Rps Neg 1 Index: 7 Week Juniors - CPHS Lab

RPS Neg 1
7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab
Index
Inherency Answers
Index..............................................................................................................................................................................................1
RPS is Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................4
Renewables Inevitable ..................................................................................................................................................................5
Renewables Inevitable ..................................................................................................................................................................6
Wind Power Inevitable..................................................................................................................................................................7
Wind Power Inevitable..................................................................................................................................................................8
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts...............................................................................................................................................9
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts.............................................................................................................................................10
Solvency – RPS = Uncertainty....................................................................................................................................................11
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement.................................................................................................................................12
Solvency – RECs aren’t Enforceable..........................................................................................................................................15
Solvency – DOE Can’t Enforce...................................................................................................................................................16
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met...........................................................................................................................................17
Solvency – Transmission and Intermittency Problems...............................................................................................................21
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed...............................................................................................................................22
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed...............................................................................................................................23
Solvency – RECs Won’t Expand Renewables.............................................................................................................................24
Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables..........................................................................................................25
Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables..........................................................................................................26
Solvency – Federal RPS will Just Expand Wind.........................................................................................................................27
Solvency – Wind Power Bad.......................................................................................................................................................28
Solvency – Wind Power Bad.......................................................................................................................................................29
Solvency – No Renewables in Southeast....................................................................................................................................30
Solvency – Renewables are Not Cost Competitive.....................................................................................................................31
Solvency – Vagueness.................................................................................................................................................................32
Solvency – National RPS = Wealth Transfer...............................................................................................................................33
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use...............................................................................................................34
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use...............................................................................................................35
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Help Environment.............................................................................................................36
A2: Environment Adv – Warming Ans........................................................................................................................................37
A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans..................................................................................................................................38
A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans..................................................................................................................................39
A2: Environment Adv – Biodiversity Ans...................................................................................................................................40
A2: Environment Adv – Bird Turn..............................................................................................................................................41
A2: Blackouts Adv......................................................................................................................................................................42
A2: Blackouts Adv......................................................................................................................................................................43
A2: Blackouts Adv......................................................................................................................................................................44
A2: Natural Gas Adv...................................................................................................................................................................45
A2: Natural Gas Explosion Adv..................................................................................................................................................46
A2: Unemployment Adv..............................................................................................................................................................47
A2: Unemployment Adv..............................................................................................................................................................48
A2: Grid Security Adv.................................................................................................................................................................49
A2: Terrorism Adv – Threat Declining........................................................................................................................................50
A2: Terrorism Adv – No Spillover..............................................................................................................................................51
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Not Possible..........................................................................................................................52
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now (With EU)....................................................................................................................53
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now......................................................................................................................................54
A2: Terrorism Adv – Solving Cyber Terrorism Now..................................................................................................................55
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Several Policies Needed.................................................................................................................56
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Internal Links Ans..........................................................................................................................57
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Will Push Jobs Overseas........................................................................................................58
RPS Neg 2
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Won’t Increase Competitiveness............................................................................................59
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS won’t Cause Innovation.........................................................................................................60
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Import More from Europe & Japan................................................................................................61
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Economy Resilient.........................................................................................................................62
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Hegemony Ans...............................................................................................................................63
A2: RPS Boosts Poor Areas........................................................................................................................................................64
A2: China Adv – Economy Resilient..........................................................................................................................................65
A2: China Adv – SQ Solving......................................................................................................................................................66
A2: China Adv – Government Won’t Promote Renewables.......................................................................................................67
A2: China Adv – U.S. Exporting Now........................................................................................................................................68
A2: Energy Independence...........................................................................................................................................................69
A2: Diversification .....................................................................................................................................................................70
States CP – 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................71
States CP – Modeled by the USFG.............................................................................................................................................72
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS.....................................................................................................................73
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS.....................................................................................................................74
States CP – State Financial Incentives Solve..............................................................................................................................75
States CP – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................76
States CP – Energy Prices NB.....................................................................................................................................................77
States CP – A2: Federal RPS Key...............................................................................................................................................78
States CP – A2: Uniformity Necessary........................................................................................................................................79
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC.....................................................................................................................80
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC.....................................................................................................................81
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Stability / Investment...........................................................................................82
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Solve “Free-riding”..............................................................................................83
States CP – A2: Commerce Clause..............................................................................................................................................84
Tax Credit CP – 1NC...................................................................................................................................................................85
Tax Credit CP – Federal Incentives Key ....................................................................................................................................86
Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key..................................................................................................................................87
Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key..................................................................................................................................88
Tax Credit CP – Solves Competitiveness....................................................................................................................................89
Tax Credit CP – Key to Sustained Investment............................................................................................................................90
Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency.......................................................................................................................................91
Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency.......................................................................................................................................92
Tax Credit CP – Solar Solvency..................................................................................................................................................93
Tax Credit CP – Expands Renewables .......................................................................................................................................94
Tax Credit CP – Industry Supports It..........................................................................................................................................95
Tax Credit CP – Politics NB........................................................................................................................................................96
Tax Credit CP – Coercion NB.....................................................................................................................................................97
Cap-and-Trade CP.......................................................................................................................................................................98
Cap-and-Trade CP.......................................................................................................................................................................99
Clean Coal CP...........................................................................................................................................................................100
Clean Technology Fund CP.......................................................................................................................................................101
Distributed Generation CP ........................................................................................................................................................102
Distributed Generation CP – Solves Competitiveness..............................................................................................................105
Distributed Generation CP – Solves Military............................................................................................................................106
Energy Prices DA – 1NC Links.................................................................................................................................................107
Energy Prices DA – Link Ext....................................................................................................................................................108
Energy Prices DA – Aff Studies Flawed....................................................................................................................................111
Energy Prices DA – A2: Non-Unique – State RPSs / A2:Turns..............................................................................................112
Clean Coal DA Links.................................................................................................................................................................113
Nuclear Power DA Links...........................................................................................................................................................114
Radar DA – 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................117
Radar DA – Uniqueness/Link....................................................................................................................................................118
RPS Neg 3
Radar DA – Uniqueness – Collapse of Wind Power Inev ........................................................................................................119
Radar DA – Air Power Extensions............................................................................................................................................120
Radar DA – Terrorism Impact...................................................................................................................................................121
Radar DA – Terrorism Extensions.............................................................................................................................................122
Politics – Political Capital Links...............................................................................................................................................123
Politics – RPS is Controversial..................................................................................................................................................124
Politics – RPS is Controversial..................................................................................................................................................125
Politics – Plan Unpopular – Coal Lobby...................................................................................................................................126
Politics – Bush Will Veto...........................................................................................................................................................127
Politics – A2: Renewable Energy is Popular.............................................................................................................................128
Politics – Popular with Congress...............................................................................................................................................129
Politics – Public Supports RPS .................................................................................................................................................130
Politics – Public Supports RPS .................................................................................................................................................131
Election DA – Obama Solves the Case.....................................................................................................................................132
Election DA – McCain Doesn’t Support Clean Energy............................................................................................................133
Election DA – McCain Solves the Case....................................................................................................................................134
Specification Necessary.............................................................................................................................................................135
RPS Neg 4
RPS is Inevitable
A RPS is inevitable after the election
Hodge, 7 (Nick, “Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?” 12-11-2007,
www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard/187) // JMP
The consensus, at least at this conference, is that we will have a national RPS in the next two to three years, no matter who
wins the White House in 2008. There also seems to be widespread belief among the financial professionals and politicians
here that we'll have a federally mandated cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in that same time.
National RPS is imminent
Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Such legislation has been proposed several times in the past, n12 but the increased profile of climate change issues and the
increasing number of state RPS programs make a national RPS appear more likely, if not imminent. Since the earliest RPS
proposals, n13 there has been much debate about the potential merits and hazards of a national RPS, and more is sure to
follow. Rather than joining this part of the policy debate, this Article considers the effects implementing a national RPS
would have on the operation of the energy industry. More specifically, the Article considers what a national RPS would mean
for electric utilities, regulators (state and federal), and consumers.
RPS Neg 5
Renewables Inevitable
High oil prices are driving huge investment in renewables
Fox Business, 8 (“Global Investment in Renewable Energy Reaches $100 Billion According to UN Report,” 5-5-2008
www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/global-investment-renewable-energy-reaches--billion-according-report/#) // JMP
WASHINGTON, May 5, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ ----High oil prices and an array of government incentives are
leading to soaring rates of investment in renewable energy, according to the United Nations' annual "Global Trends in Sustainable Energy
Investment" report.
The UN report calculates global investment capital flows into renewable energy companies reached $100 billion for the first time
in history last year. More than $30 billion of the total was the result of mergers and acquisitions led by investment banks such as JP Morgan and
Goldman Sachs.
"The finance community has been investing at levels that imply disruptive change is now inevitable in the energy sector," says
Eric Usher, Head of the Energy Finance Unit at the UN. Usher said the UN's "report puts full stop to the idea of renewable energy being a fringe interest
of environmentalists. It is now a mainstream commercial interest to investors and bankers alike."
The huge investment flows mean that IPO's, largely dormant since the heady days of the technology boom nearly a decade ago, are now re-emerging. A trio
of solar companies went public with impressive returns in 2007, including JA Solar (Nasdaq: JASO), Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL: 49.95, -0.15, -0.29%) and
Solarfun Power Holdings (Nasdaq: SOLF).
In the wind power sector, regular CNBC guest analyst and IPO expert Francis Gaskins was the first to cover Nacel Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN)
which has seen its stock soar more than 250% since IPO. Last month, Nacel Energy unveiled a major 80-megawatt wind energy expansion, including two
new projects in Texas. Gaskins currently has $4 target on the company (Nacel Energy closed Friday at $2.79).
Investment in renewable is inevitable
Silverstein, 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider

(Ken, “Credit Crunch Bites Clean Tech,” 4-28-2008, www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=499) // JMP
The credit crunch has taken a bite out of the clean tech sector. But despite the critical situation, the industry is expected to go
on to prosper.
The fundamentals are all in place. The rise in oil prices has caused an upward spiral in all of the fossil fuels, giving
sustainable sources not only an economic advantage but an environmental one as well. Indeed, national governments around
the globe are enacting clean air laws that encourage renewable energy consumption. The result, over time, will mean increasing levels of
investment in clean technologies.
"While the long-term trend shows continued expansion of the category as a whole, we are seeing contraction in what had been the market-leading sectors first-generation bio-fuels
and second-generation solar," says John Balbach, managing partner of the Cleantech Group in San Francisco. "This healthy minor correction indicates exuberance is giving way to
tempered optimism."
Clean Edge, a different research firm that has been tracking the growth of clean-energy markets since 2000, had reported last year a 40 percent increase in revenue growth for solar
photovoltaics, wind, bio-fuels and fuel cells. That equates to $77.3 billion in investment in 2007 and $55 billion in 2006. For the first time, three of these are generating revenues of
$20 billion each, with wind now exceeding $30 billion.
New global investments in energy technologies-including venture capital, project finance, public markets, and research and development-have expanded by 60 percent from $92.6
billion in 2006 to $148.4 billion in 2007, according to research firm New Energy Finance. But that was last year.
This year, the credit crunch is taking its toll. Clean energy investments made in the first quarter of 2007 totaled $3.7 billion, says New Energy Finance. But the same group
attracted only $2.4 billion in the first quarter of 2008. It says that private equity investors cut the level of their investments by 64 percent, reflecting the uncertainty and volatility of
the financial markets as well as the credit crisis.
Money raised in public equity markets has also dried up since the $7.2 billion initial public offering of Iberdrola Renovables in December 2007, which "marked the top of the
market," the firm say says. The industry attracted just $807 million in the first quarter of this year. That compares to $5.2 billion during the same period last year. Venture capital
investors, though, increased their stakes by 57 percent during the same time period.
"If anything, high
oil prices should strengthen the renewable energy sector and encourage people to invest in clean energy that is
cheaper and more secure, long term," says Matthew Clayton, investment manager at Tridos Bank, in an interview with BusinessGreen.com.
"I have no massive concern for companies getting funding."
RPS Neg 6
Renewables Inevitable
Renewable energy will continue to expand for several reasons
Silverstein, 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider

(Ken, “Credit Crunch Bites Clean Tech,” 4-28-2008, www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=499) // JMP
Bright Prospects
To be sure, the collapse of sub-prime mortgages took a huge toll on global financial markets. While central bankers have
lowered interest rates in an attempt to increase liquidity, bankers are still leery and won't accept much risk. The resulting
crunch has reduced cash flow, helping to explain why investors are more cautious.
Nevertheless, renewable energy projects have increasing appeal. Not only are energy prices high but national governments
are also enacting policies to encourage renewable energy use. The wind and solar industries in particular are the beneficiaries
of generous incentives that are designed to spur new technologies and more development.
It seems to be working. Companies ranging from BP and Chevron to Goldman Sachs and Chase to General Electric want in
on the action. Basically, a lot of firms that had been allocating investments to high-tech in the late 1990s are now creating
clean tech divisions. GE Energy Financial Services, which estimates the market for green energy to be $60 billion a year, has
more than $3 billion in renewable energy transactions.
In the case of Europe, nations there have enacted 20 percent renewable portfolio standards that are to be in place by 2020. In
this country, about half the states have implemented such standards while the federal government has given the renewables
sector valuable tax breaks. The production tax credit benefits utilities about 2 cents for every kilowatt of wind they produce
over 10 years of operation while the investment tax credit provides residential solar installation credits from $2,000 to
$4,000. Together, they total about $1 billion a year.
But those incentives are set to expire at year-end 2008, leading the investment community to implore Congress to quit
playing tug-of-war with the tax provision. "We believe we are at the dawn of a green energy revolution potentially as
powerful as the Internet revolution," says Dan Reicher, director of climate change for Google.org and a former Department of
Energy official. "Policymakers can make or break this revolution."
With the right mix of policies and investors, Clean Edge research says that the industry will develop. Wind power investment
is projected to expand from $30.1 billion in 2007 to $83.4 billion in 2017 while solar photovoltaic energy installations are
expected to grow from a $20.3 billion industry in 2007 to $74 billion by 2017.
Clean tech investments have ingratiated themselves with mainstream America. While those funds have taken a hit early this
year, they have still provided a ray of sunshine in otherwise gloomy economy. Better yet, the prospects should only get
brighter as the credit crunch eases and consumers grow wary of traditional, high cost fuels.
RPS Neg 7
Wind Power Inevitable

Wind power will continue to expand for several reasons – tax incentives aren’t key
Datamonitor, 8 (“The US Wind Market Has Outgrown the Drip Feed of Supportive Federal Legislation,” 5-27-2008,
www.redorbit.com/news/business/1403646/the_us_wind_market_has_outgrown_the_drip_feed_of/) // JMP
However, with the fate of a key Federal tax incentive in the balance, the US wind energy industry increased new installation
output at a record pace in the first quarter of 2008, adding 1,400MW of new generating capacity. The prospect of a new
'greener' US administration, coupled with the fact that many state and city administrations have recently introduced standards
and tax incentives, is driving considerable investment and development momentum. While the US regulatory environment is
perhaps less sophisticated and more fragmented than in Europe, the country's well-established culture of innovation means
that US capacity could well catch up with, and even surpass, Europe's capacity, by leveraging a well-developed venture
capital industry.
There will be a major increase in wind power
Reuters, 8 (Carey Gillam, “Quietly, wind farms spread footprint in U.S.,” 5-19-2008,
www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18351503) // JMP
While growth in ethanol use as an alternative fuel has had a big impact on rural America, wind power has also been growing
steadily for the past three years, with wind farms like this one springing up all over the windy expanse of the Great Plains and beyond.
While only 1 percent of U.S. electricity comes from wind, it is attracting so much support these days that many in the industry believe it is poised for
a growth spurt.
"These are pretty heady times," said Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, which held an investment conference April 30 in Iowa that drew more than 600 attendees.
"People are finally starting to see the data about what is happening to the world's climate and that is really having an impact,"
said Swisher.
Last year, a record 3,100 turbines were installed across 34 U.S. states and another 2,000 turbines are now under construction
from California to Massachussetts. In all, there are about more than 25,000 U.S. turbines in operation, an investment of $15 billion.
On May 12, the U.S. Energy Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, or 304 gigawatts, up from the current 16.8 gigawatts. Achieving that will require that wind
turbine installations rise to almost 7,000 a year by 2017, the department said.
Wind power is expanding now
IHT, 8 (Carey Gillam, International Herald Tribune, “Wind power gains adherents in United States,” 5-19-2008,
www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php) // JMP
While growth in ethanol use as an alternative fuel has had a big impact on rural America, wind power has also been growing steadily for the
past three years, with wind farms like this one springing up all over the windy expanse of the Great Plains and beyond.
While only 1 percent of U.S. electricity comes from wind, it is attracting so much support these days that many in the industry believe it is poised
for growth.
"These are pretty heady times," said Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, which held an investment conference in
April in Iowa that drew more than 600 attendees.
"People are finally starting to see the data about what is happening to the world's climate, and that is really having an impact," Swisher said.
Last year, a record 3,100 turbines were installed across 34 U.S. states, and another 2,000 turbines are now under construction
from California to Massachusetts.
In all, there are more than 25,000 U.S. turbines in operation, an investment of $15 billion.
Last week, the U.S. Energy Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, or 304 gigawatts, up from the current 16.8 gigawatts. Achieving that will require that wind turbine
installations rise to almost 7,000 a year by 2017, the department said.
The industry appears ready to comply. In March, GE Energy announced it had secured a $1 billion deal to supply 750 megawatts of wind turbines - enough to power about 200,000 households.
In April, Nebraska officials broke ground on a wind farm that would be the largest in that state, providing power for an estimated 25,000 homes.
Also in April, the electric company Wisconsin Public Service won approval from state regulators to construct a $251 million wind farm in Iowa to help it meet a state mandate that it increase its supply of
renewable power.
In Texas, the legendary oil man T. Boone Pickens has announced plans to invest in a wind farm that would provide enough electricity for about one million homes. His company, Mesa Power, this month
ordered more than 600 wind turbines from GE to get started.
And, this year, Kansas became the first state in the country to reject expansion of coal-fired plants specifically because of global warming worries. Governor Kathleen Sebelius is recommending wind energy as
an alternative and successfully fought legislative efforts to overrule her.
Wind Capital, based in St. Louis, Missouri, is a relatively small player. It operates three wind farms in Missouri and has plans for projects in 10 U.S. states. Among its backers are the Irish renewable energy
company NTR, which invested $150 million in April, and a unit of Deere, with a $200 million investment.
The company leases land from farmers on which to build its turbines. In Rock Port, homes and businesses getting power from the municipal utility are now using wind energy, backed by conventional electricity
supplies from the Missouri Joint Municipal Utility system.
Increasingly, states are mandating that utilities obtain a portion of their power through such renewable sources. Wind energy
is also benefiting from a U.S. tax credit of 2 cents a kilowatt hour of electricity produced. According to the American Wind Energy
Association, this amounts to $4.5 billion over 10 years.
RPS Neg 8
Wind Power Inevitable

A big expansion of wind power is planned for the U.S. – it is already cost competitive
Madrigal, 8 (Alexis, “DOE Report Says More Wind Than Coal Planned for US Grid,” 6-2-2008,
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/new-doe-report.html) // JMP
A new report from the Department of Energy details that 225 gigawatts of wind power are in the planning phases, thirteen
times more than currently installed and far more than the natural gas and coal plants on the drawing board.
Ryan Wiser, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a co-author of the report, called the increase in wind projects "extraordinary," including the 5.3 gigawatts
of wind installed during 2007, which represented 35 percent of the total new capacity added to the grid last year.
What's driving the surge? Wind
is cost-competitive with fossil fuels and comes without the risk of climate change legislation making
its fuel more expensive to use.
"Wind costs and prices are on the rise, but fossil generation costs are also increasing," Wiser emailed Wired.com. "The end result is that wind remains competitive with fossil [fuel]
generation."
Lots of new power sources will have to come online over the next few decades to replace the coal plants that were built after
World War II and that will reach the end of their lifespans over the next couple decades. Wind is looking like it will be a major part of that mix. A
separate DOE report released last month declared that wind could power 20 percent of the US grid by 2030.
Wind power is growing globally to record levels
UPI, 8 (Megan Harris, United Press International, “Analysis: U.S. wind market's mixed signals,” 5-6-2008,
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/) // JMP
Annual wind energy growth in the United States topped previous records at about 45 percent in 2007 bringing total installed wind capacity to
16,818 megawatts. The U.S. regions with the biggest wind potential as measured by annual energy output are the Midwest and West -- with North Dakota and Texas on top. Texas
had the largest growth in 2007 and now leads in installed wind power capacity at 4,356 megawatts.
Worldwide, wind power grew at a record level in 2007 -- adding 20,000 megawatts of wind capacity and bringing global installed wind capacity to 94,000
megawatts.
RPS Neg 9
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts

The plan will create jurisdictional conflicts with States – intensifying regulatory uncertainty
Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

(Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.
J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Finally, most advocates of a national RPS have said little about federal and state regulatory jurisdiction. State commissions
determine both retail rates and [*110] requirements for new generation and transmission to meet anticipated load growth.
They will continue to have those powers under a national RPS, but federal compliance requirements may impose new
constraints on them. The situation may mirror the concerns that state regulators have expressed about the Energy Policy Act
of 2005's grant of federal "backstop" authority over the siting of certain transmission lines that states have not approved.
Lengthy regulatory proceedings and court tests on transmission will surely occur in the near future. The same will happen for
generation under a national RPS, perhaps even more confrontational because generation is a larger percentage of delivered
power costs. The FERC cannot compel investment in generation, but the penalty provisions of a national RPS would coerce
utilities into constructing generation (or arranging RECs) that state regulators might not approve. Many questions remain.
May a utility be excused if it made a good-faith effort to gain state regulatory approval for a national RPS compliance
investment but was refused? What if a proposed facility is not reachable because state regulators have blocked transmission
to it? What if state-level intervenors introduce interminable litigation and regulatory proceedings to stop a compliance
project? A national RPS threatens a larger displacement of state regulatory authority than any policy change since open
access, and state regulators now know how to fight wars of attrition.
A federal RPS will create jurisdictional conflicts with States

Advocates of a national RPS have also said little about the jurisdictional conflicts it will create between state and federal
regulators. State regulators set cost-based retail rates and have authority over utilities' planning of generation and
transmission additions, while the FERC has authority over wholesale transactions, even if the parties are in the same state. It
is not easy to see how disagreements over investments made by utilities for compliance will be resolved. A requirement that
state regulators include all of a utility's compliance investments (including RECs) in its rate base (on which it earns the
allowed return) takes away an important part of their authority with no corresponding benefit. Allowing state regulators to
disallow investments intended for compliance leaves the federal authorities with question of how to treat them. (Even if the
legal answer is clear the political answer is not.) Federal regulators will be at least a shadow presence in state procurement
proceedings, and probably an unappreciated one. n132 Most proposals for a federal RPS differ from existing state programs
in having no price cap on renewables that will excuse a utility if renewable power is unavailable for less. n133 The political
problems of reconciling state price caps with an uncapped federal program also remain unexplored. n134
A federal RPS will add another layer of reporting requirements for electricity suppliers – creating uncertainty and
increasing energy costs
B. Compliance Requirements
A national RPS would mean new federal reporting requirements for retail electricity suppliers. For those operating in RPS
states, a federal RPS would mean a second, potentially duplicative, reporting requirement. Electricity industry representatives
(such as the Edison Electric Institute) have argued that a federal RPS, which mandates "different targets, technologies, and
timetables through a federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting
renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states." n116
RPS Neg 10
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts

A federal RPS will intensify jurisdictional conflicts

VI. State RPS Experiences

A. Why Examine the States?
Any RPS must be an ambitious exercise in institutional design. States with RPS have had to formulate definitions of eligible renewables, put institutions in place to monitor
compliance and crediting, and set penalties for noncompliance. A federal
RPS will be further complicated by constraints that are imposed by the
industry's dual regulatory system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over "wholesale" exchanges of power and transmission,
defined as those that are intended for ultimate resale to end-users. State commissions regulate "retail" rates charged to end-users and monitor the planning and prudence of utilities'
generation and transmission investments. The
FERC has no powers to compel or prohibit generation investments, and states are unlikely
to shed their existing authority without a fight. States also have primary jurisdiction over the siting of new plants and lines.
Interactions between state and federal regulators under a national RPS will be complex, time-consuming, and costly to
administer. Before committing to a federal RPS it may be useful to examine the actual organization and performance of state programs. Positive state results would be
encouraging news for supporters of a federal regime. If the states have performed poorly or indifferently, advocates of a national RPS should explain why it will not produce
similar results. State regulators require compliance reports from utilities and have varying amounts of discretion to impose penalties. n92 Some states have seen [*102] little
enforcement activity because RPS is not yet a binding constraint, and others are still formulating rules. Some legal definitions of compliance and crediting may not be clear, as is
being demonstrated in California (see below). There are also escape provisions for noncompliant utilities. All but one RPS state has some type of price cap on renewables, and a
utility is deemed in compliance (or exempt) if it cannot find any at or below that price. n93 Resource availability can also be a matter of definition. Minnesota exempts utilities that
are under "economic and competitive pressure," and Pennsylvania does so if resources are not "reasonably available." n94
A national RPS will create conflicts with existing regulations and not reduce pollution
Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April
2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
B Integrating RPS with existing regulation

Conflicts with compliance activities. Utilities are currently planning generation investments and power contracts that will
meet expected loads while being in compliance with environmental standards that they are confident will exist in the future.
Adding a national RPS to existing regulations can misallocate resources because it replaces some of these investments with
more costly ones than are necessary for compliance. If renewables were efficient compliance investments, utilities would
already have chosen them. The lack of interest suggests that their shareholders and customers are better off with non-
renewables that keep them in environmental compliance than with renewables that (let us assume) would also do so. There
are few reasons to assume that utilities have somehow overlooked renewables that are actually bargains, or that a national
RPS will soon bring new technologies that they would have preferred to use.
Conflicts with existing regulations. The various national RPS proposals say little about conflicts with existing regulations.
Some appear to imply that existing standards are too lax and an RPS will be valuable simply because it will lower some
emissions regardless of cost. For all the reasons discussed above, a national, pollutant-specific rulemaking is the appropriate
place to determine whether further reductions are warranted. A national RPS will not affect the total emissions of criteria
pollutants, but it will allocate emission rights inefficiently. Assume that existing allowances have been reallocated by
exchange and a market-clearing price prevails. An RPS is enacted and a utility that unexpectedly must build renewables will
sell its excess allowances, probably at a lower price. In the original market the buyer of those allowances did not find them
worth the price and chose not to pollute. Now that the buyer has them it will pollute, and total emissions will be
unchanged.39 The alternative of extinguishing some allowances when a utility increases its renewables is politically
unthinkable and expropriative. Utilities would bear capital losses that they might justifiably recover from ratepayers, and
some renewables that utilities would have voluntarily built will go unbuilt.
RPS Neg 11
Solvency – RPS = Uncertainty

Questions over the sunset provision will create uncertainty
C. RECs: Where Will They Come From and How to Decide?

Early in the life of a national RPS, the income received from REC sales will provide an incentive for investment in qualifying
renewable technologies even if they involve higher costs than other non-qualifying generating technologies. n117 However,
as the end date for the RPS program grows near (2030 in the EIA study), n118 the lesser amount of time remaining where
REC payments can be expected will reduce the expected benefit of the investment in qualifying renewable generation. n119
As such, any new later-in-time investor will seek higher REC prices to compensate the shorter time horizon under which they
can recoup their investment. n120 This puts retail electricity suppliers in a difficult position under plans such as the Proposed
RPS. As the amount of energy that must come from qualifying renewable resources is increasing, the incentive for building
qualifying generation facilities is decreasing.
This could lead to perverse results. Under the Proposed RPS, as originally drafted, there was a cap on REC prices, n121 but
according to the EIA's analysis of a 15% RPS, by 2020, investors would be "unwilling to invest in sufficient amounts of
qualifying generation to meet the RPS target unless the credit price were to exceed the 1.9-cent price cap [used in the EIA
analysis]." n122 As a result, [*66] covered retail electricity suppliers would opt to stay in compliance with the RPS program
by purchasing RECs from the federal government at the price cap rather than purchasing RECs from new renewable
generation. n123 Interestingly, the "EIA analysis of an alternative RPS requirement with no cost cap and no sunset provision
indicates that the same targets as in the proposed program could be met in all years, and the credit price would generally fall
below the 1.9-cent-per-kilowatthour cap." n124 If, in fact, the market were to react as the EIA analysis predicts (assuming
passage of the Proposed RPS), it is hard to imagine that Congress would not act to extend or repeal the sunset date.
Regardless, any uncertainty related to the sunset and the availability of RECs to satisfy the RPS puts an additional burden on
retail electric suppliers by making the RECs market even harder to predict.
In fact, it is this kind of uncertainty in federal renewable energy policy that has been a recurring complaint from the electric
industry. Particularly in the context of tax credits for renewable projects, the industry has argued that long-term planning for
the use of renewable energy sources is harmed by a lack of a coherent and consistent plan: "In the past, the short-term, start-
and-stop nature of renewable tax credits has dissuaded utilities, developers, manufacturers and investors from maximizing the
potential of renewable technologies and resources ... ." n125 The industry has thus supported long-term extension of such tax
credits to ensure the stability needed for long-term planning and financing of renewable energy projects. n126
RPS Neg 12
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement

Regulatory agencies will side with industry – crushing solvency
Ottinger & Jayne, 2000 – *Dean Emeritus of Pace University School of Law, founder of the Pace Energy Project, former
Member of Congress and Chair of the House Energy, Conservation and Power Subcommittee, and **Pace Law School
student and Research Assistant
(Richard L Ottinger and Mindy Jayne, “Global Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol Implementation: Legal Frameworks for
Implementing Clean Energy Solutions,” www.solutions-site.org/special_reports/sr_global_climate_change_4.htm) // JMP
Effective enforcement is critical to the success of any standards program. Theoretically, the governments adopting the
standards should enforce them, and any standards program, to be effective, should incorporate substantial resources for
training, inspection and enforcement. In practice, however, governments and their regulatory agencies often come to identify
with the industries or companies that they regulate. Also, political pressures often prevent effective government enforcement.
Citizen enforcement, adopted in the U.S. in the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes has been found to be a most
effective enforcement mechanism. NGOs in the U.S. are able to hold regulators’ feet to the fire very effectively by filing suit
to enforce standards, with the award of attorney’s fees for such litigation; the very presence of citizen suit provisions enables
the NGOs to influence government enforcement policies.
Individual State RPSs prove non-compliance is the norm
VI How RPS Really Works

A Five states
An RPS at any level requires reporting, monitoring, and penalties for noncompliance. Nearly all RPS states have penalties, but regulators have differing powers to set and impose
them.60 Cost caps on renewables further complicate the process. Since
national RPS proponents have said little about penalties and compliance,
a look at the states may be worthwhile.61 Hard data on state programs is conspicuously absent from most proposals. Instead of
numbers the reader gets such undocumented and misleading assertions as Sovacool and Cooper's claim that California, New York, and Nevada have "made impressive progress."62
Likewise, a report by Barry Rabe for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change says that "In a number of instances, RPSs have clearly played a central role in fostering rapid and
significant expansion of the amount of renewable energy provided in a state."63 Rabe singles out five states for attention based on their representativeness and diversity:
* Texas' 1999 retail choice legislation set a 2009 deadline for 2,000 new MW of renewables in the territories of the ERCOT member utilities.64 All utilities and competitive
retailers must obtain a percentage of their supplies from renewables or credits. The goal was reached in 2007, almost entirely by wind turbines. Its new RPS sets a quota of
5,000MW by 2015 and 10,000 by 2025, at least 500MW of the latter non-wind. Both utilities and competitive retailers must own renewable capacity or credits. Rabe does not
mention that Texas
is the sole state that has put enough new capacity on-line to stay ahead of a meaningful requirement. His
report also omits any data on wind's actual contribution to ERCOT's resources and reliability. As noted above, 2,800MW of wind translates
into 300 dependable MW, producible by a cheaper gas-fired plant with a smaller footprint that requires less transmission to reach its loads.
* Massachusetts' 1997 restructuring law required that renewables be 1 percent of deliveries through 2002 and then rise by 0.5 percent annually to 4 percent in 2009.65
Utilities achieved compliance in 2003 using credits banked in 2002. They then fell 32.6 percent short in 2004 and 37.4 percent in 2005, paying the state $55.13 for each deficit
MWh.66 The wind resources originally expected to satisfy the RPS are not being built due to resistance from rural residents,
environmentalists, and the state's two senators.67 Rabe remarks that there is "considerable uncertainty regarding Massachusetts'
ability to achieve its ascending RPS targets," but he does not identify any alternative resources, evaluate other enforcement methods, or consider modifying or
scrapping the RPS.68
* Nevada may be "the next Texas," according to Rabe.69 Its 2005 RPS requires annual progress to 20 percent by 2015, with 5 percent solar in that year. The state's empty, windy
deserts and proven baseload geothermal capacity make it an ideal test case. Its 2006 output of wind power was zero. The state's two utilities taken together have signed contracts
that leave them in compliance with their 9 percent 2007 RPS requirement, but their actual supplies were 3 percent (Nevada Power) and 6 percent (Sierra Pacific Power). Nevada
Power met its 2006 requirement by purchasing 1.02 million kWh of credits from Sierra Pacific, which was unable to deliver them
because of weak interconnections. Both are also failing to meet their solar requirements, which may not be surprising because
there are no penalties for noncompliance.70 Rabe concludes by asserting that new proposals (apparently not actual projects) have made state officials
"increasingly sanguine" about future compliance.71
* Pennsylvania's "Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard" consists of two tiers. The first is non-hydro sources with a 0.5 percent solar set-aside. Tier 2 has dismayed
environmentalists by including incinerated trash and waste coal. They are to produce 8 and 10 percent of the state's power by 2021. A utility's compliance requirements only begin
after recovery of its state restructuring transition costs. The RPS became effective for three of them on Feb. 28, 2007, and the rest on or before Jan. 1, 2011.72 Data on compliance
are currently unavailable.
* In 2004 Colorado voters enacted a 10 percent 2015 requirement with a 4 percent solar set-aside. 2007 legislation raised it to 20 percent by 2020 with the same set-aside.
Municipals and cooperatives are subject to it, but at lower levels than investor-owned systems. Compliance data are not currently available. Rabe apparently mentions Colorado
only to illustrate the possibility of referenda as alternatives to legislation.73
Of these states chosen by an RPS advocate, only Texas is in genuine compliance with its own program. Massachusetts and
Nevada were out of compliance almost as soon as their requirements became binding. None of Pennsylvania's utilities was subject to its RPS
at the time of publication, and Colorado is still putting its rules in place. In his search for a template, Rabe might better have looked at California.
RPS Neg 13
Officials don’t care about enforcement – just kicks the problem down the road
State experiences with RPS suggest that it is less a breakthrough than another episode of regulation-as-usual. Its political point is to show concern by
instituting a seemingly stringent requirement and leaving compliance for someone else to enforce. Elected officials will have
little subsequent interest, both because of its obscure complexity and because serious enforcement probably means higher
bills. California's utilities and regulators appear to understand the interests of legislators. Despite the reality of almost no new operating renewables, the CPUC's January 2007
report to the legislature says utilities are "closing in on the 20 percent target with four years of procurement ahead."85 On page 2 it notes that the legal definition of compliance is
operation, but all subsequent graphics and data refer to signed contracts. Despite the unencouraging data discussed above, the CPUC report's projections assume that no new
contracts will fail and all expiring ones will be renewed or reformulated.
Political and economic interests will determine the provisions of a federal RPS, and utilities will make their choices about
compliance. California's appear to be treating their RPS as a tactical tool to reestablish primacy that has been diminished by competition and divestitures required by
restructuring. Its RPS has brought back IRP and utility-environmentalist collaboration, with the approval of legislators and regulators. Its restrictive current policies and uncertain
future ones have drastically reduced in-state fossil generation investments, and its coming carbon regulation will further raise power costs. Renewables will be delayed if they are
built at all, and demand management programs are also underperforming.86 The coming crunch presents an ideal opportunity for utilities to vertically reintegrate themselves. In
2006 Southern California Edison received an Order from the CPUC to install 250MW of turbines and 300MW of demand response in anticipation of a capacity shortfall in summer
2007.87 The purchase was exempted from complex and lengthy competitive procurement procedures as a one-time action to deal with an impending emergency, but there are good
reasons to expect that episodes like this one will recur. How
utilities and others will game a federal RPS will depend on its details, but there is
little reason to assume anyone will passively comply.
CA proves lack of compliance and enforcement

C. California: Gestures and Strategies
1. How Large a Shortfall?
Recent events in California shed light on the forces that influence RPS design and attitudes toward enforcement and
compliance. California's RPS began with a 2002 law that required the state's three major corporate utilities to obtain 20% renewable power by 2017, subsequently advanced to
2010. A 2005 resolution put the legislature on record as favoring an RPS of 33% by 2020. The laws require renewable power to rise by at least 1
percentage point per year. Figure 5 shows clearly that this has not happened, and that the 2010 goal will surely go unmet. Since
the mid-1990s renewable power has remained at between 11 and 14% of the utilities' total supply. n111 In 2003 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) estimated that
compliance would require 4,200 MW of new renewables in operation by 2010. Between the 2002 inception of the RPS and January 2007, only 242 MW of renewables came on-
line. n112 The percentage is currently on a downtrend. 14% of investor-owned utilities' power supplies were renewable in 2003, 13.7 in 2005, and a provisional total of 13.1% in
2006. n113
Utilities claim to be in compliance with the RPS law on the basis of contracts entered into with developers, a position possibly inconsistent with legal language that compliance
equates to actual production from renewable generators. As of January 2007 the three utilities had contracted for between 2,552 and 3,936 MW of renewables, most not yet under
construction or even in the siting process. n114 The California Energy Commission estimates a cost of $ 1.2 [*106] billion for transmission necessary to carry all of the claimed
2010 compliance capacity. n115 Even
if the contracts are valid measures of compliance, a 2006 study for the Commission estimates
that 20 to 30% of them will fail. n116
2. Why the Lack of Compliance?
Utilities' seeming noncompliance has many possible causes. Both electrical and non-electrical developers in California face
high costs and protracted delays in obtaining permits for new construction and land-use changeovers. Electrical facilities probably face
greater barriers than others because of their visual prominence, their possible emissions, and their other effects on environmental amenities and nearby real estate values. Permits
are harder to obtain in wealthier and more densely populated areas, as well as those (e.g. coastal regions) that demonstrate heightened environmental concerns. The state's electrical
regulatory policies have been in flux since the collapse of its restructuring experiment in 2001-2002, and the accompanying uncertainties have surely had an effect on generation
investments by both utilities and non-utilities.
Penalties for non-compliance may also play a role in explaining the shortfall. California has yet to levy any penalties on
utilities that are out of compliance or even to initiate regulatory dockets that could terminate in assessments. Even if the penalties are
imposed with certainty, however, their dollar impact will probably be small. A utility whose renewables are out of compliance pays 5 cents for each deficit kwh, but its potential
fine is capped at $ 25 million per year. It can avoid this fine if renewables are too expensive and the state has no funds to cover the difference between the actual price and a
regulator-set cap. n117 Worst-case
noncompliance leaves a utility with a maximum exposure of $ 25 million per year, and actual
penalties could be as low as zero. Other aspects of the political climate may also explain a lack of compliance, but they are beyond our current scope. Having
enacted seemingly stringent new standards, legislators may have little to gain politically by vigorously enforcing [*107] them.
At the same time, utilities and other interest groups may see the RPS as another arena in which to advance their own causes, possibly by maintaining less than full compliance with
its standards.
RPS Neg 14
California proves our non-compliance argument – utilities can just buy-off non-compliance
B California
California's 1996 market reform law included $90 million a year in "public goods surcharges" (PGS) paid to the state by all
end users, whether served by utilities or competitive providers.74 The PGS survived the collapse of the markets, and in 2002
the legislature enacted an RPS. Its original call for 20 percent renewable power by 2017 was later (2005) advanced to 2010. A
later resolution (not yet law) set a 33 percent quota for 2020. The 2017 goal would have been difficult, but 2010 and 2020 are
both hopeless. California defines compliance as actual operation, which Figure 1 makes clear will not happen by 2010.75 In
1998 its three large corporate utilities got 10.7 percent of their power from renewables, which rose to 11 percent at the 2002
inception of the RPS. In 2003 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) calculated that RPS compliance would
require 4,200MW of new renewables in operation by 2010. Between then and January 2007 only 242MW came on-line, and
in 2005 renewables were supplying only 10.7 percent of the utilities' power.76 The drop has been attributed to siting
problems, regulatory delays, contracting difficulties, and uncertainty about future policy.
Rather than reporting actual renewable operation, utilities are claiming compliance on the basis of signed contracts for
between 2,552 and 3,936MW of renewables as of January 2007.77 Most are not yet under construction or even in the permit
process. If signed contracts define compliance, megawatts from established technologies count equally with those from
highly speculative ones. Southern California Edison's contracts include a 500MW "Stirling engine" solar array that will cover
several square miles of environmentally sensitive desert. The company actually claims 850MW of compliance, since the
contract gives it a 350MW build-out option.78 In 2005 San Diego Gas & Electric contracted with the same developer for
300MW, expansible to 900MW.79 The developer's largest installations thus far have capacities of 150 kilowatts, but San
Diego has chosen not to require a 1MW pilot project.80 Wind turbines make up some of the remaining contracted capacity,
but some of it requires that new transmission lines be constructed. Only 200 of the contracted megawatts that utilities claimed
for compliance in 2005 were dependably dispatchable geothermal and biomass units.81 (Large amounts of capacity in them
were built prior to the RPS and continue to operate.) A consultant's report to the California Energy Commission expects a
contract failure rate of 20 to 30 percent for business reasons.82
The interaction between California's price caps and its definitions of compliance may explain the lack of concern over the
RPS deadline. There is a five cent penalty for each unproduced kWh below the target, but a utility's liability is capped at $25
million per year.83 A shortfall need not result in a penalty. If the utility's planned renewables (approved by regulators in a
procurement proceeding) cost more all-in per kWh than the "market price referent" of a gas-fired generator, the state pays the
difference from accumulated PGS funds. If the funds are exhausted the utility pays no penalty.84 Worst-case noncompliance
leaves a utility to pay only $25 million, and the language of the law suggests that actual penalties may be considerably less.
No compliance and enforcement – State RPSs prove

[*81] In reality, a national RPS is singularly ill-suited for any of these tasks. It will be an inefficient and inequitable
environmental policy that reduces emissions at higher cost than necessary and is largely incompatible with existing air quality
regulations. Some of the non-environmental rationales are elementary economic fallacies and others are at best conjectures.
Worse yet, the record of state-level RPS compliance and enforcement strongly suggests that the effects of a federal program
will be either minimal or perverse. Psychologically and politically satisfying, a national RPS is likely to obstruct the
development of efficient policies. The range of public figures and distinguished commissions favoring a national RPS may
indicate no more than an expectation that it will provide a new forum for interest-group politics. n5
RPS Neg 15
Solvency – RECs aren’t Enforceable

Renewable energy credits are not enforceable

C. RPS as Risk Management Policy

1. Renewable Energy Credits
The geographic distribution of renewables is uneven, and the quality (e.g. wind speed) of a given renewable can differ among
regions. Most federal RPS proposals include markets for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) that allow utilities in resource-
poor areas to achieve compliance if they purchase claims on the outputs of distant plants. Regulators must make certain that
RECs are real, and that they have not been sold to multiple buyers. RECs may have fixed lifespans (one year) and secondary
markets in them are possible. Credits, however, are not the same as power itself. Only certain renewables are dispatchable,
and any source without dependable transmission to the buyer will require additional provisions for operating reserves. Some
state programs do not even require interconnection between the utility and the source of credits.
The financial flows associated with RECs may stand in the way of an implementable national RPS. Some advocates see
renewables everywhere, but over the medium term some utilities will be chronically deficient, regularly sending payments to
others more fortunate. n42 The environmental effects of a crediting mechanism may also be inequitable. A renewable that
improves air quality may benefit those in its vicinity, but not the customers of a utility that buys its RECs. They pay higher
power bills to improve the environments of others, who can take the benefits with them because air quality is monetized in
real estate markets. Homes in clean environments sell at premiums relative to similar ones elsewhere. n43 The empirical
issue is whether the environmental [*92] effects are localized or dispersed. Supporters of a national RPS argue that without
it non-RPS states will "free ride" and get better air without paying for it. n44 If air quality is local, however, RECs allow
people in renewable-rich areas to free ride on credits purchased by people whose air remains unimproved. Although
experience is still sparse, it appears that RECs will not be usable as collateral for investments in renewables. The prices of
state RECs have thus far been too volatile, and there are few reasons to expect that those sold under a federalized RPS will be
different. When capacity is short they will be costly or unavailable, but when general compliance is achieved they will lose
most of their value. n45
RPS Neg 16
Solvency – DOE Can’t Enforce

The DOE can’t effectively enforce an RPS
Enforcement of a national RPS would create an additional case load, but not one that should prove problematic.
Unfortunately, the Proposed RPS called for EPA enforcement when a better alternative for compliance monitoring was
readily available. The DOE has little, if any, experience in administering a program on the scale of a national RPS, and has
shown no indication that enforcement of a major program is within the agency's capabilities. Further, the Proposed RPS
includes a program providing RECs for certain energy efficiency measures, an area in which the DOE has already failed to
show effective leadership. The DOE was charged with the task of promulgating energy efficiency standards for household
appliances in 1987, n174 but failed to update the efficiency standards, leading to a lawsuit brought by fifteen states. n175
Even when [*72] DOE has acted to increase efficiency standards, the agency has not indicated a willingness to push for
significant progress. n176
DOE can’t effectively enforce

n132. A national RPS impacts both environmental and energy policy, but the House-passed measure fails to mention either
the EPA or the FERC. Instead it lodges compliance and enforcement authority with the Department of Energy. The DOE
lacks both the EPA's accumulated experience in environmental monitoring and the FERC's familiarity with power markets
and their regulation.
RPS Neg 17
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met

