News - American Energy Alliance

ThinkProgress Makes the Case for Coal

December 11, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

In a recent ThinkProgress blog post, Joe Romm makes a stunning admission—he believes that zero carbon sources such as wind and solar will never be “significantly cheaper than existing coal power” in “a timescale that could matter to humanity.” That’s why the point is to increase the cost of using coal, natural gas, and other carbon dioxide-emitting sources through taxes or regulation.

Romm’s comments come as a critique of Google engineers who figured out that their RE<C project (a project to make renewable energy less expensive than coal) “simply won’t work.” Here’s an excerpt from Romm’s piece:

Google’s goal was aimed at developing renewable sources that were simultaneously cheaper than existing coal-fired power plants — and dispatchable, too! Although Google’s RE<C website and 2007 news release don’t clarify the matter, the Google engineers say they were focused on research into “how a new energy technology could perform … a lot more cheaply than an existing coal-fired power plant already does.”

I point this out mainly because the goal of getting a new carbon-free energy technology to market at a price significantly cheaper than existing coal power … is widely believed to be impossible in a timescale that would matter to humanity. [Romm’s emphasis] Back in the mid-1990s, I helped run what was then the largest R&D program in the world for developing carbon-free energy technology at the Department of Energy. I never met anyone there or in the past two decades with any actual R&D experience who ever thought such a goal was either plausible — or necessary.

After all, if you have already bought and paid for a coal plant (or indeed any fossil fuel plant), the cost of operation is mostly the cost of extracting and delivering fossil fuels. How precisely could some new carbon-free power plant built entirely from scratch possibly be as cheap as that, let alone be “vastly lower” in cost (let alone be both cheaper and dispatchable)? Answer: It probably couldn’t — certainly not in the short 4-year window Google gave the effort.

That is why pretty much every serious technology and policy analyst in the world has written that if your goal is to avoid catastrophic warming, you need some price on carbon or some regulatory policy that helps speed the shut down of coal plants before the end of their theoretical lifetime. [emphasis added]

In other words, the goal of promoting and subsidizing green energy is not to make it cost-effective–Romm believes it will not be cost effective in any timescale that matters. Instead, Romm and his travelers want to increase the cost of the cost-effective and reliable energy that we use.

The problem is that energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It gives us light, heat, and the ability to do work in ways that were unimaginable in generations past. Driving up the cost of this energy will harm all Americans, especially lower income Americans.

Travis Fisher and Alex Fitzsimmons authored this post.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: coal, Joe Romm, solar, Think Progress, wind power

Hydraulic Fracturing Moratorium Is Holding New York Back

December 10, 2014 by Daniel Simmons Leave a Comment

The Energy Information Administration recently announced that U.S. proven natural gas reserves were at the highest point of all time. This is great news, but there is one glaring problem—New York.

From 2012 to 2013, proved natural gas reserves increased by 10 percent, even as U.S. natural gas production broke records.

Pennsylvania led the way with an increase of 13,535 billion cubic feet of new proven natural gas reserves. This is because of the Marcellus and the Utica shales, which underlie Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and New York.

This is all great new, except one thing—New York’s proved natural gas reserves fell even as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio’s natural gas reserves dramatically increased. The reason has nothing do to with the geology or the actual resources in the ground, but everything to do with politics. New York has a moratorium on large scale hydraulic fracturing—the technology that is driving these large increases. As a result, New York’s proved natural gas reserves are falling while their neighbors are increasing. That’s too bad for New York’s consumers and underemployed, who could be enjoying the economic benefits of energy production from shale deposits if politics could stop keeping them from going to work and paying less for their energy.

New York’s falling proved natural gas reserves shows that geology is important, but geology is meaningless when politicians prevent people from looking what is underneath their own lands. It’s a shame when anti-energy politics hurts real people, like it does in New York.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Marcellus Shale, natural gas, natural gas reserves, New York

Comments Show Flaws with EPA’s Proposed Power Plant Rule

December 10, 2014 by Alex Fitzsimmons Leave a Comment

On Dec. 1, the public comment period closed for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon dioxide emissions rule for existing power plants. EPA received more than 1.4 million comments on the proposal, which the agency expects to finalize by next summer in accordance with President Obama’s “climate action plan.”

We’ve compiled a survey of comments that highlight the numerous flaws with EPA’s proposed rule. The comments explain the rule’s dubious legal basis, questionable science, enormous economic costs, and negligible climate benefits.

