Click here to preview the new Fast Company

Want to try out the new

If you’d like to return to the previous design, click the yellow button on the lower left corner.



It's Time to Kill Permanent Energy Subsidies

Removing subsidies for both dirty and clean energy would force everyone to compete on their own merits.

oil gas pumps

The federal government should get rid of permanent energy subsidies for all energy sources, including fossil fuels,
nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels. This would force everyone
to innovate, compete and win—or lose—on their own merits.

On April 25th, even Republican of the House John Boehner admitted that he thought that during a budget crisis such as the one America is facing now, oil companies "ought to be paying their fair share" of tax revenues. President Obama quickly pounced, sending a letter to Congressional leaders in both parties urging them to "eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Boehner no doubt wishes he could stuff that genie back in the bottle.

Energy subsidies—both for oil and clean energy—never fail to raise hackles on both sides of the debate. Proponents of subsidies for oil and gas production argue that eliminating them is a euphemism for raising taxes (and raising the price of gas), which would be a job killer at a time when America needs jobs. Proponents of subsidies for clean energy say that without subsidies, renewables have no hope of besting the entrenched oil and gas industries. To both, I say, "Nonsense."

Permanent subsidies don’t create jobs and sharpen the competitive edges of new companies. Instead, they distort markets and kill innovation. How? For starters, subsidies for oil and gas production have long been considered a way to ensure increased production and stable gasoline prices. Given the price of gasoline in your neighborhood today, how would you say that is working for you? Oil is a global commodity; my sense is that the $120 per barrel price is incentive enough to encourage investors to the space.

Subsidies also have long been considered a way to give "infant industries" such as wind and solar a chance to grow and mature before they have to stand on their own—just like parents pay for their kids' educations, clothes, and piano lessons until they are old enough to get a job. Incubation subsidies make sense, but at some point you have to push them out of the house. Maybe that’s why mature renewables remain uncompetitive—they are like kids who keep returning to live with their parents when the real world gets tough.

The truth is that permanent energy subsidies do more harm than good. They don’t encourage established energy providers to innovate ("Why bother when we get free money from the government?") and they don’t force new providers to rapidly scale their innovations. Permanent subsidies are just plain bad for business—and history has shown us time and time again, solutions to big problems that are bad for business have no hope of success.

Phasing out all permanent energy subsidies will give birth to competition for energy on a level playing field. May the best solutions win.

[Photo from Flickr user ecksunderscore]

Jigar Shah is CEO of the Carbon War Room, a nonprofit that harnesses the power of entrepreneurs to implement market-driven solutions to climate change and create a post-carbon economy. 


Add New Comment


  • aligatorhardt

    I agree, that subsidies could be removed from all forms of energy production, and renewable, clean energy would be the obvious choice for long term success and public health. The Republicans try to remove incentives for renewable energy but protect the subsidies for their sponsors in fossil fuels and nuclear power. While subsidies for renewable energy are easily seen, the support for vested interests are often hidden, like the vast military costs of protecting oil supplies and distribution routes, like the supports to railroads to allow the cheaper distribution for coal, like the military support for the nuclear power industry, which also supplies weapon materials and research, using the excuse of electric production to maintain weapons capabilities. The fossil fuel and nuclear power industries have had many decades of support, even though they are all mature industries with large market shares. The only one of the old power systems to lose market share is nuclear power, which last year was surpassed by renewable energy, to fall to 12 % of US electric supply.   EIA Report: Renewables Surpass Nuclear Output | Renewable Energy News Article

    The lowest cost system is wind power in the best locations. Even solar power is dropping into contention in installed price, with the fuel savings over time providing an advantage to offset the initial higher installed cost. Fossil fuels and nuclear power continue to rise in costs each year with no end in sight.  What Do Wind Trends Show? Three Cents per Kilowatt-Hour : Greentech Media

    GE Sees Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years - Bloomberg