Blast From the Past: Dear Northeast, How’s that solar working out for ya?

Down two power plants since the last polar vortex, the Northeast is facing an energy crisis this winter  

By Marita Noon

Editor's Note:  Marita got married, retired and no longer writes on these issues, but when she did, she wrote well.  This appeared here on November 24, 2014 and Once again, with this recent winter storm, I think it's appropriate to publish this again, remember, this isn't today, this was in 2014, and now we're right back with the same insane thinking and polices.  You just can't fix stupid. RK

A couple of months ago, effective in November, National Grid, one of Massachusetts’ two dominant utilities, announced rate increases of a “whopping” 37% over last year. Other utilities in the region are expected to follow suit.

It’s dramatic headlines like these that make rooftop solar sound so attractive to people wanting to save money. In fact, embedded within the online version of the Boston Globe story: “Electric rates in Mass. set to spike this winter,” is a link to another article: “How to install solar power and save.” The solar story points out: “By now everyone knows that solar power can save homeowners big money on utility bills.” It claims that solar works even in New England’s dreary winters and cites Henry K. Vandermark, founder and president of Solar Wave Energy in Cambridge, as saying: “Even snow doesn’t matter if your panels have a steep angle. It just slides right off them.”

Solar is not the panacea it is promoted to be, though it is true that—after a substantial investment, heavy government subsidies (funded by all taxpayers), and generous net-metering programs (that raise costs for non-solar customers)—solar systems can save money on the typical homeowners’ monthly bill. (An unsubsidized system averages about $24,000.)

New England has seen one big power plant close within the past year—Salem Harbor Power Station in Salem, MA, went “dark” on June 1, in part due to tightening federal regulations. Another major closure will take place within weeks: Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

A new, state-of-the-art natural gas plant on 18 acres of the 65-acre Salem site will replace the Salem Harbor plant (photo). The remaining 47 acres will see redevelopment, including renewable energy. But, that plan has received pushback from environmental groups that want it fully replaced with renewables. The Boston Globe states: “A decade ago, replacing the aging plant with a far cleaner natural gas facility would have thrilled environmental and public health advocates.” The Conservation Law Foundation filed a lawsuit against the project’s approval, claiming the state “failed to adequately consider its own climate change law when state energy officials approved the Salem plant.” In February, the group settled the suit after it caused construction delays and reliability concerns.

Just days before the plant closed, a report from The Daily Climate addressed the controversy over usage of the Salem Harbor site: “Many activists pushed back, arguing for wind or solar generation or non-energy uses, such as a marine biotechnology research facility.” One activist group: HealthLink, “has marshaled opposition to running a gas line to the new plant,” and another: Grassroots Against Another Salem Plant (GAASP), “has pledged to use peaceful civil disobedience to block construction of the gas plant.”

The state of Massachusetts has offered three closed, or scheduled to be closed, coal-fueled power plant sites $6 million to pursue renewable energy projects—even though wind and solar require full back up from fossil fuel power plants so electricity is available in the frigid Northeast winters. Additionally, a new report from two Stanford Ph.D.’s, who spent 4 years trying to prove renewables can, ultimately, replace fossil fuels, have had to admit defeat: “Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

Having lived with the 63-year-old Salem Harbor plant in her back yard for 20 years, Linda Haley, doesn’t, according to WGBH News, “understand why Salem would encourage use of a non-renewable fossil-fuel resource like natural gas when alternative investments in Green technology finally seem possible.”

These stories reveal the snow job that has been perpetuated on the general public regarding renewable energy. They don’t understand the need for power or how it works. They seem to believe that when a rule passes a magic wand waves replacing older, but still fully functional, power plants with wind or solar — that doesn’t produce electricity 24/7/365 as do the decommissioned coal or nuclear plants — and which require far more land to produce the same amount of, albeit intermittent, electricity.

An iced-up wind turbine or a solar panel covered in 7 feet of snow—even if some of it slides off—doesn’t generate electricity. And the cold days of a Northeast winter create one of the times when energy demand peaks.

Remember last winter’s polar vortex, when freezing weather crippled the Northeast for days and put a tremendous strain on the electric supply?

Congress, following the near crisis, brought in utility executives to explain the situation. Regarding the nation’s electrical output last winter, Nicholas Akins, the CEO of the biggest generator of coal-fueled electricity in the U.S., American Electric Power (AEP), told Congress: “This country did not just dodge a bullet—we dodged a cannon ball.” Similarly, Michael Kormos, Executive VP of Operations for PJM Interconnection (the largest grid operator in the U.S. overseeing 13 states), commented on operations during the polar vortex: PJM was “never—as some accounts have portrayed—700 megawatts away from rolling blackouts. … On the worst day, January 7, our next step if we had lost a very large generator would have been to implement a small voltage reduction”—industry speak for the last option before power outages.

About last winter’s grid reliability, Glenn Beck claims: “I had an energy guy come to me about 3 weeks ago. …He said, ‘We were one power plant away from a blackout in the East all winter long… We were using so much electricity. We were at the top of the grid. There’s no more electricity. We’re at the top.’”

