Missouri RPS and Proposition C

Clean Edge reports today that Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, "recently" signed legislation to create a statewide RPS:

This legislation furthers my commitment to Missouri's Green Power Initiative by increasing energy production in our state while practicing responsible environmental stewardship by increasing the use of renewable energy.

Oddly, it appears that the Governor signed this bill back in June 2007; it seems that with so much green in the news it's hard to stay current. What is recent, however, is that Missourians passed Proposition C, the Green Power Initiative to demand a state RPS. Colorado and Washington also have a state RPS through citizen initiatives.

The legislation, Senate Bill 54 [PDF] set targets of 4% by 2012, 8% by 2015 and 11% by 2020 towards which "electric companies shall make good-faith efforts." The targets were voluntary and applied only to investor-owned (rather than municpal) utilities.

Proposition C makes the targets mandatory, but still only applicable to investor-owned utilities. The targets are 2% by 2011, 5% by 2014, 10% by 2018 and 15% by 2021, representing a relaxation in the early years comapred to SB54, but a more stringent requirement in later years, suggesting the difficulty of achieving the target in a state with fewer easily harnessed renewable resources.

Columbia, Missouri has had its own RPS. It isn't clear how the local and state standards will mesh, a problem similar to that of how a state RPS would fit with the proposed national one.

RPS: Federal, State or Both?

President-elect Obama has stated unequivocally that the top priority in his new administration will be energy policy. A key element of that policy is a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 10% by 2012 and 25% by 2025. A national RPS would require a minimum percentage of electrical generation to come from renewable sources, but raises several questions:

• What counts as a renewable source? Existing state RPS vary widely. For example, Washington and California do not count conventional hydropower, whereas Arizona and others do.
• How will resource disparity be handled? Some states have considerably greater renewable resources than others; some states will have a much harder time than others meeting a national percentage standard. States in the southeast of the country in particular will be at a disadvantage lacking both wind and marine resources generally.
• What will be the timeline? State RPS vary widely, as do the current percentages from renewable sources in each state.
• What is the relationship between a national RPS and a state RPS? Does a national RPS replace, augment or provide a baseline for a state RPS?

It will be a considerable challenge to implement a national RPS with more than half of all states having a current state RPS. The national RPS can benefit, perhaps, from using state RPS as models and carefully assessing the experience of the various states.

Meanwhile, California continues to exercise leadership. California had one of the earliest RPS--20% by 2010. Thursday the California Public Utilities Commission announced that the goal won't be met by all utilities until 2013. Governor Schwarzenegger has previously set a longer-term state goal of 33% by 2020 and the CPUC added its support for enacting the Governor's goal into law, even though they estimate it could cost about $60B. Debate on the RPS in the California legislature is likely in the coming session.

For utilities, developers and others, the big question is what RPS goals and mandates will be operative in the coming years. More aggressive targets are likely, and in the short term existing projects will certainly go forward. Inasmuch as a RPS affects the supply and demand relationship of electricity generation it affects the future price of electricity, which in turn is one of the largest factors in determining whether and which projects receive financial backing.

How will a national RPS fit with an existing state RPS? There are several possibilities; for example:

• The national RPS replaces the state RPS and the state RPS is abolished.
  This has the advantage of simplicity, but it ignores the variability of state situations, resources available, and progress already made--for many states this would be a step backwards.
• The national RPS applies only to states that lack a state RPS.
  This would generate incentives for renewables everywhere, boosting demand. Each state would presumably soon write their own RPS to adapt better to their particular situation.
• The national RPS provides a baseline for each individual state's RPS.
  States without a RPS would be subject to the national RPS; states could have their own RPS, but the national RPS would set the standard anywhere the state RPS was lower. California already has this relationship for automobile emissions standards, and other states can choose to follow either the national or the Californian standards.

For any of these alternatives the core questions remain of what is a renewable resource and what standards are achievable on what timeline. Crafting one RPS nationally that can simultaneously incentivize renewable electricity generation and not provide unrealistic goals will be very difficult, perhaps impossible.

The purpose of a national RPS should be to encourage the development of renewably generated electricity (for both energy security and the salutary effect on climate change) and to nurture the developing renewable energy industry (and its economic benefits.) Meanwhile, it should not stall, frustrate, or roll back progress already made in individual states.

The federal government is in a position somewhat analogous to a school teacher with a room of 50+ students of vastly varying abilities and motivation. Some lead the class with their enthusiasm and accomplishments; others hope not to be called upon, lacking confidence in their skills and unsure of their abilities. Some by accident of birth or benefit of previous nurture have confidence and will quickly grow to meet challenges; others dwell in pessimism and watch the clock, hoping the class will be over soon.

How can a national RPS promote new sources of renewable energy given the disparities of the individual states? As with the classroom, for the national RPS to be effective, it must concentrate on bringing the laggards up to speed while not retarding the leaps of the star performers or squelching their desire to further excel. States such as Alabama, with no state RPS and relatively fewer natural renewable resources may need baby steps to get started and get going. States such as California need to be left to continue pursuing their own, higher standards, and providing leadership in innovation and commitment.