RPS standards have never been met
Electric Utility Weekly, 8 (Paul Carlsen, “S&P renewables reality check finds them too little, costly and 'painful' for
ratings,” 3-17-2008, pg.1, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM
No existing RPS has met original goals.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have some type of RPS, up from about a dozen four years ago (see map, page 11). A third were adopted in the past two years.
"And, since 2006, nine of the 29 states that had some sort of RPS actually increased their renewable targets, notably before
any of them met their original goals," Selting noted.
But with "going green" (however defined) having rapidly become a corporate virtue, utilities that do not meet RPS objectives can be blamed, even if
the goals were unreasonable.
"These feasibility risks are particularly acute in states that adopt increasingly aggressive targets before demonstrating the
viability of earlier goals," S&P pointed out.
According to the Energy Information Agency's February 2008 Electric Power Monthly, excluding conventional hydroelectric ? which, Selting said, not all states consider "green" ?
only about 2.5% of US generation in the first 11 months of 2007 was from renewable resources.
Of that, 54% was from wood and related waste, 31% from wind, 14% from geothermal ? and 1% from solar.
On a rolling 12-month basis, wind generation 31,756 was GWh last year ? up 21.4% from 2006 and almost 1,000% from the
3,000 GWh in 1993. But it still represented only 0.8% of last year's US total, and virtually no change from 2006's 0.6%.
EIA figures show wood/wood waste, at 55,336 GWh, was down 1.1% from 1993, and geothermal, at 14,851 GWh, was down 11.5%.
Over those 15 years solar went from 462 GWh to 606 GWh, S&P noted. The 2007 rolling 12-month total was about 102,550 GWh for those four renewables categories.
Emerging Energy Research estimates that to meet RPS requirements in the 24 states (and Washington, DC) with mandatory standards, another 160,000 GWh would have to be
generated in 2015.>
"That translates into a rough requirement that some 6,000 MW of new renewable capacity come online each year ... We question whether this is attainable," she continued,
especially since Congress has yet to extend the 1.9 cent/kWh production tax credit for wind beyond the end of this year (EUW, 10 March, 7).
In California, for example, independent energy producers recently accused utilities of deliberately delaying the addition of renewable resources, and have asked the California
Public Utilities Commission to audit utility RPS power supply bids. These
feasibility risks are particularly acute in states that adopt increasingly
aggressive targets before demonstrating the viability of earlier goals.
Even a 10% RPS by 2020 is unrealistic
NAM 7 - National association of Manufactureres

("PROTECT ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FROM RATE INCREASES: OPPOSE THE BINGAMAN RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT", unknown date in 07,
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202504&DID=226878) AMK
The RPS Amendment is Unrealistic

* A 10 percent RPS mandate by 2020 is unrealistic. In 2001, nonhydropower renewable energy accounted for only 2.1
percent of generation and is projected to increase to only 3.3 percent of generation by 2025, according to the federal
government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The amendment would require a quadrupling of the projected
renewable generation in a shorter time period, without any credit for existing capacity.
* Under the Bingaman amendment, in 2020 utilities would have to generate electricity from renewable energy resources
equal to roughly 350 billion kilowatt-hours. In comparison, total electric industry generation from non-hydroelectric
renewable energy resources was about 70 billion kilowatt-hours in 2001. To comply with the 10 percent RPS mandate in
2020 would require a whopping five-fold increase in renewable energy generation!
* In order to meet the 10 percent mandate by 2020, more than 32,000 megawatts of renewable capacity would have to be
added, assuming that this capacity operates at 100 percent 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. However, this is an unrealistic
assumption because most renewable energy resources are intermittent in nature.
* The percentage targets in the Bingaman amendment are based on amounts of energy produced, not capacity. Therefore,
in many cases utilities would have to “overbuild” their renewable capacity in order to meet the targets. The most promising
renewable energy technology, wind energy, operates at only about 30-40 percent of capacity. Therefore, almost three times
this amount of capacity would be required to generate the mandated levels of electricity from renewables!
RPS Neg 18

Renewables are growing rapidly, but they can’t make 20% by 2020—the Energy Department concedes it
AP, 8 (“Why are electric rates rising?” 6-24-08, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=6225366) –CMM
Q: My power company is raising rates, and blaming soaring coal and natural gas prices. But given all the new wind farms and
solar projects I read about, shouldn't electricity rates be falling? A: Wind and solar power is growing at a rapid pace in the
U.S. Wind-generated electricity grew 45 percent between 2005 and 2006, and 21 percent between 2006 and 2007, the Energy
Department says. Solar power generation grew by 19 percent between 2006 and 2007. The photovoltaic, or PV, solar panel
industry has grown by an average of 25 percent a year over the last 10 years, according to the Solar Energy Industries
Association. "However, this rapid growth is from a very small base," the SEIA notes on its Web site. "PV still accounts for a
small percentage of electricity generation worldwide." Indeed, there lies the problem with wind and solar power: Even at
breakneck growth rates, renewable energy sources will account for only 12.6 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2030,
up from 9.5 percent in 2006, the Energy Department says. Worldwide, renewable energy's share of electricity generation will
actually fall to 16 percent in 2030 from 19 percent in 2004, the department says. Solar and wind power aren't even the
leading sources of renewable energy. Hydroelectricity plants -- power-producing dams -- account for 75 percent of all
renewable power generation, vastly overshadowing wind at 7 percent and solar, at 0.1 percent. All renewable power sources
are growing, but so are fossil fuel power sources.
A national RPS will AT BEST marginally increase renewable as a percentage of the market
Electric Utility Weekly, ‘7 (Dipka Bhambhani, and Paul Carlsen, “Bingaman, still aiming for national RPS, finds few
supporters at NARUC meeting,” 7-23-08, pg. 13, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM
<PPM was founded by PacifiCorp, retained by ScottishPower after it sold PacifiCorp to MidAmerican Energy Holdings in
2006, and is now part of Iberdrola, following its April 26 acquisition of ScottishPower.
But while "wind is the big dog in renewables ? it's fuel displacement, it's not really capacity," Furman pointed out. On July
24, 2006, he said, the Pacific Northwest was hit by a "perfect storm" heat wave. Avista, Idaho Power and Portland General
Electric all hit their 2006 summer peaks that day and many systems came close to brownouts ? "but as luck would have it, the
wind didn't blow. There was a lot of concern, especially at small utilities who had bought wind but did not know how the
wind resource works."
Owens declared that a vote by Congress to extend the PTC now slated to expire at the end of 2008 would be more effective in
promoting renewables than a federal RPS. EEI's surveys of industry CEOs show almost all agree, he noted.
But he cautioned that "even with the most aggressive tax policy and RPS standards," the US Energy Information
Administration has forecast that renewables' share of national power consumption is likely to rise from about 2.9% now to
only 3.7% by 2030.
[Note – Owens is the EEI Executive Vice President]
RPS Neg 19

It’s impossible to meet even a 10% RPS – wind power is the most likely technology and it’s unworkable
Josten, 07 – Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
(Bruce, Letter to Rep. John Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)
As previously stated, the Chamber opposes a federal RPS, so discussion of a target is notpossible. However, the Chamber
recently analyzed the attainability of a 10 percent RPS—a standard considerably lower than any currently being considered—
and found:(1) it would be literally impossible to meet even that standard using a single energy solution (i.e., wind,
photovoltaics, biomass) on its own; and (2) because an energy mix would be required to even attempt to meet the 10 percent
baseline, inconsistent renewable source capabilities from state to state will likely result in failure.
A. Neither Wind, Photovoltaic, nor Biomass can Individually Meet a 10 Percent RPS.
In 2005, base sales of electricity from investorowned utilities (IOUs)were about3,553,139gigawatthours (GWh),2and about
501,549 GWh3of total electricity generation was produced using “classically renewable” energy resources, i.e., solar, wind,
biomass, and geothermal(and not hydroelectric, nuclear or socalled “clean” energy sources).If IOU base sales of electricity
growatapproximately1.64% per year4relative to the year2005 base production level, then IOU base electricity production in
2020 will be about 5,052,141GWh.Requiring in 2020, for sake of argument, that 10 percent of this base electricity production
must come from additional “classic renewables,” then these sources must generate an505,214 additional GWh of electricity
above the501,549 GWh produced from renewables in2005.
Compared with conventional power generation, the current most cost competitive “classically renewable” technology is
generation of electricity via the use of wind turbines, and the least cost competitive “classically renewable” option is solar
power generation of electricity via the use of photovoltaic technology. Comparing the costs and demands of producing
electricity from wind (~ 3+¢ to 6¢ per kWh)5versus photovoltaic (~ 20¢ per kWh)6versusconventional power generation (e.g.,
using natural gas, which costs ~3¢ to 4¢ per kWh)7can help frame an understanding of the impacts of the RPS.8
1.Wind
A typical largescale winddriven turbine has a capacity ofapproximately1.5 megawatts(MW);9in 2007, installed electric power capacity from wind
wasapproximately11,700 MW.10In all, this results in electricity production ofroughly1,200 MWh of electricity production per MW of installed capacity. This
equals maximum power generation 23percentof the time over a period of one year, indicating that, overall, generation of electric power from wind is highly
intermittent. Hence, there is a strong interest in developing wind power projects offshore, where the potential for generating electricity from wind is more
substantial than at most on shore locations. For purposes of the calculations presented below, the projected capacity factor is assumed to be 42percent11rather
than 23percent, reflecting wind technology improvements. For wind turbines to produce the additional505,214 GWh necessary to meet a
10 percent standard in 2020 using 1MW turbines that produce 4,500 MWh of electricity per MW of installed capacity12,
one would need to put in place more than 115,0001MWwind turbines.13If the average capital cost for electricity generation
is $1194/kW14for each 1MW windturbine15, then the total capital cost of constructing about 115,000 of them would amount
to roughly $138 billion
. This figure does not include operation and maintenance costs, whichconstitute1.5 to 2percentof the
initial investment annually.16
Perhaps even more disturbing than the lofty capital cost of 115,000 wind turbines is the placement: if the space allotted for
each 1MW wind turbine placed in the ocean comprises an area ofroughly0.16 square miles,17then 115,000 turbines of this
size would occupy an area ofabout18,000 square miles. In comparison, the combined area of Albermarle Sound, Delaware
Bay, Pamlico Sound, Long Island Sound, Cape Cod Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Biscayne Bay,
and Buzzards Bay isonly8,500 square miles. If the 115,0001MW wind turbines were placed in a straight line about 2,000 feet
apart in the water, they would have a total length of about 43,000 miles from end to end. This is nearly four times the length
of the U.S. shoreline, and almost double the entire circumference of the earth!18
Moreover, because generation of electricity by wind power is intermittent, to provide power when it is needed(as opposed
towhen it is produced)one must have intermittent, multihour energy storage capacity in place. Although there are
technologies that can store energy for hours, the sheer size of the storage capacity needed to hold the amount of required
intermittent energy generated to meet a 10 percent RPS requirement simply does not exist. Creating such storage capacity
remains a critical issue that requires much more attention. Moreover, at the scale needed to meet a 10 percent RPS, the use of
batteries to store intermittent energy, which is a current common practice, could create a broad range of hazardous waste
RPS Neg 20
disposal problems in the future.
A recent projection19indicates installed wind capacity by 2020 will be less than 50,000GWh, which is much less than the
target amount of 505,214 GWh of required renewable electricity sales in 2020. This shortfall, combined with capital cost
restrictions and siting limitations, leads to the inevitable conclusion that wind technology will not meet the RPS on its own,
and can only fulfill a small fraction of a 10 percent RPS requirement when mixed with other renewables.
RPS Neg 21
Solvency – Transmission and Intermittency Problems

Empirically, transmission and intermittency issues make RPSs infeasible and force utilities to face huge fines
As has been widely acknowledged, most renewable resources are located in remote regions, far from load centers and they
require additional transmission, which has proceeded slowly.
"Transmission issues have been the single largest factor that has stalled California's aggressive RPS program. Indeed, based
on an October 2007 report, the three major investor-owned utilities in the state had contracted to receive about 3,124 MW of
RPS generation, but less than 300 MW of eligible capacity has come online since 2001," S&P said. "If the Public Utilities
Commission had not relaxed RPS rules and allowed the use of mechanisms such as the banking of RPS credits, utilities
would be facing fines of up to $25 million per year."
Wind is not only too little, hard to access and getting more expensive, it may not be there when needed: unexpected
deviations in wind output were a factor in the near black-outs in the ERCOT region in Texas on February 26, when more than
80% of the state's wind turbines went offline when a cold front unexpectedly moved in.
Transmission is a precondition for RPS solvency
Electric Utility Weekly, ‘7 (Dipka Bhambhani, and Paul Carlsen, “Bingaman, still aiming for national RPS, finds few
supporters at NARUC meeting,” 7-23-08, pg. 13, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Philip Moeller said he was not surprised by Bingaman's stance. "That
doesn't surprise me. He's been on that position for a long time," he said.
Moeller said RPS could be successful if there was enough transmission. "To me it all goes back to transmission. If you don't
have enough transmission, you're not going to get renewables in either constrained areas or to markets that are located far
from where the resources are," he said.
For a lot of areas, transmission is key, Smith agreed. "If you're fortunate enough to have a lot of wind in your service area,
maybe it's not going to be that much but if you have to bring it in from quite a ways, that's another concern," she said. "It's
going to take some pretty extensive transmission to get there."
[Note – Marsha Smith is an Iowa Utilities Board member]
Intermittency kills solvency
Kranenburg 7 – Director of Business Development at Edison Electric Institute (Roger, “Charting a Course for Renewables,
http://www.platts.com/Magazines/Insight/2007/oct/200710B25150Eh3C0sQw3H_1.xml, AM)
Many factors account for the limited growth outlook. One is that renewable energy sources vary widely in various parts of the
U.S., with some regions enjoying an abundance of certain resources while others are comparatively resource poor. Just two
states—California and Washington—accounted for almost 40 percent of the nation's renewable generation (including
hydropower generation) last year. Non-hydroelectric output was even more concentrated. California provided almost a
quarter of the nation's electricity from non-hydro renewables. Texas was the second largest producer, contributing about 7
percent. And Texas alone accounted for nearly a third of the new wind capacity additions in 2006.
New, high-voltage transmission lines must also be built to accommodate the new renewable energy facilities. The siting of
renewable generation, especially wind power, is generally in remote, rural areas, far from existing transmission wires. These
transmission expansions can cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per mile to build. And these lines can also take years
to complete due to red-tape delays (especially when involving federal lands, which are particularly common in western
states) and public concerns.
The intermittent nature of wind and solar resources also can have costly impacts on the electric grid related to generation
interconnection and integration, transmission planning, and system and market operations, all of which must be taken into
account by utility planners. And because many renewable energy resources are intermittent, in that they do not operate
consistently, electric utilities will still need to build generating facilities using conventional fuels—most likely natural gas,
which has experienced volatile price swings of late—to support the grid reliability.
RPS Neg 22
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed

RPS by itself won’t solve – legislation to increase the transmission grid is a necessary precondition to expand
renewables
D. The Great Unknown: Operational and Infrastructure Implications

Considering the major operational impacts on electric utilities is exceedingly difficult. Many of the studies discussed in Part
II provide significant caveats related to the assumptions used in developing the respective models. The outcomes of the
currently available studies are so broad that the results seem to add little more than quantified speculations, at least in terms
of making specific predictions about the implications of a national RPS. That is, the studies provide a lot of numbers to
consider, but the results indicate that the impact of a national RPS could be revolutionary or exceedingly moderate.
For instance, the study from Woods MacKenzie indicates that a national RPS would lead to such significant amounts of
renewable energy that consumers could save as much as $ 100 billion on their electric bills. n127 If this is to become a
reality, it will mean a fundamental change in how utilities operate.
Whether from wind, solar, biomass, or other renewable sources, massive amounts of renewable energy generation would
require tremendous investment in new generation facilities. n128 Some sources, like solar or wind, could even require
additional investment in additional traditional-fuel generation to support the intermittent energy sources (i.e., to provide
energy when the wind or sun is [*67] not available). n129 Furthermore, to provide renewable energy at that level, major
investments in the transmission grid would need to occur. n130 Infrastructure changes at such a high level would
fundamentally change how electricity is delivered, and thus how utilities operate.
It is not clear how quickly, if at all, major transmission infrastructure can be made available. n131 Some western states have
worked to develop a renewable-only transmission, the Frontier Line. n132 The proposed Frontier Line is a transmission line
that would run as long as 1300 miles, from Wyoming to California (through Nevada and Utah). n133 It would "leverage up to
6,000 megawatts of wind power and 6,000 megawatts of clean coal power," n134 at an estimated cost of $ 3.3 billion, with
estimated annual benefits of between $ 926 million and $ 1.7 billion annually for the area. n135
More significantly, "development of a nationwide transmission super highway" would likely be needed to satisfy major new
wind generation at a level leading to cost savings of $ 100 billion. n136 Whether related to renewable energy or not, a
national transmission superhighway would provide additional benefits, in terms of reliability and, potentially, financially.
n137 In fact, in the CapX 2020 project is one such program that is intended to help (among other things) facilitate compliance
with Minnesota's renewable energy n138 objectives. n139 The CAPX 2020 Vision Plan includes a $ 1.25 billion transmission
infrastructure project of 1620 miles of 345kV transmission lines. A CapX 2020 study concluded that the covered region,
which includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, "will experience specific and numerous transmission
overloads, outages, and voltage problems" if transmission additions are not made between 2005 and 2020. n140 The fact that
the need for this [*68] transmission infrastructure was clear before Minnesota's RPS was even mandatory n141 indicates
that a national RPS would likely trigger similar needs throughout the country. A national RPS would thus also require
additional, and more aggressive, legislation to facilitate transmission investment on the scale needed to satisfy the RPS goals.
n142
Expanding wind power requires a massive expansion in transmission infrastructure

A transmission line to an isolated wind producing area contributes less to reliability than one embedded in a network. The
former will only be fully loaded when winds are strong, raising the cost per megawatt-hour actually carried. A new line in a
network often provides an alternative path for power if another one goes out of service, but losing a radial link to an isolated
renewable means that none of its power can reach users. There are no available estimates of additional investment required
under a wind-dominated national RPS. n88 Some local data, however, are emerging. The 10,000 MW of renewables (nearly
all wind) in Texas' 2025 RPS will require between $ 1.7 and $ 3.0 billion in new transmission. n89 As noted above, meeting
California's 2020 standard will require $ 5.7 billion of new high-voltage and substantial amounts of others. In both cases, the
investment includes both direct connections for the renewables and other construction needed to maintain reliability.
RPS Neg 23
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed

Federal RPS will require huge investments in generation, transmission and hardware
Supporters of a federal RPS have yet to produce estimates of investment in generation, transmission, and other hardware that
will be required for compliance. Its effects on operating costs also remain unexamined. Investment to meet existing state RPS
will be substantial. As of March 2005, utilities in RPS states were out of compliance by a modest 819MW. Required
investments in those states alone must soon increase, to a cumulated 2010 total of 12,129MW at $14.0 billion and a 2020
total of 52,729MW at $53.4 billion.12 The latter exceeds all of Florida's existing capacity and is over 80 percent of
California's.13 Wind turbines will account for 76 percent (40,000MW) of the new renewables, a figure that appears low in
light of wind's growing dominance. The 25 largest RPS utilities will make 63 percent of generation investments, most
importantly Southern California Edison (between $3.3 and $4.0 billion) and Chicago's Commonwealth Edison (between $3.2
and $3.9 billion).14 Conventional plants would, of course, also require new transmission and upgrades. The California
Energy Commission has estimated that its requirement of 33 percent renewables in 2020 will entail $5.7 billion in new 500
and 230kV lines alone, in addition to lower-voltage lines, substations, and reactive power supplies.15 The figure does not
include lines associated with new or upgraded conventional generation.
Wind will require the expensive addition of new transmission
The costs of adding transmission to reach new wind capacity are also in general absent from national RPS proposals.
Integrating 10,000MW of renewables (nearly all wind) to comply with Texas' 2025 RPS will require between $1.7 and $3.0
billion in new transmission.23 Those lines will contribute less to efficiency and reliability than lines between conventional
resources and loads. Because isolated installations produce to capacity only when winds are strong, transmission to them will
cost more per kWh actually delivered than transmission to less remote sources. A new line in an interconnected grid normally
increases reliability by providing an alternative path when another is out of service. Losing a radial line to an isolated wind
source, however, means that its power has no other path to loads and necessitates more costly reliability arrangements.
An RPS won’t expand renewables by itself – energy infrastructure and transmission difficulties will remain
It is important for proponents and opponents alike to recognize that the debate over a national RPS is only one piece of the
puzzle. The cost studies indicate that a national RPS is likely to be neither a panacea nor a disaster. n204 [*76] The country
still needs to address, to name just a few: an aging and insufficient energy infrastructure, n205 including a significant lack of
transmission capacity; n206 increasing gasoline costs; n207 and climate-change issues. n208 A national RPS would impact
all of these issues, but all of these issues would impact the potential success of a national RPS. By most accounts, a national
RPS is technologically achievable and, notwithstanding some potentially higher costs, economically feasible. That does not
make it good policy, but it should move the debate forward.
RPS Neg 24
Solvency – RECs Won’t Expand Renewables

RPS won’t expand renewables – providers will buy RECs from the government rather than invest in renewables
The EIA studies, on the other hand, indicated moderate increases in costs to consumers. n143 Depending on the parameters of
the RPS, it is possible that a national RPS could change almost nothing operationally, if the cost of the major infrastructure
changes is too high or the incentives too low. For instance, if the RPS includes a cost cap that is too low, most utilities would
simply buy RECs from the government rather than invest in renewable projects. In this scenario, only the easiest renewable
energy programs would be pursued, and it is likely those programs will occur with or without a national RPS. As discussed in
Part III.C, the EIA predicted this kind of outcome in the latter stages of a proposed 15% RPS. n144 Quite simply, developers
of renewable energy projects will not invest in projects if most of their customers have a cheaper way out.
Whether a national RPS would trigger fundamental change or have only moderate impact adds to the difficulty utilities would
face in making investment and policy decisions. What should be clear is that generation investment and transmission
investment are not separate issues, and any national RPS should be part of a comprehensive energy package to help utilities
make informed and more accurate decisions.
RECs won’t guarantee the distribution of renewables
C Renewables and risk

Renewable Credits Markets. Some national RPS backers see renewables as potentially available everywhere, but others
acknowledge their uneven geographic distribution and their unequal costs. All federal RPS proposals include markets for
renewable energy credits (RECs) that will allow utilities in resource-poor areas to comply by purchasing plants or supplies in
resource-rich ones. Credits may not have the same functionality as local resources. A distant one may not be dispatchable or
transmission may be unavailable when needed, forcing the buyer to make costly standby arrangements. Three RPS states do
not even require that sources of their utilities' RECs be interconnected with their grids. Two other facts lead to pessimism on
RECs. The first is political: some states will be permanently deficient and constantly sending payments to others whose good
fortune was a random event.55 The second is economic: prices of credits under existing state programs are too volatile to be
of use for collateralizing debt, and there is no clear reason why a federal program will be different. When capacity is short,
they are costly or unavailable, but as soon as the RPS threshold is met they become nearly worthless.56
RPS Neg 25
Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables

Federal RPS not necessary to expand renewable – other programs are more flexible
Ralls, 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(Mary Ann, Energy Law Journal, “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Vol.
27, no. 2, p.451, Proquest) // JMP
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into law the most sweeping energy bill since the 1992 Energy Policy Act.1
Weighing in at a hefty 1,724 pages, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005 or the Act)2 includes provisions on numerous
subjects including energy efficiency, hydrogen, climate control, oil and gas, and renewable energy. The final product was
over 10 years in the making; during its extended gestation, EPAct 2005 was the source of many legislative battles. Due to the
span of time over which Congress considered an energy bill, and procedural maneuvers employed to ensure the enactment of
EPAct 2005, the Conference Managers' Report accompanying H.R. 6 (the bill that would become EPAct 2005) was almost, if
not wholly, unprecedented in its brevity.3 It does not explain why some measures were successful whereas others, such as a
federally mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard4 (RPS), failed to make it into the law.
But was a mandate necessary to foster the purposes underlying the numerous attempts to enact a RPS, and to spur on the
growth of renewable energy markets? When the sum of other federal, state, regional, local, and utility-specific activities in
the renewable arena is calculated, the answer is no. Activities on a number of fronts supplant the need for a federal RPS.
Moreover, the flexibility inherent in many such programs, as well as in the consideration procedures established under the
Electricity Title XII of EPAct 2005,5 mean that these programs and procedures are much more likely to realize the benefits
from renewables while providing consumers with reliable, cost-effective energy.
State RPSs prove that renewables won’t be sufficiently expanded

B. Some State Experiences
One RPS proposal
The growing national RPS literature has given very little attention to the performance of state RPS programs, and what discussions exist are often vague or misleading.
describes the "impressive progress" of California, Nevada, and New York, which have in reality made little or none. n95 Seeking
evidence of similar progress, the Worldwatch Institute notes that: "Several states are demonstrating just how quickly renewable energy can take hold with the right policies. California already gets 31 percent of
its electricity from renewable resources; [and] 12 percent of this [i.e. 4 percent of the state total] comes from non-hydro sources." n96
In reality Californians received approximately the same percentage of their power from nonhydro renewables in 2006 as they
did in 1995, despite enactment of an RPS in 2002. n97 Most of the hydropower comes from large federal and utility-owned dams built before 1950, 23% from other states in
2006. n98 A report by Barry Rabe for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change also views state experiences favorably. "In a number of instances, RPSs have clearly played a central role in fostering rapid and
significant expansion of the amount of [*103] renewable energy provided in a state." n99 Apparently seeking to justify this claim, his report examines five states chosen for their representativeness and
diversity: n100
[] Texas is the only state in full compliance with an RPS that has required substantial generation investment. In early 2007 it met its 2009 quota of 2,000 new renewable megawatts in territories that were open
to retail competition. All utilities and competitive retailers are required to obtain a percentage of their supplies from renewables or obtain credits for them. Nearly all of the added capacity is wind. The RPS has
since been extended to 5,000 MW of renewables by 2015 and a non-binding goal of 10,000 by 2025, at least 500 of which are to be non-wind. Texas has built its required renewables, but the Pew Report does
not examine their actual contributions to power supply and reliability discussed above.
[] Massachusetts required that 1% of all delivered power per year be from renewables between 1998 and 2002, after which the amount was to rise by 0.5% per year through 2009. Wind was expected to
dominate compliance investments, but rural residents, environmentalists, and elected officials have successfully stopped or delayed most construction. Utilities used banked credits from 2002 to achieve
compliance in 2003, fell 32.6% short in 2004, and 37.4% in 2005. They failed to comply despite a required payment to the state, currently $ 55.13 for each deficit MWh. n101
[] The Pew report asserts that Nevada could become the "next Texas," thanks to its geothermal capabilities and empty, windy deserts. n102 Its RPS requires annual progress to 20% by 2015, with 5% of
renewables solar at that date. n103 Nevada's utilities have signed contracts with renewables providers that nominally [*104] put the two of them taken together into compliance with its RPS. n104 Nevada
Power met its 2006 requirement by purchasing 1.02 million kwh of credits from Sierra Pacific Power. As opposed to quantities under contract, the actual outputs of renewables are well below the utilities'
quotas, currently 9%. n105 Both are also in deficit on their solar quotas.
[] Pennsylvania enacted a two-tiered "Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard" in 2005. The first tier consists of non-hydro renewables and includes an 0.5% solar setaside. The second includes incinerated trash
and waste coal. Tier 1 facilities are to generate 8% of the state's power by 2021, and Tier 2 10%. n106 Utilities are exempt from its provisions during their authorized periods for recovery of transition costs
incurred in connection with restructuring. The alternative energy requirement began to run for three of them on Feb. 28, 2007, and the rest will begin on or before Jan. 1, 2011. n107 As of this writing, no data
on compliance are publicly available.
[] Colorado in 2004 became the first state to bypass its legislature and enact a 10% 2015 RPS (including a 4% solar setaside) by referendum. n108 In 2007 its legislature increased the requirement to 20% by
2020, with a 4% solar setaside. Unlike most other RPS states, its municipal and cooperative utilities must also comply, but at a lower level than investor-owned systems. Statewide compliance data are not
currently available. n109
The Pew Report expresses optimism over the future of these states' programs, but their actual records provide little reason for
such a hopeful judgment. Only Texas is clearly in compliance with its own RPS, and its nearly 3,000 MW of wind capacity
produced only 1.8% of its electricity in 2006, often [*105] at hours when it was of little value. n110 One of Nevada's two utilities is overcompliant and the other in deficit, but the
exchange of credits between them has little meaning because of their weak interconnections. Massachusetts was out of compliance within a year after its
requirements became binding, and environmental difficulties may render it dependent on external resources for the long term. No Pennsylvania utilities had to be in compliance with their
state's RPS at the time of the Pew Report, and data from those currently subject to reporting requirements are not yet available. Likewise, Colorado's program appears too new to draw any firm conclusions
about present-day compliance or future prospects for it.
RPS Neg 26
Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables
RPS not key to cost reductions and expansion of renewables

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

A Today's megawatts, tomorrow's bills
With minor exceptions, renewables have failed to deliver on decades of promises. Table 1 shows the nation's power sources
in 1991 and 2005. The percentage generated by gas has risen substantially, improved operating procedures have increased the
share of nuclear units, and coal is off only 3 percentage points. A number of states had RPS programs in operation, but over
the period production from renewables went from 2.0 to 2.2 percent of the total. Table 2 shows how the composition of
renewable output has changed. Wind's percentage share rose while those of all other technologies fell. Solar generation
(photovoltaic and thermal combined) fell from 0.6 to 0.5 percent of renewable output. Had wind remained at its 1991 level,
renewables would have fallen to 1.8 percent of total generation.
RPS Neg 27
Solvency – Federal RPS will Just Expand Wind

A federal RPS will just expand wind power – it is the only feasible renewable at this time
Yeatman & Ebell, 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global
Warming Policy at CEI
(William Yeatman and Myron Ebell, “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the
Industrial Heartland,” 6-12-2007, No. 114, http://cei.org/pdf/5982.pdf) // JMP
Renewable Energy is Wind Energy. The notion that an RPS will include a “portfolio” of renewable energy sources is
misleading—wind energy is the only economically viable renewable energy source given current technologies. Although
other renewable sources, such as biomass and solar, have long-term potential, they are currently no more than niche
technologies.
Even assuming that these technologies improve significantly in the next decade or two, a major logistical obstacle will
remain. The technology to convert biomass into electricity remains prohibitively expensive and uncertain. Huge investments
will be needed to build infrastructure to gather and transport large quantities of biomass to generating plants.
With solar energy, the near-term potential is almost certainly at the consumer level rather than large-scale generation, again
because of cost and reliability issues. In other words, the potential for photovoltaic panels is greater on rooftops than across
deserts.
Wind power, on the other hand, is an established technology. In an analysis of the impact of a 10-percent nationwide RPS on
the energy industry, the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that “non-hydro electric technologies such as
geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and ocean technologies are not projected to have net capacity additions.”2 As
of 2004, of the estimated 2,335 megawatts of renewable energy use attributable to state renewable standards, 2,183
megawatts (93 percent) were generated by wind.3 Thus, a renewable portfolio standard is, in reality, a mandate for wind
power.
RPS Neg 28
Solvency – Wind Power Bad

Scaling up wind power will cause costs to rise disproportionately
Advocates correctly claim a negligible cost impact of adding small amounts of wind capacity to existing grids, because
responses to changing winds differ little from responses to random load changes or generator outages. If wind is more
important, the picture changes. Today's grid operator can economize on reserves because outages of conventional generators
are uncorrelated, and so to a lesser extent are those of transmission. Wind is more the opposite: if units at one location are
producing little, those at nearby locations are also likely to be doing so.20 The costs of accommodating wind resources rise
disproportionately when they reach 15 to 20 percent of an area's capacity.21 Estimates of additional reliability investments
under a national RPS are not available, and the same holds for estimates of the costs of higher reserves and load-following
capabilities.22 The case for integrating demand management with renewables becomes stronger as wind becomes a larger
proportion of capacity.
As wind use grows the backlash and costs will increase
B Why wind?
Wind's recent growth reflects its sensitivity to an on-again off-again production tax credit, since expanded to some other
renewables by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.16 Its likely future dominance reflects its economic availability and political
acceptability. All renewables are location-specific, but wind is the most accessible from many load centers. Railroads and
pipelines allow more convenient siting of conventional generation, but even biomass becomes uneconomic if transported
over 50 miles.17 Wind often faces relatively less public opposition than other renewables, a situation that may change as
units become larger and more visible. The costs of accommodating wind resources rise disproportionately when they reach
15 to 20 percent of an area's capacity.
Wind is not reliable – low wind speeds during peak hours
Most fossil fuel generators can operate on short notice unless down for maintenance, which owners can schedule in
accordance with their expectations of weather and market conditions. Geothermal and biomass are the only renewables that
can be base-loaded or reliably kept available for dispatch, while wind's intermittency renders it less valuable. To meet its
2009 RPS deadline, Texas recently completed 2,000MW of wind turbines and currently has a total of 2,900MW. In 2005
Texas' RTO, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), classified only 10 percent of a wind unit's nameplate
rating as "effective capacity," a figure since downgraded by a consultant to 8.7 percent.18 Wind speeds are generally low
during peak demand hours. At their 2006 annual peaks, wind generators in both California and Texas were producing under 3
percent of their claimed capacities. The average on-peak contribution of California's 2,323MW of wind capacity in the peak
month of July 2006 was 256MW.19
RPS Neg 29
Solvency – Wind Power Bad

Two factors will block a major increase in wind
- Local hostility
- Growing costs

Wind is the only renewable whose output has increased significantly since 1990. An indexed production tax credit (PTC), currently 1.9 cents per kwh, first became law in 1992,
and in 1998 investment began its upward trend. The PTC has expired and been temporarily extended four times, and investment has fluctuated accordingly. n78 The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 extended the PTC to certain other renewables, but investment in them has yet to respond. Wind is the least site-specific renewable, and some large consuming areas are
in easy transmission range of windy ones. n79 Wind units often encounter less local resistance than fossil plants and other renewables, and they can be grouped into large "farms."
Two obstacles may stand in the way of wind's continued growth. First, localized hostility is growing as units grow in size,
visibility (some over 400 feet high), and audibility. Second, wind's costs have greatly increased in recent years. Costs per installed
kilowatt steadily declined from the 1980s through the early 2000s. They then rose by 60% per installed kilowatt between [*99] 2003 and 2006, 18%
between 2005 and 2006 alone. The most important part of the increase was an increase in turbine costs, which are expected to remain
high over the near future. n80
Many national RPS scenarios predict that the preponderance of compliance investments will be wind. Operating experience has confirmed that the costs of adding small amounts
of intermittent renewables to an existing grid are low. n81 Random fluctuations in wind require the same type of response as fluctuations in load or minor generator outages. There
is also general agreement that if wind passes some threshold level it begins to raise operating costs. Outages of wind units are more highly correlated than those of conventional
plants, i.e. if it is calm at one location in a control area it is also relatively likely to be calm at others. n82 The most complete U.S. study to date examined the cost to a utility (4,600
MW peak load) of maintaining industry operating standards with alternative amounts of wind capacity. n83 Assume that a wind unit will be paid the marginal cost per kwh of
conventional generation it replaces, net of payments to the system operator for balancing and load-following services. If there is only a small amount of wind capacity the system
incurs no extraordinary cost and the wind unit's owner receives an average $ 30 per MWh over the year. As wind becomes more prominent it displaces high cost gas-fired
generation and lowers system marginal cost, which lowers the price all generators receive. The return to wind plant owners is lower because the purchase price for its power has
fallen, and because additional wind capacity raises its integration cost per megawatt. 1,000 MW of wind on this system lowers its net payment per MWh to $ 15, and 2,000 MW
drops it to $ 8. If
most investments to meet an RPS are wind, they will not be viable if they must bear the actual operating costs
they impose on the grid. n84
Wind is not useful during peak load times

[*100] Wind's usefulness to a grid operator is further lowered by the general inverse association between peak loads and
wind velocities. In (most) regions, on-peak velocities are also lower in summer than winter. At the five highest load hours of
2006, wind units in California produced an average of 12.2% of their nominal capabilities. n85 Average California wind
generation during on-peak hours (7 AM to 10 PM) in July 2006 was 495 MW (21% of capacity) and 464 MW in August. n86
Similarly, the average output of Texas 2,800 MW of wind generators is 16.8% of capacity, most of which occurs off-peak.
For system planning purposes its grid operator currently sets a wind turbine's "effective capacity" at 8.7% of its nominal
amount. n87
RPS Neg 30
Solvency – No Renewables in Southeast

The southeast will be forced to pay for renewable credits because renewable are not plentiful there

The seeming simplicity of a national RPS conceals design and implementation issues seldom mentioned by advocates. Like
any other novel regulation it will entail detailed rulemakings, data collection, and procedures for enforcing compliance. Other
environmental programs may have been coherently implemented, but this experience need not be dispositive for a national
RPS. Whether it applies to states or utilities, its impacts will depend importantly on [*111] accidents of geography. Regions
have vastly differing mixes of potential renewable resources, and areas with already high amounts of renewable generation
will be less burdened than those without them. n130 Since most of the response to a national RPS will be investment in wind,
advocates' expectations that source diversity will mitigate its distributional effects will probably not be fulfilled. Instead,
some areas will be chronically burdened with REC payments that in effect make them pay for cleaner air that benefits the
residents of distant regions. The relatively windless southeast will encounter such a fate, despite its array of coal-fired plants
that are expected to remain in compliance with existing environmental regulations. One likely intent of an RPS is to
advantage gas-dependent areas and disadvantage those that have fewer renewable opportunities and currently depend on coal.
n131
RPS Neg 31
Solvency – Renewables are Not Cost Competitive

Renewables are not cost competitive – they couldn’t compete without a federal mandate
UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007,
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP
But RPS opponents say the very fact renewables need government regulations to be competitive proves their economic
inferiority.
"Renewable energy is more expensive," said Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank. "If they're as good as their proponents say, they should be able to compete without a federal
mandate."
Renewables, such as wind and solar, can also be less reliable than other energy sources, making them less valuable.
"I think these RPSs are a bad idea, and if 10 or 20 states want to do a bad idea, that doesn't mean we should force it on all
50," Lieberman said.
RPS Neg 32
Solvency – Vagueness
A vague RPS will encourage legal battles and/or just reinforce the status quo
Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
In his evaluation of lessons learned from state RPS policies, Ryan Wiser found that the design of the mandate was critical to
its effectiveness. An RPS mandate can be poorly designed and ineffective or elegant and cost-effective.48 We have noted how
vague definitions of regulated utilities have provoked prolonged legal battles in some states. In others, overly broad
definitions of eligible resources have resulted in programs that "have largely supported or will support existing (not new)
renewable generation."49
The plan is too vague – the RPS passed by the House includes the percentage, the qualifying renewables, specifies a
phase-in and stipulates the provision of renewable credits
For purposes of this Article, the impact of a national RPS will be considered under the plan passed by the House in House Bill 3221 (the Proposed
RPS). n25 Like the prior three RPS proposals that passed the Senate, n26 the Proposed RPS would have been enacted as an amendment to Title VI of the [*54] Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). n27 As such, it is likely that a national RPS, if passed, would be included as part of PURPA.
The Proposed RPS required all "retail electric suppliers" to provide 15% of their energy sold from renewable sources by the
year 2020. n28 That is, 15% of each covered retail electricity supplier's energy would have needed to be either generated from renewable energy resources or the retail electric
supplier would need to otherwise purchase or exchange credits derived from renewable generation. n29 The plan provided one additional option for a portion of the requirement:
utilities were permitted to achieve up to 4% of this requirement through efficiency programs. n30 The Proposed RPS provided
that renewable energy meant electric energy that is generated by a "renewable energy resource," which "means solar
(including solar water heating), wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal energy, biomass, landfill gas, or incremental hydropower." n31
The plan would have been phased in, starting with a requirement of 2.75% renewable energy beginning in 2010, increasing
gradually (but significantly) through 2020 up to 15%. n32
RPS Requirements As Proposed in H.R. 3221 Calendar Years Required annual percentage
2010 2.75
2011 2.75
2012 3.75
2013 4.5
2014 5.5
2015 6.5
2016 7.5
2017 8.25
2018 10.25
2019 12.25
2020 and thereafter through 2039 15
Source: H.R. 3221, 110th Cong. § 9611(a).
The Proposed RPS would have exempted retail electricity sellers who sold less than one million megawatt-hours of
electricity for purposes other than resale use in the preceding year, as well as all municipal and rural cooperative suppliers. n33
[*55] Under the Proposed RPS, the Secretary of Energy would have been charged with establishing a program to verify and
issue Federal renewable energy credits (RECs). n34 The RECs were to be issued to generators of renewable energy, and the program planned to track the sale,
exchange, and retirement of RECs. n35 The proposal also provided that, "to the extent possible, in establishing such program, the Secretary shall rely upon existing and emerging
State or regional tracking systems that issue and track non-Federal renewable energy credits." n36 As a general rule, one REC would have been issued for each kilowatt hour of
renewable electric energy generated under the statute. n37 In addition, the plan provided a premium (i.e., additional RECs) in certain situations. Two RECs were to be issued per
kilowatt hour of renewable energy generated on Indian land, n38 and three RECs would have been issued for renewable energy generated at an on-site facility where that
renewable energy was used to offset all or part of the customer's electricity requirements. n39
Finally, the Proposed RPS expressly preserved the validity of state programs, including those that exceeded the national RPS.
n40 In recommending reliance upon state and regional systems that track "non-Federal renewable energy credits" in the development of a federal REC tracking system, House Bill
3221 contemplated the coexistence of such state programs. n41 Further, the proposal stated, all retail electricity supplier payments made, "directly or indirectly, to a State for
compliance with a State renewable portfolio standard program, or for an alternative compliance mechanism, shall be valued ... based on the amount of electric energy generation
from renewable resources and electricity savings that results from those payments." n42 The Proposed RPS thus would have kept intact state RPS programs and allowed for the
issuance of both federal RECs and state RECs where the renewable energy source satisfied both the federal and state requirements. This does not mean that there would not have
been lawsuits claiming some sort of preemption, but the Proposed RPS made the intent quite clear. n43
RPS Neg 33
Solvency – National RPS = Wealth Transfer

A national RPS will result in a wealth transfer from States without renewables
Such increased costs are also part of the second major argument against a national RPS - that it essentially amounts to a
wealth transfer from states with [*60] few renewable resources to those with significant renewable resources. States like
North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Kansas have significant renewable energy sources available, especially wind. n73
Southeastern states, n74 like Florida n75 and Virginia, n76 have very limited wind resources available, which could mean
that such states would need to purchase RECs from renewable-rich states to stay in compliance with the national RPS
requirements. n77 The risk of this wealth transfer is apparent in certain scenarios. For example, the EIA determined that
under a 25% RPS by 2025, the RPS would lead to higher overall electricity prices, but could,result in lower electricity prices
in some areas of the United States. The Western Regions have considerable renewable resources that could enable suppliers
to provide renewable generation in excess of their own requirements and sell surplus credits to producers in other areas with
less economical renewable options. The resulting revenue could more than offset the costs of building renewable plants in the
West. n78
A major component of the wealth-transfer complaint of a national RPS is that it unfairly promotes wind and solar energy, thus
requiring states with limited solar and wind resources to pay other states for the renewable resources. n79 However, there are
indications that other renewable sources, biomass in particular, would help balance this potential inequity. n80 "Biomass
generation is considerably higher than the output from wind capacity ... because of a higher [*61] biomass capacity factor."
n81 Additionally, energy efficiency provisions, like those in the Proposed RPS, could further assist in the "uneven geography
of renewable resources." n82 Nonetheless, this risk remains a significant criticism of a national RPS.
RPS Neg 34
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use

A national RPS won’t significantly reduce emissions – trades off with cleaner conventional energiess

2. RPS, Emissions, and Wind

One does not need NEMS to see that a national RPS will cut carbon emissions by less than its percentage requirement - a
rough consensus is that a 10% increase in renewable output reduces them by only about 6%. n76 This occurs because
intermittently available renewables such as wind turbines (which will make up most of the renewable fleet) must be backed
by gas-fired generators whose outputs can quickly adjust to fluctuations in wind velocity. Coal-fired generators produce more
GHG per kwh hour generated, but they will be base-loaded because their output cannot be altered on short notice. Some
renewables such as biomass and geothermal can be base-loaded and will displace coal, but the wind turbines that will
dominate renewable investment primarily displace cleaner conventional energy. n77
RPS will only trade off with gas fired generation – won’t reduce coal use

An RPS inefficiently limits the types of generation to be used rather than constraining allowable emissions of pollutants and
GHGs. Percentage [*87] reductions in emissions over a region will not vary one-for-one with the percentage of power
produced by renewables. Both the amounts emitted and their composition depend on the types of renewables built and the
types of conventional generators they displace. As noted below, wind turbines will dominate renewable investments over at
least the medium-term, but their intermittent availability means that they will largely displace gas-fired generation that can
adjust output on short notice. Gas-fired plants emit fewer criteria pollutants and GHGs than coal-burning ones, so using
intermittent renewables to satisfy an RPS will cut emissions by less than the RPS percentage. Unlike gas-fired generators,
coal units will remain base-loaded and operating at almost all times. Among other renewables, geothermal and biomass plants
can be base-loaded, but their growth prospects appear small.
RPS won’t reduce coal consumption – trades off with natural gas
Hall & Kirkham, 7 – natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP
(Richard R. Hall and John S. Kirkham, The Enterprise Newspaper, “Coal: Like It or Not, It's Here to Stay,” 6-1-2007,
www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484) // JMP
Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the environmental
impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a certain level or percentage of
electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from renewable sources. While
renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the development of renewable energy sources, they
do not appear to have a significant effect on coal consumption. Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend
to decrease the consumption of natural gas, rather than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources
may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short term, encouraging the development of
renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the
electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures.
RPS Neg 35
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use

Reliability concerns will force utilities to operate fossil fuel back up generators
B. Flexibility in Assessing Reliability

Like renewables programs, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to assessing reliability of renewable resources. Certainly some,
such as biomass and landfill gas, are dispatchable.91 Since there is no guarantee that wind and solar will generate power when needed,
purchasing utilities may be forced to continue to operate traditional fossil-fuel, back-up generators when necessary. Because
of the need to run these back-up systems, the environmental and economic benefits of certain renewable resources may be
overstated.92 In a recent study, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) noted that because renewable resources are intermittent in nature, generating capacity
that is available during peak periods is less predictable than capacity from traditional fuels, and energy actually produced during these times is even smaller. According to NERC,
reliability has two components-supply adequacy and operating reliability. Two
elements of renewables-intermittence and low energy production-
necessitate that back-up resources and transmission capacity be available to ensure supply adequacy. Additionally, renewable resources
must be assessed on their ability to provide levels of reactive power capability, voltage regulation, and low-voltage ride-through capability sufficient to maintain connection to the
bulk transmission system under low-voltage conditions.93
To the extent that implementers of renewable programs perceive that the lack of reliability creates a barrier to successful incorporation of renewables into utility portfolios, the
RPSs or other programs can be and are being revisited. For instance, Texas recently amended its statute to require utilities to upgrade their transmission systems to meet RPS goals
and to be able to recover those costs in their rate bases.94 In California, the IOUs have expressed concern that they may not be able to meet the 20% by 2010 standard because of
transmission constraints.95
Even with an RPS coal, gas and nuclear generation will increase to keep up with load growth

