Not true, as you can see here.

This week Senator John Kerry, the lead author of the legislation, told the Senate Finance Committee that “the reason” we need to pass his cap-and-trade energy tax is that “over the last eight years, emissions in the United States of America in greenhouse gases went up four times faster than in the 1990s.”  Also not true.  In fact, he’s off by a factor of 32.

As the video shows, greenhouse gas emissions increased far slower in the 2000s than the 1990s. According to data from the Energy Information Administration,[1] U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased by 15.14% between 1990 and 1999, but from 2001 to 2008 carbon dioxide emissions only increased by 1.88%. If Senator Kerry were correct, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would have increased by 60.5% over the last 8 years, but they only increased by 1.88%.  Senator Kerry overestimated U.S. emissions by a factor of 32.

These are the authors of the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade energy tax legislation.  If our leaders can’t stick to the basic facts to support their argument for a national energy tax, and the lead author of the bill is this far off the mark on “the reason” Congress needs to pass it, Americans might reasonably question the validity of their estimates on how much the bill will cost them and our nation’s already-struggling economy.

Even more troubling, Senator Lindsey Graham is now working with Senator Kerry on a “compromise” in which Senators’ would accept the cap-and-trade plan in exchange for “opening new areas for offshore drilling.”  This would have been a bad compromise last year, but given the fact that the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is now open—and has been since Congress allowed its ban on offshore drilling to expire on October 1, 2008—it appears to be an even worse compromise this year.

If the compromise is anything like the “Gang of 10” plan offered last year in the months before the Congressional ban on drilling in 85 percent of the OCS was set to expire, the only thing we’d be compromising is the progress we’ve already made. That’s because the Gang of 10 plan would have created a permanent ban on drilling in 78 percent of our offshore areas—areas that are now open.

But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the compromise may be.  The long-term costs cap-and-trade legislation would inflict on our economy and our way of life would be so devastating, that no compromise – offshore drilling or anything else – would justify its passage.

Washington, DC – As part of the ongoing efforts in the US Senate to enact sweeping, energy-rationing legislation, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing today entitled “Climate Change Legislation: Considerations for Future Jobs.” Following the hearing, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan, market-oriented Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement:

“There is perhaps nothing more misleading surrounding the ongoing global warming debate than claims that cap-and-trade legislation will be a jobs boon and will spur economic activity. Look no further than the DeSoto Solar Center in Florida – a Florida Power and Light installation. On his recent visit, President Obama touted the center as the ‘largest solar field in the United States.’ However, the president failed to mention that the panels and other items were all manufactured abroad. The solar cells came from the Philippines; the steel mountings from Canada; the electric boxes from Germany. And how many ‘green jobs’ have been created there? Two full-time employees, six part-time groundskeepers that will work one week a month during the rainy season.

“Cap and trade backers often cite European countries, like Spain and Germany, as a model for the US follow. Yet both of these nations have failed miserably at delivering affordable and reliable energy and creating jobs. Spain’s government has committed more than $753,000 per ‘green job’ over the past 9 years. And in Germany, per worker annual taxpayer subsidies have reached $240,000. Beware of the politician promising you a green job in one hand because he is pick-pocketing you with the other.

“Washington must craft comprehensive energy policies that do not empower Congress or bureaucrats to determine which energy forms win or lose in the market. Cap and trade aims to increase the cost of our most affordable, abundant and reliable energy forms, including coal, oil and natural gas. With unemployment now at a 26-year high, raising energy costs across the board and making it more difficult for us to compete in the global economy is not the right solution to help put Americans back to work.”

READ MORE: Key experts from a recent Washington Post article entitled “Painting a street green hasn’t stimulated one new job”:

In Baltimore, the 300 block of East 23 1/2 Street is getting patched up in time for winter. One economic stimulus program is paying to insulate 11 rental rowhouses, another is paying for furnaces and a third is covering the cost for reflective roofs to be installed by prison inmates in a job-training program.

The block is part of one of the biggest initiatives ever undertaken by the federal government, a nationwide push to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. But as the national unemployment rate crosses into the double digits and Republicans question the stimulus program’s impact, the work on East 23 1/2 — even with all of its activity — has so far not produced a single job.

