One of the largest uncertainties affecting the US renewable energy sector is how it will make the transition from the special subsidies provided under last year's stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) back to the "normal" incentives available prior to the financial crisis and recession. The key element of this concerns the Treasury renewable energy grant program, which has stood in for the "tax equity" market that stalled around the time Lehman Brothers went under. Eligibility for the grants expires at the end of this year, and companies that have benefited from them are calling for an extension into 2011 or beyond. That looks like a long-shot at this point. However, another proposal not specifically aimed at renewable energy could provide exactly the sort of transition support the industry requires, while also beginning the necessary task of treating this sector more like others.
As of the Treasury Department's most recent update, renewable energy projects have received a total of $5.2 billion under the "1603" grant program, with more than 85% going to large-scale wind farms. Solar electric and thermal projects received $330 million, or about 6%, trailed by geothermal, biomass power, and small-scale wind. With the financial markets that developers had previously relied on to exchange future tax credits for current cash in disarray last year, the 1603 grants were a crucial stop-gap. However, with electricity demand still lagging and renewables facing strong competition from cheap natural gas, the US wind industry has gone into a slump that might deepen further, once developers' new projects are no longer eligible for up-front cash grants, forcing them to wait for tax credits that accrue as power is generated.
Several proposals to extend the 1603 grants are floating around the Congress, including one from Senator Cantwell (D-WA), but the mid-term elections are looming and the mood in the country is turning away from direct economic stimulus, so an extension is far from a sure thing. Nor does the argument that the grants are deficit-neutral, because they merely accelerate payments, entirely wash. Once the incentive for wind power reverts to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) or substitute Investment Tax Credit on 1/1/11, companies would again need substantial taxable earnings to claim it, and not all would qualify. That's one of the main reasons that cash up front was such a powerful incentive for developers. It's also never been clear how the tax equity market was expected to revive fully as long as firms could get cash from the Treasury instead, without any transaction fees beyond filling out the paperwork. Whatever we do about the expiring stimulus grants, we need to get this market on a trajectory back to normal.
The best solution for bridging this transition might involve a measure that doesn't seem to have been aimed at the renewable energy sector at all. Last week President Obama proposed allowing businesses to expense 100% of capital investments in 2011. This would kick in just as eligibility for the 1603 grants ends, and at the 35% tax rate that most corporations are subject to, it could actually be worth more than the 30% renewable energy ITC upon which the grants were based. That would help compensate for the difference between receiving these funds up front and waiting to file a tax return. The new benefit would also be calculated on the amount invested, like the grants, rather than the quantity of power produced, as under the PTC.
There's an additional advantage to this approach, which would put the decision for capital investment and allocation entirely back in the hands of corporate managers and boards--who are accountable for their results--rather than government bureaucrats with little experience at running a business or gauging which projects make sense and which don't. And if it means that companies that can't wait until they file taxes to collect the benefit must convince a banker or other investor of the merits of the project, that's an extra layer of market discipline that might winnow out some projects now, but would help ensure that those that survive are more viable.
In the long run, renewable energy must stand on its own feet, without incentives that are orders of magnitude larger, per unit of energy produced, than those for conventional energy. Most renewable electricity technologies aren't ready to make that leap, but forcing them to rely on the same 100% investment expensing that other businesses would be given next year (if enacted into law) looks like a good first step, instead of extending a stimulus program that must end sooner or later.
Post-Stimulus Transition for Renewable Energy
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
E15's Problems Are Symptomatic of A Failing Biofuels Policy - May 22, 2012
Are Chesapeake's Problems A Red Flag For Shale Gas? - May 17, 2012
Where Gas is Already $10 per Gallon - May 9, 2012
Resources from Space? - May 4, 2012
US Natural Gas Price Nears $10 per Barrel Equivalence - April 30, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
RickEngebretson said:
About 17 years ago I was included in Paul Wellstone's advisory group. I suggested trying to work with the utilities and got utility research, Republican politicos, and scientists moving on hay crop feed and biofuel, and some fuel cell stuff. Top industry leaders were calling from DC and Oak Ridge. Then we had a family health crisis. Ethanol and windmills happened and we are worse off than 20 years ago. I was reminded of this when pushy advocates wanted me to attend a deforestation renewable energy meeting. And we rented the Alfred Hitchcock movie, "Spellbound."
New energy technologies abound. The political money has dictated the discussion. Does anybody doubt we will give up using energy as costs rise, the climate is impacted, and global competition dictates? I welcome getting politicians out of the energy design business.
-
Baby You Can Drive My (Electric) Car
Posted May 11, 2012 by Scott Edward Anderson
-
Siemens develops ABS plastic alternative
Posted May 9, 2012 by Doris de Guzman
-
Reduce CO2 and Slow Global Warming?
Posted April 30, 2012 by Willem Post
-
WGC 2012 - 25th World Gas Conference
June 4, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-
Ecwatech 2012
June 4, 2012, Moscow, Russia
-
Intersolar Europe
June 11, 2012, Munich, Germany
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Dan Yurman
Hidroenergia 2012
When: Wed, 2012-05-23 09:00
NERC CIP Compliance Training
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 08:00
Webinar on Transported Asset Protection Association’s (TAPA) Freight Security Requirements and Trucking Security Requirements
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 14:00
Global JOJOBAWORLD 2012
When: Fri, 2012-05-25 09:00
NESCO Town Hall: Security Risk Management Practices for Electric Utilities
When: Wed, 2012-05-30 13:00
Ecwatech 2012
When: Mon, 2012-06-04 09:00

About Social Media Today




