United States

Effect of subsidies to fossil fuel companies on United States crude oil production

Countries in the G20 have committed to phase out ‘inefficient’ fossil fuel subsidies. However, there remains a limited understanding of how subsidy removal would affect fossil fuel investment returns and production, particularly for subsidies to producers. Here, we assess the impact of major federal and state subsidies on US crude oil producers.

Do Coal and Nuclear Generation Deserve Above - Market Prices ?

All 14 current rationales for mandating or subsidizing uncompetitive coal and nuclear plants lack technical merit or would favor competitors instead. Subsidizing distressed nuclear plants typically saves less carbon than closing them and reinvesting their saved operating cost into severalfold-cheaper efficiency. Carbon prices, not plant subsidies, best recognize decarbonizing attributes.

Subsidies to conventional energy in the PJM region: An initial listing

PJM Interconnection is the regional transmission operator (RTO) serving more than 60 million customers in 13 states and the District of Columbia, mostly in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.  Incumbent base load generators have complained that subsidies to renewable resources have been cutting their ability to win capacity market auctions, stripping them of revenue.  They have been proposing adjustment factors that would improve their competitive position by adjusting bid prices to exclude the subsidy. 

Unequal Exchange: How Taxpayers Shoulder the Burden of Fossil Fuel Development on Federal Lands

The federal government of the United States remains custodian and manager of a large amount of fossil fuels on public lands.  While sales of minerals do bring in some revenue to the government, there are many elements of federal management that result in artificially low realized revenues for taxpayers or subsidize extractive activities.  Key findings of this review include:

Too Big to Ignore: Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Master Limited Partnerships

Special legislative provisions have allowed a select group of industries to operate as tax-favored publicly-traded partnerships (PTPs) more than 25 years after Congress stripped eligibility for most sectors of the economy. These firms, organized as Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), are heavily concentrated in the oil and gas industry. Selective access to valuable tax preferences distorts energy markets and creates impediments for substitute, non-fossil, forms of power, heating, and transport fuels.

Inventory of estimated budgetary support and tax expenditures for fossil fuels

For the first time ever, the OECD has compiled an inventory of over 250 measures that support fossil-fuel production or use in 24 industrialised countries, which together account for 95% of energy supply in OECD countries. Those measures had an overall value of about USD 45-75 billion a year between 2005 and 2010.  In absolute terms, nearly half of this amount benefitted petroleum products (i.e.

Tax and royalty-related subsidies to oil extraction from high cost fields: A study of Brazil, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom and the United States

Discussion of fiscal regimes for oil extraction have traditionally focused on the total charges of all sorts levied on a project (the "total government take"), and whether their level and structure optimised oil production and public revenues.  Yet national, or global, policies to meet energy and environmental goals need to maximize benefits across complex energy and economic systems, not just specific projects.  This study argues that there is a need to reframe the debate on how fiscal regimes - notably tax and royalties - to fossil-fuel extraction are evaluated.  It further argues that su

Subscribe to United States