Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 6, 2009
By: Hilzoy

Renewable Energy Standards

A renewable energy standard is a requirement that utilities get a certain percentage of their power from renewable energy. It's a market-based system: utilities that exceeded the requirement would get credits that they could sell to other utilities who weren't doing as well, enabling us to meet the standard in the most cost-effective way.

This would be good in a number of different ways: good for the environment, good for our national security, and also, according to both the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), good for consumers (note: RPS means 'Renewable Portfolio Standard', which is another name for a renewable energy standard):

"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."

It would probably save less money now that oil and natural gas prices are down, but they will rise again. When they do, we'll be very glad if we took advantage of this drop in demand to cut our reliance on them.

Luckily, a bill creating a renewable energy standard has been introduced in Congress. Unluckily, most Republicans and some "moderate" Democrats oppose it. Luckily, they're in the minority. Unluckily, that doesn't mean the bill will pass in the Senate, since the Republicans' willingness to filibuster every piece of major legislation means that it "needs" 60 votes.

From the NYT:

"A nationwide renewables standard, or RES, is a longstanding pillar of Democratic energy plans that requires utilities to supply escalating amounts of power from sources such as wind and solar.

With President Obama in the White House and stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, enactment of a standard has become more likely but remains far from certain. The Senate magic number of 60 votes, enough to get cloture and bypass a potential filibuster, remain the key hurdle. (...)

The number of Democrats who ultimately back the standard would determine how many GOP votes are needed. Some Republican moderates, including Maine's two senators, back renewables mandates, while supporters are also eyeing members including Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and others as potential votes in their favor.

Democrats, following gains in last year's elections, control 58 seats and could see that grow to 59 if Al Franken prevails in the contested Minnesota race. But in recent interviews with E&E, several Democrats expressed misgivings about an RES.

If Bingaman goes through the committee -- where Democrats hold a 13-10 majority -- the Democratic swing votes are believed to be Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Bingaman would need to carry two of these three, or at least win over one if he also has backing from some GOP members.

Bayh has not committed his vote either way. "I am all for helping promote the use of renewable energy. Whether this is the appropriate mechanism or not remains to be seen," he said. Asked whether he would vote for Bingaman's proposal specifically, he replied: "I have not endorsed it yet. That is not a yes or a no. It remains to be seen."

I really hope this legislation does not end up being yet another victim of Bayh, Lincoln, and Nelson's desire to prove how very moderate and restrained they are.

Hilzoy 1:26 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
 
Comments

I guess the GOP strategy is to use the filibuster to run the country as far in to the ground as possible in the hopes of gaining a few seats in 2010.
This is despicable and unpatriotic, but currently legal. The country badly needs filibuster reform. How about this: every time there's a filibuster, subsequent votes for cloture would require one less vote. That would force the opposition to only filibuster stuff it really really cared about, because cloture becomes easier after each successive filibuster.
Sometimes I surprise myself.

Posted by: richard greenslade on March 6, 2009 at 3:33 AM | PERMALINK

Heck, we should be able to do an RPS without Lincoln or Nelson. in a rational world, we would pick up Thune, Inhofe, Coburn and a few others from the Plains who stand to gain the most from wind energy.

but that's right, it's not rational. a vote against an RPS is a vote for Osama bin Laden instead of the American worker. a vote against RPS is a vote for Riyadh and Dubai, instead of Fargo and Tulsa.

why do republicans think that workers in Dubai are better than Dallas?

Posted by: northzax on March 6, 2009 at 6:36 AM | PERMALINK

I really don't like the assumption that any bill requires 60 votes. The truth may be that some senators willing to vote against the bill may still be willing to vote for cloture. Lieberman pulled this with the bankruptcy bill a few years back and others may do the same. Why can't Reid push for cloture on all these bills--with requests for "up or down" votes. The grandstanding senators can say they voted against these bills and keep their moderate credentials intact without actually standing in the way of the bills.

I think I understand (and agree) why the senators aren't actually required to actively filibuster, but I don't understand why bills can be killed without a vote for cloture. At the least, it would force these jokers to be on record for not allowing a vote on a bill.

Posted by: john d'oh on March 6, 2009 at 6:49 AM | PERMALINK

Evan Bayh was a self-serving ass, is a self-serving ass, and will always be a self-serving ass.

Any democrat who is going to rely on Bayh's vote to pass anything is a fool.

Bayh is an example of political name & corporate fund-raising ability being more important to election & reelection than actually having any intelligence or being qualified.

As a DINO owned by corporate interests, he will always be reelected in Indiana. No progressive will ever be able to raise enough $$$ to challenge him & the corporately owned rethugs in the state are told to not run a serious challenge to him.

Posted by: SadOldVet on March 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

Did you notice that one way to avoid the filibuster on appropriations bills is to show that the legislation would reduce the deficit? That should me things like carbon taxation and health care legislation might get through if the goal is to reduce the long term deficits.

Will that be the Obama MO?

Posted by: tomj on March 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

One way you could likely pass this in a breeze would be to stipulate that PRISM nuclear reactors would classify as renewables. Why? Because we'd never run out of fuel. They eat nuclear "waste" as fuel, as well as depleted uranium. There's enough already mined to power the whole planet for nearly a thousand years, and if we still relied on them after that (unlikely) we could extract uranium from seawater. With support from Obama we could build the first one in five years. No more mining, no more uranium enrichment, no more nuclear waste, no more Yucca Mtn, exponentially safer and more proliferation-resistant than any nuclear plant ever designed. What's not to like? Oh yeah, [cue scary music] it's NUCLEAR!!! [sound of panicky screaming]

Posted by: Tom Blees on March 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Nice job of promising the moon on unproven technology TB. The PRISM reactor is GE's version of a fast breeder reactor (FBR) designed to convert uranium-238 into plutonium and reuse that in the fuel-cycle. It is described as "inherently safe" despite using liquid sodium as coolant. It is very expensive to build and at current uranium prices it is only competitive by paying the operator a substantial sum for taking spent fuel from older reactors.

So far, the biggest FBR built in the United States had a capacity of 66MWe and none has been produced commerical electricity. GE's proposed commercial scale power plant would use 6 reactor modules of 200-360MWe each.

At best, certification and construction of the first PRISM plant is decades away. No banks are currently willing to loan money to any nuclear reactor projects without 100% repayment guarantees from the government and no utilities or contractors are willing to build them without 100% disaster liability coverage from the government.

Posted by: tanstaafl on March 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK




 

 
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

Advertise in College Guide






Search Now:
In Association with Amazon.com


Place Your Link Here

---Paid Advertisements---

Payday Loans

Personal Loans

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs

Credit Cards & Debt Consolidation

Bad Credit Loans

Vacation Rentals