The Swamp's Energy Circus

Holy Swamp Circus, Batman!  The House Energy & Commerce Committee is working on a "CLEAN Future Act" that renewable energy industry group ACORE says is based on a report it recently released.

And what in ACORE's report?  This

I'll sum it up for you in as few words as possible.

1. Require every state to set a renewable energy standard under federal law.  This will require states to pay increased prices for renewables, even if they are more expensive than conventional sources of energy.
   
2. Provide new, perpetual federal tax credits to renewable energy, so it can appear to be "cheaper."
   
3. Charge federal penalties to sources of energy that contain "carbon" so that these sources of energy become more expensive than the expensive renewable sources.
   
4. Supersize the electric transmission network to provide free transportation for more renewable energy.

Of course, the devil is in the details.  One huge detail conveniently left out of this report is HOW MUCH WOULD THIS COST?  All of ACORE's great ideas come at a huge cost to electric consumers, you and me!  None of this stuff is free or cheap, in fact, it's going to cost us trillions if implemented.

But, the climate, the planet, civilization, for goodness sake!  Oh, the humanity!

How much good would this plan actually do?  ACORE's basis for this is full of holes.

The U.S. accounts for 15% of the world’s total GHG emissions, making it the world’s second largest emitter.
Only 28% of U.S. GHG emissions are attributable to the electricity sector.
Today, 22% of America’s 1,047.6 gigawatt (GW) utility-scale, electric generation capacity is renewable, while 67% of our electrical capacity produces GHG emissions. In 2050, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that 60% of the generation mix will still produce GHG emissions. Replacing this projected emitting capacity with pollution-free renewable power will require nearly 30 GW of additional renewable capacity each year between 2020 and 2050, a roughly 50% increase above the current growth rate of U.S. renewables.

So, let's see... spending trillions on decarbonizing the electricity sector would result in a 28% reduction to 15% of GHG emissions.  Do you know how small a number that is?  ACORE is also talking about CAPACITY FACTORS.  A generator's nameplate capacity is the amount of energy it could produce if it ran at maximum capacity all the time.  The capacity factor is the actual energy produced, because generators don't run all the time.  The capacity factor of a generator with a continual supply of fuel allowing it to run at maximum capacity at any time is pretty high.  Renewable generators, such as wind and solar, on the other hand, have miniscule capacity factors because they cannot be counted on to run at their nameplate capacity at any time because their fuel supply is variable.  Therefore, in order to produce the kind of capacity factor ACORE is talking about using wind and solar, we'd have to build ten times as much generation.  How cost effective is it to build 10 times the generation you actually need just so you can get a 10% capacity factor out of a renewable generator? I'm really not convinced here.

But wait... there's more!

About those new, permanent tax credits for renewables:

Qualifying technologies should include all current and future resources that meet emissions criteria, including enabling technologies like energy storage and expanded interstate, high-voltage transmission that accesses clean energy resources.

The tax credit recommended in the report is: 
The electricity title of the Clean Energy for America Act (S. 1288) would provide a minimum credit to any clean electricity facility that is at least 35 percent cleaner than the national average, with zero-emissions facilities receiving a production tax credit of up to 2.4 cents per kWh or an investment tax credit of up to 30%, at the election of the taxpayer. The PTC would be available for ten years after the facility is placed in service, and the credit in its entirety would phase out when emissions from the electricity sector fall to 50% below 2019 levels. Additionally, the Clean Energy for America Act would repeal a range of existing preferential incentives for fossil fuel companies, including the expensing of intangible drilling costs, percentage depletion, deductions for tertiary injectants, and credits for enhanced oil recovery and marginal oil wells.

So, 2.4 cents tax credit per kwh  generated for qualifying sources.  And how is that going to be applied to electric transmission?  First of all, there is no such thing as "clean" electrons.  All electrons look the same and get all mixed up in the transmission network, so there is no way to judge whether the electricity on a transmission line is 35 percent cleaner than the national average.  What's the national average of the cleanliness of electricity?  Second of all, how would this be measured?  Measuring the generation of electrons to calculate a production tax credit is simple.  They are measured as they are created.  Once they are transferred to our current AC electric transmission network, they get all mixed up with other electrons and nobody can tell where they go.  Complicating this, a lot of electrons are simply lost along the way.  Is it the clean ones?  Or the dirty ones?  If you measure how many "clean" electrons you add to the transmission system, then you're overestimating because some are lost.  But you can't measure them at the receiving end because they're all mixed up (and some just go around in a circle forever and nobody ever uses them).  Ya know what?  A production tax credit (or investment tax credit) for electric transmission is about the most imprecise and stupid thing I've ever heard.  It can't work.  They'd just be guessing at how much to pay these transmission owners.

And here's the big thing... tax credits for generators and transmission owners mean they pay less taxes.  If they pay less taxes, WE pay MORE taxes to make up the difference.  So it's not like these "credits" actually make the energy any cheaper, we just pay for the energy in our tax bill instead of our electric bill.  The end game here is that electricity will get even MORE expensive.

And just to make sure renewables appear to be "cheaper", let's remove any existing credits for conventional generation, and then add "carbon" penalties to them.

But all this pretend "cheapness" might end up being more expensive for "the poor."  Oh, look, it's Renewable Robin Hood!

Since energy is an unavoidable expense, putting a price on carbon could also, at least initially, have a disparate impact on lower-income households. To prevent that outcome, any equitable carbon pricing program should be designed to avoid economic regressivity. One possible solution is to return revenue from carbon pricing to citizens in the form of a pro-rata carbon “dividend.”

Let's tax the hell out of carbon and make energy really expensive, and distribute that tax revenue to "the poor" so that they can have cheap energy.  Rob from the rich, and give to the poor (because "the poor" have lots of votes!!)

And then let's bring back the NIETCs that big green accidentally killed in 2011 when they were being used to justify new transmission for fossil fuels, except now we'll use them to usurp state authority to site new transmission for our wondrous "clean" energy transmission.

Additionally, Congress should clarify federal backstop siting authority by restoring Congressional intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which would encourage and accelerate investment and development of needed transmission infrastructure when that infrastructure is in the national interest and advances the objectives of a comprehensive climate plan.

National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) were established in 2005.  Essentially, the U.S. DOE can designate these corridors through studies that identify transmission constraints.  Once a corridor is designated, backstop siting and permitting authority shifts to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the event that a state cannot approve a transmission project within one of these corridors.  They tried to do it right after the legislation passed, but the effort failed in the courts.  Ironically, it was the big environmental groups that fought NIETCs in the courts to have them vacated and the backstop permitting authority neutralized.  All a state has to do is simply deny a permit and that nullifies FERC authority.  But now ACORE wants Congress to re-vamp this idea with the requirement that NIETCs facilitate transmission for "clean" energy.

Guess what?  NIETCs didn't work the first time.  They won't work this time, either.  Transmission siting and permitting is state jurisdictional, and that's never going to change.  There's simply nothing ACORE or Congress can do to usurp state authority over transmission.

This report is a swamp clown horror show!  It will make electricity so expensive that we can't afford it.  Well, if we sit in the dark, I guess that will take care of a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions.

We can't afford the "CLEAN Future Act" and we can't afford ACORE's pie-in-the-sky recommendations.  Where's Batman when you need him?