I’m really enjoying riding the wild, wacky merry-go-round of North Carolina’s renewable energy mandates.

Yesterday, I got my bill from Duke Energy Progress, or whatever it is this week. I sure was glad that by paying it I was helping out the beleaguered pig farmers of North Carolina.

That’s sarcasm, if you didn’t guess.

State law mandates that “renewable” energy sources provide a percentage of retail electric power generated by utilities. That includes mainly solar and wind power, but also other sources – including energy generated by pig waste.

Of course, you and I pay for it, because the extra cost of using alternative sources gets passed on in our power bills. That turns out to be a big hit on North Carolina.

The Heartland Institute reports: “A joint report by the John Locke Foundation and Beacon Hill Institute found the mandate would cost electricity ratepayers $1.845 billion between 2008 and 2021. By 2021, North Carolinians’ real disposable income will fall by $56.8 million and more than 3,500 jobs will be lost on net, even after accounting for any ‘green’ jobs the standard may have created.”

That’s because, like almost all government subsidies, the mandate shifts money from profitable (therefore efficient) uses to unprofitable (thus inefficient) ones. So, instead of adding jobs, government mandates and subsidies kill them. We hapless power customers will blow nearly $2 billion to siphon funding from wealth-producing enterprises to money-wasting boondoggles.

This puts the lie to the defense of this mandate that it creates jobs. In another sense, government mandates and subsidies never create jobs.

Defenders of the mandate say that without the law, solar companies and others would pull up stakes and leave. That makes the mandate corporate welfare – the transfer of public funds to companies that don’t support themselves with a viable product.

So the associated jobs aren’t productive work that creates wealth, but simply activity that taxpayers fund. That makes these “jobs” welfare — welfare with a work requirement, but welfare nonetheless. Making matters worse, these corporate welfare projects divert scarce resources that could be utilized more efficiently elsewhere.

A rejoinder is that solar and biofuel are becoming more cost efficient. But there’s a Catch-22 here. If these fuel sources are economically efficient, why do I have to subsidize them? If they are not efficient, well, why do I have to subsidize them?

More proof has arisen to show that alternative energy is unlikely to become cost-effective soon. Two bills to end that mandate have come up for consideration in the General Assembly: HB 298, Affordable and Reliable Energy Act and a Senate counterpart, SB 365. Both have faced heavy opposition, and their fate is unclear.

Here’s the kicker: the current versions would allow the mandate to continue into 2021 or later. But its opponents are frantically fighting against such a deadline, thus uncovering their real belief – which is that alternative sources of energy won’t be paying their own way eight years from now. Or longer. Or maybe ever

After all, why should big energy companies ever want to make renewable energy productive? The government gravy train keeps running as long as energy provided by the sun, windmills and pig waste isn’t profitable. So companies have no incentive to make alternative energy profitable and get off the government dole.

Finally, here’s more news the same day I got my bill: “The United States has double the amount of oil and three times the amount of natural gas than previously thought.”

The United States is awash with cheap, clean energy using proven technology. For us ratepayers to subsidize costly forms of energy is ridiculous. It is as if we insisted paying for heat in July – when during North Carolina summers we can get all the heat we could ever want just by opening the windows.

To sum up, we’re paying extra for sources of energy that cost too much, misallocate valuable resources, and aren’t needed. Here’s hoping the legislature can flip the off switch on this mandate before it costs us another billion or two.

The post HB 298, Affordable and Reliable Energy Act: Ending the Waste appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Yesterday morning, Civitas Action alerted legislators to House Bill 298, the Affordable and Reliable Energy Act, indicating its support, and promised to include the bill in its future rankings. The notice is reproduced below.

Dear Legislator,

House Bill 298, Affordable and Reliable Energy Act, is a measure that would protect struggling North Carolinians from the rising energy bills mandated by the state’s renewable energy portfolio requirements, enacted in 2007 via Senate Bill 3.

Civitas Action believes in protecting consumers from unnecessary government mandates that drive up the cost of everyday needs for hard-working citizens to benefit special interests in the already well-subsidized “green” energy industries.

Legislators should be aware that Civitas Action plans on grading HB 298 in its annual Conservative Effectiveness Rankings.

Sincerely Yours,

Francis X. De Luca
Col. USMCR (Ret.)
President, Civitas Action

The post Civitas Action To Grade Energy Bill appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Every day I drive past a gas station and convenience store, the Grocery Boy Junior on Lake Wheeler Road in Raleigh. A few weeks ago, while fueling up there and muttering about high gas prices, I noticed something on the marquee outside of the building:

“HIGH GAS PRICES [A]FFECT EVERYONE/ VOTE FOR THOSE WHO WILL DRILL”

The Grocery Boy Junior is an emblem of all things that embody the passion — and the pain — of small businesses today. I was intrigued by the marquee so much that I decided stop in and ask to chat with the man responsible for it. As I waited to speak with the cashier, I noticed something else:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

This quote from Winston Churchill is affixed to the cash register with two small pieces of tape, positioned perfectly to be noticed by anyone making a purchase.