VII. Conclusions
A national RPS has appeared in legislation or proposed legislation eighteen times since 1997. n129 Its continuing appeal is
more the result of its rhetorical force and political expediency than its likely consequences for electricity and the
environment. RPS at any level reverses decades of hard-won progress in determining standards and developing institutions
for the efficient control of criteria pollutants. It is also inefficient as GHG policy. It concentrates on using a certain
technology rather than directly addressing emissions, and its alternatives in a comprehensive GHG policy have yet to be
spelled out. Current trends suggest that wind power will constitute the great majority of compliance investments, but ensuring
the reliability of a wind-dependent grid will require major transmission investments and continued reliance on conventional
generation. Biomass and geothermal power have not yet passed the market test and solar power is a negligible presence,
leaving wind to power any renewable future. Wind's intermittency implies that it will primarily displace gas-fired generation,
while coal plants that pollute more heavily remain base-loaded. Among the few NEMS forecasts we can accept with
confidence are its projections of substantial new investment in coal, gas, and possibly nuclear generation to keep up with
even conservative estimates of load growth.
RPS Neg 36
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Help Environment

Environmental compliance can be met with conventional plants – RPS not necessary

C. Efficiency Through Time

The principles of efficiency extend to durable investments in generation and transmission. Intertemporal efficiency entails the
choice of investments that produce a utility's planned output at the lowest cost, discounted to the present for comparability
with alternative projects. Any chosen project must also account for expected future policy constraints such as more stringent
air quality standards, and possibly GHG abatement or sequestration. Different investments will be optimal for differently
situated utilities. Some might choose gas-fired units whose emissions are easier to control but whose fuel prices are less
stable. [*88] Others might choose coal-burning technologies in the expectation that satisfactory abatement or sequestration
technologies will be available at reasonable cost. Still others might invest in demand management. The utility's optimal
choice will depend on expectations of the future and on the legacy generation the utility is bringing forward.
Renewables have been available as supply options for some time, but most utilities appear to have determined that they can
meet their service obligations and remain in environmental compliance by investing in conventional plants and demand
management. In states with RPS, utilities have generally chosen to make the required compliance investments in renewables,
but not to build renewables beyond those amounts. A national RPS affects both those states with existing programs and those
without. In the latter it forces the costly modification of supply plans that utilities expect will be in compliance with air
quality and GHG regulations. The fact that renewables have lower emissions cannot by itself justify a requirement that they
be built in lieu of conventional generation. Economic efficiency means production at least cost, where costs reflect the market
values of all relevant resources. Whether lower allowable concentrations of pollutants or emissions of GHG are warranted is
properly the subject of rulemakings like those that have set currently standards, rather than an ad hoc regulation like RPS.
National RPS won’t help environment – several reasons

We begin with data on renewables which suggests that a federal RPS will bring little diversity in generation resources and
few environmental benefits. The next sections examine advocates' claims for it, finding them inadequate at best. As
environmental policy, an RPS is inefficient by every economic standard. It is a costly measure whose effects on emissions are
uncertain, difficult to integrate with existing environmental regulation, and needlessly disruptive of generation investments
intended to comply with anticipated emissions rules. Other purported consequences are also questionable. As macroeconomic
or industrial policy, a national RPS cannot possibly "create" net increases in employment and rural areas that it will
"revitalize" seldom need the help. Claims that it is necessary to stimulate reductions in production cost lose their force in a
global economy, as do expectations that it will position the U.S. to dominate the world renewables market. Rather than
facilitating risk management, standard renewables contracts only transfer it from utilities to captive customers. National
security is better advanced through direct policies instead of compulsory investment in renewables.
RPS reverses standards and institutions to efficiently control pollution

VII. Conclusions
A national RPS has appeared in legislation or proposed legislation eighteen times since 1997. n129 Its continuing appeal is more the result of its rhetorical force and political
expediency than its likely consequences for electricity and the environment. RPS
at any level reverses decades of hard-won progress in determining
standards and developing institutions for the efficient control of criteria pollutants. It is also inefficient as GHG policy. It
concentrates on using a certain technology rather than directly addressing emissions, and its alternatives in a comprehensive GHG policy have
yet to be spelled out. Current trends suggest that wind power will constitute the great majority of compliance investments, but ensuring the reliability of a wind-dependent grid will
require major transmission investments and continued reliance on conventional generation. Biomass and geothermal power have not yet passed the market test and solar power is a
negligible presence, leaving wind to power any renewable future. Wind's intermittency implies that it will primarily displace gas-fired generation, while coal plants that pollute
more heavily remain base-loaded. Among the few NEMS forecasts we can accept with confidence are its projections of substantial new investment in coal, gas, and possibly
nuclear generation to keep up with even conservative estimates of load growth.
RPS Neg 37
A2: Environment Adv – Warming Ans

Complex modeling proves that RPS won’t substantially reduce greenhouse emissions
C Modeling a national RPS
Simulating the effects of a national RPS has become a small industry, most of whose members use the U.S. Energy
Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System. NEMS is a breathtakingly complex set of modules, each with its
own authors, that estimates prices and outputs for all types of energy along with macroeconomic forecasts. Documentation issued in 2006 and the first half of 2007 alone totals over 3,500 pages.24 Its outcomes
depend on literally thousands of assumptions, some at the choice of users and others embedded within its hundreds of equations.25 The extreme detail makes it impossible for all but dedicated specialists to
evaluate the sensitivity of forecasts to alternative assumptions and to opine on their reasonableness.
Its forecast accuracy has improved little with experience, particularly for longer
Despite constant tweaking, NEMS' cumulative record is not encouraging.
horizons like those of RPS studies. Some seemingly accurate forecasts (e.g., energy consumption) reflect significant offsetting forecast errors in their components (GDP and energy
intensity).26 Sometimes the forecasts are hard to square with reality. The U.S. Senate used a June 2007 EIA study to justify possible inclusion of an RPS in legislation. It predicts that by 2030 biomass
generation will have increased more than sevenfold, while wind will have increased by only 400 percent. Biomass' share of renewable generation has fallen since 1991 and its absolute amount (wood plus waste
burning) is roughly unchanged (Table 2). Nevertheless NEMS predicts so thorough a recovery that it will produce 68 percent of renewable power in 2030 and wind will produce only 16 percent.27 The
complexity of NEMS makes it difficult to determine which empirical factors drive the reversal, to check whether assumptions within its mathematical structure might be responsible, or to calculate the level of
confidence we can have in the prediction. We do know that currently active power plant proposals contain very small amounts of biomass capacity and thousands of megawatts of wind.28
Most NEMS-based studies predict that a national RPS will produce relatively small increases in power prices under the model's assumptions about technology improvement and market conditions. As a general
29 Simpler models have confirmed NEMS'
matter, more "mature" technologies (like wind is becoming) have significantly slower rates of cost decrease than less mature ones.
findings that a national RPS will reduce production of GHG by substantially less than the stipulated portfolio percentage,
e.g., a 10 percent requirement drops GHG by only 6 percent.30 Gas-fired units will generally be on the margin, but cutting
their output to accommodate intermittent renewables reduces GHGs by less than if coal-fired generation could be cut when
they are operating. The characteristics of coal units, however, make quick changes in their output costly or impossible.
Renewable energy is just one piece in the puzzle of global warming.
UPU, 7 (Utah Public Utilities, “Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Will Reduce Power and Natural Gas Costs, But Not
Have a Significant Impact on GHG Emission Levels,” May 2007,
http://publicutilities.utah.gov/archive/federalrenewableenergyportfoliostandard.pdf, AG)
A 15-percent Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) will drive down natural gas demand and price, lower the overall price of power, but only lead to a slowing in the growth rate of greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG), not an absolute reduction from current levels according to the new Wood Mackenzie report, "The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard." The United States needs to build
420 GW of capacity over the next 20 years to replace aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity. Mounting concerns over US dependence on fossil fuels and the need to address global
warming are helping to drive efforts in the US Congress to pass legislation establishing a federal standard to mandate the use of renewable energy. Recent RPS proposals call for an average of 15 percent of
power generation to come from renewable sources within the next two decades, up from 6 percent today. While the US Congress contemplates a federal standard, 24 states have already adopted legislation
"Renewable energy alone will not be
mandating targets for renewables. Renewable energy in this case is defined as wind, solar, landfill gas, biomass, and small hydro power.
enough to result in the large GHG reduction targets being proposed," said Joe Sannicandro, VP - North American Power and Michael Pickens, Senior Analyst -
North American Power for Wood Mackenzie. "Currently, the US power sector produces 39 percent of the country's total CO2 emissions. Our study shows that a Federal RPS would
only be one small piece in a large and complicated puzzle to halt the growth of or reduce the absolute level of CO2
emissions. The study shows that implementing the Federal RPS would reduce total domestic CO2 levels in 2025 by only 10% from the Wood Mackenzie base case. Equally important is that the growth
rate in CO2 production is still a positive 0.8% per year under a Federal RPS compared with a growth rate of 1.2% per year in Wood Mackenzie's base case outlook. Clearly, a reduction in total
CO2 levels will require other options to be implemented including nuclear power, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon
sequestration and demand-side approaches to reduce the growth rate of electricity consumption." According to the report, the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of new wind and other
renewable projects well beyond current proposed projects, leading to a 500-percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. This increase translates into an incremental construction cost of
$134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and 2026. The report also shows the switch to renewable energy will drive down demand and price of natural gas. "The lower fuel costs and fossil fuel consumption
will lead to lower electricity costs," continued Sannicandro.
National policy can’t solve warming – global solution needed

After setting an allowable concentration, regulators must design institutions that minimize the costs of attaining that level. Economics provides several guidelines for efficient reduction: n24
[] Consider all possible sources. Regulating only a subset of sources cannot possibly lower the costs of achieving a given reduction in concentration.
[] Regulate the pollutant itself and not the process that produces it. Regulating the design of equipment (small hydroelectric plants but not large ones) or its inputs (restrictions on usable fuels) is inferior to
regulating output of the pollutant itself. Design standards needlessly restrict the range of possible abatement methods and may discourage innovative approaches to it. The desired end-product is a lower level of
the pollutant rather than the dominance of a particular technology.
[] Match geography with costs and benefits. National environmental laws nominally specify uniform standards, but the attainability of a target in practice requires particularized regulation. Specialized ozone
regulations make sense for [*86] Southern California's unique geography, but would not be worth the cost in rural Wyoming. The forthcoming Clean Air Interstate Rules for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur will
f GHGs are a worldwide problem, a
be largely restricted to areas that are primarily responsible for emissions and contain most of the affected population. n25 Similarly, i
worldwide control program is in order. A single state or national policy, standing alone, is primarily symbolic.
RPS Neg 38
A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans

Air quality is improving
Schwartz, 03 - ADJUNCT SCHOLAR, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Joel, “PARTICULATE AIR

POLLUTION: WEIGHING THE RISKS,” April, http://cei.org/pdf/3452.pdf)
America’s air quality has vastly improved in recent decades due to progressive emission reductions from industrial facilities
and motor vehicles. The country achieved this success despite substantial increases in population, automobile travel, and
energy production. Air pollution will continue to decline, both because more recent vehicle models start out cleaner and stay
cleaner as they age than earlier ones, and also because already-adopted standards for new vehicles and existing power plants
and industrial facilities come into effect in the next few years.
Air pollution doesn’t kill

Nonetheless, both the Bush Administration and congressional Democrats have proposed sweeping new measures to further
crack down on power plant emissions. The Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative and a more stringent Democratic
alternative are largely justified by claims that current levels of particulate matter (PM) pose a serious public health threat.
Supporters of these bills promise substantial benefits from additional PM reductions.
Nevertheless, the benefit claims for PM reductions rest on a weak foundation. EPA based its new annual fine PM (PM2.5)
standard on a study known as the American Cancer Society (ACS) study of PM and mortality, which assessed the association
between the risk of death between 1982 and 1998 with PM2.5 levels in dozens of American cities. Although the ACS study
reported an association between PM and mortality, some odd features of the ACS results suggest that PM is not the culprit.
For example, according to the ACS results, PM increased mortality in men, but not women; in those with no more than a
high school degree, but not those with at least some college education; in former- smokers, but not current- or never-
smokers; and in those who said they were moderately active, but not those who said they were very active or sedentary.
These odd variations in the relationship between PM2.5 and mortality seem biologically implausible. Even more surprising,
the ACS study reported that higher PM2.5 levels were not associated with an increased risk of mortality due to respiratory
disease; a surprising finding, given that PM would be expected to exert its effects through the respiratory system.
EPA also ignored the results of another epidemiologic study that found no effect of PM2.5 on mortality in a cohort of
veterans with high blood pressure, even though this relatively unhealthy cohort should have been more susceptible to the
effects of pollution than the general population. The evidence therefore suggests that the existing annual standard for PM2.5
is unnecessarily stringent. Attaining the standard will be expensive, but is unlikely to improve public health.
Power plants in particular have no bearing on mortality

Note: PM = particulate matter
Sulfate PM—the type of PM caused by coal power plant emissions—is a particularly implausible culprit as a cause of
increased mortality. Ammonium sulfate, the main form of sulfate PM, is used as an inactive control substance in human
studies assessing thehealth effects of inhaling acidic aerosols. Inhaled magnesium sulfate is used therapeutically to reduce
airway constriction in asthmatics. Sulfate is also naturally present in bodily fluids at levels many times the amount that could
be inhaled from air pollution.
The evidence suggests that exposure to PM at current levels likely has little or no effect on mortality in most of the United
States. Regardless, processes already set in motion guarantee substantial PM reductions in coming years. Additional near-
term reductions in PM are probably best achieved by dealing with the stock of high-polluting older vehicles that account for a
substantial portion of ambient PM levels in metropolitan areas. This flexible, more cost-effective approach is far more likely
to result in net public health benefits than other proposals that are the focus of current legislative and regulatory activity and
debate.
RPS Neg 39
A2: Environment Adv – Air Pollution Ans

Their studies reflect methodological bias

However, epidemiological analyses are susceptible to various methodological biases and errors that could cause
misattribution of health effects to PM when they are caused by another pollutant or by factors unrelated to pollution, such as
weather or diet. Some epidemiologists believe that epidemiologic methods are not even capable of accurately teasing out
very small increases in health risks. Although epidemiologic studies have had mixed results on the link between particulates
and health, the media and politicians have often failed to convey the nuances, uncertainties, and controversies surrounding
the science of PM health effects.9
Air pollution has been declining for decades

Air pollution sources and trends. Appropriate policy depends not only on current pollution levels, but also on expected future
pollution levels. This paper begins with a summary of air pollution trends, current levels, and prospects, based on pre-existing
trends and regulations already on the books. It shows that PM and other kinds of air pollution have been declining for
decades—few areas of the United States now have high air pollution levels, relative either to current health standards or past
levels. The study concludes that baseline trends—mainly turnover of the vehicle fleet—combined with existing requirements
for industrial sources, will result in large reductions in all major air pollutants in coming years. This means that air pollution
has been largely addressed as a long-term problem, but also that these already-adopted measures will take time to come to
fruition.
Particulate matter levels are too low to have health effects

The report concludes that current PM levels are generally too low to increase risk of death due to long-term exposure and
that EPA’s current annual-average PM2.5 standard is more stringent than necessary to protect public health. The weight of
the evidence for short-term health effects is less clear. Although many studies have reported increases in death and disease
due to daily increases in PM levels, a number of researchers have raised substantive concerns over whether PM is the
pollutant responsible for the observed health effects, whether pollution reduces life-expectancy by more than a few days,
whether there is a threshold level below which PM has no health effects, and whether the confounding effects of non-
pollution factors such as weather have been adequately addressed.Recently discovered software glitches may also have
caused dozens of studies to overestimate the acute health effects of PM.
A detailed review of the dozens of studies of short-term PM health effects is beyond the scope of this report, which aims to
give the reader an understanding of the key issues and the current state of the science. The report concludes that there is still
substantial uncertainty in the degree of increased mortality due to daily variation in PM levels, though the evidence suggests
that PM is at worst shortening life by no more than a few days in already-frail individuals. In addition, progressive
refinements in the research literature have tended to reduce the size of the estimated effects. It also concludes that the issue is
currently moot for policy purposes, since no more than a few percent of monitoring locations exceed the federal health
standard for daily PM10 or PM2.5 levels.
RPS Neg 40
A2: Environment Adv – Biodiversity Ans

Species extinction studies are based upon extinction rates on islands – these aren’t true for larger land areas
Lewis, 07 – senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Marlo, “X. Birds, Beetles, Extinctions,” 1/22,
http://cei.org/pdf/ait/chX.pdf)
Extinction alarmists assume that the observed relationship between habitat loss and species loss on small islands holds for
much larger land areas. Hence they suppose that any reduction in “species area,” whether due to deforestation or climate
change, will result in a corresponding number of extinctions. The data tell a different story, as Bjorn Lomborg explains:
If islands get smaller, there is nowhere to escape. If, on the other hand, one tract of rainforest is cut down, many animals and
plants can go on living in the surrounding areas. One obvious thing to do would be to look at our own experiment, the one
carried out in Europe and North America. In both places, primary forest was reduced by approximately 98-99 percent. In the
U.S., the eastern forests were reduced over two centuries to fragments totaling just 1-2 percent of their original area, but
nonetheless this resulted in the extinction of one only forest bird.15
Similarly, notes Lomborg, not one land animal species perished because Brazil deforested its Atlantic coast:
Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest had been almost entirely cleared in the nineteenth century, with only 12 percent extremely
fragmented forest left. According to [biologist E.O.] Wilson’s rule of thumb, one ought to expect half of all species to have
become extinct. However, when members of the Brazilian Society of Zoology analyzed all 171 known Atlantic forest
animals, the group “could not find a single known animal species which could properly be declared as extinct, in spite of the
massive reduction in area and fragmentation of the habitat.”16
RPS Neg 41
A2: Environment Adv – Bird Turn

The construction of wind farms destroys the environment and kills birds and bats
Baltimore Sun, 5 (Tom Pelton, “Ill wind blows in turbine debate; Eyesores or clean machines? Environmentalists are split
over the giant energy-producing towers popping up in Maryland and other states,” 1-2-2005, p.1B) // JMP
MEYERSDALE, Pa. -- Todd Hutzell is a liberal Democrat, a John Kerry-voting environmentalist who says he's always been
enthusiastic about "clean, green, renewable energy."
But then out-of-state developers clear-cut more than 60 acres of forest atop a scenic ridge beside his family's farm and built
20 futuristic wind turbines, each towering nearly 40 stories above the rolling hills like steel-gray robots with rotating arms.
Irritated by the throbbing noise, the splattering of birds and bats, and the industrial look of what had been woodlands, Hutzell
joined a growing number of activists forming groups to fight the expansion of wind farms nationally.
"This was a forested area at one time, quiet and peaceful. But now it looks like an industrial facility, and it's no longer serene
and beautiful," said Hutzell, a 31-year-old farmer, construction worker and co-founder of Friends of the Appalachian
Highlands.
As developers plan to build a record 1,300 wind turbines this year -- including 116 in Maryland -- anti-turbine groups have
caught the attention of public officials in New Jersey, West Virginia, Virginia and elsewhere, and some are proposing
moratoriums on the booming wind industry.
Wind farms have killed a number of bats – researchers don’t know why it is happening or how to prevent it
Columbus Dispatch, 5 (Mike Lafferty, “Bowling Green Turbines Claim Few Bats,” 1-11-2005, p.07A) // JMP
The 30,000-pound turbines are 250 feet tall and armed with three 132-foot-long blades.
The turbines are mounted in a cornfield in pairs. Individual units in each pair are separated by 800 feet; the pairs are 2,000
feet apart.
The Pennsylvania findings starkly contradict a 2002 industry-funded study, but they support a 2001 report of a wind farm in
Wisconsin where bats were killed.
The dead bats were a surprise, said Robert W. Howe, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
The 2001 study, funded by a local utility, found that during 1,200 hours of observation of 31 turbines from 1998 to 2001,
researchers counted 72 bat carcasses, almost all of migrating bats.
Mitch Masters, an Ohio State University bat expert, said he is concerned about the Pennsylvania deaths and echoed Howe's
call for research.
"We don't know why (it is happening) or how to prevent it," Masters said.
Scientists don't know whether bats are attracted by the turbine blades. The whooshing noise the blades emit is at a low pitch
that Masters said bats are usually not attracted to.
"Is this a cost of wind (power)?" Masters asked. "Is it acceptable in the grand scheme of things?"
RPS Neg 42
A2: Blackouts Adv

The plan places more stress on the electric grid by requiring more transmission capability
Executive Intelligence Review, 6 (Marsha Freeman, “NERC Forecast: 22 Necessary Actions Required to Save U.S. Electric
Grid,” http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3343power_shortages.html)
'Renewable' Resources Hoax

Another craze with the potential to destabilize the fragile electric grid is the promotion of "renewable" energy sources.
Currently, a total of 21 states and the District of Columbia have adopted requirements for the purchase of renewable energy
by utilities, sometimes for as much as 25% of their total supply. Wind generation is expected to provide the bulk of this
"renewable" energy.
However, NERC points out, "wind generation is often located in remote areas, which requires new transmission construction
to deliver its energy" to where it is needed. In addition, because wind and other "renewable" resources are intermittent in
nature, generating capacity is unpredictable, requiring the installation of additional reliable generating capacity, usually
fossil-fueled, to ensure the ability to serve customers.
Our evidence assumes yours - the system is inherently stable – down areas can just by bypassed; only a large problem
will cause major issues
Kaplan, 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid,” 4-27-2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html) // SM
With some 160,000 miles of high voltage lines and 250,000 substations, the U.S. power grid remains open to a host of
threats. “It’s extremely difficult to harden,” says Gellings.
The system was built at a time when its vulnerabilities had little impact; even today, under normal conditions a downed line
or a substation can easily be bypassed. “It’s like a web, you can go around issues,” explains Ed Legge, a spokesman for the
Edison Electric Institute, an association of publicly owned electric companies. Of course, when a grid becomes overloaded,
losing a line increases the strain and could cause failure. Circumventing one or two disruptions is one matter, but a host of
simultaneous interruptions will still cause widespread outages. This was the scenario in St. Louis in 2006, when a powerful
storm knocked out so many lines at once that the grid could no longer function.
Problems with the grid are being solved in the status quo
Fox News, 7 (Allison Barrie, “Project Hydra: Keeping Power Out of the Hands of Terrorists,” 6-6-2008,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364104,00.html) // SM
The closer the grid gets to hitting capacity and buckling from consumer demand, the more and more vulnerable it becomes to natural disasters and terrorist attacks causing blackouts, rolling outages and
cascading failures.
The Department of Energy has taken the lead on countering this threat and has come up with a plan to be rolled out in 2020.
But will terrorists conveniently wait for the next 12 years to exploit this vulnerability?
ConEdison, American Superconductor and the Department of Homeland Security are
Fortunately, some groups are stepping in to fill the gap.
determined to keep the lights on in New York no matter what terrorists throw at the grid.
In less than two years, the three organizations plan to launch a program they’re calling the Resilient Electric Grid, which provides a
new superconductor cable that can link up stations and ensure the steady flow of juice to all parts of the city.
Right now, if an area like the financial district is targeted and goes down, the grid will not allow any other stations to assist by donating electricity to keep the lights on in that area.
Butwhen this superconducting cable is integrated with the existing electrical grid, it will link up substations and allow them to
share excess capacity in case of an emergency.
In the event of a deliberate attempt to cause a cascading failure similar to the blackout of 2003, it also will be able to limit the
current flow between substations during fault conditions.
The effort was dubbed "Project Hydra" after the mythical beast that grew a new head each time any was chopped off.
Once the capability for multi-path electrical resilience goes live in the New York City electric grid in 2010, the plan is to roll
out Hydra to protect other national critical infrastructure.
Project Hydra also has plans to install micro wind and water turbine generators on rooftops to ensure ongoing power generation for neighborhoods in the event of a crisis.
Guarding every power line from a terrorist attack is an impossibility for forces that already lack resources, but Project Hydra will allow our guns, guards and badges to be focused on nuclear plants and other
places where they are critical to stopping terrorist attacks.
RPS Neg 43
A2: Blackouts Adv

The root cause of massive failures has been fixed – the NERC regulates transmission now
Managing Risk
Overgrown trees alone did not precipitate the massive 2003 blackout. The greater cause was a grid so overloaded it had
become unstable. The trees merely provided the catalyst for a chain reaction that, had the system been operating stably, never
would have been possible. The North American Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) is responsible for ensuring such
conditions are not repeated. NERC’s president and CEO, Richard P. Sergel, explains that three of his agency’s standards were
not being met when the lights went out across the Northeast that summer: Trees went untrimmed, operators lacked the proper
training, and monitoring systems showing the grid’s condition in real-time were not in place.
Since its inception in 1968, NERC’s regulations for operating power grids have been voluntary. But in 2005, Congress asked
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to designate an organization to establish and enforce rules of operation
for the nation’s electrical grid; it settled on NERC, which assumes the responsibility on June 4, 2007.
When this happens, NERC guidelines for safe operation of the electrical grid, which are currently voluntary, will become
mandatory. Under NERC’s oversight, Sergel says, consumers can rest assured the conditions that made the 2003 blackout
possible will not be replicated. “No matter how stressed the system is,” he says, “We still insist it operate stably.” At times
this could mean less reliable service; brief, managed outages could occur in order to avoid overburdening the system and
risking massive failure. Such was the case in Texas in April 2006, when hundred-degree temperatures pushed energy
demands beyond the capability of the transmission infrastructure. Though not everyone had power all the time, the relatively
brief service interruptions helped allay a massive system failure.
The 2005 Energy Bill has solves for blackouts – multiple warrents
IEEE, 7 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, “Reliability and Blackouts,” 4-25-2007+,
http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp) // SM
After the major blackouts of 1965, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) was created to provide
guidelines to prevent a recurrence of such a blackout [6]. The main purpose of NERC was to ensure that every region had
sufficient "reserves" (sufficient "extra generation" instantly available) to make sure the system could tolerate the loss of any
single piece of equipment without disruption at any time, and in many cases to sustain the loss of more than one piece of
equipment. It also adopted rules that diversified these reserves sufficiently throughout the system to make sure that no major
transmission problems would occur [9]. In the wake of the Blackout of 2003, NERC’s powers were significantly expanded
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) (Full Act: Pub.L. 109-058; Summary: Research Service) addressed reliability issues in a number of ways. First,
EPAct mandated the creation of a self-regulatory Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) that spans North America, with oversight by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2006, FERC
As the ERO, NERC is responsible for establishing and enforcing FERC-approved electric
certified NERC as the ERO for the United States [12].
reliability standards [13]. Furthermore, Mexican and Canadian authorities have promised to back NERC’s regulations with
the force of law [14].
Second, EPAct mandates that the Department of Energy (DOE) conduct a study of electric transmission congestion every
three years and gives the DOE authority to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors,” which will receive
special attention and funding to ensure reliability is upheld [13, 15]. The corridors are established based on the level of
electric congestion in the area, the economic vitality of development of the corridor, end markets served by the corridor, and
prices of electricity resulting from any electricity congestion. FERC then has the authority to issue permits for the
construction of transmission facilities in the corridor (if it determines that the host state does not have the authority to
approve the siting). Recognizing the importance of electric reliability, EPAct grants the ERO and FERC power to acquire
right-of-way by the exercise of right of eminent domain for siting transmission expansion [13, 15].
Furthermore, EPAct mandates the adoption of IEEE 1574 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric
Power Systems. IEEE 1574 is a “technology-neutral” standard which does not specify specific types of equipment needed to meet interconnection requirements. Instead, the standard focuses on
ensuring the ability for interconnection of any on-site facility. In doing so, it addresses both operational and safety issues while focusing on the functional requirements of the interconnection and not on the
The standard will increase the diversity of the electricity supply by facilitating
specific types of equipment to meet the functional requirements.
development of fuel cells, photovoltaics and other distributed energy generation technologies, and help ensure the reliability
and safety of the nation’s electric power system for decades to come [16].
RPS Neg 44
A2: Blackouts Adv

No federal action is needed - State RPSs are jump-starting transmission projects already
Electric Utility Weekly, 8 (Esther Whieldon, “Utilities find common incentives to collaborate on major transmission
projects,” 1-21-08, pg. 1, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // SM
For the first time in decades, utilities in the West are joining forces to develop major transmission lines that would cross
multiple state and national borders to access areas rich in renewable resources.
US utilities have yet to tap into the vast potential of renewable generation in British Columbia, Canada, and in parts of the
Northwest because until now, they've had little to no economic incentives. The high level of financial risk inherent in
developing large-scale multi-jurisdictional power lines has been enough to scare away even the three largest utilities in
California.
But the political climate has become more favorable toward major transmission projects in the last few years, say economic
analysts, independent power producers and utility executives. FERC's open-access transmission tariff reforms, state and
federal tax incentives and state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are some of the key motivators bringing utilities and
developers to the table for grid expansion efforts.
"The power crisis in the West has really brought home to a lot of people just how transmission-dependent" power markets
have become, said Johannes Pfeifenberger of the Brattle Group. Don't underestimate the power of public opinion, added John
Cupparo, vice president of transmission for PacifiCorp. "Our customers are concerned with what's happening to our
environment," he said.
"A lot of us are in the same situation," Cupparo said. Utilities in states with RPS laws are scrambling to find and gain access
to additional renewable resources. Twenty four states and the District of Columbia have adopted renewable portfolio
standards. Four other states, Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, and Vermont, have nonbinding goals for the adoption of renewable
energy instead of an RPS. Colorado, New Mexico, Montana and Arizona are some of the Western states with RPS laws.
Blackouts are being solved for by utility self-discipline and audits
Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power
System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858-
2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM
The problems extended beyond FirstEnergy. Investigators found that there was "a systematic breakdown" of planning
safeguards and monitoring in Ohio and neighboring states.
One of the projects underway to improve electrical reliability after last year's blackout is a series of audits designed to
improve performance. The audits are being overseen by the North American Electric Reliability Council, a Princeton, N.J.,
voluntary industry organization founded after the landmark 1965 Northeast blackout. Grid operators are in the process of
implementing recommendations from the audits, according to the council.
Officials from the council, which also oversees the voluntary regulations, said that utilities have been more attentive to the
rules since the blackout, even though they are not mandatory. The council, along with utility officials and grid operators, said
that if the regulations are followed, the chances of another cascading blackout will be significantly reduced.
"We think there's much more attention and goodwill on the part of the industry to follow the rules," said Ellen P. Vancko, a
spokeswoman for the council. But, she added: "We don't know how long those intentions will last."
RPS Neg 45
A2: Natural Gas Adv

RPS won’t produce sustainable price decreases for natural gas

Even if the price of gas falls it is unlikely to stay low. If the gas market is competitive and near equilibrium just before the
RPS takes effect, the highest-cost producer will just break even. An RPS shifts the demand curve for gas leftward, and hence
its price falls. Producers that formerly broke even or made small profits will take losses and wish to exit from the market.
When they can disinvest they will leave the industry and their former production will be subtracted from market supply. As
the adjustment takes place, price will rise and gas consumers will enjoy smaller benefits.
RPS won’t solve the natural gas crises – its continued use is inevitable

The RPS Amendment is Not the Answer to the Natural Gas Crisis
* Some RPS proponents claim that a federal renewables mandate will significantly reduce the demand for natural gas used
in electricity generation, but that is not likely to be the case. Natural gas has many advantages as a fuel for electricity
generation, chief among them its quick-start capability, which makes gas-fired generation the clear fuel of choice for
“peaking” units needed to constantly rebalance supply to serve customers instantaneously. This is especially important for
providing “spinning reserves,” or constantly running backup power, needed for intermittent resources like wind and solar. So
it is disingenuous to justify an RPS as the answer to the natural gas crisis.
RPS will expand use of national gas by lowering its price
A long-term reduction in natural gas costs as a result of a mandatory national RPS could lead to increased consumer use of
natural gas. In fact, even without a national RPS, future residential heating applications are expected to continue to drive
residential demand for natural gas. n196 "Between 1991 and 1999, 66 percent of new homes, and 57 percent of multifamily
buildings constructed used natural gas heating. In 2003, 70 percent of new single family homes constructed used natural gas."
n197 If natural gas prices do, in fact, continue to decline as a result of a national RPS, this trend can only be expected to
continue.
RPS won’t produce long-term decreases in natural gas prices
NEMS-based studies often find gas prices falling as demand falls with a decline in gas-fired generation.31 Some claim to have further shown that the net effect of higher power
prices and lower gas prices will be to reduce total spending on the two, a free lunch with the added dividend of environmental benefits. Unfortunately, this reasoning is in error.
Assume for simplicity that gas production is a fixed amount each month regardless of market price, i.e., the supply curve is vertical.32 A national RPS shifts the demand curve for
gas inward and results in a lower price. Incomes earned by those who supply inputs to the gas industry fall by a dollar for every dollar saved by users, and the net benefit to
producers and consumers of gas as a group is zero. Any
renewable-induced drop in the price of gas will probably be short-lived. If the gas
market is near equilibrium, the fall in demand will bring losses to some producers, who will abandon the industry when
disinvestment becomes feasible. Capital will exit and price will increase until the marginal producer again breaks even.
RPS Neg 46
A2: Natural Gas Explosion Adv

An LNG explosion would do minimal damage – this specifically indicts their impact evidence
Lloyd's Register, 4 – Leading participants in the safety and verification of LNG facilities around the world
(“Statement on LNG risks from Lloyd's Register North America, Inc.” 9-23-2004,
http://www.lr.org/News+and+Events/News+Archive/2004/Statement+on+LNG+risks+from+Lloyds+Register+North+Ameri
ca+Inc.htm) AMK
LNG. The real risks

In the US, regulators and other interested parties have identified as key concerns the possibility of a terrorist attack involving
an LNG terminal or an LNG carrier, and the consequences for the surrounding population and infrastructure. Global terrorism
is certainly a major threat and all reasonable measures should and must be taken to mitigate the risks and consequences of
any actions, however, commentators and observers are incorrect if they believe that a terrorist attack on an LNG carrier
would have the impact of a nuclear explosion. There are several technical reasons which bear this out:
1. LNG is transported globally in insulated tanks on specialised ships. These tanks provide four physical barriers and two
layers of insulation between the LNG and the outside environment. Further, the separation between the inner and outer hulls
of an LNG carrier is typically over two meters. These two factors combined mean that LNG cargo carried at sea has a very
high in-built level of protection from external blast sources.
2. In the event of an attack, even if a one-meter hole were to be formed in the inner hull, the resultant holes in the primary
containment barrier would be significantly smaller due to the increased separation distance from the blast source combined
with the pressure absorption properties of the secondary containment barrier and insulation materials.
3. It is unrealistic to imagine that the entire cargo of any ship can be instantaneously released. To mount an attack on an
LNG carrier that would result in the instantaneous release of all of its cargo would require the equivalent of a full scale
military operation, not a clandestine terrorist operation like those carried out against the USS Cole and the Limburg.
4. The idea that LNG carriers are potential nuclear devices is erroneous. There is a lot of energy in LNG and natural gas, as
in any hydrocarbon. However, the 'nuclear explosion' statement describes the total energy an LNG carrier contains, not the
rate at which the energy would be released in an incident. For example, a lump of coal contains lots of energy, but when set
on fire, its energy doesn't all come out instantly like a bomb. Instead, the coal burns over a period of time releasing its energy
as it goes. Similarly, LNG carriers contain large quantities of energy, but the energy can only be released slowly in the event
of a spill or a fire.
5. An LNG spill in open air will not result in a bomb-like explosion. This has been consistently demonstrated in
experiments. Not everything that is ignited explodes like a bomb. For example, when a match is lit, it burns but does not
explode. Similarly, the natural gas vapour that could result from an LNG carrier spill also falls under the category of
substances that will burn but not explode like a bomb.
Reason and caution
Paul Huber, Director of LRNA, says: "There are risks associated with the transport and storage of LNG, as there are with any
hydrocarbon energy source, and these are precisely the reasons that the LNG industry operates with extensive international
and national regulations which govern the safety of LNG transport and storage. The effectiveness of these regulations is
apparent in the LNG shipping sector, which has an unblemished safety record spanning 40 years - a track record which is
unrivalled by any other maritime sector and most land-based industries. It should also be remembered that LNG itself is one
of the cleanest-burning and most environmentally friendly energy sources currently available on a global scale.
"While the shadow of terrorism hangs over us, we have to do as much as we can to protect ourselves and our borders, but it is
misleading to state, as some have, that an attack on an LNG carrier would be similar to a nuclear event. It is difficult for us to
know the rationale behind the assertion contained in the speech to the Houston Forum, but it is clear that it is not supported
by fact.
RPS Neg 47
A2: Unemployment Adv
An RPS won’t create a net increase in employment

IV. Other Rationales for a National RPS

A. RPS as Macroeconomic Policy
A national RPS is primarily an environmental policy, but some advocates assert other benefits. They have calculated its
effects on employment, using methods like those in government-commissioned studies estimating the jobs that, e.g. a new
municipal stadium will create. This reasoning may have held during the great depression of the 1930s, when up to 1/3 of the
workforce was unemployed. Today, most unemployment consists of transitions between assured jobs, short-term layoffs with
high probabilities of return, and non-intensive job search by casual workers such as teenagers living at home, many of whom
are hardly in hardship. Currently only 4.1% of high school graduates over twenty-five are unemployed, the median spell of
unemployment lasts 8.2 weeks, and most of them receive unemployment compensation. n30 The workers who build a
municipal stadium or a renewable generator come from other jobs, and are paid with funds that households and businesses
would have spent elsewhere. Labor is reallocated to renewables, but the nation is unlikely to see a net increase in
employment. Whatever the employment consequences of an RPS, energy and environmental policies should be judged by
their effects on the problems they directly address.
Renewable energy won’t produce more jobs in the short-term
Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues
(Keith, “Any Given Wednesday: Green Jobs on the Hill,” 2-5-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/05/) // JMP
Nobody can really argue against more, and higher-paying jobs. But at a time of historically low unemployment, in a world
where fossil fuels are expected to provide nearly 80% of energy for the forseable future, many economists ask: how many net
jobs can “greening” really create?
“In the short run, there’s no way net jobs are going to be positive” from renewable energy alone, says John Whitehead, an
economics professor at Appalachian State University and half of Environmental Economics. “More brown-energy jobs will
be lost.”
Their employment evidence assumes investment in inefficient renewables that takes workers away from more
productive jobs

Some advocates take job creation to such lengths that they endorse inefficient renewables over more efficient ones. One study
notes that "the [*89] renewable energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy
produced, and per dollar of investment, than the fossil fuel-based energy sector." n31 It compares coal and solar units under
an assumption that four megawatts of intermittent solar capacity are equivalent to one megawatt of coal-fired capacity.
Building either takes the same labor input per megawatt, as would building a base-loadable MW of biomass capacity. The
study's authors conclude in favor of solar because it creates four times as many construction jobs per effective megawatt as
coal or biomass, and also requires more labor to operate. In effect the solar project attracts an unnecessarily large number of
workers from more productive jobs and pays them from the higher bills of captive consumers. n32
RPS Neg 48
A2: Unemployment Adv

An RPS won’t increase the net amount of jobs and operates as a regressive tax on poorer households
V Non-Environmental Reasons for a National RPS

A Renewable macroeconomics
Local governments frequently release studies purporting to show that a politically favored transit system or stadium should be built because it will create jobs and attract
businesses. Long gone from economics textbooks, this illogic lives on in RPS studies. There may (or may not) have been masses of unemployed workers during the great
depression of the 1930s waiting for government to spend, but today's labor market is utterly different. Most unemployment consists of transitions between assured
jobs, first-time entrants into the labor market (including teenagers living at home), and
people on short layoffs. In March 2008, the unemployment rate of high school
graduates over 25 was 7 percent, and median length of a spell of unemployment was 8.4 weeks.40 The U.S. does not require a jobs program, and even if it
does an RPS is a poor vehicle for one.
Both renewables and municipal stadia generate few if any new jobs because funds spent on them are unavailable for people and
businesses to spend elsewhere. A renewable project attracts media attention and workers from other jobs, while many
industries (some in distant places) shrink imperceptibly. Some advocates actually prefer inefficient renewables. One group appears happy to claim that "the renewable
energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment than the fossil-fuel-based energy sector."41 Its
example starts by assuming that one MW of relatively sure coal-fired capacity is the equivalent of 4MW of intermittent solar. Both generators require the same labor per MW to
build, which makes the
solar plant the winner because it creates four times more jobs during construction, as well as requiring more labor to operate. In reality, building it is
like throwing away part of the labor force, leaving customers with the same amount of power and needlessly high bills. Since
poorer households spend higher percentages of their incomes on power, an RPS that raises its price is like a regressive tax.
RPS doesn’t produce any net gains – trades off with jobs and money in the natural gas industry

3. The Economics of Falling Gas Prices

NEMS-based studies of a national RPS generally predict falling gas prices as renewables displace gas units. In some runs, it
falls by so much that total spending on gas and power is reduced. Some RPS advocates see this as a "free lunch" that provides
environmental benefits without cost. They err by failing to account for the wealth lost by those who supply inputs into gas
production (workers, capitalists, equipment makers, etc.). A buyer who spends a dollar less on gas is better off (i.e. has a
dollar's worth of new opportunities that were unavailable before), but someone whose income comes from gas production has
exactly a dollar less of opportunities. The result is a transfer among the population rather than a net gain in the nation's
wealth. n90 The costs and (non- [*101] environmental) benefits of a national RPS are created in the market(s) for electricity.
The renewables the RPS brings forth will have production and capital costs that differ from those of conventional plants.
Changes in the price and output of power will affect the well-being of producers and consumers. Owners of conventional
generators will fare differently from owners of renewables, and exactly what happens to the former depends on the local
generation mix. n91
RPS Neg 49
A2: Grid Security Adv

The terrorist risk to the grid is negligible and could be fixed quickly
Prospects of Terrorism
Attacks on infrastructure are an almost daily fact of life in Iraq. Experts caution the war in that country will produce a whole generation of terrorists who have honed
their skills sabotaging infrastructure. In his recent book, The Edge of Disaster, CFR security expert Stephen E. Flynn cautions, “The terrorist skills acquired are being catalogued and shared in Internet chat
rooms.” But when it comes to Iraq’s electrical grid, RAND economist Keith W. Crane says terrorists are not the main cause of
disruptions: “Most of the destruction of the control equipment was looting,” he says.
Either way, Clark W. Gellings, vice president of the Electric Power Research Institute, an industry research organization, thinks
the U.S. grid is an unlikely target. “It’s not terribly sensational,” he explains, “The system could overcome an attack in hours, or at
worst, days.” That said, attacks on electricity infrastructure could become common in future warfare: The U.S. military has designed and entire class of weapons designed to disable power grids.
Redundancies in the grid solve for disruptions due to terrorism
Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power
System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52858-
2004Aug9?language=printer) // SM
Homeland security officials also worry that electricity could be disrupted by terrorism. Industry executives said that they
have taken precautions and are working with the government. They said that the electrical grid has redundancies that should
minimize serious disruptions in the event of an attack on a power plant or transmission line.
In April, a joint U.S.-Canadian task force concluded that the power grid needed to be more closely regulated. A task force report focused blame on FirstEnergy Corp. of Akron, Ohio, whose major transmission
lines tripped, causing the failure of the grid.
The report said that "unsafe conditions" that day resulted from violations of the voluntary guidelines by FirstEnergy, one of the nation's largest utilities. The task force concluded that FirstEnergy, which recently
agreed to pay $89.9 million to settle shareholder lawsuits partly related to the blackout, should have cut power to some of its customers to prevent the blackout from spreading but failed to do so. The company
also failed to trim trees near power lines.
RPS won’t increase security against terrorist attacks and impact is overstated

3. National Security
Any connection between an RPS and energy security is tenuous at best. n51 Virtually all international security concerns are oil-related, but oil produces only 3% of the nation's power, some in plants that can
also burn gas. n52 Renewables primarily displace power generated by North American gas, whose price reflects conditions of demand, storage, and (over the longer run) policies that restrict or expand
Claims that a national RPS will make powerplants more secure against terrorism appear overstated at best.
exploration for it. n53 As
shown below, most generation investments over the next twenty years will continue to be fossil-fueled or nuclear. An RPS is a costly and blunt tool for the protection of non-renewable powerplants. n54
Security is better addressed under a national infrastructure policy to harden them than under a policy that requires the
construction of renewables. A national RPS will still require that "backbone" transmission be used as intensively as today,
and there are few hard options for reducing its vulnerability. The industry, however, has long lived with problems like these. Because
production and consumption must be equal every second, [*94] electric systems are designed for quick response to contingencies ranging from lightning strikes to boiler explosions. RPS advocates are correct
is a less attractive target than a 500 MW coal-fired plant, but in most situations
when they assert that a 50 MW wind farm [or a 50 MW combustion turbine]
short of war either can be lost with little impact on reliability.
Terrorist attacks won’t have a major impact on electricity reliability – redundant transmission and generation
reserves
National security and "energy independence." There are few if any important relationships between renewables and energy security for the nation. Security centers on oil, but only 2 percent of the nation's
Some
power comes from it and some oil-fired plants can also burn gas. Interruptions of conventional fuel supplies are rare and usually local, but intermittent renewables have their own reliability risks.
advocates see a national RPS as deterring terrorist attacks on large power plants, but there are surely cheaper ways to achieve
this end.59 Security is better addressed directly by facility owners and government formulating a national policy on infrastructure. Electricity requires redundant transmission
and generation reserves to maintain reliability, whether outages are caused by lightning or bombs. The destruction of an
isolated wind farm achieves less than that of a large generator, but in most scenarios the loss of either will have little effect on
reliability.
RPS Neg 50
A2: Terrorism Adv – Threat Declining

