The White House 2014 Budget Energy Proposals: Stuck in A Timewarp

• The President's budget proposal would increase taxes on energy in ways that would harm US competitiveness and consumers.
• Presenting the Energy Security Trust as a zero-sum game undermines its potential effectiveness and bi-partisan appeal.

After spending some time going through the White House's proposed budget for 2014-23, several conclusions were inescapable.  First, this administration still hasn't thought through the implications of the energy revolution that's currently unfolding in the US, as a result of the technology to develop our enormous shale oil and gas resources, which grew even larger this week. Not satisfied to see tax revenues and royalties from oil and gas expand as production grows, they miss no opportunity to seek to slice more from the current pie. This failure of imagination extends to the proposed Energy Security Trust Fund, which sounded intriguing when President Obama mentioned it in this year's State of the Union speech, but now appears to be mainly an accounting gimmick based on a zero-sum mentality.  Meanwhile, the budget's proposals for renewable energy and advanced technology vehicles seem largely divorced from our experience of the last several years.

Let's start with the tax changes and quickly dismiss them, because they're mostly a rehash of provisions in the administration's last four budgets and stand no better chance of Congressional approval this side of comprehensive tax reform.  Once again, we see proposals to eliminate about $4 B per year worth of tax treatment for the oil and gas industry, including provisions like the Section 199 deduction enjoyed by all US manufacturers.  Now add proposed changes in the treatment of foreign taxes, which would subject this highly international industry to double taxation on its activities outside the US, under the misappropriated label of "reform."  (True reform would move toward the territorial system used by most advanced economies.) Finally, the President's budget would eliminate both the widely used last-in, first-out (LIFO) and lower-of-cost-or-market (LCM) methods of cost accounting for inventories.  I don't know how much of the $87 B of higher revenue over ten years ascribed to that shift would come from the oil and gas industry, but it would certainly be in the billions, if this weren't all dead on arrival.

That brings me to the Energy Security Trust Fund, described in the State of the Union as a way to employ revenue from oil and gas development to fund R&D on reducing our dependence on oil.  That looked clever, if applied to incremental resource opportunities.  More production would fund more research, in an almost virtuous cycle.  Yet that's not how the idea would be implemented in this budget.  Instead of opening up new areas for drilling, and earmarking the royalties that would generate, the $2 B for the Trust would come mainly from diverting royalties from leases already in the budget, and from further "reform": higher royalties on US production and higher rentals and shorter lease terms to provide "incentives to diligently develop leases."  The latter echoes the "idle leases" canard we've heard since 2008, reflecting a continued misunderstanding of how the industry actually works, along with the real-world factors that often impede faster lease development, such as permitting delays and lawsuits.

So at least this part of the President's "all of the above" energy agenda is reduced to measures that, rather than "encouraging responsible domestic energy production", would make the US a much less attractive place to invest in developing oil and gas resources, and likely reverse our recent successes.  Yet if the new budget treats conventional energy as a slush fund to be raided, renewables and efficiency are treated to what would amount to a reprise of the 2009 stimulus.  I tallied $39.8 B through 2023 for programs such as alternative fuel vehicles, advanced technology vehicle manufacturing, advanced energy equipment manufacturing, bioenergy crop assistance, home energy efficiency retrofit credits, efficient buildings, and the Energy Security Trust Fund.  44% of the total would go to a single measure: making the production tax credit (PTC) for wind and other renewable energy permanent, instead of phasing it out, as even the American Wind Energy Association has suggested.  That's a bad idea for two reasons. 

First, it ignores a growing body of analysis pointing to the need for significant innovation in wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies, rather than continuing to pay project developers indefinitely to deploy the current technologies.  It also exposes a basic logical flaw in the argument for more subsidies: Renewables cannot simultaneously be approaching the point of becoming competitive with conventional energy, as they must if they are to capture significant shares of the energy market--wind accounted for 3.5% of US net electricity generation last year, and solar just 0.1%--while still needing permanent subsidies at rates orders of magnitude higher, on an energy-equivalent basis, than the tax breaks for oil & gas that the administration seeks to end.

After four years in office, it's reasonable to expect an administration to have learned what works and what doesn't. The President and his officials seldom miss an opportunity to brag about the enviable record of oil and gas production growth that has occurred since 2008, yet continue to propose and enact policies that, had they been in place in the previous decade--when the seeds of this growth were actually planted in an environment of rapidly rising energy prices--might well have nipped that growth in the bud. Nor do they seem to have learned much from the track record of business failures that has dogged their efforts in the renewable energy and advanced vehicles space--a record that extends well beyond the over-used example of Solyndra.  Taxing oil and gas much harder won't lead to more US production, nor will handing investors additional billions in taxpayer funds make renewables and electric vehicles competitive, without significant further improvements in the technologies.

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.

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.