This should be required reading for every member of Congress and the next president. No doubt this should be the first of many “green initiatives” to be repealed.
Great exposure of a very poorly written law. No government handouts should ever be enacted without at least putting limits on them. When reality hits, the IRA will surely be repealed. I hope.
"Did policymakers mean to subsidize low‐GHG electricity production to the tune of $50–100 billion per year, ad infinitum—easily $2.5–3 trillion or more when all is said and done?"
It is not clear to me that policymakers had any understanding whatsoever of what these costs could potentially be. In fact, it is more likely that they did not are one whit how much this policy could cost because the vote was a preening virtue signal, not serious policy. I agree with Garsco below this needs to be repealed
Every production step of wind turbines and solar panels relies on fossil fuels and mining. The mining and refining take place in China, India, Africa and South America and devastate thousands of square miles of potential productive land, often producing noxious and poisonous waste that will contaminate water and land for centuries. When was the last mining, refining venture approved in the USA?
Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, WWF and at least a 1,000 so called "environmental" groups with money to burn, and our federal, state and local governments, have adopted the NIMBY policy to the hilt.
The is a perfect situation to unmask false narratives and seeing the truth via actions. Few points need to be address-do my best to make it short. First this gives Congress the ability to spend without having to account for it via the Byrd rule-which was used to pass the IRA-which has a 10 year scoring window. Congress has now thrown that out the window with this work around. As the velocity of money is need to increase our GDP (a.k.a debt reduction) and taxes and since our velocity continues to decline, with this Congress is "trying" to solve for it. Secondly, America has embarked on industrial policies to combat China and other countries whose political and government structures allow for more strong first direction and control. Thirdly to increase the total amount of energy required to accomplish the objectives above. The most optimistic pie and the sky estimates state that while EVs and renewables will make a greater % of respected sectors in the future, no way do the overtake traditional fuels, in fact it cements them-a discussion outside the scope of this post. And fourthly, it pays by for all the political and social cost necessary to keep the status quo-a find example of this is the Administration blocking of Japan's Nippon Steel take over of United Steel, it was blocked by the Administration, then Cleveland-Cliffs came in and purchased United Steel for pennies and the dollar and wouldn't you know the DOE recently published new rules for transformer: Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (NYSE: CLF) today applauded the Department of Energy’s (DOE) final transformer efficiency standard rule that will provide for the continued utilization of Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel (GOES) in virtually all of Cliffs’ current distribution transformer end markets.
With this revised rule, the DOE acknowledged the fundamental importance of GOES and the essential role played by Cleveland-Cliffs steel plants in Butler, PA and Zanesville, OH in effectively sustaining the functionality of the U.S. electric grid. Cleveland-Cliffs and the United Auto Workers (UAW) worked collaboratively to educate the DOE on the shortcomings of the originally proposed distribution transformer rule and the danger of relying on Amorphous Metal, which is produced in very limited volumes and exclusively from imported materials.
Where is the money going to come from to build all the electrical infrastructure needed, well you guess it, the IRA. When you sit back and think about it why do all this when they could have accomplished all this goals very simply but having a war like rollout of Light Water Reactors, aggressive oil and gas drilling programs, and greater efficient regulations. This would have been much cheaper politically, and socially was Congress would not have had to break, and bend foundational intuitions.
Thank you - the figures are as terrifying as the article is enlightening.
This simple British country boy would appreciate a reality check on what I think I've just read: if I get a government handout to do reduce something, and this lasts until a threshold is met, don't I have an incentive to string out my effort for as long as I can get away with it? If I was paid simply to complete so many laps of a course, would I run, or walk and take snacks and a few naps?
Am I missing something, or have the legislators?
Is Milton Friedman's quote relevant here? "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
Interesting thought. I wouldn’t put it past energy companies in the US to collude on such a scheme, but what you’re talking about would definitely require collusion.
My concern is that, even if companies genuinely wanted to hit the “25% of 2022 emissions” target, it will be impossible. It’s a bit more straightforward of an analysis, but my scenario is just as costly to US taxpayers as yours.
