On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama calls for an end to energy subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. It turns out, however, that this industry receives relatively little subsidy, while the president’s favored forms of energy investment — wind and solar — receive much more. Additionally, coal, oil, and gas industries paid billions in taxes to the federal government, while electricity produced by solar and wind are a cost to taxpayers.
Saturday’s Wall Street Journal piece The Energy Subsidy Tally: Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production gathers the facts: “The nearby chart shows the assistance that each form of energy for electricity production received in 2010. The natural gas and oil industry received $2.8 billion in total subsidies, not the $4 billion Mr. Obama claims on the campaign trail, and $654 million for electric power. The biggest winner was wind, with $5 billion. Between 2007 and 2010, total energy subsidies rose 108%, but solar’s subsidies increased six-fold and wind’s were up 10-fold.”
When looking at subsidy received per unit of power produced, the Journal found that oil, gas, and coal received $0.64 per megawatt hour, hydropower $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.39, and solar $775.64. Commented the Journal: “So for every tax dollar that goes to coal, oil and natural gas, wind gets $88 and solar $1,212. After all the hype and dollars, in 2010 wind and solar combined for 2.3% of electric generation — 2.3% for wind and 0% and a rounding error for solar. Renewables contributed 10.3% overall, though 6.2% is hydro. Some ‘investment.'”
In Kansas, there is disagreement among elected officials over wind power. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran favor the production tax credit that makes wind feasible. Together they penned an op-ed that tortures logic to defend the tax credits. Each has spoken out on his own on the national stage. See Brownback on wind, again and Wind energy split in Kansas.
Brownback has also supported, at both federal and state levels, renewable portfolio standards. These in effect mandate the production of wind power. Recently Kansas Policy Institute produced a report that details the harmful effect of this law: “Renewable energy is more expensive than conventional energy, so government mandates are necessary to ensure that more renewable energy is purchased. However, the unseen consequences of well-intended efforts to increase energy independence are rarely considered. The authors estimate that by 2020, the average household’s electricity bill will increase by $660, approximately 12,000 fewer jobs will have been created, and business investment in the state will be $191 million less than without the mandate.” See The Economic Impact of the Kansas Renewable Portfolio Standard.
In Wichita, Mayor Carl Brewer is recruiting wind power companies to come to Wichita. If he is successful, you can be sure it will be at great cost to Kansas and Wichita taxpayers.
Contrast with the position taken by U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, which includes the Wichita metropolitan area. Recently he wrote: “Supporters of Big Wind, like President Obama, defend these enormous, multi-decade subsidies by saying they are fighting for jobs, but the facts tell a different story. Can you say ‘stimulus’? The PTC’s logic is almost identical to the President’s failed stimulus spending of $750 billion — redistribute wealth from hard-working taxpayers to politically favored industries and then visit the site and tell the employees that ‘without me as your elected leader funneling taxpayer dollars to your company, you’d be out of work.’ I call this ‘photo-op economics.’ We know better. If the industry is viable, those jobs would likely be there even without the handout. Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.”
Pompeo has introduced legislation in Congress that would end tax credits for all forms of energy production. See H.R. 3308: Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act.
The Energy Subsidy Tally
Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production.
President Obama traveled to Iowa Tuesday and touted wind energy subsidies as the path to economic recovery. Then he attacked Mitt Romney as a tool of the oil and gas industry. “So my attitude is let’s stop giving taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that don’t need them, and let’s invest in clean energy that will put people back to work right here in Iowa,” he said. “That’s a choice in this election.”
There certainly is a subsidy choice in the election, but the facts are a lot different than Mr. Obama portrays them. What he isn’t telling voters is how many tax dollars his Administration has already steered to wind and solar power, and how much more subsidized they are than other forms of electricity generation.
Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
It’s time to repeal the Kansas Renewable Energy Standards Act passed in 2009, which, unfortunately, was supported by conservative Republicans. These standards were passed as part of the approval process for the Holcomb Plant.
So here we are nearly 4 years down the road, no new power plant, but stuck with these energy standards in statute that will increase electrical rates by 45% (according to the Kansas Policy Institute) and strangle our Kansas economy.
Here are the votes on 2009 Senate Sub for HB 2369, a very broad bill that included the RPS provisions that became KSA 66-1256 et seq and KSA 66-1271.
2009 Session Senate Sub for House Bill 2369
House Motion to Concur 05/08/2009 Yeas 103; Nays 18; Present but not voting 0; Absent or not voting 4.
Absent or not voting:
Senate EMERGENCY FINAL ACTION 05/07/2009 Yeas 37, Nays 2, Present and Passing 0, Absent or Not Voting 1.
Absent or Not Voting:
We as taxpayers, homeowners DO subsidize the Electric Companies at a Much Higher Rate than this article indicates!!
Electric Companies do not establish a rate for ALL users to pay they establish rate Categories for users to pay. The Highest Rate is on Homeowners. Thus the homeowner subsidizes the Electric Company more than any other rate group. Then the homeowner gets to pay taxes with a portion of that going to Electric Companies as well.
On top of that then a “Customer Charge” “Fuel Charge” “Delivery Fee” or something similar is also added that has nothing to do with the amount of electricity used. These little charges amount to a large amount over time and are allowed by our Corporate Rate Commission. Yes this is a Backdoor Subsidy that was NOT considered when this article was written.
When you look at the cost per KWH your electric company pays for electricity,,,,, you should question WHY the different rate groups and WHY the Individual Homeowner should be required to pay the most and WHY our Kansas Rate Commission would give its blessing to such disparity????