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

#####

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

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a global warming bill. Following the panel’s vote, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan, pro-market Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement:

“The winners today are rent-seeking corporations, Washington special interests and our global competitors, especially China. The timing of this vote – which will weaken America’s ability to compete in the global economy – is particularly ironic, given that just yesterday a U.S. global warming envoy official told Congress that ‘No country holds the fate of the Earth in its hands more than China.’

“Enacting burdensome policies – such as cap-and-trade – will drive energy prices up and make it more difficult to create jobs, wealth and prosperity here in the U.S. China’s hand, however, will only grow stronger, as they continue to aggressively access and develop all forms of energy in their country and across the world. This, in large part, is what has enabled their enormous economic growth and expansion.

“While the members of this committee who voted to advance this legislation may attempt to downplay their vote to increase energy costs for American families, seniors and small businesses as an inside-the-beltway procedural motion, the fact remains that job-killing, carbon regulating legislation has cleared a major hurtle and is a major step closer to becoming law.”

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

#####

Washington, DC – According to a recent Oregonian investigative report, state government officials in Oregon intentionally misled the legislature by withholding critical costs estimates of an extremely expensive ‘green’ energy subsidy program, known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, which would ultimately cost taxpayers millions more than the disclosed amount.

The Oregonian’s Harry Esteve reports this:

According to documents obtained under Oregon’s public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the [green energy] tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11.

The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan market-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued the following statement:

“Green jobs and green energy are simply not feasible without massive government subsidies, mandates and sometimes – as it appears in the case of Oregon – outright deception and dishonest acts. What was uncovered this weekend in Oregon is only the tip of the iceberg. Many rent seeking, corporate-welfare searching ‘green energy’ businesses seem more concerned with securing taxpayer-funded government handouts than producing jobs, dividends, growth, and reliable energy.

“Like Spain’s experience with green jobs, Oregon’s wind energy and other green jobs are temporary and simply would not exist if it weren’t for massive government subsidies and huge corporate handouts, bankrolled by hardworking everyday taxpayers.”

NOTE: Since 2007, when the Oregon legislature approved the governor’s massive Business Energy Tax Credit increase, unemployment has more than doubled, rising from 5 percent in January 2007, to 11.5 percent today.

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

#####

China’s Coal Consumption

China already consumes more than twice the amount of coal as the U.S., but by 2025, its coal consumption is expected to be 3.7 times larger than ours[I1] . Reports suggest that China is building two coal-fired electric generating plants a week,[5] while the U.S.’s coal-based generating construction program is stymied by EPA reviews, re-reviews and legal delays. Forecasters have shown that under the climate change legislation currently working its way through Congress, U.S. coal consumption will be severely reduced and replaced by nuclear and renewable generating technologies, which are more costly forms of energy. And while China has professed that it will meet renewable generation goals, it will not partake in meeting targets for greenhouse gas reductions that will hurt its projected economic growth and its future status as a major world power.[6] Instead, China is willing to make reductions in greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP), a measure proposed by the U.S. almost a decade ago, that allows for both economic growth and lower emissions per unit of GDP from improved efficiency and technology.[7]

Let’s compare energy consumption in China and the U.S. today to each country’s projected consumption in 2025. Data for 2006 is taken from the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International Energy Annual (IEA)[8] and the forecasts are taken from EIA’s International Energy Outlook (IEO)[9] for 2009. [10]

China’s Renewable Energy Production

China’s energy consumption today is dominated by coal, which supplies 70 percent of its demand, followed by oil, which supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy in China is largely hydroelectric power, particularly from the 18,200-megawatt Three Gorges Dam project, whose final generator went on line in October 2008. This project is the largest hydroelectric undertaking in the world. China has other hydroelectric projects planned, totaling an additional 57,720 megawatts of new capacity that will come on line in 2009. China has established a 30,000-megawatt target for installed wind capacity by 2020 (15 percent of its energy needs), and is currently installing wind power at a rate of at least 3,000 megawatts a year.

