Green Stimulus Money Going Overseas

Since September 1, 84 percent of the $1.05 billion in clean energy grants has gone to foreign wind companies. Foreign countries benefiting from stimulus funds for wind technology are Spain (57%), Germany (12.6%), Japan (9.5%), and Portugal (5%).[i] Companies began applying for grants at the end of July and awards were announced by the two joint administrators of the program, the Energy and Treasury Departments, beginning on Sept. 1. In the first round of the grants, 77% went to foreign wind developers, followed by 84% in the second round. Of the 11 wind farms that received grants, 695 of the 982 installed turbines were manufactured by a foreign company.[ii]

Further, there are few restrictions on how the grants can be used. According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, over $800 million were provided to wind farms that were already producing electricity. As required by law, all 11 wind farms started operating after January 1, 2009, but before the grants were awarded.[iii]

Turbine Manufacturing Dominated by Foreign Competitors

The U.S. currently has the most installed wind capacity in the world, but it is not a leader in the manufacture of turbines. The Investigative Reporting Workshop reported that of the turbines currently under construction in the U.S., 67 percent are slated to be purchased from foreign-owned turbine manufacturers.[iv] According to U.S. customs data for 2008, and the U.S. Trade Commission, the U.S. imported $2.5 billion worth of wind turbines last year—up from $365 million in 2003.

In the future, wind turbines and/or their component parts may be coming from China where lower labor costs have allowed Chinese-made products to dominate many manufactured goods in the U.S. GE, a major U.S. wind turbine producer, already owns three facilities in China that produce turbine components. GE is also planning a factory in Vietnam that will employ 500 local workers and export 10,000 tons of components to GE Energy assembly plants around the world.[v]

China is already beginning to develop its own strong hold for wind power in the U.S. A joint venture between China’s Shenyang Power Group, the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, and Cielo Wind Power LP to develop a 600 megawatt wind farm on 36,000 acres in West Texas, costing $1.5 billion, was announced on October 29, 2009.[vi] A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd., a provider of distributed generation systems in China and a fast-growing manufacturer of wind turbines, will supply the turbines. A-Power Energy entered the wind power industry last year.[vii] Delivery of wind turbines for the West Texas wind farm is scheduled for March 2010.[viii]

Graphic courtesy Investigative Reporting Workshop

Solar Cells Manufactured Overseas

Not only are wind turbines mostly manufactured in countries overseas, but so are photovoltaic (PV) cells. Florida Power & Light (FPL) started operating its 25 megawatt photovoltaic solar plant in southwest Florida in conjunction with a visit to the plant by President Obama on October 27. [ix] The DeSoto plant in southwest Florida is the first of a total of 110 megawatts of solar capacity that FPL will install at 3 different sites by the end of 2010. Although Obama praised FPL’s work in the solar arena, he did not tell the American public that the components of the DeSoto plant are from foreign countries. While the PV cells were provided by a firm from California, they were made in the Phillipines. The steel PV frame holding the cells was produced in Canada, and the electrical parts and boxes were made in Germany, where solar power has been given heavy subsidies by the German Government. While German manufacturers have been producing PV technology for their country’s solar expansion, they are now concerned that China will take over their market due to costs that are 30% lower.[x]

Conclusion

The Obama Administration has told the American public that it will produce jobs and stimulate the U.S. economy through green energy technology. He has also touted that stimulus funds will be used for goods made in America. Yet, the the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University finds that this is not the case. And, more examination of green energy development in the U.S., shows Asian and European countries well established here in providing the component parts for green energy technology.

The problem is not with international trade per se. In a genuinely free market, where politicians do not pick winners or losers, the most efficient firms would capture market share, be they American or foreign. The result would be the best products at the lowest prices for American consumers.

The real problems are a government “stimulus” plan and efforts to centrally plan a “green economy.” The government can only “stimulate” by spending money that it has first taxed or borrowed from the private sector. It would be bad enough for the government to destroy jobs in American fossil fuel industry while spending money on domestic producers of “green energy.” But it is particularly absurd for the U.S. government to cripple American industry while shoveling the lion’s share of the pork into the hands of foreign beneficiaries.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid

[v] “Vietnam’s first turbine component plant underway”, May 13, 2009, http://www.vietnewsonline.vn/News/Business/Companies-Finance/6072/Vietnams-first-turbine-component-plant-underway.htm

[vi] www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS200008+29-Oct-2009+BW20091029

[vii] “Lone Star, Meet Red Star: China’s $1.5 Billion Wind-Power Deal in Texas”, October 30, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/30/lone-star-meet-red-starchina%e2%80%99s-15-billiob-wind-power-deal-in-texas/

[viii] www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS195122+29-Oct-2009+PRN20091029

[ix] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/10/26/highest-cost-generating-plant-comes-on-line-in-florida-to-obama-fanfare/

[x] “Solar-Power Incentives in Germany Draw Fire,” Vanessa Fuhrmans, Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383541153239329.html

Whatever the reason, we would like to apologize to AWEA. Apparently we compelled them to use ad hominem attacks like “anti-clean energy” to describe our organization and “bogus” to describe our research. We would have preferred that AWEA produce a substantive rebuttal to our recently released report, “Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience.”

In an October 21^st blog post, AWEA states “IER’s strategy clearly is to discredit wind energy in other countries.” We do not have a strategy to discredit wind energy in other countries. President Obama and top Administration officials are telling us that America must follow Germany’s example with respect to renewables or we will be left behind. Taking the President at his word, we sought to better understand Germany’s experience by commissioning a study by the think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI). The report found the following facts:

• Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000.

• In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4 percent increase in consumer’s electricity bills.

• Between 2000 and 2010, the net cost of the German government support for solar was $73.2 billion and an additional $28.1 billion for wind. Because the U.S. economy is five times larger that Germany’s, a comparable expenditure in the U.S. would amount to about half a trillion dollars.

• Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.

• Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

AWEA lobbies Congress for government handouts and subsidies for wind energy production, so we understand why they would like to these facts to remain hidden.  As the report shows, Germany’s experiment with promoting renewable energy has been expensive, and transplanting that experience to the United States will be expensive.

Apples to oranges, AWEA argues, because Germany is not a good model for the United States.  In their own words:

“The problem is that the United States is not considering a feed in tariff as a means to encourage wind development because it would not work. Instead, the US is considering a free-market based national Renewable Electricity Standard, and numerous studies have shown that an RES would decrease electricity prices.”