Terrorism is declining now – Al Qaeda will lose
Telegraph, 8 (Alex Spillius, “Al-Qa'eda defeat in sight, says US anti-terrorism official,” 5-15-2008,
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1960245/Al-Qa'eda-defeat-in-sight,-says-US-anti-terrorism-
official.html) // JMP
A senior American counter-terrorism official has declared that the demise of al-Qa'eda is in sight because its failure to adapt
its violent ideology and tactics has provoked growing dissent across the Islamic world.
The uprising by Sunni tribes against al-Qa'eda in Iraq, protests in northern Africa against suicide bombings and dissent from
clerics and former terrorists have put the group's leadership on the defensive as never before, said the official.
"If al-Qa'eda maintains its current state of play of attacking civilians and Muslims, and continuing to not change its
philosophy, it will start to fizzle." He said the end of the movement as a global threat was "visible" and "foreseeable", in
contrast to previous assumptions that it would last for generations. Acknowledging that the threat of a major al-Qa'eda attack
remains significant, his remarks reflected a quiet confidence within the George W Bush administration that one of its major
goals will be achieved before too long.
Declarations of triumph have been precluded by the mockery that followed the president's "Mission Accomplished" statement
in Iraq in 2003. But White House officials are beginning to express confidence that al-Qa'eda will be defeated. Juan Carlos
Zarate, the White House's deputy national security adviser on terrorism, said in a recent speech: "There has been a growing
rejection of the al-Qa'eda programme and message.
"We know that all of this matters to al-Qa'eda and that its senior leadership is sensitive to the perceived legitimacy of both
their actions and their ideology."
RPS Neg 51
A2: Terrorism Adv – No Spillover

Lack of action on climate doesn’t cause allied non-cooperation on other issues
Busby, 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin

(Josh, “Memo on Reputation,” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations
Theory' at Princeton, April 2006, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP
Empirical Examples
Are there any empirical examples of separate reputations that fuse as a result of violations across issue domains? In thinking
about the legitimation problems of the U.S. government under the present administration, has the U.S. failure to make and its
willingness to break its commitments in multiple arenas had consequences for other arenas? One possibility is that when the
George W. Bush administration signaled that the administration was opposed to various multilateral policy initiatives across a
range of unrelated substantive domains—climate change (March 2001), small arms (July 2001), anti-ballistic missiles
(December 2001), steel tariffs (March 2002), the International Criminal Court (May 2002), among other issues --and would
no longer abide by previous commitments, then the segmented reputations may well have fused into a more general
impression of the United States that had cross-issue consequences.
However, evidence of foot-dragging and non-cooperation by U.S. allies is mixed, and may be difficult to link back to non-
cooperation on secondary issues like climate change. Given the support offered by America’s allies in Afghanistan and on the
war on terror, including covert support for U.S. policy in Iraq, one could argue that these actions have not had major
consequences. Denial of use of Turkish territory for the war in Iraq, coupled with opposition by several NATO allies to troop
deployments and reconstruction assistance in Iraq, indicate the U.S. may indeed be incurring some higher costs/worse
bargains than would have the case had it been a better partner on other issues. It is too soon to make a definitive judgment on
this question.
Is there something about the current environment that may empower other actors to punish the U.S. more for failure to honor
commitments, through foot-dragging on issues the U.S. cares about and for which going it alone is simply not a viable
option? The bargaining leverage of other states in an era of interdependence would seem to be improved in some ways. That
said, powerful states generally may find it easier to break promises without significant consequences since others may find it
too costly to punish the violator or to engage in self-abnegating behavior that denies themselves future benefits because of
earlier rounds of defection (Downs and Jones 2002).
Concessions don’t spur benefits from others
Busby, 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin

(Josh, “Memo on Reputation,” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations
Theory' at Princeton, April 2006, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP
Ideational and Non-rational Elements of Reputation and Prestige

Another interesting question emerges from this assessment of Japanese and German behavior. Are their actions and motives
materially rational? Jeff Legro’s recent book on great power grand strategies suggests they reflect what ideas decision-makers
believe best serve the national interest.9 While these ideas may start out as instrumentally beneficial, they become embedded
over time and serve as standard operating procedures to facilitate decision-making, even becoming ends in themselves (Legro
2005, 7). As Keohane argued in his work on diffuse reciprocity, "the actor making a short-run sacrifice does not know that
future benefits will flow from comparable restraint by others, and can hardly be regarded as making precise calculations of
expected utility" (Keohane 1982, 342).
RPS Neg 52
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Not Possible

Several policies limit anti-terror cooperation with Europe
Kerber, 7 – retired last year from the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State with 26 years of service
(Frank Kerber, his last posting was at the U.S. Mission to the European Union in Brussels from 2002-2006 where he was the Counselor for
Justice and Home Affairs and the point-person on cooperation with the EU on counter terrorism, American Diplomacy, “U.S.-E.U.
Cooperation on Counter Terrorism,” 6-5-2007, www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu.html) // JMP
Obstacles hampering increased cooperation

There are a number of significant procedural and philosophical differences between the United States and the European Union that
hamper our ability to cooperate fully on law enforcement and counter terrorism matters. Among these are EU policies on data
protection and the sharing of information, the use of the death penalty, the application of the principle of double jeopardy, the
extradition of nationals, and the EU view of terrorism as basically a law enforcement issue.
Data protection and the sharing of information
Data protection is the single overarching issue that prevents closer enforcement cooperation. The EU operates under a data protection regime which it expects other countries to
adopt before sharing information. The U.S. system of data protection for law enforcement information, while largely having the same objectives as the EU system, is more
decentralized and permits sharing with other U.S. enforcement agencies even for purposes that go beyond the original purpose for which it was collected. While the EU system is
largely confined to First Pillar matters (economic, social and environmental policies) where the Commission has competence, there is pending legislation that would extend its data
protection regime to the Third Pillar (Justice and Home Affairs).
Use of the death penalty
The EU has adopted a blanket prohibition against the use of the death penalty as part of its mandatory acquis for all Member States. Historically the impact of this ban has been to
make it impossible for the United States to obtain extradition from anywhere in the EU of a fugitive facing the death penalty unless the United States provides assurances that the
death penalty would not be utilized. Some countries, such as Portugal, forbid even the use of the sentence of life in prison. This EU policy is a concern for both the U.S.
Department of Justice and the prosecuting offices of most states.
Application of the principle of double jeopardy
As part of its integration process in law enforcement, the EU is adopting the principle of mutual recognition of the final judgments of all EU courts in criminal justice matters.
Accordingly, a final judgment by a criminal court in one EU Member State will bar extradition to another Member State or any third country such as the United States involving
the same person for the same criminal offense.
Extradition of nationals
The United States extradites its nationals to other countries, unlike many of the EU Member States that have a total ban on such extraditions to non-EU Member States. While
these countries provide for domestic jurisdiction over their own citizens for crimes they may commit anywhere in the world, as a practical matter such countries rarely if ever
mount domestic prosecutions. Thus, they provide their nationals with a form of “safe haven” for crimes they commit outside the EU.
EU perspective on combating terrorism
Many EU Member States regard terrorism as basically a law enforcement issue. On the other hand, the United States views
terrorism as a national security issue. These differing perspectives influence the approach to sharing highly classified national
security information in the prosecution of terrorist cases.
Effective cooperation on terrorism not possible
AFP, 8 (“CIA chief says Europe, US may never agree on security threats,” 4-30-2008,
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jbQKfm-IfuOHlVNmzCz7SMKEoxng) // JMP
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Europe and the United States may always differ in their views of the biggest global security threats and how
to respond to them, CIA director Michael Hayden said Wednesday.
In a speech at Kansas State University, Hayden said this "key strategic relationship" had changed, noting that disagreements over Iraq and terrorism "have raised questions in
recent years about the future of the alliance."
"I am confident that we will continue to work together on many tough global challenges, as we are today in bringing stability to Afghanistan and in efforts to deter Iran from
developing nuclear weapons, for example," he said.
"But it is not yet clear when, or if, the United States and Europe will come to share the same views of 21st century threats as we did
for the last half of the 20th century, and then forge a common approach to security."
Hayden was referring to the close relationship between Europe and the United States during the Cold War -- but since the fall of the Berlin Wall "differences
are cropping up over a host of issues."
The European-US relationship was no longer primarily focused on Europe, which was now "nearly whole, free, and at peace," so attention was shifting to more global threats,
Hayden said.
Wider cooperation had brought great benefits -- it had "thwarted terrorist plots and saved lives" both sides of the Atlantic, he said -- but also more scope for disagreements.
Many of these disagreements centered on the perception of threats and how to deal with them, he said, noting for example that "while we share the view that terrorism is an urgent
danger, we disagree on how best to confront it."
"The United States believes it is a nation at war -- a war that is global in scope and requires, as a precondition for winning, that we take the fight to the enemy, wherever he may
be," the CIA chief said.
"In much of Europe, terrorism is seen differently: primarily as an internal, law enforcement problem, and solutions are
focused more narrowly on securing the homeland."
He said European governments worked with each other and their allies, such as the United States, to confront direct threats, but did not in general share
Washington's view that terrorism was "an overwhelming international challenge."
Hayden said managing such tensions would "complicate" the once relatively easy relationship and the effects of the disagreements would be felt "from
intelligence and law enforcement to military cooperation and foreign policy."
RPS Neg 53
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now (With EU)

Counter-terror coop already increasing with Europe – disagreements on other issues are irrelevant
In the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), the so-called Third Pillar of competencies within the European Union (EU),
cooperation between the United States and the EU on law enforcement and counter terrorism has both broadened and
deepened since 9/11. Despite some high-profile political and trade differences in recent years, the fact is that our common
interest in combating global terrorism has enabled us to achieve a series of notable successes in forging working law
enforcement relationships with the EU.
U.S.-EU terror cooperation strong now and will be expanded
Highlights of U.S.-EU cooperation

Despite these obstacles, since
9/11 there have been significant accomplishments in U.S.-EU cooperation in combating terrorism and
organized crime. These can be divided into three broad areas: investigating and prosecuting terrorism, sharing national
security information, and cooperation on border and homeland security.
Investigating and prosecuting terrorism
At the annual U.S.-EU summit in June of 2003, the United States signed unprecedented agreements with the EU on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). These were
the first agreements ever signed by the EU with a third country. The fact that these complicated agreements were negotiated in only eight months speaks to the strong political will
on both sides to work together following 9/11. Among the key features of these agreements is the requirement for each side to identify bank accounts of suspected terrorists in each
other's territory. The agreements permit the establishment of joint task forces under the direction of the United States or an EU Member State consisting of personnel drawn from
different countries. And the agreements allow for the taking of evidence in each other's territory by means of video-conferencing, thereby reducing the time required to obtain
evidence. These agreements clearly provide the “value added” sought by the United States over existing bilateral extradition and MLA agreements. To reconcile existing bilateral
agreements with the new U.S.-EU agreements, it was necessary to go back to each EU Member State and negotiate “blended” agreements that meld or update the articles of the
existing bilateral agreements. This process was concluded in spring 2006 and the entire package of 52 agreements sent to Congress in fall 2006 for ratification. (The package
includes the two U.S.-EU agreements and the 50 new bilateral agreements—two for each of the then 25 Member States). It is hoped that the package will be ratified and the
agreements operational by the U.S.-EU summit in June.
The United States is working to establish and broaden working relationships with EU law enforcement and judicial institutions.
In recent years we concluded two cooperative agreements with Europol that permit the sharing of data, including personal data, for the purpose of detecting and investigating
crimes, including terrorism. We have assigned Secret Service and FBI agents to work directly with Europol in The Hague. The ATF (the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency) is
also interested in stationing an agent at Europol. We regularly participate in seminars and conferences on terrorism at Europol, and have brought a Europol analyst to FBI
headquarters in Washington for extended periods of time to work on terrorism-related projects. For its part, the EU has stationed two Europol agents at its Commission offices in
Washington to work with U.S. law enforcement agencies. Finally, we recently signed a cooperation agreement with Eurojust in The Hague. This relatively new agency assists in
the prosecution of cases involving two or more EU Member States.
Sharing of national security information
The United States has been working with the EU to explore ways of sharing national security information with EU analysts as well as investigators and prosecutors without either
jeopardizing the information or compromising the rights of individuals. As noted above, this is a difficult area for cooperation and will take considerably more work before a
smooth and regular exchange of such information becomes possible.
Border and homeland security
After extended and difficult negotiations, the United States reached agreement with the EU on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. PNR is personal passenger data
collected by the airlines. This was a significant achievement given EU policies on personal data protection described above. Agreement was reached on the use of biometrics to
secure travel documents such as passports. We jointly created and fund a database of lost and stolen passports housed at Interpol in Lyon. The agreement on the Container Security
Initiative addresses the security of shipping containers coming from the EU or transiting its territory en route to U.S. ports. Finally, the United States is seeking ways to cooperate
with the new EU border agency Frontex, based in Warsaw. We have a robust and growing dialogue on border and homeland security issues, including frequent visits to Brussels by
the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security and the director of the FBI.
Conclusion
It is evident that U.S.-EU cooperation provides a sterling example of working cooperatively to ensure our collective security.
What the United States does with the EU in the fight against crime and terrorism, and what the EU does internally to arm itself for this fight, have a global impact since these are
phenomena not bounded by national borders. The
policy of the United States is to continue this important effort through enhancing existing
arrangements as well as exploring new opportunities to increase our cooperation.
RPS Neg 54
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now

The U.S. is already spurring collaboration to reduce terrorism
McKeeby, 8 (David I., News Blaze, “New Report Showcases Global Progress Against Terrorism,” 5-1-2008,
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080501060622tsop.nb/newsblaze/WORLDNEW/World-News.html) // JMP
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION PROGRESSING

Terrorists transcend international boundaries, making regional and global cooperation a must, said Dailey, as seen in 2007 in successes by the Philippines and Indonesia in
confronting, respectively, the terrorist groups Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as in Africa, where Mauritania and Somalia confronted al-Qaida-linked insurgencies.
The United States is encouraging a collaborative approach to counterterrorism through its Regional Strategic Initiative, an effort
to bring together diplomats and U.S. government experts with their foreign counterparts across a region to share information
and work together against terrorists by providing aid and development assistance, health care and education or police and
military training to give states the tools they need to safeguard their citizens.
"Over time, our global and regional cooperative efforts will reduce terrorists' capacity to harm us and our partners, while
local security and development assistance will build our partners' capacity," Dailey said.
International cooperation and intelligence is already weakening terrorists
McKeeby, 8 (David I., News Blaze, “New Report Showcases Global Progress Against Terrorism,” 5-1-2008,
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080501060622tsop.nb/newsblaze/WORLDNEW/World-News.html) // JMP
International gains against terrorist cells in 2007 highlight the continuing need for a complex, comprehensive and collaborative strategy against terrorism.
"Working with allies and partners across the world, we've created a less permissive operating environment for terrorists, kept
leaders on the move or in hiding and degraded their ability to plan and mount attacks," said State Department counterterrorism coordinator
Dell Dailey upon the April 30 release of Country Reports on Terrorism 2007.
An annual report developed jointly by the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Country Reports on Terrorism 2007 provides Congress with
information on progress in the fight against al-Qaida and other U.S.-designated foreign terrorist groups active in the Americas, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
In 2007, there were 14,499 terrorist attacks worldwide, according to the report, a slight decrease from 14,570 in 2006. But progress against terrorism cannot be measured by
numbers alone, says NCTC Deputy Director Russ Travers.
"Last year, almost 9,400 police officers were injured or killed. We also saw a growth in the number of attacks against schools," Travers said. "We also have reporting indicating
upwards of 2,400 children were killed. The number is undoubtedly far higher, but that's [what] we can document."
TERRORISM REMAINS COMPLEX THREAT
Since 2001, improvements in border and transportation security, new banking and legal codes and expanded intelligence
cooperation among nations have weakened terrorists, said Dailey, citing foiled terrorist plots in the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark in 2007.
But terrorism remains a complex threat, Dailey added. Cells operating from safe havens in unstable corners of the world are working to circumvent new security measures by
forging alliances with regional affiliates and waging an increasingly Internet-based propaganda campaign to exploit local grievances and recruit a new generation of youth onto the
path of radicalism.
"The terrorists' message of hate and death holds no promise for anyone's future," Dailey said.
Countering radicalization is a top priority, said Dailey, and is taking a variety of forms, from Colombia's delivery of services and security in confronting the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, to Saudi Arabia's initiative to rehabilitate former radicals, to the newly elected Pakistani government's renewed effort to bring peace and
security to its tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.
Relations are improving
Rackowski, March 3rd – senior fellow for EU affairs at the Transatlantic Institute
(Daniel, EU Observer, “A new era for EU-US relations?” 3-3-2008, http://euobserver.com/9/25748) // JMP
Recent polls conducted by the German Marshall Fund, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the University of Siena all
underscore these notions: Americans and Europeans are increasingly reconciling their threat perceptions. As a corollary, and
while support for the US in general remains weak amongst the general public in EU countries, an ever-closer transatlantic
cooperation is being desired in Brussels and European capitals.
RPS Neg 55
A2: Terrorism Adv – Solving Cyber Terrorism Now

Countries are boosting cooperation and establishing an international center to solve cyber terrorism
IHT, 8 (Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, “Countries worldwide need closer cooperation to curb cyber
terrorism threat, officials say,” 5-20-2008, http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=13040821) // JMP
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The world's countries must cooperate more to fight the threat of cyberterrorism attacks, which
could threaten facilities such as nuclear power plants, officials said Tuesday at an international conference.
Government authorities and technology experts from more than 30 nations made the call at the opening of the meeting in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Information technology has "changed the dynamics of terrorism," said Hamadoun Toure, secretary general of the
International Telecommunication Union, the U.N.'s leading information technology agency.
"The harsh reality is that (information technology) has become a tool for cybercrime and cyberterrorism," Toure said in a
speech. "Cybersecurity must become a cornerstone of every aspect of keeping ourselves, our countries and our world safe."
Delegates came from countries including Australia, Canada, France, India, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sweden,
Thailand and the United States.
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said cyberattacks could trigger "truly catastrophic consequences" by
disrupting systems that control telecommunications networks, emergency services, nuclear power plants or major dams.
"Cyberthreats are not something that modern societies and their governments can ignore," the prime minister said. "It is
necessary for governments and countries throughout the world to work in concert."
Malaysia will be home to a new center to be run by the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Terrorism, a
project involving both the public and private sectors.
The center is expected to open by the end of year and will serve as emergency response, training and resource center to
counter cyberthreats.
"The bottom line is the threat is real," said Howard Schmidt, a former U.S. adviser to the White House on cybersecurity. "It'll
be from criminals, it'll be from state-sponsored activity, it'll be from organized crime, so the idea of this is to reduce the
vulnerability" of countries.
RPS Neg 56
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Several Policies Needed

Several policy steps are necessary to ensure U.S. competitiveness
Segal, 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

(Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html) // JMP
Of equal importance, policymakers must also reinforce the United States' entrepreneurial climate, its greatest asset. The
building blocks of American innovation-flexible capital and labor markets, transparent government regulation, and a business
environment that rewards risk-need to be strengthened. Making the R&D tax credit permanent and expanding it to include
more types of collaborative research, for example, would help provide incentives for innovation in as many technological
sectors as possible.
With innovative capacity rapidly spreading across the Pacific, the United States cannot simply assume that it will remain the
epicenter of scientific research and technological innovation. Instead, it should meet the challenge from Asia head-on. The
United States must actively engage with new centers of innovation and prepare itself to integrate rapidly and build on new
ideas emerging in China, India, and South Korea. Above all, it must not assume that future innovation will occur
automatically. Only through renewed attention to science funding, educational reform, the health of labor and capital markets,
and the vitality of the business environment can the United States maintain its edge-and the most innovative economy in the
world.
RPS Neg 57
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Internal Links Ans

Economic power is not zero-sum
Julius, 5 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs
(Deanne, Harvard International Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18) // JMP
What is Economic Power?

The very concept of economic power is more nebulous than that of military power. The ultimate test of military power-war-is
the classic zero-sum game. If Country A has a more powerful military than Country B, then Country A is likely to win in a
war between the two. And in the lead-up to war, Country B is more likely to back down. So having military superiority is
clearly n good thing.
There is no parallel in economics because economic competition is not a zero-sum game. Country A may be richer than
Country B, but both will be better off through trade if the other grows richer. In the general case of a free-trade agreement
between a rich and a poor country (say, the United States and Mexico), the poor country gains more. Similarly, in joining a
common currency such as the euro, the poorer countries will benefit more than the richer ones. European experience since
1999 supports this: Portugal and Greece have grown faster than their historical rates while Germany and France have grown
more slowly. But on the economic battlefield, the success of one country does not imply the defeat of another.
Military strength is not necessarily connected to economic power
Julius, 5 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs
(Deanne, Harvard International Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18) // JMP
The concept of national power has both military and economic dimensions. While the two are related, they can also exist
independently. The Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s, for example, was a military superpower but economically
weak and isolated, while Japan during the 1980s was an economic superpower with a weak military. Much attention has been
devoted, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the military aspect of US power and how it is exercised both in unilateral action and
through alliances like NATO. By contrast, the question of economic power has been relatively neglected, perhaps because it
is more difficult to define and measure. This article is an attempt to remedy the imbalance and provoke further discussion on
the emerging shape of the world economy and the ability of the United States to influence it.
RPS Neg 58
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Will Push Jobs Overseas

A federal RPS will drive manufacturing jobs overseas
Regions With a Comparative Disadvantage. By and large, states that have adopted renewable portfolio standards were
already burdened with high electricity rates; most of them also have high wind potential.
But not every state suffers high electricity costs, nor is every state endowed with windy plains. For example, the Southeast is
a region where consumers enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the land, largely due to reliance on coal-fired
generation. On the other hand, the Southeast has the least wind potential in the country, closely followed by the Midwest.
The impact of a federal RPS on manufacturing regions with low electricity costs and low wind energy potential promises to
raise electricity rates considerably. (Map 4)
According to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’ industry specialization index, which measures
states’ level of industrial specialization, the Upper Midwest and the Southeast are more dependent on the manufacturing
sector than other regions. Although manufacturers have moved their factories from states with high electricity costs to these
states with lower electricity costs, a federal RPS would then tend to drive these industries to foreign countries with lower
electricity rates.
A federal RPS will jack up energy prices and push manufacturing jobs abroad
As part of comprehensive legislation to raise energy prices, Congress is once again considering proposals to set a renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. Such a requirement would raise electricity prices for consumers and industry,
but would negatively affect some regions of the country much more than others. As the Bush Administration Statement of
Policy of June 12, 2007 correctly states:
A limited Federal RPS would result in higher electricity costs for consumers in areas where renewable resources are less
available and could place new strains on electricity reliability needs.
Although 21 states have already passed a renewable portfolio standard, this is not an argument in favor of a federal RPS.
These RPS states tend to have a much higher potential for renewable energy, less energy-intensive manufacturing, or both. In
the RPS states that do have considerable manufacturing, the effect of adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and
push manufacturing into states or other countries with lower electricity prices. Therefore, a federal RPS would require states
with low electricity prices and proportionately lower renewable energy potential, such as is found in our industrial heartland,
to raise electricity prices to a level that would force their industries to migrate overseas to countries with cheaper energy rates
and no renewable portfolio standards.
A federal RPS will undermine many manufacturing industries
Conclusion. Depending on the current cost of electricity and renewable energy potential, the economic impact of a federal
renewable portfolio standard is modest in some regions of the country and dire in others. State legislators have weighed
the economic costs and benefits of an RPS in their states and acted accordingly. Congress should not impose a federal
renewable portfolio standard on those states that have correctly judged that such a mandate would raise their consumer
electricity prices and destroy jobs in energy-intensive industries. While Members of Congress from some regions of the
country may be tempted to economically disadvantage states in other regions by voting for a federal RPS, they should
recognize that it is not in the nation’s interest to undermine any of our manufacturing industries.
RPS Neg 59
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Won’t Increase Competitiveness

RPS not necessary for U.S. competitiveness and renewable are not linked to security and defense
B "Infant industries" and technology development

If renewables are indeed the future, some advocates think that a national RPS can both hasten its arrival and mitigate its shocks. Their claims are analogues of those long made by
seekers of "infant industry" tariff protection from foreign competition. Among the variants are: (1) If a national RPS brings large and dependable orders, renewables manufacturers
will invest in high-capacity plants with low production costs; (2) Those costs will be high when renewables are a novelty, but an RPS will bring added production experience that
will lower them; (3) As operating experience accumulates, existing renewables will be used more efficiently and innovators will devise further design and operating improvements;
and (4) With a national RPS, the U.S. can outpace other nations and possibly dominate world renewables manufacture, benefiting both workers and capitalists.
There is no evidence that economies of scale are more extensive in renewables than in comparable goods, and they are clearly not a "natural monopoly" where a single producer
serves the entire market most efficiently.47 Most
manufacturing industries support a number of U.S. producers, and markets for many are
expanding to cover the world.48 Both national and international competition will exist with or without a federal RPS. The
existing renewables industry has also had few problems accessing the capital markets. New technologies are attracting
venture capital and firms as large as General Electric are using their own cash, all without a national RPS. There are also no important
economies of scale outside of manufacturing. Engineering and construction are within the expertise of numerous contractors, most quite small relative to their markets.
All competitive producers face pressure to reduce costs, with or without mandatory purchase requirements like an RPS. Competition to innovate comes from both
other renewables makers and producers of non-renewables that are substitutes for some buyers. An RPS cuts the degree of pressure that
comes from the latter by foreclosing them from part of the market. Producers also reduce costs by observing and imitating successful practices of others, including foreigners. A
growing market in intellectual property allows Americans access to new technologies without duplicating the research of
others.49 Innovations extend beyond technology to new operating practices and contract provisions which can also be imitated.
Some see RPS as a tactic that can make the U.S. the world's leading renewables producer, possibly in response to the alleged growth of a governmentally guided renewables
industry in Japan.50 Others claim that a large percentage of the jobs created by an RPS will be in exporting renewables.51 Another author is concerned about a drop in the U.S.
share of global solar collector production from 44 percent in 1996 to below 9 percent in 2005.52 The simple fact is that the case for free trade in renewables is no different from the
case for free trade in anything else.53 If Americans are relatively more productive in renewables they will supply other nations. If not, someone else will and Americans will
produce other goods and services.54 More
realistically, the U.S. will both import and export renewables. A declining share of solar
production probably indicates that others should do the job (or possibly that solar is overrated). International trade in renewables raises
few security issues because they are manufactured in so many nations and because they embody few if any materials
essential for national defense.
Renewables not linked to security – they don’t impact competitiveness

Others hope that a national RPS can bring U.S. domination of the world's renewables markets. One advocate sees it as a
necessary response to renewables-based export policies that are taking shape in Japan. n39 He believes Americans must emulate the
cooperation between Japan's manufacturers and government planners, a vision of invincibility from the 1970s and 1980s that died with the recession and banking crisis of the
1990s. n40 Experience
gives little reason to expect that such concerted policy formation can make either nation dominant. The
U.S. will continue to export those in which it has a cost [*91] advantage and import those in which it does not. n41 International
trade in renewables raises no security issues, since they are ordinary manufactures that no nation or group can credibly
monopolize.
RPS won’t boost jobs or export dominance
VII Conclusions
Backers of a national RPS have produced an impressive list of objectives. For every one of them an RPS will at best be an inefficient policy, and at worst it will be outrightly
pernicious. As environmental policy, it violates every economic principle of efficient emissions control, including those that are embodied in
existing programs to regulate criteria pollutants. A national RPS will impact emissions controlled under existing programs, but supporters have been silent on how to integrate it
with existing policy. Of course, even if a national RPS is a costly source of environmental benefits it might produce others that would tip the cost-benefit balance in its favor.
Unfortunately, it does the opposite. Some
of the claimed benefits are fallacies from macroeconomics (job creation in a non-depression
economy) and international economics (the importance of self-sufficiency and export dominance). Others reflect personal
preferences, like the hope that renewables will reverse rural outmigration and bring communal ownership. Renewables are but one of
many possible tools for fuel risk management, and fixed-price renewables contracts do little more than transfer risk from utilities to captive customers. "Energy independence" is
almost entirely an oil-related problem, and "national security" is more effectively ensured by hardening vulnerable assets than by building renewables.
RPS Neg 60
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS won’t Cause Innovation

RPS won’t effectively reduce pollution or cause innovation
IV Renewables and the Environment

A Setting efficient rules
From the start, RPS proposals have used language familiar to economists. Pollutants produced along with power impose health and environmental costs on third parties. These
"externalities" are evidence of "market failure" that requires corrective policy, and RPS was initially proposed to carry out that policy.33 Other rationales exist (and are discussed
below), but an RPS is most commonly viewed as environmental regulation. Any type of regulation can be economically efficient or inefficient - restrictively defined, efficiency
means that a given goal is attained at the smallest sacrifice of economic value, as measured by the prices of other goods foregone. More generally, an efficient policy maximizes
the value of benefits relative to costs, again at market prices.34 A consensus on standards for efficient environmental regulation has emerged among economists and policymakers,
who are increasingly using them to set emissions levels, draft rules, and enforce compliance. They can be distilled down to a few principles, each of which strongly counsels
against a national RPS.
Set permitted concentrations individually based on costs and benefits. Broadly, EPA sets acceptable levels for major "criteria
pollutants" such as sulfur and nitrogen dioxides by examining the costs and benefits of alternative concentrations.35 The science
and decision-making are both imperfect, and the standards that emerge have political as well as economic and scientific elements.36 Allowable concentrations must be set
individually because pollutants have different critical levels and the costs and benefits of reducing them differ. By contrast, no
state or proposed federal RPS
percentage has been set in a way that remotely resembles those in general use for criteria pollutants. The percentages have
been set arbitrarily and the exact mix of avoided emissions will depend on the kinds of renewables that are built. Renewables that
can be base-loaded can replace coal, whose emissions of pollutants and GHG exceed those of the gas units that intermittent renewables displace.
Deal with all sources and allow trading of allowances. To maximize net benefits, regulation should attack all sources of the pollutant. Exempt sources may have lower abatement
costs than ones subject to the regulation. An increasing number of pollutants are being handled by "cap-and-trade" systems that set ceiling concentrations, issue allowances for
rights to emit, and allow their exchange. Those who can cheaply cut their emissions will gain by doing so and selling their allowances to those who cannot. Decentralized trades
use only the participants' private knowledge, and regulators need not intrude to acquire the information they would need to set quotas for individual polluters. Innovation is
encouraged because someone who devises a better control technology can profit both by selling its permits and selling the invention. An
RPS by contrast deals with only
one of many sources of a pollutant. Only by incredible accident can it be an efficient tool for achieving a given reduction. The
RPS may also fail to encourage innovation. Regulators allow utilities to pass the costs of prudently acquired power from
renewables on to ratepayers. Utilities using unorthodox renewables may face greater risk of disallowances than those using more established ones.
Regulate the pollutant directly. Since the pollutant itself is the source of harm, efficient policy should concentrate on it rather than on the technology or inputs that produce it. A
cap-and-trade system does this by rewarding only actual reductions, however they are achieved. Innovators may devise novel abatement methods, and efficient mitigation will vary
with prices in ways that regulators cannot foresee. An
RPS is a design standard that restricts the allowable set of technologies even if there
are cheaper ways to reduce the pollutant. Even if an RPS encourages innovation in the allowable technologies, it will
probably discourage experimentation with technologies (including demand management) that do not qualify under it.37
Match geography with costs and benefits. To the extent possible, a pollutant should be regulated over an area wide enough to include all relevant sources and narrow enough to
subsume only locations where actual harm occurs. For example, EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule for SO2, NOx and some particulates will only apply in Midwestern and Eastern
states where they significantly affect air quality and winds seldom blow them away.38 A national
RPS will result in inefficiently low concentrations in
areas that are already in compliance, and must be coordinated with other programs in non-attainment areas. It may have too
large a footprint for some criteria pollutants, and too small a footprint for GHG. If GHG affect the entire planet, the impacts
of requiring a small portion of one industry in one nation to change its technology will be costly to the industry and its
customers, and symbolic for everyone else.
RPS won’t impact world markets – renewables can already cross borders

B. RPS as Technology Policy and Foreign Policy

Some believe that a national RPS will help drive down the costs of renewables. n36 It is, for example, possible that large
purchase orders will bring forth larger plants that capture economies of scale that have not been realized in today's relatively
smaller ones. Renewables, however, have no obvious characteristics that would lead to economies in production exceeding
those of similar manufactured goods, most of whose markets support at least several U.S. and foreign producers. Renewables
can easily cross national boundaries in both directions, and a federal RPS will have little impact on already-competitive
world markets. n37 The development of renewables has attracted technology investors, venture capitalists, and large firms
(e.g. General Electric) with available internal funds.
RPS Neg 61
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Import More from Europe & Japan

We would just import more clean technology from Europe and Japan
Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP
In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one
where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and
Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel cell and wind technologies, where European nations
and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Some of those
orders are for U. S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for
both domestic installation and overseas export.
More than half of new wind turbines are come from foreign manufactures – the plan would just prop them up more

n37. The manufacture of wind turbines is highly internationalized. General Electric supplied turbines for 47% of domestic
wind installations in 2006. Most of the remainder came from overseas sources, including Siemens (Germany, 23% of the
total), Vestas (Denmark, 19%), and Mitsubishi (Japan, 5%). Some foreign manufacturers have opened U.S. plants, and some
of GE's U.S. components were manufactured abroad. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Dep't. of
Energy, Annual Rep. on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006 6-7 ( 2007)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf.
RPS Neg 62
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Economy Resilient

The U.S. and global economy are resilient – new macroeconomic policies help the economy absorb shocks
Behravesh, 6 (Nariman, most accurate economist tracked by USA Today and chief global economist and executive vice
president for Global Insight, Newsweek, “The Great Shock Absorber; Good macroeconomic policies and improved
microeconomic flexibility have strengthened the global economy's 'immune system.'” 10-15-2006,
www.newsweek.com/id/47483) // JMP
The U.S. and global economies were able to withstand three body blows in 2005--one of the worst tsunamis on record (which
struck at the very end of 2004), one of the worst hurricanes on record and the highest energy prices after Hurricane Katrina--without
missing a beat. This resilience was especially remarkable in the case of the United States, which since 2000 has been able to
shrug off the biggest stock-market drop since the 1930s, a major terrorist attack, corporate scandals and war.
Does this mean that recessions are a relic of the past? No, but recent events do suggest that the global economy's "immune system" is now
strong enough to absorb shocks that 25 years ago would probably have triggered a downturn. In fact, over the past two decades, recessions
have not disappeared, but have become considerably milder in many parts of the world. What explains this enhanced recession resistance? The answer:
a combination of good macroeconomic policies and improved microeconomic flexibility.
Since the mid-1980s, central banks worldwide have had great success in taming inflation. This has meant that long-term interest rates are at levels not seen in more than 40 years. A
low-inflation and low-interest-rate environment is especially conducive to sustained, robust growth. Moreover, central bankers have avoided some of the policy mistakes of the
earlier oil shocks (in the mid-1970s and early 1980s), during which they typically did too much too late, and exacerbated the ensuing recessions. Even more important, in
recent
years the Fed has been particularly adept at crisis management, aggressively cutting interest rates in response to stock-market
crashes, terrorist attacks and weakness in the economy.
The benign inflationary picture has also benefited from increasing competitive pressures, both worldwide (thanks to globalization and the rise of Asia as a manufacturing
juggernaut) and domestically (thanks to technology and deregulation). Since the late 1970s, the United States, the United Kingdom and a handful of other countries have been
especially aggressive in deregulating their financial and industrial sectors. This has greatly increased the flexibility of their economies and reduced their vulnerability to
inflationary shocks. Looking ahead, what all this means is that a global or U.S. recession will likely be avoided in 2006, and probably in 2007 as well. Whether the current
expansion will be able to break the record set in the 1990s for longevity will depend on the ability of central banks to keep the inflation dragon at bay and to avoid policy mistakes.
The prospects look good. Inflation is likely to remain a low-level threat for some time, and Ben Bernanke, the incoming chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, spent
much of his academic career studying the past mistakes of the Fed and has vowed not to repeat them.
At the same time, no single shock will likely be big enough to derail the expansion. What if oil prices rise to $80 or $90 a barrel? Most estimates
suggest that growth would be cut by about 1 percent--not good, but no recession. What if U.S. house prices fall by 5 percent in 2006 (an extreme assumption, given that house
prices haven't fallen nationally in any given year during the past four decades)? Economic growth would slow by about 0.5 percent to 1 percent. What about another terrorist
attack? Here the scenarios can be pretty scary, but an
attack on the order of 9/11 or the Madrid or London bombings would probably have an
even smaller impact on overall GDP growth.
So what would it take to trigger a recession in the U.S. or world economies over the next couple of years? Two or more big shocks occurring more or less simultaneously. Global
Insight recently ran a scenario showing that a world recession could happen if the following combination of events were to take place: oil prices above $100 per barrel, inflation
and interest rates running 3 percentage points above current levels and a 10 percent drop in home prices across many industrial nations (e.g., the United States, the United
Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Sweden). The likely timing of such a recession would be 2007. However, given the extremeness of these assumptions, the probability of such a
scenario is less than 20 percent.
The good news is that the chances of a recession occurring in the next couple of years are low. The not-so-good news is that assertions about recessions being relegated to history's
trash heap are still premature.
RPS Neg 63
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Hegemony Ans

The world no longer needs American leadership – they grown accustomed to a reduced U.S. role
Schwenninger, 7 (Sherle R., Direction of the New America Foundation’s Fellow Program, The Nation, “Undebated
Challenges,” from the November 19, 2007 issue, www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/schwenninger) // JMP
As important, the Democrats seem to assume that the world so wants and needs American leadership that it is there for the
taking. But as Anatol Lieven suggests, the overarching question facing American foreign policy is not how to restore
leadership but how to adjust to an increasingly multipolar world that may be less open to any one power's primacy. Russia,
China, India, South Korea, a host of South American countries and even the pro-American powers belonging to the European
Union have all grown accustomed to a world in which the United States has been preoccupied with Iraq and in which they
have had more freedom to shape the politics and economies of their regions. Much of the world has done just fine without
active American leadership during this time and thus may not be as receptive to a reassertion of US leadership, as most of the
Democratic candidates seem to suggest.
Indeed, the leading Democratic candidates have failed to grasp one of the central lessons of the Bush era: the world does not
need strong US leadership so much as it needs constructive US participation as a great power. On global climate change, on
AIDS in Africa, on engaging North Korea, to mention just a few issues, other powers and new coalitions of transnational
NGOs and intergovernmental agencies--as well as long-established ones such as the United Nations--got there just as quickly
as and in some cases before the United States, and they now have an ownership stake in these issues and well-developed
views about how they should be solved. They would welcome the United States to the fold, but they would not cede all
leadership to Washington.
U.S. hegemony will remain strong – predictions of decline are delusionary
Stephens, 8 (Bret, Wall Street Journal Asia, “Marinating in ‘Decline’” 2-6-2008, p.14, Proquest) // JMP
In 1788, Massachusetts playwright Mercy Otis Warren took one look at the (unratified) U.S. Constitution and declared that "we shall soon see this country rushing into the extremes of confusion and violence."
This, roughly, is the origin of American declinism -- and it's been downhill ever since.
A couple centuries later, an international relations theorist at Yale named Paul Kennedy sought to explain the decline of great powers in terms of a ratio between military commitments and economic resources.
The Reagan military buildup and the deficits that went with it, he warned, had brought the United States to the point of "imperial overstretch." Not quite. Within a few years, the Soviet Union collapsed, Europe
and Japan (with no military burdens to speak of) entered a long period of economic stagnation, and the U.S. consolidated its position as the world's only true superpower.
Declinism is again in vogue. "America's unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order," writes
Parag Khanna in a recent New York Times Magazine cover story titled, cheerfully, "Who Shrank the Superpower?" In Sunday's Los Angeles Times, Fred Kaplan observes that "the United States can no longer
take obeisance for granted." Mr. Kaplan's new book, "Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power," sounds just a bit derivative of Nancy Soderberg's "The Superpower Myth"
(2005), Roger Burbach's "Imperial Overstretch" (2004) and Charles Kupchan's "The End of the American Era" (2003).
American "decline" is the foreign-policy equivalent of homelessness: The media only take note of it when a Republican is in
the White House. Broadly speaking, declinists divide between those who merely accept America's supposed diminishment as a fact of life, and those who celebrate it as long overdue. As for the
causes of decline, however, they tend to agree: declining (relative) economic muscle, due in large part to the rise of China; an overextended military bogged down
needlessly in Iraq and endlessly in Afghanistan; the declining value of America's "brand" on account of Bush administration policies on detention, pre-emption,
terrorism, global warming -- you name it.
Yet each of these assumptions collapses on a moment's inspection. In his 2006 book "Uberpower," German writer Josef Joffe makes the following back-of-the-
envelope calculation: "Assume that the Chinese economy keeps growing indefinitely at a rate of seven percent, the average of the past decade (for which history knows of no example). . . . At that rate,
China's GDP would double every decade, reaching parity with today's United States ($12 trillion) in thirty years. But the U.S.
economy is not frozen into immobility. By then, the United States, growing at its long-term rate of 2.5 percent, would stand at
$25 trillion."
Now take military expenditures. Monday, the administration released its budget proposal for 2009, which includes $515.4 billion for the regular defense budget. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this would be the
largest defense appropriation since World War II. Yet it amounts to about 4% of GDP, as compared to 14% during the Korean War, 9.5% during the Vietnam War and 6% in the Reagan administration.
Throw in the Iraq and Afghanistan supplementals, and total projected defense spending is still only 4.5% of GDP -- an easily
afforded sum even by Prof. Kennedy's terms.
Finally there is the issue of our allegedly squandered prestige in the world. There is no doubt America's "popularity," as measured by various global opinion surveys, has fallen
in recent years. What's striking, however, is how little of this has mattered in terms of the domestic political choices of other
countries or the consequences for the U.S.
In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War, nearly every government that joined President Bush's "coalition of the willing" -- Australia, Great Britain, Denmark and Japan -- was returned to power. France's
Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, the war's two most vocal opponents, were cashiered for two candidates who campaigned explicitly on a pro-American agenda. The same happened in South
Korea, where the unapologetically anti-American President Roh Moo-hyun has been replaced by the unapologetically pro-American Lee Myung-bak. Italy's equally unapologetic pro-American Silvio
Berlusconi seems set to return to office after a brief holiday.
None of this is to say that perceptions about America play a decisive role in the politics of most other countries. It is to say that anti-Americanism, like illegal immigration, is fool's gold politics. Nicolas
Sarkozy and Angela Merkel were not installed in office principally to mend relations with Washington. But to the extent that both seek to liberalize their economies, or strengthen NATO, or take a responsible
position vis-a-vis Iran, it brings them closer to Washington's way of thinking.
Meanwhile, McDonald's -- the icon of everything anti-Americans detest about the U.S. -- is doing a booming business overseas even as sales in the U.S. flatlined last year. Another icon, Boeing, is having no
trouble booking orders (meeting them is another matter) for its new 787 Dreamliner to such customers as Spain's AirEuropa and Bahrain's Gulf Air. The quintessentially American film, "National Treasure," has
earned nearly half its gross revenue -- about $160 million -- in foreign ticket sales since its release in late December. So much for America's loss of "soft power."
Happily for Mr. Kaplan, I look forward to receiving his forthcoming book. I'll put it right up there on the shelf with another
favorite: "19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots." I'm guessing it will fetch a price
on eBay.
RPS Neg 64
A2: RPS Boosts Poor Areas

RPS won’t revitalize poor areas or de-corporatize electricity
Other agendas motivate some RPS advocates. Since renewables are often distant from load centers they hope that an RPS can
revitalize rural areas that have lost population.42 None makes clear why electricity users should pay to reverse demographic
outflows that began in the nineteenth century. Wind-rich states are hardly the natural habitats of the unemployed.43 Others
see renewables as tools to de-corporatize electricity when rural populations experiment with resource ownership.44 The
Worldwatch Institute likes this because "wealth remains in the local community."45 (This is more easily achieved by refusing
to do any business at all with outsiders.) As for the actual residents, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
opposes an RPS at any level.46
RPS won’t boost rural areas

A variant of the job creation fallacy notes that renewables (particularly wind) are often distant from consumers of their
power, so the economic stimulus that stems from their construction might revitalize declining rural areas. n33 Supporters of
this view do not make clear why outmigration that has persisted for a century should be reversed, or why power consumers
should bear the costs. Here too unemployment is a non-issue. Forty-nine of North Dakota's fifty-three counties lost
population between 2000 and 2003, but the state enjoyed an unemployment rate half the national average. n34 Other
advocates see a national RPS as a tool to encourage collective ownership of renewables by rural residents. n35 The
Worldwatch Institute endorses this policy because "wealth remains in the local community," an odd posture for farmers who
earn incomes by selling their output to urbanites.
RPS Neg 65
A2: China Adv – Economy Resilient

China’s economy is resilient – trade is expanding
AC, 8 (“Associated Content, “China's Economy to Dominate 2008,” 1-2-2008,

www.associatedcontent.com/article/515311/chinas_economy_to_dominate_2008.html?all=1) // JMP
A strong and resilient economy is quickly pushing China to the forefront of the global financial stage and will make the Asian nation a
force to be reckoned with in 2008. According to The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., China has surpassed the United States in
manufacturing output and is the global leader in the production of steel, copper, aluminum, cement, and coal. Cahal Milmo, writing for The Independent in Great Britain, said
January 1, "China is set to make 2008 the year it asserts its status as a global colossus by flexing frightening economic muscle on international markets...."
John J. Tkacik, Jr., the Senior Research Fellow in China, Taiwan, and Mongolia Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, wrote December 28, 2007 that
"...Washington can no longer condescend to China as a 'developing' nation in need of U.S. tax dollars for programs relating to energy, environment, and the like. China has ample
money and resources to pay for these programs by itself."
According to data cited by The Independent, Chinese banks, which are controlled by the government in Beijing, are set to start spending foreign currency reserves in British
financial markets, sparking worries about the possible takeover of British ventures by the Chinese government. The trade gap between China and the rest of the world, which has
been the subject of considerable debate in the United States Congress, will grow even wider this year according to figures provided by The Independent and The Economic Times
of India.
A report by The Economic Times of India says that the
Chinese economy will experience double digit growth in 2008, the sixth consecutive
year in which that has happened. And while inflation in China is considered to be high, The Economic Times says, China's gross domestic product (GDP) is likely to
grow nearly 11 percent during the next twelve months. Strong economic performance can lead to significant inflation of prices, and several analysts have reported that inflation in
China is near a decade high.
Statistics provided by Forbes.com reveal that China's net fiscal revenue is expected to grow by 6 percent this year, and
overall investment will likely rise by more than 20 percent. Forbes also says that total foreign trade is expected to increase by
20 percent.
China's strong economic performance over the past several years has enabled it to invest both domestically and internationally, and with a growing military capability, the country
could soon join the ranks of the world's elite powers.
Sources: The Heritage Foundation, Web Memo Number 1762, The Independent (UK) web site, The Economic Times of India web site, Forbes.com web site
China’s economy is strong now – number of factors
Jongo News, 8 (“Global downturn won't hit China badly,” 1-25-2008,

www.jongonews.com/articles/08/0125/101361/MTAxMzYxf1755pMO.html) // JMP
Achievements of past five years