However, wind growth in China isn’t without its problems. The Wall Street Journal reports that China’s transmission network currently can’t absorb such high rates of growth in renewable energy. Last year, as much as 30 percent of China’s wind power capacity wasn’t connected to the grid.[11] As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants and new coal plants are being built as backup to wind energy. Wind resources do not conform to the normal hours of peak demand and require flexibility in the transmission and distribution system to take down other generators when the wind blows. Unfortunately, coal-fired capacity was not designed to be quickly taken on and offline as the electricity from wind fluctuates.

China’s electric generating sector today relies on coal for 79 percent of its generation and EIA only expects that figure to drop to 75 percent by 2030. China’s generating sector is also investing in nuclear power. Generation from nuclear power is expected to increase by 570 percent by 2025, according to the EIA. That increase is equivalent to an additional 40 gigawatts of new nuclear generating capacity—a lower forecast than some, who are reporting 60 gigawatts of nuclear power in China by 2020.[12]

China’s Liquid Fuels Consumption

China’s liquid fuel consumption is currently 7.2 million barrels per day, a rate of about a third of the United States. However, its projected growth far exceeds the U.S.; China is expected to increase its liquid consumption by 6.6 million barrels per day by 2025 (the largest growth of any country). At that time, China will consume about two-thirds of the U.S. level of liquids consumption. Unlike its vast coal reserves, China is not endowed with a lot of oil resources. Its oil reserves totaled 16 billion barrels in January 2009.[13] As a result, China has actively worked with other oil-producing countries (e.g. Venezuela, Angola). China has widely exchanged financial incentives for future access to oil supplies [14] including in U.S. waters in Gulf of Mexico.[15] China became the world’s second largest vehicle market in 2006, when sales exceeded those of Japan. In 2007, China produced nearly 8.9 million motor vehicles, an increase of 22 percent in production over 2006. China is the world’s third largest vehicle producer after the U.S. and Japan. The economic downturn reduced the growth in China’s vehicle sales to less than seven percent in 2008 and a lower rate is expected for 2009. Part of China’s economic stimulus package is expected to be used for infrastructure improvements in the transportation and electric power sectors.

China’s Natural Gas Consumption

While China’s use of natural gas today is only at three percent, it is expected to triple its usage by 2025. Since China is not home to much of the World’s natural gas reserves (only 1.3 percent)[16], it will rely on imports to meet much of its natural gas demand. In 2030, EIA expects imports to make up more than one-third of China’s total natural gas consumption. To meet this growing need, China opened its first liquefied natural gas facility in 2006 and is expected to have a natural gas pipeline built by 2011 from Turkmenistan via Kazakhstan. Recently, Qatar has decided to divert around 10 percent of its liquefied natural gas exports to China from the United States because China is willing to pay more for the product.[17] It is a good thing that hydraulic fracturing has helped immensely to increase domestic U.S. supplies of natural gas, although the technology is currently being threatened by federal politicians, who are looking to restrict its use.[18]

China’s Carbon Dioxide Emissions

As fossil fuels represent 93 percent of China’s current energy demand, it is not surprising that China ranks first in carbon dioxide emissions in the world, with 6,018 million metric tons released in 2006. By 2025, that number is expected to increase to 10, 707 metric tons, an increase of 78 percent from its 2006 value and 75 percent higher than expected carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. in 2025.

Bottom Line

China wants to become the world’s largest economic power, and China’s leaders understand the fundamental reality that abundant supplies of affordable, reliable energy are essential to economic growth. This is in stark contrast to the U.S. government’s actions to severely limit access to our domestic energy resources and the current proposals to tax carbon dioxide emissions from about 85 percent of our energy (oil, coal, and natural gas) through cap-and-trade. Unlike the United States, China is ambitiously pursuing energy policies to make sure its people have enough energy to grow their economy and make their lives better.

[1] Paul Foy, Interior Secretary Sued for Revoking Utah Leases, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7592093.

[2] Daniel Whitten, Salazar to rewrite Bush oil-shale plan, Bloomberg News, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/6280852.html.

[3] Jim Tankersley, Salazar puts expanded offshore drilling on hold, L.A. Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/nation/na-offshore-drilling11.