This winter’s extreme weather—with new records set for November power demand—has already arrived. Come January, there will be not one, but two, fewer Northeast power plants since last year—not because they had to be retired, but because of EPA regulations and public sentiment. In a November 17 op-ed, former Senators Bayh (D-IN) and Judd (R-NH) said: “Vermont Yankee produced 26% of New England’s power during the peak of last year’s frigid weather.” The Northeast won’t have Vermont Yankee’s power this January.

Without these two vital power plants, what will the Northeast do?

For several months, since I had a chat with Weather Bell Analytics’ Joe Bastardi at the International Conference on Climate Change, I’ve continued to say that I fear people will have to die due to power outages that prevent them from heating their homes in the winter cold, before the public wakes up to the damage of these policies. AEP’s Atkins seems to agree. He told Columbus Business First: “Truth be known, something’s probably going to have to happen before people realize that there is an issue.”

“New England is in the midst of an energy crisis,” claims WGBH News. The report continues: “Residents and businesses are facing a future that may include ‘rolling blackouts’ on days when usage is highest.”

ISO New England, the agency that oversees the power grid, warns, in the Boston Globe: “Boston and northeast Massachusetts are ‘expected to face an electricity capacity shortage’ that could lead to rolling blackouts or the use of trailer-mounted diesel generators—which emit far more pollutants than natural gas—to fill the gap.” Ray Hepper, the lawyer for ISO New England, in a court filing, wrote: “The ISO simply cannot make megawatts of generation materialize that are not on the system.” In an interview, he added: “We’re really, as a region, at the point of needing new power plants.”

As the Salem Harbor story illustrates, natural gas will likely fuel those new power plants and environmental groups are expected to challenge construction. Plus, natural gas faces cost volatility. On November 20, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), in the wake of November cold, not experienced since the 1970s when global cooling was predicted, featured an article titled, “Chill pushes up natural-gas prices,” that stated: “Natural-gas stockpiles shrank by more than expected last week reflecting surging demand.” As in the ’70s, many are now projecting, based on solar activity and other natural variables, a long global cooling trend.

While the Boston Globe, in September, said: “The upcoming winter is not expected to be as cold as last season,” Bastardi told me otherwise. He said: “This winter could be as cold and nasty as last year and in a worst case go beyond that to some of the great winters of the late 1970s, lasting all the way into April. As it is, we still have a winter comparable to last year forecasted, though the position of the worst, relative to averages, may be further southeast than last year.” During a November 19 appearance with Neil Cavuto, Bastardi suggested that we may see a bit of warming after November, but will have one, or two, very cold months after that.

The WSJ quoted Brian Bradshaw, portfolio manager at BP Capital in Dallas: “‘Everyone thinks it’s not possible’ to have another winter like last year, ‘But the weather does impossible things all the time.’” The WSJ added: “The natural-gas market is setting up for a repeat of last winter.”

So, why, when natural gas prices sit at historic lows that experts predicted will lower electricity rates, is the Northeast facing double-digit increases? The answer: there is no magic wand. The changes have been mandated, but the replacements aren’t ready yet. Ray Gifford, former commissioner with the Colorado Public Utility Commission, told me: “I don’t see how the gas infrastructure in New England can be built fast enough to replace retiring baseload capacity.”

Within the past decade, natural gas went from supplying less than a fifth of New England’s power to one half—which could be great if New England had natural gas, but it is, as Tim Maverick, Commodities Correspondent for Wall Street Daily, says: “gas-starved.” After last winter’s freezing weather, Maverick wrote: “The Northeast was slapped in the face with the reality that there’s not sufficient pipeline infrastructure to provide it with the mega-energy pull it draws in the colder season. This is probably because not one new pipeline infrastructure has been introduced in over 40 years. Natural gas consumption in the Northeast has grown more than 20% in the last decade, and not one new pipeline has been built. Current pipelines are stuffed and can carry no more supply.”

At the Edison Electric Institute financial conference on November 11, AEP’s Atkins confirmed that the proposed timeline to cut pollution from the EPA will shutter coal plants before completion of construction of new power plants using other fuels, or the infrastructure to move the needed natural gas around.

The lack of available supply results in higher prices. The Boston Globe explains: “Gas supplies for home heating are purchased under long-term contracts arranged far in advance, so utilities have the advantage of locking in lower rates. Power plants, on the other hand, often buy shorter term and are more exposed to price movements in the spot markets.” In the winter’s cold weather, the gas goes to people’s homes first. Different from coal, which is shipped by train, with a 30-day supply easily held at the point of use, the switch to natural gas leaves power plants struggling to meet demand, paying higher prices.

Addressing the 2013/2014 winter, Terry Jarrett, a former public service commissioner and a nationally recognized leader in energy, utility, and regulatory issues, said: “Natural gas couldn’t shoulder that burden, due in part to a shortage of infrastructure to deliver gas where it was needed—this despite record-setting production in the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere. But more importantly, whereas coal’s sole purpose is to generate electricity, natural gas is also used for home heating. And when push comes to shove, heating gets priority over generation.”

Last winter, coal and nuclear met the demand to keep the lights on and heat homes and businesses. AEP reports that 89% of its coal plants, now slated for retirement, ran at capacity just to meet the peak demand.

These shortages in the Northeast occur before the implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan that experts believe will shut down hundreds of coal-fueled power plants nationwide by 2016. New pipelines and new plants need to be built, but “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes and environmental activists will probably further delay and prevent construction as they have done in the Northeast, which will result in higher electric bills nationwide.

