On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Biden’s latest tumults, the AI-enabled end times, new survey data from AEA and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and more.
Links:
Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Biden’s latest tumults, the AI-enabled end times, new survey data from AEA and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and more.
Links:
The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently completed a nationwide survey of 1000 likely voters (3.1% margin of error) executed in the first two weeks of May. A full slide deck of the results can be found here.
As Mike McKenna of MWR Strategies notes, there are a few salient points worth noting.
First, and probably most pointedly, Republicans continue to be on solid ground with respect to who should make decisions about (and who should pay for) car and truck purchases, on carbon dioxide taxes, on willingness to pay to address climate change, on issue prioritization, and even on the fundamentals of the science (by a margin of 19 points respondents identified carbon dioxide as “needed for plant life” rather than a “pollutant”).
Second, voter sentiment and attitudes on energy and climate change seem to be characterized by stasis; despite what you may have read in the media, there has been little change in voter sentiments and attitudes with respect to energy and climate change. Many of the responses in the survey are either consistent with or more emphatic than what we have found previously.
Where there has been change from past surveys, voter sentiment in favor of government making decisions, in favor of taxation, in favor of banning gasoline-powered products, and in favor of reliance on China, has eroded over time.
For example, when we asked whether a federal EV mandate would cause electricity prices to increase or decrease, 81% of respondents said that it would cause them to increase. Last year, 74% said it would cause them to increase. The year before, 69% said it would cause them to increase.
We asked about levels of concern about China’s domination of the EV supply chain. This year, 64% were very concerned. Last year, 56% were very concerned. The year before 43% were very concerned.
We asked about a tax on carbon dioxide. This year, by a margin of 44 percentage points (65-21). Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 40 points (63-23). The year before, it was opposed by 34 points (62-38).
We asked about whether the federal government should raise energy taxes as a potential response to climate change. This year, respondents opposed by a margin of 63 points (77-14). Last year, respondents opposed it by a margin of 55 points (70-15). The year before, respondents opposed it by a margin of 38 points (59-21).
We asked about banning gasoline-powered vehicles. This year, it was opposed by a margin of 67 points (82-15). Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 63 points (76-13). The year before, it was opposed by a margin of 66 points (75-9).
In short, there has been a lot of durability of sentiment on this issue, and where there has been change, it has run counter to the policy preferences of the left.
Third, voters don’t seem to care much about climate change and their willingness to pay anything to address has dissolved in the last year.
As we have seen across a number of years, climate change is not a priority for most. Just 28 respondents (2.8%) identified it as the most pressing issue facing the United States, and just 29 more (2.9%) identified it as the second most pressing issue facing the United States. Compare this to the 55% that identified the economy as either the first or second most important issue facing the United States.
Given that, it is not surprising that there continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change. When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response was 20 dollars, and 35% (including 15% of self-identified Democrats) said they are unwilling to pay anything. There has been some rapid erosion in these responses: last year, the median response was 55 dollars.
Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much. Voters don’t want a carbon dioxide tax (rejected by 44 points). They don’t want to ban gasoline-powered engines (rejected by 72 points, compared to being rejected by just 63 points last year). Voters – including 58% of self-identified Democrats — flat out reject electric vehicle mandates (77-23).
Finally, voters don’t trust government very much. More than two-thirds (70%) said that they did not trust the federal government to decide what kind of cars should be subsidized or mandated. An even greater percentage (80% this year, up from 70% last year) said they wanted to make the decision about the cars and fuels they buy, rather than the State government (4%) or federal government (8%). No one wants California to be in charge of that decision: 82% of respondents (including 72% of self-identified Democrats) disagreed with the statement: “The State of California should be able to determine what kinds of cars can be sold in other States.”
Voters reject policies, like carbon taxes, that make energy more expensive and believe consumers, not government, should decide what types of cars people can buy.
WASHINGTON DC (06/01/2023) – The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently sponsored a nationwide survey of 1000 likely voters (3.1 percent margin of error) conducted by MWR Strategies in the first two weeks of May. The survey can be found here (slide deck) and here (written results).
AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:
The results of our new survey make it clear that voters prefer energy affordability and choice over government efforts to address climate change and they overwhelmingly reject the associated costs.
Despite the narrative driven by the legacy media, there has been little change in voter sentiment with respect to energy and climate change. If anything, voters have even less trust in government when it comes to the types of energy we use or the vehicles we drive.
The survey asked about a tax on carbon dioxide. This year, by a margin of 44 percentage points (65-21). Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 40 points (63-23). The year before, it was opposed by 34 points (62-38).
We asked about banning gasoline-powered vehicles. This year, it was opposed by a margin of 67 points (82-15). Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 63 points (76-13). The year before, it was opposed by a margin of 66 points (75-9).
In short, there has been a lot of durability of sentiment on this issue, and where there has been change, it has run counter to the policy preferences of the left.
Michael McKenna, who conducted the research, added some context:
As we have seen across a number of years, climate change is not a priority for most. Just 28 respondents (2.8 percent) identified it as the most pressing issue facing the United States, and just 29 more (2.9 percent) identified it as the second most pressing issue facing the United States. Compare this to the 55 percent that identified the economy as either the first or second most important issue facing the United States.
Given that, it is not surprising that there continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change. When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response was 20 dollars, and 35 percent (including 15 percent of self-identified Democrats) said they are unwilling to pay anything. There has been some rapid erosion in these responses: last year, the median response was 55 dollars.
Steve Moore, from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, issued the following statement:
The American people want affordable energy and to make their own choice of what to drive. This poll shows Republicans have a huge opportunity to score political points by getting out in front of the parade against Biden’s destructive anti-energy agenda.
Additional Resources:
For media inquiries please contact:
The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to support H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the revised definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act clearly spells out an extensive state role for regulation of water sources. The federal statutory regulatory role is overseeing navigable waters of the United States. The repeated attempts by federal bureaucrats to stretch this definition to cover nearly all water sources in the country is an illegal power grab. This most recent rule from the Biden Administration is yet another version of the same old power grab that has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. The definition of “waters of the United States” in this rulemaking is so broad that it deeply intrudes on state responsibilities contrary to the express intent of the Clean Water Act. It will be used as a pretext to insert federal bureaucrats into industries and areas that are already well regulated by the states themselves.
With the Supreme Court set to reach a decision that will hopefully better clarify how the term “waters of the United States” should be construed, this rule should not have been rushed out at all. That the bureaucracy pressed forward with this power grab regardless only emphasizes why Congress should disapprove of this rulemaking. They will not be stopped by voluntary restraint, Congress must take action.
The AEA urges all Senators to support free markets and affordable energy by voting YES on Amendment H.J. Res. 27. AEA will include this vote its American Energy Scorecard.
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the growing 2024 presidential field, more bumbles from team Biden, the debt battle, and the unique happenings of Florida.
Links:
Joe Biden and congressional Democrats have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase. Since Biden took office, his administration and Congressional Democrats have taken over 150 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America. A list of those actions appears below. A PDF of the list is available to download here.
