Up-to-Date Energy News

CLIMATE BILL SPELLS “SKYROCKETING” ENERGY RATES, UNEMPLOYMENT, LESS FREEDOM

By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
July 14, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

WASHINGTON – It was close, but late Friday, June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the highly controversial H.R. 2998 (originally H.R. 2454): The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) -- called informally the “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill” after its cosponsors Henry Waxman, Calif., and Ed Markey, Mass., both Democrats. The bill now awaits action by the Senate.

This was the first time either house of Congress had approved legislation designed to curb “greenhouse gases” that many believe contribute to “global warming” and climate change. The vote was 212-219. Forty-four Democrats voted No, and without the Yes-votes of eight Republicans it would have gone down in defeat.

President Obama hailed the historic passage, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led the charge in ramming the bill through the House, determined to secure approval by July 4.

“We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future,” Pelosi boasted at a press conference following the roll call.

And in a derisive slap at the grassroots opposition that bombarded congressional offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, she declared: “For some it was a difficult vote because the agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here [in D.C.], but [the representatives] withstood that.”

It would definitely be “transformational.” Waxman-Markey is arguably the most sweeping, far-reaching measure Congress has ever considered in terms of its impact on the U.S. economy, industry and standard of living – and the most costly.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.”

Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), describes it as “a massive tax hike that would vastly expand the federal government’s power over the economy. Indeed, [Waxman-Markey] would be the largest tax increase in world history, [would] transfer vast wealth from consumers to big-business special interests.

“And it would put Washington in charge of people’s lives in a way not seen since the Second World War – which was the last time Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities,” he warned.

Yet despite its magnitude, the Democrat-controlled House voted to allow just three hours of debate for the bill itself, plus half an hour for a 309-page Manager’s Amendment (H.R. 2998) by Waxman that was dropped in the hopper at 3 a.m. that morning.

Nobody had read the entire measure, let alone the amendment, when they voted: copies weren’t even available. Moreover, it had grown from about 950 pages to an eyeball-glazing 1,510 in the five days before the vote (that’s including the amendment).

“Unfortunately, this is the New World Order,” said Andrew Moylan, Director of Government Affairs at the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). “Where we have bills that are written in secret, are debated in no time at all, get passed into law – and we find out what little cookies are in there for us after the fact.”

(For lists of some of the hundreds of “cookies” in the Manager’s Amendment click here and here.)

The High Cost of Going Green

The goal of Waxman-Markey is to decrease the level of carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. These gases occur naturally (CO2, in particular, is necessary for plant life), but levels are said to be increased by the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) during energy production that provides 85 percent of U.S. electricity.

That increase is alleged to contribute to “global warming” – though this is widely disputed, as is the theory that there’s any global warming at all. Contrary to claims of Waxman-Markey supporters, such as former Vice President Al Gore, the scientific community is divided over whether there is global warming and if there is, what causes it and what to do about it.

[Read: "Global Warming Challenged" by Willian Hunt]

The bill mandates that 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from “renewable” sources. Electric and gas utilities, refineries, cement plants, steel foundries and other companies would be required to lower the amount of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and down to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

This will be done through an elaborate permitting process called cap-and-trade that requires companies to have one emission permit – in effect, a ration coupon -- for every ton of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks. The government will set a cap for the maximum amount of CO2 emission, and ratchet the cap down over time -- in theory, forcing companies to invest in lower-carbon technologies such as wind and solar.

Critics predict huge hikes in the cost of lighting, heating, air cooling, and transportation – any activity that depends on electricity or gasoline – plus increases in the price of food and consumer goods and serious unemployment. Overall costs are estimated to range anywhere from $2 trillion to $9 trillion.

“We’re talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars per year in added costs to energy,” Moylan told NewsWithViews. “That’s something that people are not going to have a choice about if they want to keep the lights on, drive to work and get the kids to school.”

Just before the vote the Congressional Budget Office released figures purporting to show that the cost to the average household would be only $175 a year by 2020. An earlier estimate by CBO had set the tab at $1,600 a year.

Except for this conveniently released report by the CBO, there are virtually no one is claiming that Waxman-Markey is going to be cheap – not even the president for whom it’s a top priority measure.

Obama: “Electricity Rates Will Skyrocket”

In a famous interview with editors of the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 17, 2008), then-Senator Obama admitted the price of electricity would go up. Way up. In his words:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket … because I’m capping greenhouse gases -- coal power plants, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money; they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.”

Obama further explained how it would be necessary to persuade the American people that although there would be “some increase” in electricity rates, “over the long term -- because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, and changing light bulbs, more efficient appliances, but also technology in proving how we can produce clean energy -- the economy will benefit.”

He did not promise that rates would eventually come down or even that it would be possible to develop the necessary technology. He only said that the economy would “benefit” and the argument must be made “persuasively enough” for Americans to accept the plan.

