It's tough trying to convince people that energy efficiency and conservation are the immediate and key actions to reduce costs and wastes. In the past I've written warnings that companies and individuals must do these voluntarily or face the hand of government that makes people disdain government. I've also warned that when people and companies are energy efficient, that government is going to react negatively because it threatens their tax revenues and so there is an ugly side to energy conservation and the green movement.
TV station KARE 11 in Minneapolis/St. Paul reported that, "The Minneapolis DOT said, 'If a mileage-based user fee were implemented, motorists would pay a fee based on how many miles they drive, rather than how much gas a vehicle uses,' which is how Minnesota's revenue is currently collected. Officials in Oregon, Iowa, Nevada, and Texas are also considering a mileage tax." Government seemingly doesn't recognize that new tax revenues are collected from electric vehicles' consumption of electricity. Then there are other taxes funding roads, such as vehicle sales taxes, registrations, licensing and other user-borne fees.
According to Kelly Davidson of Home Power Magazine, "In February 2011, the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced funding for the previously announced SunShot Initiative--an effort to decrease the cost of electricity from solar energy and help restore the nation's dominance in the global PV [photovoltaic] market, which has eroded significantly. In 1995, the US supplied 43% of the PV market, but today that has dropped to 6%. SunShot's goal is to reduce the cost of PV-made electricity by about 75% by the end of the decade, without additional subsidies."
Tax incentives are hidden fees that consumers of electricity pay back to electric companies that must purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that fund those who purchase an alternative energy system (Solar PV, Wind) that generates electricity. Dr. Jonathan Lesser, President of Continental Economics writes in Gresham's Law of Green Energy that, "it's easy to be green when someone else is paying for it." Dr. Lesser's report is sobering and goes on to argue that, "studies that report green energy as unbridled growth all contain one striking omission: they ignore the adverse economic effects of the resulting higher electricity prices that high-cost renewable generation brings. They are cost-benefit analyses that ignore the 'cost' part. No wonder the results are so encouraging."
In another report, "The Impact of Local Permitting on the Cost of Solar Power," released by SunRun, a solar PV company for consumers writes that local governments can save $1 billion over the next five years and make solar affordable for 50 percent of American homes. The report reveals that inconsistent local solar permitting and inspection processes add an average of over $2,500 per home installation. From first-hand experience with local and State government I can attest that not only are they disjointed but seemingly have only one goal and that is to raise tax and permit revenues. In my post titled Energy Policy, I wrote that The Financial Times reported that Professor Jeremy Rifkin, also a US energy advisor, said, "Obama has the program but not the roadmap. The EU has the map but not the money." It seems that government wants green energy at the cost of increasing consumers' and businesses' energy prices.
I also warned that "Businesses may need reminders that participation in reducing energy footprints, doing more for less and meeting carbon neutral goals may become mandatory. In other words, energy regulation in the first form will be EERS (Energy Efficiency Resource Standards), which can become a painful experience for businesses that don't have a viable energy plan or are latent in adopting efficiency, conservation and alternative energy."
So here's your emphatic warning. Whatever the national energy policy's intent is--the result is higher energy costs. If I said, bypass the local gas pumps, you'd readily agree. But drive by the gas pumps anyway and ask the station operators what exactly it is that you are paying for. Read your electric bills and you'll discover the same thing. Your best hedge against energy inflation is still efficiency and conservation. My plans to build a power plant are on hold--why pay 75% more today when the technology costs have this much potential for cost reduction and there's even a chance of avoiding sticking the bill to everyone else through subsidies that don’t promote even or fair competition?
