Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wind power

  • Nation can no longer afford wind tax credit

    From The Hill:

    Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday said the nation’s fiscal situation has become so dire that the government can no longer afford to maintain a wind power production credit that has been in place since in 1992.

    “I think there is certainly the largest realization that we’ve ever had that it’s time for it to end,” Alexander said at a Wednesday event hosted by The Hill and sponsored by the American Energy Alliance.

    In a longer story, The Hill reports on the efforts of U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican representing the Kansas fourth district (Wichita metropolitan area and surrounding counties) to end the wind production tax credit:

    Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said he hopes that conversation leads to the elimination of all energy subsidies.

    Pompeo has led the House charge against the credit. He got 46 other House GOP members to sign a September letter urging Boehner to nix the provision.

    Pompeo said the wind credit’s history is instructive when debating the benefits of tax carve-outs for specific industries.

    He pointed to a steep decline in wind turbine installations when the credit last lapsed in 2004 as proof that subsidies distort markets and investment. And planned projects and investments already are down for next year as a result of the credit’s cloudy future.

    “I think that’s further evidence that it’s non-economic,” Pompeo said.

    Pompeo has been at the forefront of efforts to end subsidies that distort energy markets. He and Alexander recently contributed an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal, which may be read at Puff, the Magic Drag on the Economy: Time to let the pernicious production tax credit for wind power blow away. Pompeo also develops the argument in Governor Romney is right: End the wind production tax credit and Mike Pompeo: We need capitalism, not cronyism. The special interests that benefit from cronyism have struck back, but unsuccessfully: Kerr’s attacks on Pompeo’s energy policies fall short.

  • Kerr’s attacks on Pompeo’s energy policies fall short

    We often see criticism of politicians for sensing “which way the wind blows,” that is, shifting their policies to pander to the prevailing interests of important special interest groups. The associated negative connotation is that politicians do this without regard to whether these policies are wise and beneficial for everyone.

    So when a Member of Congress takes a position that is literally going against the wind in the home district and state, we ought to take notice. Someone has some strong convictions.

    This is the case with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican representing the Kansas fourth district (Wichita metropolitan area and surrounding counties.)

    The issue is the production tax credit (PTC) paid to wind power companies. For each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, the United States government pays 2.2 cents. Wind power advocates contend the PTC is necessary for wind to compete with other forms of electricity generation. Without the PTC, it is said that no new wind farms would be built.

    The PTC is an important issue in Kansas not only because of the many wind farms located there, but also because of wind power equipment manufacturers that have located in Kansas. An example is Siemens. That company, lured by millions in local incentives, built a plant in Hutchinson. Employment was around 400. But now the PTC is set to expire on December 31, and it’s uncertain whether Congress will extend the program. As a result, Siemens has laid off employees. Soon only 152 will be at work in Hutchinson, and similar reductions in employment have happened at other Siemens wind power equipment plants.

    Rep. Pompeo is opposed to all tax credits for energy production, and has authored legislation to eliminate them. As the wind PTC is the largest energy tax credit program, Pompeo and others have written extensively of the market distortions and resultant economic harm caused by the PTC. A recent example is Puff, the Magic Drag on the Economy: Time to let the pernicious production tax credit for wind power blow away, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

    The special interests that benefit from the PTC are striking back. An example comes from Dave Kerr, who as former president of the Hutchinson/Reno County Chamber of Commerce played a role in luring Siemens to Hutchinson. Kerr’s recent op-ed in the Hutchinson News is notable not only for its several attempts to deflect attention away from the true nature of the PTC, but for its personal attacks on Pompeo.

    There’s no doubt that the Hutchinson economy was dealt a setback with the announcement of layoffs at the Siemens plant that manufactures wind power equipment. Considered in a vacuum, these jobs were good for Hutchinson. But we shouldn’t make our nation’s policy in a vacuum, that is, bowing to the needs of special interest groups — sensing “which way the wind blows.” When considering everything and everyone, the PTC paid to producers of power generated from wind is a bad policy. We ought to respect Pompeo for taking a principled stand on this issue, instead of pandering to the folks back home.