On January 20, 2021,
On January 27, 2021,
On February 2, 2021,
On February 4, 2021,
On February 19, 2021,
On February 23, 2021,
On March 11, 2021,
On March 15, 2021,
On April 15, 2021,
On April 16, 2021,
On April 22, 2021,
On April 27, 2021,
On April 28, 2021,
On May 5, 2021,
On May 20, 2021,
On May 28, 2021,
On July 28, 2021,
On August 11, 2021,
On September 3, 2021,
On September 9, 2021,
On October 4, 2021,
On October 7, 2021,
On October 21, 2021,
On October 28, 2021,
On October 29, 2021,
On October 30, 2021,
On November 2, 2021,
On November 4, 2021,
On November 5, 2021,
On November 12, 2021,
On November 15, 2021,
On November 17, 2021,
On November 19, 2021,
On November 26, 2021,
On December 14, 2021,
On December 21, 2021,
On December 30, 2021,
On January 13, 2022,
On January 14, 2022,
On February 9, 2022,
On February 18, 2022,
On February 21, 2022,
On February 28, 2022,
On March 1, 2022,
On March 8, 2022,
On March 9, 2022,
On March 11, 2022,
On March 16, 2022,
March 21, 2022,
March 28, 2022,
March 30, 2022
March 31, 2022
April 5, 2022,
April 12, 2022,
April 15, 2022,
April 19, 2022,
April 20, 2022,
April 21, 2022,
April 25, 2022,
April 28, 2022,
May 18, 2022,
May 19, 2022,
June 2, 2022,
June 7, 2022,
June 8, 2022,
June 28, 2022,
July 6, 2022,
July 7, 2022,
July 14, 2022,
July 15, 2022,
August 16, 2022,
August 17, 2022,
August 18, 2022
August 22, 2022,
September 6, 2022
September 12, 2022,
September 19, 2022
September 20, 2022,
September 30, 2022,
October 5, 2022,
October 7, 2022,
October 2, 2022,
October 6, 2022,
November 2, 2023
November 9, 2022
November 16, 2022
November 17, 2022
November 29, 2022
December 7, 2022
December 8, 2022
December 23, 2022
January 10, 2023
January 12, 2023
January 17, 2023
January 31, 2023
February 3, 2023
March 3, 2023
March 9, 2023
March 10, 2023
March 14, 2023
March 16, 2023
March 17, 2023
March 20, 2023
March 23, 2023
March 30, 2023
March 31, 2023
April 12, 2023
The Biden administration is soliciting bids for up to 3 million barrels of sour oil—one tanker’s worth–to refill the emergency reserve stockpile depleted by President Biden’s pre-election releases. Deliveries into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) are planned for August, with awards to be announced in June. The announcement marks the agency’s second attempt to begin replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after it released 260 million barrels since November of 2021 to curb high oil and gasoline prices resulting from Biden’s oil policies. Releases were continued up until the mid-term election last year and then slightly beyond.
Last fall, the Biden administration indicated it would start to refill the reserve when prices were at or below about $67-$72 per barrel after criticism that they were using the SPR as a political tool. But, its first bid earlier this year ended without a purchase with the administration saying that the cost was too high and the type of oil was not to its specifications. The energy department plans to purchase more oil later this year.
The reserve currently holds nearly 360 million barrels of oil, about half of its total capacity and the lowest level since 1983. The Biden administration recently drained 2.9 million barrels of oil from the SPR, long after it was supposed to have started refilling it. In March, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Petroleum Reserves awarded contracts for the purchase of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to meet its Congressional obligation to sell 26 million barrels in Fiscal Year 2023.
The Energy Department plans to “repurchase crude at a lower price than the average of about $95 per barrel it was sold for in 2022, while strengthening energy security by providing certainty to the industry in a way that helps encourage near-term supply.” In addition to direct purchases, the agency indicates that part of its strategy for refilling the reserve includes a return of oil from previous exchanges, and avoiding “unnecessary sales unrelated to supply disruptions.” Due to its depleting the oil reserve, the Biden administration was able to cancel about 140 million barrels of oil sales mandated by Congress last year.
Oil traders have been closely watching for any indication that the government would begin refilling the reserve, as its purchases are bound to tighten the market. The sour oil grades sought by the Energy Department are in high demand as OPEC+ has cut output recently, and prices for it are running higher than those for West Texas Intermediate (WTI). Some have pointed out that sellers could get a much higher price on the spot market.
The OPEC+’s 1.16 million barrel per day cut will reduce stocks of sour oils as U.S. oil refiners ramp up purchases for the summer driving season. Middle East oil is priced high to deter any additional buying from U.S. Gulf Coast refiners, leaving them to search for sour seaborne barrels from predominantly Latin America. Shell Plc’s shut-in of its 375,000-barrel per day Zydeco line in the Gulf of Mexico last month because of a leak also reduced supplies. Further, exports of U.S. and Canadian sour grades ramped up in March, bought mainly by Chinese refiners. Any additional demand on domestic barrels could raise oil prices, potentially increasing gasoline prices in the middle of the summer driving season, which Biden does not want with a Presidential election looming next year.
