DENVER - As Washington grapples with rebooting the nation's tax code, a new report makes a compelling argument for eliminating tax breaks for the fossil-fuel industry.

Senior scientist Peter Erickson, the study's lead author, said market forces - like current oil prices - would prevent industry from tapping reserves that scientists warn need to stay in the ground to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. However, Erickson said, taxpayer-funded subsidies are tilting the scale in favor of more drilling.

"Just these subsidies that we looked at would bring on about 6 (billion) or 7 billion tons of CO2," he said. "That's about 20 percent of all the oil that we could produce between now and 2050."

The study, by the Stockholm Environment Institute and Earth Track, found that nearly half of all known U.S. oil reserves are dependent on subsidies. Erickson said pollution from those reserves would put a big dent in the nation's carbon budget, the total amount of fuel that can be burned while keeping global temperatures below dangerous levels.

Industry groups have argued that tax breaks are necessary to keep and create jobs.

Researchers found that when oil prices are down, tax breaks prop up returns for investors. Erickson said that when prices go up, the subsidies flow directly into a company's overall profits.

"These dollars are not going to greater wages or to greater jobs," he said. "Most of the value of these subsidies goes directly to corporate profits, over and above what they already need in order to employ people on the ground."

Erickson said tax breaks could be used to create jobs in industries with better long-term prospects. He pointed to this week's announcement by General Motors to switch to 100 percent electric vehicles and China's decision to ban cars that use diesel.

"The way we structure our tax code really reflects our priorities as a country," he said. "Are we going to subsidize things that give us a better future, or are we going to subsidize the old industries that are creating lots of pollution?"

The prospect for cutting subsidies remains uncertain. A separate report by Oil Change International found that in the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas and coal companies invested $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and got nearly $30 billion in federal subsidies, a return of more than 8,000 percent.

The Stockholm report is online at sei-international.org and the OCI report is at priceofoil.org.


get more stories like this via email

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

The New York HEAT Act might not make the final budget.

The bill reduces the state's reliance on natural gas and cuts ratepayer costs by eliminating certain rules. It was in both legislative chambers' one-house budgets, but last-minute scrambling could remove it.

New York League of Conservation Voters Policy Director Patrick McClellan said, aside from people's preference for natural gas, other challenges have made the bill hard to pass.

"I think that there has also been some irresponsible fear-mongering against this bill from some people who oppose it," said McClellan, "basically telling people this means that their natural gas service is going to be taken away from them tomorrow, or it's going to happen without warning, and that's just not the case."

The bill would not mean gas companies could walk away from providing service to new customers, since its effects occur over a longer period.

Rural lawmakers have been skeptical about relying solely on electricity, since people could lose power in bad storms.

If the bill isn't part of the budget, McClellan said the Public Service Commission can do more to require gas utilities factor climate change into their long-term plans.

It will take more than one bill for New York State to reach its climate goals.

McClellan said developing thermal energy networks is one way to build on what the HEAT Act would do, and provide good ways to decarbonize on a larger scale instead of going house by house.

"You're able to get a larger number of buildings and people all at once," McClellan explained. "The other exciting thing about thermal energy networks is, because you are talking fundamentally about piping systems that are underground, it's an extremely similar skill set for people who already work in the fossil fuel industry."

The bill would also eliminate the Hundred Foot Rule. This requires utilities to connect new customers to a gas line for free based on their distance to an existing main gas line, typically 100 feet.

This rule allowed utilities to shift around $1 billion in costs onto about 170,000 ratepayers.

Virginia's General Assembly will consider budget amendments to reenter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin pulled the state out of RGGI at the end of 2023, and now experts said the holes in the budget left by RGGI funding going away are not being filled. Money from the program was used to fund climate mitigation work.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state saw many benefits when it was part of RGGI.

"We were reducing fossil fuel emissions that were being created here in Virginia," Ford pointed out. "There were some clear reductions as a result of our participation. So, we're improving air quality and we are helping expedite that transition to a clean economy."

Virginia residents mostly favored staying in RGGI, but Youngkin has said the reason for pulling out was in his view, it was a "hidden tax" for ratepayers. Ford estimated homeowners paid around $2 a month from their electric bills for RGGI and argued the trade-offs were worth it.

Between 2021 and 2023, RGGI revenue generated around $828 million for Virginia. Ford thinks not rejoining the initiative could slow down Virginia's ability to reach the Clean Economy Act's climate goals, and warned other effects could be costly to communities.

"On the ground in communities around the state, if we don't get back into RGGI, there's a real potential that the work to prepare the Commonwealth, and prepare our communities for climate impacts, could grind to a halt," Ford contended.

Virginia used RGGI money to help towns and cities fund their climate resilience plans. The state used 25-million RGGI dollars to establish a Climate Resilience Fund. There have been 107 "billion-dollar disasters" since 1980 in Virginia, with long-term costs totaling between $20 billion and $50 billion.