Institute for Energy Research: “EPA’s proposed guidelines for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing stationary sources are fatally flawed. The rule violates the language of the Clean Air Act; it arbitrarily and capriciously imposes emission reduction goals with no analysis from EPA on the actual warming impacts; it is not supported by the American people nor Congress; it will drive up electricity prices; and it will threaten the stability of the electricity grid.”

IER finds that a combination of EPA rules, including the CO2 rule for existing power plants, threatens to close 72 gigawatts of reliable electricity generation, mostly from coal-fired power plants. For perspective, 72 GW is enough to power every home in every state west of Mississippi River, excluding Texas. In the following map from IER’s comment, red dots show power plant closures since 2000, while yellow dots indicate projected power plant closures:

Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, et al: “The [Clean Power Plan] is illegitimate and unlawful. Its implementation costs are likely much greater than EPA estimates. It will increase electricity prices and raises reliability concerns. Its putative climate benefits are illusory. The regulation should be withdrawn.”

CEI explains that EPA’s cost estimates are “implausibly low.” EPA claims nationwide compliance costs of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030. Yet the Virginia State Corporation Commission estimates that just one electric utility—Dominion Power—will be forced to spend at least $5.5 billion to meet the state’s emission reduction target imposed by EPA.

The true costs are likely much higher. For instance, NERA Economic Consulting finds that EPA’s rule will cost states $41 billion in 2030 and $336 billion over 15 years.

Professor Laurence H. Tribe and Peabody Energy Corporation: “The Proposed Rule should be withdrawn. It is a remarkable example of executive overreach and an administrative agency’s assertion of power beyond its statutory authority. Indeed, the Proposed Rule raises serious constitutional questions.”

Tribe’s analysis is especially damning considering he was President Obama’s law professor at Harvard Law School. Although Tribe has described the president as “the best student I ever had” and supported his presidential campaigns, the professor gives Obama’s climate rule a failing grade for its open flouting of the Constitution.

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger, Cato Institute: “We demonstrate that the EPA’s proposed rule would result in no net benefits from avoided negative environmental effects as the environmental impacts of the proposed rule are negligible and scientifically undetectable.”

Michaels and Knappenberger focus on the scientific basis of EPA’s proposal. One interested finding, as highlighted below using EPA’s own models, is that EPA’s power plant rule will have a negligible impact on global temperatures, despite the fact that the whole point of the rule is to combat global warming.

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: “This proposal mocks our constitutional framework and subverts the rule of law. The brazen arrogance with which this Administration is steamrolling through such an arbitrary and capricious regulation is a breathtaking affront to the American people.”

The House Science Committee’s comment devotes much space to the “crude technical assessments” EPA uses to justify its rule. These technical flaws include an “inadequate peer review” process to determine the scientific basis of the rule, “systemic biases and major omissions” in EPA’s cost-benefit analysis, and “incomplete modeling” that “disregards a number of technical, regulatory, and economic realities.” The Committee calls on EPA to “abandon this proposal.”

William Yeatman, Competitive Enterprise Institute: “As explained above, the EPA is required to address the Clean Power Plan’s incompatibility with its underlying implementing [regulations], by either amending or rescinding 40 C.F.R. §60.22(b)(5). In so doing, the agency is required to conduct a legislative rulemaking and also to provide a “reasoned analysis.” Until such actions are performed, the Clean Power Plan’s inconsistency with the §111(d) implementing regulations evidences arbitrary and capricious decision making by the EPA.”

Like several commenters, Yeatman points out how EPA’s proposal violates congressional intent under the Clean Air Act. Yeatman uniquely points out how EPA is also running afoul of its own regulations. As he puts it, instead of following its own implementing regulations, Yeatman shows that EPA is opting for a “stark change in course” that leaves its rule “impermissibly inconsistent with its underlying regulations.”

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: “The proposal is exorbitantly costly, poses a serious threat to electric reliability, and will have no meaningful effect on global climate change. For these reasons, EPA must withdraw the proposed Clean Power Plan in its entirety.”