    Kerr is right about one claim made in his op-ed: The PTC for wind power is not quite like the Solyndra debacle. Solyndra received a loan from the Federal Financing Bank, part of the Treasury Department. Had Solyndra been successful as a company, it would likely have paid back the government loan. This is not to say that these loans are a good thing, but there was the possibility that the money would have been repaid.

    But with the PTC, taxpayers spend with nothing to show in return except for expensive electricity. And spend taxpayers do.

    Kerr, in an attempt to distinguish the PTC from wasteful government spending programs, writes the PTC is “actually an income tax credit.” The use of the adverb “actually” is supposed to alert readers that they’re about to be told the truth. But truth is not forthcoming from Kerr — there’s no difference. Tax credits are government spending. They have the same economic effect as “regular” government spending. To the company that receives them, they can be used — just like cash — to pay their tax bill. Or, the company can sell them to others for cash, although usually at a discounted value.

    From government’s perspective, tax credits reduce revenue by the amount of credits issued. Instead of receiving tax payments in cash, government receives payments in the form of tax credits — which are slips of paper it created at no cost and which have no value to government. Created, by the way, outside the usual appropriations process. That’s the beauty of tax credits for big-government spenders: Once the program is created, money is spent without the burden of passing legislation.

    If we needed any more evidence that PTC payments are just like cash grants: As part of Obama’s ARRA stimulus bill, for tax years 2009 and 2010, there was in effect a temporary option to take the federal PTC as a cash grant. The paper PTC, ITC, or Cash Grant? An Analysis of the Choice Facing Renewable Power Projects in the United States explains.

    Astonishingly, the wind PTC is so valuable that wind power companies actually pay customers to take their electricity. It’s called “negative pricing,” as explained in Negative Electricity Prices and the Production Tax Credit:

    As a matter of both economics and public policy, no government production tax subsidy should ever be so large that it creates an incentive for a business to actually pay customers to take its product. Yet, the federal Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) for wind generation is doing just that with increasing frequency in electricity markets across the United States. In some “wind-rich” regions of the country, wind producers are paying grid operators to take their generation during periods of surplus supply. But wind producers more than make up the cost of the “negative price” payment, because they receive a $22/MWH federal production tax credit for every MWH generated.

    In western Texas since 2008, wind power generators paid the electrical grid to take their electricity ten percent of the hours of each day.

    Once we recognize that tax credits are the same as government spending, we can see the error in Kerr’s argument that if the PTC is ended, it is the same as “a tax increase on utilities, which, because they are regulated, will pass on to consumers.” Well, government passes along the cost of the PTC to taxpayers, illustrating that there really is no free lunch.

    Kerr attacks Pompeo for failing to “crusade” against two subsidies that some oil companies receive: Intangible Drilling Costs and the Percentage Depletion Allowance. These programs are deductions, not credits. They do provide an economic benefit to the oil companies that can use them (“big oil” can’t use percentage depletion at all), but not to the extent that tax credits do.

    Regarding these deductions, last year Pompeo introduced H. Res 267, titled “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should end all subsidies aimed at specific energy technologies or fuels.”

    In the resolution, Pompeo recognized the difference between deductions and credits, the latter, as we’ve seen, being direct subsidies: “Whereas deductions and cost-recovery mechanisms available to all energy sectors are different than credits, loans and grants, and are therefore not taxpayer subsidies; [and] Whereas a deduction of costs and cost recovery with respect to timing is not a subsidy.”

    Part of what the resolution calls for is to “begin tax simplification and reform by eliminating energy tax credits and deductions and reducing income tax rates.”

    Kerr wants to deflect attention away from the cost and harm of the PTC. Haranguing Pompeo for failing to attack percentage depletion and IDC with the same fervor as tax credits is only an attempt to muddy the waters so we can’t see what’s happening right in front of us. It’s not, as Kerr alleges, “playing Clintonesque games of semantics with us.” As we’ve seen, Pompeo has called for the end of these two tax deductions.

    If we want to criticize anyone for inconsistency, try this: Kerr criticizes Pompeo for ignoring the oil and gas deductions, “which creates a glut in natural gas that drives down the price to the lowest levels in a decade.” These low energy prices should be a blessing to our economy. Kerr, however, demands taxpayers pay to subsidize expensive wind power so that it can compete with inexpensive gas. In the end, the benefit of inexpensive gas is canceled. Who benefits from that, except for the wind power industry? The oil and gas targeted deductions also create market distortions, and therefore should be eliminated. But at least they work to reduce prices, not increase them.

