Energy and the Federal Budget Sequester

Barring a last-second deal to avert it, the federal government's budget will be cut on Friday by $85 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.  These cuts will be applied across the board to every cabinet department and agency of the federal government, though at different rates for defense and non-defense activities, and with some functions exempted by the legislation that set the sequester in place.  Energy is no exception, and some of the cuts there may seem surprising, given the President's emphasis on promoting new energy sources.  It's worth putting all this into perspective.

Much of the discussion I'm hearing about sequestration, including efforts to replace it with a mix of smaller, more-surgical spending cuts and new tax revenue, seems to miss the bigger picture.  Sequestration was devised by the White House and agreed to by Congress as an intentionally repulsive fallback to the $1.2 trillion of detailed spending reductions that were to have been negotiated in exchange for raising the federal debt ceiling by what ended up being $2.1 trillion--already spent in the meantime.  There were certainly political reasons why that deal focused on spending cuts, rather than a mix of cuts and new revenue.  However, after reviewing the White House's own data on federal revenues and expenditures for the last five years, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the US government has a serious spending problem, irrespective of any revenue concerns. 

Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expects combined federal revenue for fiscal year 2013 to come in at $2.9 trillion, or 13% higher than the previous all-time, pre-recession peak in 2007.  Yet 2013 expenditures of $3.8 trillion would be 40% higher than the 2007 level--a trillion dollars more, in fact.  Some of that increase reflects carry-overs from the 2009 stimulus bill, most of which was spent in 2010-12. Even after factoring out expenditures related to the higher unemployment resulting from our weaker economy, federal spending has grown rapidly.

What does sequestration mean for federal energy programs?  Before the cuts were postponed for two months, OMB identified annual reductions totaling $2.4 billion from non-exempted programs within the Department of Energy.  That included cuts of about 8% to the department's science budget, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), ARPA-E, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, innovative technology loan guarantees, and other activities.  Around a billion would be cut from the DOE's nuclear weapons and defense-related work.  Yet when applied to the DOE's 2013 budget request, it appears the department would still receive about a billion dollars more after sequestration than it spent in 2008.

DOE isn't the only place that energy spending would be cut.  I was surprised when I was alerted by a friend in the renewable energy practice of the Akin Gump law firm that Treasury renewable energy grants in lieu of future tax credits would also be subject to sequestration. The federal low-income heating energy subsidy (LIHEAP) would be cut, too, along with the budget for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which administers offshore oil, gas and renewable energy leases. Together they amount to just over $3 billion in reductions from the roughly $44 billion appropriated for energy-related activities this year.

Across-the-board cuts should never be management's first choice for reducing expenses, because they hack away at necessary and useful functions along with the wasteful ones.  However, these cuts are occurring because the administration and Congress couldn't agree on setting priorities for where to cut. After seeing the reactions to the threat of cuts from almost every interest group in America, are we in any position to blame them?  When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. That's what the sequester reflects, nor is it without precedent.

Because of where I live, some of my relatives, friends and neighbors will feel the direct impact of sequestration.  They have my sympathy. I'm sure it would be little consolation to them to know that  I spent several stretches of my own corporate career under various across-the-board budget cuts, pay freezes, and similar programs that frustrated me, too, because I saw so much muscle cut along with the fat. Parts of the private sector have been through their own versions of sequestration numerous times, some quite recently.  It's never ideal, but sometimes it's the only workable option to rein in spending.

With respect to energy the numbers above suggest that, if given some flexibility in how to allocate cuts on this scale, the government should be able to fund all the core functions of the Department of Energy in promoting energy security and helping to develop new technology, while preserving its key organizational capabilities.  That might not be true of the department's recent efforts in industrial policy. It remains to be seen whether the Congress and White House can agree on providing that kind of flexibility in the execution of a sequestration policy that now looks virtually certain to go into effect this weekend.

The 2013 US Energy Agenda

It's tempting to focus mainly on the energy issues that have come up in the context of the presidential campaign, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, tax breaks for energy companies, and whether and how to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a.k.a "fracking".  Yet whoever is inaugurated next January, and however he resolves these issues, he will also face a much wider array of energy concerns, including some that are outgrowths of current policies or have emerged after a long gestation.  Though not intended as an exhaustive list, here are a few such issues that merit close attention from the next president's energy team.

They should begin by taking a fresh and objective look at the overall US energy posture and devising a clear and concise way to describe it to the public.  Big changes have taken place, with many of the issues that preoccupied us for the last decade or longer having become less relevant or out of date.  Topping that list is the sense of energy scarcity that has burdened us since the oil crises of the 1970s and early 1980s.  There's a realistic possibility that the combination of "tight oil" and the gas liquids production from shale gas could push domestic US petroleum/liquids production back above its early '70s peak of around 11 million barrels per day. At the same time, our net oil imports are declining, due in large part to the weak economy.  However, as the share of fuel efficient vehicles in our car fleet increases, it's reasonable to think that we've already seen the peak of US demand for petroleum fuels, even after the economy returns to healthy growth.  The net result might fall short of energy independence, but it will put us in a much better position than our largest economic rivals in terms of real energy security. 

Then there's shale gas.  Not only has it reversed a worrisome decline in US natural gas production that prompted numerous projects to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), but it has upended our assumptions about future prices and emissions in the electric power sector, while completing the divorce of oil and electricity that began in the 1980s.  Now we're talking seriously about exporting natural gas. When you combine all these changes with biofuels that are contributing roughly a million barrels per day to US supply (in volumetric, though not BTU-equivalent terms) the need to revisit some of our most basic assumptions about energy looks compelling. 

Energy scarcity isn't the only paradigm that needs to be rethought.  The current administration apparently took office with a view that was prevalent in the environmental community and among some in energy circles, that the solutions to climate change and energy security were effectively synonymous and synergistic.  That view predates the shale/tight oil revolution and was founded on the notion that renewable energy and efficiency were the only serious answers to both concerns.  That linkage was always oversimplified, because it ignored the trade-offs inherent in the shortcomings of every energy technology available.  And now, thanks to unexpected technological developments, we face an explicit choice between energy abundance based on hydrocarbons and a lower-emissions future based on renewables and electric vehicles that won't reach the required scale for decades, despite promising early signs. The transition from the former to the latter appears long and largely unpredictable, nor will it be cheap. 

The next administration also faces a set of practical issues, along with the big-picture reframing described above. Two of these issues involve urgent tasks.  The first is the growing need for a thorough evaluation of the recent and current approach to incentivizing renewable energy technologies and projects.  Since early 2009 we've spent tens of billions of dollars on a constellation of federal grants, tax credits, and loan guarantees to stimulate the growth of a domestic renewable and advanced energy industry and the deployment of its products. There's a lot of new hardware on the ground, but the sustainability of this industry looks uncertain. Although only a fraction of the companies that received federal support have failed, the tally has grown large enough--with the addition of Abound Solar last week--that it's no longer acceptable merely to shrug off these losses as par for the course.  We need some hard-nosed, detail-oriented outsiders to conduct a comprehensive post-expenditure review and extract the major lessons learned.  That should be an absolute prerequisite before anyone contemplates renewing or expanding any of these programs, including the Pentagon's $210 million "green fleet" program.

