October 7, 2014 9:40 AM
While vacationing in Germany recently, I noted many beautiful and now largely untenanted churches. Elegant, majestic against the sky, they are potent symbols of a religious system no longer observed by many. They are maintained now largely as historic and cultural artifacts. I also noted, framed against the German landscape, the “temples” of today’s eco-theocrats—gigantic engineering marvels dominating almost all ridge lines, the modern version of the technologies of the 15th Century—windmills. As a technocrat, I did appreciate their aesthetic nature and can only marvel at the deep beliefs that have encouraged the German government to spend hundreds of billions on their construction and on the electrical interconnections necessary to get that power to market.
As a result, energy costs have gone up dramatically, threatening the competitiveness of German industry (particularly the chemical and manufacturing sectors), encouraging firms to expand in nations with more affordable energy and raising consumer energy bills. Understandably, political opposition has mounted to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand “Energiewende” plan for moving Germany to greater dependence on wind and solar power. The current system is non-sustainable.
October 7, 2014 9:26 AM
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (commonly called "the stimulus"), a $300 million program to subsidize consumer purchases of energy-efficient appliances called the State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program was established. A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzes the results of the "Cash for Appliances" subsidy scheme. It turns out that "Cash for Appliances" was an incredibly inefficient energy-efficiency program. From the conclusion:
We estimate freeriding rates of 73% to 92% across our three appliance categories. As a result, our measures of cost-effectiveness, ranging from $0.44 to $1.46 per kWh saved, are an order of magnitude greater than the $0.06 per kWh average cost-effectiveness estimated for utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs. Even after generous assumptions about accelerated replacement, the cost per kWh saved of C4A remains 4 to 16 times greater than this average in the literature.
August 19, 2014 3:24 PM
In the mail, I recently received a brochure from a firm called Solar Solution LLC, claiming to be the District of Columbia’s #1 solar installer. Included was the following table showing the initial estimated cost and then, in subsequent columns, the multiple layers of subsidies one might obtain. These include the 30 percent federal tax credit, the D.C. solar grant, and the Solar Renewable Energy Credit.
The effects are significant – a system initially estimated at $29,400 translates into an out-of-pocket cost of only $6,300. Clearly, Solar Solution is doing a brisk business with their current business plan. Given their success, they may be tempted to branch out to other services. The list of technologies that would become commercially successful with a 79 percent taxpayer discount is long indeed.
July 22, 2014 2:21 PM
America’s Energy Advantage has responded to my July 1 post criticizing its stance on the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. That bill would liberalize liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, while AEA opposes such exports because they would supposedly raise the raise the price of the LNG used by AEA’s members.
What’s ironic is that, in its response to my post, AEA relies on a study that actually demonstrates the broad beneficial effects of exports. This study is the NERA’s Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States. AEA claims that, despite being a pro-export study, the NERA study actually enforces their view, that LNG exports should be limited. According to AEA, “Once one looks beyond the surface-level conclusion “exports provide net benefits to the U.S. economy,” at winners and losers…the NERA report shows that the “losers” in this scenario are ALL other sectors of the U.S. economy and consumers, while the “winners” are producers and exporters of LNG.”
July 1, 2014 3:51 PM
Last Thursday the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act with a bipartisan vote of 266-150. The bill orders the Department of Energy to make a final decision on applications to export natural gas within 30 days of the bills enactment. This would greatly speed up the process, as the DOE has allowed some applications to languish for more than 2 years without a determination being made, effectively strangling exports of natural gas.
The bill’s passage came despite the best efforts of America’s Energy Advantage, a business advocacy group that strongly opposes the bill. In a press release the day before the bill’s passage, AEA declared “exports of this scale will raise domestic natural gas and electricity prices for every American, undermine our manufacturing competiveness and cost the nation good-paying jobs”. Its argument is as follows: if we export natural gas, that will lower the supply sold in America, which will lead to an increase in natural gas prices. That, in turn, will “hurt manufacturing competiveness”(especially among companies who are part of the AEA) by making it more expensive to produce their goods. To protect America, then, we must limit natural gas exports.
For that reason, the AEA called the bill “harmful to the public interest of American consumers, manufacturers and the economy” in a statement following passage.
June 23, 2014 3:50 PM
My colleagues over at GlobalWarming.org are already mulling over what today’s ruling in UARG v. EPA means for the future of American industry and energy production, but there’s a very important aspect to today’s ruling with constitutional implications.
Part of the reason why EPA’s “tailoring rule” was challenged and struck down was because it was a blatant attempt to rewrite the plain wording of a law for its own convenience, a maneuver that my colleague Marlo Lewis called “breathtakingly lawless.”