For some reason, utility contracts in Scotland are written such that companies are paid for energy that the utility cannot use. In this case, The Telegraphestimates that the payments were worth up to 20 times the actual value of the electricity under normal conditions:
The payments, worth up to 20 times the value of the power they would have produced, raises serious concerns about such subsidies, which are paid for by the customer.
The six Scottish wind farms were asked to stop producing electricity on a particularly windy night last month as the National Grid was overloaded.
Their transition cables do not have the capacity to transfer the power to England and so they were switched off and the operators received compensation. One operator received £312,000, while another benefited by £263,000.
Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that would block EPA from using any funds to:
Develop greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines manufactured after the 2016 model year; and
Consider or grant a Clean Air Act waiver allowing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines manufactured after the 2016 model year.
Capital Alpha Partners, LLC, a firm providing political and policy risk analysis to institutional investors, rightly notes that the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio), could “shift the debate over fuel economy standards and pressure the administration to soften its 56.2 mpg target floated two weeks ago.” In addition, the measure “would slice two of the three currently-involved agencies [EPA and CARB] out of the rule-making loop,” leaving fuel economy regulation to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “the one agency seen as ‘most reasonable’ by industry and other observers.”
Capital Alpha reckons the measure “has a 25% chance of enactment into law this year.” If enacted as part of the one-year EPA funding bill, the measure would expire on September 30, 2012. “However,” says Capital Alpha, “should it make it into law, opponents would be hard-pressed to strip it out in future years.” An exciting prospect for liberty-loving Americans! [click to continue…]
T. Boone Pickens went on Bloomberg to discuss the Pickens Plan:
Pickens claims that Koch is working for himself, while the pure hearted T. Boone Pickens is working for America. Now yes, Koch Industries has a financial incentive to not support federally built infrastructure for a fuel that competes with a product that he sells, but it also clearly aligns with a free-market perspective of not providing federal support for any particular energy sources. Furthermore, if it wasn’t obvious, Pickens would stand to make tons of money from increasing the use of natural gas in America, so its beyond disingenuous to pretend that he is solely “doing good.” [click to continue…]
Last Thursday I appeared on Fox Business News to discuss the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Obama administration’s latest salvo in its war on coal. See the segment here.
Truth be told, the Cross-State Rule is probably the least objectionable of this administration’s many anti-energy regulations. The Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision (section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) requires upwind states to control emissions that affect the ability of downwind states to meet federal air quality regulations. In 1997, and again in 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency tightened air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. Computer models suggest that emissions from 27 upwind states contribute to violations of these standards in downwind states. If the EPA did not regulate this interstate transport of ozone and particulate matter, downwind states would sue to force the EPA’s hand. According to the EPA’s economic analysis (which is almost assuredly a low-ball), the Cross-State Rule will cost the power industry in the eastern U.S. $6.5 billion through 2014. The coal-fired power industry will bear virtually all of these costs.
That said, the Cross-State Rule only can be described as “least objectionable” relative to the Obama administration’s other anti-coal regulations. For example, it’s not as bad as destroying the surface coal mining industry in Appalachia in order to protect a bug that lives for a day. Nor is it as egregious as the Utility MACT, one of the most expensive regulations ever, whose primary justification is to protect America’s supposed population of pregnant, subsistence fisherwomen. If, however, the Cross-State Rule is considered on its own, absent a comparison to other policies that are part of the current administration’s war on coal, then it is very objectionable. This is due to the EPA’s seemingly vindictive treatment of Texas.
A new study by Quest Offshore, prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), finds that a return to the pre-moratorium permitting rate for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would create 430,000 jobs by 2013. [click to continue…]
Despite a downward trend in the prices at the pump, overall energy costs are rising. While most people could not quote the price they are paying per kilowatt hour—as they can for a gallon of gas, they do know their electricity bills are skyrocketing. They also understand that the government policy of picking winners and losers makes taxpayers the losers.
As legislators fight to show their spending-cutting credentials, folks phoned their Senators in June and expressed enough ire that a Democrat-sponsored amendment easily won bipartisan support: by a margin of 73-27 the Senate voted to end ethanol subsidies. The Feinstein amendment was attached to a bill that did not pass and, therefore didn’t change anything. Its importance is mostly symbolic and represents more than just ethanol.
The EPA gives millions to the environmental groups that sue it. “When the EPA settles or loses those suits, it then awards the groups millions more in attorneys’ fees,” notes legal commentator Walter Olson. “‘The EPA isn’t harmed by these suits,’ said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during the Bush administration. ‘Often the suits involve things the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal cover from political heat.’ Holmstead called this kind of litigation ‘sweetheart suits.'”
The EPA gave millions to groups that sued it to get it to regulate greenhouse gases, like the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. Those groups brought a lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA(2007), which vastly expanded the EPA’s jurisdiction. More recently, they sued to compel the EPA to issue greenhouse gas “performance standards” for power plants and refineries. In a recent settlement, the EPA agreed to do just that. Critics “said the costly settlement was ‘concocted in secret’” and that other lawsuits by EPA grantees resulted in collusive settlements that cost the economy billions, increased the EPA’s powers, and gave environmental groups things that they were unlikely to win in any court ruling.
House Moves To Block EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations
The House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its funding bill for Fiscal Year 2012 on Thursday. Under Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the subcommittee voted to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 18 percent.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org