Taxpayer subsidies? I got your subsidies right here pal! (And why aren't my free market friends raising hell about this?)

One of the most persistent criticisms of efforts to stimulate clean energy jobs (wind, solar, etc.) is that it requires taxpayer funded government subsidies.

As Russ Harding of the Midland, MI-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy says in
a 2009 column “if the answer is yes (that they require subsidies), the end economic results are more likely negative rather than positive.”

The critics never acknowledge that the status quo is laden with huge subsidies for the coal, nuclear and oil that currently make up the bulk of our fuels.

Now we have some idea how much those subsidies are. And they’re huge.

The Environmental Law Institute has published a report, Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources, 2002-2008. The findings: Subsidies to fossil fuels “totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.”

Most of the fossil fuel subsidies were permanent alterations to the tax code. The largest, $15 billion, was the Foreign Tax Credit – a direct incentive for U.S. companies to invest in energy production outside the U.S. instead of in homegrown fuels made by Americans.

By comparison, most of the $29 billion in renewable energy subsidies were time-limited – a huge barrier to investors who are understandably unwilling to invest in industries that may get their tax breaks yanked at the whim of the next Congress.

So this raises two key questions:
1) As a country supposedly unified in increasing our energy independence and moving away from dangerous, unhealthy fossil fuels, why are we subsidizing the fuels we don’t want, rather than the ones we do?
2) Why aren’t so-called “free market” proponents like the Mackinac Center raising more – or any – hell about the tax breaks for fossil fuels? (Hint: Some of these organizations have funders with names like Exxon Mobil)

If we’re going to subsidize energy production, let’s subsidize clean, renewable, American-made energy. If we’re going to be purist “free market” proponents, let’s work to eliminate all energy subidies – and it makes sense to start with the biggest ones: Fossil fuels.

Anytime someone says clean American energy shouldn’t have to get subsidies to compete, they need to answer these questions. Every. Single. Time.
###

Weeks-long China traffic jam puts Michigan's construction season tie-ups to shame

In China, a 62-mile long traffic jam is entering its 10th day. Hopefully, this will get the attention of the Michigan Department of Transportation. Despite steadfast efforts this summer, MDOT – like the rest of the country – is falling behind the Chinese.

Michigan’s summer traffic tie-ups are legendary, but the Chinese traffic jam is now the gold standard and the envy of all developed nations.

It’s not that our elected officials aren’t trying. From the advent of the Model T, Michigan has steadfastly resisted investing money in public transportation options that might reduce road congestion; squabbled over who might control hypothetical regional transportation authorities; and created cities and suburbs that require personal vehicles to get to jobs and shopping centers.

But it’s not nearly enough, as China’s latest world-leading achievement proves. So we need to try harder.

We can start by getting rid of these do-gooders, Michigan by Rail, who are hosting more than a dozen public forums this summer and fall on the future of rail transportation in Michigan.

Whatever you do, please do not encourage them by checking their web site, finding an upcoming forum near you and giving them your input, which in turn will be given to MDOT and federal planners as they try and improve public transit options. And by all means, don’t let your elected officials know that you support public transit as a convenient alternative to building more and bigger roads.

If we want to catch up with China, we’ve got a lot of work to do.
###

Why doe-eyed liberals aren't responsible for that extra-looking renewable energy surcharge

My DTE Energy electric bill has a separately delineated $3 charge for “renewable energy plan surcharge.”

But, tellingly, there is no similar line item for coal purchases, coal plant operation, or capital costs of coal plants. Nor is there any breakout for nuclear power. None of this, despite the fact that coal and nuclear account for 85 percent of electricity generated in Michigan.

So why is there a separate line item explaining $3 worth of my bill, but no clues as to what the remaining $65.51 goes to?

When Michigan passed its renewable energy standard in 2008 (requiring utilities to provide 10 percent from clean energy sources by 2015), the utilities and their friends in the legislature wanted to make it perfectly clear  that the $3 increase was the fault of those idyllic tree huggers and their insistence on building windmills and solar panels and such. Renewable energy advocates lost their bid to simply fold the rate increase into the rest of the bill.

The renewable line item perpetuates the myth that power from nonpolluting sources is somehow an expensive, boutique hobby horse of weepy, doe-eyed, seitan eaters from Ann Arbor.

And it’s bull. When our rates go up because the price of coal rises, that increase is tucked right into the bill without any separate explanation.

In Michigan, we’ve made progress to a more sensible future. We’ve got a modest amount of renewable energy on the way, and have scuttled a number of ill-advised coal plants. But the Old Guard is not retreating without mining the bridges behind them. And the renewable energy surcharge is one of those land mines.

When it comes time to improve Michigan’s anemic renewable energy standard, it will be more difficult because of the visibility of the $3 surcharge. The response from ratepayers may well be just what the mine layers intended in 2008: “WTF? We’re already paying $3 extra on our bill!”

Kaboom!
###