DOCSLIB.ORG

Subsidies, Externalities and Climate Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subsidies, Externalities and Climate Change SUBSIDIES, EXTERNALITIES, AND CLIMATE CHANGE: WHETHER ELIMINATING ENERGY TAX SUBSIDIES AND TAXING CARBON IS ENOUGH BY HANNAH BENTLEY The author wishes to thank the following individuals and institutions for their invaluable assistance on this paper and the hard work on the issues it raises: Tax LLM Director Jennifer Kowal, Professor Theodore Seto, Professor Katherine Pratt, Professor Katherine Trisolini, Tax LLM Graduate Joel Wilde, Professor Ed Robbins, Loyola Law School Los Angeles; John Stephens, Director, Graduate Tax Program, Professor Richard Pomp, Assistant Dean Michelle Kirkland, Office of Academic Services, Professor Katrina Wyman, NYU Law School; Kelsang Tangpa and the students at the Mahamudra Kadampa Buddhist Center (Hermosa Beach, California); Geshe Norbu Chophol, Kensur Rinpoche Lobsang Jamyang, and the students at the Geden Shoeling Tibetan Manjushri Center (Westminster, California); Anna Rondon; Levon Bennally; and the Environmental Defense Fund 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION – WOULD ELIMINATING ENERGY TAX SUBSIDIES AND TAXING CARBON BE A GOOD IDEA?...............................................................4 II. TAX SUBSIDIES, OTHER SUBSIDIES, AND EXTERNALITIES – EFFICIENCY THEORY AND APPLICATION IN THREE CASES………………………………8 A. THE EFFICIENT MARKETPLACE PREMISE AND THE THEORY OF THE SECOND BEST…………………………………………………………….8 B. TAX SUBSIDIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO DIRECT EXPENDITURES AND EXTERNALITIES…………………………………………………………10 C. SUBSIDIES AND EXTERNALITIES IN THREE SECTORS: OIL AND GAS, NUCLEAR, AND SOLAR………………………………………………….12 D. ENERGY SUBSIDIES AND EXTERNALITIES – THREE CASES…………….13 1. OIL AND GAS…………………………………………………..13 a. TAX SUBSIDIES…………………………………………..14 b. OTHER SUBSIDIES……………………………………….18 c. EXTERNALITIES…………………………………………19 2. NUCLEAR ENERGY…………………………………………….22 a. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..22 b. SUBSIDIES AND EXTERNALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH STEPS IN THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE………………………….23 1. URANIUM MINING AND ENRICHMENT………………23 2. PLANT CONSTRUCTION……………………………...27 3. PLANT OPERATION…………………………………..31 4. SPENT FUEL PROCESSING, INTERIM STORAGE, AND PERMANENT SEQUESTRATION………………………33 5. PLANT AND SITE DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING………………………………….35 c. ENERGY, WATER AND PROLIFERATION COSTS………...43 d. SUMMARY OF SUBSIDIES AND EXTERNALITIES FOR NUCLEAR POWER………………………………………..44 3. SOLAR POWER…………………………………………………46 a. MAJOR SUBSIDIES……………………………………….46 i. NON-TAX SUBSIDIES………………………………...48 ii. TAX SUBSIDIES………………………………………50 2 1. THE PTC, ITC AND NEW TECHNOLOGY CREDITS………………………………………….50 2. THE ADVANCED ENERGY PROPERTY CREDIT ……………………………………………51 3. CREBS, AND NCREBS…………………………..52 b. EXTERNALITIES……………………………………....53 c. CONCLUSION ON SUBSIDIES AND EXTERNALITIES FOR SOLAR POWER………………………………………..55 III. CONCLUSION – WE NEED TO DO MORE THAN ELIMINATE TAX SUBSIDIES AND IMPOSE A CARBON TAX……………………………………………..56 APPENDIX I……………………………………………………………………….58 APPENDIX II………………………………………………………………………64 3 I. INTRODUCTION – WOULD ELIMINATING ENERGY TAX SUBSIDIES AND TAXING CARBON BE A GOOD IDEA? The Role of Energy and the Carbon Tax Efficiency Thesis. The energy industry is one of the most central components of the U.S. and global economies than energy – and it has led to extensive conflict and environmental impacts.1 Energy policy in the U.S. has been pursued largely through incentives in the Internal Revenue Code.2,3 Recently, economists and those motivated by economic efficiency theory have argued that this system of tax breaks is misguided.4 Many of them have suggested that universally eliminating tax subsidies for specific energy sources and directly taxing externalities would be preferable.5 In particular, they have suggested that eliminating tax subsidies 1 See, e.g., Daniel Yergin, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World, at 2 (2011), Michael J. Graetz, The End of Energy: The Unmaking of America’s Environment, Security, and Independence [Kindle location 112 of 5033] (2011), Daniel M. Kammen, Renewable Energy in U.S. Foreign Policy, 36 G.G.U. L. Rev. 327, 328 & n. 4 (2008), citing International Energy Agency, IEA Energy Technology R&D Statistics, 1974-1995 (Int’l Energy Agency, Org. for Econ. Cooperation & Dev., Paris 1997), and citing Kammen, Kapadia & Fripp, Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? (Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley (2004). 2 Clean Energy Tax Incentives: The Effect of Short-Term Extensions on Clean Energy Investment, Domestic Manufacturing, and Job Creation, S. Comm on Finance, Subcomm. on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., (Statement of Molly Sherlock, Cong. Research Serv., at 10)(Dec. 14, 2011). See generally Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, 112th Cong., Tax Expenditures for Energy Production and Conservation, JCX-2S-09 (Comm. Print 2009). 3 The incentives began with those favoring domestic production of oil at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the U.S. was a net exporter. See Cong. Research Serv., Tax Expenditures: Compendium of Background Material on Individual Provisions S. Comm. on Budget, 111th Cong., S. Prt. 111-58, at 118 (Comm. Print 2010) (discussing percentage depletion and expensing of exploration and development costs); Energy Info. Admin., SR/CNEAF/2008-1, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007 (hereafter, “EIA 2007 Report”), at 11 & n.29 (Apr. 2008) (referring to original provision for expensing intangible drilling costs); Charles O. Galvin, Federal Income Tax – Percentage Depletion of Oil and Gas Wells, 21 Tex. L. Rev. 410, 411 (1943). 4 Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation for example, has noted that the present approach is “incoherent” and “lacking well-defined objectives.” Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, Tax Expenditures for Energy Production and Conservation, supra n. [2], at 1. See also Staff of the Joint Comm. on Taxation, 112th Cong., Present Law and Analysis of Energy-Related Tax Expenditures and Energy-Related Expenditures Description of the Revenue Provisions Contained in H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, JCX-47-11, at 1 (Sept. 20, 2011). 5 See Sherlock Statement, supra note [2], at 10; Energy Policy and Tax Reform, Hearing Before 4 and placing a tax on carbon would be more efficient and equitable.6 Many believe that nuclear power would have a role to play if this were done. Among those who have argued that eliminating tax subsidies and imposing a carbon tax would be more efficient are William Gale and Benjamin Harris of the Tax Policy Institute, who note that all tax expenditures, including those for energy, are inefficient, and that: An energy tax, . a carbon tax . would include the social cost of producing and consuming carbon in the price of goods, reduce the U.S. economy’s dependence on foreign sources of energy, and mitigate economic effects of environmental deterioration. Furthermore, a tax on carbon . would create better market incentives for the production of energy-efficient goods, and could be used as a mechanism to phase out the panoply of targeted energy incentives.7 Molly Sherlock of the Congressional Resource Service has made the same point, perhaps more subtly: From an economic perspective, energy prices would ideally reflect the full social cost of energy production and consumption. The most economically efficient way to achieve this outcome would be to tax energy resources that have negative external costs, such as pollution. The history of U.S. energy tax policy indicates a preference for subsidies, rather than direct taxes.8 House Comm. on Ways and Means, Subcomm. on Select Revenue Measures, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (Statement of Donald B. Marron, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) (Sept. 22, 2011); William G. Gale and Benjamin P. Harris, Tax Policy Center, Reforming Taxes and Raising Revenue: Part of the Fiscal Solution (May 1, 2011), reprinted at 2011 Tax Notes Today, 2011 TNT 109-39 (June 7, 2011); John M. Broder, Obama’s Bid to End Oil Subsidies Revives Debate, N.Y. Times A14 (Jan. 31, 2011), avail. at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html?_r=1 (last viewed June 1, 2012)(quoting David W. Kreutzer, Heritage Foundation, and H. Jeffrey Leonard, Global Environment Fund, and Douglas Koplow, Earth Track, as supporting end to all energy subsidies); Jeffrey Leonard, Getting the Energy Sector Off the Dole, Washington Monthly (Jan./Feb. 2011), avail. at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html (last viewed June 1, 2012). 6 See, e.g., Marron Statement, supra note [5]. 7 Gale & Harris, supra note [2], at 11 (discussing tax expenditures), 29 (energy taxes). Gale and Harris’ paper provided a global analysis of tax reform in light of the impending fiscal cliff, and had a section on energy policy and the possibility of the carbon tax as a revenue source. 8 Sherlock, supra note [2], at 8. 5 Others have argued that simply eliminating the tax subsidies, which largely favor oil and gas and nuclear power, could get us a long step forward. When the Obama Administration repeated its calls for eliminating some oil subsidies, the New York Times reported, Mr. Obama’s proposal rekindles a long running debate over federal subsidies for energy of all kinds, including petroleum, coal, hydropower, wind, solar and biofuels. Opposition to such subsidies . spans the ideological spectrum, from conservative economists, who believe such breaks distort the marketplace to environmentalists
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Subsidy Reform in Mena Oil Exporters
    OIL PRICES, POLITICAL INSTABILITY, AND ENERGY SUBSIDY REFORM IN MENA OIL EXPORTERS Jim Krane, Ph.D. Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies Francisco J. Monaldi, Ph.D. Fellow in Latin American Energy Policy May 2017 © 2017 by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the authors and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, papers are reviewed by outside experts before they are released. However, the research and views expressed in this paper are those of the individual researchers and do not necessarily represent the views of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Jim Krane, Ph.D. Francisco J. Monaldi, Ph.D. “Oil Prices, Political Instability, and Energy Subsidy Reform in MENA Oil Exporters” Energy Subsidy Reform in MENA Oil Exporters Abstract Since the nationalization of petroleum sectors in the 1970s, low, state-subsidized prices of energy products and services have been a policy fixture of Middle Eastern oil producers. Starting in late 2014, however, many oil-producing governments began to reduce subsidies. Prices of fuels and services have risen in the six Gulf monarchies, as well as in Iran, Algeria, and Egypt. These subsidy reforms followed successful test cases in Iran in 2010 and Dubai in 2011, when price increases were accepted by the public with minimal backlash. Such reforms are understood to be politically illegitimate in autocratic settings where in-kind energy is supplied to citizens in lieu of public support for the government.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase-Out 2020: Monitoring Europe's Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    Brief Czech Republic France Germany Greece Hungary Phase-out 2020: monitoring Italy Netherlands Poland Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies Spain Sweden Leah Worrall and Matthias Runkel United Kingdom September 2017 European Union Italy Key Leading on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies: findings • Italy is demonstrating commitment to report on its fossil fuel subsidies, as part of the EU agreements. Following the approval of a Green Economy package by Parliament, the Italian Ministry of Environment released a summary of subsidies with harmful and beneficial impacts on the environment. This includes Italy’s tax expenditures and budgetary support for fossil fuels, but does not include support provided through public finance or state-owned enterprises . • Domestic oil and gas production are in decline, which may account for low domestic support for fossil fuel production infrastructure in Italy through its development bank Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP). • Remaining national subsidies to coal mining and coal-fired power are comparatively low in Italy, indicating the possibility for a complete phase-out of support for these subsidies by 2018, in line with its EU-level commitment to phase out hard-coal mining by 2018. Lagging on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies: • The Fiscal Reform Delegation Law introduced in 2014 required the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, but it has never been implemented. All sectors reviewed in this analysis still receive fossil-fuel subsidies (see Table 1). • The transport sector receives the most support through government spending. This includes a reduced excise tax rate for diesel compared with petrol fuel, at an annual average cost of €5 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase-Out 2020: Monitoring Europe's Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    Phase-out 2020 Monitoring Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies Ipek Gençsü, Maeve McLynn, Matthias Runkel, Markus Trilling, Laurie van der Burg, Leah Worrall, Shelagh Whitley, and Florian Zerzawy September 2017 Report partners ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe is Europe’s largest coalition working on climate and energy issues. Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holders, ODI and Overseas Development Institute CAN Europe request due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For 203 Blackfriars Road CAN Europe online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. London SE1 8NJ Rue d’Edimbourg 26 The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not Tel +44 (0)20 7922 0300 1050 Brussels, Belgium necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Tel: +32 (0) 28944670 www.odi.org www.caneurope.org © Overseas Development Institute and CAN Europe 2017. This work is licensed [email protected] [email protected] under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). Cover photo: Oil refinery in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany – Ralf Vetterle (CC0 creative commons license). 2 Report Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for support and advice on the report from: Dave Jones of Sandbag UK, Colin Roche of Friends of the Earth Europe, Andrew Scott and Sejal Patel of the Overseas Development Institute, Helena Wright of E3G, and Andrew Murphy of Transport & Environment, and Alex Doukas of Oil Change International.
    [Show full text]
  • "Subsidies and Costs of EU Energy", Ecofys, 2014
    Subsidies and costs of EU energy Final report Subsidies and costs of EU energy Final report By: Sacha Alberici, Sil Boeve, Pieter van Breevoort, Yvonne Deng, Sonja Förster, Ann Gardiner, Valentijn van Gastel, Katharina Grave, Heleen Groenenberg, David de Jager, Erik Klaassen, Willemijn Pouwels, Matthew Smith, Erika de Visser, Thomas Winkel, Karlien Wouters Date: 11 November 2014 Project number: DESNL14583 Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Kornelis Blok This study was ordered and paid for by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy. All copyright is vested in the European Commission. The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. © Ecofys 2014 by order of: European Commission A cooperation of: This project was carried out and authored by Ecofys. KPMG, the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE) and CE Delft provided data collection support with regard to public interventions in 28 Member States. KPMG collected data for twenty Member States and CASE and CE Delft collected data for the remaining eight. We wish to thank CE Delft and CASE also for helpful discussions during the development of the methodology. Summary Introduction The way energy markets function and the effect of government interventions in the European Union has been the subject of much debate in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy in WTO Law and Policy
    Energy in WTO law and policy THOMAS COTTIER, GARBA MALUMFASHI, SOFYA MATTEOTTI-BERKUTOVA, OLGA NARTOVA, ∗ JOËLLE DE SÉPIBUS AND SADEQ Z.BIGDELI KEY MESSAGES • The regulation of energy in international law is highly fragmented and largely incoherent. We submit that pertinent issues should be addressed by a future Framework Agreement on Energy within WTO law. • Successful regulation of energy requires a coherent combination of rules both on goods and services. Energy services require new classifications suitable to deal coherently with energy as an integrated sector. • Rules on subsidies relating to energy call for new approaches within the Framework Agreement on Energy. A distinction should be made between renewable and non- renewable energy. Moreover, disciplines need to be developed in the context of emission trading. • The Framework Agreement should address the problem of restricting energy production and export restrictions. • Disciplines on government procurement are able to take into account policies on green procurement, but a number of changes to the GPA Agreement will be required to make green procurement more effective and attractive. • In view of the close interactions between the energy sector and climate change, formulating effective rules to address energy under the WTO system will catalyse coherence and complementarity between the climate and trade regimes A. Introduction 60 years ago, when the rules of the GATT were negotiated, world energy demand was a fraction of what it is today and so were energy prices.1 While energy has always been a crucial factor in geopolitics, at that time liberalising trade in energy was not a political priority. The industry was largely dominated by state run monopolies and thus governed by strict territorial allocation.