Another urgent clean-up task is the reform of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).  This 2007 mandate was premised on the imminent arrival of cellulosic biofuel technologies that have turned out to be much harder than expected to transfer from demonstration to commercial scale.  That has resulted in drastic annual revisions to the cellulosic biofuel targets of the mandate, but even these lower targets have not been achieved.  Instead, the EPA imposes penalties on refiners and gasoline blenders for failing to blend non-existent volumes, with consumers ultimately absorbing the higher costs at the pump.  The attractive vision of abundant renewable fuels has thus turned into a bureaucratic game.  And while corn ethanol supplies 10% of gasoline and consumes nearly 40% of the US corn crop, it cannot more than double to meet the entire 36 billion gallon per year RFS target for 2022, nor should we wish it to.  Instead, the RFS must be updated to reflect reality, and the associated biofuel-credit trading system should be restructured to squeeze out the fraud that is infecting it, instead of leaving refiners and blenders--and again ultimately consumers--to pick up a tab estimated at $200 million. 

These items don't constitute an entire energy agenda by themselves, but together with a few higher-profile proposals from among those that both campaigns will announce and debate during the next four months, they could fill out a worthy first-hundred-days' energy plan for 2013.

New Budget Reflects Inefficient Energy Priorities

An editorial in today's New York Times praising the energy priorities included in the President's latest budget is little more than a rubber stamp of a set of policies in serious need of rethinking. The goals the Times espouses, of "reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and giving American workers a fighting chance in the global competition for clean-energy jobs", are perfectly fine; however, what's entirely absent is any critical assessment of whether the expensive programs they chose to highlight will contribute meaningfully to accomplishing them.

Start with the reauthorization of Treasury cash grants for renewable energy projects. A quick review of the Treasury's own tracking spreadsheet shows that 77% of the $10.4 billion awarded since 2009 under this program went to projects employing wind turbines, a mostly mature technology, half the value of which goes to offshore manufacturers, based on the American Wind Energy Association's own assessment. If the goal is putting Americans to work producing wind power hardware, this is a grossly inefficient way to do it. Moreover, this temporary program was instituted to fill the gap created when the market for "tax equity"--private transactions that exchange current cash for future tax credits--dried up during the financial crisis. Tax equity investors have recently been returning to the market, but they can't readily compete with free money from the Treasury Department. In other words, at this late date the Treasury cash grants are a solution to a problem that their continuation would help perpetuate.

Then there's the matter of the wind production tax credit, which I looked at in some detail recently. While I agree that it's neither fair nor appropriate to drop the industry off a cliff by allowing this benefit to expire all at once, it is high time that the 20-year-old tax credit for wind power be reduced to account for the maturity of onshore wind technology, and then gradually phased out on a firm schedule. The Times makes no mention of any of this.

It's also important to understand that whatever the technologies covered by these two programs may contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they don't save a barrel of imported oil, because the US generates less than 1% of our electricity from oil, and much of that in island or other remote locations that can't easily get reliable electricity through other means. That makes it doubly ironic that the only "subsidies" the Times opposes are the current tax benefits for oil and gas companies, arguably the only program mentioned in their editorial that actually does help reduce US imports of foreign oil.

The President's 2013 budget, which has little chance of adoption as proposed, includes a number of other energy provisions. Some of them are very worthy, including increased support for energy R&D that is too risky or long-term for industry to undertake on its own. However, it also includes an extension of the loan guarantee program that gave us Solyndra--a program that should not be renewed without much stronger oversight than the DOE has provided to date, beyond just hiring a "chief risk officer". It also mentions "enhancements to the existing electric vehicle tax incentive", a $7,500 per vehicle credit that benefits mostly higher-income taxpayers and does little to reduce either emissions or oil imports. What I don't see in these proposals is any recognition that many of the programs they seek to extend or expand have either outlived their usefulness or fallen short of delivering the benefits on which they were originally justified, and that every dollar spent inefficiently in this manner adds to our $1.3 trillion deficit, the necessary narrowing of which keeps getting pushed ever further into the future. The administration's latest energy priorities would have us spending as though it were still 2006.

The Battle to Extend Wind Incentives

With the end of the year approaching, the annual Congressional debate over extending a variety of expiring federal tax credits and other benefits is gearing up again. Few of these measures are as high-profile as the payroll tax cut, but each has a vocal constituency, including renewable energy. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has launched a major effort seeking inclusion of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power in this year's "tax extenders" package. That might seem premature, since the PTC won't expire until the end of 2012, until you realize that eligibility for the stimulus-funded Treasury renewable energy grants for which many wind project developers have opted over the PTC ends in a few weeks with little chance of a further extension. However, before simply tacking another year (or four!) onto a tax credit that began nearly 20 years ago, Congress should answer two basic questions: Is this still the most effective way to promote renewables like wind, and does wind power now require subsidies at all?

I don't blame AWEA for tackling this issue early, since the US wind industry has experienced significant volatility when previous PTC expirations went down to the wire, and in several cases lapsed for up to a year. At the same time, taxpayers deserve a more compelling rationale for continuing to subsidize wind power than the one now being offered. The "green jobs" argument is wearing thin, post-Solyndra, and it has become increasingly evident that helping to create a market for renewable energy technologies is a necessary but not sufficient condition to establishing a sustainable, globally competitive renewable energy manufacturing industry. Although more of the wind power value chain is now produced in the US than previously, too much of each wind subsidy dollar still goes offshore for this to be deemed an efficient way to boost to US jobs and manufacturing without reform.

In order to address the first question I posed, concerning the continued suitability of the PTC, it's important to understand how it works and how it compares to other renewable energy incentives. The current PTC provides wind project owners (or the parties to whom the tax benefit has been sold via a "tax equity swap") with an income tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity actually generated and sold from the completed facility. Based on recent estimates of the levelized cost of electricity from unsubsidized wind power, that's over 20% of a typical wind farm's production cost. It's also equivalent to more than half of this year's average wellhead price of natural gas--a far larger subsidy per BTU than the controversial tax benefits currently provided to oil & gas firms.

The best thing about the PTC is that it is entirely outcome-based. You only receive the benefit when your project is completed, brought online, and as power is sold to customers. Mess up any of those steps and you get zilch. Put your project in a location with poor wind resource or limited access to transmission, and you won't get nearly as much tax benefit. So from that standpoint--ignoring the green jobs angle that arose mainly from expediency when the financial crisis and recession hit--we are getting what we pay for: actual low-emission energy. The structure of the PTC has cash-flow implications that are viewed as a problem by many wind developers but might be regarded as a useful feature by taxpayers. Smaller developers, in particular, have greater difficulty financing projects when the incentive must be deferred until after start-up, or they may lack sufficient taxable income to take full advantage of the credit. They complain about the need to transact swaps with bankers and other investors to realize the subsidy sooner, at a cost. But perhaps it's not such a bad thing for companies that small to have to convince an experienced third party that their project is really viable.

