• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Lame Policy for Lame Duck

    It seems that many in Washington had their books upside down when they studied economics. In the midst of a serious recession, they are proposing to jack up income tax rates, which would add hundreds of thousands to the already sky-high unemployment rolls. Now we hear that the Senate is thinking about forcing high-cost electricity on already struggling businesses and households, a policy that could put hundreds of thousands more out of work.

    Senator Harry Reid (D–NV) recently indicated that legislation mandating a renewable electricity standard (RES) is a possibility for the lame duck session. The proposal was cheered on by a collection of special interests—many of whom are on the receiving end of the billions in subsidies already paid for renewable energy.

    An RES sounds appealing on the surface, since it employs fuels that could be free (for instance, wind and sunshine). Though wind is free when it blows and sun is free when it shines, electricity from these sources is very expensive and unreliable. And renewable electricity does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, because less than 1 percent of American electricity is generated from petroleum. But an RES would reduce employment and income because it raises energy prices.

    The Obama Administration’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently projected the costs of electricity from various sources for the year 2016. They estimate that wind and solar power will be as much as four times as expensive as electricity generated by coal or natural gas—fuels we have in considerable abundance in the U.S.

    However, even these large cost increases make no adjustment for the remoteness and fickleness of wind and solar power. Except in relatively rare cases (pumped storage being one), it is not possible to store the energy generated by any source on the power grid. So any change in demand must be matched by a change in supply, or voltage will stray outside its narrow targets and lead to brownouts, surges, or power outages. This means that expensive sources of special backup power must always be ready. And the greater the quantity of erratic wind and solar power that is forced on the system, the more often this expensive backup power must be used.

    Further, the best wind and solar resources are far from the nation’s population and energy-demand centers. Building the necessary network of transmission lines would cost billions of dollars more.

    When the EIA estimates are adjusted for these backup and transmission costs, the higher costs of wind and solar power get even worse. For instance, if an average family of four could get all of its electricity at a coal-based price, the annual cost would be $2,264 per year. If, instead it were to get all its electricity at the price needed to cover the cost of wind (onshore), it would jump to $4,075 per year. The costs are even worse for offshore wind, and the price needed to pay for electricity from solar cells would push the family’s bill to $8,614 per year.

    Because RES proposals typically start with small percentages, the impacts on electric bills are initially diluted by averaging a small amount of the costly renewable energy with a large amount of the cheaper conventional energy. However, as the mandated renewable fraction grows, so does its economic impact.

    Analysis of a generic RES that starts at 3 percent in 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year (reaching 15 percent by 2020) would kill a million jobs and cut a trillion dollars from national income by the end of the decade. Proposing such policies can only dampen the investor confidence and make it that much harder to grow the economy out of its current downturn.

    The great irony here is that the U.S. is gearing up for even greater subsidies to the renewable energy industry just as the supposed leaders in Europe have woken up to the high costs and are cutting their subsidies for renewables. See here, here, and here.

    The adage says wise people learn from the mistakes of others. So we can choose to be the wise person, or we can choose to be the object lesson.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Lame Policy for Lame Duck

    1. Drew Page, IL says:

      All these subsidies being given to alternative sources of renewable energy are nothing but payoffs to those who kickback substantial portions of the subsidies they receive from our taxes to the political campaign coffers of those who vote for these subsidies.

      There will always be a number of "chicken little" zealots in our country who are quite willing to believe that the sky is falling, or the globe is warming, or the end is near. And guys like Rahm Emanuel will always be there, nodding in agreement, looking for that next crisis to be taken advantage of.

    2. Linda Bottger Willow says:

      Thank you for your efforts,your research, your education, & all your hard work! Keep the Faith! I'm looking forward to a 'revolution' in November!! :-) L.

    3. Dennis Georgia says:

      The people in Congress have no common since, just like those that demand alternative energy. The fail to see past their noses on any thing. The high cost for start up, for maintaining the source, for house holds is beyond common since. The really bad part of this, people drink their lies like water. The people of this country are all idiots when energy is mentioned, they believe what they are told, not what is seinceable.

      The cost to us that can afford this is few, those that can not, those on the "guvement" role will have to be susdized by the rest of us. We the tax payer will end up paying the entire bill for this worthless program in the long run.

      The EPA and obama, reid, and pelosi know this bill can not pass except in a lame duck session, so they will do this just like the healthcare billo, we will not know what is in it untill it is written, then and only then will we know how bad we got screwed, plus no kiss in the process.

    4. Robert, Az says:

      Most of these bureaucratic elitists have never had to run a business or balance anything. Most lawyers and life-politians do not have any experience in any economic fields. The only concerns they have ever had is how to get votes for themselves so they can enjoy the perks and entitlements of public "servants." They don't realize the technology does not exist to make renewable energy affordable compared to fossil fuels. Until that time comes we have to use the least expensive methods. I think more research is necessary to achieve lower costs for wind and solar energy and not subsidize anything at a cost to the taxpayer. This is all corruption that is happening with kickbacks and skimming off the taxpayers dollars.

    5. John, Illinois says:

      There is another thing about "renewable energy sources I.E wind and solar". You have to have a back up already on line to take up the slack when the wind dies down, or it is night. That back up is something that does not depend upon wind or sun, like coal, gas, nuclear, or oil.

    6. Jamie Friedland, DC says:

      My goodness. The quality of the energy coverage here is startling.

      A 2009 study by the National Renewable Energy Lab found that even a 20% RES wouldn't accelerate clean energy deployment above the business as usual scenario propelled by the energy market.

      http://washingtonindependent.com/92525/analyzing-

      The current proposal of 15% would accomplish even less…of nothing. This push is essentially symbolic.

      Can one of your energy experts please explain to me how a bill that has no practical impact can "kill a million jobs and cut a trillion dollars"? I am genuinely curious.

      Drew, please look at fossil fuel subsidies: http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/energy%20subsidie

      and then energy industry lobbying expenditures/political contributions:
      http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?i
      …and then try that comment again.

    7. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×