You are on page 1of 135

RPS Neg 1

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Index
Inherency Answers
Index..............................................................................................................................................................................................1
RPS is Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................4
Renewables Inevitable ..................................................................................................................................................................5
Renewables Inevitable ..................................................................................................................................................................6
Wind Power Inevitable..................................................................................................................................................................7
Wind Power Inevitable..................................................................................................................................................................8
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts...............................................................................................................................................9
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts.............................................................................................................................................10
Solvency – RPS = Uncertainty....................................................................................................................................................11
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement.................................................................................................................................12
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement.................................................................................................................................13
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement.................................................................................................................................14
Solvency – RECs aren’t Enforceable..........................................................................................................................................15
Solvency – DOE Can’t Enforce...................................................................................................................................................16
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met...........................................................................................................................................17
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met...........................................................................................................................................18
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met...........................................................................................................................................19
Solvency – Transmission and Intermittency Problems...............................................................................................................21
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed...............................................................................................................................22
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed...............................................................................................................................23
Solvency – RECs Won’t Expand Renewables.............................................................................................................................24
Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables..........................................................................................................25
Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables..........................................................................................................26
Solvency – Federal RPS will Just Expand Wind.........................................................................................................................27
Solvency – Wind Power Bad.......................................................................................................................................................28
Solvency – Wind Power Bad.......................................................................................................................................................29
Solvency – No Renewables in Southeast....................................................................................................................................30
Solvency – Renewables are Not Cost Competitive.....................................................................................................................31
Solvency – Vagueness.................................................................................................................................................................32
Solvency – National RPS = Wealth Transfer...............................................................................................................................33
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use...............................................................................................................34
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use...............................................................................................................35
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Help Environment.............................................................................................................36
A2: Environment Adv – Warming Ans........................................................................................................................................37
A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans..................................................................................................................................38
A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans..................................................................................................................................39
A2: Environment Adv – Biodiversity Ans...................................................................................................................................40
A2: Environment Adv – Bird Turn..............................................................................................................................................41
A2: Blackouts Adv......................................................................................................................................................................42
A2: Blackouts Adv......................................................................................................................................................................43
A2: Blackouts Adv......................................................................................................................................................................44
A2: Natural Gas Adv...................................................................................................................................................................45
A2: Natural Gas Explosion Adv..................................................................................................................................................46
A2: Unemployment Adv..............................................................................................................................................................47
A2: Unemployment Adv..............................................................................................................................................................48
A2: Grid Security Adv.................................................................................................................................................................49
A2: Terrorism Adv – Threat Declining........................................................................................................................................50
A2: Terrorism Adv – No Spillover..............................................................................................................................................51
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Not Possible..........................................................................................................................52
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now (With EU)....................................................................................................................53
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now......................................................................................................................................54
A2: Terrorism Adv – Solving Cyber Terrorism Now..................................................................................................................55
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Several Policies Needed.................................................................................................................56
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Internal Links Ans..........................................................................................................................57
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Will Push Jobs Overseas........................................................................................................58

RPS Neg 2
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Won’t Increase Competitiveness............................................................................................59
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS won’t Cause Innovation.........................................................................................................60
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Import More from Europe & Japan................................................................................................61
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Economy Resilient.........................................................................................................................62
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Hegemony Ans...............................................................................................................................63
A2: RPS Boosts Poor Areas........................................................................................................................................................64
A2: China Adv – Economy Resilient..........................................................................................................................................65
A2: China Adv – SQ Solving......................................................................................................................................................66
A2: China Adv – Government Won’t Promote Renewables.......................................................................................................67
A2: China Adv – U.S. Exporting Now........................................................................................................................................68
A2: Energy Independence...........................................................................................................................................................69
A2: Diversification .....................................................................................................................................................................70
States CP – 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................71
States CP – Modeled by the USFG.............................................................................................................................................72
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS.....................................................................................................................73
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS.....................................................................................................................74
States CP – State Financial Incentives Solve..............................................................................................................................75
States CP – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................76
States CP – Energy Prices NB.....................................................................................................................................................77
States CP – A2: Federal RPS Key...............................................................................................................................................78
States CP – A2: Uniformity Necessary........................................................................................................................................79
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC.....................................................................................................................80
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC.....................................................................................................................81
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Stability / Investment...........................................................................................82
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Solve “Free-riding”..............................................................................................83
States CP – A2: Commerce Clause..............................................................................................................................................84
Tax Credit CP – 1NC...................................................................................................................................................................85
Tax Credit CP – Federal Incentives Key ....................................................................................................................................86
Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key..................................................................................................................................87
Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key..................................................................................................................................88
Tax Credit CP – Solves Competitiveness....................................................................................................................................89
Tax Credit CP – Key to Sustained Investment............................................................................................................................90
Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency.......................................................................................................................................91
Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency.......................................................................................................................................92
Tax Credit CP – Solar Solvency..................................................................................................................................................93
Tax Credit CP – Expands Renewables .......................................................................................................................................94
Tax Credit CP – Industry Supports It..........................................................................................................................................95
Tax Credit CP – Politics NB........................................................................................................................................................96
Tax Credit CP – Coercion NB.....................................................................................................................................................97
Cap-and-Trade CP.......................................................................................................................................................................98
Cap-and-Trade CP.......................................................................................................................................................................99
Clean Coal CP...........................................................................................................................................................................100
Clean Technology Fund CP.......................................................................................................................................................101
Distributed Generation CP ........................................................................................................................................................102
Distributed Generation CP ........................................................................................................................................................103
Distributed Generation CP ........................................................................................................................................................104
Distributed Generation CP – Solves Competitiveness..............................................................................................................105
Distributed Generation CP – Solves Military............................................................................................................................106
Energy Prices DA – 1NC Links.................................................................................................................................................107
Energy Prices DA – Link Ext....................................................................................................................................................108
Energy Prices DA – Link Ext....................................................................................................................................................109
Energy Prices DA – Link Ext....................................................................................................................................................110
Energy Prices DA – Aff Studies Flawed....................................................................................................................................111
Energy Prices DA – A2: Non-Unique – State RPSs / A2:Turns..............................................................................................112
Clean Coal DA Links.................................................................................................................................................................113
Nuclear Power DA Links...........................................................................................................................................................114
Nuclear Power DA Links...........................................................................................................................................................115
Nuclear Power DA Links...........................................................................................................................................................116
Radar DA – 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................117
Radar DA – Uniqueness/Link....................................................................................................................................................118

RPS Neg 3
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
Radar DA – Uniqueness – Collapse of Wind Power Inev ........................................................................................................119
Radar DA – Air Power Extensions............................................................................................................................................120
Radar DA – Terrorism Impact...................................................................................................................................................121
Radar DA – Terrorism Extensions.............................................................................................................................................122
Politics – Political Capital Links...............................................................................................................................................123
Politics – RPS is Controversial..................................................................................................................................................124
Politics – RPS is Controversial..................................................................................................................................................125
Politics – Plan Unpopular – Coal Lobby...................................................................................................................................126
Politics – Bush Will Veto...........................................................................................................................................................127
Politics – A2: Renewable Energy is Popular.............................................................................................................................128
Politics – Popular with Congress...............................................................................................................................................129
Politics – Public Supports RPS .................................................................................................................................................130
Politics – Public Supports RPS .................................................................................................................................................131
Election DA – Obama Solves the Case.....................................................................................................................................132
Election DA – McCain Doesn’t Support Clean Energy............................................................................................................133
Election DA – McCain Solves the Case....................................................................................................................................134
Specification Necessary.............................................................................................................................................................135

www. at least at this conference. if not imminent. n13 there has been much debate about the potential merits and hazards of a national RPS. n12 but the increased profile of climate change issues and the increasing number of state RPS programs make a national RPS appear more likely. “Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?” 12-11-2007. Energy Law Journal. National RPS is imminent Fershee. There also seems to be widespread belief among the financial professionals and politicians here that we'll have a federally mandated cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in that same time. “Changing Resources.RPS Neg 4 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab RPS is Inevitable A RPS is inevitable after the election Hodge. J.S. Since the earliest RPS proposals. this Article considers the effects implementing a national RPS would have on the operation of the energy industry. 49. Rather than joining this part of the policy debate. More specifically. the Article considers what a national RPS would mean for electric utilities. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Such legislation has been proposed several times in the past. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. no matter who wins the White House in 2008. Energy Industry. . is that we will have a national RPS in the next two to three years. regulators (state and federal)..greenchipstocks. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. 7 (Nick. and more is sure to follow.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard/187) // JMP The consensus. and consumers.” 29 Energy L.

project finance. according to research firm New Energy Finance. with wind now exceeding $30 billion. bio-fuels and fuel cells. The rise in oil prices has caused an upward spiral in all of the fossil fuels. we are seeing contraction in what had been the market-leading sectors first-generation bio-fuels and second-generation solar. 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ ----High oil prices and an array of government incentives are leading to soaring rates of investment in renewable energy. though. Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL: 49. Clean energy investments made in the first quarter of 2007 totaled $3. Usher said the UN's "report puts full stop to the idea of renewable energy being a fringe interest of environmentalists. wind. three of these are generating revenues of $20 billion each.com. That compares to $5.4 billion in the first quarter of 2008. But that was last year. Investment in renewable is inevitable Silverstein. giving sustainable sources not only an economic advantage but an environmental one as well. high oil prices should strengthen the renewable energy sector and encourage people to invest in clean energy that is cheaper and more secure. A trio of solar companies went public with impressive returns in 2007.” 5-5-2008 www. "If anything. had reported last year a 40 percent increase in revenue growth for solar photovoltaics. Nacel Energy unveiled a major 80-megawatt wind energy expansion. For the first time. regular CNBC guest analyst and IPO expert Francis Gaskins was the first to cover Nacel Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN) which has seen its stock soar more than 250% since IPO. reflecting the uncertainty and volatility of the financial markets as well as the credit crisis. But despite the critical situation.2 billion during the same period last year. a different research firm that has been tracking the growth of clean-energy markets since 2000. Gaskins currently has $4 target on the company (Nacel Energy closed Friday at $2.” 4-28-2008. 8 (“Global Investment in Renewable Energy Reaches $100 Billion According to UN Report. in an interview with BusinessGreen.6 billion in 2006 to $148." says Eric Usher. are now re-emerging. "While the long-term trend shows continued expansion of the category as a whole. That equates to $77. Last month. over time. and research and development-have expanded by 60 percent from $92. national governments around the globe are enacting clean air laws that encourage renewable energy consumption.cfm?id=499) // JMP The credit crunch has taken a bite out of the clean tech sector. investment manager at Tridos Bank.RPS Neg 5 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Renewables Inevitable High oil prices are driving huge investment in renewables Fox Business. public markets. The fundamentals are all in place. including two new projects in Texas." . It is now a mainstream commercial interest to investors and bankers alike. Venture capital investors. "I have no massive concern for companies getting funding.2 billion initial public offering of Iberdrola Renovables in December 2007. “Credit Crunch Bites Clean Tech. The result. More than $30 billion of the total was the result of mergers and acquisitions led by investment banks such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.95. including JA Solar (Nasdaq: JASO)." The huge investment flows mean that IPO's. largely dormant since the heady days of the technology boom nearly a decade ago. "This healthy minor correction indicates exuberance is giving way to tempered optimism. says New Energy Finance.79).7 billion. Head of the Energy Finance Unit at the UN. will mean increasing levels of investment in clean technologies.15." Clean Edge. managing partner of the Cleantech Group in San Francisco." the firm say says.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.com/story/markets/industries/energy/global-investment-renewable-energy-reaches--billion-according-report/#) // JMP WASHINGTON.29%) and Solarfun Power Holdings (Nasdaq: SOLF)." says John Balbach. long term. Indeed.foxbusiness." says Matthew Clayton. according to the United Nations' annual "Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment" report. -0.3 billion in investment in 2007 and $55 billion in 2006. www. May 5. It says that private equity investors cut the level of their investments by 64 percent. "The finance community has been investing at levels that imply disruptive change is now inevitable in the energy sector. 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider (Ken. But the same group attracted only $2.4 billion in 2007.energycentral. increased their stakes by 57 percent during the same time period. The industry attracted just $807 million in the first quarter of this year. New global investments in energy technologies-including venture capital. -0. the industry is expected to go on to prosper. Money raised in public equity markets has also dried up since the $7. which "marked the top of the market. The UN report calculates global investment capital flows into renewable energy companies reached $100 billion for the first time in history last year. This year. In the wind power sector. the credit crunch is taking its toll.

leading the investment community to implore Congress to quit playing tug-of-war with the tax provision. In this country. It seems to be working. 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider (Ken. The production tax credit benefits utilities about 2 cents for every kilowatt of wind they produce over 10 years of operation while the investment tax credit provides residential solar installation credits from $2." With the right mix of policies and investors. director of climate change for Google.RPS Neg 6 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Renewables Inevitable Renewable energy will continue to expand for several reasons Silverstein." says Dan Reicher. which estimates the market for green energy to be $60 billion a year. In the case of Europe. has more than $3 billion in renewable energy transactions. high cost fuels.org and a former Department of Energy official. Clean tech investments have ingratiated themselves with mainstream America. renewable energy projects have increasing appeal. "Policymakers can make or break this revolution. While central bankers have lowered interest rates in an attempt to increase liquidity. Together. they total about $1 billion a year. Wind power investment is projected to expand from $30. While those funds have taken a hit early this year. .cfm?id=499) // JMP Bright Prospects To be sure. GE Energy Financial Services. a lot of firms that had been allocating investments to high-tech in the late 1990s are now creating clean tech divisions. But those incentives are set to expire at year-end 2008. Not only are energy prices high but national governments are also enacting policies to encourage renewable energy use. helping to explain why investors are more cautious. Companies ranging from BP and Chevron to Goldman Sachs and Chase to General Electric want in on the action. Basically. bankers are still leery and won't accept much risk. they have still provided a ray of sunshine in otherwise gloomy economy.4 billion in 2017 while solar photovoltaic energy installations are expected to grow from a $20. the collapse of sub-prime mortgages took a huge toll on global financial markets. about half the states have implemented such standards while the federal government has given the renewables sector valuable tax breaks. The resulting crunch has reduced cash flow. Better yet. Nevertheless. www. "We believe we are at the dawn of a green energy revolution potentially as powerful as the Internet revolution.1 billion in 2007 to $83.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.” 4-28-2008. Clean Edge research says that the industry will develop.3 billion industry in 2007 to $74 billion by 2017. nations there have enacted 20 percent renewable portfolio standards that are to be in place by 2020.000 to $4. the prospects should only get brighter as the credit crunch eases and consumers grow wary of traditional.energycentral. “Credit Crunch Bites Clean Tech.000. The wind and solar industries in particular are the beneficiaries of generous incentives that are designed to spur new technologies and more development.

000 homes. this amounts to $4.000 households.8 gigawatts. "These are pretty heady times.8 gigawatts.RPS Neg 7 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Wind Power Inevitable Wind power will continue to expand for several reasons – tax incentives aren’t key Datamonitor.000 a year by 2017." said Swisher. www. Energy Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U. Missouri. Also in April.000 U. is driving considerable investment and development momentum.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18351503) // JMP While growth in ethanol use as an alternative fuel has had a big impact on rural America. 8 (“The US Wind Market Has Outgrown the Drip Feed of Supportive Federal Legislation. based in St. the country's well-established culture of innovation means that US capacity could well catch up with.S.S. an investment of $15 billion. a record 3. Wind Capital. or 304 gigawatts. is a relatively small player. Kansas became the first state in the country to reject expansion of coal-fired plants specifically because of global warming worries. a record 3.” 5-19-2008.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.redorbit.enough to power about 200. and that is really having an impact. it is attracting so much support these days that many in the industry believe it is poised for a growth spurt.100 turbines were installed across 34 U. Achieving that will require that wind turbine installations rise to almost 7. executive director of the American Wind Energy Association. or 304 gigawatts.S.” 5-27-2008. And. which invested $150 million in April. the department said." said Randall Swisher. While only 1 percent of U. In March. with wind farms like this one springing up all over the windy expanse of the Great Plains and beyond. Europe's capacity. with a $200 million investment. In Texas.S. Governor Kathleen Sebelius is recommending wind energy as an alternative and successfully fought legislative efforts to overrule her. "People are finally starting to see the data about what is happening to the world's climate. wind farms spread footprint in U.S. Nebraska officials broke ground on a wind farm that would be the largest in that state. wind power has also been growing steadily for the past three years. an investment of $15 billion.S. executive director of the American Wind Energy Association. the legendary oil man T. Last week. there are more than 25. providing power for an estimated 25.000 U. The industry appears ready to comply. it is attracting so much support these days that many in the industry believe it is poised for growth. The company leases land from farmers on which to build its turbines. “Wind power gains adherents in United States. electricity comes from wind. homes and businesses getting power from the municipal utility are now using wind energy.000 turbines are now under construction from California to Massachussetts. the department said. turbines in operation.S. "People are finally starting to see the data about what is happening to the world's climate and that is really having an impact. backed by conventional electricity supplies from the Missouri Joint Municipal Utility system. Among its backers are the Irish renewable energy company NTR.400MW of new generating capacity. Mesa Power. While only 1 percent of U. GE Energy announced it had secured a $1 billion deal to supply 750 megawatts of wind turbines . "These are pretty heady times. Wind power is expanding now IHT. While the US regulatory environment is perhaps less sophisticated and more fragmented than in Europe.php) // JMP While growth in ethanol use as an alternative fuel has had a big impact on rural America.5 billion over 10 years. In all.S. and another 2. “Quietly. Louis. this month ordered more than 600 wind turbines from GE to get started. states and another 2.S. wind power has also been growing steadily for the past three years. the U. which held an investment conference April 30 in Iowa that drew more than 600 attendees." Swisher said. electricity by 2030. On May 12.iht. the US wind energy industry increased new installation output at a record pace in the first quarter of 2008. In Rock Port. Energy Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U. Wind energy is also benefiting from a U. The prospect of a new 'greener' US administration. states.100 turbines were installed across 34 U. the U. www." said Randall Swisher. and even surpass. coupled with the fact that many state and city administrations have recently introduced standards and tax incentives.S.S. Boone Pickens has announced plans to invest in a wind farm that would provide enough electricity for about one million homes. In all. Last year. 8 (Carey Gillam. with the fate of a key Federal tax incentive in the balance.000 a year by 2017. the electric company Wisconsin Public Service won approval from state regulators to construct a $251 million wind farm in Iowa to help it meet a state mandate that it increase its supply of renewable power. which held an investment conference in April in Iowa that drew more than 600 attendees. . There will be a major increase in wind power Reuters. this year. International Herald Tribune.reuters. states are mandating that utilities obtain a portion of their power through such renewable sources. electricity comes from wind. electricity by 2030.000 turbines are now under construction from California to Massachusetts. www. with wind farms like this one springing up all over the windy expanse of the Great Plains and beyond. Increasingly. tax credit of 2 cents a kilowatt hour of electricity produced. by leveraging a well-developed venture capital industry. adding 1. Achieving that will require that wind turbine installations rise to almost 7.” 5-19-2008. 8 (Carey Gillam. Last year.S. It operates three wind farms in Missouri and has plans for projects in 10 U. states. up from the current 16. up from the current 16.com/news/business/1403646/the_us_wind_market_has_outgrown_the_drip_feed_of/) // JMP However. His company.S. In April.. there are about more than 25. and a unit of Deere. According to the American Wind Energy Association. turbines in operation.

" Lots of new power sources will have to come online over the next few decades to replace the coal plants that were built after World War II and that will reach the end of their lifespans over the next couple decades.com/wiredscience/2008/06/new-doe-report. What's driving the surge? Wind is cost-competitive with fossil fuels and comes without the risk of climate change legislation making its fuel more expensive to use. http://www. wind power grew at a record level in 2007 -. Worldwide. Ryan Wiser. Wind is looking like it will be a major part of that mix.S.S. The U. “Analysis: U.3 gigawatts of wind installed during 2007. regions with the biggest wind potential as measured by annual energy output are the Midwest and West -.356 megawatts.RPS Neg 8 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Wind Power Inevitable A big expansion of wind power is planned for the U.000 megawatts. "The end result is that wind remains competitive with fossil [fuel] generation.adding 20. but fossil generation costs are also increasing." including the 5. http://blog. 8 (Megan Harris.000 megawatts of wind capacity and bringing global installed wind capacity to 94. “DOE Report Says More Wind Than Coal Planned for US Grid. Texas had the largest growth in 2007 and now leads in installed wind power capacity at 4. United Press International.upi. "Wind costs and prices are on the rise.” 6-2-2008. A separate DOE report released last month declared that wind could power 20 percent of the US grid by 2030.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/) // JMP Annual wind energy growth in the United States topped previous records at about 45 percent in 2007 bringing total installed wind capacity to 16.818 megawatts.html) // JMP A new report from the Department of Energy details that 225 gigawatts of wind power are in the planning phases. which represented 35 percent of the total new capacity added to the grid last year. called the increase in wind projects "extraordinary.wired. . wind market's mixed signals. – it is already cost competitive Madrigal. 8 (Alexis.S.com.” 5-6-2008.with North Dakota and Texas on top. Wind power is growing globally to record levels UPI." Wiser emailed Wired. thirteen times more than currently installed and far more than the natural gas and coal plants on the drawing board. a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a co-author of the report.

Many questions remain. but the penalty provisions of a national RPS would coerce utilities into constructing generation (or arranging RECs) that state regulators might not approve. May a utility be excused if it made a good-faith effort to gain state regulatory approval for a national RPS compliance investment but was refused? What if a proposed facility is not reachable because state regulators have blocked transmission to it? What if state-level intervenors introduce interminable litigation and regulatory proceedings to stop a compliance project? A national RPS threatens a larger displacement of state regulatory authority than any policy change since open access. technologies. even if the parties are in the same state. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.. It is not easy to see how disagreements over investments made by utilities for compliance will be resolved. For those operating in RPS states. They will continue to have those powers under a national RPS. State regulators set cost-based retail rates and have authority over utilities' planning of generation and transmission additions." n116 . potentially duplicative. and state regulators now know how to fight wars of attrition. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. 79. Energy Industry. and probably an unappreciated one. a federal RPS would mean a second. most advocates of a national RPS have said little about federal and state regulatory jurisdiction. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Finally. reporting requirement. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Advocates of a national RPS have also said little about the jurisdictional conflicts it will create between state and federal regulators. but federal compliance requirements may impose new constraints on them. A requirement that state regulators include all of a utility's compliance investments (including RECs) in its rate base (on which it earns the allowed return) takes away an important part of their authority with no corresponding benefit.. 79. (Even if the legal answer is clear the political answer is not. Lengthy regulatory proceedings and court tests on transmission will surely occur in the near future.) Federal regulators will be at least a shadow presence in state procurement proceedings. State commissions determine both retail rates and [*110] requirements for new generation and transmission to meet anticipated load growth. J. “Changing Resources. which mandates "different targets. J. n132 Most proposals for a federal RPS differ from existing state programs in having no price cap on renewables that will excuse a utility if renewable power is unavailable for less. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. The situation may mirror the concerns that state regulators have expressed about the Energy Policy Act of 2005's grant of federal "backstop" authority over the siting of certain transmission lines that states have not approved. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. Energy Law Journal. perhaps even more confrontational because generation is a larger percentage of delivered power costs. A federal RPS will create jurisdictional conflicts with States Michaels. n134 A federal RPS will add another layer of reporting requirements for electricity suppliers – creating uncertainty and increasing energy costs Fershee. Allowing state regulators to disallow investments intended for compliance leaves the federal authorities with question of how to treat them. Compliance Requirements A national RPS would mean new federal reporting requirements for retail electricity suppliers. Electricity industry representatives (such as the Edison Electric Institute) have argued that a federal RPS. Energy Law Journal.. n133 The political problems of reconciling state price caps with an uncapped federal program also remain unexplored. J. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. while the FERC has authority over wholesale transactions.S. The FERC cannot compel investment in generation. The same will happen for generation under a national RPS. 49. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.” 29 Energy L. and timetables through a federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B. Energy Law Journal.RPS Neg 9 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts The plan will create jurisdictional conflicts with States – intensifying regulatory uncertainty Michaels.

Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP VI. no. n93 Resource availability can also be a matter of definition. The lack of interest suggests that their shareholders and customers are better off with non- renewables that keep them in environmental compliance than with renewables that (let us assume) would also do so. Utilities are currently planning generation investments and power contracts that will meet expected loads while being in compliance with environmental standards that they are confident will exist in the future. State regulators require compliance reports from utilities and have varying amounts of discretion to impose penalties. States also have primary jurisdiction over the siting of new plants and lines. and costly to administer. Assume that existing allowances have been reallocated by exchange and a market-clearing price prevails. Why Examine the States? Any RPS must be an ambitious exercise in institutional design. Economically Suspect. Positive state results would be encouraging news for supporters of a federal regime.39 The alternative of extinguishing some allowances when a utility increases its renewables is politically unthinkable and expropriative. The FERC has no powers to compel or prohibit generation investments." n94 A national RPS will create conflicts with existing regulations and not reduce pollution Michaels. time-consuming. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. a national. vol. and set penalties for noncompliance. defined as those that are intended for ultimate resale to end-users. Before committing to a federal RPS it may be useful to examine the actual organization and performance of state programs. Interactions between state and federal regulators under a national RPS will be complex.” April 2008. All but one RPS state has some type of price cap on renewables. n92 Some states have seen [*102] little enforcement activity because RPS is not yet a binding constraint. In the original market the buyer of those allowances did not find them worth the price and chose not to pollute. There are also escape provisions for noncompliant utilities. A national RPS will not affect the total emissions of criteria pollutants. advocates of a national RPS should explain why it will not produce similar results. as is being demonstrated in California (see below). and a utility is deemed in compliance (or exempt) if it cannot find any at or below that price. and states are unlikely to shed their existing authority without a fight. but it will allocate emission rights inefficiently. States with RPS have had to formulate definitions of eligible renewables.. Electricity Journal.RPS Neg 10 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts A federal RPS will intensify jurisdictional conflicts Michaels. If renewables were efficient compliance investments. put institutions in place to monitor compliance and crediting. or that a national RPS will soon bring new technologies that they would have preferred to use. A federal RPS will be further complicated by constraints that are imposed by the industry's dual regulatory system. State RPS Experiences A. There are few reasons to assume that utilities have somehow overlooked renewables that are actually bargains. Now that the buyer has them it will pollute. State commissions regulate "retail" rates charged to end-users and monitor the planning and prudence of utilities' generation and transmission investments. 3. . Some appear to imply that existing standards are too lax and an RPS will be valuable simply because it will lower some emissions regardless of cost. For all the reasons discussed above. and some renewables that utilities would have voluntarily built will go unbuilt. Utilities would bear capital losses that they might justifiably recover from ratepayers. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. Adding a national RPS to existing regulations can misallocate resources because it replaces some of these investments with more costly ones than are necessary for compliance. J. The various national RPS proposals say little about conflicts with existing regulations. 79. Energy Law Journal. probably at a lower price. Minnesota exempts utilities that are under "economic and competitive pressure. utilities would already have chosen them. Conflicts with existing regulations. pollutant-specific rulemaking is the appropriate place to determine whether further reductions are warranted. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B Integrating RPS with existing regulation Conflicts with compliance activities. 21. An RPS is enacted and a utility that unexpectedly must build renewables will sell its excess allowances. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over "wholesale" exchanges of power and transmission. If the states have performed poorly or indifferently. and total emissions will be unchanged." and Pennsylvania does so if resources are not "reasonably available. and others are still formulating rules. Some legal definitions of compliance and crediting may not be clear..

the incentive for building qualifying generation facilities is decreasing.9-cent price cap [used in the EIA analysis]." n125 The industry has thus supported long-term extension of such tax credits to ensure the stability needed for long-term planning and financing of renewable energy projects. the industry has argued that long-term planning for the use of renewable energy sources is harmed by a lack of a coherent and consistent plan: "In the past. the income received from REC sales will provide an incentive for investment in qualifying renewable technologies even if they involve higher costs than other non-qualifying generating technologies. developers. Regardless. Energy Industry. manufacturers and investors from maximizing the potential of renewable technologies and resources .S.9-cent-per-kilowatthour cap. In fact. RECs: Where Will They Come From and How to Decide? Early in the life of a national RPS. investors would be "unwilling to invest in sufficient amounts of qualifying generation to meet the RPS target unless the credit price were to exceed the 1.. Energy Law Journal. 49." n124 If. as originally drafted. in fact. as the end date for the RPS program grows near (2030 in the EIA study). “Changing Resources. Particularly in the context of tax credits for renewable projects. n119 As such. As the amount of energy that must come from qualifying renewable resources is increasing. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P.” 29 Energy L. by 2020. n120 This puts retail electricity suppliers in a difficult position under plans such as the Proposed RPS. and the credit price would generally fall below the 1. the short-term. Under the Proposed RPS. n123 Interestingly. n126 . there was a cap on REC prices. . any new later-in-time investor will seek higher REC prices to compensate the shorter time horizon under which they can recoup their investment.RPS Neg 11 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – RPS = Uncertainty Questions over the sunset provision will create uncertainty Fershee. J. n117 However. start- and-stop nature of renewable tax credits has dissuaded utilities. it is this kind of uncertainty in federal renewable energy policy that has been a recurring complaint from the electric industry. any uncertainty related to the sunset and the availability of RECs to satisfy the RPS puts an additional burden on retail electric suppliers by making the RECs market even harder to predict. it is hard to imagine that Congress would not act to extend or repeal the sunset date.. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C. n118 the lesser amount of time remaining where REC payments can be expected will reduce the expected benefit of the investment in qualifying renewable generation." n122 As a result. This could lead to perverse results. [*66] covered retail electricity suppliers would opt to stay in compliance with the RPS program by purchasing RECs from the federal government at the price cap rather than purchasing RECs from new renewable generation. the "EIA analysis of an alternative RPS requirement with no cost cap and no sunset provision indicates that the same targets as in the proposed program could be met in all years. n121 but according to the EIA's analysis of a 15% RPS. the market were to react as the EIA analysis predicts (assuming passage of the Proposed RPS).. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.

2000 – *Dean Emeritus of Pace University School of Law.RPS Neg 12 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement Regulatory agencies will side with industry – crushing solvency Ottinger & Jayne.solutions-site. Individual State RPSs prove non-compliance is the norm Michaels. In his search for a template. vol.htm) // JMP Effective enforcement is critical to the success of any standards program. the very presence of citizen suit provisions enables the NGOs to influence government enforcement policies. Nearly all RPS states have penalties. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. RPSs have clearly played a central role in fostering rapid and significant expansion of the amount of renewable energy provided in a state.000 new MW of renewables in the territories of the ERCOT member utilities. Citizen enforcement.61 Hard data on state programs is conspicuously absent from most proposals.4 percent in 2005. Theoretically.13 for each deficit MWh.000 by 2025. New York.” www." but he does not identify any alternative resources.60 Cost caps on renewables further complicate the process." according to Rabe.5 percent annually to 4 percent in 2009. political pressures often prevent effective government enforcement. producible by a cheaper gas-fired plant with a smaller footprint that requires less transmission to reach its loads. windy deserts and proven baseload geothermal capacity make it an ideal test case. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. are able to hold regulators’ feet to the fire very effectively by filing suit to enforce standards.66 The wind resources originally expected to satisfy the RPS are not being built due to resistance from rural residents. a report by Barry Rabe for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change says that "In a number of instances. * Massachusetts' 1997 restructuring law required that renewables be 1 percent of deliveries through 2002 and then rise by 0. a look at the states may be worthwhile. Economically Suspect. The goal was reached in 2007. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP VI How RPS Really Works A Five states An RPS at any level requires reporting. 21. and Nevada have "made impressive progress. Compliance data are not currently available.71 * Pennsylvania's "Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard" consists of two tiers.S. Nevada Power met its 2006 requirement by purchasing 1. The first is non-hydro sources with a 0. 2007 legislation raised it to 20 percent by 2020 with the same set-aside. The state's two utilities taken together have signed contracts that leave them in compliance with their 9 percent 2007 RPS requirement.70 Rabe concludes by asserting that new proposals (apparently not actual projects) have made state officials "increasingly sanguine" about future compliance. Both utilities and competitive retailers must own renewable capacity or credits.69 Its 2005 RPS requires annual progress to 20 percent by 2015. and the rest on or before Jan. and any standards program. but at lower levels than investor-owned systems. but regulators have differing powers to set and impose them. Tier 2 has dismayed environmentalists by including incinerated trash and waste coal.. Since national RPS proponents have said little about penalties and compliance. 2007. evaluate other enforcement methods. the governments adopting the standards should enforce them.org/special_reports/sr_global_climate_change_4. Also. * In 2004 Colorado voters enacted a 10 percent 2015 requirement with a 4 percent solar set-aside. 28.” April 2008. and penalties for noncompliance.67 Rabe remarks that there is "considerable uncertainty regarding Massachusetts' ability to achieve its ascending RPS targets. environmentalists."63 Rabe singles out five states for attention based on their representativeness and diversity: * Texas' 1999 retail choice legislation set a 2009 deadline for 2. Both are also failing to meet their solar requirements. The RPS became effective for three of them on Feb. .64 All utilities and competitive retailers must obtain a percentage of their supplies from renewables or credits. or consider modifying or scrapping the RPS.800MW of wind translates into 300 dependable MW. 3. founder of the Pace Energy Project. and **Pace Law School student and Research Assistant (Richard L Ottinger and Mindy Jayne. Its new RPS sets a quota of 5.000MW by 2015 and 10. at least 500MW of the latter non-wind. Conservation and Power Subcommittee. however.S. in the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes has been found to be a most effective enforcement mechanism. with 5 percent solar in that year.68 * Nevada may be "the next Texas. His report also omits any data on wind's actual contribution to ERCOT's resources and reliability. and Colorado is still putting its rules in place.65 Utilities achieved compliance in 2003 using credits banked in 2002. The state's empty. Its 2006 output of wind power was zero. only Texas is in genuine compliance with its own program.73 Of these states chosen by an RPS advocate. inspection and enforcement. They then fell 32.6 percent short in 2004 and 37.72 Data on compliance are currently unavailable. former Member of Congress and Chair of the House Energy.02 million kWh of credits from Sierra Pacific. Instead of numbers the reader gets such undocumented and misleading assertions as Sovacool and Cooper's claim that California. 1.5 percent solar set-aside. but their actual supplies were 3 percent (Nevada Power) and 6 percent (Sierra Pacific Power). A utility's compliance requirements only begin after recovery of its state restructuring transition costs. Municipals and cooperatives are subject to it. to be effective. which was unable to deliver them because of weak interconnections. “Global Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol Implementation: Legal Frameworks for Implementing Clean Energy Solutions. with the award of attorney’s fees for such litigation. Rabe apparently mentions Colorado only to illustrate the possibility of referenda as alternatives to legislation. As noted above. Rabe might better have looked at California. and the state's two senators. paying the state $55. no. which may not be surprising because there are no penalties for noncompliance. monitoring. Rabe does not mention that Texas is the sole state that has put enough new capacity on-line to stay ahead of a meaningful requirement. Electricity Journal. Massachusetts and Nevada were out of compliance almost as soon as their requirements became binding. NGOs in the U. None of Pennsylvania's utilities was subject to its RPS at the time of publication. 2011. almost entirely by wind turbines. In practice. They are to produce 8 and 10 percent of the state's power by 2021. adopted in the U."62 Likewise. should incorporate substantial resources for training. 2. governments and their regulatory agencies often come to identify with the industries or companies that they regulate.

n116 2. The laws require renewable power to rise by at least 1 percentage point per year. . Political and economic interests will determine the provisions of a federal RPS. Figure 5 shows clearly that this has not happened. subsequently advanced to 2010. n117 Worst-case noncompliance leaves a utility with a maximum exposure of $ 25 million per year. most not yet under construction or even in the siting process. California has yet to levy any penalties on utilities that are out of compliance or even to initiate regulatory dockets that could terminate in assessments. How utilities and others will game a federal RPS will depend on its details. At the same time.2 [*106] billion for transmission necessary to carry all of the claimed 2010 compliance capacity. Both electrical and non-electrical developers in California face high costs and protracted delays in obtaining permits for new construction and land-use changeovers. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C. and a provisional total of 13. n114 The California Energy Commission estimates a cost of $ 1. Why the Lack of Compliance? Utilities' seeming noncompliance has many possible causes. Despite the unencouraging data discussed above. In 2006 Southern California Edison received an Order from the CPUC to install 250MW of turbines and 300MW of demand response in anticipation of a capacity shortfall in summer 2007. 3. As of January 2007 the three utilities had contracted for between 2. Elected officials will have little subsequent interest.. their possible emissions. Its political point is to show concern by instituting a seemingly stringent requirement and leaving compliance for someone else to enforce. A utility whose renewables are out of compliance pays 5 cents for each deficit kwh. and that the 2010 goal will surely go unmet. Its RPS has brought back IRP and utility-environmentalist collaboration. Renewables will be delayed if they are built at all. 13. and its coming carbon regulation will further raise power costs. vol. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP State experiences with RPS suggest that it is less a breakthrough than another episode of regulation-as-usual. coastal regions) that demonstrate heightened environmental concerns.RPS Neg 13 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement Officials don’t care about enforcement – just kicks the problem down the road Michaels. California: Gestures and Strategies 1. the CPUC report's projections assume that no new contracts will fail and all expiring ones will be renewed or reformulated. The state's electrical regulatory policies have been in flux since the collapse of its restructuring experiment in 2001-2002. their dollar impact will probably be small. CA proves lack of compliance and enforcement Michaels. no. Even if the penalties are imposed with certainty. as well as those (e. a 2006 study for the Commission estimates that 20 to 30% of them will fail. J. Energy Law Journal. however. and utilities will make their choices about compliance.” April 2008. Electrical facilities probably face greater barriers than others because of their visual prominence. Having enacted seemingly stringent new standards.87 The purchase was exempted from complex and lengthy competitive procurement procedures as a one-time action to deal with an impending emergency. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. Permits are harder to obtain in wealthier and more densely populated areas. 14% of investor-owned utilities' power supplies were renewable in 2003. legislators may have little to gain politically by vigorously enforcing [*107] them.86 The coming crunch presents an ideal opportunity for utilities to vertically reintegrate themselves. but its potential fine is capped at $ 25 million per year. 21. utilities and other interest groups may see the RPS as another arena in which to advance their own causes. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. with the approval of legislators and regulators.7 in 2005. a position possibly inconsistent with legal language that compliance equates to actual production from renewable generators.1% in 2006.200 MW of new renewables in operation by 2010. Since the mid-1990s renewable power has remained at between 11 and 14% of the utilities' total supply. but they are beyond our current scope.g. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. How Large a Shortfall? Recent events in California shed light on the forces that influence RPS design and attitudes toward enforcement and compliance. n111 In 2003 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) estimated that compliance would require 4. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Between the 2002 inception of the RPS and January 2007. Its restrictive current policies and uncertain future ones have drastically reduced in-state fossil generation investments. It can avoid this fine if renewables are too expensive and the state has no funds to cover the difference between the actual price and a regulator-set cap. but there are good reasons to expect that episodes like this one will recur. but there is little reason to assume anyone will passively comply. California's utilities and regulators appear to understand the interests of legislators.936 MW of renewables. n113 Utilities claim to be in compliance with the RPS law on the basis of contracts entered into with developers.552 and 3."85 On page 2 it notes that the legal definition of compliance is operation. Economically Suspect. n112 The percentage is currently on a downtrend. Other aspects of the political climate may also explain a lack of compliance. Despite the reality of almost no new operating renewables. but all subsequent graphics and data refer to signed contracts. California's appear to be treating their RPS as a tactical tool to reestablish primacy that has been diminished by competition and divestitures required by restructuring. n115 Even if the contracts are valid measures of compliance. the CPUC's January 2007 report to the legislature says utilities are "closing in on the 20 percent target with four years of procurement ahead.. and their other effects on environmental amenities and nearby real estate values. Electricity Journal. A 2005 resolution put the legislature on record as favoring an RPS of 33% by 2020. possibly by maintaining less than full compliance with its standards. only 242 MW of renewables came on- line. and actual penalties could be as low as zero. and the accompanying uncertainties have surely had an effect on generation investments by both utilities and non-utilities. and demand management programs are also underperforming. 79. California's RPS began with a 2002 law that required the state's three major corporate utilities to obtain 20% renewable power by 2017. Penalties for non-compliance may also play a role in explaining the shortfall. both because of its obscure complexity and because serious enforcement probably means higher bills.

. megawatts from established technologies count equally with those from highly speculative ones.) A consultant's report to the California Energy Commission expects a contract failure rate of 20 to 30 percent for business reasons.200MW of new renewables in operation by 2010. Southern California Edison's contracts include a 500MW "Stirling engine" solar array that will cover several square miles of environmentally sensitive desert. vol. whether served by utilities or competitive providers. J. n5 .936MW of renewables as of January 2007. a national RPS is singularly ill-suited for any of these tasks. since the contract gives it a 350MW build-out option. the record of state-level RPS compliance and enforcement strongly suggests that the effects of a federal program will be either minimal or perverse. In 2003 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) calculated that RPS compliance would require 4. The range of public figures and distinguished commissions favoring a national RPS may indicate no more than an expectation that it will provide a new forum for interest-group politics. Rather than reporting actual renewable operation. Psychologically and politically satisfying. but some of it requires that new transmission lines be constructed. If signed contracts define compliance. but San Diego has chosen not to require a 1MW pilot project.81 (Large amounts of capacity in them were built prior to the RPS and continue to operate. The 2017 goal would have been difficult. California defines compliance as actual operation.78 In 2005 San Diego Gas & Electric contracted with the same developer for 300MW. and uncertainty about future policy. expansible to 900MW.RPS Neg 14 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement California proves our non-compliance argument – utilities can just buy-off non-compliance Michaels. No compliance and enforcement – State RPSs prove Michaels. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.79 The developer's largest installations thus far have capacities of 150 kilowatts.76 The drop has been attributed to siting problems. There is a five cent penalty for each unproduced kWh below the target. If the utility's planned renewables (approved by regulators in a procurement proceeding) cost more all-in per kWh than the "market price referent" of a gas-fired generator. Electricity Journal. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. and in 2005 renewables were supplying only 10. The company actually claims 850MW of compliance. Its original call for 20 percent renewable power by 2017 was later (2005) advanced to 2010.80 Wind turbines make up some of the remaining contracted capacity. Economically Suspect. regulatory delays. which rose to 11 percent at the 2002 inception of the RPS. but 2010 and 2020 are both hopeless. Worse yet.82 The interaction between California's price caps and its definitions of compliance may explain the lack of concern over the RPS deadline. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. utilities are claiming compliance on the basis of signed contracts for between 2. It will be an inefficient and inequitable environmental policy that reduces emissions at higher cost than necessary and is largely incompatible with existing air quality regulations. the state pays the difference from accumulated PGS funds. Energy Law Journal. contracting difficulties.7 percent of the utilities' power.” April 2008. A later resolution (not yet law) set a 33 percent quota for 2020. 3.83 A shortfall need not result in a penalty.552 and 3. If the funds are exhausted the utility pays no penalty. 79. 21.7 percent of their power from renewables. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct.74 The PGS survived the collapse of the markets. which Figure 1 makes clear will not happen by 2010. and the language of the law suggests that actual penalties may be considerably less. no..77 Most are not yet under construction or even in the permit process. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B California California's 1996 market reform law included $90 million a year in "public goods surcharges" (PGS) paid to the state by all end users. a national RPS is likely to obstruct the development of efficient policies. and in 2002 the legislature enacted an RPS. Between then and January 2007 only 242MW came on-line. but a utility's liability is capped at $25 million per year.75 In 1998 its three large corporate utilities got 10. Only 200 of the contracted megawatts that utilities claimed for compliance in 2005 were dependably dispatchable geothermal and biomass units. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP [*81] In reality.84 Worst-case noncompliance leaves a utility to pay only $25 million. Some of the non-environmental rationales are elementary economic fallacies and others are at best conjectures.

RPS Neg 15 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – RECs aren’t Enforceable Renewable energy credits are not enforceable Michaels. Regulators must make certain that RECs are real. are not the same as power itself. A renewable that improves air quality may benefit those in its vicinity. Homes in clean environments sell at premiums relative to similar ones elsewhere. Only certain renewables are dispatchable. Credits. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C. and the quality (e. n44 If air quality is local. wind speed) of a given renewable can differ among regions. and any source without dependable transmission to the buyer will require additional provisions for operating reserves. however. When capacity is short they will be costly or unavailable. it appears that RECs will not be usable as collateral for investments in renewables.g. Renewable Energy Credits The geographic distribution of renewables is uneven. The financial flows associated with RECs may stand in the way of an implementable national RPS. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. however. n42 The environmental effects of a crediting mechanism may also be inequitable. Some advocates see renewables everywhere. but when general compliance is achieved they will lose most of their value. RPS as Risk Management Policy 1. RECs may have fixed lifespans (one year) and secondary markets in them are possible. The prices of state RECs have thus far been too volatile. J.. Most federal RPS proposals include markets for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) that allow utilities in resource- poor areas to achieve compliance if they purchase claims on the outputs of distant plants. n43 The empirical issue is whether the environmental [*92] effects are localized or dispersed. n45 . but over the medium term some utilities will be chronically deficient. Although experience is still sparse. who can take the benefits with them because air quality is monetized in real estate markets. but not the customers of a utility that buys its RECs. RECs allow people in renewable-rich areas to free ride on credits purchased by people whose air remains unimproved. 79. Some state programs do not even require interconnection between the utility and the source of credits. and there are few reasons to expect that those sold under a federalized RPS will be different. Supporters of a national RPS argue that without it non-RPS states will "free ride" and get better air without paying for it. Energy Law Journal. They pay higher power bills to improve the environments of others. regularly sending payments to others more fortunate. and that they have not been sold to multiple buyers. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.

n174 but failed to update the efficiency standards. J. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. n176 DOE can’t effectively enforce Michaels. Further.. the agency has not indicated a willingness to push for significant progress. but not one that should prove problematic. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. A national RPS impacts both environmental and energy policy. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Enforcement of a national RPS would create an additional case load. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. . Unfortunately. if any. Energy Law Journal. and has shown no indication that enforcement of a major program is within the agency's capabilities. Energy Industry. J.” 29 Energy L. n175 Even when [*72] DOE has acted to increase efficiency standards. the Proposed RPS includes a program providing RECs for certain energy efficiency measures.. 79. The DOE lacks both the EPA's accumulated experience in environmental monitoring and the FERC's familiarity with power markets and their regulation. the Proposed RPS called for EPA enforcement when a better alternative for compliance monitoring was readily available.S. experience in administering a program on the scale of a national RPS. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP n132. 49. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. The DOE was charged with the task of promulgating energy efficiency standards for household appliances in 1987. Energy Law Journal. Instead it lodges compliance and enforcement authority with the Department of Energy. an area in which the DOE has already failed to show effective leadership.RPS Neg 16 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – DOE Can’t Enforce The DOE can’t effectively enforce an RPS Fershee. “Changing Resources. The DOE has little. but the House-passed measure fails to mention either the EPA or the FERC. leading to a lawsuit brought by fifteen states.

These feasibility risks are particularly acute in states that adopt increasingly aggressive targets before demonstrating the viability of earlier goals. Selting said. According to the Energy Information Agency's February 2008 Electric Power Monthly. 54% was from wood and related waste. pg. and geothermal. Emerging Energy Research estimates that to meet RPS requirements in the 24 states (and Washington. Over those 15 years solar went from 462 GWh to 606 GWh. In California. EIA figures show wood/wood waste. not capacity. A third were adopted in the past two years. http://www. at 55. and virtually no change from 2006's 0. Therefore.6%. nine of the 29 states that had some sort of RPS actually increased their renewable targets. more than 32.550 GWh for those four renewables categories. 8 (Paul Carlsen.> "That translates into a rough requirement that some 6.1% from 1993. In comparison. up from about a dozen four years ago (see map. Even a 10% RPS by 2020 is unrealistic NAM 7 . page 11). "These feasibility risks are particularly acute in states that adopt increasingly aggressive targets before demonstrating the viability of earlier goals. for example. DC) with mandatory standards. Therefore. * Under the Bingaman amendment. total electric industry generation from non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources was about 70 billion kilowatt-hours in 2001. at 14.756 was GWh last year ? up 21. this is an unrealistic assumption because most renewable energy resources are intermittent in nature. 14% from geothermal ? and 1% from solar. “S&P renewables reality check finds them too little. The most promising renewable energy technology. was down 1. without any credit for existing capacity. notably before any of them met their original goals.1 percent of generation and is projected to increase to only 3. S&P noted. assuming that this capacity operates at 100 percent 24 hours a day. "And. excluding conventional hydroelectric ? which.336 GWh. wind generation 31. * The percentage targets in the Bingaman amendment are based on amounts of energy produced. almost three times this amount of capacity would be required to generate the mandated levels of electricity from renewables! . especially since Congress has yet to extend the 1.851 GWh. was down 11. another 160." S&P pointed out.000 megawatts of renewable capacity would have to be added..000 GWh in 1993.” 3-17-2008. and have asked the California Public Utilities Commission to audit utility RPS power supply bids. not all states consider "green" ? only about 2. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM No existing RPS has met original goals. since 2006.RPS Neg 17 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met RPS standards have never been met Electric Utility Weekly. To comply with the 10 percent RPS mandate in 2020 would require a whopping five-fold increase in renewable energy generation! * In order to meet the 10 percent mandate by 2020. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have some type of RPS. in 2020 utilities would have to generate electricity from renewable energy resources equal to roughly 350 billion kilowatt-hours.5% of US generation in the first 11 months of 2007 was from renewable resources. In 2001. 7).5%.nam. However." she continued. in many cases utilities would have to “overbuild” their renewable capacity in order to meet the targets. utilities that do not meet RPS objectives can be blamed. We question whether this is attainable.000 GWh would have to be generated in 2015. But with "going green" (however defined) having rapidly become a corporate virtue. nonhydropower renewable energy accounted for only 2.asp?CID=202504&DID=226878) AMK The RPS Amendment is Unrealistic * A 10 percent RPS mandate by 2020 is unrealistic.4% from 2006 and almost 1..org/s_nam/doc1. The amendment would require a quadrupling of the projected renewable generation in a shorter time period. Of that. 31% from wind. 10 March.3 percent of generation by 2025." Selting noted.9 cent/kWh production tax credit for wind beyond the end of this year (EUW. The 2007 rolling 12-month total was about 102. wind energy. according to the federal government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). But it still represented only 0.8% of last year's US total. even if the goals were unreasonable. On a rolling 12-month basis. unknown date in 07. 365 days a year. costly and 'painful' for ratings.000 MW of new renewable capacity come online each year . operates at only about 30-40 percent of capacity.National association of Manufactureres ("PROTECT ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FROM RATE INCREASES: OPPOSE THE BINGAMAN RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT". independent energy producers recently accused utilities of deliberately delaying the addition of renewable resources.000% from the 3.1.

