Skip to main content

Inside U.S. Energy Subsidies

The Wall Street Journal's excellent blog, Environmental Capital, takes a look at the federal energy subsidy pie and asks, Who's getting what?
Since 1999, federal energy subsidies have more than doubled—from $8.2 billion to $16.6 billion in 2007. Who gets the most? “Renewables” landed $4.8 billion last year, but that includes $3.25 billion for ethanol and other biofuels. Coal and cleaner-burning “refined” coal took home $3.3 billion, while the nuclear power industry got $1.3 billion. In all, about 40% of the energy subsidy pie went toward electricity production; the rest for things like alternative fuels and energy conservation.

...But the raw numbers don’t tell the story. What does is how much cash the government hands out per unit of electricity produced. The winner there is refined coal, at $29.81 per megawatt hour. That’s even more than solar power ($24.34) or wind ($23.37). Nuclear power received $1.59 per megawatt hour. Regular coal took home $0.44 per megawatt hour, while the least-subsidized of power fuels was natural gas, which got just a $0.25 boost per megawatt hour.

Comments

Lisa Stiles said…
Be sure to stop by the WSJ's blog and join the debate going on in the Comments section. Some stalwarts from NIRS and Public Citizen are posting links to plenty of misinformation.

Lisa
Anonymous said…
I'm a bit confused as to the units used in calculating relative subsidies.

After all, the average wholesale price of electricity is about $50 per megawatt-hour.

Joe Somsel
perdajz said…
Let's not forget the largest subsidy the coal power industry gets: 30,000 lives per year, at a minimum. The nuclear power industry gets none, I'm more than happy to say.

I don't think subsidies are the complete picture. You can't discuss subsidies received without discussing taxes paid, or (unpaid) externalities for that matter. A more accurate measure might be:

(taxes - (subsidies + externalities))/MW-hr

I'd love to see this metric tabulated for the various electricity sources. Nuclear should compare favorably. It is taxed heavily, especially at the local level, and pays for its own externalities (waste disposal) or pays to prevent any externalities (engineered safeguards, containment). The denominator is huge, of course.
Anonymous said…
I double-checked and the units are correct - nuclear gets about a 3% subsidy on a per-kilowatt or per-megawatt basis at wholesale. I used the EIA database of gross nuclear production.

That's assuming the dollar amount of the subsidy is correct.

Of course, one needs to subtract the nuclear waste trust fund fees that are collected but not spent as this money goes into the Treasury. That is a bit less than $1 per MW-hr.

That would knock the actual taxpayer net subsidy down to about 50 cents per MW-hr or 1% of wholesale price.

Joe Somsel
robert said…
Actually, according to this report, a report that you actually linked to, the numbers you have posted here are grossly inaccurate.

When you are putting misinformation out, be careful not to supply the proof that you are not being honest, because someone might actually check your facts.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …