I’ve posted about the awakening of a renewable energy movement among Republicans and Tea Party conservatives. Even the New York Times is now recognizing this new reality – which is picking up steam..
…solar power is fast becoming one of the fracture lines dividing the conservative movement’s corporate and libertarian sides. The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, which helps pro-business Republicans across the country write legislation, has successfully urged several states to fight federal mandates for adopting renewable energy like solar power. This month, it published a resolution calling for states to “require that everyone who uses the grid helps pay to maintain it and to keep it operating reliably at all times.”
To Mr. Goldwater (Jr., son of conservative 1964 Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater), the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.” On the website for his campaign, Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed, Mr. Goldwater, a former congressman, says, “Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice.”
He says conservatives are the original environmentalists, especially in the West. “They came out here and fell in love with the land,” he said, and added that his father used to tell him, “There’s more decency in one pine tree than you’ll find in most people.”
Tom Morrissey, a former state Republican Party chairman in Arizona who was embraced by the state’s Tea Party groups, called the party’s national leaders “knuckleheads” on this issue. Domestically produced energy is a national security issue, he said, adding, “If we can keep one dollar from going to people who are killing our kids in Afghanistan, it’s a good thing — and I feel that’s what solar energy does.”
He and others consider the utilities to be regulated monopolies whose rates are set by bureaucrats — the opposite of a free-market economy. In Georgia, Debbie Dooley, the national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots and a co-founder of the Green Tea Coalition, said the fact that some conservatives denounced the favorable treatment that solar power got from the federal government was immaterial.
“They neglect to mention billions of dollars that the fossil-fuel industries have received,” she said. “They cherry-pick their principles.”
It’s time for a new party. I’m calling it the Green Tea Coalition.
The premise is simple: Those who believe in the free market need to reexamine the way our country produces energy. Giant utility monopolies deserve at least some competition, and consumers should have a choice. It’s just that simple, and it’s consistent with the free-market principles that have been a core value of the Tea Party since we began in 2009.
In Georgia, we have one company controlling all of the electricity production, which means consumers have no say in what kind of power they must buy. A solar company could not start up and offer clean power to customers because of restrictions in state law. Our Constitution does not say that government should pick winners and losers, but that is what government is doing when it protects the interests of older technologies over clean energy that’s now available at competitive prices. I say, let the market decide.
Solar prices have plummeted since 2008, dropping almost 75 percent in some areas. Solar is now a great bet against rising utility rates, because once you set up the system, the fuel — sunlight — will always be free. No one owns the sun or has exclusive rights to it. We can give consumers the option to choose solar and protect the environment at the same time.
Just look at the technological advancements that cellphones and personal computers have enjoyed because of free-market competition. Shouldn’t alternative energy sources be given the same chance?
LANSING — Several Republican leaders have formed a conservative group aimed at promoting renewable energy in Michigan.
The Michigan Conservative Energy Forum will push the state to reduce its dependence on coal and increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. The announcement comes two days before Gov. Rick Snyder is scheduled to conduct a roundtable discussion on the future of Michigan’s energy policy.
“For too long, we have allowed the energy discourse to be dominated by the left,” said Larry Ward, former political director for the Michigan Republican Party and executive director of the forum.
“Conservatives have sat on the sidelines for far too long,” he said.
Though it’s not affiliated with the state Republican Party, Ward said he expects most members to identify as Republican.
Ward said Michigan must diversify its energy supply and move towards an “all of the above” energy policy that includes wind, solar, hydro, biomass and natural gas. When asked about coal and nuclear power, he said they are part of the picture and that completely distancing from coal isn’t an option.
You know, idolatry of the “free-market” will be just as disastrous for energy as it has been for economics, education, world peace, and social justice.
Please notice that the majority of nations that are leading the way on renewable energy do not worship at the 100% capitalism altar – they all have substantial reverence for the social contract and the public commons. They are socialist capitalist democracies.
If you think waiting for the so-called free market to fix AGW is the way to go, prepare yourself for two things:
1) environmental disaster
2) the prospect of paying through the nose for your energy forever. Energy that comes to us for free, from the sun, wind, and tide.
Letting ideology control the acts of any nation (possibly any planet) is always pre-planned hypergolic mix. Mix ideology and the real world and it will eventually always burst into flame. We much like camp fires, nuclear reactors, internal combustion engines, and other ‘flamey’ bits, you have to strike the right balance or it either runs away on you or snuffs out.
If the worshipers of all of these economic ideologies are kept in balance then we have the strength of diversity. If one faction becomes dominant and takes over the others, then we get an explosion or darkness.
Right now we’re in the position of people choosing whether to run toward the flames or go with the crowd and head for the exit. Argue about why you ran for the exit after you get outside, not while you’re making the decision about which way to run.
