Even the IMF recognizes that damage to the environment, and related health-care spending, constitutes energy subsidies. This proves that they should be accounted for in cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulations. However, the IMF solution appears to be taxing the consumer, rather than producers-utilities. If taxation were at the utility level there would be incentive to offer alternatives. If governments are going to tax the consumer, then there need to be viable alternatives in place, whether at the utility, community, or household level.
“IMF Survey : Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies
IMF Survey. July 17, 2015
* Energy subsidies sizeable worldwide and projected to stay high
* China top subsidizer in dollar terms, Ukraine in percent of GDP, and Qatar in per capita terms
* Countries can reap fiscal and environment gains by reforming energy subsidies
Energy subsidies are projected at US $5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption…
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost….
The reform gains are large
Eliminating global energy subsidies could reduce deaths related to fossil-fuel emissions by over 50 percent and fossil-fuel related carbon emissions by over 20 percent. The revenue gain from eliminating energy subsidies is projected to be US $2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP) in 2015. This offers huge potential for reducing other taxes or strengthening revenue bases in countries where large informal sector constrains broader fiscal instruments.
Advanced economies would gain enough revenue to halve corporate income tax or cover one quarter of public health spending (Chart 2). In emerging economies, the revenue is worth double their corporate income tax revenues or public health spending. In low-income countries, it is about one and half times corporate income tax revenues or public health spending….
Energy subsidy reform can also contribute to carbon emissions reduction and help countries make pledges ahead of the Paris 2015 UN climate conference…
Low international energy prices have opened a window of opportunity for countries to move towards more efficient pricing of energy. However, a gradual approach may be desirable, given the size of the required price increases and uncertainty around the optimum level of taxes on negative externalities. This would allow time to further refine estimates, for households and firms to adjust, and for governments to implement measures to protect the poor.” Emphasis our own. See original here in its entirety and more here: http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
See the entire study here: http://www.imf.org/~/media/Websites/IMF/Imported/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp15105pdf.ashx
Country level information http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/subsidies/data/codata.xlsx
“There are many forms of government subsidization of the nuclear power industry. These subsidies include the sponsorship of research, enrichment of fuels, and disposal of nuclear wastes… the one government-furnished privilege that the nuclear industry could find it hardest to live without is the Price-Anderson Act’s limitation on a nuclear power plant’s liability in case of an accident…“ (CATO POLICY ANALYSIS NO. 36, “The Price-Anderson Act: Is It Consistent with a Sound Energy Policy?” By Barry Brownstein, April 17, 1984 ) https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/socialist-nuclear-power-i-e-unfair-nuclear-subsidies-corporate-welfare-in-america-and-elsewhere/
“Tell EPA: Take nuclear support out of proposed carbon rule”
The EU points out that “A notable example for a production subsidy in the form of a tax break is the so-called excess of percentage over cost depletion option. This allows natural minerals companies to deduct a favourably high percentage of their gross income (as an expense) to account for depletion in their reserves (IEA et al., 2010). The state also supports R&D activities related to fossil fuel production. Such support had a large part to play in developing technologies to exploit unconventional natural gas reserves, especially in the initial technological steps that eventually led to the shale gas boom in America. A specific example for a fossil fuel consumption subsidy in the US is the exemption of farmers from excise duties on transport fuels…” See “Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies” By Ambrus Bárány and Dalia Grigonytė http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_briefs/2015/pdf/eb40_en.pdf
See people’s comments at link. Cost Considerations in Rulemaking Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107 Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule Comment Deadline August 13th, 11.59 pm Eastern Time: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107