[Note – Owens is the EEI Executive Vice President] . But while "wind is the big dog in renewables ? it's fuel displacement. renewable energy's share of electricity generation will actually fall to 16 percent in 2030 from 19 percent in 2004. But given all the new wind farms and solar projects I read about.9% now to only 3. and 21 percent between 2006 and 2007. the Energy Department says. A national RPS will AT BEST marginally increase renewable as a percentage of the market Electric Utility Weekly.S. 2006. or PV. Solar and wind power aren't even the leading sources of renewable energy. Hydroelectricity plants -. retained by ScottishPower after it sold PacifiCorp to MidAmerican Energy Holdings in 2006. the Energy Department says. 13. it's not really capacity. this rapid growth is from a very small base.power-producing dams -. up from 9. electricity generation by 2030. All renewable power sources are growing. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM <PPM was founded by PacifiCorp. The photovoltaic. vastly overshadowing wind at 7 percent and solar.account for 75 percent of all renewable power generation. there lies the problem with wind and solar power: Even at breakneck growth rates." the US Energy Information Administration has forecast that renewables' share of national power consumption is likely to rise from about 2. ‘7 (Dipka Bhambhani. and Paul Carlsen. shouldn't electricity rates be falling? A: Wind and solar power is growing at a rapid pace in the U." Furman pointed out. http://abclocal. "However. pg. EEI's surveys of industry CEOs show almost all agree. the wind didn't blow.7% by 2030. On July 24." the SEIA notes on its Web site. "PV still accounts for a small percentage of electricity generation worldwide. at 0.1 percent. but so are fossil fuel power sources. solar panel industry has grown by an average of 25 percent a year over the last 10 years. Avista." Owens declared that a vote by Congress to extend the PTC now slated to expire at the end of 2008 would be more effective in promoting renewables than a federal RPS.go. and is now part of Iberdrola.5 percent in 2006. and blaming soaring coal and natural gas prices. especially at small utilities who had bought wind but did not know how the wind resource works.S. But he cautioned that "even with the most aggressive tax policy and RPS standards. Solar power generation grew by 19 percent between 2006 and 2007.6 percent of U. the Pacific Northwest was hit by a "perfect storm" heat wave. Wind-generated electricity grew 45 percent between 2005 and 2006. finds few supporters at NARUC meeting.RPS Neg 18 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met Renewables are growing rapidly. he said.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=6225366) –CMM Q: My power company is raising rates. according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. he noted. still aiming for national RPS. 8 (“Why are electric rates rising?” 6-24-08. following its April 26 acquisition of ScottishPower.” 7-23-08. Idaho Power and Portland General Electric all hit their 2006 summer peaks that day and many systems came close to brownouts ? "but as luck would have it. There was a lot of concern. “Bingaman. the department says. but they can’t make 20% by 2020—the Energy Department concedes it AP. Worldwide." Indeed. renewable energy sources will account for only 12.

 Moreover. Long Island Sound. that 10 percent of this base electricity production  must come from additional “classic renewables. could create a broad range of hazardous waste  . Hence.214 additional GWh of electricity  above the501..549 GWh produced from renewables in2005. the current most cost competitive “classically renewable” technology is  generation of electricity via the use of wind turbines. In 2005.house. Pamlico Sound. Neither Wind. this results in electricity production ofroughly1.700 MW.141GWh. the projected capacity factor is assumed to be 42percent11rather  than 23percent. and geothermal(and not hydroelectric.052.17then 115. wind..13If the average capital cost for electricity generation  is $1194/kW14for each 1­MW windturbine15. This is nearly four times the length  of the U.  and Buzzards Bay isonly8. Chesapeake Bay. John Dingell and Rick Boucher. then IOU base electricity production in  2020 will be about 5.16 Perhaps even more disturbing than the lofty capital cost of 115. Although there are  technologies that can store energy for hours.139gigawatt­hours (GWh). and almost double the entire circumference of the earth!18 Moreover. reflecting wind technology improvements.8 1.Requiring in 2020.5 to 2percentof the  initial investment annually.  biomass. and the least cost competitive “classically renewable” option is solar  power generation of electricity via the use of photovoltaic technology. because generation of electricity by wind power is intermittent. so discussion of a target is notpossible. which costs ~3¢ to 4¢ per kWh)7can help frame an understanding of the impacts of the RPS. 6/15. Compared with conventional power generation.500 MWh of electricity per MW of installed capacity12.000 feet  apart in the water. nor Biomass can Individually Meet a 10 Percent RPS.000 square miles. the combined area of Albermarle Sound. solar. Puget Sound. there is a strong interest in developing wind power projects offshore. the Chamber  recently analyzed the attainability of a 10 percent RPS—a standard considerably lower than any currently being considered— and found:(1) it would be literally impossible to meet even that standard using a single energy solution (i.16 square miles. For wind turbines to produce  the additional505.” then these sources must generate an505. multi­hour energy storage capacity in place.5 megawatts(MW).. and (2) because an energy mix would be required to even attempt to meet the 10 percent  baseline.200 MWh of electricity production per MW of installed capacity.0001­MWwind turbines. This  equals maximum power generation 23percentof the time over a period of one year. shoreline. generation of electric power from wind is highly  intermittent. wind. nuclear or so­called “clean” energy sources). the Chamber opposes a federal RPS.0001­MW wind turbines were placed in a straight line about 2.RPS Neg 19 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met It’s impossible to meet even a 10% RPS – wind power is the most likely technology and it’s unworkable Josten. the use of  batteries to store intermittent energy. i. for sake of argument. Photovoltaic. inconsistent renewable source capabilities from state to state will likely result in failure.  photovoltaics. whichconstitute1. San Francisco Bay.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007. biomass) on its own. the sheer size of the storage capacity needed to hold the amount of required  intermittent energy generated to meet a 10 percent RPS requirement simply does not exist. at the scale needed to meet a 10 percent RPS. Letter to Rep. Cape Cod Bay. then the total capital cost of constructing about 115.000 of them would amount   to  roughly $138 billion    . http://energycommerce.214 GWh necessary to meet a  10 percent  standard in 2020 using 1­MW turbines that produce 4.S.2and about  501. Biscayne Bay.000 turbines of this  size would occupy an area ofabout18. where the potential for generating electricity from wind is more  substantial than at most on shore locations.500 square miles. Comparing the costs and demands of producing  electricity from wind (~ 3+¢ to 6¢ per kWh)5versus photovoltaic (~ 20¢ per kWh)6versusconventional power generation (e. In comparison. However.g.  using natural gas. 07 – Executive Vice President. Creating such storage capacity  remains a critical issue that requires much more attention. they would have a total length of about 43. installed electric power capacity from wind  wasapproximately11. For purposes of the calculations presented below.000 miles from end to end.pdf) As previously stated. which is a current common practice. Delaware  Bay.  one would need to put in place more than 115. A. base sales of electricity from investor­owned utilities (IOUs)were about3.  This figure does not include operation and maintenance costs. to provide power when it is needed(as opposed  towhen it is produced)one must have intermittent.64% per year4relative to the year2005 base production level. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce.549 GWh3of total electricity generation was produced using “classically renewable” energy resources.10In all. If the 115.9in 2007. indicating that.000 wind turbines is the placement: if the space allotted for  each 1­MW wind turbine placed in the ocean comprises an  area ofroughly0.553. overall.e.If IOU base sales of electricity  growatapproximately1.Wind A typical large­scale wind­driven turbine has a capacity ofapproximately1.e.

214 GWh of required renewable electricity sales in 2020. A recent projection19indicates installed wind capacity by 2020 will be less than 50.RPS Neg 20 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab disposal problems in the future. which is much less than the  target amount of 505. . combined with capital cost  restrictions and siting limitations.000GWh.  and can only fulfill a small fraction of a 10 percent RPS requirement when mixed with other renewables. leads to the inevitable conclusion that wind technology  will not meet the RPS on its own. This shortfall.

RPS Neg 21 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Transmission and Intermittency Problems Empirically. 8 (Paul Carlsen. And these lines can also take years to complete due to red-tape delays (especially when involving federal lands. and system and market operations. that's another concern. high-voltage transmission lines must also be built to accommodate the new renewable energy facilities. For a lot of areas. Texas was the second largest producer. The siting of renewable generation. ‘7 (Dipka Bhambhani. but less than 300 MW of eligible capacity has come online since 2001. and Paul Carlsen. "If the Public Utilities Commission had not relaxed RPS rules and allowed the use of mechanisms such as the banking of RPS credits. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Philip Moeller said he was not surprised by Bingaman's stance. If you don't have enough transmission. "That doesn't surprise me. you're not going to get renewables in either constrained areas or to markets that are located far from where the resources are. “S&P renewables reality check finds them too little. Just two states—California and Washington—accounted for almost 40 percent of the nation's renewable generation (including hydropower generation) last year. Non-hydroelectric output was even more concentrated. transmission is key. finds few supporters at NARUC meeting. which has experienced volatile price swings of late—to support the grid reliability." Wind is not only too little. in that they do not operate consistently.com/Magazines/Insight/2007/oct/200710B25150Eh3C0sQw3H_1. electric utilities will still need to build generating facilities using conventional fuels—most likely natural gas. maybe it's not going to be that much but if you have to bring it in from quite a ways. Indeed. costly and 'painful' for ratings.124 MW of RPS generation." he said. transmission and intermittency issues make RPSs infeasible and force utilities to face huge fines Electric Utility Weekly. Moeller said RPS could be successful if there was enough transmission. which are particularly common in western states) and public concerns. rural areas. .S. One is that renewable energy sources vary widely in various parts of the U. Transmission is a precondition for RPS solvency Electric Utility Weekly. New. based on an October 2007 report. when more than 80% of the state's wind turbines went offline when a cold front unexpectedly moved in. "Transmission issues have been the single largest factor that has stalled California's aggressive RPS program. which has proceeded slowly. 13. These transmission expansions can cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per mile to build. hard to access and getting more expensive. AM) Many factors account for the limited growth outlook. far from load centers and they require additional transmission. “Bingaman. all of which must be taken into account by utility planners. pg. The intermittent nature of wind and solar resources also can have costly impacts on the electric grid related to generation interconnection and integration.” 3-17-2008. most renewable resources are located in remote regions. far from existing transmission wires.1.xml. “Charting a Course for Renewables." [Note – Marsha Smith is an Iowa Utilities Board member] Intermittency kills solvency Kranenburg 7 – Director of Business Development at Edison Electric Institute (Roger. California provided almost a quarter of the nation's electricity from non-hydro renewables. is generally in remote. pg. And because many renewable energy resources are intermittent. Smith agreed.” 7-23-08. transmission planning. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM As has been widely acknowledged.." S&P said. utilities would be facing fines of up to $25 million per year. http://www. with some regions enjoying an abundance of certain resources while others are comparatively resource poor." he said. "It's going to take some pretty extensive transmission to get there. He's been on that position for a long time. And Texas alone accounted for nearly a third of the new wind capacity additions in 2006. especially wind power. still aiming for national RPS." she said. contributing about 7 percent.platts. "If you're fortunate enough to have a lot of wind in your service area. it may not be there when needed: unexpected deviations in wind output were a factor in the near black-outs in the ERCOT region in Texas on February 26. the three major investor-owned utilities in the state had contracted to receive about 3. "To me it all goes back to transmission.

“National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. There are no available estimates of additional investment required under a wind-dominated national RPS. It is not clear how quickly. The Great Unknown: Operational and Infrastructure Implications Considering the major operational impacts on electric utilities is exceedingly difficult. if at all. A national RPS would thus also require additional. n127 If this is to become a reality. legislation to facilitate transmission investment on the scale needed to satisfy the RPS goals.. “Changing Resources. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. to provide energy when the wind or sun is [*67] not available). or other renewable sources. Energy Industry. with estimated annual benefits of between $ 926 million and $ 1. n142 Expanding wind power requires a massive expansion in transmission infrastructure Michaels. n130 Infrastructure changes at such a high level would fundamentally change how electricity is delivered. raising the cost per megawatt-hour actually carried. solar. n128 Some sources. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P.e." n134 at an estimated cost of $ 3.000 megawatts of clean coal power. n136 Whether related to renewable energy or not.. J. 49. North Dakota. n139 The CAPX 2020 Vision Plan includes a $ 1. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP D. Whether from wind. n131 Some western states have worked to develop a renewable-only transmission.. at least in terms of making specific predictions about the implications of a national RPS. and thus how utilities operate. In both cases. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. and Wisconsin. it will mean a fundamental change in how utilities operate. . meeting California's 2020 standard will require $ 5. South Dakota. the studies provide a lot of numbers to consider.7 billion annually for the area. like solar or wind. Many of the studies discussed in Part II provide significant caveats related to the assumptions used in developing the respective models.0 billion in new transmission. A CapX 2020 study concluded that the covered region.7 billion of new high-voltage and substantial amounts of others. Energy Law Journal. The former will only be fully loaded when winds are strong.000 megawatts of wind power and 6. A new line in a network often provides an alternative path for power if another one goes out of service. from Wyoming to California (through Nevada and Utah).” 29 Energy L. The 10. and voltage problems" if transmission additions are not made between 2005 and 2020. major investments in the transmission grid would need to occur. major transmission infrastructure can be made available. a national transmission superhighway would provide additional benefits. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP A transmission line to an isolated wind producing area contributes less to reliability than one embedded in a network. but the results indicate that the impact of a national RPS could be revolutionary or exceedingly moderate. the Frontier Line. but losing a radial link to an isolated renewable means that none of its power can reach users. outages. n140 The fact that the need for this [*68] transmission infrastructure was clear before Minnesota's RPS was even mandatory n141 indicates that a national RPS would likely trigger similar needs throughout the country. The outcomes of the currently available studies are so broad that the results seem to add little more than quantified speculations. n132 The proposed Frontier Line is a transmission line that would run as long as 1300 miles. n89 As noted above. however. Energy Law Journal. the investment includes both direct connections for the renewables and other construction needed to maintain reliability. which includes Minnesota. For instance. could even require additional investment in additional traditional-fuel generation to support the intermittent energy sources (i. in terms of reliability and.3 billion.S. potentially. n88 Some local data. to provide renewable energy at that level. financially. 79. biomass.000 MW of renewables (nearly all wind) in Texas' 2025 RPS will require between $ 1. n133 It would "leverage up to 6. and more aggressive. "will experience specific and numerous transmission overloads.7 and $ 3. are emerging. n135 More significantly. n129 Furthermore. the study from Woods MacKenzie indicates that a national RPS would lead to such significant amounts of renewable energy that consumers could save as much as $ 100 billion on their electric bills. That is. J. n137 In fact.25 billion transmission infrastructure project of 1620 miles of 345kV transmission lines.RPS Neg 22 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed RPS by itself won’t solve – legislation to increase the transmission grid is a necessary precondition to expand renewables Fershee. massive amounts of renewable energy generation would require tremendous investment in new generation facilities. "development of a nationwide transmission super highway" would likely be needed to satisfy major new wind generation at a level leading to cost savings of $ 100 billion. in the CapX 2020 project is one such program that is intended to help (among other things) facilitate compliance with Minnesota's renewable energy n138 objectives.

“Changing Resources. n205 including a significant lack of transmission capacity. .0 billion and a 2020 total of 52. Energy Industry. 49. 3.13 Wind turbines will account for 76 percent (40. in addition to lower-voltage lines. Energy Law Journal.” 29 Energy L. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. As of March 2005. Losing a radial line to an isolated wind source.7 and $3. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. substations. n204 [*76] The country still needs to address. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. Wind will require the expensive addition of new transmission Michaels. transmission and hardware Michaels. A new line in an interconnected grid normally increases reliability by providing an alternative path when another is out of service. transmission. vol.7 billion in new 500 and 230kV lines alone. An RPS won’t expand renewables by itself – energy infrastructure and transmission difficulties will remain Fershee.12 The latter exceeds all of Florida's existing capacity and is over 80 percent of California's. economically feasible. That does not make it good policy. Required investments in those states alone must soon increase.S. 3. and other hardware that will be required for compliance. The cost studies indicate that a national RPS is likely to be neither a panacea nor a disaster. vol. most importantly Southern California Edison (between $3. Economically Suspect. J. utilities in RPS states were out of compliance by a modest 819MW.. but all of these issues would impact the potential success of a national RPS. means that its power has no other path to loads and necessitates more costly reliability arrangements. By most accounts.14 Conventional plants would. Because isolated installations produce to capacity only when winds are strong.. a figure that appears low in light of wind's growing dominance. a national RPS is technologically achievable and. Electricity Journal. Its effects on operating costs also remain unexamined. Electricity Journal. The California Energy Commission has estimated that its requirement of 33 percent renewables in 2020 will entail $5. Integrating 10.. Economically Suspect.000MW) of the new renewables. however. The 25 largest RPS utilities will make 63 percent of generation investments. but it should move the debate forward. to name just a few: an aging and insufficient energy infrastructure. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP It is important for proponents and opponents alike to recognize that the debate over a national RPS is only one piece of the puzzle.15 The figure does not include lines associated with new or upgraded conventional generation. no. 21.000MW of renewables (nearly all wind) to comply with Texas' 2025 RPS will require between $1.” April 2008.23 Those lines will contribute less to efficiency and reliability than lines between conventional resources and loads. also require new transmission and upgrades. notwithstanding some potentially higher costs. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P.729MW at $53.9 billion). n207 and climate-change issues.0 billion in new transmission. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. n208 A national RPS would impact all of these issues. and reactive power supplies. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. to a cumulated 2010 total of 12. Investment to meet existing state RPS will be substantial.” April 2008.4 billion.2 and $3. 21. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Supporters of a federal RPS have yet to produce estimates of investment in generation.0 billion) and Chicago's Commonwealth Edison (between $3. no. transmission to them will cost more per kWh actually delivered than transmission to less remote sources.129MW at $14. n206 increasing gasoline costs. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP The costs of adding transmission to reach new wind capacity are also in general absent from national RPS proposals. of course.RPS Neg 23 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed Federal RPS will require huge investments in generation.3 and $4.

forcing the buyer to make costly standby arrangements. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. RECs won’t guarantee the distribution of renewables Michaels. Energy Industry. Two other facts lead to pessimism on RECs. “Changing Resources. What should be clear is that generation investment and transmission investment are not separate issues. Economically Suspect. but as soon as the RPS threshold is met they become nearly worthless. the EIA predicted this kind of outcome in the latter stages of a proposed 15% RPS. Credits may not have the same functionality as local resources.S. n144 Quite simply. For instance. and it is likely those programs will occur with or without a national RPS.” April 2008. When capacity is short. on the other hand. A distant one may not be dispatchable or transmission may be unavailable when needed. indicated moderate increases in costs to consumers. As discussed in Part III. only the easiest renewable energy programs would be pursued. vol.56 .. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C Renewables and risk Renewable Credits Markets. J.RPS Neg 24 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – RECs Won’t Expand Renewables RPS won’t expand renewables – providers will buy RECs from the government rather than invest in renewables Fershee. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. Three RPS states do not even require that sources of their utilities' RECs be interconnected with their grids. 3. they are costly or unavailable. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. Whether a national RPS would trigger fundamental change or have only moderate impact adds to the difficulty utilities would face in making investment and policy decisions. Energy Law Journal.” 29 Energy L. if the cost of the major infrastructure changes is too high or the incentives too low. Electricity Journal. and any national RPS should be part of a comprehensive energy package to help utilities make informed and more accurate decisions. In this scenario. n143 Depending on the parameters of the RPS. 21. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP The EIA studies. it is possible that a national RPS could change almost nothing operationally. The first is political: some states will be permanently deficient and constantly sending payments to others whose good fortune was a random event. developers of renewable energy projects will not invest in projects if most of their customers have a cheaper way out. but others acknowledge their uneven geographic distribution and their unequal costs.55 The second is economic: prices of credits under existing state programs are too volatile to be of use for collateralizing debt. if the RPS includes a cost cap that is too low. no. All federal RPS proposals include markets for renewable energy credits (RECs) that will allow utilities in resource-poor areas to comply by purchasing plants or supplies in resource-rich ones. 49. most utilities would simply buy RECs from the government rather than invest in renewable projects..C. and there is no clear reason why a federal program will be different. Some national RPS backers see renewables as potentially available everywhere.

724 pages. n108 In 2007 its legislature increased the requirement to 20% by 2020. Colorado's program appears too new to draw any firm conclusions about present-day compliance or future prospects for it. and 37. n98 A report by Barry Rabe for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change also views state experiences favorably. 2005. The alternative energy requirement began to run for three of them on Feb. State RPSs prove that renewables won’t be sufficiently expanded Michaels. climate control. during its extended gestation. Nearly all of the added capacity is wind. Energy Law Journal. cost-effective energy. [] Colorado in 2004 became the first state to bypass its legislature and enact a 10% 2015 RPS (including a 4% solar setaside) by referendum.5% per year through 2009.8% of its electricity in 2006. the Worldwatch Institute notes that: "Several states are demonstrating just how quickly renewable energy can take hold with the right policies. and Tier 2 10%.e. and renewable energy." n96 In reality Californians received approximately the same percentage of their power from nonhydro renewables in 2006 as they did in 1995. the Conference Managers' Report accompanying H. and the rest will begin on or before Jan. such as a federally mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard4 (RPS). and utility-specific activities in the renewable arena is calculated. with a 4% solar setaside. n107 As of this writing. n103 Nevada's utilities have signed contracts with renewables providers that nominally [*104] put the two of them taken together into compliance with its RPS. currently $ 55. oil and gas. President Bush signed into law the most sweeping energy bill since the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Unlike most other RPS states. unprecedented in its brevity. but their actual records provide little reason for such a hopeful judgment. his report examines five states chosen for their representativeness and diversity: n100 [] Texas is the only state in full compliance with an RPS that has required substantial generation investment. as well as in the consideration procedures established under the Electricity Title XII of EPAct 2005. and what discussions exist are often vague or misleading. Texas has built its required renewables." thanks to its geothermal capabilities and empty. In early 2007 it met its 2009 quota of 2. As opposed to quantities under contract. Moreover. and elected officials have successfully stopped or delayed most construction. . after which the amount was to rise by 0. but at a lower level than investor-owned systems. and data from those currently subject to reporting requirements are not yet available.RPS Neg 25 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables Federal RPS not necessary to expand renewable – other programs are more flexible Ralls. California already gets 31 percent of its electricity from renewable resources. if not wholly. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. 28. n110 One of Nevada's two utilities is overcompliant and the other in deficit. the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005 or the Act)2 includes provisions on numerous subjects including energy efficiency. [] Massachusetts required that 1% of all delivered power per year be from renewables between 1998 and 2002. n102 Its RPS requires annual progress to 20% by 2015. The final product was over 10 years in the making. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. n97 Most of the hydropower comes from large federal and utility-owned dams built before 1950.4% in 2005. Some State Experiences One RPS proposal The growing national RPS literature has given very little attention to the performance of state RPS programs. currently 9%. Massachusetts was out of compliance within a year after its requirements became binding. Utilities used banked credits from 2002 to achieve compliance in 2003. n104 Nevada Power met its 2006 requirement by purchasing 1. 2011. but rural residents. no data on compliance are publicly available.451. Energy Law Journal. But was a mandate necessary to foster the purposes underlying the numerous attempts to enact a RPS. 4 percent of the state total] comes from non-hydro sources.1 Weighing in at a hefty 1. which have in reality made little or none. the answer is no.000 by 2025. The RPS has since been extended to 5. and procedural maneuvers employed to ensure the enactment of EPAct 2005. n101 [] The Pew report asserts that Nevada could become the "next Texas. All utilities and competitive retailers are required to obtain a percentage of their supplies from renewables or obtain credits for them. describes the "impressive progress" of California. EPAct 2005 was the source of many legislative battles.000 MW of renewables by 2015 and a non-binding goal of 10. INTRODUCTION On August 8.5% solar setaside. "In a number of instances. and environmental difficulties may render it dependent on external resources for the long term. Activities on a number of fronts supplant the need for a federal RPS. state. n109 The Pew Report expresses optimism over the future of these states' programs.000 new renewable megawatts in territories that were open to retail competition.” Vol. local. Proquest) // JMP I. with 5% of renewables solar at that date. 79. 2. and to spur on the growth of renewable energy markets? When the sum of other federal. and New York. [and] 12 percent of this [i. J. n105 Both are also in deficit on their solar quotas. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B. 2007. 27. but the Pew Report does not examine their actual contributions to power supply and reliability discussed above. RPSs have clearly played a central role in fostering rapid and significant expansion of the amount of [*103] renewable energy provided in a state. and its nearly 3." n99 Apparently seeking to justify this claim. [] Pennsylvania enacted a two-tiered "Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard" in 2005. 23% from other states in 2006. its municipal and cooperative utilities must also comply. at least 500 of which are to be non-wind. the flexibility inherent in many such programs. n95 Seeking evidence of similar progress. Only Texas is clearly in compliance with its own RPS. environmentalists. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. Tier 1 facilities are to generate 8% of the state's power by 2021. Due to the span of time over which Congress considered an energy bill.02 million kwh of credits from Sierra Pacific Power. 6 (the bill that would become EPAct 2005) was almost.000 MW of wind capacity produced only 1. often [*105] at hours when it was of little value.13 for each deficit MWh. 1. hydrogen.6% short in 2004. Likewise. The first tier consists of non-hydro renewables and includes an 0. Statewide compliance data are not currently available. no. windy deserts. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.5 mean that these programs and procedures are much more likely to realize the benefits from renewables while providing consumers with reliable. but the exchange of credits between them has little meaning because of their weak interconnections. failed to make it into the law. fell 32.. No Pennsylvania utilities had to be in compliance with their state's RPS at the time of the Pew Report.R. Nevada. p. The second includes incinerated trash and waste coal. Wind was expected to dominate compliance investments. the actual outputs of renewables are well below the utilities' quotas. They failed to comply despite a required payment to the state.3 It does not explain why some measures were successful whereas others. regional. despite enactment of an RPS in 2002. n106 Utilities are exempt from its provisions during their authorized periods for recovery of transition costs incurred in connection with restructuring.

RPS Neg 26
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables

RPS not key to cost reductions and expansion of renewables

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton
(Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.
J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Experience in production lowers costs, and a national RPS may add to experience in renewables. Since 2/3 of the population
already lives in RPS states, it is not clear why adding the remainder will yield significant additional cost reductions.
Competition also pressures producers to reduce costs, whether it comes from renewables or nonrenewables. Costs may fall
with experience, but an inexperienced producer can also reduce them by observing and imitating competitors. Growing
markets in intellectual property allow Americans to benefit from the research of others without a duplication of effort. n38
Any policy that directs increased investment to a particular industry can yield cost reductions that come with scale and
experience, if they in fact exist. These savings, however, will come with any pro-renewables policy and are not in themselves
a reason to favor a national RPS to increase their production.

State RPSs empirically prove our argument

Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April
2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

III Renewables by the Numbers
A Today's megawatts, tomorrow's bills
With minor exceptions, renewables have failed to deliver on decades of promises. Table 1 shows the nation's power sources
in 1991 and 2005. The percentage generated by gas has risen substantially, improved operating procedures have increased the
share of nuclear units, and coal is off only 3 percentage points. A number of states had RPS programs in operation, but over
the period production from renewables went from 2.0 to 2.2 percent of the total. Table 2 shows how the composition of
renewable output has changed. Wind's percentage share rose while those of all other technologies fell. Solar generation
(photovoltaic and thermal combined) fell from 0.6 to 0.5 percent of renewable output. Had wind remained at its 1991 level,
renewables would have fallen to 1.8 percent of total generation.

RPS Neg 27
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Solvency – Federal RPS will Just Expand Wind
A federal RPS will just expand wind power – it is the only feasible renewable at this time

Yeatman & Ebell, 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global
Warming Policy at CEI
(William Yeatman and Myron Ebell, “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the
Industrial Heartland,” 6-12-2007, No. 114, http://cei.org/pdf/5982.pdf) // JMP

Renewable Energy is Wind Energy. The notion that an RPS will include a “portfolio” of renewable energy sources is
misleading—wind energy is the only economically viable renewable energy source given current technologies. Although
other renewable sources, such as biomass and solar, have long-term potential, they are currently no more than niche
technologies.
Even assuming that these technologies improve significantly in the next decade or two, a major logistical obstacle will
remain. The technology to convert biomass into electricity remains prohibitively expensive and uncertain. Huge investments
will be needed to build infrastructure to gather and transport large quantities of biomass to generating plants.
With solar energy, the near-term potential is almost certainly at the consumer level rather than large-scale generation, again
because of cost and reliability issues. In other words, the potential for photovoltaic panels is greater on rooftops than across
deserts.
Wind power, on the other hand, is an established technology. In an analysis of the impact of a 10-percent nationwide RPS on
the energy industry, the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that “non-hydro electric technologies such as
geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and ocean technologies are not projected to have net capacity additions.”2 As
of 2004, of the estimated 2,335 megawatts of renewable energy use attributable to state renewable standards, 2,183
megawatts (93 percent) were generated by wind.3 Thus, a renewable portfolio standard is, in reality, a mandate for wind
power.

RPS Neg 28
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Solvency – Wind Power Bad
Scaling up wind power will cause costs to rise disproportionately

Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April
2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Advocates correctly claim a negligible cost impact of adding small amounts of wind capacity to existing grids, because
responses to changing winds differ little from responses to random load changes or generator outages. If wind is more
important, the picture changes. Today's grid operator can economize on reserves because outages of conventional generators
are uncorrelated, and so to a lesser extent are those of transmission. Wind is more the opposite: if units at one location are
producing little, those at nearby locations are also likely to be doing so.20 The costs of accommodating wind resources rise
disproportionately when they reach 15 to 20 percent of an area's capacity.21 Estimates of additional reliability investments
under a national RPS are not available, and the same holds for estimates of the costs of higher reserves and load-following
capabilities.22 The case for integrating demand management with renewables becomes stronger as wind becomes a larger
proportion of capacity.

As wind use grows the backlash and costs will increase

Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April
2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

B Why wind?
Wind's recent growth reflects its sensitivity to an on-again off-again production tax credit, since expanded to some other
renewables by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.16 Its likely future dominance reflects its economic availability and political
acceptability. All renewables are location-specific, but wind is the most accessible from many load centers. Railroads and
pipelines allow more convenient siting of conventional generation, but even biomass becomes uneconomic if transported
over 50 miles.17 Wind often faces relatively less public opposition than other renewables, a situation that may change as
units become larger and more visible. The costs of accommodating wind resources rise disproportionately when they reach
15 to 20 percent of an area's capacity.

Wind is not reliable – low wind speeds during peak hours

Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April
2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Most fossil fuel generators can operate on short notice unless down for maintenance, which owners can schedule in
accordance with their expectations of weather and market conditions. Geothermal and biomass are the only renewables that
can be base-loaded or reliably kept available for dispatch, while wind's intermittency renders it less valuable. To meet its
2009 RPS deadline, Texas recently completed 2,000MW of wind turbines and currently has a total of 2,900MW. In 2005
Texas' RTO, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), classified only 10 percent of a wind unit's nameplate
rating as "effective capacity," a figure since downgraded by a consultant to 8.7 percent.18 Wind speeds are generally low
during peak demand hours. At their 2006 annual peaks, wind generators in both California and Texas were producing under 3
percent of their claimed capacities. The average on-peak contribution of California's 2,323MW of wind capacity in the peak
month of July 2006 was 256MW.19

n78 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the PTC to certain other renewables. and investment has fluctuated accordingly.Local hostility . “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. In (most) regions. localized hostility is growing as units grow in size. At the five highest load hours of 2006. If there is only a small amount of wind capacity the system incurs no extraordinary cost and the wind unit's owner receives an average $ 30 per MWh over the year. and they can be grouped into large "farms. n79 Wind units often encounter less local resistance than fossil plants and other renewables. visibility (some over 400 feet high). and in 1998 investment began its upward trend. Wind is the least site-specific renewable. There is also general agreement that if wind passes some threshold level it begins to raise operating costs.Growing costs Michaels.000 MW drops it to $ 8. n80 Many national RPS scenarios predict that the preponderance of compliance investments will be wind. They then rose by 60% per installed kilowatt between [*99] 2003 and 2006.S.RPS Neg 29 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Wind Power Bad Two factors will block a major increase in wind . study to date examined the cost to a utility (4. Energy Law Journal. they will not be viable if they must bear the actual operating costs they impose on the grid. i. and because additional wind capacity raises its integration cost per megawatt. n85 Average California wind generation during on-peak hours (7 AM to 10 PM) in July 2006 was 495 MW (21% of capacity) and 464 MW in August. n86 Similarly. if it is calm at one location in a control area it is also relatively likely to be calm at others. As wind becomes more prominent it displaces high cost gas-fired generation and lowers system marginal cost. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. First. the average output of Texas 2. wind's costs have greatly increased in recent years. J. Outages of wind units are more highly correlated than those of conventional plants. 18% between 2005 and 2006 alone. The most important part of the increase was an increase in turbine costs.9 cents per kwh." Two obstacles may stand in the way of wind's continued growth. and 2.2% of their nominal capabilities. and some large consuming areas are in easy transmission range of windy ones.000 MW of wind on this system lowers its net payment per MWh to $ 15. and audibility. currently 1.. which lowers the price all generators receive.600 MW peak load) of maintaining industry operating standards with alternative amounts of wind capacity. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.8% of capacity. n87 . wind units in California produced an average of 12. but investment in them has yet to respond. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. net of payments to the system operator for balancing and load-following services. n83 Assume that a wind unit will be paid the marginal cost per kwh of conventional generation it replaces..800 MW of wind generators is 16.e. 1. Operating experience has confirmed that the costs of adding small amounts of intermittent renewables to an existing grid are low. The return to wind plant owners is lower because the purchase price for its power has fallen. If most investments to meet an RPS are wind. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP [*100] Wind's usefulness to a grid operator is further lowered by the general inverse association between peak loads and wind velocities. The PTC has expired and been temporarily extended four times.7% of its nominal amount. An indexed production tax credit (PTC). n81 Random fluctuations in wind require the same type of response as fluctuations in load or minor generator outages. 79. most of which occurs off-peak. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Wind is the only renewable whose output has increased significantly since 1990. J. first became law in 1992. Costs per installed kilowatt steadily declined from the 1980s through the early 2000s. For system planning purposes its grid operator currently sets a wind turbine's "effective capacity" at 8. which are expected to remain high over the near future. Energy Law Journal. on-peak velocities are also lower in summer than winter. n82 The most complete U. n84 Wind is not useful during peak load times Michaels. 79. Second.

“National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Instead. n131 . The relatively windless southeast will encounter such a fate. Like any other novel regulation it will entail detailed rulemakings. despite its array of coal-fired plants that are expected to remain in compliance with existing environmental regulations. its impacts will depend importantly on [*111] accidents of geography. and areas with already high amounts of renewable generation will be less burdened than those without them. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP The seeming simplicity of a national RPS conceals design and implementation issues seldom mentioned by advocates. One likely intent of an RPS is to advantage gas-dependent areas and disadvantage those that have fewer renewable opportunities and currently depend on coal. Whether it applies to states or utilities. but this experience need not be dispositive for a national RPS.. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. J. 79. Regions have vastly differing mixes of potential renewable resources.RPS Neg 30 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – No Renewables in Southeast The southeast will be forced to pay for renewable credits because renewable are not plentiful there Michaels. advocates' expectations that source diversity will mitigate its distributional effects will probably not be fulfilled. some areas will be chronically burdened with REC payments that in effect make them pay for cleaner air that benefits the residents of distant regions. Other environmental programs may have been coherently implemented. Energy Law Journal. data collection. and procedures for enforcing compliance. n130 Since most of the response to a national RPS will be investment in wind.

"I think these RPSs are a bad idea. they should be able to compete without a federal mandate. that doesn't mean we should force it on all 50.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP But RPS opponents say the very fact renewables need government regulations to be competitive proves their economic inferiority. "If they're as good as their proponents say. a conservative think tank. such as wind and solar. http://www.” 6-8-2007. 7 (Rosalie." Renewables. senior policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation. "Renewable energy is more expensive." said Ben Lieberman." Lieberman said. can also be less reliable than other energy sources. “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS.upi.RPS Neg 31 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Renewables are Not Cost Competitive Renewables are not cost competitive – they couldn’t compete without a federal mandate UPI. making them less valuable. . Westenskow. and if 10 or 20 states want to do a bad idea. United Press International.

The Proposed RPS would have exempted retail electricity sellers who sold less than one million megawatt-hours of electricity for purposes other than resale use in the preceding year.R. n38 and three RECs would have been issued for renewable energy generated at an on-site facility where that renewable energy was used to offset all or part of the customer's electricity requirements.75 2011 2. wind. Sovacool.” May 2007.25 2020 and thereafter through 2039 15 Source: H. n28 That is.. landfill gas. Two RECs were to be issued per kilowatt hour of renewable energy generated on Indian land.. the qualifying renewables."49 The plan is too vague – the RPS passed by the House includes the percentage. the impact of a national RPS will be considered under the plan passed by the House in House Bill 3221 (the Proposed RPS). vol. An RPS mandate can be poorly designed and ineffective or elegant and cost-effective.25 2018 10. J. Ryan Wiser found that the design of the mandate was critical to its effectiveness. n35 The proposal also provided that. starting with a requirement of 2.. n33 [*55] Under the Proposed RPS." n36 As a general rule. 110th Cong. increasing gradually (but significantly) through 2020 up to 15%. the Secretary of Energy would have been charged with establishing a program to verify and issue Federal renewable energy credits (RECs).48 We have noted how vague definitions of regulated utilities have provoked prolonged legal battles in some states. but the Proposed RPS made the intent quite clear. “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard.RPS Neg 32 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – Vagueness A vague RPS will encourage legal battles and/or just reinforce the status quo Dr.5 2017 8. the plan provided a premium (i. n30 The Proposed RPS provided that renewable energy meant electric energy that is generated by a "renewable energy resource. biomass. This does not mean that there would not have been lawsuits claiming some sort of preemption. “Changing Resources. n29 The plan provided one additional option for a portion of the requirement: utilities were permitted to achieve up to 4% of this requirement through efficiency programs. additional RECs) in certain situations.25 2019 12. House Bill 3221 contemplated the coexistence of such state programs. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP For purposes of this Article. 15% of each covered retail electricity supplier's energy would have needed to be either generated from renewable energy resources or the retail electric supplier would need to otherwise purchase or exchange credits derived from renewable generation. and retirement of RECs.75 2012 3. 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. "to the extent possible. including those that exceeded the national RPS. based on the amount of electric energy generation from renewable resources and electricity savings that results from those payments. Electricity Journal. tidal.S. or for an alternative compliance mechanism. n43 .5 2015 6. all retail electricity supplier payments made. overly broad definitions of eligible resources have resulted in programs that "have largely supported or will support existing (not new) renewable generation. no. to a State for compliance with a State renewable portfolio standard program. the Secretary shall rely upon existing and emerging State or regional tracking systems that issue and track non-Federal renewable energy credits. specifies a phase-in and stipulates the provision of renewable credits Fershee. Sovacool. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper. or incremental hydropower.e. "directly or indirectly. VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. ocean." n42 The Proposed RPS thus would have kept intact state RPS programs and allowed for the issuance of both federal RECs and state RECs where the renewable energy source satisfied both the federal and state requirements. n40 In recommending reliance upon state and regional systems that track "non-Federal renewable energy credits" in the development of a federal REC tracking system. geothermal energy. § 9611(a). In others. Energy Law Journal. n27 As such. The Proposed RPS required all "retail electric suppliers" to provide 15% of their energy sold from renewable sources by the year 2020. would be included as part of PURPA.” 29 Energy L. as well as all municipal and rural cooperative suppliers. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP In his evaluation of lessons learned from state RPS policies. 49.. n39 Finally.R." which "means solar (including solar water heating). exchange. n26 the Proposed RPS would have been enacted as an amendment to Title VI of the [*54] Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). the Proposed RPS expressly preserved the validity of state programs. one REC would have been issued for each kilowatt hour of renewable electric energy generated under the statute. 3221 Calendar Years Required annual percentage 2010 2. Energy Industry." n31 The plan would have been phased in. and the program planned to track the sale. it is likely that a national RPS. 48.5 2016 7. 4. in establishing such program. n34 The RECs were to be issued to generators of renewable energy. & Coooper.75 2013 4. shall be valued .5 2014 5. n37 In addition. 3221. n25 Like the prior three RPS proposals that passed the Senate. n41 Further. if passed. n32 RPS Requirements As Proposed in H.75% renewable energy beginning in 2010. the proposal stated.

Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Such increased costs are also part of the second major argument against a national RPS . Energy Law Journal. States like North Dakota. . Montana. biomass in particular. n76 have very limited wind resources available. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. like those in the Proposed RPS. n78 A major component of the wealth-transfer complaint of a national RPS is that it unfairly promotes wind and solar energy. because of a higher [*61] biomass capacity factor.S. Energy Industry. but could. “Changing Resources.. n74 like Florida n75 and Virginia. and Kansas have significant renewable energy sources available. Texas. there are indications that other renewable sources.. The Western Regions have considerable renewable resources that could enable suppliers to provide renewable generation in excess of their own requirements and sell surplus credits to producers in other areas with less economical renewable options. thus requiring states with limited solar and wind resources to pay other states for the renewable resources. would help balance this potential inequity. this risk remains a significant criticism of a national RPS." n81 Additionally. n80 "Biomass generation is considerably higher than the output from wind capacity ." n82 Nonetheless. n77 The risk of this wealth transfer is apparent in certain scenarios. 49. n73 Southeastern states.result in lower electricity prices in some areas of the United States. n79 However. could further assist in the "uneven geography of renewable resources.. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. the EIA determined that under a 25% RPS by 2025. which could mean that such states would need to purchase RECs from renewable-rich states to stay in compliance with the national RPS requirements. the RPS would lead to higher overall electricity prices. J.RPS Neg 33 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Solvency – National RPS = Wealth Transfer A national RPS will result in a wealth transfer from States without renewables Fershee. The resulting revenue could more than offset the costs of building renewable plants in the West. energy efficiency provisions. For example. especially wind.that it essentially amounts to a wealth transfer from states with [*60] few renewable resources to those with significant renewable resources.” 29 Energy L.

The Enterprise Newspaper. but they will be base-loaded because their output cannot be altered on short notice. In the long run. Unlike gas-fired generators. As noted below. 79. Emissions. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. rather than coal. Kirkham. n76 This occurs because intermittently available renewables such as wind turbines (which will make up most of the renewable fleet) must be backed by gas-fired generators whose outputs can quickly adjust to fluctuations in wind velocity. the development of renewable energy sources may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. RPS won’t reduce coal consumption – trades off with natural gas Hall & Kirkham. they do not appear to have a significant effect on coal consumption. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. but their growth prospects appear small. . coal units will remain base-loaded and operating at almost all times. 7 – natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP (Richard R. Energy Law Journal.com/showarticle. Percentage [*87] reductions in emissions over a region will not vary one-for-one with the percentage of power produced by renewables. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 2. Both the amounts emitted and their composition depend on the types of renewables built and the types of conventional generators they displace. It's Here to Stay. but the wind turbines that will dominate renewable investment primarily displace cleaner conventional energy. www.. in the short term.RPS Neg 34 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use A national RPS won’t significantly reduce emissions – trades off with cleaner conventional energiess Michaels. 79. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP An RPS inefficiently limits the types of generation to be used rather than constraining allowable emissions of pollutants and GHGs. RPS. renewable portfolio standards tend to decrease the consumption of natural gas. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.” 6-1-2007. J. wind turbines will dominate renewable investments over at least the medium-term. Among other renewables. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a certain level or percentage of electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from renewable sources. encouraging the development of renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures. While renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the development of renewable energy sources. so using intermittent renewables to satisfy an RPS will cut emissions by less than the RPS percentage.aspx?Show=2484) // JMP Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the environmental impacts associated with coal-fired generation. geothermal and biomass plants can be base-loaded. Energy Law Journal. and Wind One does not need NEMS to see that a national RPS will cut carbon emissions by less than its percentage requirement . Due to price differentials. “Coal: Like It or Not. However.stoel. n77 RPS will only trade off with gas fired generation – won’t reduce coal use Michaels. Some renewables such as biomass and geothermal can be base-loaded and will displace coal. but their intermittent availability means that they will largely displace gas-fired generation that can adjust output on short notice. J. Coal-fired generators produce more GHG per kwh hour generated.a rough consensus is that a 10% increase in renewable output reduces them by only about 6%. Hall and John S. Gas-fired plants emit fewer criteria pollutants and GHGs than coal-burning ones..

It is also inefficient as GHG policy.451. Texas recently amended its statute to require utilities to upgrade their transmission systems to meet RPS goals and to be able to recover those costs in their rate bases. reliability has two components-supply adequacy and operating reliability. Two elements of renewables-intermittence and low energy production- necessitate that back-up resources and transmission capacity be available to ensure supply adequacy.RPS Neg 35 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use Reliability concerns will force utilities to operate fossil fuel back up generators Ralls. 2. the IOUs have expressed concern that they may not be able to meet the 20% by 2010 standard because of transmission constraints. Additionally. gas. the environmental and economic benefits of certain renewable resources may be overstated. 27. renewable resources must be assessed on their ability to provide levels of reactive power capability.” Vol. back-up generators when necessary. voltage regulation. Certainly some. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. Among the few NEMS forecasts we can accept with confidence are its projections of substantial new investment in coal.94 In California. Because of the need to run these back-up systems. Proquest) // JMP B. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. According to NERC. and possibly nuclear generation to keep up with even conservative estimates of load growth. gas and nuclear generation will increase to keep up with load growth Michaels. Current trends suggest that wind power will constitute the great majority of compliance investments. but ensuring the reliability of a wind-dependent grid will require major transmission investments and continued reliance on conventional generation. It concentrates on using a certain technology rather than directly addressing emissions. n129 Its continuing appeal is more the result of its rhetorical force and political expediency than its likely consequences for electricity and the environment. and energy actually produced during these times is even smaller. while coal plants that pollute more heavily remain base-loaded. 79.95 Even with an RPS coal.. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. no. . p. For instance. leaving wind to power any renewable future. Flexibility in Assessing Reliability Like renewables programs. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. Biomass and geothermal power have not yet passed the market test and solar power is a negligible presence. Energy Law Journal. such as biomass and landfill gas. are dispatchable. J. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP VII. and its alternatives in a comprehensive GHG policy have yet to be spelled out. Wind's intermittency implies that it will primarily displace gas-fired generation. RPS at any level reverses decades of hard-won progress in determining standards and developing institutions for the efficient control of criteria pollutants. purchasing utilities may be forced to continue to operate traditional fossil-fuel. there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to assessing reliability of renewable resources. generating capacity that is available during peak periods is less predictable than capacity from traditional fuels. the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) noted that because renewable resources are intermittent in nature. Conclusions A national RPS has appeared in legislation or proposed legislation eighteen times since 1997. the RPSs or other programs can be and are being revisited. Energy Law Journal. and low-voltage ride-through capability sufficient to maintain connection to the bulk transmission system under low-voltage conditions.93 To the extent that implementers of renewable programs perceive that the lack of reliability creates a barrier to successful incorporation of renewables into utility portfolios.91 Since there is no guarantee that wind and solar will generate power when needed.92 In a recent study.