A few weeks later, when I sat down with owner Scott Byers, he grabbed a pack of gum and took a piece for himself. He offered me a piece and sighed. “10 years ago, this pack of gum cost about half of what it does now,” he said, “and people just don’t seem to realize that fuel costs are a huge part of that.”

He said he came from a military upbringing and attended a two-year college. He is involved with his church, working with several ministries within the congregation. He has three children, and beams when he speaks about them. He has dreams for them like any parent would; but above all, he wants them to understand that they are responsible for their achievements, not entitled to them.

He explained that his income is now half of what it was four years ago, a common plight afflicting the small business sector. He spoke with sadness in his voice about the heartbreaking decision to let go of employees that had worked for nearly a decade in his store. “It’s hard to hear people demonizing their bosses,” he explained, “because it’s not easy for us to make those choices.”

When I asked how he felt about local government and the bureaucracy endured by many small business owners, Byers said that he had been faced with many hurdles from various state departments amid his efforts to improve his business. He noted that it seems like these departments whose intentions are to protect the people in fact make it more difficult for businesses to operate. He said that many of the changes he would like to make “just [aren’t] viable right now.”

When I asked Mr. Byers what issues he was taking to consideration aside from the economy in this year’s election, he did not even blink. Education, he said, was the root of most of our nation’s problems because it perpetuates the culture of entitlement. Secondly, of course, he continued, is the topic of offshore drilling. Mr. Byers rattled off facts that astonished me. After hearing him speak about drilling, I was ready to go drill for him. For instance, there are nearly 3,500 oil tankers in action today, raising the risk of oil spills in the world’s oceans. Drilling for oil and natural gas right here in North America lessens that danger.

Byers noted that the environmentalists, much like the various North Carolina departments that impose restrictions on his business practices, have good intentions — but do not seem to realize that fuel prices affect the whole economy. High fuel costs do not discriminate, according to Mr. Byers. “It’s not just the middle class, it’s everyone. And people need to consider that when they vote.”

Victoria Wakefield is an intern for the Civitas Institute in Raleigh.

The post Raleigh Store Owner Battles Bureaucrats appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Throughout the latest discourse on energy policy and government-related endeavors in natural resources, I have come to a conclusion on the matter: We aren’t running out of resources as fast as some would have you believe.

So often we hear that our crude oil supply is decreasing at a rather alarming rate. Historically, however, scientists have underestimated our ability to extract natural resources. Steven Horwitz of St. Lawrence University recalls the expansion of the telephone grid. In a video on LearnLiberty.org, he shows that as phone companies strung more wire, copper grew in high demand, thus creating an economic incentive to invest in more advanced extraction techniques. As a result, copper mining companies were able to uncover far more of the natural resource than so-called experts had declared were available.

The free market comes through like the clutch batter for a slumping baseball team.  Above all else, the free market reassures people that they ultimately decide their own fate.  The incentive to find cheaper ways of production, the entrepreneurial spirit that arises to adjust supply, and the consumer-driven market that inspires beneficial products – these are the just a few of the hallmarks of a free-market society.

Discussions about natural resources often succumb to the lies and misjudgments of the opponents of a free-market system. We rely on the free market’s energy products to keep society functioning at optimum capacity. They fuel our cars, heat our homes, and sustain our physiological needs. These products and resources are conserved by some, used liberally by others, and not even consumed by a smaller percentage of the population.

But the speed at which we consume goods should not be limited for the purpose of what could be false notions of sustainability. In this lies the beauty of the free market system: The demand for goods fuels the engine of creativity and entrepreneurship. Resources such as oil have seen drastic increases in supply due to the exploration that occurred when demand rose in the marketplace. The supposed scarcity of a resource should not abolish the use of that good.

This is partially what the “green revolution” seeks to accomplish. It replaces the ability of entrepreneurs to solve the problems of supply by responding to price signals sent by consumers with the government’s highly-politicized decisions. For example, oil is considered a non-renewable resource, and portrayed as a rapidly decreasing resource in today’s marketplace. Rather than keeping with the tradition of finding more effective ways to extract this resource, developing more techniques to use it more efficiently, or allowing the entrepreneurs in the system to replace this resource as consumers see fit, the green movement forces consumers to operate under the false assumption that they should not have the ability to choose what goods and services they desire. Instead, taxpayers are forced to subsidize inefficient and far more expensive means of energy, while consumers are denied more affordable options.