    [Show full text]
  • Phasing out Energy Subsidies to Improve Energy Mix: a Dead End
    energies Article Phasing out Energy Subsidies to Improve Energy Mix: A Dead End Djoni Hartono 1,* , Ahmad Komarulzaman 2, Tony Irawan 3 and Anda Nugroho 4 1 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia 2 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; [email protected] 3 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia; [email protected] 4 Fiscal Policy Agency, Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta 10710, Indonesia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +62-21-727-2425 or +62-21-727-2646 Received: 3 March 2020; Accepted: 30 April 2020; Published: 5 May 2020 Abstract: A major energy transformation is required to prolong the rise in global temperature below 2 ◦C. The Indonesian government (GoI) has set a strategy to gradually remove fuel subsidies to meet its 2050 ambitious energy targets. Using a recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, the present study aimed to determine whether or not the current energy subsidy reforms would meet the targets of both energy mix and energy intensity. It also incorporated the environmental aspect while developing a source of a detailed database in the energy sector. The energy subsidy reform policy (followed by an increase in infrastructure and renewable energy investments) could be the most appropriate alternative policy if the government aims to reduce energy intensity and emission, as well as improve energy diversification without pronounced reductions in the sectorial and overall economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2016
    Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2016 April 2018 Independent Statistics & Analysis U.S. Department of Energy www.eia.gov Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the U.S. Department of Energy or other federal agencies. U.S. Energy Information Administration | Financial Interventions and Subsidies i April 2018 Contacts This report, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2016, was prepared under the general guidance of Ian Mead, Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis; Jim Turnure at 202/586-1762 (email, [email protected]), Director, Office of Energy Consumption and Efficiency Analysis; and Shirley Neff, Senior Advisor, EIA. Technical information concerning the content of the report also may be obtained from Mark Schipper at 202/586-1136 (email, [email protected]) and technical information on the subsidies and support to the electric power industry may be obtained from Chris Namovicz at 202/586-7120 (email, [email protected]). Contributing authors, by fuel or technology subsidy and support issue areas, are as follows • Richard Bowers and Fred Mayes–renewables (electricity) subsidies and support
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Fuel to Clean Energy Subsidy Swaps: How to Pay for an Energy Revolution
    Fossil Fuel to Clean Energy Subsidy Swaps: How to pay for an energy revolution GSI REPORT Richard Bridle Shruti Sharma Mostafa Mostafa Anna Geddes June 2019 © 2019 International Institute for Sustainable Development | IISD.org/gsi Fossil Fuel to Clean Energy Subsidy Swaps © 2019 The International Institute for Sustainable Development Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an Head Office independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st– 111 Lombard Avenue, Suite 325 century problems. Our mission is to promote human development and Winnipeg, Manitoba environmental sustainability. We do this through research, analysis and Canada R3B 0T4 knowledge products that support sound policy-making. Our big-picture Tel: +1 (204) 958-7700 view allows us to address the root causes of some of the greatest challenges Website: www.iisd.org facing our planet today: ecological destruction, social exclusion, unfair laws Twitter: @IISD_news and economic rules, a changing climate. IISD’s staff of over 120 people, plus over 50 associates and 100 consultants, come from across the globe and from many disciplines. Our work affects lives in nearly 100 countries. Part scientist, part strategist—IISD delivers the knowledge to act. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c) (3) status in the United States. IISD receives core operating support from the Government of Canada, provided through the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and from the Province of Manitoba. The Institute receives project funding from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations, the private sector and individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on Recent Progress in Reform of Inefficient Fossil-Fuel Subsidies That Encourage Wasteful Consumption
    UPDATE ON RECENT PROGRESS IN REFORM OF INEFFICIENT FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES THAT ENCOURAGE WASTEFUL CONSUMPTION Contribution by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to the G20 Energy Transitions Working Group in consultation with: International Energy Forum (IEF), Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the World Bank 2nd Energy Transitions Working Group Meeting Toyama, 18-19 April 2019 Update on Recent Progress in Reform of Inefficient Fossil-Fuel Subsidies that Encourage Wasteful Consumption This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. This update does not necessarily express the views of the G20 countries or of the IEA, IEF, OECD, OPEC and the World Bank or their member countries. The G20 countries, IEA, IEF, OECD, OPEC and the World Bank assume no liability or responsibility whatsoever for the use of data or analyses contained in this document, and nothing herein shall be construed as interpreting or modifying any legal obligations