|
FORBES
Solar Power Poll Illustrates
Industry's Desperation
Energy &
Environment5/05/2015 @
7:42AM
The solar power industry claims a new poll it has commissioned shows Nevada
voters will punish politicians who don’t expand solar power subsidies and
mandates. Fortunately for American consumers and policymakers, the heavily
promoted solar power poll indicates no such thing. Instead, the poll shows how
desperate the solar power industry is to ramp up the expensive taxpayer
subsidies that are necessary for the industry’s survival.
A solar industry front group known as Alliance for Solar Choice is touting a
poll it commissioned to pressure Nevada
legislators to expand the state’s far-reaching solar power subsidies. The
poll’s summary claims, “The results of this survey show that likely voters in
Nevada support solar energy. Likely voters in Nevada would be less likely (74%)
to vote to re-elect their legislator or a statewide politician if he or she
failed to raise the solar cap. Politicians who vote against raising the solar
cap are jeopardizing their chances of re-election.” The summary further claims
large majorities of Republicans and Democrats (at least a 69% supermajority of
each) would be less likely to vote for legislators who do not favor expanding
solar power subsidies and mandates.
Immediately beneath the solar power industry’s summary of the poll results,
however, the actual poll questions and methodology reveal just how flawed the
asserted poll results are.
The poll consists of two questions. The first question is: “As you may
know, Nevada is a national leader in solar job growth, with 5,900 jobs and 146%
industry job growth in 2014. Without an increase in the solar cap, these job
increases would be in jeopardy. If you knew that your legislator or a statewide
politician failed to raise the solar cap in Nevada, would you be more or less
likely to vote to re-elect that legislator or statewide politician?”
Let’s break this down:
“As you may know, Nevada is a national leader in solar
job growth, with 5,900 jobs and 146% industry job growth in 2014.”
Actually, I did not know that, and I doubt any of the poll respondents knew
it either. Probably because it isn’t likely to be true. The poll question gives
no independent citation or objective factual support for its 5,900 jobs claim.
The jobs number appears to come from another solar industry front group known
as the Solar Foundation. The true number is probably closer to 590.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the solar power industry’s
asserted number is true. Federal taxpayers – Nevadans included – pay a minimum
of 30%
of the tab for solar power projects. On top of that, Nevada taxpayers hand over millions
of dollars in state-specific
solar power subsidies –
thanks to the Nevada legislature – and local subsidies as well. Despite all
this, the left-of-center Brookings
Institution reports every increment of solar power
that replaces conventional power causes a tripling of electricity costs. The U.S.
Energy Information Administration reports solar power costs anywhere from 300% to 500% the price of the most
affordable conventional power.
Forcing people to pay substantially higher
prices for the electricity they would otherwise purchase at low prices forces
people to reduce the amount of goods and services they would purchase elsewhere
in the economy. Reducing such purchases not only deprives people of housing,
nutrition, education, health care, consumer goods, and consumer services that
would make their lives more healthy and enjoyable, but it also kills jobs that
would otherwise be created and sustained by higher spending in these sectors of
the economy. The solar power industry can (dubiously) claim it employs 5,900
Nevadans, but the societal price for this still very small number of jobs is
higher electricity prices for everyone, higher tax bills for everyone to pay
for solar power subsidies, and jobs destroyed in every other sector of the
economy as unnecessarily expensive electricity precludes people’s ability to
purchase other desirable goods and services in those sectors.
Economists have quantified just how many jobs are destroyed by these higher
electricity costs. Economists at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University found
renewable energy programs kill
2.2 jobs throughout Spain’s economy for every 1 renewable energy job created. This suggests that even if the solar
power industry employs 5,900 Nevadans, it comes at the expense of 12,980
Nevadans simultaneously put in the unemployment line by the solar power
industry.
Economists at the British economic consulting firm Verso Economics found
renewable energy programs kill
3.7 jobs throughout the United Kingdom’s economy for every 1 renewable energy
job created. This suggests that even if the solar
power industry employs 5,900 Nevadans, it comes at the expense of 21,830
Nevadans simultaneously put in the unemployment line by the solar power
industry.