Stable and brisk growth. The annual GDP growth averaged 10.6 percent, with fluctuation of less than 1 percentage point.
Record number of jobs created. The country created 51 million employment opportunities.
Rising economic benefits. The country's fiscal revenue climbed to 5 trillion yuan ($691 billion) last year, compared with 1.89
trillion yuan ($261 billion) in 2002. Large-scale firms' accumulated total profit over the past five years rose to 7.86 trillion
yuan ($1.09 trillion). Last year alone it was 2.2-trillion-yuan ($304 billion).
Rapid income growth of urban and rural residents. The disposable income of urban residents grew at an annual average of 9.8
percent to reach 13,786 yuan ($1,900) last year. Rural residents' net income rose, too, to 4,140 yuan ($572) in 2007,
increasing 6.8 percent a year.
Notable progress in overall national strength. The total installed electricity generating capacity increased 350 million kW, and
28,000 km of highways were built.
China’s economy is resilient
Asia Times, 2 (Francesco Sisci, “China and the global security web,” 7-25-2002,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DG25Ad01.html) // JMP
Furthermore, growth in the past 20 years in China has proved not only buoyant but resilient. In spite of crisis in one year or
another, the economy has never plunged into a real recession, and the nation has forfeited the whole socialist welfare
system in a matter of a couple of years. Education and health assistance are now organized on a strictly profit bases, without
state support, housing has been privatized and jobs are no longer for life. These changes would have caused more than one
revolution in any other country, but in China they were digested without major uprisings. Therefore in the future China can
well be expected to carry on with economic reforms that appear modest compared with the ones it has already achieved, and
continue its high growth.
RPS Neg 66
A2: China Adv – SQ Solving

China will inevitably transition to alternative energy—US exports aren’t needed
Martinot & Junfeng 7 - *professor at Tsinghua University and senior research fellow with the Worldwatch Institute and **
Deputy Director General of the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission in Beijing
[Eric Martinot and Li Junfeng, Worldwatch Institute, “Powering China’s Development: The Role of Renewable Energy,”
November 2007, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5491#martinot] // LDK
Wind power is the fastest-growing power generation technology in China, having doubled in capacity during 2006 alone.
While wind is still slightly more expensive than coal power, policies encourage competitive pressure on costs, and new
mandates require power companies to obtain a minimum share of their power from wind and other renewables. China is
home to more than 50 aspiring domestic manufacturers of wind turbines and a number of foreign producers.
Solar power is still in its infancy in China, although a growing amount is used in rural areas and other off-grid applications. A
large market for grid-tied solar photovoltaic (PV) is still several years away, once costs decline further. Already, China is a
global manufacturing powerhouse for solar PV, third only to Japan and Germany, with huge investments in recent years and
much more expected.
China is the world’s largest market for solar hot water, with nearly two-thirds of global capacity. The country’s 40 million
solar hot water systems mean that more than 10 percent of Chinese households rely on the sun to heat their water. When
Chinese firms eventually turn to exporting, the lower costs of their units—seven times less than in Europe—could affect
markets globally.
Biomass power in China comes mostly from sugarcane wastes and rice husks, and has not grown in recent years. New
policies will likely mean more biomass power from other sources, such as agricultural and forestry wastes. In addition,
industrial-scale biogas, such as from animal wastes, is starting to make a contribution to power generation.
Biofuels for transportation have received widespread attention in China. Ethanol is produced in modest amounts from corn,
and biodiesel is produced in small amounts from waste cooking oil. The government plans to expand biofuels production
from cassava, sweet sorghum, and oilseed crops, although the large-scale potential is limited. The greatest promise lies with
cellulosic ethanol, which many expect to become commercially viable within 7–10 years. If China could use its vast
cellulosic resource of agricultural and forestry wastes—up to half a billion tons per year—it might become a major ethanol
producer after 2020.
It is likely that China will meet and even exceed its renewable energy development targets for 2020. Total power capacity
from renewables could reach 400 gigawatts by 2020, nearly triple the 135 gigawatts existing in 2006, with hydro, wind,
biomass, and solar PV power making the greatest contributions.More than one-third of China’s households could be using
solar hot water by 2020 if current targets and policies are continued. Use of other renewables, including biogas and perhaps
solar thermal power, will increase as well.
Achieving these outcomes will depend on domestic industry development, the availability of skilled personnel,
technology cost reductions, continued aggressive government policy, appropriate pricing levels, and allowance for
distributed power generation by electric utilities. Given China’s strong commitment to becoming a world leader in
renewables manufacturing, as well as concerns about energy security, power shortages, air pollution, and climate
change, the future of renewable energy in China appears bright.
Chinese current efforts are succeeding
McKibbin 5 – Non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and economics expert at Australian National University
and the Lowry Institute for International Policy – [Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Institute, “Environmental Consequences
of Rising Energy Use in China,” 8-22-05, Revised 12-10-05,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2005/12globaleconomics_mckibbin/200512.pdf]
China has already begun the take action to reduce emissions of sulphur by substituting away from high sulphur coal, by
closing small, high sulphur coal mines, with direct controls on SO2 emissions, implementation of pilot schemes for SO2
emission charges and pilot schemes for SO2 emissions trading. These are having an impact of emissions of sulphur although
the impact on acid rain has been less clear. As Nakada and Ueta (2004) point out there are likely to be gains for other
economies in the region such as Japan and Korea to cooperate with China in controlling sulphur emissions since these
economies are also directly affected by acid rain emanating from China.
RPS Neg 67
A2: China Adv – Government Won’t Promote Renewables

No Solvency—Authoritarian governments will prevent change
Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK
<<China’s authoritarian system has repeatedly proved its ability to suppress political threats to Communist Party rule. But its
failure to realize its avowed goals of balancing economic growth and environmental protection is a sign that the country’s
environmental problems are at least partly systemic, many experts and some government officials say. China cannot go
green, in other words, without political change.
In their efforts to free China of its socialist shackles in the 1980s and early 90s, Deng and his supporters gave lower-level
officials the leeway, and the obligation, to increase economic growth.
Local party bosses gained broad powers over state bank lending, taxes, regulation and land use. In return, the party leadership
graded them, first and foremost, on how much they expanded the economy in their domains.
To judge by its original goals — stimulating the economy, creating jobs and keeping the Communist Party in power — the
system Deng put in place has few equals. But his approach eroded Beijing’s ability to fine-tune the economy. Today, a
culture of collusion between government and business has made all but the most pro-growth government policies hard
to enforce.
“The main reason behind the continued deterioration of the environment is a mistaken view of what counts as political
achievement,” said Pan Yue, the deputy minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration. “The crazy expansion
of high-polluting, high-energy industries has spawned special interests. Protected by local governments, some businesses
treat the natural resources that belong to all the people as their own private property.”>>
No Solvency—the government won’t promote energy transition
Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of
The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly
Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK
<<The government rarely uses market-oriented incentives to reduce pollution. Officials have rejected proposals to
introduce surcharges on electricity and coal to reflect the true cost to the environment. The state still controls the price of fuel
oil, including gasoline, subsidizing the cost of driving.
Energy and environmental officials have little influence in the bureaucracy. The environmental agency still has only about
200 full-time employees, compared with 18,000 at the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
China has no Energy Ministry. The Energy Bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s
central planning agency, has 100 full-time staff members. The Energy Department of the United States has 110,000
employees.
China does have an army of amateur regulators. Environmentalists expose pollution and press local government officials
to enforce environmental laws. But private individuals and nongovernment organizations cannot cross the line
between advocacy and political agitation without risking arrest.>>
At least two leading environmental organizers have been prosecuted in recent weeks, and several others have received sharp
warnings to tone down their criticism of local officials. One reason the authorities have cited: the need for social stability
before the 2008 Olympics, once viewed as an opportunity for China to improve the environment.
RPS Neg 68
A2: China Adv – U.S. Exporting Now

The US is exporting its alternative energy to China now
DOC 7 [Department of Commerce, “Gutierrez Witnesses Agreements to Expand U.S. Exports to China,” December 10,
2007, http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_004892] // LDK
<<Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez today witnessed the signing of two commercial agreements in Beijing that will
help facilitate over $100 million in U.S. exports to China. One agreement will help The Timken Company expand in China’s
growing wind energy market. The second agreement between the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and China
Eastern Airlines Corporation will expand training for China Eastern personnel and support General Electric (GE) Company’s
supply of 34 new Boeing aircraft engines to the airline. Gutierrez first witnessed the signing of an agreement between The
Timken Company and Chinese heavy equipment manufacturer Xiangtan Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (XEMC) to
establish a joint venture in China to manufacture ultra-large-bore bearings for high-performance direct-drive wind turbines
for the Chinese wind energy market. The joint venture is expected to contribute to China’s goal of generating 30 million
kilowatts of power from wind energy systems by 2020, providing a renewable energy source for China’s rapidly expanding
economy. “These two agreements help position U.S. exports to China’s rapidly growing economy,” said U.S. Secretary of
Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez. “Timken’s partnership in China will provide $100 million in exports, while also helping
China expand alternative energy, wind power, which helps the planet.” The joint venture will build a new $38 million facility
in Xiangtan, located in China’s Hunan province, to collaborate on the manufacture of main-shaft bearings for wind turbines.
Timken will own 80 percent of the joint venture, which will include $110 million in initial U.S. export content. Construction
of the new facility is scheduled to begin in early 2008.>>
The US is committed to both development and export of alternative energy—Indonesia proves
USTDA 7 [U.S. Trade and Development Agency, “USTDA Grants Support of Increased Use of Alternative Energy Resources
in Indonesia,” 9-11-7,
http://www.ustda.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/SouthAsia/Indonesia/IndonesiaCleanEnergy_091107.pdf] // LDK
<<“The United States is committed to furthering the development and use of alternative energy resources, both at home and
abroad, as a means to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and help improve the environment,” said U.S. Under Secretary of
State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Reuben Jeffery III at the grant signing ceremony, held on September 10
at the U.S. Commercial Service in Jakarta. “We are pleased to partner with Indonesia in its efforts to do the same.”
“We believe this project will help demonstrate a sustainable approach to the production of biofuels from palm oil,” said
PTPN III President Director Amri Siregar in remarks at the signing ceremony. Under Secretary Jeffery and President
Director Siregar signed the grant agreement on behalf of the U.S. government and PTPN III, respectively. Regional Director
Steingass and PTPN III Director of Planning and Development Chairul Muluk signed as witnesses to the grant agreement.
The opportunity to conduct the USTDA-funded investment analysis for PTPN III will be competed on the Federal Business
Opportunities website at www.fbo.gov. Interested U.S. firms should submit proposals following the instructions in the
Federal Business Opportunities announcement. PTPN III will select the U.S. firm that will provide the assistance associated
with the USTDA grant.
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency advances economic development and U.S. commercial interests in developing and
middle-income countries. The agency funds various forms of technical assistance, early investment analysis, training,
orientation visits and business workshops that support the development of a modern infrastructure and a fair and open trading
environment. USTDA’s strategic use of foreign assistance funds to support sound investment policy and decision-making in
host countries creates an enabling environment for trade, investment and sustainable economic development. In carrying out
its mission, USTDA gives emphasis to economic sectors that may benefit from U.S. exports of goods and services.>>
RPS Neg 69
A2: Energy Independence

RPS won’t produce energy independence – only 2% of power comes from oil fired plants
National security and "energy independence." There are few if any important relationships between renewables and energy
security for the nation. Security centers on oil, but only 2 percent of the nation's power comes from it and some oil-fired
plants can also burn gas. Interruptions of conventional fuel supplies are rare and usually local, but intermittent renewables
have their own reliability risks. Some advocates see a national RPS as deterring terrorist attacks on large power plants, but
there are surely cheaper ways to achieve this end.59 Security is better addressed directly by facility owners and government
formulating a national policy on infrastructure. Electricity requires redundant transmission and generation reserves to
maintain reliability, whether outages are caused by lightning or bombs. The destruction of an isolated wind farm achieves less
than that of a large generator, but in most scenarios the loss of either will have little effect on reliability.
RPS doesn’t improve energy security – oil only produces 3% of electricity

3. National Security
Any connection between an RPS and energy security is tenuous at best. n51 Virtually all international security concerns are
oil-related, but oil produces only 3% of the nation's power, some in plants that can also burn gas. n52 Renewables primarily
displace power generated by North American gas, whose price reflects conditions of demand, storage, and (over the longer
run) policies that restrict or expand exploration for it. Claims that a national RPS will make powerplants more secure against
terrorism appear overstated at best. n53 As shown below, most generation investments over the next twenty years will
continue to be fossil-fueled or nuclear. An RPS is a costly and blunt tool for the protection of non-renewable powerplants.
n54 Security is better addressed under a national infrastructure policy to harden them than under a policy that requires the
construction of renewables. A national RPS will still require that "backbone" transmission be used as intensively as today,
and there are few hard options for reducing its vulnerability. The industry, however, has long lived with problems like these.
Because production and consumption must be equal every second, [*94] electric systems are designed for quick response to
contingencies ranging from lightning strikes to boiler explosions. RPS advocates are correct when they assert that a 50 MW
wind farm [or a 50 MW combustion turbine] is a less attractive target than a 500 MW coal-fired plant, but in most situations
short of war either can be lost with little impact on reliability.
RPS Neg 70
A2: Diversification
RPS doesn’t produce effective diversification – just shifts and conceals risks
Diversification and risk. Almost any diversification of a generating portfolio cuts risk, but renewables may not be the cost-
effective way to do the job. Any reduction in the variance must be weighed against the fact that adding them will also raise
expected prices. The degrees of risk reduction and risk shifting will depend on contracts that define the relationship between
the renewable and the utility purchasing its power. One study concluded that wind is a potentially useful hedge on gas prices
and estimated a risk premium of 0.5cents/kWh.57 Assumptions about contracts, however, may drive this conclusion. If gas is
on the margin its cost sets the market energy price. Wind contracts, however, generally pay a fixed amount per kWh rather
than market value at the time it is generated. The utility gets a bargain when gas is expensive and overpays when it is low. If
gas prices follow a random walk, the longer the contract price is fixed the greater the expected difference between market and
contract prices in one direction or the other. The fixed-price wind contract, however, gives the utility a predictable stream of
expenses that regulators will almost surely approve. The contract both shifts risks to captives and conceals the magnitude of
those risks. Long-term fixed-price contracts are almost unique to regulated utilities, in part because they can so easily transfer
the risks to customers who have no alternatives but to bear them.58
RPS Neg 71
States CP – 1NC
States can empirically develop effective RPSs – a federal standard will undercut those programs and drive up energy
costs
Kranenburg, 8 – director, business development for the Edison Electric Institute

(Roger, Power, “One-size RPS does not fit all,” January 2008, vol. 152, no. 1, EBSCO) // JMP
The U.S. Congress continues to debate proposals that would mandate that a set amount of the nation's electricity come from
renewable energy sources such as wind, the sun, or biomass. These discussions about adopting a nationwide renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) raise significant concerns for power providers and customers alike.
Backers of a one-size-fits-all federal RPS believe it to be an essential component of a broad national energy strategy to
address global climate change, improve air quality, and lower electricity price volatility. But in reality, a national RPS could
disrupt existing state renewable energy programs and put added pressure on electricity prices and reliability.
Impact on state programs
States are moving forward with their own programs to promote renewable energy sources. As of September 2007, 24 states
and the District of Columbia had established an RPS. Four other states had nonbinding goals for adopting renewables, and 48
states now support programs that offer consumers incentives, grants, loans, or rebates to use renewable energy resources.
Each state's RPS plan includes carefully considered timetables and targets based upon its own unique circumstances and
available energy sources. A federal RPS that imposes different targets and timetables could undercut or preempt those efforts.
This would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and
consumers in those states.
Even among states that have an RPS, all have chosen to add energy sources unique to their areas, such as geothermal power,
which are not included in the broad-sweeping federal RPS proposals. Many state programs also include technologies such as
fuel cells, as well as alternative means of compliance such as energy-efficiency programs, which are not recognized in the
federal plans.
Higher power costs
Finally, not all regions of the country have abundant renewable energy sources that they can turn to for generating electricity.
The cost for states in these regions to comply with a federal RPS could be high, because many of the retail electric suppliers
in these areas will not be able to meet an RPS requirement through their own generation. They will be required to purchase
higher-cost renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits.
Thus a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in states with little or no
renewable resources to the federal government or states where renewables happen to be more abundant.
A federal RPS would also mean higher costs due to the need to build high-voltage electric transmission lines. Renewable
energy facilities, especially wind farms, are usually located in remote areas. To deliver their electricity to the populated areas
where it is needed, transmission lines would need to be built. To do so will cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per
mile.
Most renewable energy sources are intermittent, meaning they do not generate power all the time. Consequently,
conventional power plants (most likely fueled by natural gas) need to be built to support them, which accounts for costs in
addition to the cost of building the renewable energy facilities.
RPS Neg 72
States CP – Modeled by the USFG

The counterplan will be modeled by the federal government
Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK
In addition, early successes in states like Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, along with the continuing growth of new
state RPS adoption and expansion have demonstrated that the policy can be effective.6 State governments are often the
laboratories for national policy. If a policy is successful in one state—as with California's standards for energy-efficient
appliances—it is usually replicated and expanded by others until it is ultimately considered at the national level. Furthermore,
renewable energy provides important benefits to all consumers, not just those in states required to use it. Leveling the playing
field by requiring all states and electricity providers to share in the cost of renewable energy investment is fair, as well as
publicly and politically popular.
The counterplan will be modeled by the federal government
Kammen, 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
(Daniel M., San Francisco Chronicle, “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future,” 5-18-2008,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.DTL) // JMP
The central challenge of the 21st century will be to replace the vast fossil-fuel infrastructure with a new economy based on
low-carbon technologies. The issue on the table is the need to finance clean energy research programs and to build markets
where low-carbon technologies are rewarded. In other words, we must begin to price pollution.
Courageous experiments can form the basis of needed federal legislation and leadership. The Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006 (AB32) here in California is an example. The Midwest is developing what promises to be an aggressive policy in a
region with exceptional wind and biofuel resources.
RPS Neg 73
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS

States solve best – they are better situated to implement effective RPSs
Finally, many opponents of a national RPS argue that it is unnecessary n83 to have a national plan because state and regional
initiatives are already handling the issue in regions where it is appropriate and the states, individually or regionally, are better
situated to implement plans that account for regional differences. n84 For example, in the case of the Proposed RPS, a major
complaint is that a "one-size-fits-all Federal mandate does not take into account the specific energy and economic needs of
individual States by requiring that 15 percent of retail electricity sales be generated from specific renewable resources which
are not prevalent" in all regions. n85 Although there are arguably benefits that a national plan can achieve that individual
state plans cannot, n86 as discussed in Part II.B, many state plans are already well established and effective.
States are better suited to expand renewable – a federal one-size-fits-all RPS will fail
Proponents of S. Amdt. 791 argued that the non-federal piecemeal approach would not support the renewables market. They
contended that the current approach to RPS is haphazard in that each state adopts its own and a strong national standard
would enable the industry to focus on meeting one standard.36 But would a federal RPS really result in a strong national
renewable market? States, opponents asserted, were much better positioned to determine appropriate fuels, associated costs,
consumer protections, and requirements to meet environmental regulations, all of which could be achieved without a highly
intrusive mandate from the Federal Government into areas that typically are left to the states.37 Moreover, the economic
reality of a national RPS militates against a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Utilities located in states without sufficient eligible
renewables would have to purchase credits or be penalized monies that would go via the SREAP into the coffers of the states
with substantial renewable resources and technologies.38
States are best – they can incorporate design elements from other regions
F. Flexibility in Learning from Others

States, municipalities, and utilities that are considering adopting a renewable program are best served if they have the ability
to incorporate elements of others' designs that will work for their regions, their citizens, and their consumers. One such
example of this process is a report published in 2001 by the Maryland Public Service Commission, assessing the feasibility of
a Maryland RPS, which examined design elements and how existing state programs managed them.122 Similarly, in 2002,
the Florida Public Service Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection held a series of workshops and
issued a report on the use of renewable resources within Florida.123 The Florida Report also examined existing state
initiatives that Florida could adopt.124 Incorporating best practices is essential in crafting a program that promotes renewable
energy in a cost-effective and reliable manner. In addition to addressing costs and transmission constraints, states,
municipalities, and utilities designing renewable programs should consider the down-side of carve-outs for more expensive
technologies.125 Likewise, purchasing out-of-state renewable generation (as is permitted under Connecticut's plan) or RECs
when they cost less than in-state resources are ways to support the environmental benefits of renewable energy while keeping
costs to consumers down.126
RPS Neg 74
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS

Only State and local renewable policies have the flexibility to effectively expand renewables
V. CONCLUSION...FOR NOW?
As it turns out, EPAct '05 did not end or even put on hold the debate over a Federal RPS.132 On May 4, 2006, a bill entitled
the "Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006" was introduced by Sen. Bingaman in the Senate and referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. 2747 includes a mandatory federal RPS with the following milestones for
utility portfolios: 2.25% by 2008 up to 10% from 2020 through 2030. Also, on May 17, 2006, a bill proponents touted as a
bill for U.S. "energy independence" was introduced in the Senate. The "Clean EDGE Act of 2006" (S. 2829), which was
introduced by Sen. Cantwell (D-WA), includes, among other measures, a 10% federally-mandate RPS.133 Sen. Domenici (R-
NM), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has expressed doubts about the future of S.
2829.134
In all of the debates over the past ten years, Congress was right: renewables constitute an important component in meeting
our nation's power needs, one which is valuable in protecting the environment and helps decrease our dependence on foreign
oil. Nonetheless, if renewable programs really are to be beneficial, and not just to "special interests" in the industry, then they
must be considered in the context of how best to provide safe, reliable, and affordable power. Moreover, there must be the
flexibility to consider and reconsider mechanisms within renewable programs that take into account regional, state, and even
local differences.
The role of the state, utility, or cooperative is to ensure that a renewable program incorporates all components that are
necessary to produce renewable energy that is cost-effective and reliable. The challenge is to find the balance between
realizing the promises of renewable energy while protecting consumers and communities from adverse impacts. A renewable
program can fall into one of two categories: "[e]legant, cost effective, flexible policy" or "[p]oorly designed, ineffective, or
costly . . . ."135 Regional consortiums, states, local municipalities, and individual utilities are best positioned to evaluate the
panoply of renewable data, in conjunction with their policy objectives, to establish programs that work for their citizens and
consumers. At the end of the day, the goal of any renewable program should be to provide cleaner, reasonably-priced and
reliable electric service. Mandates such as a federal RPS will not achieve these goals.
States are empirically expanding renewables now – the plan coopts this with a one-size-fit-all federal standard

A “One-Size-Fits-All” RPS Amendment Ignores States

* A one-size-fits-all federal RPS mandate ignores the specific energy and economic needs of the individual states. There
are significant regional differences in availability, amount and types of renewable energy resources, resulting in different
regions of the country relying on different fuel mixes. Even among states that have an RPS, some have chosen to add
technologies that would not be included in the Bingaman proposal, most commonly hydropower and fuel cells.
* Some states may find that a 10 percent RPS is not in the best interest of their electricity consumers. Several states have
RPS programs with lower percentage targets, including Arizona, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Others are reassessing the
impact of an RPS. Yet the Bingaman proposal would lock everyone into a single program.
* States already are encouraging the development of renewable energy resources. More than 90 electric companies in 30
states have implemented or announced green pricing programs to support investment in renewable energy technologies.
Forty-three states support programs that offer incentives, grants, loans or rebates to consumers using renewable energy
resources. To date, 13 states have adopted renewable energy portfolio standards, based on their fuel resources. And, electric
suppliers in nine states with competitive retail markets are offering green power products to consumers.
RPS Neg 75
States CP – State Financial Incentives Solve

State financial incentives can expand renewables
State incentives, like their federal counterparts, provide critical benefits for renewable resources that do not distinguish
among consumer groups. Many states offer tax credits/rebates to various taxpayer groups. For instance, residential consumers
in Idaho, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Utah can receive personal tax credits on equipment and installation costs for
renewable heating and/or electric generation.74 In New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, commercial
and industrial consumers can receive corporate tax credits on property using renewable systems.75 The credits can be
focused on those renewable technologies that are available in individual states. Likewise, manufacturers of renewable
equipment in North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Washington can receive corporate tax credits, which can be used to attract
manufacturing jobs to the state, and can also be focused on manufacturers locating in depressed communities within the
state.76 Renewable systems in Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, and Tennessee may be eligible for special property assessments to
reduce the tax burden on those who make significant capital investments in renewable technologies.77 Purchasers of
renewable equipment and systems in Florida, Idaho, and Nevada can receive rebates on sales taxes, lowering the up-front
cost of renewable energy technologies, which is often the greatest barrier to investment.78 Similarly, in states such as
California, Illinois, and Rhode Island, purchasers of renewable equipment and systems can receive state rebates on a
percentage of the actual equipment or system costs or on a MWh basis, which also serves to lower the up-front costs of
investment in renewable energy technologies.79
States also offer grants and trust funds for research and development of renewable production and technologies. In Delaware,
Illinois, and Iowa, research and development grants support the development and marketing of new renewable energy
technologies, which can significantly support those businesses within the state whose work is related to renewable energy
technologies or a depressed area within the state.80 Finally, California, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington offer production
incentives in the form of RECs that can be traded or sold as well as in the form of supplemental energy payments or tax
credits to offset higher production costs.81
RPS Neg 76
States CP – Solvency
California and other states can empirically adopt RPS
Hodge, 7 (Nick, “Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?” 12-11-2007,
www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard/187) // JMP
A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a policy that mandates a certain percentage of produced electricity come from
renewable resources.
The energy bill currently being debated in Congress would ensure that utilities generate 15% of their electricity renewably by
2020. And while it's unclear whether or not that provision would make it into the final version of the bill--President Bush has
indicated he will veto it anyway if it does--some states have already adopted such a measure.
In fact, certain states have adopted policies that dwarf the modest one causing so much tension in the Senate. California,
where I'm currently attending the greenXchange Global Marketplace Conference, has an RPS ensuring that 20% of its energy
comes from renewables by 2010.
That, coupled with other green initiatives, means that California will have reduced their statewide emissions 17% from 1990
levels by 2010. To put that in perspective, countries that signed on to Kyoto have to reduce their emissions a collective
average of 5% from 1990 levels by 2012.
And New Mexico will get 20% of its energy the same way by 2020. That state is home to Governor Bill Richardson, one of
the most outspoken presidential candidates when it comes to the energy issue.
In his keynote address at the conference yesterday, he called the current energy bill "shameful and pathetic", arguing that
much more needs to be done by way of adopting renewable energy technologies.
He added, "Flirting with $100 oil isn't flirting at all. It's a serious relationship--an affair." And nearly "1/3 of the trade deficit
goes to pay for $100 oil."
But I digress.
Even without a national plan-though it would be nice-28 states and the District of Columbia have already instituted some
form of RPS (three of those states have voluntary targets, whatever that means). Those states make up over half of the US
population and account for well over half of the domestic electricity sales. So you can see where this issue is headed.
States can develop an effective energy policy
Hurst, 8 – After five years of graduate study he has turned his sights on renewable energy advocacy and applied energy
politics
(Timothy B., “Ending the ‘Feast or Famine’ Cycles of Clean Energy Development in the US,” 3-7-2008,
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/07/ending-the-feast-or-famine-cycles-of-clean-energy-development-in-us/) // JMP
So, as the future of clean energy development in the US hangs in the balance, individual states are not waiting around to take
action. I propose that it is at the state level where cleantech investors should be looking for incentives and investment
security. The feds are simply dropping the ball on energy policy. Fortunately, however, the states are picking it up and
running with it.
RPS Neg 77
States CP – Energy Prices NB

A federal RPS will cause some States to further jack up electricity prices
State programs can make adjustments to escape higher costs that inflict some regions
C. Flexibility in Evaluating Costs

Like the reliability debate, cost-effectiveness of renewables prompts a myriad of responses. Here as well, there is no panacea
for ensuring cost-effectiveness of a renewable resource. It is not surprising that renewable programs across the country affect
consumer rates differently. In a 2005 study, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) charted the average expected cost impact of eight state programs on consumer residential bills (without renewables
percentages specified); findings ranged from savings of $3.50/year in 2010 in California, to no impact in Washington, to
additional costs in Pennsylvania of $3.50 on average annually.96
A DOE consumers guide, addressing wind energy in rural areas, observed that "[d]epending on your wind resource, a small
wind energy system can lower your electricity bill by 50% to 90%, help you avoid the high costs of extending utility power
lines to remote locations, prevent power interruptions, and it is nonpolluting."97 However, that is a significant "depend."
Even renewable advocates acknowledge that costs, such as high transmission costs, high financing costs, and high
transactions costs for technologies, including, but not limited to wind, contribute to the market barriers for renewables.98
These are quantifiable indicia, whereas some of the benefits, such as reduced pollution and energy diversity, are less easy for
the market to reflect, creating little incentive for consumers to switch. This perception may seem less than fair.99
Nonetheless, as discussed supra at Part II, cost to consumers was a critical component of the debates revolving around S.
Amdt. 791.
Certainly, statewide and local programs are grappling with costs. New Mexico amended its RPS statute to include a
"reasonable threshold" standard whereby, if the cost of the renewable energy was above a state commission-established level,
the utility was not obligated to add that renewable to its portfolio. Likewise, Arizona's standard included a caveat that if the
cost of solar technologies did not decrease to an ACC cost/benefit threshold, the recent increase would not have been
implemented.100 Montana's program includes caps on the additional costs to utilities, which may only recover costs under
contracts pre-approved by the Montana Public Service Commission.101 At a more local level, Columbia, Missouri's RPS
must be met to the extent that it does not increase electric rates more than 3% from the otherwise applicable rate level.102
RPS Neg 78
States CP – A2: Federal RPS Key

A federal RPS lacks the necessary flexibility to effectively expand renewables
IV. FLEXIBLE RENEWABLE PROGRAMS ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS FROM RENEWABLES THAN A MANDATED RPS
Congressional efforts to impose a mandated RPS contained little opportunity for local variances, or for the flexibility or
reconsideration that are essential components in furthering renewable goals while meeting the country's power supply needs
in a cost-effective and reliable manner. As discussed supra at Part II, the debates surrounding S. Amdt. 791 highlighted this shortcoming in that RPS proposal.
Fortunately, the amendments Congress enacted to Title I of PURPA respecting fuel diversity did not suffer from the same problem.82
Flexibility means that elements of a renewable program can be revised if necessary. Renewable programs should be designed to be flexible in
order to balance conservation and environmental benefits against associated costs and reliability concerns. Flexibility is important because programs
oftentimes need to be revised to maintain this balance and offer workable solutions for consumers. A RPS or any renewable program
should promote energy efficiency and conservation in the context of obtaining affordable and reliable power. Flexibility at the state, local, and utility levels is
essential in establishing RPSs or renewable programs that foster these same goals. Those who are implementing the programs must be able to
review or reconsider elements as a means of fulfilling the purpose of renewables while safeguarding the need for safe, reliable, and affordable power.
Renewable advocates have been urging flexibility in designing renewable programs for years. In 2001, the Texas RPS was touted as a success in that it demonstrated that a RPS, if
designed properly, can deliver a "low-cost, flexible, and effective support mechanism for renewable energy."83 Moreover, an analysis of state programs undertaken in 2001
concluded that state experiences showed that "an RPS can be ineffective unless careful attention is given to the details of the RPS design."84 It
is essential to design a
renewable standard or goal that incorporates many separate elements including structure, size, administration, policy goals,
resource eligibility, production targets, and coordination with other policies such as financial incentives, and most
importantly, the flexibility to reassess and refine all of the above.85 The congressional debate of S. Amdt. 791 focused on whether or not elements of
the proposed RPS would prove too intractable concerning factors such as reliability, costs, and eligible renewable sources to ensure its own effectiveness. It is often said "the devil
is in the details," which is precisely the reason why renewable programs should be left to those who understand the mechanics of obtaining cleaner power that is also reliable and
cost-effective.
A federal RPS will fail – it tries to create a market for too few renewables that are not available in all regions. This
makes individual State RPSs comparatively better
D. Flexibility in Choosing Eligible Renewable Sources

Eligible fuel sources constituted a third bone of contention in the debate of S. Amdt. 791. As discussed supra at Part II, advocates of a broader list argued that since
no one
resource/fuel is prevalent and available in every single region, state, or utility service area, a successful renewable program
would encompass whatever was there, including hydroelectric, nuclear, and municipal waste.103 Proponents of a narrow list
asserted that the purpose of a federal RPS was to incentivize a market for new renewables, which would succeed only if eligibility were
limited to less prevalent technologies such as photovoltaics, solar, and wind.104 What these proponents either failed or refused to grasp is that, with this
significant range of natural resource diversity, a federal market (even with congressional support) is not practicable. A federal
market is not practicable because utilities in regions with less abundant eligible resources would only pay into the market and
would never benefit from the market financially. Market circumstances vary as much as the available renewable fuel sources do, since one is dependent upon
the other. In the Texas Study, Wiser and Langniss conclude that one of the most important problems in RPS design is "[i]nadequate attention to the relationship between the
renewable energy purchase requirement and eligible renewable energy sources."105
States and local programs have been structured to take advantage of Mother Nature as well as man-made and animal-
generated products. In Maryland's case, that includes poultry-litter incineration, which uses a byproduct from a long-standing Maryland industry.106 Pennsylvania includes
IGCC-coal and coal bed methane and California includes wave energy.107 Recently, the Florida Public Service Commission voted to order utilities to offer a variety of contractual
pricing options for purchases from generating facilities using solid waste and "vegetable matter," among other renewable sources.108 Fort Collins, Colorado has a goal that does
not specify renewable fuel types.109
Ultimately, what the states, utilities, and local municipalities know, and incorporate into their assessments of "eligible"
renewables, is that in some areas, certain renewable resources will not be feasible. As a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
noted, even taking into account all available federal and state incentives, improvements in technology and rising natural gas costs, "wind power will continue to be too expensive to
compete with fossil-fuel generation in parts of the country with poor wind resources."110
RPS Neg 79
States CP – A2: Uniformity Necessary

Forcing uniformity is counterproductive – it overlooks resources and institutions unique to each state.

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

RPS Neg 80
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC

State consortiums can effectively organize renewable energy credits – federal action aren’t needed

The second rationale for centralization is currently being proven unnecessary. Wholesale transactions in both conventional
and renewable energy take place in growing regional markets under FERC jurisdiction. These markets can easily distinguish
resources with different characteristics (e.g. intermittency) and already do allow contracts that price them efficiently.
Proposals for a national RPS generally include design of a mechanism to trade and register credits, but existing markets and
regional organizations are already taking on this job. A consortium of western states (both with and without RPS) has formed
the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), administered at the headquarters of the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council. n123 The WREGIS has been formed "to provide a single institution in the West that will
issue, register and track renewable energy certificates for use in verification of compliance with state regulatory and
voluntary market programs." n124
Interstate differences in RPS don’t undermine REC transactions

It is hard to substantiate various claims that state RPS differences foreclose renewable and REC transactions that would have
occurred under a national standard. n125 Even if a transaction between a particular buyer and seller is foreclosed, both may
well have alternative counterparties in other states. Losing [*109] the best transaction cuts the benefits of exchange, but only
by the difference between the lost exchange and the next best one. The only barriers cited in Cooper and Sovacool's work
favoring a federal standard involve differences in protocols among the three northeastern Regional Transmission Operators
that would still exist under a national RPS. They reflect continuing problems at the "seams" between RTOs, differing
technical standards, and differences in market institutions that cannot easily be harmonized. They are not the creations of
state regulators. Interstate differences in defining renewables and RECs can appear formidable, but estimates of their actual
effects have yet to be produced. n126
RPS Neg 81
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC

States can enact RPSs that include interstate credit trading – these state programs are more flexible
B. State, Local, and Regional Renewable Programs

During the consideration of federal energy legislation, more
and more states, electric utilities, and local jurisdictions established RPSs,
renewable goals or other programs,45 many of which include RECs that in some instances can be traded on an interstate basis.
Likewise, regional consortiums are supporting renewable efforts and goals. Iowa enacted the first renewable program back in 1983, followed by
Minnesota in 1994 and Arizona in 1996.46 Currently, there are twenty-eight renewable programs in place in the United States: twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have
enacted or implemented a RPS or renewable goal program (of these, Minnesota has two: a renewable goal for electric utilities other than Xcel Energy, and a wind and biomass
mandate for Xcel); Fort Collins, Colorado, Columbia, Missouri, and Austin, Texas have renewable programs; and a utility, Jacksonville Electric Authority in Florida, has a
program.47 Sectors of the industry to which these programs apply range from the RPSs of Delaware and Wisconsin (which apply to all utilities and retail suppliers, including
municipals and electric cooperatives), to Nevada's RPS for investor-owned utilities (IOUs).48 Standards, measured in terms of percentages or megawatts (MWs) of renewable
power generated, purchased or acquired via RECs, are all over the map. For example, Maryland requires 7.5% of retail sales by 2019; Iowa requires its utilities annually to contract
for a combined 105 MWs of renewable energy; and Connecticut requires 10% retail sales by 2010.49
Many of these programs have been in place long enough for the states or other implementing entities to gauge their efficacy,
and to refine or even restructure the programs if necessary to take into account evolving state or local factors. This is the
flexibility factor that is essential in designing and operating any renewable program, as discussed infra at Part IV.B to Part IV.F. Accordingly,
many programs have been amended to require or recommend higher standards than those originally established. California, already
considered a sort of juggernaut for renewable issues, appears to be in the final stages of gaining approval for accelerating its RPS from 20% of retail sales by retail sellers by 2010
to 33% by the end of 2020.50 Likewise, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), on March 14, 2006, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to increase the standard for a
utility's renewable portfolio from 1.1% in 2007-2012 to 15% by 2025, with 30% of renewables coming from DG resources.51 Wisconsin recently revisited its 1999 standard when
the Wisconsin State Legislature enacted SB 459, under which the statewide renewable goal for retail sales increased from 2.2% by 2012 to 10% by the end of 2015.52 New Jersey
is giving California a run for its money for the most aggressive RPS. In April 2006, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities significantly increased, based on classes or tiers of
renewable energy, the standard to 22.5% by 2021.53 While it is difficult to measure the cumulative renewable energy from all of these programs, one
study projected that
compliance with RPS and renewable goals would result in an increase from ten gigawatts (GWs) in 2003 to forty GWs in
2015.54 However, because a growing number of states are increasing the levels of renewable energy required,55 this cumulative
could correspondingly be greater.
Additionally, regional alliances are working to promote renewables. The Western Governors' Association (WGA)56 agreed upon a resolution that calls
for the development of thirty GWs of renewable energy by 2015.57 In the Northeast, governors in New England and premiers from Canadian provinces set a policy goal of 10%
renewable energy by 2020.58
Furthermore, many states require their state agencies to procure power from renewable sources. Connecticut's Green Power Purchase Plan
directs state agencies and universities to purchase renewable power, with a goal of meeting 20% of power needs by 2010 and up to 100% in 2050.59 Similarly, state agencies in
New Jersey are required to purchase an aggregate of 12% of their energy usage from renewable sources, and New York's Renewable Power Procurement Policy committed the
state government to purchase 10% of its power from renewables by 2005 and 20% by 2010.60 Likewise, local governments are establishing their own programs: Montgomery
County, Maryland purchases 5% of its power from wind sources; Portland, Oregon has met its current goal of 12% renewable purchases, with an eye towards 100%; and Conway,
South Carolina's Green Power Purchasing program obligates the city to purchase fifty 200 kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks of electricity per month that is generated by landfill gas.61
Several states require utilities to offer their customers green power under specified tariffs: Iowa requires all utilities operating within the state to offer green power options to their
customers; and electric utilities in Minnesota must offer green power as well.62 At the local level, many municipalities and cooperatives have established their own green power
purchasing programs.63
A national RPS will reduce the benefits of a REC system

n126. Cooper and Sovacool describe Global Energy Decisions renewables study, and claim that its authors:
"analyzed two national RPS scenarios, one without a nationwide REC system, and one with. They found that a national REC
trading scheme would save utilities $ 14 billion compared to a RPS without uniform trading rules." Cooper and Sovacool
supra note 4, at 48 (one footnote omitted).
In reality $ 14 billion is the difference between two nonexistent situations: one that assumes absolutely no REC trading and
one that assumes uniform market rules for all then-existing RPS states. This is not a "nationwide" system that imposes a
single RPS on all states. In fact a national RPS would diminish these benefits. Resources in non-RPS states that utilities in
RPS states currently purchase for credits would be off the market and used to satisfy their utilities' own national RPS
requirements.
RPS Neg 82
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Stability / Investment

State laws don’t cause uncertainty or deter investment in renewable – the uncertain production tax credit is the heart
of the problem

The third rationale for centralization is that jurisdictional fragmentation can increase uncertainty. Investors will demand high
returns if they do not have reasonable assurance that some degree of institutional stability will prevail. Operating under
several state regulators increases uncertainty, but concerns about federal law have proven important in practice. n127 The
source of uncertainty most often cited by RPS advocates is the federal Production Tax Credit on wind energy, whose presence
has dramatically influenced investment. n128 It has been enacted, expired, and re-enacted four times. No state RPS law
contains any comparable risks, and any legal change applies only to that state. Repeal or amendment of a federal law affects
the entire nation.
And, policy stability is not key to renewable investment

The states' experiences suggest that a stable RPS program is only one element of a climate conducive to renewable
investment. RPS laws in Texas and California have many analogous provisions, but Texas achieved early compliance while
California has not even maintained a constant percentage of supply from renewables. The collapse of California's markets in
2001 brought legislation whose passage increased uncertainty, and its regulatory policies remain subject to almost-random
change. The California Independent System Operator's new market institutions have yet to begin operation after nearly six
years of experimentation and rule changes. Still more uncertainty will accompany implementation of the state's novel GHG
policies. An RPS law leaves other institutions in place, and some of them may have greater impacts on investment than an
RPS itself.
RPS Neg 83
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to Solve “Free-riding”

A federal RPS not necessary to solve free-riding

E. The Federal Alternative

Currently no RPS states are actively contemplating the elimination of their requirements. Some appear likely to enact
programs and still others are quite unlikely to do so. Absent a federal requirement this division between RPS and non-RPS
states will persist, and RPS programs will remain heterogeneous. Some advocates argue that interstate differences taken by
themselves suffice to justify imposition of a national program. n118 Even if we grant that RPS at some level of government is
desirable on economic grounds (as this author does not), the case for a federal program is not an easy one. Probably the most
common argument for centralization is that some states or regions will be free riders that benefit from the policies of others
without bearing their costs. As seen above, however, there are reasons to doubt both the logic and the data that have been
adduced as evidence of free riding that must be centrally controlled. n119 There are three other possible rationales for a
national standard. First, a uniform RPS could be designed and implemented to produce more economic benefits than today's
mix of state programs. Second, even an imperfect national RPS could save administrative costs and reduce barriers to trade
that have resulted from heterogeneity among the states. Third, a federal RPS could reduce uncertainties that currently
discourage investment in renewables. These reasons are also logically weak or empirically questionable.
RPS Neg 84
States CP – A2: Commerce Clause

The counterplan can avoid challenges by the Court if it avoids in-state or regional restrictions on energy eligibility
Endrud, 8 – J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, Class of ‘08

(Nathan E., Harvard Journal of Legislation, “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED
VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE,
AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION,” Winter 2008, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259) // JMP
Despite the lack of legal challenges, to date, to state RPS statutes that discriminate against interstate commerce, the threat of
invalidation under the dormant Commerce Clause to such statutes, and to state agencies' discriminatory implementation of
even neutral RPS statutes, is clear under established Supreme Court doctrine. To avoid such challenges, states enacting or
amending RPS programs and seeking to retain the resultant economic benefits for themselves should avoid in-state or in-
region restrictions on energy eligibility, as well as language that requires or encourages state agencies to implement RPS
programs in a discriminatory manner. Instead, states should employ in-state consumption or sales restrictions, or regional
power pool or control area delivery requirements. For its part, Congress should consider explicit authorization of protectionist
restrictions in state RPS programs, since the overall utility of such restrictions in providing incentives for states to overcome
public choice problems and enact aggressive standards may outweigh the resulting burdens on interstate commerce.
Congress can provide explicit authorization to States RPSs to avoid challenge

IV. The Future of Renewable Portfolio Standards--

A Larger Context
In spite of the leakage of economic benefits to other states n133 and the possible dormant Commerce Clause problems posed
by measures adopted to stop such leakage, n134 states continue to adopt new RPSs and to increase the [*280] proportions of
renewable energy that existing programs require. n135 However, the mounting pressure for federal legislation that addresses
global climate change n136 raises an important question: what would the continued legality of state renewable portfolio
standards be if a federal RPS or other program addressing global climate change were enacted? As was mentioned in Part II
of this Note, Congress has the power to explicitly authorize states to incorporate into their RPS programs economic
restrictions that burden interstate commerce. n137 Along the same lines, Congress could just as easily provide explicit
authorization for states to adopt RPS programs themselves in spite of any federal legislation with which they might overlap.
However, absent such explicit authorization, a federal RPS program could create a different kind of constitutional barrier to
state RPS programs, one which could result in the invalidation of such programs altogether: federal preemption under the
Supremacy Clause. n138
RPS Neg 85
Tax Credit CP – 1NC

Extending the Production Tax Credit is the most effective way to promote renewables – comparatively better than a
RPS

A better solution
There are better ways to expand the use of renewables. Federal tax credits and increased funding for research and
development are key. A long-term extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) could be the single most effective thing
Congress could do to promote renewables.
Unlike the leading RPS proposals, the PTC is a proven means of actually getting renewable generation built and brought on-
line. The current PTC is due to expire on December 31, 2008. In the past, the short-term, start-and-stop nature of the tax
credit has dissuaded utilities, developers, manufacturers, and investors from maximizing the potential of renewable
technologies and resources, where they are available. Extending the credit for at least five years will give the private sector
the stability necessary to plan and finance renewable energy projects.
Extending the tax credits is key to sustain massive new investment in renewables – prevents manufacturing from
going abroad to Germany
San Francisco Chronicle, 8 (Zachary Coile, “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy,” 6-18-2008,
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL) // JMP
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 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, 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.
Renewable energy production tax 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. Cost to extend for one year: $7 billion.
RPS Neg 86
Tax Credit CP – Federal Incentives Key