At the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, researchers crunched numbers and came up with some specifics about the first 23 years of a project that’s planned to go on for the next 90 years.

According to Heritage findings, under Waxman-Markey the cost of electricity will soar 90 percent between 2012 and 2035; gasoline prices will rise 58 percent; and residential natural gas, 55 percent. A family of four can expect its annual energy bill to be raised by $1,241. (Figures are adjusted for inflation, and assume a 36 percent cut in energy use by consumers trying to adjust to escalating costs.)

That $1,241 yearly energy bill is just the direct increase in energy prices. As energy prices go up, the costs of making consumer goods will follow and businesses will pass these along in the form of higher prices. From the Heritage Foundation's analysis:

“As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the direct and indirect energy tax impacts have been added up, family-of-four costs will rise by $2,979 per year on the average over the 2023-2035 timeframe. In 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609.”

With the slowing of the economy, unemployment will go up on average 1,145,000 a year in lost jobs, with peak years seeing unemployment of over 2.4 million jobs gone.

Then there’s the national debt: “By 2035 Waxman-Markey will have driven the national debt 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation, and that represents an additional $28,728 per person, or $114,915 for a family of four.”

Energy Rationing Ahead?

Steve Milloy, co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research and publisher of JunkScience.com, foresees a particularly bleak future of contrived shortages, a higher cost of living, and less personal freedom.

“Worse than the increased cost of energy, perhaps, is that the Waxman-Markey bill will essentially result in artificial limits on energy production and, ultimately, electricity rationing,” Milloy predicts. “The bill will create a permanent energy crisis.”

This will necessarily lead to restrictions on personal activities. “A nation’s standard of living is ultimately based upon the use of energy, be it for work or play,” writes naturalist William Hunt, in a piece for NewsWithViews.

Cooking, heating one’s house, mowing the lawn, cooking, driving to the grocery store, going to the beach on the weekend – “All of these represent freedoms, both nationally and personally. The ability to get into a car and drive is an incredible freedom that most of the world does not have,” Hunt observes.

If the price of gasoline is artificially increased 58 percent, low-income families and individuals would be hard-pressed to pay for it and forced to change their driving habits, perhaps giving up driving altogether.

“These, and indeed all other measures suggested by politicians, regulators and NGOs to deal with global warming [cap and trade, carbon taxes] are about controlling what you do with your life by controlling energy,” says Hunt. “All such things do is to raise the price consumers have to pay for basic needs. They harm the poor most of all by hitting them by raising the costs for basic costs like heat, light, water, sewer, food, gasoline for commuting to work, and every consumer good— clothes, soap, cars, everything.”

Waxman-Markey vs. the Laws of Thermodynamics

“What they’re doing is raising the cost of traditional energy so high that it would be feasible to invest in alternate technologies,” says Andrew Moylan.

“Today, alternative technologies – as great as they may seem to people – are very expensive. It’s not that people desperately want to destroy the environment that they’re not investing in them. They don’t invest in them because they’re extremely expensive. So if you raise the cost of traditional energy so high that it makes other technologies more palatable in terms of cost, there’s going to be more investment in those.”

Whether these will work or not is another question.

Keith Rattie, CEO of Utah-based Questar Corp., is one of the many global-warming skeptics who doesn’t think they will, and he explained why in a talk he gave to the graduating class of Utah Valley University this April.

Said Rattie: “Why has my generation failed to develop wind and solar? Because our energy choices are ruthlessly ruled, not by political judgments, but by the immutable laws of thermodynamics. In engineer-speak, turning diffused sources of energy such as photons in sunlight or the kinetic energy in wind requires massive investment to concentrate that energy into a form that’s usable on any meaningful scale.

“What’s more, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Unless or until there’s a major breakthrough in high-density electricity storage – a problem that has confounded scientists for more than 100 years – wind and solar can never be relied upon to provide base load power.”

The Fundamental Question

And in the end, will it be worth it?

“That’s the issue,” said Moylan. “I’m no climate expert, but the folks who are say that even if everything goes according to their plan – which is unlikely – global temperatures might be reduced by one-tenth of one degree by the year 2050.

“I guess that’s the fundamental question: Is one-tenth of one degree reduction in temperature under the best of circumstances worth $2 trillion in costs? I would say no. I would hope that most rational people say the answer is no. But it seems symbolism has been elevated above science in the debate.”

H.R. 2454:
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.

June 29, 2009 11:11 AM
Obama Praises Energy Bill But Critical Of Tariff

President Obama will give discuss energy policy this afternoon, just days after the House of Representatives passed landmark climate change and energy legislation.

The president strongly advocated for the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, but in an interview with reporters over the weekend, his review of the bill was mixed.

Mr. Obama called the bill an "extraordinary first step," according to the Washington Post, that would make renewable energy "a driver of economic growth."