Energy Law Journal. finding them inadequate at best. RPS reverses standards and institutions to efficiently control pollution Michaels. leaving wind to power any renewable future. Economic efficiency means production at least cost. It is a costly measure whose effects on emissions are uncertain. [*88] Others might choose coal-burning technologies in the expectation that satisfactory abatement or sequestration technologies will be available at reasonable cost. Some might choose gas-fired units whose emissions are easier to control but whose fuel prices are less stable. Conclusions A national RPS has appeared in legislation or proposed legislation eighteen times since 1997. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. but not to build renewables beyond those amounts. Claims that it is necessary to stimulate reductions in production cost lose their force in a global economy. Among the few NEMS forecasts we can accept with confidence are its projections of substantial new investment in coal. Energy Law Journal.RPS Neg 36 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Help Environment Environmental compliance can be met with conventional plants – RPS not necessary Michaels. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. an RPS is inefficient by every economic standard. The fact that renewables have lower emissions cannot by itself justify a requirement that they be built in lieu of conventional generation. As environmental policy. 79. but ensuring the reliability of a wind-dependent grid will require major transmission investments and continued reliance on conventional generation. as do expectations that it will position the U. As macroeconomic or industrial policy. and possibly GHG abatement or sequestration. and its alternatives in a comprehensive GHG policy have yet to be spelled out. The next sections examine advocates' claims for it. and possibly nuclear generation to keep up with even conservative estimates of load growth. The utility's optimal choice will depend on expectations of the future and on the legacy generation the utility is bringing forward. In the latter it forces the costly modification of supply plans that utilities expect will be in compliance with air quality and GHG regulations. and needlessly disruptive of generation investments intended to comply with anticipated emissions rules. a national RPS cannot possibly "create" net increases in employment and rural areas that it will "revitalize" seldom need the help. J. 79. n129 Its continuing appeal is more the result of its rhetorical force and political expediency than its likely consequences for electricity and the environment. National RPS won’t help environment – several reasons Michaels.S. J. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. utilities have generally chosen to make the required compliance investments in renewables. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP VII. J. Renewables have been available as supply options for some time. It is also inefficient as GHG policy. but most utilities appear to have determined that they can meet their service obligations and remain in environmental compliance by investing in conventional plants and demand management. Different investments will be optimal for differently situated utilities. rather than an ad hoc regulation like RPS. A national RPS affects both those states with existing programs and those without. gas. standard renewables contracts only transfer it from utilities to captive customers. to dominate the world renewables market. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Any chosen project must also account for expected future policy constraints such as more stringent air quality standards. Wind's intermittency implies that it will primarily displace gas-fired generation. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C. It concentrates on using a certain technology rather than directly addressing emissions. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP We begin with data on renewables which suggests that a federal RPS will bring little diversity in generation resources and few environmental benefits. Other purported consequences are also questionable.. Biomass and geothermal power have not yet passed the market test and solar power is a negligible presence.. RPS at any level reverses decades of hard-won progress in determining standards and developing institutions for the efficient control of criteria pollutants. while coal plants that pollute more heavily remain base-loaded. where costs reflect the market values of all relevant resources. 79. . Intertemporal efficiency entails the choice of investments that produce a utility's planned output at the lowest cost. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. In states with RPS. discounted to the present for comparability with alternative projects. National security is better advanced through direct policies instead of compulsory investment in renewables. difficult to integrate with existing environmental regulation. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Energy Law Journal. Current trends suggest that wind power will constitute the great majority of compliance investments. Efficiency Through Time The principles of efficiency extend to durable investments in generation and transmission. Still others might invest in demand management. Whether lower allowable concentrations of pollutants or emissions of GHG are warranted is properly the subject of rulemakings like those that have set currently standards. Rather than facilitating risk management..

NEMS' cumulative record is not encouraging. no. Regulating only a subset of sources cannot possibly lower the costs of achieving a given reduction in concentration. or to calculate the level of confidence we can have in the prediction. Energy Law Journal. 7 (Utah Public Utilities. e. the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of new wind and other renewable projects well beyond current proposed projects. 3. ." According to the report. to check whether assumptions within its mathematical structure might be responsible. AG) A 15-percent Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) will drive down natural gas demand and price. Its forecast accuracy has improved little with experience. integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon sequestration and demand-side approaches to reduce the growth rate of electricity consumption. "The lower fuel costs and fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower electricity costs. [] Regulate the pollutant itself and not the process that produces it. Economically Suspect. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C Modeling a national RPS Simulating the effects of a national RPS has become a small industry. Documentation issued in 2006 and the first half of 2007 alone totals over 3. findings that a national RPS will reduce production of GHG by substantially less than the stipulated portfolio percentage. But Not Have a Significant Impact on GHG Emission Levels. National policy can’t solve warming – global solution needed Michaels. Economics provides several guidelines for efficient reduction: n24 [] Consider all possible sources. but only lead to a slowing in the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). and small hydro power. a be largely restricted to areas that are primarily responsible for emissions and contain most of the affected population. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. enough to result in the large GHG reduction targets being proposed. [] Match geography with costs and benefits..8% per year under a Federal RPS compared with a growth rate of 1. Our study shows that a Federal RPS would only be one small piece in a large and complicated puzzle to halt the growth of or reduce the absolute level of CO2 emissions.g. horizons like those of RPS studies. vol. Biomass' share of renewable generation has fallen since 1991 and its absolute amount (wood plus waste burning) is roughly unchanged (Table 2). The desired end-product is a lower level of the pollutant rather than the dominance of a particular technology.28 Most NEMS-based studies predict that a national RPS will produce relatively small increases in power prices under the model's assumptions about technology improvement and market conditions.S. not an absolute reduction from current levels according to the new Wood Mackenzie report. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.North American Power and Michael Pickens. each with its own authors. n25 Similarly.S. regulators must design institutions that minimize the costs of attaining that level. Senior Analyst - North American Power for Wood Mackenzie. however.RPS Neg 37 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – Warming Ans Complex modeling proves that RPS won’t substantially reduce greenhouse emissions Michaels." The United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over the next 20 years to replace aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity. but cutting their output to accommodate intermittent renewables reduces GHGs by less than if coal-fired generation could be cut when they are operating. Recent RPS proposals call for an average of 15 percent of power generation to come from renewable sources within the next two decades. National environmental laws nominally specify uniform standards. lower the overall price of power. Equally important is that the growth rate in CO2 production is still a positive 0. J. is primarily symbolic. make quick changes in their output costly or impossible. Renewable energy is just one piece in the puzzle of global warming. Energy Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System. Senate used a June 2007 EIA study to justify possible inclusion of an RPS in legislation. Nevertheless NEMS predicts so thorough a recovery that it will produce 68 percent of renewable power in 2030 and wind will produce only 16 percent.500 pages.24 Its outcomes depend on literally thousands of assumptions. A single state or national policy. landfill gas. Clearly. a reduction in total CO2 levels will require other options to be implemented including nuclear power. up from 6 percent today. leading to a 500-percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. The study shows that implementing the Federal RPS would reduce total domestic CO2 levels in 2025 by only 10% from the Wood Mackenzie base case.utah. Design standards needlessly restrict the range of possible abatement methods and may discourage innovative approaches to it. Mounting concerns over US dependence on fossil fuels and the need to address global warming are helping to drive efforts in the US Congress to pass legislation establishing a federal standard to mandate the use of renewable energy. 79. but would not be worth the cost in rural Wyoming. "The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. http://publicutilities. The U. UPU. VP . solar. that estimates prices and outputs for all types of energy along with macroeconomic forecasts.g. most of whose members use the U. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP After setting an allowable concentration. The characteristics of coal units.gov/archive/federalrenewableenergyportfoliostandard. NEMS is a breathtakingly complex set of modules. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. particularly for longer Despite constant tweaking. energy consumption) reflect significant offsetting forecast errors in their components (GDP and energy intensity). The report also shows the switch to renewable energy will drive down demand and price of natural gas. a 10 percent requirement drops GHG by only 6 percent. standing alone. biomass. Renewable energy in this case is defined as wind. While the US Congress contemplates a federal standard. but the attainability of a target in practice requires particularized regulation. It predicts that by 2030 biomass generation will have increased more than sevenfold.. 21. We do know that currently active power plant proposals contain very small amounts of biomass capacity and thousands of megawatts of wind. "Currently.” April 2008. i worldwide control program is in order. Electricity Journal.. some at the choice of users and others embedded within its hundreds of equations." said Joe Sannicandro. As a general 29 Simpler models have confirmed NEMS' matter. Specialized ozone regulations make sense for [*86] Southern California's unique geography. Some seemingly accurate forecasts (e. while wind will have increased by only 400 percent. The forthcoming Clean Air Interstate Rules for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur will f GHGs are a worldwide problem.25 The extreme detail makes it impossible for all but dedicated specialists to evaluate the sensitivity of forecasts to alternative assumptions and to opine on their reasonableness. This increase translates into an incremental construction cost of $134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and 2026.30 Gas-fired units will generally be on the margin.2% per year in Wood Mackenzie's base case outlook. Regulating the design of equipment (small hydroelectric plants but not large ones) or its inputs (restrictions on usable fuels) is inferior to regulating output of the pollutant itself. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. “Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Will Reduce Power and Natural Gas Costs." continued Sannicandro.26 Sometimes the forecasts are hard to square with reality. more "mature" technologies (like wind is becoming) have significantly slower rates of cost decrease than less mature ones.pdf.27 The complexity of NEMS makes it difficult to determine which empirical factors drive the reversal.” May 2007. 24 states have already adopted legislation "Renewable energy alone will not be mandating targets for renewables. the US power sector produces 39 percent of the country's total CO2 emissions..

5 is unnecessarily stringent. but not those who said they were very active or sedentary. Ammonium sulfate. http://cei. and in those who said they were moderately active. a surprising finding. more cost-effective approach is far more likely to result in net public health benefits than other proposals that are the focus of current legislative and regulatory activity and debate.” April. automobile travel. in former. Air pollution doesn’t kill Schwartz. 03 . The Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative and a more stringent Democratic alternative are largely justified by claims that current levels of particulate matter (PM) pose a serious public health threat.pdf) Note: PM = particulate matter Sulfate PM—the type of PM caused by coal power plant emissions—is a particularly implausible culprit as a cause of increased mortality. Although the ACS study reported an association between PM and mortality. EPA based its new annual fine PM (PM2.ADJUNCT SCHOLAR.org/pdf/3452.or never- smokers.5) standard on a study known as the American Cancer Society (ACS) study of PM and mortality. . Additional near- term reductions in PM are probably best achieved by dealing with the stock of high-polluting older vehicles that account for a substantial portion of ambient PM levels in metropolitan areas. The country achieved this success despite substantial increases in population. The evidence suggests that exposure to PM at current levels likely has little or no effect on mortality in most of the United States. Nevertheless. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel. 03 . Attaining the standard will be expensive. PM increased mortality in men. Air pollution will continue to decline.org/pdf/3452.smokers. Power plants in particular have no bearing on mortality Schwartz. and energy production. http://cei. http://cei. Regardless. the benefit claims for PM reductions rest on a weak foundation.RPS Neg 38 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans Air quality is improving Schwartz. These odd variations in the relationship between PM2. some odd features of the ACS results suggest that PM is not the culprit. Supporters of these bills promise substantial benefits from additional PM reductions. and also because already-adopted standards for new vehicles and existing power plants and industrial facilities come into effect in the next few years. “PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS.” April. but not current.5 on mortality in a cohort of veterans with high blood pressure. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel. Inhaled magnesium sulfate is used therapeutically to reduce airway constriction in asthmatics. both because more recent vehicle models start out cleaner and stay cleaner as they age than earlier ones. The evidence therefore suggests that the existing annual standard for PM2. given that PM would be expected to exert its effects through the respiratory system. is used as an inactive control substance in human studies assessing thehealth effects of inhaling acidic aerosols.ADJUNCT SCHOLAR. which assessed the association between the risk of death between 1982 and 1998 with PM2. the main form of sulfate PM. Sulfate is also naturally present in bodily fluids at levels many times the amount that could be inhaled from air pollution. EPA also ignored the results of another epidemiologic study that found no effect of PM2. “PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel. Even more surprising. “PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS. both the Bush Administration and congressional Democrats have proposed sweeping new measures to further crack down on power plant emissions. 03 . but is unlikely to improve public health. in those with no more than a high school degree. processes already set in motion guarantee substantial PM reductions in coming years.” April.5 and mortality seem biologically implausible. according to the ACS results. but not women. For example.5 levels in dozens of American cities.pdf) America’s air quality has vastly improved in recent decades due to progressive emission reductions from industrial facilities and motor vehicles.pdf) Nonetheless. This flexible. even though this relatively unhealthy cohort should have been more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the general population.5 levels were not associated with an increased risk of mortality due to respiratory disease. the ACS study reported that higher PM2.ADJUNCT SCHOLAR.org/pdf/3452. but not those with at least some college education.

the media and politicians have often failed to convey the nuances. It shows that PM and other kinds of air pollution have been declining for decades—few areas of the United States now have high air pollution levels. A detailed review of the dozens of studies of short-term PM health effects is beyond the scope of this report. 03 .” April. but also that these already-adopted measures will take time to come to fruition. The report concludes that there is still substantial uncertainty in the degree of increased mortality due to daily variation in PM levels. such as weather or diet.5 levels. Appropriate policy depends not only on current pollution levels. http://cei.5 standard is more stringent than necessary to protect public health. http://cei. whether there is a threshold level below which PM has no health effects. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel. .org/pdf/3452. In addition. progressive refinements in the research literature have tended to reduce the size of the estimated effects.9 Air pollution has been declining for decades Schwartz.pdf) Note: PM = particulate matter Air pollution sources and trends.ADJUNCT SCHOLAR.org/pdf/3452. and prospects. “PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS. will result in large reductions in all major air pollutants in coming years. but also on expected future pollution levels. http://cei. The weight of the evidence for short-term health effects is less clear. epidemiological analyses are susceptible to various methodological biases and errors that could cause misattribution of health effects to PM when they are caused by another pollutant or by factors unrelated to pollution. and controversies surrounding the science of PM health effects. “PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS. The study concludes that baseline trends—mainly turnover of the vehicle fleet—combined with existing requirements for industrial sources. “PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel. though the evidence suggests that PM is at worst shortening life by no more than a few days in already-frail individuals. based on pre-existing trends and regulations already on the books.pdf) Note: PM = particulate matter However.RPS Neg 39 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans Their studies reflect methodological bias Schwartz.ADJUNCT SCHOLAR. uncertainties.pdf) Note: PM = particulate matter The report concludes that current PM levels are generally too low to increase risk of death due to long-term exposure and that EPA’s current annual-average PM2. since no more than a few percent of monitoring locations exceed the federal health standard for daily PM10 or PM2. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel. current levels.ADJUNCT SCHOLAR. It also concludes that the issue is currently moot for policy purposes. Some epidemiologists believe that epidemiologic methods are not even capable of accurately teasing out very small increases in health risks. whether pollution reduces life-expectancy by more than a few days. Although many studies have reported increases in death and disease due to daily increases in PM levels.org/pdf/3452.Recently discovered software glitches may also have caused dozens of studies to overestimate the acute health effects of PM. Although epidemiologic studies have had mixed results on the link between particulates and health. 03 . Particulate matter levels are too low to have health effects Schwartz. a number of researchers have raised substantive concerns over whether PM is the pollutant responsible for the observed health effects. and whether the confounding effects of non- pollution factors such as weather have been adequately addressed. This paper begins with a summary of air pollution trends. which aims to give the reader an understanding of the key issues and the current state of the science. This means that air pollution has been largely addressed as a long-term problem.” April.” April. relative either to current health standards or past levels. 03 .

However. In both places. Birds. many animals and plants can go on living in the surrounding areas. 07 – senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Marlo. According to [biologist E. One obvious thing to do would be to look at our own experiment. one ought to expect half of all species to have become extinct. the eastern forests were reduced over two centuries to fragments totaling just 1-2 percent of their original area. In the U. http://cei.O. the one carried out in Europe and North America.” whether due to deforestation or climate change. “X. the group “could not find a single known animal species which could properly be declared as extinct. in spite of the massive reduction in area and fragmentation of the habitat. but nonetheless this resulted in the extinction of one only forest bird.. Hence they suppose that any reduction in “species area.”16 .RPS Neg 40 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – Biodiversity Ans Species extinction studies are based upon extinction rates on islands – these aren’t true for larger land areas Lewis.” 1/22. when members of the Brazilian Society of Zoology analyzed all 171 known Atlantic forest animals. not one land animal species perished because Brazil deforested its Atlantic coast: Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest had been almost entirely cleared in the nineteenth century. Beetles. If.] Wilson’s rule of thumb.pdf) Extinction alarmists assume that the observed relationship between habitat loss and species loss on small islands holds for much larger land areas. will result in a corresponding number of extinctions. there is nowhere to escape. The data tell a different story. one tract of rainforest is cut down. primary forest was reduced by approximately 98-99 percent. Extinctions. on the other hand.org/pdf/ait/chX.S.15 Similarly. as Bjorn Lomborg explains: If islands get smaller. notes Lomborg. with only 12 percent extremely fragmented forest left.

a 31-year-old farmer. "Is it acceptable in the grand scheme of things?" . But now it looks like an industrial facility. said Robert W. Wind farms have killed a number of bats – researchers don’t know why it is happening or how to prevent it Columbus Dispatch. The 2001 study. As developers plan to build a record 1. each towering nearly 40 stories above the rolling hills like steel-gray robots with rotating arms. Mitch Masters. researchers counted 72 bat carcasses. and it's no longer serene and beautiful. p. a biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. green. funded by a local utility. "We don't know why (it is happening) or how to prevent it.000 feet apart. Individual units in each pair are separated by 800 feet. Virginia and elsewhere. said he is concerned about the Pennsylvania deaths and echoed Howe's call for research. "This was a forested area at one time. renewable energy. “Ill wind blows in turbine debate. Scientists don't know whether bats are attracted by the turbine blades.” 1-2-2005.RPS Neg 41 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Environment Adv – Bird Turn The construction of wind farms destroys the environment and kills birds and bats Baltimore Sun. a John Kerry-voting environmentalist who says he's always been enthusiastic about "clean.000-pound turbines are 250 feet tall and armed with three 132-foot-long blades.Todd Hutzell is a liberal Democrat. The Pennsylvania findings starkly contradict a 2002 industry-funded study. found that during 1. Hutzell joined a growing number of activists forming groups to fight the expansion of wind farms nationally." But then out-of-state developers clear-cut more than 60 acres of forest atop a scenic ridge beside his family's farm and built 20 futuristic wind turbines." Masters said.1B) // JMP MEYERSDALE.200 hours of observation of 31 turbines from 1998 to 2001. The turbines are mounted in a cornfield in pairs. The whooshing noise the blades emit is at a low pitch that Masters said bats are usually not attracted to. the pairs are 2. p." said Hutzell. Pa. the splattering of birds and bats. “Bowling Green Turbines Claim Few Bats. The dead bats were a surprise. -. an Ohio State University bat expert. Eyesores or clean machines? Environmentalists are split over the giant energy-producing towers popping up in Maryland and other states. "Is this a cost of wind (power)?" Masters asked. and some are proposing moratoriums on the booming wind industry. Irritated by the throbbing noise.including 116 in Maryland -. quiet and peaceful. 5 (Mike Lafferty.anti-turbine groups have caught the attention of public officials in New Jersey.07A) // JMP The 30.” 1-11-2005. almost all of migrating bats. and the industrial look of what had been woodlands. 5 (Tom Pelton. West Virginia.300 wind turbines this year -. Howe. construction worker and co-founder of Friends of the Appalachian Highlands. but they support a 2001 report of a wind farm in Wisconsin where bats were killed.

generating capacity is unpredictable.larouchepub. the more and more vulnerable it becomes to natural disasters and terrorist attacks causing blackouts. because wind and other "renewable" resources are intermittent in nature. 6 (Marsha Freeman. 7 (Allison Barrie. “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid.com/story/0.html) // SM With some 160. Currently. when a grid becomes overloaded. determined to keep the lights on in New York no matter what terrorists throw at the grid. "wind generation is often located in remote areas.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.00. an association of publicly owned electric companies. which requires new transmission construction to deliver its energy" to where it is needed. The system was built at a time when its vulnerabilities had little impact. American Superconductor and the Department of Homeland Security are Fortunately. under normal conditions a downed line or a substation can easily be bypassed. Guarding every power line from a terrorist attack is an impossibility for forces that already lack resources. Our evidence assumes yours .” 4-27-2007.RPS Neg 42 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Blackouts Adv The plan places more stress on the electric grid by requiring more transmission capability Executive Intelligence Review. But will terrorists conveniently wait for the next 12 years to exploit this vulnerability? ConEdison. Circumventing one or two disruptions is one matter. only a large problem will cause major issues Kaplan. “It’s extremely difficult to harden. rolling outages and cascading failures. Problems with the grid are being solved in the status quo Fox News. when a powerful storm knocked out so many lines at once that the grid could no longer function.the system is inherently stable – down areas can just by bypassed. Wind generation is expected to provide the bulk of this "renewable" energy.000 miles of high voltage lines and 250. requiring the installation of additional reliable generating capacity.000 substations. the grid will not allow any other stations to assist by donating electricity to keep the lights on in that area.” 6-6-2008. power grid remains open to a host of threats. the U. In addition. Butwhen this superconducting cable is integrated with the existing electrical grid. The effort was dubbed "Project Hydra" after the mythical beast that grew a new head each time any was chopped off.” http://www. http://www. Of course. The Department of Energy has taken the lead on countering this threat and has come up with a plan to be rolled out in 2020.html) // SM The closer the grid gets to hitting capacity and buckling from consumer demand. a total of 21 states and the District of Columbia have adopted requirements for the purchase of renewable energy by utilities. . 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben. NERC points out.S. but a host of simultaneous interruptions will still cause widespread outages.2933. This was the scenario in St. losing a line increases the strain and could cause failure. even today. Electric Grid. the plan is to roll out Hydra to protect other national critical infrastructure.” explains Ed Legge. the three organizations plan to launch a program they’re calling the Resilient Electric Grid. sometimes for as much as 25% of their total supply. if an area like the financial district is targeted and goes down. Once the capability for multi-path electrical resilience goes live in the New York City electric grid in 2010. However.foxnews. In less than two years.” says Gellings. Right now.S. guards and badges to be focused on nuclear plants and other places where they are critical to stopping terrorist attacks. but Project Hydra will allow our guns. “Project Hydra: Keeping Power Out of the Hands of Terrorists. you can go around issues. to ensure the ability to serve customers.cfr. In the event of a deliberate attempt to cause a cascading failure similar to the blackout of 2003.com/other/2006/3343power_shortages. which provides a new superconductor cable that can link up stations and ensure the steady flow of juice to all parts of the city. “It’s like a web. usually fossil-fueled. it also will be able to limit the current flow between substations during fault conditions.364104. Project Hydra also has plans to install micro wind and water turbine generators on rooftops to ensure ongoing power generation for neighborhoods in the event of a crisis.html) 'Renewable' Resources Hoax Another craze with the potential to destabilize the fragile electric grid is the promotion of "renewable" energy sources. Louis in 2006. “NERC Forecast: 22 Necessary Actions Required to Save U. it will link up substations and allow them to share excess capacity in case of an emergency. a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute. http://www. some groups are stepping in to fill the gap.

html) // SM Managing Risk Overgrown trees alone did not precipitate the massive 2003 blackout. 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben. Richard P. operators lacked the proper training. Mexican and Canadian authorities have promised to back NERC’s regulations with the force of law [14]. Since its inception in 1968. and prices of electricity resulting from any electricity congestion.” which will receive special attention and funding to ensure reliability is upheld [13. The trees merely provided the catalyst for a chain reaction that. which assumes the responsibility on June 4. The 2005 Energy Bill has solves for blackouts – multiple warrents IEEE. had the system been operating stably. Sergel. “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid. It also adopted rules that diversified these reserves sufficiently throughout the system to make sure that no major transmission problems would occur [9]. FERC then has the authority to issue permits for the construction of transmission facilities in the corridor (if it determines that the host state does not have the authority to approve the siting).cfr. which are currently voluntary. brief.info/reliability. FERC As the ERO. NERC’s president and CEO. Second. the standard focuses on ensuring the ability for interconnection of any on-site facility. Under NERC’s oversight. In 2006. the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) was created to provide guidelines to prevent a recurrence of such a blackout [6]. The corridors are established based on the level of electric congestion in the area. 109-058. 15].asp) // SM After the major blackouts of 1965. But in 2005. managed outages could occur in order to avoid overburdening the system and risking massive failure. In doing so. and monitoring systems showing the grid’s condition in real-time were not in place. http://www.” At times this could mean less reliable service. “Reliability and Blackouts. The North American Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) is responsible for ensuring such conditions are not repeated. The greater cause was a grid so overloaded it had become unstable. First. “We still insist it operate stably. consumers can rest assured the conditions that made the 2003 blackout possible will not be replicated.” 4-25-2007+. and in many cases to sustain the loss of more than one piece of equipment.” 4-27-2007. Such was the case in Texas in April 2006. Sergel says.The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) (Full Act: Pub. explains that three of his agency’s standards were not being met when the lights went out across the Northeast that summer: Trees went untrimmed. “No matter how stressed the system is. EPAct mandates the adoption of IEEE 1574 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems.RPS Neg 43 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Blackouts Adv The root cause of massive failures has been fixed – the NERC regulates transmission now Kaplan. will become mandatory. Recognizing the importance of electric reliability. IEEE 1574 is a “technology-neutral” standard which does not specify specific types of equipment needed to meet interconnection requirements. 2007. reliability standards [13].electripedia. NERC’s regulations for operating power grids have been voluntary. 7 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. photovoltaics and other distributed energy generation technologies. Instead. . and help ensure the reliability and safety of the nation’s electric power system for decades to come [16]. Furthermore. with oversight by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Though not everyone had power all the time.” he says. never would have been possible. development of fuel cells. the economic vitality of development of the corridor.L. Inc. The main purpose of NERC was to ensure that every region had sufficient "reserves" (sufficient "extra generation" instantly available) to make sure the system could tolerate the loss of any single piece of equipment without disruption at any time. NERC’s powers were significantly expanded by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Summary: Research Service) addressed reliability issues in a number of ways. Congress asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to designate an organization to establish and enforce rules of operation for the nation’s electrical grid. EPAct mandated the creation of a self-regulatory Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) that spans North America. http://www. In the wake of the Blackout of 2003. end markets served by the corridor. it addresses both operational and safety issues while focusing on the functional requirements of the interconnection and not on the The standard will increase the diversity of the electricity supply by facilitating specific types of equipment to meet the functional requirements. EPAct grants the ERO and FERC power to acquire right-of-way by the exercise of right of eminent domain for siting transmission expansion [13. When this happens. NERC is responsible for establishing and enforcing FERC-approved electric certified NERC as the ERO for the United States [12].org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid. it settled on NERC. EPAct mandates that the Department of Energy (DOE) conduct a study of electric transmission congestion every three years and gives the DOE authority to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors. 15]. Furthermore. NERC guidelines for safe operation of the electrical grid. the relatively brief service interruptions helped allay a massive system failure. when hundred-degree temperatures pushed energy demands beyond the capability of the transmission infrastructure.

say economic analysts. http://www. Investigators found that there was "a systematic breakdown" of planning safeguards and monitoring in Ohio and neighboring states. according to the council. Canada.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858- 2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM The problems extended beyond FirstEnergy.” 8-10-2004." Cupparo said. a spokeswoman for the council. Illinois. they've had little to no economic incentives. “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable . said that utilities have been more attentive to the rules since the blackout. Missouri. said that if the regulations are followed." he said. The high level of financial risk inherent in developing large-scale multi-jurisdictional power lines has been enough to scare away even the three largest utilities in California. N. FERC's open-access transmission tariff reforms.. the chances of another cascading blackout will be significantly reduced. 8 (Esther Whieldon. "A lot of us are in the same situation. and Vermont. US utilities have yet to tap into the vast potential of renewable generation in British Columbia. a Princeton. voluntary industry organization founded after the landmark 1965 Northeast blackout." . and in parts of the Northwest because until now. even though they are not mandatory.” 1-21-08. One of the projects underway to improve electrical reliability after last year's blackout is a series of audits designed to improve performance. Vancko. Colorado. which also oversees the voluntary regulations. vice president of transmission for PacifiCorp. pg. E01. along with utility officials and grid operators. independent power producers and utility executives. “Utilities find common incentives to collaborate on major transmission projects. she added: "We don't know how long those intentions will last. Virginia.J. The audits are being overseen by the North American Electric Reliability Council. p. have nonbinding goals for the adoption of renewable energy instead of an RPS. state and federal tax incentives and state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are some of the key motivators bringing utilities and developers to the table for grid expansion efforts. "The power crisis in the West has really brought home to a lot of people just how transmission-dependent" power markets have become.State RPSs are jump-starting transmission projects already Electric Utility Weekly. Four other states. 4 (Justin Blum. But the political climate has become more favorable toward major transmission projects in the last few years. But. Don't underestimate the power of public opinion.washingtonpost. 1. New Mexico. Utilities in states with RPS laws are scrambling to find and gain access to additional renewable resources. utilities in the West are joining forces to develop major transmission lines that would cross multiple state and national borders to access areas rich in renewable resources." said Ellen P. Officials from the council. Grid operators are in the process of implementing recommendations from the audits. But Power System Fixes Fall Short of Need . Montana and Arizona are some of the Western states with RPS laws. Blackouts are being solved for by utility self-discipline and audits Washington Post. said Johannes Pfeifenberger of the Brattle Group.RPS Neg 44 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Blackouts Adv No federal action is needed . The council. "Our customers are concerned with what's happening to our environment.2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses. Twenty four states and the District of Columbia have adopted renewable portfolio standards. added John Cupparo. "We think there's much more attention and goodwill on the part of the industry to follow the rules. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM For the first time in decades.

but that is not likely to be the case. In 2003. Assume for simplicity that gas production is a fixed amount each month regardless of market price. Producers that formerly broke even or made small profits will take losses and wish to exit from the market. 70 percent of new single family homes constructed used natural gas. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. who will abandon the industry when disinvestment becomes feasible. future residential heating applications are expected to continue to drive residential demand for natural gas. Any renewable-induced drop in the price of gas will probably be short-lived. no. i. Energy Industry. price will rise and gas consumers will enjoy smaller benefits. a free lunch with the added dividend of environmental benefits. When they can disinvest they will leave the industry and their former production will be subtracted from market supply.. This is especially important for providing “spinning reserves.” or constantly running backup power. If the gas market is competitive and near equilibrium just before the RPS takes effect. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Even if the price of gas falls it is unlikely to stay low. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP A long-term reduction in natural gas costs as a result of a mandatory national RPS could lead to increased consumer use of natural gas.National association of Manufactureres ("PROTECT ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FROM RATE INCREASES: OPPOSE THE BINGAMAN RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT". 3. 66 percent of new homes. J.e. Natural gas has many advantages as a fuel for electricity generation. J.RPS Neg 45 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Natural Gas Adv RPS won’t produce sustainable price decreases for natural gas Michaels. and the net benefit to producers and consumers of gas as a group is zero.. So it is disingenuous to justify an RPS as the answer to the natural gas crisis. Economically Suspect. the highest-cost producer will just break even. needed for intermittent resources like wind and solar. RPS won’t produce long-term decreases in natural gas prices Michaels. chief among them its quick-start capability. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. 79. Capital will exit and price will increase until the marginal producer again breaks even.org/s_nam/doc1. the supply curve is vertical. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. Incomes earned by those who supply inputs to the gas industry fall by a dollar for every dollar saved by users. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Energy Law Journal. RPS will expand use of national gas by lowering its price Fershee. 49. vol. 21.” April 2008. If the gas market is near equilibrium. and hence its price falls. n196 "Between 1991 and 1999. Electricity Journal.32 A national RPS shifts the demand curve for gas inward and results in a lower price.” 29 Energy L. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP NEMS-based studies often find gas prices falling as demand falls with a decline in gas-fired generation.nam. An RPS shifts the demand curve for gas leftward.asp?CID=202504&DID=226878) AMK The RPS Amendment is Not the Answer to the Natural Gas Crisis * Some RPS proponents claim that a federal renewables mandate will significantly reduce the demand for natural gas used in electricity generation. and 57 percent of multifamily buildings constructed used natural gas heating." n197 If natural gas prices do. continue to decline as a result of a national RPS.. which makes gas-fired generation the clear fuel of choice for “peaking” units needed to constantly rebalance supply to serve customers instantaneously. . 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. Energy Law Journal. the fall in demand will bring losses to some producers.. this reasoning is in error. Unfortunately. http://www. this trend can only be expected to continue. even without a national RPS. In fact.S. As the adjustment takes place. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. RPS won’t solve the natural gas crises – its continued use is inevitable NAM 7 . in fact. “Changing Resources. unknown date in 07.31 Some claim to have further shown that the net effect of higher power prices and lower gas prices will be to reduce total spending on the two.

It is difficult for us to know the rationale behind the assertion contained in the speech to the Houston Forum.htm) AMK LNG. as there are with any hydrocarbon energy source. 4 – Leading participants in the safety and verification of LNG facilities around the world (“Statement on LNG risks from Lloyd's Register North America. An LNG spill in open air will not result in a bomb-like explosion. the resultant holes in the primary containment barrier would be significantly smaller due to the increased separation distance from the blast source combined with the pressure absorption properties of the secondary containment barrier and insulation materials. Reason and caution Paul Huber. but it is misleading to state. These tanks provide four physical barriers and two layers of insulation between the LNG and the outside environment. These two factors combined mean that LNG cargo carried at sea has a very high in-built level of protection from external blast sources. For example. http://www. the natural gas vapour that could result from an LNG carrier spill also falls under the category of substances that will burn but not explode like a bomb. The idea that LNG carriers are potential nuclear devices is erroneous. For example. a lump of coal contains lots of energy. the 'nuclear explosion' statement describes the total energy an LNG carrier contains. . it burns but does not explode. 3. and these are precisely the reasons that the LNG industry operates with extensive international and national regulations which govern the safety of LNG transport and storage. LNG carriers contain large quantities of energy. when a match is lit. even if a one-meter hole were to be formed in the inner hull.lr. the separation between the inner and outer hulls of an LNG carrier is typically over two meters. but it is clear that it is not supported by fact. as some have.” 9-23-2004. This has been consistently demonstrated in experiments. Similarly. There is a lot of energy in LNG and natural gas.a track record which is unrivalled by any other maritime sector and most land-based industries. The real risks In the US. says: "There are risks associated with the transport and storage of LNG. "While the shadow of terrorism hangs over us. not a clandestine terrorist operation like those carried out against the USS Cole and the Limburg. There are several technical reasons which bear this out: 1. Not everything that is ignited explodes like a bomb. In the event of an attack. 5. Instead. however.RPS Neg 46 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Natural Gas Explosion Adv An LNG explosion would do minimal damage – this specifically indicts their impact evidence Lloyd's Register. commentators and observers are incorrect if they believe that a terrorist attack on an LNG carrier would have the impact of a nuclear explosion. 4. regulators and other interested parties have identified as key concerns the possibility of a terrorist attack involving an LNG terminal or an LNG carrier. we have to do as much as we can to protect ourselves and our borders. Similarly. as in any hydrocarbon. which has an unblemished safety record spanning 40 years . Further. Global terrorism is certainly a major threat and all reasonable measures should and must be taken to mitigate the risks and consequences of any actions. 2. the coal burns over a period of time releasing its energy as it goes. LNG is transported globally in insulated tanks on specialised ships. Director of LRNA. but the energy can only be released slowly in the event of a spill or a fire. but when set on fire. To mount an attack on an LNG carrier that would result in the instantaneous release of all of its cargo would require the equivalent of a full scale military operation. its energy doesn't all come out instantly like a bomb. and the consequences for the surrounding population and infrastructure. Inc.org/News+and+Events/News+Archive/2004/Statement+on+LNG+risks+from+Lloyds+Register+North+Ameri ca+Inc. It should also be remembered that LNG itself is one of the cleanest-burning and most environmentally friendly energy sources currently available on a global scale. that an attack on an LNG carrier would be similar to a nuclear event. not the rate at which the energy would be released in an incident. However. The effectiveness of these regulations is apparent in the LNG shipping sector. It is unrealistic to imagine that the entire cargo of any ship can be instantaneously released.

in a world where fossil fuels are expected to provide nearly 80% of energy for the forseable future. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. per unit of energy produced.g. most unemployment consists of transitions between assured jobs. and per dollar of investment. many economists ask: how many net jobs can “greening” really create? “In the short run. an economics professor at Appalachian State University and half of Environmental Economics. many of whom are hardly in hardship. says John Whitehead. In effect the solar project attracts an unnecessarily large number of workers from more productive jobs and pays them from the higher bills of captive consumers. Whatever the employment consequences of an RPS. but some advocates assert other benefits. 79.1% of high school graduates over twenty-five are unemployed. and non-intensive job search by casual workers such as teenagers living at home.RPS Neg 47 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Unemployment Adv An RPS won’t create a net increase in employment Michaels.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/05/) // JMP Nobody can really argue against more. Currently only 4. when up to 1/3 of the workforce was unemployed. there’s no way net jobs are going to be positive” from renewable energy alone. but the nation is unlikely to see a net increase in employment. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. They have calculated its effects on employment. and higher-paying jobs. One study notes that "the [*89] renewable energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed. than the fossil fuel-based energy sector.” Their employment evidence assumes investment in inefficient renewables that takes workers away from more productive jobs Michaels. Other Rationales for a National RPS A.2 weeks." n31 It compares coal and solar units under an assumption that four megawatts of intermittent solar capacity are equivalent to one megawatt of coal-fired capacity. using methods like those in government-commissioned studies estimating the jobs that. http://blogs. n32 . and are paid with funds that households and businesses would have spent elsewhere.. and most of them receive unemployment compensation. e. as would building a base-loadable MW of biomass capacity. J. The study's authors conclude in favor of solar because it creates four times as many construction jobs per effective megawatt as coal or biomass. Building either takes the same labor input per megawatt. This reasoning may have held during the great depression of the 1930s. J. and also requires more labor to operate. RPS as Macroeconomic Policy A national RPS is primarily an environmental policy. the median spell of unemployment lasts 8. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe. increasingly on energy issues (Keith.” 2-5-2008. energy and environmental policies should be judged by their effects on the problems they directly address. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. “More brown-energy jobs will be lost.. Renewable energy won’t produce more jobs in the short-term Johnson. Today. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Some advocates take job creation to such lengths that they endorse inefficient renewables over more efficient ones. But at a time of historically low unemployment. “Any Given Wednesday: Green Jobs on the Hill. n30 The workers who build a municipal stadium or a renewable generator come from other jobs. Labor is reallocated to renewables. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP IV. Energy Law Journal. Energy Law Journal. short-term layoffs with high probabilities of return. a new municipal stadium will create. 79.wsj.

it falls by so much that total spending on gas and power is reduced. which makes the solar plant the winner because it creates four times more jobs during construction. The result is a transfer among the population rather than a net gain in the nation's wealth. n90 The costs and (non. Both renewables and municipal stadia generate few if any new jobs because funds spent on them are unavailable for people and businesses to spend elsewhere. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 3.” April 2008. does not require a jobs program.[*101] environmental) benefits of a national RPS are created in the market(s) for electricity.40 The U. and even if it does an RPS is a poor vehicle for one. They err by failing to account for the wealth lost by those who supply inputs into gas production (workers. leaving customers with the same amount of power and needlessly high bills. but today's labor market is utterly different. Some RPS advocates see this as a "free lunch" that provides environmental benefits without cost. Since poorer households spend higher percentages of their incomes on power. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Electricity Journal. 79. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. Economically Suspect. and per dollar of investment than the fossil-fuel-based energy sector. this illogic lives on in RPS studies. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. Changes in the price and output of power will affect the well-being of producers and consumers. RPS doesn’t produce any net gains – trades off with jobs and money in the natural gas industry Michaels. building it is like throwing away part of the labor force. Owners of conventional generators will fare differently from owners of renewables.RPS Neg 48 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Unemployment Adv An RPS won’t increase the net amount of jobs and operates as a regressive tax on poorer households Michaels.). Both generators require the same labor per MW to build. capitalists. but someone whose income comes from gas production has exactly a dollar less of opportunities.4 weeks. and median length of a spell of unemployment was 8. J. There may (or may not) have been masses of unemployed workers during the great depression of the 1930s waiting for government to spend. an RPS that raises its price is like a regressive tax. A buyer who spends a dollar less on gas is better off (i. and exactly what happens to the former depends on the local generation mix. first-time entrants into the labor market (including teenagers living at home). The renewables the RPS brings forth will have production and capital costs that differ from those of conventional plants. has a dollar's worth of new opportunities that were unavailable before).. Most unemployment consists of transitions between assured jobs. while many industries (some in distant places) shrink imperceptibly. per unit of energy produced. Some advocates actually prefer inefficient renewables."41 Its example starts by assuming that one MW of relatively sure coal-fired capacity is the equivalent of 4MW of intermittent solar.S. vol. etc. In some runs. no. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP V Non-Environmental Reasons for a National RPS A Renewable macroeconomics Local governments frequently release studies purporting to show that a politically favored transit system or stadium should be built because it will create jobs and attract businesses. 3. In March 2008. Energy Law Journal. equipment makers. The Economics of Falling Gas Prices NEMS-based studies of a national RPS generally predict falling gas prices as renewables displace gas units. and people on short layoffs. 21.e.. One group appears happy to claim that "the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed. Long gone from economics textbooks. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. n91 . the unemployment rate of high school graduates over 25 was 7 percent. A renewable project attracts media attention and workers from other jobs. In reality. as well as requiring more labor to operate.

but in most situations when they assert that a 50 MW wind farm [or a 50 MW combustion turbine] short of war either can be lost with little impact on reliability. 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben. Either way. should have cut power to some of its customers to prevent the blackout from spreading but failed to do so. whose major transmission lines tripped. n52 Renewables primarily displace power generated by North American gas. E01. Security centers on oil. [*94] electric systems are designed for quick response to contingencies ranging from lightning strikes to boiler explosions. Crane says terrorists are not the main cause of disruptions: “Most of the destruction of the control equipment was looting. n54 Security is better addressed under a national infrastructure policy to harden them than under a policy that requires the construction of renewables. thinks the U.” 8-10-2004. “The system could overcome an attack in hours. but oil produces only 3% of the nation's power. “It’s not terribly sensational. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. but only 2 percent of the nation's Some power comes from it and some oil-fired plants can also burn gas. 79. p. Industry executives said that they have taken precautions and are working with the government. and (over the longer run) policies that restrict or expand Claims that a national RPS will make powerplants more secure against terrorism appear overstated at best. storage. Electricity Journal. whose price reflects conditions of demand. of Akron.S. grid is an unlikely target. Because production and consumption must be equal every second. http://www. The destruction of an isolated wind farm achieves less than that of a large generator. A national RPS will still require that "backbone" transmission be used as intensively as today.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid. but there are surely cheaper ways to achieve this end.-Canadian task force concluded that the power grid needed to be more closely regulated. Gellings. which recently agreed to pay $89.cfr. The report said that "unsafe conditions" that day resulted from violations of the voluntary guidelines by FirstEnergy. http://www. “The terrorist skills acquired are being catalogued and shared in Internet chat rooms. They said that the electrical grid has redundancies that should minimize serious disruptions in the event of an attack on a power plant or transmission line. In April. The company also failed to trim trees near power lines.2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses. one of the nation's largest utilities.. vice president of the Electric Power Research Institute. military has designed and entire class of weapons designed to disable power grids.RPS Neg 49 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Grid Security Adv The terrorist risk to the grid is negligible and could be fixed quickly Kaplan.html) // SM Prospects of Terrorism Attacks on infrastructure are an almost daily fact of life in Iraq. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. and there are few hard options for reducing its vulnerability. 3. exploration for it. a joint U. Flynn cautions.59 Security is better addressed directly by facility owners and government formulating a national policy on infrastructure. advocates see a national RPS as deterring terrorist attacks on large power plants. A task force report focused blame on FirstEnergy Corp. Experts caution the war in that country will produce a whole generation of terrorists who have honed their skills sabotaging infrastructure. but intermittent renewables have their own reliability risks. Economically Suspect.” That said. But Power System Fixes Fall Short of Need . The industry.9 million to settle shareholder lawsuits partly related to the blackout. an industry research organization. or at worst.” April 2008. some in plants that can also burn gas. RPS won’t increase security against terrorist attacks and impact is overstated Michaels. RPS advocates are correct is a less attractive target than a 500 MW coal-fired plant. . 21. attacks on electricity infrastructure could become common in future warfare: The U. J. “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable . 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. An RPS is a costly and blunt tool for the protection of non-renewable powerplants. vol. Ohio. Interruptions of conventional fuel supplies are rare and usually local. n53 As shown below. whether outages are caused by lightning or bombs. Redundancies in the grid solve for disruptions due to terrorism Washington Post.” he explains. has long lived with problems like these. n51 Virtually all international security concerns are oil-related.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858- 2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM Homeland security officials also worry that electricity could be disrupted by terrorism. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 3.” 4-27-2007. days. The task force concluded that FirstEnergy. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP National security and "energy independence. but in most scenarios the loss of either will have little effect on reliability.” he says. however." There are few if any important relationships between renewables and energy security for the nation.S. RAND economist Keith W. most generation investments over the next twenty years will continue to be fossil-fueled or nuclear. no. causing the failure of the grid. The Edge of Disaster.washingtonpost. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. CFR security expert Stephen E. Energy Law Journal. In his recent book. Clark W. “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid. 4 (Justin Blum. National Security Any connection between an RPS and energy security is tenuous at best.. Electricity requires redundant transmission and generation reserves to maintain reliability.” But when it comes to Iraq’s electrical grid. Terrorist attacks won’t have a major impact on electricity reliability – redundant transmission and generation reserves Michaels.S.

said the official. But White House officials are beginning to express confidence that al-Qa'eda will be defeated. The uprising by Sunni tribes against al-Qa'eda in Iraq. the White House's deputy national security adviser on terrorism.RPS Neg 50 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Terrorism Adv – Threat Declining Terrorism is declining now – Al Qaeda will lose Telegraph. Juan Carlos Zarate. his remarks reflected a quiet confidence within the George W Bush administration that one of its major goals will be achieved before too long.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1960245/Al-Qa'eda-defeat-in-sight.-says-US-anti-terrorism- official. "If al-Qa'eda maintains its current state of play of attacking civilians and Muslims. “Al-Qa'eda defeat in sight. protests in northern Africa against suicide bombings and dissent from clerics and former terrorists have put the group's leadership on the defensive as never before." .telegraph. www. Acknowledging that the threat of a major al-Qa'eda attack remains significant.html) // JMP A senior American counter-terrorism official has declared that the demise of al-Qa'eda is in sight because its failure to adapt its violent ideology and tactics has provoked growing dissent across the Islamic world. 8 (Alex Spillius.” 5-15-2008. "We know that all of this matters to al-Qa'eda and that its senior leadership is sensitive to the perceived legitimacy of both their actions and their ideology. in contrast to previous assumptions that it would last for generations." He said the end of the movement as a global threat was "visible" and "foreseeable". said in a recent speech: "There has been a growing rejection of the al-Qa'eda programme and message. says US anti-terrorism official. and continuing to not change its philosophy. Declarations of triumph have been precluded by the mockery that followed the president's "Mission Accomplished" statement in Iraq in 2003. it will start to fizzle.

“Memo on Reputation. allies is mixed. steel tariffs (March 2002). and may be difficult to link back to non- cooperation on secondary issues like climate change. Concessions don’t spur benefits from others Busby. It is too soon to make a definitive judgment on this question. As Keohane argued in his work on diffuse reciprocity.S. indicate the U. evidence of foot-dragging and non-cooperation by U. Is there something about the current environment that may empower other actors to punish the U.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers. Are their actions and motives materially rational? Jeff Legro’s recent book on great power grand strategies suggests they reflect what ideas decision-makers believe best serve the national interest. “Memo on Reputation. cares about and for which going it alone is simply not a viable option? The bargaining leverage of other states in an era of interdependence would seem to be improved in some ways. one could argue that these actions have not had major consequences. Given the support offered by America’s allies in Afghanistan and on the war on terror.php) // JMP Empirical Examples Are there any empirical examples of separate reputations that fuse as a result of violations across issue domains? In thinking about the legitimation problems of the U. through foot-dragging on issues the U. 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin (Josh.” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations Theory' at Princeton.S. then the segmented reputations may well have fused into a more general impression of the United States that had cross-issue consequences. they become embedded over time and serve as standard operating procedures to facilitate decision-making.S. http://www. powerful states generally may find it easier to break promises without significant consequences since others may find it too costly to punish the violator or to engage in self-abnegating behavior that denies themselves future benefits because of earlier rounds of defection (Downs and Jones 2002).utexas.9 While these ideas may start out as instrumentally beneficial. and can hardly be regarded as making precise calculations of expected utility" (Keohane 1982. April 2006. failure to make and its willingness to break its commitments in multiple arenas had consequences for other arenas? One possibility is that when the George W. anti-ballistic missiles (December 2001). http://www. policy in Iraq.S.S. 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin (Josh.S.” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations Theory' at Princeton. 7). Bush administration signaled that the administration was opposed to various multilateral policy initiatives across a range of unrelated substantive domains—climate change (March 2001). even becoming ends in themselves (Legro 2005. has the U. That said. small arms (July 2001). more for failure to honor commitments.php) // JMP Ideational and Non-rational Elements of Reputation and Prestige Another interesting question emerges from this assessment of Japanese and German behavior. April 2006.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers. government under the present administration. 342). including covert support for U. . Denial of use of Turkish territory for the war in Iraq. However. "the actor making a short-run sacrifice does not know that future benefits will flow from comparable restraint by others. coupled with opposition by several NATO allies to troop deployments and reconstruction assistance in Iraq.S. the International Criminal Court (May 2002).RPS Neg 51 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Terrorism Adv – No Spillover Lack of action on climate doesn’t cause allied non-cooperation on other issues Busby. among other issues --and would no longer abide by previous commitments. may indeed be incurring some higher costs/worse bargains than would have the case had it been a better partner on other issues.