Conclusion
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the government would repurchase crude oil for the reserve after a congressionally mandated drawdown ends in June. She also claimed to refill the SPR as soon as maintenance work is completed. With those delaying tactics, either nothing will happen, or at best the White House will offer to buy a few barrels here and there and claim mission accomplished. A solicitation for purchase does not mean they have begun restoring the SPR, as they found out in a fruitless solicitation earlier this year. Instead, the real buying will probably not begin until there is no choice – just after the next geopolitical shock – and when the price of one barrel is well in the triple digits. Biden’s energy and climate policies are raising prices for Americans and it will continue to do so as it releases its regulatory agenda and other policies.
*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the debt ceiling battle, recent staff changes, and a busy week of events in Washington.
Links:
Studies have found that wind turbines impact local meteorological conditions by raising temperatures at the surface level while the wind turbines are in operation. Due to lucrative federal subsidies, wind farms are being built at a rapid pace contributing to a growing concern of the cumulative impacts these wind projects will produce. Advocates of wind argue that the surface temperature impact of turbines is local and not global, as are emissions of greenhouse gases, and that wind turbines are only redistributing heat rather than trapping it in the atmosphere. Those same advocates, however, ignore the rising energy costs and poor reliability of wind turbines on the electric grid and the fact that after decades of subsidies, wind energy accounted for a mere 4 percent of the total U.S. primary energy consumption in 2022, while coal, oil and natural gas provided nearly 80 percent. They also ignore the number and types of birds that are killed from wind turbines, which is significant, and the impact of wind turbines on farming.
The Studies
A 2004 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that “large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer.” The study states that large amounts of wind across the continent will produce a pronounced impact on the climate. A 2010 study found that wind farms affect temperatures and humidity near the surface and that the “explosive growth” of future wind farms could impact agriculture. A 2013 study found the same impacts. A 2015 study found that wind farms raise nighttime temperatures. A 2011 Purdue study found increased temperatures at the surface were a result of wind farms, as did a 2016 study in Scotland. A 2018 study estimated that generating electricity demand with wind power in the United States would warm surface temperatures by 0.24 degrees Celsius, which is nearly one-fourth of the amount of warming the globe has seen since 1800.
Wind turbines complicate farming as straight rows in a field and efficient aerial applications are no longer viable, decreasing farm efficiency. Many agriculture pilots refuse to fly their aircraft within a half-mile of the turbines. Ground rig sprayers also do not work well in turbine fields if the ground is soggy or the crops are leaning. And, the equipment used to build wind turbines can damage drainage lines in a field and often the damage is not fixed in a timely manner or at all if the wind company disagrees that the damage is their fault. Also, higher temperatures occurring at night in areas with wind farms results in plants releasing more carbon dioxide than they would otherwise. That carbon dioxide is needed to make plant material and grow crops, but has also been the target of all of President Biden’s actions on climate. Nighttime temperatures have been increasing during the past 40 years and were made worse by wind turbines after they started multiplying, incentivized by federal tax credits beginning in 1992. Those increased nighttime temperature increases are limiting crop yields.
Wildlife Impacts
The studies on the surface temperature did not look at impacts upon wildlife, considering impacts to agriculture instead. In Wyoming, however, wind projects are being built within a major corridor for golden eagles. Mike Lockhart, a wildlife biologist specializing in eagles who worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for more than 30 years said that the number of eagles killed by wind turbines in a major corridor is significant and likely underestimated. The golden eagle is protected under the Eagle Act. Wind facilities are required to obtain so-called “incidental take permits” for killing golden eagles that are issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The wind industry, however, is ignoring the Eagle Law and not getting the required permits, as FWS indicates:
“For golden eagles, a goal of the 2016 Eagle Rule was to increase compliance and improve consistency and efficiency relating to permitting golden eagle take at wind-energy projects. However, those goals have not been realized. While participation in the permit program by wind energy projects has increased since 2016, it still remains well below our expectations. Low application rates and permit-processing requirements that some have perceived as burdensome have resulted in few permits being issued for wind projects as compared to the number of operational wind projects in areas where golden eagles occur. As a result, golden eagles continue to be taken without implementation of conservation actions to offset that take.”