[4] Institute for Energy Research, President Obama’s Budget includes $1.6 trillion in new taxes—the largest tax increase in history, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/02/26/president-obama-budget-includes-16-trillion-in-new-taxesthe-largest-tax-increase-in-history/.

[5] Roger Harrabin, China building more power plants, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm.

[6] Institute for Energy Research, Lost in Translation, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/28/lost-in-translation/.

[7]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html

[8] http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/

[9] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[10] EIA is an independent statistical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy that forecasts future energy outlooks for the U.S. and the world.

[11]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html

[12] http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2008/12/23/

[13] “Worldwide Look at reserves and Production,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 106, No. 48 (December 22, 2008), pp23-24.

[14]Venezuela signed a $16 billion investment deal with China over three years. The deal could raise oil output by several hundred thousand barrels a day. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/09/18/

China National Petroleum Corp. received a $30 billion low-interest loan from a state-run bank to finance overseas acquisitions, Beijing’s latest bid to secure mineral resources to fuel the country’s burgeoning economy. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/09/09/

CNOOC and Sinopec have agreed to buy a 20 percent stake in an oil field off the coast of Angola for $1.3 billion, the latest in a series of Chinese acquisitions of overseas energy and mining assets. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/07/20/

[15] David Pierson, China’s push for oil in the Gulf of Mexico puts U.S. in awkward spot, L.A. Times, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-oil22-2009oct22,0,2776603.story?track=rss.

[16] “Worldwide look at Reserves and Production,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 106, No. 48 (December 22, 2008), pp. 22-23.

[17] Reuters, “Qatar diverts LNG to higher-paying China from U.S.”{, October 27, 2009, www.reuters.com/article/companyNews AndPR/idUSLR15622520091027

[18] “States to U.S. Congress: Hands Off Hydraulic Fracturing”, May 19, 2009, www.energyindepth.org/2009/05/1005/

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.

Elmendorf’s testimony was in response to a revision of CBO’s original report on the cost of the Waxman-Markey bill. When the original report came out, IER showed that CBO’s own numbers demonstrated that the economic costs of Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade scheme far outweighed its benefits to American citizens, and arguably even to the world as a whole. In the present post, we explain why Elmendorf’s three key points are misleading. Elmendorf calls hundreds of billions of dollars in lost future economic growth a “modest” reduction, he obfuscates by focusing on purchasing power instead of on the reduction in total income, and contrary to economic theory, assumes that low- and middle-income families will benefit from free allowances handed out to utilities. By simply stressing different aspects of the same underlying CBO analysis, one could have painted a much bleaker picture of the costs of cap-and-trade than Elmendorf chose to convey.

Writing off Billions of Dollars in Lost Future Economic Growth as “Modest”

The first trick Elmendorf deploys is to dismiss reductions in GDP as “modest” because they won’t occur until Americans are wealthier than they are today:

Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, the Congressional Budget Office…concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454…would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ percent to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest.

Although the CBO director brushes it off, a potential cost of 3.5 percent of total economic output is enormous. In 2008, US GDP was $14.4 trillion. The high-end cost estimate of 3.5 percent works out to $504 billion. Yes, it’s certainly true that if you asked people back in 1970 if 3.5 percent of GDP forty years in their future was a big deal, they probably would have said “Not really.” Yet the people in 2008 would certainly have been upset if $504 billion were sucked out of the economy because of a program implemented forty years earlier.

While CBO calls a 1 percent to 3.5 percent reduction in GDP by 2050 a “modest” cost, what about the benefits? The true irony here is that Elmendorf’s testimony provides an estimate of the cost of global warming. CBO argues that “a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product [GDP] is about 3 percent…by [the year] 2100”. So if Elmendorf is allowed to blow off 1 percent to 3.5 percent in GDP because people will be so much richer by 2050, why are we rushing through legislation to avert potential climate change that the same CBO predicts might cost 3 percent of GDP at the end of the century? Won’t Americans be really wealthy by 2100?

Focusing on Consumption Purchasing Power Rather Than Total Income

After assuring the senators that reductions in GDP were modest, Elmendorf then changed the measuring rod:

In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP. Projected GDP impacts include declines in investment, which only gradually translate into reduced household consumption.