And even these painful unemployment numbers fail to capture the
standard-of-living declines experienced by fully 3 million Nevadans as a result
of paying unnecessarily high electricity prices.
Just as importantly, the (dubious) 5,900 solar power jobs are not even jobs
“created,” but rather jobs “shifted” from other energy sectors. Solar power
jobs are “created” only as a result of government killing jobs in the
conventional energy sector by discouraging or preventing people from buying
conventional power. If, as the solar power industry claims, all 5,900 Nevada
solar industry jobs could go away if Nevada does not expand its solar power
subsidies and mandates, people would then purchase their electricity from
other, less expensive sources. This means the 5,900 solar power jobs would
simply migrate to other forms of electricity production because people would
now be demanding higher production of natural gas power, coal power, and other
forms of power. Net electricity sector jobs would not decrease, they would
merely be shifted to more efficient electricity sectors. Moreover, many
additional jobs would be created in other sectors of the economy as a result of
electricity consumers and taxpayers having more money in their pockets to spend
on goods and services provided by these other industry sectors.
Indeed, few if any people would purchase expensive solar power – even with
massive subsidies giving solar power a government-bestowed competitive
advantage over conventional power providers – without Nevada
laws forcing people to purchase solar power. The Nevada legislature requires people to purchase
fully a quarter of their electricity from expensive renewable power by 2025,
and solar power gets a guaranteed sub-share of this government-created monopoly.
Not only do Nevada legislators pick the pockets of 3 million state residents to
fund crony subsidies for the solar power industry, but they thereafter drain
still more money from state residents by forcing them to purchase the expensive
resultant solar power. Nevada legislators fleece state residents coming and
going – forcing them to shell over money in back-door taxpayer subsidies in
addition to shelling over money in front-door higher electricity prices.
Indeed, it is not hard to produce the solar power industry’s claimed “146%
industry job growth” when legislators force taxpayers to give the solar power
industry ever-higher amounts of subsidies and force state electricity consumers
to purchase ever-higher amounts of solar power. Give me millions of dollars in
taxpayer subsidies and a captive consumer market and I can create a few
thousand jobs, too. Enron and Bernie Madoff would still be living the financial
high life if they had ever had it so good.
“Without an increase in the solar cap, these job
increases would be in jeopardy.”
There is no “solar cap” in Nevada or anywhere else. Quite the opposite,
Nevada electricity consumers are forced to purchase 15% (and 25% by 2025) of
their power from the solar and renewable power industries. There is no ceiling
to solar power, just a guaranteed solar power floor. But the solar power
industry is not satisfied with its existing, government-created and
government-enforced electricity monopoly. It wants more government-enforced
guaranteed market share. In a through-the-looking-glass contortion of common
sense, it argues anything short of laws forcing consumers to purchase all of
their power from the solar power industry is a “cap” on solar power. By that
logic, Apple iPhones are “capped” at zero percent market share, and yet half
the American population seemingly has an iPhone.
Regardless of the solar power industry’s ridiculous definition of market
caps, it defies reason to assert that new and costlier subsidies and mandates
are necessary to maintain the (dubious) existing 5,900 jobs. If the solar power
industry’s existing amount of subsidies and mandates were sufficient to create
and maintain 5,900 jobs, by what logic are new and more expensive subsidies and
mandates necessary to keep this small number of jobs from going away? And if an
ever-increasing amount of subsidies and mandates are necessary to maintain the
very small number of solar power jobs created by existing subsidies and
mandates, isn’t that the proof in the pudding that the solar power industry is
nothing more than an Enron/Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme? According to the solar
power industry itself, an ever-increasing amount of subsidies and mandates are
necessary to sustain the jobs allegedly created by existing subsidies and
mandates, meaning that larger and larger subsidies and mandates will always be
required. When the inevitable comes and taxpayers and electricity consumers can
no longer afford to keep ramping up the ever-higher subsidies and mandates, the
whole scheme will collapse like a house of cards. When private individuals
execute such a scheme, they go to prison; when the solar power industry
executes such a scheme, Barack Obama and Joe Biden show up for media photo ops.
