Energy Policy Diktat

The hue and cry by some people for an energy policy is really a demand for the government to dictate the policy.

A CEO from a Fortune 100 U.S. company at Notre Dame’s Sustainability Forum said, “We have no call to arms … Drill baby drill only has the notion of doing something even though, economically it doesn’t mean one gosh darn thing … Right now we just have a vacuum.”

He went on to say, “We need leadership … Someone to lead me … Set a price on carbon.”

Since when does this country need a man on a white horse to tell us what to do?

The policy advocated by the group at this conference wants government to dictate where to build new transmission lines, regardless of what states and their residents want. It wants the government to mandate a nationwide renewable portfolio standard of at least 20%. And, to dictate the building of wind farms.

At the core of this policy were the CEO’s key words, “set a price on carbon.”

Setting a price on carbon to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 is at the core of the “energy policy diktat.”

Setting a price on carbon would kill coal, force the building of wind power, force the building of solar and eventually kill natural gas power generation because it too will pay the carbon tax that gets bigger and bigger over time.

In other words, it will kill all the inexpensive methods of generating electricity while forcing the construction of the most expensive ways to generate electricity.

Unfortunately, the mere threat of a price on carbon is distorting the energy market and causing new coal-fired power plants to be abandoned while encouraging expensive wind power.

The mere threat of a tax on carbon is endangering our supply of electricity and causing the price of electricity to increase. For a more detailed explanation of why there will be an energy shortage with cap and trade or a tax on carbon see:[1].pdf

We need to eliminate the overhanging political threat of cap and trade, a carbon tax or EPA regulations if we want the least expensive energy and the most dynamic job creating economy.

CEO’s with a vested interest in establishing controls over CO2 emissions should be seen for what they are, rent seekers trying to earn money at the expense of the Americans public.

[Scroll down for earlier articles.]

© Power America, 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power America with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

0 Replies to “Energy Policy Diktat”

  1. Least expensive short term can hurt us economically long term.

    Climatologists are almost unanimous in that climate change from man made CO2 output is real. This would easily lead to huge economic impacts if not addressed early on due to shifting weather patterns and increased tempratures.

    We know about 100 years ago, when we first began to have accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, that CO2 was at about 150ppm, today we are at 392ppm. This was caused almost entirely by the burning of fossil fuels.

    Carbon trading not only will reduce CO2 output but also create a trillion dollar industry that US Corporations could be the biggest player in trading. It will cost some money but if we started now we could control a large part of the global industry.

    Wind and solar farms are great if they also mandate that to recieve any federal grants or tax incentives that they have to be built in the US. This is not the case at the moment and companies in China are capitalizing on that. We need to fix that immediately before putting forth any mandates. Its also important to note that large scale manufacturing of these systems would bring down costs a great deal when talking about production on this scale.

    I delt with APS in my state over an eminent domain issue to run a 299KV transmission line through one of my properties and have an extensive amount of experience about how this works.

    Federal mandates on a new grid can save (if I remember correctly) 17% of the energy lost currently. If Supergrid technology is used then a total of 10% more energy would be available although this technology is still being developed.

    Thats new grid system savings adds up and can easily pay for itself with time. As far as running new lines over state and private property the feds will be forced to pay ‘fair market value’ and/or value lost through emminent domain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.