• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • We Need Wind Subsidies Like We Need VHS Subsidies

    Remember VHS? Imagine this:

    VHS has been a staple of the American way of watching television and movies. VHS has supported countless manufacturing jobs, and even though there are better products out there, let’s face it: We need a variety of ways to watch our programs. The states and local economies that have VHS production facilities have experienced and benefited from VHS production, but without a little help from the taxpayers, jobs will be lost and the industry will atrophy. VHS production has bipartisan support, will be good for American manufacturing jobs, and will diversify our program-watching ability. America needs VHS, and VHS needs the taxpayers’ help.

    The above plea isn’t real, but this extremely flawed style of economic rationale is what’s driving the justification for wind energy production tax credits (PTC).

    With enough taxpayer dollars, you can prop up just about any industry. But it doesn’t mean those jobs are adding value and growing the economy. Still, politicians use this nonsensical thinking to justify projects that benefit them at the expense of the rest of America. The latest is the push to extend wind energy’s subsidies through 2016.

    Governors Sam Brownback of Kansas (R) and Terry Branstad of Iowa (R) sent a letter to the House and Senate committees negotiating the payroll tax extension asking to include an extension of the PTC for wind energy. Unsurprisingly, they use VHS-style thinking that wastes taxpayer dollars and destroys economic value. The letter urges that “The wind energy sector is an American success story that is helping us build our manufacturing base, create jobs, lower energy costs and strengthen our energy security.”

    One might wonder how the wind industry can be considered a success story if it needs taxpayer handouts to survive.

    Nonetheless, the governors write that “As a country we should support energy diversity and the development of all domestic resources, creating an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy. In order to prevent the nation from being too heavily reliant on a single energy source, our state and national energy plans have long relied on varying policies and incentives, such as the PTC, to deploy technologies that ensure a diverse, domestic energy fleet.”

    There are major flaws here. First, an “all of the above” energy strategy does not justify subsidizing all of the above. Second, we have a diverse, competitive electricity sector that includes coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and oil (about 1 percent). And finally, that diverse energy mix is produced almost entirely domestically.

    The only “all of the above” strategy America should embrace is the answer to this question: Which of these energy sources should we not subsidize? A.) Fossil Fuels B.) Nuclear C.) Renewables D.) All of the Above.

    The main argument for extending the wind subsidy is that failure to do so will result in job losses. The letter goes on to say, “Unfortunately, the leading wind project developers and manufactures are canceling their plans for 2013 and wind development will grind to a halt due to the uncertainty of a PTC extension.” It goes on to point out that “A recent report completed by Navigant finds that an expiration of the PTC would lead to a nearly fifty percent decrease in the number of wind energy jobs.”

    If Navigant’s numbers are accurate, it means two things: 1.) The subsidy has been artificially propping up jobs in the industry and shifted labor and capital away from other, more productive sectors of the economy; and 2.) Wind can compete without subsidies and the industry won’t entirely disappear.

    Removing the subsidies could actually benefit the wind industry in the long term. Rather than having the subsidies promote technological stagnation in the industry, investments and resources would flow toward the most promising wind companies and technologies. This would allow for a strong wind industry that that can compete without subsidies. If the result is more wind energy without subsidies, all the better.

    Policies like the production tax credit concentrate benefits on a few recipients and disperse the costs among the rest of us through higher taxes and energy costs. If wind energy is not economically viable without the crutch of taxpayer money, then we’re propping up a market loser. If wind energy is a market winner, then the subsidy is taking money out of the taxpayers’ wallets and simply padding the bottom line for the politically connected.

    An extension of the wind energy tax credit makes as much sense as a VHS production tax credit.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to We Need Wind Subsidies Like We Need VHS Subsidies

    1. John Davidson says:

      Catholic Bishops: “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama My … (Click below link to read more…)

      • Bobbie says:

        Obama's admin is intimidated by the dedication and love Catholics show for the will of God. So by abuse of Obama's authority he's interfering with that dedication as much as possible to break it down! Thank goodness people are strong to defend their work for God not give into the ignorance of men.

    2. Phil says:

      Courtesy of 1 party government here in Mass, we have our own Cap & Trade scam, and all sorts of taxpayer money going to green scams. You could write a book on it. In 20 years they will be writing books on how the Green Communities Act 2008 is the worst legislation in history!

    3. Bobbie says:

      One of the ugliest, wasteful, physically harmful, nature killing implementations ever. All for intermittent energy! Forced by government is worse than cruelty to all things living! What a disgraceful usage of this beautiful land! It has it's places of efficiency but to energize the country using farm wind methods, is much more dangerous with foreseeable crisis, than anything efficient!

    4. Phil says:

      They are popping up all over the place here in Mass. We wouldn't have any if it wasn't for Cadillac Deval and gov't subsidies! HELP US! Small grassroots groups are fighting back against these green scams, we need all the help we can get… Here is my groups website:

    5. J Mark Horst says:

      Great article. Subsidies are corporate welfare – plain and simple.

    6. Kristi says:

      I spoke with Terry Branstad this past summer when he was in MN. It was clear he has no clue at all as to how wind turbines are financed. 'Someone told me it was good' is about the extent of his sophistocation on the matter. MN Senate just removed the Chair of the state's Public Utilities Commission – Ellen Anderson. She was one of the chief authors of the wind mandate in MN – the state dash for federal cash design. I'm thrilled our state legislators finally showed some sense. Have any of you looked at the AWEA drivel? 'More wind was installed than other electrical generators'….there's a STUNNER (sarcasm). When the government directly, or through regulation bans new nuclear, coal and hydro while mandating wind and solar and throws $100 billion at "renewables" since 2008…we get wind tubines and Solyndra. Generating electricity that cannot be stored, at times it cannot be use, at great cost.

    7. Paul Terry Stone says:

      It seems to me that "All of the above" refers to all thats above ground.

    8. Bill Lawrence says:

      I work at a film plant that used to make film for VHS. In response to diminishing sales in the '90's our survival required innovation, which we did with great success, which led to new and novel products which led to profitable businesses that justified several major expansions, which in turn created hundreds of new well-paying jobs. See, that's how America works.

    9. Mary Murphy says:

      End…Don't Extend

    10. Keith Hebble says:

      i can't figure out why thoreum fueled nuclear power plants are not being built . They are not subject to dangerous melt down and the thoreum can't be used to make a bomb . Cheaper too . The Russians are progressing on this . Don't need wind , sunshine or subsidies to make atomic power plants practical . Do need the government to get out of the way with all of the stupid regulations . There is no real reason for it to take 10 years of jumping through government hoops to get approval of a new atomic power plant .

    11. John says:

      Is a renewable energy certificate part of this tax credit ?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.