SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

RPS AFF - SUPPLEMENT
RPS AFF - SUPPLEMENT..........................................................................................................................................1 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................3 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................4 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................5 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................6 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................7 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................8 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................9 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................10 ...................................................................................................................................................................................10 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................11 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................12 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................13 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................14 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................15 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................16 WARMING EXTS – UTILITY INDUSTRY KEY....................................................................................................17 ECONOMY EXTS – MANUFACTURING SECTOR EXTS...................................................................................18 BLACKOUTS EXTS – BLACKOUTS -> NUCLEAR POWER MELTDOWN......................................................19 BLACKOUTS EXTS – NUCLEAR POWER MELTDOWN IMPACTS.................................................................20 SOFT POWER EXTS – ENVIRO LEADERSHIP DECLINING.............................................................................21 SOFT POWER EXTS – US ACTION ON WARMING KEY...................................................................................22 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – FEDERAL LEADERSHIP KEY............................................................................23 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES KEY............................................................................................24 NATURAL GAS EXTS – PLAN ↓ DEPENDENCE.................................................................................................25 NATURAL GAS EXTS – TERMINALS HARM ENVIRONMENT........................................................................26 NATURAL GAS EXTS – TERROR RISK................................................................................................................27 2AC T FRONTLINE – RPS = INCENTIVE..............................................................................................................28 2AC T FRONTLINE – RPS = INCENTIVE..............................................................................................................29 1AR T HELPERS – RPS = POSITIVE INCENTIVE................................................................................................30 T HELPERS – 20% IS SUBSTANTIAL....................................................................................................................31 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................32 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................33 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................34 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE – OHIO DA............................................................................................................35 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE – COMPETITIVENESS........................................................................................36 1AR – STATES CP EXTS – DIFFERING DEFINTIONS.........................................................................................37 1AR - STATES CP EXTS – OHIO.............................................................................................................................38 AT: COAL/NUCLEAR POWER COUNTERPLANS..............................................................................................39 2AC OBAMA GOOD FRONTLINE........................................................................................................................40 2AC OBAMA GOOD FRONTLINE.........................................................................................................................41 2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE....................................................................................................................42 2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................43 2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................44 1AR EXTS – CLEAN COAL INDUSTRY WEAK NOW – RENEWABLES..........................................................45 1AR EXTS – COAL INDUSTRY WEAK NOW - INVESTMENT..........................................................................46 1

SDI 2008 KMT RPS Aff – Supplement 1AR EXTS – COAL – NO CLEAN COAL TECH....................................................................................................47 1AR EXTS – NO CLEAN COAL TECH...................................................................................................................48 1AR EXTS – CLEAN COAL DECADES AWAY.....................................................................................................49 2AC OIL DA FRONTLINE STARTER.....................................................................................................................50 EXTS – OIL DA ANS – NO LINK............................................................................................................................51 2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................52 2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................53

2

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: THE ECONOMY THE FINITE NATURE AND SUPPLY INSTABILITY OF FOSSIL FUELS GUARANTEES PRICE VOLATILITY – DELAYING ACTION INCREASES THE COST OF TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 2008 [“Statement on Energy Science and Technology”,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1890&use_sec=false&sec _url_var=region1/ ttate]

Plentiful, accessible, inexpensive energy is the underpinning of modern society. It is the basis for meeting numerous national and global needs such as increased demands for electricity and transportation, affordable food and water, and adequate resources for manufacturing. In the U.S., reliable, affordable energy is crucial to the economic well-being and security of our nation. The time has come for us to confront future energy options. The ACS and AIChE believe a comprehensive national energy strategy must address S&T opportunities thoroughly to make the best near-term decisions and develop new options for a more sustainable future. The most important reason to address this issue now is the growing, global dependence on oil and natural gas, which experts agree are available in limited and rapidly declining quantities. Demand for oil will continue to grow as countries raise standards of living—especially populous, developing nations like China and India. As we move beyond the world’s maximum oil production point and demands continue to rise, prices and instability will certainly increase. Estimates vary on total oil resources, but it would be a mistake to assume that fossil fuel would remain at current prices, given the inherently unstable nature of commodity markets, geopolitics, and policy changes. We believe a targeted allocation of funds and timely change in energy policy would postpone the inevitable date that oil production would begin to decline. Thus, investment in increasing energy options is paramount. Market forces will play an important, but not sufficient, role in meeting future energy needs. A sudden increase in energy prices or long periods of energy-price instability would result in energy shortfalls, which in turn would significantly impact global economic growth. Sufficient investment in energy innovations to increase availability and allow profound
infrastructure changes (e.g., converting gasoline vehicles to hydrogen or increasing the use of public transportation) would require an ongoing, commitment over several decades. Given the investment of time and the technology needed, it is imperative to take immediate steps toward solving this problem. According to the Energy Information Agency, U.S. domestic energy utilization in 2003 was roughly 85 percent fossil fuel, 8 percent nuclear power, and 6 percent renewable energy—including hydroelectricity. Clearly, America is overly dependent on fossil fuel, much of which comes from unstable regions of the world. Energy-use patterns—22 percent residential, 52 percent industrial, and 27 percent transportation—must also be considered in developing a comprehensive U.S. energy policy. Energy efficiency and conservation must be encouraged across the board. At present, the S&T required to move beyond fossil-energy dependence and provide safely produced, sustainable power to meet growing, global needs, is simply not available. The ACS and AIChE recommend developing a dual-track, comprehensive R&D strategy that would simultaneously implement a near-term advancement of energy technologies (including fossil, solar, wind, nuclear, and efficient utilization) and a comprehensive S&T policy for developing sustainable sources to replace dwindling fossil supplies in the long term.

Finding solutions to meet advancing world needs for sustainable energy is one of the biggest challenges mankind will ever face. Burning fossil fuels places humanity at risk environmentally, and the potential consequences are dramatic. We must call upon universities, the private sector, and national laboratories to provide the best minds and teams to develop creative solutions through energy
R&D.

3

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AN ENERGY SHOCK WILL LEAD TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, NUMEROUS NUCLEAR WARS AND GLOBAL STARVATION RIDDOCH 2004 [Malcolm, PhD and prof of communications @ Edith Cowan University, June 19, http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/72000_comment.php / ttate]
There are lots of recent 2004 reports speculating about the Saudi's ability to increase production suggesting that the peak plateau may already have arrived with midpoint by 2008. OPEC is apparently pumping at its full rate, while everyone else from the Russians, US, North Sea to our own oil fields are apparently depleting already.

The first major oil shock could be as early as the fourth quarter of this year and some analysts suggest that the Saudi's are on the verge of a collapse in their
major Gawar oil field, the largest in the world. The oil Beyond the current oil wars and the short term economic effects of unstable oil supply and prices over the next 5

peak oil threatens an irreversible global economic decline that will force a massive, radical and sustained change in our way of life as we transition to alternative energy sources and the economic/political order they support. The cost of everything will rise and rise with the poorest of us the first to start suffering. A terminal economic decline will begin with a recession in Australia the size of the one that occurred in WW2, and this possibility is already being discussed in our mainstream media. Think an end to public welfare
years, across the board, food stamps and eventually food riots, massive rising unemployment, the collapse of Medicare and public hospitals, a severe crisis in the cost and delivery

peak oil could mean a complete global economic collapse sometime after 2010, middle class poverty and the breakdown of law and order, truly gigantic starvation in the third world and the unrestrained outbreak of global warfare with the risk of numerous 'limited' nuclear conflagrations. It could ultimately mean the extinction of the human species through global nuclear war and its companions famine and pestilence.
of water ... but at least the roads will be less congested, more room for the ultra wealthy and their gas guzzling limousines. At worst

AND, A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 1992 [Walter, senior fellow for US foreign policy @ Council on Foreign Relations, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

4

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
INDEPENDENTLY, CONTINUED HIGH GAS PRICES WILL COLLAPSE THE US MANUFACTURING SECTOR – THIS WILL DEVASTATE THE ECONOMY AND THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY INDEPENDENTY BEZDEK AND WENDLING 2004 [Roger and Robert, workers for Management Information Services, Inc., “The Case Against Gas Dependence”, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, April, lexis/ttate]
Moreover, two articles last year in Public Utilities Fortnightly that addressed natural gas supply, demand, and price issues seemed to confuse the solution with the problem.

Linden noted that high gas prices would lead to "demand destruction" in the industrial sector, which would, in part, price-induced demand destruction can be added to the other causes of reduced gas demand, including the closure of industrial facilities using natural gas as a feedstock." n18 Similarly, John Herbert, after noting that high natural gas prices have forced U.S. fertilizer plants to shut down, stated, "As fertilizer and other chemical plants continue to shut down, this will reduce demand for natural gas and increase overall supplies." n19
Robert counterbalance increasing power sector demand. n17 He further stated, "This Both authors are correct in pointing out that high natural gas prices will tend to reduce industrial natural gas demand as industrial plants shut down, and that this will temper

the "destruction" of the nation's industrial sector is an extremely serious problem for the United States; it is not a "solution" to the natural-gas pricing problem. We should be very concerned with the strongly negative impact high natural gas prices are having on the U.S. industrial sector and the potential implications of this for the U.S. economy. Despite all of the hype in recent years about the new economy, the information economy, the service economy, etc., manufacturing is, by far, the most critical sector of the U.S. economy, and it creates the broad foundation upon which the rest of the economy grows. n20 Manufacturing drives the rest of the economy, provides a disproportionate share of the nation's tax base, generates innovation, and disseminates new technology throughout the economy. The average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs
future natural gas price increases. However, directly and indirectly throughout the economy, whereas the average service and retail job generates about one other job, directly and indirectly.

The manufacturing sector uses 40 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States, and virtually every manufacturing industry is heavily dependent on natural gas as a fuel, feedstock, and, increasingly, as a source of electricity generation. Price spikes in the cost of natural gas and electricity in the fall of 2000 precipitated the current manufacturing recession. During the past three years, this sector has been severely affected, losing more than 2.5 million jobs. n21 The current
manufacturing recovery is slower than the first year of any recovery in 40 years. n22 Manufacturing is suffering from intense global competition and cannot pass though increased energy costs via product price increases. Reliance on low-cost natural gas has been an often-unrecognized factor in the U.S. manufacturing sector's global competitiveness, and an ample supply of reasonably priced

High natural gas prices are causing industrial electricity prices to increase, the cost of natural gas as a feedstock and fuel is greatly increasing manufacturing costs, and industrial operations are the first to be cut off from natural gas supplies when winter emergencies occur. The natural gas crisis has become a matter of exporting profits and jobs to countries with cheaper natural gas.
natural gas is critical to its competitiveness. This sector is bearing the brunt of the energy impacts of the natural gas crisis and is suffering from a triple whammy: Thus, the impact of high natural gas prices is, indeed, to destroy the U.S. industrial sector. However, instead of viewing this as an effect that will serve to moderate future natural gas price increases, this must be viewed as a very serious problem resulting from high natural gas prices. To the extent natural gas demand and prices are being driven by the increasing use of gas for electric power generation, the solution should be to substitute other fuels, such as nuclear and coal in this sector, and not to accept demand destruction in the nation's industrial sector. The case against natural gas for electricity generation is quite clear. Specifically: . The use of gas for electricity generation is forecast to more than double by 2025, and, according to both EIA and industry analysts, this demand increase may not be achievable. Natural gas imports are forecast to increase dramatically over the next two decades and, at a time when we are concerned about the nation's increasing dependence on imported oil, America is becoming increasingly dependent on imported natural gas from the same politically unstable regions that contain most of the world's oil supplies. . The increasing use of gas for electric power generation is placing strains on natural gas supplies and the gas transmission and distribution infrastructure, and this will further hinder the provision of adequate gas supplies.

. This increasing use is causing the price of natural gas to increase and to become more volatile. Increased prices and price volatility are having adverse consequences for natural gas consumers and are resulting in market disruptions. Gas price volatility will likely increase in the future, thus causing further market disruptions
. Natural gas shortages and price volatility can have adverse economic and employment effects, and they can increase U.S. dependence on imported oil. . High natural gas prices are having a devastating impact on U.S. manufacturing industries, and this should be viewed as the most serious effect of the current (and future) gas crisis.

