Tag: "federal subsidies"

SOTU: President Obama’s Reckless Energy Policy

Last night, President Obama gave his final State of the Union (SOTU) address to the nation. He briefly discussed energy policy:

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.  Here are the results.  In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.  On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.  We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support.  Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.

Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy.  Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future – especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels.  That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.  That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.

Seven years ago, President Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry, he has come pretty close to doing just that. The American coal industry is on the verge of collapse, with around 50 companies out of business and stock prices of the big four companies have fallen as much as 99 percent! Most recently, the second largest coal company has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In addition to all the regulations placed on the coal industry by the Obama administration, natural gas has experienced a boom due to new discoveries and the advanced technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Natural gas recently passed coal as America’s top source of energy power.

Despite the President’s efforts and the natural gas boom, coal is still a major source of American energy power. While, renewable energy is only supplying 6 percent of our electric power.

Wind power and solar power are also not cheap, compared to energy options such as natural gas and coal. The savings that the President is referring to are the very high subsidies that both the federal government and some states have been giving to individuals for buying wind or solar. Also, I am sure he is adding in the possible savings over something like 20 or 50 years. Yet leaving out the very high initial installation and maintenance costs.

The President’s SOTU last night coverage a variety of topics, including the reckless energy policy over the past seven years. An energy policy that has unnecessarily put our coal industry on life support, at a high cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

Jan 13, 2016 | Leave a Comment | by

“Green” Energy: The Color of Money

In light of the recent legal filing for creditor protection by Spain-based, Abengoa, Inc., the viability of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is getting appropriate scrutiny and reconsideration. Through that program, the giant green-energy company received billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in grants, loans, and subsidies. Still, last week they were forced to close their cellulosic ethanol facility in Hugoton, Kansas. The court filing for creditor protection came the day before Thanksgiving and within a week, the Kansas employees received layoff notices while many creditors received nothing.

Economic predictions suggest taxpayer losses could amount to five-times that of the 2011 Solyndra collapse. For local farmers, $5 million in unpaid, delivered product prompted their cooperative (CHS, Inc.), to file a lawsuit just two days prior to Abengoa filing for protection in a Spanish court. While some articles and blogs appear to revel in an Obama administration failure, others denounce the fact-based reporting of Abengoa’s troubles as a hit-piece against green-energy. Neither position is accurate, valid or productive.

From a free-market, smaller government perspective, the issue is not green-energy versus traditional energy sources. There is no denying the world would be a better place if everyone had access to affordable, renewable clean energy. But, consider the financial sink-hole that is the Hugoton plant and contrast that with the stunning announcement that it has sold zero gallons of cellulosic ethanol, and it is apparent that to some the label of “green” energy denotes big money as opposed to an emphasis on low environmental impact.

It should be noted that Abengoa’s demise was not a shock to everyone. Various sources have been sounding the warning sirens for years.

  • A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warned of multiple challenges to RFS’s increasing volumes of biofuels, particularly cellulosic.
  • November 2011: Senator Jeff Sessions of the Senate Budget Committee specifically requested all documents relating to Abengoa and other solar companies from the Department of Interior (DOI).
  • 2012 GAO letter to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, and House & Senate members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations stating it was the sixth time GAO had reported its concerns about (DOE) loan guarantees for biofuels.
  • March 2012 GAO report to Congress restating concerns about the lack of adequate review and oversight by DOE and its $30 billion loan program, detailing Abengoa as the recipient of $1.2 billion.
  • March 2012: U.S. House Oversight Committee report specifically finds loans and resources granted to Abengoa, created excessive risk. The report reveals that “Abengoa managed to obtain a DOE loan commitment for the lowest rated project across the entire DOE Junk portfolio — which received an extraordinarily low CCC rating and was still approved by DOE for a direct loan to the project. This overinvestment in this single firm will likely cause substantial harm to the taxpayer.”
  • May 29, 2012: Letter from the U.S. House Oversight Committee threatened the Department of Interior (DOI) with “compulsory action” if they failed to release requested documents related to Abengoa and other solar companies. The Committee stated appearance of preferential treatment in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees.
  • April 30, 2013: Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported Abengoa of received $2 million dollars through The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) for a project completed before the passing of the law.
  • May 1, 2014: GAO warned a significant threat to taxpayers in the DOE biofuels loan programs due to poor oversight and deviation from monitoring and qualifying procedures that, “pose an unacceptable risk of default.”