There are many alternatives to the PTC, including the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC), the same one received by solar and other technologies. The stimulus bill extended the ITC as an option for wind and allowed the Treasury Department to pay it as a cash grant, rather than waiting for subsequent tax filings. This certainly put money in the hands of wind developers much quicker--$7.6 billion since 2009 including $3.3 billion so far this year--and it has the added benefit of automatically scaling down as the cost of the technology falls. The solar feed-in tariffs favored in Europe didn't have such a feature, with the result that countries have had to cut them numerous times, but only after the fat tariffs gave birth to a huge export-oriented solar manufacturing industry in Asia. Similar competition is now emerging in the wind industry.

The main problem with the ITC is that when viewed from an outcomes perspective, which really gets to the question of effectiveness, the outcome being promoted is construction, rather than energy production. You would get the same tax credit for a project with the best wind resource as for one with the worst. (This has also led to a lot of solar installations in places that would never otherwise have been considered.) So of the two main policy tools the federal government has used to subsidize renewable electricity, the PTC is probably more cost-effective in delivering the result we should really want, which is more renewable energy. As it is, even with rapid growth over the last decade, wind accounted for just 2.8% of our power generation this year through August.

That brings us to the bigger question of whether wind should be subsidized at all after the current PTC term expires. I get emails practically every day from folks who have serious concerns about the health and environmental impacts of power, as well as its cost- and emissions-reduction effectiveness. Even if we ascribed all of these concerns to NIMBYism, it doesn't change the fact that the wind PTC, complete with annual inflation adjustment, is providing the same level of incentive as it did when the technology was much less mature and cost many times what it does today; AWEA cites wind costs having fallen by 90% since 1980. Other factors have also changed in the last twenty years. A majority of US states--and most of those with attractive wind resources--now have in place Renewable Portfolio Standards requiring utilities to include increasing proportions of renewable power in their supply. These mandates create a similar redundancy as the one between the ethanol blenders credit, which is also due to expire 12/31/11, and the biofuel mandates of the federal Renewable Fuels Standard. In the absence of the PTC, the state RPS system should provide a safety net--and more--for the industry.

There are two other key factors missing from AWEA's arguments for extending the PTC. The first is the economy, which is the main reason that US electricity demand has not been growing at a rate that would support large generating capacity expansions of any kind. New wind installations have been anemic for the last two years, in spite of last year's extension of the Treasury grants. Moreover, wind must now compete with the explosion of domestic natural gas production from shale, which when used in combined cycle gas turbines produces cheaper electricity than wind, with low emissions of the air pollutants that are of the greatest concern to most Americans, while still beating coal-fired power hands down on greenhouse gases.

Where all this leaves us depends on your priorities. If your main focus is on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and you see renewable power as a key strategy, then in the absence of a price on carbon you might support extending the PTC for at least a little longer. If you are concerned about climate change but more worried in the short term about the deficit, then letting the PTC lapse next year and relying on state RPS quotas to put a floor under wind looks reasonable. If boosting US cleantech manufacturing is your aim, you should prefer a more direct incentive than the PTC. And if your main worry is oil imports, then the PTC is irrelevant, since the US gets less than 1% of its electricity from burning oil, and most of that in remote and back-up power roles that wind can't easily fill. On balance, if after considering all the alternatives the Congress decides to extend the Production Tax Credit, it should be for an explicitly final period, at no more than the 1.1 cent/kWh rate that technologies like marine, hydropower and waste-to-energy now receive, and without the annual inflation adjustment that undermines the incentive to continue reducing costs.

Drawing Conclusions from Solyndra

When the energy portions of the 2009 stimulus were announced I remarked to a colleague that I wouldn't be surprised if its billions in incentives led to a future scandal or two. In fact, I was thinking more along the lines of fraudulent diversions from the Treasury's renewable energy grant program, which has handed out $8.7 billion since its inception. That program had its own day in the spotlight when it turned out that a significant portion of the initial disbursements were going either to non-US companies or to pay for equipment made outside the US, undermining its green jobs rationale. However, I wouldn't have guessed that the biggest scandal would erupt from the ostensibly lower-risk loan guarantee program of the Department of Energy. The prospect that a tussle over a small cut to that program, for which eligibility is due to end in a few days, nearly set up another government shutdown crisis seems even stranger.

Whatever happens to the loan guarantee program, the decision to lend over $500 million to Solyndra looks bad, and not just in retrospect, with the firm in bankruptcy. The market environment that Solyndra was betting on was already shifting in late 2008--months before its loan was approved. The global bottleneck in the supply of polysilicon, the key raw material for the crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules with which Solyndra's unique CIGS modules competed, was easing as new polysilicon capacity was coming on line, more was under construction, and polysilicon prices were falling. Someone at the DOE should accept responsibility--and the consequences--for ignoring or missing that signal and concluding that it was a good time for Solyndra to double its capacity and fixed costs.

As tempting as it might be to dwell on Solyndra's failure, that should not be our primary concern right now. If laws are found to have been broken or influence improperly used, there will be ample time to address that. Nor should we dwell on the fate of the other projects for which $10 billion in loans or loan guarantees have already been concluded. Many of those projects involve generating renewable power and selling it under long-term agreements that will ensure a profit, with little additional risk. Instead, oversight should focus urgently on those projects that are still under consideration or have received only conditional approvals to date.

One of the applications that apparently got caught in the fallout from Solyndra was a project of Solar City Corp. to install up to 371 MW of rooftop solar panels at military facilities across the US. Solar City was seeking a partial (presumably 80%) guarantee of up to $344 million in loans to carry out these projects. This is precisely the sort of initiative necessary to deliver on the military's goals to increase its use of renewable energy. I heard a lot more about that at an Air Force energy briefing at the Pentagon earlier this month and will write about that session when I receive the responses to the follow-up questions I sent in.

The military faces two major obstacles in achieving its energy objectives, and projects like Solar City's would help overcome both. First, energy generation assets are expensive and would compete with military hardware procurement and other budget priorities. Having someone else make those investments and charge the services for power that they'd otherwise have to buy from a utility is as useful for the military as it is for homeowners who can't afford the up-front costs of rooftop solar. The other aspect with which the project helps is that the economics of rooftop solar still depend on federal and state incentives that the Department of Defense can't access directly. In this case, Solar City would buy and install the hardware and collects the tax credits and other incentives that allow them to charge the military a competitive price for power. With time running out on its application, the company has apparently decided to pursue a scaled-down version of the project with only commercial financing.

As for any remaining applications, if the DOE can't convince itself that they are sound before the clock runs out at the end of the month, then it must either turn them down or ask the Congress for more time. Whatever call the DOE makes it had better be prepared for the scrutiny and second-guessing they are bound to receive. The Solyndra debacle has arguably done as much harm to US renewable energy policy as the Enron scandal did to energy trading. Another Solyndra might just put an end to the whole proposition of financing green energy with public funds in the US.

Note: Posting updated to reflect the current status of Solar City's project.

