Green Groups Call On Super Committee To Ax Energy Subsidies And Tax Breaks

WASHINGTON -- As the congressional leaders decide on members for the new bipartisan debt-reduction super committee, green advocacy groups are already on the offensive, calling on the committee to cut billions of dollars in tax breaks and energy subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggested raising revenue by increasing taxes on energy companies.

"The fact is that some members of the super committee, instead of looking at jobs in the past year, have used the false argument of EPA regulations as job killers, which is just nonsense," Slesinger added.

Repealing the tax breaks and subsidies could save the government around $50 billion over ten years, $37.2 billion from energy subsidies and $21 billion from oil and gas tax credits. The committee is charged with finding by $1.3 trillion in savings over the next ten years.

But the cost of such subsidies, green advocates and academics allege, is actually much larger.

A Harvard study published earlier this year found the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated from its production cost the U.S. public more than $345 billion annually.

"There are a lot more subtle ways that the status quo or 'dirty industry' is subsidized," said Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace U.S. "It includes being able to write off legal fees, being exempt from certain regulations, there’s a massive Superfund exemption ... we don’t think the meager tax credits that exist for wind and solar should be on the chopping block."

NRDC and 11 other environmental groups told House and Senate leaders on Tuesday exactly where they want energy cuts to be made.

“Any deficit deal must represent a balanced approach that focuses both on cutting wasteful subsidies that harm the public interest and raising significant revenues,” wrote the groups in a letter sent to Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House leaders John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “Any other approach is quite simply a decision to dismember vital programs that keep our air clean, our water safe to drink, and preserve our natural heritage.”

Cuts suggested in the letter included:

*Eliminating tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, which could save taxpayers $100 billion over 10 years.

*Reducing subsidies to corporate agriculture interests and eliminating ethanol tax credits, which could save taxpayers $50 billion over 10 years.

*Reducing public land grazing subsidies for livestock operators and cutting wasteful U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water projects, which could save taxpayers hundreds of millions more.

Reid's committee selections -- Max Baucus, John Kerry and Patty Murray -- signal an auspicious beginning for those hoping to end subsidies for big oil. All three have supported Democrats' effort to gut fossil fuel subsidies in the past, suggesting they may push to end such subsidies as a way of trimming the deficit.

The GOP, meanwhile, has partisan picks of its own. Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress reports that four of the six Republican committee members are climate change deniers and every Republican on the committee has voted to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Reid's left-of-center picks set up a deadlock on energy issues, GOP energy strategist Mike McKenna told Politico.

"Patty Murray's never passed anything in her life and neither has John Kerry," McKenna said, according to Politico. "With the exception of Baucus, they're not exactly dealmakers."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has yet to make her appointments to the committee.

Comments

[JefMaj]

09:24 AM on 08/14/2011

The Super Congress committee put together for dealing with the budget work following the Debt Ceiling mess...... Fred Upton is on that committee..... His family owns Whirlpool, and he signed a NO TAXES pledge.... we can't have meaningful results toward our deficit without revenue.... if a stalemate is all we can expect.... BOYCOTT Whirlpool... we need action.... not politics.

[steve11407]

12:15 AM on 08/13/2011

Gee. Seems the Green Groups are pumping alot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Jenna Stevenson]

01:09 PM on 08/12/2011

What other issues is on deadlock? Typical partisanship in Washington. It'll be a tough fight with the Republicans vowing not to raise any taxes, and the Democrats against cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid for the elderly, and poor. There is John Kerry though, who's said that debt is not a long term problem and that social security, medicare, and medicaid costs are the costs that aren't viable with future US demographics. So he could be the leeway that republicans need to get what they want, since only 7 out of 12 need to agree. Richard Brosage criticized Kerry on Democracy Now! saying, " Kerry is dangerously wrong headed here." He added, "It is entirely due to the fact that our health care system is broken" and the unemployment problem. The interview is here: http://bit.ly/qFG01X

[mothergrace]

03:25 PM on 08/12/2011

I am not sure if this is your intention but I think the refusal of the Republicans to raise taxes (especially in signing a pledge which contradicts their oath of office) is equivalent to Democrats refusal to cut programs that aid the elderly and the poor.

The wealthiest would still have an appreciable amount of resources to draw on while the poor and the elderly, children and the disabled do not.

Kerry is wrong. Those who think they do not benefit from SS or Medicare should try to help, as we did, two sets of parents while trying to raise children. If not for SS and Medicare, we never would have been able to do it.

[mothergrace]

06:14 PM on 08/12/2011

". . .is not equivalent. . ."

Sigh.

[RONALD MCKENZIE]

12:02 PM on 08/12/2011

Ending corporate personhood could be the best tool to regain some balance to this constipated political farce.

[mothergrace]

03:20 PM on 08/12/2011

It is certainly one of the big problems made even worse by Citizens United.

They just have to write laws separating the assets of the corporation from the assets of the real people. Actual personhood creates too many problems.

