The wisdom of ending wind and solar subsidies

The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act signals a major shift in federal energy policy. Among its provisions, the law accelerates the phaseout of tax credits for new wind and solar projects and eliminates long-term subsidies for renewable developers on public land. The law revives a principle that should guide all energy policy: Let the best ideas win on their own merit. Rolling back the subsidies should relieve pressure to use valuable land for solar and wind farms. Consider the direct land use involved in today’s energy sector. Wind projects take up approximately 30,000 acres to produce the same amount of electricity as a 2,500-acre coal plant. Solar is also land-intensive, requiring about 5,000 acres for equivalent output.

- Diana Furchtgott-Roth ard Ryan Strasser, Tribune News Service

However, when government subsidies reduce the use of public land for renewable energy sources, investors are no longer incentivised to look at the tradeoffs of their land-use footprint. Land is a finite and valuable resource. Using it for energy comes at the expense of other potential uses. When developers receive subsidies, they do not have to account for the value of alternative uses for the land. If an energy source requires more land, it should pay for that land. Communities across the country are voicing concerns, objecting to large-scale wind and solar developments that disrupt local land use, strain water resources, and alter rural landscapes. According to Robert Bryce’s Renewable Rejection Database, more than 800 wind and solar projects have been rejected or restricted by local governments in the United States since 2015.