Election Offers Distinct Options

Worldwatch observes the importance of Tuesday's election on the future of green jobs, and notes that there are "distinct options":

With less than a week until the United States elects its next president, and at
a time when Americans are losing their jobs in record numbers, the two leading
candidates are suggesting that the financial crisis can be resolved by addressing the country's worsening energy crisis.

Combining job creation and energy policy into one economic stimulus plan is gaining steam among political and environmental leaders worldwide. Yet despite similar rationales, the plans presented by the Democratic and Republican candidates offer distinct options. And not all of the proposed jobs would truly be "green."

I've posted several items on the Green New Deal, and some of the other ballot measures in different states. As is typical of the election season the candidates are never wholly specific about what they will do, but despite the uncertainties of what is promised and what might be delivered, there are plenty of substantive elements voters should consider. While down-ballot races and initiatives certainly matter, the largest impact will come from who we elect as President for the next four years.

John McCain's energy plans heavily emphasize oil and nuclear, adding only a perfunctory nod to other approaches in a so-called "all of the above" policy. Oil is not the way forward. With 3% of the world's reserves and 25% of the world's consumption the United States cannot drill its way to energy security, even if all the oil could be feasibly extracted. Recent reports suggest peak oil may be much closer than previously thought--as soon as 5 years away. Nuclear power has gained adherents and public support; even some environmentalists such as Stewart Brand have softened their opposition in the face of climate change fears. However, nuclear has very long lead times, arduous permitting, unsolved waste disposal problems ("blah blah blah"), and uneconomical costs. Even if McCain succeeds in spurring the construction of 45 new nukes by 2030, it won't come close to solving our problems. Nuclear is not the way forward either. McCain offers nothing new.

Barack Obama's energy plans (PDF) emphasize updating the electrical grid, creating a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and investing $150B over 10 years in renewable energy development. Updating the grid is a critical infrastructure need and will allow better integration of variable renewable sources such as wind, as well as allow significantly greater energy efficiency at all levels. The cost for this is potentially astronomical (or should I say economical?) A national RPS is a good idea, and would prevent the kind of sophistry proposed by Washington State gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi to redefine the term "renewable" in a way that would vitiate any new renewable energy development under the state RPS. There are several problems that will be difficult to resolve, especially deciding what qualifies as renewable, and making it appropriate for windy states like North Dakota, states with big solar resources like Arizona, states with large hydrokinetic resources like Washington, and states with few renewable resources like those in the southeast. Obama's $150B is a good step, but more is needed, the neo-Hooverite objections must be met, and there are questions about how it would square with free trade agreements under the WTO. There are questions about Obama's proposals, yes, but they aren't nearly as fatal as those posed by McCain's proposals, and it is easier to see how answers might be found.

In summary, Obama offers an approach where America can lead in the global energy economy of the future, while McCain offers an almost nostalgic reprise of the policies that got us here. I don't like where we are, and the last thing we need is more foot-dragging in the face of a future that makes the old ways of thinking not only obsolete but dangerous to our economic and environmental health. Whether Obama can deliver, and whether it will make enough difference are questions not yet answerable, but what McCain offers, even if delivered in full, will not suffice.

I will vote for Obama. For the future of our environment, our energy needs and our economic well-being, I urge you to do the same.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski Unveils Clean Energy Agenda for 2009

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has an agenda for clean energy in 2009.

"Climate change is the most important environmental and economic issue of our
time," Kulongoski said as he laid out his proposal for new clean energy tax
incentives and ambitious goals he wants the 2009 Legislature to adopt. On Monday,
Governor Kulongoski said it's time to redouble the state's commitment to a clean
energy future. "In 2009, we must be bolder, more comprehensive and even more
visionary," Kulongoski said.

Key elements according to the Oregonian include:

• Greenhouse gas reduction: Authorizes regional cap-and-trade system for
carbon emissions; sets limits on emissions from the state's largest sources;
sets low-carbon standards for all new electricity generation
• Energy efficiency: Establishes energy performance certificates for new
homes or commercial buildings, similar to MPG ratings for new cars; sets goal of
zero-emission new buildings by 2030; allows 50 percent tax credit for
large-scale energy efficiency projects, up to $20 million
• Renewable energy: Sets up pilot program to pay for energy produced from
solar projects; establishes tax credit for residents who donate to a renewable
energy incentive fund
• Transportation: Offers $5,000 credit for purchase of new plug-in
hybrid or all-electric car; authorizes new low-carbon fuel standard similar to
those in Washington and California

Oregon gets it. Here in Washington we're still waiting for a comparably aggressive commitment to renewable energy and sustainability. We're having an election (surprise!) but I don't hear either of our gubernatorial candidates talking about anything other than what a scumbag the other is. (To be fair, one actually has some energy policy accomplishments; the other intends to gut our state's RPS by including existing hydro dams as a qualifying renewable energy source.) Please, can the election be over soon?