I am not an expert in the field, but my understanding is that the us is at, or at least very close to, grid parity for renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. From what I can tell it also appears as if the government is subsidizing coal and natural gas production more then they are renewable resources.
As such I'm curious what would happen if all energy subsidies, for both renewable and non-renewable sources, went away today. Would the net result be to push renewable energy sources closer to grid parity, as they now compete on more equal footing instead of having coal getting strong subsidies? In theory that would mean decrease government spending while simultaneously moving a step closer towards greener energy to make both political parties happy. I'm sure I'm over simplifying a complex topic, but I'm trying to determine what issues I'm glossing over that may complicate such a policy.'
I'm aware that grid parity doesn't mean we immediately switch to green energy, as the existing non-renewable infrastructure means that for now non-renewable energy sources would be cheaper to produce; but encouraging grid parity would help ensure that in the future we would see production of more green energy sources and thus move us towards a greener future, so changes to make green energy more competitive would still prove beneficial in the long run.
I know that such a policy change is unlikely to happen given the powerful lobbying the goal/gas companies have, and there would be real concern from coal miners about loosing jobs (though that begs the question of rather increasing green energy sources at the expense of coal/natural gas is a net increase or decrease of jobs in the energy sector?). However, other then those significant factors are there other reasons the government couldn't phase out all subsidies to help encourage greener energy, or possible complications that would arise?