Dear Coloradans,
For anyone arguing that the solar industry in Colorado is: being propped up by taxpayers; only benefiting those who could afford it; taking money and jobs away from oil and gas businesses; and should be left to die; here are some real hard numbers:
*These facts are mostly from conservative sources with "liberal" sources added where needed.
From 2006 to 2011 Coloradans paid $178 million in solar incentives. (Article also shows that the cost of panels decreased 50% from 2008 to 2009.)
For comparison's sake we will spend $180 million to build a single power line to the San Luis Valley.
In 2008 an amendment (Amendment 58) was put forward and failed. It would have ended a $300 million annual subsidy to oil and gas companies on their severance taxes alone. This money would have gone to schools, colleges, and national parks, but instead it's propping up the oil and gas industry to the tune of TWICE annually what the entire Solar*Rewards program cost over it's entire 5 year lifetime. (Amendment analysis here). Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible to find comparable figures for the coal industry, but the very nature of their dirty, destructive industry requires that at one time or another we will be subsidizing their profits with our health and our environment (not just the fuzzy little endangered animals either, but our ability to grow food or harvest anything from an acidified ocean) to the tune of billions of dollars.
At the federal level, fossil fuel subsidies from 2002 to 2008 amounted to $72 billion in the form of tax breaks and grants. Externalities such as environmental and health costs are not included in this figure, but would add significantly (~$68bn) to it and would reflect the true cost to taxpayers (also here). During that same period, all renewable energies (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) received $29bn, with $16.8bn going to the roundly discredited ethanol. Graph here.
The Wikipedia article on energy subsidies states:
According to the Energy Information Administration, electricity
production subsidies and support per unit of production (dollars per
megawatt hour, MWh) in the U.S. vary greatly by fuel: electricity from
coal (the fuel that produced the most electricity, 1,946 billion
kilowatt hours, kWh, in FY 2007) got 0.44 dollars/MWh, while
refined coal (72 billion kWh) got 29.81 dollars/MWh,
solar (1 billion kWh) got 24.34 dollars/MWh, and
wind (31 billion kWh) got 23.37 dollars/MWh.
Globally, subsidies for fossil fuels are estimated to be TWELVE TIMES that of renewable energies, and come, again in the form of tax credits, grants, lowered tariffs, etc. And again, this counts neither the environmental, nor the military cost of securing those sources.
As to the argument that only the wealthy can afford solar panels, and that everyone else is subsidizing their luxury, we need only look at the tax breaks that we gave to wealthy people. Over a similar ten year period 2001-2010, the Bush tax cuts have cost this country $2.1 trillion. The recently passed two-year extension of these will cost $860 billion in 'foregone revenue'--and all in the Regan pipe-dream hope that the wealthy will part with their wealth. In fact, solar panels represent a proven trickle-down of upper-middle class wealth to middle and lower class wealth in the form of 5000+ jobs (many of which are semi-skilled) and 400 companies (most of which are small businesses) with the added benefit of being local to Colorado. On top of all of that, this investment in the local solar industry provides long term payback not only in the form of net energy production gain, but also in the raising of the value of homes--for as long as the life of the solar panels (anywhere from 30 to 50 years). This is in stark contrast to the extraction and use of fossil fuels which has an overall devaluing effect on the Colorado economy in the long run in both pollution and the loss of irreplaceable fuels.
As usual, the real debate here has forsworn facts in favor of the argument over whether solar panels are macho enough to qualify as good old fashioned American industry, while its opponents turn a blind eye to the subsidies and bailouts incurred by all of our hallowed, steadfast companies. The fact is that the burgeoning solar industry can't compete with the lobbyists of the other side for their share of the subsidies, and may very well die before they really had a chance to become self sufficient.
At present, prices across the entire energy industry are distorted by government subsidies.
If the state is broke, let's treat all the subsidies equally.
Thanks for reading,
Dana.