Highlighted above are but a few examples of serious problems with the government’s renewable fuels program. So, as presented, critics are not opposed to the concept of green energy but see the RFS as a seriously flawed mechanism to that end. The wasting of billions of dollars on infrastructure for a product that is not market ready could be better served funding advancing research projects in laboratories. The simple concept of putting the cart before the horse comes to mind. It is not Capitalism when the Federal government, through sheer financial force develops unsustainable, artificial industries.

Even Abengoa knew the Kansas plant would not be self-sustainable. In a 2014 report to DOE, the company presented their risk mitigation plan. The list included a push for the development of “energy crops”, continued dependence on the RFS to maintain a premium for ethanol, and to encourage the USDA to allow farmers to produce cellulosic biofuel crops on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands.

The Abengoa plan does not reflect the goal of eventual self-sufficiency, but instead, details what others may contribute to help restructure market fundamentals to suit Abengoa’s projected goals. That is not capitalism. We have limited lands for food production, and the thought of more farmland to biofuel production is alarming. Also, the move would defeat one of the RFS stated goals of developing renewable energy by utilizing material currently identified as low valued waste or by-products.

To be clear, green-energy, as in renewable, eco-friendly, sustainable, and affordable, is a national security and humanitarian issue. There is little debate about the need to pursue that end. But, the government mandates and financial handouts created extremely provocative incentives to abuse the U.S. taxpayers. Through big dollar, experimental programs that ignore market impact, economic viability, coupled with extremely lax oversight, the term “green-energy” takes on a different meaning.

Dec 14, 2015 | 3 comments | by

Beneficiary of Billion Dollar Green Fuels Program Files for Creditor Protection

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final ruling on blend volumes of renewable fuels for the calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The challenge for the EPA is the lack of advanced biofuels to meet obligated minimum levels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), mandates an increasing blend of renewable products into our domestic fuel supply. The Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) provisions require non-food based cellulosic biofuels to be increasingly introduced into commercial gasoline. Called “2nd generation”, cellulosic ethanol, unlike 1st generation corn-ethanol, is derived from wood chips, grasses, corn cobs and other biological material. The problem is the congressionally mandated product is simply nonexistent.

Industry discussions, analytical reviews, and organizational rationalizations toss out phrases such as immature technology, steep learning curve, and of course, more federal funding. The issue is complicated, yet, not complicated. Producing 1st generation ethanol is much simpler than taking a cellulosic material and transforming it into a viable fuel source suitable for commercial use. Of course, we all knew this going into the program. Unfortunately, after pouring billions of dollars into this boondoggle we have done nothing more than successfully proven cellulosic ethanol is not a practical endeavor.

Even more so, with one of only four cellulosic ethanol production plants possibly set to shut its doors, Abengoa, a Spain-based sustainable energy development company, has filed for creditor protection one day before Thanksgiving, and less than a week before the EPA is expected to release the blend levels of renewable fuels. After the U.S. taxpayers invested billions of dollars towards the building of a massive biofuel facility, not to mention the world’s largest solar farm and wind farms, the company is teetering like a giant, green energy Jenga tower.

Abengoa is an international, mega-corporation founded in 1941. Its near certain investment losses to taxpayers’ dwarfs those of the Solyndra fiasco. Aside from perks and discounts for federal land use, employment credits and special tax incentives a quick search discloses only some of the federal dollars pumped into Abengoa and yet we still have no 2nd stage biofuels to meet program goals.

  • $1.45 billion loan guarantee to Abengoa Solar, Inc. for construction and the start-up of solar energy plant in Solana, AZ — 2010
  • $1.2 billion loan guarantee to Mohave Solar, LLC. for the construction & start-up of Mohave Solar Project plant in San Bernardino County, CA. — 2011
  • $133.9 million loan guarantee for biofuel plant Hugoton, KS — Department of Energy – 2011
  • $97 million federal grant, Hugoton, KS — Department of Energy — 2011
  • $4.03 million in grants and federal contracts for 2015 alone

Beyond the amounts presented here, millions more U.S. dollars have rolled into Abengoa and its many subsidiaries. With its announcement in Spain yesterday and today being Thanksgiving, American stock values for the company have not yet reacted. The protection filing gives the company four months to find a solution before creditors can force a full bankruptcy. But, many employees of U.S.-based projects may still be unaware.

