It's been a long time coming, but the EIA has finally updated its numbers on US energy subsidy levels. The latest data is for FY 2013, while the previous version was for FY 2010. Once again, wind energy comes out on top in total subsidies received, and once again solar leads (by far) in subsidy per MWh generated.
Here is the raw data on subsidies, with generation data also from EIA. A summary for both 2010 and 2013 in table form:
|
Gross Subsidies
(million 2010 USD) |
Generation (GWh) |
Subsidies per MWh |
|
2010 |
2013 |
2010 |
2013 |
2010 |
2013 |
Coal |
1358 |
1075 |
1847290 |
1581115 |
$0.74 |
$0.68 |
Natural Gas |
2820 |
2346 |
1011034 |
1138656 |
$2.79 |
$2.06 |
Nuclear |
2499 |
1660 |
806968 |
789016 |
$3.10 |
$2.10 |
Biomass |
1117 |
629 |
37172 |
40028 |
$30.15 |
$15.71 |
Geothermal |
273 |
345 |
15219 |
15775 |
$17.94 |
$21.87 |
Conventional Hydro |
216 |
395 |
260203 |
268565 |
$0.83 |
$1.47 |
Solar |
1134 |
5328 |
1212 |
9036 |
$935.64 |
$589.64 |
Wind |
4986 |
5936 |
94652 |
167840 |
$52.68 |
$35.37 |
Subsidies per MWh:
Subsidies per MWh, with a logarithmic y-axis:
Some items which could be called subsidies are excluded from these data. For example, tax breaks that are generally available to all industries, including energy extraction and generation, are not considered
energy subsidies
per se and are not included here.
There are some trust funds that energy producers are required to pay into, for things such as black lung disability payments, leaking underground storage tanks, oil spill liability, pipeline safety, abandoned mine reclamation, nuclear waste disposal, and nuclear decomissioning. If the amount paid into those funds is not adequate for their stated purpose, the difference could be considered to be a subsidy, but it is not reflected here. On the other hand, if the amount paid into those funds is more than needed, it could be considered a tax (which is a negative subsidy), and that is also not reflected in these data. The reason being that EIA didn't want to evaluate the adequacy of these payments and assumed that they were adequate to their purposes.
Taxes in general are in effect negative subsidies, but are not reflected here. (Though in my humble opinion, they should be; that would give us all a better idea of the cost/benefit ratio of various technologies.)
Finally, the effects of the Price-Anderson Act are not reflected in the EIA data. This act caps the amount of liability for nuclear accidents, and that cap is currently set at $13 billion. If we were to have a nuclear accident, and the cost were greater than that, the federal government pays. This is similar to liability caps the law has for airlines.
The amount of that subsidy is equal to the cost of additional insurance nuclear power plant operators would have had to buy if there were no cap. The CBO has estimated in 2008 that the value of that subsidy is about $600,000 per reactor per year (or about 0.1% of the levelized cost of nuclear power). If Price-Anderson had been included, the subsidy for nuclear power would rise from $2.10 to $2.18 per MWh in 2013. No US accident, including Three Mile Island, has ever exceeded the Price-Anderson cap, and as of this writing the Price-Anderson liability cap has not actually cost the taxpayer a dime.