This should be required reading for every member of Congress and the next president. No doubt this should be the first of many “green initiatives” to be repealed.
💯% agree!
Great exposure of a very poorly written law. No government handouts should ever be enacted without at least putting limits on them. When reality hits, the IRA will surely be repealed. I hope.
"Did policymakers mean to subsidize low‐GHG electricity production to the tune of $50–100 billion per year, ad infinitum—easily $2.5–3 trillion or more when all is said and done?"
It is not clear to me that policymakers had any understanding whatsoever of what these costs could potentially be. In fact, it is more likely that they did not are one whit how much this policy could cost because the vote was a preening virtue signal, not serious policy. I agree with Garsco below this needs to be repealed
When are the policy-makers of Congress going to show up, again?
Every production step of wind turbines and solar panels relies on fossil fuels and mining. The mining and refining take place in China, India, Africa and South America and devastate thousands of square miles of potential productive land, often producing noxious and poisonous waste that will contaminate water and land for centuries. When was the last mining, refining venture approved in the USA?
Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, WWF and at least a 1,000 so called "environmental" groups with money to burn, and our federal, state and local governments, have adopted the NIMBY policy to the hilt.
The is a perfect situation to unmask false narratives and seeing the truth via actions. Few points need to be address-do my best to make it short. First this gives Congress the ability to spend without having to account for it via the Byrd rule-which was used to pass the IRA-which has a 10 year scoring window. Congress has now thrown that out the window with this work around. As the velocity of money is need to increase our GDP (a.k.a debt reduction) and taxes and since our velocity continues to decline, with this Congress is "trying" to solve for it. Secondly, America has embarked on industrial policies to combat China and other countries whose political and government structures allow for more strong first direction and control. Thirdly to increase the total amount of energy required to accomplish the objectives above. The most optimistic pie and the sky estimates state that while EVs and renewables will make a greater % of respected sectors in the future, no way do the overtake traditional fuels, in fact it cements them-a discussion outside the scope of this post. And fourthly, it pays by for all the political and social cost necessary to keep the status quo-a find example of this is the Administration blocking of Japan's Nippon Steel take over of United Steel, it was blocked by the Administration, then Cleveland-Cliffs came in and purchased United Steel for pennies and the dollar and wouldn't you know the DOE recently published new rules for transformer: Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (NYSE: CLF) today applauded the Department of Energy’s (DOE) final transformer efficiency standard rule that will provide for the continued utilization of Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel (GOES) in virtually all of Cliffs’ current distribution transformer end markets.
With this revised rule, the DOE acknowledged the fundamental importance of GOES and the essential role played by Cleveland-Cliffs steel plants in Butler, PA and Zanesville, OH in effectively sustaining the functionality of the U.S. electric grid. Cleveland-Cliffs and the United Auto Workers (UAW) worked collaboratively to educate the DOE on the shortcomings of the originally proposed distribution transformer rule and the danger of relying on Amorphous Metal, which is produced in very limited volumes and exclusively from imported materials.
Where is the money going to come from to build all the electrical infrastructure needed, well you guess it, the IRA. When you sit back and think about it why do all this when they could have accomplished all this goals very simply but having a war like rollout of Light Water Reactors, aggressive oil and gas drilling programs, and greater efficient regulations. This would have been much cheaper politically, and socially was Congress would not have had to break, and bend foundational intuitions.
Thank you - the figures are as terrifying as the article is enlightening.
This simple British country boy would appreciate a reality check on what I think I've just read: if I get a government handout to do reduce something, and this lasts until a threshold is met, don't I have an incentive to string out my effort for as long as I can get away with it? If I was paid simply to complete so many laps of a course, would I run, or walk and take snacks and a few naps?
Am I missing something, or have the legislators?
Is Milton Friedman's quote relevant here? "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
Interesting thought. I wouldn’t put it past energy companies in the US to collude on such a scheme, but what you’re talking about would definitely require collusion.
My concern is that, even if companies genuinely wanted to hit the “25% of 2022 emissions” target, it will be impossible. It’s a bit more straightforward of an analysis, but my scenario is just as costly to US taxpayers as yours.
Thank you - makes sense.