It is likely by the end of next week, Abengoa will be a household name. The failure of Abengoa, along with the failure of the Renewable Fuels Standard program, will hit jobs, stock values, the banks and the federal budget. All this, and we still have no cellulosic ethanol to meet the mandates of the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Nov 30, 2015 | 5 comments | by

Let Wind and Solar Energy Subsides Expire

Wind energy is doing very well…even though renewable sources of energy are still just a fraction of energy output in the United States with significant federal and state subsides. The success that some states have had with wind energy production is encouraging other states to expand their wind energy production offshore. However, offshore wind facilities will be very expensive to build and maintain.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA):

  • Offshore wind is 2.6 times more expensive as onshore wind power and is 3.4 times more expensive than power produced by a natural gas combined cycle plant.
  • On a kilowatt hour basis, offshore wind power is estimated to cost 22.15 cents per kilowatt hour, while onshore wind is estimated to cost 8.66 cents per kilowatt hour and natural gas combined cycle is estimated to cost 6.56 per kilowatt hour.
  • Overnight capital costs (excludes financing charges) are 2.8 times higher for offshore wind than onshore wind power.
  • An offshore wind farm is estimated to cost $6,230 per kilowatt, while those costs for an onshore wind farm are estimated to be $2,213 per kilowatt.

Apparently, solar energy is now more affordable. If solar energy is now affordable, then the federal subsidies are no longer needed. These federal subsidies have provided wind and solar developers with as much as $24 billion from 2008 to 2014.

The biggest wind and solar tax credits have expired or will expire by 2016. Let the renewable energy sources compete in the market by letting their subsidies expire.

Nov 11, 2015 | 3 comments | by

Organics: Another Fine Government Mess

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National Organic Program (NOP). The program, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oversees uniform standards governing the marketing of organically produced products. The NOP’s mission is to assure consumers of consistent organic standards of production and to facilitate the interstate commerce of organically produced food.

At the time of the NOP’s inception, the organic market for farm products had an estimated annual value of $1 billion.  By 2012, U.S. certified organic sales were at $28.4 billion and according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the sales for 2014 are estimated at $35 billion. It is clear that organic sales are showing significant growth, but at what costs?

The current Chipotle E. coli outbreak offers an opportunity for shoppers to understand the true nature of the USDA’s organic certification program. Numerous studies and public opinion polls find consumers overwhelmingly believe the higher priced, organically certified food is a healthier, safer choice.  However, experts, consumer groups and scientific research does not support that view.

In one example, a 14-page letter dated October 8, 2015, by the Consumer Reports National Research Center details many of the failings of the NOP. The letter criticizes the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for approval of synthetic and non-organic nutrient additives and synthetic pesticide material, even in baby formulas. The letter states, “We support the proposal to remove nonylphenol ethoxylates (alkylphenol ethoxylates) or NPEs/APEs from the list of “inerts” allowed in organic production because of their toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects.”

The Consumer Reports letter demonstrates the discrepancy between what the NOP entails and what the public believes the program offers. The NOP outlines the rules and processes to create uniformity for organic labeling. Although there are restrictions and prohibitions of a variety of chemical applications, the program allows for many waivers and exemptions. Nowhere in the program does it suggest certification assures a safer or more nutritious food choice. In fact, Dr. Stuart Smyth, a food safety expert and agriculture biotechnology researcher calls the National Organic Standards, “an illusion of food safety.” As Smyth explains, “These organic standards pertain to seed, fertilizer, and chemicals that are allowed to be used to produce a crop that will be certifiably organic when it is ready to be harvested. These production standards have absolutely nothing to do with increasing food safety.”

Still, the organic industry, as a marketing ploy, perpetuates the myth to consumers that organic certification implies safer foods. Moreover, with the ever-growing market share, one would assume conscientious shoppers increasingly prefer organic foods. Do they or is that another false assumption? What has changed in the past 15 years to drive the annual market value of organic food products from $1 billion to $35 billion if not consumer preference? How about the huge increase in consumer prices for the organic products, the increased volume of the labeled products, and the massive increase in program funding? To explain, let’s consider just some of the taxpayer dollars pumped into the NOP by means of the most recent farm bill, the 2014 Farm Act.

  • $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for program operation
  • $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for data collection and distribution to National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
  • $15,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for modernization and technology upgrade
  • $5,000,000 upgrade collaboration with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
  • $11,500,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for cost-share programs with CCC.
  • $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for natural products research.

In the above designated funding commitments alone, the federal government will spend $277.5 million through the term of the current agriculture authorization bill. An astonishing amount, considering the original 1990 Organic Foods Production Act stipulated the program costs will be covered entirely by fees gleaned from the program’s participants.

