Download the PDF Version of this Document
The US government leads the development of the domestic alternative energy industry through use of protectionist economic policy, effectively shielding companies from foreign competition and providing high-risk endeavors with opportunities to establish themselves in the marketplace. Green energy businesses currently receive intense public sector support in the form of subsidies, grants, and other financial incentives as well as from favorable policy conditions. The domestic alternative energy sector has advanced greatly due to the government’s recent actions. Generation of green electricity has doubled from 2006 to 2011 and prices for wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources have fallen. Employment in the green energy sector expanded by nearly 12 percent from 2007 to 2010, a period of time in which many other industries saw no growth. The first nuclear plants to be built in decades are under construction as well. Significant growth and development throughout the green energy sector attracted $48 billion in investment in 2011, 42 percent higher from 2010 and over double 2009 levels (Jenkins 12).
The industry’s recent expansion in economic development results from dramatic increases in government financial aid and policy support. Total federal support for green energy from 2002 to 2008 summed to an estimated $44 billion, compared to a cumulative $150 billion from 2009 to 2014. Also to be included is an additional $51 billion in spending by government programs created or expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as well as other federal policies modified and extended during this period. Federal support for alternative energies is mostly subsidization of market introduction and deployment of green technologies. Nearly seventy-five percent of total federal spending from 2009 to 2014 is committed to alternative energy establishment, while investments in research and development comprise nineteen percent of federal funding. Support for American green manufacturing sums to eight percent (Jenkins 13).
The Department of Energy is responsible for nearly seventy-five percent of all federal energy research and development. Supplementary research is supported by other government agencies including the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has supported and funded many of the grants for advanced batteries, new electric-grid infrastructure, solar panels, and other experimental energy technologies. Alternative energy technologies including solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass power are the dominant recipients of government support from 2009 to 2014 (Jenkins 18-19).
THE MODERN POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Regardless of recent progress, most of the green energy sector in the United States remains dependent on subsidies and other protectionist policies to maintain their position in domestic and world markets. The US government favors these protectionist and interventionist policies for reasons best described by the infant industry argument.
The infant industry argument declares that protectionist policies are necessary for underdeveloped domestic industries to grow in the presence of threatening competition from higher-performing (and often foreign) industries. If inefficient and developing sectors can be temporarily protected from established and more efficient industries, businesses will have a chance to grow and become competitive. “Young industries have not had, and if they face mature [...] competition will never have, the chance to make the long-term adjustments needed for larger scale and greater efficiency in production” (McConnell 689). Firms and industries protected from competition can grow faster and reach higher economies of scale (meaning they are capable of producing more of a good at lower costs) than unprotected firms or industries. Governments enact tariffs to raise the prices of imports; impose quotas to limit the amount of goods and services imported; grant subsidies to industries and firms to help them lower their prices and grow. It is difficult for governments to determine which industries are the weakest and even more difficult to determine which of the weakest are the most likely to mature and achieve economic stability.
In the domestic green energy industry, the US government favors protectionist policies because renewable technologies struggle to compete with other forms of energy (oil and natural gas) and with foreign forms of green technologies. The American government believes the domestic alternative energy industry will be able to grow and compete in the world market, create jobs, bolster the economy, and help establish American energy independence from foreign sources. Though many of the current protectionist policies (subsidies, tax credits, etc.) are posed to soon expire, the US government is unlikely to cut funding and support for an industry that creates American jobs and works towards developing American energy independence. In the long-term, these protectionist policies, because their revocation is improbable, will slow and stifle the development of businesses and innovation, encouraging dependency on government support. As long as a company satisfies the minimum criteria for subsidization and government support, inefficiency and stagnation are allowed to persist because no immediate incentive to perform beyond basic government requirements exists. Short-term motivation for substantial technological development and scientific advancement is disappearing because a (questionably) sustainable business model that relies on government support is convenient, relatively stable, and easy to adopt. Technological development will slow; competitive advantage will be (and already is being) lost; financial strain on the government will grow; US jobs and companies will be threatened by the possibility of government funding disappearing (after becoming too reliant on it to survive without); and America will lose dominance in the alternative energy field. Existing policies do not promote the independent and sustainable development of green companies and energy technologies and leave the sector vulnerable to unpredictable periods of withdrawal and intervention of government support.
REMARKS ON MODERN POLICY & POLICY ALTERATION PROPOSALS
Reforms that support innovation and avert intense government intervention will best enhance long-term American competitiveness and economic security. Government reliance is harmful and sets the artificial renewable energy industry up for failure; the sector will become unable to economically sustain itself without significant intervention from the government. Policies that successfully cultivate innovation and promote industry development create a stable launchpad to move forward toward both government-support independence and long-term competitiveness. To prevent the failure of the established green energy industry, modern US energy policy should focus on supporting innovation and technological development, ensuring long-term progress and security. Manufacturing, entrepreneurship, and education are three main areas that can be focused on when beginning to reform energy policy.
Approximately two-thirds of investment in R&D comes from the manufacturing sector and an equal percentage of America’s scientists and engineers work there (Jenkins 43). US manufacturing plays a strong role in energy development. Technical support programs and public-private research partnerships help manufacturers of energy technologies remain at the vanguard of the industry. As manufacturing is an important part of innovation, policymakers should take advantage of America’s advanced manufacturing sector.
Policymakers also need to develop stronger methods to improve the opportunities and capabilities of green energy start-ups. Policy that minimizes barriers of entry to the industry and rewards successful business establishment accelerates growth by supporting entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation. The US government should seek to increase investment in competitive grants that encourage bottom-up growth.
Sustained American leadership of green energy development will require a highly educated and competitive workforce. Policymakers should bolster investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education from K-12 through post-graduate programs. A new generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators is needed to drive a technological revolution in energy.