“Because less-expensive coal generation is retiring and in part is being replaced by demand-response or other potential high energy cost resources, excess generation will narrow and energy prices could become more volatile due to the increasing reliance on natural gas for electricity generation,” PJM’s Kormos told Congress.

The lessons for America’s energy supply learned from the Northeast’s far-reaching experiment, which has only resulted only in price increases and potential energy shortages, are twofold. First, don’t shut down existing supply until the replacement is ready, as legal action and local attitudes can slow its development. Second, you can cover every square inch of available land with wind and solar, but when extreme weather hits, it requires a reliable energy supply, best met by coal and nuclear.

Current policy direction will have all of America, not just the Northeast, freezing in the dark. I hope it can it be turned back before it is too late.

NOTE: A version of this content was originally published at Breitbart.com.

Get ready to break wind

Marita Noon @ OILPRO 
 
Originally published in 2016

If Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, one of the changes you can expect is an invasion of industrial wind development in your community that has the potential to severely damage your property values, ruin the viewshed, impact your sleep patterns, and cause your electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket”—all thanks to your tax dollars.

The Democratic presidential candidate frequently references her pledge to install 500 million solar panels. Her website promises: “The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton’s first term.” And, while we know she wants to make America “the clean energy super power of the 21st century,” finding her position on wind energy is not so obvious. Perhaps that is because, as more and more people learn more about its impacts on their lives, its support continues to wane.

Pragmatic environmentalists find it hard to ignore the millions of birds that are killed by the giant spinning blades—including bald and golden eagles, as well as massive numbers of bats (which are so important for insect control) that are being slaughtered. Some have even “successfully sued to stop wind farm construction,” reports * *.

More and more communities are saying: “We don’t want wind turbines here.” For example, in Ohio, a wind project was “downed” when the Logan County Commissioners voted unanimously to reject EverPower’s request for a payment in lieu of taxes to build 18 wind turbines—though since then, the developer is taking another bite at the project, and the locals are furious. In Michigan, the entire Lincoln Township Board opposes a plan from DTE Energy to bring 50 to 70 more wind turbines to the community—despite the fact that four of the five members would profit from easement agreements they’d previously signed.

While not one of her top talking points, a President Hillary will increase the amount of taxpayer dollars available to industrial wind developers. At a July 2015 campaign stop in Iowa, she supported tax incentives and said: “We need to continue the production tax credits.” Previously, she claimed that she wants to make the production tax credits (PTC) for wind and solar permanent. (Note: without the PTC, even the wind industry acknowledges it won’t “be able to continue.”) She frequently says: “I want more wind, more solar, more advanced biofuels, more energy efficiency.” Remember, her party platform includes: “We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.” And: “We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.”

So, if your area hasn’t been faced with the construction of the detrimental and dangerous turbines, you can expect that it will be—even if you live in an area not known to be windy. That’s the bad news. The good news is the more wind turbines spring up, the more opposition they receive—and, therefore, the more tools there are available to help break the next wind project.

Rather than trying to figure out what to do on your own, John Droz, Jr., a North Carolina-based physicist and citizen advocate, who has worked with about 100 communities, encourages citizens who want to protect their community from the threat of a proposed wind project to maximize the resources that are available to them.

Kevon Martis, who, as the volunteer director of the  Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, has helped protect citizens in 7 states, told me: “Nothing makes it harder for a wind developer in one community than if the neighboring community already has an operating wind plant. Once they can see the actual impacts of turning entire townships into 50 story tall power plants, they can no longer be led down the primrose path by wind companies and their agents.” Martis’ equitable wind zoning advocacy has been extremely effective. In his home state of Michigan, wind has been on the ballot at the Township level 11 times since 2009 and has never won. In Argyle Township, in Sanilac County, Invenergy spent $164,000 in campaign funds in the 36-square-mile township, yet the people prevailed at the ballot box.

Two communities in Vermont have industrial wind on the ballot on November 8 and it is playing a big role in the state’s gubernatorial race where many Democrats are pledging to vote for the Republican candidate, who opposes more wind energy development. There, the foreign developer is essentially offering a bribe to the voters to approve the project.

Martis uses a concept he calls “trespass zoning”—which he says is a “de facto subsidy extracted from neighbors without any compensation.” Because the definition of trespassing is: “to enter the owners land or property without permission,” Martis argues that wind turbine setbacks, that cross the property line and go to the dwelling, allows the externalities of wind development—noise pollution, turbine rotor failure and its attendant debris field, property value loss, and visual blight—to trespass. He explains: “Where the wind developer can use these unleased properties for nuisance noise and safety easements free of charge, they have no reason to approach the neighboring residents to negotiate a fair price for their loss of amenity. Trespass zoning has deprived wind plant neighbors of all economic bargaining power. It has donated their private property to the neighboring landowner’s wind developer tenant.”

Droz agrees that zoning is important—as are regulations. He believes that since an industrial wind project is something you may have to live with for more than 20 years, it seems wise to carefully, objectively, and thoughtfully investigate the matter ahead of time. Droz says: “In most circumstances, your first line of defense is a well-written, protective set of wind-energy regulations that focus on protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. They can be a stand-alone law, or part of a more comprehensive zoning document.”

