Energy subsidy

If governments choose to subsidize one particular source of energy more than another, that choice can impact the environment.[4][5][6] That distinguishing factor informs the below discussion on all energy subsidies of all sources of energy in general.

Main arguments for energy subsidies are:

• Security of supply – subsidies are used to ensure adequate domestic supply by supporting indigenous fuel production in order to reduce import dependency, or supporting overseas activities of national energy companies, or to secure the electricity grid.[7]
• Environmental improvement – subsidies are used to reduce pollution, including different emissions, and to fulfill international obligations (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).
• Economic benefits – subsidies in the form of reduced prices are used to stimulate particular economic sectors or segments of the population, e.g. alleviating poverty and increasing access to energy in developing countries. With regards to fossil fuel prices in particular, Ian Parry, the lead author of a 2021 IMF report said, “Some countries are reluctant to raise energy prices because they think it will harm the poor. But holding down fossil fuel prices is a highly inefficient way to help the poor, because most of the benefits accrue to wealthier households. It would be better to target resources towards helping poor and vulnerable people directly.”[5][6]
• Employment and social benefits – subsidies are used to maintain employment, especially in periods of economic transition.[8] In 2021, with regards to fossil fuel prices in particular, Ipek Gençsü, at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “[Subsidy reform] requires support for vulnerable consumers who will be impacted by rising costs, as well for workers in industries which simply have to shut down. It also requires information campaigns, showing how the savings will be redistributed to society in the form of healthcare, education and other social services. Many people oppose subsidy reform because they see it solely as governments taking something away, and not giving back.”[5]

Main arguments against energy subsidies are:

• Some energy subsidies, such as the fossil fuel subsidies (oil, coal, and gas subsidies), counter the goal of sustainable development, as they may lead to higher consumption and waste, exacerbating the harmful effects of energy use on the environment, create a heavy burden on government finances and weaken the potential for economies to grow, undermine private and public investment in the energy sector.[9] Also, most benefits from fossil fuel subsidies in developing countries go to the richest 20% of households.[10]
• Impede the expansion of distribution networks and the development of more environmentally benign energy technologies, and do not always help the people that need them most.[9]
• The study conducted by the World Bank finds that subsidies to the large commercial businesses that dominate the energy sector are not justified. However, under some circumstances it is reasonable to use subsidies to promote access to energy for the poorest households in developing countries. Energy subsidies should encourage access to the modern energy sources, not to cover operating costs of companies.[11] The study conducted by the World Resources Institute finds that energy subsidies often go to capital intensive projects at the expense of smaller or distributed alternatives.[12]

Types of energy subsidies are below. ("Fossil-fuel subsidies generally take two forms. Production subsidies...[and]...consumption subsidies."[3]):

• Direct financial transfers – grants to suppliers; grants to customers; low-interest or preferential loans to suppliers.
• Preferential tax treatments – rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, supplier levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.
• Trade restrictions – quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.
• Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost – direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.
• Regulation of the energy sector – demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.
• Failure to impose external costs – environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[9]
• Depletion Allowance – allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil, gas, minerals).

Overall, energy subsidies require coordination and integrated implementation, especially in light of globalization and increased interconnectedness of energy policies, thus their regulation at the World Trade Organization is often seen as necessary.[13][14]

Early support of solar power by the United States and Germany greatly helped renewable energy commercialization to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, but may not have helped local manufacturing.[15] Support for nuclear fusion continues, although it is not expected to be commercially viable in time to contribute to countries net zero targets.[16] Energy storage research is also supported.[17]

The degree and impact of fossil fuel subsidies is extensively studied. Because fossil fuels are a leading contributor to climate change through greenhouse gases, fossil fuel subsidies increase emissions and exacerbate climate change.[5][6]

According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[18] Along with this, elimination of these subsidies was welcomed by the G20 nations as a way reduce expenditures during the recession during the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit.[19] In 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[20] According to a 2019 report by the Overseas Development Institute, the G20 governments still provide billions of dollars of support for the production and consumption of fossil fuels, spending at least $63.9 billion per year on coal alone.[21] At the time of the 2020 G20 Summit, a policy brief found, that in general, governments have not enacted policies that sufficiently drew down fossil fuel subsidies since the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit.[22]

According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency, without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, countries will not reach their climate targets.[23]

Removing fossil-fuel subsidies is discussed in the research article "Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050" as a social tipping intervention needed for the take-off and diffusion of fossil-fuel–free energy systems.[24]

• Fossil fuel subsidies
• Corporate welfare
• Building-integrated photovoltaics
• Government subsidies
• Feed-in tariff
• Gasoline subsidies
• Renewable Energy Certificates
• Renewable energy commercialization
• Renewable energy payments
• Stranded assets
• Financial incentives for photovoltaics

• Difiglio, Prof. Carmine; Güray, Bora Şekip; Merdan, Ersin (November 2020). Turkey Energy Outlook. iicec.sabanciuniv.edu (Report). Sabanci University Istanbul International Center for Energy and Climate (IICEC). ISBN 978-605-70031-9-5.

• Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker- a collaboration between the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
• Global Subsidies Initiative - a project of the International Institute for Sustainable Development
• OECD-IEA analysis of fossil fuels and other support - OECD
• European countries spend billions a year on fossil fuel subsidies, survey shows (2017)