...
    Founded in 1936, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF or Federation) is America's largest and most trusted grassroots conservation organization with 53 state/territorial affiliates and more...
    The Cinnabar Foundation helps protect and conserve water, wildlife and wild lands in Montana and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by supporting organizations and people who...
    Non-Profit Management Professional specializing in Transitional Leadership, Strategic Collaborations, Communications and Grant Management/Writing.
    Close to town but with a secluded feel, this eco-friendly home includes solar panels, a graywater reuse system, tankless hot water, solar tubes, and rainwater...