Response to the Natural Resources Defense Council's critique of BHI's study of EPA Clean Power Program
Laurie Johnson, an economist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently posted a blog entry that sharply criticizes recent BHI studies of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. It is important, in reading this blog, to understand that Dr. Johnson’s job is to defend tooth-and-nail an organization whose purpose is to promote what it deems to be environmental protection at any cost to economic activity at home and abroad. Read the complete BHI response.
BHI Studies on the CPP.
Virginia: The Costs of New EPA Rules to Virginia March 2015
Louisiana: The Costs of New EPA Rules to Louisiana February 2015
South Carolina: New EPA Rules Will Cost South Carolina a Fortune February 2015
Wisconsin: The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the State of Wisconsin January 2015
New Mexico, The Economics Effects of New EPA Rules on the State of New Mexico January 2015
North Carolina: The Economic Effects of the New EPA rules on the State of North Carolina January 2015
Iowa: Obama-Inspired EPA Carbon-Dioxide Regulations May Bankrupt Iowans January 2015
National: Clean Power Plan: The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the United States January 2015
Massachusetts State Tax Revenue Forecast
BHI releases State Tax Revenue Forecasts for Massachusetts Legislature
BHI predicts that tax revenues will be:
• $24,512 billion in FY 2015, 4.9% over FY 2014, and
• $25,801 billion in FY 2016, 5.3% over FY 2015.
Complete Estimate in PDF
New Hampshire electricity customers will face higher bills due to renewable mandate
(Boston, MA) Ratepayers in New Hampshire can expect to pay higher prices for electricity in the future thanks to renewable energy mandates that have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial users will be especially hard hit. This is the finding of a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston.
Press release (PDF)
Full study (PDF)
Real Clear Markets: Cape Wind - An unsightly monument to political pull
Playing out in Massachusetts is a saga in which a private developer is using his political connections to trump the interests of state electric ratepayers - and in the process creating a precedent for much broader misuse of governmental power. The saga involves a court case in which state officials invoked an arcane provision of the U.S. Constitution to deny aggrieved ratepayers access to federal court. It provides a study of the tactics to which government will resort in order shore up a green energy project for which there can be little, if any, justification on either environmental or economic grounds.
Read the entire article over at RealClearMarkets.com.
More on Wind Energy:
CapeCod.com Interview: The economics of Cape Wind
Boston Herald: David Tuerck on Cape Wind's dubious legal logic
FaxSheet: How much is that construction project on the Pike costing us?
Stuck in traffic on the Massachusetts Turnpike last month, Boston Business Journal Editor George Donnelly calculated a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the economic losses commuters can expect during a two-year construction project now underway on the last leg of the roadway near Boston. Donnelly found that the “Mass Pike-pocalypse” -- the cumulative effect of getting stuck in traffic for 20 minutes a day -- could cost the state economy approximately $269 million over the two-year project. Long-term benefits of reconstruction aside, that’s a huge amount of money that could have been saved with more effective planning by state transportation officials. The Institute comes up with its own estimate. Read more here.
Response to the Instititute on Taxation and Economic Policy Critique of the BHI STAMP
ITEP's flawed critique of BHI STAMP:
On May 21, 2014, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released a report entitled, “STAMP is an Unsound Tool for Gauging the Economic Impact of Taxes.” The report makes several criticisms of the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP®).
BHI responds to the criticisms contained in the Executive Summary of the report. (PDF)
Response to Critique of BHI's Renewable Portfolio Standards studies
An Appeal to Facts in a “Fact Check”
In their attempt to defend subsidies for green energy, supporters rely on Keynesian arguments to promote policies that will provide much-needed spending in an economy. The assumptions made by advocacy organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists are likely to hold only in the short run, if at all. Other arguments often made by critics of BHI's RPS studies have failed repeatedly to address the underlying basics of economics. Ultimately, while BHI sets out to soundly operationalize the true costs and benefits of projects like wind energy, green energy advocates fail to adequately put the relevant numbers to their claims. Read A Response to the Union of Concerned Scientists Critique of BHI’s Renewable Portfolio Studies