[cbaker2692]

05:53 AM on 08/12/2011

John Kerry Mr Flip Friggen Flop. He chaned hise side of the opinion poll so many times I don't think he knows what he says anymore. I wonder how many timeshe and that Ketchup maing wife of his have tried to dodge paying thier FAIR SHARE of taxes.

[lambdin1]

02:12 PM on 08/11/2011

I wish the Democrats well with the Party of NO... Gee that's PONO..... Sounds like something expelled from the backside!

[jimtodd]

01:46 PM on 08/11/2011

The only reason green energy is not price competitive is that we dismiss the major cost factor associated with fossil fuels. That is of course, the pollution factor. This is called an "external" in accounting parlance. External is a euphemism for costs that are shifted from the manufacturer or consumer to the public at large. If these companies had to include the cost of the environmental destruction they cause, green energy would already have a price advantage in many areas. The only way to achieve a free market is to eliminate all subsidies, including externals. Only then will consumers be able to make truly informed decisions, and only then will true market forces determine outcomes. Corporations should not be allowed to continue to degrade the planet for free.

[sheila]

12:42 PM on 08/11/2011

Fine, but that means cutting all subsidies to BIG solar and BIG wind and BIG transmission, too, and only offering money to DECENTRALIZED, DEMOCRATICALLY-OWNED solutions like efficiency upgrades, passive heating/cooling systems and rooftop PV.

Big Energy is Big Energy is Big Energy. If you think that Chevron, BP, Sempra, Edison, Bechtel and other mercenaries are not gobbling up all the Big Solar and Big Wind subsidies, you have not been paying attention and are wandering around in a "ooooh, solar, it must be good" daze while they bulldoze, blast, pave, mulch and destroy millions of acres of healthy taxpayer-owned wilderness with billions of our dollars!

NO MORE BIG ENERGY SUBSIDIES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FUEL. Let's put our tax dollars to work for US, eliminating our energy bills, cleaning our air, improving our property values, creating jobs, keeping our local economies prosperous AND reducing GHGs much faster, cheaper and more effectively that Big Energy ever will.

[mothergrace]

03:31 PM on 08/12/2011

But I am still in favor of rebates to individual individuals and businesses who install their own installations.

[paulschechter]

06:55 PM on 08/12/2011

Sheila, You're right in principle, however, you're forgetting the fact that we have 7+ billion people on this planet who are all starting to demand the levels of comfort and convenience that we enjoy in the west. We are NOT a benign species. We are utterly unsustainable in almost every industry. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the standard of living we are acustomed to, without BIG energy. For what it's worth, big renewables are much better than big fossil fuels/nukes. Are they perfect? No of course not, they have many short-comings. But at least they will help us out of the climate choas we are headed straight towards currently. Many experts believe that renewables/efficiency alone aren't large enough to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear and clean coal must be options as well (personally, I disagree). However, I have never once heard that efficiency and distributed generation by themselves would be big enough to supply the amount of energy we use, without drastic changes in lifestyle. Although nice in principle, the problem with dist generation is that is it vastly less efficient than centralized, large power plants. In terms of renewables, it is also typically ill-placed with respect to the resource. A micro-wind turbine on your urban rooftop, for example, will experience MUCH less wind than a commercial scale one in the open plains of the midwest. I'm all for dist generation and efficiency but they won't be enough by themselves.

[sheila]

10:30 PM on 08/12/2011

please don't confuse what is happening now - an attempt to provide 33% (not 100%) of CA's energy from "renewables." there is not a local distribution grid that could not provide that from small, local installations. you use microwind as an example, but PV and efficiency is the answer and, net of transmission losses is EXACTLY AS EFFICIENT AS MOJAVE SOLAR. higher net capacity factor of Big Solar is a total myth.

next step? storage solutions at the structural and distribution level. It really will not be a problem to scale this up, technically or economically. it's the Big Energy chokehold that is stopping us, pure and simple.

what has been happening is massive DIS-incentive towards the sunniest places in the built environment producing more than they use onsite - a homeowner who could produce substantially more energy than they use (there are hundreds of thousands of such sites in CA alone) is forced to LOSE money if they build a system that reflects that higher capacity. why? because utilities are trying to enforce their monopolies in the era when we could almost entirely decentralize and democratize the grid.

So, whether or not you believe in the proven numbers (LA County just shown to have 19,000 MW of rooftop PV capacity, for example) that indicate that we could easily hit 100%, you gotta believe that we could easily hit 33%. So why are we killing wilderness and wasting billions while suburbia bakes and sprawls?

[freddyb]

12:41 PM on 08/11/2011

Yeah. You can really trust Kerry. The man who tried to dodge the taxes on his yacht. I hope he brings some free ketchup to the meetings.