You’d think I would remember to spell/grammar check my posts before putting them up… *sigh*
I’m sorry, but this is just the fossil interests co-opting free-market rhetoric to push its interests. If you used to read the posts of Jerome Guillet on The Oil Drum (Jerome a Paris on dKos), you probably know all of this already and can just skim the next 3 paragraphs.
Consider the investment horizons of different technologies and energy supplies. The gas industry in particular is full of “hot money”, which can drill and frac a shale well and sell off the revenue stream to investors within a couple of years. These are short-termers, low capital investment, fast gains. The low capital investment for gas-burning powerplants means the risk due to markets shifts is small; the fixed amortization costs are low, and the market price for power just follows the price of fuel.
At the other end of the scale you have things with high capital investment and on-going costs not strongly dependent on actual generation: hydro, nuclear. These have costs dictated by the cost of money, and investors can be bankrupted by a long period of low prices in a market-driven scenario. This is a regime for patient money, predictable returns, regulated utilities. There are few opportunities for making a killing.
In the middle are renewables: wind and PV. Both are unpredictable due to the day-to-day weather, so they are neither fish nor fowl.
The hot-money deal-makers hate sectors where they cannot exploit volatility to make money. Volatility is bad for consumers, but good for Wall Street. It’s astounding that Greens, who supported OWS, would put themselves behind a movement to increase that volatility, yet there they are.
Georgia has a public service commission, which is under the control of the elected government. Georgia consumers have MORE say over the kind of power they buy than if they lived in a “market regime” state.
If it was competitive, utilities would be all over it. The problem is, it’s not. It provides energy on a schedule determined by daylight and weather, not demand. This energy has very low value, which is a problem recognized by many others. The illusion of competitiveness is created by the bundled costs of current electric billing. When utilities react by trying to un-bundle the costs of T&D, regulation, reactive power, and the rest from raw energy, who screams unfair? The people getting the unfair compensation for low-value energy, that’s who.
The big omission generates some 30% of the electricity in the state, carbon-free. At least the reporter was savvy enough to ask the follow-up.
But “completely distancing from” nuclear apparently is, thereby locking in demand for gas and coal (even lignite) as far into the future as we can see.
It’s all about profits for hot-money investors. Patient money, the sort that retirement investors need, is thrown to the wolves. This is all about the banksters. Go read Jerome’s old posts. Learn to see what’s between the lines.
This is how self interest works. If you are pro nuke, subsidies are good. If something else competes and beats you, their subsidies are bad, but your subsidies are good. If the free market does not choose your pet nuclear, free markets are bad. Then government intervention is good. If government intervenes in favor of something other than nukes, its bad. Anything that goes against nuclear is a conspiracy by the fossil fuel companies. See? Simple. Ideology is just thoughts that support whatever you believe. Just set the controls to whatever produces the result you like (nukes) and declare that acceptable. Nice, isn’t it? Not that there is anyone who would have such extreme philosophies on nuclear. I mean we would know anyone like that on this blog, now would we? I don’t think I want to read Jerome’s posts either. I can see the lines and the innuendo quite well.
Just in case we have forgotten. This is a post about renewable energy and conservatives. Remember? And now we have conservatives that like solar because it gives them independence and choice in power selection.
What “self” interest? I personally profit from neither industry.
Subsidies are bad, period. A subsidy hides the full cost and resource intensity of whatever receives the subsidy. Go read Tverberg again until you get it.
Removing impediments is not a subsidy. Allowing builders of long-lived assets to borrow at favorable rates, as government units do, is not a subsidy. The Fed’s ZIRP should have been a cue to build long-lived assets while they cost almost nothing to finance.
If something gets paid for using infrastructure and services that cost others money (e.g. net metering), that’s bad. If something is forced into the “market” through mandates (e.g. renewable portfolio standards, renewable fuel standards), that’s bad. If something reduces the efficiency of the rest of a system but doesn’t pay for the increased costs, that’s bad.
If you have a massive costly program touted as a fix for climate change (Energiewende), and it completely fails to meet its goals for carbon emissions, that’s fraud. Fraud is bad.
To the Green, agitprop is good if it helps their agenda (radiophobia, GMO phobia), but bad if it doesn’t (Wind Turbine Syndrome). This is why I am not a Green.
There’s no independence unless they go off the grid entirely. Instead, they’re demanding free services from the grid, or even to be paid for services they use. It’s a sweet deal, and even some conservatives find it attractive. But it can’t last, so it won’t.
Since an excess link has pushed this comment into moderation, and it hasn’t been approved after 26 hours and counting, I’m pulling the Tverberg link for a re-post.
What “self” interest? I personally profit from neither industry.
Subsidies are bad, period. A subsidy hides the full cost and resource intensity of whatever receives the subsidy. Go read Tverberg again until you get it.
