• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Robbing Banks and Subsidizing Green Energy

    Do bank robbers stimulate economic growth? If you employ the logic used by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assess the impact of the stimulus bill’s renewable-energy subsidies, the answer would be “yes.”

    The NREL recently issued a report on the economic impact of the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program funded in the stimulus bill of 2009. The bullet points claim that the subsidies created 75,000 jobs and $44 billion in economic output.

    The study uses an input-output table to trace the cascade of spending generated by the subsidies. It ignores the costs and employment losses of the tax revenue needed for the subsidies and the offsetting losses suffered by the conventional energy that gets crowded out (though there isn’t too much crowding out since the renewables do not produce very much energy). It ignores the economic impact on consumers’ energy bills. And the bullets attribute all of the positive impacts to the subsidies even though the subsidies are only a fraction of the costs of the projects analyzed.

    What’s the point? If you ignore all the costs of any action, then it cannot be a loser.

    The NREL input-output analysis starts with the spending on labor and equipment. It then traces the spending on equipment to the spending on the inputs for that equipment. For instance, the purchase of a wind turbine would trace the flow of spending to the parts suppliers to the turbine manufacturer, then to the steel mills that supply steel to the parts fabricators, then to the mines that provide the ore to the mills, etc. At each stage, it picks up a chunk of income and some jobs.

    The problem is that process ignores a similar cascade of income and job creation that is cut off when the funds for the subsidies are extracted from the private sector of the economy.

    Imagine a crime lord organizing a bank robbery. First he hires some thugs, creating jobs and income for them. He also has to give the thugs some guns, so the gun manufacturers see an employment increase, as do the suppliers to the gun makers and the suppliers to those suppliers, etc. Also, don’t forget the jobs in the production process for making the ski masks the robbers wear, the jobs producing and servicing the getaway car, the jobs at the motel where the thugs lie low, etc.

    In this example, we ignore the losses to the bank and its depositors, the increased security costs that crime imposes on banks, the impact of higher interest rates on borrowers (that’s one of the ways banks cover losses from robberies), and every other negative impact of bank robbing, and then conclude bank robbing is an unambiguous gain for the economy. Wheeeee!

    To the credit of the NREL study’s authors, they get the joke. In footnotes and in the text, they make it very explicit that the impacts they report are not net impacts. For instance, footnote 13 reads:

    The…models do not estimate the displaced energy or associated jobs, earnings, and output related to existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost in the operation of natural gas or coal plants due to the need for less electricity production from these plants, given increased generation from wind) or increases or decreases in jobs related to changes in electric utility revenues and consumer energy bills, among other impacts. Therefore, the estimates represent gross rather than net impacts.

    And how is it funded in the first place? Of course it has to come from taxpayers (taxpayers today if current taxes cover the bill, or taxpayers tomorrow if the government borrows the money). Though the authors seem to think other government expenditure is the only alternative to subsidizing wind and solar energy, they at least understand there is a very significant cost they do not include:

    Similarly, the jobs and economic impacts associated with possible alternative spending of the federal funds used to support §1603 projects were not estimated in this study. Therefore, results presented in this paper should be interpreted as gross rather than net estimates.

    In short, the NREL study tells us nothing about the overall impact of the subsidies. However, fundamental economic logic can guide us. Energy sources that require subsidies produce energy whose value is less than the costs of production. So these programs actually reduce national income since they take higher-valued resources and turn them into lower-valued output. There is no need for computer programs to reach this conclusion.

    Looking at only the benefit side of a cost-benefit comparison, no matter how sophisticated that one-sided view may be, tells us nothing useful. It certainly doesn’t support the ridiculous job and income claims in the NREL’s bullet points.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Robbing Banks and Subsidizing Green Energy

    1. Anthony says:

      A cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Please let me know when you receive the Pulitzer for this incredibly well written analysis.

    2. Lloyd Scallan says:

      It's a really sad fact of life today that we cannot accept any report or study results from any agency attachhed to this government at face value. Every one is distorted to continue fooling the American people into supporting policies that are in fact harming the citizens and our future.

    3. Marc Jeric says:

      Mullah Obama's spending on "green energy" projects should be encouraged. He reminds me of those medieval princes paying their alchemists for hundreds of years trying to transform lead into gold. Go for it, Mullah!

    4. Carol, AZ says:

      WE recognize the "thugs" per your analogy. It's our Congress, our Senate, our corrupted Judicial system and NO leadership here in America, left out in the bullet points.
      Yesterday, a small bleep on Fox Buss news; USA credit rating dropped again from,; +BB to BB.
      further blamed it on the fiscal meltdown in Spain.
      Do we all think Energy Sec. Lu, recent announcement: " gas prices should mirror Europe's' prices", over $8.00 a liter, and to collate our gas prices to Europe , is just a mis-speak?
      The "get away car," per your description, is American Buss moving to every corner of the world, to set up headquarters, avoiding American tax structure, the highest in the world, i.e GE relocated to China.
      NREL data skewed? or lies level at corruption level so deep to every American that still works, and gifting the plum contract to the relative, who wrote a fat pro Obama supporter check.. Who in Corporate America, the keystone for free enterprise, will lobby against this fire sale of American enterprise once the pride of the world?
      No one.

    5. Guest says:

      A good summary of something we all intuitively know. Or rather knew before the administration weasel-worded us away from our reason.

    6. dunce says:

      Their green energy analysis just the old broken window theory in a new dress that was demolished over 200 years ago by Frederic Bastiat. The laws of economics are not subject to revision by politicians or con men, but i repeat myself. The only real innovation takes place in the private industrial sector in spite of government policies not because of them with the exploding supply of natural gas and oil as a result of the fracturing method of shale deposits. Natural gas prices have fallen to less than $2 per mcf for the first time in many years as a result of the law of supply and demand though obama has marshaled every government agenciy at his command to thwart low energy prices to make solar, wind and pond scum seem competitive.

    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.

    ×