[phrz]

That begs the question: if oil and gas is steeply subsidized, does government support for renewables simply create a level playing field?

[patrick451]

Most of what passes for a "subsidy" in this conversation is writing off normal business expenses, the same way ever business in the country does.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-ga...

[bumby]

Maybe you can help me understand by adding some details and nuance.

The percentage depletion part of the tax code is specific to oil and gas, so it's not quite the same as saying it's what "ever [sic] business in the country does." I agree it's not a subsidy, but it seems like a very specific carve-out for a very specific industry and a specific commodity. It feels to the layperson that it's an odd fact that the percentage depletion can exceed the cost of the well, which makes non-viable wells suddenly viable again. That seems like favoring a specific industry in legislation. A dairy farmer cannot, for example, depreciate "future reserves" of cows milk to make a non-viable farm suddenly profitable, can they? (Understanding that there are true subsidies for farming, that may not be a good analogy).

[vkou]

Being able to dump dangerous waste into the environment for free is not 'writing off a normal business expense'.

[patrick451]

Yes it is. People write off vehicle mileage or depreciation all the time.

[kodah]

At least on the ground, that's what I saw. Turbines work a lot like someone asking to use other types of rights on your property.

Unfortunately, iirc most of the windfarms are owned by a few people, but people are getting paid for wind instead of fracking. I don't think wind and oil are at competition in Texas though. Most oil drilled in Texas isn't destined for Texas, or the US really.

[anecdotal1]

You're not supposed to mention that there is no free market / price discovery with fossil fuels :)