US Renewables Need A Fallback Plan

When I described some of the energy implications of the debt limit crisis last month, the most serious ones were associated with a default by the US government in the event the debt ceiling wasn't extended. That risk has been resolved, for now. But that doesn't mean that everything looks rosy, especially for renewables. Renewable energy technologies and projects are far more dependent on government assistance and policies than conventional energy. The fate of a wide range of federal energy incentives looks highly uncertain, and the impact of that uncertainty is matched by doubts about the health of the US economy and its growth prospects. With the pace of growth already slowing in some renewable energy sectors, any manufacturers or project developers that aren't thinking seriously about how they would manage without federal incentives could be setting themselves up to become roadkill.

Understanding why requires taking a closer look at the debt ceiling bill that Congress passed in the context of the federal budget baseline--never mind that the US Congress has not enacted a budget in more than two years. In April the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its assessment of what the economy would look like under the budget submitted by President Obama in February, as well as under the laws already on the books. The latter comprises the "March CBO Baseline" that was mentioned frequently during the debt limit talks and that formed the basis for comparing different proposals. (See Table 1-5 of the CBO report.) Without factoring in this week's debt limit agreement, the CBO projected a cumulative deficit for fiscal years 2012-21 of $6.7 trillion. That figure is important for several reasons.

First, it serves as a reminder that even after the $917 billion of cuts agreed up front and the $1.2-1.5 trillion of future cuts to be determined later this year, the US debt would still grow by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, mainly through increases in mandatory, or non-discretionary spending--entitlements and other untouchables. That won't change even under the deal done by the Senate and House this week; all of its pre-programmed cuts are to discretionary spending, the category into which most federal spending on renewable energy would fall.

But even that $4 trillion figure looks optimistic. As I understand it the CBO baseline assumes that next January 1 all of the Bush-era tax cuts will expire on schedule, resulting in substantial increases in taxes on both ordinary income and dividend income. And that's not just for those earning more than $200,000 per year, or whatever the threshold of "wealthy" is determined to be; it's for everyone. Nor would the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has been biting a growing number of middle class families every year, be indexed as proposed. It also assumes that the Social Security payroll tax will revert to its normal level of 6.2%, up from this year's 4.2%. Barring a dramatic improvement in the economy between now and the end of the year, it seems unlikely that all of those tax increases will be allowed to take effect. That means that the government's revenue through 2021 is likely to be significantly lower than the CBO forecast, because both growth and tax rates are likely to be lower. That translates into bigger deficits and more pressure for deficit reduction.

So the environment for continued support for renewables will be one in which the government's projected deficits continue as far as the eye can see, even after painful cuts, while its ability to continue borrowing on that scale looks suspect. With the main focus of budget cuts falling on the category that includes cash support for renewables, how likely is it that the Congress would extend the Treasury renewable energy cash grant program when it expires on December 31, 2011, or add new appropriations for the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program? And if the Congressional super-committee's proposals include tax reform that would eliminate many "tax expenditures"--tax credits and deductions--then a host of programs such as the solar investment tax credit, the wind, biomass and geothermal energy production tax credit, various biofuel tax credits, and the electric vehicle purchase tax credit, could end up on the cutting block. In the coming scramble to avoid the budget knife, renewables will be competing with better-established programs with broader and more influential constituencies.

It has always been a risky proposition to build companies and industries, the economics of which depended on substantial government subsidies. Some folks could be on the verge of finding out just how risky. If we go down that path, it will probably also result in awkward questions being asked about some of the decisions made by the stewards of these government programs. They should be; I've never understood what kind of due diligence could have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in grants or "loans" going to to clean energy and automotive startups with minimal track records, when private investors weren't willing to bet on those risks at that scale. From a national energy policy and strategy perspective, our focus should not be on saving individual companies--no TARP for renewables, I suspect--but on preserving key capabilities essential to ensuring a long-term competitive US position in the global clean energy market.

What would that entail? First, as government funding for renewables becomes constrained it should be focused on R&D at the expense of deployment. Not only would the available money go much farther, but it would also create more options for the future. The next step should be to ensure that whatever the government does spend on deployment should go to projects that are close to being viable without help, or in the case of the military that enhance combat capabilities. That means, for example, focusing solar development assistance on sunny places like the southwest--preferably in proximity to existing transmission infrastructure--and putting an end to paying people to install utility and rooftop solar in places that receive less than about 5 "peak sun hours" (kWh/m2) per day, on average. Again, the money would go farther, and we'd be shoring up nearly viable operations, instead of trying to command the tide not to overwhelm the marginal ones. And finally, as I suggested last week, a greater emphasis on exports to developing country markets, where energy demand is growing at impressive rates and where renewables are becoming increasingly popular, would increase export earnings and employment while participating in volume-related unit cost reductions. And looking beyond renewable energy, the US government has a bird's nest on the ground in the form of the potential lease bid and royalty income from the substantial oil and gas resources that have been placed off limits for various reasons. Tapping those looks like a much smarter source of revenue--not to mention job creation--than selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve bit by bit.

If that sounds like a recipe for putting the US cleantech industry on life support after years of robust government-supported growth, then that's consistent with the severity of the fallback plan that could become necessary. The need for this would depend on the priorities set by the special Congressional deficit reduction committee established by the debt ceiling bill, and by the Congress as a whole, along with the subsequent efforts that will be necessary to prevent our long-term debt from growing beyond our ability to service it. Nor would it be quite the starvation diet it might appear, as long as states kept their renewable portfolio standards in place. This isn't a scenario the cleantech industry would willingly choose, but it's one that it can't ignore.

The Market for US Cleantech Is Out There

One of many press releases I received this week highlighted the new Clean Energy Export Principles developed by a "multi-industry coalition, which was coordinated by the National Foreign Trade Council, and U.S. government representatives." They recommend a significantly expanded and technology-neutral effort by the US government to promote exports of clean energy gear, including equipment for the smart grid, energy efficiency and energy storage. They also suggest the need to reduce trade barriers affecting such exports globally, not just to help US industry but to increase the effectiveness of efforts to mitigate climate change. I can only hope that the administration embraces these recommendations as enthusiastically as it has other aspects of its green agenda, because these principles are aimed squarely at the biggest opportunities for clean energy technology and emissions reduction, outside our borders.

It doesn't really matter whether these principles reflect the sensible recognition of trends in the global energy marketplace, or merely make a virtue of necessity at a time when government support for domestic clean energy deployment is approaching its statutory and practical limits. However the current debt ceiling crisis is resolved, the capacity for the federal government to continue providing generous incentives for cleantech deployment, either through the Treasury renewable energy cash grants that have totaled nearly $8 billion to date, or the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee program that has backed or directly funded more than $40 billion in loans for clean energy projects is likely to be far more constrained in the future.

Nor is this simply a question of money. The whole notion that we are in some kind of renewable energy deployment race with China or any other country ignores the big differences in our respective levels of economic development. If there were such a race we would be bound to lose, and not because we don't have the right policies or strict enough regulations, but because US electricity demand is growing slowly and is backed by both ample generating capacity and ample supplies of relatively cheap and low-emitting fuel. Meanwhile both electricity demand and capacity in the developing world are growing rapidly, and the indigenous generation fuel in good supply is mainly coal. That, together with the disparities in economic growth coming out of the global recession, is the underlying reason why investment in renewable energy in the developing world apparently surged past that in the developed world last year.