The growth of the organic market follows the growth in federal dollars pumped into the program. Food safety is not improved. Consumers have no assurance they are purchasing a more nutritious product. Third party certifiers charge upwards of $3,000 to farmers for label use creating an incentive for fraud. Foreign products are certified outside of the U.S. by foreign agents with no USDA oversite. Contemporary farmers are at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the marketing, promotion, and price difference of organically labeled product. Organic foods can potentially be less safe than their uncertified counterpart. And, in the end, the taxpayers are again burdened with an unproductive, fraud-laden, market manipulating program that offers no demonstrative benefit.

Nov 11, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Federal Solar Energy Subsidy Expires 2016

The Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is expected to expire in 2016. The solar energy industry is trying to get another extension to last until the year 2022. They believe that without this critical subsidy, then they will lose 80,000 jobs in just 2017 alone.

  • The ITC is a 30 percent tax credit for solar systems on residential (under Section 25D) and commercial (under Section 48) properties.
  • The multiple-year extension of the residential and commercial solar ITC has helped annual solar installation grow by over 1,600 percent since the ITC was implemented in 2006 — a compound annual growth rate of 76 percent.

CEO of solar developer Greenwood Energy calls for reducing the ITC to 10 in 2017 and letting it expire in 2018.

As of December 2013, the United States Treasury Department had awarded more than $4.4 billion to solar projects.

Once the ITC expires, the solar energy market will level out, losing the inflated strength it has been receiving from the ITC and become more competitive within the energy market.

Sep 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Wind Subsides Cost Taxpayers Big

Appears on Newsmax:

A draft package released by the Senate Finance Committee proposes to revive a 2.3 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit (PTC) incentive for wind energy, which lapsed last December. Congress had voted to terminate the PTC along with other tax breaks for wind projects at the end of 2013, only to have it retroactively extended through 2014 by the Obama cromnibus budget.

Previous “temporary helping hand” extensions have been granted seven times since PTC was first stablished in 1992 to “help the industry compete in the marketplace.” It was preceded by two other “temporary” federal subsidies dating back to 1978, which were advertised to accomplish the same elusive purpose.

Alas, despite lots of windy marketing claims there simply aren’t any free “renewable energy” lunches. According to the Energy Information Administration, 2013 PTC wind benefits alone topped $5.9 billion, while solar received $5.3 billion. The Senate Finance Committee now projects that a two-year PTC extension will heap on another $10.5 billion in lost federal tax revenues over the next 10 years.

Wind and solar combined provided less than 5 percent of total U.S. electricity in 2013. Yet according to the nonprofit Institute for Energy Research, federal subsidies and support on the basis of that per-unit electricity production, each of them received more than 50 times more subsidy support than coal and natural gas combined.

Added to this taxpayer pain are cost penalties borne by electricity consumers thanks to renewable energy mandates provided in 29 states and the District of Columbia that guarantee designated market shares regardless of extra production charges for wind and solar power. Escalating costs have prompted Ohio to freeze its mandates, and West Virginia to cancel them altogether.

Consider New York state, for example, which has been blowing billions of taxpayer green on wind, yet has some of the highest U.S. electricity rates. Despite this charity, a household there using 6,500 kwh of electricity annually will pay about $400 more than the national average. Statewide, this 53 percent extra cost over the national average amounts to approximately $3.2 billion each year. And after all, wasn’t the main idea to replace fossil-fueled plants with assuredly “cost-effective” renewables? A 2013 report by the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) estimates that New York’s first 15 wind farms operating in 2010 produced about a 2.4 million megawatt-hour output.

That’s equivalent to a single 450 mwh gas-fired combined cycle generating unit operating only at 60 percent capacity which can be built at about one-fourth of the capital cost. Even worse, those wind turbines have a very short operating life, requiring a total infrastructure reinvestment about every 10-13 years, easily a $2 billion replacement for New York.

Add to this substantial infrastructure and transmission costs to deliver electricity from remote wind sites to the New York City area where greatest power demand exists. Such dislocations between locations of supply and high demand are typical throughout all regions of America, both for industrial scale wind and solar. The quality of that power isn’t any bargain either.

Unlike coal- and natural-gas-fired plants that provide reliable power when needed — including peak demand times — wind turbines only produce electricity intermittently as variable daily and seasonal weather conditions permit regardless of demand. That fickle output trend favors colder night-time periods rather than hot summer late afternoons when needed most.

The real kicker here is that wind has no real capacity value. Intermittent outputs require access to a “shadow capacity,” which enables utilities to balance power grids when wind conditions aren’t optimum . . . which is most of the time. What we don’t tend hear about is that those “spinning reserves” which equal total wind capacity are likely fueled by coal or natural gas which anti-fossil activists love to hate and wind was touted to replace. But then again, self-proclaimed environmentalists aren’t all keen on wind turbines either.

