Biden’s Bias) – Interested in that?

Are from MasterThe source

By Robert Bradley Jr. – January 26, 2022

“Personally, I see that the other side has no interest in arguing at all. Instead, they seem to think that their environmental nirvana can only be achieved by replacing our free-market system. So they wanted a ‘green’ form of command and control socialism. ” (Mark Krebs, below)

Q. Yesterday, you explained how the DOE Office of Renewable and Efficient Energy uses “garbage in, take out” (GIGO) to justify stricter regulations on gas equipment. But let’s step back: when and how specifically did electrification become official energy policy?

ONE. Electrification, aka “deep decarbonisation,” has been in the background since at least the Obama and Trump administrations. But it came out of the woodwork with vengeance under Biden. This started with an unprecedented amount of Executive Orders starting from day one. This implementation is currently well underway.

Q. Please identify the key regulatory sequence of events by the Biden Administration that have supported this current “transition” to electrification by refocusing its mission on “carbon efficiency.”

ONE. The rapid transition towards carbon efficiency was initiated by Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 13990,”Protect public health and the environment and restore science to the climate crisis. ”86 FR 7037 (January 25, 2021). Part 1 of that Order lists a number of policies related to the protection of public health and the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the Nation’s resilience to climate change. ID. at 86 FR 7037, 7041.

Section 2 of the Order also instructs all agencies to review existing regulations, orders, directives, policies, and any other similar agency action that has been enacted, enacted, or notified. between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021, i.e. there may be inconsistencies or obstacles to these policies.

The agencies have been directed, “consistent with and consistent with applicable law” To consider suspending, modifying or canceling the [Trump Administration] agency actions and immediately begin work to respond to the “climate crisis.”

Q. And after that?

ONE. In addition to EO 13990, the Biden Administration’s environmental policies include a “TABLE OF FACTs” titled President Biden sets 2030 greenhouse gas pollution reduction goal aimed at creating paid union jobs and ensuring U.S. leadership in clean energy technology. Excerpt:[This is] A new U.S. goal is to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution by 2030.”

As part of the process of re-signing the Paris Agreement, Biden also launched a “whole government” process, organized through his National Climate Task Force, to set emissions targets. new by 2030 – known as “country-determined contribution” or “NDC,” a formal submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The current NDC is titled “United States of America Country-determined Contribution. Of particular importance is the following excerpt regarding the construction of the decarbonization process:

  • “Emissions in the construction sector come from the use of electricity, as well as fossil fuels that are burned onsite to heat air and water as well as for cooking. There are options to avoid these emissions while reducing the burden of energy costs on homes and improving health and resilience in communities. Emission reduction pathways for buildings consider continued government support for energy efficiency and efficient electrical heating and cooking in buildings through funding of program of retrofits, wider use of heat pumps and induction hobs, and adoption of modern energy codes for new buildings. The United States will also invest in new technologies to reduce construction-related emissions, including for high-performance electrified buildings.”

On December 8, 2021, Biden signed Executive Order 14057 titled Promoting clean energy and jobs through federal sustainability. This EO focuses on mandating Federal construction compliance for deep decarbonization through fuel-to-electricity conversion that is ostensibly supplied from renewable sources. This is evidenced by the following excerpt:

  • “Therefore, it is Federal Government policy to let the Federal Government take the lead in achieving zero-carbon electricity by 2035 and net zero emissions across the entire economy by 2050.”

And, again, unsuspecting taxpayers are required to fund it all. For more information, Alex Epstein published a a bunch of tweets about this EO on twitter.

Q. So a whole new thrust behind the deep decarbonization…

ONE. It’s correct. But note that Biden’s NDC closely followed President Obama’s “deep decarbonization” plan for the buildings you, Rob, wrote about in 2017. ‘Deep decarbonization’ vs. Direct Use Natural Gas.

Q. Has EERE’s longstanding pro-electric bias reformed during the Trump years?

ONE. Yes, but temporarily, as it is happening. But to provide credit when it is due, there was a brief (but partial) respite in the biased behavior of the EERE under the Trump administration and EERE Assistant Secretary Daniel Simmons (then). We can discuss some specific sockets later.