under any intergovernmental agreement, treaty, law or other text, or as expressing any legal opinion or as having probative legal value in any proceeding. Please cite this publication as: OECD/IEA (2019), "Update on recent progress in reform of inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption", https://oecd.org/fossil-fuels/publication/OECD-IEA-G20-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Reform-Update-2019.pdf │ 3 Summary This report discusses recent trends and developments in the reform of inefficient fossil- fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, within the G20 and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Italy's Effort to Phase out and Rationalise Its Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    ITALY’S EFFORT TO PHASE OUT AND RATIONALISE ITS FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES A REPORT ON THE G20 PEER-REVIEW OF INEFFICIENT FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES THAT ENCOURAGE WASTEFUL CONSUMPTION IN ITALY PREPARED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PEER-REVIEW TEAM: ARGENTINA, CANADA, CHILE, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY, INDONESIA, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, IEA, UN ENVIRONMENT, IISD, EUROPEAN ENERGY RETAILERS, GREEN BUDGET EUROPE, THE OECD (CHAIR OF THE PEER-REVIEW) AND SELECTED EXPERTS APRIL 2019 1 │ Italy’s effort to phase out and rationalise its fossil-fuel subsidies A report on the G20 peer-review of inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption in Italy Prepared by the members of the peer-review team: Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, IEA, UN Environment, IISD, European Energy Retailers, Green Budget Europe, the OECD (Chair of the peer-review) and selected experts ITALY’S EFFORT TO PHASE OUT AND RATIONALISE ITS FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES 2 │ Table of contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Background and context ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Efficiency and Subsidy Reform: a Virtuous Circle
    Energy Subsidy Efficiency Reform makes makes Subsidy Energy Reform more Efficiency more politically attractive feasible Energy Efficiency and Subsidy Reform: A Virtuous Circle Peter Wooders, Group Director Energy, IISD 20 May 2019 IEA IEA 2019. All rights reserved. About IISD and GSI www.iisd.org/gsi IEA 2019. All rights reserved. 2 What is an energy subsidy? • A deliberate policy action by government that specifically targets a particular energy source (e.g. coal, oil, gas, electricity) with one or more of the following effects: 1. Reducing the net cost of energy purchased 2. Reducing the cost of production or delivery of energy 3. Increasing revenues retained by energy suppliers • Consumer subsidies distort the price for energy (the amount paid by consumers does not reflect the actual cost) Fossil Fuel Subsidies are roughly: • 4 times level of renewable subsidies • 4 times OECD Development Assistance • 6 times the amount needed for meeting climate finance objectives • 22 times the size of current donor adaptation funds IEA 2019. All rights reserved. 3 Consumer subsidies largely follow the global market price... Estimated value of global fossil-fuel consumption subsidies, 2009-17 Source: WEO, 2018 Lower prices and bolder policies mean that the value of global fossil-fuel consumption subsidies declined to 2016 (to $260 billion). Rose to $302 billion in 2017 IEA 2019. All rights reserved. 4 ... but many countries are implementing subsidy reform Relatively low oil prices from mid-2014 provided the opportunity for the phase-out of consumer subsidies in several countries, by making their withdrawal less painful. IEA 2019. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Endgame for Nuclear Power: a Desperate Push for Subsidies in the 2019 Tax Extenders Executive Summary
    THE ENDGAME FOR NUCLEAR POWER: A DESPERATE PUSH FOR SUBSIDIES IN THE 2019 TAX EXTENDERS MARK COOPER SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, VERMONT LAW SCHOOL OCTOBER 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • A new proposal to provide a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for existing nuclear reactors would be harmful to taxpayers, ratepayers, and the climate. • Even assuming that the new tax credit would phase down slowly as currently proposed, the expenditure over the coming decade comes to almost $23 billion, even using optimistic assumptions for capital expenditures, fuel, and qualifying reactors. Using more realistic assumptions about the cost of aging reactors, the 10-year cost to taxpayers is likely to be over $26 billion. • As wind, solar, storage, and efficiency are “crowded out” by keeping uneconomical reactors online with tax subsidies, the cost to regular ratepayers over the coming 20 years is $33 billion. • A recent report from the Rhodium Group analyzes a potential investment tax credit for existing nuclear reactors, but it vastly overstates the number of reactors likely to retire soon, significantly understates the declining cost of renewables, and never analyzes the tax losses from subsidies or the ratepayer impact of reliance on high-cost nuclear reactors. • If carbon reduction is the ultimate concern, neither new nor existing nuclear reactors can compete with wind and solar, factoring in the cost of carbon abatement. • Nuclear power is historically one of the largest beneficiaries of federal subsidies, a largesse that has not fundamentally changed its economics or made it competitive with renewables. Today, it is still the beneficiary of numerous advantages built into the tax code, as well as favorable rules adopted by transmission organizations and utility commissions.
    [Show full text]