    By the way, Pompeo has been busy with legislation targeted at ending other harmful subsidies: H.R. 3090: EDA Elimination Act of 2011, H.R. 3994: Grant Return for Deficit Reduction Act, H.R. 3308: Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act, and the above-mentioned resolution.

    I did notice, however, that Pompeo hasn’t called for the end to the mohair subsidy. Will Kerr attack him for this oversight?

    Finally, Kerr invokes the usual argument of government spenders: Cut the budget somewhere else. That’s what everyone says.

    Creating entire industries that exist only by being propped up by government subsidy means that we all pay more to support special interest groups. A prosperous future is best built by relying on free enterprise and free markets in energy, not on programs motivated by the wants of politicians and special interests. Kerr’s attacks on Pompeo illustrate how difficult it is to replace cronyism with economic freedom.

  • Pompeo: Wind production tax credit should expire

    U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, and U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander contribute the following article on the harm of the wind power production tax credit (PTC). The NorthBridge Group report referenced in the article is available at Negative electricity prices and the production tax credit.

    Puff, the Magic Drag on the Economy
    Time to let the pernicious production tax credit for wind power blow away

    By Lamar Alexander And Mike Pompeo

    As Congress works to reduce spending and avert a debt crisis, lawmakers will have to decide which government projects are truly national priorities, and which are wasteful. A prime example of the latter is the production tax credit for wind power. It is set to expire on Dec. 31 — but may be extended yet again, for the seventh time.

    This special provision in the tax code was first enacted in 1992 as a temporary subsidy to enable a struggling industry to become competitive. Today the provision provides a credit against taxes of $22 per megawatt hour of wind energy generated.

    From 2009 to 2013, federal revenues lost to wind-power developers are estimated to be $14 billion — $6 billion from the production tax credit, plus $8 billion courtesy of an alternative-energy subsidy in the stimulus package — according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury Department. If Congress were to extend the production tax credit, it would mean an additional $12 billion cost to taxpayers over the next 10 years.

    There are many reasons to let this giveaway expire, including wind energy’s inherent unreliability and its inability to stand on its own two feet after 20 years. But one of the most compelling reasons is provided in a study released Sept. 14 by the NorthBridge Group, an energy consultancy. The study discusses a government-created economic distortion called “negative pricing.”

    This is how it works. Coal- and nuclear-fired plants provide a reliable supply of electricity when the demand is high, as on a hot summer day. They generate at lower levels when the demand is low, such as at night.

    But wind producers collect a tax credit for every kilowatt hour they generate, whether utilities need the electricity or not. If the wind is blowing, they keep cranking the windmills.

    Why? The NorthBridge Group’s report (“Negative Electricity Prices and the Production Tax Credit”) finds that government largess is so great that wind producers can actually pay the electrical grid to take their power when demand is low and still turn a profit by collecting the credit — and they are increasingly doing so. The wind pretax subsidy is actually higher than the average price for electricity in many of the wholesale markets tracked by the Energy Information Administration.

    This practice drives the price of electricity down in the short run. Wind-energy supporters say that’s a good thing. But it is hazardous to the economy’s health in the long run.

    Temporarily lower energy prices driven by wind-power’s negative pricing will cripple clean-coal and nuclear-power companies. But running coal and nuclear out of business is not good for the U.S. economy. There is no way a country like this one — which uses 20% to 25% of all the electricity in the world — can operate with generators that turn only when the wind blows.

    The Obama administration and other advocates of wind power argue that the subsidy provided by the tax credit allows the wind industry to sustain American jobs. But they are jobs that exist only because of the subsidy. Keeping a weak technology alive that can’t make it on its own won’t create nearly as many jobs as the private sector could create if it had the kind of low-cost, reliable, clean electricity that wind power simply can’t generate.

    While the cost of renewable energy has declined over the years, it is still far more expensive than conventional sources. And even the administration’s secretary of energy, Steven Chu, calls wind “a mature technology,” which should mean it is sufficiently advanced to compete in a free market without government subsidies. If wind power cannot compete on its own after 20 years without costly special privileges, it never will.

