By Thomas Catenacci
Democrats have inserted numerous provisions and subsidy programs into their $3.5 trillion budget that would benefit green energy companies and speed the transition to renewables.
The Build Back Better Act would invest an estimated $295 billion of taxpayer money into a variety of clean energy programs in what would amount to the most sweeping climate effort passed by Congress, according to a House Committee on Energy and Commerce report. That price tag doesn’t factor in the other costly measures approved by the House Ways and Means, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Oversight and Transportation committees last month.
“This bill is crammed with green welfare subsidies, specifically for corporations and the wealthy,” House Ways and Means Ranking Member Kevin Brady told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.
“They are extending and creating a whole host of green energy tax credits such as electric transmission property, zero emissions facilities and clean hydrogen,” the Texas Republican continued. “These are no longer merely tax credits, which count against the taxes you owe. These are direct pay. In effect, they’re government checks from Washington.”
The credits Brady referenced would incentivize the development of new transmission lines delivering renewable energy nationwide, reward facilities that produce zero or net negative carbon emissions and offset major costs associated with producing clean hydrogen power. But these subsidies represent a small portion of the giveaways packed into the legislation.
Overall, the bill includes major aspects of the Green New Deal, the behemoth climate legislation first proposed by progressive lawmakers in 2019. The Green New Deal has an estimated price tag of nearly $93 trillion and would cost American families as much as $65,300 per year.
‘The whole thing is ridiculous’
Democrats’ budget would include a credit worth as much as $12,500 for consumers who purchase a new electric vehicle, $2,500 for electric motorcycles purchase and even $1,500 for electric bicycles, according to Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Roughly $13.5 billion would be invested in building new electric vehicle infrastructure nationwide.
President Joe Biden recently set a goal for 50% of all vehicles purchased in 2030 to be electric. In addition, his administration said the U.S. would cut emissions 50% by 2030, have 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
“The whole thing is ridiculous,” Ebell told the DCNF. “It would be laughable except it’s not laughable because it’s going to have tremendously negative economic consequences. We can’t meet any of these targets, but in trying to do so we can do a huge amount of economic damage.”
The budget is a key cog in the president’s aggressive climate agenda and crusade against global warming which his administration has labeled a “crisis” multiple times since he took office. Days into his presidency, Biden nixed the Keystone XL pipeline permit, opened the door for sweeping regulation on fossil fuel producers and banned new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, but each executive action was met with a fierce response from states.
Since then, the president hasn’t just railed against fossil fuels, instead actively promoting renewable energy technology. His administration said Wednesday it would build seven wind farms nationwide that would have the capacity to provide enough energy to power 10 million homes by 2030.
“These technologies aren’t science fiction,” Biden remarked after a Sept. 14 tour of a National Renewable Energy Laboratory facility in Colorado. “They’re ready to be installed across the country right now.”
The Build Back Better Act would additionally implement a production tax credit for wind, solar and geothermal energy, according to Ebell. There is also an investment tax credit in the bill that would benefit developers of energy storage devices.
Clean Electricity Performance Program
Perhaps chief among the climate policies found in the Build Back Better Act is the $150 billion Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP). The program, which is the centerpiece of the bill’s climate agenda, would incentivize energy companies to produce fewer emissions through a series of grants and fees.
“The CEPP is a repackaged version of a number of green energy proposals that have been made both recently and over the years to — we used to say nudge — now it’s much more of a heavy push towards utilities generating at least 85% clean energy,” American Institute for Economic Research senior faculty Ryan Yonk told the DCNF.
If an energy supplier increases their clean output by 4% compared to the previous year, it would be eligible for a sizable grant under the CEPP, according to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Companies that don’t increase clean energy by that amount will be punished with a large fine payable to the Department of Energy.
The program mandates that companies use grants to make energy more affordable for consumers. It also prohibits them from passing program costs to consumers, but fails to outline how it would ensure price increases aren’t tied to CEPP fines.
CEPP, though, continues to face opposition from Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who could be the deciding vote for the budget, Politico reported. Manchin reportedly wants to gut much of the program and include a broader definition of “clean energy.”
However, when asked in September about whether he would sign a budget bill with fewer climate provisions, Biden said he was “for more climate measures.”
‘What’s the goal?’
“It’s not based on science. It’s not based on an overall strategic plan. It’s a lot of feel good stuff,” Republican Utah Rep. John Curtis, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, told the DCNF when asked about the budget. “What are we trying to accomplish? What’s the goal? Nobody’s articulated that.”
He noted, for example, that the U.S. falls far short of the grid capacity to handle the number of electric vehicle charging stations the budget would fund. The budget hasn’t received the support of a single elected Republican, not even Curtis, who has backed many climate policies.
The bill also fails to acknowledge the shortfalls of such a rapid transition to renewable energy, Yonk said. Many projects, such as wind and solar, are still not profitable decades after investment began pouring into renewables.
In 2020, just 12% of the energy consumed by Americans came from renewables, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Solar and wind, which account for a large fraction of renewable energy produced, are nature-dependent and can be unreliable.
While producers often tout the energy capacity of solar and wind, they produce less than half of that capacity on average, EIA data showed. A rapid shift to renewables in Europe was a catalyst in the ongoing energy crisis that has seen oil, gas and coal prices skyrocket, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Renewables require large battery storage facilities to overcome some of the problems posed by their intermittent nature, but the U.S. has a total storage power capacity of almost 2 gigawatts, according to an EIA report in August. By comparison, the U.S. consumed about 3.8 million gigawatts per hour last year.
“We really don’t know what an energy market could look like because we subsidize and regulate all the different pieces of it,” Yonk told the DCNF. “We’ve taken what could be determined by individuals making their own choices and substituted it with a political solution where the values of those who lobby — whether they be on the green side or the energy production side — are what actually determines where we get things from.”
“As a result, we get things like the production tax credit or the investment tax credit that says, ‘okay, if you do these narrow list of things, we will provide a subsidy,’” he continued.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
6 thoughts on “Here are all the Green New Deal handouts Democrats wedged into their $3.5 trillion budget”
The global warming alarmists are Socialists masquerading behind GW slogans, to get THEIR NIRVANA
The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty, PARIS 2015, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism.
The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism, and fossil fuels, have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 100-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Christina Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work.
“If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell, RE folks are making all the world look at their right hand, while, at the same time, choking the developed economies with their left hand.
Bernie’s $3.5 TRILLION socialism, boondoggle, mostly NOT paid for, but added to government debts, aims to have dozens of expanded and new government programs, that would be managed by career Dem/Progs.
They would create a Socialism-style, centralized command/control, cradle-to-grave entitlement US society, which would be anathema to 250-y of US way of life.
The programs would more or less MANDATE/FORCE/ENTICE everyone to drive EVs, and have everyone use heat pumps.
EVs usually reduce operating costs, but are MAJOR FINANCIAL LOSERS, IF ALL COST ARE CONSIDERED, which is not done by “RE energy consultants” hired by government entities.
Their GLOSSY reports are designed to befuddle, obfuscate, sugar-coat, and confuse. If they did not write such reports, they would not be invited to write more reports. Calling a spade a spade is NOT what legislators, etc., like to hear, because it would rain on the RE parade.
Here is someone’s very dangerous experience with a CHEVY BOLT
CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT
THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.
He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.
Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note
NOTE: Range-driving is not recommended, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile.
Charging at 32F or less: Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.
Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less. See URL
Fire in Driveway: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.
Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:
1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle
2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”. See Note
NOTE: Actually, it likely was one or more battery cells shorting out, which creates heat, which burns nearby items, which creates a fire that is very hard to extinguish. See Appendix
GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.
GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.
Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!
I wonder what could happen during rush hour traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.
Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URL
– Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle
– EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range
– Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:
1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and
2) Is detrimental to the battery.
