Tax Justice Digest stories about Energy
It's true that the gas tax is a regressive tax, requiring low-income drivers to pay more of their income in tax than wealthier drivers. But the gas tax is different from most other taxes in ways that minimize the importance of tax fairness. Most notably, the gas tax can serve to help reduce demand in a market where many would agree demand is far too high. With gasoline in limited supply (Paul Krugman explains that the supply is actually fixed for the next few months), environmental concerns continuing to mount, and traffic congestion remaining a problem, any effect the gas tax has on reducing demand should be a welcome one.
Senator Clinton would replace the money in the Highway Trust Fund by enacting a new windfall profits tax for oil companies. With a White House opposed to anything that can conceivably be called a tax increase and a Senate that has trouble paying its bills, it's hard to imagine this part of the proposal being enacted during this Congress. President Bush said he was open to considering the idea of a gas tax holiday, but there appears to be no chance he would ever support a windfall tax on oil companies to pay for it.
On Thursday, the Senate failed by one vote to agree to consider legislation that would shift tax breaks away from oil and gas companies and towards more sustainable forms of energy. The move to invoke cloture on the energy bill received only 59 votes, one short of the 60-vote threshold needed to consider the bill. The sticking point for many Republicans is the $21 billion tax title, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) then removed from the bill to ensure passage. The bill, (H.R. 6) minus the tax title passed the Senate, 86-8, the same day.
The remaining provisions of the energy bill would increase fuel efficiency standards for automobile manufacturers (known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and would require gasoline to contain a certain level of biofuels by 2022.
The tax provisions stripped from the bill include an extension and expansion of the renewable energy production tax credit (known as the Section 45 credit), which is a tax subsidy for deriving energy from wind, geothermal sources, hydropower or several other specific renewable sources. This provision would have cost $6.2 billion over ten years. Other provisions would encourage cleaner coal facilities, greener commercial buildings, electronic energy meters and the use of electricity from wall sockets to power automobiles, among many other advances.
The tax title included revenue-raising provisions to offset these costs, which the President and the Republicans disingenuously claim are tax increases that would hurt the economy.
The biggest offset would have barred the big oil and gas companies from using the deduction for domestic manufacturing (often called the Section 199 deduction). A legislative slight-of-hand in the tax break law enacted in 2004 redefined manufactured goods to include oil and gas so that energy companies could enjoy this tax break. (The deduction is 6% of the cost of domestic manufacturing activities this year, rising to 9% in 2010.) This tax break should arguably have never applied to oil and gas in the first place.
Other offsets included new basis reporting requirements for securities transactions to prevent avoidance of taxes on capital gains, restrictions on foreign tax credits for oil and gas, and several other provisions.
As we've argued here before, experts can certainly debate whether or not energy policy should be implemented through the tax code, but perhaps the more important point is that Congress has already showered oil and gas companies with numerous tax breaks that CTJ has criticized in the past. The tax title that has been dropped from the energy bill would have merely shifted some tax breaks away from oil and gas towards more sustainable types of energy.
On Thursday, the Senate fell three votes short of the 60 needed to end debate and pass a $32 billion dollar energy tax package that was intended to be attached to a broader energy bill. The broader bill includes changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, fuel price gouging, ethanol and other related matters, and was passed with 65 votes. The tax package, which the Finance Committee approved on Tuesday, could be revived in the days to come. Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up its own energy tax package on Wednesday which, at $16 billion, costs about half as much as the Senate's version. The two packages create and expand several tax breaks that purportedly encourage energy efficiency and the production of energy from alternative sources and both include revenue-raising provisions to offset the costs.
Experts can certainly debate whether or not energy policy should be implemented through the tax code, but perhaps the more important point is that Congress has already showered oil and gas companies with numerous tax breaks that CTJ has criticized in the past. The energy tax legislation being debated now would generally shift some tax breaks away from oil and gas towards more sustainable types of energy. Lobbyists from the oil and automotive industries convinced many Senators that the tax package would "raise taxes" on oil and gas companies, but most of the provisions would really close loopholes for these companies that have no justification.
