Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

May 28 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Lame-Duck Bailouts for Ethanol and Wind?
Congress, please, just say no.

By Robert Bryce


Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow•   followers
Text  

Ethanol is the Frankenfuel of the energy business, a subsidy-devouring monster that cannot be killed, no matter how great the political opposition. Farm-state senators have apparently succeeded in adding an extension of the ethanol tax credit, which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year, to the tax bill now working its way through Congress.

While that news is disheartening enough, the wind-energy business — the electricity sector’s equivalent of the ethanol scam — may also be winning in its effort to garner more federal subsidies. It is pushing lame-duck legislators to extend a part of the stimulus package known as the Section 1603 tax credit, which gives cash directly to wind-project developers. But what the wind boosters really need to keep their struggling business afloat is a mandate requiring the production of renewable electricity — at least 15 percent by 2020. And some Democratic senators are pushing a bill that would do just that.

Advertisement

Any legislation that provides more subsidies for ethanol or wind energy in the final days of the 111th Congress will be a major loss for taxpayers, as billions of additional dollars will be lavished on sectors that cannot survive in the free market.

Both industries have a long history of subsidies. The ethanol sector began suckling at the public teat in 1978 and has never been weaned. Instead, the industry has convinced Congress to provide ever-increasing volumes of taxpayer cash on the promise that their corn-distilled elixir will drastically reduce America’s need for foreign oil.

That hasn’t happened, and it won’t. Nevertheless, in 2004, Congress enacted the 45 cent per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, the subsidy to ethanol blenders it now seeks to extend. And in 2007, legislators decreed that U.S. motor-fuel retailers must be blending at least 15 billion gallons of ethanol per year into the nation’s gasoline supply by 2015.

The industry responded to the mandate by doubling its production capacity between 2007 and 2010. But it built too much capacity, too soon, which pushed a bushel of ethanol producers into bankruptcy. Their problem now, as one ethanol lobbyist put it, is that “we have lots of gallons of ethanol chasing too few gallons of gasoline.” In October, the EPA gave the industry a bailout of sorts, approving an increase in the amount of ethanol — a hydrophilic, corrosive, low-heat-content fuel — that can be blended into the U.S. gasoline supply from 10 percent to 15 percent.

But the ethanol producers, as usual, can’t get enough of your money, and they are working hard to assure that the fat subsidies (which now total about $7 billion per year) keep flowing. Last month, their main lobby groups — the Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy, and the American Coalition for Ethanol — sent a letter to congressional leaders telling them that ethanol has been “uniquely successful in reducing our dependence on foreign, imported oil.” They urged Congress to pass legislation extending the tax credit before the end of the year.

And they are likely to get that extension, despite the fact that on November 30, a bipartisan group of senators — nine Democrats and eight Republicans — declared their opposition to the continuation of the subsidies, saying they were “fiscally indefensible and environmentally unwise.” Those points are certainly true. But if you need another fact to shift your gasohol-induced anger into apoplexy, consider this: Ethanol has done nothing to cut oil imports. Between 1999 and 2009, U.S. ethanol production increased sevenfold, to more than 700,000 barrels per day. And yet, over that same time span, U.S. oil imports increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day.

While oil imports are increasing and the ethanol industry is producing too much ethanol, the wind-energy sector is being garroted by that dastardly opponent of renewable energy:  competitive markets. In late October, the American Wind Energy Association announced that through the first three quarters, just 1,600 megawatts of new wind capacity was installed in the U.S., “down 72 percent versus 2009, and the lowest level since 2006.”

In a press release, the lobby group said the solution for its woes were — wait for it — more subsidies and mandates. The group’s CEO, Denise Bode, said that “the best way to galvanize the industry now will be continued tax credits and a federal benchmark of 15 percent renewables in the national electricity mix by 2020.” Bode continued, saying that those subsidies and a 15 percent renewable mandate “will send a clear signal to investors that the U.S. is open for business.”

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST

Lowry: Unleash Biden!

Charen: Obama’s Education Hypocrisy -- Again



COMMENTS   5

EXPAND  

Michael Goggin, AWEA
   12/13/10 12:47

Bryce conveniently forgets to mention that our government's permanent subsidies for fossil fuel generation greatly outweigh the small, short-lived incentives provided for wind energy. Wind energy is being forced to compete against fossil fuels that have received hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies so far, and the subsidies for fossil fuels continue to outpace the incentives awarded to renewables. These subsidies create an unfair playing field that is strongly slanted against wind energy, when rational policies would instead encourage renewable development to account for the major negative public health and environmental externalities of fossil fuels and the positive energy security and economic development benefits of renewable energy.

For more, see: 
External Link 

Michael Goggin
American Wind Energy Association

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mike Franklin
   12/13/10 14:18

ah, fossil fuel subsidies top $300 billion per year...get it right.

Is it conceivable that the US has increased its production and importing of oil with intentions of stockpiling? Being there is only "X" amount of oil on this planet, wouldn't it make sense to hoard all you can while at the same time experimenting on supplementing/replacing it? I am no scholar by any means, but the above mentioned is as elementary as 1 + 1 = 2.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/13/10 15:23

If there have been subsidies for oil and natural gas that have prevented a "level playing field", then we should level the field by eliminating ALL subsidies.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/13/10 17:11

When McCain campaigned in Iowa he told his audience that Ethanol was an economic loser - costing more to make than it gained in fuel savings. He lost Iowa! The Iowa farmers didn't want to hear the truth. Now we continue to subsidize farmers and their corn crops plus we bail-out the "wind energy folks." This whole tax compromise bill in Congress today is a joke. I wish the thing would fail and the Tea Party elected Congressmen could have their say about these "bail-outs!"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Willis Jepson
   04/01/11 11:35

We need to remember that without the ethanol mandates we would have to import more oil than we currently do. This would increse the price at the pump by 10% or more immediately. In turn this would drive up production costs for farmers and transportation costs for all the steps in bringing food products to market. Bottom Line - the price of oil is the main contributing factor to all increases in consumer prices for food and other consumer goods.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact