 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Energy, as the late Julian Simon observed, is the "master resource." Energy enables mankind to transform all other resources into goods and services, and it empowers people to move themselves, commerce, and information across distances great and small. That is why long-term declines in energy costs are essential to economic progress. It is also why Republicans, who claim to be the party of growth, have the most to lose politically under a Kyoto-style regime. Perhaps the most seductive compromise on the table is Senator Jeff Bingaman's (D., N.M.) amendment to establish a nationwide "renewable-portfolio standard" (RPS). An RPS is a regulatory scheme that requires utilities to generate a specified percentage of electricity from wind, solar, and other politically correct technologies. Bingaman's amendment is a "soft Kyoto" strategy. It would not establish an outright cap on carbon emissions, as would McCain-Lieberman. However, an RPS functions much like a cap — it restricts utilities' access to the most economical fuels, inflating consumer electricity costs. The main difference is that a cap is more flexible — it lets utilities choose how to reduce emissions. An RPS is the most prescriptive and thus potentially the most expensive emission-reduction program. Bingaman's RPS starts
out modestly, as befits a "soft Kyoto" strategy. It would require
2.5 percent of electricity to come from renewables during 2008-2011, rising
incrementally to 10 percent in 2020-2030. But Republicans are fooling
themselves if they think the costs will be modest or come due only after
they have left office. Second, an RPS is
fundamentally a set-aside program — a corporate-welfare entitlement
for industries that would not exist in a free market. Whatever level it
is initially set at, the RPS will function as a floor, not a ceiling.
Once enacted, it will strengthen the renewable-energy lobby and grow like
other entitlements. The potential to exploit consumers, distort energy
markets, and undermine productivity is vast. Consider also that, once the nation's power sector is subject to an RPS, many utilities will see little point in resisting Kyoto or McCain-Lieberman, since they will already effectively comply with a carbon cap. Indeed, some may even lobby for McCain-Lieberman, calculating that their renewable portfolios will make them net sellers of carbon credits under a cap-and-trade program. Enacting an RPS will simply tee up McCain-Lieberman for the next round. Third, a national RPS will function as a tool of regional economic warfare. It is hardly coincidental that the Senate's leading RPS proponents typically come from states — California, Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont — that heavily subsidize or mandate renewable generation. Having spent millions propping up uncompetitive power production, they want to inflict the same disadvantage on out-of-state rivals. Bingaman's home state of New Mexico, for example, has a ten percent RPS — exactly the burden his amendment would impose on the nation. So don't be fooled by RPS advocates' greener-than-thou rhetoric. The basic purpose of a federal RPS is to rig the nation's electricity marketplace. States with heavy investment in uneconomic renewables will be able to turn their liabilities into assets. They will expand market share at the expense of states with more consumer-friendly electricity policies. That is wrong. Consumers in states without RPS programs should not have to pay for New Mexico's folly. A nationwide RPS is a scheme so fraught with cost and peril that friends of affordable energy should consider it a deal breaker. Better no energy bill than a bill with a renewable-portfolio standard. — Marlo Lewis is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he
Senate this week will vote on amendments to its version of the 2003 energy
bill (S. 14). Senators John Kerry (D., Mass.), Joe Lieberman (D., Conn.),
Jim Jeffords (I., Vt.), and John McCain (R., Ariz.) will likely try to
amend the bill into a vehicle for Kyoto-inspired anti-energy policies.
McCain and Lieberman, for example, may attempt to attach their "Climate
Stewardship Act," which would require U.S. firms to reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, the inescapable byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuels
— coal, oil, and natural gas — that supply 70 percent of U.S.
electricity and 84 percent of all U.S. energy.
