The Obama administration is such a strong supporter of “clean energy” that it has moved to kill Cape Wind, the controversial offshore wind farm the Kennedy family has been fighting for 10 years. Read the rest of this entry »
Although this blog doesn’t care much for Bjorn Lomborg’s alarmist views of climate science, he recently had some trenchant observations about China and clean energy. Read the rest of this entry »
Here are the rentseekers’ responses to the Bingman-Murkowski request for comments concerning a CES:
- American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
- Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
- American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Large industrial users of electricity oppose a CES mandate for wind and solar power. In comments to the Senate Energy Committee, the Electricity Consumers Resource Council expressed concern that a CES could:
- Increase electricity costs by tens of billions of dollars because of increases in generation, transmission, storage and back-up costs;
- Jeopardize the reliability of the power system through an unmanageable increase in intermittent power;
ELCON’s bottom line is that,
If we fail to recognize the significant cost impact, the result will be to put domestic manufacturers at a distinct disadvantage to their growing international competition which in many cases is based in the less developed world. These competitors are often protected from similar policies because they are considered an asset supporting government policies favoring the development of manufacturing technologies which provide significant employment opportunities. ELCON members urge that those developing a CES keep in mind the precarious situation of American manufacturers and not disadvantage them vis a vis their international competitors.
Since a CES will produce zero environmental benefits, why should America take the economic pain for no gain?
Given the dim legislative prospects for a CES this year, extension of of tax incentives is about the best the “clean energy” industry can expect this year. According to the Clean Energy Report,
“Senators are under pressure to move legislation that would extend certain tax credits, such as the so-called 1603 Treasury grant program for wind and solar, which are set to expire at the end of 2011. Senators may also offer tax credits for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, and incentives for heavy- and medium-duty electrification and recharging stations that expired during last Congress or are set to expire this year, sources say.”
The GOP could end the “clean energy” industry’s role in the misguided war on carbon in 2011 by holding these subsidies hostage.
As reported by Bloomberg:
Wind and solar power may compete with fossil fuels, without aid from government subsidies, within the next decade, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. “It’s not going to be three decades,” Chu said today at an event in Washington sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trust… China and other nations are promoting policies to support cleaner energy. “This is a race,” he said.
If “clean energy” is a race, it is one to the bottom — and we should let the Chinese “win” that one.
David Garman, a former Bush Energy Department politico-cum-lobbyist, met with Obama Department of Energy staff to recommend that ratepayers be charged a tax to fund clean energy research and development. The meeting is summarized in this memo.
Garman told the Clean Energy Report that,
“… a charge could be designed in a variety of ways — for example, it could be based on a percentage of the electricity bill attributed to coal generation. With a charge of 50 cents a month on the average electricity bill, a fund of $2 billion a year could be accumulated and, with so many ratepayers, would have negligible individual impacts, although for large industrial energy users it ‘would be a big deal’ and raise competitiveness issues. Nevertheless, some way to augment appropriated funds needs to be found, Garman says, otherwise CCS projects ‘won’t get done.'”
Garman, if you haven’t already figured this out, is a lobbyist for CCS and climate change legislation. You can search the Senate Lobbying Disclosure database for yourself.
Garman also lobbies for the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) — a Washington D.C. racket founded by Senate fossils who steered the country to its present disastrous course. Garman’s memo indicates that he wants the Obama DOE to consider financial support for the BPC:
The [DOE] should consider if there is a role for a group such as the Bipartisan Policy Center which has an impressive track record in advancing the public debate on issues such as energy, health care, transportation policy, and perhaps most notably, addressing our national debt and budget deficits.”
BTW, shame on the Clean Energy Report for not reporting about Garman and his angle.