With cleantech supply chains already substantially globalized, the leaders in this industry must be global in scope and focus. US manufacturers of cleantech equipment shouldn't ignore the US market, but they must be realistic about it. Even with growing opportunities in the smart grid and solar power, the US will account for only a small fraction of the global market for such goods and services, as growth shifts away from the mature markets of Europe and North America. The market share that counts, for competitive strength and economies of scale, is global market share. And global sales will provide the volumes needed to drive down costs for both exports and domestic installations. There's a huge, growing market for cleantech, and it is mainly out there.

Renewable Energy: Horses for Courses

It has become nearly impossible to keep track of all the major wind and solar projects underway at any point in time. Considering that I can recall when a month's worth of project announcements could be counted on the fingers of one hand, that's a sign of the tremendous progress in renewable energy over the last decade. Today, the projects that I notice tend to involve either novel technologies, or companies or locations in which I'm interested, such as the new rooftop solar thermal installation on the convention center of St. Paul, Minnesota, not far from where my in-laws live. I probably wouldn't have even paid attention to this one, if the eye-popping price tag hadn't included a cool million in federal stimulus funding. As I read on, it quickly became clear from the figures included in the news story that it requires more imagination than I possess to view this project as a good investment for taxpayers.

In putting the project's $2 million cost into perspective it's important to understand the distinction between solar thermal collectors and solar photovoltaic panels (PV). The former capture and transfer heat, while the latter turn sunlight into electricity, which is much more valuable. A 1 Megawatt (MW) PV installation would cost quite a lot more than $2 million, but that doesn't make this installation's price a bargain. Assessing that depends on the annual energy savings and resulting avoided fuel purchases. From the project description and the emissions reductions cited in the article it was possible to work out the expected annual energy savings involved, which appeared to have been something of a mystery to the facility spokesperson quoted. A MW of solar thermal equates to 3.4 million BTUs per hour, although the River Centre's rooftop clearly wouldn't generate that on a 24/7 basis even in a much sunnier location than the Twin Cities. However, the 900,000 pounds a year of avoided CO2 are unambiguous. At 117 lb. CO2 per million BTUs of pipeline gas, that equates to saving 7.7 billion BTUs of gas a year. And at last year's average commercial natural gas price for the state, that works out to an annual avoided cost of $58,000.

When I convert that stream of future energy savings into its net present value over 25 years, even with fairly generous assumptions on the cost of capital and future natural gas inflation, it is worth about what the convention center alone paid for it, or around $1 million, ignoring the impact of the two years it apparently took to build it. So in the parlance of corporate project evaluation, the federal officials who approved the RiverCentre's solar roof for that stimulus grant destroyed about a million dollars of taxpayer value when they decided to fund a solar thermal project in such a northern location with relatively low annual peak-sun hours. What were they thinking?

Well, the DOE official present at the facility's unveiling offered a clue by means of a hockey quote--always a good call in Minnesota. "We want to be where the puck is going to be, not where it is now." I would translate that as their funding of this project constituting an investment in bringing down the cost of future solar installations. Unfortunately, that would be much more credible if the installation in question involved leading-edge thin film or multi-junction concentrating PV technology, for which performance and cost have been improving steadily, if not quite in Moore's Law fashion. But this is solar hot water. The thermodynamics and heat-transfer considerations for such an application haven't changed since I was in engineering school, even if the packaging has improved. There's only so much heat to be captured and transferred, especially in a place with an average January temperature of 22°F.

When I'm critical of projects such as this one, it's not out of a sense that all renewable energy is impractical or ineffective. Renewables are earning a place in our energy mix, and they will become even more important in the years ahead. However, because they depend on harnessing diffuse energy sources in real time, rather than disgorging geologically stored energy in the manner of fossil fuels, it matters greatly where we put them. That's why I've been relentless in my criticism of Germany's overly-generous feed-in tariffs, and I see rooftop solar thermal in St. Paul in much the same light. Installing renewable energy devices in locations with poor resources, particularly using taxpayer money--or in this case money borrowed on the taxpayers' behalf--reinforces all the worst stereotypes about renewable energy as a boondoggle. The British have an expression that seems apt here, "horses for courses": run the right horse for each racecourse. If someone wants to bet their own money on rooftop solar in Minnesota, they do so with my blessing. But where my tax money is involved--and perhaps I'm especially sensitive about that this time of the year--I insist that it be done someplace that affords the technology a decent chance of earning an economic return, rather than just feel-good, PR value.

High Coal Prices Bode Well for Renewables

I don't pretend to follow the coal market to any great extent. No one can keep track of everything. However, as I was reading an article in today's Wall St. Journal on the impact of the current Australian flooding on US coal exports, and another in the Financial Times concerning the implications of the timing of the floods for annual coal contract pricing, the dots seemed to connect. It struck me that all other things being equal, higher coal prices ought to be positive for natural gas, the main substitute for coal in electric power generation, while also giving renewable power a shot in the arm. That couldn't come at a better time for US wind power developers and the wind turbine manufacturers that supply them, many of whom are coming off a bad year.

As the Journal points out, the Australian state of Queensland is the leading exporter of the coal used in making steel. With much of Queensland under water, US coal exporters are finding a ready market for their output, with exports expected to surge by 10% this year. Although metallurgical coal represents a different segment of the market than the thermal coal that goes into power plants, the internationally-traded market for the latter has also tightened considerably, with prices well above $100 per ton, and apparently above their 2008 record levels. Nor is this solely the result of the Australian floods. Despite coal having fallen into disfavor in the US, its global fundamentals remain strong, supported by robust economic growth in developing countries that rely on it as a source of cheap and reliable power generation. China's coal demand has nearly tripled since 2000.

The first beneficiary of higher coal prices ought to be natural gas. The competition between gas and coal is complex, depending on the interaction between demand and available generating capacity in regional power markets. However, between 2007 and the most recent 12 months for which EIA data are available, the overall share of gas in US power generation increased from 21.6% to 23.7%--even as total electricity demand declined by about 2%--while coal's share fell from 48.5% to 45.4%. Much of this shift has been facilitated by the effect of expanding natural gas production on the price of gas into the power sector. The total share of non-hydro renewable power also grew during this interval, from 2.5% to 3.8%, even though intermittent sources like wind and solar power are likelier to compete head-to-head with gas-fired generation, rather than coal. So if renewables were taking share from gas, as a result of federal renewable energy incentives and state renewable portfolio standards, then gas was taking even more share from coal.

Today's high coal prices ought to support the continuation of that dynamic. While more expensive coal might not lead directly to the construction of more wind farms, it should certainly push up prices for baseload and mid-load electricity, making gas more competitive in those segments. That ought to boost gas prices, in turn making renewables more competitive with gas. Add in the return of some of the electricity demand that disappeared during the recession and developers of wind and solar projects should see increased interest from utilities in signing long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) for their output. The lag in PPA interest and weak financing environment were big factors in last year's lull in US wind turbine installations, which appear to have been the lowest since at least 2007, at roughly half the record level set the previous year.