[billyg223]

12:39 PM on 08/11/2011

Great Idea! Keep pouring money down the rathole of "green energy" and tie the hands of those trying to find real energy even tighter.
Why not just cut ALL subsidies to farmers, businesses, whoever?
But for starters, suspend all pay and benefits for Congress until they get this mess fixed. Wont save much money, but it MIGHT just get their attention that, THIS TIME, we are serious.

[Living ECO]

04:15 PM on 08/12/2011

I work in green energy, and it is the best energy investment that could ever be made, bar none. The reasons are simple.

First, it now costs about the same amount to build a green energy power plant (solar is what I focus on) as it does to build a coal fired power plant with the same power generation. In some cases, it costs much less. This is because solar has reached 'grid parity' and is only getting more efficient every day. That is only the cost to _build_ a plant, which is now comparible to coal, and that brings us to the second crucial reason why green energy is a better investment

Coal and other fossil fuel fired plants have staggering ongoing costs that renewable energy does not. That's what 'renewable' means. It means you invest once, and then it's free. Once a person or corporation has paid off a solar power plant, they have virtually no other expenses other than property tax. Coal on the other hand has staggering ongoing costs, extracting, mining, burning coal, miner dying, etc.

The last obvious reason, which you'll never hear the Pro-Pollution for Profit Lobby (Big Oil, Natural Gas, Coal and Nuclear) talk about is the monumental cost to human health that occurs from burning fossil fuels, ($345 billion anually) as stated in the article above

Keep sucking on that tail pipe...

[paulschechter]

07:19 PM on 08/12/2011

billyg223...how could you possibly believe that developing an energy source that has an endless and completely free fuel supply is a 'rathole' in comparison to energy that comes from a dirty source, is finite in quantity, and costs a lot of money?? That doesn't make sense to me.

In terms of cost of green energy vs. fossil fuels. Currently wind is VERY cost competitive with all forms of fossil fuels. If you build a 200MW wind farm in the great plains, which produces a capacity factor of 40% or greater, you can easily supply energy for 7 cents/kWh and make a big profit. Yes, a 30 year old coal plant can supply energy for about 3 cents/kWh, but that is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison. That plant is 30 years old! Its debt is already paid for and essentially its only costs are fuel/operation. If you want a true comparison you need to comparison new wind to NEW coal. Let me give you a perfect example: Duke Energy is currently building the Edwardsport coal plant in Indiana. It is a 618MW plant with an initial cost of $1.98B that has overrun to $2.88B, a whopping $4,660/kW installed cost. Furthermore, it received $460 million in local/state/Fed subsidies (yes SUBSIDIES) and by Duke's own admission, it is going to supply power at 10 cents/kWh. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! It's more expensive than wind, even with subsidies!

[Malcolm Hensley]

12:18 PM on 08/11/2011

Sounds like a plan but forward by Big Oil.

Seems almost all these subsidies go to small drilling companies because of the tax subsidies the 3000+ smaller drilling companies have a competitive advantage. Big oil is responsible for only 10% of all the wells drilled. Because of these subsidies we are less than 50% dependent on imported oil. Big oil does not qualify for these tax subsidies because of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) - and come on you got to love that.

Remove those subsidies several things will happen. 2000 of the 3000+ drilling companies will close or merge and you will have 50,000 more unemployed people and we will be more dependent on imported oil and the value of the Dollar will decrease.

Just what this President and our economy needs!

Read this article from Forbes Magazine arguing for the removal of the tax subsidies. Makes a strong case for eliminating the competition to Big Oil.

Is that what we really want? To make Big Oil bigger?

http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_2.html

[dadw5boys]

12:05 PM on 08/11/2011

Get rid of those tax breaks for the Coal Fired Power Plant Owners and then Solar and Wind will become Competitive in the Market Place .
As long as the Power Plant Owners control policy there will be no descent competition to lower the price of Engery, Electric or Gas .

[nirek]

11:30 AM on 08/11/2011

Cutting subsidies to the nuclear industry, coal industry , and oil industry would go a long way to deficit reduction and it would have the added benefit of cleaning up the environment!
A win win .

[Bullitt08]

12:24 PM on 08/11/2011

A win if you don't mind electric rates doubling and rolling blackouts.

[Damien Cunningham]

11:09 PM on 08/11/2011

You are correct..., even though this would really only increase the actual cost by about 5 to 10%, energy companies would double the cost just to say "told you so" to the public, and to use this opportunity to further profiteer.

[Living ECO]

04:19 PM on 08/12/2011

LOL, how are you going to have a black out if you are providing your own energy?

I work in the solar industry and I can tell you from first hand experience that people and companies that install solar LOWER their energy bill in every single case. They would not invest in solar if it did not lower their bill, and the investment in solar is skyrocking.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[hello world]

11:22 AM on 08/11/2011

Environmental regulations create jobs. But if your goal is to put the money in the CEOs personal bank account, instead of getting them to hiring persons to help comply with regulations, you would be against them, which gives you a Republican.

[den1953]

10:16 AM on 08/11/2011

Already the lobbyist are taking over this idea is going no where fast like this is going to pass?