JLF’s John Hood points out in today’s column the consequences of the energy policies endorsed by previous legislatures. His viewpoint comes as the new Duke Energy requests a double-digit hike in rates. First, there was the 2002 Clean Smokestacks bill. And then:
In 2007, the General Assembly decided to move from the local to the global by enacting Senate Bill 3, including a mandate for utilities to buy high-cost “renewable” energy in a bid to combat global warming. Again, there was no formal cost-benefit analysis performed for the bill, since it would have inconveniently shown the renewable-portfolio standard to be all cost and no benefit. Even shutting down every coal and natural-gas power plant in North Carolina tomorrow would have no discernible effect on climate change or average global temperatures. So using state mandates to push wind and solar generation up a bit is obviously not going to make any difference whatsoever, except in higher energy costs.
The John Locke Foundation commissioned a 2009 study of those costs. We found that the renewable-portfolio standard would push North Carolina’s electric rates up $1.8 billion by 2021 and destroy thousands of jobs in the process.
So will the new Duke get its double-digit hike? Probably not. But you can bet that the request itself will help shine the light on poor energy policies of the last decade.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Right Angles's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
