Then candidate Obama met with the
San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January 2008:
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
Congress, even one controlled by Democrats refused to pass Obama's Cap and Trade bill, but like other aspects of Obama's anti-constitutional reign, he usually finds a way to get what he wants.
In this case, he has thus far succeeded in forcing "green" energy down our throats putting the bite on every single American family already struggling with unemployment and high gas prices. Liz Peek writing in the Fiscal Times summarizes a new study on green energy:
A new report from Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute details the harm done by the fanciful quest for clean energy at any price. Mr. Bryce has studied the impact of so-called “renewable portfolio standards” (RPS) – the kind of directive that Mr. Obama wants to set for the entire nation -- on the 29 states that have adopted these required minimum mandates for “green” energy. He finds that forcing utilities to buy wind and solar energy drives up electricity costs and slows growth. Specifically, in the states adopting RPS, electricity costs were on average 32 percent higher than in states without such mandates. In coal-dependent states, the damage is even worse; in the past decade, those regions have suffered a 54 percent hike in electricity costs.From Byrce's study comes this conclusion:
In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama called for a renewable portfolio standard for the entire country – 80 percent to come from clean energy by 2035. Can our country afford to ladle sharply higher power costs on citizens and businesses?
The mandates amount to a "back-end way to put a price on carbon," says one former federal regulator. Put another way, the higher cost of electricity is essentially a de facto carbon-reduction tax, one that is putting a strain on a struggling economy and is falling most heavily, in the way that regressive taxes do, on the least well-off among residential users.
Our study highlights another pattern as well, of a disconnect between the optimistic estimates by government policymakers of the impact that the mandates will have on rates and the harsh reality of the soaring rates that typically result. In some states, the implementation of mandate levels is proceeding so rapidly that residential and commercial users are being locked into exorbitant rates for many years to come. The experiences of Oregon, California, and Ontario (which is subject to a similar mandate plan) serve as case studies of how rates have spiraled.
Let's repeat a portion of that last paragraph: "a disconnect between the optimistic estimates by government policymakers of the impact that the mandates will have on rates and the harsh reality of the soaring rates that typically result." Isn't that always the case when government interferes in the normal economic cycle? Rosy projections usually turn sour but only after the damage is done and it's too late to go back. But don't say we didn't warn you.
No one is surprised that Obama would take a "back door" approach to get what he wants. Also, I doubt that few are surprised that his policy did actually succeed in forcing electricity rates to "skyrocket." But just remember that even though you may be having trouble paying the electric bill while putting gas in the car and feeding your family it's for your own good. Obama said so!