Mary Kay Barton, a citizen activist from New York State, began writing about the industrial wind issue more than a dozen years ago when her home area in Western New York State was targeted by industrial wind developers. Wyoming County was slated to have more than 2,000 industrial wind turbines strewn throughout its 16 Townships. So far, the massive projects have been limited by the outrage of residents to the current 308 turbines in 5 rural districts. Barton told me: “We wouldn’t even be talking about industrial wind if cronyism at the top wasn’t enabling the consumer fraud of industrial wind to exist with countless subsidies, incentives and renewable mandates.”

Minnesota citizen energy activist, Kristi Rosenquist, points out: “Wind is promoted as mitigating climate change and benefiting local rural economies—it does neither.”

Through his free citizen advocacy service, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, Droz tries to make it easier for communities to succeed when dealing with industrial wind energy by learning lessons from some of the other 250 communities—including those near Martis, Barton, and Rosenquist—that have had to deal with it.

At WiseEnergy.org, Droz has a wealth of information available including a model wind energy law that is derived from existing effective ordinances plus inputs from numerous independent experts. He advocates a wind energy law that contains carefully crafted conditions about these five elements:

1. Property value guarantees;
2. Turbine setbacks;
3. Noise standards;
4. Environmental assessment and protections; and
5. Decommissioning.

Droz, Martis, Barton, and Rosenquist are just four of the many citizen advocates that have had to become experts on the adverse impacts of wind energy—which provides negligible benefits while raising taxes and electricity rates. Because of their experiences, many are willing to help those who are just now being faced with the threat.

Because I’ve frequently written  on wind energy and the favorable tax and regulatory treatment it receives, I often have people reaching out to me for help—but I am not the expert, just the messenger. These folks are dealing with it day in and day out.

Here are some additional resources they suggest:

• National Wind Watch;
• Ontario Wind Resistance;
• Stop These Things; and
• Master Resource.

If the threat of industrial wind energy development isn’t a problem for you now, save this information, as it likely would be under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Barton explains: “My town was able to stop the ludicrous siting of these environmentally-destructive facilities by enacting a citizen-protective law back in 2007. Since then however, Governor Cuomo enacted what I refer to as his ‘Power-Grab NY Act,’ which stripped ‘Home Rule’ from New York State communities and placed the decision-making process regarding energy-generation facilities above 25 MW (that translates: industrial wind factories) in the hands of five unelected Albany bureaucrats. Other states are sure to follow Cuomo’s authoritarian lead. I urge people to be pro-active! Get protective laws on the books now—before corrupt officials steal your Constitutional rights to decide for yourselves.”

Think about your community 20, 40, 60+ years from now.

“There was a time when the environmental movement opposed noise pollution, fought industrial blight, and supported ‘little guys’ whose quality of life was threatened by ‘corporate greed,’” writes Martis. “But that was a long time ago, before wind energy.”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

My work here is finished

By Marita Noon

For the past decade, I have been dedicated to fighting bad energy policies. My efforts began in New Mexico, where the organizations I lead are based, and expanded to focus on national issues. When I accepted the executive director position on January 1, 2007, New Mexico had an anti-energy governor and America had a pro-energy president. Two years later that flipped. By then, I'd become deeply committed to what I began to call the "energy makes America great!" message and I'd realized the issues in which I was engaged didn't stop at the state line.

While I do not come from a background in energy, and have no formal education in it, through my work, I quickly learned about the important role that energy plays in America's economic prosperity and growth. Because I didn't know a lot about energy before taking the position, I understood how little the average person thinks about energy--until their power goes out or gasoline prices spike. I believe that if people better understand the role of energy in their lives, they'd make wiser choices when they vote. I have been passionate about the cause.

The election of Donald Trump as our 45th president is a vindication of my work as one of his big campaign messages was about America's abundant resources and his promise to manage and maximize them--rather than to lock them up.

While I have worked these past ten years to educate people and keep a positive energy message in the public dialog, during the past several months I have specifically engaged in doing everything I could to be sure our next president was pro-energy. I knew I wouldn't be able to live with myself if Hillary Clinton won, and I hadn't done everything I could to prevent that from happening. I don't have the reach of a Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity--or even Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, or Michelle Malkin. But I do have a platform. My weekly column is widely distributed. I typically do dozens of radio interviews each month. And, I've frequently spoken for many industry, political, and civic organizations.

Because most of my time as executive director was during the Obama years, I've fought for the Keystone pipeline and against the many punitive regulations that stem from the green agenda--most specifically the Clean Power Plan that is the cornerstone of Obama's climate change agenda.

The recent news cycle has been so myopically focused on the presidential election, I suspect few people are even aware of the U.N. climate change meeting going on right now, November 7-18, in Morocco. There, green campaigners and policymakers are meeting for talks on implementing the Paris climate agreement. Imagine their shock when they realized that Trump would be our next president. He's made canceling Obama's commitment and ending the billions of climate change payments to the U.N. a key part of his stump speech. On November 9, Bloomberg wrote: "Doubts about U.S. support for the accord could stall progress in talks in Morocco this week and next, since other nations wouldn't trust that any commitments the U.S. made will stick after Trump takes office."

