The North Carolina “Affordable and Reliable Energy Act”: An Assessment
Since the Commerce Committee is concerned with the economic impact of proposed legislation, these comments will emphasize that aspect of H298.
Even with that restricted perspective, this is still a complicated situation that requires an in-depth understanding of the electricity business. To simplify this matter somewhat further, my remarks will primarily focus on wind energy.
The reasons for this choice are:
1) if Senate Bill 3 (SB3) is left unchanged, wind energy will ultimately most likely provide the majority of the renewables mandate, and
2) most of the economics regarding wind energy also apply to other renewables (e.g. solar).
When faced with matters of this complexity, we often want it simplified as a sound bite. For those so inclined, here it is: Wind energy is a NC net economics loser, and a NC net jobs loser.
H298 is proposing to remove the renewables mandate of SB3 — which would have ultimately resulted in North Carolina being increasingly burdened by the drain of these job and economic losses. As such, H298 is beneficial to the vast majority NC businesses, taxpayers and ratepayers.
For those who are interested in wading through the technical details of why this is so, please see the attached information. EnergyPresentation.Info can also be very helpful in understanding the electrical energy situation. Let me know any questions about anything in this report.
I am respectfully requesting that the House Commerce Committee give it’s full support to H298. If needs be, I’d be glad to testify in person.
John Droz, jr.
Morehead City, North Carolina
Physicist with energy expertise firstname.lastname@example.org
[Note: S365 is the identical NC Senate version of this bill.Since H298 was introduced first, we will exclusively refer to that version.]