Joe Biden wants to spend $2 trillion dollars to pursue greener and cheaper energy, as detailed in his recently-released energy and climate plan, which, ironically, contains plenty of hot air.
No matter how much money he proposes to spend, if Biden continues to base his plan on overblown rhetoric and misguided policies, his efforts are doomed from the start.
Biden’s plan calls for a carbon-free electric grid by 2035 with a massive wind and solar energy and battery buildout. In addition to facing major practical limitations, this would be extremely expensive. Already, 29 states require increasing quantities of their electricity to come from renewable sources, and a 2019 University of Chicago study found that these Renewable Portfolio Standards increased electricity costs by $125.2 billion in only seven years. Considering that wind and solar power make up just 9 percent of America’s electricity, a buildout would only further increase these costs.
Batteries are no less expensive. An analysis of California’s renewable-friendly electricity grid by the green energy-friendly Clean Air Task Force found that reaching just 80 percent renewable-powered electricity backed up by batteries would increase electricity costs tenfold. And even that assumes batteries cost a third of what they do today. The same conclusions hold nationwide.
To shield some households from such astronomically expensive energy, the plan proposes energy efficiency upgrades for millions of homes and buildings. While this is a noble goal, studies have repeatedly found that such government programs overpromise and underdeliver. A recent study of a major federal low-income energy efficiency program found that the program spent twice as much money as households would save on energy. In the end, the cost to reduce one ton of CO2 emissions was over seven times higher than the estimated economic damage those emissions would wreak.
Like most climate change rhetoric these days, Biden’s plan resorts to blaming humanity for increased floods, droughts, and economic damages. And, sure, human activity does contribute to climate change, but it’s not the only contributor to changes in nature. As the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report notes, a direct link between human-caused “climate change and trends in the magnitude and frequency of floods is still not established.” The U.S. National Climate Assessment reached the same conclusion, commenting that precipitation changes in America have not been linked to human-induced climate change, “so indirect attribution of flooding changes is not possible.”
Additionally, the IPCC has low confidence in the detection or attribution of drought changes worldwide over the past 70 years, especially as recent long-term droughts in the western U.S. fall within the range of natural variability.
Biden’s plan also overlooks the fact that our protection against natural disasters has strengthened as the world has gotten wealthier. Again, the IPCC notes that “Long term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change.” Further, a major 2019 study from the journal Global Environmental Change found that worldwide human and economic losses from climate-related natural disasters decreased by 80 percent between 1980 and 2016.
If Biden’s plan were actually going to accomplish its goals, it’d be proposing market-oriented policies that can grow green energy and lower electricity prices. Making electricity markets more competitive (and less traditionally monopolistic) has proven to both reduce costs and assist in renewable energy integration, as it sends accurate price signals concerning the value and cost of electricity. Under green energy’s most important federal legislation—the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act—customers have been overpaying for wind and solar energy by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Injecting more competition in wholesale and retail electricity markets holds increasing promise. Reforming PURPA toward competitive, market-based pricing and contract rules can save money while still pursuing renewable integration. Research, too, has shown that increasing competition in electricity markets has a positive environmental effect, creating avenues for innovative, low-cost emissions reductions. And, when combined with other mainstream environmental policies, market competition delivers better results than heavy-handed mandates.
Ultimately, Biden’s plan neglects real, effective ways to lower electricity costs and open the door to more green energy, opting instead for overdone rhetoric and policies that sound good but don’t deliver. Protecting the environment while upholding our way of life is important, but our efforts should be based on accurate information.
Jakob Puckett is an energy analyst and an associate contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter @JakobRPuckett.