Obama Recycles Waxman-Markey Utility Sector Target - Neglects to Inform Congress, Public (SOTU)

Globalwarming.org ^ | January 26, 2011 @ 5:01 pm | Marlo Lewis

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Last night’s State of the Union Address shows that President Obama learned only one lesson from the failure that was Copenhagen, the farce that was Cancun, the death of cap-and-trade, and the “slaughter” of House Democrats who voted for Waxman-Markey. Namely, dissemble, repackage Kyotoism in new verbiage, and press on with an agenda that voters rejected in November.

Anyone paying attention to Obama EPA’s campaign to ‘legislate’ climate policy through the regulatory backdoor would expect as much. But — true confession — I was surprised when Obama proposed to restructure the U.S. electric power sector along the lines contemplated by H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), the infamous Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.

In his SOTU speech, President Obama said:

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. (Applause.)

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen. (Applause.)

Upon hearing those words, I wondered: How does Obama’s 80% ’clean energy’ target compare with the projected electric power sector fuel mix under Waxman-Markey?

The U.S. Energy Information (EIA) analyzed the energy market and economic impacts of H.R. 2454 under various “cases” based on different assumptions regarding the cost and performance of new technologies, the availability of ”offsets” (credits for contributing to emission reductions abroad or in non-capped domestic industries), and the like.

Let’s stick with the “Basic Case,” which assumes (perhaps unrealistically) that low-emission technologies including nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) — a.k.a. “clean coal” — “are developed and deployed on a large scale in a timeframe consistent with the emissions reduction requirements of ACESA without encountering any major obstacles,” such as high cost. This procedure makes sense, because Obama’s proposal also assumes that nuclear, renewables, and CCS can be affordably scaled up over the next two decades.

Under EIA’s Basic Case (lines 1264-1272 of the Excel Spreadsheet), Waxman-Markey would change the mix of fuels used to generate U.S. electricity as follows:

The category “Other” is an assortment of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ fuel types, it’s tiny and doesn’t change much under Waxkey, so let’s ignore it. That leaves 4120 bkwh as total generation in 2010 and 4670 bkwh in 2030. The share of ‘clean’ fuels (natural gas, nuclear, renewable) is 51% in 2010, increasing to 70% in 2030.

EIA’s Basic Case also projects that coal with CCS will generate 513 bkwh by 2030 (p. 22). So electricity from all ‘clean’ sources is projected to reach 3786 bkwh in 2030, or 81% of total generation. Bingo!

Okay, Obama’s goal is 80% by 2035, not 81% by 2030, but it’s close enough for gomn’t work. In effect, Obama last night asked Congress to enact the Waxman-Markey emission-reduction target for the electric power sector.

When Obama was a presidential candidate, he acknowledged that under cap-and-trade, U.S. electric rates would “necessarily skyrocket.” He never said this again, but once the public understood that cap-and-trade would impose a stealth energy tax on the economy in the midst of a deep recession, they turned against it in droves.

Obama, however, never abandoned the big-government agenda of which cap-and-trade was an expression. The day after Election Day, he told the Washington press corps: “Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  It was a means, not an end.  And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

Well, now we know what other means besides EPA ‘lawmaking’ he intends to employ. The good news is this ploy is not going to work. As soon as Tea Party activists recognize the clean energy mandate for the de-facto energy tax/Waxman-Markey knockoff that it is, it’s toast.

Imagine if President Obama had said last night:  

I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. This will restructure the electric power sector the same way Waxman-Markey would have if Congress had passed it. It will also cause your electric rates to necessarily skyrocket. As I’ve said before, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Such candor would not have won applause.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

H/T to the Icecap Blog.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very revealing article!

[DannyTN]

There's 3 really big problems with this plan.

1. Most of the growth comes in Nuclear. Yet Obama tried to shut down the nuclear storage site. There is only one reactor being built in the U.S. and it was approved in 2007. He's talking up nuclear while doing nothing about it.
2. There's only 10% growth in power generation in 20 years!!! How are we supposed to have economic growth with no additional power? It's not going to happen! Any reasonable plan should be projecting an doubling of power requirements in 20 years.
3. Cap and Trade is going to be an enormous tax on the economy. While Obama blocks the only feasible source of real growth which is nuclear. Instead of powering up or even staying neutral, we'll be powering down. We'll be powering down our businesses, our homes, the entire economy. While 'rats get rich of their evil green power scheme.

[TigersEye]

Not only does it project most growth in nuclear, which isn't being developed as you say, but it isn't even double present nuclear output. They don't project much total increase in power production at all.

The plan seems to be to spend loads on altering electricity production while remaining near current output levels. I guess Winning the Future means freeze framing the country as it is now. Stagnation Nation!

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx Ernest_at_the_Beach !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Marine_Uncle]

Meanwhile read yesterday's article you posted as how the new wind turbine initiative in California was shut down. To costly for starters and the invos went after it with their usual bag of claims. Can't have some poor condor having it's brains bashed out by a spinning blade.
If one carefully examines the past thirty years or so they might with little fear ofrebuttal, claim, our ass's where grassed long before the kenyan clown took office.
A large number of nuclear power plants should have already been constructed and providing us with reasonably priced electricity.
Now with recent pretty much reliable estimates of shale/gas, shale/oil sources, we could have become almost energy independent most likely. For a long time.