THE VINE DECEMBER 9, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There have been all sorts of drastic proclamations about the tax deal Obama struck with congressional Republicans earlier this week. Here's another to chuck on the pile: The agreement might end up killing what little momentum the U.S. clean-energy industry has picked up over the past two years.
Some background. Back in 2008, Congress extended (yet again) tax credits for solar and wind producers, which now cover 30 percent of upfront costs. But when the recession made it tougher for firms to get financing, the credits were no longer working as advertised. So, in last year's stimulus bill, Congress converted the credits to flat grants. That seemed to do the trick: According to the Financial Times, two-thirds of all new solar projects and 85 percent of all new wind projects in the United States now rely on these grants. Trouble is, the grant program is going to expire at the end of the year. This frequently happens with tax support for renewables, and Congress usually just extends the program after a brief period of dithering.
But not this time. The tax breaks weren't included anywhere in the Obama deal. And so the solar and wind industries are now freaking out, warning that their companies are about to tumble off a cliff, shed thousands of jobs, etc. What's particularly galling is that the ethanol industry is getting its tax breaks renewed. As a clean-energy source, ethanol is highly dubious: Studies have found that the whole process can produce more heat-trapping CO2 emissions than regular old gasoline. But ethanol has a powerful farm-state constituency, and those subsidies have long been sacrosanct. (That may change in the years ahead, as Tea Party types like Jim DeMint have begun denouncing government support for ethanol, but, until anything actually comes of that, corn is still king.)
Granted, wind and solar aren't doomed yet. In the House, Earl Blumenauer has been calling attention to the situation, and it's possible that all those liberal Democrats who find the broader tax deal so repugnant could end up wheedling this small concession. (A one-year extension would cost $1.3 billion, or about 0.1 percent of the overall tax bill.) And it's not like Republicans are implacably opposed to the renewable tax credit; they've generally been on board ever since the program was first enacted in 1992.
That said, there's a deeper problem here. The renewable industry will have a tough time gaining a firm footing in the market if, every year or two, there's glaring uncertainty about whether Congress will continue to offer support. Wind and solar companies are having a difficult time making investment decisions, which may help explain why wind generation dropped this year, after a boom in 2009. (Oddly enough, this is one "economic uncertainty" argument you rarely hear Republicans make.) An alternative approach would be to extend the tax program for a longer period of time—or go further and pass a bill that requires utilities to get a certain percentage of their power from sources like wind, solar, or biomass. But the latter idea died in the Senate this year, so clean-energy producers are back to fighting for scraps—and now they may not get even that.
Update: Looks like all that pressure may have worked. After 81 House Democrats demanded that the program be extended, two senators have reportedly agreed with the White House on a deal to keep them for an additional year. But it's still unclear whether this new provision will cause any Republicans to bail. And, again, even a temporary extension doesn't address the uncertainty worry—it just means this game of chicken will pick up again at around this time next year.
(Flickr photo credit: Wayne National Forest)
7 comments
Yer preaching to the choir, at least when it come to this faithful reader. The tax deal is a dog. Let's hope the congressional Democrats have the stones to kill it.
- AaronW
December 9, 2010 at 5:10pm
Brad Plumer writes: "That said, there's a deeper problem here. The renewable industry will have a tough time gaining a firm footing in the market if, every year or two, there's glaring uncertainty about whether Congress will continue to offer support." Mr. Plumer's remark is unintentionally humorous. If solar and wind energy are capable of making a significant contribution at present to the nation's energy supply why do they need enormous taxpayer subsidies? Beyond that, subsidized wind and solar energy are a threat to the environment. Wind energy destroys vast numbers of birds. Large-scale solar energy projects in our nation's deserts threaten some of the world's most species-rich and beautiful ecosystems. Sadly, it is almost the definition of a liberal that he judges a program by whether it makes him feel righteous rather than by its consequences in the real world.
- bulbman1066
December 10, 2010 at 12:43am
Does Mr. R or the Bulbster actually believe the BS they write? Name one big industry today that wasn't subsidized in years past via the government. I can name several that were: - telecommunications (especially satellite communications) - railroads - the automobile - the internet - aviation / aerospace - pharmaceuticals / medical technology - computer networking - semiconductors - advanced materials - oil and gas industries (they still receive massive tax breaks/subsidies) - agriculture (still get massive subsidies) The list goes on.
- tnmats
December 10, 2010 at 12:58pm
Tnmats, don't forget the nuclear power industry -- which actually wants additional subsidies just to be able to build new plants in this country! Bulbman, I had you wrong all those years -- who knew you were such a conservationist, in love with "species-rich and beautiful ecosystems"?
- wildboy
December 10, 2010 at 3:45pm
wildboy, I am an activist in the conservation movement, and I dedicate much of my time to the cause. I was when I was a liberal, and I remain so now that I have become a neo-conservative. Conservation is too important to be left to the liberals, who all too often advocate counterproductive policies. Our tax system centers around granting tax breaks to favored interests, including many of the industries you mention*. The solution is to change the tax system, not to use it as an excuse for boondoggles like giant solar powers plants that are costly to the taxpayer and harm the environment. Agricultural subsidies were killed during the brief golden age of Clinton-Gingrich, but Dracula is back. Any conservative who votes for them is a hypocrite, and should be called to account. The mortgage interest deduction should be phased out. It is surely one of the culprits in the real estate bubble and bust that occurs about every ten years. All of the industries you mention could thrive without government subsidies. That is not true of large scale wind and solar power, neither of which is ready for prime time. *I think you will agree that there are legitimate tax breaks. R&D to develop a cure for a disease or a new kind of semiconductor benefits everybody.
- bulbman1066
December 11, 2010 at 12:18am
Nuclear power doesn't need a subsidy to compete with even coal in countries where nuclear hasn't been burdened by punitive oversight.
- seattleeng
December 11, 2010 at 12:23am
Late commenter on this post but "punitive oversight" was somewhat necessary after Three Mile Island. And nuclear got off the ground to begin with via multi-billion dollar subsidies decade after decade. Don't fool yourself into thinking nuclear is just another business..it's a government reliant industry and there's no two ways to get around that fact.
- RedState
December 30, 2010 at 10:08am