Controversial Energy Subsidy Report Made Public By Watchdog Group

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.  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: “Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010" [PDF].

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.” 

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.

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.

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 Tim DeChristopher’s imprisonment -- insanely cheap public land leases for oil and gas drilling, as well as access to public lands and tax credits to build transmission lines.

On Monday, the Checks and Balances Project, Greenpeace U.S. and Oil Change International plan to file this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request [PDF] 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.

 

Follow Brendan DeMelle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bdemelle

Comments

[Chase19921]

08:27 PM on 08/07/2011

On a related note, I think that the publication of this report demonstrates how foreign companies can use AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS to develop energy production, while avoiding the purpose of these subsidies.

Iberdrola, a Spanish Corporation, is getting away with using Spanish contractors and Spanish workers while at the same time profiting from American Tax Credits! Should we really subsidize the entire world?

TLDR; Subsidize American Companies and Contractors, not Foreign Corporations.

[James White]

09:36 PM on 08/01/2011

Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR:
Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Flood Insurance Reauthorization , Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Debt Limit Increase, Fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension.

Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST:
Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations, Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers from Afghanistan.

Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey

[WESmith]

05:20 PM on 08/01/2011

I wouldn't call the report garbage, but it says a lot without saying any specifics. What are we to deduce from this report? It's more of an abstract than a report. With the transparency we are suppose to now have, maybe we could get some specifics. Who are getting these subsidies? Which of the dozen definitions of subsidies are we talking about? What is the purpose of the subsidy? What tax revenues are received because of the subsidy? Which of our natural resources, owned by We The People, are profiting by these subsidies? Where are the profits from these ventures? What is political rhetoric? What is fact?

[Greyfox01]

02:47 PM on 08/01/2011

This mess goes a lot deeper as it helps to fuel congressional campian as well as their retirement funds, and regular people pay the cost.

This is a portion of a letter to CFTC Chair Gary Gensler;

Currently speculators can buy $100 worth of oil futures with only $6 down. The Commission has the authority to call for higher margin requirements from exchanges where oil futures and various other commodities are traded. Other commodities traded in the same exchanges often require 50 percent down, instead of six.
“New margin requirements could take effect as soon as July, but the CFTC must begin the rulemaking process now,” the lawmakers wrote. “Higher margin levels would reduce incentives for excessive speculation by requiring investors to back their bets with real capital.”

Joining Nelson on the letter are Sens. Maria Cantwell ( D-WA ), Barbara Boxer ( D-CA ), Al Franken ( D-MN ), Jeff Merkley ( D-OR ), Patty Murray ( D-WA ), Robert Menendez ( D-NJ ), Mark Begich ( D-AK ), John D. Rockefeller IV ( D-WV ), Carl Levin ( D-MI ), Barbara Mikulski ( D-MD ), Sherrod Brown ( D-OH ) and Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ), who characterized the increase in speculation as “a boon for Big Oil but a bust for consumers.”

For the full text; http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/18/cantwell-senate-democrats-urge-cftc-to-stop-oil-speculation/

[alvdh1]

01:57 PM on 08/02/2011

Raising the margin requirements alone will not solve the problem. It will limit speculation to only the big boys. Making the speculators of whatever size take delivery of the oil would put an end to the speculation for good in conjunction with 50 percent margin requirements.

[Greyfox01]

02:32 PM on 08/02/2011

Contango has always been a pain for the small crude oil investor. It forces small (10,000 to 100,000 barrels) investor who can not take position of the crude to pay up to an addition $4.00 a barrel to mantain their contracts from month to month. Where as groups the Goldman Sachs, Dutch Shell size groups that can take position by storing their buys in idle oil tankers or on land until they can sell at a profit and not pay the additional cost.

Your right that 50% margins would grind the speculation market back to 1999 levels, and in the end give the consumer, as fuel price dropped, a few more bucks to pump back into the economy. Nothing wrong with that, unless your one of the tricklers.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_31/b4189050970461.htm