Wider cooperation had brought great benefits -.S. Cooperation on Counter Terrorism. the United States and Europe will come to share the same views of 21st century threats as we did for the last half of the 20th century.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu. terrorism is seen differently: primarily as an internal.it had "thwarted terrorist plots and saved lives" both sides of the Atlantic.-E.” 6-5-2007. In a speech at Kansas State University. Extradition of nationals The United States extradites its nationals to other countries. CIA director Michael Hayden said Wednesday. "In much of Europe. Department of Justice and the prosecuting offices of most states." The European-US relationship was no longer primarily focused on Europe.html) // JMP Obstacles hampering increased cooperation There are a number of significant procedural and philosophical differences between the United States and the European Union that hamper our ability to cooperate fully on law enforcement and counter terrorism matters. Department of State with 26 years of service (Frank Kerber. "But it is not yet clear when.S. unlike many of the EU Member States that have a total ban on such extraditions to non-EU Member States.but since the fall of the Berlin Wall "differences are cropping up over a host of issues. 8 (“CIA chief says Europe.google. http://afp. Hayden said this "key strategic relationship" had changed." He said European governments worked with each other and their allies. that we take the fight to the enemy. and solutions are focused more narrowly on securing the homeland." he said. as we are today in bringing stability to Afghanistan and in efforts to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. he said. enforcement agencies even for purposes that go beyond the original purpose for which it was collected. his last posting was at the U.S. the extradition of nationals." "I am confident that we will continue to work together on many tough global challenges. there is pending legislation that would extend its data protection regime to the Third Pillar (Justice and Home Affairs). While the EU system is largely confined to First Pillar matters (economic. free. system of data protection for law enforcement information. to confront direct threats. a final judgment by a criminal court in one EU Member State will bar extradition to another Member State or any third country such as the United States involving the same person for the same criminal offense. and at peace. the use of the death penalty.but also more scope for disagreements. social and environmental policies) where the Commission has competence. American Diplomacy.RPS Neg 52 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Not Possible Several policies limit anti-terror cooperation with Europe Kerber. or if. On the other hand.com/article/ALeqM5jbQKfm-IfuOHlVNmzCz7SMKEoxng) // JMP WASHINGTON (AFP) — Europe and the United States may always differ in their views of the biggest global security threats and how to respond to them. and the EU view of terrorism as basically a law enforcement issue.a war that is global in scope and requires." "The United States believes it is a nation at war -." . is more decentralized and permits sharing with other U. US may never agree on security threats. but did not in general share Washington's view that terrorism was "an overwhelming international challenge.S. which was now "nearly whole. www. Accordingly. Many of these disagreements centered on the perception of threats and how to deal with them. such as Portugal." Hayden said managing such tensions would "complicate" the once relatively easy relationship and the effects of the disagreements would be felt "from intelligence and law enforcement to military cooperation and foreign policy. Application of the principle of double jeopardy As part of its integration process in law enforcement." the CIA chief said. and then forge a common approach to security. Effective cooperation on terrorism not possible AFP. forbid even the use of the sentence of life in prison." Hayden was referring to the close relationship between Europe and the United States during the Cold War -. noting for example that "while we share the view that terrorism is an urgent danger. EU perspective on combating terrorism Many EU Member States regard terrorism as basically a law enforcement issue. Mission to the European Union in Brussels from 2002-2006 where he was the Counselor for Justice and Home Affairs and the point-person on cooperation with the EU on counter terrorism. Data protection and the sharing of information Data protection is the single overarching issue that prevents closer enforcement cooperation. as a precondition for winning. Some countries. Historically the impact of this ban has been to make it impossible for the United States to obtain extradition from anywhere in the EU of a fugitive facing the death penalty unless the United States provides assurances that the death penalty would not be utilized. he said -.U. such as the United States. The EU operates under a data protection regime which it expects other countries to adopt before sharing information. the application of the principle of double jeopardy.S.S. law enforcement problem. While these countries provide for domestic jurisdiction over their own citizens for crimes they may commit anywhere in the world. the United States views terrorism as a national security issue. wherever he may be." so attention was shifting to more global threats. the EU is adopting the principle of mutual recognition of the final judgments of all EU courts in criminal justice matters. while largely having the same objectives as the EU system. Thus. we disagree on how best to confront it. Among these are EU policies on data protection and the sharing of information. for example. they provide their nationals with a form of “safe haven” for crimes they commit outside the EU.unc. Use of the death penalty The EU has adopted a blanket prohibition against the use of the death penalty as part of its mandatory acquis for all Member States. These differing perspectives influence the approach to sharing highly classified national security information in the prosecution of terrorist cases. This EU policy is a concern for both the U. “U. The U. as a practical matter such countries rarely if ever mount domestic prosecutions.” 4-30-2008. 7 – retired last year from the Foreign Service of the U. Hayden said. noting that disagreements over Iraq and terrorism "have raised questions in recent years about the future of the alliance.

including personal data.-E.U.S. thereby reducing the time required to obtain evidence.S. his last posting was at the U.S. This was a significant achievement given EU policies on personal data protection described above. including terrorism. the so-called Third Pillar of competencies within the European Union (EU).html) // JMP In the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). it was necessary to go back to each EU Member State and negotiate “blended” agreements that meld or update the articles of the existing bilateral agreements. Investigating and prosecuting terrorism At the annual U. since 9/11 there have been significant accomplishments in U.S. This relatively new agency assists in the prosecution of cases involving two or more EU Member States. U.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu. have a global impact since these are phenomena not bounded by national borders.-EU cooperation provides a sterling example of working cooperatively to ensure our collective security.” 6-5-2007. the United States is seeking ways to cooperate with the new EU border agency Frontex. (The package includes the two U.S. Despite some high-profile political and trade differences in recent years.S. These can be divided into three broad areas: investigating and prosecuting terrorism.S. we recently signed a cooperation agreement with Eurojust in The Hague. the United States signed unprecedented agreements with the EU on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). and cooperation on border and homeland security. In recent years we concluded two cooperative agreements with Europol that permit the sharing of data.-EU terror cooperation strong now and will be expanded Kerber. To reconcile existing bilateral agreements with the new U.unc. the secretary of homeland security and the director of the FBI. 7 – retired last year from the Foreign Service of the U. These agreements clearly provide the “value added” sought by the United States over existing bilateral extradition and MLA agreements. for the purpose of detecting and investigating crimes.-EU summit in June. We have assigned Secret Service and FBI agents to work directly with Europol in The Hague. Finally. As noted above.-EU cooperation Despite these obstacles. including frequent visits to Brussels by the attorney general.S. Cooperation on Counter Terrorism.S. The ATF (the Alcohol. The agreement on the Container Security Initiative addresses the security of shipping containers coming from the EU or transiting its territory en route to U. 7 – retired last year from the Foreign Service of the U. Conclusion It is evident that U. Sharing of national security information The United States has been working with the EU to explore ways of sharing national security information with EU analysts as well as investigators and prosecutors without either jeopardizing the information or compromising the rights of individuals. his last posting was at the U. Cooperation on Counter Terrorism. Department of State with 26 years of service (Frank Kerber. this is a difficult area for cooperation and will take considerably more work before a smooth and regular exchange of such information becomes possible. Department of State with 26 years of service (Frank Kerber.S.S.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu. and what the EU does internally to arm itself for this fight.-EU cooperation in combating terrorism and organized crime. We jointly created and fund a database of lost and stolen passports housed at Interpol in Lyon. The fact that these complicated agreements were negotiated in only eight months speaks to the strong political will on both sides to work together following 9/11. and have brought a Europol analyst to FBI headquarters in Washington for extended periods of time to work on terrorism-related projects. Finally. Border and homeland security After extended and difficult negotiations.-EU summit in June of 2003. What the United States does with the EU in the fight against crime and terrorism. based in Warsaw.-EU agreements. the EU has stationed two Europol agents at its Commission offices in Washington to work with U. For its part. www. We regularly participate in seminars and conferences on terrorism at Europol.S. the fact is that our common interest in combating global terrorism has enabled us to achieve a series of notable successes in forging working law enforcement relationships with the EU. And the agreements allow for the taking of evidence in each other's territory by means of video-conferencing. It is hoped that the package will be ratified and the agreements operational by the U. “U. . We have a robust and growing dialogue on border and homeland security issues.-E.S. American Diplomacy. ports. www. Mission to the European Union in Brussels from 2002-2006 where he was the Counselor for Justice and Home Affairs and the point-person on cooperation with the EU on counter terrorism.html) // JMP Highlights of U. cooperation between the United States and the EU on law enforcement and counter terrorism has both broadened and deepened since 9/11. The agreements permit the establishment of joint task forces under the direction of the United States or an EU Member State consisting of personnel drawn from different countries. The policy of the United States is to continue this important effort through enhancing existing arrangements as well as exploring new opportunities to increase our cooperation. PNR is personal passenger data collected by the airlines.-EU agreements and the 50 new bilateral agreements—two for each of the then 25 Member States).S. American Diplomacy.S. Mission to the European Union in Brussels from 2002-2006 where he was the Counselor for Justice and Home Affairs and the point-person on cooperation with the EU on counter terrorism.RPS Neg 53 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now (With EU) Counter-terror coop already increasing with Europe – disagreements on other issues are irrelevant Kerber. law enforcement agencies. “U. Agreement was reached on the use of biometrics to secure travel documents such as passports. the United States reached agreement with the EU on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. The United States is working to establish and broaden working relationships with EU law enforcement and judicial institutions.unc. These were the first agreements ever signed by the EU with a third country. sharing national security information.U.S. This process was concluded in spring 2006 and the entire package of 52 agreements sent to Congress in fall 2006 for ratification.” 6-5-2007. Among the key features of these agreements is the requirement for each side to identify bank accounts of suspected terrorists in each other's territory. Tobacco and Firearms Agency) is also interested in stationing an agent at Europol.

S. according to the report.com/story/20080501060622tsop. 8 (David I.570 in 2006.html) // JMP International gains against terrorist cells in 2007 highlight the continuing need for a complex.” 5-1-2008. Country Reports on Terrorism 2007 provides Congress with information on progress in the fight against al-Qaida and other U." said State Department counterterrorism coordinator Dell Dailey upon the April 30 release of Country Reports on Terrorism 2007. "Working with allies and partners across the world. we've created a less permissive operating environment for terrorists.html) // JMP INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION PROGRESSING Terrorists transcend international boundaries. health care and education or police and military training to give states the tools they need to safeguard their citizens. Germany and Denmark in 2007. and while support for the US in general remains weak amongst the general public in EU countries. "Over time. an ever-closer transatlantic cooperation is being desired in Brussels and European capitals. our global and regional cooperative efforts will reduce terrorists' capacity to harm us and our partners. "The terrorists' message of hate and death holds no promise for anyone's future. the terrorist groups Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah. Dailey added. where Mauritania and Somalia confronted al-Qaida-linked insurgencies. The United States is encouraging a collaborative approach to counterterrorism through its Regional Strategic Initiative. In 2007. to Saudi Arabia's initiative to rehabilitate former radicals. “A new era for EU-US relations?” 3-3-2008.S. March 3rd – senior fellow for EU affairs at the Transatlantic Institute (Daniel.. comprehensive and collaborative strategy against terrorism. News Blaze. Countering radicalization is a top priority.400 children were killed. . kept leaders on the move or in hiding and degraded their ability to plan and mount attacks. said Dailey. News Blaze. a slight decrease from 14. "Last year.-designated foreign terrorist groups active in the Americas. "We also have reporting indicating upwards of 2. citing foiled terrorist plots in the United Kingdom. said Dailey. says NCTC Deputy Director Russ Travers.RPS Neg 54 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now The U.499 terrorist attacks worldwide.. International cooperation and intelligence is already weakening terrorists McKeeby. “New Report Showcases Global Progress Against Terrorism. But terrorism remains a complex threat. An annual report developed jointly by the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).nb/newsblaze/WORLDNEW/World-News." Dailey said. the Middle East and Asia. 8 (David I. “New Report Showcases Global Progress Against Terrorism.400 police officers were injured or killed. as seen in 2007 in successes by the Philippines and Indonesia in confronting. while local security and development assistance will build our partners' capacity. making regional and global cooperation a must.S. But progress against terrorism cannot be measured by numbers alone.nb/newsblaze/WORLDNEW/World-News. improvements in border and transportation security. from Colombia's delivery of services and security in confronting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.com/story/20080501060622tsop. the Bertelsmann Foundation and the University of Siena all underscore these notions: Americans and Europeans are increasingly reconciling their threat perceptions. respectively. We also saw a growth in the number of attacks against schools. Europe. Relations are improving Rackowski. As a corollary. http://euobserver. as well as in Africa.” 5-1-2008. The number is undoubtedly far higher. an effort to bring together diplomats and U. EU Observer.com/9/25748) // JMP Recent polls conducted by the German Marshall Fund. http://newsblaze. Africa. said Dailey. government experts with their foreign counterparts across a region to share information and work together against terrorists by providing aid and development assistance. Cells operating from safe havens in unstable corners of the world are working to circumvent new security measures by forging alliances with regional affiliates and waging an increasingly Internet-based propaganda campaign to exploit local grievances and recruit a new generation of youth onto the path of radicalism. there were 14. but that's [what] we can document. and is taking a variety of forms." TERRORISM REMAINS COMPLEX THREAT Since 2001. to the newly elected Pakistani government's renewed effort to bring peace and security to its tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. almost 9. http://newsblaze." Travers said." Dailey said. new banking and legal codes and expanded intelligence cooperation among nations have weakened terrorists. is already spurring collaboration to reduce terrorism McKeeby.

the U. our countries and our world safe. Malaysia: The world's countries must cooperate more to fight the threat of cyberterrorism attacks. Canada.N." Toure said in a speech. "It'll be from criminals. The center is expected to open by the end of year and will serve as emergency response. it'll be from organized crime. a former U. . Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said cyberattacks could trigger "truly catastrophic consequences" by disrupting systems that control telecommunications networks.php?id=13040821) // JMP KUALA LUMPUR." said Howard Schmidt.S. Information technology has "changed the dynamics of terrorism.RPS Neg 55 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Terrorism Adv – Solving Cyber Terrorism Now Countries are boosting cooperation and establishing an international center to solve cyber terrorism IHT.” 5-20-2008. Malaysia. Mexico. India. adviser to the White House on cybersecurity. "Cyberthreats are not something that modern societies and their governments can ignore. so the idea of this is to reduce the vulnerability" of countries. "Cybersecurity must become a cornerstone of every aspect of keeping ourselves. Japan. Sweden. http://www. training and resource center to counter cyberthreats. "It is necessary for governments and countries throughout the world to work in concert. "The harsh reality is that (information technology) has become a tool for cybercrime and cyberterrorism. officials say. France.'s leading information technology agency." Delegates came from countries including Australia. a project involving both the public and private sectors. “Countries worldwide need closer cooperation to curb cyber terrorism threat. "The bottom line is the threat is real. Thailand and the United States. it'll be from state-sponsored activity. Singapore." said Hamadoun Toure." Malaysia will be home to a new center to be run by the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Terrorism. Government authorities and technology experts from more than 30 nations made the call at the opening of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur. emergency services. secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union. nuclear power plants or major dams." the prime minister said. International Herald Tribune. which could threaten facilities such as nuclear power plants. Saudi Arabia.iht.com/bin/printfriendly. officials said Tuesday at an international conference. 8 (Associated Press.

Above all. it must not assume that future innovation will occur automatically. With innovative capacity rapidly spreading across the Pacific. educational reform. and South Korea. Foreign Affairs.S. India. Instead. The building blocks of American innovation-flexible capital and labor markets.html) // JMP Of equal importance. it should meet the challenge from Asia head-on. 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (Adam. and the vitality of the business environment can the United States maintain its edge-and the most innovative economy in the world. The United States must actively engage with new centers of innovation and prepare itself to integrate rapidly and build on new ideas emerging in China. the health of labor and capital markets. competitiveness Segal.foreignaffairs. Making the R&D tax credit permanent and expanding it to include more types of collaborative research.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge. policymakers must also reinforce the United States' entrepreneurial climate.RPS Neg 56 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – Several Policies Needed Several policy steps are necessary to ensure U. the United States cannot simply assume that it will remain the epicenter of scientific research and technological innovation. and a business environment that rewards risk-need to be strengthened. “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004. http://www. its greatest asset. Only through renewed attention to science funding. would help provide incentives for innovation in as many technological sectors as possible. for example. . transparent government regulation.

14-18) // JMP The concept of national power has both military and economic dimensions. Harvard International Review. . 5 – Chairman of Chatham House. But on the economic battlefield. By contrast.” Winter 2005. on both sides of the Atlantic. in joining a common currency such as the euro. the success of one country does not imply the defeat of another. In the general case of a free-trade agreement between a rich and a poor country (say. the question of economic power has been relatively neglected.26. but both will be better off through trade if the other grows richer. European experience since 1999 supports this: Portugal and Greece have grown faster than their historical rates while Germany and France have grown more slowly.4. they can also exist independently. p. Country A may be richer than Country B. the poor country gains more.” Winter 2005. p. Much attention has been devoted. There is no parallel in economics because economic competition is not a zero-sum game. for example. Similarly. was a military superpower but economically weak and isolated. Harvard International Review. then Country A is likely to win in a war between the two. while Japan during the 1980s was an economic superpower with a weak military. If Country A has a more powerful military than Country B.RPS Neg 57 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – Internal Links Ans Economic power is not zero-sum Julius.14-18) // JMP What is Economic Power? The very concept of economic power is more nebulous than that of military power. And in the lead-up to war. “US Economic Power. This article is an attempt to remedy the imbalance and provoke further discussion on the emerging shape of the world economy and the ability of the United States to influence it. Country B is more likely to back down. vol. no. vol. Military strength is not necessarily connected to economic power Julius. So having military superiority is clearly n good thing. the poorer countries will benefit more than the richer ones. The ultimate test of military power-war-is the classic zero-sum game. 5 – Chairman of Chatham House.4. formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Deanne. no. the United States and Mexico). perhaps because it is more difficult to define and measure. “US Economic Power. formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Deanne. to the military aspect of US power and how it is exercised both in unilateral action and through alliances like NATO.26. While the two are related. The Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s.

For example. they should recognize that it is not in the nation’s interest to undermine any of our manufacturing industries. Congress is once again considering proposals to set a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland. State legislators have weighed the economic costs and benefits of an RPS in their states and acted accordingly. 114. but would negatively affect some regions of the country much more than others. While Members of Congress from some regions of the country may be tempted to economically disadvantage states in other regions by voting for a federal RPS. Although 21 states have already passed a renewable portfolio standard.” 6-12-2007.” 6-12-2007. the effect of adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and push manufacturing into states or other countries with lower electricity prices. Depending on the current cost of electricity and renewable energy potential.pdf) // JMP As part of comprehensive legislation to raise energy prices.org/pdf/5982. the Southeast has the least wind potential in the country. On the other hand. No. As the Bush Administration Statement of Policy of June 12. the economic impact of a federal renewable portfolio standard is modest in some regions of the country and dire in others. No.RPS Neg 58 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Will Push Jobs Overseas A federal RPS will drive manufacturing jobs overseas Yeatman & Ebell. http://cei. or both. But not every state suffers high electricity costs. These RPS states tend to have a much higher potential for renewable energy. Although manufacturers have moved their factories from states with high electricity costs to these states with lower electricity costs. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland.org/pdf/5982. 114. A federal RPS will jack up energy prices and push manufacturing jobs abroad Yeatman & Ebell. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell. largely due to reliance on coal-fired generation. Therefore. 2007 correctly states: A limited Federal RPS would result in higher electricity costs for consumers in areas where renewable resources are less available and could place new strains on electricity reliability needs. less energy-intensive manufacturing. the Upper Midwest and the Southeast are more dependent on the manufacturing sector than other regions.pdf) // JMP Conclusion. this is not an argument in favor of a federal RPS. most of them also have high wind potential. Congress should not impose a federal renewable portfolio standard on those states that have correctly judged that such a mandate would raise their consumer electricity prices and destroy jobs in energy-intensive industries. to raise electricity prices to a level that would force their industries to migrate overseas to countries with cheaper energy rates and no renewable portfolio standards. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland.pdf) // JMP Regions With a Comparative Disadvantage. which measures states’ level of industrial specialization. such as is found in our industrial heartland. http://cei. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell. . A federal RPS will undermine many manufacturing industries Yeatman & Ebell. No.org/pdf/5982. states that have adopted renewable portfolio standards were already burdened with high electricity rates. a federal RPS would then tend to drive these industries to foreign countries with lower electricity rates. Such a requirement would raise electricity prices for consumers and industry. (Map 4) According to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’ industry specialization index.” 6-12-2007. By and large. In the RPS states that do have considerable manufacturing. http://cei. nor is every state endowed with windy plains. the Southeast is a region where consumers enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the land. 114. a federal RPS would require states with low electricity prices and proportionately lower renewable energy potential. closely followed by the Midwest. The impact of a federal RPS on manufacturing regions with low electricity costs and low wind energy potential promises to raise electricity rates considerably. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell.

” April 2008.. possibly in response to the alleged growth of a governmentally guided renewables industry in Japan.53 If Americans are relatively more productive in renewables they will supply other nations. (3) As operating experience accumulates.S. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. with or without mandatory purchase requirements like an RPS. Energy Law Journal. Economically Suspect. Renewables are but one of many possible tools for fuel risk management. (2) Those costs will be high when renewables are a novelty. benefiting both workers and capitalists.48 Both national and international competition will exist with or without a federal RPS. someone else will and Americans will produce other goods and services. Their claims are analogues of those long made by seekers of "infant industry" tariff protection from foreign competition. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B "Infant industries" and technology development If renewables are indeed the future. A national RPS will impact emissions controlled under existing programs. and markets for many are expanding to cover the world. existing renewables will be used more efficiently and innovators will devise further design and operating improvements.52 The simple fact is that the case for free trade in renewables is no different from the case for free trade in anything else. will continue to export those in which it has a cost [*91] advantage and import those in which it does not. Some see RPS as a tactic that can make the U. renewables manufacturers will invest in high-capacity plants with low production costs. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Others hope that a national RPS can bring U. The U.S.S. J. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP VII Conclusions Backers of a national RPS have produced an impressive list of objectives. domination of the world's renewables markets. RPS won’t boost jobs or export dominance Michaels. the world's leading renewables producer.. Others reflect personal preferences. all without a national RPS.S. One advocate sees it as a necessary response to renewables-based export policies that are taking shape in Japan. 21. Competition to innovate comes from both other renewables makers and producers of non-renewables that are substitutes for some buyers. 79. n40 Experience gives little reason to expect that such concerted policy formation can make either nation dominant. vol. Renewables not linked to security – they don’t impact competitiveness Michaels. a vision of invincibility from the 1970s and 1980s that died with the recession and banking crisis of the 1990s.50 Others claim that a large percentage of the jobs created by an RPS will be in exporting renewables. n39 He believes Americans must emulate the cooperation between Japan's manufacturers and government planners. New technologies are attracting venture capital and firms as large as General Electric are using their own cash.S.47 Most manufacturing industries support a number of U. no. "Energy independence" is almost entirely an oil-related problem. 3.S. like the hope that renewables will reverse rural outmigration and bring communal ownership. producers. competitiveness and renewable are not linked to security and defense Michaels. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J.” April 2008. and fixed-price renewables contracts do little more than transfer risk from utilities to captive customers.. There is no evidence that economies of scale are more extensive in renewables than in comparable goods. no. Some of the claimed benefits are fallacies from macroeconomics (job creation in a non-depression economy) and international economics (the importance of self-sufficiency and export dominance). will both import and export renewables. it violates every economic principle of efficient emissions control. the U. Among the variants are: (1) If a national RPS brings large and dependable orders. and (4) With a national RPS. 21. some advocates think that a national RPS can both hasten its arrival and mitigate its shocks. can outpace other nations and possibly dominate world renewables manufacture. even if a national RPS is a costly source of environmental benefits it might produce others that would tip the cost-benefit balance in its favor.S. There are also no important economies of scale outside of manufacturing. An RPS cuts the degree of pressure that comes from the latter by foreclosing them from part of the market. but an RPS will bring added production experience that will lower them.S. International trade in renewables raises few security issues because they are manufactured in so many nations and because they embody few if any materials essential for national defense. but supporters have been silent on how to integrate it with existing policy. If not. A growing market in intellectual property allows Americans access to new technologies without duplicating the research of others. vol. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. and at worst it will be outrightly pernicious. Of course.RPS Neg 59 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Won’t Increase Competitiveness RPS not necessary for U.49 Innovations extend beyond technology to new operating practices and contract provisions which can also be imitated. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. 3. Electricity Journal. A declining share of solar production probably indicates that others should do the job (or possibly that solar is overrated). For every one of them an RPS will at best be an inefficient policy. the U. it does the opposite. Engineering and construction are within the expertise of numerous contractors. Unfortunately.51 Another author is concerned about a drop in the U. including foreigners. Producers also reduce costs by observing and imitating successful practices of others. and they are clearly not a "natural monopoly" where a single producer serves the entire market most efficiently. All competitive producers face pressure to reduce costs. including those that are embodied in existing programs to regulate criteria pollutants. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. most quite small relative to their markets. Economically Suspect. As environmental policy. . Electricity Journal. n41 International trade in renewables raises no security issues. share of global solar collector production from 44 percent in 1996 to below 9 percent in 2005. The existing renewables industry has also had few problems accessing the capital markets. and "national security" is more effectively ensured by hardening vulnerable assets than by building renewables. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. since they are ordinary manufactures that no nation or group can credibly monopolize.54 More realistically.

and regulators need not intrude to acquire the information they would need to set quotas for individual polluters. each of which strongly counsels against a national RPS. If GHG affect the entire planet. Exempt sources may have lower abatement costs than ones subject to the regulation. NOx and some particulates will only apply in Midwestern and Eastern states where they significantly affect air quality and winds seldom blow them away. Regulators allow utilities to pass the costs of prudently acquired power from renewables on to ratepayers. 3. an efficient policy maximizes the value of benefits relative to costs. The RPS may also fail to encourage innovation. and allow their exchange. and a federal RPS will have little impact on already-competitive world markets. for example. have no obvious characteristics that would lead to economies in production exceeding those of similar manufactured goods.S. Economically Suspect. and enforce compliance. n37 The development of renewables has attracted technology investors. the impacts of requiring a small portion of one industry in one nation to change its technology will be costly to the industry and its customers. For example. Regulate the pollutant directly. draft rules.34 A consensus on standards for efficient environmental regulation has emerged among economists and policymakers. efficient policy should concentrate on it rather than on the technology or inputs that produce it. and large firms (e. who are increasingly using them to set emissions levels. J. More generally. however they are achieved. Innovation is encouraged because someone who devises a better control technology can profit both by selling its permits and selling the invention. Pollutants produced along with power impose health and environmental costs on third parties. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. An increasing number of pollutants are being handled by "cap-and-trade" systems that set ceiling concentrations. Since the pollutant itself is the source of harm. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. regulation should attack all sources of the pollutant. and too small a footprint for GHG. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B. it will probably discourage experimentation with technologies (including demand management) that do not qualify under it. Innovators may devise novel abatement methods. but an RPS is most commonly viewed as environmental regulation.38 A national RPS will result in inefficiently low concentrations in areas that are already in compliance. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. These "externalities" are evidence of "market failure" that requires corrective policy.. RPS proposals have used language familiar to economists. 21..33 Other rationales exist (and are discussed below). efficiency means that a given goal is attained at the smallest sacrifice of economic value. Broadly. venture capitalists. Energy Law Journal. most of whose markets support at least several U. Deal with all sources and allow trading of allowances. It may have too large a footprint for some criteria pollutants. They can be distilled down to a few principles. however. and the standards that emerge have political as well as economic and scientific elements. issue allowances for rights to emit. Utilities using unorthodox renewables may face greater risk of disallowances than those using more established ones. Only by incredible accident can it be an efficient tool for achieving a given reduction.g. An RPS is a design standard that restricts the allowable set of technologies even if there are cheaper ways to reduce the pollutant. 79. Renewables can easily cross national boundaries in both directions.restrictively defined. and efficient mitigation will vary with prices in ways that regulators cannot foresee. EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule for SO2. A cap-and-trade system does this by rewarding only actual reductions.37 Match geography with costs and benefits. no. Electricity Journal. possible that large purchase orders will bring forth larger plants that capture economies of scale that have not been realized in today's relatively smaller ones. General Electric) with available internal funds. and symbolic for everyone else. Renewables that can be base-loaded can replace coal. To maximize net benefits. The percentages have been set arbitrarily and the exact mix of avoided emissions will depend on the kinds of renewables that are built. EPA sets acceptable levels for major "criteria pollutants" such as sulfur and nitrogen dioxides by examining the costs and benefits of alternative concentrations. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP IV Renewables and the Environment A Setting efficient rules From the start. RPS as Technology Policy and Foreign Policy Some believe that a national RPS will help drive down the costs of renewables. Renewables. and foreign producers. whose emissions of pollutants and GHG exceed those of the gas units that intermittent renewables displace. Set permitted concentrations individually based on costs and benefits. Decentralized trades use only the participants' private knowledge. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.” April 2008. vol. By contrast. no state or proposed federal RPS percentage has been set in a way that remotely resembles those in general use for criteria pollutants. Those who can cheaply cut their emissions will gain by doing so and selling their allowances to those who cannot. RPS won’t impact world markets – renewables can already cross borders Michaels. An RPS by contrast deals with only one of many sources of a pollutant. n36 It is.36 Allowable concentrations must be set individually because pollutants have different critical levels and the costs and benefits of reducing them differ. a pollutant should be regulated over an area wide enough to include all relevant sources and narrow enough to subsume only locations where actual harm occurs.35 The science and decision-making are both imperfect.RPS Neg 60 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS won’t Cause Innovation RPS won’t effectively reduce pollution or cause innovation Michaels. and RPS was initially proposed to carry out that policy. To the extent possible. and must be coordinated with other programs in non-attainment areas. Even if an RPS encourages innovation in the allowable technologies. again at market prices. . as measured by the prices of other goods foregone. Any type of regulation can be economically efficient or inefficient .

plants. installations. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The manufacture of wind turbines is highly internationalized. 2007) and Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar. 19%). clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector. and one where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen. Cost. More than half of new wind turbines are come from foreign manufactures – the plan would just prop them up more Michaels. and Mitsubishi (Japan. 5%).S. U.nrel. Vestas (Denmark. also Director.” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007. Most of the remainder came from overseas sources. 79. http://docs. Annual Rep. Wind Power Installation.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435. and some of GE's U.RPS Neg 61 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – Import More from Europe & Japan We would just import more clean technology from Europe and Japan Kammen. . and Performance Trends: 2006 6-7 ( 2007) http://www. 23% of the total). “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.pdf. where European nations and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Energy Law Journal. Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley.S. General Electric supplied turbines for 47% of domestic wind installations in 2006. Dep't. J. but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for both domestic installation and overseas export. Some foreign manufacturers have opened U. including Siemens (Germany.S. on U.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC- new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.cpuc. S.. of Energy.pdf) //JMP In addition to supporting domestic job creation. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. fuel cell and wind technologies. 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley (Daniel M.S.ca. “Green Jobs Created by Global Warming Initiatives. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP n37. Some of those orders are for U.. components were manufactured abroad.

aggressively cutting interest rates in response to stock-market crashes. recession will likely be avoided in 2006. The benign inflationary picture has also benefited from increasing competitive pressures. but have become considerably milder in many parts of the world. The good news is that the chances of a recession occurring in the next couple of years are low. Australia. robust growth. In fact. Even more important. Good macroeconomic policies and improved microeconomic flexibility have strengthened the global economy's 'immune system. given that house prices haven't fallen nationally in any given year during the past four decades)? Economic growth would slow by about 0. and exacerbated the ensuing recessions. The likely timing of such a recession would be 2007.S. Spain. the United Kingdom. This has meant that long-term interest rates are at levels not seen in more than 40 years. . Since the mid-1980s.S. but no recession. Sweden).newsweek. terrorist attacks and weakness in the economy. and Ben Bernanke. which since 2000 has been able to shrug off the biggest stock-market drop since the 1930s. spent much of his academic career studying the past mistakes of the Fed and has vowed not to repeat them. but an attack on the order of 9/11 or the Madrid or London bombings would probably have an even smaller impact on overall GDP growth. given the extremeness of these assumptions. both worldwide (thanks to globalization and the rise of Asia as a manufacturing juggernaut) and domestically (thanks to technology and deregulation). and global economy are resilient – new macroeconomic policies help the economy absorb shocks Behravesh. This resilience was especially remarkable in the case of the United States. Inflation is likely to remain a low-level threat for some time. no single shock will likely be big enough to derail the expansion. central bankers have avoided some of the policy mistakes of the earlier oil shocks (in the mid-1970s and early 1980s). but recent events do suggest that the global economy's "immune system" is now strong enough to absorb shocks that 25 years ago would probably have triggered a downturn. and probably in 2007 as well. central banks worldwide have had great success in taming inflation. or world economies over the next couple of years? Two or more big shocks occurring more or less simultaneously. At the same time. corporate scandals and war. one of the worst hurricanes on record and the highest energy prices after Hurricane Katrina--without missing a beat.S. most accurate economist tracked by USA Today and chief global economist and executive vice president for Global Insight. what all this means is that a global or U. The not-so-good news is that assertions about recessions being relegated to history's trash heap are still premature. Moreover. Global Insight recently ran a scenario showing that a world recession could happen if the following combination of events were to take place: oil prices above $100 per barrel..g. the incoming chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. the probability of such a scenario is less than 20 percent. Whether the current expansion will be able to break the record set in the 1990s for longevity will depend on the ability of central banks to keep the inflation dragon at bay and to avoid policy mistakes. What explains this enhanced recession resistance? The answer: a combination of good macroeconomic policies and improved microeconomic flexibility. the United States. house prices fall by 5 percent in 2006 (an extreme assumption. The prospects look good. What if oil prices rise to $80 or $90 a barrel? Most estimates suggest that growth would be cut by about 1 percent--not good. 6 (Nariman.com/id/47483) // JMP The U. However. and global economies were able to withstand three body blows in 2005--one of the worst tsunamis on record (which struck at the very end of 2004).S. Newsweek. A low-inflation and low-interest-rate environment is especially conducive to sustained. during which they typically did too much too late. the United Kingdom and a handful of other countries have been especially aggressive in deregulating their financial and industrial sectors.'” 10-15-2006. www.5 percent to 1 percent. over the past two decades. Does this mean that recessions are a relic of the past? No. the United States. inflation and interest rates running 3 percentage points above current levels and a 10 percent drop in home prices across many industrial nations (e. Since the late 1970s. What if U. “The Great Shock Absorber. Looking ahead.S. So what would it take to trigger a recession in the U. What about another terrorist attack? Here the scenarios can be pretty scary. recessions have not disappeared. in recent years the Fed has been particularly adept at crisis management.RPS Neg 62 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – Economy Resilient The U. This has greatly increased the flexibility of their economies and reduced their vulnerability to inflationary shocks. a major terrorist attack.

and it's been downhill ever since.5 percent. the war's two most vocal opponents. India. 2007 issue.14. It is to say that anti-Americanism.was returned to power. I'll put it right up there on the shelf with another favorite: "19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots. Fred Kaplan observes that "the United States can no longer take obeisance for granted. Russia. on engaging North Korea. Constitution and declared that "we shall soon see this country rushing into the extremes of confusion and violence. They would welcome the United States to the fold." Not quite. the overarching question facing American foreign policy is not how to restore leadership but how to adjust to an increasingly multipolar world that may be less open to any one power's primacy. In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War. Kaplan's new book.5% during the Vietnam War and 6% in the Reagan administration. American "decline" is the foreign-policy equivalent of homelessness: The media only take note of it when a Republican is in the White House. this would be the largest defense appropriation since World War II. "National Treasure. 7 (Sherle R." This. the leading Democratic candidates have failed to grasp one of the central lessons of the Bush era: the world does not need strong US leadership so much as it needs constructive US participation as a great power. As for the causes of decline.S. cheerfully. the administration released its budget proposal for 2009. the Democrats seem to assume that the world so wants and needs American leadership that it is there for the taking. -. Within a few years. Roger Burbach's "Imperial Overstretch" (2004) and Charles Kupchan's "The End of the American Era" (2003). the United States. But as Anatol Lieven suggests. is fool's gold politics. growing at its long-term rate of 2. Great Britain. Kennedy's terms.in foreign ticket sales since its release in late December. "Who Shrank the Superpower?" In Sunday's Los Angeles Times. Yet it amounts to about 4% of GDP." has earned nearly half its gross revenue -. Europe and Japan (with no military burdens to speak of) entered a long period of economic stagnation. Declinism is again in vogue.S. Proquest) // JMP In 1788.about $160 million -. however." Mr. On global climate change.RPS Neg 63 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Competitiveness Adv – Hegemony Ans The world no longer needs American leadership – they grown accustomed to a reduced U. Monday. or take a responsible position vis-a-vis Iran. Much of the world has done just fine without active American leadership during this time and thus may not be as receptive to a reassertion of US leadership. and total projected defense spending is still only 4. The quintessentially American film. Italy's equally unapologetic pro-American Silvio Berlusconi seems set to return to office after a brief holiday. . McDonald's -.S. due in large part to the rise of China. France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder. At that rate. But the U. role Schwenninger. economy is not frozen into immobility. other powers and new coalitions of transnational NGOs and intergovernmental agencies--as well as long-established ones such as the United Nations--got there just as quickly as and in some cases before the United States. Massachusetts playwright Mercy Otis Warren took one look at the (unratified) U. roughly. the declining value of America's "brand" on account of Bush administration policies on detention. as most of the Democratic candidates seem to suggest. Another icon.Australia. had brought the United States to the point of "imperial overstretch." Happily for Mr. a host of South American countries and even the pro-American powers belonging to the European Union have all grown accustomed to a world in which the United States has been preoccupied with Iraq and in which they have had more freedom to shape the politics and economies of their regions. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel were not installed in office principally to mend relations with Washington. I look forward to receiving his forthcoming book." Now take military expenditures. "America's unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. has fallen in recent years. Finally there is the issue of our allegedly squandered prestige in the world. Boeing. or strengthen NATO. Kaplan. the average of the past decade (for which history knows of no example). “Marinating in ‘Decline’” 2-6-2008. China's GDP would double every decade. and the U.com/doc/20071119/schwenninger) // JMP As important. There is no doubt America's "popularity." German writer Josef Joffe makes the following back-of-the- envelope calculation: "Assume that the Chinese economy keeps growing indefinitely at a rate of seven percent. they tend to agree: declining (relative) economic muscle. were cashiered for two candidates who campaigned explicitly on a pro-American agenda.S. Yet each of these assumptions collapses on a moment's inspection. .” from the November 19. flatlined last year." writes Parag Khanna in a recent New York Times Magazine cover story titled. however. In inflation-adjusted dollars. . like illegal immigration. In his 2006 book "Uberpower. South Korea. The Nation. Denmark and Japan -." as measured by various global opinion surveys. So much for America's loss of "soft power. What's striking. "Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power.is doing a booming business overseas even as sales in the U. is having no trouble booking orders (meeting them is another matter) for its new 787 Dreamliner to such customers as Spain's AirEuropa and Bahrain's Gulf Air. global warming -. But to the extent that both seek to liberalize their economies.4 billion for the regular defense budget. The Reagan military buildup and the deficits that went with it.S. nearly every government that joined President Bush's "coalition of the willing" -. as compared to 14% during the Korean War. None of this is to say that perceptions about America play a decisive role in the politics of most other countries." I'm guessing it will fetch a price on eBay. he warned.thenation. Broadly speaking. would stand at $25 trillion.S. China. on AIDS in Africa. Indeed. is the origin of American declinism -. Throw in the Iraq and Afghanistan supplementals. an international relations theorist at Yale named Paul Kennedy sought to explain the decline of great powers in terms of a ratio between military commitments and economic resources. . reaching parity with today's United States ($12 trillion) in thirty years. it brings them closer to Washington's way of thinking. consolidated its position as the world's only true superpower.the icon of everything anti-Americans detest about the U. to mention just a few issues. but they would not cede all leadership to Washington. which includes $515. p. terrorism. is how little of this has mattered in terms of the domestic political choices of other countries or the consequences for the U.an easily afforded sum even by Prof. By then. and those who celebrate it as long overdue. Meanwhile. Direction of the New America Foundation’s Fellow Program.S. where the unapologetically anti-American President Roh Moo-hyun has been replaced by the unapologetically pro-American Lee Myung-bak. declinists divide between those who merely accept America's supposed diminishment as a fact of life. 8 (Bret." sounds just a bit derivative of Nancy Soderberg's "The Superpower Myth" (2005). the Soviet Union collapsed. A couple centuries later. pre-emption..S. Wall Street Journal Asia.you name it. U. www. hegemony will remain strong – predictions of decline are delusionary Stephens. and they now have an ownership stake in these issues and well-developed views about how they should be solved. 9. an overextended military bogged down needlessly in Iraq and endlessly in Afghanistan.5% of GDP -. The same happened in South Korea. “Undebated Challenges.

21. Forty-nine of North Dakota's fifty-three counties lost population between 2000 and 2003. no. n33 Supporters of this view do not make clear why outmigration that has persisted for a century should be reversed.. 3.46 RPS won’t boost rural areas Michaels.44 The Worldwatch Institute likes this because "wealth remains in the local community. the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association opposes an RPS at any level. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. n34 Other advocates see a national RPS as a tool to encourage collective ownership of renewables by rural residents. Economically Suspect. or why power consumers should bear the costs. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. .” April 2008." an odd posture for farmers who earn incomes by selling their output to urbanites. Wind-rich states are hardly the natural habitats of the unemployed. Since renewables are often distant from load centers they hope that an RPS can revitalize rural areas that have lost population. vol. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct.RPS Neg 64 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: RPS Boosts Poor Areas RPS won’t revitalize poor areas or de-corporatize electricity Michaels. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.) As for the actual residents. 79. J. but the state enjoyed an unemployment rate half the national average. Here too unemployment is a non-issue. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Other agendas motivate some RPS advocates.43 Others see renewables as tools to de-corporatize electricity when rural populations experiment with resource ownership. Electricity Journal."45 (This is more easily achieved by refusing to do any business at all with outsiders.. n35 The Worldwatch Institute endorses this policy because "wealth remains in the local community. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP A variant of the job creation fallacy notes that renewables (particularly wind) are often distant from consumers of their power. so the economic stimulus that stems from their construction might revitalize declining rural areas. Energy Law Journal.42 None makes clear why electricity users should pay to reverse demographic outflows that began in the nineteenth century.

the Senior Research Fellow in China. “China and the global security web. www.com/atimes/China/DG25Ad01. the sixth consecutive year in which that has happened. According to The Heritage Foundation. These changes would have caused more than one revolution in any other country.” 1-2-2008. "China is set to make 2008 the year it asserts its status as a global colossus by flexing frightening economic muscle on international markets. D. China has ample money and resources to pay for these programs by itself. “China's Economy to Dominate 2008. 2007 that ". The Economic Times says. China's gross domestic product (GDP) is likely to grow nearly 11 percent during the next twelve months. Taiwan. The Independent (UK) web site. compared with 1. and the nation has forfeited the whole socialist welfare system in a matter of a couple of years. . and several analysts have reported that inflation in China is near a decade high. copper.. A report by The Economic Times of India says that the Chinese economy will experience double digit growth in 2008. Forbes. Sources: The Heritage Foundation. Rural residents' net income rose.associatedcontent.RPS Neg 65 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: China Adv – Economy Resilient China’s economy is resilient – trade is expanding AC.html) // JMP Furthermore. Tkacik. and the like. Record number of jobs created. The country's fiscal revenue climbed to 5 trillion yuan ($691 billion) last year. 2 (Francesco Sisci. writing for The Independent in Great Britain. 8 (“Global downturn won't hit China badly.jongonews. and coal.86 trillion yuan ($1. which are controlled by the government in Beijing. Jr. with fluctuation of less than 1 percentage point..89 trillion yuan ($261 billion) in 2002. are set to start spending foreign currency reserves in British financial markets. Last year alone it was 2.C.atimes. The disposable income of urban residents grew at an annual average of 9. and continue its high growth. and Mongolia Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation. http://www." John J.786 yuan ($1. Statistics provided by Forbes. and with a growing military capability.S. increasing 6. without state support. The country created 51 million employment opportunities. but in China they were digested without major uprisings. In spite of crisis in one year or another. to 4.com/articles/08/0125/101361/MTAxMzYxf1755pMO.” 1-25-2008.09 trillion). Forbes also says that total foreign trade is expected to increase by 20 percent. environment. Large-scale firms' accumulated total profit over the past five years rose to 7.2-trillion-yuan ($304 billion). a conservative think tank based in Washington. The annual GDP growth averaged 10. Rising economic benefits. The Economic Times of India web site. and overall investment will likely rise by more than 20 percent.900) last year.html?all=1) // JMP A strong and resilient economy is quickly pushing China to the forefront of the global financial stage and will make the Asian nation a force to be reckoned with in 2008. and 28. The trade gap between China and the rest of the world. Therefore in the future China can well be expected to carry on with economic reforms that appear modest compared with the ones it has already achieved. Cahal Milmo. tax dollars for programs relating to energy. China’s economy is resilient Asia Times..html) // JMP Achievements of past five years Stable and brisk growth. growth in the past 20 years in China has proved not only buoyant but resilient.140 yuan ($572) in 2007. which has been the subject of considerable debate in the United States Congress. sparking worries about the possible takeover of British ventures by the Chinese government. cement. www. will grow even wider this year according to figures provided by The Independent and The Economic Times of India. 8 (“Associated Content. And while inflation in China is considered to be high.8 percent a year. China has surpassed the United States in manufacturing output and is the global leader in the production of steel.com web site China’s economy is strong now – number of factors Jongo News. the country could soon join the ranks of the world's elite powers.com reveal that China's net fiscal revenue is expected to grow by 6 percent this year. the economy has never plunged into a real recession.. aluminum.” 7-25-2002. wrote December 28. Web Memo Number 1762. said January 1. housing has been privatized and jobs are no longer for life.6 percent. Chinese banks.. Notable progress in overall national strength. Rapid income growth of urban and rural residents.000 km of highways were built.com/article/515311/chinas_economy_to_dominate_2008. Education and health assistance are now organized on a strictly profit bases. Strong economic performance can lead to significant inflation of prices.." According to data cited by The Independent. The total installed electricity generating capacity increased 350 million kW. China's strong economic performance over the past several years has enabled it to invest both domestically and internationally.8 percent to reach 13.Washington can no longer condescend to China as a 'developing' nation in need of U. too..

RPS Neg 66
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: China Adv – SQ Solving
China will inevitably transition to alternative energy—US exports aren’t needed

Martinot & Junfeng 7 - *professor at Tsinghua University and senior research fellow with the Worldwatch Institute and **
Deputy Director General of the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission in Beijing
[Eric Martinot and Li Junfeng, Worldwatch Institute, “Powering China’s Development: The Role of Renewable Energy,”
November 2007, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5491#martinot] // LDK

Wind power is the fastest-growing power generation technology in China, having doubled in capacity during 2006 alone.
While wind is still slightly more expensive than coal power, policies encourage competitive pressure on costs, and new
mandates require power companies to obtain a minimum share of their power from wind and other renewables. China is
home to more than 50 aspiring domestic manufacturers of wind turbines and a number of foreign producers.
Solar power is still in its infancy in China, although a growing amount is used in rural areas and other off-grid applications. A
large market for grid-tied solar photovoltaic (PV) is still several years away, once costs decline further. Already, China is a
global manufacturing powerhouse for solar PV, third only to Japan and Germany, with huge investments in recent years and
much more expected.
China is the world’s largest market for solar hot water, with nearly two-thirds of global capacity. The country’s 40 million
solar hot water systems mean that more than 10 percent of Chinese households rely on the sun to heat their water. When
Chinese firms eventually turn to exporting, the lower costs of their units—seven times less than in Europe—could affect
markets globally.
Biomass power in China comes mostly from sugarcane wastes and rice husks, and has not grown in recent years. New
policies will likely mean more biomass power from other sources, such as agricultural and forestry wastes. In addition,
industrial-scale biogas, such as from animal wastes, is starting to make a contribution to power generation.
Biofuels for transportation have received widespread attention in China. Ethanol is produced in modest amounts from corn,
and biodiesel is produced in small amounts from waste cooking oil. The government plans to expand biofuels production
from cassava, sweet sorghum, and oilseed crops, although the large-scale potential is limited. The greatest promise lies with
cellulosic ethanol, which many expect to become commercially viable within 7–10 years. If China could use its vast
cellulosic resource of agricultural and forestry wastes—up to half a billion tons per year—it might become a major ethanol
producer after 2020.
It is likely that China will meet and even exceed its renewable energy development targets for 2020. Total power capacity
from renewables could reach 400 gigawatts by 2020, nearly triple the 135 gigawatts existing in 2006, with hydro, wind,
biomass, and solar PV power making the greatest contributions.More than one-third of China’s households could be using
solar hot water by 2020 if current targets and policies are continued. Use of other renewables, including biogas and perhaps
solar thermal power, will increase as well.
Achieving these outcomes will depend on domestic industry development, the availability of skilled personnel,
technology cost reductions, continued aggressive government policy, appropriate pricing levels, and allowance for
distributed power generation by electric utilities. Given China’s strong commitment to becoming a world leader in
renewables manufacturing, as well as concerns about energy security, power shortages, air pollution, and climate
change, the future of renewable energy in China appears bright.

