If some think tanks get their way, green energy standards will get red lighted. The Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council are now headed to those 29 states that have adopted such laws to explain that they defy free market principles and that they are therefore increasing electricity prices.
English: The , also known as the Green Mountain Energy Wind Farm, near . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Exacting a threshold by which utility companies must supply green energy is not just arbitrary but also expensive, forcing consumers to buy products that they may not typically select, the groups say. In other words, if businesses and households want clean energy, private firms will supply it. Otherwise, consumers will pick those fuel sources that are cheaper and more reliable.
Little dispute there. But the two think tanks at issue have a long trail -- one that has tried to discredit green energy sources so that the fossil fuels can maintain their substantive lead supplying electric generators. To that end, the Heartland Institute and ALEC, as it is known, get much of their financial backing from oil and coal interests. Those same groups are also bankrolling studies that are challenging climate science while downplaying any success that so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards are having, making their findings and subsequent attempts to roll back those laws disingenuous.
“Projects face a number of hurdles,” says Sara Kamins, energy advisor to the California Public Utilities Commission. “But our forecasts show we can achieve 33 percent with projects under development -- and we have 7 more years to get there.” Sempra Energy, Southern California Edison and PG&E Corp. are all keeping pace.
As for California, it strives to have a third of its generation mix in the form of green energy, all part of a law that the state enacted in 2011. The latest 2012 data indicates that green fuels now comprise 20 percent of the portfolio there: Wind is at 63 percent while geothermal and solar photovoltaic (PV) are at 17 percent and 11 percent, respectively. By 2020, the California Public Utilities Commission expects wind and solar PV to make up 35 percent and 37 percent of that 33 percent target.
California, like other states that are in the midst of carrying out their green energy goals, is constrained by the amount of space it has available on its transmission system. Meanwhile, reserving room for those energy sources that only run when the blows or the sun shines is problematic, along with getting the necessary permits to construct any new wires projects.
What then are some practical steps to ease the path forward? Load shaping, which simply means that customers must be given price signals so that they are motivated to shift their energy use from peak periods to later in the evening when the demand eases up, says Bob Foster, chair of the California Independent System Operator that manages the state’s grid.
“If this experiment fails in California, it will damage the whole renewables experience” around the country, he adds.
Critics such as Heartland and ALEC are saying that most base-load generators are designed to go all-day, every-day and not to crank up and down so that they can back up wind and solar. Operating as such, they add, is not just inefficient but also a dirty proposition that results in more pollution.
That concerns Ray Orbach, who is the director of the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute. Orbach says that switching from coal to natural gas can have a more profound impact on carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions than certain renewable standards. That’s because natural gas combined cycles are an efficient form of making electricity.
Ideally, “There needs to be a CO2 standard, not an arbitrary goal for wind and solar,” says Orbach. Those carbon dioxide levels, in fact, have been dropping in the United States because of evolutions in the composition of electric generation -- from coal to natural gas, predicated on price structure and federal regulations.
For its part, California has enacted carbon constraints and has recently held an auction to help it achieve that goal. But such cap-and-trade programs are a rarity nationwide. Therefore, the path of least resistance is the pursuit of state-led Renewable Portfolio Standards, say advocates.
State standards do require utilities to funnel investments in new technologies that they may not otherwise make. But the thinking behind those mandates is that they reduce the barriers to entry and help build economies of scale. In most cases, the green energy rules have been tweaked but never repealed.
The Environmental Defense Fund points to Texas and Michigan. It says that Texas passed such a green energy standard in 1999 and that the state met its goal six years later. Renewable resources, it adds, have helped reduce energy prices especially during those volatile periods when natural gas prices had spiked. In Michigan, meanwhile, the public service commission there says that the 10 percent target by 2015 is saving money for energy customers, largely because the price of future advanced coal generation is greater than the current subsidized price of green power.
“Ten years ago (RPS) was solely the province of the public utility commissions, but now the legislatures are fully involved in these decisions,” says Lewis Milford, president of the Clean Energy Group. “Not only do they see the environmental benefits, but also the economic benefits, so there has been a democratization of renewables policy.”
Heartland and ALEC have a belief in the free market economy. But they also have their bread buttered by fossil fuel interests, which ultimately slants their joint attempt to reverse state-wide green energy standards. Letting such laws play out is their best course of action, especially since the American people expressed an inherent preference for alternative energy on election day.