We hope AWEA informs President Obama and other top Administration officials that Germany’s feed-in tariff is not a good model for the United States.

We hope AWEA informs Representative Jay Inslee, who is promoting legislation to establish a federal feed-in tariff, that the United States is not considering a feed-in tariff, as it would probably come as a surprise to him.

In a Congressional hearing on September 24, 2009, Representative Inslee explained that Germany’s system of promoting renewables through a feed-in tariff is a better way to go than the Spanish experience.

We hope AWEA informs itself that Germany’s feed-in tariff “would not work” in the U.S., instead of describing it as “similar to a Renewable Electricity Standard” which AWEA strongly supports.  Here’s what AWEA’s website says:

“A distributed generation or “feed-in” tariff ensures that locally owned, small-scale renewable energy systems become significant contributors to the local power supply. A feed-in tariff is similar to a Renewable Electricity Standard (see “Wind energy policy issues” www.awea.org/faq/wwt_policy.html) except that instead of establishing a set quantity of renewable electricity a utility must generate, it establishes a set price at which a utility purchases excess electricity from a renewable generator, such as a small wind system.”

In AWEA’s blog post, they describe a national Renewable Electricity Standard as “a free-market” program. That is not accurate. In free markets, people are free to choose. A Renewable Electricity Standard forces people to buy wind, solar, and other government-approved energy sources. It is a mandate.  Forcing someone to buy your product is not a free-market program by any definition.

Contrary to AWEA’s assertion that a Renewable Electricity Standard would lower energy prices, common sense and real-world evidence suggest otherwise. Wind and other government-approved renewables are more expensive than other forms of energy. Common sense tells us that requiring people to buy expensive and inefficient renewable energy, through a renewable energy mandate, will only increase the cost of electricity. Currently, twenty-nine states have binding renewable electricity mandates and the electricity prices in those states are thirty-eight percent higher than in states that do not have binding renewable electricity mandates.

Lastly, AWEA states that they expect IER “to take on other countries that have successfully integrated wind into their energy mix.” That assumes, of course, that increased electricity prices and billions of dollars in subsidies is a sign of successful integration of wind into a country’s electricity mix. Some would beg to differ, especially those who are footing the bill.

The Administration tells us that U.S. energy policy should emulate countries like Spain, Denmark, and Germany. The facts show that the promotion of renewables in Spain, Denmark, and Germany has been very expensive and has resulted in lower employment overall as an opportunity cost of the lavish subsidies. Of course, it is up to policymakers to ultimately decide whether the United States should follow a similar path, but no one should mislead Americans into thinking that doing so will come without a cost.

Washington, DC – Though proponents of so-called government-funded ‘green jobs’ often reference the ‘success’ European countries have enjoyed in their experiments with such regulations and mandates, a study released today in the United States sheds new light on Germany’s experience with renewable energy and heavy taxpayer subsidies. Entitled ‘Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience,’ the study was published by German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).

According to the study, “Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades.” Researchers add this: “German renewable energy policy … has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.”

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) – a non-partisan market-oriented energy think tank – issued the following statement:

“Today, Vice President Biden will tout the economic benefits of ‘green jobs’ and ‘green energy.’ However, this new analysis from Germany only further emphasizes the fact that when renewable energy has been mandated and subsidized by taxpayers, economies have constricted and suffered. Germany, like Spain, is just another example of how billions of tax dollars forced to support wind and solar energy create not a hint of economic or environmental benefits.

“Some in Washington, who are working to restrict, mandate and subsidize certain energy forms that would otherwise be unaffordable, continue to offer Germany as a case-study for success. However, such a policy could increase electricity prices nearly 20 percent and require a subsidy of nearly $240,000 dollars per ‘green job.’

“This study should serve as a cautionary tale of what is likely to occur should the US continue down the road of mandating politically-favored, expensive power. We would be well served to learn from, and not repeat, the mistakes of Germany, Spain and Denmark.”

Key findings:

• Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.

• In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.

• Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.

• Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.

• Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

On Monday, report co-author Dr. Colin Vance will be in Washington, D.C., part of a three-day tour (Monday-Wednesday) aimed at explaining to a wider American audience the core conclusions of their report. Those interested in speaking with Dr. Vance or setting up an interview should contact Patrick Creighton (202.621.2947) or Laura Henderson (202.621.2951).

More on the RWI Study

• Fact Sheet: Strike Three:  First Spain, Then Denmark, and Now Germany…

• Notable Quotes: Should the U.S. Follow Germany’s Renewable Energy Experiment?

• In pictures: Impact on electricity rates by region and by state

• Study: Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Before we discuss AWEA’s disagreements with IER and the Danish wind study, it is important to note a few things that AWEA did not disagree with. AWEA did not dispute that wind is heavily subsidized. AWEA did not dispute that wind power is an inefficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Danish wind study, for example, found that it costs on average $124 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced. And the AWEA did not dispute that subsidizing wind power is a very inefficient way to create jobs. The Danish wind study found that, optimistically, “the subsidy per job created is 600,000-900,000 DKK per year ($90,000 – $140,000 USD). This subsidy constitutes around 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing industry.” The AWEA, however, disagreed, with a few other issues which we discuss below.

Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark

President Obama, the AWEA, and other supporters of wind energy point to Denmark as a model the United States should emulate. For example, as the AWEA writes in a fact sheet, “In western Denmark, wind supplies more than 25% of the electricity that is used during windy winter nights. If wind energy in the U.S. were combined with serious efforts to increase energy efficiency, we could substantially reduce our national use of fossil fuels to generate electricity.” As the Danish wind study shows, Denmark’s situation is substantially different from the situation in the United States. As a result, Denmark wind’s production is not directly replicable by the United States.

To understand Denmark’s electricity situation, we must first understand electricity production in Norway and Sweden. When electricity from wind is produced but not consumed in Denmark, the electricity is exported to Norway and Sweden. This electricity directly replaces hydropower in Norway and Sweden, allowing Norwegian and Swedish lakes and reservoirs to retain more water than release the water to produce electricity. This is only possible because of Norway and Sweden’s vast hydropower resources. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2006, over 98 percent of electricity production in Norway was produced by hydropower[1] and 43 percent Sweden’s electricity was produced by hydropower.[2]

In America, it is harder to balance the electricity wind provides to the grid. Hydropower only supplies 6 percent of the electricity in the United States.[3] In some markets, such as the Pacific Northwest, hydroelectric power is plentiful. But the fickle nature of electricity from wind means that even in the Pacific Northwest it is difficult to balance the electrical load and the Bonneville Power Administration is increasing rates for wind operators by 90 percent (down from a proposed 300 percent increase).