Tax Breaks to Encourage Energy Efficiency and Independence
According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest item in both versions is the expansion of the tax credit for electricity production from renewable resources, which costs $6.6 billion over ten years in the House version and $10.1 billion over ten years in the Senate version. This credit is currently available for the production of wind, geothermal, solar and many other types of energy. The Senate version would allow more energy sources to qualify (such as tidal energy) and would extend the credit for a longer period of time.
Some noteworthy provisions appear in the Senate package but not in the House package. One is a $3.8 billion expansion and modification of the tax credit for coal gasification, a process by which coal is broken down into a gas which can be burned. The CO2 that results can be more easily separated from the gas and stored, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. Groups like Environmental Defense support coal gasification, particularly since the use of coal in the US and the world is projected to rise a great deal over the next few decades.
Other provisions that appear only in the Senate version include about $1.5 billion in tax breaks for "carbon mitigation," including a credit for capturing and storing CO2 resulting from industrial processes, at a cost of just over $1 billion. The Senate extends certain credits for longer periods and in some cases offers larger credits, such as a tax credit for production of cellulosic alcohol, which is basically alcohol produced from parts of plants that are not edible, at a cost of $828 million over ten years in the Senate version but only $24 million in the House version.
Both versions include incentives to purchase hybrid vehicles, including a provision for "plug-in" hybrids, which are said to use even less gasoline than the hybrids currently in use because plug-in hybrids can be charged up from an electrical socket. This provision would cost $706 million in the Senate version and $1.2 billion in the House version. Both versions also include several billions of dollars to encourage the use of energy-efficient buildings and energy-saving devices and appliances.
Revenue-Raising Provisions
One of the offsets included in both tax packages is the elimination of the "section 199" domestic manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas companies. (The House included the elimination of this deduction in the energy bill it passed earlier this year.) The deduction was made available to energy companies in 2004 when Congress redefined manufactured goods to include oil and gas. (The deduction is 6% of the cost of domestic manufacturing activities this year, rising to 9% in 2010.) The House version would eliminate this deduction for all oil and gas companies and raise $11.4 billion over ten years. The Senate would eliminate it only for large oil and gas companies and would raise $9.4 billion over ten years.
The Senate package has more offsets since it includes more tax breaks. Among them are a 13 percent tax on the production of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, projected to raise $10.6 billion over ten years. While criticism of this provision from some Republican Senators was fierce, it is designed merely to obtain payments from those oil companies who are drilling on public lands without paying royalties, which can be used as a credit against the tax. Other offsets include restrictions on foreign tax credits for oil and gas and an increase and extension of the excise tax on oil for the Oil Spill Liability Fund, among other provisions.
Amendment Adopted Includes Controversial Offsets
While marking up the Senate tax package, the Finance Committee adopted an amendment introduced by Ron Wyden (D-OR) that would fund the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which provides what are often called "county payments," at a cost of $3.6 billion. The amendment included two revenue-raising provisions to fully offset this cost. One takes aim at tax shelters known as sale-in, lease-out (SILOs). These arrangements, which can involve an American bank buying something like a subway or sewer system in another country and "leasing" it back to the foreign government for tax advantages, were already banned starting in 2004 but that ban would retroactively apply to deals made before 2004 under this provision. Some members of Congress oppose any such retroactive changes in tax laws, but the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year tried to include this change in the tax provisions that were attached to the minimum wage legislation.
The U.S. Senate began debate this week on H.R. 6, a bipartisan energy bill that promises to protect consumers from price gouging, strengthen the economy, increase energy efficiency and develop clean alternative fuels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke Monday morning at the Center for American Progress about America's "oil addiction" that has resulted in tax breaks and record profits for the oil-industry while low-income consumers still face higher energy prices.
Senator Reid claims that too few resources are being devoted to the development of clean, efficient, and renewable alternative fuels. The multi-part bill would set new green standards for federal buildings, raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new cars and trucks to 35 mpg by 2020, reduce crude oil consumption by 10 percent over 15 years by producing renewable fuels, and set new energy efficiency standards. It would also punish companies that "price gouge," provide research funds for carbon sequestration programs, and seek to improve relations with worldwide energy partners.
