Quote:
Originally Posted by RX792P
The U.S. has collected $161.7 billion in CY2025 tariffs as of Sept. 15 2025. Less than one month of deficit, never mind debt.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX792P
damn right he is...for oil, gas and coal industry.
Maybe not so much for renewables...or for you and me.
https://www.wired.com/story/us-taxpa...eautiful-bill/
Oh yeah...and in energy cost sharing...we private consumers get to share the cost of new electricity and transmission infrastructure with the data center owners, even though the new demand is strictly the data centers.
....still looking for that $1.99/gallon gas... |
It used to be kind of fun batting down COVID misinformation posted by texassapper. He knew the subject and he wasn't repetitive. On the other hand fact checking you is becoming tiresome. You've probably posted the $161.7 billion figure for tariffs or a variation thereof more than 5 times, and I've explained why it's misleading at least twice. Americans for Tax Fairness and Oilchange.org (the source the ignorant Wired writer used to construct his story) are about as biased as you can get.
I asked ChatGPT how much state, local and federal taxes upstream oil companies pay and it came back with $50 to $100 billion per year. That includes federal royalties. For renewable energy companies, it came up with $7 to $12 billion.
The MSM uses a very different definition of what's a subsidy for fossil fuel versus green energy. If Biden increases the royalty rate on oil and gas from 12.5% to 16.67%, and then Trump drops it from 16.67% back to 12.5%, then the decrease is a subsidy in the eyes of the MSM and Oilchange.org. That's even though competitive leases offered at 12.5% will attract larger up front bonus payments than leases offered at 16.67%. The federal government may actually make more money with the 12.5% royalty, if for example the price of oil drops or the oil companies don't commercialize oil and gas on the leases.
Anyway using an apples to apples comparison, subsidies for oil and gas after giving effect to the Big Beautiful Bill are in the range of $4 billion to $6 billion for 2025. That's a small fraction of what the oil companies pay in taxes and federal royalties. And for renewables in recent years subsidies have been $40 to $70 billion! Compare that to the $7 billion to $12 billion estimated tax take.
Oilchange.org breaks down the purported $4 billion in additional subsidies from the Big Beautiful Bill here:
https://oilchange.org/wp-content/upl...mate-chaos.pdf
The largest component is the expansion of the 45Q tax credit for enhanced oil recovery. This is a modification of some of the corporate welfare YOUR party cooked up and incorporated into Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Yes, it should be done away with. It should never have been introduced. Oil companies and others receive ridiculously high tax credits for sucking CO2 out of the air or isolating it from flu gas and injecting it into the ground. This is more pernicious than it sounds because the tax credit is so high that most or all of the value in some projects, in particular direct air capture, is from the tax credits. The projects would lose money big time if not for the credits, which can be sold at a discount to their actual value to any Tom, Dick or Harry, kind of like stolen bitcoin or mafia money before it's laundered.
The change the Republicans made this year was to increase the credit for projects that inject the CO2 into depleted oil reservoirs so it's the same as what companies were receiving injecting CO2 obtained by direct air capture and injected into aquifers and the like. Actually, economically, it makes a lot more sense to inject the CO2 into the oil and gas reservoirs than into aquifers. The pressure may be lower in the depleted oil reservoirs, and the ultimate recovery from the field probably will increase as a result of the CO2 injection. So while the Republicans are responsible for continuing this boondoggle, they're doing in a way that makes marginally more sense.
The second item on OilChange.org's list is reduction of royalty revenue, which results in a purported subsidy of $1.2 billion per year. I already explained why calling this a subsidy is ridiculous.
The third item is foregone revenue from delay of implementation of fines for methane emissions. How the f*** is delaying a penalty a subsidy?
The fourth item at $359 million per year is expansion of MLP's to include carbon capture, hydrogen storage and other qualifying activities. Now that the corporate tax rate is 21%, I don't see how this is very consequential, and indeed $359 million is a drop in the bucket.
And so on.
Finally, as to the data centers, what leads you to believe that in the medium term and long term, which is what matter, the $/kw hour paid by other consumers won't go down as a result of capacity increases for data centers? More capacity means more economies of scale. And the capacity being added is built with newer technology. Data centers typically consume power around a constant level, which lowers costs per kw hr for utilities. And data centers often pay for their own substations, etc., which can improve the grid at no cost to other customers.
Checking in on the Trump economy just before beddy-by time