Truly, getting the entire globe onboard for the plan that would raise energy costs, hurt the poor, and lower living standards was always doubtful. Just last week, China, which gave lip-service to the agreement, announced that it will raise coal power capacity by as much as 20 percent by 2020--this, despite its climate pledge. Last month news  came out of France that it would drop plans for a carbon tax--which was expected to kick start broader European action to cut emissions and drive forward the international climate accord. But now, under a Trump presidency, the Paris climate agreement's entire future is "doubtful."

Trump will kill the Clean Power Plan and other key climate policies. He'll end the war on coal. Coal-fueled power plants that were slated for closure can now achieve their full-life expectancy and continue to provide communities with cost-effective electricity. He'll approve the Keystone pipeline and improve drilling access on federal lands. He'll roll back regulations and diminish the Environmental Protection Agency's authority. Wind and solar companies already realize their days of feeding at the government trough are over--immediately following Trump's victory announcement, stock in the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer "plunged" and solar stocks have been "hammered."

 

Trump's energy policies are my energy policies. Mission accomplished.

Thank you to the thousands of individuals and companies, from coast-to-coast, who have supported this work through notes of encouragement, membership in the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy, and financial contributions. Contrary to what those who send me nasty notes might believe, I do not think the Koch brothers or ExxonMobil even know I exist.

I have used what I call a Field-of-Dreams fundraising model: "If you build it, they will come." This has mostly worked throughout my ten years at the helm. I'd send out fundraising letters and those who believed in my work sent checks--with an annual average of about $500 each. But then came the downturn in oil prices and coal company bankruptcies--and the accompanying job losses. Suddenly, the pool of people who'd written checks, and could continue to do so, got smaller. Likewise, the types of events where I've been a popular presenter, no longer have a budget for speakers.

Nearly a year ago, I had to discontinue the services of the DC-based PR firm I'd used to successfully schedule all those interviews. During 2016, there's only sporadically been enough in the checking account to cover my salary. Because I believed so strongly in the "energy makes America great!" message, I've continued without pay--hoping my efforts would impact the election.

It has been a good decade. I've gone to some great places and met amazing people--many of whom I will always consider friends. Some of my favorite achievements include: the publication of my book Energy Freedom; being part of the successful effort to keep the sand dune lizard from being listed as an endangered species; meeting with legislators in the Southeast to give them my booklet Solar Power in the US-lessons learned and guidance for policymakers; going to Washington, DC, and working on the effort to lift the oil export ban; and the massive "green-energy crony-corruption scandal" collaboration with Christine Lakatos (and the huge body of work we created including her blog the Green Corruption Files). In fact, the final piece Lakatos and I did together: "Haiti needs electricity, Hillary gives them a sweatshop," received nearly 15,000 Facebook "shares" from its publication on Breitbart (for comparison, one of my columns a couple of weeks earlier, received 8). Out with a bang!

The original organization, the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy and the companion advocacy arm Energy Makes America Great (founded in 2010) will reemerge in some form--which is still being discussed. But I will no longer be involved (with the possible exception of occasional writing).

Most of my readers and supporters don't know that during my executive director tenure, my marriage of 29 years ended. I was single for several years and then married one of those "amazing people" I met in this work. I moved from Albuquerque to Lubbock--where my husband's work is based. Throughout it all, I never missed writing and distributing my weekly column--even during my honeymoon (my first weekly column was published by Townhall.com in 2011). I've done radio interviews from my bed, office, and car; hotel rooms; and airports--and have been honored to be a regular guest on many, many shows.

Will I miss this? Yes. But I am excited about my future. For the first time in my 58 years, I've had the opportunity to ask myself: "what do I really want to do?"

In my youth, I majored in interior design because I loved fixing up houses. Over the years, I've claimed that I was codependent with houses--not people. People can fix themselves, but when I see a house in need, I feel compelled to fix it--though, until now, that was never an option for me.

When I purchased my home in New Mexico at an auction on the courthouse steps, it was incomplete. Serving as the "general contractor," I lined up the team to finish the house and did much of the work myself. When I moved to Lubbock in December 2014, my husband and I bought a house that needed TLC. Along with him, I've personally planned, painted, and planted. While I've always enjoyed my professional endeavors, these hands-on rehab projects have been some of my most rewarding.

In August, I was at my mother's in Palm Springs. There, I got some work done on her  vacation rental--which I manage. It was a bit of an epiphany: this is what I love doing. I came home and had a long conversation with my husband. Together, we've now started a real estate rehab business--though he will continue to spend most of his time in his work as a CPA.

I am looking forward to embarking on a new chapter in my life: Triumph Properties Lubbock Inc. This opportunity brings me full circle. I've made an offer on my first flip house and, because it is a short sale, I am waiting for the bank's response. I invite you to keep in touch through Facebook.

I am honored and humbled by your encouragement and support. My work here is finished.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America's Voice for Energy-which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit

America needs to use more energy, not less

Marita Noon @ OILPRO

 

During the 2016 election, both candidates promised to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. Donald Trump made the recovery of jobs lost to China and Mexico a cornerstone of his campaign. Hillary Clinton’s website states: “While too many politicians and experts in Washington gave up on American manufacturing, Hillary never did.”