Removing impediments is not a subsidy. Allowing builders of long-lived assets to borrow at favorable rates, as government units do, is not a subsidy. The Fed’s ZIRP should have been a cue to build long-lived assets while they cost almost nothing to finance.
If something gets paid for using infrastructure and services that cost others money (e.g. net metering), that’s bad. If something is forced into the “market” through mandates (e.g. renewable portfolio standards, renewable fuel standards), that’s bad. If something reduces the efficiency of the rest of a system but doesn’t pay for the increased costs, that’s bad.
If you have a massive costly program touted as a fix for climate change (Energiewende), and it completely fails to meet its goals for carbon emissions, that’s fraud. Fraud is bad.
To the Green, agitprop is good if it helps their agenda (radiophobia, GMO phobia), but bad if it doesn’t (Wind Turbine Syndrome). This is why I am not a Green.
There’s no independence unless they go off the grid entirely. Instead, they’re demanding free services from the grid, or even to be paid for services they use. It’s a sweet deal, and even some conservatives find it attractive. But it can’t last, so it won’t.
” If it [Renewables] was competitive, utilities would be all over it. The problem is, it’s not. It provides energy on a schedule determined by daylight and weather, not demand. This energy has very low value”
Which is why it makes sense to put them where they are of high value. For solar, that would be the American Southwest, in the desert. Then it would be very reliable. It also means it would have to be distributed. Distribution, therefore, is the heart and soul of renewables. And why our renewable future, if it was designed intelligently, would be national and international in scope.
Which is definitely NOT amenable to the free-market system, but perfect for the public spheres.
If it [Renewables] was competitive, utilities would be all over it. ???
They are.
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-utilities-are-betting-on-wind/201066/
renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) accounted for 37.16 percent of all new domestic electrical generating capacity installed during calendar-year 2013 for a total of 5,279 MW.
That is more than three-times that provided for the year by coal (1,543 MW – 10.86 percent), oil (38 MW – 0.27 percent), and nuclear power (0 MW – 0.00 percent) combined. However, natural gas dominated 2013 with 7,270 MW of new capacity (51.17 percent).
“renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) accounted for 37.16 percent of all new domestic electrical generating capacity installed during calendar-year 2013 for a total of 5,279 MW.”
I always roll my eyes when the renewable cheerleaders throw in “biomass” (ie ethanol, wood-chipping) and hydropower (which green movements everywhere oppose) and then call it “green.”
Some consistency would be nice.
I actually agree with you somewhat there about the categories. Its just that some are painting all of those as intermittent. Cheerleading is not really my style. The uniforms are uncomfortable and I hate being thrown. Some biomass is better than others. Landfill methane and farm methane come to mind. Those produce methane which I would rather have collected, put to good use, and not let into the atmosphere.
There is a yawning chasm between nameplate wattage and actual generation. It’s as big as the chasm between energy production and dispatchable capacity.
I predict the energy grid will become an Internet of Energy, much like the Internet of Data, infused with producers and consumers. Everyone will pay something to help keep their local bit operational, but the main trunk lines should be regulated as a national infrastructure.
I’m not an economist, but it should be a leap forward in democratization and put an end to oligarchies.
Hence the frantic pushback.
And isn’t it oh-so-obvious!?
The fossil fuel box of hammers is running out of nails to bash and is incapable of adapting, or simply doesn’t want to.
On some levels this is understandable as its entire corporate culture is deeply entrenched and intransigent, but they have to know that their era is on the wane as resources deplete, alternatives exist and it becomes ever clearer that their products are incompatible with stable civilizations — and life.
Of course, they don’t have to change — survival isn’t compulsory.
Thats the idea. Then we could have the grid do something useful. This should be a publicly owned entity like roads, not a private monopoly that owns the distribution, but has let distribution suffer to make greater private profit. Then we could have a united distribution system instead of multiple ISOs with weak ties. If the utility bill contained a charge for a public system, like a gas tax, and it went to improve the grid nationally, I would be for it. The government did not have a national road system concept when electric infrastructure was invented. Otherwise, we might already have the structure envisioned.
Most utilities are not private – they are mostly semi-public or fully public.
The reason the “Green Tea Party” has emerged has less to do with politics and ideology and more to do with some very basic premises. Witness.
Germany has united grass root strength behind having local control and ownership of energy production and distribution, not wanting distant bureaucracy controlling local, community interests.
Green Tea has united grass root strength behind having local control and ownership of energy production and distribution, not wanting distant bureaucracy controlling local, community interests.
Here is an idea. The reason utilities were granted monopoly was because there could only be one distribution system, not because there was no competition on the generation side. This is the conundrum we face. We gave both generation and distribution to the same monopoly. Now we are allowing generation competition and the utility does not like that, its against its interests. The focus needs to be on what to do with the distribution. Even local distribution is happening now. The present system did not work out well for the distribution system. In the US, distribution has been under funded for decades. One might think the US would have a united, federally controlled system. (FERC) instead it has many ISOs, that do not have the best inter ties. Texas is its own system, for example. We are far from a national grid system. In fact, the grid and grid cooperation needs to go beyond national borders as it does in EU countries. For a disparate group of garrulous states, EU does pretty well in power grid cooperation.