The Biden FWS is not cracking down on wind turbine bird kills. Instead, it proposes to make permitting easier by making it less effective. Because wind project developers think eagle kill permitting is too “burdensome,” the Biden FWS proposes to ease up on the requirement. The FWS proposal is to do away with site specific permits and instead create a “general permit” that covers all normal wind projects and their bird deaths. A project signs up and pays a small fee, which supposedly mitigates future eagle deaths. As part of the general permit, the entire project is exempt from NEPA as long as eagle killing is all they are doing. Having no requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement as other projects must submit to speeds the process up. Also the requirement that an independent observer count the dead eagles is not part of the general permit. Instead, the government will depend on the wind facility operators (who have not been getting permits) to tell when too many birds have been killed by the turbines. Clearly, this favors wind development at the expense of the eagles. President Biden said that every federal agency should do whatever it can to promote renewables and this FWS proposal apparently meets his test.
A 2013 paper titled “Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States” estimated that about 250,000 birds die a year from bird deaths. With around 50,000 megawatts of installed capacity, that is roughly 5 deaths per megawatt per year. For the Biden Administration’s goal of “net zero” emissions, Tesla calculates that the United States will need 2 million megawatts of wind capacity. At five bird deaths per megawatt that results in 10 million deaths a year or 300 million dead birds over the 30 year lives of the FWS proposed general permits. The vast majority of the dead birds are expected to be songbirds, but migratory bird deaths as well as birds of prey have been common.
In Wyoming, the noise and industrialization from wind projects are also expected to spread across migration corridors used by pronghorn antelope, which will not only harm wildlife but could impact tourism in some areas. BluEarth Renewables, which is building the 60-turbine Two Rivers Wind Energy Project near Medicine Bow, and Connect Gen, which is building the Roundhouse Wind Projects, together will have 106 turbines.
Conclusion
The studies showing the impacts of wind turbines on surface temperatures raise questions about the value of wind energy in the United States as the higher nighttime temperatures affect crop yields and contribute to warming, which climate alarmists including President Biden call “an existential threat.”
Also, wind energy is weather driven and as such does not generate power 24/7 as required by consumers of electricity. As such, it requires back-up power from coal or natural gas generators that stand-by at higher operating cost than if they were run 24/7, or expensive batteries if there is enough excess wind power to store electricity for release when the wind is not blowing. In essence, it requires the building of multiple systems instead of simply one that can run all the time.
Further, wind power is supported by lucrative federal subsidies paid by taxpayers and state mandates. And, Biden’s Fish and Wildlife Service is allowing wind turbines to kill birds by its revised permitting requirements and its lax environmental control. The government is definitely bending all the rules and slathering on huge incentives to build wind turbines. Americans will have to decide whether they support this preferred energy source or not as the costs mount.
*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.
EPA’s proposed power plant rule hits coal plants particularly hard since they would need an extremely expensive technology that is not yet commercial to allow coal plants to generate electricity in the United States. But, the new proposed rule would also wreak havoc on natural gas plants. Biden’s 681-page Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rule would require natural gas plants to blend hydrogen into fuel to survive. Natural gas plants would have to co-fire with 30 percent hydrogen by 2032 and 96 percent hydrogen by 2038. But to be politically acceptable, that hydrogen would have to be produced from renewable electricity (green hydrogen), which is three to four times more expensive. If hydrogen produced from natural gas were allowed, which is generally the way hydrogen is produced today, it would defeat the purpose of forcing hydrogen in natural gas plants. With this rule, politicians are escaping the wrath of citizens for skyrocketing electricity prices by blaming it on electric utilities.