5

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, A STRONG FERTILIZER INDUSTRY IS KEY TO STABLE, LOW FOOD PRICES BENNETTT 2008 [Michael, CEO of Terra Industries, Remarks at Republican Senate Conference Forum, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, May 16, lexis/ttate] Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plant growth. The United States needs reliable and plentiful supplies of natural gas to produce nitrogen and meet critical agriculture and food production needs. Natural gas is the fundamental feedstock ingredient for the production of nitrogen fertilizer and represents nearly 90 percent of the production cost of one ton of anhydrous
ammonia, which is the building block for most other forms of commercial nitrogen plant nutrients. The nitrogen industry accounts for nearly 2 percent of the total natural gas consumed in this nation. Since

2000, the U.S. nitrogen industry has permanently closed 26 nitrogen production facilities, due primarily to high natural gas prices. Currently, only 30 nitrogen
plants are operating in the United States and 55 percent of the U.S. farmers' nitrogen fertilizer is imported. In less than 10 years, we went from basically being self-sufficient in nitrogen fertilizer to importing more than half of our needs. America's food security, and by extension our national security, will be jeopardized if action is not taken to address our country's current natural gas crisis. According to the May 1st, 2008 GAO study entitled, "Implications of Switching from Coal to Natural Gas", U.S. natural gas production peaked in 1973 and the average productivity of our wells has declined for the past 35 years - due to diminishing output of older wells and lower yields and depletion rates. The EIA projects that natural gas production will not increase in the lower 48 states over the next 20 years. And according to the GAO, the U.S. has already found and used its easily recoverable natural gas and finding new gas requires deeper drilling in more inaccessible locations. It is increasingly difficult to keep output constant, because about one-third of our production has to be replaced every year. Thus, the U.S. has limited capacity to meet

widespread fuel switching at electricity generating units would increase demand for natural gas beyond the capabilities of existing and projected supply. The U.S. would require nearly twice
growing demand for gas with domestic production. Consequently, as much gas supply by 2030, as projected by EIA, if the U.S. were to replace all coal-fired power plants with natural gas.

The ongoing U.S. natural gas crisis, which really began in the winter of 1999-2000, has evolved into a domestic and global energy and food supply crisis. Fertilizers are currently responsible for 40 percent of the world's food supply and are a necessary part of solving today's global food crisis.

AND, FOOD PRICE SPIKES LEAD TO DEATHS OF BILLIONS BROWN 2005 [Lester, President @ Earth Policy Institute, “Outgrowing the Earth”, http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/Chat/] “Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security,” said Brown, “but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 percent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern.”

6

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, A NATIONAL RPS IS KEY TO CHECKING BACK FUTURE ENERGY PRICE SHOCKS AND VOLATILITY - SAVE CONSUMERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Both the UCS and EIA analyses show that a national RPS can save consumers money in several ways. First, by reducing the demand for fossil fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewable energy helps reduce the price of fossil fuels and restrain the ability of fossil fuel prices to increase in the future. Natural gas therefore costs less for electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, benefiting both electricity consumers and other natural gas consumers. Second, some renewable resources, especially wind energy at good sites, are now less expensive than building new natural gas- or coal-fired power plants over the expected lifetimes of the plants, and reduce projected generation costs. And third, a national RPS reduces the cost of renewable energy technologies, by creating competition among renewable sources and projects to meet the requirements, and by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations, and maintenance. Most importantly, projected savings are robust enough to be found in all of the recent RPS scenarios, at both the 10 percent and 20 percent levels, and despite large differences in projected renewable energy costs and performance in
the EIA and UCS assumptions.

average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5 percent. In addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast, with an average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (Figure 1).19 All sectors of the economy would benefit, with commercial, industrial, and residential customers' total savings reaching $19.1 billion, $17.4 billion, and $12.6 billion, respectively.
Using UCS assumptions for renewable energy technologies, With UCS running NEMS using EIA's assumptions unmodified, the results showed that a 20 percent RPS would still reduce gas and electricity prices. Cumulative savings to electricity customers under a 20 percent RPS totaled $15.4 billion by 2020, with cumulative savings to gas consumers of an additional $11.6 billion, for a total savings of more than $27 billion. A 10 percent renewable standard would save less money than the 20 percent scenario. In the UCS scenario, consumers would save almost $28.2 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020, with the savings continuing to grow to $37.7 billion by 2025. EIA's own analysis found that the 10 percent RPS would save consumers $22.6 billion by 2025.20

energy bills would be reduced in every region of the country, is primarily due to the lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas consumers that all regions would see. In addition,
National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy potential (Table 1). This all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in using local resources for generation that would often displace the need for importing fossil fuel. Furthermore, the national credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions to purchase RECs for the same price, providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators. The strong relationship between renewable energy generation, and natural gas demand and prices is further supported by a 2005 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) study, which reviewed 13 analyses using different computer models and assumptions. The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and energy efficiency) could reduce gas demand and put downward pressure on natural gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. The report also found that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced. Furthermore, LBL's study shows how these results are broadly consistent with economic theory, with results from other energy models, and with limited empirical evidence.21 Because of this relationship, long-term natural gas prices have a significant effect on the impact of a national RPS.

As gas price forecasts have increased,

analyses have shown that a national RPS is more cost-effective. For example, a 2001 EIA analysis-using wellhead natural gas prices that
averaged $3.28 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period-projected that a 20 percent national RPS would result in cumulative consumer energy bill costs of $14 billion by 2020.22 By comparison, the 20 percent RPS scenario (EIA assumptions) from 2004, which showed consumer savings of $27 billion, used a natural gas price forecast that averaged $3.97 per Mcf (2002$). While EIA changed a number of the assumptions used in NEMS between 2001 and 2004, most of the difference in energy bill impacts is due to the increase in natural gas prices. EIA has consistently increased its long-term natural gas price projection each year since 1997 to conform to new data. In the recently released AEO 2007, wellhead gas prices average $5.06 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period.23

7

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
ADVANTAGE _________: BLACK-OUTS OUR CURRENT CONVENTIONAL UTILITY ELECTRIC GRID WILL INEVITABLY BREAKDOWN – BLACK-OUTS WILL COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY GARDNER 2007 [Timothy, staff writer, “Business Books: Strain on US grid to make blackouts common”, REUTERS, July 16,
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0718520720070616?pageNumber=2&sp=true / ttate]
Most people in the United States only think about where electricity comes from when the lights go out suddenly.

unless the antiquated transmission grid is fixed, expensive blackouts that bring modern life to a grinding halt will become ever more common, according to "Lights Out" (Wiley, $27.95), a new book by Jason Makansi. Before the 1980s, power generating companies were responsible for the entire chain of supply, from securing fuel to transmitting power to homes. Deregulation, meant to increase competition, has busted that chain apart and left the wires and substations that deliver electricity as a "neglected stepchild," Makansi writes. As demand for electricity rises, especially in the hot summer months when air conditioners are humming, the result is an overstretched grid, exploding transformers, brownouts and blackouts.
But Transmission only accounts for about 10 percent of the industry's assets, and for decades utilities and regulators have focused on more expensive parts of the system.

Now, even electricity generated in ultramodern plants is dependent on the brittle transmission grid. "Imagine driving a Maserati over a road littered with potholes," Makansi writes.

AND, A NATIONAL RPS WILL LEAD TO VAST TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR ENERGY GRID Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]

3. Transmission: A National RPS Speeds Infrastructure Investment Some utilities object to aggressive RPS mandates on the grounds that greater penetration of renewables will require costly transmission system upgrades. New wind projects, for example, will need to be located in windy areas that are often far from the cities where the most electricity is consumed.116 Mandating that utilities invest in new renewable generation, therefore, is also mandating investment in new and expensive transmission upgrades. Creating incentives for utilities to invest in much needed transmission system upgrades actually may be one of the hidden benefits of a national RPS. Utilities can overcome public opposition to new transmission infrastructure by arguing for the need to access renewable resources. While public reaction to renewable energy is far from uniform, using access to renewable resources as a justification for new transmission wins local support for projects and speeds their development. In addition, because renewable energy technologies have much shorter lead-times than conventional power plants, utilities can start getting use out of new power lines even as they wait to bring large conventional projects online. Quicker use of new transmission capacity benefits ratepayers because new rules allow utilities to start recovering the full cost of transmission investments even before utilities have built new capacity to fill them.

8

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, THE ENERGY GRID IS VULNERABLE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, LEADING TO BLACKOUTS ACROSS THE US, GUTTING THE US ECONOMY – A NATIONAL RPS PREVENTS THIS Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]

larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental power outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues
Second, facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible. For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the Ku Klux Klan and San Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National Liberation Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24

it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26 Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their
Some caution that all operational efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27

Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in incremental and modular amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have
tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A national

RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.

AND, A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 1992 [Walter, senior fellow for US foreign policy @ Council on Foreign Relations, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

9

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
Grid failure leads to nuclear reactor meltdown – a transition to renewable energy is key to solve Smith environmental journalist 2000 Gar Earth Island Journal, winter proquest The third type could happen if the electricity fails. Reactors depend on off-site electric power to run cooling systems and control rooms, with emergency diesel generators for automatic backup. Unfortunately, according to Olsen, even in the US these generators are "not even 90 percent reliable."
In the US, most local emergency officials are planning for three weeks without power. But diesel generators often overheat and usually are not operated for weeks at a time. Many generators also have digital components that may be subject to Y2K failure.

"It takes only two hours without the cooling system functioning for reactor fuel to melt," Olsen says. Power failures also could cause "a meltdown of nuclear fuel storage pools.... These pools must be cooled for at least five years." Loss of off-site electrical power poses the most prominent risk to nuclear powerplant safety. Reliable back-up power is needed
immediately at each nuclear site. Fuel cells and gas turbines are more reliable than diesel generators. There are well over 1,000 private utilities, non-utility generators, public utilities, and rural electric cooperatives in the US and Canada operating more than 15,000 generating units. Many will reach the millennium with Y2K issues unresolved.

The US electric power grid is fragile. In 1996, two disruptions in one five-week period caused 190 generating stations (including several nuclear reactors)
to shut down. On August 10, 1996, a sagging tree limb in Oregon caused a short that caused a blackout in California, Arizona and New Mexico. Millions of people were left without power. In some regions, the blackout lasted several weeks. MRS notes that increasingly severe winter storms have caused power outages in the eastern US in recent years. Such wintertime power failures "could lead to extended blackouts and resultant nuclear catastrophes."

Batteries charged by solar cells, windmills, hydroelectric or geothermal energy would give the greatest assurance of long-term stability
The NIRS has petitioned the NRC to require all nuclear power stations to stockpile a 20-day supply of fuel for diesel generators.

Nuclear reactor meltdown  extinction Wasserman Free Press Senior Editor 2002 Harvey Earth Island Journal, spring proquest There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since
its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-- tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously? Are

we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

10

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
ADVANTAGE _____: NATURAL GAS THE UTILITY SECTOR CONTINUES TO INCREASE THEIR DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS IN THE STATUS QUO – CAUSING FUTURE PRICE SPIKES Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]
Natural Gas Prices Will Increase “There is a risk in investment in nuclear and coal. Coal has got the carbon unknown mostly in terms of draconian impositions by the Feds. Nuclear has got safety and liability concerns. So I think people will still go gas because they have less money invested in it, with the idea they can pass it on to retail customers, particularly in market-oriented areas.” - Respondent #15, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006

Many of the electricity generating units used for intermediate and “peaking” purposes (for example, to meet increased demand for air conditioning on hot, summer days) use natural gas for fuel. This is because natural gas generating units usually require a lower capital investment than nuclear or coal-fired plants,
have shorter construction and lead-times, and tend to produce lower emissions than coal plants. Natural gas-fired units also can be turned on or off quickly, giving them operational flexibility to meet short-term peak electricity demands.

The electricity sector’s demand for natural gas has increased from 24 percent of total natural gas consumption in 2000 to 29 percent in 2005.59 And consumption of natural gas is likely to increase even further for two reasons:
Lower Reserve Margins

First, increased electricity demand in many areas has shrunk reserve margins to historically low levels. By 2005, reserve
margins across the contiguous United States had dropped to 15 percent and, in some large states (like Texas and Florida), as low as 9 percent. Shrinking reserve margins coupled with increased electricity demands have forced many utilities to restart “mothballed” natural gas-fired generating units. And plans for new peaking units in large consumer states like Texas and Florida rely overwhelmingly on natural gas.60 Prospects for New Sources

Second, because U.S. utilities have over-invested in gas-fired generating units, they hunger for new supplies of natural gas. Congress responded recently by authorizing greater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and has hinted at granting greater access to federal lands where natural gas drilling is
currently off-limits.61 Whether new drilling rights are granted or not, the tantalizing prospect of vast new sources of natural gas may lead utilities to believe that gas-fired units are safer investments than they really are. Future Carbon Controls

Third, as pressure builds for the United States to adopt some form of binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, more generators will turn to natural gas because its carbon intensity is about half that of coal.62
Roger Garrett, Director of Puget Sound Energy’s Resource Acquisition Group, for example, recently told industry executives that PSE had plans to invest in a significant number of new natural-gas fired combined cycle facilities partly because the company anticipates future binding carbon constraints.63 In its most recent energy outlook (AEO 2007), EIA projects natural gas wellhead prices to average $5.06 per million cubic feet (2002$) from 2007 to 2030. If there are delays in the construction of the nearly 45,000 miles of new gas pipelines that industry analysts say are required to ensure adequate supply, the base-case price grows to $6.43 per million cubic feet.64 Since 1997, however, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has had to increase its projections for natural gas prices each year to conform to new data showing that the price was higher than expected.65 The year 2007 was no exception. In its report on short-term energy and summer 2007 fuels outlook, the DOE said it expected natural gas prices over the summer season to be 18 percent above its predictions a year earlier.66

While natural gas has enjoyed a recent period of depressed prices, substantial long-term price increases are virtually inevitable.
Recent evidence suggests that EIA’s long-term projections – as in its short-term forecasts – make optimistic assumptions about growth in domestic natural gas production. In October 2006, for example, Chesapeake Energy stunned the gas industry by announcing that it would shut off 100,000 cubic feet per day of unhedged gas production until natural gas prices rebounded. A week later, Questar Exploration & Production curtailed its output for the same reason.67 These unusual moves repudiated government (and industry) optimism about domestic natural gas output and reminded analysts that the gas market can be far more volatile and easily manipulated than forecasts predict.