Government support need not completely disappear. Its role in establishing any emerging industry is crucial. The nation can best maximize the return on government investment by forcing the efficient allocation of government resources to businesses and organizations. Steadily improving performance-based requirements for government support, competitive incentives for efficient energy/utilities deployment, and challenging government procurement opportunities would greatly benefit the industry, economy, and nation. With or without government aid, alternative energy market entrance and establishment should be the short-term goal while healthy, competitive, sustainable development should be the long-term goal.
The US has the economic and technological resources to address the energy crisis. Politicians see economic opportunities in promoting the new green energy industry, political opportunities in supporting public opinion, and national defense opportunities in establishing energy independence. Support of attacking global climate change also implies support of green energy technology development. Support of green energy development creates jobs, promotes STEM education, opens new scientific frontiers and fields, diversifies our energy portfolio, and improves energy self-sufficiency and stability. Economically, the United States must strain to maintain a delicate balance between resource exhaustion and lack of action (“The Railroad and the Space Program”).
RATIONALE OF POLICY ALTERATIONS
These policies will provide opportunities for companies to demonstrate progress in cost-efficiency and performance, improve domestic technological competitive-advantage, and direct the industry towards independence from excessive government intervention. The proposed policy reformations lead the industry away from government intervention and will allow the sector to establish stability and security. Promoting higher quality education will produce a fresh population more capable of intelligent and innovative problem solving. This will in turn provide the human capital required to create new business and advance technologies. Creation of new businesses and new technologies increases the production possibilities of a national economy, effectively generating new jobs, new fields of research, and new competitive industries. Development of a new, expanding industry invites domestic and foreign investment and participation, creating a new flow of resources and capital that can be used to bolster economic and scientific performance, allowing the cycle of growth to repeat and improve.
Green energy technologies must continue to improve substantially as well. Overall costs remain higher than traditional-energy competitors, and the energy sources that clean technologies are competing against are constantly developing, too. Until technological advancement and decreases in cost can secure independence from continuous government support, the green energy industry will remain endangered by the unpredictable threat of subsidy expiration and political uncertainty. Also, public tolerance for significant government aid and internalization of higher prices for green energy technologies is limited. If technologies advance without corresponding declines in price, government and public tolerance will eventually reach a limit, leading to the failure of the green energy industry as support rapidly wanes. Supporting innovation and technological improvement will ameliorate inefficient alternative energy sources, allowing them to economically compete with traditional energy sources, thus warranting the retreat of government intervention (Jenkins 35).
Extension and preservation of modern policy, with its lackadaisical approach to innovation and long-term competitive development, presents no sustainable strategy forward beyond a cycle of rapid growth and rapid decay and prevents the positive cycle of development and resource movement from happening. Success is not rewarded. Modern policy simply motivates companies to operate at minimum performance. Alternative energies are still too expensive to compete with traditional sources of energy in an open market. The US government serves as a customer of renewable energies and internalizes these costs, providing no incentives for companies to continue technological development to drive down the costs of green energy. As long as the government purchases and protects inefficient technologies without punishing stagnancy, companies will see no short-term reason to move towards open-market competition.

CONCLUSION
American green energy policy is at a pivotal point. Government support for green energy will either continually decline, shrinking the industry and eventually killing it, or support will maintain its current state, suffocating innovation and development yet providing the industry with just enough capital to survive. Policymakers and industry must work together to enact reforms that drive companies from government-aid dependence and direct them to sustainable, long-term growth via technological and scientific advancement. The modern policy-cycle of establishment, expiration, and renewal is not sustainable, yet the complete dismissal and repudiation of subsidies is not a helpful choice either. New energy policies designed to accelerate technologic and scientific improvements, as well as cost reductions, best ensure the most efficient and effective allocation/use of resources and capital.
Alternative energy has been a point of science fiction and inspiration for decades, and each breakthrough, be it a slight improvement in an existing technology or a revolutionary addition to the array of available sources moves us closer to the realization of those dreams. The fascination and excitement, as well as importance of scientific research and technological advancement seems to have gotten lost under heavy and stifling policy, long bureaucratic procedures, political debates, and economic analyzation. Research and development is not an integral part of the alternative energy sector just because it diversifies a portfolio. R&D is the basis of the entire industry; every piece of technology and all the science behind it constructs the foundation of the green energy business and movement. Focus policy back on the actual creation of energy technologies and supporting innovative experiments and endeavors. Do not simply treat symptoms – cure the disease! The alternative energy sector is not stagnating because of funding shortages and lack of capital/resources, it is struggling because funding and capital are not being allocated to the most innovative and productive businesses and organizations.
By encouraging creativity, rewarding discovery, and reinvigorating the excitement of scientific exploration and technological marvel, the US government could propel the green energy industry into new levels of development and technological breakthrough unexperienced within America or around the world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. NPLN. 31 March 2009. Print.
2. “Climate Change.” Issues For Debate In American Foreign Policy. Second ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 2012. 220-49. Print.
3. Jenkins, Jesse, et al. Beyond Boom & Bust: Putting Clean Tech on a Path to Subsidy Independence. Brookings Institute. Brookings Institute. 18 April 2012. Web. 9 June 2012.
4. Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles Of Macroeconomics. Sixth ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western, 2004. Print.
5. McConnell, Campbell R., and Stanley L. Brue. Economics: Principles, Problems, And Policies. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Print.
6. Neal, Homer A., Tobin L. Smith, and Jennifer B. McCormick. Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy In The Twenty-First Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2008. Print.
7. United States. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Beyond Technology: Strengthening Energy Policy Through Social Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2011. Print.
8. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Railroad and the Space Program: An Exploration in Historical Analogy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1965. Print.