If oil is actually being permanently depleted without any hope of increasing supply or improving on current extraction techniques, than let those entrepreneurs in the energy industry seek solutions to this problem.  Basic laws of supply and demand tell us that if a resource is actually becoming more scarce its price will rise. The natural response to higher prices will be more companies entering the oil industry, and for entrepreneurs to invest in more advanced methods of extraction to find more of that resource. The result will be the discovery of more oil not accessible at previous levels of extraction effort and techniques. Furthermore, the high price of oil will allow for opportunities for alternative forms of energy to become competitive in the marketplace.

The one similarity we need to recognize in all these examples is that in a free, competitive market consumers, along with actual resource availability, will dictate which direction entrepreneurs should pursue.  In this current discussion over sustainability and the use of controversial techniques such as hydraulic fracturing, let’s put aside the politics and let the free market work out the costs and benefits of each solution.

It is a noble gesture to be mindful of what you consume so that you allow others to partake in that resource.  However, it is foolish and immoral for government to operate under what could be a false assumption.

Mark Coggins is an intern at the Civitas Institute in Raleigh.

The post Free Market Will Generate Energy Answers appeared first on Civitas Institute.

The 2012 Legislative Session was especially notable for authorizing legislation to set the stage for energy exploration in North Carolina. The legislature also passed several important bills to limit job-killing environmental regulations, while maintaining environmental protection.

Energy

On the eve of the 2012 session adjournment, the General Assembly managed to override  the Governor’s veto of SB 820, a bill to allow hydraulic fracturing, often called “fracking,” in North Carolina. The long-awaited law passed with bipartisan support, including the stated support of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Lt. Governor Walter Dalton. Energy exploration will likely bring new revenue and energy jobs to North Carolina.

During the vote, Rep. Becky Carney (D-Mecklenburg) supposedly accidentally voted to override the veto on fracking legislation.  As stated in the House rules, the vote was not allowed to be changed as it would have altered the fate of the legislation. Leadership quickly held a clincher vote to ensure no further motion to reconsider could be made.  To nobody’s surprise, the 72-47 vote was met with passionate spin by those opposing the legislation.

We have all heard those in opposition claiming that fracking will cause geological catastrophe in North Carolina, degrade the quality of drinking water, and generally pave the way to an ecological nightmare.  Despite these claims, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that energy exploration will have significant economic benefits, while still upholding our state’s history of environmental stewardship.

The bill resurrects the old Mining Commission in order to devise necessary safety regulations and rules for the practice of horizontal drilling/natural gas extraction.  This Commission will investigate, review, and set regulations for future shale drilling.  This bill does not permit energy exploration yet, but does put North Carolina on a path for future investment and energy sector growth.

Geological studies across the state show that a generation of working North Carolinians could benefit from the extraction of natural gas.  Estimates by state geologists show that there is a significant amount of shale gas beneath several counties in the Piedmont region.  Years of economic growth and development will not only directly benefit those living in North Carolina, but will produce an economy that will foster other forms of business expansion.  A recent study also predicts that American consumers will see over $100 billion in economic benefits from fracking, even when considering possible costs.

North Carolina needs to continue to embrace energy exploration, not only for new jobs and economic benefits, but also to come one step closer to energy independence.  The passage of this bill is a great moment that symbolizes the direction North Carolina is set to move in.

Environment

The legislature also passed HB 819, the so-called “Sea Level Rise” bill. This bill received frequent mocking from liberals both in North Carolina and nationally, including on “The Daily Show,” for supposedly outlawing sea level rise. Of course the bill did not, and never attempted, to do any such thing. In its final form, the legislation states that North Carolina cannot set the rates of projected sea-level rise for regulatory purposes until 2016. It also calls for the science panel of the Costal Resources Commission to review and update a 2010 report on sea-level rise. The 2010 report has been criticized by those opposed to it, including a reviewer of the UN IPCC final report, for its cherry-picking of data and using worst case assumptions to predict probable sea-level rise. Unrealistic projections of sea-level rise could hinder development and economic growth in over 20 North Carolina coastal counties.

The legislature also passed HB 952, the State Air Toxics Program Reforms Law, which exempts those sources of emissions that are already covered by federal emission standards from NC air toxins regulations. This law will ensure North Carolina stays clean and healthy while remaining economically competitive with neighboring States.

The post Steps Forward on Energy and the Environment appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Documents obtained by the Civitas Institute suggest Gov. Bev Perdue is attempting to strong-arm North Carolina’s three major utility companies into supplying more expensive energy to their customers in the northeastern part of the state. In a political power-play to reward big business reminiscent of the handling of the Solyndra debacle that embarrassed the Obama administration, Perdue is urging for special treatment that would secure a $200 million federal government subsidy for a multi-billion dollar Spanish company.