Furthermore it is difficult for wind to replace much of the electricity generation from coal and natural gas. Coal-fired power plants are baseload electricity plants. They are not made to cycle as the wind ebbs and flows. Natural gas-fired turbines can cycle on and off to even out wind production, but natural gas-fired turbines are less energy efficient than combined cycle generation.

Electricity from wind only supplies an average of 9.7% of the electricity Denmark consumes, the rest of Denmark’s subsidized wind production is exported, bringing no direct benefit to Danish ratepayers

Wind produces the equivalent of 19 percent of the electricity consumed in Denmark. But, on average, over half of the electricity from wind in Denmark is exported. The AWEA does not understand why the Danish wind study is critical of exporting highly subsidized electricity. The AWEA writes that “it seems especially strange for a self-described “free-market” ground like IER to be so dismissive of interstate trade.”

The Institute for Energy Research and the study’s authors support free trade. The authors of the Danish wind study are concerned that Danish ratepayers subsidize wind power with few concomitant benefits to the Danes. As the study explains on page 22:

But for the Danish householder who is paying the subsidy in order to save imported fuel and CO2 emissions, the subsidy so exported brings no direct benefit at all. The total probable value of exported subsidies between 2000 and 2008, was DKK 6.8 billion (€ 916 million) during this period.

As the paper clearly states, the problem is not the trade, the problem is the export of subsidies. Because Denmark subsidies electricity from wind, it is logical to assume that Denmark should receive the perceived benefit of those subsidies. This is especially true when Danes have exported electricity for which they paid $1.3 billion in subsidies from 2000 through 2008.

AWEA argues that the Danish Wind Study has no bearing on the situation in the United States

AWEA argues that “even if the claim made by the study were true, this example would have no bearing on the situation in the U.S.” The Danish wind situation is very relevant to the situation in the United States. AWEA has cited Denmark as a model for the United States (in this fact sheet for example, and this article on integrating utility-scale wind energy onto the grid). When President Obama and the AWEA cite Denmark as a model, it makes Denmark relevant.

The AWEA fully supports a “strong” renewable electricity mandate to require electrical utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Denmark may produce 19 percent of their electricity from wind but as explained above, that large percentage does not translate to the situation in the United States.

The AWEA seems to believe that the Danish wind study is critical of electricity exports and because the United States is only weakly tied to the Mexican and Canadian electrical grid, the Danish study is of no import. This misapprehends the point of the study. There problem is not with the export of the power. The study is concerned with exporting subsidies, the benefits of which should accrue to Danes, not the Swedes or Norwegians.

Wind power from Denmark does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Norway or Sweden

The AWEA claims that wind power flowing to Norway and Sweden reduces carbon dioxide emissions in Norway and Sweden. This is incorrect because only a very small portion on Norway and Sweden’s electricity is generated from coal, oil, or natural gas.

As noted above, according to the International Energy Agency, in 2006, over 98 percent of electricity production in Norway was produced by hydropower[4] and 43 percent Sweden’s electricity was produced by hydropower.[5] Another 47 percent of electricity production in Sweden came from nuclear power. Only 0.5 percent of Norway’s electricity comes from coal, oil, or natural gas in Norway and 3 percent of Sweden’s electricity. The graph below shows the electricity generation profiles of Norway and Sweden:[6]

Denmark’s geography is indeed better suited for wind generation than the United States

AWEA claims that the United States has better wind resources than Denmark. The mere fact that there are some good (or even fantastic) wind resources in the United States does not matter if those resources are off the electricity grid and far from electricity consumers because transmission lines necessary to transport the electricity are very expensive.

The whole of Denmark is 281 miles east to west and 229 miles long. The entire population of Denmark is not far from good wind resources (as this map shows). That is not true in the United States. As this map shows, the best onshore wind resources are in the Midwest from the Texas panhandle north to the Canadian border. There is not one large city in this area, making it expensive to get electricity from this wind to market.

Wind offshore is closer to major population centers in the United States, but offshore wind production is even more expensive than onshore wind electricity production. EIA estimates that by 2016, offshore wind will still be 62 more expensive that onshore wind and onshore wind will still be 49 percent more expensive than coal and 77 percent more expensive than advanced combined cycle natural gas electricity generation.[7]

IER’ has more on the levelized costs of electricity production here.

Wind energy (here, there and everywhere) is very expensive and highly subsidized

For decades the promoters of wind have argued that wind’s cost competitiveness is just around the corner. For example, in 1986, a representative of AWEA testified:

The U.S. wind industry has . . .demonstrated reliability and performance levels that make them very competitive. It has come to the point that the California Energy Commission has predicted windpower will be that State’s lowest cost source of energy in the 1990s, beating out even large-scale hydro.

…

We are not quite there. We have hopes.[8]

Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute has been predicting competitive viability since the 1980s. In 1984 he wrote:

Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.[9]

In 1985, he wrote:

Although wind farms still depend on tax credits, they are likely to be economical without this support within a few years.[10]

In 1986, he wrote:

Early evidence indicates that wind power will soon take its place as a decentralized power source that is economical in many areas…. Utility-sponsored studies show that the better windfarms can produce power at a cost of about 7¢ per kilowatt-hour, which is competitive with conventional power sources in the United States.[11]

Even after more than two decades, wind still isn’t cost-competitive and EIA predicts wind will still be 49 to 77 percent more expensive than coal and natural gas in 2016.

The wind lobby has been very effective at securing subsidies, set-asides, and favorable tax treatment

There are a number of ways wind is subsidized and assured market share including the renewable electricity production tax credit, accelerated depreciation (Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System), the renewable energy production incentive, renewable energy manufacturing tax credit, state-level renewable electricity mandates, and a large number of other financial incentives at the federal and state level.

