Update on Solar Tax Credit

[solarken]

Everyone paying taxes is paying the subsidies.

That is not anti solar.

Everyone paying taxes is paying for the subsidies for solar, subsidies for fossil fuels, and every other tax break like subsidizing stock traders that pay little in taxes. And everyone paying for health insurance and medical bills is paying for the increased costs due to breathing in and drinking and eating all the toxins released by the fossil fuel industry. Do some research and see what countries like China are doing. They are not moving rapidly to solar just because they want to be green. They are doing it because it is cheaper, faster, and healthier. In the US our costs are higher due to our standard of living, so the clean energy credits have been invaluable in helping us stay competitive with China and other countries in an industry we invented, and which is critical to our energy future. This administration is definitely anti solar.

 

[wwhitney]

I wouldn't have a problem if the subsidies were equal.

Then I'm pretty sure we need to increase the solar subsidy, not decrease it, but a comprehensive, objective comparison is not so easy to do, so that's a guess.

The levelized concept takes into account the plant life. How many fall short of plant life? How many solar farms are 30 years old?

Agreed that the plant life of a solar farm needs to be chosen correctly.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

Solar subsidies are multiples of other fuels

I think you may be mistaken; do you have verifiable numbers to back up that claim?

 

[hillbilly1]

While what you say is probably true, I have never liked the idea of the high subsidies given to solar vs hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, etc.
Some estimates say solar is subsidized at 7-8 times as much as fossil fuels.
Hydro/nuclear is more reliable IMO.
At least it works at night.

They need hydro in Asheville NC. The TVA came about as flood control, and electricity production is a bonus. Hydro is the cleanest of all energies, but doesn’t buy as many votes as the other energies.

 

[Hv&Lv]

They need hydro in Asheville NC. The TVA came about as flood control, and electricity production is a bonus. Hydro is the cleanest of all energies, but doesn’t buy as many votes as the other energies.

The hydro around here is saved for peaking power so the owners can get that $8-$12 per kWh.
They won’t run it for base load. Rarely for intermediate load

 

[tortuga]

I think you may be mistaken; do you have verifiable numbers to back up that claim?

Contrary numbers are extremely easy to find.
If someone working at a normal company gets a lung issue due to bad safety the company and the companies insurance pays for the disability, except if your a coal mine. So they have this taxpayer fund to pay for black lung.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor's FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, the total estimated obligations for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (BLDTF) are a huge burden on the tax payer, and omitted from EIA analysis.
If the taxpayer did not subsidize the coal company thru this fund then the coal company would pay just like anybody else and that cost would be added to the cost of coal.

 

[Elect117]

Green credits (RECs / SRECs) from solar / "renewable" sources and coal / gas companies are very tied together. The secondary market for credits is it's own stock market. Same thing for EV credits I think.

Companies sell their RECs to polluters to offset their liabilities with the EPA. Wouldn't the reduction of subsidies have a impact on those prices? Cost of solar rises, cost per SREC increases, etc.?

 

[petersonra]

I am not a fan of government deciding these things via the income tax system. They know if they made these subsidies out in the open that the tax payers would revolt so they try to hide the magnitude of them.

Anyway, this is entirely a political issue and the rules seem to forbid discussion of political issues, although I have noticed over time that there is often considerable forbearance given to people expressing one side of the political spectrum.

 

[ggunn]

I am not a fan of government deciding these things via the income tax system. They know if they made these subsidies out in the open that the tax payers would revolt so they try to hide the magnitude of them.

Funding things "out in the open" does not necessarily make them any more open to public scrutiny. Who knows what is buried on page 946 of a 1500 page appropriations bill?

 

[jim dungar]

Borrowing money to pay people subsidies so they can save money on products made in China..

When I got a quote for solar, the American labor and American material markup amount was greater than the cost of the imported material.

 

[infinity]

If it's going to be fair then if you want to eliminate subsidies for one sector then eliminate them for all sectors. What would be the down side (besides saving tons of money) of getting rid of all government subsides? Economic sectors that can survive without subsidies will survive on their own, those who cannot survive on their own will disappear.

 

[pipe_bender]

Out of all the stupid things the last administration did solar is not on that list, I am not left or right, (I am called 'wrong' by my wife but we wont get into that). The government subsidizes mega energy project risk that investors dont want to take, residential solar is no risk so thats worth more than subsidizing risk so the credit should be higher.

 

[winnie]

The problem with subsidies for whatever good thing is that people adjust their actions to match the subsidy as written, not to match the desired goal. How many _bad_ solar installations are made because they better fit the subsidy rather than matching what is needed?

I would much prefer laws that specifically target the problem, and then let the market adjust.

For example: there is very strong evidence that CO2 emissions are altering the climate in negative ways. I think the law should require ramping up CO2 removal, eg if your industry emits 1kg of CO2 then you have to remove xx g of CO2 where xx increases every year. Then let the market sort out the best way to do this or decide that it is cheaper to not emit in the first place.