Chinese current efforts are succeeding

McKibbin 5 – Non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and economics expert at Australian National University
and the Lowry Institute for International Policy – [Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Institute, “Environmental Consequences
of Rising Energy Use in China,” 8-22-05, Revised 12-10-05,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2005/12globaleconomics_mckibbin/200512.pdf]

China has already begun the take action to reduce emissions of sulphur by substituting away from high sulphur coal, by
closing small, high sulphur coal mines, with direct controls on SO2 emissions, implementation of pilot schemes for SO2
emission charges and pilot schemes for SO2 emissions trading. These are having an impact of emissions of sulphur although
the impact on acid rain has been less clear. As Nakada and Ueta (2004) point out there are likely to be gains for other
economies in the region such as Japan and Korea to cooperate with China in controlling sulphur emissions since these
economies are also directly affected by acid rain emanating from China.

RPS Neg 67
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: China Adv – Government Won’t Promote Renewables
No Solvency—Authoritarian governments will prevent change

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

<<China’s authoritarian system has repeatedly proved its ability to suppress political threats to Communist Party rule. But its
failure to realize its avowed goals of balancing economic growth and environmental protection is a sign that the country’s
environmental problems are at least partly systemic, many experts and some government officials say. China cannot go
green, in other words, without political change.
In their efforts to free China of its socialist shackles in the 1980s and early 90s, Deng and his supporters gave lower-level
officials the leeway, and the obligation, to increase economic growth.
Local party bosses gained broad powers over state bank lending, taxes, regulation and land use. In return, the party leadership
graded them, first and foremost, on how much they expanded the economy in their domains.
To judge by its original goals — stimulating the economy, creating jobs and keeping the Communist Party in power — the
system Deng put in place has few equals. But his approach eroded Beijing’s ability to fine-tune the economy. Today, a
culture of collusion between government and business has made all but the most pro-growth government policies hard
to enforce.
“The main reason behind the continued deterioration of the environment is a mistaken view of what counts as political
achievement,” said Pan Yue, the deputy minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration. “The crazy expansion
of high-polluting, high-energy industries has spawned special interests. Protected by local governments, some businesses
treat the natural resources that belong to all the people as their own private property.”>>

No Solvency—the government won’t promote energy transition

Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK

<<The government rarely uses market-oriented incentives to reduce pollution. Officials have rejected proposals to
introduce surcharges on electricity and coal to reflect the true cost to the environment. The state still controls the price of fuel
oil, including gasoline, subsidizing the cost of driving.
Energy and environmental officials have little influence in the bureaucracy. The environmental agency still has only about
200 full-time employees, compared with 18,000 at the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
China has no Energy Ministry. The Energy Bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s
central planning agency, has 100 full-time staff members. The Energy Department of the United States has 110,000
employees.
China does have an army of amateur regulators. Environmentalists expose pollution and press local government officials
to enforce environmental laws. But private individuals and nongovernment organizations cannot cross the line
between advocacy and political agitation without risking arrest.>>
At least two leading environmental organizers have been prosecuted in recent weeks, and several others have received sharp
warnings to tone down their criticism of local officials. One reason the authorities have cited: the need for social stability
before the 2008 Olympics, once viewed as an opportunity for China to improve the environment.

RPS Neg 68
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: China Adv – U.S. Exporting Now
The US is exporting its alternative energy to China now

DOC 7 [Department of Commerce, “Gutierrez Witnesses Agreements to Expand U.S. Exports to China,” December 10,
2007, http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_004892] // LDK

<<Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez today witnessed the signing of two commercial agreements in Beijing that will
help facilitate over $100 million in U.S. exports to China. One agreement will help The Timken Company expand in China’s
growing wind energy market. The second agreement between the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and China
Eastern Airlines Corporation will expand training for China Eastern personnel and support General Electric (GE) Company’s
supply of 34 new Boeing aircraft engines to the airline. Gutierrez first witnessed the signing of an agreement between The
Timken Company and Chinese heavy equipment manufacturer Xiangtan Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (XEMC) to
establish a joint venture in China to manufacture ultra-large-bore bearings for high-performance direct-drive wind turbines
for the Chinese wind energy market. The joint venture is expected to contribute to China’s goal of generating 30 million
kilowatts of power from wind energy systems by 2020, providing a renewable energy source for China’s rapidly expanding
economy. “These two agreements help position U.S. exports to China’s rapidly growing economy,” said U.S. Secretary of
Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez. “Timken’s partnership in China will provide $100 million in exports, while also helping
China expand alternative energy, wind power, which helps the planet.” The joint venture will build a new $38 million facility
in Xiangtan, located in China’s Hunan province, to collaborate on the manufacture of main-shaft bearings for wind turbines.
Timken will own 80 percent of the joint venture, which will include $110 million in initial U.S. export content. Construction
of the new facility is scheduled to begin in early 2008.>>

The US is committed to both development and export of alternative energy—Indonesia proves

USTDA 7 [U.S. Trade and Development Agency, “USTDA Grants Support of Increased Use of Alternative Energy Resources
in Indonesia,” 9-11-7,
http://www.ustda.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/SouthAsia/Indonesia/IndonesiaCleanEnergy_091107.pdf] // LDK

<<“The United States is committed to furthering the development and use of alternative energy resources, both at home and
abroad, as a means to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and help improve the environment,” said U.S. Under Secretary of
State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Reuben Jeffery III at the grant signing ceremony, held on September 10
at the U.S. Commercial Service in Jakarta. “We are pleased to partner with Indonesia in its efforts to do the same.”
“We believe this project will help demonstrate a sustainable approach to the production of biofuels from palm oil,” said
PTPN III President Director Amri Siregar in remarks at the signing ceremony. Under Secretary Jeffery and President
Director Siregar signed the grant agreement on behalf of the U.S. government and PTPN III, respectively. Regional Director
Steingass and PTPN III Director of Planning and Development Chairul Muluk signed as witnesses to the grant agreement.
The opportunity to conduct the USTDA-funded investment analysis for PTPN III will be competed on the Federal Business
Opportunities website at www.fbo.gov. Interested U.S. firms should submit proposals following the instructions in the
Federal Business Opportunities announcement. PTPN III will select the U.S. firm that will provide the assistance associated
with the USTDA grant.
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency advances economic development and U.S. commercial interests in developing and
middle-income countries. The agency funds various forms of technical assistance, early investment analysis, training,
orientation visits and business workshops that support the development of a modern infrastructure and a fair and open trading
environment. USTDA’s strategic use of foreign assistance funds to support sound investment policy and decision-making in
host countries creates an enabling environment for trade, investment and sustainable economic development. In carrying out
its mission, USTDA gives emphasis to economic sectors that may benefit from U.S. exports of goods and services.>>

Energy Law Journal. whether outages are caused by lightning or bombs. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct.59 Security is better addressed directly by facility owners and government formulating a national policy on infrastructure. but in most scenarios the loss of either will have little effect on reliability. but intermittent renewables have their own reliability risks. storage. and (over the longer run) policies that restrict or expand exploration for it. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 3. no. has long lived with problems like these. Some advocates see a national RPS as deterring terrorist attacks on large power plants. The destruction of an isolated wind farm achieves less than that of a large generator. and there are few hard options for reducing its vulnerability. Security centers on oil. Economically Suspect. but oil produces only 3% of the nation's power. n53 As shown below. Claims that a national RPS will make powerplants more secure against terrorism appear overstated at best. whose price reflects conditions of demand. J. RPS doesn’t improve energy security – oil only produces 3% of electricity Michaels. n52 Renewables primarily displace power generated by North American gas. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP National security and "energy independence. n51 Virtually all international security concerns are oil-related. Because production and consumption must be equal every second. 3." There are few if any important relationships between renewables and energy security for the nation. A national RPS will still require that "backbone" transmission be used as intensively as today.” April 2008. 21. 79. [*94] electric systems are designed for quick response to contingencies ranging from lightning strikes to boiler explosions. National Security Any connection between an RPS and energy security is tenuous at best. vol. most generation investments over the next twenty years will continue to be fossil-fueled or nuclear. Electricity Journal. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.RPS Neg 69 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Energy Independence RPS won’t produce energy independence – only 2% of power comes from oil fired plants Michaels.. The industry. An RPS is a costly and blunt tool for the protection of non-renewable powerplants. but only 2 percent of the nation's power comes from it and some oil-fired plants can also burn gas. Electricity requires redundant transmission and generation reserves to maintain reliability. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. RPS advocates are correct when they assert that a 50 MW wind farm [or a 50 MW combustion turbine] is a less attractive target than a 500 MW coal-fired plant. however. but in most situations short of war either can be lost with little impact on reliability. some in plants that can also burn gas. Interruptions of conventional fuel supplies are rare and usually local. but there are surely cheaper ways to achieve this end. n54 Security is better addressed under a national infrastructure policy to harden them than under a policy that requires the construction of renewables.. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. .

vol. If gas is on the margin its cost sets the market energy price. Economically Suspect. The degrees of risk reduction and risk shifting will depend on contracts that define the relationship between the renewable and the utility purchasing its power.. gives the utility a predictable stream of expenses that regulators will almost surely approve. no. Almost any diversification of a generating portfolio cuts risk. may drive this conclusion. Long-term fixed-price contracts are almost unique to regulated utilities.RPS Neg 70 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Diversification RPS doesn’t produce effective diversification – just shifts and conceals risks Michaels. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Diversification and risk. however. The fixed-price wind contract. but renewables may not be the cost- effective way to do the job. Electricity Journal.58 .57 Assumptions about contracts. The utility gets a bargain when gas is expensive and overpays when it is low. The contract both shifts risks to captives and conceals the magnitude of those risks. One study concluded that wind is a potentially useful hedge on gas prices and estimated a risk premium of 0. generally pay a fixed amount per kWh rather than market value at the time it is generated. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct. the longer the contract price is fixed the greater the expected difference between market and contract prices in one direction or the other. however. in part because they can so easily transfer the risks to customers who have no alternatives but to bear them. 21. however.” April 2008. 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J. Wind contracts. Any reduction in the variance must be weighed against the fact that adding them will also raise expected prices.5cents/kWh. If gas prices follow a random walk. 3.

To deliver their electricity to the populated areas where it is needed. Consequently. conventional power plants (most likely fueled by natural gas) need to be built to support them. which accounts for costs in addition to the cost of building the renewable energy facilities. Higher power costs Finally. As of September 2007. Congress continues to debate proposals that would mandate that a set amount of the nation's electricity come from renewable energy sources such as wind. and 48 states now support programs that offer consumers incentives. Impact on state programs States are moving forward with their own programs to promote renewable energy sources. Many state programs also include technologies such as fuel cells. . a national RPS could disrupt existing state renewable energy programs and put added pressure on electricity prices and reliability. business development for the Edison Electric Institute (Roger. or biomass. 1.RPS Neg 71 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – 1NC States can empirically develop effective RPSs – a federal standard will undercut those programs and drive up energy costs Kranenburg. the sun. improve air quality. But in reality. “One-size RPS does not fit all. which are not recognized in the federal plans. They will be required to purchase higher-cost renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits. This would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states. vol. Thus a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in states with little or no renewable resources to the federal government or states where renewables happen to be more abundant.S. EBSCO) // JMP The U. Most renewable energy sources are intermittent. or rebates to use renewable energy resources. 152. The cost for states in these regions to comply with a federal RPS could be high. such as geothermal power. Even among states that have an RPS. which are not included in the broad-sweeping federal RPS proposals. Backers of a one-size-fits-all federal RPS believe it to be an essential component of a broad national energy strategy to address global climate change. Renewable energy facilities. and lower electricity price volatility. as well as alternative means of compliance such as energy-efficiency programs. meaning they do not generate power all the time. not all regions of the country have abundant renewable energy sources that they can turn to for generating electricity. because many of the retail electric suppliers in these areas will not be able to meet an RPS requirement through their own generation.” January 2008. loans. Four other states had nonbinding goals for adopting renewables. These discussions about adopting a nationwide renewable portfolio standard (RPS) raise significant concerns for power providers and customers alike. A federal RPS that imposes different targets and timetables could undercut or preempt those efforts. A federal RPS would also mean higher costs due to the need to build high-voltage electric transmission lines. 24 states and the District of Columbia had established an RPS. transmission lines would need to be built. all have chosen to add energy sources unique to their areas. especially wind farms. are usually located in remote areas. grants. To do so will cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per mile. no. 8 – director. Each state's RPS plan includes carefully considered timetables and targets based upon its own unique circumstances and available energy sources. Power.

Jeff Deyette.. http://www.RPS Neg 72 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – Modeled by the USFG The counterplan will be modeled by the federal government Nogee et.sfgate. If a policy is successful in one state—as with California's standards for energy-efficient appliances—it is usually replicated and expanded by others until it is ultimately considered at the national level. “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard. renewable energy provides important benefits to all consumers. and Wisconsin. The counterplan will be modeled by the federal government Kammen. al. Courageous experiments can form the basis of needed federal legislation and leadership. not just those in states required to use it. 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley (Daniel M.” 5-18-2008. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) here in California is an example. The Midwest is developing what promises to be an aggressive policy in a region with exceptional wind and biofuel resources. The issue on the table is the need to finance clean energy research programs and to build markets where low-carbon technologies are rewarded. In other words. Leveling the playing field by requiring all states and electricity providers to share in the cost of renewable energy investment is fair.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.6 State governments are often the laboratories for national policy. The Electricity Journal. “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future. early successes in states like Texas. along with the continuing growth of new state RPS adoption and expansion have demonstrated that the policy can be effective.” May 2007. Minnesota. we must begin to price pollution. Furthermore.DTL) // JMP The central challenge of the 21st century will be to replace the vast fossil-fuel infrastructure with a new economy based on low-carbon technologies.. . Iowa.com/cgi-bin/article. San Francisco Chronicle. Steve Clemmer. lexis-nexis) // AMK In addition. as well as publicly and politically popular. 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee.

. p.37 Moreover. n84 For example. J.” Vol. 27. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. 2. no. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Finally. n85 Although there are arguably benefits that a national plan can achieve that individual state plans cannot.” Vol.126 . and requirements to meet environmental regulations.RPS Neg 73 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS States solve best – they are better situated to implement effective RPSs Fershee. 49. Utilities located in states without sufficient eligible renewables would have to purchase credits or be penalized monies that would go via the SREAP into the coffers of the states with substantial renewable resources and technologies.36 But would a federal RPS really result in a strong national renewable market? States.38 States are best – they can incorporate design elements from other regions Ralls. and utilities that are considering adopting a renewable program are best served if they have the ability to incorporate elements of others' designs that will work for their regions. the Florida Public Service Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection held a series of workshops and issued a report on the use of renewable resources within Florida. purchasing out-of-state renewable generation (as is permitted under Connecticut's plan) or RECs when they cost less than in-state resources are ways to support the environmental benefits of renewable energy while keeping costs to consumers down. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann.124 Incorporating best practices is essential in crafting a program that promotes renewable energy in a cost-effective and reliable manner. and utilities designing renewable programs should consider the down-side of carve-outs for more expensive technologies. are better situated to implement plans that account for regional differences. all of which could be achieved without a highly intrusive mandate from the Federal Government into areas that typically are left to the states. Amdt. their citizens. Energy Law Journal. 27. p. assessing the feasibility of a Maryland RPS.” 29 Energy L. in the case of the Proposed RPS. 791 argued that the non-federal piecemeal approach would not support the renewables market. a major complaint is that a "one-size-fits-all Federal mandate does not take into account the specific energy and economic needs of individual States by requiring that 15 percent of retail electricity sales be generated from specific renewable resources which are not prevalent" in all regions. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. individually or regionally. Flexibility in Learning from Others States. in 2002. were much better positioned to determine appropriate fuels. consumer protections. states.123 The Florida Report also examined existing state initiatives that Florida could adopt. Proquest) // JMP F. One such example of this process is a report published in 2001 by the Maryland Public Service Commission. which examined design elements and how existing state programs managed them. 2. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P.122 Similarly. Energy Law Journal. municipalities. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. They contended that the current approach to RPS is haphazard in that each state adopts its own and a strong national standard would enable the industry to focus on meeting one standard. the economic reality of a national RPS militates against a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Energy Law Journal. many state plans are already well established and effective. n86 as discussed in Part II. States are better suited to expand renewable – a federal one-size-fits-all RPS will fail Ralls. In addition to addressing costs and transmission constraints. “Changing Resources.S. many opponents of a national RPS argue that it is unnecessary n83 to have a national plan because state and regional initiatives are already handling the issue in regions where it is appropriate and the states. Energy Industry. municipalities.125 Likewise. no. associated costs. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. Proquest) // JMP Proponents of S.B. and their consumers.451.451. opponents asserted.

ineffective. Yet the Bingaman proposal would lock everyone into a single program. resulting in different regions of the country relying on different fuel mixes. 13 states have adopted renewable energy portfolio standards. To date. Others are reassessing the impact of an RPS. . most commonly hydropower and fuel cells.S. if renewable programs really are to be beneficial.” Vol. More than 90 electric companies in 30 states have implemented or announced green pricing programs to support investment in renewable energy technologies. 2829). The challenge is to find the balance between realizing the promises of renewable energy while protecting consumers and communities from adverse impacts. There are significant regional differences in availability. States are empirically expanding renewables now – the plan coopts this with a one-size-fit-all federal standard NAM 7 . And.org/s_nam/doc1. 2829. and even local differences. Energy Law Journal. reasonably-priced and reliable electric service.133 Sen. Even among states that have an RPS. Forty-three states support programs that offer incentives. or cooperative is to ensure that a renewable program incorporates all components that are necessary to produce renewable energy that is cost-effective and reliable. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. A renewable program can fall into one of two categories: "[e]legant. in conjunction with their policy objectives. Mandates such as a federal RPS will not achieve these goals. Proquest) // JMP V. * States already are encouraging the development of renewable energy resources. . CONCLUSION. which was introduced by Sen. based on their fuel resources. 2006.FOR NOW? As it turns out. and Wisconsin. utility. http://www.. or costly . a bill proponents touted as a bill for U. "energy independence" was introduced in the Senate. local municipalities. amount and types of renewable energy resources.132 On May 4. states. has expressed doubts about the future of S. p. Congress was right: renewables constitute an important component in meeting our nation's power needs. The role of the state. reliable. includes. Domenici (R- NM). EPAct '05 did not end or even put on hold the debate over a Federal RPS. and not just to "special interests" in the industry.25% by 2008 up to 10% from 2020 through 2030. . on May 17.134 In all of the debates over the past ten years. * Some states may find that a 10 percent RPS is not in the best interest of their electricity consumers. 2006. New Jersey."135 Regional consortiums. no. state.nam. Bingaman in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. cost effective.RPS Neg 74 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS Only State and local renewable policies have the flexibility to effectively expand renewables Ralls. Nonetheless. unknown date in 07. Cantwell (D-WA). flexible policy" or "[p]oorly designed. S. Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.National association of Manufactureres ("PROTECT ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FROM RATE INCREASES: OPPOSE THE BINGAMAN RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT". then they must be considered in the context of how best to provide safe. there must be the flexibility to consider and reconsider mechanisms within renewable programs that take into account regional.. . At the end of the day. grants. to establish programs that work for their citizens and consumers. and affordable power. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. the goal of any renewable program should be to provide cleaner. including Arizona. 27. 2. among other measures. Moreover. Several states have RPS programs with lower percentage targets. The "Clean EDGE Act of 2006" (S. a bill entitled the "Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006" was introduced by Sen. electric suppliers in nine states with competitive retail markets are offering green power products to consumers. a 10% federally-mandate RPS. and individual utilities are best positioned to evaluate the panoply of renewable data. some have chosen to add technologies that would not be included in the Bingaman proposal.asp?CID=202504&DID=226878) AMK A “One-Size-Fits-All” RPS Amendment Ignores States * A one-size-fits-all federal RPS mandate ignores the specific energy and economic needs of the individual states. 2747 includes a mandatory federal RPS with the following milestones for utility portfolios: 2. Also. one which is valuable in protecting the environment and helps decrease our dependence on foreign oil. loans or rebates to consumers using renewable energy resources.451.

Nevada. Illinois. Minnesota. which is often the greatest barrier to investment. purchasers of renewable equipment and systems can receive state rebates on a percentage of the actual equipment or system costs or on a MWh basis. like their federal counterparts. Proquest) // JMP State incentives. which can significantly support those businesses within the state whose work is related to renewable energy technologies or a depressed area within the state. and Iowa.74 In New Mexico. and Oklahoma. Illinois. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. and Nevada can receive rebates on sales taxes. For instance. manufacturers of renewable equipment in North Carolina.81 . in states such as California.451. p. and can also be focused on manufacturers locating in depressed communities within the state. and Washington offer production incentives in the form of RECs that can be traded or sold as well as in the form of supplemental energy payments or tax credits to offset higher production costs. North Dakota. Likewise. Illinois.80 Finally. commercial and industrial consumers can receive corporate tax credits on property using renewable systems.” Vol. 27. Oklahoma. Energy Law Journal. and Tennessee may be eligible for special property assessments to reduce the tax burden on those who make significant capital investments in renewable technologies. Many states offer tax credits/rebates to various taxpayer groups.78 Similarly. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. 2.79 States also offer grants and trust funds for research and development of renewable production and technologies. and Rhode Island. California. and Washington can receive corporate tax credits. Iowa. no. provide critical benefits for renewable resources that do not distinguish among consumer groups. In Delaware. North Carolina. lowering the up-front cost of renewable energy technologies.RPS Neg 75 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – State Financial Incentives Solve State financial incentives can expand renewables Ralls. residential consumers in Idaho.75 The credits can be focused on those renewable technologies that are available in individual states. research and development grants support the development and marketing of new renewable energy technologies. and Utah can receive personal tax credits on equipment and installation costs for renewable heating and/or electric generation.76 Renewable systems in Connecticut. which can be used to attract manufacturing jobs to the state. Idaho. which also serves to lower the up-front costs of investment in renewable energy technologies.77 Purchasers of renewable equipment and systems in Florida. North Dakota. North Carolina.

California. arguing that much more needs to be done by way of adopting renewable energy technologies. I propose that it is at the state level where cleantech investors should be looking for incentives and investment security. "Flirting with $100 oil isn't flirting at all. the states are picking it up and running with it. one of the most outspoken presidential candidates when it comes to the energy issue.. Those states make up over half of the US population and account for well over half of the domestic electricity sales. has an RPS ensuring that 20% of its energy comes from renewables by 2010. he called the current energy bill "shameful and pathetic". And while it's unclear whether or not that provision would make it into the final version of the bill--President Bush has indicated he will veto it anyway if it does--some states have already adopted such a measure. In fact. individual states are not waiting around to take action. That. The feds are simply dropping the ball on energy policy. as the future of clean energy development in the US hangs in the balance. means that California will have reduced their statewide emissions 17% from 1990 levels by 2010." But I digress. States can develop an effective energy policy Hurst. coupled with other green initiatives. So you can see where this issue is headed. 8 – After five years of graduate study he has turned his sights on renewable energy advocacy and applied energy politics (Timothy B. www. And New Mexico will get 20% of its energy the same way by 2020.RPS Neg 76 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – Solvency California and other states can empirically adopt RPS Hodge. certain states have adopted policies that dwarf the modest one causing so much tension in the Senate. http://cleantechnica. “Ending the ‘Feast or Famine’ Cycles of Clean Energy Development in the US.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard/187) // JMP A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a policy that mandates a certain percentage of produced electricity come from renewable resources. The energy bill currently being debated in Congress would ensure that utilities generate 15% of their electricity renewably by 2020. countries that signed on to Kyoto have to reduce their emissions a collective average of 5% from 1990 levels by 2012. however. Even without a national plan-though it would be nice-28 states and the District of Columbia have already instituted some form of RPS (three of those states have voluntary targets. To put that in perspective. .” 3-7-2008. In his keynote address at the conference yesterday.com/2008/03/07/ending-the-feast-or-famine-cycles-of-clean-energy-development-in-us/) // JMP So.greenchipstocks. Fortunately. where I'm currently attending the greenXchange Global Marketplace Conference. 7 (Nick. It's a serious relationship--an affair." And nearly "1/3 of the trade deficit goes to pay for $100 oil. He added. whatever that means). “Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?” 12-11-2007. That state is home to Governor Bill Richardson.

102 . In a 2005 study. In the RPS states that do have considerable manufacturing. findings ranged from savings of $3. State programs can make adjustments to escape higher costs that inflict some regions Ralls. as discussed supra at Part II. 114. No.451.org/pdf/5982. there is no panacea for ensuring cost-effectiveness of a renewable resource. This perception may seem less than fair. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. cost to consumers was a critical component of the debates revolving around S. a small wind energy system can lower your electricity bill by 50% to 90%. less energy-intensive manufacturing. 791.” Vol.” 6-12-2007. Therefore. Amdt. Missouri's RPS must be met to the extent that it does not increase electric rates more than 3% from the otherwise applicable rate level. a federal RPS would require states with low electricity prices and proportionately lower renewable energy potential. http://cei. and high transactions costs for technologies. help you avoid the high costs of extending utility power lines to remote locations.50/year in 2010 in California. the effect of adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and push manufacturing into states or other countries with lower electricity prices.S. As the Bush Administration Statement of Policy of June 12. cost-effectiveness of renewables prompts a myriad of responses. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland. whereas some of the benefits.101 At a more local level. no. such as high transmission costs.RPS Neg 77 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – Energy Prices NB A federal RPS will cause some States to further jack up electricity prices Yeatman & Ebell.96 A DOE consumers guide. Flexibility in Evaluating Costs Like the reliability debate. the utility was not obligated to add that renewable to its portfolio. or both. Energy Law Journal. 2007 correctly states: A limited Federal RPS would result in higher electricity costs for consumers in areas where renewable resources are less available and could place new strains on electricity reliability needs. Such a requirement would raise electricity prices for consumers and industry. the recent increase would not have been implemented. high financing costs. 27. and it is nonpolluting. but would negatively affect some regions of the country much more than others.98 These are quantifiable indicia. which may only recover costs under contracts pre-approved by the Montana Public Service Commission.50 on average annually. that is a significant "depend. creating little incentive for consumers to switch. addressing wind energy in rural areas. Congress is once again considering proposals to set a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell. Although 21 states have already passed a renewable portfolio standard. such as is found in our industrial heartland.pdf) // JMP As part of comprehensive legislation to raise energy prices. observed that "[d]epending on your wind resource." Even renewable advocates acknowledge that costs. this is not an argument in favor of a federal RPS. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. but not limited to wind. Certainly. contribute to the market barriers for renewables. 2. including."97 However. statewide and local programs are grappling with costs. Here as well. to additional costs in Pennsylvania of $3. These RPS states tend to have a much higher potential for renewable energy. to no impact in Washington. Proquest) // JMP C. are less easy for the market to reflect.99 Nonetheless.100 Montana's program includes caps on the additional costs to utilities. Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) charted the average expected cost impact of eight state programs on consumer residential bills (without renewables percentages specified). Likewise. It is not surprising that renewable programs across the country affect consumer rates differently. prevent power interruptions. Arizona's standard included a caveat that if the cost of solar technologies did not decrease to an ACC cost/benefit threshold. such as reduced pollution and energy diversity. the U. p. New Mexico amended its RPS statute to include a "reasonable threshold" standard whereby. if the cost of the renewable energy was above a state commission-established level. to raise electricity prices to a level that would force their industries to migrate overseas to countries with cheaper energy rates and no renewable portfolio standards. Columbia.

flexible." among other renewable sources. is that in some areas. resource eligibility.109 Ultimately. that includes poultry-litter incineration. since one is dependent upon the other. administration.85 The congressional debate of S."105 States and local programs have been structured to take advantage of Mother Nature as well as man-made and animal- generated products. 791 focused on whether or not elements of the proposed RPS would prove too intractable concerning factors such as reliability.82 Flexibility means that elements of a renewable program can be revised if necessary. Proquest) // JMP D. and local municipalities know. no. Market circumstances vary as much as the available renewable fuel sources do. costs. or for the flexibility or reconsideration that are essential components in furthering renewable goals while meeting the country's power supply needs in a cost-effective and reliable manner. and affordable power. nuclear. 2. 2. Amdt. the amendments Congress enacted to Title I of PURPA respecting fuel diversity did not suffer from the same problem. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann.106 Pennsylvania includes IGCC-coal and coal bed methane and California includes wave energy. It is often said "the devil is in the details. the Texas RPS was touted as a success in that it demonstrated that a RPS." which is precisely the reason why renewable programs should be left to those who understand the mechanics of obtaining cleaner power that is also reliable and cost-effective. 791 highlighted this shortcoming in that RPS proposal. and effective support mechanism for renewable energy. local. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report noted."110 . which uses a byproduct from a long-standing Maryland industry. or utility service area. size."84 It is essential to design a renewable standard or goal that incorporates many separate elements including structure. Proquest) // JMP IV. no. can deliver a "low-cost. Amdt. 27. 27. certain renewable resources will not be feasible. and wind. p. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. including hydroelectric. production targets. and eligible renewable sources to ensure its own effectiveness. As discussed supra at Part II. This makes individual State RPSs comparatively better Ralls. improvements in technology and rising natural gas costs. and most importantly. reliable. state. if designed properly. Flexibility in Choosing Eligible Renewable Sources Eligible fuel sources constituted a third bone of contention in the debate of S. even taking into account all available federal and state incentives. Wiser and Langniss conclude that one of the most important problems in RPS design is "[i]nadequate attention to the relationship between the renewable energy purchase requirement and eligible renewable energy sources. Those who are implementing the programs must be able to review or reconsider elements as a means of fulfilling the purpose of renewables while safeguarding the need for safe.451. an analysis of state programs undertaken in 2001 concluded that state experiences showed that "an RPS can be ineffective unless careful attention is given to the details of the RPS design.104 What these proponents either failed or refused to grasp is that. A federal RPS will fail – it tries to create a market for too few renewables that are not available in all regions. A RPS or any renewable program should promote energy efficiency and conservation in the context of obtaining affordable and reliable power. the debates surrounding S.RPS Neg 78 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Federal RPS Key A federal RPS lacks the necessary flexibility to effectively expand renewables Ralls.” Vol. 791. p.108 Fort Collins. Renewable programs should be designed to be flexible in order to balance conservation and environmental benefits against associated costs and reliability concerns. In Maryland's case. a successful renewable program would encompass whatever was there. Renewable advocates have been urging flexibility in designing renewable programs for years. In the Texas Study. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. the Florida Public Service Commission voted to order utilities to offer a variety of contractual pricing options for purchases from generating facilities using solid waste and "vegetable matter. solar. Energy Law Journal.” Vol. FLEXIBLE RENEWABLE PROGRAMS ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS FROM RENEWABLES THAN A MANDATED RPS Congressional efforts to impose a mandated RPS contained little opportunity for local variances. and incorporate into their assessments of "eligible" renewables. Fortunately.103 Proponents of a narrow list asserted that the purpose of a federal RPS was to incentivize a market for new renewables. a federal market (even with congressional support) is not practicable. As discussed supra at Part II. Energy Law Journal. what the states. Amdt. and utility levels is essential in establishing RPSs or renewable programs that foster these same goals. Flexibility at the state.107 Recently. In 2001. and coordination with other policies such as financial incentives. advocates of a broader list argued that since no one resource/fuel is prevalent and available in every single region."83 Moreover. which would succeed only if eligibility were limited to less prevalent technologies such as photovoltaics.451. utilities. "wind power will continue to be too expensive to compete with fossil-fuel generation in parts of the country with poor wind resources. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. with this significant range of natural resource diversity. and municipal waste. Colorado has a goal that does not specify renewable fuel types. A federal market is not practicable because utilities in regions with less abundant eligible resources would only pay into the market and would never benefit from the market financially.S. policy goals. As a U. the flexibility to reassess and refine all of the above. Flexibility is important because programs oftentimes need to be revised to maintain this balance and offer workable solutions for consumers.

Some renewables advocates view the evolution of state RPS programs as evidence of a "race to the top. Michaels. with little uncertainty about the markets to be regulated and the efficacy of a proposed regulatory mechanism. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. On this view. J.." fostering innovations that facilitate efficiency and growth. RPSs may be generically inefficient institutions. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Regarding the first rationale. but New Jersey's similar requirement is more likely symbolic of local attitudes.RPS Neg 79 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Uniformity Necessary Forcing uniformity is counterproductive – it overlooks resources and institutions unique to each state. n120 If so. The differences might even be evidence of a "race to the bottom" in which governments compete for the support of interest groups by producing regulations of low quality that fail to satisfy the public interest. n122 Allegations that the evolution of state RPS programs demonstrates a race to the bottom have yet to surface. competition among the states may improve regulation as they learn from each others' successes and failures. *****Note – this evidence also answers the “race-to-the-bottom” argument . A state with abundant gas-fired generation will be better able to integrate intermittent renewables than one that is more dependent on coal or nuclear resources. federal regulation. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. which may of course depend on the activity being regulated. 79. Differences can also reflect preferences of electorates or elected officials. There are two broadly differing scholarly attitudes on state vs. heterogeneous state regulatory provisions reflect either unimportant differences or errors that a uniform standard can rectify. Arizona and Nevada have solar power setasides that reflect opportunities inherent in their climates. The other attitude sees pervasive uncertainty in the regulatory process. but some can be more efficient than others. One whose system is administered by a Regional Transmission Operator may have lower costs than one containing a number of separate control areas. An RPS whose provisions recognize resources and institutions unique to a state may be superior to one that disregards them for the sake of uniformity. On one side are those who see the content of desirable regulation as clear from the outset. Energy Law Journal. where even with well-defined objectives the form and content of regulation are likely to [*108] be unknown in advance. n121 This learning process is particularly valuable if policy must (for some reason) take such a hitherto untried form as an RPS.

administered at the headquarters of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council. n126 . Wholesale transactions in both conventional and renewable energy take place in growing regional markets under FERC jurisdiction. Losing [*109] the best transaction cuts the benefits of exchange. both may well have alternative counterparties in other states. J. J. These markets can easily distinguish resources with different characteristics (e. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP The second rationale for centralization is currently being proven unnecessary. differing technical standards. and differences in market institutions that cannot easily be harmonized.RPS Neg 80 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC State consortiums can effectively organize renewable energy credits – federal action aren’t needed Michaels. They are not the creations of state regulators. register and track renewable energy certificates for use in verification of compliance with state regulatory and voluntary market programs. n123 The WREGIS has been formed "to provide a single institution in the West that will issue.g. 79. Proposals for a national RPS generally include design of a mechanism to trade and register credits.. n125 Even if a transaction between a particular buyer and seller is foreclosed." n124 Interstate differences in RPS don’t undermine REC transactions Michaels. A consortium of western states (both with and without RPS) has formed the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS). The only barriers cited in Cooper and Sovacool's work favoring a federal standard involve differences in protocols among the three northeastern Regional Transmission Operators that would still exist under a national RPS. but only by the difference between the lost exchange and the next best one. Energy Law Journal. Interstate differences in defining renewables and RECs can appear formidable. intermittency) and already do allow contracts that price them efficiently. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP It is hard to substantiate various claims that state RPS differences foreclose renewable and REC transactions that would have occurred under a national standard. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. Energy Law Journal. but existing markets and regional organizations are already taking on this job. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.. 79. They reflect continuing problems at the "seams" between RTOs. but estimates of their actual effects have yet to be produced.

many states require their state agencies to procure power from renewable sources.5% of retail sales by 2019. there are twenty-eight renewable programs in place in the United States: twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have enacted or implemented a RPS or renewable goal program (of these. South Carolina's Green Power Purchasing program obligates the city to purchase fifty 200 kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks of electricity per month that is generated by landfill gas.60 Likewise. to Nevada's RPS for investor-owned utilities (IOUs). has a program. with an eye towards 100%.RPS Neg 81 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC States can enact RPSs that include interstate credit trading – these state programs are more flexible Ralls.54 However. In April 2006. Jacksonville Electric Authority in Florida. Resources in non-RPS states that utilities in RPS states currently purchase for credits would be off the market and used to satisfy their utilities' own national RPS requirements. and claim that its authors: "analyzed two national RPS scenarios. the standard to 22. Likewise. Maryland requires 7. and New York's Renewable Power Procurement Policy committed the state government to purchase 10% of its power from renewables by 2005 and 20% by 2010. and one with. 2. Accordingly. many programs have been amended to require or recommend higher standards than those originally established. In reality $ 14 billion is the difference between two nonexistent situations: one that assumes absolutely no REC trading and one that assumes uniform market rules for all then-existing RPS states. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. one study projected that compliance with RPS and renewable goals would result in an increase from ten gigawatts (GWs) in 2003 to forty GWs in 2015.49 Many of these programs have been in place long enough for the states or other implementing entities to gauge their efficacy.451. Oregon has met its current goal of 12% renewable purchases. governors in New England and premiers from Canadian provinces set a policy goal of 10% renewable energy by 2020.58 Furthermore. Missouri. They found that a national REC trading scheme would save utilities $ 14 billion compared to a RPS without uniform trading rules.45 many of which include RECs that in some instances can be traded on an interstate basis. regional alliances are working to promote renewables. Local. regional consortiums are supporting renewable efforts and goals. Energy Law Journal. and electric utilities in Minnesota must offer green power as well.53 While it is difficult to measure the cumulative renewable energy from all of these programs. issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to increase the standard for a utility's renewable portfolio from 1. Colorado. Minnesota has two: a renewable goal for electric utilities other than Xcel Energy. the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). In fact a national RPS would diminish these benefits.2% by 2012 to 10% by the end of 2015. the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities significantly increased.52 New Jersey is giving California a run for its money for the most aggressive RPS. Maryland purchases 5% of its power from wind sources.5% by 2021. local governments are establishing their own programs: Montgomery County. based on classes or tiers of renewable energy. The Western Governors' Association (WGA)56 agreed upon a resolution that calls for the development of thirty GWs of renewable energy by 2015.51 Wisconsin recently revisited its 1999 standard when the Wisconsin State Legislature enacted SB 459. J. are all over the map. with a goal of meeting 20% of power needs by 2010 and up to 100% in 2050. followed by Minnesota in 1994 and Arizona in 1996. purchased or acquired via RECs. and a wind and biomass mandate for Xcel). measured in terms of percentages or megawatts (MWs) of renewable power generated. Fort Collins. because a growing number of states are increasing the levels of renewable energy required. and to refine or even restructure the programs if necessary to take into account evolving state or local factors. 79. electric utilities.47 Sectors of the industry to which these programs apply range from the RPSs of Delaware and Wisconsin (which apply to all utilities and retail suppliers. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann.B to Part IV. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP n126. Proquest) // JMP B. many municipalities and cooperatives have established their own green power purchasing programs. Connecticut's Green Power Purchase Plan directs state agencies and universities to purchase renewable power. one without a nationwide REC system.55 this cumulative could correspondingly be greater." Cooper and Sovacool supra note 4.57 In the Northeast.62 At the local level. Iowa requires its utilities annually to contract for a combined 105 MWs of renewable energy. 2006. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. California.. appears to be in the final stages of gaining approval for accelerating its RPS from 20% of retail sales by retail sellers by 2010 to 33% by the end of 2020. as discussed infra at Part IV. at 48 (one footnote omitted). Iowa enacted the first renewable program back in 1983. and local jurisdictions established RPSs. including municipals and electric cooperatives). under which the statewide renewable goal for retail sales increased from 2. Energy Law Journal. and Conway. more and more states. For example.50 Likewise. no. renewable goals or other programs.1% in 2007-2012 to 15% by 2025. Texas have renewable programs. Columbia. state agencies in New Jersey are required to purchase an aggregate of 12% of their energy usage from renewable sources.F.48 Standards. Additionally. already considered a sort of juggernaut for renewable issues.46 Currently. This is the flexibility factor that is essential in designing and operating any renewable program. and Austin. Portland. and a utility.63 A national RPS will reduce the benefits of a REC system Michaels. and Regional Renewable Programs During the consideration of federal energy legislation.61 Several states require utilities to offer their customers green power under specified tariffs: Iowa requires all utilities operating within the state to offer green power options to their customers. 27. and Connecticut requires 10% retail sales by 2010. with 30% of renewables coming from DG resources. p. This is not a "nationwide" system that imposes a single RPS on all states. on March 14.59 Similarly.” Vol. State. Cooper and Sovacool describe Global Energy Decisions renewables study. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. .

. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP The states' experiences suggest that a stable RPS program is only one element of a climate conducive to renewable investment.. An RPS law leaves other institutions in place. Energy Law Journal. J. Energy Law Journal. And. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. expired. RPS laws in Texas and California have many analogous provisions. Still more uncertainty will accompany implementation of the state's novel GHG policies. and any legal change applies only to that state. whose presence has dramatically influenced investment. Repeal or amendment of a federal law affects the entire nation. . Investors will demand high returns if they do not have reasonable assurance that some degree of institutional stability will prevail. No state RPS law contains any comparable risks. J. and its regulatory policies remain subject to almost-random change. Operating under several state regulators increases uncertainty. The California Independent System Operator's new market institutions have yet to begin operation after nearly six years of experimentation and rule changes. 79.RPS Neg 82 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Stability / Investment State laws don’t cause uncertainty or deter investment in renewable – the uncertain production tax credit is the heart of the problem Michaels. but concerns about federal law have proven important in practice. n128 It has been enacted. 79. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP The third rationale for centralization is that jurisdictional fragmentation can increase uncertainty. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. policy stability is not key to renewable investment Michaels. The collapse of California's markets in 2001 brought legislation whose passage increased uncertainty. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. but Texas achieved early compliance while California has not even maintained a constant percentage of supply from renewables. and re-enacted four times. n127 The source of uncertainty most often cited by RPS advocates is the federal Production Tax Credit on wind energy. and some of them may have greater impacts on investment than an RPS itself. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.

Energy Law Journal. n119 There are three other possible rationales for a national standard. As seen above. n118 Even if we grant that RPS at some level of government is desirable on economic grounds (as this author does not).. These reasons are also logically weak or empirically questionable. Some advocates argue that interstate differences taken by themselves suffice to justify imposition of a national program. and RPS programs will remain heterogeneous. First. a federal RPS could reduce uncertainties that currently discourage investment in renewables. a uniform RPS could be designed and implemented to produce more economic benefits than today's mix of state programs. however. Probably the most common argument for centralization is that some states or regions will be free riders that benefit from the policies of others without bearing their costs. Absent a federal requirement this division between RPS and non-RPS states will persist. the case for a federal program is not an easy one. 79. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. Third.RPS Neg 83 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Solve “Free-riding” A federal RPS not necessary to solve free-riding Michaels. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. even an imperfect national RPS could save administrative costs and reduce barriers to trade that have resulted from heterogeneity among the states. . Some appear likely to enact programs and still others are quite unlikely to do so. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP E. there are reasons to doubt both the logic and the data that have been adduced as evidence of free riding that must be centrally controlled. J. Second. The Federal Alternative Currently no RPS states are actively contemplating the elimination of their requirements.

the threat of invalidation under the dormant Commerce Clause to such statutes. on Legis. Instead. However. The Future of Renewable Portfolio Standards-- A Larger Context In spite of the leakage of economic benefits to other states n133 and the possible dormant Commerce Clause problems posed by measures adopted to stop such leakage. For its part. Congress should consider explicit authorization of protectionist restrictions in state RPS programs. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. is clear under established Supreme Court doctrine. Harvard Journal of Legislation. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. 45 Harv. to state RPS statutes that discriminate against interstate commerce. 259) // JMP IV.” Winter 2008. Congress has the power to explicitly authorize states to incorporate into their RPS programs economic restrictions that burden interstate commerce. or regional power pool or control area delivery requirements.D. Congress can provide explicit authorization to States RPSs to avoid challenge Endrud. n138 . Class of ‘08 (Nathan E. Harvard Journal of Legislation. J. 8 – J. 45 Harv. Congress could just as easily provide explicit authorization for states to adopt RPS programs themselves in spite of any federal legislation with which they might overlap. to date. To avoid such challenges. absent such explicit authorization. the mounting pressure for federal legislation that addresses global climate change n136 raises an important question: what would the continued legality of state renewable portfolio standards be if a federal RPS or other program addressing global climate change were enacted? As was mentioned in Part II of this Note. J. one which could result in the invalidation of such programs altogether: federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause. 259) // JMP Despite the lack of legal challenges. n137 Along the same lines.RPS Neg 84 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab States CP – A2: Commerce Clause The counterplan can avoid challenges by the Court if it avoids in-state or regional restrictions on energy eligibility Endrud. AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.” Winter 2008. states should employ in-state consumption or sales restrictions. “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. as well as language that requires or encourages state agencies to implement RPS programs in a discriminatory manner.. n134 states continue to adopt new RPSs and to increase the [*280] proportions of renewable energy that existing programs require. Class of ‘08 (Nathan E. states enacting or amending RPS programs and seeking to retain the resultant economic benefits for themselves should avoid in-state or in- region restrictions on energy eligibility. “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. a federal RPS program could create a different kind of constitutional barrier to state RPS programs. Candidate at Harvard Law School. and to state agencies' discriminatory implementation of even neutral RPS statutes. Candidate at Harvard Law School. since the overall utility of such restrictions in providing incentives for states to overcome public choice problems and enact aggressive standards may outweigh the resulting burdens on interstate commerce. AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 8 – J. on Legis.. n135 However.D.