It is not surprising that electricity production from wind has expanded recently. Wind turbine designs have improved, but wind remains very expensive and as this list of subsidies, tax credits, and set-asides shows, the American taxpayer is footing the bill for the wind’s expansion. Even after decades of financial support, electricity from wind still only supplies 1.3% of all electricity generated in the US.

Conclusion

The promoters of wind point to Denmark as an example the United States should emulate. But as the Danish wind study shows, Denmark wind’s production is not directly replicable by the United States. The Danish wind experiment also shows that generating electricity from wind is an expensive way to create jobs or reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Which leads to a final thought: If wind power is everything that proponents say it is, then why can’t it exist in the marketplace without government subsidies, government mandates, government tax credits, guaranteed market share in the form of government enforced feed-in tariffs, and backup generation from more reliable energy sources such as hydropower or natural gas?

[2] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=SE.

[3] Institute for Energy Research, Hydroelectric, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/hydroelectric/.

[4] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Norway in 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NO.

[5] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006. http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=SE.

[6] Norway: International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Norway in 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NO.

[6] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006. Sweden: International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006. http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=SE.

[7] See Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (revised). Cited at Institute for Energy Research, Levelized Costs of New Electricity Generating Technologies, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/.

[8] Statement of Michael L.S. Bergey, American Wind Energy Association in Renewable Energy Industries, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 99^th Cong., 2^nd sess. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986), p. 129.

[9] Christopher Flavin, “Electricity’s Future: The Shift to Efficiency and Small-Scale Power,” Worldwatch Paper 61, Worldwatch Institute, November 1984, p. 35.

[10] Christopher Flavin and Cynthia Pollock, “Harnessing Renewable Energy,” in Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1985 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), p. 197.

[11] Christopher Flavin, “Electricity for a Developing World: New Directions,” Worldwatch Paper 70, Worldwatch Institute, June 1986, p. 53.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 14, 2009
Contact:
Chris Tucker, 202.346.8825
Patrick Creighton, 202.621.2947

Something Rotten? Obama Says Danes Receive 20% of Their Power Via Wind; New Study Tells the Real Story

Danish experts visit Washington this week to explain to American audiences what’s really happening in Denmark

WASHINGTON – President Obama has frequently cited Denmark as an example to be followed in the field of wind power generation, stating on several occasions that the Danes satisfy “20 percent of their electricity through wind power.” The findings of a new study released this week cast serious doubt on the accuracy of that statement. The report finds that in 2006 scarcely five percent of the nation’s electricity demand was met by wind. And over the past five years, the average is less than 10 percent — despite Denmark having ‘carpeted’ its land with the machines.

“As climate officials descend upon Copenhagen later this year to continue their work to engineer a world in which energy is rendered less reliable, less affordable and increasingly scarce, the eyes of the world will naturally fall upon the host country as well,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), which commissioned the report.

“In the case of Denmark,” added Pyle, “you have a nation of 5.4 million, occupying some of the most wind-intense real estate in the world, whose citizens are forced to pay the highest electricity rates in Europe — and it still doesn’t even come close to the 20 percent threshold envisioned by President Obama for the United States. This may indeed be the model for the future – but only if you believe that a combination of smoke, mirrors and prohibitively high utility rates are the key to our economic and environmental salvation.”

Prepared by the independent Danish think tank CEPOS and co-authored by economist Henrik Meyer and Hugh Sharman, a prominent Denmark-based international energy consultant, the report details the extent to which Denmark’s claim to wind superiority is essentially founded on a myth – the function of a complicated trading scheme in which the Danes off-load excess, value-subtracted wind generation to other nations for roughly free, asking only in return that these countries sell some of their baseload power back to Denmark on the frequent occasions in which the wind does not blow there

The upshot? The Danes retain the title of world’s most prolific wind producer, and President Obama cites their experience as a path to be followed. The cost? Danish ratepayers are forced to pay the highest utility rates in Europe. And the American people are led to believe that, though wind may only provide a little more than one percent of our electricity now, reaching a 20 percent platform – as the Danes have allegedly done – will come at no cost, with no jobs lost and no externalities to consider.

Speaking of jobs, the report also pulls back the curtain on the wind power industry’s near-complete dependence on taxpayer subsidies to support the fairly modest workforce it presently maintains. Just as in Spain, where per-job taxpayer subsidies for so-called “green jobs” exceeds $1,000,000 per worker in some cases, wind-related jobs in Denmark on average are subsidized at a rate of 175 to 250 percent above the average pay per worker. All told, each new wind job created by the government costs Danish taxpayers between 600,000-900,000 krone a year, roughly equivalent to $90,000-$140,000 USD.

“That the current political leadership in Washington is enamored of the European energy model has been made abundantly clear — from the president himself, all the way on down,” added Pyle. “Less clear is the extent to which these people actually know what’s taking place over there, and whether they’re willing to level with the American people about the serious costs associated with following this dubious path.”

On Tuesday, report co-author Hugh Sharman will join CEPOS chief executive officer Martin Agerup in Washington, D.C., part of a three-day tour (Tues-Thurs) aimed at explaining to a wider American audience the core conclusions of their report. Those interested in speaking with Messrs. Sharman and/or Agerup or setting up an interview should contact Patrick Creighton (202.621.2947) or Chris Tucker (202.346.8825).

More from IER:

Danish Study: Wind Energy – the Case of Denmark (Sept. 2009)
Earth Day speech: Obama says Denmark meets 20% of its electricity demand via wind
Fact Sheet: Key take-aways from Danish wind study
Fact Sheet: Obama frequently (and incorrectly) cites Denmark’s 20 percent wind figure
Spanish Report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources
Response: NREL’s flawed analysis of Spanish green jobs study
Analysis: Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies

#####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 4 , 2009
CONTACT:
Laura Henderson
202.621.2951
Patrick Creighton
202.621.2947

Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less

WASHINGTON—In advance of a Senate Energy Committee hearing on the renewable electricity mandate (REM), the Institute for Energy Research (IER) released the following fact sheet:

A National REM Would Increase the Cost of Electricity:

• Wind and solar electricity are significantly more expensive than efficient and reliable traditional electricity sources.
• Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections state that these sources will also be significantly more expensive than coal in 2016.

REMs are already Hurting Americans, Making it Harder for Small Businesses to Compete:

• 34 states already have renewable electricity standards
• Residential electricity rates are 38 percent higher and industrial rates are 50 percent higher in states with binding renewable mandates

The Electricity Sources Mandated are Not Efficient or Dependable:

• Wind generated 1.3 percent, geothermal 0.4 percent, biomass 1.3 percent, and solar less than 0.03 percent of the electricity Americans used last year.
• Energy Secretary Stephen Chu told the New York Times that solar technology would have to get five times better to be competitive in today’s market.

Americans will Pay for a National REM Twice: First as Taxpayers, then as Consumers:

• The Spanish government attempted to mandate and subsidize renewable electricity.
• Spain spent $753,778 of taxpayer dollars to create each green job.
• Spain gave $1,319,783 in subsidies to create wind industry jobs.

NOTE: A recent poll found that 58 percent of Americans said they were not willing to pay a penny more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change; 78 percent said that a $50 increase would cause financial ‘hardship.’

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces forecasts of energy supply and demand for the next 20 years using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)[1]. These forecasts are updated annually and published in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). EIA published a preliminary version of the AEO 2009 in December 2008, and updated the forecasts in April, 2009, to incorporate the energy provisions in the stimulus.[2] All sectors of the energy system are represented in NEMS, including the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution system.

To meet electricity demand, the EIA represents the existing generating plants, retires those that have come to the end of their economic life, and builds additional plants to meet projected demand from the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. As a result, EIA must represent a slate of technologies, their capital and operating costs, their availability and capacity factors, the financial structure and subsidies, the time to construct the plant, the utilization of the plant, and expected future cost changes, including fuel input for fossil and nuclear plants.

To determine the most economic technology for the type of demand (base, intermediate, or peaking load) for which new capacity is needed, NEMS competes the technologies based on the economics of their levelized costs. Levelized costs represent the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its financial life, converted to equal annual payments and amortized over expected annual generation from an assumed duty cycle.

The table below provides the average national levelized costs for the generating technologies represented in the updated AEO2009 reference case.[3] The values shown in the table do not include financial incentives such as state or federal tax credits, which impact the cost and the competitiveness of the technology. These incentives, however, are incorporated in the evaluation of the technologies in NEMS based on current laws and regulations in effect at the time of the modeling exercise, as well as regional differences in the cost and performance of the technology, such as labor rates and availability of wind or sun resources.

In the AEO2009 reference case, a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas intensive technologies such as coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology and coal-to-liquids plants. The 3-percentage point adjustment is similar to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS technology. This adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future. Thus, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are likely higher than most current coal project costs.

The levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology. However, some technologies, such as a conventional combined cycle turbine, that may look relatively expensive at its maximum capacity factor may be the most economic option when evaluated at a lower capacity factor associated with an intermediate load rather than base load facility.[4]

Simple combustion turbines (conventional or advanced technology) are typically used for peak load, and are thus evaluated at a 30 percent capacity factor. Intermittent renewable resources, e.g. wind and solar, are not operator controlled, but dependent on the weather or the sun shining. Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent of forces outside of the operator’s control, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies although the average annual capacity factor may be similar. Because intermittent technologies do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized costs shown below.

Levelized Cost of New Generating Technologies, 2016

Revised AEO 2009 Reference Case

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (revised), April 2009, SR-OIAF/2009-03, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html

[2] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

[3] Energy Information Administation, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html

[4] Base load plants are facilities that operate almost continuously, generally at annual utilization rates of 70 percent or higher. Intermediate load plants are facilities that operate less frequently than base load plants, generally at annual utilization rates between 25 and 70 percent. Peaking plants are facilities that only run when the demand for electricity is very high, generally at annual utilization rates less than 25 percent.

Download the PDF version

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 2009
CONTACT:
Laura Henderson (202) 621-2951

Fantasy Land: Salazar Announces that East Coast Windmills Could Provide 100 Percent of Nation’s Electricity

WASHINGTON, D.C. – IER President Thomas J. Pyle today issued the following statement in response to Secretary Salazar’s assertion that windmills off the East Coast, “could generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now in the United States.”

“We were pleasantly surprised to hear Secretary Salazar announce today that East Coast windmills could not only replace the electricity we get from coal, but double it.  According to his estimate, these windmills could completely replace the 1 million megawatt hours of power that coal, natural gas, nuclear, biomass, onshore wind, and other renewable sources provide.

“Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, key elements of the secretary’s claim fail to hold up to scrutiny. For starters, America doesn’t even have 3,000 coal plants in service right now—we don’t have even half of that.  But even if we did, the secretary appears to be suggesting that East Coast windmills could meet well over 100 percent of our electricity needs all by themselves.  Never mind that wind accounts for only 1.3 percent of our nation’s electricity today.  To make the secretary’s claim accurate, we would need to install 309,587 giant 3.25 mw turbines spread over 1,800 miles of coastline (which is the entire East Coast)—or about 172 turbines per mile of coastline—and hope the wind blows 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

“Assuming the wind never stops, and assuming Americans could do without a recreational coastline, we might have a shot at meeting the secretary’s goal.  But it won’t be cheap.  According to the Energy Information Administration, offshore wind power—21 cents per kilowatt hour—is more than twice as costly as just about every other conventional alternative available.”

NOTE: The Cape Wind Project calls for the installation of 130 wind turbines, which have a rated capacity of 420 megawatts of energy.

More from IER:
Blog Posting: Will Renewables Become Competitive Anytime Soon?
Press Release: Hundreds Turn Out in Support of Offshore Energy Development
Fact Sheet: Offshore Energy Exploration: Myths vs. Facts

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

#####

www.InstituteforEnergyResearch.org

Energy makes modern society possible. It lights the night, heats our homes, powers our entertainment, and most importantly, it helps us conserve the ultimate non-renewable resource—time. Energy amplifies our ability to do work. Machines help autoworkers assemble cars, power tools help construction workers build our homes, gasoline-powered automobiles help us take care of our families, diesel-power trucks distribute fresh produce across the country, and electricity-powered computers give us unprecedented access to information. But the energy that supplies 85 percent of our needs—coal, oil, and natural gas—are under attack. Politicians and special interest groups are proposing various methods to tax these abundant and reliable sources of energy.

The newest attack on oil, natural gas, and coal are proposals to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Noted economist Art Laffer and current U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) argued in favor of a carbon tax in a New York Times[1] op-ed. Author, commentator, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer made his case for a large increase in the gas tax in the Weekly Standard .[2] And Fred Smith, the CEO of FedEx, has publicly declared his support for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

The arguments boil down to the assertion that carbon taxes are favorable because they are better than cap and trade schemes. This is correct, but it does not mean that we should implement carbon taxes. Carbon tax implementation would run into many of the same problems that have plagued cap and trade. Politicians cannot resist new opportunities to raise tax revenues and dole out our dollars to favored constituencies, especially when the revenues range from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. Carbon taxes might hold some allure, but ultimately they are economically destructive. Neither carbon tax nor cap and trade is good for American consumers.

Reasons Why Carbon and Energy Taxes are a Bad Idea:

1. Carbon taxes are taxes on 85 percent of the energy we use. A carbon tax would impose a new tax on the vast majority of our nation’s economic activity. Fossil fuels power our nation and produce 85 percent of the energy we consume in the United States. [3] Nuclear and hydro power produced an additional 11 percent of our energy.[4] The remaining 4 percent comes from other renewables like biofuels, wind, and solar.[5] Carbon taxes may make hydro and nuclear power more attractive, but few sites remain where it is possible to build large hydroelectric dams and new nuclear power plants face major political obstacles.

2. A carbon tax that is perfectly offset by other tax cuts is neither a practical nor a political reality. The history and nature of politics shows that once politicians institute a tax, they will not give it up. Still, some argue in favor of a “tax swap” to reduce income taxes while implementing a new tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Theoretically, this could make sense. However, the argument does not reflect political reality.

The first challenge for promoters of a carbon tax “tax swap” is getting lawmakers to pass a carbon tax. Lawmakers are very wary of imposing easily identifiable taxes across the entire population. Instead, politicians prefer to hide the costs of government programs, while rewarding discrete and identifiable groups. Implementing carbon taxes would result in an identifiable tax increase similar to the unpopular gas tax increases that led to voter displeasure revolts against President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton.

The second challenge for promoters of a “tax swap” is getting Congress to reduce income taxes. Congress could decrease some income taxes, but it is highly unlikely income taxes would be decreased for all income brackets.

Taxpayers will likely fight against a “tax swap” because they understand there is nothing to stop future lawmakers from increasing carbon taxes or returning income taxes to their former levels. Worse, from a taxpayer’s perspective, a carbon tax will give lawmakers another vehicle to raise large amounts of tax revenue.

Some argue that a revenue-neutral “tax swap” would be economically beneficial. There is, however, little evidence politicians are concerned about the economic effectiveness of plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Most economists agree that carbon taxes are a superior to cap and trade.[6] Carbon taxes are more transparent, more understandable, and less subject to political manipulation. Though economists prefer carbon taxes, congressmen strongly prefer cap and trade plans.[7] Lawmakers have floated many cap and trade proposals, but they have not discussed any serious carbon tax proposals.

Lawmakers say they favor economically efficient global warming plans, but their actions demonstrate that the discussion about efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not about science or economics—it is about politics. Offsetting income taxes with carbon taxes is not a political reality because politicians will not propose such obvious tax increases on all Americans.

3. Politicians like to reward special interest groups with new tax revenues. When politicians have large amounts of tax dollars at their disposal, they tend to spend it on projects that reward special interest groups. A carbon tax would likely generate over $1 trillion in new revenue. Much of this revenue would likely be spent on inefficient “pork” projects.

The proposed cap and trade schemes contain hundreds of billions of dollars for special interests. The recession has spurred additional calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending to create “green jobs.” For example, the Center for American Progress is calling on Congress to spend $100 billion to create two million “green jobs”[8] and the Apollo Alliance wants Congress to spend $500 billion to create five million “green jobs.”[9] If a carbon tax were in place, lawmakers would almost certainly divert resources to “green job” subsidies or other similar programs, rather than back into taxpayers’ wallets.

4. It is impossible to create an optimal carbon tax. A carbon tax would need to be set at an optimal level that accounts for the economy and climate science. This is an impossible task. One of the greatest insights of the 20^th century was that economically efficient central planning is not possible. Friedrich Hayek and others demonstrated that central planners cannot aggregate all of the information necessary to make economically efficient choices.[10] Their insight remains true today. A planner (or Congress) cannot create an optimal tax because he or she does not have all of the necessary information. With global warming, the lack of perfect information is further compounded by partisan politics and uncertain climate science. This makes it impossible to determine an optimal carbon tax.

The cost of a carbon tax will increase the costs of nearly everything that is produced, manufactured, or transported, including food and gasoline. How one would construct a credible methodology for accurately and precisely measuring and accounting for these effects remains, perhaps intentionally, an unaddressed question.

5. A carbon tax is a regressive tax, but increased wealth transfers will likely make it increasingly progressive. Lower income families spend more of their income on energy than higher income families. The Wall Street Journal explains:

The Congressional Budget Office—Mr. Orszag’s former roost—estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).[11]

It appears that some of the proponents of carbon taxes are some of those five beltway analysts who believe the tax code is too progressive. They argue in favor of a carbon tax because it will not retard the formation of capital because it applies to everyone. In other words, since it would be spread over the population without regard to income, carbon tax proponents argue it will not reduce the incentives for high-income earners to generate wealth and create new jobs.

This alleged advantage, however, would never last politically because a carbon tax will be a visible and ever-increasing new tax. In response to that reality, lawmakers are likely to execute new, politically popular transfers of wealth—all with an eye on limiting the tax’s effect on lower-income families. Sales taxes, for example, could be uniformly applied across the economy, but in practice, sales taxes vary on certain items, in part, to help lower-income Americans deal with the increased costs imposed by them.

Carbon taxes would likely be accompanied by various rebate schemes to soften the regressive nature of the tax and make it a more progressive tax. This is currently happening with cap and trade proposals. One plan calls for the government to auction all emission permits and give each citizen a $700 check every year.[12] Another option is to only give the rebate checks from auction revenues to lower-income citizens.[13]

If the government imposes a carbon tax, it is very unlikely that the tax will remain uniform. In the end, not only will it hit the poor with a disproportionate burden of a carbon cap, but it will create yet another series of loopholes in the tax code.  As history has shown, such a plan will further distort the market, render the tax code even more complicated, and hide yet another round of handouts to well-connected special interests.

6. A carbon tax set at a wrong level will cause great economic harm. Even the proponents of carbon taxes, such as Yale University Professor William Nordaus, find that once there is deviation from worldwide participation, the costs of achieving environmental global improvements dramatically rise. Nordhaus’ economic model shows that an overly ambitious and/or inefficiently structured policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted plan.[14] For example, Nordhaus’ optimal plan yields net benefits of $3 trillion ($5 trillion in reduced climatic damages and $2 trillion in abatement costs). Yet, other popular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. The worst is former Vice President Al Gore’s 2007 proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus’ model estimates this plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than if there were no controls on carbon dioxide.[15]

7. Realistically, a carbon tax would lead to lower energy use and lower economic output because low-carbon replacement technologies simply do not exist. Carbon taxes effectively increase the cost of fossil fuels in an effort to make non-fossil fuels more economically attractive. The technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, however, are decades away and extremely costly.[16] Instead, the only real way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short run is to reduce energy use and economic output.

Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuel-efficient cars, but the real impact of high gasoline prices in 2008 was to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Just as higher fuel prices led to less driving, higher energy prices will lead to reduced energy consumption. That will lead to a corresponding drop in our ability to make economic choices.

Given current technologies, carbon taxes will result in less economic output. The graphic below illustrates that point. The implication is clear—there is a strong correlation between energy use and GDP.

8. Just because a proposal is “budget neutral” for the government does not mean it is “budget neutral” for American families. Carbon taxes or cap and trade programs will transfer wealth from rural areas, where people drive more and use more energy, to more densely populated urban areas.[17] Not coincidentally, many urban and Northeastern politicians favor a cap and trade program or carbon taxes.

Also, carbon taxes will disproportionally harm states that generate the majority of their electricity from coal-fired power plants.[18] These states tend to be more rural states.

9. Domestic carbon taxes, even in the best case, can only produce marginal impacts on climate. In 2006, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.[19] But the difference in emission growth rates is striking. According to data from the Global Carbon Project, from 2000 through 2007, global total greenhouse gas emissions increased 26 percent. During that same period, China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased 98 percent, India’s increased 36 percent and Russia’s increased 10 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States increased by three percent from 2000 through 2007.[20] These data are displayed in the graphic below:

As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,[21] which makes unilateral efforts— such as a domestic carbon tax—an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years.[22] If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years.[23] Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States.

10. Domestic carbon taxes will force more industries to leave America. Energy costs are a major expenditure for heavy industry. America’s natural gas prices are the highest in the world,[24] even though we have the world’s sixth largest proven natural gas reserves.[25] The high price of natural gas has significantly contributed to the loss of more than three million manufacturing jobs since 2000.[26] Carbon taxes will drive up the cost of natural gas because companies would use it as a substitute for coal in electricity production, which means increased electricity costs for industry and increased natural gas prices. This is especially troublesome for chemical companies, all of which use natural gas not only as an energy source, but also as a feedstock. Higher natural gas prices will force them to pursue options offshore and overseas, reducing American jobs.

11. Domestic carbon taxes cannot address “leakage.” High costs of doing business in America will force jobs and economic activity to leave this country in favor of countries with lower energy prices. China and India have stated they will not impose burdensome climate regulations on their citizens.[27] Because not all countries will implement carbon taxes, industries will take their jobs to countries where taxes do not eat their profits. Despite a huge American economic sacrifice, global emissions will remain the same.

12. Carbon taxes will lead to calls for trade protectionism. Carbon taxes will lead to reduced economic competitiveness. In turn, organized labor will likely call for new barriers to trade. For example, a top priority for the United Steelworkers is a “border adjustment” to penalize the steel imports from countries that do not curb their greenhouse gas emissions.[28] Increased U.S. trade protectionism will almost certainly lead to greater trade protectionism worldwide that will further harm the American economy and all of America’s trading partners.

13. If we are truly concerned about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the best path forward is increasing humankind’s ability to adapt. Rich countries and societies can adapt more easily to changed circumstances than poor countries. Environmental improvements are more likely to be realized in prosperous societies than in poorer ones.[29] Carbon taxes and cap and trade reduce society’s aggregate wealth, which make environmental improvements more difficult to achieve.

14. Real world experience counsels against a carbon tax. Ken Green, a former supporter of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, changed his mind because of political and economic realities. Mr. Green writes: [30]

I previously felt that a revenue-neutral carbon tax was a good idea, because it would be both effective and could even be economically beneficial. But three developments have caused me to retract my support. First, rising energy costs have already imposed a huge carbon tax with little GHG reduction. This suggests that the elasticity of energy use could be lower than prior estimates, meaning it would be a useless gesture. Second, as implementations of carbon taxes in Europe and Canada have demonstrated, governments simply cannot implement such tax systems without sucking up some of the revenue, and using the rest to benefit crony-capitalists and steer money to favored constituencies. And finally, because using biofuels such as ethanol would let people save on carbon taxes, demand for such fuels will grow, only compounding the environmental and nutritional mischief they cause.

Just because a carbon tax is a bad idea does not mean that cap and trade is better

Nearly all of the above arguments against a carbon tax apply equally to cap and trade schemes. The only real difference is that cap and trade is a stealth tax that brings a large amount of reporting, implementation, and regulatory problems.

The point of cap and trade plans, like carbon taxes, is to increase the price of energy from oil, coal, and natural gas. Lawmakers may say they have plans to rebate some people so that everyone does not suffer, but it is not possible to craft a cap and trade plan that is perfectly offset by rebates. Just because a politician promotes a plan that is “budget neutral” for government does not mean it is “budget neutral” for American families. When politicians redistribute money, there will be winners and losers. The winners will be the politically well-connected groups and the populace as a whole will lose.

Like carbon taxes, it is not possible to set a cap for cap and trade plans at an optimal level. The smartest people in the world could not aggregate enough data quickly enough to discover the optimal level of the cap or a cap and trade scheme or the level of a carbon tax. It would require too much data about American’s preferences and about uncertain climate science. To complicate matters, if the cap set at the wrong level, or if the plan does not include all nations, the inefficiencies will swamp any possible benefits. Most disturbingly, if the United States unilaterally reduces our carbon dioxide emissions, it will not have a real effect on global carbon dioxide concentrations. This means there will be no environmental benefits to the United States unilaterally reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Cap and trade schemes are very regressive taxes. They will transfer wealth from poorer areas of the country to wealthier areas. Cap and trade will also reduce energy use and thereby reduce economic output. Also, if we drive up costs, cap and trade plans will reduce American economic competitiveness and cause more jobs to flee to foreign countries.

In short, cap and trade and carbon taxes are two different ways to raise energy prices. Both carbon taxes and cap and trade would harm the United States’ economy without making any meaningful differences in global concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Conclusion

Energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Policies that increase the price of energy harm the economy. However, the entire point of policies like carbon taxes and cap and trade is to increase energy prices. These cost increases make the economy less efficient domestically and it makes the United States less economically competitive internationally. Higher energy prices harms America’s ability to grow its economy at home and it means more American jobs will be shipped overseas.

Now is not the time to implement an economically harmful plan like carbon taxes or cap and trade. Americans need an efficient economy to reverse the recession and improve the lives of American workers. Carbon taxes and cap and trade will just make it more difficult to reverse the recession.

[2] Charles Krauthammer, The Net-Zero Gas Tax: A Once in a Generation Chance, Jan. 5, 2009, http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/949rsrgi.asp

[3] Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html. (May 2008).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See e.g. William D. Nordhaus, Life After Kyoto: Alternative Approaches to Global Warming Policies, NBER Working Paper No. 11889, Dec. 9, 2005, http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/kyoto_long_2005.pdf; N. Gregory Mankiw, One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax, N.Y. Times, Sept. 16, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html; Kenneth P. Green et. al., Climate Change: Cap vs. Taxes, American Enterprise Institute Environmental Policy Outlook, June 1, 2007, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26286/pub_detail.asp.

[7] The following is some of the cap and trade bills introduced during the 110^th Congress: S. 2191, The Climate Security Act of 2008; S. 1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act, S. 280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act; S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act; S. 485, the Global Warming Reduction Act; H.R. 620, the Climate Stewardship Act; and H.R. 1590, the Safe Climate Act of 2007.

[8] Robert Pollin, et. al, Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy, Sept. 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/green_recovery.pdf.

[9] Jeffery Ball, Does Green Energy Add 5 Million Jobs? Potent Pitch, but Numbers are Squishy, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122601449992806743.html.

[10] See e.g. Friedrich A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, 4 Am. Econ. Rev. 519 (Sept. 1945).

[11] Editorial, Who Pays for Cap and Trade? Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009.

[12] James K. Boyce & Matthew Riddle, Cap and Dividend: How to Curb Global Warming While Protecting the Incomes of American Families, Political Economy Research Institute (Nov. 2007), http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/ working_papers_101-150/WP150.pdf.

[13] Robert Greenstein et. al., Designing Climate-Change Legislation that Shields Low-Income Households from Increased Poverty and Hardship, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (May 9, 2008), http://www.cbpp.org/10-25-07climate.pdf.

[14] Robert P. Murphy, Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus’ Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax, p. 20, June 2008, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/2008-06_rolling_the_dice_murphy.pdf.

[15] Id. at 20.

[16] See Kenneth P. Green, Climate Change: Science and Policy, Oct. 27, 2008, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28838/pub_detail.asp.

[17] Alaska has the higher per capita energy use, followed by Wyoming, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas. The states with the lowest energy use per capita are Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, California, and New Hampshire. The average Rhode Islander uses only 18% as much energy as an Alaskan and 22% as much energy as someone from Wyoming. See Energy Information Administration, Table R2. Energy Consumption by Source and Total Consumption per Capita, Ranked by State, 2006, Nov. 28, 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html.

[18] The states with the most affordable electricity either generate the majority of their electricity from coal-fired power plants or from hydro power. See Energy Information Administration, Table S1. Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and End-Use Sector, 2006, State Energy Consumption Estimates: 1960 through 2006, Nov. 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/notes/use_print2006.pdf; Energy Information Administration, Table 5.6.B. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, Year-to-Date through September 2008 and 2007, Dec. 12, 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html.

[19] See e.g. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position, June 19, 2007, http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2007/20070619Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html.

[20] Calculated using the emission data from the Global Carbon Project. In 2000, China emitted 910,950 GgC, India 316,804 GgC, Russia 391,652 GgC, and the U.S. 1,541,013 GgC. By 2007, China emitted 1,801,932 GgC, India 429,601 GgC, Russia 432,486 GgC, and the U.S. 1,586,213 GgC.

[21] According to the Global Carbon project, in 2007, China emitted 21% of the world’s carbon equivalent and the U.S. emitted 19%.

[22] Calculated using the emission data from the Global Carbon Project. According to these data, the U.S. emitted 1,586,213 GgC in 2007. Without the U.S., the world’s emissions were 5,203,987 GgC in 2000, increasing to 6,884,787 GgC in 2007.

[23] Calculated using the emission data from the Global Carbon Project. According to EPA, the GHG emissions from the transportation sector total 28% of total U.S. emissions. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 44354, 44403 (July, 30, 2008). Twenty eight percent of the U.S.’s 2006 carbon dioxide emissions are 436,141 GgC. From 2005 to 2007, the world’s emissions, with the emissions from the U.S., grew by 476,324 GgC.

[24] Paul N. Cicio, Testimony of Paul N. Cicio, President of Industrial Energy Consumers of America before the House of Representatives, Dec. 6, 2007, http://www.ieca-us.com/documents/IECAHouseTestimony-NaturalGas_12.06.07.pdf.

[25] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 11.4, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1104.html.

[26] See Testimony of Paul N. Cicio.

[27] See e.g. Shai Oster, China Asks Rich to Pay for Cleanup, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 30, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122530768753281185.html; Nitin Sethi, As Climate Talks Resume, India Accuses UN of Bias, The Times of India, Aug. 21, 2008, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Climate_talks_resume_today_India_accuses_UN_of_bias/articleshow/3386789.cms.

[28] Christa Marshall, Report says climate rules could shut down energy-intensive companies, ClimateWire, Feb. 2, 2009.

[29] Bruce Yandle, Environmental Kuznets Curves: A Review of the Findings, Methods, and Policy Implications, 2004, http://www.perc.org/articles/article207.php.

[30] Kenneth P. Green, Climate Change: Science and Policy, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28838/pub_detail.asp.