Greenspan predicted continued strain in the long-term market for natural gas: Today’s tight natural gas markets have been a long time in coming, and futures prices suggest that we are not apt to return to earlier periods of relative abundance and low prices anytime soon.68 // pg. 38-40
As early as 2003, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan

11

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, HIGH NATURAL GAS PRICES COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR – LEADING TO RECESSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLATION, AND HIGH INTEREST RATES Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder) The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated the harmful impact on jobs and the economy that natural gas shortages can have. The U.S. economy suffered through recessions, widespread unemployment, inflation, and record-high interest rates. In the winter of 1975-76, unemployment resulting from gas curtailments in hard-hit regions ran as high as 100,000 for periods
lasting from 20 to 90 days. n14 These effects were especially serious for the poor and for the nation's minorities. n15 More recently, the winter of 2002-2003 brought higher natural gas bills to many consumers, and low-income families were especially hard hit.

"The economic welfare of our economy, the competitiveness of our industries, the affordability of natural gas for all consumers are at risk. We cannot afford another natural gas crisis. Every U.S. energy crisis in the last 30 years has been followed by an economic recession, and the 2000-2001 price spike was no exception. The energy crisis devastated industrial consumers. When natural gas prices reached $ 4/MMBtu, manufacturing began to reduce production and shift production to locations outside the U.S. At even higher prices, they shut down production, laying off employees, and damaging communities. We have arrived at this price threshold." n16
As Paul Cicio, director of the Industrial Energy Consumers Association, notes: Moreover, two articles last year in Public Utilities Fortnightly that addressed natural gas supply, demand, and price issues seemed to confuse the solution with the

high gas prices would lead to "demand destruction" in the industrial sector, which would, in part, counterbalance increasing power sector demand. n17 He further stated, "This price-induced demand destruction can be added to the
problem. Robert Linden noted that other causes of reduced gas demand, including the closure of industrial facilities using natural gas as a feedstock." n18 Similarly, John Herbert, after noting that high natural gas prices have forced U.S. fertilizer plants to shut down, stated, "As fertilizer and other chemical plants continue to shut down, this will reduce demand for natural gas and increase overall supplies." n19

that high natural gas prices will tend to reduce industrial natural gas demand as industrial plants shut down, and that this will temper future natural gas price increases. However, the "destruction" of the nation's industrial sector is an extremely serious problem for the United States; it is not a "solution" to the natural-gas pricing problem. We should be very concerned with the strongly negative impact high natural gas prices are having on the U.S. industrial sector and the potential implications of this for the U.S. economy.
Both authors are correct in pointing out

AND, A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 1992 [Walter, senior fellow for US foreign policy @ Council on Foreign Relations, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

12

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, CONTINUED DEPENDENCE ON NATURAL GAS LEADS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE LNG TERMINALS ENERGY BUSINESS REVIEW 2007 [“US LNG terminal building boom will lead to massive underuse of capacity”, August 31, www.energy-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=1DD8CDD7-F351-4993AFDF-D213B16B9929//ttate] LNG use in the US is fuelled mainly by declining indigenous natural gas supplies and the fuel’s widespread use as a power generation source. The US accounts for 95% of the North American LNG market, where consumption grew over 1,000% in the 10 years from 1996. Yet, despite this phenomenal growth, LNG remains a niche product within the US gas market, accounting for just 3% of total gas consumption. High consumption fuelling high investment and overcapacity Despite its niche position, market players are wagering that LNG will eventually become a major fuel for primary energy consumption. This means that present volumes will have to increase significantly, at a far greater rate than the already robust growth rate. With this in mind, there is currently a construction boom in LNG terminals. AND, CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OF LNG TERMINALS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO RISKS THE ENTIRE OCEAN ECOSYSTEM RAPPLEYE 2005 [Christine, staff writer, “Plan to warm LNG to gas using Gulf of Mexico may kill marine life”, KNIGHT RIDDER TRIBUNE BUSINESS NEWS, February 24, lexis/ttate] Feb. 24--A liquefied natural gas company's plan to use Gulf of Mexico water to warm the LNG to a gas could devastate marine life, according to biologists. The terminal, proposed by Shell US Gas & Power LLC, would be 38 miles off the Cameron Parish
coast, is apparently the first terminal to propose using the "open loop" system, which would suck in more than 100 million gallons of Gulf water a day to warm the liquefied natural gas. An Olympic 50 meter competition pool holds approximately one million gallons of -- water To be stored as a liquid, the gas has to be cooled to at least 260

The water isn't usually reheated before being pumped back into the Gulf of Mexico, Harrel said in a telephone interview. The eggs and larval, or juvenile, marine animals like shrimp, crabs and fish, aren't likely to survive in the chilled water, said Terry Stelly, an Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ecosystem biologist at the Pleasure Island station. "There aren't many things that are going to be able to survive being sucked in and hit with negative 270 degree pipes," Stelly said in a telephone interview. Populations of several species of fish, including red fish, trout and red snapper, crabs, shrimp, jellyfish, worms and coral would all be affected by the super-cold water, Stelly said. Fish like red snapper would take a double hit, affecting both the survival of the fish and it's food, like shrimp, Stelly said. Certain marine animals need a specific temperature range to grow and spawn, Stelly said. "The impacts aren't just going to be in Sabine Lake. It's going to be Gulf wide," Stelly said. "Sooner or later, the impact is going to affect all of us." The terminal is
degrees below zero. "It's going to cause trouble," Richard Harrel, a Lamar University biology professor, told The Enterprise. expected be operational by the end of the decade, according to information from Shell's Web site. The three on-shore terminals planned for the area will have a "closed loop" system, which uses about 2 percent of the natural gas it carries to warm the rest. "Impacts would occur to all specials with egg and larval stages in the project area, but available data are insufficient to quantify impacts to most species," according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard. The report also estimates the report.

mortality rate would be in the "billions of fish eggs and larvae annually," according to the

13

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
COLLAPSE OF OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS THREATENS ALL LIFE ON EARTH CRAIG, associate prof of law @ Indiana U, 2003 [Robin Kundis, lexis]
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a

major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly
dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.

INDEPENDENTLY, THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY POSES A UNIQUE SECURITY THREAT UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2005 [“Energy and Security”, August 16, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/energy-and-security.html / ttate] Much of the U.S. energy system presents significant safety and security risks. Facilities recently put on heightened security alert include nuclear power plants, hydropower dams, pipelines, refineries, tankers, and the electricity transmission grid. The risks are obvious: A major accident at a nuclear plant could kill tens of thousands and contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania. Reactor containments were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. Rupturing the hold of a tanker containing liquefied natural gas could send flames over several miles.

14

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, AN ACCIDENT OR ATTACK ON LNG FACILITIES WOULD COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY AND LEAD TO MASS FAMINE – IT WOULD BE THE DEATH EQUIVALENT OF 55 HIROSHIMAS BOWMAN 1995 [Stephen, published author, “US still ripe for terror”, DENVER POST, May 28, lexis/ttate] The destruction, or perhaps even the disruption, of energy supplies could bring on the loss of millions of jobs virtually overnight, the starvation of hundreds of thousands and to at least some extent an environmental catastrophe. And there is another reason why energy sources should be a top priority on our national-defense list: They are so simple to destroy that it is ridiculous to even imagine they are not at the top of the list of terrorist targets. As one Department of Defense official explained
in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing, the terrorist strives to get the most bang for his buck by achieving the most efficient kill ratio. He can spend $ 5,000 and explode a bomb in the World Trade Center. Or he can spend $ 1 on a bullet and wipe out the electricity of a whole city. Or maybe kill millions of people with a small vial of cheap but lethal chemicals. If the option is left open, sooner or later the terrorist will respond. According to a General Accounting Office report, in 1977, "Successful sabotage of an LEG (liquefied energy gas) facility in an urban area could cause a catastrophe. We found security precautions and physical barriers at LEG facilities generally aren't adequate to deter even an untrained saboteur. None of the LEG storage areas we saw are impervious to sabotage, and most are highly vulnerable." Liquefied energy gas is the generic term to describe both liquid natural gas - LNG - and liquid petroleum gas - LPG. Even

though the energy content of a single LNG transport tanker is equivalent to that of 55 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs, very little has been done to assure that LNG shipments are protected from sabotage as they come and go through the ports of some of our major cities. Regardless of the government's own reports and warnings, LNG ships chug into the hearts of city harbors, and these cities are in danger of being leveled on any given day. Whereas oil contains more energy than does LNG, the liquid natural gas is actually more hazardous. Burning oil does not spread far over either water or land. LNG, on the other hand, is less than half as dense as water, so a single cubic meter of LNG weighs just over half a ton. One cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about 620 cubic meters of natural gas, which mixes with the air - a mixture of
between 5 and 14 percent is flammable. A single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up to 12,400 cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture.

15

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AC
AND, EXPANDING RENEWABLES THROUGH RPS DECREASES DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] A national RPS can save consumers money especially by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by offsetting the combustion of natural gas. [48] Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity during periods of peak demand, they can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking” or reserve generation units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads. Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an excellent correlation between available solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for
that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of naturalgas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity. [49]

The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas increases (or supply decreases), its price increases and so does the value of the renewable resources used to displace it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that, given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the price of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term. [50] This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices
was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected effect of 20 different RPS scenarios on future natural gas prices: Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting more aggressive reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce residential, commercial, and industrial gas bills. [51] LBNL researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved and the more

Nine of fifteen studies specifically evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found that consumers would save anywhere from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.
gas prices are reduced.

16

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

WARMING EXTS – UTILITY INDUSTRY KEY
COAL GENERATED ELECTRICITY PLANTS ACCOUNT FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR ENERGY PRODUCTION – IT IS THE KEY EMITTER OF GREENHOUSE GASES WILLIAMS, press editor, 2008 [Steve, DAILY PRESS, June 23, http://www.vvdailypress.com/opinion/electricity_7092___article.html/future_.html Here’s some distressing, and depressing, news about our future supply of electricity, which is key to solving the energy crisis not only in the United States but all around the planet. First, the electricity providers — the major power companies — need to spend $800 billion over the course of the next decade to come close to meeting demand. And while coal-fired generating plants may seem the best immediate option because of the vast coal reserves in the United States, they face huge problems. While they now account for more than half of U.S. electricity production, they are also the largest contributor to greenhouse gases, and the costs to clean up their emissions is, while, problematic. People who run them haven’t yet figured out how to do so.

17

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

ECONOMY EXTS – MANUFACTURING SECTOR EXTS
A STRONG CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IS KEY TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE PLANET BAUM 1999 [Rudy M, C&EN Washington, “Millenium Special Report”, CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS, December 06, http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html] Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of industrialization of the 19th and
20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for

the history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea
the poorest among us, we must learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that of a "carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed

There are environmental challenges of I fear may overcome us and our Earth before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry —what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise—will play central roles in addressing these challenges. The first section of this Special Report is
blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological optimists either. transcendent complexity that a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general public, the chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero. Industry giants DuPont and Dow Chemical are taking major strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the environmental "footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and Chief Executive Officer William S. Stavropolous: "We must integrate elements that historically have been seen as at odds with one another: the triple bottom line of sustainability—economic and social and environmental needs." DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles (Chad) O. Holliday envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable resources as feedstocks, use solar energy to drive growth, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less toxic." But sustainability is more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont initiatives that are making sustainability a reality at Dow facilities in Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site near Richmond, Va. Another manifestation of the chemical industry's evolution is its embrace of life sciences. Genetic engineering is a revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of DNA. While it had always been clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other chemicals—clipped precisely, altered, stitched back together again into a functioning molecule. Recombinant DNA techniques began the transformation of DNA into just such a chemical, and the reverberations of that change are likely to be felt well into the next century. Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and technology. It is one of the basic tools chemists and biologists use to understand life at the molecular level. It provides new avenues to pharmaceuticals and new approaches to treat disease. It expands enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability seized on by numerous chemical companies. There is no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in feeding the world's population in the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second essay, Editor-at-Large Michael Heylin examines how the promise of agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of genetic manipulation and corporate control over food. The third essay, by Senior Editor Mairin B. Brennan, looks at chemists embarking on what is perhaps the greatest intellectual quest in the history of science—humans' attempt to understand the detailed chemistry of the human brain, and with it, human consciousness. While this quest is, at one level, basic research at its most pure, it also has enormous practical significance. Brennan focuses on one such practical aspect: the effort to understand neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease that predominantly plague older humans and are likely to become increasingly difficult public health problems among an aging population. Science and technology are always two-edged swords. They bestow the power to create and the power to destroy. In addition to its enormous potential for health and agriculture, genetic engineering conceivably could be used to create horrific biological warfare agents. In the fourth essay of this Millennium Special Report, Senior Correspondent Lois R. Ember examines the challenge of developing methods to counter the threat of such biological weapons. "Science and technology will eventually produce sensors able to detect the presence or release of biological agents, or devices that aid in forecasting, remediating, and ameliorating bioattacks," Ember writes. Finally, Contributing Editor Wil Lepkowski discusses the most mundane, the most marvelous, and the most essential molecule on Earth, H2O. Providing clean water to Earth's population is already difficult—and tragically, not always accomplished. Lepkowski looks in depth at the situation in Bangladesh—where a well-meaning UN program to deliver clean water from wells has poisoned millions with arsenic. Chemists are working to develop better ways to detect arsenic in drinking water at meaningful concentrations and ways to remove it that will work in a poor, developing country. And he explores the evolving water management philosophy, and the science that underpins it, that will be needed to provide adequate water for all its vital uses. In the past two centuries, our science has transformed the world. Chemistry is a wondrous tool that has allowed us to understand the structure of matter and gives us the ability to manipulate that structure to suit our own purposes. It allows us to dissect the molecules of life to see what makes them, and us, tick. It is providing a glimpse into workings of what may be the most complex structure in the universe, the human brain, and with it hints about what constitutes consciousness. In

the coming decades, we will use chemistry to delve ever deeper into these mysteries and provide for humanity's basic and not-so-basic needs.

