[Part II by Mr. Droz looks at North Carolina’s onshore wind development.]
The Governor of North Carolina recently selected a Scientific Advisory Panel on Offshore Energy to make recommendations regarding offshore energy. At the official state site, information is given about who is on the panel, submissions received, and so on.
Three public hearings have been held regarding coastal Carolina. I spoke in the Morehead City hearing. My brief (two minutes allowed) comments were aimed at the proper process that North Carolina should take to resolve which energy options should be implemented. Not surprisingly the majority of inputs received at these meeting were people and organizations advocating offshore wind energy. (What is that political science insight about concentrated benefits and diffuse costs?)
The Panel is now digesting the inputs received.…
The U.S. Senate Energy Committee has recently issued a white paper about a proposed Clean Energy Standard (CES). If enacted, the CES would profoundly affect the future of all energy matters in the U.S. The committee is having a short public comment period, which ends on Monday April 11th.
They are looking for inputs on six aspects of this proposed measure. Reading over the white paper (see Appendix below), I am encouraged that they are at least asking some good questions. As such I am hopeful that they get intelligent responses to balance out those that will inevitably come from rent-seekers.
Since I am advocating the Big Picture approach, my strategy is going to respond to the Executive Summary part only (and then elaborate a bit on an Additional document).…
Congress is rightfully concerned about closing the huge, systemic budget deficit. In this climate, eliminating Section 1603 grants for politically correct renewable energy should be considered an easy target.
By way of background, this particular subsidy came about due to persistent pressure from lobbying groups like American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Their main argument is that these grants will promote jobs and economic benefits. Of course, as lobbyists this is what they are paid to say. But in these times of more focused financial prudence, we need to critically look at such expenditures in a more objective light — especially since we are talking about some five billion dollars.
The 1603 Grants should be cancelled entirely. In my view the best way to see how ineffective these expenditures are is to consider what the alternatives are for this same money.…