This statement is technically true but it is very misleading. Suppose a household currently enjoys a take-home income of $100,000, out of which they put $10,000 into funding retirement and the kids’ college tuition, while the other $90,000 they spend on the mortgage, dining out, clothes, gasoline, and other household necessities. The politicians come along and propose a new tax that will grab an extra $5,000 a year, leaving the family with a new after-tax income of $95,000.

Now most people would think, “Wow, I’m $5,000 a year poorer.” But the apologists for the tax hike could argue, “Actually you’re not really $5,000 poorer, in terms of your lifestyle. You won’t cut out your spending on groceries and food by the full $5,000. Because of your lower income, you will reduce your savings to $9,000 a year, and your other spending down to $86,000 a year. So really the hit to your household’s consumption is only $4,000 per year.”

Would anybody buy that argument? Of course not. Income is income. The “long-run cost to households” will certainly be affected by declines in investment spending, which is counted in GDP. By focusing on a decline in “purchasing power” of 1.2 percent for households by 2050—rather than their estimate of 1.1 percent to 3.5 percent of lost GDP—the CBO is effectively sweeping half the impact under the rug.

Reporting Allowance “Rebates,” Not Gross Compliance Cost

The last trick we’ll note is that the CBO analysis simply takes the government at its word that low-and middle-income families will benefit from the free allowances that will be handed to utilities under the provisions of Waxman-Markey, even though this flies in the face of standard economic theory. As a recent IER study showed, Congress plans on using allowance handouts in order to transfer money from consumers (through higher prices) into the pockets of special interests.

The reader may be interested to see the CBO’s estimates of the actual hike in household costs from Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade scheme, before adding in the free allowance handouts:

As the first column makes clear, middle class families are expected to suffer a hit of more than $1,000 per year in higher prices. (And remember, this figure is the one that has already been cut in half using the total output vs. consumption trick explained above.) Whatever happened to “a postage stamp a day”? Does the CBO know something about the Postal Service’s intentions that we don’t?

Conclusion

During a recent hearing, Elmendorf made clear there were substantial costs to cap-and-trade. According to the Washington Post he said:

“The shifts will be significant,” the CBO director said. “We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance—the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people—does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce.”

Even Elmendorf agrees there are substantial costs to cap-and-trade. And as we have shown, he and the CBO are still underestimating the costs.

He also won’t mention that while the plant employed 400 draftsmen, carpenters, and others during its construction, few full-time employees will be needed during its operation—one engineer to trouble shoot problems and six ground keepers to keep the grass trimmed and animals away.[iii] As such, the ongoing operation of this solar plant will not help the rising Florida unemployment rate.

FPL spent $152 million building the plant[iv], which amounts to $6,080 per kilowatt—a figure substantiated by the Energy Information Administration, who ranks photovoltaic solar the highest cost technology of a potential slate of 20 possible future generating technologies.[v]

While traditional fossil fuel technologies cost substantially less, solar photovoltaic technology is being supported by Federal subsidies, consisting of investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation, and by mandates for renewable power in many US states.[vi] The Florida Legislature approved a one-time rate increase of about 31 cents per month for the average customer to cover the construction of three solar test sites totaling 110 megawatts—about one half of one percent of the total energy FPL produces.[vii]

European Experience

The US is not the only country building and subsidizing solar plants. In fact, it ranks fourth in the world for cumulative installed solar electric power. Germany ranks first, Spain second, and Japan third.[viii] In Germany, solar producers receive as much as 64 US cents per kilowatt hour through a feed-in tariff, which requires utility companies to purchase renewable power at their higher cost. The feed in tariff for photovoltaic solar in Germany is more than eight times higher than the electricity price at the power exchange.[ix] Germany is reducing its subsidies for solar to ease costs for electricity consumers. Surprisingly, Germany’s photovoltaic manufacturing industry is beginning to support slashing subsidies due to competition from Chinese manufacturers, whose production costs are 30 percent lower. China is now the world’s largest producer of solar cells.[x]