He said the flexibility built into the bill enabled moderates to support the measure -- the first ever to impose a federal price on carbon.

"Finding the right balance between providing new incentives to businesses but not giving away the store is always an art, it's not a science," he said, the Post reported. "But, on balance, I think what we have with this legislation is a bill that business can embrace but is tough enough that by 2020 we will have seen significant reductions in carbon emissions."

The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The legislation aims to meet that goal by instituting a price on carbon emissions through a "cap-and-trade" system, which would enable industries to buy and trade permits that allow them to emit certain levels of carbon. However, about 85 percent of the permits would be given away -- an example of the significant compromises orchestrated to gain broader support for the bill.

The bill passed by a narrow margin, with a vote of 219 to 212. While eight Republicans voted for it, 44 Democrats voted against it.

"I think those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue," Mr. Obama said, according to the Post. "They've got to run every two years, and I completely understand that."

The New York Times called the vote "an important, if tentative, victory for the president." The Times emphasized that the legislation will be even more difficult to get through the Senate, which Mr. Obama acknowledged. The president, the newspaper reported, spoke out against a provision in the bill that would impose a tariff on certain goods from countries that are not also limiting their own global warming emissions.

"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade," Mr. Obama said, the Times reported. "I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there."

He added, "I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach."

The Times noted that Mr. Obama "has sometimes sent mixed signals about his attitude toward free trade," and has let Congress negotiate the details of the legislation.

In spite of the tariff provision, the president said the measure would spark innovation and jobs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"What seems contentious now is going to seem like common sense in hindsight," the president reportedly said.

The LA Times also said Mr. Obama "sounded optimistic" about the bill's chances in the Senate.

The Wall Street Journal, however, highlighted recent remarks from senators cynical about the horse-trading that will have to take place.

"It was a struggle to get [climate legislation] through the House, and there's no reason to think it will be any different in the Senate," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), according to the Journal. Boxer chairs a panel with jurisdiction over climate legislation.

Noting Republican criticism of the bill, the Journal quotes Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa): "You're going to find signs on manufacturing doors, if this bill passes, that say, 'Moved, gone to China,'" Grassley said on ABC's "This Week."

The Journal points out that Mr. Obama did not say in his interview with reporters whether he would veto the bill if the tariff provision remained a part of it.

TVA To Review Power, Natural Resource Options for Next 20 Years

June 16, 2009

TVA will chart its options for generating electricity and managing natural resources for the next 20 years in a new Integrated Resource Plan called TVA’s Environmental and Energy Future.

The plan will outline various sources for producing electricity, their costs and reliability and their potential impacts on the environment. It also will review ways to conserve and manage natural resources and consider types of viable renewable generation that are available.

TVA will conduct meetings beginning in July to get public input on TVA’s natural resource management activities and input on power source options to ensure a reliable supply of electricity for the future with minimal environmental impacts. A schedule of Integrated Resource Plan public meetings throughout the Tennessee Valley will be available on the Web site, www.tva.gov/irp.

All meetings will be held from 4-8 p.m. local time. The meeting schedule is:

Monday, July 20 — Ellington Agricultural Center, Ed Jones Auditorium, 440 Hogan Road, Nashville, Tenn.
Tuesday, July 21 — University of Tennessee Chattanooga, University Center, Chattanooga Room, 642A E. 5th St., Chattanooga, Tenn.
Thursday, July 23 — Pellissippi State University, College Center, 10915 Hardin Valley Road, Knoxville, Tenn.
Tuesday, July 28 —Marriott at the Space Center, Salons A-C, 5 Tranquility Base, Huntsville, Ala.
Thursday, July 30 — James E. Bruce Convention Center, Ballrooms 1-2, 303 Conference Center Drive, Hopkinsville, Ky.
Tuesday, Aug. 4 — Mississippi State University, Colvard Student Union, Union Ballroom Section M, 310 E. Lee Blvd., Starkville, Miss.
Thursday Aug. 6 — Bridges Center, High Adventure Room, 477 N. 5th St., Memphis, Tenn.

“These meetings and the resulting plan will help TVA determine what is most important to Tennessee Valley stakeholders and ratepayers in energy and environmental matters,” said TVA Senior Vice President of the Office of Environment and Research Anda Ray. “At the meetings, the public will have an opportunity to review TVA’s environmental guiding principals and to provide input on power generating options for the future.”

TVA completed a similar 20-year Integrated Resource Plan in 1995, titled Energy Vision 2020.

TVA is the nation’s largest public power provider and is completely self-financing. TVA provides power to large industries and 158 power distributors that serve approximately 9 million consumers in seven southeastern states. TVA also manages the Tennessee River and its tributaries to provide multiple benefits, including flood damage reduction, navigation, water quality and recreation.