“The rhetoric,” reports US News, “has struck home with Americans across the country—particularly those currently or formerly employed in the embattled U.S. goods-producing and manufacturing sectors, who have repeatedly borne the brunt of corporate efforts to move work overseas.”

Because many of the lost jobs are due to automation and technological improvements—which have enabled more production from fewer workers—there is skepticism on both sides of the aisle as to whether these lost jobs can actually come back. However, I believe, most Americans don’t want to see more of our jobs disappear. Harry Moser, founder and president of the Reshoring Initiative, which aims to bring manufacturing back home, is optimistic. He told me that we are now losing about as many jobs to offshoring, as we are recovering: “We’ve gone from losing somewhere around 200,000 manufacturing jobs a year in 2000 to 2003 to net breaking even. Balancing the trade deficit will increase U.S. manufacturing by about four million jobs at current levels of productivity”.

According to MarketWatch.com, the percentage of people who work in manufacturing is at a record low of 8.5%—which compares to “20% in 1980, 30% in 1960 and a record 39% during World War Two.”

While there are many factors driving offshoring, lower wages give countries like China and Mexico a competitive advantage. Energy costs, however, give the U.S. an advantage as “manufacturers need a lot of energy to make their processes work,” stated Gary Marmo, director of sales for New Jersey’s Elizabethtown Gas. He says: “A typical office building will use 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 therms a year. A good sized manufacturing plant will probably use that same amount in just a couple of days.” Electricity frequently represents one of the top operating costs for energy intensive industries such as plastics, metals, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals—and, according to a recent study comparing costs in the U.S. and China, electricity is about 50 percent higher in China.

Because manufacturing is energy intensive, bringing industry back to the U.S. and/or attracting businesses to relocate here, will increase our energy consumption. As my column last week on the Clinton Foundation and Haiti makes clear, industry needs energy.

President Obama has derided U.S, energy use, “The U.S. uses far more electricity than its North American neighbors combined,” but the U.S. also does more with our energy. Comparing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and energy consumption numbers for the U.S. and Canada, for example, both use a similar volume of energy but the U.S. has substantially higher GDP. A study of global energy consumption versus GDP found: “energy is so intrinsically linked to GDP that energy policy more or less dictates how our economy performs.”

Mike Haseler, the study’s author, explains: “rising GDP is an indication of a prosperous economy.” Yet, in the name of climate change, through government policy, many countries are trying to discourage energy use by forcing costs up. Haseler states: “They are cutting energy use as the economy of Europe collapses because European industry can no longer compete with countries where energy prices are not artificially raised by senseless ‘green’ policies.”

The energy advantage is not just an issue between countries, it is a factor in where companies locate within the U.S. “High electricity bills are a strong disincentive to create new jobs associated with a new or expanded product line,” writes Don Welch, president of New Hampshire based Globe Manufacturing Co, LLC. New Hampshire’s electric prices are 55.6 percent higher than the national average. Welch’s company is the leading producer of firefighting turnout gear. He explains: “higher electricity costs not only add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of making our products—firefighting suits and equipment—but it’s money we could otherwise re-invest in the business, including creating new jobs here in New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s high electricity prices are a drag on our economy. It puts New Hampshire companies like mine at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies in other parts of the country.” Because Globe also has plants in three different states, he clearly sees the difference energy costs make in doing business. Welch says: “I already know that the electric bill I am paying at my facility in Oklahoma is half of what I pay in New Hampshire.” If he is going to add a product line, energy costs are a big factor in deciding where to expand.

John F. Olson, president and CEO of Whelen Engineering Company, of Charlestown, NH, and Chester, CT agrees. In a letter to the editor, Olson wrote: “Manufacturers are in competition with other U.S. manufacturers, or even worse, offshore competition in China. New Hampshire manufacturers have the most expensive electricity in the country.”

If we can bring back manufacturing jobs—or at least stem the flow of them from our country—we need to be encouraging low-cost energy and making more of it available. Moser believes: “balancing the trade deficit should be the number 1 national priority.” He told me that would take a 25 percent increase in manufacturing—which would require about a 10 percent increase in energy usage. Yet, climate change policies demand that we take greater cuts than the developing countries like China and India. If our energy costs continue to go up, as they have in New Hampshire, we’ll lose the best competitive advantage we have.

Moser explains: “Manufacturing has the highest multiplier effect among the major sectors. Every job created in manufacturing creates additional jobs in other sectors that supply, support and service manufacturers.”

To bring manufacturing back to the U.S., or encourage expansion, we need energy that is abundant, available and affordable—and we’ll need to use more, not less. If we want to balance our trade deficit, boost GDP, and have a prosperous economy, energy is the key. As I am known for saying: “energy makes America great!”

The author of [Energy Freedom][20], Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

GOP energy report card: 2015

Posted by Marita Noon @ OILPRO

 

Last year, when Republicans gained a decisive edge in both houses of Congress, I made predictions as to the six energy-policy changes we could expect—as the two parties have very different views on energy issues. I closed that column with these words: “It is going to be an interesting two years. If the Republican policies turn the economy around—offering a sharp contrast to the stagnation of the past six years, they will pave the way for victory in 2016.”

 

We are now halfway through the “two years” in which I expected the changes to take place.  Here’s where American energy policy now stands.