That disappointing performance came in spite of the industry's receiving $3.2 billion in Treasury renewable energy cash grants, which were extended with much fanfare for another year as part of the lame duck tax compromise. Anyone expecting the extension of these incentives to lead to a surge of wind turbine installations this year was paying too much attention to their own PR; the best the industry could realistically have hoped for in the extension was to avoid falling off a cliff. However, if coal prices remain strong for the balance of the year and the economy continues on its current pace of recovery or improves on it, then the combination of all these factors just might contribute to a healthy rebound for wind.

Christmas for Renewables

Last night the US House of Representatives passed the compromise tax bill without any amendments and by a healthy margin, though narrower than the 81-19 vote in the Senate on Wednesday. The bill now goes to the President for his signature. The provisions added after the initial negotiations between the White House and Republican leadership delivered a substantial Christmas present to the nation's renewable energy industry, including several key items on the industry's wish list: extension of the ethanol blenders' tax credit at its current rate of $0.45 per gallon; extension of the Treasury Renewable Energy Grants, which provide cash in lieu of investment tax credits; and a retroactive extension of the $1.00 per gallon biodiesel tax credit, which had lapsed at the end of 2009. However, as with many Christmas presents, the bill that will come due next year is also substantial. And the one-year extensions granted to these incentives leaves their long-term fate in the hands of the new Congress, which is widely expected to be more focused on deficit reduction than on stimulus.

This result constitutes a remarkable trifecta. As recently as a week ago it seemed likely that the Treasury Grant program would expire on schedule, and that the ethanol credit, if not actually allowed to expire, would at least be reduced to reflect its redundancy with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires refiners and fuel blenders to add biofuel to gasoline. As for the biodiesel tax credit, it looked like a lost cause all year, having failed on multiple previous attempts to reinstate it. The US ethanol industry even prevailed in having the $0.54 per gallon duty on imported ethanol extended for another year, in order to shield taxpayers from paying incentives to foreign producers and the industry from cheaper competition--though I'm not sure how competitive Brazilian cane ethanol really is these days, with sugar trading at around $0.30/lb ex duty. (As I understand the tradeoff, a gallon of cane ethanol consumes roughly the same raw materials as 10 lb. of cane sugar.)

It's a tribute to the greatly expanded scale of renewable energy that the price tag for the one-year extension of these three incentives is as high as it will be. This year, even with US wind turbine installations running well behind their record pace in 2009, the Treasury has spent $3.9 billion on the grant program for projects installing geothermal, solar, wind and other renewable electricity equipment. With continued strong growth in both solar thermal and photovoltaic projects and even a modest uptick in wind installations, the tab for 2011 could easily break $4 B. (A separate manufacturers tax credit, which had a better claim on creating green jobs here in the US, was not extended.) Meanwhile, with conventional ethanol and biodiesel blended at the mandated rates for next year, they should account for around $5.9B and $0.8 B, respectively. That comes to $10.7 billion for all three programs.

Although the tax compromise has extended the energy policy status quo for another year, change is in the air. With continued, though narrower bi-partisan support, the ethanol industry's argument that its tax credit is still necessary after 32 years--even with a steadily increasing RFS mandate--is losing credibility. Part of the industry would prefer this money to be spent encouraging infrastructure for E85 and other higher-percentage blends that represent ethanol's future growth opportunity, if any. As for the Treasury Grants, a temporary stimulus measure intended to make up for the disappearance of the tax equity market during the financial crisis, the defensibility of treating the investment tax credit on which it is based differently from any other credit in the tax code is waning. This mechanism looks increasingly exposed as the broader category of "tax expenditures" becomes an obvious target for deficit cutters, and the justification for extending it beyond next year would probably vanish if the Congress enacted legislation along the lines of Senator Graham's Clean Energy Standard. The industry should make the most of the current Christmas package, because the odds are against a repetition of it turning up under next year's tree.

Extend or Reform?

As the US Congress returns from its election recess to take up its "lame duck" session, one of many crucial pending items it will likely take up is the so-called "extenders" package: key tax provisions that are due to expire at the end of the year, unless extended by legislative action. From an energy perspective, this includes both the expiring ethanol blenders credit and the Treasury renewable energy grants issued in lieu of the investment tax credit (ITC) for renewables. Both incentives face a much more uncertain reception when the new Congress is sworn in next January, so the lame duck might just be their last gasp.

For the ethanol credit, that is as it should be; if 32 years of federal subsidies haven't made corn ethanol competitive with gasoline--particularly when its use is now mandatory--then nothing will. The situation for the renewable energy grants is more complicated. This is a relatively new benefit that, as I've noted in previous postings, was instituted as part of last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--a.k.a. the stimulus--to substitute for a class of market transactions ("tax equity") that renewable energy developers could no longer access as a result of the financial crisis. Bridging that gap became all but essential for smaller companies without enough taxable earnings to take full advantage of the tax credit on their own, or lacking adequate working capital to afford to wait until their next tax filing to recoup the applicable ITC portion of the cost of a project.

If that situation still obtained, justifying the extension of the grants for another year or two would be easy. In the meantime, however, much has changed. Although not yet functioning at the same pace as before the financial crisis, the tax equity market is recovering. Banks and insurance companies have announced a growing number of tax equity deals in the last few months. This market might revive even faster if it weren't competing with essentially free money from the Treasury.

The other aspect of the situation that has changed is the growing dominance of large players in renewable energy project development, particularly for wind. Contrary to the perception that the Treasury grants mainly benefited small companies, more than half of the $5.4 billion in grants awarded to date went to just three companies, all of them large and profitable enough to have waited until tax time to collect their ITC benefits--though I don't doubt that getting cash up front improved the economics of their projects. For example, EDP Renovaveis, through its Horizon Wind Energy subsidiary, collected around $565 million in grants in the first half of 2010, after receiving "in excess of 685 million dollars" in 2009. Meanwhile, between its 3Q2010 earnings presentation and its 2009 full-year presentation Iberdrola Renovables claimed approximately $983 million in US renewable energy grants. NextEra Energy (the renamed parent company of Florida Power & Light) booked $556 million in grants in the first 9 months of 2010, on top of $100 million last year. All of this was entirely appropriate under the provisions of the stimulus, but it doesn't quite fit the picture of an emergency measure intended to help small, struggling firms.

Some have argued that in any case the grants are merely a matter of timing for the government: paying eligible developers cash now, or paying them the same amount later, via reduced taxes. That would only be true if every project that was eligible for a grant could (or should) proceed without one. Sparing wind farms, solar installations and other projects from the discipline of rigorous review by private investors risks allowing weaker projects to proceed, when they should either be rethought or cancelled. That was an unavoidable risk in early 2009, when the renewable energy industry was in peril of imploding, but overlooking it seems less justifiable today.

The Treasury renewable energy grants were instituted as an extreme step at an unprecedented time. It's hard to imagine that anyone intended them to become a permanent entitlement to replace the existing renewable energy tax credits, which were simultaneously extended through the end of 2012 for wind power and 2013 for most other technologies. However, if this program is to be extended for now, it ought to be reformed to exclude beneficiaries for which it constitutes merely a convenience, rather than a necessity. That would mean either capping the maximum payout for any recipient at something less than $100 million, or imposing a corporate income threshold. I'll be watching this issue with great interest between now and the end of the year.