Perdue recently sent a letter to the heads of Duke, Dominion, and Progress Energy stressing the importance of the proposed Desert Wind Power Project in Elizabeth City to be built by Iberdrola Renewables (to see copies of the letters, click the links below). The Project involves the development of a 300 megawatt wind energy farm. In her letter, Perdue stated: “I urge you to give serious consideration to partnering with Iberdrola Renewables to make the Project a reality.” Perdue also added that it is urgent that a major utility provider agree to purchase power from the wind farm in order for it to be a “long-term success.”

Small problem: North Carolina’s major utility companies already said no to purchasing electricity from the wind power project because the rates Iberdrola were demanding are so much more expensive than the conventional energy currently being used by the utilities. As quoted in a recent Raleigh News & Observer article, Duke spokeswoman Betsy Alley Conway said, “What we are looking for is wind energy at a price that is cost-effective for the company and our customers. If we receive a proposal from developers that is a good value for our customers and our company, we would execute the contract.”

Translation: Iberdrola’s expensive wind energy would force us to hike rates on our consumers too much – so no thanks.

Perdue’s urging utility companies to provide even more expensive energy to consumers appears particularly out-of-touch in light of recent protests of a moderate rate increase approved by Duke Energy. State Attorney General Roy Cooper also publicly denounced Duke’s rate increase in a press release, declaring: “Now is not the time to ask North Carolina consumers to pay significantly more for electricity.”

Iberdrola Renewables is the U.S. arm of the Spanish “renewable energy” corporation, Iberdrola, S.A., a massive company with a presence in more than 40 countries and global revenue exceeding $40 billion.

Despite such massive revenue, in order for the new Desert Wind Power Project to be a “long-term success,” Iberdrola is counting on a $200 million federal subsidy to help finance the $600 million project. In order to be eligible for this handout, Iberdrola needs to begin work on the project before the end of this calendar year. Without an agreement from a large utility company to purchase the energy generated by the wind farm, however, Iberdrola will not proceed with construction.

In short, Perdue’s letter is meant to apply political pressure on the utilities to purchase expensive energy from the wind farm. As a result, the highly profitable foreign energy company would collect nearly a quarter billion of taxpayer dollars and impose more expensive energy bills onto northeastern North Carolina homeowners and businesses.

According to North Carolina Secretary of State records, Iberdrola has three active registered lobbyists in the state, two of whom registered earlier this year. No doubt, these agents have spent countless hours applying pressure on state lawmakers and the Governor to gain support for the Elizabeth City wind farm.

In Perdue, it appears they found another politician willing to use her political power to further enrich a highly-profitable, giant corporation at the expense of average taxpayers and ratepayers.

With these letters, Gov. Perdue yet again shows her true crony capitalist colors. Time and again, she uses political power to benefit politically-connected corporations – at the expense of taxpayers, small businesses and in this case, energy consumers. Anytime she attempts to position herself as being in favor of “the little guy,” remember the case of Iberdrola. Perdue will gladly throw the little guy under the bus if it means an opportunity to shower deep-pocketed corporations with more taxpayer money. Making matters worse in this instance, her actions would also force up the bills of struggling energy consumers.

When asked via email if Perdue’s actions indicate her disagreement with Cooper’s stance that “now is a bad time to raise rates on energy consumers”, the Governor’s office did not respond. Her silence speaks volumes.

 UPDATE (12/15/11): According to a report in the Charlotte Business Journal, Iberdrola has announced they will not begin construction on the Desert Wind Power Project in Elizabeth City due to their inability to come to a purchase agreement with a major utility provider.  

 PERDUE’S LETTER TO UTILITY COMPANIES:

http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RogersJim-Duke-Project.pdf

http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/JohnsonBill-Progress-Project.pdf

http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FarrellThomas-Dominion-Project.pdf

The post Perdue Bringing “Solyndra” Politics to North Carolina appeared first on Civitas Institute.

North Carolina’s public enemy number one: plastic. State lawmakers have embarked on a full frontal attack on plastic throughout the state ranging from banning plastic bottles in state-wide landfills to reducing plastic bags in the Outer Banks.

A new law took effect October 1, which bans plastic bottles from landfills and, therefore, from curbside pickup. Gov. Purdue signed HB 760 into law as a way to encourage recycling, reduce the amount of trash collected in state landfills and create more jobs. Ever wonder why legislators think banning something will actually encourage us to do something else?