  • Pickens changes his mind, again

    Energy investor T. Boone Pickens has changed his mind about government subsidy of energy markets — again.

    Until recently Pickens has been promoting federal legislation titled H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, or NAT GAS act. The bill provides a variety of subsidies, implemented through tax credits, to producers and users of natural gas. The goal is to promote the use of natural gas for a transportation fuel, particularly for long-haul trucks.

    Now, according to reporting in Politico, Pickens said about the transition to natural gas “It’s going to happen, and you don’t have to have Washington do it, thank God.”

    Later in the article Pickens is quoted as saying “You don’t have to have a tax credit; it’s going to happen.”

    Before promoting subsidies for natural gas as a transportation fuel, Pickens actively promoted wind power, another form of energy production that receives government subsidy. In 2008 Pickens ordered 667 wind turbines worth $2 billion from General Electric. Now, in the Politico article, he concedes he lost a lot of money on this venture.

    His plan, at that time, was to use wind power to generate electricity, and the natural gas saved would be used to power transportation. But there’s another relationship between wind power and gas, and it stems from the unreliability and variability of wind power. It’s difficult to quickly adjust the output of most power plants. But natural gas turbine plants are an exception. Kansas recently saw one of its major electric utilities complete a new natural gas power plant. The need for the plant was at least partly created by its investment in wind: A document produced by Westar titled The Greenhouse Gas Challenge noted the “Construction of the 665 MW natural gas-fired Emporia Energy Center, providing the ability to efficiently follow the variability of wind generation.” In another document announcing a request for a rate increase it stated “Our Emporia Energy Center is excellent for following the variability of wind production.”

    At the time of these investments by Pickens and Westar, the price of natural gas was high. Now it is low — so low, and the prospects for future low prices certain enough — that Pickens has abandoned his wind farm projects. Even with all the subsidy granted to wind power, it’s cheaper to generate electricity with gas.

    Let’s hope this is the last time Pickens develops a plan to tap the federal taxpayer to pay for his plans.

  • Governor Romney is right: End the wind production tax credit

    U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, contributes the following article on the harm of government involvement in energy markets, wind power specifically. Pompeo has written extensively on energy; see Pompeo on energy tax simplification, Era of energy subsidies is over, and Free market energy solutions don’t jeopardize national security. He has also introduced legislation to end all tax credits for energy, H.R. 3308: Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act.

    There’s been a steady drumbeat from those seeking an extension of the wind production tax credit. For many reasons, including some that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has carefully highlighted in his opposition, this is a bad idea.

    First, an extension continues this unsettling policy trend in which citizens are asked to bear all the risks and gain none of the rewards. This socialization of risks and privatization of profits guarantees disasters, for corporate boards and even their federal overseers can become careless and, in some instances, reckless. This fact was clearly demonstrated by the Solyndra debacle — when a company with close ties to the Obama administration lost more than a half billion dollars of taxpayers’ money. At the heart of that fiasco was both the company and the administration’s indifference to the taxpayers.

    Solyndra also revealed something else damaging about federal involvement in markets: the potential for political corruption. It’s clear that the Obama administration became emotionally, and inappropriately, invested in the fortunes of one company and one sector. When that happens, the system is compromised, cronyism flourishes and corruption is inevitable.

    President Barack Obama talks about the need to “invest” in alternative energy sources. But the reality is that he is not investing his money — he’s spending yours. I’m not sure that too many Americans would choose the president to manage their retirement accounts. His record — a jobless and exceedingly shallow recovery — is not good.

    With this production tax credit extension, the wisdom of the investment is especially dubious. Wind companies and their lobbyists have, for the last year, been telling all who would listen that the expiration of the tax credit could spell doom for their industry. Obama repeats this claim regularly on the campaign trail.

    But what does that say about the industry? If you need a tax credit to compete, you are probably not that competitive.

    Moreover, the tax credit is not de minimis for either taxpayers or companies that are lobbying for it. It will cost the taxpayers more than 12 billion dollars inside the budget window. Worse, the credit is set at 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour. Just to compare, the national average for produced power is around 6 cents per kilowatt hour. That means that the wind industry gets an almost 40 percent subsidy for each unit it produces. How many companies would like that?