“If you knew that your legislator or a statewide
politician failed to raise the solar cap in Nevada, would you be more or less
likely to vote to re-elect that legislator or statewide politician?”
Let’s put this in more straightforward and accurate terms: “Very few
Nevadans are even minimally aware of all the subsidies, mandates, crony
politics, and economic costs of solar power. If we are allowed to create a
captive audience of such people and require them to listen to a minute-long,
focus group-tested propaganda speech that completely distorts political reality
and economic facts, what percent of this captive audience will likely agree
with our message?” Heck, anything short of 100% demonstrates complete
incompetency on the part of the solar power propagandists.
Let’s move on to Question 2:
“As you may know, Nevada, along with 43 other states, has a policy called
net metering that allows homeowners, businesses, and schools to get retail
credit for the extra energy their solar panels produce. This extra solar energy
goes onto the electricity grid for neighbors to use, and the utility resells
the energy at the same retail rate. Based on what you know today, would you say
that you support or oppose this policy?”
Let’s break this polling question down, also:
“As you may know, Nevada, along with 43 other states, has
a policy called net metering that allows homeowners, businesses, and schools to
get retail credit for the extra energy their solar panels produce.”
This question presents a very novel definition of the word “allow.” Net
metering requires utility customers to purchase any electricity not used
by people who have pocketed enormous subsidies to purchase solar power
equipment. Saying that forcing people to purchase the solar power industry’s
product against their will is merely a system that “allows” the solar power
industry to sell its product is like saying that forcing people to purchase
Obamacare against their will is merely a system that “allows” people to
purchase Obamacare. Of course, the polling question never alerts its
respondents that such a novel definition of the word “allows” is being employed
here.
“…homeowners, businesses, and schools…”
A more accurate description of these net metering entities would read, “a
small number of subsidized homeowners, businesses, and government entities….”
The use of the word “schools” here is quite clever. Government comes in all
sorts of forms: zoning code enforcers, the IRS, and the Department of Motor Vehicles are just a few. Rather than using the most accurate
term, “government,” or even a comprehensive list of government agencies
including the much reviled zoning code enforcers, IRS, and Department of Motor
Vehicles, the solar power industry cherry-picks and presents solely the most
rose-colored of government appendages, public schools. Employing rhetorical
tactics that are as good for the goose as for the gander, one could in one fell
swoop reverse the polling results by changing “homeowners, businesses, and
schools” to “subsidy-receiving drug dealers, used car salesmen, convicted felons,
zoning code enforcers, the IRS, and the Department of Motor Vehicles.” It would
be just as accurate – and similar-in-kind – to the solar power industry’s
definitional cherry-picking.
“…to get retail credit….”
More accurately, “to get retail credit” should read, “to force people to
purchase, whether they want to or not.”
“This extra solar energy goes onto the electricity grid
for neighbors to use, and the utility resells the energy at the same retail
rate.”
The solar power industry has a very interesting conception of the term
“neighbors.” The word “neighbors” implies a fairly close, friendly relation.
Neighbors are people you know, like, and do favors for. Yet here the solar
power industry is seeking to force people to give it more subsidies and purchase
more of its prohibitively expensive product. One doesn’t engage in such
aggressive, predatory conduct with one’s close, friendly “neighbors.” But the
solar power industry hides such aspects of its conduct from its poll
respondents.
The solar power industry similarly has a very interesting conception of the
term “use.” The word “use” implies borrowing or utilizing something in a manner
that is voluntary, cost-free, and beneficial. One “uses” a neighbor’s lawn
mower when his own lawn mower unexpectedly breaks down. By contrast, when the
Department of Motor Vehicles forces you to pay $100 each year to register and
drive your car, most people do not generally refer to this involuntary
imposition as “using” a DMV sticker. It is “purchasing” or, more accurately,
“being forced to purchase” a DMV sticker. Similarly, when the solar power
industry uses crony connections to get government to force people to subsidize
and purchase its product, it is not making its product available “for neighbors
to use.”