WRAL recently reported Secretary of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Dee Freeman saying, “Recycling is a proven job creator in North Carolina and if we do our best to recycle the newly banned materials, we will not only grow businesses in the state, but also protect disposal capacity, recover valuable resources, save energy, and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

While the law is part of a series of initiatives by the state to mirror the nation’s effervescent “Go Green” fad, it ignores the hard facts on the ground. Sanitation companies are affected the most by the new law, as sorting plastic from trash will largely rest on their shoulders. State environmental regulators could impose a fine of up to $15,000 on landfills for plastic violations, which could result in raising customer’s collection fees to cover the cost. All American owner William Skipper told WRAL that he has not raised collection fees yet, as the law just took effect, but if his company is fined for plastic violations, his hand will be forced. The law does exempt pesticide containers from the ban.

Combating the threat of plastic is not new to North Carolina as SB 1018, “Ban Certain Single-Use Bags,” took effect September 1. Introduced by Sen. Stein (D-Wake), the new law bans the distribution of plastic bags by retailers to consumers for use in carrying, transporting or storing purchased goods. The law is applied only to the barrier islands of Dare, Hyde and Currituck Counties on the Outer Banks. This effort is an attempt to transition our state away from plastic bags to 100 percent recycled paper.

Both laws maintain that plastic has a detrimental effect on the environment and therefore, should be regulated by the state. In hoping to better the environment, the government has again taken a huge step into our daily life. North Carolina lawmakers take away daily conveniences like plastic water bottles and plastic grocery store bags to support the latest environmental trend – which may not actually produce the desired results. Ireland, for example, reduced plastic shopping bag consumption by 90 percent country-wide but the amount of plastic in landfills has actually increased. Consumers buy heavier kitchen garbage bags instead of re-using their grocery store plastic bags and the result: more plastic.

North Carolina may have waged a war against plastic but it is really waging a war against consumer choice. State lawmakers are limiting consumer choice and dictating individual purchases by their hefty fines. North Carolina residents should fight back against such government intrusions and support real efforts to help the environment that do not limit our individual rights.

The post North Carolina’s War on Plastic appeared first on Civitas Institute.

The push to make the words green, energy and efficient all on equal terms was clearly evident during the 2009 General Assembly long session. Some legislators are more vocal about transitioning everything in the state towards a “green” economy more than others, which is revealed in the numerous bills submitted for legislation. A quick rundown of legislation is listed below: bills that were ratified, as well as others that could be reviewed again in the near future that could become law.   

Key Ratified Legislation:

Renewable Energy Incentives:

House Bill 512: “Incentives for Energy Conservation,”sponsored by Reps. Holliman (D- Davidson), Harrison (D- Guilford) and Luebke (D-Durham), extends current tax credits for renewable energy property including wind, solar, hydroelectric and biomass to include geothermal heat pumps. Tax credits will remain in effect through Jan. 1, 2016.

House Bill 1389: “Revolving Loan Fund for Energy Improvements,”sponsored by Reps. Fisher (D-Buncombe), Harrison and Rapp (D-Madison), authorizes cities and counties to establish a loan program for the financing of renewable energy sources “in the best interest of the citizens.” Capping interest at eight percent and terms at 15 years, the General Assembly recommends the use of grants or unrestricted city and county funds to finance the loans.

House Bill 1387: “Solar Collectors on Residential Properties,” sponsored by Reps. Fisher and Harrison, extends restrictions on city and county ordinances from regulating solar collectors on residential property.

Energy Efficiency:

Senate Bill 304: “Energy Savings Contracts’ Cap/Program Admin,” sponsored by Sen. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg), increases the total amount the State may finance under guaranteed energy savings contracts for State governmental units from $100 million to $500 million dollars.

House Bill 1079: “Energy Efficient State Motor Fleet,” sponsored by Reps. Harrison, Martin (D-Wake), Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Samuelson (R-Mecklenburg), requires new vehicles purchased by the Department of Administration to be in the top 15 percent of their class in fuel economy. Taking into consideration the best value for the state, the Department is required to “reasonably consider” both projected fuel costs and acquisition costs of new state vehicles. Additionally, the Department will report the savings or costs associated with this effort from the previous fiscal year on or before October 1 of each year to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations and the Environmental Review Commission. 

Waste Reduction:

House Bill 760: “Disposal of Pesticide Containers,”sponsored by Rep. Gibson (D-Anson), exempts pesticide containers from an existing ban on the disposal of certain plastic containers in landfills.

Senate Bill 1018: “Ban Certain Single-Use Bags,” sponsored by Sen. Stein (D-Wake), first sought to eliminate plastic bag use across the state by October 2011, by requiring retailers to use 100 percent recycled paper (except in certain cases involving health safety). However, by the time this bill left committee it was refocused to eliminate plastic bags only on the barrier islands of two Outer Banks counties. This bill went into effect Sept. 1, 2009.