Regardless, throughout the Trump Administration, EERE upholds the Obama Administration’s “clean energy” mission. Therefore, the direct use of natural gas is never considered “clean” at least not by EERE’s “Award Winner” employees (although gas-fired turbines are considered “clean”).

The legislative phase is set before Trump with a lot of help from the “usual suspects” in writing the language. From the very beginning of EERE, energy efficiency and renewable energy “go together. Read 42 US Code § 16191 – Energy Efficiency to see the results.

The strong relationship between EERE and “energy efficiency advocates” is deep; you wrote a good review about this in november 2020: Waste? Speak for yourself (energy equipment claims anti-consumer, pro-bureaucracy) where I have posted comments on it explaining the subject thoroughly.

Trump reversed

Q. What economic harm does all of this have on the U.S. economy and energy consumers? What are the other adverse effects? and what can actually be done to start fixing it?

ONE. This concerns macro-policy related to climate alarmism/forced energy transition. President Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Agreement because it severely affects consumer choice and our economy because of escalating energy costs. That’s why I voted him twice.

The fact that Biden is re-signing the Paris Agreement – and his NDC plan to achieve it – is non-binding and has yet to be approved by Congress. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement and the NDC are not “current law”. However, it remains to be seen who is willing to challenge these policies legally.

This “transition” — in direct conflict with the intent of the EPCA (Energy and Conservation Policy of 1975) to protect consumers against illegality — also strengthens the economic and strategic hand. strategies of “bad” international actors, while undermining international “social justice” and increasing adverse environmental impacts associated with increasing market share of wind and solar energy “regenerative”.

Q. The “clean energy” ruse plays a big part in all of this.

ONE. I could go on about the countless bad and devastating effects of so-called “clean energy” but that would take too long to answer right now. Outside Life in Paris! “Deep Decarbonization” at DOE), the following articles are recent and thorough:

As for how over-reliance on “clean” energy can cost consumers, it varies by region and depending on what you want to include or ignore. For example, one type of expense that is often overlooked is what Ed Reid calls “weight loss(Costs of leaving fossil fuels in the ground, stranded investments, etc.).

Q. This is a major area of ​​your research.

ONE. I have reviewed and reported on most of the cost studies available as of 2019 in The Cost of the Green New Deal and “Deep Decarbonisation”: Some Clarifications. I collaborated with Tom Tanton, who recently published several “do it yourself” estimators and user guides available from Environmental and Energy Legal Institute. And the American Experiment Center of Minnesota has a series on “clean” energy costs also. Overall, excluding heavy losses, the total cost of the “clean energy transition” appears to be around $30 trillion (±$10 trillion). If heavy losses are included, the cost can triple.

For every free-market study looking at the cost of transitioning to an all-electric economy, AGW environmentalists have dozens, with the usual theme that “clean” energy will cost costs much less than continuing to use fossil fuels. Personally, I don’t see any interest in the other party to argue about anything. Instead, they seem to think that their environmental nirvana can only be achieved by replacing our free-market system. So they want a “green” form of socialism. In that case, Pol Pot would be proud.

Q. “Green” energy can also kill.

ONE. The ultimate cost to consumers is an over-reliance on inherently unreliable “clean” energy that can kill people. Take Texas as an example. In “Winter Storm Uri” last February, 210 people officially died due to prolonged power outages. While many people die from hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning, many also die from reliance on a variety of electrically powered medical devices.

Even if people already have gas furnaces and boilers, those appliances still need electric blowers and/or pumps to function, However, if everyone also had gas stoves, they could (and did) use them to keep themselves (and their water pipes) from freezing.

And it looks like history in Texas is poised to repeat itself, as Donn Dorries points out here: Texas is left in danger.

Q. And with that comes dire consequences.

A. This inherent unreliability of renewables could lead to a thriving market for small emergency generators to service some critical electrical loads. However, regulators are trying to prevent that; seems to be the case in California: Why California’s move to ban generators (and lawn equipment) could leave Californians in the dark.


Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy analyst, has been involved in energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. He has been an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, is an advisor to the DOE, and has submitted numerous Federal energy efficiency filings. Mark’s first article was in Weekly Public Utilities and titled “It’s a fight out there: A gas man questions electricity efficiency” (December 1996).

For more on Mark, check out MasterResource Repository.

Source link


News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button