ACCCE’s comment highlights the sheer magnitude of EPA’s proposal. As aforementioned, NERA finds that the rule could cost $366 billion or more. It will also impose double digit percentage electricity prices increases on residents of 43 states. The following table from ACCCE’s comment breaks down electricity rate increases by state:

American Chemistry Council, et al: “The Associations strongly oppose EPA’s approach in the proposed ESPS both because of the irreparable harm it will cause to electricity generation, reliability, and costs—if not to the economy as a whole—and because of the extraordinary precedent that EPA is proposing to create.”

This comment comes from “the nation’s leading energy, agriculture, and manufacturing sectors.” In it, the authors argue that EPA’s “extraordinary precedent” is to hold electric utilities “liable for unrelated actions and actors beyond the fence line of those facilities.” Historically, under the Clean Air Act utilities were only “accountable for actions specifically at their facilities and their facilities only.” The comment represents the unified voice of opposition from U.S. manufacturers.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: ACCCE, carbon dioxide emissions, CATO, CEI, clean power plan, EPA, institute for energy research, power plant rule

Obama’s Law Professor Flunks President on EPA Climate Rule

December 9, 2014 by Alex Fitzsimmons Leave a Comment

In response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon dioxide rule for existing power plants, Americans submitted millions of public comments ranging from technical tomes to angry missives. Perhaps no comment stood out more than that of Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe.

President Obama studied under Professor Tribe as a student at Harvard Law School in the late-80s. Tribe has described Obama as “the best student I ever had” and supported his presidential campaigns.

Despite his adulation for President Obama, Tribe is less impressed with his former student’s respect for the rule of law. In comments co-authored by Peabody Energy, Tribe gives the EPA low marks for violating the Constitution. As Tribe puts it:

The central principle at stake is the rule of law—the basic premise that EPA must comply with fundamental statutory and constitutional requirements in carrying out its mission. The Proposed Rule should be withdrawn. It is a remarkable example of executive overreach and an administrative agency’s assertion of power beyond its statutory authority. Indeed, the Proposed Rule raises serious constitutional questions.

Tribe explains that EPA is fundamentally misinterpreting a key section of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to suit its agenda. Essentially, EPA claims that the 1990 amendments to the CAA created two separate versions of Section 111. Given this perceived “ambiguity,” EPA has assumed the discretion to “pick and choose” how it interprets the statute.

As Tribe explains, “EPA acknowledges that a ‘literal’ application of Section 111(d) would preclude the Proposed Rule” but EPA proposed the rule because of an ambiguity between various versions of section 111. But as Tribe further explains, “EPA makes no effort to identify anything that would normally be described as an ‘ambiguity’—namely, the existence of more than one possible meaning in the language that appears in a statutory provision enacted by Congress, a provision that all accept as the starting point for analysis.”

EPA’s power grab “raises grave constitutional questions,” according to Tribe, who goes on to detail how EPA’s rule runs afoul of the Constitution’s Article I, Article II, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and separation of powers.

In addition to violating the Constitution, EPA’s climate rule will impose enormous costs and have almost no impact on climate change. The proposed rule could cost at least $366 billion, with residents in 43 states seeing double-digit percent increases in their electricity bills, according to a recent report by NERA Economic Consulting. For all that pain, the rule is expected to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions just 1.5 percent by 2050.

Even if you support EPA’s goals, you should question the agency’s methods. Tribe concludes:

At bottom, the Proposed Rule hides political choices and frustrates accountability. It forces states to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the garb of state “choice”—even though in fact the polices are compelled by EPA. The Supreme Court has strongly condemned such arrangements, because “where the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. at 169; see also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. at 923 (citing need for “accountability” as a reason to prohibit federal government from forcing state officials to implement federal policy). The EPA thumbs its nose at democratic principles by confusing the chain of decision-making between federal and state regulators to avoid political transparency and accountability.

To read Professor Tribe’s full comment, click here.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon dioxide, clean power plan, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Laurence Tribe, Obama

Christmas Drag

December 5, 2014 by Mike Morrison 1 Comment

It looks like Christmas came early this year. But instead of a lump of affordable, reliable coal, we’ve been inundated with regulations from the EPA. Their proposed rule for existing power plants is projected to cost $366 billion, with residents in 43 states expected to see double-digit percentage increases on average in their electricity bills from 2017 to 2031.

And the hits keep on coming. By their own estimates, EPA’s latest ozone proposal will be the costliest regulation in American history. Apparently the fact that ozone levels have dramatically fallen since the 1970s isn’t of their concern. With increasingly dubious justifications for these onerous regulations, one has to wonder if EPA simply enjoys taking the money of American taxpayers. Perhaps they’re trying to cancel Christmas this year, after all.

