Skip to main content

Cross posted from Scaling Green

Congress has now passed an extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), as part of the "fiscal cliff" resolution earlier this week. For those of us who strongly support the expansion of wind energy in this country, extension of the PTC was clearly the right thing for Congress to do. For those opposed to clean energy, however, it was a big mistake.

Take, for instance the pro-fossil-fuel, anti-clean-energy groups (the American Energy Alliance, American Conservative Union, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heritage Action for America, American Commitment, and Freedom Action) who signed onto this letter to Congress in mid-December 2012, urging Congress' "opposition to extending the wind [PTC]." Their reasoning, if one can call it that, was that "corporate dependence on federal    subsidies not only harms the taxpayers who finance the PTC, it also creates an improper incentive for wind companies    to focus on obtaining lucrative subsidies rather than long-term sustainability and competitiveness." The (apparently unintentional) irony here is mind boggling, given that the fossil fuel corporations have received massive federal subsidies (not to mention those at the state level) that have harmed taxpayers and created improper incentives for those companies for many decades now. Apparently, it's "do as we say, not as we do," with the fossil fuel industry.

Anyway, I decided to check in with the pro-fossil-fuel organizations signing the letter to Congress to get a better idea as to their thinking on this matter. For one, I wanted to better understand the part of their argument for deep-sixing the PTC relating to state Renewable Energy Standards (RES). According to these groups, the state RES's already give wind, solar, etc. enough help, meaning they don't need the PTC. At the same time, though, it appears that most if not all these groups also oppose state RES's. That seems like an internal contradiction in logic. Second, I hoped to pin these groups down on whether their expressed dedication to "free market principles" meant that they would also support getting rid of all taxpayer-funded corporate welfare to fossil fuel interests.

I emailed and/or called all the organizations with contact information, multiple times in several cases. In the end, I only heard back from two of them - American Commitment (via email) and American Energy Alliance (phone conversation). The rest apparently would rather not elaborate on their "reasoning" regarding the PTC and RES's. As for American Commitment, I'm not sure their response really helps matters, but for the record here it is.

Yes, we're against state mandates and the PTC. The point of the letter is that even supporters of mandates should oppose the PTC as it is presently structured because it causes negative pricing incidents. When the ethanol subsidy was repealed a couple years ago, cooperation between supporters and opponents of the mandate was critical. We look to repeat that success here...[In response to a followup question about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies] We support the Pompeo bill to end all energy subsidies with an offsetting cut to the corporate tax.
The problem, of course, is that the Pompeo bill is very weak, cutting only a few dirty energy welfare forms (basically the ones that aren't used), while letting all the other corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry stand. I pressed American Commitment further on this issue, and specifically on whether they'd be willing to go further and demand elimination to ALL corporate welfare to fossil fuel interests, but they didn't respond. Sadly, that's not in the least bit surprising.

I also managed to get a human being on the phone at the American Energy Alliance (AEA) - their Communications Director, Benjamin Cole. According to Mr. Cole, who was very pleasant and polite - although also clearly a "true believer" (e.g., that fossil fuels are the only serious form of energy, and that renewable energy is a boondoggle) - the AEA is a "free market organization" which opposes "all forms of energy mandates and subsidies." According to Mr. Cole, the Obama administration has "taken a punitive and discriminatory [stance] against fossil fuels," the goal of which has been to "punish" the fossil fuel industries and to "make them more expensive." Of course, the reality is almost the complete opposite, as U.S. oil and  natural gas production have increased significantly since 2008, while natural gas prices have plummeted. Apparently, AEA's attitude is not to let facts get in the way of their story. As for AEA's opposition to both the wind PTC and the state RES's, Mr. Cole basically stuck to the "we are a free market organization" line, and left it at that.

I attempted to press Mr. Cole as to whether AEA's espoused opposition to government distortions to free markets meant that AEA also would support getting rid of government subsidies to fossil fuel companies. Cole pointed to the Pompeo legislation, which as we mentioned above is very weak. Here's the American Wind Energy Association's analysis:

The call for an end to all energy subsidies from Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R-Kans.) and Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) could be a laudable goal if it treated all energy resources fairly and treated energy fairly relative to other sectors. Unfortunately, their proposed legislation doesn't work that way. It unfairly singles out wind power, the most promising source of new American manufacturing jobs, while protecting billions of dollars in incentives for other energy sources and all non-energy sectors. Honest reform of tax incentives must start with a level playing field. The Pompeo-Ladrador proposal fails to do that.
So much for the Pompeo legislation, in other words. Meanwhile, AEA's Benjamin Cole also asserted that pro-clean-energy Rep. Ed Markey had joined with Rep. Pompeo in a letter on this subject, but the only thing I could find was Markey's challenge to Pompeo and other wind PTC opponents to "also support the elimination of billions of dollars in tax subsidies and loans to oil, coal, and nuclear companies."

In the end, when I continued pressing Mr. Cole on whether AEA would support elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, he basically avoided a direct answer to the question. Instead, he went to the standard pro-fossil-fuel, anti-clean-energy talking points about the need for "energy-dense, affordable, reliable" fuel sources. Clearly, in AEA's opinion, the only fuels that fit those descriptions - or ever will, apparently are fossil fuels.

And thus the fossil fuel supporters' "reasoning" follows its circular, dizzying path: a) fossil fuels are inherently superior energy sources, ones which the "free market" would obviously choose over supposedly inferior renewable energy sources; b) renewable energy sources are not up to snuff and therefore don't deserve to be subsidized; and c) given all that, fossil fuels clearly deserve the support they receive, while renewables clearly do not deserve support (or even a level playing field with fossil fuels). Make sense? No, I didn't think so, but that's the absurd argument the fossil fuel industry and its bought-and-paid-for "think tanks" are busy pushing.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site