18

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

BLACKOUTS EXTS – BLACKOUTS -> NUCLEAR POWER MELTDOWN
A severe blackout could lead to a nuclear meltdown Paul Gunter 2005 [“Nuclear Reactors and Hurricanes,” Nuclear Information and Resource Service, September 22, 2005,  http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/natureandnukes/nukesandhurricanes092205.pdf, page 1, Liu] When offsite AC power is lost due to electrical grid failure, reactors are designed to automatically switch over to  required backup emergency diesel generators. These are locomotive­size, fuel­guzzling generators that provide enough power to operate a 
control systems would rely upon power from large on­site battery banks. The failure of both onsite and offsite AC power supplies 

narrower but basic set of reactor safety systems. Each reactor unit is required to have at least two emergency diesel generators onsite. Should these backup  generators fail due to overheating, mechanical failure or the fouling of the diesel fuel, etc. a smaller subset of vital reactor cooling instrumentation and 

result in the condition known as station blackout. According to the NRC safety study, a station blackout leads to battery  depletion after approximately 4 hours and sets in motion a time table where “approximately 3 hours beyond battery depletion was  allowed for the restoration of AC power before core uncovery would occur.” Uncovering of the reactor core of  cooling water would lead to a meltdown of the extremely hot and radioactive nuclear fuel.  A station blackout would cause overheating and a nuclear meltdown

Don Dowdey 2005 [chairman of The Big Bend Regional Sierra Club]
[“Nuclear Power Plants,” The Big Bend Sierran, October 2005, http://texas.sierraclub.org/bigbend/Issue92.pdf, page 3, Liu] The most significant event is the loss of offsite power, a problem that can lead to a “station blackout.” During operation, all atomic reactors rely upon alternating current (AC) electricity generated and transmitted from offsite sources to provide the power needed to operate the reactor’s vital safety systems. Without these systems in operation, even when the reactor is shut down, the thermally hot and radioactive fuel inside the reactor would quickly overheat and cause a nuclear meltdown.

19

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

BLACKOUTS EXTS – NUCLEAR POWER MELTDOWN IMPACTS
A nuclear meltdown would kill at least 25 million Russell D. Hoffman 2004 [“MELTDOWN on FX,” May 27, 2004, http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2004/MELTDOWN_on_fx_essay.htm, Liu] 25 million people need to be evacuated, according to the trailer for the show. possible.
That would be about right for the immediate area (say, 50 miles around the San Onofre plant, which would include most of San Diego and Orange counties, and parts of Los Angeles, San Bernadino, Imperial, and other nearby counties). Unlike the U.S. Government's official position, a real evacuation may not be orderly or even The producers have said that they have tried to be "accurate." They had ribbons of highways with stopped cars in the trailer. Will they have

Radiation from a nuclear meltdown is carried by the wind, it does not simply radiate out evenly in all directions from the stricken power plant. In a meltdown it is often carried thousands or even tens of thousands of feet into the air before it begins to descend. The radioactive "plume" -- which will be invisible but deadly -- can stay fairly concentrated -- that is, in a relatively small volume of air -- for hundreds or even thousands of miles. If that invisible foul wind rains on your city, even half a world a way, it could kill thousands of people. Yet in a city of a million people, it would be nearly impossible to prove what caused any rise in cancer deaths over a period of decades after the accident. Better health
fights? Flare-ups, riots, chaos? Swaths of sickened and dying people, cut down because the winds cut across THAT stretch of highway? care in the area affected might mean cancer rates will go down, yet still, they would have gone down more, if there had not been an accident. More likely than landing half a world a way, of course, is that the "fallout" as it's called, will come down within the first couple of hundred miles. Exposure to

high doses of radiation via inhalation of nuclear particles causes gruesome deaths among those who happen to be in the path of the fallout -- downwinders, as they are called.

20

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

SOFT POWER EXTS – ENVIRO LEADERSHIP DECLINING
THE US IS LOSING OUR MANTLE AS THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER – THE EU HAS TAKEN OUR LEAD AS WE REFUSE TO SIGN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FALKNER 2005 [“American Hegemony and the Global Environment”, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, page 585/ttate] For many environmentalists in Europe and elsewhere, the United States has emerged as the new ‘‘rogue state’’ in global green politics. Ever since the United States took a backseat at the UN Conference on Environment and Development  (UNCED) in 1992, US foreign policy has appeared to be lukewarm about, and often hostile to, multilateral environmental policymaking. From the rejection of the  Convention on Biological  Diversity (CBD) to the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the United States has shown itself  to be concerned more  with national economic interests than global environmental threats. Many observers see this as a fundamental shift away from the US environmental leadership of  the 1970s and 1980s. In the early  days of global environmentalism, the United  States pioneered modern environmental legislation and promoted the  creation of  global regimes ranging from ozone layer protection to the preservation of threatened species. More recently, however, the US government has repeatedly challenged the need for new environmental treaties;  questioned the scientific basis of  international regulation; and rejected the notion that precautionary action is  warranted in the face of potential ecological dangers. Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s,  the United States frequently  branded European countries as environmental laggards, it is the European Union (EU) that now claims the mantle of international leadership in sustainable development.

21

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

SOFT POWER EXTS – US ACTION ON WARMING KEY
US ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE NECESSARY TO REVIVE SOFT POWER WALTER 2002 [Norbert, chief economist @ Deutsche Bank Group, “An American Abdication”, NEW YORK TIMES, August 28, lexis/ttate] At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever.
American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when

a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict.
In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues. No one can expect the United States to provide any quick fixes, but one

would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with other countries, to address global The first is at home in the United States, through more environmentally friendly policies, for example greater fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a
environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts. more cooperative approach to multilateral attempts at safeguarding the environment. Simply rejecting international treaties (like the Kyoto Protocol) then failing to offer a better proposal cannot be an acceptable option for American policymakers. Much of the world has come together to help the United States in the fight against terrorism, out of the realization that a common threat can only be beaten through a cooperative effort. It is high time for the United States, metaphorically speaking, to get out of its oversized, gas-guzzling S.U.V. -- and join the rest of the world in doing more to combat global warming and protecting the planet.

22

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – FEDERAL LEADERSHIP KEY
FEDERAL ACTION IS THE ONLY WAY TO SOLIDIFY INVESTOR CONFIDENCE TO SPUR A RENEWABLES MARKET THAT SPARKS US COMPETITIVE FLAVIN AND PODESTA 2006 [Christopher and John, president of the Worldwatch Institute and president of the Center for American Progress, “American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security”, http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/AmericanEnergy.pdf/ttate] The United States will need a much stronger commitment to renewable energy if it is to take advantage of these opportunities. As President Bush has said, America is “addicted to oil,” and dependence on fossil fuels is rising, even in the face of high oil prices and growing concern about global warming. Of particular concern is the well over 100 coal-fired power plants now on the drawing boards of the U.S. electricity industry—most
of which lack the latest pollution controls and could still be pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a halfcentury from now.

America will need a world-class energy policy. The prominent positions that Germany and Spain hold in wind power, for example, and that Japan and Germany enjoy in solar energy, were achieved thanks to strong and enduring policies that their legislatures adopted in the 1990s. These policies created steadily growing markets for renewable energy technologies, fueling the development of robust new manufacturing industries. By contrast, U.S. renewable energy policies over the past two decades have been an ever changing patchwork. Abrupt changes in direction at both the state and federal levels have deterred investors and led dozens of companies into bankruptcy. If America is to join the world leaders and achieve the nation’s full potential for renewable energy, it will need world-class energy policies based on a sustained and consistent policy framework at the local, state, and national levels. Across the country, the tide has begun to turn. All but four U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote renewable energy. More than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in the past few years, and four states strengthened their targets in 2005, signaling fresh political momentum. If such policies continue to proliferate, and are joined by federal leadership, rapid progress is possible.
In order to break the national addiction to outdated fuels and technologies,

23

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES KEY
US IS FALLING BEHIND AS THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER – A STRONG COMMITMENT TO INCENTIVES IS KEY TO REINVIGORATE OUR TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP SAN FRANCISCO GATE 2008 [“Congressional stalemate over renewable energy”, June 18, lexis/ttate] 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

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. There are currently 22 major solar power plants
52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation forward. nationwide in the planning phase, many of them in Southern California, but all those deals were signed based on the assumption Congress would extend the solar energy tax incentives. Already, the Spanish engineering firm Abengoa, which is planning the largest concentrated solar power plant in the country 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, has said the plant won't be built if the tax credits expire. Potentially huge loss

If the program lapses, "It will result in the loss of billions of

dollars in new investments in solar," warned Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. Many Bay Area tech firms and investors
have poured money into renewable energy projects, and have a great deal at stake in the debate. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and TechNet, two leading technology industry trade groups, have been among the most vocal advocates for extending the credits. Santa Clara-based Applied Materials, a giant in the semiconductor industry, has developed a $3 billion business over the last two years selling high-tech tools to solar panel manufacturers, including new equipment that can make thin-film solar photovoltaics the size of garage doors. But William Morin, director of government affairs for Applied Materials, said that without a steady policy of tax incentives most manufacturing will continue to go overseas to countries like Germany, which is now both the world's leading consumer and producer of solar power. "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,"
Morin said. 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. When it expired in 2004, investments in wind projects plummeted by 77 percent the next year. The wind industry has since rebounded, with the help of new tax credits, and had investments totaling more than $9 billion last year, up more than double since 2006. At least 17 wind manufacturing facilities have been announced in the United States since 2007, according to Greg Wetstone, senior director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association. But Wetstone added, "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." Ron Kenedi, vice president of Huntington Beach-based Sharp Solar, a leading producer
of solar cells, said his company had planned to expand its 230-worker manufacturing plant in Memphis, but is waiting for a decision on the tax credits. "It's a shame," Kenedi said after Tuesday's vote. "We are ready to grow. We are ready to add hundreds of jobs if this law gets passed." Consumer threat, too The bill could have an impact on consumers, too. Installing solar panels to power an American home costs about $25,000, but after state and federal tax incentives, a California homeowner would likely pay closer to $16,000. Kenedi said a system could pay itself off over seven to 10 years, but he fears some consumers may decide to delay investing in solar if the federal solar tax credit for homeowners lapses. Expiring wind and solar tax credits.

If Congress doesn't act soon, 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. 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. Cost to extend for 10 years: $1.7 billion. Residential energy-efficient property tax credit: Residential users also get a 30 percent tax credit for installing solar panels,

Renewable energy production credit: This program gives wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources a leg up with a 1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour credit, which makes them more competitive with natural gas or coal-fired power plants. Congress has let the tax credit lapse before, and each time investment in wind and other renewable energy projects dropped.
geothermal heat pumps or small wind equipment. The tax credit, however, has a limit of $2,000, which lawmakers are trying to raise. Cost to extend for 10 years: $907 million.

tax

24

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

NATURAL GAS EXTS – PLAN ↓ DEPENDENCE
TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES  MOVE AWAY FROM NATURAL GAS UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2005 [“Energy and Security”, August 16, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/energy-and-security.html / ttate] Renewable energy would go even further toward improving the reliability and resilience of the electricity system. Wind farms and solar arrays carry none of the vulnerability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. They are small and geographically dispersed, making them difficult to target. Moreover, they have no fuel supply that can be disrupted or volatile fuel stocks that can burn. Expanding energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy to 20 percent of the total energy supply would reduce natural gas use by 31 percent compared to business as usual project-ions. We would eliminate the need for 975 new power plants of 300 megawatts each, as well as avoiding many miles of new gas pipelines and power lines. We could retire 14 existing nuclear power plants of 1,000 megawatts each and reduce coal generation by 60 percent, closing 180 coal plants of 500 megawatts each.

