By Tim Benson

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s draft model legislation, which bills itself as a “common sense energy agenda for the future,” has now become official model policy.

The Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (Energy Security-ARC) states: “Energy Security is paramount to economic growth. Energy Security that is Affordable, Reliable, and Clean leads to prosperity for our families and communities.” The legislation was drafted by ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.

According to ALEC, member-submitted draft model policies such as Energy Security-ARC are “discussed, debated, and voted on by ALEC task force members. Policies that receive final approval by legislators on the ALEC Board of Directors become official ALEC model policy.” The model policy is then disseminated to policymakers across the country in the hope that it will eventually be introduced in, and adopted by, state legislatures.

Energy Security-ARC has four sections. The first calls for energy security, declaring that a fuel source “must be primarily produced domestically within the United States,” and that the “infrastructure necessary to deliver energy to the customer should minimize reliance on foreign nations for critical materials or manufacturing.”

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States imported roughly 8.51 million barrels of petroleum per day (b/d), 76% of which (6.48 million b/d) is crude oil. Some 52% of petroleum imports to the United States came from Canada, with another 11% coming from Mexico, 5% from Saudi Arabia, 4% from Iraq, and 3% from Brazil. Virtually all the natural gas imported by the United States comes from Canada.

The second section, concerning affordability, states that an “affordable” energy source must “have a stable and predictable cost,” be cost-effective and less expensive compared with other forms of energy resources, and be “readily available 24/7.” “Renewable” energy sources such as wind and solar would not meet these criteria.

The third section, covering reliability, establishes that for an energy source to be considered reliable, it must “be readily available to meet energy demands 24/7 with minimal interruptions during high usage periods,” and, when used for power generation, must have a “minimum” capacity factor of 50%. It must be capable of dispatchable electricity output at any time and able “to ramp up or down electricity generation within one hour” in order to stabilize the electrical grid. This resource must also have the ability to “complement and provide backup to renewable energy sources during periods of low availability.”

The fourth section declares that this energy source must be clean; it defines “green” energy as a resource that either “releases reduced air pollutants,” is generated by nuclear reactors, or is generated by natural gas.

Energy costs have significantly risen under the Joe Biden–Kamala Harris administration. According to a recent analysis from The Heartland Institute, Biden’s energy policies have sent costs upward by $2,548 since 2021. This is due to a 23% increase in the price of residential electricity, a 19% spike in the price of industrial electricity, a 69% explosion in the price of home heating oil, a 52% rise in the price of oil, and a 32% increase in the price of natural gas.

Cameron Sholty, executive director of Heartland Impact, The Heartland Institute’s advocacy arm, noted: “It’s important that state lawmakers are well-versed in the challenges facing their electrical grid and have conversations and policy ideas at the ready because these challenges are not going to subside as new technologies like EVs [electric vehicles] and data centers expand operations.” 

“States can be part of the solution and be leaders in their states and regions and can play a pivotal role in ensuring the long-term geopolitical and economic security of the country,” he continued.

“Rapidly rising energy prices are not accidental. They are the predictable result of Biden’s war on abundant, affordable and reliable energy,” the Heartland analysis states.

“Despite the fact that his climate agenda is directly responsible for the steep rise in energy prices, the Biden administration does not seem to be bothered whatsoever by the blunt reality that higher energy prices are making life much more difficult for the overwhelming majority of Americans.”

Tim Benson is a senior policy analyst at The Heartland Institute, a national, free-market think tank headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

ALEC is “America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.” Its Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force “operates under the principles of free-market environmentalism . . . to promote the mutually beneficial link between a robust economy and a healthy environment, to unleash the creative powers of the free market for environmental stewardship, and to enhance the quality and use of our natural and agricultural resources for the benefit of human health and well-being.”

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

NOAA’s U.S. contiguous U.S. summer (June through August) measured minimum and maximum temperatures trends over the period 1895 through 2024 (shown below from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance Times series data website) show clear and distinct differing temperature trend increasing growth compared to the calculated average temperature trend outcome.

The minimum temperature trend outcomes after 1985 climb significantly faster than do the maximum measured temperature trend outcomes. U.S. population data shows an increase of about 100 million during the 1980 to 2023 period.

Since the average temperature is not a measured value but instead the calculated mathematical average of the minimum and maximum measured temperatures {(TMax + TMin)/2} the average temperature calculated trend outcome is controlled and dominated by the much larger increase occurring in the minimum measured temperature trend versus the maximum measured temperature trend.          

This differing trend distinction can be more clearly seen in the graphs below where the NOAA Climate at a Glance website time period interval is broken into the time intervals from 1895 to 1950 and 1950 to 2024 (where the Tavg value is controlled by Tmin not Tmax) respectively as shown below.

This outcome is consistent with and reflects the results of Dr. Spencer’s recent study shown below and found here.

Dr. Spencer also provided another study which displayed in graphical form the UHI impacts of U.S. and Global wide temperatures during the period June 1850 through June 2023 as shown below and found here.

In addition to large population growth UHIs acting as a prime driver of rising calculated Tavg temperature outcomes, these temperature measurements are also being significantly impacted by NOAA’s improper siting of thousands of temperature measurement stations.

These thousands of improperly sited temperature measurement devices do not meet NOAA/NWS siting standards and are located far too close to artificial heat sinks that falsely increase both maximum and minimum temperature measurements as addressed in detail here with an example clearly illustrating this huge system wide measurement problem shown below.

As noted in this report (page 18) the year 2019 Oak Ridge National Laboratory measurement station data accuracy experiment showed that flawed station siting temperature measurement impact outcomes were much greater during the evening periods (heat sink contributions to minimum temperatures were a factor of 3 larger than maximum day temperature contributions) versus during the day.      

NOAA bases its evaluation of U.S. and global average temperature anomaly value changes over time by using and comparing the calculated Tavg values over time.

As indicted by the temperature measurement graphs and studies noted above NOAA’s contiguous U.S. calculated Tavg increasing trend values since about 1985 are clearly driven upward by station measurement siting flaws and UHI Tmin outcomes versus Tmax measured outcomes.

This results in NOAA’s calculated Tavg assessments of increasing temperature anomalies over time being a flawed and exaggerated claim driven by NOAA’s measurement siting inadequacies and population growth driven UHI impacts – and not “climate change”.

This outcome is also applicable to NOAA’s global wide calculated Tavg temperature anomaly increasing trend assessments as well.