 

Keystone Pipeline—B grade

 

As predicted, the GOP got right to work backing the Keystone pipeline. The House had already passed several bills aimed at getting the project built, but with a Republican Majority Leader in control in the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) could no longer prevent a vote. With strong bipartisan support, on February 11 Congress passed the bill approving construction. Though many Democrats—often from states with strong Union membership—crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act fell a handful of votes short of making it veto-proof. As expected, two weeks later, President Obama vetoed the bill.

 

Having communicated with TransCanada representatives, the company behind the Keystone construction, and Union officials—and having oft addressed its benefits—I was optimistic that some late night arm twisting would bring the needed Democrats on board, but on March 4, the vote to override the veto failed.

 

While the bill ultimately failed, my projection was accurate: understanding the impact the Keystone pipeline would have had on job creation and energy security, Republicans made the Keystone pipeline a high priority. (Note: Obama’s claim that “The Keystone pipeline is for oil that bypasses the United States” qualified for the Washington Post’s list of “The biggest Pinocchios of 2015.” But, try discussing the pipeline with an opponent and you’ll repeatedly hear that claim.)

 

Oil Exports—A-grade

 

Throughout the year, talk of lifting the decades-old oil export ban gained momentum. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced H.R. 702, a bill to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions, in February. On September 17, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to send the legislation to the full House for final passage—which took place on October 9.

 

As with Keystone, the bill had bipartisan support, though many Democrats opposed it. Comments made in the House chambers before the vote reflected the partisan divide on energy issues. Opposing the bill, Democrats grandstanded saying it would put more money in the pockets of big oil. In contrast, Republicans understand that successful businesses hire people. With the current low-priced oil environment, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in the oil industry. Lifting the ban helps by providing new markets for U.S. oil and eliminating the discount American producers have had to accept for their product.

 

Should the bill make it to Obama’s desk, the White House, as always, threatened a veto. 

 

Despite passing another committee vote in early October, the Senate didn’t take up the bill. Lifting the ban, however, was included in the omnibus-spending package that Obama quickly signed on December 18.

 

With the ban now officially overturned, the spread between the global benchmark price, known as Brent, and the U.S. benchmark, known as WTI (for West Texas Intermediate), has virtually disappeared. Within a matter of days, the first shipment of U.S. crude will be heading overseas—to Switzerland.

 

Climate Change—B Grade

 

Last year, I wrote: “The Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairmanship will change from one of the biggest supporters of Obama’s climate change agenda (Senator Barbara Boxer [D-CA]) to the biggest opponent of his policies (Senator Jim Inhofe [R-OK]).” With that change, we’ve heard a different tune coming from The Hill.

 

Days before the U.N. conference on climate change took place in Paris, the Senate held a hearing and passed resolutions designed to let the world know that Obama did not have the support of the U.S. Senate—which would be needed for any legally binding treaty. While Obama would surely veto any such legislation, the New York Times reported: “proponents believe their defiance will have diplomatic repercussions.” In a statement following the vote, Senator Inhofe said: “The message could not be more clear that Republicans and Democrats in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House do not support the president’s climate agenda and the international community should take note.”

 

The plan was successful; the “international community” took note. It is believed that the Republican drumbeat, prompted the European Union to back off of its insistence that any carbon goals in the final agreement need to be legally binding. The agreement that was ultimately reached in Paris is, according to the New York Times, “essentially voluntary.”

 

Polls taken just days before the Paris conference indicate that only 3 percent of Americans believe that climate change is the most important issue facing the country and that a wide majority of voters “oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming.”

 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—C grade

 

The EPA didn’t get defunded in the December 18 spending bill, as many had hoped, but it didn’t get a budget increase while many other departments did. It is considered a “loser.” Funding levels for the EPA in 2016 are at a level lower than 2010, but on par with 2015.

 

The agency has received several smack downs in 2015 from federal courts—including putting its onerous Waters of the U.S. Rule on hold. Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the focus of the Senate’s resolutions, is facing numerous lawsuits, including one of the newest from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and may also be awarded a stay. This is surely an issue to watch in 2016.

 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)—D grade

 

One of the big concerns for anyone in the West who earns a living from the land—ranching, farming, mining and mineral extraction, or who benefits from the results (food, fuel, and fiber)—has been the potential listing of the greater sage grouse as an endangered species. While it did not get listed, and the omnibus deal blocks the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service from putting it on the Endangered Species list, the Bureau of Land Management has enacted land use plans that that will likely have many of the same effects of listing under the Act. It is time for ESA reform.

 

Federal Lands—D grade

 

This final issue saw little action in 2015, but with the anti-fossil fuel movement’s aggressive plans to keep resources in the ground, especially on federal lands, this one is ripe for attention from the GOP-controlled Congress—led by Rep. Bob Bishop (R-UT), Chairman of the House Resources Committee. Addressing the nearly one-third of the U.S. owned by the federal government, Bishop recently stated: “Whether they know it or not, every person is affected by the mammoth federal land ownership in this country.” Bishop has created a “Federal Footprint Map” that he hopes will “play a vital educational role as Congress evaluates and responds to executive actions and debates related policy reforms.”

For 2016, Congress will need to stay on top of Obama’s rules, regulations, and executive orders aimed at burnishing his legacy on climate change. It should also rein in the EPA, reform the ESA, and work to reduce the amount of land owned by the federal government.