25

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

NATURAL GAS EXTS – TERMINALS HARM ENVIRONMENT
LNG TERNMINALS  HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS – THE NEG’S ARGUMENTS ARE UNTRUE TIMES-PICAYUNE 2005 [“Invisible victims”, January 22, lexis/ttate] ConocoPhillips Co., which wants to build a liquefied natural gas terminal south of the Texas-Louisiana state line, has every reason to downplay the environmental damage such a facility could do in the Gulf of Mexico. But the Coast Guard, which has regulatory authority over LNG facilities, should demand more than breezy reassurances that this terminal won’t have a significant impact on fish and other marine life. Open loop systems, like the one that ConocoPhillips wants to build, use Gulf water to warm and vaporize liquid natural gas, which is 260 degrees below zero. The process uses millions of gallons of water every day, sucking up fish eggs and larvae, which are killed by physical damage and sudden temperature change. Steve Lawless, a manager for ConocoPhillips shareholder relations, said that the water intake for the company’s proposed Beacon Point terminal would be positioned at a depth where there are few life forms and that screens would be used to filter them out. But scientists have been skeptical of other LNG terminal proposals that have offered the same solutions. "Deep in the (water) column, there’s a lot of life," said Julie Morris of the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, a federal panel that governs commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf. "Put it under a microscope, and there’s a lot of life, and those life stages have to be completed for the fish on the end of the hook to be landed and eaten," she said. That’s a crucial point, and the management council has estimated that an LNG terminal proposed by Shell US Gas & Power LLC could reduce redfish landings by 11.5 percent a year -- a million pounds. Indeed, unless ConocoPhillips can pull water from the murkiest depths of the ocean floor, it’s hard to see how it can avoid killing fish, including commercially important species.

26

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

NATURAL GAS EXTS – TERROR RISK
NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY UNIQUELY VULNERABLE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK HURST, political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office, “Back to Terrorist Threats to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction?”, CUTTING EDGE NEWS, June 02, http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=529/ttate] On 14 February 2007, the Saudi Arabian arm of al-Qaeda put out a call to all religious militants to attack oil and natural gas sources around the world. Through such attacks, according to the call, al-Qaeda hopes to “strangle” the U.S. economy. Such proclamations give fodder to those who highlight the possibilities that liquefied natural gas (LNG) could be used as a lethal weapon of mass destruction. Industry officials on the other hand point out the improved security measures in place as a result of
9/11. While the U.S. continues to pursue LNG as a way to diversify its natural gas resources, in order to meet anticipated future shortfalls and increase energy security, the opponents and proponents of LNG have been locked in a bitter debate with no solid conclusion. Proponents are correct in that both safety and security measures currently in place make LNG terminals and ships extremely hard targets for terrorists. However,

it would be imprudent to believe that terrorists are either incapable or unwilling to attack such targets. It would be equally imprudent to assume that these targets are impenetrable. If anything, in today’s environment, insiders will always remain a potential threat.

27

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC T FRONTLINE – RPS = INCENTIVE
FIRST, WE MEET – OUR SYSTEM OF RECs IS A POSITIVE INCENTIVE TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES. THIS IS A “CARROT” TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT TO INCREASE ENERGY OVER THE SET FLOOR. AND, WE MEET – RPS IS A SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES TO DECREASE COST OF ENERGY BY FACILITIATING COMPETITION Parvanyan, Program Consultant, 05 (Tigran Parvanayan, “Renewable portfolio standard: an analysis of design and implementation issues”, RIT Digital Media Library, 11/05, https://ritdml.rit.edu/dspace/bitstream/1850/1139/8/TParvanyanThesis092005.pdf, Yoder) RPS provides incentives for renewable energy generators to decrease the cost of energy as a result of cost competition among producers for their share in the RPS; AND, WE MEET – RPS IS DEFINED AS A POLICY THAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVE – THIS IS THE BEST BRIGHTLINE LIST IN THE DEBATE MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL 2004 [“Alternative energy sources to fuel Montana’s future?” http://www.aeromt.org/PDFs/2004energyreport.pdf]
The National Wind Coordinating Committee through the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) commissioned a study in 1999 that reviewed and analyzed state

This analysis, although focused on wind energy, provides an extremely logical framework that can be applied generally to most alternative energy incentive policies, both at the state and federal level. Figure 2-1 illustrates a noninclusive inventory of alternative energy incentives and policies currently used in the U.S.2 Relying heavily on the NCSL report, Table 2-1 summarizes descriptions and explanations of each incentive policy type.3 These incentives run the gamut from heavy governmental involvement to market-based approaches. The effectiveness of these
policy options that supported wind energy development.1 incentives is not analyzed in this report. Figure 2-1. General Alternative Energy Incentive Policy Categories Tax Incentives < Production Tax Credits < Investment Tax Credits < Sales Tax Reductions < Property Tax Reductions < Accelerated Depreciation Direct Cash Incentives Low-Cost Capital Programs < Production Incentives < Investment Incentives (Grants) < Government-Subsidized Loans < Project Loan Guarantees < Project Aggregation < Standard Contracts for Small Distributed Projects < Net Metering < Line Extension Policies < Utility-Supplied Renewable Energy Pricing Options < Alternative Energy Marketing from Retail Electricity Sellers < Aggregated Consumer Purchases < Fuel Source Disclosure Requirement and Certification < Externality Valuation in Resource Planning < Externality Valuation in Environmental Dispatch < Emission Taxes < Emission Caps/Marketable Permits < Government Purchases < Site Prospecting, Review, and Permitting

Distributed Resource Policies

Customer Choice Opportunities

General Environmental Regulations

Other Policies

< Renewable Portfolio Standard 28

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC T FRONTLINE – RPS = INCENTIVE
AND, COUNTER-DEFINITION - INCENTIVE SHOULD INCREASE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF PRODUCTION JACCARD, professor in School of Resource and Environmental Management @ Simon Fraser University, 2005 [Mark, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND ENDURING ENERGY, page 286/ ttate] Four characteristics help explain the emerging interest in the RPS. First, ongoing competition for the renewable market share maintains an incentive for renewables producers to reduce costs, thereby enhancing economic efficiency. AND, PREFER OUR COUNTER INTERPRETATION – a. PREDICTABLE LIMITS – THE NEG’S INTERPRETATION IS ONLY A LIMITER ON A CARROT/STICK – IT IS MORE PREDICTABLE TO LIMIT VIA A MORE SPECIFIED ECONOMIC MECHANISM b. INCREASES NEGATIVE GROUND – OUR INTERPRETATION GUARANTEES LINKS TO BUSINESS AND ECONOMY DAS c. TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION – OUR INTERPRETATION FORCES THE DEBATE TO BE ABOUT ECONOMICS, WHICH IS THE HEART OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LITERATURE. AND, TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTER a. Literature and clash check abuse—renewable energy to RPS is both central to the topic and has a deep literature base which checks all of their arguments b. Competing interpretations is a bad method to evaluate topicality debates-it encourages arbitrary definitions and justifies counter interpretation, only our aff is topical c. Reasonability is a better method to evaluate topicality debates—if they cannot prove that our aff is harmful to their ground there is no reason to reject us AND, We are not FX topical a. All plans are by definition a mandate – every plan by definition has to enact a mandate. It is infinitely regressive to define plan enactment as a mandate vs a cap as a mandate. b. Cross-apply <Montana evidence> - and RPS is by definition a mandate. We do not have an intervening step to get to the incentive. AND, FX T is good A. INCREASES NEG GROUND – the neg can get links from every step the plan takes. B. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE – every real world bill has to go through steps to get to the incentive. There is no objective way to get to the increase of that incentive. 29

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR T HELPERS – RPS = POSITIVE INCENTIVE
AND, MORE EVIDENCE – RPS IS A POSITIVE INCENTIVE BY PULLING TECHOLOGIES INTO THE MARKET ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 2007 [“Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska,” July, http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_publications_results.cfm/state=AK/ ttate] Fifteen states have renewable energy funds (sometimes called clean energy funds), most of which are supported by small, mill-rated surcharges on energy sold to consumers. These surcharges are sometimes referred to as system benefit charges. Renewable energy funds provide support for the development of renewable energy by helping to remove market barriers, lowering financing costs, developing infrastructure, and educating the public. For example, the system benefit charges in Oregon are deposited into an independent trust that funds eligible wind, solar electric, biomass, small scale hydro, tidal, geothermal, and fuel cell projects. These projects are supported by grants, loans, rebates, equity investments, and other financing mechanisms used by the fund. Terms of the various funds vary from state to state. Some states have scheduled funds to last only five years. Other states have openended funds. Longer -term funds provide greater stability for renewable energy developers. It’s estimated that over the next 20 years the combined renewable energy funds of the 15 states will invest about $4.5 billion in renewable energy generation. In the states that have both an RPS and a renewable energy fund, the two policies complement each other in stimulating the renewable energy market. RPS standards “pull” renewable energy technologies into a state by providing a long-term market that reduces investment risk and provides a level playing field for developers. On the other hand, renewable energy funds “push” clean energy technologies by lowering market barriers through direct investment incentives.

30

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

T HELPERS – 20% IS SUBSTANTIAL
WE WILL CONTROL THIS DEBATE – 20% IS SUBSTANTIAL IN THE ENVIRONMENT US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2002 [“Final Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Santa Cruz Tarplant, April/ttate] This calculation reflects conservative assumptions and nonetheless yields an estimate that is still far less than the 20 percent threshold that would be considered “substantial.” As a result, this analysis concludes that a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities will not result from the designation of critical habitat for the Santa Cruz tarplant. Nevertheless, an estimate of the number of small businesses that will experience effects at a significant level is provided below.

31

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
FIRST, YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO THE 1AC – FEW REASONS WHY CP DOES NOT SOLVE: A) RELIABILITY – LACK OF A NATIONAL TOP-DOWN SYSTEM MEANS NO COORDINATION ON COORDINATED GEOGRAPHICAL SPATIALITY OF THE RENEWABLES – ONE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO PLOT THE LOCATIONS TO INCREASE RELIABILITY AND SECURITY – THAT IS SOVACOOL AND COOPER B) Insert advantage specific reasons here AND, PERM: DO BOTH - HAVE THE USFG IMPLEMENT THE PLAN AND THE 50 STATES AND TERRITORIES IMPLEMENT THE COUNTERPLAN AND, PERM SOLVES BEST NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Interest in elevating the RPS to a national policy has also been driven by several other factors. For example, the size of the new renewable energy market created under existing state RPS policies would be far outweighed by a national RPS. UCS estimates that state
standards, if entirely successful, would support more than 46,000 MW of new renewable power—equal to about 6 percent of total U.S. electric sales—by 2020.5 By

Because all national RPS proposals to date have established a national floor, with states allowed to continue to set higher standards, a combination of state and federal standards would create the most development.
contrast, a 20 percent by 2020 national RPS would support as much as four times the development of renewable energy capacity (see Section V).

AND, CP CAN’T SOLVE – UTILITY MARKET IS INTERSTATE SOVACOOL AND BARKENBUS, senior research associate @ Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and senior research fellow @ Network for New Energy Sources, 2007 [Ben and Jack, “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Where Science and Policy meets Environment”, August, proquest/hayes] The electricity utility industry is also transitioning away from a state-by-state energy market, making a state-bystate RPS approach anachronistic. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed the geographic restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single, integrated systems.22 More utilities operate across state lines, and many have
begun to merge and consolidate to maximize profits and deal with the perceived challenges of restructuring. Using individual states as a crucible for innovations in electricity generation and marketing may have made sense when limits were placed on the size and geographic scope of utility holding companies, but it makes little sense now.

AND, THE COUNTERPLAN WOULD BE ROLLED-BACK – COMMERCE CLAUSE SOVACOOL AND BARKENBUS, senior research associate @ Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and senior research fellow @ Network for New Energy Sources, 2007 [Ben and Jack, “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Where Science and Policy meets Environment”, August, proquest/hayes] Finally, state-based renewable portfolio standards risk challenges on legal grounds. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes."23 In the many years since ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently used the converse of this part of the commerce clause (hence its description as the "dormant commerce clause") to strike down state legislation that it has determined might hinder or prohibit interstate trade. In 1986, the Court defined this to mean that a state cannot "needlessly obstruct interstate trade or attempt to 'place itself in a position of economic isolation.'"24 The smooth functioning of the national market requires the federal 32

SDI 2008 KMT RPS Aff – Supplement government to prevent states from adopting protectionist or autarkic policies that would attribute a product's market share to its geographic origins rather than to market mechanisms.