Filed Under: Blog, Cartoons

Energy Matters

December 4, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

Energy matters because it enables us to do more. The unique mix of resources we’ve been blessed with gives us opportunities to create, innovate and strive for a better tomorrow. And by enlisting the help of a little robot with a penchant for skating, Amazon is doing just that.

Helping “pickers” fulfill 300 orders per hour, Amazon’s Kiva exemplifies how a high energy economy can create jobs while optimizing others, making processes more efficient and our work days a little easier. And all of this serves to make our lives better.

Amazon recognizes that improving our methods of production remains a key part of ensuring that America’s energy boom continues. With recent estimates suggesting the “shale revolution could create as many as 1.7 million permanent U.S. jobs by 2020”, such innovation cannot be overvalued.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: amazon, energy, Kiva

Another Sweetheart Deal for Big Wind?

December 2, 2014 by AEA 3 Comments

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement about the House Republicans’ proposed tax extenders deal:

“The wind PTC was a bad idea yesterday, it’s a bad idea today, and it will be a bad idea tomorrow.

“Over twenty percent of this extenders deal, nearly $10 billion, is a handout to AWEA and its allies like the League of Conservation Voters who spent $75 million during the midterm elections in an effort to defeat Republicans. Now the House Republicans are prepared to reward them with a massive handout courtesy of the American taxpayer. This sweetheart deal will cost American families close to $100 per household, and will stick them with more expensive and less reliable electricity in the future.

“A vote for this deal is also an endorsement of President Obama’s climate agenda, as the PTC is integral to the administration’s costly climate action plan.

“At the very least, the House should revert back to the original ‘placed in service’ language rather than accepting the vague and expensive ‘under construction’ idea that the PTC should apply from the moment that a CEO of a wind company simply thinks about building a turbine.

“A one-year extension is an early Christmas present from the House Republicans to big wind manufacturers like GE and a number of foreign owned companies. Instead of trying to ‘clear the decks’ for next year, Congress should put an end to this lucrative handout once and for all.”

###

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: congress, production tax credit, PTC, wind, wind welfare

White House Punts on RFS after Nearly a Year of Delay

November 25, 2014 by AEA 3 Comments

After much anticipation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally announced it would not set targets for 2014 under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Instead they will issue the final numbers for 2014 before or with the 2015 RFS proposed rule—over a year late.[1] In other words, the EPA is punting a final decision on the 2014 numbers and lumping them together with the 2015 numbers. Industry leaders are now calling on Congress to act and repeal or significantly reform the program. If it takes more than one year for EPA to set volume requirements under the RFS (when EIA sends EPA their estimates) then either EPA is too political to make a decisions or the RFS is flawed or both.

Will EPA’s Latest Failure Cause Congress to Reform the RFS?

It is amazing that it would take EPA more than a year to set the RFS volumes, especially when these decisions affect large investment decisions by the America’s refiners. Unsurprisingly the refiners are not happy. The President of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) Charles T. Drevna stated that Congress needs to address this issue, “The fact that EPA proposed the 2014 standards over a year ago, and now 2014 is almost over, is another reason why Congress needs to step in and repeal or significantly reform this badly broken program.” The President of the American Petroleum Institute (API), Jack Gerard released a similar statement, “The only real solution is for Congress to scrap the program and let consumers, not the federal government, choose the best fuel to put in their tanks.”

In the meanwhile AFPM is suing EPA for failing to issue the renewable fuel mandate, citing the harm it has caused refiners who cannot adequately prepare for compliance unless the Agency meets their deadlines. (To find out more about EPA’s timeline for RFS and their recurring inability to meet deadlines click here.)

EPA Routinely Misses their Own Deadlines for RFS

This year was especially controversial because EPA’s proposed 2014 RFS lowered the amount of total biofuels that oil refiners were originally required to blend into gasoline under the Energy Independence and Security Act. This is the first time EPA had to lower the number of total biofuels required below what was required the previous year, because we have reached what is known as the “blend wall.” Most cars and trucks can only use fuel which is 10 percent ethanol. That limits the total amount of ethanol that can be blended with fuel.

