2 ms·

Renewable energy sources are seeing tons of direct subsidies. However, quoting those numbers in a discussion like this can be a little misleading because of the

Renewable energy sources are seeing tons of direct subsidies. However, quoting those numbers in a discussion like this can be a little misleading because of the disclaimer on page ix of that report titled "Not All Subsidies Impacting the Energy Sector Are Included in this Report" > This report only includes subsidies meeting the following criteria: they are provided by the federal government, they provide a financial benefit with an identifiable FY 2010 federal budget impact, and, they are specifically targeted at energy. These criteria, particularly the energy-specific requirement, exclude some subsidies that benefit the energy sector. Some of the subsidies excluded from this analysis are discussed below. The examples that they list overwhelmingly benefit oil, gas, and nuclear energy sectors.

protomyth 12y ago
"The examples that they list overwhelmingly benefit oil, gas, and nuclear energy sectors." Let's look: "For example, Section 199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" This was not specific to oil or gas and benefited those "provides reductions in taxable income for American manufacturers", wonder why that was more beneficial to oil and gas then renewable in 2010? 25% of $13 billion is listed as energy related with the remainder being other industries. "The tax code allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries." Benefits oil, but also a lot of other industries buying raw materials from foreign countries to use in the USA. "The tax code also provides special treatment for some publicly-traded partnerships (PTP)." This one should benefit both sides equally. "Another potential subsidy source not addressed in this report is associated with energy-related trust funds financed by taxes and fees." These are industry funded and "there is no direct federal budgetary impact in FY 2010" "This report also does not attempt to quantify the potential subsidy resulting from limits to liability in case of a nuclear accident provided by Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Price-Anderson Act." Nuclear accidents can be bad so this is actually the most beneficial. Oil and gas are using the same tax incentives that other companies that employ American workers in the US and manufacture a product with local resources or foreign bought resources are using. If solar is not using these tax breaks then I wonder where they were getting their panels?
- gamerdonkey 12y ago
  I meant that the examples benefit oil, gas, and nuclear overwhelmingly as opposed to the renewable sectors in the report. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Obviously, a program that applies to all companies will see more expenditures for the oil and gas companies because they exist in a larger and more established industry. That is still tax-payer money being spent to encourage growth in that sector, and much less, comparatively speaking, is being spent in those sectors than on renewables. Thus, I find it a little disingenuous to roll out that 10x factor which ignores a lot of subsidization for an industry which many would argue doesn't need much more encouragement.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    Other than the nuclear part, the taxes are not field specific and 10x is actually an understatement of part of the table of taxes. It is a common canard that we don't provide incentives for renewable energy when we actually do in great amounts. I find it disingenuous to say we are not giving subsidies and breaks to renewables when it is right there in a table (ES2). Heck, direct expenditures were 46 million for oil and gas to 4,696 million for Renewables. The technology failure to build an energy source / process that is cheaper with better storage options than oil & gas is the primary problem. Lack of taxpayer funds is not.

protomyth 12y ago

"The examples that they list overwhelmingly benefit oil, gas, and nuclear energy sectors." Let's look: "For example, Section 199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" This was not specific to oil or gas and benefited those "provides reductions in taxable income for American manufacturers", wonder why that was more beneficial to oil and gas then renewable in 2010? 25% of $13 billion is listed as energy related with the remainder being other industries. "The tax code allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries." Benefits oil, but also a lot of other industries buying raw materials from foreign countries to use in the USA. "The tax code also provides special treatment for some publicly-traded partnerships (PTP)." This one should benefit both sides equally. "Another potential subsidy source not addressed in this report is associated with energy-related trust funds financed by taxes and fees." These are industry funded and "there is no direct federal budgetary impact in FY 2010" "This report also does not attempt to quantify the potential subsidy resulting from limits to liability in case of a nuclear accident provided by Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Price-Anderson Act." Nuclear accidents can be bad so this is actually the most beneficial. Oil and gas are using the same tax incentives that other companies that employ American workers in the US and manufacture a product with local resources or foreign bought resources are using. If solar is not using these tax breaks then I wonder where they were getting their panels?

gamerdonkey 12y ago
I meant that the examples benefit oil, gas, and nuclear overwhelmingly as opposed to the renewable sectors in the report. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Obviously, a program that applies to all companies will see more expenditures for the oil and gas companies because they exist in a larger and more established industry. That is still tax-payer money being spent to encourage growth in that sector, and much less, comparatively speaking, is being spent in those sectors than on renewables. Thus, I find it a little disingenuous to roll out that 10x factor which ignores a lot of subsidization for an industry which many would argue doesn't need much more encouragement.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Other than the nuclear part, the taxes are not field specific and 10x is actually an understatement of part of the table of taxes. It is a common canard that we don't provide incentives for renewable energy when we actually do in great amounts. I find it disingenuous to say we are not giving subsidies and breaks to renewables when it is right there in a table (ES2). Heck, direct expenditures were 46 million for oil and gas to 4,696 million for Renewables. The technology failure to build an energy source / process that is cheaper with better storage options than oil & gas is the primary problem. Lack of taxpayer funds is not.