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
AND, LITIGATION FEARS MEANS NO INVESTORS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate]
Framing the debate as a choice between a perfectly functioning, undistorted energy market and a clunky, artificial federal intervention, opponents of a national RPS tend to

the most compelling argument for federal action is that a national RPS may help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions. Not only does reliance on state-based action make for an uncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in some states that are paying for "free riders" in others. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, more diverse and more predictable national market for renewable resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices. A national RPS may help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions.
ignore the unique drawbacks associated with a complex web of state-based mandates.4 Indeed,

AND, FIATING COORDINATION IRRLEVANT – STATES DIFFER ON THEIR DEFINITIONS OF RENEWABLES WISER ET AL 2007 [Ryan, “The Experience with Renewable Portfolio Standards in the US”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ttate] Though the concept appears simple and direct in theory, in practice, RPS designs vary substantially from one another; so much so, that there is some debate over what exactly constitutes an RPS, and whether certain states qualify as having an RPS. Illinois, for example, has established voluntary renewable energy targets; New York has established a policy that it calls an RPS, but that involves ratepayer collection of funds and incentive payments from a state energy authority. Above we have identified New York as a state with an RPS, and Illinois as one without such a policy: we readily acknowledge that such classifications are subject to debate. AND, COUNTERPLAN CREATES AN ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE – DOOMS SOLVENCY SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] A federal RPS would maximize administrative efficiency. Since an RPS lets the market decide where best to deploy renewable energy technologies, it removes the need for market distortions in the form of subsidies and tax credits. For instance, subsidy levels in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island range from 0.59 to 1.95 cents per kWh for wind and hydroelectric projects
and 0.11 to 0.57 for landfill gas projects. [27] In contrast, an RPS minimizes government involvement and encourages customers to pay producers directly for RPS benefits.

The selection of winning technologies and bids is left to market forces and competition, rather than government evaluation. [28] A national RPS consequently avoids direct funding by multiple state agencies that can become administratively burdensome, time consuming, and inefficient. Under a federal RPS, renewable energy projects must continually compete to ensure an adequate volume of power and credits, creating a continuous incentive for utilities to seek cost reductions in the price of their renewable systems. Such competition is lacking with current state mandates that dispense one time monetary awards to individual renewable generators. [29] Moreover, it is much more effective and efficient to have one centralized RPS program instead of dozens of separate, inconsistent state programs. [30]

33

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
AND, THE COUNTERPLAN CREATES A RACE-TO-THE-BOTTOM SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] However, Kirsten Engel and Susan Rose-Ackerman note that a race to the bottom can occur for multiple reasons: (i) enforcement actions are subject to economies of scale, but most state-by-state approaches create diseconomies of scale; (ii) state officials may have been captured by regulatory interests; (iii) state officials may be unwilling to bring enforcement actions against their own agencies or local governments or companies; (iv) state officials may want to lure industries to relocate or construct new facilities within the state. Contrary to the five reasons advanced above by advocates of decentralization, empirical evidence seems to support a race to the bottom rationale. Kirsten Engel notes that
competition between states for industry is extremely intense, and that competition between firms for sites for new plants is limited (and sometimes nonexistent).

The demand for new plants or relocating existing ones is extremely high relative to supply, especially since the United States continues to lose manufacturing jobs to foreign locations and outsource labor. Interstate competition for new industrial plants
Statistics show that the number of new plants looking to be built in the United States at a given time in a given [*440] state is very few. has even been deemed "a second war between the states," in which most throw up a "dizzying array" of incentives to keep or lure plants. Engel argues that because "the usual number of states competing against each other for the location of all but the largest plants is small," the extent that states compete with each other in setting environmental standards to attract business is limited to only a few states at a time. Industrial "firms looking to site new plants have disproportionate market power ... , and the small number of actors on both sides of the plant site market indicates that interactions in this market are more likely to resemble a strategic game than a

industry generally considers the stringency and scope of state environmental regulation in its decision to locate plants, and that it consistently exploits state standards to choose the most favorable location. The excessive market power held by industries over states allows them to "exert considerable influence" over
perfectly competitive neoclassical market." Ultimately, Engel found that that state regulatory regimes "to relax existing environmental standards or adopt less stringent standards in the first place." "I ultimately conclude," Engel clarifies, "... that

the preponderance of the evidence indicates that states engaged in interstate competition for industry are also engaged in a race to the bottom in environmental standard-setting, and that the general direction of the race is toward more lax standards." [*441] Engel's conclusions complement those of Rena I. Steinzor, who found a race to the bottom in the manner in
which states issue permits for major industrial sources that discharge waste into the nation's surface waters and air, as well as the fact that many states have chosen not to comply with federal statutes. Steinzor found, in terms of water quality permits, that "in twenty-seven states, more than twenty percent of "major sources' regulated under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES') were operating under expired permits." The problem was so acute that in Pennsylvania and Maryland, about one-fifth of the files reviewed in a study of daycare centers and schools showed that those facilities' drinking water contained excessive levels of lead. One school's water supply contained so much pollution that it had four times the levels permitted under federal standards. Neither state reported such violations to the federal government. Steinzor also documented that roughly one out of every six major industrial facilities in the United States had committed significant violations of their NPDES permits. More than sixty percent of these violations in 1998 involved excessive discharges. In terms of air pollution, the responsibility for enforcing violations of ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act falls to the states. The New Mexico Air Pollution Control Program, however, inspected only fifty-three percent of its 199 major sources of air pollution, with the result that more than one third of their facilities had not been inspected in at least seven years. Texas did not even have any procedures in place to assess the economic costs or benefits of compliance concerning air pollution for most of the 1990s, meaning that many polluters released toxic substances into the surrounding environment with impunity. Due to this lack of state enforcement, it was estimated that in the mid-1990s the country was "spending $ 1,850 per household annually on pollution control." "This figure represents only the direct costs of pollution control in terms of capital equipment and operating costs," and excludes undoubtedly more expensive effects [*442] of pollution such as environmental damage and human health. Another study estimated that for most of the 1990s "major discharging facilities [across the nation] were in violation of the Clean Water Act no less than 58% of the time." When the General Accounting Office reviewed state implementation of federal environmental policies related to hazardous waste, water pollution, and drinking water supply in 1995, they found that "many states have difficulty performing key functions, such as monitoring environmental quality, setting standards, issuing permits, and enforcing compliance ... EPA and state officials uniformly acknowledged that resource limitations are a major cause of these problems." Clearly, because states have different interests, resources, and industrial bases, a race to the bottom is occurring in at least some circumstances.

AND, POOR ENFORCEMENT BY STATES
Wiser et al, scientist at Berkeley National Lab, 04 (Ryan Wiser, Kevin Porter, Robert Grace, “Evaluating Experience With Renewables Portfolio Standards In The United States” Migration and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1/04, http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53920r96726341q/fulltext.pdf Yoder) • Insufficient Enforcement: We find that some states have inadequate enforcement of their RPS policies. Arizona perhaps provides the best example. With no penalties for non-compliance, and with specified ratepayer surcharges being collected to help fund the RPS, the utilities appear to have largely opted to comply with the policy only up to the amount of funds that have specifically been collected for that purpose; full compliance has not been achieved. In other cases, the implications of non-compliance are left vague or unspecified: this is the case in Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. In electricity markets that remain tightly regulated, such as Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin,

34

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

we find that such vague enforcement standards may be sufficient: as long as obligated utilities know that the regulator is serious, they will comply. In restructured markets, however, a more clear non-compliance penalty such as that used in Texas may be preferred (Texas applies a penalty of as much as 5 cents/kWh for any shortfall in compliance).

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE – OHIO DA
AND, OHIO ECONOMY A. THE OHIO RPS CRIPPLES THE STATE’S ECONOMY HENRY 2004 [Tom, staff writer, “Proposals seek to tap Ohio’s renewable energy potential”, GREEN ENERGY OHIO, ttp://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageId=274/ttate] A state House energy panel's report that was issued Oct. 15, 2003, gave mixed signals. "While the majority of the committee feels utilities should be encouraged to offer a renewable portfolio to customers, the members do not believe the state should mandate that utilities provide or the government purchase a specific amount of renewable energy," it said. "Because of the current economic climate, the members also cannot recommend the traditional incentives, such as tax credits, abatements, or
grants." Outgoing state Rep. Lynn Olman (R., Maumee), who chaired the state House's public utilities committee until the June recess, said he did not call for hearings on Mr. Skindell's bill because

he felt it was too ambitious and could drive up energy prices.

"I think we need to be moving toward renewables. I'll grant him that. I think the argument will be what percentage over what time," Mr. Olman said. balance."

"If you drive the cost of energy higher, then you make it less likely that industries will locate in Ohio. It's a very delicate

B. OHIO ECONOMY KEY TO US ECONOMY OHIO DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT 2005 [“Ohio’s Gross State Report”, December, www.odod.state.oh.us/research/files/E100000001.pdf//ttate] If Ohio were a separate country, it would have the 26th largest economy in the world. The U.S. BEA’s (2005) preliminary estimate of $419.9 billion (B) for 2004 places Ohio between the Philippines ($430.6B) and Pakistan ($347.3B). Ohio’s rank between these two countries reflects the size of their larger populations – 87,857,000 and 162,420,000, respectively, vs. 11,459,000 – as well as their levels of economic development (CIA, 2005; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2004: table 1321; 2005c).2 The table above also shows that Ohio ranks 7th in America with 3.60% of U.S. GSP. This seventh rank is not, however, uniformly characteristic of every aspect of Ohio’s economy. Most notably, Ohio was the third greatest source of manufactured goods in America during 2004. The $84.6B of
output was 5.66% of the corresponding national total. Ironically, a higher percentage of durable goods (products usually expected to last at least three years) –

production in Ohio exceeded the totals of more populous states such as Florida, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. The table following on
6.61 – originated in Ohio that year, but Ohio ranked 4thin the nation with $57.0B. Still, it is noteworthy that in both cases pages 14-16 highlights the major industries with exceptionally large contributions to Ohio’s high overall rank in manufacturing during 2003. They include electrical equipment and appliances ($4.5B, 9.46% of the nation-al industry total, making Ohio the largest source in the country), plastic and rubber products ($5.4B, 7.93%, and again 1stin the nation), primary metal production ($4.7B, 12.12%, 2nd), fabricated metal products ($9.2B, 8.18%, 2nd), and the pro-duction of motor vehicles, bodies, trailers, and parts ($16.4B, 13.48%, 2nd). Other manufacturing industries with relatively large contributions to Ohio’s total economic output include nonmetallic mineral products ($2.9B, 6.67%, 4th) and machine-ry ($5.7B, 5.94%, 4th). The table also shows
th

service-providing

sectors and major industries making large contributions to Ohio’s 7 overall rank in 2003. These include truck
transportation ($4.8B, 4.98%, 4th), rail transportation ($1.1B, 4.00%, 4th), and the manage-ment of companies and enterprises ($9.4B, 4.91%, 5th). (2004 data for major industries are not yet available.) 13

C. US ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO WAR – THAT’S MEAD

35

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE – COMPETITIVENESS
AND, THE CP DOES NOT SOLVE OUR COMPETITIVENESS ADVANTAGE – INDUSTRY CALLING FOR FEDERAL ACTION Global Power Report 2007 [“Industry lobbies Senate for renewable standards this year to boost domestic energy supplies,” May 31, lexis/ttate] About 200 trade associations, businesses, utilities and environmental groups are urging the Senate to pass this year a market-based national renewable portfolio standard that would require electric utilities to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from low-emission domestic resources. In a letter to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, the companies and advocates said that substantially increasing renewable energy generation would enhance national security, help stabilize energy prices and reduce pollution. Bingaman's office released a copy of the letter May 25. The letter, which was signed by Google, GE, United Steelworkers, BP America, Alliant Energy, Sempra Energy, and Wisconsin Power and Light, among others, was also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senator Pete Domenici, the senior Republican on the energy committee. "We believe the time has come for Congress to move quickly to enact national RPS legislation," the letter said. "The costs of inaction for our RPS cleared the Senate but failed in the House. The Bush administration opposes a national RPS. Already 22 states have adopted their own renewable energy standards to require electric utilities to generate a specific amount of power from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal resources. But the group told lawmakers that the US "will not realize the full potential for renewable electricity without the adoption of a federal program to enhance the states' efforts."

36

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR – STATES CP EXTS – DIFFERING DEFINTIONS
YOU CAN’T FIAT COORDINATION WITHOUT FEDERAL LEGISLATIONS – STATES DIFFER ON WHAT AN RPS IS WISER AND BARBOSE 2008 [Ryan and Glen, researchers @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States”, April, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154erevised.pdf / ttate] State RPS programs share the common goal of encouraging renewable energy supply, but design variations among states are so stark that there is even some debate over what exactly constitutes an RPS, and whether certain states qualify as having one.9 The tailoring of RPS designs to satisfy particular state objectives and political exigencies is a typical aspect of state policy making, ensuring that U.S. states serve as “laboratories” for RPS policy experimentation.

