News Update: Finance & Commerce ran an article on the study we released this week (links to the study and a summary are below). While we take issue with the comments made by Michael Noble at Fresh Energy (there’s a surprise), we appreciate the coverage. Judging by the comments to the article, the readers at Finance & Commerce share our skepticism about renewables and our sense of humour. You can read the article and comments here.
Study: Minnesota’s Renewable Energy Mandate Will Damage State Economy and Environment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Contacts:
Kim Crockett, [email protected] (612)388.2820
Paul Chesser, [email protected] (202)670-2680
Frank Conte, [email protected]
As the new state legislature scrutinizes Minnesota’s restrictive energy policies, a study commissioned by the American Tradition Institute and the Minnesota Free Market Institute provides compelling reasons for lawmakers and Gov. Mark Dayton to reverse the state’s damaging Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).
The study found that Minnesotans would pay $15 billion more for electricity between 2016 and 2025 because of the state’s RPS, as alternative energy is more costly and unreliable than conventional sources such as coal or natural gas. Meanwhile there will be negligible environmental benefit, as it is unlikely that use of renewables – especially wind, which the state mandates as a large percentage of its RPS – actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The study was prepared by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston.
“In 2007, Minnesota embraced the proposition that tax subsidies for so-called ‘clean’ energy combined with forced quotas would magically create clean, abundant and affordable energy—as well as thousands of ‘green’ jobs,” said Kim Crockett, president of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. “Our study demonstrates that the promise behind the RPS mandate is an illusion. It takes a first-class, first world economy to protect the environment. ”
Other insights from the ATI/MNFMI report:
· Minnesota’s electricity prices will increase by 24 percent by 2025
· By 2025 the state will lose a net of 11,271 jobs
· In 2025 the RPS mandate will reduce annual wages by an average of $736 per worker
· Due to higher home energy costs, in 2025 annual real disposable income will fall by $1.36 billion
“Minnesota’s renewable mandate is an invitation for business and industry to leave for lower-cost states,” said Paul Chesser, executive director of the American Tradition Institute.“The heavy requirement upon Xcel Energy to derive 25 percent of sales from wind power will be a jobs killer.”
The report concludes that Minnesota’s RPS law, because of higher costs for doing business, will not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions but rather send jobs and capital investment outside the state. As Minnesota’s lawmakers review energy policy for the 21st century, they need to take a critical look at the RPS before electricity costs spiral out of control.
You can also read Major Highlights here. (PDF)
- For an interview with Minnesota Free Market Institute’s president Kim Crockett, call (612) 388.2820 or email [email protected]
- For an interview with American Tradition Institute’s executive director Paul Chesser, call (202)670-2680 or email [email protected]
Tags: Climate Change, energy policy, environment, Global Warming, Regulatory Reform, Renewables
[...] But what about the person who embraces environmentalism as religion? Oh, it’s easy enough to buy a fuel-efficient car, but if you want to have the most impact on the environment, you’ve got to restrict the activities of other people. Hence, we have automobile manufacturers making fuel efficient cars not in response to consumer demand but to political demands, housing and transportation policies that attempt to “control sprawl,” and a renewable energy standard that lowers incomes, destroys jobs, and raises the cost of living. [...]
[...] We are pleased to bring you this commentary by Mark Glaess, Manager for the Minnesota Rural Electric Association . Mr. Glaess cites the study we commissioned from the Beacon Hill Institute released last week. [...]
If Kim Crocket wishes to see renewables compete without tax subsidies to be fair, it would also to be fair to know the costs of coal, oil & nuclear without them too! But we’ll see if we have any luck getting any political traction with that. Those subsidies are a huge expense adding to our deficit, so if none for one, none for all… Include costs of health effects of fossils & nuclear and I have a feeling renewables would beat the pants off of them.