DTL) // JMP The delay is putting at risk a boom in renewable energy projects in recent years that has the potential to remake the nation's energy supply. a leading producer of solar cells. Extending the tax credits is key to sustain massive new investment in renewables – prevents manufacturing from going abroad to Germany San Francisco Chronicle. vol.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM. The wind industry has since rebounded. Federal tax credits and increased funding for research and development are key. We are ready to add hundreds of jobs if this law gets passed. . too.000.com/cgi-bin/article.” 6-18-2008.000. which is now both the world's leading consumer and producer of solar power. said his company had planned to expand its 230-worker manufacturing plant in Memphis. Installing solar panels to power an American home costs about $25.sfgate. "We are in danger of falling behind because we don't have the right set of public policies in place to take that leading role. has developed a $3 billion business over the last two years selling high-tech tools to solar panel manufacturers. up more than double since 2006. www. Santa Clara-based Applied Materials. Cost to extend for 10 years: $907 million.RPS Neg 85 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – 1NC Extending the Production Tax Credit is the most effective way to promote renewables – comparatively better than a RPS Kranenburg. no. and each time investment in wind and other renewable energy projects dropped. Extending the credit for at least five years will give the private sector the stability necessary to plan and finance renewable energy projects. Residential energy-efficient property tax credit: Residential users also get a 30 percent tax credit for installing solar panels. the short-term. where they are available." Morin said. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and TechNet. In the past. Here are some of the key programs that would be affected: Solar investment tax credit: The government now pays 30 percent of the cost to businesses to invest in solar power to meet their energy needs." Kenedi said after Tuesday's vote. EBSCO) // JMP A better solution There are better ways to expand the use of renewables. “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy. "We are ready to grow. When it expired in 2004. has said the plant won't be built if the tax credits expire. many federal credits that have fueled the rapid growth of wind and solar energy in recent years will expire at the end of this year. have been among the most vocal advocates for extending the credits. which is planning the largest concentrated solar power plant in the country 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. the Spanish engineering firm Abengoa. manufacturers. president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “One-size RPS does not fit all. But Wetstone added.” January 2008. Happened before in 2004 Many renewable energy providers have seen this script before: Congress let a production tax credit for wind energy lapse three times over a decade. however. has a limit of $2. developers. There are currently 22 major solar power plants nationwide in the planning phase. two leading technology industry trade groups. Already. start-and-stop nature of the tax credit has dissuaded utilities. but after state and federal tax incentives. but is waiting for a decision on the tax credits. Unlike the leading RPS proposals. investments in wind projects plummeted by 77 percent the next year. A long-term extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) could be the single most effective thing Congress could do to promote renewables. Cost to extend for 10 years: $1. 2008. Many Bay Area tech firms and investors have poured money into renewable energy projects. The tax credit.9-cent per kilowatt-hour credit. director of government affairs for Applied Materials. solar." warned Rhone Resch. a California homeowner would likely pay closer to $16. and investors from maximizing the potential of renewable technologies and resources. said that without a steady policy of tax incentives most manufacturing will continue to go overseas to countries like Germany. many of them in Southern California. the PTC is a proven means of actually getting renewable generation built and brought on- line.7 billion. 152. The current PTC is due to expire on December 31. 8 (Zachary Coile. "It will result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar. with the help of new tax credits. Expiring wind and solar tax credits If Congress doesn't act soon. Power. geothermal heat pumps or small wind equipment. which lawmakers are trying to raise. Congress has let the tax credit lapse before. "It's a shame. and have a great deal at stake in the debate. and had investments totaling more than $9 billion last year. Potentially huge loss If the program lapses. geothermal and other renewable power sources a leg up with a 1. business development for the Edison Electric Institute (Roger. 1. according to Greg Wetstone. Renewable energy production tax credit: This program gives wind. "It's hard to get manufacturers to be willing to make that investment if they don't know for sure if the market is going to be there or if the tax policy is going to change in six months. Cost to extend for one year: $7 billion. but all those deals were signed based on the assumption Congress would extend the solar energy tax incentives. But William Morin. but he fears some consumers may decide to delay investing in solar if the federal solar tax credit for homeowners lapses. which makes them more competitive with natural gas or coal-fired power plants.000. senior director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association. too The bill could have an impact on consumers. 8 – director." Ron Kenedi." Consumer threat. Kenedi said a system could pay itself off over seven to 10 years. At least 17 wind manufacturing facilities have been announced in the United States since 2007. a giant in the semiconductor industry. vice president of Huntington Beach-based Sharp Solar. including new equipment that can make thin-film solar photovoltaics the size of garage doors.

as a result of the Act. Indefinite PTC extension is key to effective wind power Shoock 7 – J. Iss. wind energy is competitive only when placed on a level playing field with fossil fuels. electric cooperatives and public power systems have the ability to issue "Clean Renewable Energy Bonds" (CREB). and equitable means of supporting the renewable industry..73 These programs and the state incentives represent the most efficient. For example stemming from white-hot demand for wind power facilities410 caused a development bottleneck and a 30% cost increase for the turbines as projects scrambled to meet the anticipated PTC expiration of December 31. Energy Law Journal. and gas418 in the same Energy Policy Act of 2005 that extended the PTC and REPI for renewables for two more years. a sharp spike in wind . The Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Appropriations Act for the U.404 and the public405 need Congress to implement a comprehensive national energy policy. AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES. thereby assuring a steady supply of inexhaustible energy.416 including the billions appropriated to coal. no.68 To date.419 Wind power thus is no more beholden to Congress than any other energy source. The first step is to ensure that current supply-side incentives will remain into the foreseeable future.RPS Neg 86 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Federal Incentives Key Federal incentives provide uniform financial support for renewables – they are the most efficient and cost effective Ralls.67 A CREB. This Note proposes that the federal government can meet these ends. pg. the PTC and REPI must be extended indefinitely. EPAct 2005 enhances these opportunities by. If the mandate to reduce dependence on foreign and polluting sources of energy is to be honored.411 Many of the resulting projects came in over-budget or late. (2) marginalize fossil fuels to the extent possible. the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) is extended through 2007.] <<The burgeoning renewable energy industry. 2004 to October 4.185.64 Under EPAct 2005.8 cents per KWh for electricity produced over an eight-year term. delivers to co-ops.5% in fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.500 MW of wind energy capacity was scheduled to go on line by 2005. among other things. state.70 A few other federal bills also provide for funding for renewable energy and ancillary purposes.406 In fact. 12. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. known as a tax credit bond.415 The degree to which the federal government subsidizes fossil fuel technology. a deceleration in the increase of new wind farm development407 made it clear to industry experts that the tax credits were a necessary ingredient if long-term growth were to be assured. lexis academic. A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND. and research. inducement. 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock. The importance of these programs in providing encouragement. which. Department of Agriculture (USDA) includes $23 million in funding for the USDA's renewable energy loan program and the DOE Appropriations Act for FY 2006 includes $1. cost-effective. 2004) between an earlier version of the production tax credit's expiration and subsequent renewal. To do so it must enact a scheme that incorporates elements of existing state and national policies while adding certain unique derivations. according to the opponents of S. including tax credits for renewable development and other production incentives. are assured long lives. They do not create inequities among states. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. the sooner the stability can be ensured for the industry.” Vol.65 The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimated that up to 2. Sections 124 and 206. and that the extension of the PTC would continue this strong growth momentum. 2. It is imperative that these programs are funded at levels that enable renewables to compete with fossil fuels.420 The sooner they are. Fordham University School of Law.409 This legislative volatility has the unintended consequence of actually raising the price of wind power while the PTC is still in effect. and development grants. provide uniform financial support to the renewable energy industry. and includes incremental and new hydropower and Indian coal as qualifying energy resources.414 This requires the continuation of supply-side aid.408 Once the federal tax credit was renewed. amending renewable production incentives that are set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 791. 27. Financial Incentives Financial incentives are in place at the federal.” Vol. 1011-1078. establish rebates for residential consumers who satisfy qualified state energy efficient appliance programs (up to $50 million annually through 2010). would have occurred under the SREAP. respectively. customer rebates. It must integrate market-focused initiatives without losing sight of the social reasons for promoting clean energy. lexis academic. expected.S. predictable growth will follow. “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD. Section 202 reauthorizes the Renewable Energy Production Incentive until 2026. D. At the federal level. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. research and project development cannot be overstated. p. its investors. steady.451. and local levels.413 Absent any other initiative. steel supply shortages facilities occurred. duly buffered against inflation. setting off credit problems for many producers. Proquest) // JMP C.7 million for DOE's energy efficiency and renewables programs. and Indian Tribes for the first time an incentive comparable to the PTC. during a period (January 1. electric cooperatives have made application to the United States Treasury Department for almost $500 million in CREBS to finance fifty-eight renewable projects across America. Section 203 sets goals for federal purchasing of renewable energy up to 7. Amdt. belies the undeniable fact that the energy market as a whole leans heavily on legislative aid. 2007.71 The federal incentives. and support for renewable technologies. and (3) set a permanent standard for ensuring the place of renewable energy in the electricity market. particularly the PTC and CREB. Otherwise disaster waits in the wings..69 Section 1306 of the Act establishes a production tax credit for new advanced nuclear power facilities with a credit amount of 1.412 If wind power's tax credit and production incentive. This includes programs that (1) aid renewable power producers. municipalities.72 Nor do they impose cost shifts among ratepayers. offering an interest-free loan for financing qualified renewable energy projects for a limited term. and for consumers who install renewable energy systems to homes or small businesses (with an annual cap of $150 million in 2006 and $250 million by 2010). which occur when utilities are required to purchase renewable energy at a price that exceeds the value of the power.>> .417 oil. 6.66 Also.

2006 was another near record year in the U. When the PTC is restored. In early October 2004. The PTC was set to expire at the end of 2005. From late 2003 through most of 2004 attempts to extend and expand the PTC were held hostage to the fossil-fuel dominated comprehensive energy bill that ultimately failed to pass during the 108th Congress. 2001. The production tax credit (PTC) provides a 1. From 1999 until 2004. wind industry. Originally enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.S. again due to the efforts of UCS and other organizations. Extending the PTC through 2008 will allow the wind industry to continue building on previous years’ momentum. The expiration of the PTC is the greatest threat to the wind industry Reuters. “Quietly.S.ucsusa.R. a one-year extension (retroactive back to January 1. not polluting energy sources. an important federal policy for promoting the development of renewable energy received a one-year extension. solar. U. 8 (Carey Gillam. such as "open-loop" biomass. and "closed-loop" bioenergy facilities (Adjusted for inflation. but it is insufficient for sustaining the long-term growth of renewable energy. Congress allowed the PTC to expire for the third time at the end of 2003. geothermal. 1999. The last lapse in the PTC—at the end of 2003—came on the heels of a strong year in U.R. With the PTC re-instated. Wind power capacity grew by 2. the wind power industry added 1. 2008) of the 1. This marks just the second time that the PTC was extended by Congress before it had been allowed to expire." said Michael Polsky. 6408). but due to the efforts of a coalition of clean energy supporters—including UCS—it was extended for one year as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H. lawmakers and President Bush have repeatedly failed to agree on how to fund an extension. U.html) // JMP In one of the last measures taken by the 109th Congress. . the wind power industry takes time to regain its footing. The cycle begins with the wind industry experiencing strong growth in development around the country during the years leading up to the PTC’s expiration.454 MW—a 27 percent increase. The PTC was set to expire on December 31.5 cent/kWh tax credit is currently valued at 1.431 MW of capacity installed—a 43 percent increase over the previous record year established in 2001. the PTC has been a major driver of wind power development over the past six years. 2007. The legislation extending the PTC provides a one-year extension (through December 31.S.” 2-14-2007. “Renewable Energy Tax Credit Extended Again. As a result. In December of 1999. In August 2005.reuters.687 megawatts (MW) of capacity—a 36 percent annual increase.RPS Neg 87 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key Indefinitely extending the production tax credit is necessary to avoid boom-bust cycles that undermine renewable development USC. the Production Tax Credit is set to expire in December. www.5-cent/kWh credit for wind. The American Wind Energy Association projects similar growth in 2007. With no PTC in place for most of 2004. small irrigation systems. wind energy capacity growth.S. but Risk of Boom-Bust Cycle in Wind Industry Continues. wind energy development with 2.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18351503) // JMP But the greatest concern currently for the wind energy industry is that for all the public support. Strong growth in U. receive a lesser value tax credit. 6).” 5-19-2008. Lapses in the PTC then cause a dramatic slow down in the implementation of planned wind projects. wind development decreased dramatically to less than 400 MW—a five-year low. the credit was extended until December 31.9 cents/kWh).S. CEO of Invenergy LLC. 7 (Union of Concerned Scientists. and its extension was one of the few bright spots for renewable energy in this energy bill.S. 2005 marked the best year ever for U.S.. Other technologies. incremental hydropower. the "on-again/off-again" status that has historically been associated with the PTC contributes to a boom-bust cycle of development that plagues the wind industry (see Figure below). 2004) of the PTC was included in a larger package of ‘high priority’ tax incentives for businesses signed by President George Bush.9-cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) benefit for the first ten years of a renewable energy facility's operation. A second bill—extending the PTC through 2005 and expanding the list of eligible renewable energy technologies—was enacted just a few weeks later. Combined with a growing number of states that have adopted renewable electricity standards.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/production-tax-credit-for- renewable-energy. UCS is continuing to work with our coalition partners to secure a longer PTC extension that helps boost development of clean renewable electricity. And so on. and then experiences strong growth until the tax credits expire. and it was not until March 2002 that the credit was extended for another two years. "We continue to push ahead because we believe that renewable energy does make a lot of sense and even policy makers at some point will have to realize something has to be done with $120 a barrel oil. the 1. and municipal solid waste (MSW). The planning and permitting process for new wind facilities can take up to two years or longer to complete. The PTC expired at the end of 2001. With the PTC firmly in place. a two- year extension of the PTC was included in a large package of tax incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H. landfill gas. Unfortunately. the PTC had expired on three separate occasions. many renewable energy developers that depend on the PTC to improve a facility's cost effectiveness may hesitate to start a new project due to the uncertainty that the credit will still be available to them when the project is completed. the PTC—then targeted to support just wind and certain bioenergy resources—was first allowed to sunset on June 30. http://www. wind installations is now projected through 2008. wind farms spread footprint in U. In 2003. a Chicago-based wind developer.

no. significantly deterring large-scale investments in renewable energy generation. Energy Information Administration] .S. Concomitantly.RPS Neg 88 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key Market instability spurred by the lack of a guaranteed PTC deters private investment in wind power UPI.either in production facilities in the United States or sales -. 8 (Megan Harris.S.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/) // JMP Michael Weidemann. 2007.” 5-6-2008. If America's interstate highway system were structured like America's renewable energy market. the EIA assumes that the federal production tax credit will expire as scheduled on Dec. Sovacool.” May 2007. especially given the rapid expansion of state-based RPS programs? The EIA notes that poor financing.S. 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. “Analysis: U. one of the world's leading wind turbine manufacturers. “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard. United Press International. Electricity Journal. I believe our competitors have lost lots of money. drivers would be forced to change engines every time they crossed state lines. If the tax credit expires it will deter large-scale renewable investments Dr. said his company can't afford to invest -. wind market's mixed signals. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Why is the outlook so bleak for renewable energy in the U..given the instability of the PTC. comparatively higher capital costs for renewable energy. VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. We establish 12-year partnerships with customers. Canada sales manager for Enercon. 4.upi. also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper. vol." he told UPI at the trade show. [Note – EIA is the U. 48. "We're a private company and we need a pipeline that's secure for projects. and the need to build or upgrade transmission capacity from remote resource areas will likely discourage significant investments in renewable energy. Sovacool. http://www. 31. & Coooper.

an unstable regulatory regime is one factor hindering turbine production.000 parts required to make a wind turbine. Energy Council (www. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) provides the owner of a qualifying renewable energy facility annual tax credits. expand and acquire technology. in 2006. Europe and China will be spending about $150 billion on wind projects in the next five years. raised $245 million through an Initial Public Offer (IPO) early this year to fund a huge expansion. AM) What’s driving demand? Several specific factors have been boosting demand in the past few months. China’s largest wind turbine maker. opened its second turbine blade factory in China in October last year.org). US dithers. but expanding local production should ease the global crunch within a couple of years. from the current 5.S. while slashing import taxes on components. will put pressure on the industry in the rest of the world.worldenergy. Germany’s Nordex – the fourth largest wind turbine maker in China – announced in November that it would quadruple production capacity to 800MW by 2011 to meet growing demand. based on the amount of energy generated in the first ten years. China’s top industry planning body. China increased tariffs on imported wind turbines in May. requiring a large network of reliable suppliers.600MW. The latter incentive. Yet energy analysts say that if the US market slows down due to lack of tax breaks. But. with half of revenue coming from exports. to overtake China for the global lead in wind power Chhabara 8 (Rajesh. As things presently stand. says: “We are planning several measures to support the wind power industry including localisation of equipment production. component supply is creating the most problematic bottleneck for turbine makers. Zhang Guobao.RPS Neg 89 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Solves Competitiveness Extending the production tax credit is key to creating a stable regulatory environment and allows the U. usually on a year-to-year basis. which requires power grid companies to buy the entire output of registered renewable energy producers in their areas. massive demand from China may further tighten turbine supply. Sporadic tax breaks for renewable energy projects. up to 1MW. Goldwind. Foreign manufacturers may be scaling up their production in China. which expire in December this year. Special steel accounts for half the cost of gearboxes. China High. REpower. Windey. this is set to change.climatechangecorp. In order to meet increasing demand. sets the purchase price. Climate Change Corp. again. signing long-term contracts with suppliers and even making acquisitions. this is a short-term problem. In April this year. Chinese firms are trying to overcome this weakness by licensing agreements and joint ventures with western companies. the Chinese market is dominated by the top three foreign manufacturers. The US saw a surge in new orders to take advantage of government tax credits for clean energy. “Who’ll Solve the Wind Turbine Supply Crisis?” 4/29/8. when tax credits lapsed the demand for wind turbines came crashing down the following year. the European Union set an ambitious target: 20% of EU energy from renewable sources by 2020. CLSA Research estimates that the US. most Chinese manufacturers can produce only smaller turbines. major Chinese turbine makers – Sinovel.” According to the Global Wind China will become the top wind turbine manufacturer by 2009. MingYang is China’s only turbine exporter. who enjoy a combined market share of 47%. Among the foreign players. for example. The facility must start operation before the credit expires. has stalled the extension of PTCs beyond the end of 2008. But in the next three to five years. China High. However. compete internationally for scarce parts. MingYang and HEC – are also expanding capacities and shopping for joint Other ventures and licensing agreements with global players. it may actually result in overcapacity of turbine manufacturing in the US. China will more than compensate. In the past. leading players are rushing to beef up their supplies by setting up new plants. the country’s largest manufacturer of gearboxes – the most critical and complex part in a wind turbine – plans a four-fold increase in production in the next two years. Last year. Congress. In the short term. Government rules already require that turbines have at least 70% domestically produced components. Today. to help Chinese firms To encourage production. the number of exporters is likely to grow as other firms aggressively Currently. http://www. Response from the big players With over 8. which already supplies to GE.000MW by 2010. China surges ahead In the US. If the trend is repeated this time. China set a massive target of expanding wind power capacity to 100. GE Wind and Gamesa. China passed the Renewable Energy Law. Previously. The company is aiming to become one of the top three global manufacturers of gearboxes.asp?contentid=5344. Nordex and Goldwind. The company is raising another $250 million through convertible bonds and plans to buy a special-steel plant to secure supplies and reduce costs. currently valued at 1. As a result. which has a cooperation agreement with Goldwind. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). but in the longer term it is the emergence of Chinese turbine and component manufacturers that will probably change the global landscape of wind power. vice president of China’s NDRC. LM Glassfiber of Denmark. Dongfang.9 cents/KWh. have discouraged US manufacturers from scaling up. raised $272 million through an IPO to fund massive expansion. at least for the domestic market. leading manufacturers have been setting up factories in China. .com/content. Vestas.

green industries can't become growth industries without serious investment. Going green is a worthy . and Mr.” It is also alarming. but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale.S.ssf?/base/news-2/1211959275185170.goal. Tax credits are necessary to stimulate renewable and help them achieve scale through sustained investment Friedman. development and marketing of alternative sources of energy. But. that the U. These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable.nytimes. D-Springfield. extends by six years the tax investment credit for solar energy. so action now is important. Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to .” If the wind and solar credits expire. . run two years. and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk. 8 (“Tax incentives fuel for greener future. the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. Rep. two out of three drivers in the commonwealth are commuting to work behind the wheel of hybrid automobiles." he said. said Resch. Meanwhile. we hope it sees it that way too.xml&coll=1) // JMP Imagine a future ." Neal said before the 263-160 vote. www. as well as a for the production of renewable three-year extension for a tax credit for energy derived from biomass. dirtier fuels like coal. just as money doesn't grow on trees. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December. who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee. The production tax credit for wind energy has been allowed to expire three times. so it can compete without subsidies. NYT.html) // JMP Listen to almost any politician. says Rhone Resch. It's a hopeful vision.000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries.S. The tax incentives could help Massachusetts in its push to become a leader in the clean technology sector. authored by U. It also includes tax breaks fuels and provides consumer tax credits for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. As investors "you need to be able to look down the road at the tax incentives.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman. Neal. "You are not going to get someone who will invest in wind power only to discover that the tax credit is going to be gone. http://www.” 5-5-2008. “It’s a disaster.RPS Neg 90 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Key to Sustained Investment The tax credit is critical to the sustainable expansion of renewable – they are key to future investment NYT. The credits for wind and solar expire at the end of this year. we are squabbling over pennies. one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. hydropower. Yet these samepoliticians are on the verge of allowing modest but vital tax credits to expire that are crucial to the future of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. heat all new homes and businesses. President Bush said he would veto that. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry. These credits are necessary to attract new investment in renewable sources until they become competitive with cheaper.com/editorials/republican/index. 8 (Thomas L.S.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) // JMP Are you sitting down? Few Americans know it.. But the payoff . Tax incentives for alternative energy enterprises deserve support. The provision.” 4-30-2008. encourage investment in wind energy. Tax incentives are key to expand investment for renewables The Republican. “Big Oil’s Friends in the Senate.nytimes. Neither side would back down. and you’ll hear that the fight against global warming cannot be won without cleaner technologies that will ease dependence on fossil fuels. it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production Oil and gas kept all their credits. President Bush included.could be even greater if it helped put us on the road to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Japan 12 years. Richard E. and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made. When the credits disappear. House of Representatives included tax incentives for the research. providing high-paying jobs for lots of people. That's why we're pleased that a wide-ranging tax package approved last week by the U. at best. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” says Michael Polsky.com/2008/05/05/opinion/05mon2.masslive.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects. new investment dropped by more than 70 percent. Stalemate. Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program. and a growing segment of the economy is powered by the alternative fuel industry. Such incentives are needed because alternative energy sources are expensive to bring to market. 8 (Editorial. “Dumb as We Wanna Be. In each case. When the provision goes to the Senate.say 10 years down the road when the Bay State is the nation's leading green state: Solar panels.beyond pumping up the economy . geothermal. landfill gas and solid waste. founder of Invenergy. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation. Ours. www. but for almost a year now. The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. manufactured in Massachusetts.and strategically important . investments shrivel.” 5-28-2008.

" said Daniel Kammen. "Wind power is going to be a huge part of the country's energy future.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/) // JMP HANOVER.. 8 (Megan Harris. Extending the PTC is critical to prevent a massive decrease in wind power and spur long-term investment in the industry UPI.S. One of the most consistent criticisms of wind is that. United Press International. however.S. The analysis predicts that the 20 percent wind scenario would cost about 2 percent more than sticking with the current energy mix.Wind energy can supply 20 percent of U. legislative representative for the American Wind Energy Association. “Study Supports U." he said. yet offers lower ongoing energy costs than conventional power plants for operations. "We don't have many options for electrical energy storage right now. market is the lack of stable incentives.upi.6 billion cumulative tons of the principal greenhouse gas." Aaron Severn. As the price of fossil fuels continue to climb. electrical transmission grid to access the best wind resources and relieve grid congestion.” 5-19-2008. clean power generation at the gigawatt-scale will be necessary. Power companies would also have to add gas turbine generators to provide back-up electricity when the wind isn't blowing." he added. the industry has actually grown faster over the past year than assumed in the study's scenario. Under the scenario. “Analysis: U. The Production Tax Credit. which was written in conjunction with industry and environmental analysts. Germany. renewable energy technology leader for the Electric Power Research Institute.. Department of Energy (DOE) report says. "If it is allowed to expire. Very dramatic decreases in the amount of installed wind energy occurred in the past when the PTC expired. For most firms.S.RPS Neg 91 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency The production tax credit is key to significantly expand wind power Block. . the report estimates. industry. the DOE's assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy. said claims of wind power unreliability are false. emphasizing the importance of long-term. 290 GW. which was due to expire at the end of 2007. strong growth potential and the weak dollar are buoying interest in the U. It provides a 2 cent per kilowatt-hour credit to project developers for the first 10 years of operation but has expired three times since it was first created in 1992. "To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our energy security. To reach their goal by 2030. May 6 (UPI) -. Kammen said wind energy may end up costing less than the additional 2 percent that the report predicts.worldwatch. which ranges from 60 to 75 percent of the day in some areas. Andy Karsner. and will require us to take a comprehensive approach. due to its intermittent nature. the department said wind energy installation would need to triple from the current rate of 5.the equivalent of protecting about 48 million acres (19. the industry and investors worry that growth will fall off -. according to Thomas Key.” 5-6-2008. a new study says.. Wind energy provides just 1 percent of U. director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. the biggest barrier to the U.S. told United Press International at the Hanover Innovation Fair from April 21-25. robust incentives.S. Wind Expansion. and fuel. electricity needs by 2030 at a "modest" cost difference. with that pace continuing through 2030. The added wind power would also avoid 4 trillion gallons of water from being consumed for electricity generation. The new study estimates that the increase in wind generation would avoid 7." he said at a press briefing. was renewed in 2006 for one year until the end of 2008. compared with about 7 percent in Germany where the government has provided steady support for the industry since the early 1990s. "We need to fix the production tax credit uncertainty. and the country has led the world in wind power installations over the past two years.S. Worldwatch Institute.S. improved electricity storage is necessary.4 million hectares) of forest from deforestation." The study." Worldwatch senior researcher Janet Sawin was a member of the study's steering committee and helped author a policy chapter that was later removed from the report. Our member companies say that projects would be put on hold and investment would flow into more stable markets if the PTC is not extended immediately.S.and we haven't even started talking about what the price of carbon will be. the nation would displace half the natural gas and 18 percent of the coal it requires to generate electricity. carbon dioxide.The wind energy industry is beginning to repower existing turbines for greater efficiency and expanding to offshore locations in Europe. "We really need some technological advances to find economic advances on this scale." he said.2 gigawatts (GW) added in 2007 to more than 16 GW per year by 2018.S. electricity today.000 new jobs would be created." Karsner said in a prepared statement. wind market's mixed signals. maintenance. from being emitted . State laws that require utilities to purchase wind power have recently revived the U. "That's an experiment we don't want to undertake. "Developers want long-term market stability. power plants between now and 2030." "Although the 20 percent wind scenario sounds ambitious.S." said the report.org/node/5748) // JMP If the United States produced 20 percent of its energy from wind. http://www. Such a dramatic increase in wind capacity would require large-scale expansion of the U. This would nearly eliminate the projected increase in emissions from U. Less coal-fired power results in fewer emissions of mercury and the pollutants that cause acid rain. as well. "The 20 percent wind scenario entails higher initial capital costs (to install wind capacity and associated transmission infrastructure) in many areas. 500. says Worldwatch Institute president Christopher Flavin. and despite unstable incentives for wind power in the United States. The U. http://www. finds that electricity storage is not needed to reach the 20 percent goal.although 25 states and the District of Columbia have their own renewable electricity standards and that could provide somewhat of a cushion.. 8 – reports everything environmental for the Worldwatch Institute (Ben. "This looks like the bargain of the century. would displace the projected use of coal for power generation by 18 percent and the use of natural gas by about 50 percent. market. The total wind energy growth. industry remains dependent on a short-term federal tax credit that will expire at the end of this year unless Congress extends it. "Wind is in fact one of our least volatile resources." Key said. which relies more heavily on traditional fossil fuels. "It doesn't include the ramp up of fossil fuel prices [which rose significantly since the study's completion]. a new U.S. as part of a plan to get [20 percent by 2030].

will be produced domestically. However. Prior to 2005. Indeed. at least 17 manufacturing facilities have been brought online or expanded in the U. In 2007. “But if Congress does not act quickly.000 attendees and 700 exhibitors. putting 1. which range from towers and blades to gearboxes. the PTC has undergone a series of one or two-year extensions. 2001 and 2003). installations have dropped by as much as 93% in the following year. in the heart of the energy capital of Texas. it is encouraging that nearly half of the components for turbines installed in the US will be produced domestically by the end of 2008. the stop-start nature of the main US subsidy mechanism . Despite this. Since actual installed capacity for natural gas was less than expected in 2007 and wind was slightly higher. strengthen economy With the fate of a key federal incentive in the balance. Adjustment to final numbers for megawatts of wind power installed in the U.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Market_Release_Q108. But the relatively stable availability of the PTC since August 2005 has allowed U.000 MW. “While 2008 is shaping up to be another great year. “These new wind power plants—enough to serve the equivalent of 400. Texas added over half this new capacity and now has well over 5. http://www. In the current context of rising turbine costs. AWEA reports an increase in the share of U.000 jobs and $500 million in manufacturing investment. wind power capacity to over 18.S. as shown in the following chart: The new wind power facilities installed this quarter span 10 states and bring total U.awea. the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today in its quarterly market report. up from the 30% initially reported in January. the US .S.led the way in new installed wind energy capacity.400 MW IN FIRST QUARTER.has caused the wind farm industry to develop in a similarly erratic fashion.S.249 MW.S. from 2005 to 2008. in 2007 show a slight increase to 5. bearings.. 2001 and 2003. WIND INDUSTRY INSTALLS 1. the wind industry is increasingly driven by public policy trends and is at the mercy of government programs such as the PTC.RPS Neg 92 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency Extending the PTC is key to a stable investment climate for wind power Datamonitor. 8 (“The US Wind Market Has Outgrown the Drip Feed of Supportive Federal Legislation. If the PTC is not extended. placing 76. up from the 5.’s biggest wind industry show ever.S.“ Swisher added.html) // JMP Industry calls for prompt extension of incentive to sustain momentum. as well as R&D. In June. a lack of stable regulatory frameworks has hampered the development of the renewables market. new wind power facilities in fact made up close to 35% of the entire new power generating capacity added in the U.000 homes--coupled with investment in 17 new manufacturing facilities over the past year and a quarter show that – with consistent policy support – America’s wind industry can deliver the goods in terms of clean energy and new clean technology jobs. WINDPOWER 2008 will be the U. while also keeping businesses from growing to their full potential.the Production Tax Credit (PTC) . by the end of 2008. The PTC is the primary federal incentive for wind power. www.redorbit. Indeed. the US wind industry currently leads the way in new installed capacity as it gears up for long-term growth. The Federal government's recent uninterrupted commitment to the PTC. and has been allowed to lapse in three different years: 1999. Since new wind power projects are not expected to be completed until two or three years after the initial investment decision. with installations in more than 70 countries.000 jobs and over $11. Specifically. last year.which boasts one of the most abundant wind resources of any nation in the world . this momentum could be derailed at the worst possible time for the economy. approximately half of turbine components for turbines installed in the U. Prior to 2005.” 5-7-2008. Over 4. which culminated in a record 5. and until true demand-pull can be created. creating over 4. the U.” commented AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher.5 billion in investment at risk. facilitating three straight years of growth. the uncertainty surrounding what form the Federal tax policy will take over the coming years could make for a very uncertain investment climate. reasure investors. . At previous times when the credit has lapsed (1999. U. now the state with the largest wind power market in the nation.000 MW of projects are now also under construction nationwide.-made wind turbine components—from less than 30% to approximately 50% in three years. Extending the tax credit is key to sustain the wind industry AWEA. Yet. while its total installed wind capacity came second only to Germany. the boom-bust cycles recently seen in the US wind industry have caused costs to increase along the entire supply chain. The PTC is now set to run out in April 2009.S. which drive artificially stimulated demand.-based supply chain providers to begin establishing a much stronger foundation of domestic manufacturing for turbine components. many states have set renewable energy targets that match EU levels. with over 8. Indeed.com/news/business/1403646/the_us_wind_market_has_outgrown_the_drip_feed_of/) // JMP In the US. Since its establishment in 1992. wind power has become one of the broadest-based renewables technologies. American Wind Energy Association.S. supply chain difficulties and skills shortages. With the majority of new wind capacity now outside Europe.200MW of new installed wind power capacity in 2007. AWEA estimates that.244 MW announced in January. we could see a very different story in 2009 as uncertainty looms over investment in wind power projects and manufacturing due to continuing delay in extending the production tax credit (PTC). the WINDPOWER 2008 Conference & Exhibition will open in Houston. Additionally.000 MW installed. and expires at the end of the year along with incentives for other renewable electricity sources. estimates suggest that less than a third of components were manufactured on US soil.S.S. including leading global wind turbine manufacturers and many component and supply chain providers. 8 (Kathy Belyeu.S.” Swisher added. or enough to serve the equivalent of 5 million homes. the share of US-made wind turbine components has increased from less than 30% to approximately 50% over the past three years.400 megawatts (MW) or approximately $3 billion worth of new generating capacity in place. wind energy industry continued new installations at a breakneck pace in the first quarter of 2008. has given the industry a stable base to build upon. in the current context of soaring generation costs. “WITH UNCERTAINTY LOOMING OVER FEDERAL INCENTIVE. it has allowed supply chain providers to establish a much stronger foundation for the domestic manufacture of turbines and components. AWEA estimates that less than a third of components were manufactured domestically. In 2007 and early 2008. and electrical and electronic components. it is likely that some companies will end investments in projects that are not expected to be completed before the end of the year.” 5-27-2008.

Arizona utility officials say that if solar-tax credits aren't extended. www. "I've introduced legislation to extend it to 2016. That money instead should be going toward renewable energy. natural gas or some other energy.” 5-6-2008. and academic leaders here. 8 (Faye Bowers.com/2008/0506/p03s05-usgn.azcentral.csmonitor. though some experts expect the gap to close in the next seven to 10 years. The cost of power plants. we would expect to see solar installations come to a halt in our service territory. businesses reluctant to act until subsidy is extended. But that rate is set to expire at the end of 2008. Christian Science Monitor. "It is critical.com/news/articles/2008/05/27/20080527solartax0527. business." said Lori Singleton. who see their dreams of a solar-energy hub evaporating. That's because solar power is still more expensive to produce than is electricity derived from fossil fuel. Meanwhile." Representative Giffords is urging that the government pay for the extension by reducing tax credits to oil and gas companies. "If the tax credits are not extended.html) // JMP What's next Solar advocates here are hopeful that congressional leaders will be able to work out a compromise between the dueling pieces of legislation in the coming months. 8 (Ginger D. Gabrielle Giffords (D) of Arizona in a phone interview. is passed on to customers. “Arizona's solar aspirations in peril. Richardson and Ryan Randazzo." she says. "The extension of the tax credit is critical. “Solar projects hang on future of tax credit: Utilities. www. Ariz. During "the next five years.RPS Neg 93 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Solar Solvency Extending tax credits is key to sustain the solar industry Arizona Republic. they will need to build natural-gas-powered plants to meet the rising demand for electricity in the state..” 5-27-2008. The state aims to tap its 325 sunny days a year. The subsidy in question is the federal Investment Tax Credit. meaning that 30 percent of the cost of building and installing a system is returned to the investor in the form of a tax credit. whether fueled by the sun." says US Rep. by 2011 – are likely to be scrapped if the tax credit is allowed to lapse. [oil and gas companies] are slated to receive about $17 billion.html) // JMP But plans for a project that could put Arizona on the map as a solar powerhouse – a huge $1 billion solar energy plant to be built near Gila Bend. but loss of an energy tax credit threatens its big plans. SRP's manager of sustainability initiatives and technology." . The US government boosted the ITC from 10 percent to 30 percent for solar systems in 2006. But utility officials say they are hoping to build at least some solar plants to diversify their energy sources and serve as a hedge if natural-gas prices continue their recent surge. That scenario worries many political. and I believe Democrats and Republicans acknowledge it. The Investment Tax Credit is key to expanding solar energy CSM.

berkeley. “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006.html) // JMP There are a suite of policy instruments that can be used to promote renewable energy technologies. Kamal Kapadia. We support a minimum of a 15 percent investment tax credit for residential solar electric and water heating systems.berkeley. 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M.e.edu/~rael/papers. et.RPS Neg 94 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Expands Renewables Extending the Production Tax Credit will expand renewables Kammen. Kammen. Since the focus of this report is the employment dimension of renewables. We should extend the existing production tax credits (PTC) for electricity generated from wind power and closed loop biomass for five years. Kammen.edu/~rael/papers. “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006. we will not provide here a complete run-through of policy options. Kamal Kapadia. discussed below. al. http://socrates. We identify two key areas of intervention. geothermal energy.. . with major health and environmental benefits as an added bonus. would have a greater long- term effect on the energy system than any expansion of fossil-fuel capacity. 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M.html) // JMP Provide Tax Incentives for Companies the Develop and Use Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technologies Support for the production and further development of renewable fuels. Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. we recommend a 30 percent investment tax credit for small (75 kW and below) wind power systems. In addition. http://socrates. These range from financial instruments like tax credits and bond measures to renewable portfolio standards. Also. and a smaller credit (one cent per kWh) should be provided for electricity from open-loop biomass co-fired with coal. and landfill gas. et. This section focuses instead on policy requirements to maximize employment benefits while minimizing the negative impacts on people employed in the fossil fuel energy sector. and Matthias Fripp. agricultural and forestry residues but excluding municipal solid waste). Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. this production credit should be expanded to include electricity produced by open loop biomass (i. This has been done elsewhere17. and a set of recommended highest-priority policies is listed in brief in Appendix 3. al. all found domestically. and Matthias Fripp. The same credit should be provided to closed loop biomass co-fired with coal. Tax credits and bond measures can expand renewables Kammen. and support for R&D.

has proven remarkably effective and popular with private industry. (23) The largest single tax credit in 1999 was the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. Approximately 2. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL.S.S. and the major wind-turbine manufacturers are now in Europe. public health organizations.sub. costs should decline.3 quadrillion Btu of energy and 5 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year by 2012. To complement this support of private-sector R&D. has proven successful in encouraging strong growth of U. Congress. Environment. and new homes. Driving through the neighborhoods that were developed in the late 70s and early 80s. if these proposed tax credits help to establish innovative products in the marketplace and reduce the first-cost premium so that the products are viable after the credits are phased out. et al. geothermal energy. The same thing will happen if the renewable energy tax credits expire (referring broadly to the investment tax credit and production tax credit). solar energy. The Home Depot. Germany has twice the U. which has gone primarily to the natural gas industry. so much so that there is a strong consensus in Congress and the administration to make this credit permanent. investors. an investment credit in capital or installation expenditures is preferable to a production credit based on electricity generated. A key element in designing the credits is for only high-efficiency products to be eligible. but it is not only the cleantech companies that are pushing for the tax package. 5351 would help our country make the transition to this economy — an economy powered by low-carbon technologies that help solve global warming. The boom-and-bust cycle of clean energy development is a direct result of the waxing and waning of the federal production tax credit (PTC). clean energy economy. Lipman – postdoctoral researchers at RAEL. Investment tax incentives are also needed for smaller-scale renewable energy systems. the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and all but 8 Democrats supported the bill. Of course it is no surprise to see renewable energy trade associations like the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Institute of America in favor of the PTC and the ITC respectively. National Resources Defense Council. http://www. 8 – After five years of graduate study he has turned his sights on renewable energy advocacy and applied energy politics (Timothy B. installed wind energy capacity. Recent federal tax credit legislation to encourage the use of high-efficiency technologies includes incentives for highly efficient clothes washers. the federal government has employed various policy mechanisms to support renewable energy development. coal. distorting the market in favor of conventional energy technologies. House of Representatives voted 236 to 182 in favor of extending the tax credit package which is set to expire at the end of this year. innovative building technologies such as furnaces. the credits will help innovative technologies get established in the marketplace but will not become permanent subsidies. However. and the United Steelworkers (I guess no AFL-CIO on this one). then the indirect impacts could be many times greater than the direct impacts. If eligibility is set too low. The coalition sent a letter to the House last week that read. Currently. would have a greater long-term effect on the energy system than any expansion of fossil fuel capacity. all found domestically. and electric heat-pump water heaters.. 17 Republicans joined the Democrats in supporting HR 5351. The clean energy tax incentives in H. “Ending the ‘Feast or Famine’ Cycles of Clean Energy Development in the US. Recently.com/doc/1G1-80932983.R. gas-fired pumps. the U. In these cases. Support for the production and further development of renewable fuels. and utilities have urged Congress to pass H. Tax incentives can help manufacturers justify mass marketing and help buyers and manufacturers offset the relatively high initial capital and installation costs for new technologies. “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice. in particular. Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. due to the relatively high capital cost of these smaller-scale renewable technologies and the fact that the electricity and heat produced is used directly. http://cleantechnica. Many new energy-efficient technologies have been commercialized in recent years or are nearing commercialization. The extension and expansion of PTC has recently been garnering strong and consistent support in the U. and utilities including Florida Power and Light and Pacific Gas & Electric. yet they receive only 1 percent of federal tax expenditures and direct fiscal spending combined (see Table 1 on page 16). (25) This production credit should be expanded to include electricity produced by "open loop" biomass (including agricultural and forestry residues but excluding municipal solid waste).com/2008/03/07/ending-the-feast-or-famine-cycles-of-clean-energy-development-in-us/) // JMP Since the energy crisis of the late 1970s.” 3-7-2008. The incentives currently being proposed in Congress and by the administration will have a relatively modest direct impact on energy use and [CO. and landfill gas. A broad coalition of 120 corporations.S. environmental groups. National Association of Home Builders. and Dow Chemical. it’s not hard to notice all of the old rooftop solar water heating arrays that were installed because people were taking advantage of a tax credit made available by the Carter administration. (26) . wind energy over the last several years--with a 30-percent increase in 1998 and a 40-percent increase in 1999. “America is on the cusp of a new. was designed to reduce dependence on foreign energy imports by encouraging the production of gas. there may not be enough energy savings to justify the credits. stationary fuel cells. labor groups. and Jennifer L. In this manner. non-R&D federal tax expenditures aimed at the production and use of energy have an unequal distribution across primary energy sources.RPS Neg 95 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Industry Supports It The counterplan solves the boom-and-bust cycle of renewables – it is well supported by the industry Hurst. because once these new technologies become widely available.000 megawatts (MW) of wind energy will be under development or proposed for completion before the end of 2001 (a 40- percent increase from 2000).. such as residential photovoltaic panels and solar hot-water heaters.” Tax incentives are popular with industry and expand renewables Kammen. It has been estimated that total annual energy savings could reach 1 quad rillion Btu by 2010 and 2 quadrillion Btu by 2015 if these credits are successfully implemented. 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at Cal Berkeley (Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. Civil society supporters include the Sierra Club. Renewable fuels make up 4 percent of the United States' energy supply. (24) This income tax credit. nongovernmental organizations. These tax credits should have limited duration and be reduced in value over time. 5351. and oil from unconventional sources (such as tight gas formations and coalbed methane) within the United States. and investments in commercial buildings that have reduced heating and cooling costs. as well as small wind systems used in commercial and farm applications. National Wildlife Federation. which is why I don’t see rooftop solar hot water nearly as much anymore (at least not recently installed).R.2] emissions. The far-ranging group includes corporate giants Wal-Mart Stores. Savings may only amount to 0.encyclopedia. tax incentives directed toward those who use the technologies would also provide the "demand pull" needed to accelerate the technology-transfer process and the rate of market development. Best Buy Co. which totaled more than $1 billion. power credit.html) // JMP Tax Incentives The R&D tax credit. refrigerators.7 cents per kWh now exists for electricity generated from wind power and "closed loop" biomass (biomass from dedicated energy crops and chicken litter).S.” December 2001. The wind A production tax credit (PTC) of 1. which goes to companies based on their R&D expenditures. when the federal wind energy PTC is scheduled to expire. But the tax credit expired after Reagan took office. reduce energy prices for consumers and create new high-wage jobs.

including a long-term extension to the production tax credit and the expansion and extension of the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program. and (4) communities do not object to the development of wind farms. on the other hand. merely ignores these real issues and imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate at the expense of consumers. For example.3.” December 2006. we should support significant expansion of RD&D funding to bring down the costs of integrating other renewable resources with the system. the cost of new wind energy can be competitive today where (1) government tax credits or renewable energy bonds are available. (3) sufficient transmission capacity is available to deliver the wind. industry stakeholders should work together to promote the conditions that enable renewable energy investment. Where those conditions exist. “Mandated RPS Ignores Economic. 19. (2) do a better job of planning. p. Political Reality. transmission adequacy and community acceptance. jobs. no. vol. including cost. Lexis- Nexis Academic) // JMP Fortunately. and. and local economies. Finally. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel (Jay. These policies would encourage a dramatic increase in renewable resources by addressing directly the specific challenges faced by renewable resources in today's market. . (3) find ways to address community concerns with respect to the siting of wind farms and other renewable generation. Rather than waste time and resources fighting over the politically divisive issue of mandates.RPS Neg 96 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Politics NB Incentive policies solve and are not politically divisive like the plan Morrison. mandates like those in Massachusetts and the Washington initiative are unnecessary to promote the development of renewable resources. Electricity Journal. 10. and expanding the transmission system to permit consumers to access renewable resources. financing. utilities are building or buying record amounts of wind energy. An RPS. We should (1) support long-term. These facts provide us a clear roadmap for a significant expansion in renewable generation. (2) strong wind resources are available. stable incentive policies to put renewable resources on a par with other generation resources.

The benefit “given” to producers of ethanol is a lower fuel tax at the pump. Efforts to widen exceptions may not succeed. Even millionaires are eligible. it causes money to be lent to one person rather than another (who doesn’t have a guarantee). The Freeman. There’s a baffling amount of confusion over what should be a simple matter. we should not condemn this as a subsidy. “Get free money from the government just like the people you’ve seen on TV!” Elsewhere it says. Rather than giving cash to a domestic firm. “Everyone qualifies for something. Obviously. Providing “tax breaks” can be “interventionist. It is not the government’s function to decide the best way to live and then to use the tax system to manipulate people into living that way. the government is committed to transferring money from the taxpayers to the lender. A subsidy is a cash grant from the government. If the loan is not repaid. Thus if a person retains some of his own money because of a government action. 4 – Editor of The Freeman (Sheldon. (Some people believe this should disqualify anyone from a tax cut. only it doesn’t show up in the federal budget. you know what a subsidy is.) Entitlement to the money one makes has nothing to do with need or how much one already has—at least not according to America’s founding philosophy. This shouldn’t be.” April 2004.) There are also less-direct subsidies. when the government guarantees a loan. when someone is given any kind of “tax break. It doesn’t matter if that person is “rich” and doesn’t “need” the money. and exemptions are frequently mistaken for subsidies.” he keeps money he is entitled to. .lesko. government can create great mischief by determining who can and cannot keep his own money. or that he would have had legitimate access to.org/vnews. we should point out that it ought to apply to everyone (who pays taxes). although it’s sometimes tempting. money provided in subsidies is unavailable to be used by the taxpayers who earned it in the first place. the flip side is that someone else is deprived of money he is entitled to. But that is no reason to oppose them. since that would defeat the politicians’ purpose. In all these cases. Tax reductions. For example. Subsidies should be opposed. deductions. In fact. It’s like giving out cash. anything it can do through outright regulation it could probably do by amending the tax code. (The government could create the money out of thin air. but that’s another column. and not just a narrow group of taxpayers. there’s no limit to what government can foist on us through tax credits and deductions. www. In the face of a discriminatory tax cut. government encourages home buying. credits. If you’ve ever seen those cacophonous television commercials with Matthew Lesko. At his website (www. Opportunities to keep one’s own money should not.RPS Neg 97 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Tax Credit CP – Coercion NB A tax break is morally distinct from a subsidy – individuals should be allowed to keep and spend their own money Richman. In contrast. the government limits foreign competition and helps boost prices. government intervention enables people to obtain money they were not entitled to. “Perspective Tax “Breaks” Aren’t Subsidies. which after all is to manipulate private behavior. Needless to say. A tariff or import quota is also an indirect subsidy.” in the sense that they can be designed to bring about ends selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Morally they are worlds apart.com) you’ll be told.” These and other subsidies are direct transfers from the taxpayers to the beneficiaries.fee. If mortgage interest is tax-deductible but rent is not. No one should be begrudged the opportunity to keep his own money. But at least we can pound home the point that it’s better for people to spend their own money for their own objectives.php?nid=5868) // JMP When is a subsidy not a subsidy? When it’s a reduction in taxes. If given a free hand.

Energy Law Journal. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP n49.. RPS and Emissions Whether state or national. [] Match geography with costs and benefits.. the possible advantages of an RPS decrease and those of markets increase. 1766. The desired end-product is a lower level of the pollutant rather than the dominance of a particular technology. regulators could only achieve efficiency by collecting and processing masses of information that polluters will probably be reluctant to disclose. As a practical matter. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P.eia. Regulating only a subset of sources cannot possibly lower the costs of achieving a given reduction in concentration. is primarily symbolic. if GHGs are a worldwide problem. as environmental policy. an RPS may have advantages. 110th Cong.S. The study does not. States have generally adopted RPS without studying the costs and benefits of alternative quotas and target dates. The forthcoming Clean Air Interstate Rules for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur will be largely restricted to areas that are primarily responsible for emissions and contain most of the affected population. (2007).” 29 Energy L. Admin. It is easy to specify legislatively and the cost of compliance might be more easily concealed in utility bills than an outright tax on conventional power or subsidy to renewables. n25 Similarly. [] Regulate the pollutant itself and not the process that produces it. 79. n26 Holders whose abatement costs are low will make the required investments and profit from the sale of their allowances. Economics provides several guidelines for efficient reduction: n24 [] Consider all possible sources. the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. Dep't of Energy. [] Provide incentives to minimize compliance costs. Regulating the design of equipment (small hydroelectric plants but not large ones) or its inputs (restrictions on usable fuels) is inferior to regulating output of the pollutant itself. See id. n28 For as small an area as a state or region. Another legislative proposal. S. J. a worldwide control program is in order.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/lcea/pdf/sroiaf(2007)06. an RPS fails every criterion discussed above.pdf. Specialized ozone regulations make sense for [*86] Southern California's unique geography. it will be costly to set up and maintain a cap-and-trade system over a small region. standing alone. Energy Industry. regulators must design institutions that minimize the costs of attaining that level. “Changing Resources.RPS Neg 98 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Cap-and-Trade CP A cap-and-trade policy is better – it encourages more effective innovation Michaels.S. indicate whether a cap-and-trade program or a national RPS program would be more effective or preferable.. J. A cap-and-trade program would expand renewables as well as an RPS Fershee. The cap-and-trade market economizes on information. Without it. Energy Law Journal. . Exchangeable allowances encourage innovation because the inventor of a cheaper control technology lowers its own abatement costs and can sell or license it to others. at vii (2007). See Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. National environmental laws nominally specify uniform standards.doe. Design standards needlessly restrict the range of possible abatement methods and may discourage innovative approaches to it. but the attainability of a target in practice requires particularized regulation. 1766 encourages an increase in renewable generation similar to what would be needed to comply with the RPS. the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. one study indicated that a national RPS would have "little incremental effect because the GHG allowance program in S. http://www. n27 B. Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S. A national RPS is not the only way to achieve environmental benefits via renewable energy. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.1766. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. If such a cap-and-trade proposal were enacted." Energy Info. would establish a mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cap-and- trade program. but would not be worth the cost in rural Wyoming. it simply indicates that a 15% RPS would result in roughly the same amount of renewable generation that would result if the proposed cap-and-trade program were implemented. and smallness lowers the potential benefits of its markets. U. A single state or national policy. however. At a national level. Most appear to have been chosen for political reasons. 49. This is the intent of cap-and-trade systems with government-issued allowances (rights to emit) that polluters may trade among themselves. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP After setting an allowable concentration. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J.

on Legis." in this instance. non-GHG emitting sources. 8 – J. a question of ascertaining the intent underlying the federal scheme. n158 Of more concern.. n154 While the subject matter and effects of a national cap on GHG emissions would somewhat overlap those of state RPS programs. Thus. the Court stated that "the question whether the regulation of an entire field has been reserved by the Federal Government is. i. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. and to alleviate [*284] local air pollution in addition to global warming. then. 45 Harv. whereas RPS obligations are designed to address air pollutants in general. is the policy question of whether the coexistence of state RPS programs and a federal GHG cap-and- trade program would be inefficiently duplicative in addressing closely related environmental and national energy security concerns." field preemption of a state RPS program by a federal GHG cap-and-trade program seems unlikely. they should probably recognize that the most likely Congressional response to global climate change is actually the establishment of a cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions. The answer to that question likely depends on the values that states place on the environmental benefits of RPS programs other than reduced global warming n159 and on the curtailment of power generation from nonrenewable.RPS Neg 99 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Cap-and-Trade CP State RPSs won’t be relevant if Congress enacts a cap and trade system Endrud. Such a system is already prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol.. 259) // JMP Although states should be mindful of the legal implications of a national RPS program." n157 Therefore. in facilitating a national trading system for RECs. Lastly. state RPS programs are likely to remain viable. essentially. it is possible that the creation of a national trading system for GHG allowances would actually be somewhat synergistic. Class of ‘08 (Nathan E. in the event that Congress enacts a federal cap on GHG emissions.e. In Hillsborough County v. Candidate at Harvard Law School. Labs. “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. the scheme would presumably address only GHG emissions and the mitigation of global warming.D. as opposed to just GHG emissions. but to become at least somewhat less relevant. Automated Med." n155 Although the precise intent behind a hypothetical federal regulatory scheme for GHG emissions is conjectural. n153 and has been called for by congressional members from both parties. nuclear generation. Harvard Journal of Legislation. n151 has been implemented by the European Community n152 and by the ten states participating in RGGI. the traditional power of the states to regulate their retail electricity sales. was "not to be superseded by [a] Federal Act unless that was the clear manifest purpose of Congress. given the assumption that "the historic police power of the States. rather than duplicative. AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.. . J. the differences between the two would likely be substantial enough to prevent implicit "field" preemption. Inc. n156 Such differences undercut the notions that "the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" and that the "federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Winter 2008.