37

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR - STATES CP EXTS – OHIO
OHIO JUST PASSED AN RPS BUT IT IS LOWER THAN 20% - CP WOULD CRIPPLE OHIO’S ECONOMY NEXT100.COM 2008 [“Ohio: The New Green State”, http://www.next100.com/2008/04/ohio-the-new-green-state.php/ttate] Last Friday Ohio announced that its state senate passed legislation mandating a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The bill, awaiting Governor Strickland's signature, mandates that 12.5% of the Ohio's electricity must come from renewable sources by 2025. Ohio is now the 26th state in the U.S. to enact a RPS. In contrast to California's 20% by 2010 RPS goal, this may seem like a fairly weak mandate, but it requires context. Ohio gets 87% of its power from coal. Moreover, the state is a major producer of coal, meaning that a move to renewables could have a
broader economic impact.

OHIO ECONOMY KEY TO US ECONOMY AKRON BEACON JOURNAL 2006 [“Ohioans live, learn, leave state”, July 16 http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/15051080.htm]
• The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that Ohio's real gross state product -- the measure of the total value of goods and services produced -- grew just 1 percent between 2004 and 2005, ranking the state 47th in growth. Despite that meager rate,

Ohio continues to be an important part of the U.S. economy, ranking sixth in the nation for gross state product. ``We get sort of carried away by growth and we don't think in terms of the levels or the amount of activity that is still occurring here, and it's significant,'' said Guhan Venkatu, an economic analyst with the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland. ``We have the disadvantage in part of being part of the old
productive regions in the country, and it's just natural to expect a lot of the growth to be taking place in other parts of the country.''

38

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

AT: COAL/NUCLEAR POWER COUNTERPLANS
COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER CAN’T SOLVE THE NATURAL GAS CRISIS LING 2008 [Katherine, “LNG: La. Terminal opens, waits for business”, GREENWIRE, April 22, lexis/ttate] The momentary relief from the supply of unconventional gas sources coming into production will not last long as U.S. demand grows -- especially with legislation pending to set U.S. limits on greenhouse gas emissions, Souki said. With growing opposition to coal and with the construction of new nuclear plants many years off, he said the United States has little choice but to use more natural gas. "We are in a natural gas crisis" when new domestic supply cannot make up for declining traditional sources, Souki said. "When the trouble comes," he added, "it is going to come in a hurry."

39

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC OBAMA GOOD FRONTLINE
FIRST, MCCAIN WILL WIN – <<<INSERT FROM TOURNAMENT UPDATES>>>> AND, TURN – GOP A. Plan unpopular with GOP, business

Coile, June 18, 2008, member of the Washing Bureau at the San Francisco Chronicle [Zachar, “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 18, 2008, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL, Zhang]
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

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.
operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But

B. GOP BASE KEY TO MCCAIN WIN NEWSTEX WEB BLOG 07-23-2008

[“Blogs for victory”, lexis/ttate]

What it seems to me is that while Obama has wowed his base, he's not doing much with anyone else meanwhile, McCain is doing remarkably well amongst independent voters, but has yet to enthuse the GOP base for November. Key to victory for McCain is energising the base, key for Obama is appealing outside the left. In this McCain has an advantage. Obama is pretty much locked in to very leftwing positions - he's tried to triangulate himself out of them, but he can't stray too far towards the center lest he alienate too much of his base. McCain, on the other hand, has plenty of chances to make the argument to the GOP base that they'd better get excited about him - on taxes, spending, judges and the war, McCain is just what the GOP doctor ordered. McCain has two ways to do his job propose conservative ideas, and point out Obama's ultra liberal ideas, and what they'll mean for America.

40

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC OBAMA GOOD FRONTLINE
AND, NO SPILL OVER – ZERO EVIDENCE that an RPS plan would cause Republicans or Democrats to switch their votes in November or would be a swing issue for independents. AND, HERE IS OUR EVIDENCE MCCAIN HATES RPS – HE WILL DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE PLAN DEMOCRATS.ORG 2008 [“McCain Renewable Energy Record: Endlessly Bad”, June 17, http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/06/mccain_renewabl.php / ttate] McCain voted against an amendment that would mandate that renewable energy sources must produce at least 10 percent of the electricity sold by electric utilities by 2020, a minimum of 2.5 percent must be produced beginning 2008 through 2011. [2005 Senate Vote #141, 6/16/2005; 2002 Senate Vote #50, 3/14/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #55, 3/21/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #59, 3/21/2002] AND, TURN - PUBLIC OPPOSES NATIONAL RPS – OPPOSED TO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL Durbin, 2007, head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie [William, “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie’s William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions reduction”, E&E News PM, May 14, 2007, lexis, Zhang] Monica Trauzzi: A federal RPS faces quite a bit of opposition both on and off the Hill. Senator Pete Domenici, who's the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, opposes an RPS. And industry groups are saying that a federal RPS would provide a one-size-fits-all approach when one size doesn't fit all. And they're also concerned that the government would be interfering with energy markets if a federal RPS was implemented. Are these valid concerns? William Durbin: Well, 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. So it would be hard for me to say whether or not they're valid. What we can say is there are positive benefits associated if you're looking for reductions in gas demand, reductions in CO2, and reductions in power prices. But then again, 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.

AND, PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORT FOR A NATIONAL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PLAN FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] 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.

AND, NO LINK – THE ELECTION IS MONTHS AWAY – MANY INTERVENING VARIABLES WILL OCCUR THAT WILL IMPACT THE ELECTION BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER.

41

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, COAL INDUSTRY WEAK NOW – SEVERAL REASONS: A. LACK OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING NEW YORK TIMES 05-30 [ “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html ] President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. B. PUBLIC OPPOSITION BROWN AND DORN 2008 [“The Beginning of the End for Coal: A Long Year in the Life of the US Coal Industry”, April 02, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm/Beck] What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power plants is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations as well as leading climate scientists and state governments. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financial markets. Leading financial groups are now downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants to include a cost for carbon emissions when proving economic viability. AND, CLEAN COAL IS A LIE – NO TECH Salon.com 5/15/08 “Celebrate clean coal, come on!” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/ The problem with the "trust us, we'll fix this" approach is that carbon capture and storage isn't close to being technically perfected or to becoming economically feasible. "When they say 'clean coal,' the first question that comes to mind is have they invented a new product that actually solves global warming, because right now that doesn't exist," says Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "It is a figment of their imagination."
The Clean Coal campaign, he says, "is the latest example of trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge." Achieving workable carbon capture and storage may be even more difficult than first thought. The New York Times recently reported that many energy experts have likened it to putting a man on the moon. Among the many problems is the fact that this moon shot has to be replicated at coal plants throughout the world. Many of those plants are

The task is so expensive that the federal government's only major project designed to demonstrate the technology, a full-scale plant called FutureGen, is in danger of going under. The Department of Energy is
in economically and technologically poor countries. attempting to revamp the project, while the latest word from Congress is that it might be put on hold until a new president takes over.

42

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE
AND, CLEAN COAL IS DECADES AWAY – EXPERTS VOTE AFF GPACE 07-10-2008 [“Our energy economy”, GREAT PLAINS ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY”, http://www.gpace.org/?q=our-energy-economy/ttate] Coal is not a clean energy source, whether considering pollutants such as mercury, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, or ozone (which cause illness and premature death, especially among children) or the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Advances have been made in the industry to develop and implement scrubbers that remove some of the mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired emissions, but these processes simply remove those pollutants from airborne emissions and capture them in sludges or slurries that are then stored at the plants and/or dumped into rivers or groundwater. As for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, there is currently no existing technology that can remove carbon dioxide from coal-fired emissions and effectively “sequester” it. Most credible experts agree that so-called “clean coal” technologies are at least ten to twenty years off, if in fact ever feasible at all. Additionally, carbon capture and sequestration technology for pulverized coal plants uses three
times as much water as the coal plant alone – which already uses vast amounts of water.

AND, CASE IMPACT TURNS THE DA – SEVERAL REASONS:

AND, NON-UNIQUE AND TURN – JOB LOSS INEVITABLE IN COAL INDUSTRY – EXTERNALITIES IN THE INDUSTRY UNDERMINE THE ECONOMY NOW KAMMEN, ET AL, researcher @ Energy and Resources Group in Goldman School of Public Policy @ Berkeley, 2006 [Daniel, “Putting Renewables to Work”, Edited version of original report, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html / ttate] According to the Worldwatch Institute, jobs in extractive industries are on the decline, as mechanization and mergers lead to continuous layoffs. While coal production in the US increased 32 percent between 1980 and 1999, coal-mining employment declined 66 percent, from 242,000 to 83,000 workers. Further, jobs in the coal industry are expected to fall by 36,000 workers between 1995 and 2020, even without any greenhouse gas–reducing policies, such as carbon caps or taxes, in place. In the oil industry, over 40 percent of US oilrefining jobs were lost between 1980 and 1999. Petroleum refining and wholesale distribution account for only 0.3 percent of all US employment in 2000. Further, commodity prices’ boom-bust cycles make these industries, and employment in them, very volatile.10 Contrary to popular belief, very few of these job losses are caused by environmental regulations. The Worldwatch Institute reports: “A survey of 224 permanent plant closings in 1980–86 by the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers’ Union found that just 12 plants listed environmental reasons as a partial motive for closure. And surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1987–92 and again from 1995 on show that environment–related reasons for layoffs were of minute significance: 0.14 percent of all layoffs in 1995–97 (the surveys cover layoffs of 50 people or more for a month or longer). All in all, annual layoffs

from plants shut down

due to environmental regulation have averaged 1,000–3,000 in the United States since the 1970s. Relative to economy-wide layoffs of
typically more than 2 million workers each year, this is less than one tenth of 1 percent.”11 The Worldwatch study also demonstrates that mining and utility companies are responsible for substantial toxic pollution. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that 48 percent of the 7.3 billion pounds of toxic pollutants tracked by its Toxic Release Inventory, are released by mining companies (a category which includes extraction of metals, coal, oil and gas). Another 15 percent of TRI releases were attributed to the utility sector. Although these two sectors were responsible for 63 percent of the toxic releases tracked by the EPA, together they provided only 1.4 million jobs, or 1.3 percent of all private enterprise jobs in the United States in that year.12

The fossil fuel industry provides little overall new employment, but generates huge economic externalities through pollution that somebody has to pay to clean up, or has to endure. These externalities become manifest in the loss of productive work days caused by illness due to pollution exposure, costs borne by industry (and eventually consumers) to clean up pollution, or costs borne directly by taxpayers for clean-up. 43

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE
Coal causes massive pollution leading to global warming, environmental damage, public health crises, and fetal death – we will turn back your economy impact SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate]
The casus belli for such outside action is the fact that the government's pricing figures neglect to factor in the full costs of fossil fuel production, including environmental and health costs that are not passed onto consumers directly in their utility bill.65 For example, utility companies do not have to account for the consequences of approximately six billion metric tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions, a total that will increase to nearly eight billion metric tons per year by 2030, a twenty-five-year increase of about 30%.66 Nor is a financial charge indexed to other consequences of fossil fuel burning. Increases in the emission of sulfur, methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds, and other particulate matter wreak havoc on human and natural habitats alike by causing things like acid rain, urban ozone (caused primarily by nitrous oxide emissions, resulting in respiratory problems in humans), and global climate change.67 Among fuels used for electricity generation, coal is by far the largest producer of these emissions, producing far beyond its proportional market share.68 While coal-based power is seen to be the least expensive source of electricity on the market today,69 the market dynamics that favor coal are substantially flawed.70 The indirect costs associated with the production of electricity from coal are simply staggering.71 During the mining stage land is permanently damaged, air and water sources are contaminated, ground subsidence causes surface collapses, and workers can be injured or killed.72 During processing and utilization, heavy metal and acid is given off, and particulate matter, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere, causing seemingly immeasurable damage and destruction to public and private property, wildlife, and public health.73 Every year, the more than 600 coal-burning plants in the United States74 emit more than 98,000 pounds of mercury into the air75 while creating another 81,000 pounds of mercury pollution from fly ash and scrubber sludge76, all after 20,000 pounds of mercury is released in preburning "cleaning" procedures-totaling 200,000 pounds.77 That mercury, along with arsenic, cadmium, and other heavy metals, seeps out during the coal-burning process and travels either directly through ground water and airborne particles, or indirectly through the food chain (often through fish), to humans.78 Mercury, even in small doses, is converted easily through human metabolism into the neurotoxin methylmercury.79 The result of the contamination is that one out of every six women of childbearing

age may have enough of a concentration of mercury to permanently damage a developing fetus, meaning 630,000 babies a year born in the United States (out of 4 million) are at risk for severe neurological consequences as a result of gestational mercury poisoning.80 Coal also causes nearly 554,000 asthma attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year.81 Not surprisingly, proximity to coal-burning facilities increases the likelihood that a person becomes one of the 23,600 deaths every year attributed to power plant pollution,82 each death taking an average
of fourteen years off normal life expectancy.83 All told, the health care costs caused by plant emissions total an estimated $160 billion annually. 84 Other grisly consequences from living near coal burning include a high rate of stomach cancer,85 autism in children (for every 1,000 pounds of mercury released in a Texas county, autism rates rose 17%),86 and pneumoconiosis in coal miners (also known as "black lung disease").87 Environmentally, the externality costs of air pollution, acid rain, and global warming are also significant.88 For

instance, according to one set of estimates, the "annual marginal cost of air pollution and acid deposition" is between $10.39 and $11.02 per short ton of coal; for climate change, the marginal cost is between $0 and $4.50 per million
Btu.89 Absent any consideration of climate change, the approximate "social costs of coal as a percentage of private costs range from about 40% to 275%."90 The range for natural gas is 12% to 95%, 112% to 123% for petroleum, and 14% to 17% for nuclear. 91 Another set of estimates emphasizes that "coal is by far the most under-priced energy resource,"92 and that at a price of $30 per ton would carry with it external costs of almost $160 without including climate change risks which would bring costs to $190 per ton.93 While monetizing the total social and environmental costs to society of fossil fuel use is an inexact science, the causal link between polluting fuels and resulting externalities is undeniable.94

