it would create 16,000 jobs and only raise consumer electric bills between 8.8% and 28.4%. ---- only?
no thanks US policy should always be to burn their oil first On May 11, 10:52 am, JSM <[email protected]> wrote: > What's Worse Than Energy Taxes? Renewable Electricity > Standards<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217934:6271807879:m:1:1...> > On March 15th, appearing with labor and environmental leaders, Los Angeles > Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa > unveiled<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217935:6271807879:m:1:1...>a > new alternative energy plan that he said would ensure the Los Angeles > Department of Water and Power would meet his goal of securing 20% of its > energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar by December 31st. At > the time, he claimed it would create 16,000 jobs and only raise consumer > electric bills between 8.8% and 28.4%. But less than two weeks later those > energy rate hike estimates had skyrocketed with the DWP saying it > needed to raise > rates by > 37%<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217936:6271807879:m:1:1...>in > order to meet the renewable energy standards. Los Angeles' already > shrinking business community revolted and by April Mayor Villaraigosa's plan > had been soundly > defeated<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217937:6271807879:m:1:1...> > . > > What played out in Los Angeles is now about to play out in Washington. Sen. > Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has been marshaling his American Clean Energy and > Security Act > (ACELA)<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217938:6271807879:m:1:1...> > through > committee<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217939:6271807879:m:1:1...>and > is set to move it to the floor soon. The heart of Bingaman's plan is > essentially the same as Mayor Villaraigosa's: a renewable electricity > standard (RES) that mandates sellers of electricity to produce a growing > percentage of their power from renewable energy sources every two > years<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217940:6271807879:m:1:1...>. > And like Mayor Villaraigosa's plan, Sen. Bingaman's renewable energy > standards would also mean higher electricity prices for all Americans. > > The inconvenient truth is this: nearly half of America’s > electricity<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217941:6271807879:m:1:1...>is > generated from coal. Natural gas and nuclear energy add about 20 > percent > each. Most of the rest is provided by renewable sources, primarily > hydroelectric energy at 6 percent. Non-hydro renewables like wind, solar > energy and biomass total only 3 percent. And this is after decades of > existing generous renewable > subsidies<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217942:6271807879:m:1:1...>. > If electricity created by wind and other renewables were cost competitive, > consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption. > But renewable energy is not cost competitive, hence the need for government > coercion to force the American people to buy it. > > But just how much more will we have to pay for energy under renewable > electricity standards? There are federal > studies<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217943:6271807879:m:1:1...>of > the costs of an RES that conclude that it would add no more than a few > percent to electric rates. But these studies do not take the full cost of > wind and other renewables into account, including the additional resources > needed to overcome the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind energy or > the construction of new transmission lines connecting rural wind generation > to urban power needs. > > Taking all these additional factors into account, the Heritage Foundation's > Center for Data Analysis has crunched the > numbers<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217944:6271807879:m:1:1...>and > found that at an RES would: 1) Raise electricity prices by 36 percent > for households and 60 percent for industry; 2) Cut national income (GDP) by > $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; 3) Cut national income by $2,400 per > year for a family of four; 4) Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; > and 5) Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national > debt by 2035. > > The CDA report > concludes<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/4217944:6271807879:m:1:1...>: > "Electric power is one of the most critical inputs to a modern economy. > Thus, it is no surprise that forcing the cost of electricity to rise dampens > economic activity. The cost increase for electricity can be viewed as a > particularly damaging energy tax, because a renewable mandate, unlike the > case of a normal tax, provides no revenue to at least partially offset the > higher cost. By way of comparison, the highway use tax on gasoline raises > the price of gasoline, but it also generates revenues for building and > maintaining roads and bridges. On the other hand, a renewable energy > standard raises costs in the form of less efficient production, which > provides no economic benefit." > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
