Cheaper Than What Exactly?

Curious that I find this story today of all days.....

For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.

Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers — the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market — and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs...Austin Energy officials say that times have changed and that the nation's most successful (by volume of sales) green-energy program, which offers the renewable energy only to those who select it, might no longer be the best way to carry out the city's goals. It now costs almost three times more than the standard electricity rate.

Hmmm and yet I was just told today that wind and solar were the "cheapest"....what is causing these increases? In part the cost of building the wind farms....

Steel, concrete, copper and labor have all gotten more expensive, in turn making wind-farm construction more costly.

and in part the cost of getting the power from the wind farm to the city that needs the energy...

Texas doesn't have enough transmission lines to carry all the electricity generated in West Texas to the state's big cities. This in turn means Austin has to pay more to get its wind energy here.

One of the reason that there are not enough transmission lines is the fact that environmentalists are fighting the construction of the transmission lines that are necessary to getting the power out of the wind farms.

“We want smaller-scale projects closer to where load is and where there would be less harmful impacts,” Citizens Energy Task Force attorney Paula Maccabee told Greenwire on December 1.

The problem with that (as I was told by a Public Utilities specialist in Minnesota) is that the quality of the wind in the urban areas is not good enough to provide the needed power!

All of this helps belie the talking points of the "green" movement. Their concern is not providing energy - it is taking energy options OFF OF THE TABLE in order to drive the economy further down. It is a dirty little secret that the clean energy crew hopes we never figure out.

Cap And Trade Postponed

In light of Brave Sir Harry postponing a vote on cap and trade until after the summer recess (in hopes of people forgetting about it no doubt) I thought I would bring you even more documentation as to why this is a bad bill that must be stopped at all costs.

First comes this from the Washington Post.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction -- slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target -- would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

This is not $1600 per year for the family making over $250,000 a year - this is for the AVERAGE FAMILY OF 4 and the average family of 4 living in the United States of America makes a whopping $61,000 a year! So much for that campaign promise.

Meanwhile, The Heritage Foundation found this little gem.

At yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee,

EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

So let me get this straight - it will cost us $1600 per family AND it won't impact the climate one iota????? If that is the case then why are we even dealing with this? Jason - Richard, any defense of this???????

UPDATE: Another "cure" for global warming gets shot down (HT HA).

It’s a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

“If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?” asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: “Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy.”

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.

It's a point that I have tried to make in the past. I'm glad to see that the GAO has the data to back it up!

Fuzzy Facts

Last month, House Republicans (based on an MIT study) announced that President Obama's cap and trade proposals would end up costing the average household roughly $3100 a year. Shortly thereafter, Polifact interviewed the author of the MIT study where he contradicted that information. He said that it would only cost the average household $215 a year extra. Well that lead to all sorts of derision from the left. Well the worm has (as they say) turned yet again.

During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade's cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be "$800 per household", he wrote. "I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others)."

It is nice to see that MIT professors fall prey to the same mistakes (in relying on spread sheet calculations and typos) as the rest of us do. It is comforting in some small way. However, the mistake gets even bigger as the interview with Weekly Standard goes on.

While $800 is significantly more than Reilly's original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama's middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the "cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases]," Reilly wrote. "So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy."

In other words, Reilly estimates that "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners...

So in other words, the House Republican Caucus was RIGHT...cap and trade will cost the American taxpayer $3128 a year IN ADDITIONAL TAXES!!!!! Michele Bachamann was right - someone alert Eric Ringham (Star Tribune editor)!

Now there is some debate on what will happen with those tax dollars....

...Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, "the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800]."

In Reilly's view, the $3,128 taken through taxes will be "returned" to each household whether or not the government cuts a $3,128 rebate check to each household.

That is a big assumption given that we are talking about a government that already takes more (in the form of taxes) than it gives back to the people. However, that is only one of many assumptions that this MIT professor makes when he makes this statement. First off, who is going to get that money from those that collected it? The state government or the Feds? It should be the states since they most closest regulate the energy companies, but I think we can safely assume that since this is federal cap and trade that it will go to the feds. The next assumption is that there is a mechanism in the bill to give that money back which there currently is not! Then there is the assumption that the average citizen thinks like an MIT professor....

The average citizen does not think like an MIT professor. They see the additional expenses in their monthly bill as just that. IF they get anything back from the government, they will not think of it as a "repayment" of that monthly expense - because that has already been spent. The Republicans presented this cap and trade increase in a way that the average bill payer is going to see it - as an upfront expense which is going to hurt those on fixed incomes the most!

The fact that Democrats are out to over tax everyone - rich and poor alike is no surprise to those of us in the "loyal opposition". Whether it is raising taxes on every day expeditures like food and clothing, to the occasional "luxury" like alcohol and cigarettes (more on this later), to electricity and heat, the Democrats are out to over tax everything that moves in order that they can force their lifestyle choices on the rest of us. It is time for the average citizen to say "Enough is enough". The Tax Day Tea Parties were just the beginning. Now is the time for every citizen to make sure that their legislator (state and federal) hears from them regularly - whether they agree with you or not! Make sure that the will of the voters are known in St. Paul, Salt Lake City and Washington DC! Make sure that your cap and trade supporting governors like Pawlenty and Huntsman know that you are NOT PLEASED with their signing on to a scheme that will take more and more of your hard earned tax dollars away from the more important things like private charity and your own family. That is the beginning....more to come.