44

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR EXTS – CLEAN COAL INDUSTRY WEAK NOW – RENEWABLES
RENEWABLES PUSHING OUT COAL INDUSTRY NOW CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 07-10-2008 [“Study: green jobs rising, fossil fuel jobs falling,” lexis/ttate] The Worldwatch Institute released a study Thursday showing that jobs in renewable energy are expanding worldwide, while jobs in coal and natural gas are disappearing. The report, authored by Worldwatch researcher Michael Renner, estimates that about 2.3 million people work in renewable energy, either directly or in supplier industries. This includes at least 794,000 people working in solar power, 1 million in biomass and biofuels, 39,000 in small-scale hydropower, and 25,000 in geothermal. The report projects that these figures will grow substantially in the coming decades. By comparison, the National Mining Association estimates that the coal industry alone employs 7 million people worldwide .But the coal industry has shed hundreds of thousands of jobs in China, the United States, Germany, Britain, and South Africa in the last decade or two due to automation and corporate consolidation, the report says, even as output rose. In the US, coal output increased by almost one-third over the past 20 years, even as employment has been cut in half. Jobs in natural gas and oil have also been steadily declining, the report says. Jobs in wind, solar, and biofuels tend to be more labor-intensive than jobs in fossil fuels, writes Mr. Renner. Therefore, a transition to renewable energy would result in a net growth of jobs. “Renewables are poised to tackle our energy crisis and create millions of new jobs worldwide,” said Renner in a press release e-mailed to me. “Meanwhile, fossil fuel jobs are increasingly becoming fossils themselves, as coal mining communities and others worry about their livelihoods.” The report comes a week after a United Nations study found that investment in renewable energy rose some 60 percent in 2007, to $148 billion in new investment money.

45

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR EXTS – COAL INDUSTRY WEAK NOW - INVESTMENT
COAL INDUSTRY DECLINING NOW – LACK OF INVESTMENT CLAYTON 2008 [Mark, staff writer, “US coal power boom suddenly wanes”, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, March 04, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html, lexis/ttate] Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power instead. Utilities canceled or put on hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a new analysis by the US Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. These moves – a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the industry had more than 150 such plants in development – signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal. Natural-gas and renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline,
according to Global Energy Decisions, a Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000 megawatts under development

This year could diminish coal's future prospects even more. Wall Street investment banks last month said they will now evaluate the cost of carbon emissions before approving power plants, raising the bar much higher for new coal projects, analysts say. "What you're seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal
compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. power right now," says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York. "You turn off the money spigot, you've turned off those plants." from the 28 or so coal-fired power plants already under construction, Aside

prospects remain tenuous for the half-dozen plants "near construction" and another 80 plants not nearly as far along, says Steve Piper, managing director of power forecasting at Platts, the energy
information division of McGraw-Hill. "Expansions [of existing plants] still have a good chance. But others will come under increased pressure for deferral or outright cancellation."

46

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR EXTS – COAL – NO CLEAN COAL TECH
COAL INDUSTRY NOT TRANSITIONING TO “CLEAN COAL” EFFECTIVELY – NO EFFECTIVE TECH WALD, staff writer, 2008 [“Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”, The New York Times, 5/30/08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=425f6009b9e65c19 &ex=1212292800, Sui But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.
“It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. “Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many

of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster. Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and
stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere. Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable. Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant. Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.

But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, “we’re not going to have
much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.

The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades.

47

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR EXTS – NO CLEAN COAL TECH
- CLEAN COAL IS A FARCE – COAL STILL EMITS CARBON DIOXIDE AND IT IS DANGEROUS TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH BIGGERS 2008 [Jeff, staff writer, “’Clean’ Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That”, WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html/ DGuo]
Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After 35 years underground, he struggled to conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down to his ankles. "My grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal buried in his face." "Coal tattoo," Burl

"Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean." Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy. Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to
wheezed. reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in

leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy Department's recent decision to planned as the first coal-fired plant to capture and store harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Department officials, unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of this fantasy. Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our eyes. Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways of making energy. Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly. More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are
solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency. Meanwhile, abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois, innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed

Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year. How can anyone call this clean? When the Bush administration announced a plan last year to do away with a poorly enforced 1983 regulation that protected streams from being buried by strip-mining waste -- one of the last ramparts protecting some of the nation's oldest forests and communities -- tens of thousands of people wrote to the Office of Surface Mining in outrage. Citizens' groups also effectively halted the proposed construction of 59 coal-fired plants in the past year. Yet at last weekend's meeting of the National
underground in Utah last summer? Governors Association, Democratic and Republican governors once again joined forces, ignored the disastrous reality of mining and championed the chimera of clean coal. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even declared that coal states will be "back in business big time."

How much more death and destruction will it

take to strip coal of this bright, shining "clean" lie?

As Burl might have said, if our country can rally to save Arctic polar bears from global warming, perhaps Congress can pass the Endangered Appalachians Act to save American miners, their children and their communities from ruin by a reckless industry. Or at least stop talking about "clean coal."

48

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

1AR EXTS – CLEAN COAL DECADES AWAY
CLEAN COAL IS AT LEAST 20 YEARS AWAY SASSOON, masters @ Columbia U and researcher for the UN, 2008 [“David, “Solve Climate”, February 07, http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080207/best-case-clean-coal-still-two-decades-away/ttate] And a week in advance of its big annual energy conference in Houston, CERA has released a new report on the future of clean energy. Here's what it has to say about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the more technical term for so-called "clean" coal. Even in the best case, CCS is at least two decades away from large scale deployment.....Current expectations seem to underestimate the lead time needed for widespread application. Two decades. Twenty years. 2028. Which makes you wonder what all those "clean" coal commercials are doing on TV now -- the ones which show the orange extension cord plugged into a lump of -- um -- dirty coal.

49

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC OIL DA FRONTLINE STARTER
FIRST, NO LINK – ONLY 2% OF OUR OIL USE IS FROM ELECTRICITY ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 2004 [January 20, Oil provides only about 2% of electricity in the U.S. Oil burns cleaner than coal, but still produces large quantities of CO2, SO2, and NOx, per unit of energy produced. Most of the oil that is easiest to obtain in the United States has already been extracted. Future dependence on oil will require an increase in imports or improved technology. Increasing reliance on oil imports, especially from politically unstable regions, is economically unwise.

50

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

EXTS – OIL DA ANS – NO LINK
LITTLE OIL USED FOR ELECTRICITY NATIONAL ENERGY INFORMATION CENTER 2005 [July 14, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html / ttate] U.S. households rely primarily on three sources of energy: natural gas, electricity, and fuel oil. In the past several decades, electricity’s share of household consumption has grown dramatically, and the shares of natural gas and fuel oil have declined. Retail sales of electricity to U.S. households exceed sales of electricity to the commercial and industrial sectors.

51

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, FEDERALISM DECLINE NEVITABLE SOVACOOL 2008 [Benjamin K., “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change,”, STANFORD LAW JOURNAL, June , lexis/ttate] Congress responded with an array of environmental statutes - most notably the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972 - to reorient the federal-state relationship in environmental law. The federal government asserted broad authority to regulate pollutants, animal species, the
design of vehicle engines, and the contents of consumer products such as paint and hairspray. The federal government's efforts were largely inspired by the unappealing prospect of forcing the business community to comply with fifty different state environmental statutes.

The discussion about the role of federal versus state action dates back to the founding of the country, and debates about federalism became especially pronounced during the era of the New Deal in the 1930s. The Supreme Court has long fought to maintain a balancing act, toeing the line to promote different forms of environmental federalism. Lawmakers generally believed that this balance helped achieve responsive governance, governmental
competition, innovation, participatory democracy, and resistance to tyranny.

n6

Fast forward to today and federal and state roles have changed considerably. In what has been termed a "jurisdictional mismatch," the states and the federal government have seemingly subverted each other's traditional roles. n7 National policymakers have preempted state action concerning drinking water contamination, solid waste disposal, and land restoration. AND, TURN – ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAN SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] While the states have a significant history and authority as regulators of electric utilities, only the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate wholesale electric power and interstate commerce (in the form of RECs). While the states have historically set prices for retail electricity sales, approved the permitting of electric generators, regulated the environmental effects of electricity sales, and developed integrated resource plans for utilities, only the federal government has the power to regulate the national wholesale power market under the Federal Power Act of 1935. This Act gives The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority over the sale of electric power at wholesale rates and the transmission of electric power on a national scale. AND, WE SET A FLOOR, NOT A CEILING – NO IMPEDING ON STATE RPS SOVACOOL, senior research fellow @ Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and prof of Government and International Affairs @ Virginia Tech, 2008 [Benjamin, “A Matter of Stability and Equity, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, lexis/ ttate] A national RPS should set a minimum that only prohibits states (or in this case, utilities that operate within and between states) from deploying less renewable energy than a national standard, not more. The states should be free to exceed the federal standard as much as they wish. Setting a “floor” rather than a “ceiling” ensures that more aggressive state statutes are not precluded or restricted under a federal standard. This type of compliance with state programs is often called “dual compliance” or “simultaneous compliance.” The national standard would only guarantee the promotion of a minimum level of renewable energy deployment. Such language should be clear and
explicit in any national legislation, so as to provide the maximum amount of clarity and predictability to utilities and investors, and to avoid leaving the question open to political attacks during Congressional deliberations. Congress did something similar with the Clean Air Act of 1965, which allowed California to establish vehicle air pollution emission standards. All other states were given the opportunity to adopt California’s standards or remain subject to the federal standards developed by the

Such flexibility ensured that the states could continue to innovate while also mandating that all states moved forward in promoting cleaner air.
Environmental Protection Agency. [44]

52

SDI 2008 RPS Aff – Supplement

KMT

2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE
AND, TURN – INTERACTIVE FEDERALIM KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS GLOBALLY SOVACOOL 2008 [Benjamin K., “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change,”, STANFORD LAW JOURNAL, June , lexis/ttate] The importance of exploring environmental federalism and the need for federal action on the environment extends beyond merely promoting renewable energy and addressing climate change. First, such a discussion should give pause to those who are driving for more decentralized environmental regulation or at least a general presumption towards devolution. This conclusion has far-reaching implications for other areas of social regulation where discussions about decentralization and centralization continue to dominate deliberations about the proper scale of government intervention. The lessons from environmental federalism can inform policymaking relating to areas as diverse as health care, welfare reform, tax policy, and education. [*406] Second, the Article is an attempt to invigorate the environmental policy debate and move from discussing what we regulate to how we regulate. Focusing on the merits of the differing types of environmental federalism explores which scale of environmental regulation best maximizes social welfare, and offers a more nuanced discussion of how the states and the federal government can serve supportive roles in advancing public policy goals. For American democracy is about more than just "one person, one vote." The opportunities for the
individual voter to affect the outcome of a particular election are quite small. In contrast, under a "conversational" model of democracy, citizens can influence policymakers by participating in public conversation. n23 By balancing and preserving prerogatives for local, state, and national governments in environmental policy,

interactive federalism offers opportunities for meaningful involvement in the political process for millions of Americans.
Third, other countries continue to model American-style federalism. Germany, the Republic of Austria, Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria have all based parts of their government structure on American federalism, choosing to decentralize power by adopting constitutions that are more federalist than the ones that they have replaced.

The "American experience with ... federalism," writes John Kincaid, "may have useful implications for an emerging federalist revolution worldwide." Mikhail Gorbachev even stated that "the phenomenon of federalism affects the interests of the entire global community." Given such trends, it seems likely that other countries may model American environmental federalism. If this is the case, ensuring that the United States government addresses renewable energy and climate policy at the proper scale becomes even more important for the signal it sends to the world.
n24 n25 n26

53

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful