Nevada should drop its renewable energy mandate

Print Friendly

It is high time Nevada dumped its ill-advised, pocket-picking, job-killing renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS).

By Nevada law by 2025 fully 25 percent of all electrical power generated in the state must come from renewable sources such as wind and solar and geothermal, but these power sources are far more expensive than generating power with natural gas and coal.

Nevada is not alone in its decision to warp the power market under the delusion that “cleaner” power will stop the rising seas and delay by a few minutes the frying of the planet — 28 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted RPS laws.

Natural Resource Economics’ researcher Timothy Considine recently delved into the economic impact of these laws in 12 states, including Nevada. The 98-page report has been posted on Nevada Policy Research Institute’s website.

Those 12 states included ones in four regions of the country. — the Northeast and

Mid-Atlantic states of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Delaware; the South Atlantic states of Virginia and North and South Carolina; the Midwestern state of Wisconsin, and five western states, including Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon.

Of all those states, Nevada has the most stringent RPS and therefore was impacted the greatest in most cases.

Considine notes that RPS requirements not only directly affect power bills, but also everything from job growth to business investment is also negatively affected by more costly power. The benefits of renewable energy are far outweighed by that cost.

“Looking at Nevada specifically,” Considine writes, “the net cost of

renewable standards are striking:

“— Energy prices are expected to climb by nearly 15 percent in 2016.

“— Employment growth will be reduced by more than 11,000 jobs in 2016 due to higher energy costs.

“— Economic growth will be reduced by more than $1.7 billion in 2016.

“The impact of such renewable standards is clearly dramatic — draining vitality out of Nevadans’ efforts to fully recover from years of sluggish economic growth.”

And those impacts are projected to continue, with minor declines in impact, until at least 2040.

That 15 percent increase in power costs was the highest of any of the 12 states examined, and remains among the highest through 2025. The number of jobs killed is also the highest, when calculated as a percentage of the current labor force.

Every job sector in Nevada would see jobs lost due to higher costs, except one, utilities, of course. The service sector, which includes gaming, would be the hardest hit, bearing two-thirds of the job losses.

In 2013, Nevada generated more than 36.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity, with 68 percent coming from natural gas, 14 percent from coal, slightly more than 7.3 percent from geothermal, and 7.4 percent from hydroelectricity — much of the latter used by California. Solar power accounted for 2 percent of total generation and wind contributed 0.7 percent.

The study calculates that in order to meet its RPS, Nevada must increase its solar and wind power output by more than 87 percent.

“The increases in average electricity costs from new RPS capacity additions are 32.85 percent in 2016, rising to 37.58 percent in 2020, 37.33 percent in 2025, and 21.32 percent in 2040,” Considine relates. “With legacy costs average electricity rates in Nevada increase 14.77 percent in 2016 due to renewable energy portfolio standards. After 2016, rates increase 15.6 percent in 2020, more than 15 percent in 2025, and 9-13 percent from 2030 to 2040.”

The total cost per ton of carbon dioxide avoided in Nevada amounts to nearly $77 a ton. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the social value of carbon reduction to be about $36 per ton.

 

Is this trip really necessary? — TM

 

 

Comments

  1. Stanley Parker says:

    O.K., Thomas, I’ll bite. Who’s pocket does the RPS pick and what jobs has it killed? C’mon, Thomas, just because something drivels out of your pie-hole doesn’t make it true. I await your answer.

  2. Margaret Clark says:

    I have the same question as Stanley Parker. Also, which conservative Republican climate change denier wrote this?!

  3. Bill Hurd says:

    Thomas Mitchell and his sources, NRPI and Natural Resource Economics, are very concerned about rates for energy today, and show little or no concern for either future costs, the environment or global warming. The costs quoted for solar energy are questionable, at best. The quoted 87 percent increase in wind and solar energy, because the amount is small, only 2.7 percent of Nevada energy. This increase would not be disruptive to utilities or have significant effect on energy rates.

    Because increases in electric rates due to solar and wind would be small, the claim that this would kill jobs is not valid, especially because generating renewable energy actually creates a lot of jobs in these industries. This article is totally biased to the political wishes of climate change deniers.

    • Bill Hurd says:

      Correction; I meant to say “The quoted 87 percent increase in wind and solar energy, is small, because the amount now used is small, only 2.7 percent of Nevada energy.”

  4. Michael Goggin, AWEA says:

    For a comprehensive rebuttal of the false claims in this fossil-funded attack on clean energy, see
    http://www.aweablog.org/front-groups-release-another-garbage-garbage-study-inadvertently-show-benefits-wind/

    Michael Goggin
    American Wind Energy Association

Speak Your Mind

*