As we have previously noted, EPA has routinely fallen behind on meeting their deadlines for implementing the RFS. In fact, EPA hasn’t met the statutory deadline in November since 2011.[2] This is not because it is immensely difficult for EPA to figure out how to set sensible limits below the “blend wall”. EPA would simply have to look at demand projections by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and set targets low enough to not exceed 10 percent.

The continuous uncertainty surrounding the RFS is bad for anyone who buys fuel. Refiners need to be able to plan and consider biofuels mandates over multiple years in order to meet the RFS’s requirements. This is because RFS allows refiners to save a certain amount of renewable credits (known as RINS[3] –serial numbers assigned to biofuel for the purpose of tracking its production, use and trading, and can be purchased to fulfill part of the RFS requirement) to use to show compliance the next year.

Political Considerations delay 2014 RFS Numbers

Unfortunately, it appears that politics got in the way of setting sensible policy. Since 2014 was an election year, and the RFS was a political issue in a vulnerable Iowa Senate seat, EPA continued to delay a final decision. An article in POLITICO highlighted political issues surrounding this decision:

Several sources following the issue closely say that the White House hoped that boosting the overall volumes would be enough to act as a boon to (then Iowa Senate Democrat Bruce Braley). But renewable fuels advocates in the state aren’t happy with that compromise, so anything short of a clear victory for ethanol makers could hurt Braley’s campaign… ‘If they increase the number, but it’s till tied to the blend wall, in our view, they will have killed the program, and that will be seen as a huge loss for Braley, and they’ll wait until after the election,’ said one person in the biofuels industry. ‘If it’s good for Braley, it’ll be before the election. If it’s bad for Braley, it’ll be a punt. And people will see the punt.”[4]

In other words, since the White House had no options to act on the 2014 RFS numbers and make the Democratic Iowa Senate candidate look good, they made the decision to hold off on finalizing the requirements.

This all happened even though they knew the requirements set in legislation needed to be lowered for certain categories of renewable fuels in the program (cellulosic, advanced, and total renewable fuels) as of November 29, 2013, when they originally proposed lowering the standards.[5] Now refiners will have to continue waiting due to EPA’s inability to overcome political issues.

Conclusion

It is unsurprising that EPA is officially punting the final 2014 RFS numbers considering that 2014 is nearly over and now they are also behind on the 2015 RFS. This is not good for anyone who buys fuel because it forces additional costs on refiners who the RFS forces to blend biofuels into conventional fuels. However, EPA has continually made it difficult for refiners to comply with RFS requirements by missing their deadlines. Since EPA is subject to political control by the Administration, sensible policy falls by the wayside. It is time to repeal the RFS and get rid of the headache and political favors that go with it.

[1] Erica Martinson, EPA whiffs on ethanol, POLITICOPro, November 21, 2014, https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/?wbid=44420.

[2] Christopher Doering, EPA’s ethanol mandate for 2014 behind schedule, The Des Moines Register, June 27, 2014, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/27/epa-ethanol-mandate-weeks-away-gas-supply-congress-renewable-fuel-standard/11447021/.

[3] Amanda Peterka, EPA extends compliance period for the 2013 blend requirement, E&E News, June 6, 2014, http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2014/06/06/stories/106000088585.

[4] Erica Martinson, White House may see no reason for pre-election biofuel move, POLITICOPro, October 7, 2014, https://www.politicopro.com/member/?webaction=viewAlerts.

[5] Environmental Protection Agency, 78 Fed. Reg. 238 (proposed November 29, 2013) (to be codified 40 CFR Part 80), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-29/pdf/2013-28155.pdf.

Filed Under: Blog, Products and Power Tagged With: EPA, Obama, Renewable Fuel Standard, rfs, White House

Lies, Damned Lies, and “Conversations with AWEA”

November 21, 2014 by AEA 13 Comments

In a desperate attempt to provide cover for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) made an embarrassing gaffe. It is no secret that the EPA and the NRDC have been bedfellows for a number of years. The NRDC draws up blueprints for new regulations, and the EPA puts those blueprints into action.

Earlier this year, this marriage-of-convenience has led to the birth of a new regulation mandating the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. This week, the NRDC appears to be gearing up yet again to support the EPA in its effort to rid Americans of cheap and reliable energy. The NRDC’s latest report claims that, rather than costing taxpayers money, the EPA’s new carbon dioxide regulations could actually save as much as $9 billion in 2030. Indeed, they insist that because it will save this large sum of money, the regulation itself should be more stringent.

