New Study Finds Renewable Portfolio Standard to Cost New Mexicans $2.3 billion Over Next 10 Years

New Mexico has a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that mandates that so-called “renewable” sources account for 10 percent of all power generated by 2011; 15 percent for 2015; and 20 percent for 2020 and thereafter. While environmentalists would have us believe that these government regulations will create jobs and spur economic growth, the real story is far different. According to a new study commissioned by the American Tradition Institute and the Rio Grande Foundation finds that New Mexicans will pay $2.3 billion more for electricity than they otherwise would because of the RPS. The new study can be found here.

A “quick findings” page can be found here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Replies to “New Study Finds Renewable Portfolio Standard to Cost New Mexicans $2.3 billion Over Next 10 Years”

  1. Green policy creates jobs in the same way digging holes just to fill them up create jobs. More specifically, jobs must create real value. The free market is the only way to determine if real value has been created. No bureaucrat can determine that. The mandated renewable energy source idea is a terrible boondoggle and the public will pay every month for this in higher energy bills. What a waste!

    1. Jim, absolutely correct. “What a waste!”

      Green policy mandates have placed our state on the fast track to higher utility costs, and the reduced economic activity and lower tax revenue consequences that follow.

      Mandated renewable energy source policy is the work of liberals and the democrat party, and until we the people understand that and then vote these people out of every office in our state, nothing will change.

      The recent natural gas shortages should have opened a few minds to the reality of poor (biased) forecasting and poor economic policy based on and motivated by a hoax, namely man caused global warming.

      In the mean time, some wonder why we have a growing shortage of tax revenue… while restrictive, tyrannical policies, imposed at the federal and state level choke off the free market. That free market, hated by liberals, provides the only path to plentiful energy resources at reasonable price. Free market policy historically has been and is still the source of economic prosperity and yes, the tax dollar source we need to pay state employees and run our state wisely.

      Green policy and high speed rail are high on the list of liberal boondoggles. Both constitute waste based on ignorance of reality.

  2. I didn’t study the new study’s methodology in detail, but I don’t doubt their conclusion that energy costs will rise by the range of 19% to 32% over the next NINE years — since many energy costs have risen more than that over the last decade or so. What the study conveniently omits to mention is that it’s likely that energy costs will rise that much or more without any renewable mandate. And they assume that solar and wind costs will not go down, contrary to all economic history: increase demand, increase production and experience, and costs go down. Whereas for fossil fuels, even though we are able to increase production, because it is a limited resource, we are constantly increasing the cost of retrieval as we do deeper, use more chemicals to extract them.

    And the main thing: since global warming caused by the already high and steadily increasing imbalance in CO2 contributed by human activities is increasingly close to a likely tipping point in effects, it almost doesn’t matter how much it will cost to reduce our CO2 intensity — if we want a livable planet.

    1. Michael,

      Rising costs related to increased recovery technique is a factor in increased costs. However, to be logical in our discussion we must ask by how much. I have not seen data that reflect these values. I am confident that professionals in the industry will have those numbers.

      The real question is by what factor has existing policy… restrictions/regulations, legal challenges, environmental and tax policy contributed to past increases in energy costs and in limiting exploration that also increases unit costs?

      The second question is as follows:
      How is it that CO2 is in imbalance if the Earth atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen which means mathematically 1% of the atmosphere can be classified as green house gases. CO2 is only 3.62% of that 1%?
      The remaining 95% of that 1% is water vapor. To complete the 1% figure 1.36% is made of miscellaneous gases.

      Human activity is responsible for only 3.4% of the total 3.62% of 1% of the total atmospheric gases called greenhouse gases.

      How is it that there is a “steadily increasing imbalance in CO2 contributed by human activities” as you stated in your post? May I ask your source for that information? What is the number value for increase and how fast is it getting larger? And what technique was used to collect the data?
      Hopefully, East Anglia was not involved in collecting data.

      My questions are asked in the spirit of finding the truth and are not meant to denigrate your thoughts or your post.

      One last point. We must remember that all gases of Earth atmosphere may be classified as greenhouse gases in the broadest sense. We have only to look at Mars to study the effect of reduced atmospheric gases and heat retention and to the Moon for the absence of those gases.

      Respectfully,
      in search of the truth…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.