3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.
– EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.
This is just a continuation of Barry Obozo’s greenie giveaway to companies who later went bankrupt, including Solyndra, Ener1, A123, Beacon Power and other failed renewable energy ventures. He’s now got his puppet pudin head xho byden going
for the whooper with 3.5 trillion in wasteful spending just when the country has
entered a for real Rescission that very well may beat the 2008 one. Study done by
David Blanchflower, of Dartmouth, and Alex Bryson, of University College London.
So any voting for this death blow of all financial stupid decisions ever made should be jailed and striped of all money for their destruction of the American economy..
Bernie’s $3.5 TRILLION boondoggle aims to have dozens of expanded and new government programs, that would be run by career Dem/Progs.
They would create a Socialism-style, centralized command/control, cradle-to-grave entitlement US society, which would be anathema to the US way of life.
The programs would more or less FORCE everyone to drive EVs, and have everyone use heat pumps.
I have some experience with heat pumps. They are great of heating and cooling my entire house, but that mode of heating is MUCH more expensive than traditional. IF ALL COST ARE CONSIDERED, which is not done by “energy consultants” hired by government entities.
Their GLOSSY reports are designed to befuddle, obfuscate, sugar-coat, and confuse. If they did not write such reports, they would not be invited to write more reports.
Calling a spade a spade is NOT what legislators, etc., like to hear.
HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000
My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House
The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.
I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.
The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3
High Electricity Prices
Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:
1) Increase already-high electric rates and
2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal
– HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills
– Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.
– My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house
– Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
– My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64, which required, at 35% displacement of fuel, 2489 kWh; 100% displacement would require 8997 kWh
– The average Vermont house COP was 3.34, which required, at 27.6% displacement, 2085 kWh, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey.
– I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane
– I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP
Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y
After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.
My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y
My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
Amortizing Heat Pumps
Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
Other Annual Costs
There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST
Any transition from fossil fuels to low-CO2 sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and biomass, could occur only when the low-CO2 sources are: 1) abundantly available everywhere, and 2) at low-cost, say 5 to 6 c/kWh, wholesale, and 3) as reliable as fossil fuels, 24/7/365, year after year.
This article presents the all-in cost of wind, solar and battery systems in the US Northeast.
Table 1 shows the all-in cost of wind and solar are much greater than reported by the Media, etc.
Much of the cost is shifted from Owners of these systems to taxpayers and ratepayers, and added to government debts
EXHORBITANT REAL COST OF WIND AND SOLAR ELECTRICITY
Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:
1) Above-market-price paid to Owners
2) Subsidies paid to Owners
3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y
4) Grid extension/augmentation
5) Grid support services
6) Future battery systems
Comments on table 1. See table 1 in article URL
– Vermont legacy SO solar systems had greater subsidies, up to 30 c/kWh paid to owner, than newer systems, about 11 c/kWh
– Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.
– Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems
– “Added to the rate base” is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.
– “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base
– “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh
for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.
“Utility cost” is the annual average price paid for electricity by a utility, about 6 c/kWh,
– “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.
1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.
– Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%
– Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%
– Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%
– The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid
2) There are Owning and Operating costs of the NE grid, in addition to utility wholesale prices.
ISO-NE pro-rates these O&O costs to utilities, at about 1.6 c/kWh.
3) NE charges are for:
Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month
Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.
The Greens are members of a dogmatic climate cult. The symptoms are manifest: They demonize and persecute, even physically attack anyone who disagrees with their credo in any way. They stifle public expression of their opinions, not unusually with violent demonstrations. That their predictions have reliably been in error over and over does not sway them. A midsummer blizzard in Death Valley would be cited as proof of their beliefs. A twelve year coastal hurricane hiatus might as well not have happened. And their sure-and-certain dogmatic truths Cannot be wrong – so they refuse to debate them. Because “it would confuse the people.” They are apocalyptic, also a characteristic often seen in cult religions.
Comments are closed.