Stalled Legislation:

House Bill 1099: “Amend Environmental Laws 2009,”sponsored by Reps. Allen (D-Franklin) and Gibson delays by one year the addition of water system efficiency criteria as a requirement to be eligible for state water infrastructure funds. Additionally, this bill would direct the Revenue Laws Study Committee and the Environmental Review Commission to examine how the state could generate revenue by taxing or licensing large-scale users of the State’s natural resources. And finally, this bill would establish the controversial Yadkin River Trust intended to take over the currently private hydroelectric facility. 

Senate Bill 567/ House Bill 1484: “Promote Electricity Demand Reduction,” sponsored by Sen. Hartsell (R-Iredell) and Reps. Barnhart (R-Cabarrus), Dickson (D-Cumberland) and Glazier (D-Cumberland) amends the 2007 law (known as Senate Bill 3) that created the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards for electric utilities by allowing companies to use demand reduction as a means to meet the required goals.

Senate Bill 811: “Fuel Rationing Authority for the Governor,” sponsored by Sen. McKissick (D-Durham) would give the Governor power to freeze the cost of and ration fuel during a state of disaster, a local state of emergency, or an “abnormal market disruption”.

Senate Bill 836/ House Bill 1287: “Recycle Products Containing Mercury,” sponsored by Sen. Albertson (D-Duplin) and Reps. Harrison and Burris-Floyd (R-Gaston) would require that public agencies remove prior to the demolition of a building and recycle florescent lights and mercury thermostats. This bill would also ban all mercury-containing products from landfills.

Legislation Not Considered:

Budget & Taxes

House Bill 619: “NC Green Business Fund,” sponsored by Reps. Harrison (D-Guilford), Bryant (D-Nash), Luebke (D-Durham) and Tolson (D-Edgecombe) would have repurposed the N.C. Green Business fund from a grant-making fund to a no interest loan-making fund through special revenue within the Department of Commerce and a $5 million appropriation from the General Fund.

House Bill 1050: “Independent Energy Efficiency Administrator,” sponsored by Reps. Blue (D-Wake), Tolson (D-Edgecombe), Glazier and Harrison would have established the NC Save$ Energy as an administration for energy efficient and energy conservation programs. This non-profit would have the authority to increase taxes of ratepayers.

House Bill 504/Senate Bill 147: “Tax Credit for Energy-Efficient Homes,” sponsored by Fisher (D-Buncombe), Harrison, Goforth (D-Buncombe) and Samuelson (R-Mecklenburg) would have established a $1,000 to $2,000 tax credit for builders of energy-efficient homes. This bill would have required homes to be federally certified by the ENERGY STAR Program under the Environmental Protection Agency or the NC Healthy Built Homes Program under the State Energy Office to qualify.

“For the Future”

House Bill 1075: “Teach “Green” Science in High Schools,” sponsored by Reps. Cotham (D-Mecklenburg), Harrison, Allen (D- Franklin), and Carney (D-Mecklenburg) would have directed the State Board of Education to develop an elective science course on renewable and alternative energy.

Senate Bill 1024: “N.C. 2050 Sustainability Task Force,” sponsored by Sen. Stein would have established a Sustainability Task Force to plan for the future through year 2050. The 25-member Task Force would have been made up of House and Senate appointees, State officials, and members of the university system specializing in growth. 

House Bill 811/ Senate Bill 1044: “Moratorium on Coal-Fired Plants,” sponsored by Reps. Harrison, Luebke and Fisher, and Sen. Kinnard (D-Orange), who sought to place a moratorium on coal fired power plant construction in the name of economic relief and to promote renewable energy.

House Bill 1441: “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Act,” sponsored by Harrison, Fisher and K. Alexander (D-Mecklenburg) would have inventoried and mandated the reduction of greenhouse gases by 10 percent in 2020.

House Bill 1521: “Funds to Create a "Green" Welcome Center in Wilkes County,” sponsored by Rep. Shirley Randleman (R-Wilkes) requested $50,000 to “construct an environmentally friendly visitor’s center in Wilkes County.” While this bill was eventually stalled out in committee, funds were secured by Sen. Goss (D – Watauga) from Sen. Basnight’s (D – Dare) discretionary fund.

House Bill 289: “Coordinate Traffic Signals/Reduce Energy Use,” sponsored by Rep. Allred, who has since resigned, sought to require municipalities to work with the Department of Transportation to coordinate traffic signal patterns in an effort to reduce the consumption of energy by reducing idle time of vehicles.

Legislation Pending Review:

Several items have been included in House Bill 945: “The Studies Act of 2009,” to be further examined by experts appointed by the General Assembly. Based on the committee’s findings, we can expect to see these “green” bills re-introduced next session.