Federal incentives provide uniform financial support for renewables – they are the most efficient and cost effective
C. Financial Incentives
Financial incentives are in place at the federal, state, and local levels, including tax credits for renewable development and
other production incentives, customer rebates, and research, and development grants. The importance of these programs in
providing encouragement, inducement, and support for renewable technologies, research and project development cannot be overstated. At the federal level,
EPAct 2005 enhances these opportunities by, among other things, amending renewable production incentives that are set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.64 Under EPAct 2005, the renewable
energy production tax credit (PTC) is extended through 2007, and includes incremental and new hydropower and Indian coal
as qualifying energy resources.65 The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimated that up to 2,500 MW of wind
energy capacity was scheduled to go on line by 2005, and that the extension of the PTC would continue this strong growth
momentum.66 Also, as a result of the Act, electric cooperatives and public power systems have the ability to issue "Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds" (CREB).67 A CREB, known as a tax credit bond, delivers to co-ops, municipalities, and Indian
Tribes for the first time an incentive comparable to the PTC, offering an interest-free loan for financing qualified renewable energy projects for a limited term.68 To
date, electric cooperatives have made application to the United States Treasury Department for almost $500 million in CREBS to finance fifty-eight renewable projects across America.69 Section 1306 of the
Act establishes a production tax credit for new advanced nuclear power facilities with a credit amount of 1.8 cents per KWh for electricity produced over an eight-year term. Section 202 reauthorizes the
Renewable Energy Production Incentive until 2026. Section 203 sets goals for federal purchasing of renewable energy up to 7.5% in fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter. Sections 124 and 206,
respectively, establish rebates for residential consumers who satisfy qualified state energy efficient appliance programs (up to $50 million annually through 2010), and for consumers who install renewable
energy systems to homes or small businesses (with an annual cap of $150 million in 2006 and $250 million by 2010).70 A few other federal bills also provide for funding for renewable energy and ancillary
purposes. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Appropriations Act for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) includes $23 million in funding for the USDA's renewable energy loan program and the DOE
Appropriations Act for FY 2006 includes $1,185.7 million for DOE's energy efficiency and renewables programs.71
The federal incentives, particularly the PTC and CREB, provide uniform financial support to the renewable energy industry.
They do not create inequities among states, which, according to the opponents of S. Amdt. 791, would have occurred under the SREAP.72 Nor do they impose cost shifts among
ratepayers, which occur when utilities are required to purchase renewable energy at a price that exceeds the value of the power.73 These programs and the state incentives
represent the most efficient, cost-effective, and equitable means of supporting the renewable industry. It is imperative that
these programs are funded at levels that enable renewables to compete with fossil fuels.
Indefinite PTC extension is key to effective wind power
Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of
Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO
STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT
AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis academic., lexis academic.]
<<The burgeoning renewable energy industry, its investors,404 and the public405 need Congress to implement a
comprehensive national energy policy. It must integrate market-focused initiatives without losing sight of the social reasons
for promoting clean energy. This includes programs that (1) aid renewable power producers, (2) marginalize fossil fuels to the
extent possible, and (3) set a permanent standard for ensuring the place of renewable energy in the electricity market. This Note
proposes that the federal government can meet these ends. To do so it must enact a scheme that incorporates elements of existing state and national policies while adding certain unique derivations.
The first step is to ensure that current supply-side incentives will remain into the foreseeable future. Otherwise disaster waits in the wings.406
In fact, during a period (January 1, 2004 to October 4, 2004) between an earlier version of the production tax credit's expiration and subsequent renewal, a deceleration in the increase of new wind farm
development407 made it clear to industry experts that the tax credits were a necessary ingredient if long-term growth were to be assured.408 Once the federal tax credit was renewed, a sharp spike in wind
, steel supply shortages
facilities occurred.409 This legislative volatility has the unintended consequence of actually raising the price of wind power while the PTC is still in effect. For example
stemming from white-hot demand for wind power facilities410 caused a development bottleneck and a 30% cost increase for
the turbines as projects scrambled to meet the anticipated PTC expiration of December 31, 2007.411 Many of the resulting
projects came in over-budget or late, setting off credit problems for many producers.412 If wind power's tax credit and
production incentive, duly buffered against inflation, are assured long lives, steady, predictable growth will follow.413
Absent any other initiative, wind energy is competitive only when placed on a level playing field with fossil fuels.414 This
requires the continuation of supply-side aid.415 The degree to which the federal government subsidizes fossil fuel
technology,416 including the billions appropriated to coal,417 oil, and gas418 in the same Energy Policy Act of 2005 that
extended the PTC and REPI for renewables for two more years, belies the undeniable fact that the energy market as a whole
leans heavily on legislative aid.419 Wind power thus is no more beholden to Congress than any other energy source. If the
mandate to reduce dependence on foreign and polluting sources of energy is to be honored, the PTC and REPI must be
extended indefinitely.420 The sooner they are, the sooner the stability can be ensured for the industry, thereby assuring a
steady supply of inexhaustible energy.>>
RPS Neg 87
Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key

Indefinitely extending the production tax credit is necessary to avoid boom-bust cycles that undermine renewable
development
USC, 7 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable Energy Tax Credit Extended Again, but Risk of Boom-Bust Cycle in
Wind Industry Continues,” 2-14-2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/production-tax-credit-for-
renewable-energy.html) // JMP
In one of the last measures taken by the 109th Congress, an important federal policy for promoting the development of renewable energy received a one-year extension. The
production tax credit (PTC) provides a 1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) benefit for the first ten years of a renewable energy facility's operation. The PTC was set to
expire on December 31, 2007, but due to the efforts of a coalition of clean energy supporters—including UCS—it was extended for one year as part of the Tax Relief
and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R. 6408). Strong growth in U.S. wind installations is now projected through 2008.
The legislation extending the PTC provides a one-year extension (through December 31, 2008) of the 1.5-cent/kWh credit for wind, solar, geothermal, and "closed-loop" bioenergy
facilities (Adjusted for inflation, the 1.5 cent/kWh tax credit is currently valued at 1.9 cents/kWh). Other technologies, such as "open-loop" biomass, incremental hydropower,
small irrigation systems, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste (MSW), receive a lesser value tax credit.
This marks just the second time that the PTC was extended by Congress before it had been allowed to expire. In August 2005, a two-
year extension of the PTC was included in a large package of tax incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). The PTC was set to expire at the end of 2005, and its
extension was one of the few bright spots for renewable energy in this energy bill.
From 1999 until 2004, the PTC had expired on three separate occasions. Originally enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the PTC—then
targeted to support just wind and certain bioenergy resources—was first allowed to sunset on June 30, 1999. In December of 1999, again due to the efforts of UCS and other
organizations, the credit was extended until December 31, 2001. The PTC expired at the end of 2001, and it was not until March 2002 that the credit was extended for another two
years. Congress allowed the PTC to expire for the third time at the end of 2003. From late 2003 through most of 2004 attempts to extend and expand the PTC were held hostage to
the fossil-fuel dominated comprehensive energy bill that ultimately failed to pass during the 108th Congress. In early October 2004, a one-year extension (retroactive back to
January 1, 2004) of the PTC was included in a larger package of ‘high priority’ tax incentives for businesses signed by President George Bush. A second bill—extending the PTC
through 2005 and expanding the list of eligible renewable energy technologies—was enacted just a few weeks later.
Combined with a growing number of states that have adopted renewable electricity standards, the PTC has been a major driver of wind power development over the past six years.
Unfortunately, the "on-again/off-again" status that has historically been associated with the PTC contributes to a boom-bust cycle
of development that plagues the wind industry (see Figure below). The cycle begins with the wind industry experiencing strong growth in development around
the country during the years leading up to the PTC’s expiration. Lapses in the PTC then cause a dramatic slow down in the
implementation of planned wind projects. When the PTC is restored, the wind power industry takes time to regain its footing,
and then experiences strong growth until the tax credits expire. And so on.
The last lapse in the PTC—at the end of 2003—came on the heels of a strong year in U.S. wind energy capacity growth. In 2003, the wind power industry added 1,687 megawatts
(MW) of capacity—a 36 percent annual increase. With no PTC in place for most of 2004, U.S. wind development decreased dramatically to less than 400 MW—a five-year low.
With the PTC re-instated, 2005 marked the best year ever for U.S. wind energy development with 2,431 MW of capacity installed—a 43 percent increase over the previous record
year established in 2001. With the PTC firmly in place, 2006 was another near record year in the U.S. wind industry. Wind power capacity grew by 2,454 MW—a 27 percent
increase. The American Wind Energy Association projects similar growth in 2007.
Extending the PTC through 2008 will allow the wind industry to continue building on previous years’ momentum, but it is insufficient for sustaining
the long-term growth of renewable energy. The planning and permitting process for new wind facilities can take up to two years or longer to complete. As a
result, many renewable energy developers that depend on the PTC to improve a facility's cost effectiveness may hesitate to start
a new project due to the uncertainty that the credit will still be available to them when the project is completed.
UCS is continuing to work with our coalition partners to secure a longer PTC extension that helps boost development of
clean renewable electricity, not polluting energy sources.
The expiration of the PTC is the greatest threat to the wind industry
Reuters, 8 (Carey Gillam, “Quietly, wind farms spread footprint in U.S.,” 5-19-2008,
www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18351503) // JMP
But the greatest concern currently for the wind energy industry is that for all the public support, the Production Tax Credit is
set to expire in December. U.S. lawmakers and President Bush have repeatedly failed to agree on how to fund an extension.
"We continue to push ahead because we believe that renewable energy does make a lot of sense and even policy makers at
some point will have to realize something has to be done with $120 a barrel oil," said Michael Polsky, CEO of Invenergy
LLC, a Chicago-based wind developer.
RPS Neg 88
Tax Credit CP – Indefinite Extension Key

Market instability spurred by the lack of a guaranteed PTC deters private investment in wind power
Michael Weidemann, Canada sales manager for Enercon, one of the world's leading wind turbine manufacturers, said his
company can't afford to invest -- either in production facilities in the United States or sales -- given the instability of the PTC.
"We're a private company and we need a pipeline that's secure for projects. We establish 12-year partnerships with customers.
I believe our competitors have lost lots of money," he told UPI at the trade show.
If the tax credit expires it will deter large-scale renewable investments
Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Why is the outlook so bleak for renewable energy in the U.S., especially given the rapid expansion of state-based RPS
programs? The EIA notes that poor financing, comparatively higher capital costs for renewable energy, and the need to build
or upgrade transmission capacity from remote resource areas will likely discourage significant investments in renewable
energy. Concomitantly, the EIA assumes that the federal production tax credit will expire as scheduled on Dec. 31, 2007,
significantly deterring large-scale investments in renewable energy generation. If America's interstate highway system were
structured like America's renewable energy market, drivers would be forced to change engines every time they crossed state
lines.
[Note – EIA is the U.S. Energy Information Administration]
RPS Neg 89
Tax Credit CP – Solves Competitiveness

Extending the production tax credit is key to creating a stable regulatory environment and allows the U.S. to overtake
China for the global lead in wind power
Chhabara 8 (Rajesh, Climate Change Corp, “Who’ll Solve the Wind Turbine Supply Crisis?” 4/29/8,
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?contentid=5344, AM)
What’s driving demand?
Several specific factors have been boosting demand in the past few months.
The US saw a surge in new orders to take advantage of government tax credits for clean energy, which expire in December this year. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) provides the owner of a qualifying
renewable energy facility annual tax credits, currently valued at 1.9 cents/KWh, based on the amount of energy generated in the first ten years. The facility must start operation before the credit expires.
Last year, the European Union set an ambitious target: 20% of EU energy from renewable sources by 2020.
In April this year, China set a massive target of expanding wind power capacity to 100,000MW by 2010, from the current 5,600MW. Previously, in 2006,
China passed the Renewable Energy Law, which requires power grid companies to buy the entire output of registered renewable energy producers in their areas. The National Development and Reform
Commission (NDRC), China’s top industry planning body, sets the purchase price.
CLSA Research estimates that the US, Europe and China will be spending about $150 billion on wind projects in the next
five years.
US dithers, China surges ahead
In the US, an unstable regulatory regime is one factor hindering turbine production.
Sporadic tax breaks for renewable energy projects, usually on a year-to-year basis, have discouraged US manufacturers from
scaling up. Congress, for example, has stalled the extension of PTCs beyond the end of 2008.
In the past, when tax credits lapsed the demand for wind turbines came crashing down the following year. If the trend is
repeated this time, it may actually result in overcapacity of turbine manufacturing in the US, at least for the domestic market.
Yet energy analysts say that if the US market slows down due to lack of tax breaks, China will more than compensate.
In the short term, massive demand from China may further tighten turbine supply, but expanding local production should ease the global crunch within a couple of
years. Today, the Chinese market is dominated by the top three foreign manufacturers, Vestas, GE Wind and Gamesa, who enjoy a
combined market share of 47%. However, this is set to change.
Zhang Guobao, vice president of China’s NDRC, says: “We are planning several measures to support the wind power industry including localisation of equipment production.” According to the Global Wind
China will become the top wind turbine manufacturer by 2009.
Energy Council (www.worldenergy.org),
The latter incentive, to help Chinese firms
To encourage production, China increased tariffs on imported wind turbines in May, while slashing import taxes on components.
compete internationally for scarce parts, will put pressure on the industry in the rest of the world. But, again, this is a short-term problem.
Government rules already require that turbines have at least 70% domestically produced components. As a result, leading manufacturers have been setting up factories in China.
As things presently stand, most Chinese manufacturers can produce only smaller turbines, up to 1MW. Chinese firms are trying to overcome this weakness by licensing agreements and joint ventures with
western companies.
Goldwind, China’s largest wind turbine maker, raised $245 million through an Initial Public Offer (IPO) early this year to fund a huge expansion. LM Glassfiber of Denmark, which has a cooperation agreement
with Goldwind, opened its second turbine blade factory in China in October last year.
major Chinese turbine makers – Sinovel, Windey, Dongfang, MingYang and HEC – are also expanding capacities and shopping for joint
Other
ventures and licensing agreements with global players.
China High, the country’s largest manufacturer of gearboxes – the most critical and complex part in a wind turbine – plans a four-fold increase in production in the next two years. The company is aiming to
become one of the top three global manufacturers of gearboxes, with half of revenue coming from exports.
China High, which already supplies to GE, REpower, Nordex and Goldwind, raised $272 million through an IPO to fund massive expansion. The company is raising another $250 million through convertible
bonds and plans to buy a special-steel plant to secure supplies and reduce costs. Special steel accounts for half the cost of gearboxes.
Among the foreign players, Germany’s Nordex – the fourth largest wind turbine maker in China – announced in November that it would quadruple production capacity to 800MW by 2011 to meet growing
demand.
the number of exporters is likely to grow as other firms aggressively
Currently, MingYang is China’s only turbine exporter. But in the next three to five years,
expand and acquire technology. Foreign manufacturers may be scaling up their production in China, but in the longer term it is the emergence of Chinese
turbine and component manufacturers that will probably change the global landscape of wind power.
Response from the big players
With over 8,000 parts required to make a wind turbine, requiring a large network of reliable suppliers, component supply is
creating the most problematic bottleneck for turbine makers. In order to meet increasing demand, leading players are rushing
to beef up their supplies by setting up new plants, signing long-term contracts with suppliers and even making acquisitions.
RPS Neg 90
Tax Credit CP – Key to Sustained Investment

The tax credit is critical to the sustainable expansion of renewable – they are key to future investment
NYT, 8 (Editorial, “Big Oil’s Friends in the Senate,” 5-5-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/opinion/05mon2.html) // JMP
Listen to almost any politician, President Bush included, and you’ll hear that the fight against global warming cannot be won without cleaner technologies that will ease dependence on fossil fuels. Yet these
samepoliticians are on the verge of allowing modest but vital tax credits to expire that are crucial to the future of renewable
energy sources like wind and solar power.
These credits are necessary to attract new investment in renewable sources until they become competitive with cheaper,
dirtier fuels like coal. When the credits disappear, investments shrivel. The production tax credit for wind energy has been
allowed to expire three times. In each case, new investment dropped by more than 70 percent. The credits for wind and solar
expire at the end of this year, so action now is important.
Tax credits are necessary to stimulate renewable and help them achieve scale through sustained investment
Friedman, 8 (Thomas L., NYT, “Dumb as We Wanna Be,” 4-30-2008,

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) // JMP
Are you sitting down?
Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to
.
encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production
Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up.
At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.
These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments
in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it
can compete without subsidies.
The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush
said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate.
Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.
“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial
institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend
you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”
It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a
point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great
global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the
impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of
investments that won’t be made.
Tax incentives are key to expand investment for renewables
The Republican, 8 (“Tax incentives fuel for greener future,” 5-28-2008,

http://www.masslive.com/editorials/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1211959275185170.xml&coll=1) // JMP
Imagine a future - say 10 years down the road when the Bay State is the nation's leading green state: Solar panels, manufactured in Massachusetts, heat all new homes and businesses; two out of three drivers in
the commonwealth are commuting to work behind the wheel of hybrid automobiles; and a growing segment of the economy is powered by the alternative fuel industry, providing high-paying jobs for lots of
people.
It's a hopeful vision. But, just as money doesn't grow on trees, green industries can't become growth industries without serious
investment.
That's why we're pleased that a wide-ranging tax package approved last week by the U.S. House of Representatives included tax incentives for the research, development and marketing of alternative sources of
energy. The provision, authored by U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, extends by six years the tax investment credit for solar energy, as well as a
for the production of renewable
three-year extension for a tax credit for energy derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste. It also includes tax breaks
fuels and provides consumer tax credits for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
"You are not going to get someone who will invest in wind power only to discover that the tax credit is going to be gone,"
Neal said before the 263-160 vote. As investors "you need to be able to look down the road at the tax incentives," he said.
The tax incentives could help Massachusetts in its push to become a leader in the clean technology sector. Such incentives are
needed because alternative energy sources are expensive to bring to market. But the payoff - beyond pumping up the economy - could be even greater if it
helped put us on the road to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Going green is a worthy - and strategically important - goal. Tax incentives for alternative energy enterprises deserve support. When the provision goes to the Senate, we hope it sees it that way too.
RPS Neg 91
Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency

The production tax credit is key to significantly expand wind power
Block, 8 – reports everything environmental for the Worldwatch Institute

(Ben, Worldwatch Institute, “Study Supports U.S. Wind Expansion,” 5-19-2008, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5748) // JMP
If the United States produced 20 percent of its energy from wind, the nation would displace half the natural gas and 18 percent of
the coal it requires to generate electricity, a new study says.Wind energy can supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030 at a "modest" cost difference, a
new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report says.
The analysis predicts that the 20 percent wind scenario would cost about 2 percent more than sticking with the current energy mix, which relies more heavily on traditional fossil
fuels.
"The 20 percent wind scenario entails higher initial capital costs (to install wind capacity and associated transmission infrastructure) in many areas, yet offers lower ongoing energy
costs than conventional power plants for operations, maintenance, and fuel," said the report, which was written in conjunction with industry and environmental analysts. Under the
scenario, 500,000 new jobs would be created.
To reach their goal by 2030, the department said wind energy installation would need to triple from the current rate of 5.2 gigawatts (GW) added in 2007 to more than 16 GW per
year by 2018, with that pace continuing through 2030. The total wind energy growth, 290 GW, would displace the projected use of coal for power generation by 18 percent and the
use of natural gas by about 50 percent.
Such a dramatic increase in wind capacity would require large-scale expansion of the U.S. electrical transmission grid to access the best wind resources and relieve grid congestion.
Power companies would also have to add gas turbine generators to provide back-up electricity when the wind isn't blowing, which ranges from 60 to 75 percent of the day in some
areas, according to Thomas Key, renewable energy technology leader for the Electric Power Research Institute.
One of the most consistent criticisms of wind is that, due to its intermittent nature, improved electricity storage is necessary. "We don't have many options for electrical energy
storage right now," Key said. "We really need some technological advances to find economic advances on this scale."
The study, however, finds that electricity storage is not needed to reach the 20 percent goal. Andy Karsner, the DOE's assistant secretary of energy
efficiency and renewable energy, said claims of wind power unreliability are false. "Wind is in fact one of our least volatile resources," he said at a press briefing.
Wind energy provides just 1 percent of U.S. electricity today, compared with about 7 percent in Germany where the government has provided steady support for the industry since
the early 1990s. State laws that require utilities to purchase wind power have recently revived the U.S. industry, and the country has led the world in wind power installations over
the past two years.
The U.S. industry remains dependent on a short-term federal tax credit that will expire at the end of this year unless Congress
extends it. "We need to fix the production tax credit uncertainty... as part of a plan to get [20 percent by 2030]," said Daniel
Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley.
The new study estimates that the increase in wind generation would avoid 7.6 billion cumulative tons of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from being emitted - the
equivalent of protecting about 48 million acres (19.4 million hectares) of forest from deforestation. This would nearly eliminate the projected increase in emissions from U.S.
power plants between now and 2030.
"To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our energy security, clean power generation at the gigawatt-scale will be necessary, and will require us to take a
comprehensive approach," Karsner said in a prepared statement.
The added wind power would also avoid 4 trillion gallons of water from being consumed for electricity generation, the report
estimates. Less coal-fired power results in fewer emissions of mercury and the pollutants that cause acid rain, as well.
As the price of fossil fuels continue to climb, Kammen said wind energy may end up costing less than the additional 2
percent that the report predicts. "It doesn't include the ramp up of fossil fuel prices [which rose significantly since the study's completion]...and we haven't even
started talking about what the price of carbon will be," he said. "This looks like the bargain of the century."
"Although the 20 percent wind scenario sounds ambitious, the industry has actually grown faster over the past year than
assumed in the study's scenario, says Worldwatch Institute president Christopher Flavin. "Wind power is going to be a huge part of the
country's energy future." Worldwatch senior researcher Janet Sawin was a member of the study's steering committee and helped author a policy chapter that was later
removed from the report.
Extending the PTC is critical to prevent a massive decrease in wind power and spur long-term investment in the
industry
HANOVER, Germany, May 6 (UPI) -- The wind energy industry is beginning to repower existing turbines for greater efficiency and expanding to offshore locations in Europe,
and despite unstable incentives for wind power in the United States, strong growth potential and the weak dollar are buoying interest in the U.S.
market.
For most firms, the
biggest barrier to the U.S. market is the lack of stable incentives.
The Production Tax Credit, which was due to expire at the end of 2007, was renewed in 2006 for one year until the end of 2008. It provides a 2 cent per kilowatt-hour
credit to project developers for the first 10 years of operation but has expired three times since it was first created in 1992.
"If it is allowed to expire, the industry and investors worry that growth will fall off -- although 25 states and the District of Columbia have their
own renewable electricity standards and that could provide somewhat of a cushion," Aaron Severn, legislative representative for the American Wind Energy Association, told
United Press International at the Hanover Innovation Fair from April 21-25.
"That's an experiment we don't want to undertake. Very
dramatic decreases in the amount of installed wind energy occurred in the past when
the PTC expired. Our member companies say that projects would be put on hold and investment would flow into more stable markets if the PTC is not extended
immediately," he said.
"Developers want long-term market stability," he added, emphasizing the importance of long-term, robust incentives.
RPS Neg 92
Tax Credit CP – Wind Power Solvency

Extending the PTC is key to a stable investment climate for wind power
Datamonitor, 8 (“The US Wind Market Has Outgrown the Drip Feed of Supportive Federal Legislation,” 5-27-2008,
www.redorbit.com/news/business/1403646/the_us_wind_market_has_outgrown_the_drip_feed_of/) // JMP
In the US, many states have set renewable energy targets that match EU levels. Yet, a lack of stable regulatory frameworks has hampered the development of the renewables
market. Despite this, the US wind industry currently leads the way in new installed capacity as it gears up for long-term growth.
With the majority of new wind capacity now outside Europe, wind power has become one of the broadest-based renewables technologies, with installations in more than 70
countries. In 2007, the US - which boasts one of the most abundant wind resources of any nation in the world - led the way in new installed wind energy capacity, while its total
installed wind capacity came second only to Germany.
However, the
stop-start nature of the main US subsidy mechanism - the Production Tax Credit (PTC) - has caused the wind farm
industry to develop in a similarly erratic fashion. Indeed, the boom-bust cycles recently seen in the US wind industry have
caused costs to increase along the entire supply chain, while also keeping businesses from growing to their full potential. Since
its establishment in 1992, the PTC has undergone a series of one or two-year extensions, and has been allowed to lapse in three different years: 1999, 2001 and 2003. The PTC is
now set to run out in April 2009.
The Federal government's recent uninterrupted commitment to the PTC, from 2005 to 2008, has given the industry a stable
base to build upon, facilitating three straight years of growth, which culminated in a record 5,200MW of new installed wind power capacity in 2007.
Specifically, it has allowed supply chain providers to establish a much stronger foundation for the domestic manufacture of turbines and components, as well as R&D. Indeed, the
share of US-made wind turbine components has increased from less than 30% to approximately 50% over the past three years. Prior to 2005, estimates suggest that less than a third
of components were manufactured on US soil. In the current context of rising turbine costs, supply chain difficulties and skills shortages, it is encouraging that nearly half of the
components for turbines installed in the US will be produced domestically by the end of 2008.
Since new wind power projects are not expected to be completed until two or three years after the initial investment decision,
the uncertainty surrounding what form the Federal tax policy will take over the coming years could make for a very uncertain
investment climate. Indeed, in the current context of soaring generation costs, and until true demand-pull can be created, the wind industry is increasingly driven by public
policy trends and is at the mercy of government programs such as the PTC, which drive artificially stimulated demand. If the PTC is not extended, it is likely that
some companies will end investments in projects that are not expected to be completed before the end of the year.
Extending the tax credit is key to sustain the wind industry
AWEA, 8 (Kathy Belyeu, American Wind Energy Association, “WITH UNCERTAINTY LOOMING OVER FEDERAL
INCENTIVE, U.S. WIND INDUSTRY INSTALLS 1,400 MW IN FIRST QUARTER,” 5-7-2008,
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Market_Release_Q108.html) // JMP
Industry calls for prompt extension of incentive to sustain momentum, reasure investors, strengthen economy
With the fate of a key federal incentive in the balance, the U.S. wind energy industry continued new installations at a breakneck pace in the first quarter of 2008, putting 1,400
megawatts (MW) or approximately $3 billion worth of new generating capacity in place, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today in its quarterly market report.
“These new wind power plants—enough to serve the equivalent of 400,000 homes--coupled with investment in 17 new manufacturing facilities over the past year and a quarter
show that – with consistent policy support – America’s wind industry can deliver the goods in terms of clean energy and new clean technology jobs,” commented AWEA Executive
Director Randall Swisher.
“But if Congress does not act quickly, this momentum could be derailed at the worst possible time for the economy, placing
76,000 jobs and over $11.5 billion in investment at risk,“ Swisher added. “While 2008 is shaping up to be another great year, we
could see a very different story in 2009 as uncertainty looms over investment in wind power projects and manufacturing due
to continuing delay in extending the production tax credit (PTC),” Swisher added. The PTC is the primary federal incentive for wind power, and
expires at the end of the year along with incentives for other renewable electricity sources.
At previous times when the credit has lapsed (1999, 2001 and 2003), installations have dropped by as much as 93% in the following year, as shown in the following chart:
The new wind power facilities installed this quarter span 10 states and bring total U.S. wind power capacity to over 18,000 MW, or enough to serve the equivalent of 5 million
homes. Texas added over half this new capacity and now has well over 5,000 MW installed. Over 4,000 MW of projects are now also under construction nationwide.
Additionally, AWEA reports an increase in the share of U.S.-made wind turbine components—from less than 30% to approximately 50% in three years. Prior to 2005, AWEA
estimates that less than a third of components were manufactured domestically. But the relatively stable availability of the PTC since August 2005 has allowed U.S.-based supply
chain providers to begin establishing a much stronger foundation of domestic manufacturing for turbine components, which range from towers and blades to gearboxes, bearings,
and electrical and electronic components. AWEA estimates that, by the end of 2008, approximately half of turbine components for turbines installed in the U.S. will be produced
domestically. In 2007 and early 2008, at least 17 manufacturing facilities have been brought online or expanded in the U.S., creating over 4,000 jobs and $500 million in
manufacturing investment.
Adjustment to final numbers for megawatts of wind power installed in the U.S. in 2007 show a slight increase to 5,249 MW, up from the 5,244 MW announced in January. Since
actual installed capacity for natural gas was less than expected in 2007 and wind was slightly higher, new
wind power facilities in fact made up close to
35% of the entire new power generating capacity added in the U.S. last year, up from the 30% initially reported in January.
In June, the WINDPOWER 2008 Conference & Exhibition will open in Houston, in the heart of the energy capital of Texas, now the state with the largest wind power market in
the nation. WINDPOWER 2008 will be the U.S.’s biggest wind industry show ever, with over 8,000 attendees and 700 exhibitors, including leading global wind turbine
manufacturers and many component and supply chain providers.
RPS Neg 93
Tax Credit CP – Solar Solvency

Extending tax credits is key to sustain the solar industry
Arizona Republic, 8 (Ginger D. Richardson and Ryan Randazzo, “Solar projects hang on future of tax credit: Utilities, businesses
reluctant to act until subsidy is extended,” 5-27-2008, www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/27/20080527solartax0527.html) // JMP
What's next
Solar advocates here are hopeful that congressional leaders will be able to work out a compromise between the dueling pieces
of legislation in the coming months.
Meanwhile, Arizona utility officials say that if solar-tax credits aren't extended, they will need to build natural-gas-powered
plants to meet the rising demand for electricity in the state.
The cost of power plants, whether fueled by the sun, natural gas or some other energy, is passed on to customers. But utility
officials say they are hoping to build at least some solar plants to diversify their energy sources and serve as a hedge if
natural-gas prices continue their recent surge.
"If the tax credits are not extended, we would expect to see solar installations come to a halt in our service territory," said
Lori Singleton, SRP's manager of sustainability initiatives and technology.
The Investment Tax Credit is key to expanding solar energy
CSM, 8 (Faye Bowers, Christian Science Monitor, “Arizona's solar aspirations in peril; The state aims to tap its 325 sunny days a year, but
loss of an energy tax credit threatens its big plans,” 5-6-2008, www.csmonitor.com/2008/0506/p03s05-usgn.html) // JMP
But plans for a project that could put Arizona on the map as a solar powerhouse – a huge $1 billion solar energy plant to be
built near Gila Bend, Ariz., by 2011 – are likely to be scrapped if the tax credit is allowed to lapse. That's because solar power
is still more expensive to produce than is electricity derived from fossil fuel, though some experts expect the gap to close in
the next seven to 10 years.
The subsidy in question is the federal Investment Tax Credit. The US government boosted the ITC from 10 percent to 30
percent for solar systems in 2006, meaning that 30 percent of the cost of building and installing a system is returned to the
investor in the form of a tax credit. But that rate is set to expire at the end of 2008. That scenario worries many political,
business, and academic leaders here, who see their dreams of a solar-energy hub evaporating.
"The extension of the tax credit is critical," says US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) of Arizona in a phone interview. "I've
introduced legislation to extend it to 2016."
Representative Giffords is urging that the government pay for the extension by reducing tax credits to oil and gas companies.
During "the next five years, [oil and gas companies] are slated to receive about $17 billion. That money instead should be
going toward renewable energy," she says. "It is critical, and I believe Democrats and Republicans acknowledge it."
RPS Neg 94
Tax Credit CP – Expands Renewables

Extending the Production Tax Credit will expand renewables
Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP
Provide Tax Incentives for Companies the Develop and Use Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technologies
Support for the production and further development of renewable fuels, all found domestically, would have a greater long-
term effect on the energy system than any expansion of fossil-fuel capacity, with major health and environmental benefits as
an added bonus. We should extend the existing production tax credits (PTC) for electricity generated from wind power and
closed loop biomass for five years. Also, this production credit should be expanded to include electricity produced by open
loop biomass (i.e., agricultural and forestry residues but excluding municipal solid waste), geothermal energy, and
landfill gas. The same credit should be provided to closed loop biomass co-fired with coal, and a smaller credit (one cent per
kWh) should be provided for electricity from open-loop biomass co-fired with coal. We support a minimum of a 15 percent
investment tax credit for residential solar electric and water heating systems. In addition, we recommend a 30 percent
investment tax credit for small (75 kW and below) wind power systems.
Tax credits and bond measures can expand renewables
Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP
There are a suite of policy instruments that can be used to promote renewable energy technologies. These range from
financial instruments like tax credits and bond measures to renewable portfolio standards, and support for R&D. Since the
focus of this report is the employment dimension of renewables, we will not provide here a complete run-through of
policy options. This has been done elsewhere17, and a set of recommended highest-priority policies is listed in brief in
Appendix 3. This section focuses instead on policy requirements to maximize employment benefits while minimizing the
negative impacts on people employed in the fossil fuel energy sector. We identify two key areas of intervention, discussed
below.
RPS Neg 95
Tax Credit CP – Industry Supports It

The counterplan solves the boom-and-bust cycle of renewables – it is well supported by the industry
Hurst, 8 – After five years of graduate study he has turned his sights on renewable energy advocacy and applied energy
politics
(Timothy B., “Ending the ‘Feast or Famine’ Cycles of Clean Energy Development in the US,” 3-7-2008,
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/07/ending-the-feast-or-famine-cycles-of-clean-energy-development-in-us/) // JMP
Since the energy crisis of the late 1970s, the federal government has employed various policy mechanisms to support renewable energy development. Driving through the
neighborhoods that were developed in the late 70s and early 80s, it’s not hard to notice all of the old rooftop solar water heating arrays that were installed because people were
taking advantage of a tax credit made available by the Carter administration. But the tax credit expired after Reagan took office, which is why I don’t see rooftop solar hot water
nearly as much anymore (at least not recently installed).
The same thing will happen if the renewable energy tax credits expire (referring broadly to the investment tax credit and production tax credit). The
boom-and-bust
cycle of clean energy development is a direct result of the waxing and waning of the federal production tax credit (PTC). Recently,
the U.S. House of Representatives voted 236 to 182 in favor of extending the tax credit package which is set to expire at the end of this year. 17 Republicans joined the Democrats
in supporting HR 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and all but 8 Democrats supported the bill.
Of course it is no surprise to see renewable
energy trade associations like the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy
Institute of America in favor of the PTC and the ITC respectively, but it is not only the cleantech companies that are pushing for the tax package. A broad
coalition of 120 corporations, environmental groups, investors, labor groups, nongovernmental organizations, public health
organizations, and utilities have urged Congress to pass H.R. 5351. The far-ranging group includes corporate giants Wal-Mart Stores, Best Buy Co.,
The Home Depot, and Dow Chemical, and utilities including Florida Power and Light and Pacific Gas & Electric. Civil society supporters include the Sierra Club, National
Association of Home Builders, National Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, and the United Steelworkers (I guess no AFL-CIO on this one). The coalition
sent a letter to the House last week that read,
“America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. The clean energy tax incentives in H.R. 5351 would help our country make the transition to this economy — an economy
powered by low-carbon technologies that help solve global warming, reduce energy prices for consumers and create new high-wage jobs.”
Tax incentives are popular with industry and expand renewables
Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at
Cal Berkeley
(Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman –
postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy:
A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP
Tax Incentives
The R&D tax credit, which goes to companies based on their R&D expenditures, has proven remarkably effective and
popular with private industry, so much so that there is a strong consensus in Congress and the administration to make this credit
permanent. To complement this support of private-sector R&D, tax incentives directed toward those who use the technologies would also provide
the "demand pull" needed to accelerate the technology-transfer process and the rate of market development.
Currently, non-R&D federal tax expenditures aimed at the production and use of energy have an unequal distribution across primary energy sources, distorting the market in favor of conventional energy
technologies. Renewable fuels make up 4 percent of the United States' energy supply, yet they receive only 1 percent of federal tax expenditures and direct fiscal spending combined (see Table 1 on page 16).
(23) The largest single tax credit in 1999 was the Alternative Fuel Production Credit, which totaled more than $1 billion. (24) This income tax credit, which has gone primarily to the natural gas industry, was
designed to reduce dependence on foreign energy imports by encouraging the production of gas, coal, and oil from unconventional sources (such as tight gas formations and coalbed methane) within the United
States. Support for the production and further development of renewable fuels, all found domestically, would have a greater long-term effect on the energy system than any expansion of fossil fuel capacity.
The wind
A production tax credit (PTC) of 1.7 cents per kWh now exists for electricity generated from wind power and "closed loop" biomass (biomass from dedicated energy crops and chicken litter).
power credit, in particular, has proven successful in encouraging strong growth of U.S. wind energy over the last several years--with a
30-percent increase in 1998 and a 40-percent increase in 1999. Approximately 2,000 megawatts (MW) of wind energy will be under development or proposed for completion before the end of 2001 (a 40-
percent increase from 2000), when the federal wind energy PTC is scheduled to expire. Germany has twice the U.S. installed wind energy capacity, and the major wind-turbine manufacturers are now in Europe.
(25)
This production credit should be expanded to include electricity produced by "open loop" biomass (including agricultural and forestry residues
but excluding municipal solid waste), solar energy, geothermal energy, and landfill gas. The extension and expansion of PTC has recently been garnering strong and consistent
support in the U.S. Congress. Investment tax incentives are also needed for smaller-scale renewable energy systems, such as residential photovoltaic
panels and solar hot-water heaters, as well as small wind systems used in commercial and farm applications. In these cases, an investment credit in capital or installation expenditures is preferable to a
production credit based on electricity generated, due to the relatively high capital cost of these smaller-scale renewable technologies and the fact that the electricity and heat produced is used directly.
Many new energy-efficient technologies have been commercialized in recent years or are nearing commercialization. Tax incentives can help manufacturers justify mass
marketing and help buyers and manufacturers offset the relatively high initial capital and installation costs for new
technologies. A key element in designing the credits is for only high-efficiency products to be eligible. If eligibility is set too low, there may not be enough energy savings to justify the credits. These
tax credits should have limited duration and be reduced in value over time, because once these new technologies become widely available, costs should decline. In this manner, the credits will help
innovative technologies get established in the marketplace but will not become permanent subsidies.
Recent federal tax credit legislation to encourage the use of high-efficiency technologies includes incentives for highly efficient clothes washers, refrigerators, and new homes; innovative building technologies
such as furnaces, stationary fuel cells, gas-fired pumps, and electric heat-pump water heaters; and investments in commercial buildings that have reduced heating and cooling costs. The incentives currently
being proposed in Congress and by the administration will have a relatively modest direct impact on energy use and [CO.sub.2] emissions. Savings may only amount to 0.3 quadrillion Btu of energy and 5
million metric tons of carbon emissions per year by 2012. However, if these proposed tax credits help to establish innovative products in the marketplace and reduce the first-cost premium so that the products
are viable after the credits are phased out, then the indirect impacts could be many times greater than the direct impacts. It has been estimated that total annual energy savings could reach 1 quad rillion Btu by
2010 and 2 quadrillion Btu by 2015 if these credits are successfully implemented. (26)
RPS Neg 96
Tax Credit CP – Politics NB

Incentive policies solve and are not politically divisive like the plan
Morrison, 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel

(Jay, Electricity Journal, “Mandated RPS Ignores Economic, Political Reality,” December 2006, vol. 19, no. 10, p.3, Lexis-
Nexis Academic) // JMP
Fortunately, mandates like those in Massachusetts and the Washington initiative are unnecessary to promote the development
of renewable resources. For example, the cost of new wind energy can be competitive today where (1) government tax credits
or renewable energy bonds are available, (2) strong wind resources are available, (3) sufficient transmission capacity is
available to deliver the wind, and (4) communities do not object to the development of wind farms. Where those conditions
exist, utilities are building or buying record amounts of wind energy.
These facts provide us a clear roadmap for a significant expansion in renewable generation. Rather than waste time and
resources fighting over the politically divisive issue of mandates, industry stakeholders should work together to promote the
conditions that enable renewable energy investment. We should (1) support long-term, stable incentive policies to put
renewable resources on a par with other generation resources, including a long-term extension to the production tax credit
and the expansion and extension of the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program; (2) do a better job of planning, financing,
and expanding the transmission system to permit consumers to access renewable resources; and, (3) find ways to address
community concerns with respect to the siting of wind farms and other renewable generation. Finally, we should support
significant expansion of RD&D funding to bring down the costs of integrating other renewable resources with the system.
These policies would encourage a dramatic increase in renewable resources by addressing directly the specific challenges
faced by renewable resources in today's market, including cost, transmission adequacy and community acceptance. An RPS,
on the other hand, merely ignores these real issues and imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate at the expense of consumers, jobs,
and local economies.
RPS Neg 97
Tax Credit CP – Coercion NB

A tax break is morally distinct from a subsidy – individuals should be allowed to keep and spend their own money
Richman, 4 – Editor of The Freeman

(Sheldon, The Freeman, “Perspective Tax “Breaks” Aren’t Subsidies,” April 2004, www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5868) // JMP
When is a subsidy not a subsidy? When it’s a reduction in taxes. There’s a baffling amount of confusion over what should be
a simple matter. Tax reductions, credits, deductions, and exemptions are frequently mistaken for subsidies. This shouldn’t be.
Morally they are worlds apart.
A subsidy is a cash grant from the government. If you’ve ever seen those cacophonous television commercials with Matthew
Lesko, you know what a subsidy is. At his website (www.lesko.com) you’ll be told, “Get free money from the government
just like the people you’ve seen on TV!” Elsewhere it says, “Everyone qualifies for something. Even millionaires are
eligible.”
These and other subsidies are direct transfers from the taxpayers to the beneficiaries. Obviously, money provided in subsidies
is unavailable to be used by the taxpayers who earned it in the first place. (The government could create the money out of
thin air, but that’s another column.)
There are also less-direct subsidies. For example, when the government guarantees a loan, it causes money to be lent to one
person rather than another (who doesn’t have a guarantee). If the loan is not repaid, the government is committed to
transferring money from the taxpayers to the lender. A tariff or import quota is also an indirect subsidy. Rather than giving
cash to a domestic firm, the government limits foreign competition and helps boost prices. It’s like giving out cash, only it
doesn’t show up in the federal budget.
In all these cases, government intervention enables people to obtain money they were not entitled to; the flip side is that
someone else is deprived of money he is entitled to, or that he would have had legitimate access to.
In contrast, when someone is given any kind of “tax break,” he keeps money he is entitled to. It doesn’t matter if that person
is “rich” and doesn’t “need” the money. (Some people believe this should disqualify anyone from a tax cut.) Entitlement to
the money one makes has nothing to do with need or how much one already has—at least not according to America’s
founding philosophy. Thus if a person retains some of his own money because of a government action, we should not
condemn this as a subsidy.
Subsidies should be opposed. Opportunities to keep one’s own money should not.
Needless to say, government can create great mischief by determining who can and cannot keep his own money. If mortgage
interest is tax-deductible but rent is not, government encourages home buying. It is not the government’s function to decide
the best way to live and then to use the tax system to manipulate people into living that way. If given a free hand, there’s no
limit to what government can foist on us through tax credits and deductions. In fact, anything it can do through outright
regulation it could probably do by amending the tax code. The benefit “given” to producers of ethanol is a lower fuel tax at
the pump. Providing “tax breaks” can be “interventionist,” in the sense that they can be designed to bring about ends selected
by politicians and bureaucrats.
But that is no reason to oppose them, although it’s sometimes tempting. No one should be begrudged the opportunity to keep
his own money. In the face of a discriminatory tax cut, we should point out that it ought to apply to everyone (who pays
taxes), and not just a narrow group of taxpayers. Efforts to widen exceptions may not succeed, since that would defeat the
politicians’ purpose, which after all is to manipulate private behavior. But at least we can pound home the point that it’s better
for people to spend their own money for their own objectives.
RPS Neg 98
Cap-and-Trade CP
A cap-and-trade policy is better – it encourages more effective innovation

After setting an allowable concentration, regulators must design institutions that minimize the costs of attaining that level.
Economics provides several guidelines for efficient reduction: n24
[] Consider all possible sources. Regulating only a subset of sources cannot possibly lower the costs of achieving a given
reduction in concentration.
[] Regulate the pollutant itself and not the process that produces it. Regulating the design of equipment (small hydroelectric
plants but not large ones) or its inputs (restrictions on usable fuels) is inferior to regulating output of the pollutant itself.
Design standards needlessly restrict the range of possible abatement methods and may discourage innovative approaches to
it. The desired end-product is a lower level of the pollutant rather than the dominance of a particular technology.
[] Match geography with costs and benefits. National environmental laws nominally specify uniform standards, but the
attainability of a target in practice requires particularized regulation. Specialized ozone regulations make sense for [*86]
Southern California's unique geography, but would not be worth the cost in rural Wyoming. The forthcoming Clean Air
Interstate Rules for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur will be largely restricted to areas that are primarily responsible for emissions
and contain most of the affected population. n25 Similarly, if GHGs are a worldwide problem, a worldwide control program
is in order. A single state or national policy, standing alone, is primarily symbolic.
[] Provide incentives to minimize compliance costs. This is the intent of cap-and-trade systems with government-issued
allowances (rights to emit) that polluters may trade among themselves. n26 Holders whose abatement costs are low will make
the required investments and profit from the sale of their allowances. The cap-and-trade market economizes on information.
Without it, regulators could only achieve efficiency by collecting and processing masses of information that polluters will
probably be reluctant to disclose. Exchangeable allowances encourage innovation because the inventor of a cheaper control
technology lowers its own abatement costs and can sell or license it to others. n27
B. RPS and Emissions
Whether state or national, as environmental policy, an RPS fails every criterion discussed above. States have generally
adopted RPS without studying the costs and benefits of alternative quotas and target dates. Most appear to have been chosen
for political reasons. n28 For as small an area as a state or region, an RPS may have advantages. It is easy to specify
legislatively and the cost of compliance might be more easily concealed in utility bills than an outright tax on conventional
power or subsidy to renewables. As a practical matter, it will be costly to set up and maintain a cap-and-trade system over a
small region, and smallness lowers the potential benefits of its markets. At a national level, the possible advantages of an RPS
decrease and those of markets increase.
A cap-and-trade program would expand renewables as well as an RPS
n49. A national RPS is not the only way to achieve environmental benefits via renewable energy. Another legislative
proposal, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, would establish a mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cap-and-
trade program. See Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, S. 1766, 110th Cong. (2007). If such a cap-and-trade proposal were
enacted, one study indicated that a national RPS would have "little incremental effect because the GHG allowance program
in S. 1766 encourages an increase in renewable generation similar to what would be needed to comply with the RPS." Energy
Info. Admin., U.S. Dep't of Energy, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007,
at vii (2007), http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/lcea/pdf/sroiaf(2007)06.pdf. The study does not, however, indicate
whether a cap-and-trade program or a national RPS program would be more effective or preferable; it simply indicates that a
15% RPS would result in roughly the same amount of renewable generation that would result if the proposed cap-and-trade
program were implemented. See id.
RPS Neg 99
Cap-and-Trade CP
State RPSs won’t be relevant if Congress enacts a cap and trade system