" Manchin said at the moment the burden is on West Virginia to minimize the carbon footprint on the coal it produces and figure out a way to pay for it.Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming. said in a May 29 interview in New York. 'You can't do that.” 5-26-2008. .S. He said the fight with the federal government over research in clean-coal technologies boils down to who will pay for it." he said. Barack Obama.S. and it's too costly for companies alone to finance. "Today. support that is unlikely to come this year. The governor spoke for a little less than 30 minutes. and we're capable of correcting that. "It is so disproportionate right now.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKVuoOkwQtkI&refer=australia) // JMP June 2 (Bloomberg) -. 'Well. we got to pollute. Joe Manchin said in a May 2 speech to coal industry representatives.." he said." he said.. As the Senate today begins debating the first U. United Nations-sponsored researchers said in 2007. the principal greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency." Government funding is key to scaling up clean coal technology Bloomberg. "And it is going to take money. Power plants are the world's biggest source of carbon dioxide. Hillary Clinton and Sen. said Rio Tinto Chief Executive Officer for Energy Preston Chiaro. As a result. adding he has taken his message to both federal officials and to Democratic presidential candidates Sen." he said.com/news/business/1402492/manchin_says_feds_should_do_more_to_promote_clean_coal/) // JMP CHARLESTON . the federal government is going to award $100 billion in tax credits for energy research. The industry has spent ``tens of millions of dollars. and coal makes up half of the nation's portfolio." he said." coal will be filling the huge gap that renewables leave.'' Chiaro. a more rational approach. www. coal companies say they won't provide most of the money for capture- and-storage technology. curbs on greenhouse gases blamed for climate change." "Don't just say. "Many parents have said that if you misbehave you will get a lump of coal in your stocking. what you're giving towards solar. touting what he saw as the progress the state has made in the past few years. Rising temperatures driven by human greenhouse. I'm giving what I have seen and what I think is the start of a solution. Manchin explained renewable sources of energy should be the first sources states turn to in developing their energy portfolios. please come forward. Manchin said.redorbit. was dedicated to making the fuel. clean-coal research should receive $50 billion in credits. being up for re-election this fall. www.S. The federal government also has given billions of dollars in tax credits to oil producers that currently are making record profits. I'm open. The governor said that federal assistance for clean energy technology should be based on how much a particular energy source contributes to the nation's overall energy portfolio. "We're too good a nation for that. he said." Their main goal is to "educate. Gov. 8 (Jim Efstathiou Jr. “Rio Tinto Says U. I wish we didn't have to' .' " He said he wants the federal government to base its policies centered around a national perspective. Just give us a portion of what you are giving ethanol. "I know it's there. after vehicles. and you know it's there. "And what you are going to do is raise the prices so high economically that we are not going to have any economy whatsoever" because the price will be passed down to the ratepayers." Manchin's speech kicked off a joint West Virginia Coal Association and Coal Mining Institute conference at the Embassy Suites Hotel. recounting his experiences during the Sago Mine disaster and. he pointed to the billions of dollars in subsidies currently going to corn-based ethanol.. Say. but that renewables alone won't come close to meeting the nation's energy demand. Ethanol also has been criticized because it will never come close to meeting the country's demand for fuel even if all the corn grown in the U." he said.'' on development. "As coal. for example. a fuel that has been criticized as environmentally unfriendly because nearly as much energy goes into its production as it produces.The federal government should be doing more to promote clean-coal technologies instead of investing heavily in alternative energy options that won't meet the national demand for electricity.RPS Neg 100 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Clean Coal CP The federal government should invest in clean-coal tech instead of alternative energies State Journal. saying the federal government often tries to play the eastern coal-producing states against the west-ern coal-producing states in its policies. directing resources toward research that would remove carbon dioxide and heavy metals from power plant emissions and turn them into useful products. what you're giving towards wind.Rio Tinto Group and U. labor unions and members of Congress from coal states say pilot projects won't begin without U. not just a state movement. “Manchin Says Feds Should Do More to Promote Clean Coal. In that case.to speak "as one for the coal industry. Brian Schweitzer of Montana and John Huntsman Jr. As one example.'' The institute is an international trade group for coal producers such as London-based Rio Tinto. I think everyone is looking for a lump of coal to keep the lights on. Manchin said he has joined with governors from other coal-producing states . We're capable as a national movement.S. summing up his argument before the federal government. we haven't got the same amount of consideration towards funding new technologies and the research that is needed for this technology." Manchin said. ``Shareholders simply won't stand for it unless there's a commercial return. He also spoke at length about the coal industry. utilities are urging the government to spend $20 billion on a technology they say has the best chance for eliminating pollution linked to global warming.” 6-2-2008. of Utah . who also is chairman of the London-based World Coal Institute.gas emissions are causing Arctic ice to melt and rain to decline in Africa and the Mediterranean. "You want me to make my Public Service Commission pass on the cost of research into the rate base that will make my state totally unproductive economically. "I'm saying if someone has a better idea. Environmental groups. The energy companies are lobbying Congress to help create devices that can trap carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and bury the gas in underground caverns. what you're giving towards all renewables." In an interview after his speech. Until the nation finds a "new fuel of the future. "I said. so "find a way to fix it. That's not acceptable.S.bloomberg. ``We can't do it without government support for the early projects. Must Spend Billions for Clean-Coal Devices. 8 (Walt Williams.

a Treasury official told a House Subcommittee today.' McCormick said. with an emphasis on those that expect high emissions growth.will be allocated to developing countries. According to McCormick. Resources can be leveraged from the MDBs. and to promote international cooperation on global climate change agendas.which will come in the form of concessional loans. their investments today could lock in a legacy of highly-polluting. Indonesia. To be eligible. Bush in September 2007. it 'could be helpful' if the Bank make a commitment not to fund projects that run counter to clean technology initiatives. McCormick outlined the details of the CTF. a multilateral initiative that aims to help developing countries fund the additional costs of deploying clean energy technologies over dirtier and often cheaper alternatives. and credit guarantees -. the fund will not cover the entire cost of any energy project. full committee Chairman Barney Frank suggested that if the CTF were to be implemented. grants. global demand for energy will increase by over 50 pct. The Bush administration has already asked Congress to commit $2 billion to the fund and the President's FY 2009 budget includes a $400 million appropriations request for the initial contribution. http://www.It is 'critical' that the US support the Clean Technology Fund (CTF). US Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs. US support of the CTF 'will contribute to building the kind of trust between developed and developing countries that will be necessary if a new UN climate arrangement is to be reached. 'If we take no action to provide developing countries with the right incentives. The UK and Japan have already pledged their support to the effort. developing countries would be required to work with the World Bank to develop investment strategies based on plans aimed to reduce carbon emissions.' said David McCormick. support for the Clean Technology Fund will reduce global greenhouse emissions and promote international cooperation on climate change Thomson Financial News. McCormick said. less efficient technologies for which we would all eventually pay through the accelerated effects of climate change. . but the bulk of the funding will come from national governments and private sponsors. In today's hearing.S. and with the help of countries in the G8 and beyond. 8 (“McCormick says US investment in Clean Technology Fund is 'critical'” 6-5-2008. with nearly three-quarters of the growth coming from a group of developing countries (Brazil. Subcommittee members expressed concern about the World Bank's involvement in the fund. McCormick noted that according to the International Energy Agency. a multi-billion dollar global initiative announced by President George W. noting the Bank's environmentally questionable investments.com/fdc/welcome_mjx. rather the gap between cheaper dirtier technologies and more expensive cleaner technologies. The fund will be administered by the World Bank and implemented through all of the multilateral development banks (MDBs). by 2030. the CTF will help developing countries make the choice between deploying clean technologies and conventional technologies economically neutral.shtml) // JMP WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) . In April. 'In short. the Bank approved &450 million in funding for coal-fired power plant in India. equity investment. Funding -. The US would serve as lead donor. to stimulate and leverage private sector investment in clean technology. McCormick said.RPS Neg 101 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Clean Technology Fund CP U. The fund has three objectives: to reduce emissions through the accelerated deployment of clean technologies. China. would seek to raise up to $10 billion over the next three years. In testimony before a Subcommitee of the House Committee on Financial Services. Mexico and South Africa).forbes. India. The accelerated and unprecedented economic growth of developing countries in recent years has dramatically increased demand for energy and has come at a cost to the environment.' McCormick said.

Smaller niche markets are growing where distributed energy resources are used as a stand-alone power source for remote sites. Distributed generation could be particularly advantageous in newly settled areas by reducing transmission line requirements. reliability.. and by being more responsive to rapidly growing demand for power. at least in part. Sovacool. . ed. Because photovoltaic systems have production profiles that are highly coincident with peak demand. By M. p. can generate electricity with no. markets for DER have grown in size and diversity. Based on the remaining technical potential for cogeneration in the industrial sector alone. Internet server hubs. or at least fewer. Since then. Many experts believe that these various potential advantages will bring about a “paradigm shift” in the energy industry. While some distributed energy equipment produces significant air pollution including diesel-generator sets. and security. Packaged cogeneration units that include cooling capabilities (and are therefore more attractive to commercial building operators) are projected to save 0. other distributed generation technologies offer significant potential for reduced emissions of local air pollutants and CO2.Chair of Energy Policy in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Marilyn A. Some distributed generation technologies. Over the next half-century. Markets are likely to grow as wealth increases and more consumers are willing to pay to avoid the inconvenience of blackouts. partly because of their higher efficiencies through cogeneration and partly through their use of on-site renewable resources and low-greenhouse gas (GHG) fuels such as natural gas.3 quads in 2025 (Hadley et al. Total emissions can also be reduced through distributed generation using microturbines and internal combustion engines. it is possible that the demand for ultra-reliable power service will increase far more rapidly than the demand for electricity itself. away from central power generation to distributed generation. industrial plants. 7 . Brown and B. distributed generation was limited to a small number of back-up diesel generators used to provide secure power. reduced transmission and distribution line losses.RPS Neg 102 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Distributed Generation CP Distributed generation programs can substantially improve grid reliability Brown.. as a cost reducer associated with on-peak electricity charges and price spikes. and as a way to take advantage of cogeneration efficiencies. today’s customers include hospitals. 35-36) One trend emerging since 1970 that may lead to improved grid reliability is the development of distributed energy resources (DER). they can contribute significantly to grid stability. and other businesses that have high costs associated with power outages. DER involves small power generation or storage systems located close to the point of use by consumers. enhanced power quality and reliability. This demand could be met. emissions than central station fossil-fired power plants. They provide fuel flexibility. 2004). In 1970.. “Chapter 2: Energy Myth One – Today’s Energy Crisis is “Hype” Energy and American Society: Thirteen Myths. if the waste heat generated is usefully employed on site to improve overall system efficiency. 2004). and more end-user control. it is estimated that nearly 1 quad of primary energy could be saved in the year 2025 (Worrell et al. like photovoltaics and fuel cells. by distributed energy resources.

” 4-27-2007. Vaitheeswaran says. the “dumbest” part of the grid is the last mile of lines leading to a consumer’s home. A smart meter hooked up to a smart grid could advise consumers in times of peak demand. building increasingly larger centralized electric power generating plants. saving businesses and the government money. Currently. however. The natural gas plants would require infrastructure to be built to deliver the natural gas needed to generate the electricity. The government could accomplish this only through changes in legislation and changes to building codes to enforce the adaptation of distributed generation. thereby reducing our need for both foreign oil and its transport and security. “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid. This would provide the building not only with its immediate electrical power needs. Any point along the system that is disrupted. in the United States. should see it as a way of providing more electricity to their consumer base without necessarily upgrading or replacing systems. is not solved. 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. The buildings could also make wise use of the cogeneration that is possible when the electricity is created on site. “Right now. This must continue and extend to the residential side as well.” says Vaitheeswaran. The first option is to continue as we always have.dtic. Gellings says.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid. others communicate directly with the appliances in a person’s home. real-time assessments of the grid’s performance. electrical grid wouldn’t require any new technology. move toward a basic distributed generation model. Distributed generation—producing electricity at or close to the source of consumption—such as solar cells or wind turbines operated near homes and businesses. Distributed generation will remove stress from the transmission grid Kaplan. leads to a power failure within a large portion of the system. particularly if consumers used renewable energy sources.S.RPS Neg 103 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Distributed Generation CP Counterplan solves all of case and the net-benefit: Distributed generation reduces electric grid vulnerabilities and leads to less fossil fuels in the long run. The nation will also spend increasing amounts of money trying to keep the system as secure as possible. Dispersion could relieve some of the effects from a terrorist attack on the United State energy infrastructure that would have previously caused major power interruptions. “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability. 1990s-era communications systems paired with sensors placed throughout a power grid could provide accurate. The primary issue.cfr. Buildings containing self-reliant electric power generating capacity would use little or no fossil fuels. or move to a more advanced distributed generation model. both commercial and residential. This would eliminate the need to build more and larger conventional electrical power generation facilities. would be to retrofit all government and military buildings and facilities as in option two while including all new construction projects. and possibly the most viable option. This option would also provide areas of refuge and command and control during national emergencies. Smart grids help to eliminate the costs of more frequent outages as well as the high price tag that comes with providing electricity in times of peak demand.pdf) There are some striking advantages to dispersing our nations electrical power needs.” Some smart meters tell customers when to avoid such activities by flashing a light.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc. the majority of the utility industry has not embraced distributed generation out of fears that it will cut into their bottom line and they will lose money. A percentage of the distributed generation electrical power could also come from alternative energy sources. “There’s no incentive to run your dishwasher or washing machine later in the day. can also help alleviate some stress. The second option is to retrofit all government and military buildings and facilities to generate their own electric power while maintaining connection to the electrical power grid. It also shields them from terrorist attacks on the current electrical power generation facilities. Any cost of upgrading the grid would be quickly recovered. II. 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben. These plants would either be natural gas or nuclear powered. avoiding the disad Nerad. The government currently gives incentives to companies that participate in distributed generation programs. however. but also the surplus of electricity could be transmitted to the grid for use by other electric customers. making the most economical and environmental impact. saving them money in the long run. California has begun testing its own smart grid. There are really three viable options for the future of our grid: continue as we currently are. Another function of smart grids is managing demand. to incorporate distributed generation technologies. Strategy Research Project. Such action would also require that utility companies buy excess electrical power generated by the consumers.58 Forward thinking utility companies. Such a system is within reach: Italy has installed smart meters in every household. The technologies exist today to create self sufficient communities or businesses that need very little power they can not create. making the best use of the natural materials involved as well as a significant savings to the military or government entity.html) // SM A Smarter Grid Experts say some of the most useful improvements to the U.” US Army War College. http://www. Nuclear plants would require provisions for radioactive waste that the reactors will create in the generation process. As Vaitheeswaran explains. Scientist make great advances on a daily basis in alternative fuel choices and some mix of them could meet the needs of the nation’s electricity requirement. These so-called “smart grids” can predict and manage around potential failures. A third. All new construction could also generate electricity with cogeneration in mind. [Note: Vaitheeswaran is the energy correspondent for The Economist] . 3- 30-2007. http://stinet. keeping the military and government up and running during emergencies to help care for the people that have been affected. or even increasingly include renewable energy sources. The following will cover each option in further detail.

”36 There are various parties who differentiate the definition in various details. leaders still need to address the concerns of protecting and ensuring the electric power generation needs of our country. 2 million miles of oil pipelines. While distributed generation is inherently related to local transactions vis-à-vis activities that may otherwise be construed to be in interstate commerce.dtic. The power company. the answer must lie with a better solution. stadiums.”33 So how can we protect the nation’s 158. If the United States generates its electric power in large. do we protect against the effects of disruption of electric power due to damage or outages within the grid? I think the latter is the answer.” US Army War College. The alternative is a process of distributed generation.RPS Neg 104 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Distributed Generation CP Distributed generation is key to reducing vulnerabilities in the power grid Nerad. http://stinet. The large concern with our grid’s makeup today is there are few robust options or buffers when problems within the system arise. II. which in total creates a very large target indeed for terrorists. Beyond these few nuclear facilities. While Patriot missiles have been placed at Palo Verde nuclear facility in Arizona and Army National Guard troops have been stationed at other nuclear facilities to provide security. the government has focused its attention to updating security for the nation’s nuclear power plants. Repairs and service restoration took up to one week in many cases. Regions of the country could be blacked out if just one plant of any type is attacked or has a disruption of its fuel delivery. These are acts of nature. General Note: What is distributed generation? Nerad. schools.31 very few facilities have the capability to defend against air attacks.3 million miles of gas pipelines. then these select buildings continue to provide power to themselves.dtic. It would not take a large attack to disable a large part of the country. others exclude back up generation. we will have a robust “defense in depth” against attacks or disruptions anywhere in the system. very little has been done to protect the non-nuclear power generation facilities.000 electric customers in Oklahoma without electricity. where future electricity generation requirements are built into point-of-use facilities that would allow our system to survive disruptions in nearly every instance. gates. 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. which …assumes the following definition: Distributed generation is electric generation connected to the distribution level of the transmission and distribution grid usually located at or near the intended place of use. 2. Although there is a health risk associated with an attack on a nuclear site. and intended places of refuge during a national crisis (such as churches. Strategy Research Project. is quoted as saying: “There is no practical way to protect every mile of the nation’s energy system with guns. centralized electric power plants then distributes that electricity along transmission lines. http://stinet. “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability. only $370 million has been spent on security at the nuclear power plants32. and guards. 3- 30-2007. Several questions come to mind once we fully understand the U. what then is the alternative? Do we really need to protect all components of our electrical grid? Or. 11. What are needed are electric power generating components along the nodes and dispersed throughout the system.pdf) Since September 11. etc. but it is best described as “the production or generation near the point of use. Although experts have spent a great deal of money and thought as to how to protect the nations 103 nuclear reactors and they are somewhat secure in the post September 11th world. executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Chuck Gray.” US Army War College. . In other words. S. and government buildings.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.) self sufficient in electrical energy generation. the United States can do very little to protect this infrastructure from attack. In total.000 homes and businesses in Missouri. Strategy Research Project. “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability. 3- 30-2007.000 homes and businesses in New York and 122. but what if they were part of a large scale coordinated terrorist attack? How does a government protect millions of miles of pipeline or the primary transmission lines? Because there are really no good answers to these questions. one million gas and oil wells.000 miles of primary electric transmission lines.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc. and 150 oil refineries?34 Currently. in accordance with procedures. By making all buildings on military bases. the definition is not designed to preclude the use of distributed generation at the transmission level if the economics of doing so are warranted. 1. “Some parties define it with size limitations.”37 Perhaps the best definition is from the California Energy Commission.pdf) What is distributed generation? Power experts define distributed generation in many ways. and any of their excess power to the remaining operating portions of the grid. 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. and yet others make no distinction between generation connected to the transmission system or the distribution system. when portions of the grid are disrupted. In January 2007 a winter storm knocked out electricity to 330.000 petroleum terminals. the non-nuclear plants are just as critical to the primary function of providing our nation with electricity. current electrical needs and system. would route the power as required by priorities. II.

RPS Neg 105 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Distributed Generation CP – Solves Competitiveness Distributed Generation solves competitiveness – this is the next big market Asmus. smarter sources will be dispersed throughout the electric grid — and preclude the need for grids in the developing world. the potential numbers are staggering. to deliver bulk renewable power generated in remote locations to urban load centers. and new energy battery storage systems. one can draw upon that analogy to suggest that wireless distributed power generation systems may similarly become the preferred option for power supply in these new electricity markets.17 That is larger than the cellular and long-distance telecommunications markets combined. Renewable on-site generation. energy efficiency upgrades. fuel cells. progress. Since wireless cell phones appear to be dominating telecommunications in the developing world. the primary focus of policymakers today should be the fostering of innovation at the distribution grid.” Electricity Journal. the developing world (notably Latin America. Nevertheless. On a global basis.18 Distributed generation sources that include solar photovoltaics. and China). where 2 billion people have yet to experience electricity. cutting-edge energy management software. are all technologies that smart corporations should be investigating in light of recent volatility in power markets. Asia. “The War against Terrorism Helps Build the Case for Distributed Renewables. 12-21-2001) from Science Direct Database The International Energy Agency projects that deregulated energy markets represent a $220 billion market. Some $4 trillion will be required to build the power infrastructure needed to serve the newly electrified. The future of the electricity industry lies in better planning in transmission. and small stand-alone wind turbines will be among the prime beneficiaries of these staggering investments in the future of world electricity supply. The World Energy Council projects that by 2020. and sustainability. Bringing the grid into the 21st century offers new opportunities for profit. Those energy supply firms that recognize the parallels between the evolution of energy and the evolution of telecommunications and computers will be able to capture markets and deliver genuine value to the economy and the environment. . The future of power generation may indeed evolve into a system where smaller. will consume more energy than the industrialized world. 1 – AHC Group Senior Associate (Peter.

and whose only ability to generate power is from several diesel generators with a relatively short supply of fuel. While the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for efforts to prepare for and mitigate the consequences of terrorist attacks within the United States. “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability. By dispersing the generation and distribution of electricity. either overseas or nationally deployed as part of civil support. functional command and control facilities. if the nation implements a distributed electrical generation system.pdf) There are several strategic consequences for the military.” US Army War College. but also the costs of security both in manpower. schools. 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. there would be assured and predictable places of refuge for citizens to go. The greater dispersal of the system. Strategy Research Project. During times of a national emergency. equipment. . Having designated installations. II.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc. hospitals with reliable and persistent electrical power. I recommend that deployable distributed generation systems leverage renewable sources so as to decrease their dependence upon the logistics of transporting fuels.dtic. therefore ensuring that there is power to the base when the region’s grid is disrupted. and destruction of any one component of the system would not have the same consequences to respond too as the destruction of several major components of our current system. A distributed generation system would also give us greater command and control capabilities and allow more options for responding to crisis. and government buildings that provide their own power would mitigate the effects of a blackout or power outage that currently effect large regions. the military can expect.RPS Neg 106 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Distributed Generation CP – Solves Military Distributed generation technology will be used by the military in the field – decreases logistical tails and security problems Nerad. whose own distribution infrastructure could themselves be a vulnerability. sites designated for refuge. which not only include the costs of the fuel and of its transport. This would free up costly fuel transportation costs. Additionally. would be neither dependant upon local or indigenous sources nor vulnerable to attacks against large and infrastructure-intense centralized electrical generation systems. Imagine the vulnerability of some of our remote military bases that house important radar and communications systems and draw their power from the end of miles of transmission lines from a distant power station. and dollars. security becomes a local policing issue. excess electrical power generated from the base could be used “off base” and directed via the functioning grid components to locations that are without power and have an immediate need for it. to be called upon in any civil support mission due to terrorist attacks. as well as many other benefits. such as military bases. 3- 30-2007. centralized nodes there are whose damage would have large effects. so that military operations. Additionally. the fewer large. Dispersing robust electricity generation to military bases leverages the base security and defense plan into the fold of the overall security of the military facilities. and must be prepared. or other perishables. having the ability to set up distributed generation anywhere the military deploys would take the concept into the field. http://stinet. oils.

the southern and middle parts of the country have low potential for wind power. during roughly the same time frame.5 percent in 2008 and increase to 10 percent by 2020. (In 2006. No. The regions of the country that rely most heavily on coal-fired generation are generally also the regions with the lowest electricity rates and the highest concentrations of manufacturing. States that can’t readily use renewables will be especially hard hit and face higher prices Yeatman & Ebell. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell. varies considerably between the states. While a one-size-fits-all federal RPS would impose uniform requirements nationwide. The second factor is the potential for renewable energy being spread unevenly across the country.nam.37 cents per kilowatt hour. For example. It costs more to generate electricity from renewable sources than from conventional sources. mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) beginning in 2008. <The RPS Amendment Would be Costly to Consumers * The amendment would impose a significant increase in electricity costs on consumers.RPS Neg 107 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Energy Prices DA – 1NC Links RPS will significantly jack up energy costs for several reasons – the standard has no chance of being met NAM 7 . in Oklahoma could be transmitted to Georgia. New high-voltage transmission lines often must be built in order to move electricity from wind energy facilities. * The RPS percentage requirements would start at 2. natural gas and nuclear energy. * RPS costs will be imposed concurrently with massive environmental costs. For example. the RPS mandate could cost consumers almost $10 billion in higher electricity prices. around-the-clock power to consumers. The RPS percentage targets are so unrealistic that they cannot be fully met by only building new renewable generation.” 6-12-2007. particulate matter. This is not a coincidence. * The costs of renewable energy will be an “add-on” to providing reliable.pdf) // JMP Determinants of RPS Impact. wind generation receives a 1. At its peak in 2030. All electricity suppliers that sell more than 4 million megawatt-hours of electricity to consumers would be required to generate power from a limited number of renewable energy resources (excluding most hydropower) or buy renewable energy credits. the Bingaman amendment would establish a nationwide. http://cei.) The first factor affecting the price of electricity in a state with an RPS is the state’s current mix of conventional sources which. equal to a specified percentage of their retail electric sales. The effect of renewable energy targets on electricity cost is determined chiefly by two factors—the cost of conventional generation and the renewable resource potential of the area in question.National association of Manufactureres ("PROTECT ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FROM RATE INCREASES: OPPOSE THE BINGAMAN RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT". for example. A cap of 1. These transmission expansions can cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per mile to build. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland. given current federal subsidies. The relationship of each factor to the marginal cost of an RPS is straightforward. which would increase with inflation. * An RPS mandate will also require additional indirect costs. * The RPS amendment is really just an energy tax on traditional energy resources. such as coal. . That is why significant renewable capacity is currently being added only in states that have already passed renewable requirements. 114. Utilities will still need to build generating facilities using conventional fuels—most likely natural gas—to meet consumers’ needs for reliable power on short notice. Imposing a multi-billion dollar RPS mandate on top of that. the costs would be far from uniform. which is the renewable energy resource that is closest to the market costs of conventional energy. as can be seen in Map 1. And although wind energy produced.9 cents-per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit. Utilities cannot tell their consumers that they will deliver power only when the wind blows or the sun shines. Many renewable energy resources are intermittent by nature. the average cost of electricity was 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour is imposed on the cost of the renewable energy credits. Utilities will be forced to purchase renewable energy credits from the federal government or companies trading credits to meet their mandated RPS requirement. Power generators are expected to incur new environmental compliance costs of $5-10 billion annually within the next decade to deal with air quality requirements related to ozone. could be a crushing blow to a critical sector of our nation's economy.org/s_nam/doc1. Map 1 should be compared with Maps 3 and 4. unknown date in 07 http://www.org/pdf/5982. This is the case even though most forms of renewable energy have received large federal subsidies for decades. mercury and other issues. which are usually located in remote areas.asp?CID=202504&DID=226878) AMK * Based on a July 21 version. The Bingaman RPS amendment could cost as much as $127 billion in higher electricity prices for consumers over the life of the mandate. across long distances to populated areas where the power is needed. the additional transmission costs greatly increase the total costs of that energy to the receiving state.

respectively. The Criticisms: The Case Against a National RPS Like any major energy policy in which there will be winners and losers. While the travails of the Cape Wind Project off of Cape Cod are best known. “Mandated RPS Ignores Economic. Massachusetts proves our link Morrison. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel (Jay.. n67 The primary arguments against a national RPS are that it could lead to increased consumer costs. and that it is unnecessary and better handled at the state level. n72 A National RPS will increase electricity rates Morrison. And. Energy Law Journal. NRECA endorses the goal of obtaining 25 percent of the nation's energy supplies from renewable resources by 2025." n71 On a more local level. 10. however. p. effectively doubling the cost to consumers of that portion of power that must be provided from renewable energy. As an early supporter of the Ag-Energy Working Group. Political Reality. Political Reality. no. the RPS has led to the construction of very little new renewable generation. that a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) could reduce energy costs for consumers.2 percent in 2025 and 2030. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has one of the oldest and most established RPS in the country. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a study in June 2007 of a proposed 15% RPS by 2030. however. offering their consumers power from every form of renewable resource. “Changing Resources. “Mandated RPS Ignores Economic. 19. engineering. This should be apparent on its face.3. Benjamin K. I would like to make clear that the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) agrees with the authors that it is important for the nation to take responsible steps to increase the use of cost-effective renewable energy. including complaints about the limited scope of what is renewable n68 and the actual level of the RPS. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. will increase electric rates to consumers.3. there are several arguments against a national RPS. Electricity Journal.” 29 Energy L. vol. opponents of the Proposed RPS have claimed that consumers in some states could see electricity bills rise as much as $ 15 per month. Some major studies indicate a potential increase in consumer electricity costs if a national RPS were implemented. among other things. recent auctions for renewable energy credits in Massachusetts cleared for over $52/MWh. that the RPS amounts to a wealth transfer from states with lower levels of renewable resources to states with high levels./Sept. 10. Any mandate creates an artificial market for a commodity. Before addressing that issue. while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $ 1.1 percent) lower. Despite its long life. the basic laws of supply and demand will force up the price of the commodity. A mandate such as an RPS is also certain to raise rates where the mandated commodity must substitute for lower-cost products. p. 2006). vol. Lexis- Nexis Academic) // JMP In "Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U. there are probably few markets in the United States with as many barriers to entry as the electric utility industry.13 safety valve in the state program. Adopted in 1997. Load-serving entities in Massachusetts must pay that in addition to the cost of the energy itself.” December 2006. As I-937 was written.0 billion (0. Energy Industry. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 3. the costs would likely be much more significant: "the cost of complying with the [25% RPS] is projected to increase the price of electricity by about 3.2 billion (0.” December 2006. . Renewable energy mandates. it would force many cooperatives and public utility districts to replace very-low-cost renewable hydropower with other.4 percent) higher. no. more expensive forms of renewable energy. just short of the $55. the RPS requires 2.100 jobs in the state. NRECA also supports a broad range of policies that promote the use of renewable energy without increasing rates for electric consumers. n69 but this section of the Article focuses only on criticisms of a national RPS. I would submit that that position ignores economic. other land-based wind projects in the Commonwealth have also been blocked by political opposition.600 and 7. Respectfully. there will be those who will not come out ahead in the game. like those supported by the authors. This is the reason why an analysis issued by the nonpartisan Washington Research Council recently concluded that the RPS initiative on the ballot in Washington State would increase utilities' power expenses by 4 to 8 percent and cost between 3. and political reality. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. The result? Notwithstanding modest goals.5 percent renewable energy in 2006. Even if an energy policy ends in a net gain. which indicated that "cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $ 7. NRECA's members are leaders in the renewable energy field. National Renewable Portfolio Standard" (Aug.S. If the market demand cannot be met immediately by new entry. There are additional arguments against the Proposed RPS that are critical of the current plan as drafted.S. J. 49. Electricity Journal.RPS Neg 108 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Energy Prices DA – Link Ext A national RPS will jack up electricity costs Fershee. Lexis- Nexis Academic) // JMP Perhaps the best example is Massachusetts.3 percent and 6. Sovacool and Christopher Cooper argue. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel (Jay. 19." n70 For a 25% RPS by 2025.

EBSCO) // JMP The nation's electric utility companies support the development and greater use of renewable energy sources. renewable requirement requires $ 5. Virtually every state that has implemented a renewable portfolio standard has had relatively high retail electricity rates. From the administrative side. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell. and plug-in electric hybrids — must be a part of the industry's long-term approach to meeting the country's steadily growing demand for electricity. the Mountain West. According to a 2005 EIA survey. the Southwest. a national RPS will impose new variables in each supplier's business decision-making efforts. The Coming Costs To meet their renewable quotas. Energy Law Journal. Renewables.4 billion. J. In March 2005. n11 Large utilities will bear a disproportionate share of the costs. which shows the potential for wind energy in the United States.. regardless of states' individual resources. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.” 6-12-2007.7 billion for 500 and 230 kilovolt lines alone. including replacements and upgrades in 2005. total U. spending by investor-owned utilities on all transmission. and a national RPS would add a new wrinkle to an already complex analysis.8 billion. the prospects for wind energy are greatest in the Upper Midwest. n13 For comparison.” January 2008. no. and 52.pdf) // JMP Economic Conditions Shape RPS Debate. But renewables must be encouraged where they make economic sense. RPS will raise compliance and operation expenses Fershee. Power. a national RPS would add compliance activities related to monitoring and reporting. 8 – director. J. and would have significant administrative and operational effects. and new supplies of reactive [*84] power. n10 The amount exceeds Florida's total capacity and is 80% of California's. “Changing Resources. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. in addition to lower voltage lines. Energy Industry. as well as to the process of obtaining RECs. was $ 5. clean coal. the comparative viability of renewable energy sources was greater in the states that eventually chose an RPS. n14 . Moreover. they were deficient as a group by only 819 MW. vol.g. with Map 2.000 by 2020. transformers. Expanding renewables to meet timetables will be extremely expensive when compared to traditional energy sources Michaels.S. a federal mandate that forces all states to generate an arbitrary amount of electricity from them. Roughly speaking. [*63] From an operational perspective. For this reason. at an estimated cost of $ 53.RPS Neg 109 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Energy Prices DA – Link Ext States prove that RPSs drive up electricity costs 42% Yeatman & Ebell.000 MW between 2006 and 2010. is bad for electricity customers and providers alike. business development for the Edison Electric Institute (Roger.S. these are precisely the regions where we find states that have adopted an RPS. which depicts those states that have adopted an RPS. To remain in compliance they must build 12. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. along with the full range of other climate-friendly technologies — including nuclear. 49. http://cei. “One-size RPS does not fit all. Energy Law Journal.” 29 Energy L. 79. Compare Map 1.org/pdf/5982. The investment figures do not A 2007 California Energy Commission report estimated that the state's 33% 2020 include transmission and related capital (e. n12 Wind will power most of the new plants. Not coincidentally. 1. the Northwest. A federal RPS is bad for consumers and providers Kranenburg. substations). 152. 114. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. Capital-heavy investment decisions are always difficult. its capacity expected to increase 400% by 2020. No. carbon capture and storage. and the Northeast. many RPS states possess abundant wind energy generating capacity. Because the margins between conventional and renewable electricity were smaller. utilities in today's RPS states must invest heavily and soon. consumers in states with renewable portfolio standards pay 42 percent more for electricity than consumers in states without them (Table 1). Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP III. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland.. energy efficiency. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP C. Impact on Retail Electricity Suppliers The addition of a national RPS would heavily impact the investment decisions of retail electricity suppliers.

platts. which have not been included in discussions to date. disrupting existing renewable programs in the states. http://www. These strategies. they will be required to purchase higher cost renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits. Each state RPS plan includes carefully considered timetables and targets based on what makes sense in that particular state. RPS will drive up prices Kranenburg 7 – Director of Business Development at Edison Electric Institute (Roger. “Charting a Course for Renewables. technologies. The states are taking advantage of local resources and technologies that work best for them. http://www.xml.com/Magazines/Insight/2007/oct/200710B25150Eh3C0sQw3H_1. But the states should continue taking the lead in promoting them. if retail electric suppliers cannot meet a federal RPS requirement through their own generation.xml. And without any guarantee of actually getting renewable generation built and brought online. Thus. and timetables through a federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states. Imposing different targets. In addition. “Charting a Course for Renewables. AM) The electric utility industry supports the development of renewable energy sources. such as hydropower and fuel cells. as well as alternative means of compliance such as energy efficiency programs.RPS Neg 110 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Energy Prices DA – Link Ext Federal RPS increases energy prices Kranenburg 7 – Director of Business Development at Edison Electric Institute (Roger. .platts. and place new burdens on electric reliability. coupled with a long-term extension of federal tax incentives. a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in states with little or no renewable resources to the federal government.com/Magazines/Insight/2007/oct/200710B25150Eh3C0sQw3H_1. And all have chosen to add technologies and resources. would enable renewables to play a more important role in meeting the nation's growing demand for electricity. A federal RPS mandate could end up raising electricity prices. AM) A federal RPS could also undercut or preempt the existing state renewable programs.

" . "While it is possible that RPS will prove to be feasible. is a unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies. RPS costs appear to have been poorly quantified. supporters of the 50% RPS ballot initiative are asking would-be signatories to save the environment and lower their energy bills. upheaval in Illinois demonstrated clearly that retail customers are ill-prepared to manage large and unexpected increases in electric rates. in which consumers believe that RPS are a costless policy choice. This is all too evident in California where. S&P said. is worrisome for credit. For example." S&P found." said Director Anne Selting. Utility Credit Quality. inadequate to meet even existing portfolio standards.S.. and wrongly. "In fact. warning of the "chief risk RPS imply for credit quality ? the potential for consumer backlash if RPS come with a high price tag. and overly optimistic pro-RPS studies. in the report. 8 (Paul Carlsen." Selting said. with possibly painful results for credit quality.” 3-17-2008. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM Standard & Poor's Ratings last week labeled renewable energy expensive. for example. "Taken as a whole." she said. Selting said. usually by advocates of renewables. typically. “S&P renewables reality check finds them too little. The current state of affairs. even if they agree with the policy goals that ultimately trigger the jump. We instead suspect that the green marathon will be a difficult race for utilities to run. there is no compelling evidence that suggests this will be the case. a "questionable" study predicted a Texas RPS would cut power prices 5%. studies that have tried to project RPS costs concern us because they suggest that RPS implementation is virtually costless. conclude the impact on retail rate effects will be negligible. and probably bad for utilities' credit quality. one of the lessons learned as part of retail choice is that when electric customers are allowed to choose a supplier that offers 'green' generation for a premium. with little rate impact and minimal disruption. it is troubling that there is very little public data that assess the actual costs incurred to date to implement RPS . Biggest risk: consumer backlash from high cost Renewable portfolio standards are typically discussed in unimpeachable terms that suggest a sizable shift toward renewables can be quick." S&P warned. displacing natural gas consumption and driving US natural gas prices lower. on the assumption that significant wind capacity there would stimulate lower wind costs nationally. pg. "From a credit perspective. leading to more investment in wind.1. the lack of verifiable cost data in states that have aggressive renewable standards raises the question as to whether RPS have become popular precisely because there is little price transparency. S&P. costly and 'painful' for ratings. "The Race for the Green: How Renewable Portfolio Standards Could Affect U. especially if consumers are unpleasantly surprised by the true cost.." Bondholder interests "would benefit from a wider and immediate discussion of RPS' estimated costs. she pointed out. After all.RPS Neg 111 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Energy Prices DA – Aff Studies Flawed Pro-RPS studies are overly optimistic and their cost forcasts lack any empirics – utilities will be over burdened Electric Utility Weekly. like Platts. very few elect to do so. economic and successful in every state.

These RPS states tend to have a much higher potential for renewable energy.pdf) // JMP As part of comprehensive legislation to raise energy prices. While some utilities that rely heavily on gas generation may benefit. vol. Political Reality. Therefore. increasing costs for their consumers and undermining their local economies. such as is found in our industrial heartland. other consumers and communities would find themselves on the losing end of these policies. 114.RPS Neg 112 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Energy Prices DA – A2: Non-Unique – State RPSs / A2:Turns A federal RPS is uniquely worse – will cause some States to further jack up electricity prices Yeatman & Ebell. In the RPS states that do have considerable manufacturing. As the Washington Research Council study demonstrates. http://cei. 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI (William Yeatman and Myron Ebell. Such a requirement would raise electricity prices for consumers and industry. or both. No. 10. this is not an argument in favor of a federal RPS. but would negatively affect some regions of the country much more than others. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel (Jay. . A2: Turns Their turns wrongly assume that an RPS will displace expensive natural gas – increasing costs and undermining local economies Morrison. 2007 correctly states: A limited Federal RPS would result in higher electricity costs for consumers in areas where renewable resources are less available and could place new strains on electricity reliability needs. to raise electricity prices to a level that would force their industries to migrate overseas to countries with cheaper energy rates and no renewable portfolio standards.3. Lexis- Nexis Academic) // JMP Those studies that find savings from implementation of renewable mandates typically assume that new renewable energy will nearly always displace expensive natural gas generation. 19. a federal RPS would require states with low electricity prices and proportionately lower renewable energy potential. the fact is that many utilities in Washington and elsewhere in the country are not operating gas generation at the margin for most hours of the day. the effect of adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and push manufacturing into states or other countries with lower electricity prices.org/pdf/5982. Congress is once again considering proposals to set a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. They would have to back down low-cost resources in order to comply with an inflexible mandate. “Mandated RPS Ignores Economic.” 6-12-2007. Although 21 states have already passed a renewable portfolio standard. “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the Industrial Heartland. less energy-intensive manufacturing. however. Electricity Journal.” December 2006. As the Bush Administration Statement of Policy of June 12. no. p.

at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions' cap. also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper. John Dingell and Rick Boucher.all. we have mercury regulations.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL. have been considering building new nuclear generation facilities.” 29 Energy L. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce. n113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing.CRA International (David. AEI Transcript. The difficulty is that. I would say.1516/transcript. or the best option. // pg.” And all of those set up the incentive to choose the cost minimizing fuel and the RPS as kind of looking for a problem to solve. New York. the national RPS were to include clean coal as a renewable source. 2007. Nonetheless. Clean coal technologies.” Clean. the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities. n114 would face similar hurdles. a national RPS. and clean coal technology have typically been excluded from this definition. VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. And. 07 . the Renewable Portfolio Standard drives out in our modeling coal with carbon capture and sequestration.eventID.newenergychoices. “California’s Climate Law: Boon or Boondoggle?”. A national RPS will undermine investment in clean coal technology Fershee. another major generation source in development. nuclear power.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like Michigan. although it is not entirely clear that new nuclear facilities were that likely. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production. Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. http://www. solar. safe. “Changing Resources. J. would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. http://www.pdf) One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.Executive Vice President.aei. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types of generation that utilities have considered.asp) So it is a little hard to see what the policy problem is that the Renewable Portfolio Standard is trying to address other than creating a market for people who produce wind.org/events/filter. & Cooper. So something that costs 50 percent more is forced into the market and replaces what would otherwise have been chosen under the motivation of the emission cap. Letter to Rep. for example. A federal RPS will destroy clean coal investment Montgomery.S. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. 07 .house. June. 11 A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expense of nuclear power and clean coal Josten. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007. As a result. which is a much cheaper way of getting to exactly the same result for greenhouse gas emissions. and reliable energy sources such as hydropower. Air and Land • A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.pdf) // JMP A National RPS Better Conserves Water. http://energycommerce. Sovacool. Virginia. again. but forcing a particular way of meeting all of our environmental aspirations. of course. for example. and Texas. 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. unless. 6/28. Sovacool. In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS. what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer. 49. we have NOx regulations.. safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit. there is no legitimate reason why certain clean. anyway.RPS Neg 113 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Clean Coal DA Links RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use Dr. Energy Law Journal. and a couple of other kinds of energy. Some utilities. And I would be more broad about it. of course. “We have sulfur regulations. 01-07. 6/15. Energy Industry. n115 . when that Renewable Portfolio Standard is binding and forces. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which. a lot of wind in the market and there is also an emission cap.

Nonetheless. 9 percent natural gas.php. is how Carolina.” 29 Energy L. is a vibrant industry that’s dramatically reviving because it’s proven.” Spring 08. transportation. Sovacool. Researchers in North Often overlooked. Clean coal technologies. or the best option. determined that a statewide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors. although it is not entirely clear that new nuclear facilities were that likely.RPS Neg 114 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Nuclear Power DA Links RPS will offset nuclear power in several regions Dr. Energy Law Journal. There’s a catch. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already determined that that “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities. deployment speed. are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace all coal and nuclear electricity generation in the region entirely.243 By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants. 8 – veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory B. and powering a growing economy. even government subsidies approaching or exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have failed to entice Wall Street. A national RPS will decrease investment in nuclear power Fershee.S. what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer.240 In Oregon. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals. Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. the national RPS were to include clean coal as a renewable source. construction time. a national RPS avoids many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining.org/sitepages/pid467. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost. and financial risk. competitive. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water. the Union of Concerned Scientists also confirmed that renewable energy technologies primarily displace natural gas and coal facilities. climate protection potential. for example. A National RPS Displaces Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power. including nuclear power. VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. combustion and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. of course. Energy Industry. let alone those competitors— which.237 A more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would otherwise be generated with a mix of 87 percent coal. 49. This non-technical summary article compares the cost. Lovins et. already out produce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. widely used. AG) Nuclear power. the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every Michigan estimates that a 20 percent RPS by 50 MW of renewable energy would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources.or no-carbon competitors.238 In Texas. necessary. processing.pdf.S. of course. secure. though: the private capitalmarket isn’t investing in new nuclear plants. at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions' cap.rmi. al. AG) 6. unless. anyway.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL. http://www. Air & Land A.newenergychoices. have been considering building new nuclear generation facilities. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. we’re told.241 Environment 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities. n115 . for example. however. The New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA). 97 Renewable energy trades off with nuclear energy – investment. // pg.”236 Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding. The few purchases. 01-07.242 Utilities in Ontario.. n113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing. also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Some utilities. safe. would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. capitalist utilities aren’t buying. And. are all made by central planners with a draw on the public purse. and Alex Markevich. J. increasingly popular. reliability. 10 percent from oil-based generation. “Changing Resources. It explains why soaring taxpayer subsidies aren’t attracting investors. market success. 15 percent from coal-fired plants. Sovacool. and carbon-free—a perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal power. financial risk. 2007. and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low. “Forget Nuclear. Canada. In the United States. looked at load profiles for 2001 and concluded that 65 percent of the energy displaced by wind turbines in New York would have otherwise come from natural gas facilities. a national RPS. New nuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection. http://www. June. energy security. reliable.239 RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types of generation that utilities have considered. nearly all in Asia. for example. and 4 percent oil. & Cooper. Lovins. Imran Sheikh. and 10 percent from out of state imports of electricity. 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. another major generation source in development. n114 would face similar hurdles. and without financing.