Let’s hope for more positive movement in 2016—including a new resident in the White House, who understands the important role energy plays in making America great.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

The omnibus spending package: good energy policy, bad energy policy

Posted by Marita Noon @ OILPRO

The decades-old legislation that prevented American producers from exporting oil is officially overturned—despite previous presidential threats to veto a bill to lift the oil export ban. That’s good policy. However, to get the support of “reluctant Democrats,” The Economist reports: “an additional five years of tax credits for wind and solar power” was part of the package. That’s bad energy policy.

 

While it will likely be months before the first tanker of crude oil leaves U.S. shores, the benefits of lifting the ban are already being felt as the spread between the global benchmark price, known as Brent, and the U.S. benchmark, known as WTI (for West Texas Intermediate), has shriveled to the smallest in years. Because U.S. crude had limited markets—and the crude being produced by the shale revolution didn’t match what many American refineries needed—its price was forced down to make it more attractive to refineries. At one time the price differential between the two benchmarks was as high as $30 (September 2011). Between 2011 and 2013, the spread has been closer to $10 to $25 a barrel. Once some of the bottleneck of U.S. production was relieved when the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline was opened and limited amounts of light crude were approved for export or swap, the gap began to really shrink. On December 11, the spread was $2.31 per barrel. Once the export ban was lifted, it dropped to only a $1 difference—with a brief blip of WTI being above Brent.

 

This helps American oil producers as it gives them a wider market for their product and allows them to sell oil at essentially the same price as the international benchmark prices—WTI goes up, Brent comes down. The lower global price helps consumers as the price of gasoline is based on the international price, not WTI.  The win/win makes for good policy—a win I have pushed for many times in the past year and predicted last year.

 

The bad policy comes as part of the bargain struck to get the Democrats on board: the Production Tax Credit for wind energy (which had already expired) has been revived, and the Investment Tax Credit for Solar power (which was scheduled to ramp down at the end of 2016) has been extended. Many Democrats wanted the taxpayer handouts made permanent. Instead the deal, part of the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, gave only multi-year extensions to renewables.

 

Greentech Media explains the package: “the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar will be extended for another three years. It will then ramp down incrementally through 2021, and remain at 10 percent permanently beginning in 2022. The 2.3-cent Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind will also be extended through next year. Projects that begin construction in 2017 will see a 20 percent reduction in the incentive. The PTC will then drop 20 percent each year through 2020.”

 

A reader of the Greentech report named “Chuck” responds: “Anyone know who [were] the key players who wrote and fought for the renewable credits?”

 

An answer is found in a letter Sunnova Energy Corporation CEO, William J. (John) Berger, sent to Senator Orin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, to discourage the ITC extension which states: “there has been an effort by many in the solar industry to convince legislators that the need for a five-year, or even permanent, extension of the ITC is necessary to the continued functioning of the industry.” While Sunnova is a residential solar company founded in 2012 that is active in 23 states, Berger concludes: “A policy such as the ITC that was implemented for a market that existed almost a decade ago is no longer the best option for meeting renewable energy goals in today’s world.”

 

One company that is in need of renewable energy subsidies, likely referenced in the Sunnova letter, would be the company that is the single largest recipient of taxpayer funds through Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill: Abengoa. Its stock prices have tumbled throughout 2015. On November 25, the company filed for insolvency protection in Spain. Figures released in the proceedings indicate that Abengoa’s largest creditor—$2.35 billion—is the U.S. Treasury. Additionally, $280 million is owed to the ExIm Bank—the controversial U.S. export finance agency. Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and has an Abengoa project in his district, is concerned. In a press release he said: “Abengoa’s bankruptcy is a glaring example of how the president’s green loan program puts billions of taxpayer dollars at risk for no return. … We have been down this road before. Except this time, instead of losing millions, the American people could be on the hook for billions of dollars in loan guarantees.”

 

Abengoa—which has so many subsidiaries and projects it is difficult to keep all of them straight— is scrambling to find ways to restructure its debt and raise cash.

 

Just before Christmas, thousands of the company’s employees worldwide have been laid-off—many stranded in the countries in which they worked without a way to get back to their home countries. One of its solar farm projects, Palen, located in Southern California, is for sale. Plants have been shut down, suppliers are not being paid, dividend payments have not been made, and construction projects have been put on hold. All this, despite having received more than $2.7 billion from U.S. taxpayers—which obviously wasn’t enough to keep this green-energy company afloat.

 

Abengoa, reports the Washington Free Beacon: “is seeking additional federal backing.” Despite its financial woes—or, perhaps because of them—the company has spent $70,000 in the past three months “lobbying Congress for renewable energy subsidies.” It looks like the company may get a short-term reprieve as the lobbied-for credits have been extended. (No news is available at the time of writing as to how the extensions might directly impact Abengoa.)

 

When you hear about the tax credit extensions being such an important policy development, remember the Abengoa story, as it is companies like it—who hope to game the system and fleece the taxpayers—who spend big money on lobbyists to push for legislation that benefits them.

 

One slight silver lining: removing the oil export ban is permanent; extending the renewable energy tax credits is temporary.

 

The Economist, concludes its coverage of the trade off this way: “Congress is freeing up one part of the energy industry while picking winners in another.”

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.