    You also have to remember that wind power enjoys a mandate in more than 30 states. That is, regardless of cost — or price to ratepayers — utilities must use wind or other renewables for specific amounts of power generation. So, the wind companies enjoy not only a tax credit, but a must-use mandate as well — regardless of cost.

    It would be one thing if we were running out of natural gas and confronted a real national requirement to use alternative energy. But it’s the reverse. The United States has more traditional energy resources than anywhere else on Earth, according to the Congressional Research Service. With the surge in production from the shale formations, a new Barclays report just concluded, natural gas will likely dominate wind in the marketplace for the foreseeable future.

    Even now, in places like Williston, N.D., companies are hiring everyone who can get there to work on rigs or in ancillary jobs. If the president is genuinely worried about jobs, maybe he should visit the Bakken in North Dakota, or the Marcellus in Pennsylvania or the Eagle Ford in Texas.

    Using wind power to generate electricity is not a new idea. The first windmills used to generate electricity went up in the 19th Century. The production tax credit is also not a new idea. It is now about 20 years old.

    Romney’s opposition to continuing the wind subsidy is absolutely correct. At some point, an industry has to either succeed or fail on its own merits.

    For wind companies, we are at that point now.

  • Renewable Portfolio Standard costly for Kansas

    A policy promoted by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback will result in higher electricity costs, fewer jobs, and less investment in Kansas.

    This is the conclusion of a new study by Kansas Policy Institute and Beacon Hill Institute. The policy is Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, which mandates that a minimum amount of a state’s electricity be produced by renewable sources. In Kansas, the primary renewable source of electricity is wind.

    In a press release accompanying the report, KPI said “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.” The press release and summary is at The Economic Impact of the Kansas Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the full report is here.

    Brownback has supported, first as U.S. Senator and now Kansas Governor, renewable portfolio standards, mandating the production of wind power. U.S. Senator Jerry Moran favors the production tax credit that makes wind feasible, but forces taxpayers to subsidize an expensive form of energy. 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.

    Driving through western Kansas and marveling at all the wind farms might lead one to conclude that the efforts of Brownback and Moran are a success. Viewing the spinning turbines — when they are in fact spinning — is just the start of understanding the impact of wind power, mandates for its use, and taxpayer subsidy for its production. The KPI report is an important document that lets us understand more of the full effect of renewable portfolio standards.

  • Energy subsidies exposed

    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)

  • Brownback on wind, again

    This week Kansas Governor Sam Brownback again made the case for government spending on a particular industry. The industry is wind power, and the governor made his remarks at a national conference of the wind industry.

    The wind industry, with Brownback’s support, wants to extend the production tax credit (PTC) for the production of electrical power by wind. In March Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas wrote an op-ed making the case for extending the PTC. At the conference this week, Brownback called for extending the PTC, although he did support a four-year phaseout.

    The PTC pays generators of wind power 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour produced. To place that in context, a typical Westar customer in Kansas that uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours in the summer pays $95.22 (before local sales tax), for a rate of 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. (This is the total cost including energy charge, fuel charge, transmission charge, environment cost recovery rider, property tax surcharge, and franchise fee, according to a March 2010 illustration provided by Westar.) So 2.2 cents is a high rate of subsidy for a product that sells for 9.5 cents.

    Brownback and Moran contend that the PTC is necessary to let the wind power industry “complete its transformation from being a high tech startup to becoming cost competitive in the energy marketplace.” The problem with this line of argument is that wind is not an industry in its infancy. The PTC has been in place since 1992, a period of twenty years. If an industry can’t get established in that period, when will it be ready to stand in its own?

    The authors also contend that canceling the PTC is, in effect, a “tax hike on wind energy companies.” To some extent this is true — but only because the industry has enjoyed preferential tax treatment that it should never have received, coupled with a misunderstanding of the tax credit mechanism.

    The proper way to view the PTC is as a government spending program. That’s the true economic effect of tax credits. Only recently are Americans coming to realize this, and as a result, the term “tax expenditures” is coming into use to accurately characterize the mechanism of tax credits.

    Amazingly, Brownback and Moran do not realize this, at least if we take them at their written word when they write: “But the wind PTC is a winning solution because it allows companies to keep more of their own dollars in exchange for the production of energy. These are not cash handouts; they are reductions in taxes that help cover the cost of doing business.” (Emphasis added.)

