Energy Info Admin EIA

=3/15Over the years, critics of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">clean energy</a> have learned a few things about dirty politics. In their latest attempt to protect fossil fuel special interests—and stop the progress of renewable energy dead in its tracks—they have turned to a tried-and-true tactic: someone in Congress asks for a half-baked study on energy subsidies, designed to leave skewed results and certain to draw the interest of government watchdog groups. Then, a front group for the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=koch" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Koch brothers</a> steps in and starts trashing clean energy, and Americans find themselves confused.Welcome to Washington, Mr. Smith. As Mark Twain once mused, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”This latest dustup started with a new report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which offers a snapshot in time of the different incentives for various energy sources, and was requested by several Republican members of Congress. Predictably, Watchdog.org then <a href="http://watchdog.org/206813/solar-wind-subsidies/" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s;">picked up the report and posted a story</a> with the less-than-flattering headline, “Solar and wind energy pack a wallop—in federal subsidies.” While Watchdog.org did a good job of seeking comment from both the solar and wind industries, the real truth about clean energy incentives was consistently clouded by an organization known as The Institute for Energy Research, which—surprise, surprise—was founded by Charles Koch and former Enron executive Robert Bradley, who wrote speeches for disgraced Enron CEO—and I should add, corporate crook—Ken Lay.For its part, EIA did what it was asked to do, but the request was narrowly defined to only include subsidies with clear identifiable impacts on the U.S. Treasury and that are provisions specific to energy. This restrictive definition leaves out some of the largest fossil and nuclear subsidies, which results in a skewed, apples-to-oranges comparison. For example, the EIA report omits:<ol style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Price-Anderson nuclear insurance liability limitations (because it has no identifiable impact on the Treasury), even though American taxpayers are on the hook for an unlimited amount of money in insurance costs in the event of a catastrophic accident.</li></ol><ol start="2" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">It does not account for royalties on foreign crude oil being classified as income taxes, which makes these royalties eligible for the foreign income tax credit. Huh? If they were accurately classified as royalties they would be treated as expenses and would only be eligible for a deduction, instead of a tax credit. This distinction is likely worth billions of dollars a year to Big Oil.</li></ol><ol start="3" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">It does not count the externalities of pollution from fossil-fueled power plants as subsidies (which they are).</li></ol>Additionally, EIA did not include any loan guarantees in the subsidy numbers because guarantees, or outlays, were not made in 2013. This goes for nuclear, renewables and others. But it’s important to point out, nuclear did get a disproportionate share of the loan guarantees in prior years.To put this in some perspective, <a href="http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s;">DBL Investors looked</a> at the historical incentives given to fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables—and the numbers weren’t even close: $447 billion for fossil fuels; $185.5 billion for nuclear; and less than $6 billion for renewables—less than 1 percent of the total amount given to fossil fuels and nuclear.In a previous iteration of this report, EIA refused a request to display subsidies per unit of energy, or per unit of capacity, because it is an invalid/misleading metric for judging subsidies. Because most subsidies are frontloaded, traditional generation—such as coal, nuclear and hydro—received their government support years or decades ago, and the plants built with that support continued to exist and generate energy in 2013—even if their support did not include substantial outlays in 2013. This is one of the key points of the <a href="http://bakercenter.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/Solar-incentives-and-benefits-complete-report_May-1-2012.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">widely-respected Baker Center study</a>.The Baker Center study also shows that solar incentives are in line with those given to other energy industries. What’s more, solar is following a similar curve in development as traditional energy sources (coal, gas, oil), which received substantial subsidies during their growth period and are still getting many of them today.Even the nonpartisan <a href="http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/R41227EnergyLegReport.pdf" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s;">Congressional Research Service has explained</a>, “For more than a half a century, federal energy tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing domestic oil and gas reserves and production. There was no major tax incentive promoting renewable energy or energy efficiency.” In other words, the Koch brothers and fossil fuel interests were given a stranglehold on the marketplace—thanks, in large part, to preferential tax treatment and federal subsidies—and now they want to freeze everyone else out.For example, by its own figures, the oil and gas industry will receive nearly $100 billion over the next 10 years in special tax breaks, including: expensing of intangible drilling costs; the domestic manufacturers tax deduction; use of the “last-in, first-out,” or LIFO, accounting method; exemption from Superfund waste cleanup taxes; and preferential treatment that reduces taxes for master limited partnerships.  And the list goes on.In truth, the oil and gas industry has been getting substantial tax breaks since 1913, while solar has only been receiving the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) since 2006.Most troubling, the EIA report only looks at the “costs” to the U.S. Treasury of solar subsidies—without considering a single dime of economic benefits—or return on investment—created by one of the fastest-growing industries in America. Today, solar employs nearly 175,000 Americans—with 140,000 of those jobs created since the ITC was implemented—and we pump nearly $20 billion a year into the U.S. economy. We’re also providing <a href="http://www.seia.org/smi" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s;">enough clean electricity to power 4 million homes</a>.Similarly, the report does not take into account the huge amount of income taxes paid by solar developers, distributors, installers, manufacturers and employees, as well as the taxes paid by support industries including engineering, financing and legal. Nor does the report include any indirect, or induced, benefits from widespread solar development.From an environmental prospective, the EIA report does not take into account the staggering costs from harmful carbon pollution to the <a href="http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">health and well-being of Americans</a>. Today, the solar industry is helping to displace an estimated 20 million metric tons of damaging carbon emissions, which is the equivalent of removing 4 million cars off U.S. highways and roads. So, through this omission, the report mistakenly dismisses the real health care costs of “dirty air,” which is associated with asthma, lung disease, heart disease and even cancer.And finally, the report also fails to include the benefits that solar provides when it comes to national security, emergency preparedness, grid reliability, America’s clean energy future and on and on.We’re very proud of the <a href="http://www.americasupportssolar.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">progress made by the solar industry</a> in a very short period of time—and we appreciate the faith put in us by both <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/20/republicans-support-renewable-energy/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Republicans</a> and Democrats in Congress, by both President Obama and President Bush, and by 9 out of 10 Americans who want to see an expanded use of solar nationwide. By any measurement, the solar ITC is paying huge benefits to the U.S. and to American taxpayers, and we believe it should be extended to maintain a level playing field with long-time, entrenched energy sources.Unfortunately, you would never know any of this by reading the EIA report, or listening to the subsequent scathing attacks on solar and wind by the Koch brothers’ cronies. But before getting all worked up by their nonsense, I’m reminded of something else Mark Twain once said: “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

