Red Clay Citizen

Banning Wind Energy Facilities in Western N.C., Yet Another Case of NIMBYism

An article in today’s N&O cites Senator Martin Nesbitt’s (D–Buncombe) argument that “industrial-scale wind turbines would destroy pristine views” as reason enough to ban commercial wind energy facilities in the mountains. (But it’s okay to have them on our pristine coastline… go figure.)

While this is clearly a stretch given the extensive site requirements of the bill, we should not be surprised as it’s just another case of NIMBYism or Not-In-My-Backyard Syndrome.

According to the North Carolina Wind Working Group, based at Appalachian State, regions in the west are just as viable as the coast. Yet it seems as long as powerful western senators are more concerned with their scenic views than renewable energy resources, we won’t see them any time soon.

Without taking into consideration the fact that wind energy is generally uneconomical, is going “green” really only okay as long as it’s not ugly? I must have missed that section of SB 3.

Wind Farms on the Not-So-Scenic Horizon?

Despite the murky at best economics and current feasibility issues, legislators are continuing to push for wind farms in North Carolina.

According to Senator Albertson (D-Duplin), with 98% of our energy currently coming from out-of-state sources and REPS requirements of S.L. 2007-398 (Senate Bill 3) looming, Senate Bill 1068, Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities, is "necessary" for North Carolina energy independence.

Without naming names, Sen. Albertson indicated that a number of utility companies are interested in building these facilities across the state. One could speculate that Duke Energy would be first in line.

Although the North Carolina Wind Working Group is located in the mountains at Appalachian State University the latest text of the bill focuses on the coastal regions. Any guesses as to why?

Cap us, Tax us... Anything Else?

Fueled by aggressive House Democrats, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also known as Waxman-Markey, is expected to come up today on the United States House floor. The reality of this pseudo “save-the-earth” energy bill is that it produces the largest tax in American history.

The intent of the bill is to drive the price of electricity and gas up, so that Americans will conserve —logical right? However, the high prices will not only show up in our Progress Energy bills, but also when we purchase an American manufactured good or line up at the gas station.

According to one report the bill will cost every family as much as $3,100 annually in energy costs, without any proposed relief for struggling families and consumers. In truth, consumers will be forced to cut back on their spending, which will then curb production rates,and limit job creation. This is exactly what America, and North Carolina, does not need as we struggle with ever-rising unemployment rates.

Furthermore, the positive effects of the "Cap-and-Trade" bill on the climate are negligible and unreliable, just like most models predicting climate change. On the other hand, the effects this bill will have on our economy and way of life is overwhelming and devastating. In all this country has going on, raising taxes, to allegedly help the environment, is not the right step to recovery.

Civitas Poll: Voters Support Drilling Off NC Coast

The popular refrain last year of "Drill, baby, drill" is still alive and well in North Carolina.  In fact, the support for drilling has actually increased from when we last polled it last June.

When it comes to the issue of drilling for oil and natural gas off the coast of North Carolina, which of the following comes closest to your own personal opinion?

1. Drilling for oil and natural gas should be allowed anywhere off…
2. Drilling for oil and natural gas should only be allowed off the coast of North Carolina if it is out of sight from the shore. Or,
3. Drilling for oil and natural gas should not be allowed at all off the coast of North Carolina.

Anywhere Off Coast- 31.2%
Out of Sight/Shore- 40.7%
TOTAL DRILLING ALLOWED - 71.8%
NOT ALLOWED - 21.8%
No Opinion – 6.3%

In our June 2008 poll, 68 percent of voters supported drilling, while 20 percent opposed.

So even as gas prices have declined by nearly half from its peak, NC's support for producing more domestic supply of oil and natural gas continues.

Full results and crosstabs here.

Fancy Green Bulbs Fail, Surprise!

Have you bought into the all of the hype about compact fluorescent light bulbs?  If you have then you may want to take a look at what the New York Times has to say about them.  In an article picked up by the Charlotte Observer on Saturday, some of the shortcomings of the light bulb that will save the world are discussed. 

The biggest problem appears to be the high rate at which they DO NOT WORK.  So you decide to go green and plunk down your cash to buy a light bulb that, although up to 10 times more expensive, will save you some money on the back end with the power company.  What you didn't realize was that these miracle bulbs require special handling and care and if they don't get it, they stop working.

My favorite line in the article is this one:

"Some experts who study the issue blame the government for the quality problems, saying an intensive federal push to lower the price essentially backfired by encouraging manufacturers to use cheap components."

Wait a minute!  You mean the government forced you to lower quality in order to lower your price?  I am shocked!  What do mean?  This is the government.  They control a lot of things these days.

Maybe the omniscient federal government can get the auto makers it controls to use the CFL bulbs that don't quite live up to the promises they have made.  I'm sure what ever the Gubmint' decides to do will work, right?

Hackney and Basnight Stack the Deck Against Offshore Drilling

Last year when gas prices were topping $4 a gallon and offshore drilling was the topic-du-jour during the political campaigns, state leaders promised to form a task force to "study" the issue.