Spain has a mandate requiring 20 percent of its electricity generation to come from renewable power by 2010, and it uses feed-in tariffs to further promote renewable generation. In 2008, Spain’s solar power cost was over 7 times higher than its average electricity price.[xi] Spain also slashed subsidies for solar power, limiting those subsidies to 500 megawatts, about one-fifth of the solar capacity it subsidized in 2008.[xii] In Japan, the government has set a target for 30 percent of all households to have solar panels installed by 2030.[xiii]

Subsidy Levels by Country

In 2008, the International Energy Agency released an analysis of policies used to deploy renewables during the period 2000-2005 for the 30 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and for Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa.[xiv] They found that the investment costs of photovoltaic systems are high, representing the most important barrier to their deployment. The agency’s calculated 2000-2005 policy effectiveness levels for photovoltaics are lower by a factor of ten than for more mature renewable technologies such as wind energy. Feed-in tariffs (complemented by the easy availability of soft loans and fair grid access) have been very effective in Germany, albeit at a high cost. In recent years, the level of the German feed in tariff for solar photovoltaics has decreased to some extent, and an element of degression, a pre-determined percentage decrease in the renewable technologies’ support level, has been introduced. The German parliament approved proposals for acceleration of degression rates for stand-alone installations from 5 percent per year in 2008 to 10 percent per year in 2010 and 9 percent from 2011 onwards. According to the IEA, this creates incentives to reduce costs.

The IEA calculated the remuneration levels in 2005 for each renewable technology for the 35 countries they analyzed. The solar remuneration levels are given in the figure below. In Luxembourg, for example, the remuneration level in 2005 was as high as 90 cents US per kilowatt hour. The average renumeration levels are higher for solar photovoltaic technologies than for other more mature renewable technologies due to their high investment costs.

Conclusion

Even with large subsidies, solar photovoltaic power is having trouble gaining market share, contributing less than one percent to the total power generated in each of the countries that have the largest solar capacity in the world—Germany, Spain, and the United States. The reason is the high investment costs that solar power needs for deployment. Regardless, our Federal and state governments seem intent on making consumers of electricity pay for solar technologies that are not economic against traditional generating technologies causing taxpayers and customers to subsidize their construction and operation. Our state and Federal politicians tout that this will help employment. However, when the largest solar plant built in the United States goes operational on Tuesday, it will lose 393 employees that it employed for less than a year, needing only 7 for ongoing operations.

[i] http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?eeid=6895421&eetype=article&render=y&ck=&ch=mo

[ii] http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/desoto.shtml

[iii] “Solar plant set to open, even as shadows loom”, Herald Tribune, Zac Anderson, Oct. 14, 2009, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20091014/ARTICLE/910141033/2055/NEWS?Title=Solar-plant-set-to-open-even-as-shadows-loom

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy outlook 2009, Table 8.2, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html

[vi] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/10/19/the-u-s-doubles-down-on-solar-subsidies-while-europe-retreats/

[vii]“Solar plant set to open, even as shadows loom”, Herald Tribune, Zac Anderson, Oct. 14, 2009, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20091014/ARTICLE/910141033/2055/NEWS?Title=Solar-plant-set-to-open-even-as-shadows-loom

[viii] Solar Energy Industries Association, http://www.seia.org/cs/about_solar_energy/industry_data

[ix]“Economic Impacts from the promotion of renewable energies”, Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung , http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

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

[xi] Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009, http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

[xii] Wall Street Journal, “Darker Times for Solar-Power Industry”, May 11, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124199500034504717.html .

[xiii] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, May 2009, page 68, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2009).pdf .

[xiv] International Energy Agency, “Deploying Renewables: Principles for Effective Policies”

Unlike previous versions, this one spells out which groups are politically-favored enough to receive preferential treatment in the form of free carbon dioxide emissions allowances. This draft also includes “Increased Investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.” In other words, increased subsidies for politically-favored forms of energy. The premise of this section of the bill seems to be that the American people need the federal government to tell them how to use energy cost-effectively.

Like Waxman-Markey, this bill is shaping up to be incredibly costly and incredibly intrusive into all aspects our energy use.