Punishing The Poor, Middle Class and Small Business - AGAIN

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT3) released the following press release this week.

Washington, DC – Data released today by the House Committee on Ways and Means demonstrates that every state in the Union – and every American – will be hit hard by a new and highly regressive “Cap and Trade” tax.

The President’s recently-released budget imposes a $3.01 billion tax on Utahns. On a per capita basis, each Utahn will be hit with $1,115.47 in new taxes on their electricity bill alone. Families will be hit even harder. The data show this new tax will increase the average Utah family’s (3.08 people/household) annual electricity bill by $3,435.65 or by nearly $290 per month. While other energy costs are low as a result of the recession, all energy costs will increase as the Administration increases the velocity of its frontal assault on American energy security.
At a recent congressional hearing on energy consumption, Mr. Howard Gruenspecht, an expert witness from the Energy Information Agency (EIA), a non-partisan federal agency dealing with energy issues, was asked what percent of Americans consume some form of energy. He replied: “All of them.” Further, he was also asked what percent of Americans would be impacted by a cap and trade tax. His answer: “Probably all of them.”

Emphasis mine. Congressman Mike Pence had this to say on the subject.

"The President's energy policy is yet another example that his budget taxes too much. Buried beneath the promise to not raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans is a ‘light switch tax' that will impact every working family at a time when many are struggling to make ends meet. Raising the costs of energy by up to $3,100 on every American household will have a devastating impact on our nation's families and small businesses.

"Americans vividly remember the days of spending more than $4 for a gallon of gas. The President's misguided energy policies will limit supply and ensure that high prices are the way of the future. Rest assured, House Republicans will continue to fight for energy independence."

The ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee brought out this table.

Annual Increase in Electricity Costs
(based on the Stern Review's recommended carbon price of $85 per ton)

State	Cost at 100% Auction (in millions)	Increase in Electricity Costs per Capita
.Alabama	7124.6	$1,528.26
.Alaska	367.5	$535.49
.Arizona	4365.3	$671.57
.Arkansas	2240.6	$784.69
.California	4647.8	$126.45
.Colorado	3471.5	$702.81
.Connecticut	981	$280.19
.Delaware	19.9	$22.79
.District of Columbia	578.4	$977.30
.Florida	11077.6	$604.40
.Georgia	7586.5	$783.26
.Hawaii	767.6	$595.87
.Idaho	113.4	$74.42
.Illinois	8567.2	$664.04
.Indiana	10378	$1,627.46
.Iowa	3417.6	$1,138.23
.Kansas	3199.6	$1,141.84
.Kentucky	7677.1	$1,798.23
.Louisiana	4853.6	$1,100.39
.Maine	599.9	$455.69
.Maryland	2832.7	$502.82
.Massachusetts	2279.6	$350.82
.Michigan	6691.7	$668.94
.Minnesota	3304.7	$633.04
.Mississippi	2137.4	$727.35
.Missouri	6785.5	$1,147.83
.Montana	1661.7	$1,717.63
.Nebraska	1876.7	$1,052.30
.Nevada	2206.1	$848.45
.New Hampshire	694.1	$527.51
.New Jersey	1793.8	$206.60
.New Mexico	2782.9	$1,402.42
.New York	5137.8	$263.61
.North Carolina	6450.7	$699.46
.North Dakota	2790.8	$4,350.56
.Ohio	11205.6	$975.60
.Oklahoma	4373.3	$1,200.68
.Oregon	762.1	$201.08
.Pennsylvania	10770.6	$865.23
.Rhode Island	221.2	$210.51
.South Carolina	3473.7	$775.41
.South Dakota	280.5	$348.80
.Tennessee	5090	$819.00
.Texas	21986.2	$903.78
.Utah	3052.4	$1,115.47
.Vermont	1.2	$1.93
.Virginia	4055.2	$521.97
.Washington	1267.1	$193.47
.West Virginia	7207.6	$3,972.29
.Wisconsin	4587.4	$815.11
.Wyoming	3861.6	$7,249.54

Source: Committee on Ways & Means Republican Staff analysis

An economic staffer to the Obama Administration admitted to a group of Senators that the Administration's Cap and Tax plan will net the government ALMOST $2TRILLION in additional revenue to the government over 8 years.

President Obama's climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House's initial estimate of the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation, according to Senate staffers who were briefed by the White House.

A top economic aide to Mr. Obama told a group of Senate staffers last month that the president's climate-change plan would surely raise more than the $646 billion over eight years the White House had estimated publicly, according to multiple a number of staffers who attended the briefing Feb. 26.

"We all looked at each other like, 'Wow, that's a big number,'" said a top Republican staffer who attended the meeting along with between 50 and 60 other Democratic and Republican congressional aides.

Emphasis mine. A big number that will be passed on to you the consumer. What will also be passed on to consumers is the additional cost of manufacturing goods and shipping goods. Every business that uses electricity will pass on a portion of their increased costs to their customer's as well. Any business that uses electricity will pass this additional cost of doing business on to the consumer! Think about that the next time you go to the grocery store or to buy clothes for your kids!

So are you ready to pay an extra $3400+ a year for light and heat? Because if the President has his way - you will be paying that very, very soon.