energy subsidies-- in 1999 and 2007

We should never take money from people to give to corporations-- for energy or anything else.

To the extent that there are social costs associated with pollution, then a relevant tax can be an improvement (at least on paper). But subsidies put govt in the position of trying to pick winners as a second-best solution-- rather than dealing with the root of the problem.

In any case, here's some info from tables in a report by the Energy Information Administration within the Dept. of Energy (hat tip: Michael Platner at the American Petroleum Institute who graciously replied to my email query)...

A reduced version of Table ES1 (Table 1 in the Executive Summary) provides "Energy Subsidies and Support by Type and Fuel, FY2007 and FY1999 (in millions of 2007 dollars)"

2007
Coal $932
Refined Coal 2,370
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 2,149
Nuclear 1,267
Renewables 4,875
Electricity (Not fuel specific) 1,235
End Use 2,828
Conservation 926
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $16,581

1999
Coal 567
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 2,077
Nuclear 740
Renewables 1,417
Electricity (Not fuel specific) 314
End Use 2,135
Conservation 191
Federal Electricity Programs 753
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $8,194


Some basic observations:
-Marked increase overall, more than doubling for all forms of energy.
-Oil and gas were up 3%; overall share of subsidies fell from 24% to 12%.
-Coal and nuclear were up 70%.
-All coal (including "refined coal") was up 6x.
-Renewables were up 3.5x; conservation was up 5x.

-I'm not sure this is what one would expect from the stereotype of Bush.
-The continuing emphasis on coal reflects geographical and unfortunate political realities.