“In the US, distribution has been under funded for decades.”
I have to agree with you there. That’s been the result of privatization. In the past, there were many publicly-owned utilities, but then we got Enron (and we know how that worked out) though we apparently learned nothing. Conservatives are privatizing everything in sight: public water supplies, public roads, parks, the airwaves, the police and prisons. Of course, the US Congress long ago got “privatized” and works for Wall Street. The USA is the leader in this massive social experiment, which is turning the country into the world’s greatest banana republic – without the bananas.
Agreed. Only a little bit of research reveals that. Now we have to get moving improving the grid infrastructure. Another fatality of the private vs public interest is the grid ties and cooperation. ERCOT is a good example. Texas is its own grid. There are ties, but there is needed improvement. I, too, would like to see a nationalized grid structure. It should be like a national highway.
“Agreed. Only a little bit of research reveals that. ”
Could you provide that info, please? All I have found is a wiki article showing the vast majority of electric utilities are not private, but the data for that looks from the 1990’s.
Actually, just found 2013 data. You all are wrong.
about 11% of U.S. electric utilities are not public or coops, ie, 11% are held by private hands, and half of that figure is for distributors with no generation.
see:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publicpower.org%2Ffiles%2FPDFs%2FUSElectricUtilityIndustryStatistics.pdf&ei=zvTnUqmcIsupsASQtYDwBg&usg=AFQjCNEdX46TYOmO4arDeLfTN9vo0lq3AA&sig2=FRDyj8GcME2YMguXMdX1rg&bvm=bv.60157871,d.cWc&cad=rja
Dud you happen to notice that the # of customers, sale of electricity, and revenue graphs show that the 11% are “privatizing” 60+% of the revenue?
It’s complicated. It’s a public/private biz. There are investors in public utilities, too. There are umbrella orgs that combine private companies underneath them. Example: PG and E and San Diego Power and Electric exist underneath caiso. Excel on and Calpine are private companies that me be farther down the chain.
It all hinges around ISOs and RTOs. Get your waders out. Finding out what’s private and public is difficult here. The concept of public utility combines both. Unless it’s a municipal, public utilities are private enterprises regulated by a public utility commission. PUCs set an allowed rate if return and are supposed to protect ratepayers from monopolistic gouging. Example: SDPE wants to increase rates to cover costs due to peak demand of a previous summer. It applies to the PUC and the issue is settled by the PUC. Meanwhile. Investors can out their money into utilities for a return. Utilities traditionally were considered safe assets in an economy with increasing electric demand. The rate of return was low but steady. To investors, similar to a muni bond. Almost risk free. Now that demand has dropped due to conservation, many assets, large thermal PP, are stranded.
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/commentary-time-to-reconsider-baseload-power/
The complicated situation illustrates how a quick read of utility stats will not clearly and easily reveal private/public characteristics. They are a tangled web.
An east coast example, NYISO. That’s the public part. Underneath, Con Edison. That’s the private part. The little pie chart does not reveal the private part underneath the public part. Con Edison and PG and E are listed on the stock exchange. Starting to see how complicated and deep this is? Midamerica and excelon compete in the Midwest. Both are large, private energy suppliers.
Excelon provides power in Illinois, Texas, and other states. Midamerica Iowa and elsewhere.
http://www.midamericanenergy.com/include/pdf/wind/facts_iowa_wind.pdf
http://www.exeloncorp.com/energy/generation/generation.aspx
A quick google search will not show the complexity of our power system. A look at the RTOs will show how the grid is not a single united entity, though. Figuring out the inter ties and how they work is a job for EE pros. You can go to MISO and view those things, but understanding is difficult. For example, ISOs have generators bid on the day ahead market according to complex rules. The price is set before the day. On stormy summer days, the rates might soar if generators and transmission fails. All that drama goes on behind that little power bill envelope you pay every month.
The first reference is about the decline of US transmission system. The second is about how Europe has begun to separate transmission and distribution from generation. In many ways EU is a model of how to make a good T and D system and is ahead of the US.
http://www.exeloncorp.com/energy/generation/generation.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_transmission
Sorry to tell you that those looking to oversimplify the electric system will be sorely disappointed. In a different perspective, it’s a fascinating story. Ready for a good novel? There actually are some good books. I read a book about public utilities forever ago. Can’t remember.
Good points, both d.o.g and CA! 🙂
Sorry for the wordy posts and links with hours of reading and thanks for the interest. It might be better to handle a sub topic in an educational way. It helps us all to understand an energy future better. 🙂