Debate has been moving swiftly but not without protests from the auto, coal and oil industries who stand to be the hardest hit by reductions in subsidies and the higher CAFE standards. Questions are being raised as to whether or not the bill can garner enough support and still create policies that will prevent consumers from seeing energy prices rise.
As the week ended, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) released a proposed $13.7 billion package of tax incentives to go along with the energy bill aimed at improving energy efficiency and expanding production. More than $9 billion of the package's cost would be offset by eliminating the manufacturing tax deduction for major oil producers. Baucus expects that the committee markup next week will add another $10-12 billion in additional amendments. Reid hopes to finish the bill by next week.
Several bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. At a recent forum on the topic hosted by the Urban Institute in Washington, DC, debate over the regulation of greenhouse gases focused on the advantages and disadvantages of implementing either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, both of which are market-based approaches to reducing global warming.
A carbon tax is straightforward in that it requires firms to pay a fixed amount for each unit of carbon emissions they produce. This increases the cost of fuels for the producers and is passed down in the form of higher prices to consumers. Both producers and consumers then have the incentive to either consume less, consume more efficiently or find alternate fuels. Firms that use these alternatives avoid paying the tax and reduce their emissions. Firms that don't use the alternatives pay the tax. As with any tax on consumption, a carbon tax burdens people of low incomes disproportionately, making this tax regressive. The tax revenue generated could go toward compensating those impacted most harshly, although it might be difficult to target such compensation towards those affected.
A cap-and-trade program works by setting a limit on total emissions and then distributing allowances for firms to pollute corresponding to that limit. The firms can then trade these allowances, the idea being that this will lead to a more efficient outcome. Firms that can reduce emissions cheaply will do so, and then sell excess permits to firms for which it is costly to reduce emissions. As with a carbon tax, the added cost to firms of buying allowances would cause the price of fuels to increase. This would force consumers to alter their behavior, and also place a heavy burden on low-income families, making this option just as regressive as a tax. However, the government could initially auction off allowances, which would be extremely valuable, and use the revenues to try to target those hardest hit by increased prices.
The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures held hearings last week on further steps the House could take, and members spoke of several possible measures. One that came up frequently was extending the Section 45 Renewable Electricity Production Credit, which is a credit for the production of energy from various alternative sources.
Last week Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced a bill (S. 1238) with several energy tax provisions. An accounting method that reduces taxes for oil companies ("last in, first out" or LIFO) would be curtailed. The faster write-off for exploring for oil and gas would be repealed, as in the House bill, as would several loopholes allowing companies to escape paying royalties when they drill on public lands. The bill would also repeal another tax break criticized by CTJ, the foreign tax credit for energy companies that aren't really paying foreign taxes. The revenue raised from these provisions would go towards research on ethanol and biodiesel and towards alternative energy infrastructure.
Presidential candidate and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announced his support this week for a tax on carbon emissions as a way to reduce global warming. Other candidates have avoided any talk of raising taxes as a way to combat CO2 emissions and most have avoided talk of tax increases altogether. But even conservative economists have been publicly promoting the carbon tax for some time now.
While most Democrats in Congress have been considering several "cap-and-trade" programs that would limit the overall amount of CO2 emissions and allow companies to trade rights to pollute amongst themselves, several economists and even business leaders have lately argued that a carbon tax would be less burdensome. Part of the reason is the great bureaucracy required to measure emissions from individual plants under a cap-and-trade system. Another reason is that a carbon tax would create more certainty about how much it costs to pollute.
Some environmental groups, however, worry that a carbon tax sets no overall limit on pollution the way a cap-and-trade system would. The challenge for proponents of the carbon tax is to design it in a progressive way. Otherwise, it would be passed onto consumers and therefore act much like a consumption tax, which is always regressive. Working families probably don't use less gasoline than rich families, but if they pay the same carbon taxes (indirectly) that means the carbon tax will take a greater percentage of a working family's income. A progressive version might have to somehow target offsetting tax cuts towards those hardest hit by the carbon tax.