The solar power industry also has a novel conception of the term “same
retail rate.” Utilities do not generate or purchase power from coal, natural
gas, hydro, or nuclear power facilities at retail end-point electricity prices.
Utilities obtain power at wholesale prices and then undertake the effort and
expense of building and maintaining an electric grid, routing electricity from
the larger grid to each individual business and residence, repairing equipment
after storms and mishaps, building and operating facilities for its many
business efforts, and paying employees and stockholders who would not otherwise
work for free or invest their hard-earned money in a business with no possible
rate of return. Forcing utilities to purchase already heavily-subsidized solar
power at the “retail rate” rather than the customary “wholesale rate” means
every electricity consumer who does not sell solar power to the utilities at
retail prices will now have to pay higher electricity prices to cover the many
utility expenses that necessitate the difference between wholesale power prices
and retail prices. It is quite misleading to use the word “same” in any context
while comparing wholesale power prices to retail electricity prices.
“Based on what you
know today, would you say that you support or oppose this policy?”
Let’s put this in more straightforward and accurate terms: “Based on all
these lies and misrepresentations, delivered without any differing points of
view, are you likely to support or oppose our point of view?” Again, anything
short of 100% support under such circumstances demonstrates complete
incompetency on the part of the solar power propagandists. The truly remarkable
thing about the poll results is that only 70% of respondents, after listening
to the false and misleading solar power propaganda, indicated they support net
metering programs.
The false and deceptive wording of the polling questions was not the only
obvious defect in this poll. Of Nevada’s 3 million residents, the solar power
industry selected merely 300 to participate in the poll. Even if the polling
participants were chosen objectively according to representative proportions (a
highly dubious proposition, given the agenda-driven wording of the questions
themselves), what is the margin of error when selecting only 300 people for the
survey? The solar power industry’s poll should come with a disclaimer: “The
following poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 84 percentage points.”
Of course, any industry that would go to such great lengths to distort the
facts and issues in such a poll is just as likely to nefariously choose its
polling participants. Want to show that even Republicans support your
big-government solar power policies? Make sure you select Republican
participants from liberal metro Las Vegas rather than grassroots conservatives
outside Elko. Throw in a good measure of participants from Carson City and its
brood of state government employees to boot.
The blatant flaws, self-serving agenda, and utter lack of credibility of
the solar power industry’s ends-driven poll may be obvious to you, me, and
every five-year-old who stumbles across it, but what about the liberal
mainstream media? I suspect the media would completely ignore a similarly
flawed poll commissioned by the coal industry or Big Oil, or maybe highlight
such a poll in comic punch lines in house editorials throughout the nation. But
when the media-darling solar power industry produces such a joke of a poll, the
coverage is entirely devoid of critical analysis or minimal scrutiny. Here, for
example, are just a few of the media headlines touting the poll:
“Poll: Majority of voters would disfavor candidates who block rooftop
solar” – Las
Vegas Sun
“Solar energy poll results called warning for Nevada legislators” – Las
Vegas Review-Journal
“Poll Shows Nevadans Want Increase In Net Metering” – Nevada
Public Radio
Liberal Nevada political blogger Jon Ralston put it best in a Twitter post, “Does
anyone really think voters would seek to defeat lawmakers on the issue of net
metering? You must be joking.”
Sadly enough, the solar power industry and its liberal media allies are
attempting to be serious.
Mr. Taylor is a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and
managing editor of Environment & Climate News. This column was originally published at Forbes.com
Did Someone Forward this Email to You?
Click below to get your own FREE subscription of Nevada News & Views 
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. Nevada News & Views
is published by Citizen Outreach. The views expressed are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Citizen
Outreach. For more information, please visit www.CitizenOutreach.org
|
No comments:
Post a Comment