// pg. Over the decade between 2010 and 2020.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL. 12 A 20% RPS significantly trades off with nuclear energy and fossil fuels. VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. June. with a price of gas delivered to utilities that is 6% below baseline levels. "a federal RPS requirement could have the unintended consequence of actually increasing natural gas use in electricity generation.rff. power companies would avoid controversial coal and nuclear power plant options and instead build more natural gas-powered electricity generators. A coal-fired plant uses 500 times as much water as a wind farm. 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. rather than reducing it as some proponents claim. and coal generation is only about 10% lower than the baseline. the reduction in gas generation is 210% that of coal generation. At lower levels of the RPS. A single 100-watt solar panel saves up to 3. require power companies to generate at least 1-10% of their electricity output from renewable resources such as wind farms or geothermal sites. But O'Shaughnessy cautioned that. Sovacool. and Oregon found that renewable generation displaces new nuclear reactors and decreases the mining of uranium. specialist in the economics of environmental regulation and of public utility regulation. said O'Shaughnessy. 01-07. AND **Senior Fellow and Professional Lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (Karen Palmer and Dallas Burtraw. renewables also start to back out nuclear generation. A federal RPS will cause utilities to invest in smaller natural gas generators instead of new nuclear plants – this also turns the natural gas advantage Kamalick. which contributes to the lower level of nuclear generation. resulting in the retirement of more than half of the inefficient nuclear capacity nationwide by 2020 relative to the baseline. Consequently. • A national RPS saves billions of gallons of water.000 gallons of water over its lifetime. In relative terms. an important political consideration. renewables displace fossil fuel generation almost exclusively. http://www.newenergychoices. Natural gas is often at the margin in electricity generation. Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 5 – *Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow and director of RFF's Electricity and Environment Program. Studies from Michigan. in the case of wind power. Palmer and Burtraw. A striking finding is that at the 20% level." . said O'Shaughnessy. utilities would have to build required back-up generating capacity to maintain power levels when there is insufficient wind to drive wind turbines. in the baseline scenario many of these existing nuclear plants make investments. or purchase RPS credits if they cannot meet the alternative generation minimums. Sovacool. 2007.This drop in gas demand from electricity generators and the associated drop in price mean lower gas prices for residential and industrial gas consumers as well. known as uprates. Chemical News & Intelligence.3 billion gallons each day). http://www. “Cost-Effectiveness of Renewable Electricity Policies. A gas-fired plant uses 250 times as much.RPS Neg 115 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Nuclear Power DA Links Renewables offset natural gas and nuclear power Dr. 05 (Joe. The backing out of baseload nuclear generation in the increment between the 15% RPS and the 20% RPS—instead of backing out as much natural gas as occurred at lower levels of the RPS policies—explains why the electricity price increase is greater between the 15% RPS and 20% RPS than at other increments. In addition. 3/8. to increase their capacity ratings. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper. for example.org/documents/RFF-DP-05-01.” January 05.pdf) // JMP • Renewable energy offsets nuclear power. North Carolina. & Cooper. AG) With a 20% RPS. Gas generation is 43% lower in 2020 with a 20% RPS than in the baseline scenario.” lexis) Note O’Shaughnessy = president and chief executive of Revere Copper Products A federally mandated RPS would. Conventional and nuclear power plants will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than America’s farmers use for all the irrigated agriculture in the entire nation (over 3. the 20% RPS produces an average decline in total gas-fired electricity generation of 30% relative to the baseline. To build that additional back-up generating capacity. A nuclear reactor requires 600 times as much water to generate the same amount of electricity as a wind farm.pdf. fewer of these investments take place. With the 20% RPS. “US manufacturers warn Congress on RPS power mandate. It has important implications for the market price of natural gas and carbon emissions. which is roughly 15% less than in the baseline scenario. the composition of generation changes significantly as the increased use of renewables backs out generation from other sources.

including nuclear power. is how SBC. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it. Letter to Rep. safe.”30 Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding. More nuclear subsidies.com/time/health/article/0. nuclear power." he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment. Fall. often overlooked.html. and perhaps most important. Lovins. determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associ. New York. federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize “free-riding” going on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity.” Clean. argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents.or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several Equally important. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half- century. 8 (Bryan Walsh. for example.american. and reliable energy sources such as hydropower. there is no legitimate reason why certain clean. while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs. the nuclear industry attracted nothing.S.tors. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which. energy policy(Ben and Christopher. 6/15. Lovins notes that the U.profit organization committed to reforming U. which is still a significant source of electricity in Florida. In his study. At the same time. as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation.” 6/6/08. the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant. 07*Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC). “Is Nuclear Power Viable.1812540.wcl.pdf?rd=1) Third. and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007. Conservatives like Republican presidential candidate John McCain tend to promote nuclear power because they don't think carbon-free alternatives like wind or solar could be scaled up sufficiently to meet rising power demand.31 In Oregon.32 Environment Michigan estimates that a twenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities. titled "The Nuclear Illusion. AG) But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics.8599. a national non. http://www. http://www. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce. won't do the trick either.RPS Neg 116 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Nuclear Power DA Links An RPS eliminates political support for the expansion of nuclear power – this is empirically proven in several states Sovocool and Cooper.pdf) One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.S. Sustainable Development Law & Policy. and clean coal technology have typically been excluded from this definition. Time. again. “State efforts to promote renewable energy: Tripping the horse with the cart?”. an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers. Nuclear supporters like Moore who the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years.time. 07 . As a result." he says. . which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for.Executive Vice President. and Hawaii. Researchers in North Carolina. but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic. The DOE has already determined that only “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.33 A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expens of nuclear power and clean coal Josten. http://energycommerce.ated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reac. so it's up to government to do so. but regions of the United States. the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2007/07fall.00.house. John Dingell and Rick Boucher. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production. . safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit. Increases in renewables take investments from nuclear power. instead of promoting renewable energy. the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources.

the precondition of effective operations on land and at sea.all of whom depend on the Air Force's global reach. Yet.and our military "neither losing nor winning in Iraq" -. anywhere. January 9. anytime. U. precision and payload to strike any target." Air power is key to Khalilzad Kass 7-professor of military strategy (Lani. military defense systems. global power and global vigilance. The Air Force underwrites the national strategy and Afghanistan. While many grumbled at what appeared as unconstrained U. 95 – Rand Corportation (Zalmay. at the speed of sound or the speed of light. 2. AS/AG) Even assuming that additional brigades could be recruited and trained quickly. Its recapitalization is an urgent security need -. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers.RPS Neg 117 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Radar DA – 1NC Investment in wind turbines are being blocked now because they interfere with military radars and degrade readiness and air defense Global Power Report. "Although wind turbines located in radar line of sight of air defense radars can adversely impact the ability of those units to detect and track ? any aircraft or other aerial object. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -.all while flying and fighting in Iraq Today. free markets. such as nuclear proliferation. China. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. and the rule of law.democracy. Those who argue for robbing Peter to pay Paul would. the Indian subcontinent. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. Our warriors understand that.S. “By air. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.it is not an entitlement. The study appeared to do little to resolve an impasse between wind-energy advocates and the federal government over projects that have been put on hold because of their uncertain effects on radar. Spring. U. Several projects in the Midwest have been delayed pending Federal Aviation Administration reviews of their effects. That very day.until that September morning when enemies appropriated our airliners and used them as their airpower to kill 3. through East Asia.S. Vol. serving as the nation's global eyes and ears -. as well.S. the magnitude of the impact will depend upon the number and locations of the wind turbines. though the extent would depend on the number of turbines involved and their locations.000 non-combatants on America's soil. global command and control and the requisite range. air superiority -. Finally. Africa and the rest of the Middle East. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. No. America depends on air power to an unprecedented extent.as well as its ultimate nuclear backstop -. First. "Should the impact prove sufficient to degrade the ability of the radar to unambiguously detect and track objects of interest by primary radar alone. America's wingmen continue to provide that Combat Air Patrol to this day. risk the lives of soldiers and airmen as well as Marines. They count on each member of the joint team to deliver the full range of service-unique effects.what happens to America's global posture? How long before others attempt to exploit what they cannot but perceive as America's nadir? The rest of the world has not taken a time out to accommodate our focus on Iraq. aptly named Noble Eagle. sailors and Coast Guardsmen -. Lexis) Under the third option. allowed to maneuver and defended from above? The last time an American soldier was shot at by enemy aircraft was 1953. 84.” October 5th. of reassuring allies. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly. In the wake of Desert Storm." the report stated. and low-level conflicts. the United States was hailed as the sole arbiter of the new Pax Americana. With an aging fleet of aircraft and vessels -. 6 (“Department of Defense study says wind turbines can interfere with radar. dissuading and decisively defeating enemies. 18. But the perils of fixation don't end there. it is a battle that must be fought and won. The ability to look up in the sky and know there's nothing to fear is priceless. pre-eminence. land and sea”. pg. And (mushroom clouds) Khalilzad. how would that expanded force get to the fight? How would it be provisioned. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. Russia. An arch of instability literally spans the globe from Latin America. while deterring. quite literally. Only one of our armed services can provide global surveillance. Our men and women in uniform trust each other with their lives. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. as well as in the air -. Our elected officials must. On balance. few dared to challenge it -. often at high cost. . including a global nuclear exchange. 2006. lexis)-CMM A new study released on October 3 by the Department of Defense says that wind turbines can interfere with missile-defense and other military systems. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. this will negatively impact the readiness of US forces to perform the air defense mission. the Air Force spread its wings over America's cities in an unprecedented operation. Second.not a discretionary luxury.

fas.” http://www. and on possible mitigation measures. concluded that there was indeed significant impact from wind turbines.pdf. This creates problems for long range radar for many government agencies. http://www. As a result.com/Business/tabid/79/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/930/Wind-turbines-blow-over-US-security-radar. The report says the nation’s aging long range radar infrastructure.pdf. Wind turbines with their large propellers are detected as moving targets by radar systems. “Wind Farms and Radar. and the wind turbines may also lead to false detection of aircraft.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/wind. rather than to attempt to find technical means of ameliorating the turbine impact. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Examples of issues include: a wind farm located close to a border might create a dead zone for detecting intruding aircraft. or misidentified. Interference means intruding aircraft go undetected Brenner 8 (Michael. fail to be located. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS). By this they mean that the preferred solution is to declare encroachment and block the installation of offending turbines.aspx. DHS. These refusals are stalling development of several thousands of megawatts of wind energy. weather features seen by NOAA radars. can create clutter interference and possibly significant Doppler interference with the very sensitive radars fielded by the FAA. and have stalled construction on the turbine farm.fas. Aircraft targets and. with tip speeds of 6-7 times the wind speed.” http://www. These problems have led the FAA to issue a number of Notices of Presumed Hazard. In a number of cases the military has claimed that the wind-turbine farms are an encroachment on military radar facilities. FAA and NOAA. AM) Wind turbine blades spin at a velocity of six to seven times wind speed and can reach 170 mph at blade tips causing significant radar clutter. Their large number of denials is a serious hindrance to US growth of sustainable energy. stalling further work on the installation of several thousand MW of wind turbine power. Department of Defense (DOD). that is electronic noise which needs to be filtered out. DOD. The report. current weather radar software could misinterpret the high apparent shear between blade tips as a tornado. to some extent. “Wind Turbines Blow Over US Security Radar. “Wind Farms and Radar. . Large wind farms with hundreds of wind turbine/electricity generators appear as huge moving targets. and DOD. The velocity of the blade tips can reach 170 mph. Turbines being blocked now because they cause false detection of aircraft and clutter radars Brenner 8 (Michael. in their words. including DHS. and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at various times have refused to allow many of the proposed wind turbines in the line-of-sight of their radar installations. which was briefed to us by Karl Dahlhauser from DDR&E. and that the best solution is. and the DHS has issued an interim policy calling for contesting any wind- turbine installations that are in line of sight of the impacted radars.” 6/25/8. AM) Wind turbines.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/wind. 80% of which is 1950's designed and installed in the 1980s. current air traffic control software could temporarily lose the tracks of aircraft flying over wind farms. so large they can mask detection of actual nearby aircraft or tornadoes. Similar problems have arisen in other countries where wind power is expanding. “non-technical mitigation”. This is a major concern for FAA. This creates problems and issues for several stake holders.RPS Neg 118 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Radar DA – Uniqueness/Link Unique link—the military is blocking investment in wind power now because turbines interfere with radars Oram 8 (John. significantly increases the challenge of distinguishing wind farm signatures from airplanes or weather. NOAA.itexaminer. A private research firm wrote a report for DHS reviewing current status of the conflict between the ever growing number of wind turbine farms and air security radars that are located less than thirty miles of a wind farm. DOD. AM) Wind farms interfere with the radar tracking of airplanes and weather. and other agencies. can be temporarily lost. causing significant Doppler clutter. NOAA. shadowed by the radar signature of the turbine farm. the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act required the DoD to prepare a report both on the effect of wind-turbine interference on military readiness.

barely. like Washington Senator Maria Cantwell. The time to act is overdue. Citing the need to protect renewable energy investment and jobs in Nevada. and shifted the approach. you would think that Congress could justify the small expense . Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. got it. the Democrats won't do anything until the issue gets to a fever pitch. still possible." For the renewable energy industry. But Ensign's fellow Nevadan. He called the pay-go principle a "bureaucratic rule" and said Democrats could bypass it if they would "get their act together." "They are using two different rules. The problem is that a contingent of House Democrats has continued to insist that no renewable energy tax credit extension be passed unless it can be paid for by cutting some other budget item or by adding revenue -. president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) said. The uncertainty around the tax credit is slowing investment now.you just follow the money. about the situation. they risk handing the issue to Republicans who will now be in a position to blame Democrats for slowing growth in wind and solar power. The question is. "We are trying to get that on probably the only bill .RPS Neg 119 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Radar DA – Uniqueness – Collapse of Wind Power Inev Collapse of wind power is inevitable in the status quo because of failure to pass credit extension—the plan revitalizes it Wilson 8 (Kelpie “Democrats Are Blowing Our Best Chance for Clean Energy. This is the Democrats' big idea on energy and it's a good one." Ensign said. Some Democrats.. "They can go to war on credit. they just don't want to do it for renewable energy. These "pay-go" rules are supposed to establish Democrats as the anti-deficit party and the House leadership has been unmovable on the principle when it applies to renewable energy. David Freeman. It's months ago that this should have been done.a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is. turning into bendable Barbies when it comes to bailing out bankers or funding the Iraq war. author of Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How. said the move was pointless because House Democrats will never accept it. But this case is different." A study earlier this year by Navigant Consulting found that 112. If Congress applied the pay-go rule to the war we would have no war in Iraq. In an economic downturn in the United States.or at least one of the only bills . Senate leader Harry Reid. it is already too late to avoid disruptions caused by letting the tax credit expire. Michael Eckhart.that's going to be signed into law this year and that's the housing bill. http://www.one month of Iraq war spending would pay for ten years of renewable energy tax credits ." Fox News reported that Reid got a letter from the 48-member "Blue Dog" group of Democrats warning that the housing bill would not pass the House if the renewable energy tax incentives were extended without offsets. cosponsored by Nevada Republican John Ensign.. but right now Democrats are botching it badly. But Democrats seem to have a double standard. "This is what people don't understand.” 6/30/8.000 jobs in the wind and solar industries could be lost if Congress lets the renewable energy tax credits expire. Cantwell drafted a bipartisan bill. people are going to lose their jobs in clean energy and there's absolutely no reason for it. Projects are being cancelled now because Congress doesn't have its act together. We're not calling for next week. On June 18th. why? I spoke with S." is for voters to pay attention and get indignant. The battle is over how to pay for them. AM) Take some of Big Oil's obscene profits and invest the money in developing clean renewable energy for the future.. to renew the tax credits without requiring a budget offset that would draw a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto. but they can't save the planet on credit.the ones that reduce tons of carbon dioxide and employ thousands of people. Nearly all Democrats and most Republicans favor granting the renewable energy tax extensions.like increasing taxes on Big Oil. Solar energy industry lobbyist Scot Sklar said that Congress has all sorts of "creative bookkeeping" techniques it can use to justify new spending. . He said it was "a waste of time to pass unpaid-for extenders.org/environment/89700/?ses=fbb432acf8cbef7084d3763427856abc." Freeman said that Congress is not getting the urgency of our energy and climate crisis. By not calling the Democrats on their election year posturing over deficit spending." he said." NASA climate scientist James Hansen hammered on the urgency of the "fight for our lives" to congressional staffers at a briefing on June 24th. Usually in conflicts over federal energy policy. Scott Sklar said that the only way to break through what he called "the silly season. but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it. In these recessionary times. Sklar said. In fact.. Democrats are likely to control Washington DC next year." If jobs and the economy are not enough to make you indignant. Why kick the renewable industry in the groin in order to make a political point that no one really cares about? Part of the problem is that public awareness of the issue is low. The tax credit extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007. this is exactly what some Republicans are now saying.as a vital economic stimulus. Senator Ensign is holding up the 300 billion dollar housing relief bill in an attempt to attach the Cantwell-Ensign renewable energy tax credit extension. and he was spitting mad.alternet. "We are in a fight for our lives and Congress acts like it's a Fourth of July picnic . at which point they can pass all the new taxes on Big Oil they want. He said "we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. Freeman is a bona fide "energy guru. A study by GE Energy Financial Services showed that tax credits for wind will eventually pay for themselves by producing taxable economic growth. and it's the biggest projects . The renewable energy industry and environmental groups have not complained about the Democrats' behavior because they don't want to anger the Democratic leadership." having worked on federal energy policy since the Kennedy administration. just remember those global warming tipping points. the battle lines are straightforward . "This is outrageous and intolerable. but is it a battle worth fighting at this point? After all. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year. That could be a big mistake.

Unlike previous air campaigns. and Authoritarian Targets") Logically air power should hold pride of place within both the political science and policy-oriented study of coercion. It appears to offer gratification without commitment.tates. and Iraq prove air power can succeed on its own Douglas 2. Unlike sea power.s. and thus logically more attractive for isolating and evaluating the independent effect of air power and the coercive hypotheses it served. population. the policy and military community has to act based upon recent experience. Douglas 2. Robert Pape argues the study of air power can cut to the core of the larger coercion debate because it "most cogently reveals the relative effectiveness of different coercive strategies. Furthermore. in part because. and the "lessons" of Kosovo are already being applied to a number of important debates ." Campaigns in Bosnia. and Iraq are too important to ignore. or military targets in isolation or combination. [air power] can reach deep into the enemy's homeland from the outset of a conflict. which can be helpful if. air power can also attack selective target sets within these categories. Air Power. these campaigns also represent a challenge to the conventional wisdom among security scholars that air power alone cannot succeed." (Pape Bombing to Win 39) As Pape goes on to argue. Collectively. and Authoritarian Targets") On the other hand. Kosovo. As Eliot Cohen notes. Since aircraft can strike a wider array of targets than land or sea-bound forces. Given adequate intelligence. "air power is an unusually seductive form of militarv strength. analyzing the success or failure of air campaigns provides more than policy-relevant answers to a narrow military question. like modern courtship. and it promises to achieve its effects at sharply lower cost in lives than land power. Kosovo. particularly for the United . economic.Department of Political Science at Columbia (Frank Colin "Hitting Home: Coercive Theory. bombing can focus on specific categories of targets.RPS Neg 120 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Radar DA – Air Power Extensions Air power solves all reasons why land and sea power are key to heg. Unlike land power. there are bottlenecks in key industries.(Bombing to Win 45) Therefore. they are among the very few conducted without a simultaneous ground effort by the coercing state. attacking either political.Department of Political Science at Columbia (Frank Colin "Hitting Home: Coercive Theory. Air Power. Air campaigns also warrant close study because they are becoming the military tool-of-choice for statecraft. for example. it provides a rigorous test of different coercive theories which have been operationalized for real-world application. the United States' recent air campaigns in Bosnia.

yet every president is by nature a politician. AG) In the span of less than one hour. For this there would be no effective answer. the military. The first meeting of a newly created technical group.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3308527. Would the U. members of Congress. . AM) Nato has begun an investigation into British findings that wind farms make overflying planes invisible to radar as military chiefs fear a security threat from the rapid spread of the turbines. best-selling author. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. Evidence was given by Squadron Leader Chris Breedon.” he said.timesonline. Chief of the Defence Staff. Unlike 9-11. irrespective of distance. a Pentagon report suggests a 60-mile radius. took place in London in June. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. President Bush’s Administration was so anxious initially that it introduced an immediate moratorium on all wind farms in line of sight of its own military radars. ‘5 (Jerome. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. China. Italy. If Russia. for a planning inquiry. opposing a 48-turbine wind farm at Fallago Rig in the Lammermuir Hills in Scotland. has given a firm direction that radar surveillance capability must not be degraded. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy – Islamic terrorists. too. involving the US. to destroy the whole religion of Islam. No natural or man-made disaster in history will compare with the magnitude of damage that has been done to New York City in this one horrible day.ece. consult the wind farm industry and civil aviation authorities. The damage to the nation's economy will be measured in the trillions of dollars. the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Still. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. as television and radio systems struggle to come back on line. Belgium. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Removal of debris will take several years. and the loss of the country's major financial and business center may reduce America immediately to a second-class status. The MoD is now objecting routinely to all wind farms within line of sight of radar stations. April 20. our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate.RPS Neg 121 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Radar DA – Terrorism Impact Wind power undermines radar. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam. The president may not be able to communicate with the nation for days. Then. rather than an invasion from overseas. North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. the president. “As a result of MoD trials proving that wind turbines adversely influence the performance of military and civilian radar systems operating within radar line of sight. Although Britain refuses to say how far the line of sight extends.S.” 2/5/8. The US has been attending tests by Britain’s Air Warfare Centre after it made the surprise discovery that the energy plants create blind spots in air defences. Pentagon experts were invited to observe subsequent trials. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty. the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Since 9/11. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. Renewable energy campaigners have been stung by a spate of last- minute objections from the Ministry of Defence to proposed new wind farms in northeast England and the Scottish Borders. the former Soviet Union. The resulting psychological impact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. and recovery may never fully happen. “Horrific scenario: NYC hit by terrorist nuke. too. Britain discovered the blind spots during tests over a Welsh wind farm in 2004. In China. Since then the stance has been softened and each new US wind farm is now considered on a case-by-case basis. France. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues. the Netherlands and Greece. The problem is urgent because the stations tend to be on the east coast and the North Sea has been earmarked for a major expansion of offshore wind farms. Norway. So weakened by the loss of New York. Nato has become concerned about the rapid increase in the number of wind turbine farm projects under planning or in development in a number of Nato countries. So. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map.” http://www. even weeks. The apocalypse would be upon us. The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. seen by The Times.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43817. the nation's largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map. http://www. decide what new trials are needed and recommend policy changes. “Nato investigates defence threat from wind farms. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America.co. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The experts will review all scientific evidence from trials. radar policy has been dominated by fears of an airborne terrorist attack launched inside British air space. With a population already over 1. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. A cloud will hang over the wind farm industry for years as the alliance’s report is not due to be presented to Nato’s sensors and electronic technology panel until 2010. when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue.worldnetdaily. which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy. Nato’s alarm about this potential Achilles’ heel against airborne terrorists or invaders is disclosed in evidence. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. There is still no sign of a solution to the British impasse caused by the MoD’s objections to wind farms in line of sight of its radar stations.com/news/article. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves. A review will take place the following year. There is currently no known technical solution. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. Lashout causes extinction Corsi. Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. inviting airborne terrorist attacks Kennedy and Linklater 8 (Dominic and Magnus. and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Britain is leading an investigation by the Nato Research & Technology Organisation into the impact of wind turbines on radar.

Now. It’s probably not all bad news. increasingly on energy issues (Keith.) British defense officials say any wind farms in the line of sight of military installations can impede radar.” . Then there are the image problems.K. A review will take place the following year. The Times of London reports that NATO has found wind farms can create blind spots in air defense radar. says the Times: A cloud will hang over the wind farm industry for years as the alliance’s report is not due to be presented to Nato’s sensors and electronic technology panel until 2010. “Energy Security or Real Security?” 2-5-2008. That’s understandably delayed planning approval for new wind farms in the U.wsj. First.S. national security concerns appear to weigh more heavily than the government’s goal of massively ramping up wind power. the Times reports. as well as in the U. it faced technical hurdles: turbine size and design. 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe. from NIMBY campaigns to occassional massacres of migrating birds (though few propose outlawing cats. This is not what the wind power industry needs.RPS Neg 122 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Radar DA – Terrorism Extensions Wind power undermines defense radar that increases risk of terrorism Johnson. http://blogs.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/05/) // JMP Gone with the wind. where the problem was first spotted in 2004. This bodes ill for wind power’s short-term prospects.. incorporation into the electricity grid. and cost issues. especially offshore. NATO will study the issue for a few years to see what technical solutions are available. placement. since Pentagon liaisons have been following the saga ever since. indeed.. At least job-creation proponents have a new category: “khaki-and-green-collar. Given the fears of a terrorist attack originating in domestic airspace.

Rather than waste time and resources fighting over the politically divisive issue of mandates. Pushing climate legislation requires time and political capital NYT. merely ignores these real issues and imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate at the expense of consumers. vol. p. Electricity Journal. These policies would encourage a dramatic increase in renewable resources by addressing directly the specific challenges faced by renewable resources in today's market. including a long-term extension to the production tax credit and the expansion and extension of the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program. transmission adequacy and community acceptance. (2) do a better job of planning. and expanding the transmission system to permit consumers to access renewable resources. stable incentive policies to put renewable resources on a par with other generation resources. (2) strong wind resources are available. These facts provide us a clear roadmap for a significant expansion in renewable generation. mandates like those in Massachusetts and the Washington initiative are unnecessary to promote the development of renewable resources. utilities are building or buying record amounts of wind energy. “Mandated RPS Ignores Economic. For example.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11wed1. Political Reality. jobs.RPS Neg 123 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Politics – Political Capital Links Mandates are politically divisive and require resources to pass Morrison.” 6-11-2008.html) // JMP The most obvious lesson to be learned from the Senate’s failure to mount any sort of grown-up debate on climate change last week is that the country needs a new occupant in the White House. Lexis- Nexis Academic) // JMP Fortunately. the cost of new wind energy can be competitive today where (1) government tax credits or renewable energy bonds are available. 10. we should support significant expansion of RD&D funding to bring down the costs of integrating other renewable resources with the system. Where those conditions exist. and. financing. industry stakeholders should work together to promote the conditions that enable renewable energy investment. (3) sufficient transmission capacity is available to deliver the wind. 8 (“Another Failure on Climate Change. and which President Bush clearly does not — but who is willing to invest the time and the political capital necessary to push good legislation through Congress. no. We should (1) support long-term. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel (Jay.3. on the other hand. By that we mean a president who not only understands and cares deeply about the issue — which both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain say they do. and local economies. (3) find ways to address community concerns with respect to the siting of wind farms and other renewable generation. including cost.” December 2006. An RPS. Finally. and (4) communities do not object to the development of wind farms.nytimes. . www. 19.

19 Opponents considered the scope so inflexible that even if an electric utility were to meet the renewable requirement of 10% by generation of power through another form of renewable power or even "green power" such as nuclear energy.000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and 2025 .6 billion.encyclopedia. . a reduction in the price of natural gas. respectively. S. 791 was the final attempt to include a RPS. and reliable energy. . 2. they asserted that the amendment would result in over "68.30 Opponents of S. Amdt. no. [It would] reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by increasing the use and diversity of renewable energy sources. Amdt. Congress has grappled with comprehensive energy legislation.20 that utility would still be obligated to generate power or buy renewable credits to cover an additional 10% to satisfy the federal standard. . .21 S.22 under which the Department of Energy (DOE) would collect money from the sale of renewable energy credits (RECs)23 and civil penalties assessed against utilities that fail to obtain the base amount of electricity from renewable sources. including: reduced dependence on foreign energy sources. 6.26 or else pay what amounted to a new tax and a new rate increase into the SREAP. In S. biomass and bio-fuels are common across the country and are included in the list of eligible existing and new renewable energies. And.13 and would provide consumers with affordable and reliable electricity. and cumulative savings for all end-use sectors of $22.15 Ultimately. It is safe to say. similarly.33 They noted that logistically. Amdt. THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 DOES NOT INCLUDE A FEDERALLY .” Vol. Amdt. Sen.9 But the Administration opposed any effort to set a national RPS. thus. . Barkenbus and Benjamin K. ."31 As for the savings to end-users. Bingaman (D-NM). and it de facto amounted to an unfunded federal mandate. 11 A RPS."29 Additionally. “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards. therefore. opponents maintained that the practical effect was that states would have to replace their existing programs with the federal proposal. in essence it would subsidize certain segments of the energy industry that already benefited from significant federal subsidies with little capacity to show for it. reduced greenhouse gas emissions.html) // JMP In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. proposed a scaled federal RPS of up to 10% by 2020 through 2030.32 In regard to reliability.35 The plan is empirically divisive – a federal RPS has been defeated 17 times in Congress Barkenbus & Sovacool. EIA statistics projected cumulative residential cost savings of $2. as "these standards are best left to the States. increase in overall energy prices. . many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive.18 Eligible versus ineligible renewable resources presented a significant stumbling block in the debates. 791. to the goal of providing low-cost reliable power. Citing data from the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy (EIA).25 Despite careful language in S."7 The Administration strongly supported H. Environment. Supporters argued that the cost to customers of the mandated RPS would be negligible.12 would enhance our efforts to become less dependent on foreign oil.27 Moreover. EPAct 2005. DC-based interest groups and trade associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Sovacool."10 RPS proponents had attempted to include a federal mandate in earlier versions of energy legislation. those numbers were predicated upon the assumption that the price for natural gas would decrease in response to an increased renewable market. 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. (12) In addition. 791 vehemently disagreed about the cost savings. especially in areas where these resources are less abundant and harder to cultivate or distribute. that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that state-based action is optimal or preferable but rather because of the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and long-time advocate of the RPS. 102 legislative proposals dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. 791.28 Lawmakers were also divided on whether the outcome of the mandate. new jobs. 791 was essentially asking ratepayers to assume an additional $18 billion in costs in the hopes of natural gas prices going down. wind farms are sited where the wind is. However. (S. in remote areas oftentimes at the top of a ridge. Amdt. S. natural gas. which projected that from 2005 to 2025 the RPS would have "[A] cumulative total cost of the electric power sector [of] about $18 billion . it was argued.9 billion for electricity and natural gas. 791 argued that it was technology neutral and that while not all regions/states have abundant wind. But for all of that. 791 was close. supporters contended that it would provide many benefits. . . Amdt. www. affordable. 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann. and it has been reinforced by the political power of Washington. 27. or nuclear power always be available to avoid interruption to electric services.RPS Neg 124 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Politics – RPS is Controversial Past attempts by Congress prove a federal RPS is extremely controversial Ralls. p. 6. A national RPS could raise consumer costs. . They too cited the EIA Letter and calculations.451. . as evidenced by the debates that occurred on the Senate floor regarding an amendment to H. would promote energy efficiency and conservation. this philosophy and political structure is not mirrored throughout much of the country. the Senate vote in favor of S. over the life of the RPS program (2005 to 2025).34 Furthermore.” July/August. where there is little if any existing transmission sufficient to transmit the power. [t]he cost to consumers would be about . geothermal. Amdt. S. A federal-scale political philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and environmental policy dates back at least as far as the presidency of Ronald Reagan. 791 provided for a State Renewable Energy Account Program (SREAP).6 The stated purpose of the final bill. Energy Law Journal. and hence many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change arena.com/doc/1G1-167151846.17 Opponents countered that a national RPS would amount to a rate increase. mainly due to strong opposition in the House. wind power necessitates that back-up coal.5 billion and $2.16 Overall. 791 that states RPS programs would be undiminished.18 of a percent . Amdt. 791).24 The proceeds would be transferred to the states.MANDATED RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD Over the past ten years. 791 opponents noted that wind power.R. 14 These purposes certainly appeared to dovetail with the brief statement of purposes for EPAct 2005. would be cost-effective and support reliable delivery of electricity. Proponents of S. was "[t]o ensure jobs for our future with secure. or solar resources. they pointed out that fuel choices and resource development decisions historically have been within the purview of the states. saying that it would "benefit consumers by increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment . Amdt. Amdt. one of the main renewables. the RPS was not included in EPAct '05. would make an insignificant contribution to the overall power requirements and. Amdt. ."8 The Administration noted that the Electricity Title would promote its objectives of improved reliability and increasing supply. giving preferences to states that have a disproportionately small amount of renewable capacity and to states to improve renewable energy technologies. under S. a federally mandated RPS was extremely controversial.R. and projected significant savings. “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies. and enhanced reliability of the electricity grid. Proquest) // JMP II. (13) All have been beaten back by Republican-dominated Congresses. 52-48. however.

7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. reductions in CO2.. Debates over national RPS are empirically divisive Dr. But then again. E&E News PM May 14. n3 They have more recently argued that it is. what you're describing here are some pretty serious political issues and we try to look at this whole issue outside of the political debate. Each time a national RPS is debated. as we step off into the greenhouse gas and CO2 legislation we can run the risk of undermining that if we try to rush that process too fast. a stimulus to development of new technologies. Introduction Electricity from "renewable" sources is fast becoming a multipurpose remedy that will alleviate energy scarcities. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP I. 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J. and a weapon in the war on terrorism. 2007. Are these valid concerns? William Durbin: Well. Senate doesn’t support a national RPS Michaels.RPS Neg 125 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Politics – RPS is Controversial Federal RPS would face strong opposition in Congress. And they're also concerned that the government would be interfering with energy markets if a federal RPS was implemented. an industrial policy to create manufacturing jobs and revitalize declining regions. over half of the states had enacted "renewable portfolio standards" (RPS) requiring electric utilities to obtain portions of their power from sources legislatively defined as renewable. 2007.S. 07 – head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie (William. Durbin. and reductions in power prices. an instrument for risk management. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). a market intervention that could lower energy prices. House of Representatives voted in favor of a national RPS.pdf) // JMP In a little over the last decade. 79. And industry groups are saying that a federal RPS would provide a one-size-fits-all approach when one size doesn't fit all. “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. abate air pollution. So it would be hard for me to say whether or not they're valid. In that same time. but the Senate failed to pass a comparable provision. http://www. Sovacool. Energy Law Journal. among others. 01-07. the U. also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper. n1 On August 4.newenergychoices. a trade policy initiative. lexis. AG) Monica Trauzzi: A federal RPS faces quite a bit of opposition both on and off the Hill. Congress has considered (and rejected) at least 17 different proposals for a national RPS. n2 Supporters of a national RPS have long viewed it as an environmental measure that can also slow the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG). “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions reduction”. opponents argue that a federal mandate will increase electricity rates and cost utilities billions of dollars by forcing investments in expensive renewable technologies. J. The Bush Administration officially rejects a national RPS on the grounds that it would create “winners and losers” among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewable resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL. June. opposes an RPS. & Cooper. VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. who's the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee. What we can say is there are positive benefits associated if you're looking for reductions in gas demand. Senator Pete Domenici. and mitigate climate change. at least 21 states have passed renewable portfolio standards (RPS) – laws requiring electricity suppliers to employ a certain percentage of renewable energy to meet growing energy demands. Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. Sovacool. n4 . As of July 2007.

Doubling the annual research budget to $100 million for wind energy would provide turbines that supply 20 percent of the nation's power by 2030. Must Spend Billions for Clean-Coal Devices. In the same period the U. ``We have to accommodate some realities. let alone in legislation that's supposed to lessen our dependence on dirty fuels. “Rio Tinto Says U.'' . Coal Interests ``You've got 150 to 200 members of the U. www.com/business/articles/2008/06/08/coal_gasification_is_dirty_and_unproven/) // JMP I wonder if the legislators who think coal gasification is a green energy source also believed Ronald Reagan when he argued that ketchup should count as a vegetable in school lunch programs.4 billion for research on windmills and solar devices. Congress with coal in their district and at the moment only one or two with solar-thermal.” 6-8-2008. said at a May 28 press conference. Congress's investigative arm. That would require changing priorities in Congress. dumps the refuse into valleys..are already buying up every politician within reach! Legislators should cut these two poison pills from the energy overhaul bill that is otherwise a wonderful breath of fresh air from Beacon Hill. said in a May 15 interview.RPS Neg 126 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Politics – Plan Unpopular – Coal Lobby The plan would be unpopular – the coal lobby is buying immense influence in Congress Boston Globe.S.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKVuoOkwQtkI&refer=australia) // JMP Wind and Solar ``This isn't going to pass this year. versus $2. according to an October 2007 study by the Government Accountability Office. 8 (Editorial from Loie Hayes.'' Representative Jay Inslee.and the Big Ag lobby behind the biofuels boondoggle .7 billion from 2002 to 2007.S. Plan is unpopular – hundreds of congress people are tied to coal interests Bloomberg.8 billion for renewable generation. Wind and solar together now supply just 2.” 6-2-2008.4 percent of electricity demand. said Liz Salerno.bloomberg. State subsidies should not be used to tilt the market toward technologies that tear the tops off mountains. Energy Department spent $1. www.boston. 8 (Jim Efstathiou Jr. "Coal gasification" and "green energy" don't belong together in the same sentence. compared with $3. The coal lobby . Tax credits for power produced from coal and natural gas totaled $13.'' Ned Helme.S. manager of policy analysis for the Washington-based American Wind Energy Association.1 billion on technology to cut emissions from coal. “Green and coal don't exactly mix . a Democrat from Washington. president of the utility industry-funded Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington. and buries toxins in the nation's shrinking fresh water supply.

2007. n22 Instead. J. Energy Industry.” 29 Energy L." n23 The final legislation apparently allayed the President's concerns. 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P. the President signed the bill into law on December 19. the Bush Administration had indicated that the President would veto any energy legislation that included. Most prominently. Energy Law Journal. the President favors "expanded U.S. n24 .RPS Neg 127 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Politics – Bush Will Veto Senate doesn’t support an RPS and Bush will veto it Fershee.. production. “Changing Resources. Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U. among other things. even if the House and Senate had been able to come to some sort of consensus. new fuel economy standards and a big mandate for ethanol and other alternative fuels. 49. n21 an RPS or tax increases on the oil industry.S. but there were significant roadblocks this time around. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP [*53] The Senate has supported an RPS in the past.

RPS Neg 128
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Politics – A2: Renewable Energy is Popular
Support for renewable energy doesn’t translate into support for an RPS

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

VI. Conclusion
Often lost in the debate about the value and appropriateness of a national RPS is that there is little dispute about the value and
appropriateness of renewable energy itself. Awareness that energy issues intersect with other key issues like national security
and climate change has never been higher. Support for renewable energy, at least as a concept, is overwhelming. n198 A
recent poll indicates that 85% of those polled believe that existing federal incentives for [*75] renewable energy
technologies should be extended. n199 Other polls have indicated support across the political spectrum for renewable energy
n200 and, more specifically, a renewable portfolio standard. n201
In addition, more than thirty states have taken some kind of legislative action to promote renewable energy programs, and
more programs are being proposed. n202 Some states have even increased their commitment to energy from renewable
resources. Colorado, for example, implemented a 10% RPS in 2004, against the wishes of the state's utilities; in 2007, "with
utility support, Colorado increased its RPS to 20% by 2020." n203
Public support, and even support from individual utilities, for renewable energy, of course, does not translate into national
support for a particular program, policy, or fuel source. The best methods for promoting and providing renewable energy -
and who should pay for it - are issues in search of a solution. Ultimately, though, renewable energy has moved well beyond
the theoretical stages. If desired, a national RPS can be efficiently and effectively implemented. That does not mean it would
not require significant upfront expense, and perhaps long-term expense, as well. But those risks face any energy policy,
including the status quo.

Even popular programs will be contentious because of funding issues and lobbying by the oil industry

San Francisco Chronicle, 8 (Zachary Coile, “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy,” 6-18-2008,
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL) // JMP

Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in
danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year.
The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to
renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between
Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them.
The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are
making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind
turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts.
Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects,
said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take
six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed.
"It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said.
The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.
House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising
revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money.
The House first passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy credits by cutting subsidies to big oil
companies. The oil industry lobbied fiercely, President Bush vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it.
Last month, the House approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign
operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they called a stealth tax
increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation
forward.

RPS Neg 129
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Politics – Popular with Congress
Growing pressure and global warming changes the political calculus – will generate more support.

Cooper, 7 – Senior Policy Director, Network for New Energy Choices (Chris, NNEC, “New Study Reveals Flaws in
Congressional Energy Debate,” 6-13-07,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/index.php?blog_entry_id=168&page=fullstory&rd=pages&sd=df, AG)

Over the next few weeks Congress will take up the Democrat’s Energy Bill. Among the most controversial issues is a
national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring utilities to use more renewable resources to produce the nation’s
electricity. Congress has debated - and rejected - an RPS 17 times in the last 10 years. But this year, bipartisan support and
increased pressure to address global warming give the proposal a fighting chance.

There is growing political support for clean energy legislation

Kammen, 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
(Daniel M., San Francisco Chronicle, “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future,” 5-18-2008,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.DTL) // JMP

Politically, global warming and clean energy legislation is big business, with about 200 members of the House and Senate
now signatories on bills in this area. Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain are all
running on platforms of energy autonomy. Each has significant plans to address global warming.

RPS Neg 130
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Politics – Public Supports RPS
There is massive bipartisan support for a national RPS among potential voters

AWEA, 7 (American Wind Energy Association, “New Poll Shows Overwhelming Bipartisan Support for National Renewable Electricity
Standard,” 11-13-2007, www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Poll_Shows_Bipartisan_Support_111207.html) // JMP

A new poll of potential 2008 voters by Zogby International found that Americans across the political spectrum support a new
national standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than 20 states. The poll, commissioned by the
American Wind Energy Association, documents growing support for renewable energy and growing concern about energy
independence as top domestic priorities for potential 2008 voters.
Highlights of the survey include:
93 percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority”;
77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-identified
conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats agreed that the
Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least some of their electricity come from
renewable sources such as wind and solar; and
64 percent of those polled disagree with the proposition that the federal government is doing enough to promote clean
renewable energy.
“This demonstrates the tremendous level of bipartisan support across our nation for a renewable electricity standard”
commented Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), who authored the renewable electricity standard provision approved by the
House of Representatives earlier this year. “It is crystal clear the public wants Congressional action to increase the role of
clean domestic energy, like wind and solar power, in meeting America’s electricity needs. The House took an important step
towards that goal in August, and it is critical that a renewable electricity standard be included in any final energy package that
comes to the floor.”

Public support is growing for a national RPS

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for
a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of
Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains:
Is Congress?

There is significant public and business support for a 20% RPS

Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard,
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp)

Conclusion: A 20% Renewable Electricity Standard is achievable, affordable and good policy for the United States.
Studies by EIA and UCS demonstrate that a 20% RPS is achievable and affordable and would bring significant
environmental, security, and economic development benefits to the United States. A national renewable electricity standard is
backed by strong support from the public and a wide range of business and community leaders. Polling by the Mellman
Group showed that an overwhelming majority (70%) of the public supports a 20% national standard.5 In addition, over 700
businesses, organizations, and academic and elected officials have voiced support for a national renewable energy standard

The survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable energy. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. religion. The margin of error is +/." Public supports federal incentives to expand renewable AWEA.” 6-8-2007.” 1-22-2008. “In 2007.RPS Neg 131 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Politics – Public Supports RPS RPS is popular with the public UPI. “The results confirm that Americans.awea.” Zogby International conducted an online survey of 7.” said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. DC (January 22. A sampling of Zogby’s online panel.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208. “The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power.S. “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS." he said. in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the statement. United Press International. race. was invited to participate. http://www. "The majority of American citizens already live in Congressional districts with an RPS.000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy coming on line.106 adults from January 18 to January 21. tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. by an overwhelming majority.” Just 12% disagree.. want their government to support renewable energy. gender to more accurately reflect the population. which is representative of the adult population of the U.upi.1. Americans agree that the federal government should extend incentives that encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies. the prospects for approval look good this year. www. professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. age. 2008) – By a 7-1 margin. But the federal production tax credit (PTC) and tax incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of this year. with almost 6. "These policies have proven popular in a number of states. party. . 2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in the United States. 7 (Rosalie. “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll. infusing some $20 billion in new investment into the economy.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP Despite failure of similar legislation in the past.2 percentage points. 8 (American Wind Energy Association. 2008. according to a national poll released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). said Barry Rabe.html) // JMP Washington. Westenskow. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these incentives. Slight weights were added to region.

iht. I won’t set small goals. solar and biodiesel. We are now in a moment . International Herald Tribune. but an actual policy program).RPS Neg 132 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Election DA – Obama Solves the Case Obama supports an RPS Kammen. labor.php) // JMP Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. The time is right to focus on the energy system we want.” 5-19-2008.” 5-18-2008. I know how it’s done. utilities.sfgate. and ride in one himself.DTL) // JMP The Democratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy portfolio of at least 25 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2025." President has enormous influence on positively influence energy policy Richardson. The president can lay out the vision.. has proposed investing $150 billion over the next decade for investments in alternative energy. and all three candidates are in favor of cap-and-trade systems to build greenhouse gas markets. the benefits. 172) The president and the government have enormous power to change this – far more than an energy secretary or Congress. 8 – former US Secretary of Energy (Bill. and I won’t scoff at or undermine efforts to address climate change. . p. but politically challenging. www. It is vital. who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president.perhaps a first . the conveniences (charge up instead of fill up and tune up) of the plug-in car. and scientists to show how we can achieve aggressive plug-in car targets (not a plan. His rival for the nomination. only the President (and perhaps a great and trusted leader like the late Martin Luther King) really has the bully pulpit. “Wind power gains adherents in United States. including wind. labor. not on the one we had. San Francisco Chronicle. I won’t prefer oil and gas production. I will jawbone automakers. 8 (Carey Gillam. He (or she) can ask the country to consider this plug-in car option. to make sure that all emissions credits are auctioned. http://www. Obama will expand renewables IHT. members of Congress.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.com/cgi-bin/article. Unlike the current residents of the White House. “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future. I plan to sue that bully pulpit for the purpose of uniting Americans behind programs like the plug-in car that are essential to reducing our dependence on oil. I know many of the players very well. I expect results. Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution.where a growing view exists that energy and climate could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind. not given away to large polluters. still have. The president can hold a white House summit on low-and no-petroleum vehicles within thirty days of taking office and ask automakers. 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley (Daniel M. and sadly. In the United States. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. is also proposing a $150 billion 10-year investment in a "new energy future.

many of whom undoubtedly have seen McCain's numerous appearances on the popular. The science on global warming has changed dramatically over the last five years and Senator McCain's previous bill and current proposals are outdated and fail to provide the big changes Americans are demanding. left-leaning "Daily Show" on Comedy Central. including incentives that contributed to a nearly 50% increase in wind power generation last year. and he has repeatedly opposed renewable fuel mandates and higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller. "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy. http://www.cfm/go/news. “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue." Obama said. which suggests McCain may only be saying what he needs to win votes from independents and centrist Democrats.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy. Bush. who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what he considers his stark environmental divide with Mr.com/index. "While Senator McCain talks about the need to invest in alternative energy. said in a statement. his plan is driven by yesterday's solutions and they won't solve tomorrow's problems. . "While Senator McCain deserves credit for his work on early global warming legislation in the Senate and for bringing attention to the need for urgent action. he rejected the single biggest investment in renewable energy in history." Barack Obama criticized McCain's voting record in the Senate.” 5-13-2008.display/id/16008) // JMP However." Obama continued.nytimes. Sierra Club Executive Direct. 8 (“Presidential Race Turns to Energy. Carl Pope. McCain's comments drew critical responses.sustainablebusiness.RPS Neg 133 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Election DA – McCain Doesn’t Support Clean Energy McCain’s record proves that he doesn’t support clean energy – including renewable standards Sustainable Business.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) // JMP Mr. McCain has empirically not supported renewables NYT. McCain.” 6-17-2008. www.

php) // JMP Senator John McCain.nytimes. unlike Mr. “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue.” 5-19-2008. Mr.RPS Neg 134 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Election DA – McCain Solves the Case McCain will expand renewables IHT. who says such limits would be bad for the economy.” 6-17-2008. the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for the November presidential election. www. 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy. McCain has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. McCain’s biggest departure from the president is on climate change. 8 (Carey Gillam. . “Wind power gains adherents in United States. International Herald Tribune. McCain even chose a wind energy facility in Portland.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) // JMP Perhaps Mr. has also said he supports wind energy. www.iht. Oregon. McCain supports strong climate control policies NYT. Mr. McCain also supports a “cap and trade” system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying credits from more efficient producers. Bush. as the setting for a policy speech on global warming last week.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.

The Electricity Journal. EIA's 2003 analysis assumed a cost cap of 1. 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee.8 cents in real dollars. A 2002 EIA study found that removing a sunset provision would lower REC prices. and lead to full compliance with the annual targets. EIA found that reducing the cost cap increases the cost of the RPS and decreases the benefits. lexis-nexis) // AMK VII. “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard. . For example. less natural gas savings. Allowing generation from existing facilities to count towards compliance provides flexibility and rewards early adopters. Design Details Matter RPS design and implementation can be quite complex.5 cents without inflation adjustment.32 and the amount of renewable energy generation required can be less with REC multipliers. specific renewable energy resource tiers or REC multipliers—such as for solar or distributed generation technologies—are designed to promote diversity and increase grid reliability while giving a boost to emerging technologies.1 cents per kWh to slightly reduced electricity prices.31 In addition. Steve Clemmer. Ironically.30 As inflation lowers the value of the cost cap.. and fewer economic and environmental benefits.33 Vintage requirements for eligible technologies can also play a large role in determining the amount of new development needed to meet the annual targets.RPS Neg 135 7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Specification Necessary Specification is important – the way an RPS is designed has a big impact on its effectiveness Nogee et. Jeff Deyette. al. Removing the sunset provision also changed the RPS from having a slight increase in electricity costs of 0. The tradeoff is that the cost of compliance can be higher with a resource tier. EIA's analysis from the previous year examined a 10 percent RPS with a REC price cap of 3 cents per kWh. The result is less renewable energy. indexed to inflation. Other design details can also impact the benefits of an RPS. more utilities pay the non-compliance penalty rather than develop more renewable energy. a 2003 EIA analysis looked at the impact of a lower RPS cost cap. but it also undermines a primary goal of the RPS—additionality of renewable energy generation—and can reduce the economic and environmental benefits. and analyses demonstrate that the details can make a big difference in its effectiveness and overall costs and benefits.” May 2007. limiting REC prices in 2025 to only 0.