<div class="entry" id="entry_" data-beacon="{">

<h3><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/energy-information-administration-report-_b_913794.html" data-beacon="{">Controversial Energy Subsidy Report Made Public By Watchdog Group</a></h3>

Brendan DeMelle

|

Posted 10.01.2011

|

<a class="green" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/green">Green</a>

</div>

Read More:

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/corporate-welfare">Corporate Welfare,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/energy-information-administration">Energy Information Administration,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/checks-and-balances-project">Checks and Balances Project,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/howard-gruenspecht">Howard Gruenspecht,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/desmog-blog">DeSmog Blog,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/energy-information-administration-report-flaws">Energy Information Administration Report Flaws,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/energy-information-administration-report">Energy Information Administration Report,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/energy-reports">Energy Reports,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/renewable-energy-report">Renewable Energy Report,</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/green">Green News</a>

<hr />

</div>

</a>

The Checks and Balances Project has obtained a copy of the

controversial Energy Information Administration report that was called

"garbage" by EIA Acting Administrator Howard Gruenspecht.

</div>

<a class="read_post_link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/energy-information-administration-report-_b_913794.html">Read Whole Story</a>

</div>

</div><a data-beacon="{" href="http://checksandbalancesproject.org/" target="_blank">Checks and Balances Project</a> has obtained a copy of the <a data-beacon="{" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/eia-head-objected-politically-dictated-garbage-subsidy-report-delivers-it-anyway">controversial Energy Information Administration</a>

report that was called “garbage” by EIA Acting Administrator Howard

Gruenspecht.  The polluter-friendly report was just delivered yesterday

afternoon to the GOP House requesters, Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT),

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett

(R-MD). Checks and Balances provided a copy to DeSmogBlog, which we’re

providing to the public here: <a data-beacon="{" href="http://www.mediafire.com/?dp9rzhnoca7lva6" target="_blank">“Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010” [PDF]</a>.

Gabe Elsner, Deputy Director of the Checks and Balances Project, told

DeSmogBlog that, “if it’s true that the Acting Administrator

Gruenspecht called this report a “piece of garbage” he was right,

because it deliberately leaves out the six other ways in which coal, oil

and natural gas get government handouts.  The fossil fuel welfare tab

is tens or hundreds of times greater than the cost of pro-renewable

policy support.”  </div>

<div class="content-list-component mt-paragraph text">Elsner says

that this report is essentially a re-issue of the 2007 Alexander study

that was designed to defend public welfare to the fossil fuel industry,

such as oil and gas industry subsidies. The new EIA analysis fails to

take into account the full range of subsidies at play in the energy

sector, and therefore delivers a favorable analysis of fossil fuels over

renewables. </div>

<div class="content-list-component mt-paragraph text">By excluding a

lot of the other avenues of direct federal support given

disproportionately to fossil fuel interests, as well as financial tools

designed to assist dirty energy companies, the report is just plain

faulty, or “fuzzy math” as some guy once said. </div>

Missing from the EIA calculations are a plethora of advantages the

dirty energy industry enjoys over clean tech companies, including

outsized direct subsidies for mature industries, publicly funded

pollution cleanup assistance, cheap insurance, low-interest federal

loans, extensive tax breaks, and — most gut wrenching in the wake of <a data-beacon="{" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/breaking-tim-dechristopher-sentenced-two-years-prison">Tim DeChristopher’s imprisonment</a>

— insanely cheap public land leases for oil and gas drilling, as well

as access to public lands and tax credits to build transmission lines. </div>

<div class="content-list-component mt-paragraph text">On Monday, the <a data-beacon="{" href="http://www.mediafire.com/?c1nytbmcvpqhdq3" target="_blank">Checks

and Balances Project, Greenpeace U.S. and Oil Change International plan

to file this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request [PDF]</a> to the

EIA seeking records of the meetings and communications between the EIA

and the three GOP Congressmembers’ offices, as well as other materials

used in compiling the report. </div>