A Wind Bubble?

New US wind turbine installations have slowed significantly this year, compared to 2009, and the decline is having consequences. Among other fallout, Suzlon is mothballing a four-year-old wind turbine factory in Minnesota and laying off the remaining 110 workers, due to a lack of new orders. While the industry pins most of the blame for the slowdown on insufficiently aggressive federal energy policies, it suddenly occurred to me to wonder whether wind power, like housing, might have been caught up in an investment bubble that has finally popped, somewhat belatedly.

The idea of a wind bubble goes against all conventional wisdom, including the importance of expanding electricity generation from low-emission sources in order to mitigate climate change; the desire to build a vibrant "new energy" economy in the US for energy security and competitive reasons; and the persistent mantra of the green jobs that are supposed to turn the economy around. Yet every bubble must have a compelling, plausible narrative, or it would never take off.

When you examine the charts of annual and quarterly US wind turbine installations on pages 2 and 3 of the "Third Quarter 2010 Market Report" from the American Wind Energy Association, there are at least two ways to look at them. The customary perspective would attribute the dramatic increase in wind installations beginning in 2006, which set records in each of the next three years, to the rapid scaling up of an industry that many envision supplying 20% of US electricity generation within two decades, up from its current level of around 2%. This growth has been supported by a variety of incentives and mandates, including the federal renewable production tax credit (PTC), the stimulus grants, and state renewable portfolio standards. But in this scenario it's hard to explain why installations would have fallen off so much this year, when all of these benefits are still in place, other than the imminent expiration of eligibility for the stimulus grants--which in another year might have been expected to trigger a mad rush for projects to get in under the wire, as we saw in 2008 when the PTC was due to expire at year end. How can we attribute this year's drop in installations to the absence of a policy--either a national renewable electricity standard or a comprehensive climate bill--that we've never had?

So turn this picture around and ask why wind might have been in a bubble, and why that bubble might have only popped now, roughly two years after the other bubbles for stocks, housing and possibly oil prices. Aside from the policies promoting wind and other renewables, which have not changed, wind power developers would have looked at two other indicators: credit and demand. Wind projects are capital intensive, and in the run-up to the financial crisis they benefited from the same kind of cheap and readily available credit as other businesses and homeowners did. At the same time, between 2000 and 2007 US demand for electricity was growing at about 1.3% per year. That might not seem like much, but at the scale of the US power sector, that translated into the need to add around 7,000 MW of new generating capacity each year. If all of that was from wind turbines, the required nameplate capacity would approach 20,000 MW, because of wind's lower average output per MW. Wind was also becoming a preferred technology, despite its intermittency, because coal was falling out of favor for environmental reasons and the price of natural gas, the fuel for the dominant incremental generation technology for the last 20 years, had spiked and become very volatile.

If wind was indeed being carried along either by its own bubble or by the froth from the other bubbles fueling the economy in the middle of the decade, why has it only now run out of steam, rather than popping in 2008 or 2009? After all, electricity demand growth evaporated when the financial crisis and recession hit, and demand has not yet recovered to its 2007 peak. For 2008, perhaps the dash to complete projects before the expected expiration of the PTC--it wasn't extended until October of that year--provides sufficient explanation. As for 2009, the charts show that installations did fall dramatically until the implementation of the Treasury stimulus grant program, which injected $1.7 B into wind projects last year and another $2.9 B this year. Moreover, the stimulus grants were more valuable to wind developers than the PTC they formerly received. That isn't just because developers got the money up front, rather than having to wait until a project started up and produced electricity, but also because the grants were based on the 30% investment tax credit (ITC). Using NREL's simplified calculator for the levelized cost of electricity, at a typical cost of around $2,200/kW of capacity the ITC could be worth at least 20% more than the 2.2¢/kWh PTC. In other words, just as the wind market was collapsing last year, the government increased its incentives and accelerated them into up-front cash. That might have been enough to keep a bubble going for a while longer.

Of course there's no way to know whether this scenario is more accurate than the standard explanation for what has happened to the US wind market this year. Nor does it doom wind power to the doldrums even after the economy resumes growing and creating jobs at a healthier rate, and electricity demand picks up. However, if there is a grain of truth in this view, then it might alter our perspective on providing more aggressive support for the wind industry based on the notion that installations should still be running at 10,000 MW per year or more, as they were in 2009, rather than at the lower rate of around 5,000 MW we see today.

The Incredible Shrinking Energy Bill

When legislation is introduced in the US Congress, most of the discussion typically concerns its specific provisions. Sometimes, as in the case of the "public option" absent from the final healthcare bill, notable omissions vie for attention. However, in the case of this year's greatly-diminished energy bill released this week by Senator Reid (D-NV), most of the controversy seems to be focused on its long list of missing elements, including but not limited to cap & trade, a national renewable energy standard for electricity, and extensions for various expiring renewable energy incentives. That's not to say that what's left doesn't deserve careful scrutiny, particularly provisions affecting offshore oil and gas drilling. But compared to the energy bill that might have been, this draft looks like a pitiful remnant, even at 409 pages.

Although I can appreciate the frustration of those who expected Congress finally to enact cap & trade this year, I find the convoluted tactical arguments and finger-pointing over its failure to reach consensus on this issue to be mostly "inside baseball" rationalization. The clues adequately explaining its omission from the current bill are on display in the bill's title, "The Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010". In other words, what happened to cap & trade this year was the recession and the oil spill. The former made the country less receptive to what is at its core a substantial new tax, while the latter scuttled the best chance for a bi-partisan "grand compromise" based on swapping expanded access to US off-limits oil and gas resources for stronger emissions regulations. Even though the taxation underlying cap & trade is intended to recognize a serious unpriced externality of our energy economy, it still represents a significant redistribution of wealth from energy producers and consumers to the government and the purposes for which the government chooses to spend the proceeds: at best a zero-sum game with frictional losses, and at worst--insert Waxman-Markey--a monumentally-distorting boondoggle.

Then there's the missing national renewable electricity standard (RES), which in clear English is a mandate for utilities to obtain a defined and escalating percentage of the electricity they provide customers from selected renewable sources. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the trade association for the US wind industry, sees this as an absolute necessity for their industry to continue growing and was vexed over its exclusion from the current bill--this in spite of the fact that the wind industry's main federal support, the Production Tax Credit, was previously extended through 2012, along with the valuable option to select an Investment Tax Credit instead. I see two practical explanations for this omission, though it's clear from the efforts of AWEA and other groups that it could still find its way back into the bill. First, the RES is really another tax. Instead of being levied on taxpayers by the government, it would be levied by utilities on ratepayers when the costs of the renewable energy projects or the tradeable Renewable Energy Credits they can buy in lieu of buying green power are passed on to their customers. On a more practical level, with 29 states plus the District of Columbia already having equivalent Renewable Portfolio Standards in place, most of the best US wind and solar resources are already covered by such targets. A national RES might not add a lot more of these energy sources, but it certainly would trigger a scramble for the states with limited renewable resources to line up supplies from elsewhere. That might be good for the renewable energy sector, but it's of questionable benefit to a national economy still struggling to emerge from the recession.

