The CRI's Latest Scary (and Meaningless) Number
The Caesar Rodney Institute weighed in on what Governor Jack Markell should say in his state of the state address this week, and once again offered a scary estimate of the cost of renewable energy:
How can an organization that publishes such mush be taken seriously as a think tank? Previously the CRI has offered scary estimates of what renewable energy would cost, without showing how such numbers are calculated. The CRI declared just two weeks ago that "if all the legislated policies were in effect now, residential customers would be paying an extra $1000 a year," without specifying just just how this drastic hike in energy costs would come about.
Now we have an assertion that Delaware's renewable energy policies will double, well, something. If the CRI wants to inform the public and policymakers on energy policy, writing meaningful sentences would be a useful start. Then we could get back to critiquing the math.
The "green" premium for regional cap and trade, offshore wind and solar power is poised to double the penalty we pay for electricity.The sentence is lamentably imprecise. What is meant by the "penalty" we pay for electricity? Is it the total amount a customer spends? Some portion of the customer's bill? The so called green premium mentioned at the beginning of the sentence? A review of the Institute's recent output on energy does not answer these questions.
How can an organization that publishes such mush be taken seriously as a think tank? Previously the CRI has offered scary estimates of what renewable energy would cost, without showing how such numbers are calculated. The CRI declared just two weeks ago that "if all the legislated policies were in effect now, residential customers would be paying an extra $1000 a year," without specifying just just how this drastic hike in energy costs would come about.
Now we have an assertion that Delaware's renewable energy policies will double, well, something. If the CRI wants to inform the public and policymakers on energy policy, writing meaningful sentences would be a useful start. Then we could get back to critiquing the math.
posted by Tom Noyes at 2:58 PM
2 Comments:
They also failed to mention,... that NOT following through with the aforementioned policies, would COST consumers an incremental $2500 per person, (a number equally reputable as is theirs....)
Therefore, the legislation to which they denigrate, saves consumers $1500 dollars!
Thanks kavips. What's the basis for your figure of $2,500?
Post a Comment
<< Home