A recent report quietly released by the Biden administration has opened up a new debate on the actual costs of renewable energy. The study, published in August by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), reveals that renewable energy receives a significantly larger share of federal subsidies compared to fossil fuels. This could potentially challenge the narrative that renewables are inherently cheaper and raise questions about the role of government in shaping the energy landscape.
Uneven Playing Field
According to the EIA report, the federal government has provided $183.3 billion in energy-related subsidies from 2016 through 2022. Interestingly, more than half of this amount was allocated over the last three years.
While fossil fuels, which include natural gas, petroleum, and oil, received $24.5 billion in subsidies last year, renewable sources like wind and solar raked in a staggering $83.8 billion.
It’s a lopsided equation, given that fossil fuels are responsible for more than 60% of electricity production and the vast majority of transportation energy in the United States.
The Real Price of Energy
Critics argue that these subsidies have distorted the true cost of energy. Senator John Barrasso, a ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, commented that solar energy, for instance, should be competing in the market instead of seeking government subsidies.
Barrasso’s point is underscored by the disparity in subsidies per unit of energy produced. In 2022, natural gas generated 44.9 quadrillion British thermal units and received $2.3 billion in subsidies. In stark contrast, the solar industry generated just 0.6 quadrillion British thermal units but got $7.5 billion in subsidies.
This shows that far more taxpayer money is being spent per unit of energy produced by green energy sources than by fossil fuels. Coal, another major source of energy, received $873 million in subsidies last year but generated 18 times more power than solar energy.
The Government’s Take
Despite the striking figures showing higher subsidies for renewable energy, the Biden administration and Democratic lawmakers have consistently advocated for phasing out federal subsidies for fossil fuels.
President Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposal is especially illuminating in this context, as it seeks to strip away $31 billion in “special tax treatment” that currently benefits oil and gas companies. This action is part of a broader strategy to level the playing field in the energy market.
Democratic leaders argue that existing fossil fuel subsidies distort market competition and perpetuate our reliance on non-renewable energy sources that contribute to climate change.
From their perspective, these subsidies are an inefficient use of taxpayer money, offering little return in terms of either reducing greenhouse gas emissions or driving down energy prices for consumers.
The Case for Renewables
No doubt the push toward renewable energy is not without merit, as the increasing urgency to address climate change has made the shift to cleaner energy sources imperative. While the debate on subsidies is valid, it also underscores the need for renewable energy sources to become more efficient and cost-effective.
The EIA report brings to light the vast sums of taxpayer money flowing into the energy sector, especially into renewables. It raises legitimate questions about market distortions and the actual cost of energy for American families.
Need for Nuanced Debate
As the country looks to balance its energy needs with the pressing demands of environmental sustainability, these findings should serve as a catalyst for a more nuanced debate on the future of energy in America.
The post Huge Subsidies Imbalance Show the True Cost of Green Energy for the American Taxpayer first appeared on The Net Worth Of.
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Eviart