RPS (page 2)

  • Post

    REPS: Burning coal is bad for the environment. Burn trees instead.

    Did you know that the renewable energy portfolio standards law was not passed as a jobs program? The renewable energy lobby would like you to think that’s what it’s for. But actually, the law had four stated purposes: Diversify the resources used to reliably meet the energy needs of consumers…
    Jon Sanders, March 2, 2016
  • Post

    How lobbyists and economic impact studies trick you

    Jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs are good, right? The economy needs jobs. Now, let’s draw your attention to jobs right here in my industry. If you just give my industry a subsidy, or a special tax break not available to anyone else, especially not my competitors, then you can create jobs…
    Jon Sanders, February 29, 2016
  • Post

    Carbon-tax zealots concede: renewable energy may never compete

    Depend upon it: news stories, industry studies, and especially lobbyists’ materials all frame the success and future importance of solar in terms of government programs. Not consumer demand and certainly not lower rates. The same can be said for the other big nondispatchable energy source, wind. — Rights & Regulation…
    Jon Sanders, February 26, 2016
  • Post

    MIT Technology Review: ‘Suddenly, the Solar Boom Is Starting to Look like a Bubble’

    …it's well known that the renewable energy industry's business model is entirely based on and utterly dependent on capturing public subsidies. It's all about winning government goodies.—Yours truly, 8/28/15 You've probably heard this one. And if you have only a topical understanding of solar energy, you probably believe it. It takes a lot of lobbying and also a lot of media repetition and deliberate memory-holing to keep people thinking that solar is a viable, one-for-one replacement for traditional energy sources. See if this sounds familiar: Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute lamented the untimely scale-back of tax breaks for renewable energy, since the competitive viability of wind and solar technologies was "one to three years away." Was that in yesterday's News & Observer? Was it in this week's email blast to legislators by solar lobbyists? Was this at a recent university event? No. It was from thirty years ago. That is, 1986.
    Jon Sanders, February 15, 2016
  • Post

    When comparing net energy subsidies…

    As my colleague Roy Cordato explained in his 2013 Spotlight report on energy subsidies, the proper way to compare energy subsidies is not by looking at gross subsidies, but net subsidies. Why net subsidies are economically more relevant is because they “include not only the monetized value of policies that subsidize the relevant industries but also…
    Jon Sanders, January 27, 2016
  • Post

    Strata Solar subsidiary: Solar’s maximum dependable capacity is zero

    Don Carrington uncovers an uncomfortably truthful admission to the state utility commission by a solar company, which is that the most one could rely on a solar energy company to produce dependably is … nothing. From Carrington’s Carolina Journal piece today: Solar energy has been touted by its advocates…
    Jon Sanders, January 4, 2016
  • Post

    Why it’s not enough to say ‘but our electricity rates are some of the lowest around’

    Because, prior to 2008 when the renewable energy portfolio standards (REPS) mandate took effect, North Carolina’s electricity rates were decidedly lower than the national and regional averages. Since then, N.C.’s rates have been fast converging on those averages — still lower, but growing at a faster clip than both. We’re…
    Jon Sanders, November 3, 2015
  • Post

    Carter Wrenn borrows a very bad argument

    From the conclusion to my recent Spotlight report on renewable energy: In North Carolina, electricity consumers have no choice in their electricity provider. This fact should, first of all, never provide an excuse to use this lack of a free market to enrich special interests at the expense of captive…
    Jon Sanders, September 24, 2015