Also absent from this draft are the expiring renewable energy incentives highlighted in yesterday's New York Times editorial. These include the $0.45/gal. ethanol blenders' credit, about which I've blogged extensively, and the Treasury renewable energy grants offering up-front cash for the Investment Tax Credits that would otherwise require waiting for next year's tax return--assuming the recipient company had sufficient taxable income to benefit from the entire amount of the credit. These grants look problematic, as I noted last fall, when reports first surfaced that most of the money paid--approaching $2 billion--had gone to non-US firms. As I discussed at the time, this reflects the reality of a wind energy market in which US firms account for less than half of domestic sales, supported by a thoroughly-globalized supply chain, not unlike many other industries. The arguments pro and con too easily reduce to unappealing sound-bites.

That leaves us with what is currently in the bill, which I have so far only had time to skim. It seems to consist mainly of well-intended but overly-politicized efforts--one section is entitled the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010--to hold BP accountable for the Gulf Coast oil spill and to address the liability for future spills, while trying to reduce the chances of another one. That sounds like motherhood and apple pie at this point, but as always the devil is in the details; implementing some of these details would leave the US with a much smaller offshore oil capability. That might appeal to environmentalists but would be catastrophic for energy consumers, our trade deficit, and US energy security. And why would you charge the Secretary of Energy with issuing a monthly report, starting in September or October, on the economic and employment impact of a deepwater drilling moratorium that is only intended to last through November? Interestingly, the bill would also establish a Congressional version of the President's oil spill commission, this time with specific technical criteria for appointment to this body. Alternative, compromise versions of the bill's oil provisions are already emerging from within Senator Reid's own party, and with a lot of luck we could end up with measures that would actually make offshore drilling safer and more responsible without killing it--and the roughly 30% of domestic oil production it provides.

In addition to its oil spill provisions, the bill also offers some generous tax credits for converting heavy-duty trucking to natural gas, along the lines of the Pickens proposals I discussed last Friday, plus similar help for vehicle electrification and infrastructure, yet more energy efficiency measures (this time focused on homes), and funding for an old government program to buy up land and waterways for parks and nature preserves. All of this is notionally paid for ("PAYGO") by raising the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund fee on all the oil produced and used in the US from $0.08 to $0.45 per barrel, which would directly increase the size of the fund to cover future disasters from $1 billion to $5 billion, while indirectly making all the bill's other provisions appear deficit-neutral. The proposed fee increase has the potential to raise an extra $2.5 billion per year.

It's not clear whether even this slimmed-down bill can garner enough votes to pass in the Senate, let alone do so before the summer adjournment. In any case I'd expect the version that comes up for a final vote--if it does at all--to look somewhat different than this draft. It would almost certainly grow much longer, a malady that has afflicted all major legislation in recent Congresses. Whether it will actually make a meaningfully-positive impact on the serious energy challenges the US faces remains to be seen.

Green Energy Competitiveness

As I was catching up on recent op-eds in the New York Times, I was intrigued by one with the snappy title, "Red China, Green China." As the author, an "executive in residence at Columbia Business School," built his case for why the US is falling behind China in clean energy technology, I was hopeful that he'd offer some sensible recommendations for resolving the problems that have made it harder for the US to compete across a whole range of industries, not just cleantech. Unfortunately, two of his three suggestions were focused on measures to ensure a market for clean technology, and the third on R&D for carbon capture and storage. These are worthy goals, but there wasn't a word about making our manufacturing sector more competitive. That blind spot seems to be shared by the Department of Energy, which according to an article in MIT's Technology Review ran out of money for clean energy manufacturing tax credits, but spent more than $3 billion funding renewable energy projects, many of which are being built with imported hardware. If we're serious about competing in a global clean technology race, we've got our priorities backwards.

I must admit that I'm generally skeptical of anything that smacks of industrial policy. Industry has a mixed record at picking technologies in which to invest to create the industries of the future, but government is often worse. For example, does it really make sense to spend taxpayer money helping companies build factories to make batteries for electric vehicles that consumers haven't yet embraced, and that may only capture a small share of the total car market, similar to today's hybrids? However, this might still prove wiser than shoveling money at the deployment of green energy technologies that either don't need much assistance, or that haven't developed sufficiently to meet the needs of the economy.

It might also help to think about our competitiveness in cleantech from the perspective of the entire economy, rather than the usual practice of looking at it in isolation. From that vantage point, the main thing the economy needs from the energy sector is cheap and reliable supplies of the kinds of energy that we use: liquid fuels for transportation, gas for heat, and electricity for nearly everything else. Reliability was licked a long time ago--except for the occasional blackout--and renewables don't bring much to the table in this regard. For several of the most popular forms, such as wind and solar power, it's their weakest suit. As for cost, the price tag on wind capacity has come down significantly over the last couple of decades, and off-peak wind power is sometimes the cheapest supply available. That's still not true for solar, however, though solar thermal and some novel forms of photovoltaic cells have the potential to get there.

It's also important to recall that while we can employ subsidies or mandates to make renewables appear more competitive locally or to require their use, whether competitive or not, that doesn't alter their impact on the global competitiveness of the US economy. If we are embedding expensive energy at the heart of our manufacturing, services, transportation and distribution networks, then that must make us less competitive--unless everyone else is doing the same thing.

We should also be asking to what extent taxpayers (or ratepayers--often the same people) should subsidize the creation of a market for renewables. After all, the market already exists, and most of it is outside the US. The world apparently added 38,343 MW of new wind generating capacity last year, and only 26% of that was installed in the US. Instead of concluding that we should pay or require companies to install more wind turbines in the US, as Mr. Usher suggests in his op-ed, wouldn't it make more sense to help US wind turbine manufacturers become more competitive in the larger global market? That seems like an obvious conclusion, especially when we consider that US manufacturers accounted for less than half of the wind turbine capacity installed here last year, according to data from the American Wind Energy Association, and that the bulk of the Treasury grants issued under the stimulus have gone to non-US firms to develop wind farms equipped mainly with non-US turbines.

Nor would shifting our focus to supporting the production, rather than installation of cleantech hardware lessen the impact of US policy on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. A wind turbine or solar panel generates emissions-free energy in any country in which it is sited, and it might even reduce more emissions if it were installed in a location where the generation source it backs out is an inefficient coal-fired power plant with minimal pollution controls, rather than an efficient gas turbine, as is often the case here.

Effective policy requires clear thinking. If we want to promote clean energy technology for reasons of job creation and global competitiveness, then shouldn't we focus our efforts where they can have the greatest positive impact on those priorities? Manufacturing is a strong candidate for that point of maximum leverage, while deployment suffers from many drawbacks, including "leakage" and higher costs that get passed on to other sectors of the economy. Whether our best approach to bolstering cleantech manufacturing is to single it out for special treatment or to focus on corporate tax reform and other measures that would help all manufacturing is a subject for another day.