Naturally, we were curious to find out how the NRDC had stumbled upon the fountain of youth, the magic formula that would show the EPA how to regulate the U.S. into utopia. However, upon closer examination we found their supporting evidence dubious and intentionally misleading.

Statistics are a funny thing—you can use them to support almost any argument that you’d like, provided that someone else has done the “research”. Statistics become even funnier when they are entirely made up.

One of the premises of the NRDC report is that the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook is inaccurate, particularly in its estimation of the average capacity factor for onshore wind power. The NRDC argues that this average capacity factor is actually 10 percentage points higher than EIA estimates, boosting it from 35 to 45 percent. However, if we look at the evidence they provide (endnote 22), we find that they support this number based on “Discussions with American Wind Energy Association [AWEA] and updated industry data.”

They cite no source data, no report (with or without spurious reasoning)—nothing more than a conversation with the country’s largest wind energy lobbying group. Cue the fox to come and guard the hen house. Instead of doing real research and crunching the numbers on publicly available EIA data, the NRDC chose to rely on an organization whose very existence depends on the success of wind energy. Conflicts of interest aside, couldn’t AWEA at least write a misleading paper on the topic before it invents statistics? This is sheer laziness—we expected more from the well-funded and well-staffed lobbying group.

If the NRDC wants to successfully challenge EIA numbers, it has to provide real numbers taken from documented, on-the-ground sources. It can’t just make assumptions based on some obscure conversation it had with wind energy lobbyists. Essentially, the NRDC took the facts, discounted the ones that did not support its position, added ones it thought would be beneficial, and ended up with arbitrary numbers like this:

We can’t help but wonder how their report would turn out had they accounted for the environmental impacts of renewable energy sources, transmission costs, and the strain wind and solar power place on the grid.

But it’s not just us.

The findings of NRDC’s report run counter not only to EIA’s estimates, but also those provided by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber estimates that this new regulation will cost consumers $289 billion in additional cumulative electricity payments, and erase 224,000 jobs annually through 2030. Given these estimates, it makes sense that the NRDC might want to make up its own numbers.

It seems that the NRDC didn’t expect anyone to think critically about its numbers. A report this blatantly misleading requires either a special kind of arrogance or genuine disdain for NRDC’s readership. We can only hope that the EPA will one day be decoupled from the NRDC so that pragmatic, effective policy can become the norm.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: AWEA, carbon dioxide emissions, EIA, EPA, NRDC, Power plant regulations

Europe’s “Green Energy” Dream has Become a Nightmare

November 21, 2014 by AEA 1 Comment

The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s “Today in Energy” chart on November 18 illustrates a huge problem with Europe’s aggressive renewable energy subsidies and mandates — European electricity prices have risen at an astonishing rate, compared to American prices:

EIA attributes much of the problem to Europe’s regulatory policies, noting,

“In 2013, average residential electricity rates in European Union (EU) countries were more than double rates in the United States. Regulatory structures—including taxes and other user fees, investment in renewable energy technologies, and the mix and cost of fuels—all influence electricity prices…Taxes and levies explain high prices in some European countries. EU countries taxed residential electricity rates at an average of 31% in 2013, up from an average of 23% in 2006.”

The Institute for Energy Research has repeatedly pointed out the follies of European countries’ energy policies in case studies on Germany, Spain, and Denmark. Residents of each of these countries pay far more in the electricity bills than Americans do, in part because of aggressive renewable energy subsidies and mandates.

In Spain, for example, electricity prices have risen by 92 percent from 2005 to 2011. Consider one Spaniard, Juan Luis Presa, whose story appeared in the Spanish newspaper El País. Presa is 62 years-old and lost his job. Neither of his two children is currently employed. Out of the check from the government the family receives for $582.2 per year, they must spend $109.3 on electricity.

During the winter of early 2014, his electric radiator remained turned off. Instead of using electricity to make their home warmer, Presa and his family coped with the cold temperatures by using more blankets and wearing heavier clothing. Theirs is a story of energy poverty that is now all too common in Europe.

It’s time to wise up–Europe’s failed “green energy” policies are not a model for the U.S. to follow. We would do well to learn from Europe’s mistakes.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: EIA, electricity, european electricity prices, Green Energy, Spain