[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               WIND POWER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ED WHITFIELD

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 25, 2010

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 24, 2010, an editorial 
was printed in the Paducah Sun by Ben Lieberman with the Heritage 
Foundation regarding wind power. This article highlights the negative 
impact a renewable electricity standard, RES, would have on our economy 
and energy sector as well as the inability of wind power to meet our 
energy demands.

                  [From the Paducah Sun, May 24, 2010]

        Wind Power Too Inefficient, Costly To Solve Energy Woes

                           (By Ben Lieberman)

       Think Washington can't get any more out of touch? Well, 
     Congress is considering measures that would raise our 
     electric bills and kill more than 1 million jobs.
       Sounds like hyperbole. But that's exactly what a renewable 
     electricity standard (RES) would do. An RES (imbedded in 
     legislation already approved by a Senate committee and part 
     of the House global warming bill that passed last June) 
     requires that a set amount of the nation's electricity be 
     generated by wind or other approved alternatives.
       It stands to reason that an RES would raise electricity 
     costs. After all, if wind energy could compete with 
     conventional sources like coal, natural gas or nuclear, there 
     wouldn't be any need for a federal law forcing us to use it.
       We don't have to guess, however. A study by The Heritage 
     Foundation looked at a hypothetical RES starting at 3 percent 
     in 2012 and rising by 1.5 percentage points each year after 
     that--reaching 15 percent by 2020 and 22.5 percent by 2025. 
     This roughly coincides with the pending proposals in 
     Congress.
       Heritage projects that such a provision would raise 
     residential electric bills by 36 percent, or about $300 
     annually for an average household of four. Industrial 
     electricity costs would be even harder hit, rising by 60 
     percent.
       Wind turbines tend to be pricey relative to the amount of 
     juice they generate, but that's only part of the cost of an 
     RES. Since the best sites for wind are remote mountain ridges 
     or plains far from the customer base, multi-billion-dollar 
     transmission-line projects would be required--with customers 
     (that's you and me) picking up the tab.
       The biggest and costliest problems of all stem from wind's 
     unreliability. The wind doesn't always blow, and it's least 
     reliable during hot summer days when electricity demand peaks 
     but the air is often still. In other words, unlike coal or 
     natural gas or nuclear, wind power can't be relied upon, 
     especially when it is needed most.
       Since the wind can stop at any time, it must always be 
     backed up by reliable non-wind sources, ready to step in and 
     carry the load. Thus, utilities can't really cut back on 
     conventional electricity sources when they add wind to the 
     mix. For this reason, an electric system that's forced to 
     include wind becomes a marvel of expensive redundancy. And 
     make no mistake--every penny will show up in our monthly 
     bills.
       One big selling point of an RES is the ``green'' jobs 
     created by it. President Obama has made numerous trips to 
     wind turbine factories and boasted about the jobs at each. 
     Granted, there will be employment among those who build, 
     install and maintain wind turbines, but the expensive 
     electricity that results will send many more to the 
     unemployment line.
       The Heritage Foundation projects net job losses reaching 
     330,000 in 2012 and exceeding 1 million in 2017 and 
     thereafter. Overall, the hit to the American economy of an 
     RES reaching 37.5 percent by 2035 would be $5.2 trillion. 
     That's right, America would be more than $5 trillion poorer 
     with a wind-power mandate.
       That works out to $2,400 per year per family of four. Know 
     anybody who's got an extra $2,400 just sitting around? At a 
     time when Americans consider the economy to be Washington's 
     top priority, Congress shouldn't be considering an RES. The 
     last thing we need is a multi-trillion dollar anti-stimulus 
     package that would harm struggling homeowners and businesses. 
     Renewable energy may have a future, but Washington can't 
     force it through costly mandates.

                          ____________________