To understand the massive misunderstanding of the fundamentals of energy and electricity, Lars Schernikau discussed the conclusions reached from 70 interviews over three years with various ministries, governmental economic organizations, universities, industrial conglomerates along with energy think tanks…. “The overarching theme from these interviews,” he found, “was a lack of understanding of the true full cost of electricity and the continued misuse of the marginal cost measure LCOE to compare the cost of variable ‘renewables’ with conventional sources of power.”
I recently finished reading The Unpopular Truth: about Electricity and the Future of Energy by Dr. Lars Schernikau and Professor William Hayden Smith. The authors address how the energy market works rather than how the mainstream media, environmental activists, and policymakers portray it.
Not surprisingly, the book explores the misunderstandings of policymakers and their advisors about the workings of the electricity and energy systems. …
The filed comments exceeded expectations. The free-market commenters were especially prevalent and displayed great content. Some trade associations also deserve special recognition.
Biden’s “whole of government” Department of Justice is becoming far less likely to challenge DOE on matters of fuel neutrality.
Good news! Filed comments opposing the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products (Ovens)” beat the other side in quantity, quality and range. The sheer volume of opposition comments makes a summary difficult, as does the new format of the regulations.gov website (requiring each numbered comment be opened one-by-one to identify the sender’s identity). There are 2,650 comments in this docket, dating back to Feb 24, 2014. 
The following table is provided to give examples of some of the more thorough yet diverse comments opposing adoption filed in the last few days before the comment period closed on April 17th:
|Submitter Info||Comment ID|
|Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)[i]||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2287|
|ONE Gas (utility company)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2289|
|National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2288|
|National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2270|
|Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0071|
|Institute for Energy Research (IER)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2274|
|American Public Gas Association (APGA)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2283|
|American Gas Association (AGA)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0007|
|CO2 Coalition (Happer Lindzen Wrightstone)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2275|
|Joint States Attorneys General (1 of 2)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2277|
|Joint States Attorneys General (2 of 2)||EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2264|
Review of Comments
The filed comments exceeded expectations. The…
“These too-high electricity prices are slowing progress on electrification and straining the pocketbooks of lower-income households.” (- Meredith Fowlie, University of California at Berkeley)
California electric customers could be seeing a radical new approach to electricity rates by 2025, if state regulators adopt a plan by the state’s three large investor-owned utilities. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) have jointly filed a plan to comply with a state law enacted last June (Assembly Bill 205), that would combine a fixed, monthly recurring bill based on household income, not on how much electricity the household uses, along with a more conventional consumption-based charge.
The utilities will lower their consumption rates, making up the losses through the income-taxation mechanism.
Under Assembly Bill 205, the three investor-owned utilities must reduce their sky-high retail electric rates, using an income-related fixed charge mechanism.…