Media Contact

Barbara Martocci, Knoxville, (865) 632-8632
TVA News Bureau, Knoxville, (865) 632-6000

TVA Newsroom

TVA, Local Power Companies To Market Test New Energy Efficiency Programs
May 27, 2009

TVA Expands Renewable Energy Program, Offers Additional Incentives

April 22, 2009

TVA is offering new incentives for homes and businesses to encourage the use of renewable energy and help increase the supply of renewable energy in the Tennessee Valley.

The incentives are offered through an expanded Generation Partners pilot program, which provides technical support and incentives for the installation of renewable generation systems. Under the pilot program, customers sell all of the power they generate to TVA at a premium price, and the local power company credits the customer for the generation received through a credit on their monthly electric bill.

The expanded pilot program offers new participating customers a one-time incentive of $1000 to help offset the startup costs for installing qualifying renewable resources, such as wind and solar generation. Other new features of the program include:

Biomass energy and low-impact hydropower, which were not part of the previous pilot program, are now eligible sources of renewable energy. Previously, only solar and wind were eligible.
The maximum installation size has been increased to 999 kilowatts, and the price TVA pays for the generation is now 12 cents per kilowatt-hour above the local electric rate for solar and 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for wind, low impact hydro, and biomass, including the Fuel Cost Adjustment.

“The Generation Partners program allows TVA and local power distributors to work together with those customers who are interested in expanding renewable energy across the Valley,” said TVA Senior Manager of Generation Partners Susan Ross. “Now we are including even more eligible renewable resources and additional incentives to make the program more attractive to more customers.”

In partnership with local distributors, TVA has offered the Generations Partners pilot program since 2003, and 68 homeowners in the region currently participate.

“We also encourage anyone thinking about purchasing renewable energy sources to check out the federal and state tax credits that may be available,” said Ross. More information on federal and state tax credits can be found at www.dsire.org.

Currently, a total of 71 distributors across the Valley offer the Generation Partners program, and interested customers should contact their local power distributor for more information or go to www.gpsgenpartners.com.

Media Contact

Jim Allen, Knoxville, (865) 632-7453
TVA News Bureau, Knoxville, (865) 632-6000

TVA Newsroom

TVA Board Approves Purchase of Renewable and Clean Energy

April 2, 2009

JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. – The TVA Board today authorized the purchase of as much as 2,000 megawatts of renewable and clean energy by 2011 as part of TVA’s plan to have 50 percent of its power supply from clean and renewable energy sources by 2020.

At a meeting in Johnson City, Tenn., the Board authorized TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore to approve power purchase agreements and contracts for the renewable and clean energy.

In a report to the Board, Kilgore discussed the latest quarterly fuel cost adjustment that was effective Wednesday, April 1, resulting in a 7-percent decrease in TVA’s average wholesale rates. Combined with a 6-percent decrease Jan. 1, TVA has now rolled back almost 90 percent of the 17-percent fuel cost adjustment that went into effect Oct. 1, 2008. While savings will vary across the Tennessee Valley, the April 1 fuel cost adjustment will mean that residential consumers can expect a decrease on their monthly power bills that ranges from about $4 to $9, depending on how much electricity they use.

TVA may begin entering into contracts as early as June 1 with some of the renewable or clean energy suppliers that provided the most competitive responses to a request for proposals issued in December last year. Renewable energy sources include wind, hydro, solar or biomass.

“It is our goal to reduce TVA’s environmental footprint by increasing the renewable and clean energy resources in our generation mix,” said Kilgore. “Renewable energy and energy efficiency will be part of our clean energy portfolio that has zero or near-zero carbon emissions, which will help reduce the impacts of climate change.”

Kilgore said TVA will negotiate contracts that are “competitive with forecasted electricity market prices over the term of the contract.” Contract terms will be up to 20 years.

TVA received more than 60 responses to its request for proposals to provide clean and renewable energy by June 2011. TVA notified the responders who met the criteria and is continuing discussions with them.

In his report to the Board, Kilgore also said the effects of the drought are continuing into 2009.

For the first three months of this year, rainfall in the eastern part of the Tennessee Valley is below normal and slightly less than rainfall during January-March of 2008. Runoff – the water that reaches streams and reservoirs – is slightly higher so far this year than it was during first three months of 2008, but is still below normal. The tributary reservoirs still need 4 to 8 inches of rain to reach normal summer levels.

Media Contact

John Moulton, Knoxville, (865) 632-8048
TVA News Bureau, Knoxville, (865) 632-6000

TVA Board Approves 2009 Budget, Rate Adjustment
August 20, 2008

**Up-to-Date Energy News**

TVA To Review Power, Natural Resource Options for Next 20 Years

Media Contact

TVA Expands Renewable Energy Program, Offers Additional Incentives

Media Contact

TVA Board Approves Purchase of Renewable and Clean Energy

Media Contact

Up-to-Date Energy News