Little did we know then that they were just going to stack the task force with environmental radicals.  Something tells me we should have seen this coming.

The panel was named yesterday and one of the co-chairs (appointed by House Speaker Joe Hackney) currently works as a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), hardly an impartial judge of the merits of offshore drilling.

Think Mr. Rader's mind is already made up on the issue?  Just take a look at a memo he penned in August 2008 entitled: "NC oil drilling: no impact on gas prices, high impact on coastal economy".

Good thing he's leading a task force to as Sen. Basnight is quoted, "take a long careful look" at offshore drilling.

Looks to me like the issue has already been decided and the Democratic leaders are just putting on a good public face to get the issue off the table.

Thanks SB 3!

A big thank you to all the members of the General Assembly who voted for SB 3 last session.  Our reward for your bravery -- higher utility bills!

If you recall, SB 3 was the groundbreaking legislation that requires utility companies to generate increasing percentages of their energy from renewable resources each year regardless of whether renewable energy generation is cost effective or not.

Well, we're starting to see the first effects that really is not.

Progress Energy received approval from the NC Utilities Commission yesterday for a 10.2 percent rate increase, or in other words, to collect $424 million from rate payers over the next three years.

And the reason Progress Energy gives for the need to increase rates:  higher fuel prices (which have now come down) and "costs associated with energy efficiency and renewable-energy efforts mandated by the state’s energy legislation, adopted in 2007."  (AKA SB 3).

So thanks again members of the General Assembly, I get to pay more to your regulated monopoly so you can run back home to your constituents and say you're doing something about global warming (as if you had that kind of influence to control solar cycles).

What you're really doing is passing on a de facto tax increase (and a very highly regressive one at that) to subsidize the renewable energy industry.  More corporate welfare, just in a different form.

U.N. Finally Passes Econ 101

Basic economics (and common sense) tell us that resources are scarce. Take, for example, certain crops that can be used for food or biofuel. When more of these crops are diverted to biofuel use, less remains to eat. Less supply of an item drives up its price.

This NYT article describes a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Report that finally describes what any Econ freshman could have predicted years ago:

"With policies and subsidies to encourage biofuel production in place in much of the developed world, farmers often find it more profitable to plants crops for fuel than for food, a shift that has helped lead to global food shortages."

Better late then never, I guess. A further indictment of the destructive nature of biofuel subsidies was revealed in an OECD report, which concluded:

"...that government support of biofuel production in member countries was hugely expensive and that it “had a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security.” It did have “a significant impact on world crop prices” by helping to raise them."

"National governments should cease to create new mandates for biofuels and investigate ways to phase them out,”

Someone please present these reports to the politicians in our country (and state) that insist on greatly increasing such subsidies, even calling on a new "green economy."

As politicians pander to environmental groups in order to get votes, people around the world are starving to death because of their policies.

Perdue: A Pump of Bad Ideas

Apparently, Bev Perdue would like to give Hugo Chavez-type powers to the governor during times of 'crisis.'  According to Under the Dome, Perdue says:

"The governor needs the power to be able to respond," Perdue said in a telephone interview. "The governor would have been able to work with other governors in other states who might not be having the challenge or work with distributors...to make sure trucks could be moved from one place to another."

I hope the electorate is clever enough to see that gouging laws and other 70s-style energy policies have been partially responsible for the problems we're seeing with N.C. gas stations running out (which doesn't happen when prices accurately reflect scarcity). But more to the point: how the heck does Beverly Perdue think she or any governor can do better than a distributed system of prices (reflecting supply and demand)? What sort of power grab is this? Which areas deserve fuel more than others? Would she make sure gas got to Tony Rand's and Marc Basnight's districts?

She didn't go into that kind of detail. Politicians usually don't.
-Max Borders

Munger? Alternative Energy? Surely You Jest

I seriously doubt that the editor of the journal Public Choice (Munger) would suggest that government resources be "applied" to renewables. The question of whether private resources go to alternative energy is not his to make. So, am I reading this N&R editorial wrong (as it doesn't specify government resources)?

The only candidate for governor not mindful of public opinion is Libertarian Mike Munger, a Duke University economics professor. He calls the offshore drilling issue a "gimmick" that won't impact oil prices and says resources should be applied to the development of alternative energy.

Surely, too, Munger's "gimmick" line was taken out of context, as those oft-derided speculators would very likely affect gas prices (yes, in the short term). With the prospect of new supplies eventually coming online (a context in which N.C.'s drilling would be a part of a wider domestic oil portfolio approved by Congress), speculators would probably adjust their estimates about future supplies.

Anyway, resources being "applied" to "alternative energy" isn't a decision for governments or would-be governors, but of entrepreneurs, to make. So, Munger is either really becoming a politician in the perjorative sense (and un-becoming a libertarian, which is unbecoming of a libertarian), or someone at the N&R has some more 'splaining to do about Munger's position on energy. I'd guess probably the latter.
-Max Borders