The History of Wind and Solar Subsidies
Segment #532
This is an outrageous scam that has really hurt taxpayers while paying off Dem supporters
A number of green energy companies that have received taxpayer subsidies have subsequently gone out of business or faced severe financial difficulties.1 These companies span various sectors within the green energy industry, including solar, electric vehicles, and energy storage.
Here are some notable examples:
Solar Companies:
Solyndra: Perhaps one of the most well-known cases, Solyndra was a solar panel manufacturer that received a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration and filed for bankruptcy in 2011.2
Abound Solar: This thin-film solar panel manufacturer received a $400 million stimulus loan guarantee and went bankrupt in 2012.
Evergreen Solar: Received $25 million in federal support and later failed.
SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal support and failed.
Amonix: A concentrated photovoltaic solar power systems designer and manufacturer, it received over $20 million in federal tax credits and grants before closing its plant.
SunPower: A long-standing solar industry company that has faced significant financial challenges and filed for bankruptcy in August 2024 (as per a December 2024 article). It had received millions from the Biden administration.
Sunnova: A solar installation company that received a $3 billion partial loan guarantee from the Biden administration.3 A subsidiary of Sunnova filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2025, and the parent company has also faced significant financial struggles, though it has stated it de-obligated much of the loan guarantee.4
Other Solar Companies: A comprehensive list from June 2025 indicates over 100 solar bankruptcies, including companies like Pink Energy, MC Solar, Harness Power, NM Solar Group, ASA (American Solar Advantage), Kuubix Energy, Erus Energy, Infinity Energy, Suntuity Renewables, ADT Solar, Vision Solar, Solcius, Sunworks, Kayo Energy, Titan Solar Power, Lumio Solar, Expert Solar, and Shine Solar.5 Many of these would have benefited from various federal and state incentives.
Electric Vehicle (EV) and Battery Companies:
Fisker Automotive: An electric car manufacturer that received nearly $200 million of a promised $529 million federal loan before going bankrupt.
ECOtality: A company intended to make electric car charging stations, it collapsed after receiving nearly $100 million in federal funds.
Vehicle Production Group (VPG): Went bankrupt after losing $50 million in taxpayer funds; it was supposed to create vans for the disabled running on compressed natural gas.
A123 Systems: A battery manufacturer that received a $279 million federal grant and later declared bankruptcy.
EnerDel (subsidiary of Ener1): Received an $118.5 million grant to build battery plants and later declared bankruptcy.
Li-Cycle: A battery recycling facility that had a $445 million loan approved, was put up for sale, and has filed for bankruptcy (as of July 2025), though no money had been disbursed on that specific loan.
Other Green Energy Companies:
Beacon Power: Received a $43 million loan guarantee to build a facility using flywheels for energy storage and went bankrupt.6
Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP): Received a $98.5 million loan guarantee and incurred significant net losses and debt, facing financial problems.7
Range Fuels: Received $80 million and later failed.
It's important to note that the reasons for these failures are complex and often involve a combination of factors, including intense market competition (especially from foreign manufacturers), technological challenges, high interest rates, changing policy landscapes, and sometimes, mismanagement or questionable business practices. The level of taxpayer subsidy can vary from direct loans and grants to tax credits and loan guarantees, which put taxpayers on the hook if the company defaults.8
US Renewable Energy Subsidies Timeline
Taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy in the United States have a history spanning several decades, though the types and scales of these subsidies have evolved significantly.
Solar Energy:
1978: The first federal tax incentive for solar installations, the Residential Energy Credit, was established by President Jimmy Carter in response to the energy crises of the 1970s. This provided tax credits for homeowners who invested in energy conservation or renewable energy upgrades, including solar thermal systems.
2005: The Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit was created by President George W. Bush, which evolved into the current Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The ITC has been a major driver for solar growth.
Wind Energy:
1970s: Following the oil shortages, the U.S. federal government began supporting research and development for wind energy.
Early 1980s: Thousands of wind turbines were installed in California due to federal and state policies that encouraged renewable energy. The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 increased tax credits for businesses using renewable energy, with a 25% federal tax credit for wind energy.
1992: The Production Tax Credit (PTC) was enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, specifically for wind and other renewable energy sources. This credit provides a tax incentive for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.
Evolution and Current Landscape:
Since these initial efforts, both wind and solar have seen various forms of federal and state support, including:
Tax credits: The PTC and ITC have been extended and modified multiple times.
Grants: Programs like Section 1603 Treasury grants (part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) provided cash grants in lieu of tax credits during economic downturns.
Research and Development (R&D) funding: Government support for R&D has helped reduce the cost of renewable energy technologies.
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS): Many states have mandated that a certain proportion of electricity generation come from renewable sources.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: This act significantly expanded and extended clean energy tax credits, including for wind and solar, making them a cornerstone of current U.S. climate policy.
In summary, taxpayers have been subsidizing wind and solar energy in the U.S. in various forms since the late 1970s, with significant federal tax credits for wind beginning in 1992 and for solar expanding greatly from 2005 onward.
An Objective Look:
Could the wind and solar exist without taxpayer subsidies ?
The question of whether wind and solar can exist without taxpayer subsidies is complex and generates significant debate. Here's a breakdown of the arguments:
Arguments for continued subsidies/challenges without them:
Market distortion: Proponents of subsidies argue that all energy sources, including fossil fuels and nuclear power, have historically received government support. Removing subsidies for renewables abruptly could create an uneven playing field and distort the market against them.
Intermittency and grid challenges: Wind and solar are intermittent sources of power (they only generate when the wind blows or the sun shines). Integrating large amounts of intermittent power into the grid requires significant investment in grid upgrades, energy storage (like batteries), and backup "dispatchable" power sources (like natural gas or nuclear). Subsidies can help offset these additional costs.
Early stage vs. mature: While wind and solar technologies have matured significantly and costs have dropped dramatically, some argue they still benefit from subsidies to drive further innovation, scale, and competitiveness against established fossil fuel industries.
Policy certainty: Long-term tax credits and incentives provide policy certainty for investors, encouraging the massive capital investments required for large-scale renewable projects. Abrupt changes in policy can "strand" existing investments and deter future ones.
Externalities: Subsidies for renewables are often justified by the "externalities" they address, such as reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, which have societal costs not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels.
Arguments against continued subsidies/viability without them:
Maturity of technology: Critics argue that wind and solar are no longer "nascent" industries and have achieved a level of maturity where they should be able to compete on their own merits without ongoing taxpayer support.
Distorting market signals: Subsidies can artificially inflate demand for renewables, potentially leading to oversupply in some areas and making it harder for reliable, baseload power sources to compete.
Cost to taxpayers: The cost of these subsidies to taxpayers can be substantial, with some estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.
Higher electricity prices: Some argue that subsidies, particularly when combined with the need for backup power or grid upgrades, can ultimately lead to higher electricity bills for consumers.
Innovation disincentive: Prolonged subsidies might disincentivize innovation in cost reduction and efficiency, as companies are guaranteed a return regardless.
The Current Landscape:
There's evidence that in some regions and under certain conditions, unsubsidized wind and solar can be cost-competitive with new fossil fuel plants, especially when considering the "levelized cost of energy" (LCOE). However, the specific economic viability depends on factors like:
Resource availability: Areas with strong, consistent wind or abundant sunshine will naturally have lower production costs.
Grid infrastructure: Regions with modern, robust grids are better equipped to handle intermittent renewables.
Cost of capital: Access to affordable financing is crucial for large-scale energy projects.
Market design: Electricity market rules and regulations play a significant role in determining profitability.