Blending more hydrogen into gas also increases NOx emissions and puts plants out of compliance with other EPA regulations. To reduce NOx, power plants would have to install new turbines and other costly equipment, some of which is only now being developed. Natural gas plants’ other alternative is to add expensive carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) equipment, similar to coal plants, which will also add to consumers’ bills. EPA’s new power plant rule makes coal and natural gas plants so expensive that utilities will be forced to build politically correct wind and solar plants, and raise rates to pay for the new generating technologies.
Existing natural gas plants get more leeway than coal plants in the proposed rule — only the largest natural gas plants, those over 300 megawatts that run over 50 percent of the time, will have to cut their emissions by 90 percent by 2035. Coal plants would have to do so by the end of the decade, unless the plant retires before the end of 2040. The proposed rule puts about 23 percent of existing gas plants in jeopardy. However, that percent could become much larger as EPA is considering lowering the threshold to 150 megawatts. New gas-fired “peaker plants,” used as backup generation to politically correct intermittent wind and solar plants, would face less stringent standards.
Coal plants that run past 2040, would be required to install CCS technology starting in 2030, while those shutting down between 2035 and 2040 would be required to co-fire with 40 percent gas by 2030, putting a “bounty” on closing coal plants. Only one commercial power plant in North America is currently operating with carbon capture– the Boundary Dam Power Station Unit 3 in Canada’s Saskatchewan province. The unit is outfitted with a $1.1 billion carbon-capture system, which is now collecting around 80 percent of the unit’s carbon-dioxide emissions. Removal of fly ash that fouled the capture system for several years after it began running in 2014 required modifications and additions of new equipment.
The EPA is using the Clean Air Act as a means to set the regulation. The proposal, taking more than 18 months to develop, reflects constraints imposed on the EPA by the Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the agency cannot impose a system-wide shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, saying instead the agency could only mandate emissions cuts based on technology that could be deployed “within the fence line” of power facilities themselves. The EPA anticipates the new proposal will cost the power industry over $10 billion, although others expect it to result in costs multiple times higher for replacement power for the plants that will be closed.
The proposed EPA rule is being called a “job killer” and it would increase electricity prices for American consumers, as many of the plants could become stranded assets, if not choosing to add costly equipment, whose costs would be passed onto consumers. Retrofitting an existing commercial-scale 300-megawatt natural-gas plant with carbon capture would cost $372 million, while retrofitting a similar-size coal plant would cost $600 million, based on recent estimates from the Energy Department. For new plants the cost would be about 10 percent less. According to some U.S. power industry experts, carbon capture needs a longer test drive to determine operational challenges, maintenance issues, data and optimization of the system before building whole fleets of CCS technologies.
Senators Joe Manchin and Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia highly criticized the proposal because their state’s economy is reliant on the fossil fuel industry and this new plan would essentially kill it. As of 2021, mining and coal-fired power generation had a $14 billion impact on West Virginia’s economy with the state’s mining industry spending over $2.1 billion on wages. WV coal operators generated roughly $9.1 billion in economic activity in 2019. Capito vowed to formally challenge the EPA’s new rule, using the Congressional Review Act – labeling it as an “illegal overreach.”
Conclusion
According to EPA, 120 natural-gas plants and 200 coal-fired plants would be affected by its proposed rules. It also said that there were plans already for 60 percent of coal generating units to go out of service by 2040 faced with six onerous rules from the EPA. The agency is expected to see lawsuits against the rule questioning whether EPA has the authority to force the use of technologies that are not economically or technically feasible for widespread use. The lawsuits will argue that the proposed rule represents government overreach and threatens to destabilize the electric grid, as intermittent solar and wind units would require very expensive battery back-up to release previously stored power when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Regardless which alternatives are chosen, if this new rule goes into effect, Americans’ electricity prices will increase greatly, and American businesses will have a harder time competing against manufacturing in China, India and other parts of the world building coal plants at a breakneck pace.
*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.