• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Four Big Problems with Obama's Energy Subsidy Push

    President Obama pushed for expanding wind energy and advanced energy manufacturing subsidies at the wind turbine manufacturer TPI Composites in Newton, Iowa, today.

    These subsidies have and continue to enjoy bipartisan support precisely because they benefit both Republicans and Democrats come election time, when they can say they helped create jobs for their district and state. But targeted tax credits and other subsidies are wasteful and economically destructive for four fundamental reasons:

    1. Subsidies destroy jobs elsewhere. If you subsidize anything enough, you’re bound to find producers to take advantage of that subsidy to create jobs. Taxpayer-funded programs do not create jobs; they shift them from one sector of the economy to another. The opportunity cost of government spending is the lost labor and capital extracted from other sectors (ones that do not need government support) of the economy to artificially support the politically preferred ones. Subsidizing inefficient technologies is an economic drain, not an economic stimulator.
    2. Subsidies promote crony capitalism. When the government dictates how private-sector resources are spent by issuing subsidies and targeted tax breaks, those industries that benefit greatly from such policy decisions will spend more money lobbying for government handouts. In fact, TPI Composites was a recipient of stimulus money. This is also a company that received $66 million in private financing over the past five years. If that’s the case, why should the taxpayers be on the hook for $9 million worth of investment? Further, European countries, recognizing that green subsidies have been ineffective in promoting economic growth but very effective in growing its national debt, are peeling back their subsidies. Many foreign-owned companies are looking to take advantage of American subsidies now. Foreign companies from Germany, the U.K., and Spain attended a recent White House meeting on renewable tax credits. While it’s unabashedly welcome that foreign companies invest in the United States, this goes to show that the lure of taxpayer-funded handouts attract domestic and foreign rent seekers.
    3. Subsidies create industry dependence on government. One common justification for subsidizing technologies is that the technology or industry just needs a five-year window of handouts before it will become commercially viable on its own. Going on the fifth year, supportive politicians and industry come back pleading for five more years and arguing that we need “certainty” for these businesses. You’re hearing it again this time. Senator Pat Roberts (R–KS) recently said, “I think it’s a crucial thing it’s at least extended so they know where they are.” These industries do know where they are. It’s plain and simple: The PTC expires at the end of the year. Government subsidies create this dependence and remove the incentive for companies to make their technologies cost-competitive. Eliminating the subsidies would allow companies to truly realize the price point for which their technologies can enter the marketplace. If that price point is too high, then it doesn’t belong in the marketplace.
    4. Subsidies waste taxpayer dollars. Whether or not a company is successful, energy subsidies are a wastefully poor use of taxpayer dollars. This is the case whether government is subsidizing losers that couldn’t get private financing for a reason or offsetting private sector investment with taxpayer financing. This has been true with companies that are now bankrupt (Beacon, Ener1, Evergreen, Raser Technologies, Solar Trust for America, Solyndra and SpectraWatt) and ones that are in financial distress (A123 Systems, Abound Solar, First Solar, Nevada Geothermal, SunPower, and U.S. Geothermal). Even if a project with a taxpayer-funded subsidy is successful, attributing the project’s success to the taxpayer support is a huge assumption. It merely offsets the private-sector investment that would have been made anyway. Venture capitalists and other investors, who have much more expertise and knowledge than government bureaucrats in making investment decisions, should be making these choices.

    Removing the targeted tax credits for all energy sources and broadly lowering the tax rate, as legislation by Representative Mike Pompeo (R–KS) and Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) does, would create a more market-based energy economy that benefits economically viable producers and, ultimately, consumers.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Four Big Problems with Obama's Energy Subsidy Push

    1. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Does Mr. Loris believe Obama is not aware of the problems with his "green energy policies? Obama just don't care! He is using these subsides as his private slush fund to kick back to his biggest supporters. This is way beyond "croney capitalism". This boarders on criminal. But, as we know, criminal means nothing to Obama either.

    2. billstanley1 says:

      The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011. Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support. Ethanol was the biggest recipient with $6 billion and wind was second. Fossil fuels received $2.5 billion in tax breaks. In 2010, subsidies per megawatt-hour of electricity produced were $0.63 for natural gas, $0.64 for coal, $52 for wind and $968 for solar. http://www.newsandopinions.net

    3. Progressive Patriot says:

      As usual, Mr. Loris' shilling for the fossil fuel industry takes the form of a cherry-picked set of arguments that completely ignore the basis for what he misleadingly labels as a "market-driven" energy policy. Over the past century, American tax payers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry. Why? Because in the 20th century, it was in the national interest to promote the development of fossil fuels. Result? Fossil fuels are relatively cheap despite heavy external environmental costs that are not reflected in the market price. But now, after our country has made (and continues to make) such huge taxpayer investments in fossil fuels, a Koch-cultivated policy wonk like Mr. Loris conveniently argues for a "market-driven" energy policy with no government support for clean energy. It is transparent and shameless fossil-fuel industry hackery of historic proportions.

    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.