Waxman-Markey Bill’s Tentative Compromise on Renewable Energy Offers a Weak Standard

Waxman and MarkeyWhen Representatives Waxman and Markey introduced their energy bill concept, they included a requirement that utilities deliver 25% renewable-derived power by 2025.  According to the New York Times, a tentative agreement with Democrats unenthusiastic with the orginial proposal would reduce the target to 15% by 2020.

And the 15% gets watered down even further.  States that are simply having trouble making that target can reduce it to 12% if they accomplish a higher level of energy efficiency improvements — something that they should be doing anyway.  In addition states with nuclear power, and those able to develop carbon-captured coal-fired projects  can subtract power from the facilities from the “base” upon which the 15% or 12% is calculated.   That means that what starts as a 15% goal could actually become a whole lot smaller.  Let’s suppose that a state that has already reduced its target from 15% to 12% gets a quarter of its power from nuclear plants.  In such circumstances, the 12% renewable energy target would only apply to 75% of the delivered power.    Then, that state’s renewable energy obligation would be reduced to 9% of delivered power — about a third of what the bill would have required in its earlier form.  For comparison,  consider California, which is shooting for 20% by 2010, and (most likely) 33% by 2020.  None of the hedges that would be available under the tentative federal agreement apply under California’s current program.

In crafting public policy, one always has to ask when a third of a loaf is better than none.  No clear answer here, yet.  Regardless, the authors’ efforts to achieve a national renewable energy standard are critically important.

, , , , ,

Reader Comments

One Reply to “Waxman-Markey Bill’s Tentative Compromise on Renewable Energy Offers a Weak Standard”

  1. You would have thought that these power companies would be investing huge amounts of money into green power production: solar, wind, hydro – but they aren’t. They seem to be more determined to maintain the status quo rather than to genuinely innovate.

    To be fair, running a power generation network is not easy and it is very easy for us consumers to take a pot-shot at them and say they’re not doing their bit when the reality is there are a lot of factors to take into account and a lot of renewable energies simply don’t work for generating the amount of power we need. Solar power, for instance, is a great technology for what it is, but it has some severe limitations from the perspective of a power company.

    But where are the wind turbines? Where is the micro-generation? Where is the new hydro? If the incumbant suppliers aren’t providing it, new companies will. And that means that by 2020, a lot of the existing power companies will be living on borrowed time – squeezed between higher mineral prices, a less tolerant public and new companies undercutting them with renewable power.

    The clock is ticking…

Comments are closed.

About Steven

Steve established and directed the Energy Law Program at Berkeley Law. He is currently a Lecturer at the Goldman School of Public Policy.…

READ more