A Sierra Club official described them as giant “Cuisinarts in the sky” for bird and bat slaughters. In some cases “not in my backyard” resistance arises from an aesthetic perspective as evidenced, for example, by strong public opposition to the proposed 130-turbine offshore Cape Wind development stretching across 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound’s pristine Horseshoe Shoal. Other wind critics also have legitimate health concerns about land-based installations. Common symptoms include headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, and ringing in ears resulting from prolonged exposure to inaudibly low “infrasound” frequencies that penetrate walls.

So long as this industry’s survival depends upon preferential government handouts and regulatory mandates, two things are clear. Wind is not a free, or a competitive free market source of energy. It is also not a charity we can continue to afford blow money into. It’s time to finally pull the plug and permanently cut off the taxpayer and rate-payer juice.

Aug 03, 2015 | 4 comments | by

Senate Energy Policy Leaves Out Oil and Highway Funding

The focus of the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 includes energy efficiency and conservation, protecting the electric grid and speeding up the application process for liquid natural gas refineries. The bill includes:

  • The secretary of the Energy Department to issue a final decision on applications to export liquefied natural gas within 45 days after projects have won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  • The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stockpile of nearly 700 million barrels of oil, should be used only in emergencies — while there are legislative efforts to sell off some of that oil to help pay for surface transportation funding.

The most recent senate energy bill failed to address some of the most important energy issues currently facing the nation. The bill avoided such issues as:

  • The ban on exporting crude oil.
  • Keystone XL pipeline.
  • Federal gas tax reform.
  • The failure to fund our highway system.
  • Renewable Fuel Standard reform.

U.S. energy policy that includes natural gas, but leaves out oil, is not real energy policy. Protecting the electric grid and leaving out critical funding for the highway system, addresses half of our most pressing infrastructure needs.

Jul 27, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Economic Repercussions of the Renewable Fuel Standard

American Petroleum Institute’s Renewable Fuel Standard Facts:

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 included an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which the EPA used to develop a final rule effective July 1, 2010. To comply with the Standard, biofuel producers and importers must blend increasing amounts of biofuels into gasoline and diesel.

However, there have been problems with the government’s original predictions regarding the supply and demand of gasoline; U.S. gasoline demand has dropped while supply has increased due to the shale and natural gas revolution in North America. Also, cellulosic technologies have not developed as quickly as expected and there are no commercial plants to date. The EPA rushed through approval of an up to 15 percent ethanol blend (E15) without adequate testing, leading to compatibility problems with E15, poor consumer acceptance and significant infrastructure and cost challenges. EPA proposed to address the problem, but has been incapable of finalizing its rule.

A study by NERA Economic Consulting (NERA) buttresses the argument that the RFS is irretrievably broken saying that, RFS ethanol mandates could:

  • Lead to fuel supply disruptions that ripple adversely through the economy.
  • Cause the cost of diesel to rise 300 percent and the cost of gasoline to rise 30 percent.
  • Decrease U.S. GDP by $770 billion.
  • Reduce worker pay $580 billion.
Jul 08, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Electric Vehicles: More Harm than Good?

A recent study by Stephen P. Holland from the University of North Carolina- Greensboro and other economics and business professors has found the environmental benefits and harms of electric cars vary state by state. The federal government currently awards a subsidy of $7500 for each electric vehicle bought, with some states adding their own subsidies to such purchases. Such subsidies reflect current movements towards green policies.

Electric vehicles, however, are clearly not “zero emission vehicles.” First of all, the components of those vehicles are made in factories most likely powered by fossil fuels. Second, the electricity used for the vehicles themselves comes from power plants across the United States, where around 70 percent of power plants operate on natural gas or coal. In most areas around the country, driving an electric vehicle means choosing to burn coal and natural gas rather than burning oil.

Due to differences in energy production by states, using electric vehicles may be better in some states while continuing to drive gas-powered cars in others may be best. In California, for example, the electric grid is relatively clean while gasoline vehicles produce more environmental damages. In North Dakota, the opposite is true as the electric grid uses more coal.

The report found that on average electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars. However, gas-powered cars are worse in congested urban areas while electric cars are worse outside of metropolitan areas. A one-size-fits-all policy regarding electric cars therefore does not make sense. The federal subsidy should be eliminated, leaving only state subsidies for electric vehicles where they already exist.

 

Jul 01, 2015 | 5 comments | by
Next Page »