Incentives

The Committee and the Energy Policy Council may jointly study the feasibility and suitability of establishing feed-in rates, a form of incentive, to be paid to renewable energy electricity producers by electric power suppliers for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Feed-in rates are designed to balance the high costs associated with renewable energy (House Bill 1440).

Additionally, the Commission may study a “Cap-and-Trade” type program for the farming industry similar to the program for other businesses in proposed federal legislation aimed to reduce carbon emissions over time (House Bill 28).

Alternative Energy

The Commission may study the feasibility of expanding the use of alternative energy sources in state vehicles, buildings and other power systems. (Senate Bill 651)

The Commission may study the impact of city and county ordinances prohibiting the installation of clotheslines.  (House Bill 1352)

Construction

The state will study the feasibility of “green” construction by examining the establishment of a Green School Construction Loan Fund (House Bill 282) to provide no interest loans to local schools for green construction as well as the possibility of requiring new and renovated commercial buildings and new residential buildings to comply with energy conservation standards known as the Green Building Code (House Bill 1442).

Wind

House Bill 809/Senate Bill 1068: Permits for the Siting of Wind Energy Facilities stalled towards the end of the session, however it is more than likely we will see it back as the Committee may study ways to establish a system of permits to be issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the siting of wind energy facilities.

The post Energy and Environment: How the Legislature Views Its Necessity appeared first on Civitas Institute.

The recently completed two-year budget cycle (2007-08) was marked by legislation that will make energy more expensive and do little, if anything, to protect the environment. The following highlights some of the major things our General Assembly did and didn’t do over the biennium:

What They Did

Raised the costs of home energy via a bill mandating “renewables”
SB3 – legislation requiring energy companies get a certain percentage of their portfolios from renewable sources – will do nothing for the environment, but will jack up energy bills and enrich special interests. Major energy concern Progress Energy just got approval to raise energy rates by 16-plus percent – barely a year after the passage of SB3. Consumers are harmed.

Raised taxes on waste disposal, made failure to recycle a criminal offense
Not only will it be more expensive for the average citizen to dispose of waste, business-owners who fail to recycle are now looking at jail time. SB 1492 adds taxes and fees to waste disposal, but creates artificial scarcities by making it virtually impossible to open a new landfill in the state. The state will use revenues from trash taxes to fund recycling.

Handed out green corporate welfare and green boondoggles
Over the past two budgets, the General Assembly has given out millions in green corporate welfare. Examples include zero-percent interest loans for “green” businesses, $2.2 million for a biofuels company, $1 million to a “green business fund” and $5 million to a biofuels center. Biofuels like ethanol drive up food prices and do more environmental harm than good. Such companies are special interests that could not exist but for subsidies and handouts.

Used non-voter-approved debt for “open space” and waste water
The “Land for Tomorrow” fund will disburse* $50 million in state debt not authorized by voters (COPs) — debt saddled to the backs of N.C. taxpayers — purportedly to preserve open space. Half of the $1.45 billion spent by N.C. Conservation Trust Funds between 1987-2007, however, has gone to local wastewater treatment—a questionable expenditure given that these are offered under the rubric of environmental conservation. The state land purchases mean taxpayers will pay more for land management and property values will go up artificially in urban areas.

*Corrected from an earlier version.

Gave us draconian drought management
The Legislature (via HB 2499) gave new drought/water management powers to the state in 2008, which authorizes the Governor to set water restrictions statewide. This policy unnecessarily centralizes water-management policies, when local policymakers should employ their own measures.

What They Didn’t Do

Pressure Washington to lift the offshore drilling moratorium
In the face of high gas prices, the General Assembly took no action to enable offshore drilling – a policy that would bring jobs to eastern N.C. and relieve pressures on citizens hurt by fuel prices.

Pressure Washington to lift the ban on new nuclear plants
True leadership in North Carolina would require the General Assembly demand that Washington change its policy on the expansion of nuclear power in our state. Nuclear power is safer and more effective than ever before. Yet – in the face of soaring energy prices – the Legislature remained flatfooted on lifting the current ban on new nuclear facilities.

Lift a finger to suspend onerous regulations creating boutique gasolines
No legislation was introduced to suspend or repeal state-level legislation creating boutique gasoline blends in certain areas. These gas blends have marginal, if any, environmental benefit and only add to costs at the pump.

End corporate welfare associated with biofuels
Nationwide, there has been a sea-change in opinion about ethanol and biofuels. Not only do biofuels increase food prices, but they have no measurable effect on global warming, they do more damage to the air and land than gas, and biofuel subsidies destroy wealth in other sectors. Though biofuels are a terrible idea, the General Assembly continues to give handouts to biofuels companies.