No subsidies for solar, fossil fuel, nuclear, etc. But as problems are noted create rules to specifically fix the problem.

On the other side of the coin, in a very real sense the benefit of being part of a society/community are a form of mutual subsidy. There is no way I would even be alive if right now if I didn't participate in the global economic system. Not sure where I'm going with that.

 

[ggunn]

For example: there is very strong evidence that CO2 emissions are altering the climate in negative ways. I think the law should require ramping up CO2 removal, eg if your industry emits 1kg of CO2 then you have to remove xx g of CO2 where xx increases every year. Then let the market sort out the best way to do this or decide that it is cheaper to not emit in the first place.

Carbon taxes are very unpopular in the fossil fuels industry, as you might imagine, because burning fossil fuels on an industrial or utility scale produces massive amounts of CO2, scrubbing it from emissions is very expensive, and it is impossible to remove it all. The fossil fuels lobby is extremely strong and they have a lot of money, which is redundant; carbon taxes will never see the light of day.

 

[winnie]

Carbon taxes are very unpopular in the fossil fuels industry, as you might imagine, because burning fossil fuels on an industrial or utility scale produces massive amounts of CO2, scrubbing it from emissions is very expensive, and it is impossible to remove it all. The fossil fuels lobby is extremely strong and they have a lot of money, which is redundant; carbon taxes will never see the light of day.

But carbon removal by enhancing natural processes might be cheap enough to be acceptable.

In round numbers the biosphere exchanges about 100 units of CO2 every year, with a net sequestering of 1 unit. On that scale humans emit about 4 units. Humans have been changing the climate for centuries via agriculture; if we can learn to increase the natural absorption of CO2 by 3% we achieve carbon neutrality; increase it by 5% and we are substantially reducing atmospheric CO2 levels.

However, my specific point is not about incentivizing a particular carbon remediation path, but rather that we shouldn't have carbon taxes per se, and instead come up with requirements and then let industry figure out the most economically viable way to achieve those requirements. Carbon taxes are a form of negative subsidy, and IMHO incentivize the government to permit more carbon emissions because they will take in more money.

-Jonathan

 

[hillbilly1]

The hydro around here is saved for peaking power so the owners can get that $8-$12 per kWh.
They won’t run it for base load. Rarely for intermediate load

Ours is for main power, at least 7 hydro plants within 50 miles of my house. A nuke plant in Chattanooga, and one in Clemson. Coal even farther away.

 

[AC\DC]

If fossil fuels are so great they should be able to stand on their own without subsidies. Eliminating subsidies only for solar unlevels the playing field.

I'm fine with eliminating the solar tax credit and charging all energy sources fees in accordance with the pollution and other harm they generate.

Cheers, Wayne

Do what Wayne said no picking favorite may the best system win

 

[WD40]

I could be good with that as long as we level the playing feild, we would need to get rid of at minimum these 8 other corporate subsidies, this is a old list and just one of these items costs taxpayers about the same as the residential solar credit, so lots of saving potential.

1. Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957)
Citation: 42 U.S.C. § 2210
Link: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html
Limits liability, taxpayer bails out even a small disaster

2. Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990
Citation: 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title33/chapter40
EPA Summary: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-oil-pollution-act
Free state owned oil to corporations.

3. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)
Citation: 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title43/chapter29/subchapter3
Free state owned oil to corporations.

4. Deepwater Port Act of 1974
Citation: 33 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.
PDF (govinfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-2973/pdf/COMPS-2973.pdf
Free state owned oil to corporations.

5. Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973)
Citation: 43 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title43/chapter34
Free state owned oil pipeline to corporations, loss for taxpayer.

6. Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (1982)
Citation: 30 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title30/chapter29
Free state owned oil to corporations, loss for tax payer.

7. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977
Citation: 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.
U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title30/chapter25
OSMRE Overview: https://www.osmre.gov/laws-and-regulations
Free coal to corporations, loss for taxpayer.

8. Black Lung Benefits Act
Citation: 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.
U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title30/chapter22/subchapter4
DOL Program Info: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dcmwc
limits liability of mines, tax payer covers black lung costs.

Just googled a few of those wow hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent cleaning up childish messes, just like the 2008 bails outs tons of classic corporate greed and give away.

 

[wwhitney]

Do what Wayne said no picking favorite may the best system win

As long as everybody pays for their negative externalities.

One argument for subsidies is to monetize positive externalities. Without internalizing them into the market, free market forces can't reach the socially optimal resource allocation.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[brycenesbitt]

If solar is so great it should be able to stand on its own without subsidies. 30% was insane to begin with. Borrowing money to pay people subsidies so they can save money on products made in China is so many levels of insane it boggles the mind to consider them all.

If nuclear is so great, it should be able to stand without subsidies.
If the Interstate highway system is so great, it should be able to stand without subsidies.
Bridges should no longer be made in China, and shipped by boat to the USA.