Although states should be mindful of the legal implications of a national RPS program, they should probably recognize that
the most likely Congressional response to global climate change is actually the establishment of a cap-and-trade system for
GHG emissions. Such a system is already prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol, n151 has been implemented by the European
Community n152 and by the ten states participating in RGGI, n153 and has been called for by congressional members from
both parties. n154 While the subject matter and effects of a national cap on GHG emissions would somewhat overlap those of
state RPS programs, the differences between the two would likely be substantial enough to prevent implicit "field"
preemption. In Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., the Court stated that "the question whether the regulation
of an entire field has been reserved by the Federal Government is, essentially, a question of ascertaining the intent underlying
the federal scheme." n155 Although the precise intent behind a hypothetical federal regulatory scheme for GHG emissions is
conjectural, the scheme would presumably address only GHG emissions and the mitigation of global warming, whereas RPS
obligations are designed to address air pollutants in general, as opposed to just GHG emissions, and to alleviate [*284] local
air pollution in addition to global warming. n156 Such differences undercut the notions that "the scheme of federal regulation
is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" and that the
"federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same
subject." n157 Therefore, given the assumption that "the historic police power of the States," in this instance, the traditional
power of the states to regulate their retail electricity sales, was "not to be superseded by [a] Federal Act unless that was the
clear manifest purpose of Congress," field preemption of a state RPS program by a federal GHG cap-and-trade program
seems unlikely. n158
Of more concern, then, is the policy question of whether the coexistence of state RPS programs and a federal GHG cap-and-
trade program would be inefficiently duplicative in addressing closely related environmental and national energy security
concerns. The answer to that question likely depends on the values that states place on the environmental benefits of RPS
programs other than reduced global warming n159 and on the curtailment of power generation from nonrenewable, non-GHG
emitting sources, i.e. nuclear generation. Lastly, it is possible that the creation of a national trading system for GHG
allowances would actually be somewhat synergistic, rather than duplicative, in facilitating a national trading system for
RECs. Thus, state RPS programs are likely to remain viable, but to become at least somewhat less relevant, in the event that
Congress enacts a federal cap on GHG emissions.
RPS Neg 100
Clean Coal CP
The federal government should invest in clean-coal tech instead of alternative energies
State Journal, 8 (Walt Williams, “Manchin Says Feds Should Do More to Promote Clean Coal,” 5-26-2008,
www.redorbit.com/news/business/1402492/manchin_says_feds_should_do_more_to_promote_clean_coal/) // JMP
CHARLESTON - The federal government should be doing more to promote clean-coal technologies instead of investing heavily in
alternative energy options that won't meet the national demand for electricity, Gov. Joe Manchin said in a May 2 speech to coal industry
representatives.
"Many parents have said that if you misbehave you will get a lump of coal in your stocking," Manchin said. "Today, I think everyone is looking for a lump of coal to keep the lights
on."
Manchin's speech kicked off a joint West Virginia Coal Association and Coal Mining Institute conference at the Embassy Suites Hotel. The governor spoke for a little less than 30
minutes, recounting his experiences during the Sago Mine disaster and, being up for re-election this fall, touting what he saw as the progress the state has made in the past few
years.
He also spoke at length about the coal industry, saying the federal government often tries to play the eastern coal-producing states against the west-ern coal-producing states in its
policies. As a result, Manchin said he has joined with governors from other coal-producing states - Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and John
Huntsman Jr. of Utah - to speak "as one for the coal industry."
Their main goal is to "educate," he said. As one example, he pointed to the billions of dollars in subsidies currently going to corn-based ethanol, a fuel that has been criticized as
environmentally unfriendly because nearly as much energy goes into its production as it produces. Ethanol also has been criticized because it will never come close to meeting the
country's demand for fuel even if all the corn grown in the U.S. was dedicated to making the fuel.
The federal government also has given billions of dollars in tax credits to oil producers that currently are making record profits, Manchin said.
"As coal, we haven't got the same amount of consideration towards funding new technologies and the research that is needed
for this technology," he said.
He said the fight with the federal government over research in clean-coal technologies boils down to who will pay for it.
"You want me to make my Public Service Commission pass on the cost of research into the rate base that will make my state totally unproductive economically," he said, summing
up his argument before the federal government, "I said, 'You can't do that.' "
He said he wants the federal government to base its policies centered around a national perspective, directing resources toward research that would remove carbon dioxide and
heavy metals from power plant emissions and turn them into useful products.
"I know it's there, and you know it's there," he said. "And it is going to take money. Just give us a portion of what you are giving ethanol, what you're giving towards solar, what
you're giving towards wind, what you're giving towards all renewables."
In an interview after his speech, Manchin explained renewable sources of energy should be the first sources states turn to in developing their energy portfolios, but that renewables
alone won't come close to meeting the nation's energy demand. Until the nation finds a "new fuel of the future," coal will be filling the huge gap that renewables leave, so "find a
way to fix it."
"Don't just say, 'Well, we got to pollute. I wish we didn't have to' ... That's not acceptable," he said. "We're too good a nation for that, and we're capable of correcting that. We're
capable as a national movement, not just a state movement."
Manchin said at the moment the burden is on West Virginia to minimize the carbon footprint on the coal it produces and figure out a way to pay for it.
"And what you are going to do is raise the prices so high economically that we are not going to have any economy whatsoever" because the price will be passed down to the
ratepayers, he said.
The governor said that federal assistance for clean energy technology should be based on how much a particular energy
source contributes to the nation's overall energy portfolio. Say, for example, the federal government is going to award $100 billion in tax credits for energy
research, and coal makes up half of the nation's portfolio. In that case, clean-coal research should receive $50 billion in credits.
"It is so disproportionate right now," he said, adding he has taken his message to both federal officials and to Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen.
Barack Obama. "I'm saying if someone has a better idea, a more rational approach, please come forward. I'm open. I'm giving what I have seen and what I think is the start of a
solution."
Government funding is key to scaling up clean coal technology
Bloomberg, 8 (Jim Efstathiou Jr., “Rio Tinto Says U.S. Must Spend Billions for Clean-Coal Devices,” 6-2-2008,
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKVuoOkwQtkI&refer=australia) // JMP
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Rio Tinto Group and U.S. utilities are urging the government to spend $20 billion on a technology they say
has the best chance for eliminating pollution linked to global warming.
The energy companies are lobbying Congress to help create devices that can trap carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants
and bury the gas in underground caverns. Environmental groups, labor unions and members of Congress from coal states say
pilot projects won't begin without U.S. support that is unlikely to come this year.
As the Senate today begins debating the first U.S. curbs on greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, coal companies say they won't provide most of the money for capture-
and-storage technology. The
industry has spent ``tens of millions of dollars,'' on development, and it's too costly for companies alone
to finance, said Rio Tinto Chief Executive Officer for Energy Preston Chiaro.
``We can't do it without government support for the early projects,'' Chiaro, who also is chairman of the London-based World Coal Institute, said in a
May 29 interview in New York. ``Shareholders simply won't stand for it unless there's a commercial return.'' The institute is an international trade group for coal producers such as
London-based Rio Tinto.
Power plants are the world's biggest source of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, after vehicles, according to the Paris-based International
Energy Agency. Rising temperatures driven by human greenhouse- gas emissions are causing Arctic ice to melt and rain to decline in Africa and the Mediterranean, United
Nations-sponsored researchers said in 2007.
RPS Neg 101
Clean Technology Fund CP

U.S. support for the Clean Technology Fund will reduce global greenhouse emissions and promote international
cooperation on climate change
Thomson Financial News, 8 (“McCormick says US investment in Clean Technology Fund is 'critical'” 6-5-2008,
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml) // JMP
WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) - It is 'critical' that the US support the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), a multilateral
initiative that aims to help developing countries fund the additional costs of deploying clean energy technologies over dirtier
and often cheaper alternatives, a Treasury official told a House Subcommittee today.
'If we take no action to provide developing countries with the right incentives, their investments today could lock in a legacy
of highly-polluting, less efficient technologies for which we would all eventually pay through the accelerated effects of
climate change,' said David McCormick, US Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs.
The accelerated and unprecedented economic growth of developing countries in recent years has dramatically increased
demand for energy and has come at a cost to the environment, McCormick said.
In testimony before a Subcommitee of the House Committee on Financial Services, McCormick outlined the details of the
CTF, a multi-billion dollar global initiative announced by President George W. Bush in September 2007. The Bush
administration has already asked Congress to commit $2 billion to the fund and the President's FY 2009 budget includes a
$400 million appropriations request for the initial contribution.
The US would serve as lead donor, and with the help of countries in the G8 and beyond, would seek to raise up to $10 billion
over the next three years. The UK and Japan have already pledged their support to the effort.
The fund has three objectives: to reduce emissions through the accelerated deployment of clean technologies, to stimulate and
leverage private sector investment in clean technology, and to promote international cooperation on global climate change
agendas, McCormick said.
US support of the CTF 'will contribute to building the kind of trust between developed and developing countries that will be
necessary if a new UN climate arrangement is to be reached,' McCormick said.
The fund will be administered by the World Bank and implemented through all of the multilateral development banks
(MDBs). Resources can be leveraged from the MDBs, but the bulk of the funding will come from national governments and
private sponsors.
Subcommittee members expressed concern about the World Bank's involvement in the fund, noting the Bank's
environmentally questionable investments. In April, the Bank approved &450 million in funding for coal-fired power plant in
India. In today's hearing, full committee Chairman Barney Frank suggested that if the CTF were to be implemented, it 'could
be helpful' if the Bank make a commitment not to fund projects that run counter to clean technology initiatives.
According to McCormick, the fund will not cover the entire cost of any energy project, rather the gap between cheaper dirtier
technologies and more expensive cleaner technologies. 'In short, the CTF will help developing countries make the choice
between deploying clean technologies and conventional technologies economically neutral,' McCormick said.
Funding -- which will come in the form of concessional loans, grants, equity investment, and credit guarantees -- will be
allocated to developing countries, with an emphasis on those that expect high emissions growth.
To be eligible, developing countries would be required to work with the World Bank to develop investment strategies based
on plans aimed to reduce carbon emissions.
McCormick noted that according to the International Energy Agency, by 2030, global demand for energy will increase by
over 50 pct, with nearly three-quarters of the growth coming from a group of developing countries (Brazil, China, India,
Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa).
RPS Neg 102
Distributed Generation CP
Distributed generation programs can substantially improve grid reliability
Brown, 7 - Chair of Energy Policy in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology
(Marilyn A., “Chapter 2: Energy Myth One – Today’s Energy Crisis is “Hype” Energy and American Society: Thirteen
Myths, ed. By M. Brown and B. Sovacool, p. 35-36)
One trend emerging since 1970 that may lead to improved grid reliability is the development of distributed energy resources
(DER). DER involves small power generation or storage systems located close to the point of use by consumers. They
provide fuel flexibility, reduced transmission and distribution line losses, enhanced power quality and reliability, and more
end-user control. While some distributed energy equipment produces significant air pollution including diesel-generator sets,
other distributed generation technologies offer significant potential for reduced emissions of local air pollutants and CO2,
partly because of their higher efficiencies through cogeneration and partly through their use of on-site renewable resources
and low-greenhouse gas (GHG) fuels such as natural gas. Because photovoltaic systems have production profiles that are
highly coincident with peak demand, they can contribute significantly to grid stability, reliability, and security. Many experts
believe that these various potential advantages will bring about a “paradigm shift” in the energy industry, away from central
power generation to distributed generation.
Some distributed generation technologies, like photovoltaics and fuel cells, can generate electricity with no, or at least fewer,
emissions than central station fossil-fired power plants. Total emissions can also be reduced through distributed generation
using microturbines and internal combustion engines, if the waste heat generated is usefully employed on site to improve
overall system efficiency. Based on the remaining technical potential for cogeneration in the industrial sector alone, it is
estimated that nearly 1 quad of primary energy could be saved in the year 2025 (Worrell et al., 2004). Packaged cogeneration
units that include cooling capabilities (and are therefore more attractive to commercial building operators) are projected to
save 0.3 quads in 2025 (Hadley et al., 2004).
In 1970, distributed generation was limited to a small number of back-up diesel generators used to provide secure power.
Since then, markets for DER have grown in size and diversity; today’s customers include hospitals, industrial plants, Internet
server hubs, and other businesses that have high costs associated with power outages. Markets are likely to grow as wealth
increases and more consumers are willing to pay to avoid the inconvenience of blackouts. Smaller niche markets are growing
where distributed energy resources are used as a stand-alone power source for remote sites, as a cost reducer associated with
on-peak electricity charges and price spikes, and as a way to take advantage of cogeneration efficiencies. Distributed
generation could be particularly advantageous in newly settled areas by reducing transmission line requirements, and by
being more responsive to rapidly growing demand for power. Over the next half-century, it is possible that the demand for
ultra-reliable power service will increase far more rapidly than the demand for electricity itself. This demand could be met, at
least in part, by distributed energy resources.
RPS Neg 103
Counterplan solves all of case and the net-benefit: Distributed generation reduces electric grid vulnerabilities and
leads to less fossil fuels in the long run, avoiding the disad
Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel

(Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 3-
30-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
There are some striking advantages to dispersing our nations electrical power needs.
Buildings containing self-reliant electric power generating capacity would use little or no fossil fuels, thereby reducing our
need for both foreign oil and its transport and security. Dispersion could relieve some of the effects from a terrorist attack on
the United State energy infrastructure that would have previously caused major power interruptions, saving businesses and
the government money, particularly if consumers used renewable energy sources. The technologies exist today to create self sufficient communities or businesses that need very little power they
can not create. There are really three viable options for the future of our grid: continue as we currently are, move toward a basic distributed generation model, or move to a more advanced distributed generation
model. The following will cover each option in further detail.
The first option is to continue as we always have, building increasingly larger centralized electric power generating plants. These plants would either be natural gas or nuclear powered, or even increasingly
include renewable energy sources. The natural gas plants would require infrastructure to be built to deliver the natural gas needed to generate the electricity. Nuclear plants would require provisions for
radioactive waste that the reactors will create in the generation process. The nation will also spend increasing amounts of money trying to keep the system as secure as possible. The primary issue, however, is
not solved. Any point along the system that is disrupted, leads to a power failure within a large portion of the system.
The second option is to retrofit all government and military buildings and facilities to generate their own electric power while maintaining connection to the electrical power grid. This would provide the
building not only with its immediate electrical power needs, but also the surplus of electricity could be transmitted to the grid for use by other electric customers. This would eliminate the need to build more
and larger conventional electrical power generation facilities. The buildings could also make wise use of the cogeneration that is possible when the electricity is created on site, making the best use of the natural
materials involved as well as a significant savings to the military or government entity. This option would also provide areas of refuge and command and control during national emergencies, keeping the
military and government up and running during emergencies to help care for the people that have been affected. It also shields them from terrorist attacks on the current electrical power generation facilities.
A third, and possibly the most viable option, would be to retrofit all government and military buildings and facilities as in option two
while including all new construction projects, both commercial and residential, to incorporate distributed generation
technologies. The government could accomplish this only through changes in legislation and changes to building codes to
enforce the adaptation of distributed generation. Such action would also require that utility companies buy excess electrical power generated by the consumers. Currently, the
majority of the utility industry has not embraced distributed generation out of fears that it will cut into their bottom line and they will lose money.58 Forward thinking utility companies,
however, should see it as a way of providing more electricity to their consumer base without necessarily upgrading or
replacing systems, saving them money in the long run. The government currently gives incentives to companies that
participate in distributed generation programs. This must continue and extend to the residential side as well. All new construction could
also generate electricity with cogeneration in mind, making the most economical and environmental impact. A percentage of the distributed generation electrical power could also come from alternative energy
sources. Scientist make great advances on a daily basis in alternative fuel choices and some mix of them could meet the needs of the nation’s electricity requirement.
Distributed generation will remove stress from the transmission grid
A Smarter Grid
Experts say some of the most useful improvements to the U.S. electrical grid wouldn’t require any new technology. 1990s-era
communications systems paired with sensors placed throughout a power grid could provide accurate, real-time assessments
of the grid’s performance. These so-called “smart grids” can predict and manage around potential failures, Gellings says.
Another function of smart grids is managing demand. A smart meter hooked up to a smart grid could advise consumers in
times of peak demand. “Right now,” says Vaitheeswaran, “There’s no incentive to run your dishwasher or washing machine
later in the day.” Some smart meters tell customers when to avoid such activities by flashing a light; others communicate
directly with the appliances in a person’s home. Such a system is within reach: Italy has installed smart meters in every
household; in the United States, California has begun testing its own smart grid. Any cost of upgrading the grid would be
quickly recovered, Vaitheeswaran says. Smart grids help to eliminate the costs of more frequent outages as well as the high
price tag that comes with providing electricity in times of peak demand.
Distributed generation—producing electricity at or close to the source of consumption—such as solar cells or wind turbines
operated near homes and businesses, can also help alleviate some stress. As Vaitheeswaran explains, the “dumbest” part of
the grid is the last mile of lines leading to a consumer’s home.
[Note: Vaitheeswaran is the energy correspondent for The Economist]
RPS Neg 104
Distributed generation is key to reducing vulnerabilities in the power grid

Since September 11, the government has focused its attention to updating security for the nation’s nuclear power plants.
While Patriot missiles have been placed at Palo Verde nuclear facility in Arizona and Army National Guard troops have been
stationed at other nuclear facilities to provide security,31 very few facilities have the capability to defend against air attacks.
In total, only $370 million has been spent on security at the nuclear power plants32. Beyond these few nuclear facilities, very
little has been done to protect the non-nuclear power generation facilities. Although there is a health risk associated with an
attack on a nuclear site, the non-nuclear plants are just as critical to the primary function of providing our nation with
electricity. Regions of the country could be blacked out if just one plant of any type is attacked or has a disruption of its fuel
delivery. Chuck Gray, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, is quoted as
saying: “There is no practical way to protect every mile of the nation’s energy system with guns, gates, and guards.”33
So how can we protect the nation’s 158,000 miles of primary electric transmission lines, 2 million miles of oil pipelines, 1.3
million miles of gas pipelines, 2,000 petroleum terminals, one million gas and oil wells, and 150 oil refineries?34 Currently,
the United States can do very little to protect this infrastructure from attack. Although experts have spent a great deal of
money and thought as to how to protect the nations 103 nuclear reactors and they are somewhat secure in the post September
11th world, leaders still need to address the concerns of protecting and ensuring the electric power generation needs of our
country, which in total creates a very large target indeed for terrorists. It would not take a large attack to disable a large part
of the country. In January 2007 a winter storm knocked out electricity to 330,000 homes and businesses in Missouri, 11,000
homes and businesses in New York and 122,000 electric customers in Oklahoma without electricity. Repairs and service
restoration took up to one week in many cases. These are acts of nature, but what if they were part of a large scale
coordinated terrorist attack? How does a government protect millions of miles of pipeline or the primary transmission lines?
Because there are really no good answers to these questions, the answer must lie with a better solution.
Several questions come to mind once we fully understand the U. S. current electrical needs and system. If the United States
generates its electric power in large, centralized electric power plants then distributes that electricity along transmission lines,
what then is the alternative? Do we really need to protect all components of our electrical grid? Or, do we protect against the
effects of disruption of electric power due to damage or outages within the grid? I think the latter is the answer. The large
concern with our grid’s makeup today is there are few robust options or buffers when problems within the system arise. What
are needed are electric power generating components along the nodes and dispersed throughout the system. The alternative is
a process of distributed generation, where future electricity generation requirements are built into point-of-use facilities that
would allow our system to survive disruptions in nearly every instance. By making all buildings on military bases, schools,
and government buildings, and intended places of refuge during a national crisis (such as churches, stadiums, etc.) self
sufficient in electrical energy generation, we will have a robust “defense in depth” against attacks or disruptions anywhere in
the system. In other words, when portions of the grid are disrupted, then these select buildings continue to provide power to
themselves, and any of their excess power to the remaining operating portions of the grid. The power company, in accordance
with procedures, would route the power as required by priorities.
General Note: What is distributed generation?

What is distributed generation? Power experts define distributed generation in many ways, but it is best described as “the
production or generation near the point of use.”36 There are various parties who differentiate the definition in various details.
“Some parties define it with size limitations, others exclude back up generation, and yet others make no distinction between
generation connected to the transmission system or the distribution system.”37 Perhaps the best definition is from the
California Energy Commission, which
…assumes the following definition: Distributed generation is electric generation connected to the distribution level of the
transmission and distribution grid usually located at or near the intended place of use. While distributed generation is
inherently related to local transactions vis-à-vis activities that may otherwise be construed to be in interstate commerce, the
definition is not designed to preclude the use of distributed generation at the transmission level if the economics of doing so
are warranted.
RPS Neg 105
Distributed Generation CP – Solves Competitiveness

Distributed Generation solves competitiveness – this is the next big market
Asmus, 1 – AHC Group Senior Associate

(Peter, “The War against Terrorism Helps Build the Case for Distributed Renewables,” Electricity Journal, 12-21-2001) from
Science Direct Database
The International Energy Agency projects that deregulated energy markets represent a $220 billion market.17 That is larger
than the cellular and long-distance telecommunications markets combined. On a global basis, the potential numbers are
staggering. The World Energy Council projects that by 2020, the developing world (notably Latin America, Asia, and China),
will consume more energy than the industrialized world. Some $4 trillion will be required to build the power infrastructure
needed to serve the newly electrified.18 Distributed generation sources that include solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and small
stand-alone wind turbines will be among the prime beneficiaries of these staggering investments in the future of world
electricity supply.
Since wireless cell phones appear to be dominating telecommunications in the developing world, one can draw upon that
analogy to suggest that wireless distributed power generation systems may similarly become the preferred option for power
supply in these new electricity markets. The future of power generation may indeed evolve into a system where smaller,
smarter sources will be dispersed throughout the electric grid — and preclude the need for grids in the developing world,
where 2 billion people have yet to experience electricity.
The future of the electricity industry lies in better planning in transmission, to deliver bulk renewable power generated in
remote locations to urban load centers. Nevertheless, the primary focus of policymakers today should be the fostering of
innovation at the distribution grid. Renewable on-site generation, cutting-edge energy management software, energy
efficiency upgrades, and new energy battery storage systems, are all technologies that smart corporations should be
investigating in light of recent volatility in power markets.
Bringing the grid into the 21st century offers new opportunities for profit, progress, and sustainability. Those energy supply
firms that recognize the parallels between the evolution of energy and the evolution of telecommunications and computers
will be able to capture markets and deliver genuine value to the economy and the environment.
RPS Neg 106
Distributed Generation CP – Solves Military

Distributed generation technology will be used by the military in the field – decreases logistical tails and security
problems

There are several strategic consequences for the military. During times of a national emergency, if the nation implements a
distributed electrical generation system, there would be assured and predictable places of refuge for citizens to go, functional
command and control facilities, hospitals with reliable and persistent electrical power, as well as many other benefits. Having
designated installations, such as military bases, sites designated for refuge, schools, and government buildings that provide
their own power would mitigate the effects of a blackout or power outage that currently effect large regions. A distributed
generation system would also give us greater command and control capabilities and allow more options for responding to
crisis. Additionally, having the ability to set up distributed generation anywhere the military deploys would take the concept
into the field, so that military operations, either overseas or nationally deployed as part of civil support, would be neither
dependant upon local or indigenous sources nor vulnerable to attacks against large and infrastructure-intense centralized
electrical generation systems. I recommend that deployable distributed generation systems leverage renewable sources so as
to decrease their dependence upon the logistics of transporting fuels, oils, or other perishables, whose own distribution
infrastructure could themselves be a vulnerability. This would free up costly fuel transportation costs, which not only include
the costs of the fuel and of its transport, but also the costs of security both in manpower, equipment, and dollars. While the
Department of Homeland Security is responsible for efforts to prepare for and mitigate the consequences of terrorist attacks
within the United States, the military can expect, and must be prepared, to be called upon in any civil support mission due to
terrorist attacks. Imagine the vulnerability of some of our remote military bases that house important radar and
communications systems and draw their power from the end of miles of transmission lines from a distant power station, and
whose only ability to generate power is from several diesel generators with a relatively short supply of fuel. Dispersing robust
electricity generation to military bases leverages the base security and defense plan into the fold of the overall security of the
military facilities, therefore ensuring that there is power to the base when the region’s grid is disrupted. Additionally, excess
electrical power generated from the base could be used “off base” and directed via the functioning grid components to
locations that are without power and have an immediate need for it. The greater dispersal of the system, the fewer large,
centralized nodes there are whose damage would have large effects. By dispersing the generation and distribution of
electricity, security becomes a local policing issue, and destruction of any one component of the system would not have the
same consequences to respond too as the destruction of several major components of our current system.
RPS Neg 107
Energy Prices DA – 1NC Links

RPS will significantly jack up energy costs for several reasons – the standard has no chance of being met

PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT", unknown date in 07
* Based on a July 21 version, the Bingaman amendment would establish a nationwide, mandatory renewable portfolio
standard (RPS) beginning in 2008. All electricity suppliers that sell more than 4 million megawatt-hours of electricity to
consumers would be required to generate power from a limited number of renewable energy resources (excluding most
hydropower) or buy renewable energy credits, equal to a specified percentage of their retail electric sales.
* The RPS percentage requirements would start at 2.5 percent in 2008 and increase to 10 percent by 2020. A cap of 1.5
cents per kilowatt-hour is imposed on the cost of the renewable energy credits, which would increase with inflation.
<The RPS Amendment Would be Costly to Consumers
* The amendment would impose a significant increase in electricity costs on consumers. The Bingaman RPS amendment
could cost as much as $127 billion in higher electricity prices for consumers over the life of the mandate. At its peak in 2030,
the RPS mandate could cost consumers almost $10 billion in higher electricity prices.
* The RPS amendment is really just an energy tax on traditional energy resources, such as coal, natural gas and nuclear
energy. The RPS percentage targets are so unrealistic that they cannot be fully met by only building new renewable
generation. Utilities will be forced to purchase renewable energy credits from the federal government or companies trading
credits to meet their mandated RPS requirement.
* The costs of renewable energy will be an “add-on” to providing reliable, around-the-clock power to consumers. Many
renewable energy resources are intermittent by nature. Utilities cannot tell their consumers that they will deliver power only
when the wind blows or the sun shines. Utilities will still need to build generating facilities using conventional fuels—most
likely natural gas—to meet consumers’ needs for reliable power on short notice.
* RPS costs will be imposed concurrently with massive environmental costs. Power generators are expected to incur new
environmental compliance costs of $5-10 billion annually within the next decade to deal with air quality requirements related
to ozone, particulate matter, mercury and other issues. Imposing a multi-billion dollar RPS mandate on top of that, during
roughly the same time frame, could be a crushing blow to a critical sector of our nation's economy.
* An RPS mandate will also require additional indirect costs. New high-voltage transmission lines often must be built in
order to move electricity from wind energy facilities, which are usually located in remote areas, across long distances to
populated areas where the power is needed. These transmission expansions can cost approximately $1 million to $3 million
per mile to build.
States that can’t readily use renewables will be especially hard hit and face higher prices
Determinants of RPS Impact. While
a one-size-fits-all federal RPS would impose uniform requirements nationwide, the costs would
be far from uniform. The effect of renewable energy targets on electricity cost is determined chiefly by two factors—the cost of conventional generation and the
renewable resource potential of the area in question.
The relationship of each factor to the marginal cost of an RPS is straightforward. It costs more to generate electricity from renewable sources than from conventional sources. That
is why significant renewable capacity is currently being added only in states that have already passed renewable requirements. This is the case even though most forms
of renewable energy have received large federal subsidies for decades. For example, wind generation receives a 1.9 cents-per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit. (In 2006,
the average cost of electricity was 8.37 cents per kilowatt hour.)
The first factor affecting the price of electricity in a state with an RPS is the state’s current mix of conventional sources which, as can be seen in Map 1, varies
considerably between the states. Map 1 should be compared with Maps 3 and 4. The regions of the country that rely most heavily on coal-fired generation are generally also the
regions with the lowest electricity rates and the highest concentrations of manufacturing. This is not a coincidence.
The second factor is the potential for renewable energy being spread unevenly across the country. For example, the
southern and middle parts of the country
have low potential for wind power, which is the renewable energy resource that is closest to the market costs of conventional
energy, given current federal subsidies.
And although wind energy produced, for example, in Oklahoma could be transmitted to Georgia, the additional transmission
costs greatly increase the total costs of that energy to the receiving state.
RPS Neg 108
Energy Prices DA – Link Ext

A national RPS will jack up electricity costs
3. The Criticisms: The Case Against a National RPS
Like any major energy policy in which there will be winners and losers, there are several arguments against a national RPS. Even if an energy policy ends in a net gain, there will be those who will not come
out ahead in the game. n67 The primary arguments against a national RPS are that it could lead to increased consumer costs, that the RPS amounts to a wealth transfer from states with lower levels of renewable
resources to states with high levels, and that it is unnecessary and better handled at the state level. There are additional arguments against the Proposed RPS that are critical of the current plan as drafted,
including complaints about the limited scope of what is renewable n68 and the actual level of the RPS, n69 but this section of the Article focuses only on criticisms of a national RPS.
Some major studies indicate a potential increase in consumer electricity costs if a national RPS were implemented. The
Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a study in June 2007 of a proposed 15% RPS by 2030, which indicated
that "cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $ 7.2 billion (0.4 percent) higher, while
cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $ 1.0 billion (0.1 percent) lower." n70 For a 25% RPS by 2025, the
costs would likely be much more significant: "the cost of complying with the [25% RPS] is projected to increase the price of
electricity by about 3.3 percent and 6.2 percent in 2025 and 2030, respectively." n71 On a more local level, opponents of the
Proposed RPS have claimed that consumers in some states could see electricity bills rise as much as $ 15 per month. n72
A National RPS will increase electricity rates

In "Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard" (Aug./Sept. 2006), Benjamin K. Sovacool and Christopher Cooper argue, among other things, that a renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) could reduce energy costs for consumers. Respectfully, I would submit that that position ignores economic, engineering, and political reality.
Before addressing that issue, I would like to make clear that the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) agrees with the authors that it is important for the nation to take responsible steps to
increase the use of cost-effective renewable energy. As an early supporter of the Ag-Energy Working Group, NRECA endorses the goal of obtaining 25 percent of the nation's energy supplies from renewable
resources by 2025. NRECA's members are leaders in the renewable energy field, offering their consumers power from every form of renewable resource. NRECA also supports a broad range of policies that
promote the use of renewable energy without increasing rates for electric consumers.
Renewable energy mandates, however, like those supported by the authors, will increase electric rates to consumers. This
should be apparent on its face. Any mandate creates an artificial market for a commodity. If the market demand cannot be met
immediately by new entry, the basic laws of supply and demand will force up the price of the commodity. And, there are
probably few markets in the United States with as many barriers to entry as the electric utility industry.
Massachusetts proves our link

Perhaps the best example is Massachusetts. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has one of the oldest and most established
RPS in the country. Adopted in 1997, the RPS requires 2.5 percent renewable energy in 2006. Despite its long life, however,
the RPS has led to the construction of very little new renewable generation. While the travails of the Cape Wind Project off of
Cape Cod are best known, other land-based wind projects in the Commonwealth have also been blocked by political
opposition. The result? Notwithstanding modest goals, recent auctions for renewable energy credits in Massachusetts cleared
for over $52/MWh, just short of the $55.13 safety valve in the state program. Load-serving entities in Massachusetts must
pay that in addition to the cost of the energy itself, effectively doubling the cost to consumers of that portion of power that
must be provided from renewable energy.
A mandate such as an RPS is also certain to raise rates where the mandated commodity must substitute for lower-cost
products. This is the reason why an analysis issued by the nonpartisan Washington Research Council recently concluded that
the RPS initiative on the ballot in Washington State would increase utilities' power expenses by 4 to 8 percent and cost
between 3,600 and 7,100 jobs in the state. As I-937 was written, it would force many cooperatives and public utility districts
to replace very-low-cost renewable hydropower with other, more expensive forms of renewable energy.
RPS Neg 109

States prove that RPSs drive up electricity costs 42%
Economic Conditions Shape RPS Debate. Virtually every state that has implemented a renewable portfolio standard has had
relatively high retail electricity rates. According to a 2005 EIA survey, consumers in states with renewable portfolio
standards pay 42 percent more for electricity than consumers in states without them (Table 1). Because the margins between
conventional and renewable electricity were smaller, the comparative viability of renewable energy sources was greater in the
states that eventually chose an RPS.
Moreover, many RPS states possess abundant wind energy generating capacity. Compare Map 1, which shows the potential for wind energy in the United States, with Map 2, which depicts those states that
have adopted an RPS. Roughly speaking, the prospects for wind energy are greatest in the Upper Midwest, the Mountain West, the Northwest, the Southwest, and the Northeast. Not coincidentally, these are
precisely the regions where we find states that have adopted an RPS.
A federal RPS is bad for consumers and providers

The nation's electric utility companies support the development and greater use of renewable energy sources. Renewables, along with the full range of other climate-friendly technologies — including nuclear,
energy efficiency, clean coal, carbon capture and storage, and plug-in electric hybrids — must be a part of the industry's long-term approach to meeting the country's steadily growing demand for electricity.
But renewables must be encouraged where they make economic sense. For this reason, a federal mandate that forces all states
to generate an arbitrary amount of electricity from them, regardless of states' individual resources, is bad for electricity
customers and providers alike.
RPS will raise compliance and operation expenses
III. Impact on Retail Electricity Suppliers

The addition of a national RPS would heavily impact the investment decisions of retail electricity suppliers, and would have
significant administrative and operational effects. Capital-heavy investment decisions are always difficult, and a national RPS
would add a new wrinkle to an already complex analysis. From the administrative side, a national RPS would add
compliance activities related to monitoring and reporting, as well as to the process of obtaining RECs. [*63] From an
operational perspective, a national RPS will impose new variables in each supplier's business decision-making efforts.
Expanding renewables to meet timetables will be extremely expensive when compared to traditional energy sources

C. The Coming Costs

To meet their renewable quotas, utilities in today's RPS states must invest heavily and soon. In March 2005, they were deficient as a group by only
819 MW. To remain in compliance they must build 12,000 MW between 2006 and 2010, and 52,000 by 2020, at an estimated cost of $ 53.4 billion. n10 The amount exceeds Florida's total capacity and is 80%
of California's. n11 Large utilities will bear a disproportionate share of the costs. n12 Wind will power most of the new plants, its capacity expected to increase 400% by 2020. The investment figures do not
A 2007 California Energy Commission report estimated that the state's 33% 2020
include transmission and related capital (e.g. substations).
renewable requirement requires $ 5.7 billion for 500 and 230 kilovolt lines alone, in addition to lower voltage lines,
transformers, and new supplies of reactive [*84] power. n13 For comparison, total U.S. spending by investor-owned utilities
on all transmission, including replacements and upgrades in 2005, was $ 5.8 billion. n14
RPS Neg 110

Federal RPS increases energy prices
The electric utility industry supports the development of renewable energy sources. But the states should continue taking the
lead in promoting them. A federal RPS mandate could end up raising electricity prices, disrupting existing renewable
programs in the states, and place new burdens on electric reliability. And without any guarantee of actually getting renewable
generation built and brought online.
The states are taking advantage of local resources and technologies that work best for them. These strategies, coupled with a
long-term extension of federal tax incentives, would enable renewables to play a more important role in meeting the nation's
growing demand for electricity.
RPS will drive up prices
A federal RPS could also undercut or preempt the existing state renewable programs. Each state RPS plan includes carefully
considered timetables and targets based on what makes sense in that particular state. And all have chosen to add technologies
and resources, such as hydropower and fuel cells, as well as alternative means of compliance such as energy efficiency
programs, which have not been included in discussions to date. Imposing different targets, technologies, and timetables
through a federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable
mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states.
In addition, if retail electric suppliers cannot meet a federal RPS requirement through their own generation, they will be
required to purchase higher cost renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits. Thus, a
nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in states with little or no renewable
resources to the federal government.
RPS Neg 111
Energy Prices DA – Aff Studies Flawed

Pro-RPS studies are overly optimistic and their cost forcasts lack any empirics – utilities will be over burdened
Standard & Poor's Ratings last week labeled renewable energy expensive, inadequate to meet even existing portfolio
standards, and probably bad for utilities' credit quality, especially if consumers are unpleasantly surprised by the true cost.
"While it is possible that RPS will prove to be feasible, economic and successful in every state, there is no compelling
evidence that suggests this will be the case. We instead suspect that the green marathon will be a difficult race for utilities to
run, with possibly painful results for credit quality," said Director Anne Selting, in the report, "The Race for the Green: How
Renewable Portfolio Standards Could Affect U.S. Utility Credit Quality."
Bondholder interests "would benefit from a wider and immediate discussion of RPS' estimated costs. The current state of
affairs, in which consumers believe that RPS are a costless policy choice, is worrisome for credit. This is all too evident in
California where, for example, supporters of the 50% RPS ballot initiative are asking would-be signatories to save the
environment and lower their energy bills," S&P warned.
RPS costs appear to have been poorly quantified, and overly optimistic pro-RPS studies, usually by advocates of renewables,
typically, and wrongly, conclude the impact on retail rate effects will be negligible, Selting said. "Taken as a whole, studies
that have tried to project RPS costs concern us because they suggest that RPS implementation is virtually costless," she said.
For example, she pointed out, a "questionable" study predicted a Texas RPS would cut power prices 5%, on the assumption
that significant wind capacity there would stimulate lower wind costs nationally, leading to more investment in wind,
displacing natural gas consumption and driving US natural gas prices lower.
"From a credit perspective, it is troubling that there is very little public data that assess the actual costs incurred to date to
implement RPS ... upheaval in Illinois demonstrated clearly that retail customers are ill-prepared to manage large and
unexpected increases in electric rates, even if they agree with the policy goals that ultimately trigger the jump," S&P found.
S&P, like Platts, is a unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Biggest risk: consumer backlash from high cost
Renewable portfolio standards are typically discussed in unimpeachable terms that suggest a sizable shift toward renewables
can be quick, with little rate impact and minimal disruption, S&P said.
"In fact, the lack of verifiable cost data in states that have aggressive renewable standards raises the question as to whether
RPS have become popular precisely because there is little price transparency. After all, one of the lessons learned as part of
retail choice is that when electric customers are allowed to choose a supplier that offers 'green' generation for a premium,
very few elect to do so," Selting said, warning of the "chief risk RPS imply for credit quality ? the potential for consumer
backlash if RPS come with a high price tag."
RPS Neg 112
Energy Prices DA – A2: Non-Unique – State RPSs / A2:Turns

A federal RPS is uniquely worse – will cause some States to further jack up electricity prices
A2: Turns
Their turns wrongly assume that an RPS will displace expensive natural gas – increasing costs and undermining local
economies

Those studies that find savings from implementation of renewable mandates typically assume that new renewable energy will
nearly always displace expensive natural gas generation. As the Washington Research Council study demonstrates, however,
the fact is that many utilities in Washington and elsewhere in the country are not operating gas generation at the margin for
most hours of the day. They would have to back down low-cost resources in order to comply with an inflexible mandate,
increasing costs for their consumers and undermining their local economies. While some utilities that rely heavily on gas
generation may benefit, other consumers and communities would find themselves on the losing end of these policies.
RPS Neg 113
Clean Coal DA Links

RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use
Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land

• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.
In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS
would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like
Michigan, New York, Virginia, and Texas. // pg. 11
A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expense of nuclear power and clean coal
Josten, 07 - Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce, Letter to Rep. John
Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15,
One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.” Clean,
safe, and
reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been excluded from this
definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. Should
Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it
must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe
energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit.
A federal RPS will destroy clean coal investment
Montgomery, 07 - CRA International (David, AEI Transcript, “California’s Climate Law: Boon or Boondoggle?”, 6/28,
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1516/transcript.asp)
So it is a little hard to see what the policy problem is that the Renewable Portfolio Standard is trying to address other than creating a market for people who produce wind, solar,
and a couple of other kinds of energy. The difficulty is that, when
that Renewable Portfolio Standard is binding and forces, for example, a lot
of wind in the market and there is also an emission cap, the Renewable Portfolio Standard drives out in our modeling coal
with carbon capture and sequestration. So something that costs 50 percent more is forced into the market and replaces what
would otherwise have been chosen under the motivation of the emission cap, which is a much cheaper way of getting to
exactly the same result for greenhouse gas emissions. And I would be more broad about it; I would say, “We have sulfur regulations, we have mercury
regulations, we have NOx regulations.” And all of those set up the incentive to choose the cost minimizing fuel and the RPS as kind of looking for a problem to solve, but forcing
a particular way of meeting all of our environmental aspirations.
A national RPS will undermine investment in clean coal technology
Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types
of generation that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nuclear generation facilities. n113 A national RPS
would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that new nuclear facilities were that likely, or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS,
at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. Clean coal technologies,
another major generation source in development, n114 would face similar hurdles, unless, of course, the national RPS were to include clean coal as
a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer. n115
RPS Neg 114
Nuclear Power DA Links

RPS will offset nuclear power in several regions
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, AG)
6. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water, Air & Land
A. A National RPS Displaces Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has already determined that that “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.”236 Examinations of fuel generation
in several states confirm this finding. The New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA), for example, looked at load profiles for 2001 and concluded that 65 percent of the energy
displaced by wind turbines in New York would have otherwise come from natural gas facilities, 15 percent from coal-fired plants, 10 percent from oil-based generation, and 10 percent from out of state imports
of electricity.237 A more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would otherwise be generated with a mix of 87 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4
percent oil.238 In Texas, the Union of Concerned Scientists also confirmed that renewable energy technologies primarily displace natural gas and coal facilities.239
RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S. Researchers in North
Often overlooked, is how
Carolina, for example, determined that a statewide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts
associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.240 In Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every
Michigan estimates that a 20 percent RPS by
50 MW of renewable energy would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.241 Environment
2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal
facilities.242 Utilities in Ontario, Canada, are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace all coal and
nuclear electricity generation in the region entirely.243
By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, a national RPS avoids many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion and
clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. // pg. 97
Renewable energy trades off with nuclear energy – investment.
Lovins et. al, 8 – veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and
Alex Markevich, “Forget Nuclear,” Spring 08, http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php, AG)
Nuclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant industry that’s dramatically reviving because it’s proven, necessary, competitive,
reliable, safe, secure, widely used, increasingly popular, and carbon-free—a perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal
power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection, energy security, and powering a growing economy.
There’s a catch, though: the private capitalmarket isn’t investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist
utilities aren’t buying. The few purchases, nearly all in Asia, are all made by central planners with a draw on the public purse.
In the United States, even government subsidies approaching or exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have failed to
entice Wall Street.
This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success,
deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains
why soaring taxpayer subsidies aren’t attracting investors. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with less
cost, construction time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals, let alone those competitors—
which, however, already out produce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster.
A national RPS will decrease investment in nuclear power
Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types
of generation that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nuclear
generation facilities. n113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that new
nuclear facilities were that likely, or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS, at least absent a corresponding
greenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. Clean coal technologies, another major
generation source in development, n114 would face similar hurdles, unless, of course, the national RPS were to include clean
coal as a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer. n115
RPS Neg 115

Renewables offset natural gas and nuclear power
• Renewable energy offsets nuclear power.
Studies from Michigan, North Carolina, and Oregon found that renewable generation displaces new nuclear reactors and
decreases the mining of uranium.
• A national RPS saves billions of gallons of water.
Conventional and nuclear power plants will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than America’s
farmers use for all the irrigated agriculture in the entire nation (over 3.3 billion gallons each day).
A nuclear reactor requires 600 times as much water to generate the same amount of electricity as a wind farm. A coal-fired plant uses 500 times as much water as a wind farm; A gas-fired plant uses 250 times as
much. A single 100-watt solar panel saves up to 3,000 gallons of water over its lifetime. // pg. 12
A 20% RPS significantly trades off with nuclear energy and fossil fuels.
Palmer and Burtraw, 5 – *Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow and director of RFF's Electricity and Environment Program,
specialist in the economics of environmental regulation and of public utility regulation, AND **Senior Fellow and
Professional Lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies
(Karen Palmer and Dallas Burtraw, “Cost-Effectiveness of Renewable Electricity Policies,” January 05,
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-05-01.pdf, AG)
With a 20% RPS, the composition of generation changes significantly as the increased use of renewables backs out
generation from other sources. It has important implications for the market price of natural gas and carbon emissions. Over the
decade between 2010 and 2020, the 20% RPS produces an average decline in total gas-fired electricity generation of 30% relative to the baseline, with a price of gas delivered to utilities that is 6% below
baseline levels. Gas generation is 43% lower in 2020 with a 20% RPS than in the baseline scenario, and coal generation is only about 10% lower than the baseline. In relative terms, the reduction in gas
generation is 210% that of coal generation.This drop in gas demand from electricity generators and the associated drop in price mean lower
gas prices for residential and industrial gas consumers as well, an important political consideration.
At lower levels of the RPS, renewables displace fossil fuel generation almost exclusively. A striking finding is that at the 20%
level, renewables also start to back out nuclear generation, which is roughly 15% less than in the baseline scenario, resulting
in the retirement of more than half of the inefficient nuclear capacity nationwide by 2020 relative to the baseline. In addition, in the
baseline scenario many of these existing nuclear plants make investments, known as uprates, to increase their capacity ratings. With the 20% RPS, fewer of these investments
take place, which contributes to the lower level of nuclear generation.
The backing out of baseload nuclear generation in the increment between the 15% RPS and the 20% RPS—instead of backing out as much natural gas as occurred at lower levels of the RPS policies—explains
why the electricity price increase is greater between the 15% RPS and 20% RPS than at other increments. Natural gas is often at the margin in electricity generation.
A federal RPS will cause utilities to invest in smaller natural gas generators instead of new nuclear plants – this also
turns the natural gas advantage
Kamalick, 05 (Joe, Chemical News & Intelligence, 3/8, “US manufacturers warn Congress on RPS power mandate,” lexis)
Note O’Shaughnessy = president and chief executive of Revere Copper Products
A federally mandated RPS would, for example, require power companies to generate at least 1-10% of their electricity output
from renewable resources such as wind farms or geothermal sites, or purchase RPS credits if they cannot meet the alternative
generation minimums.
But O'Shaughnessy cautioned that, in the case of wind power, utilities would have to build required back-up generating
capacity to maintain power levels when there is insufficient wind to drive wind turbines.
To build that additional back-up generating capacity, said O'Shaughnessy, power companies would avoid controversial coal
and nuclear power plant options and instead build more natural gas-powered electricity generators. Consequently, said
O'Shaughnessy, "a federal RPS requirement could have the unintended consequence of actually increasing natural gas use in
electricity generation, rather than reducing it as some proponents claim."
RPS Neg 116