    It is the mixing of spending programs with taxation that leads these politicians to wrongly claim that tax credits are not cash handouts. Fortunately, not everyone falls for this seductive trap. In an excellent article on the topic that appeared in Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine, Edward D. Kleinbard explains:

    Specialists term these synthetic government spending programs “tax expenditures.” Tax expenditures are really spending programs, not tax rollbacks, because the missing tax revenues must be financed by more taxes on somebody else. Like any other form of deficit spending, a targeted tax break without a revenue offset simply means more deficits (and ultimately more taxes); a targeted tax break coupled with a specific revenue “payfor” means that one group of Americans is required to pay (in the form of higher taxes) for a subsidy to be delivered to others through the mechanism of the tax system. … Tax expenditures dissolve the boundaries between government revenues and government spending. They reduce both the coherence of the tax law and our ability to conceptualize the very size and activities of our government. (The Hidden Hand of Government Spending, Fall 2010)

    U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita recognized the cost of paying for tax credit expenditures when he recently wrote: “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.” See Mike Pompeo: We need capitalism, not cronyism.

    So when Brownback and Moran write of the loss of income to those who profit from wind power, we should remember that these profits do not arise from transactions between willing partners. Instead, they result from politicians like these who are willing to override the judgment of free people and free markets with their own political preferences — along with looking out for the parochial interests of the home state. We need less of this type of wind power.

  • Five questions with Mike Pompeo

    Originally published in The Washington Times. Below, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo from Wichita explains his opposition to tax credits for all energy production, the problems with over-regulation of business, and the state of the economic recovery. As Decker notes, Pompeo’s stance against energy tax credits, which includes the production tax credit for wind power, is contrary to that of several Kansas politicians, including Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran. These have editorialized in favor of tax expenditures to support the wind power industry.

    5 Questions with Rep. Mike Pompeo: “We can’t spend our way out of this mess”
    By Brett M. Decker
    The Washington Times

    Rep. Mike R. Pompeo was elected in 2010 by the 4th Congressional District of Kansas. A native of Wichita and graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, he patrolled the Iron Curtain as an Army officer before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. After leaving active duty, Mr. Pompeo attended Harvard Law School, where he was as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Before running for office, he managed two small businesses. He founded Thayer Aerospace, which grew to employ more than 400 workers, and was president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures oilfield equipment. You can find out more about the congressman’s work at: pompeo.house.gov.

    Decker: You have authored a bill to eliminate all energy tax credits. That can’t be popular for a congressman from a corn state. What’s so important about your legislation that it is worth ticking off constituents back home?

    Pompeo: The federal government has been a proven failure in picking winners and losers in the energy sector. Democrats and Republicans alike have used our tax code to reward their favorite energy sources — that is, ones in their home district — with tax loopholes. This causes every American taxpayer to subsidize those industries and causes consumers to pay higher prices for energy. This results in terrible energy policy and even worse tax policy. More importantly, taxpayers are getting hammered both coming (higher taxes) and going (higher energy costs).

    My bill, the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act (HR 3308), would eliminate all energy tax subsidies from our Internal Revenue Code and turn that savings toward lowering our corporate tax rate to foster job growth here in America. The bill is revenue neutral and supported by every major conservative group, such as: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Action, Heritage Action, National Taxpayers Union, 60 Plus Association and Taxpayers for Common Sense. It gets rid of every tax credit related to energy; it favors no company, no person and no energy source. It treats them all equally. That is the American way.

    When I’m at home, Kansans tell me they want honest and serious leadership from their elected representatives, not the business-as-usual policies that got us into this economic mess. I am working hard to provide solutions to meet a most pressing goal: preserving our way of life for our kids and grandkids.

    Decker: I understand that you would use savings from the elimination of energy subsidies to lower the corporate tax rate. How would that work and why is it necessary?

    Pompeo: My goal in getting rid of tax loopholes is not to raise taxes. Our problem in Washington, D.C. is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. My goal is to make the tax code fairer and flatter and reward energy sources that lower costs for consumers. So, any increase in taxes that occurs because these tax goodies are eliminated will be offset by lower taxes for every single business in America. My bill would mean fewer tax loopholes for the powerful and the connected, and lower tax rates for everyone willing to take risk and engage in American commerce. This is the perfect combination and the way our tax code needs to be reformed. The Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act does this in one small place — the realm of energy tax credits — and it provides a model for the broader tax reform that will set our nation on a prosperous course for decades to come.

    Sen. Jim DeMint [of South Carolina] has sponsored a companion provision which garnered the support of a majority of the Republican Conference, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell [of Kentucky], during a recent vote on the Senate Floor. In the House, my bill enjoys the support of strong conservatives, including Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan [of Wisconsin]. I believe there is a growing consensus that my bill represents a free-market model for how to enact real, comprehensive tax reform.

    Decker: Before coming to Washington last year, you spent your career in the private sector, including building a successful aerospace company from the ground up. I have had many job creators tell me that if they had to start all over again that creating their own company would no longer be worth all the hassle, harassment and heartache. What are the most damaging government hindrances to entrepreneurs today?

    Pompeo: I’d start a business again in a heartbeat. Indeed, I hope that one day I may get the chance to do so when my mission here in Washington, D.C. is complete.

    It is true that President Obama has unleashed a slew of regulations upon small business. I struggled against that regulatory burden firsthand while running a company in Kansas. It is difficult to create jobs when you face an overwhelming tax burden, as well as countless compliance and reporting rules. I’ve been there. I’ve grappled with these issues while keeping the lights on and making payroll. That’s why we need to roll back government interference and grow our economy so people can find jobs. The energy sector is a perfect example where the Obama administration’s actions are harming both businesses and consumers. Having run a small business that provided oil and gas exploration equipment to domestic energy producers, I have seen this firsthand. Why, for example, has this president’s Environmental Protection Agency attacked with intent to destroy the coal industry that provides over 50 percent of all American power? Layer upon layer of regulations aimed at — in the president’s own words — “bankrupting” that industry. Why, for example, has this president put 10 (ten!) agencies on the beat to regulate hydraulic fracturing — a process that has been effectively regulated by states for decades with a tremendous safety record.

    These are the reasons some entrepreneurs are reluctant to start businesses and take risks. We can do better, we can create jobs in America, and I am confident the next administration will.

    Decker: Every time I sit down with a business leader, I get an earful about 2002’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act that dramatically altered federal accounting regulations and 2010’s Dodd-Frank Act to supposedly reform Wall Street. Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

    Pompeo: I’ve heard a great deal more about Dodd-Frank than I have Sarbanes-Oxley from Kansans. Both laws have had very significant and negative consequences for our economy. I support the repeal of Dodd-Frank in its entirety. Its goal to protect taxpayers from failures of the nation’s largest financial institutions is not accomplished and, instead, has negatively impacted community and regional banks along with their customers. It has also created yet another “do-good” organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The CFPB will not protect consumers. Instead, it will add to the cost for every hardworking taxpayer who seeks to purchase a home with a mortgage or who wants to engage in other banking activity. Once again, the federal government, in its effort to protect citizens, fails in its mission and instead creates a bureaucracy that eclipses any good that might have been sought.

    Decker: The Obama administration talks an awful lot about an economic recovery, yet the unemployment rate is still sky high, record numbers of Americans are on food stamps and the national debt continues to mount due to runaway federal spending. What does such an anemic recovery say about the real state of our economy?

    Pompeo: This very weak data shows this is not a recovery that will truly provide the jobs and opportunity our nation must have and the next generation deserves. The $831 billion “economic stimulus,” passed into law in 2009, dug the hole deeper and did not accomplish what the president said it would – keeping unemployment below 8 percent. This should come as no surprise. Businesses have no interest in hiring new employees in this environment of higher taxes, regulatory uncertainty and the staggering costs of Obamacare. Republicans were swept into power in 2010 because Americans saw our solutions for recovery: less spending, less government and less regulation. All of these things are what will kick-start our recovery. We can’t spend our way out of this mess. That’s been tried and it failed. The real economy, private-sector job growth, will return when leaders in Washington, D.C. recognize what Kansans already know: The solutions are not to be found in ever-expanding government. The solutions are found through freedom, liberty, innovation and rewarding earned success.