Make system-wide upgrades to our transportation network
Efficiencies in our transportation network add up to fuel efficiencies, because people don’t sit in traffic as long. And yet the 2007-08 biennium was an example of status-quo transportation policy. In other words, there is heavy investment in roads built in rural areas and underinvestment in infrastructure where the vehicles actually travel—all due to the continued use of the outmoded Equity Formula, introduced in 1989.

The post Energy and Environment: Higher Prices, No Benefits appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Mandatory recycling programs don’t bother most people. But if you thought you were being forced to do something dumb or were getting ripped off—wouldn’t you be troubled? When it comes to municipal recycling in the Triangle, there are only two possible scenarios—either the things we recycle really are just garbage, or the city is helping big companies steal our labor and resources. Sound crazy? Bear with me.

Every billing cycle, you get the privilege of paying the city a recycling fee. Check your bill. It’s there. (Note: some cities build fees into property taxes.) Now, let’s suppose that the things you toss into the recycling bin really are just garbage. If it isn’t garbage – i.e. it has value to someone – they’ll be willing pay you for it (or at least collect it at no charge). But the situation is not so clear when it comes to recycling—because the city gets between you and willing buyers of your bottles and cans.

Or, look at it this way: we’re paying the city to haul things off in extra trucks. That means there are twice the number of trucks on the road (trash-plus-recycling), which means we double both the fuel consumption and pollution emissions, compared with garbage collection alone. At best, we’re using up one type of resource (oil) to save another (plastic). At worst we’re wasting money and trading garbage for pollution increases. (Nevermind the personal inconvenience of washing, sorting and lugging.)

With current fuel prices, things get worse. Obviously, it’s just plain expensive to fuel recycling trucks—and we pay for that. Still, it may nevertheless soon be cost-effective to recycle plastic bottles, since they’re made from petroleum. But when we get to that price-point, won’t it be cost-effective to strip-mine landfills of plastics or pay people to turn them in, rather than rely on all those diesel-spewing trucks? Given that energy conservation and air pollution are becoming bigger issues, it’s hard to see how cities can justify recycling. (Can you hear the protestors? “No oil for glass!”)

Which is scarcer? Landfill space or fuel? Prices say fuel. But suppose people just don’t like the idea that a plastic container might lie in the ground for a thousand years. It’s true: we don’t think of Cheerwine bottles as being artifacts for the museums of the future. But beyond that, what’s the problem? Landfills aren’t poisoning anyone.

Not even the EPA sees fit to regulate municipal solid waste disposal. Indeed, according to 30-year EPA veteran Dr. David Schnare: “EPA regulates the toxic stuff through its hazardous waste disposal regulations. Municipal waste isn’t hazardous, and the only regulations that apply are [landfill] siting, construction and air emissions regulations for methane. The EPA doesn’t regulate risks from these sites because the risks, if any, are undeserving of regulation.” With the advent of geotextile technologies, modern landfills are well able to contain leachate – the only significant landfill pollutant. Basically, you have a greater chance of being hit by a recycling truck than being harmed by a landfill.

Landfill companies have also learned to pack in much more garbage-per-square-yard than any time in history. According to environmental economist Daniel K. Benjamin, “Ted Turner’s flying D ranch outside Bozeman, Montana, could handle all of America’s trash for the next century—with 50,000 acres left over for his bison.” (Read: we’re never going to be ‘buried in garbage’). Apart from NIMBYism about the sight or smell, why are we worried about making continued use of landfills? After all, one person’s smelly landfill is another’s bread-n-butter.

Now, suppose those recyclables are valuable. If they are, why are we paying the city? The presence of value means a market will emerge without the city (or its fees). Maybe we should ask Raleigh, Durham and Cary why they are forcing us to use our time, resources and labor to benefit the companies they sell recyclables to. If cans are so valuable, what’s the city’s interest in recovering assets otherwise stranded at the dump? Isn’t that what the aluminum industry should be sorting out? (Pun intended.) Of course companies benefit from this whole arrangement, because they’re able (via the city) to shift the costs of recycling onto us! The city is complicit.

We should be more than a little troubled by these possibilities. Cities are using proceeds from valuable recyclables like aluminum to subsidize wasteful and stupid recycling like glass and paper. (One need only head to the beach to see there are no silicon shortages. Likewise, there are more trees in North America than at any time in recorded history, because the more paper we use, the more trees get planted.) But we should be more disturbed that cities are wasting our energy, time and money to benefit special interests. In either scenario – waste or theft – municipal recycling is no good to citizens. Sadly, city officials must only hide behind America’s quasi-religious fixation with everything “green” to get away with it.

Max Borders is a policy analyst for the Civitas Institute (nccivitas.org).

The post Triangle Recycling is Waste, Theft, or Both appeared first on Civitas Institute.