An RPS eliminates political support for the expansion of nuclear power – this is empirically proven in several states
Sovocool and Cooper, 07*Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of
Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a
national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy(Ben and Christopher, “State efforts to promote
renewable energy: Tripping the horse with the cart?”, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall,
http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2007/07fall.pdf?rd=1)
Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize “free-riding” going on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity,
instead of promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined that only “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.”30 Examinations of
fuel generation in several states confirm this finding, as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation, which is still a significant source of electricity in Florida, New York, and Hawaii.
often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several
Equally important, but
regions of the United States.
Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear
fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.31 In
Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five percent statewide RPS by 2025 and
projected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources,
including nuclear power.32 Environment Michigan estimates that a twenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for
more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.33
A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expens of nuclear power and clean coal
Josten, 07 - Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce, Letter to Rep. John
Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15,
One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy
sources are “renewable.” Clean, safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal
technology have typically been excluded from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy
legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable
portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as
possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit.
Increases in renewables take investments from nuclear power.
Time, 8 (Bryan Walsh, “Is Nuclear Power Viable,” 6/6/08, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812540,00.html,

AG)
But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green
reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins, an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers,
argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study,
titled "The Nuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year
attracted $71 billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power
isn't worth it," he says.
More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-
century, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. At the same time,
. Nuclear supporters like Moore who
the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years, while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk
argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs, not to mention the huge
liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant, so it's up to government to do so. Conservatives
like Republican presidential candidate John McCain tend to promote nuclear power because they don't think carbon-free alternatives like wind or solar could be scaled up sufficiently to meet rising power
demand, but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic.
RPS Neg 117
Radar DA – 1NC
Investment in wind turbines are being blocked now because they interfere with military radars and degrade readiness
and air defense
Global Power Report, 6 (“Department of Defense study says wind turbines can interfere with radar, military defense
systems,” October 5th, 2006, lexis)-CMM
A new study released on October 3 by the Department of Defense says that wind turbines can interfere with missile-defense and
other military systems, though the extent would depend on the number of turbines involved and their locations. The study
appeared to do little to resolve an impasse between wind-energy advocates and the federal government over projects that
have been put on hold because of their uncertain effects on radar. Several projects in the Midwest have been delayed pending
Federal Aviation Administration reviews of their effects. "Although wind turbines located in radar line of sight of air defense
radars can adversely impact the ability of those units to detect and track ? any aircraft or other aerial object, the magnitude of
the impact will depend upon the number and locations of the wind turbines," the report stated. "Should the impact prove
sufficient to degrade the ability of the radar to unambiguously detect and track objects of interest by primary radar alone, this
will negatively impact the readiness of US forces to perform the air defense mission."
Air power is key to Khalilzad
Kass 7-professor of military strategy (Lani, January 9, “By air, land and sea”, AS/AG)
Even assuming that additional brigades could be recruited and trained quickly, how would that expanded force get to the
fight? How would it be provisioned, allowed to maneuver and defended from above? The last time an American soldier was shot at by enemy
aircraft was 1953. The ability to look up in the sky and know there's nothing to fear is priceless. Yet, air superiority -- the precondition of effective
operations on land and at sea, as well as in the air -- it is not an entitlement; it is a battle that must be fought and won, often at high
cost. Those who argue for robbing Peter to pay Paul would, quite literally, risk the lives of soldiers and airmen as well as Marines, sailors and
Coast Guardsmen -- all of whom depend on the Air Force's global reach, global power and global vigilance. But the perils of fixation don't
end there. With an aging fleet of aircraft and vessels -- and our military "neither losing nor winning in Iraq" -- what happens to America's global posture? How
long before others attempt to exploit what they cannot but perceive as America's nadir? The rest of the world has not taken a time out to
accommodate our focus on Iraq. An arch of instability literally spans the globe from Latin America, through East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Russia, China, Africa and the rest
of the Middle East. In the wake of Desert Storm, the United States was hailed as the sole arbiter of the new Pax Americana. While many grumbled at what appeared as
unconstrained U.S. pre-eminence, few dared to challenge it -- until that September morning when enemies appropriated our airliners and used them as their airpower to kill 3,000
non-combatants on America's soil. That very day, the Air Force spread its wings over America's cities in an unprecedented operation, aptly named Noble Eagle. America's wingmen
continue to provide that Combat Air Patrol to this day, serving as the nation's global eyes and ears -- as well as its ultimate nuclear backstop -- all while flying and fighting in Iraq
Today, America depends on air power to an unprecedented extent. The Air Force underwrites the national strategy
and Afghanistan.
of reassuring allies, while deterring, dissuading and decisively defeating enemies. Its recapitalization is an urgent security need -- not a
discretionary luxury. Our men and women in uniform trust each other with their lives. They count on each member of the joint team to deliver the full range of service-unique
effects. Only
one of our armed services can provide global surveillance, global command and control and the requisite range,
precision and payload to strike any target, anywhere, anytime, at the speed of sound or the speed of light. Our warriors understand
that. Our elected officials must, as well.
And (mushroom clouds)
Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation

(Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On
balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a
world in which the United States
exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free
markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help
preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
RPS Neg 118
Radar DA – Uniqueness/Link
Unique link—the military is blocking investment in wind power now because turbines interfere with radars
Oram 8 (John, “Wind Turbines Blow Over US Security Radar,” 6/25/8,

http://www.itexaminer.com/Business/tabid/79/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/930/Wind-turbines-blow-over-US-security-radar.aspx, AM)
Wind turbine blades spin at a velocity of six to seven times wind speed and can reach 170 mph at blade tips causing
significant radar clutter, that is electronic noise which needs to be filtered out.
This creates problems for long range radar for many government agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Department of Defense (DOD), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) at various times have refused to allow many of the proposed wind turbines in the line-of-sight of
their radar installations.
These refusals are stalling development of several thousands of megawatts of wind energy. Their large number of denials is a
serious hindrance to US growth of sustainable energy.
A private research firm wrote a report for DHS reviewing current status of the conflict between the ever growing number of
wind turbine farms and air security radars that are located less than thirty miles of a wind farm. The report says the nation’s
aging long range radar infrastructure, 80% of which is 1950's designed and installed in the 1980s, significantly increases the
challenge of distinguishing wind farm signatures from airplanes or weather.
Wind turbines with their large propellers are detected as moving targets by radar systems. Large wind farms with hundreds of
wind turbine/electricity generators appear as huge moving targets, so large they can mask detection of actual nearby aircraft
or tornadoes. This is a major concern for FAA, NOAA, DHS, and DOD.
Turbines being blocked now because they cause false detection of aircraft and clutter radars
Brenner 8 (Michael, “Wind Farms and Radar,” http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/wind.pdf, AM)
Wind turbines, with tip speeds of 6-7 times the wind speed, can create clutter interference and possibly significant Doppler
interference with the very sensitive radars fielded by the FAA, DOD, NOAA, and other agencies. Aircraft targets and, to
some extent, weather features seen by NOAA radars, can be temporarily lost, fail to be located, shadowed by the radar
signature of the turbine farm, or misidentified, and the wind turbines may also lead to false detection of aircraft. These
problems have led the FAA to issue a number of Notices of Presumed Hazard, stalling further work on the installation of
several thousand MW of wind turbine power, and the DHS has issued an interim policy calling for contesting any wind-
turbine installations that are in line of sight of the impacted radars. In a number of cases the military has claimed that the
wind-turbine farms are an encroachment on military radar facilities, and have stalled construction on the turbine farm.
Similar problems have arisen in other countries where wind power is expanding. As a result, the 2006 National Defense
Authorization Act required the DoD to prepare a report both on the effect of wind-turbine interference on military readiness,
and on possible mitigation measures. The report, which was briefed to us by Karl Dahlhauser from DDR&E, concluded that
there was indeed significant impact from wind turbines, and that the best solution is, in their words, “non-technical
mitigation”. By this they mean that the preferred solution is to declare encroachment and block the installation of offending
turbines, rather than to attempt to find technical means of ameliorating the turbine impact.
Interference means intruding aircraft go undetected
Brenner 8 (Michael, “Wind Farms and Radar,” http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/wind.pdf, AM)
Wind farms interfere with the radar tracking of airplanes and weather. The velocity of the blade tips can reach 170 mph,
causing significant Doppler clutter. This creates problems and issues for several stake holders, including DHS, DOD, FAA
and NOAA. Examples of issues include: a wind farm located close to a border might create a dead zone for detecting
intruding aircraft; current weather radar software could misinterpret the high apparent shear between blade tips as a tornado;
current air traffic control software could temporarily lose the tracks of aircraft flying over wind farms.
RPS Neg 119
Radar DA – Uniqueness – Collapse of Wind Power Inev

Collapse of wind power is inevitable in the status quo because of failure to pass credit extension—the plan revitalizes it
Wilson 8 (Kelpie “Democrats Are Blowing Our Best Chance for Clean Energy,” 6/30/8,
http://www.alternet.org/environment/89700/?ses=fbb432acf8cbef7084d3763427856abc, AM)
Take some of Big Oil's obscene profits and invest the money in developing clean renewable energy for the future. This is the
Democrats' big idea on energy and it's a good one, but right now Democrats are botching it badly.
On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have
nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit extension should
have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like
closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.
Some Democrats, like Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, got it, and shifted the approach. Cantwell drafted a bipartisan bill, cosponsored by Nevada
Republican John Ensign, to renew the tax credits without requiring a budget offset that would draw a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto.
The problem is that a contingent of House Democrats has continued to insist that no renewable energy tax credit extension be passed unless it can be paid for
by cutting some other budget item or by adding revenue -- like increasing taxes on Big Oil. These "pay-go" rules are supposed to establish Democrats as the
anti-deficit party and the House leadership has been unmovable on the principle when it applies to renewable energy.
But Democrats seem to have a double standard, turning into bendable Barbies when it comes to bailing out bankers or funding the Iraq war. Solar energy
industry lobbyist Scot Sklar said that Congress has all sorts of "creative bookkeeping" techniques it can use to justify new spending, they just don't want to
do it for renewable energy. The question is, why?
I spoke with S. David Freeman, author of Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How, about the situation. Freeman is a bona fide
"energy guru," having worked on federal energy policy since the Kennedy administration, and he was spitting mad. He called the pay-go principle a
"bureaucratic rule" and said Democrats could bypass it if they would "get their act together."
"They are using two different rules," he said. "They can go to war on credit, but they can't save the planet on credit. If Congress applied the pay-go rule to
the war we would have no war in Iraq."
Freeman said that Congress is not getting the urgency of our energy and climate crisis. "We are in a fight for our lives and Congress acts like it's a Fourth of
July picnic ... the Democrats won't do anything until the issue gets to a fever pitch."
NASA climate scientist James Hansen hammered on the urgency of the "fight for our lives" to congressional staffers at a briefing on
June 24th. He said "we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb...a path yielding energy
independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year."
For the renewable energy industry, it is already too late to avoid disruptions caused by letting the tax credit expire. The
uncertainty around the tax credit is slowing investment now. Michael Eckhart, president of the American Council on
Renewable Energy (ACORE) said, "This is outrageous and intolerable. The time to act is overdue. We're not calling for next
week. It's months ago that this should have been done."
A study earlier this year by Navigant Consulting found that 112,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries could be lost if
Congress lets the renewable energy tax credits expire. A study by GE Energy Financial Services showed that tax credits for wind will
eventually pay for themselves by producing taxable economic growth. In these recessionary times, you would think that Congress could justify the small
expense - one month of Iraq war spending would pay for ten years of renewable energy tax credits - as a vital economic stimulus.
In fact, this is exactly what some Republicans are now saying. Citing the need to protect renewable energy investment and jobs in Nevada, Senator Ensign is
holding up the 300 billion dollar housing relief bill in an attempt to attach the Cantwell-Ensign renewable energy tax credit extension. "We are trying to get
that on probably the only bill - or at least one of the only bills - that's going to be signed into law this year and that's the housing bill," Ensign said. But
Ensign's fellow Nevadan, Senate leader Harry Reid, said the move was pointless because House Democrats will never accept it. He said it was "a waste of
time to pass unpaid-for extenders."
Fox News reported that Reid got a letter from the 48-member "Blue Dog" group of Democrats warning that the housing bill would not pass the House if the
renewable energy tax incentives were extended without offsets.
Usually in conflicts over federal energy policy, the battle lines are straightforward - you just follow the money. But this case is different. Nearly all
Democrats and most Republicans favor granting the renewable energy tax extensions. The battle is over how to pay for them, but is it a battle worth fighting
at this point? After all, Democrats are likely to control Washington DC next year, at which point they can pass all the new taxes on Big Oil they want. Why
kick the renewable industry in the groin in order to make a political point that no one really cares about?
Part of the problem is that public awareness of the issue is low. The renewable energy industry and environmental groups have not complained about the
Democrats' behavior because they don't want to anger the Democratic leadership. That could be a big mistake. By not calling the Democrats on their election
year posturing over deficit spending, they risk handing the issue to Republicans who will now be in a position to blame Democrats for slowing growth in
wind and solar power.
Scott Sklar said that the only way to break through what he called "the silly season," is for voters to pay attention and get indignant. Sklar said, "This is what
people don't understand. Projects are being cancelled now because Congress doesn't have its act together, and it's the biggest projects - the ones that reduce
tons of carbon dioxide and employ thousands of people. In an economic downturn in the United States, people are going to lose their jobs in clean energy
and there's absolutely no reason for it."
If jobs and the economy are not enough to make you indignant, just remember those global warming tipping points.
RPS Neg 120
Radar DA – Air Power Extensions

Air power solves all reasons why land and sea power are key to heg.
Douglas 2- Department of Political Science at Columbia (Frank Colin "Hitting Home: Coercive Theory, Air Power, and
Authoritarian Targets")
Logically air power should hold pride of place within both the political science and policy-oriented study of coercion. Since
aircraft can strike a wider array of targets than land or sea-bound forces, Robert Pape argues the study of air power can cut to
the core of the larger coercion debate because it "most cogently reveals the relative effectiveness of different coercive
strategies." (Pape Bombing to Win 39) As Pape goes on to argue, Unlike land power, [air power] can reach deep into the
enemy's homeland from the outset of a conflict. and it promises to achieve its effects at sharply lower cost in lives than land
power. Unlike sea power, bombing can focus on specific categories of targets, attacking either political, economic,
population, or military targets in isolation or combination. Given adequate intelligence, air power can also attack selective
target sets within these categories, which can be helpful if, for example, there are bottlenecks in key industries.(Bombing to
Win 45) Therefore, analyzing the success or failure of air campaigns provides more than policy-relevant answers to a narrow
military question; it provides a rigorous test of different coercive theories which have been operationalized for real-world
application. Air campaigns also warrant close study because they are becoming the military tool-of-choice for statecraft,
particularly for the United .s.tates. As Eliot Cohen notes, "air power is an unusually seductive form of militarv strength. in
part because. like modern courtship. It appears to offer gratification without commitment."
Campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq prove air power can succeed on its own
Douglas 2- Department of Political Science at Columbia (Frank Colin "Hitting Home: Coercive Theory, Air Power, and
Authoritarian Targets")
On the other hand, the United States' recent air campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq are too important to ignore. Unlike
previous air campaigns, they are among the very few conducted without a simultaneous ground effort by the coercing state.
and thus logically more attractive for isolating and evaluating the independent effect of air power and the coercive hypotheses
it served. Collectively, these campaigns also represent a challenge to the conventional wisdom among security scholars that
air power alone cannot succeed. Furthermore, the policy and military community has to act based upon recent experience,
and the "lessons" of Kosovo are already being applied to a number of important debates
RPS Neg 121
Radar DA – Terrorism Impact

Wind power undermines radar, inviting airborne terrorist attacks
Kennedy and Linklater 8 (Dominic and Magnus, “Nato investigates defence threat from wind farms,” 2/5/8,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3308527.ece, AM)
Nato has begun an investigation into British findings that wind farms make overflying planes invisible to radar as military
chiefs fear a security threat from the rapid spread of the turbines. The US has been attending tests by Britain’s Air Warfare Centre after it made the
surprise discovery that the energy plants create blind spots in air defences. Renewable energy campaigners have been stung by a spate of last-
minute objections from the Ministry of Defence to proposed new wind farms in northeast England and the Scottish Borders. Nato’s alarm about this potential
Achilles’ heel against airborne terrorists or invaders is disclosed in evidence, seen by The Times, for a planning inquiry. The MoD is now
objecting routinely to all wind farms within line of sight of radar stations, irrespective of distance. There is currently no known technical solution. Evidence
was given by Squadron Leader Chris Breedon, opposing a 48-turbine wind farm at Fallago Rig in the Lammermuir Hills in Scotland. “As a result of MoD trials proving that
wind turbines adversely influence the performance of military and civilian radar systems operating within radar line of sight, Nato has become concerned about
the rapid increase in the number of wind turbine farm projects under planning or in development in a number of Nato countries,” he said. Britain is leading an investigation by the
Nato Research & Technology Organisation into the impact of wind turbines on radar. The first meeting of a newly created technical group, involving the US, France, Italy, Norway,
Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece, took place in London in June. The experts will review all scientific evidence from trials, consult the wind farm industry and civil aviation
authorities, decide what new trials are needed and recommend policy changes. A cloud
will hang over the wind farm industry for years as the alliance’s
report is not due to be presented to Nato’s sensors and electronic technology panel until 2010. A review will take place the following year. Britain
discovered the blind
spots during tests over a Welsh wind farm in 2004. Pentagon experts were invited to observe subsequent trials. President Bush’s Administration was
so anxious initially that it introduced an immediate moratorium on all wind farms in line of sight of its own military radars.
Since then the stance has been softened and each new US wind farm is now considered on a case-by-case basis. There is still no sign of a solution to the British impasse caused by
the MoD’s objections to wind farms in line of sight of its radar stations. Although Britain refuses to say how far the line of sight extends, a Pentagon report suggests a 60-mile
radius. The
problem is urgent because the stations tend to be on the east coast and the North Sea has been earmarked for a
major expansion of offshore wind farms. Since 9/11, radar policy has been dominated by fears of an airborne terrorist attack
launched inside British air space, rather than an invasion from overseas. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff, has given a firm direction that
radar surveillance capability must not be degraded.
Lashout causes extinction

Corsi, ‘5 (Jerome, best-selling author, April 20, “Horrific scenario: NYC hit by terrorist nuke,”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43817, AG)
In the span of less than one hour, the nation's largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map. Removal of debris will take several years, and
recovery may never fully happen. The damage to the nation's economy will be measured in the trillions of dollars, and the loss of the country's major financial and business center
may reduce America immediately to a second-class status. The resulting psychological impact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. The
president may not be able to communicate with the nation for days, even weeks, as television and radio systems struggle to come back on line. No natural or man-made disaster in
history will compare with the magnitude of damage that has been done to New York City in this one horrible day. The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The
combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The
problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New
York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers
were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear
device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying
physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known
enemy – Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could
possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world
– more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The
apocalypse would be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see
this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of
American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow
might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already
over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese
might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States.
What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North
Koreans might
calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might
only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge
stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in
power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II, when in the last century the Americans a
second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the
diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the
most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world
calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York
City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not
to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American
people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's
mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The
political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price
had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.
RPS Neg 122
Radar DA – Terrorism Extensions

Wind power undermines defense radar that increases risk of terrorism
Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues
(Keith, “Energy Security or Real Security?” 2-5-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/05/) // JMP
Gone with the wind, indeed.

The Times of London reports that NATO has found wind farms can create blind spots in air defense radar. That’s
understandably delayed planning approval for new wind farms in the U.K., where the problem was first spotted in 2004, as
well as in the U.S., since Pentagon liaisons have been following the saga ever since.
This is not what the wind power industry needs. First, it faced technical hurdles: turbine size and design, placement,
incorporation into the electricity grid, and cost issues. Then there are the image problems, from NIMBY campaigns to
occassional massacres of migrating birds (though few propose outlawing cats.)
British defense officials say any wind farms in the line of sight of military installations can impede radar. Given the fears of a
terrorist attack originating in domestic airspace, the Times reports, national security concerns appear to weigh more heavily
than the government’s goal of massively ramping up wind power, especially offshore. Now, NATO will study the issue for a
few years to see what technical solutions are available. This bodes ill for wind power’s short-term prospects, says the Times:
A cloud will hang over the wind farm industry for years as the alliance’s report is not due to be presented to Nato’s sensors
and electronic technology panel until 2010. A review will take place the following year.
It’s probably not all bad news. At least job-creation proponents have a new category: “khaki-and-green-collar.”
RPS Neg 123
Politics – Political Capital Links

Mandates are politically divisive and require resources to pass

Fortunately, mandates like those in Massachusetts and the Washington initiative are unnecessary to promote the development
of renewable resources. For example, the cost of new wind energy can be competitive today where (1) government tax credits
or renewable energy bonds are available, (2) strong wind resources are available, (3) sufficient transmission capacity is
available to deliver the wind, and (4) communities do not object to the development of wind farms. Where those conditions
exist, utilities are building or buying record amounts of wind energy.
These facts provide us a clear roadmap for a significant expansion in renewable generation. Rather than waste time and
resources fighting over the politically divisive issue of mandates, industry stakeholders should work together to promote the
conditions that enable renewable energy investment. We should (1) support long-term, stable incentive policies to put
renewable resources on a par with other generation resources, including a long-term extension to the production tax credit
and the expansion and extension of the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program; (2) do a better job of planning, financing,
and expanding the transmission system to permit consumers to access renewable resources; and, (3) find ways to address
community concerns with respect to the siting of wind farms and other renewable generation. Finally, we should support
significant expansion of RD&D funding to bring down the costs of integrating other renewable resources with the system.
These policies would encourage a dramatic increase in renewable resources by addressing directly the specific challenges
faced by renewable resources in today's market, including cost, transmission adequacy and community acceptance. An RPS,
on the other hand, merely ignores these real issues and imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate at the expense of consumers, jobs,
and local economies.
Pushing climate legislation requires time and political capital
NYT, 8 (“Another Failure on Climate Change,” 6-11-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11wed1.html) // JMP
The most obvious lesson to be learned from the Senate’s failure to mount any sort of grown-up debate on climate change last
week is that the country needs a new occupant in the White House.
By that we mean a president who not only understands and cares deeply about the issue — which both Senators Barack
Obama and John McCain say they do, and which President Bush clearly does not — but who is willing to invest the time and
the political capital necessary to push good legislation through Congress.
RPS Neg 124
Politics – RPS is Controversial

Past attempts by Congress prove a federal RPS is extremely controversial
II. THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 DOES NOT INCLUDE A FEDERALLY - MANDATED RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
Over the past ten years, Congress has grappled with comprehensive energy legislation.6 The stated purpose of the final bill, EPAct 2005, was "[t]o ensure jobs for our future with
secure, affordable, and reliable energy."7 The Administration strongly supported H.R. 6, saying that it would "benefit consumers by increasing energy supplies while protecting the
environment . . . . [It would] reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by increasing the use and diversity of renewable energy sources."8 The Administration noted that the
Electricity Title would promote its objectives of improved reliability and increasing supply.9 But the Administration opposed any effort to set a national RPS, as "these standards
are best left to the States. A national RPS could raise consumer costs, especially in areas where these resources are less abundant and harder to cultivate or distribute."10
RPS proponents had attempted to include a federal mandate in earlier versions of energy legislation. 11 A RPS, it was argued, would
promote energy efficiency and conservation,12 would enhance our efforts to become less dependent on foreign oil,13 and would provide consumers with affordable and reliable
electricity. 14 These purposes certainly appeared to dovetail with the brief statement of purposes for EPAct 2005. But for all of that, a
federally mandated RPS was
extremely controversial, as evidenced by the debates that occurred on the Senate floor regarding an amendment to H.R. 6. (S. Amdt. 791). S.
Amdt. 791 was the final attempt to include a RPS; the Senate vote in favor of S. Amdt. 791 was close, 52-48.15 Ultimately, however, the RPS was not included in
EPAct '05, mainly due to strong opposition in the House.
In S. Amdt. 791, Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and long-time advocate of the RPS, proposed a
scaled federal RPS of up to 10% by 2020 through 2030.16 Overall, supporters contended that it would provide many benefits, including: reduced dependence on foreign energy
sources, a reduction in the price of natural gas, new jobs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced reliability of the electricity grid.17 Opponents countered that a national
RPS would amount to a rate increase; in essence it would subsidize certain segments of the energy industry that already benefited from significant federal subsidies with little
capacity to show for it; and it de facto amounted to an unfunded federal mandate.18
Eligible versus ineligible renewable resources presented a significant stumbling block in the debates. Proponents of S. Amdt. 791 argued
that it was technology neutral and that while not all regions/states have abundant wind, geothermal, or solar resources, biomass and bio-fuels are common across the country and
are included in the list of eligible existing and new renewable energies.19 Opponents considered the scope so inflexible that even if an electric utility were to meet the renewable
requirement of 10% by generation of power through another form of renewable power or even "green power" such as nuclear energy,20 that utility would still be obligated to
generate power or buy renewable credits to cover an additional 10% to satisfy the federal standard.21 S. Amdt. 791 provided for a State Renewable Energy Account Program
(SREAP),22 under which the Department of Energy (DOE) would collect money from the sale of renewable energy credits (RECs)23 and civil penalties assessed against utilities
that fail to obtain the base amount of electricity from renewable sources.24 The proceeds would be transferred to the states, giving preferences to states that have a
disproportionately small amount of renewable capacity and to states to improve renewable energy technologies.25 Despite careful language in S. Amdt. 791 that states RPS
programs would be undiminished, opponents maintained that the practical effect was that states would have to replace their existing programs with the federal proposal,26 or else
pay what amounted to a new tax and a new rate increase into the SREAP.27 Moreover, they pointed out that fuel choices and resource development decisions
historically have been within the purview of the states.28
Lawmakers were also divided on whether the outcome of the mandate, under S. Amdt. 791, would be cost-effective and support reliable delivery of electricity. Supporters argued
that the cost to customers of the mandated RPS would be negligible, and projected significant savings. Citing data from the Energy Information Administration within the
Department of Energy (EIA), they asserted that the amendment would result in over "68,000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and 2025 . . . . [t]he cost to
consumers would be about .18 of a percent . . . increase in overall energy prices."29 Additionally, over the life of the RPS program (2005 to 2025), EIA statistics projected
cumulative residential cost savings of $2.5 billion and $2.9 billion for electricity and natural gas, respectively, and cumulative savings for all end-use sectors of $22.6 billion.30
Opponents of S. Amdt. 791 vehemently disagreed about the cost savings. They too cited the EIA Letter and calculations, which projected that from 2005 to
2025 the RPS would have "[A] cumulative total cost of the electric power sector [of] about $18 billion . . . ."31 As for the savings to end-users, those numbers were predicated
upon the assumption that the price for natural gas would decrease in response to an increased renewable market. S. Amdt. 791 was essentially asking ratepayers to assume an
additional $18 billion in costs in the hopes of natural gas prices going down.32
In regard to reliability, S. Amdt. 791 opponents noted that wind power, one of the main renewables, would make an insignificant contribution to the overall power requirements
and, thus, to the goal of providing low-cost reliable power.33 They noted that logistically, wind farms are sited where the wind is, in remote areas oftentimes at the top of a ridge,
where there is little if any existing transmission sufficient to transmit the power.34 Furthermore, wind power necessitates that back-up coal, natural gas, or nuclear power always be
available to avoid interruption to electric services.35
The plan is empirically divisive – a federal RPS has been defeated 17 times in Congress
Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP
In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. (12) In addition, 102
legislative proposals dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. (13) All have been beaten back by
Republican-dominated Congresses.
It is safe to say, therefore, that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that state-based action is optimal or preferable but rather because of
the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. A federal-scale
political philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and
environmental policy dates back at least as far as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it has been reinforced by the political power
of Washington, DC-based interest groups and trade associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. However, this
philosophy and political structure is not mirrored throughout much of the country, and hence many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change arena. And,
similarly, many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive.
RPS Neg 125
Politics – RPS is Controversial

Federal RPS would face strong opposition in Congress.
Durbin, 07 – head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie (William, E&E News PM
May 14, “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions
reduction”, lexis, AG)
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.
Debates over national RPS are empirically divisive
In a little over the last decade, at least 21 states have passed renewable portfolio standards (RPS) – laws requiring electricity
suppliers to employ a certain percentage of renewable energy to meet growing energy demands. In that same time, Congress
has considered (and rejected) at least 17 different proposals for a national RPS.
Each time a national RPS is debated, opponents argue that a federal mandate will increase electricity rates and cost utilities
billions of dollars by forcing investments in expensive renewable technologies. The Bush Administration officially rejects a
national RPS on the grounds that it would create “winners and losers” among regions of the country and increase electricity
prices in places where renewable resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.
Senate doesn’t support a national RPS

I. Introduction
Electricity from "renewable" sources is fast becoming a multipurpose remedy that will alleviate energy scarcities, abate air
pollution, and mitigate climate change. As of July 2007, over half of the states had enacted "renewable portfolio standards"
(RPS) requiring electric utilities to obtain portions of their power from sources legislatively defined as renewable. n1 On
August 4, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a national RPS, but the Senate failed to pass a
comparable provision. n2 Supporters of a national RPS have long viewed it as an environmental measure that can also slow
the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG). n3 They have more recently argued that it is, among others, an industrial
policy to create manufacturing jobs and revitalize declining regions, a market intervention that could lower energy prices, a
stimulus to development of new technologies, an instrument for risk management, a trade policy initiative, and a weapon in
the war on terrorism. n4
RPS Neg 126
Politics – Plan Unpopular – Coal Lobby

The plan would be unpopular – the coal lobby is buying immense influence in Congress
Boston Globe, 8 (Editorial from Loie Hayes, “Green and coal don't exactly mix ,” 6-8-2008,
www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/08/coal_gasification_is_dirty_and_unproven/) // JMP
I wonder if the legislators who think coal gasification is a green energy source also believed Ronald Reagan when he argued
that ketchup should count as a vegetable in school lunch programs. "Coal gasification" and "green energy" don't belong
together in the same sentence, let alone in legislation that's supposed to lessen our dependence on dirty fuels.
State subsidies should not be used to tilt the market toward technologies that tear the tops off mountains, dumps the refuse
into valleys, and buries toxins in the nation's shrinking fresh water supply. The coal lobby - and the Big Ag lobby behind the
biofuels boondoggle - are already buying up every politician within reach!
Legislators should cut these two poison pills from the energy overhaul bill that is otherwise a wonderful breath of fresh air
from Beacon Hill.
Plan is unpopular – hundreds of congress people are tied to coal interests
Bloomberg, 8 (Jim Efstathiou Jr., “Rio Tinto Says U.S. Must Spend Billions for Clean-Coal Devices,” 6-2-2008,
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKVuoOkwQtkI&refer=australia) // JMP
Wind and Solar

``This isn't going to pass this year,'' Ned Helme, president of the utility industry-funded Center for Clean Air Policy in
Washington, said at a May 28 press conference.
Doubling the annual research budget to $100 million for wind energy would provide turbines that supply 20 percent of the
nation's power by 2030, said Liz Salerno, manager of policy analysis for the Washington-based American Wind Energy
Association. Wind and solar together now supply just 2.4 percent of electricity demand.
That would require changing priorities in Congress. Tax credits for power produced from coal and natural gas totaled $13.7
billion from 2002 to 2007, versus $2.8 billion for renewable generation, according to an October 2007 study by the
Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm.
In the same period the U.S. Energy Department spent $1.4 billion for research on windmills and solar devices, compared with
$3.1 billion on technology to cut emissions from coal.
Coal Interests
``You've got 150 to 200 members of the U.S. Congress with coal in their district and at the moment only one or two with
solar-thermal,'' Representative Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington, said in a May 15 interview. ``We have to
accommodate some realities.''
RPS Neg 127
Politics – Bush Will Veto

Senate doesn’t support an RPS and Bush will veto it
[*53] The Senate has supported an RPS in the past, but there were significant roadblocks this time around. Most
prominently, even if the House and Senate had been able to come to some sort of consensus, the Bush Administration had
indicated that the President would veto any energy legislation that included, among other things, n21 an RPS or tax increases
on the oil industry. n22 Instead, the President favors "expanded U.S. production, new fuel economy standards and a big
mandate for ethanol and other alternative fuels." n23 The final legislation apparently allayed the President's concerns; the
President signed the bill into law on December 19, 2007. n24
RPS Neg 128
Politics – A2: Renewable Energy is Popular

Support for renewable energy doesn’t translate into support for an RPS
VI. Conclusion
Often lost in the debate about the value and appropriateness of a national RPS is that there is little dispute about the value and
appropriateness of renewable energy itself. Awareness that energy issues intersect with other key issues like national security
and climate change has never been higher. Support for renewable energy, at least as a concept, is overwhelming. n198 A
recent poll indicates that 85% of those polled believe that existing federal incentives for [*75] renewable energy
technologies should be extended. n199 Other polls have indicated support across the political spectrum for renewable energy
n200 and, more specifically, a renewable portfolio standard. n201
In addition, more than thirty states have taken some kind of legislative action to promote renewable energy programs, and
more programs are being proposed. n202 Some states have even increased their commitment to energy from renewable
resources. Colorado, for example, implemented a 10% RPS in 2004, against the wishes of the state's utilities; in 2007, "with
utility support, Colorado increased its RPS to 20% by 2020." n203
Public support, and even support from individual utilities, for renewable energy, of course, does not translate into national
support for a particular program, policy, or fuel source. The best methods for promoting and providing renewable energy -
and who should pay for it - are issues in search of a solution. Ultimately, though, renewable energy has moved well beyond
the theoretical stages. If desired, a national RPS can be efficiently and effectively implemented. That does not mean it would
not require significant upfront expense, and perhaps long-term expense, as well. But those risks face any energy policy,
including the status quo.
Even popular programs will be contentious because of funding issues and lobbying by the oil industry
San Francisco Chronicle, 8 (Zachary Coile, “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy,” 6-18-2008,
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL) // JMP
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in
danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year.
The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to
renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between
Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them.
The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are
making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind
turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts.
Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects,
said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take
six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed.
"It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said.
The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.
House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising
revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money.
The House first passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy credits by cutting subsidies to big oil
companies. The oil industry lobbied fiercely, President Bush vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it.
Last month, the House approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign
operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they called a stealth tax
increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation
forward.
RPS Neg 129
Politics – Popular with Congress

Growing pressure and global warming changes the political calculus – will generate more support.
Cooper, 7 – Senior Policy Director, Network for New Energy Choices (Chris, NNEC, “New Study Reveals Flaws in
Congressional Energy Debate,” 6-13-07,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/index.php?blog_entry_id=168&page=fullstory&rd=pages&sd=df, AG)
Over the next few weeks Congress will take up the Democrat’s Energy Bill. Among the most controversial issues is a
national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring utilities to use more renewable resources to produce the nation’s
electricity. Congress has debated - and rejected - an RPS 17 times in the last 10 years. But this year, bipartisan support and
increased pressure to address global warming give the proposal a fighting chance.
There is growing political support for clean energy legislation
Politically, global warming and clean energy legislation is big business, with about 200 members of the House and Senate
now signatories on bills in this area. Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain are all
running on platforms of energy autonomy. Each has significant plans to address global warming.
RPS Neg 130
Politics – Public Supports RPS

There is massive bipartisan support for a national RPS among potential voters
AWEA, 7 (American Wind Energy Association, “New Poll Shows Overwhelming Bipartisan Support for National Renewable Electricity
Standard,” 11-13-2007, www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Poll_Shows_Bipartisan_Support_111207.html) // JMP
A new poll of potential 2008 voters by Zogby International found that Americans across the political spectrum support a new
national standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than 20 states. The poll, commissioned by the
American Wind Energy Association, documents growing support for renewable energy and growing concern about energy
independence as top domestic priorities for potential 2008 voters.
Highlights of the survey include:
93 percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority”;
77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-identified
conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats agreed that the
Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least some of their electricity come from
renewable sources such as wind and solar; and
64 percent of those polled disagree with the proposition that the federal government is doing enough to promote clean
renewable energy.
“This demonstrates the tremendous level of bipartisan support across our nation for a renewable electricity standard”
commented Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), who authored the renewable electricity standard provision approved by the
House of Representatives earlier this year. “It is crystal clear the public wants Congressional action to increase the role of
clean domestic energy, like wind and solar power, in meeting America’s electricity needs. The House took an important step
towards that goal in August, and it is critical that a renewable electricity standard be included in any final energy package that
comes to the floor.”
Public support is growing for a national RPS
Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for
a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of
Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains:
Is Congress?
There is significant public and business support for a 20% RPS
Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard,
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp)
Conclusion: A 20% Renewable Electricity Standard is achievable, affordable and good policy for the United States.
Studies by EIA and UCS demonstrate that a 20% RPS is achievable and affordable and would bring significant
environmental, security, and economic development benefits to the United States. A national renewable electricity standard is
backed by strong support from the public and a wide range of business and community leaders. Polling by the Mellman
Group showed that an overwhelming majority (70%) of the public supports a 20% national standard.5 In addition, over 700
businesses, organizations, and academic and elected officials have voiced support for a national renewable energy standard
RPS Neg 131
Politics – Public Supports RPS
RPS is popular with the public
UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007,
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP
Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe, professor in
the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.
"These policies have proven popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American citizens already live in
Congressional districts with an RPS."
Public supports federal incentives to expand renewable
AWEA, 8 (American Wind Energy Association, “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for
Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll,” 1-22-2008, www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html) // JMP
Washington, DC (January 22, 2008) – By a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should extend
incentives that encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll released today by the
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in the United States, with almost 6,000 megawatts
(MW) of new renewable energy coming on line, infusing some $20 billion in new investment into the economy. But the
federal production tax credit (PTC) and tax incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the
end of this year.
The survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable energy, in a
poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the statement, “The federal government
should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar
power.” Just 12% disagree.
“The results confirm that Americans, by an overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy,”
said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. “In 2007, tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of thousands of
jobs for Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these incentives.”
Zogby International conducted an online survey of 7,106 adults from January 18 to January 21, 2008. A sampling of Zogby’s
online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were
added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error is +/- 1.2
percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
RPS Neg 132
Election DA – Obama Solves the Case

Obama supports an RPS
The Democratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy portfolio of at least 25 percent of
electricity from clean energy sources by 2025, and all three candidates are in favor of cap-and-trade systems to build
greenhouse gas markets. It is vital, but politically challenging, to make sure that all emissions credits are auctioned, not given
away to large polluters. We are now in a moment - perhaps a first - where a growing view exists that energy and climate
could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters. The time is right to focus on the energy system we want, not on the
one we had, and sadly, still have.
Obama will expand renewables
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has proposed investing $150
billion over the next decade for investments in alternative energy, including wind, solar and biodiesel. His rival for the
nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, is also proposing a $150 billion 10-year investment in a "new energy
future."
President has enormous influence on positively influence energy policy
Richardson, 8 – former US Secretary of Energy

(Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 172)
The president and the government have enormous power to change this – far more than an energy secretary or Congress. The
president can lay out the vision, the benefits, the conveniences (charge up instead of fill up and tune up) of the plug-in car.
He (or she) can ask the country to consider this plug-in car option, and ride in one himself. The president can hold a white
House summit on low-and no-petroleum vehicles within thirty days of taking office and ask automakers, labor, utilities, and
scientists to show how we can achieve aggressive plug-in car targets (not a plan, but an actual policy program).
In the United States, only the President (and perhaps a great and trusted leader like the late Martin Luther King) really has the
bully pulpit. I plan to sue that bully pulpit for the purpose of uniting Americans behind programs like the plug-in car that are
essential to reducing our dependence on oil. Unlike the current residents of the White House, I won’t set small goals, I won’t
prefer oil and gas production, and I won’t scoff at or undermine efforts to address climate change. I will jawbone
automakers, labor, members of Congress. I know how it’s done. I know many of the players very well. I expect results.
RPS Neg 133
Election DA – McCain Doesn’t Support Clean Energy

McCain’s record proves that he doesn’t support clean energy – including renewable standards
Sustainable Business, 8 (“Presidential Race Turns to Energy,” 5-13-2008,

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16008) // JMP
However, McCain's comments drew critical responses.

Sierra Club Executive Direct, Carl Pope, said in a statement. "While Senator McCain deserves credit for his work on early
global warming legislation in the Senate and for bringing attention to the need for urgent action, his plan is driven by
yesterday's solutions and they won't solve tomorrow's problems. The science on global warming has changed dramatically
over the last five years and Senator McCain's previous bill and current proposals are outdated and fail to provide the big
changes Americans are demanding."
Barack Obama criticized McCain's voting record in the Senate, which suggests McCain may only be saying what he needs to
win votes from independents and centrist Democrats, many of whom undoubtedly have seen McCain's numerous appearances
on the popular, left-leaning "Daily Show" on Comedy Central.
"It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent
effort to actually invest in clean energy," Obama said.
"While Senator McCain talks about the need to invest in alternative energy, he rejected the single biggest investment in
renewable energy in history, including incentives that contributed to a nearly 50% increase in wind power generation last
year, and he has repeatedly opposed renewable fuel mandates and higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks,"
Obama continued.
McCain has empirically not supported renewables
NYT, 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller, “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue,” 6-17-2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) // JMP
Mr. McCain, who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy
standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what he
considers his stark environmental divide with Mr. Bush.
RPS Neg 134
Election DA – McCain Solves the Case

McCain will expand renewables
Senator John McCain, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for the November presidential election, has also said he
supports wind energy. McCain even chose a wind energy facility in Portland, Oregon, as the setting for a policy speech on
global warming last week.
McCain supports strong climate control policies
NYT, 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller, “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue,” 6-17-2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) // JMP
Perhaps Mr. McCain’s biggest departure from the president is on climate change. Mr. McCain has called for mandatory limits
on greenhouse gas emissions, unlike Mr. Bush, who says such limits would be bad for the economy. Mr. McCain also
supports a “cap and trade” system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like
carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying credits from more efficient producers.
RPS Neg 135
Specification Necessary
Specification is important – the way an RPS is designed has a big impact on its effectiveness
Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
“The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK
VII. Design Details Matter

RPS design and implementation can be quite complex, and analyses demonstrate that the details can make a big difference in
its effectiveness and overall costs and benefits. For example, a 2003 EIA analysis looked at the impact of a lower RPS cost
cap. EIA's analysis from the previous year examined a 10 percent RPS with a REC price cap of 3 cents per kWh, indexed to
inflation. EIA's 2003 analysis assumed a cost cap of 1.5 cents without inflation adjustment, limiting REC prices in 2025 to
only 0.8 cents in real dollars. Ironically, EIA found that reducing the cost cap increases the cost of the RPS and decreases the
benefits.30 As inflation lowers the value of the cost cap, more utilities pay the non-compliance penalty rather than develop
more renewable energy. The result is less renewable energy, less natural gas savings, and fewer economic and environmental
benefits.
Other design details can also impact the benefits of an RPS. A 2002 EIA study found that removing a sunset provision would
lower REC prices, and lead to full compliance with the annual targets. Removing the sunset provision also changed the RPS
from having a slight increase in electricity costs of 0.1 cents per kWh to slightly reduced electricity prices.31 In addition,
specific renewable energy resource tiers or REC multipliers—such as for solar or distributed generation technologies—are
designed to promote diversity and increase grid reliability while giving a boost to emerging technologies. The tradeoff is that
the cost of compliance can be higher with a resource tier,32 and the amount of renewable energy generation required can be
less with REC multipliers.33 Vintage requirements for eligible technologies can also play a large role in determining the
amount of new development needed to meet the annual targets. Allowing generation from existing facilities to count towards
compliance provides flexibility and rewards early adopters, but it also undermines a primary goal of the RPS—additionality
of renewable energy generation—and can reduce the economic and environmental benefits.

Rps Neg 1 Index: 7 Week Juniors - CPHS Lab

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rps Neg 1 Index: 7 Week Juniors - CPHS Lab

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RPS Neg 1

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

National RPS is imminent

High oil prices are driving huge investment in renewables

Investment in renewable is inevitable

Silverstein, 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider

Silverstein, 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider

Wind Power Inevitable

There will be a major increase in wind power

Wind power is expanding now

Wind Power Inevitable

Wind power is growing globally to record levels

Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

A federal RPS will create jurisdictional conflicts with States

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

VI. State RPS Experiences

B Integrating RPS with existing regulation

Solvency – RPS = Uncertainty

C. RECs: Where Will They Come From and How to Decide?

Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement

Individual State RPSs prove non-compliance is the norm

VI How RPS Really Works

CA proves lack of compliance and enforcement

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement

No compliance and enforcement – State RPSs prove

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

Solvency – RECs aren’t Enforceable

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

C. RPS as Risk Management Policy

Solvency – DOE Can’t Enforce

DOE can’t effectively enforce

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met

No existing RPS has met original goals.

Even a 10% RPS by 2020 is unrealistic

NAM 7 - National association of Manufactureres

The RPS Amendment is Unrealistic

Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met

AP, 8 (“Why are electric rates rising?” 6-24-08, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=6225366) –CMM

Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met

Solvency – Transmission and Intermittency Problems

Transmission is a precondition for RPS solvency

Intermittency kills solvency

Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed

D. The Great Unknown: Operational and Infrastructure Implications

Expanding wind power requires a massive expansion in transmission infrastructure

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed

Wind will require the expensive addition of new transmission

Solvency – RECs Won’t Expand Renewables

RECs won’t guarantee the distribution of renewables

C Renewables and risk

Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

Solvency – Federal RPS Not Key to Expand Renewables

RPS not key to cost reductions and expansion of renewables

Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

State RPSs empirically prove our argument