P. 1
KMT RPS Aff

KMT RPS Aff

|Views: 109|Likes:
Publicado porAffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/16/2011

Sections

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS – VERSION 1.0
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS – VERSION 1.0..................................................................................1 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................6 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................7 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................8 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................9 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................10 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................11 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................12 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................13 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................14 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................15 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................16 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................17 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................18 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................19 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................20 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................21 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................22 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................23 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................24 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................25 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................26 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................27 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................28 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................29 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................30 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................31 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................32 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................33 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................34 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................35 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................36 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................38 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................39 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................40 1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................41 INHERENCY EXTS – NO FEDERAL RPS.............................................................................................................42 WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................43 WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................44 WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................45 WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................46 WARMING EXTS – UTILITY INDUSTRY KEY...................................................................................................47 WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY............................................................................48 WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY............................................................................49 WARMING EXTS – POLAR BEAR KEYSTONE..................................................................................................50 WARMING EXTS – CLIMATE CHANGE OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR.......................................................51 1

SDI 2008 KMT Lab RPS - Aff WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST...............................................................................................52 WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – NUCLEAR WARS.............................................................................................53 WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – ECONOMY........................................................................................................54 WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – MARINE BIODIVERSITY KEY......................................................................55 ENVIRONMENT EXTS – CONVENTIONAL ENERGY  POLLUTANTS.......................................................56 ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SYSTEMIC DEATH IMPACTS...................................................................................57 ENVIRONMENT EXTS – POLLUTION  HEALTH HARMS............................................................................58 ENVIRONMENT EXTS – POLLUTION COSTLY.................................................................................................59 ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SMALL THRESHOLD TO SPECIES LOSS................................................................60 ENVIRONMENT EXTS – RPS PREVENTS WATER SHORTAGE......................................................................61 ECONOMY EXTS – JOBS MODULE......................................................................................................................62 ECONOMY EXTS – FOSSIL FUELS  HIGH ENERGY PRICES.......................................................................63 ECONOMY EXTS – OIL PRICES HIGH NOW......................................................................................................64 ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS........................................................................................................65 ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS........................................................................................................66 ECONOMY EXTS –RPS - PRICE STABILITY...................................................................................................67 ECONOMY EXTS – CLIMATE LEGISLATION KEY TO ECONOMY...............................................................68 ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES  ECONOMIC COLLAPSE................................................................69 ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES  ECONOMIC COLLAPSE................................................................70 ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES  CONFLICT.......................................................................................71 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – 2AC/1AR MUST READ.............................................................................72 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – THEY ARE COMING................................................................................73 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – THEY ARE COMING................................................................................74 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – BRINKS......................................................................................................75 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – TRANSMISSION KEY..............................................................................76 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – HARMS ECONOMY..................................................................................77 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – ECONOMY.................................................................................................78 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – AT: STATUS QUO SOLVES....................................................................79 ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – AT: SQUO SOLVES..................................................................................80 ECONOMY EXTS – RPS  JOB GROWTH..........................................................................................................81 ECONOMY EXTS – RPS  JOB GROWTH..........................................................................................................82 ECONOMY EXTS - RPS  JOB GROWTH..........................................................................................................83 ECONOMY EXTS - ↓ FOSSIL FUEL TRANSPORTATION COSTS....................................................................84 ECONOMY EXTS – RPS HELPS RURAL ECONOMIES......................................................................................85 ECONOMY EXTS – US ECONOMY KEY TO WORLD ECONOMY..................................................................86 ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS................................................................................................................................87 ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS................................................................................................................................88 ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS................................................................................................................................89 ECONOMY EXTS – PEAK OIL IMPACTS – EXTINCTION................................................................................90 NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS PRICES HIGH NOW.........................................................................91 NATURAL GAS EXTS – PRICES VOLATILE.......................................................................................................92 NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS HURTS MANUFACTURING SECTOR...........................................93 NATURAL GAS PRICES – HIGH PRICES  RECESSION.................................................................................94 NATURAL GAS EXTS – HIGH PRICES  RECESSION.....................................................................................95 NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES.....................................................................96 NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES.....................................................................97 NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES.....................................................................98 NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS  SHIFT FROM NATURAL GAS........................................................................99 2

SDI 2008 KMT Lab RPS - Aff DEPENDENCE EXTS – RPS KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN ENERGY DEPENDENCE..............................100 DEPENDENCE EXTS - RPS KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE.......................................101 DEPENDENCE EXTS – RENEWABLES KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE....................102 DEPENDENCE EXTS – WE ARE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL.................................................................103 DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENT ON LNG..................................................................................................104 DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL HIGH..........................................................105 DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................106 DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................107 DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................108 DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................109 DEPENDENCE EXTS – OIL DEPENDENCE  MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY.............................................110 DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS IRAN.................................................................................................................111 DEPENDENCE EXTS – HARMS DEMOCRACY PROMOTION........................................................................112 DEPENDENCE EXTS – MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY IMPACTS..................................................................113 DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM....................................................................................................114 DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM....................................................................................................115 DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM....................................................................................................116 DEPENDENCE EXTS - FUELS ANTI-WEST SENTIMENT..............................................................................117 DEPENDENCE EXTS – TERRORISM IMPACTS................................................................................................118 DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY..............................................................................................119 DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY..............................................................................................120 DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENCE  BW ATTACKS...............................................................................121 DEPENDENCE EXTS -  MILITARY INTERVENTIONS................................................................................122 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RPS KEY...............................................................................................................123 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RPS KEY...............................................................................................................124 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................125 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................126 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................127 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................128 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................129 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................130 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – GOVERNMENT ACTION NEEDED..................................................................131 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY........................................................................................132 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY........................................................................................133 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP KEY..........................................................134 COMPETITIVENESS ADV – HEGEMONY IMPACTS.......................................................................................135 COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO ECONOMY...........................................................................................136 SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP..............................................137 SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP..............................................138 SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN IS A MODEL..........................................................................................................139 SOFT POWER ADVANTAGE – IMPACTS..........................................................................................................140 SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS  RENEWABLES......................................................................................................141 SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS  RENEWABLES......................................................................................................143 SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS  RENEWABLES......................................................................................................144 SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY – EQUITY........................................................................................145 SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- NATIONAL GRID.........................................................................146 SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- FEDERAL LEADERSHIP.............................................................147 SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY – POST-PUCHA COMPLIANCE...................................................148 3

SDI 2008 KMT Lab RPS - Aff SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – LAUNDRY LIST.......................................................................149 SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................150 SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................151 .................................................................................................................................................................................151 SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................152 SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................153 .................................................................................................................................................................................153 SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COST..........................................................................................154 SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY - DIVERSE PORTFOLIOS...........................................................155 SOLVENCY EXTS – NO GEOGRAPHICAL EXCLUSIONS..............................................................................156 SOLVENCY EXTS – NO FREE RIDERS..............................................................................................................157 SOLVENCY EXTS – NO FREE RIDERS..............................................................................................................158 SOLVENCY EXTS – NO BUREAUCRACY.........................................................................................................159 SOLVENCY EXTS – NO WINNERS/LOSERS....................................................................................................160 SOLVENCY EXTS – NO RACE TO THE BOTTOM............................................................................................161 SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS NOT COST-PROHIBITIVE........................................................................................162 SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY...........................................................................................................................163 SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY...........................................................................................................................164 SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY...........................................................................................................................165 SOLVENCY EXTS – MARKET-BASED APPROACH SOLVES........................................................................166 SOLVENCY EXTS – MANDATE ON SALES KEY.............................................................................................167 SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO LAND SPACE......................................................................................................168 SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: INTERMITTENCY.....................................................................................................169 SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: LONG TIMEFRAME FOR RENEWABLES.............................................................170 SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO ENFORCEMENT.................................................................................................171 SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: HAMPERS STATE ACTION.....................................................................................172 SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD........................................................................................................173 SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD........................................................................................................174 SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD........................................................................................................175 SOLVENCY EXTS – SOLAR POWER GOOD.....................................................................................................176 T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE.........................................................................................................................177 T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVES.......................................................................................................................178 T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE.........................................................................................................................179 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................................180 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................................181 2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................................182 STATES CP EXTS – UNIFORMITY FIAT NOT REAL WORLD.......................................................................183 STATES CP EXTS – PERMUTATION..................................................................................................................184 STATES CP EXTS – INTERSTATE COMMERCE...............................................................................................185 STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE.................................................................................186 STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE.................................................................................187 STATES CP EXTS – FEDERAL  INVESTMENT.............................................................................................188 STATES CP EXTS – FEDERAL  INVESTMENT.............................................................................................189 STATES CP ANS – INVESTMENT KEY..............................................................................................................190 .................................................................................................................................................................................190 STATES CP ANS – CAN’T SOLVE ENVIRO LEADERSHIP.............................................................................191 STATES CP ANS – INDUSTRY PREFERS PLAN...............................................................................................192 2AC ENERGY EFFICIENCY COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS...............................................................................193 2AC COMMAND-AND-CONTROL CP ANS.......................................................................................................194 4

SDI 2008 KMT Lab RPS - Aff 2AC ENERGY SUBSIDIES CP ANSWERS..........................................................................................................195 2AC “EXCLUDE A UTILITY” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS............................................................................196 2AC “EXCLUDE AN ENERGY” PIC ANSWERS................................................................................................197 2AC “LOWER THE PERCENTAGE” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS..................................................................198 2AC “LOWER THE PERCENTAGE” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS..................................................................199 2AC SUNSET PROVISIONS CP FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................200 POLITICS DA – NON-UNIQUE.............................................................................................................................201 2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE...................................................................................................................202 2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL...............................................................................................203 . ................................................................................................................................................................................203 2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL...............................................................................................204 2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL...............................................................................................205 2AC BUSINESS CONFIDENCE FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................206 1AR BIZ CON EXTS – UTILITIES SUPPORT RPS.............................................................................................207 2AC SPENDING DA FRONTLINE........................................................................................................................208 2AC COAL DA FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................209 2AC COAL DA FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................210 2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE...................................................................................211 2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE...................................................................................212 1AR EXTS – NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF – RPS NOT AFFECT...............................................................213 ENVIRO K ANSWERS – HUMAN INTERVENTION NECESSARY.................................................................214

5

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
OBSERVATION I: THE FAILURE OF THE STATES THE STATUS QUO IS PLAGUED WITH A MISMATCH OF STATE-BASED RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS. THE MISMASH OF REGULATIONS IS DETERRING INVESTMENT INTO RENEWABLES – A FEDERAL APPROACH IS DESPERATELY NEEDED INSIDE F.E.R.C. 2008 [“Article: Hodgepodge of state RPS programs clouds fundamental purpose, Moeller says, MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION, March 28, http://construction.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0249-277346/Hodgepodge-of-state-RPS-programs.html / ttate] The mishmash of renewable portfolio standards among states is clouding the primary intent behind such programs,
Commissioner Philip Moeller told a Washington audience Thursday.

States have a variety of definitions "of what's considered an acceptable renewable," Moeller told the EUCI renewable portfolio standard symposium. And states are mixed on whether they allow renewable energy credits (RECs) for energy generated in outlying regions. Having an assortment of rules creates much confusion, Moeller held. "Obviously, developers aren't thrilled with it. But it also misses a
fundamental policy question as to what are we trying to get at. Are we trying to reduce our concentration of carbon emissions or are we trying to stimulate in-state economic development or are we trying to outdo our neighboring state in terms of a higher percentage [of renewables] in a shorter period of time?"

The federal RPS concept has been under debate for the last 15 years or more, Moeller pointed out. But lately the idea has been gaining momentum. "If we want to go down that road, that's fine, but we're going to need to know what we're doing," he cautioned. And although FERC doesn't
have jurisdiction over RPS standards, the commission is doing what it can to get renewables connected to the grid, encourage investment in new transmission infrastructure and, "in very limited cases," promote the development of renewable generation, he said. The commissioner declined to say whether FERC should be given the lead in regulating a federal RPS and/or REC market. "I have plenty of work on my plate right now, so I'm not looking for more," he said in an interview following the panel discussion. "But if Congress deems that they want us to do it, I will happily be part of dealing with it." Currently, 25 states and Washington, D.C., have RPS standards. Also, four states have non-binding renewable goals. Some states are in favor of a federal RPS, while others believe it would be a detriment, said Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Commissioner Anne George. "States often feel that we do a better job of it than the federal government," she explained.

That said, she believes a federal RPS would create a more consistent process. Yet any federal RPS should not pre-empt or disrupt
state standards, nor should it include a mandate to include costs of such a program in retail rates, George cautioned. The Florida Public Service Commission strongly supports renewable energy but believes a federal RPS would limit choices and increase energy costs, said Bob Niekum, director of wholesale power for Progress Energy Florida. Viable renewable generation in Florida is limited to biomass, residential solar and industrial waste heat, he explained. And there are very little hydro and wind energy resources in the state. So under a federal RPS, Florida utilities would be forced to import renewables. PJM Interconnection has made enough changes to its interconnection and planning process to "be flexible enough to reflect a federal RPS," said William Whitehead, executive director of state government policy for PJM. One challenge for utilities in PJM will be that a majority of wind resources are clustered in locations outside of the region, he said. The key question is whether all the RPS credit

any federal RPS should include a renewable energy credit for interstate and international renewable electricity imports.
systems could be linked to make the RECs work, said Carrie Plemons, PPM Energy director of renewable origination. She suggests that States are tweaking their RPS programs more and more now compared to previous years, said Kevin Porter, of Exeter Associates and part-author of a report on state RPS programs in 2007 that is expected to be published this week. Porter highlighted portions of the draft report, which includes data from DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, during the EUCI symposium Wednesday. He said four states started RPS programs last year and 10 revised their existing requirements. States have increased the stringency of their RPS targets, expanded the list of eligible resources, extended RPS requirements to include public utilities and electric cooperatives or gave public utilities greater leniency in meeting targets. Also, some states decided to allow energy efficiency into RPS programs, he said.

RPS policies have been the major drivers for developing renewable energy, Porter added. In 2007, about 76% of renewable capacity
additions were made in states with RPS programs. "If all goes well," said Porter, roughly 56,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity could be installed by 2020.

6

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
THUS, THE PLAN (VERSION 1.0): THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REQUIRE THAT RETAIL POWER PROVIDERS PROVIDE, AT A MINIMUM, 20% OF THEIR NET ELECTRICITY DEMAND THROUGH QUALIFIED RENEWABLE SOURCES BY 2020. A SYSTEM OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS WILL BE INCLUDED TO FACILITATE COMPLIANCE.

7

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: GLOBAL WARMING OUR CONTINUED RELIANCE ON CONVENTIONAL ENERGY IS LEADING US TO CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE – ONLY A PLAN THAT SPURS RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN PREVENT APOCALYPTIC CLIMATE EVENTS – WE MUST ACT NOW LASHOFF, senior scientist @ Natural Resources Defense Council, 2006 [Dan, “Energy Efficiency and Conservation”, June 22, lexis/nalepka] Oil dependence is a critical link between national security and global warming. The oil we burn in our cars and trucks is responsible for a third of U.S. global warming pollution. Passenger vehicles alone contribute 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide and 13 million tons of smog-forming emissions from tailpipes every year. The recent alarming trends of arctic melting, extended drought, and severe storms suggest that the effects of global warming are being felt more rapidly than expected.21 Global warming itself threatens the security of the United States not only by supercharging hurricanes, but also because it has the potential to destabilize regimes by creating millions of environmental refugees and intensifying conflicts over water resources in semi-arid regions. To avoid catastrophic global climate change the U.S. and other nations will need to deploy energy resources that result in much lower releases of CO2 than today's use of oil, gas and coal. To keep global temperatures from rising to levels not seen since before the dawn of human civilization, the best expert opinion is that we need to get on a pathway now to allow us to cut global warming emissions by 60-80% from today's levels over the decades ahead. The technologies we choose to
meet our future energy needs must have the potential to perform at these improved emissions levels. Most serious climate scientists now warn that there is a very short window of time for beginning serious emission reductions if we are to avoid truly dangerous global warming without severe economic impact. Delay makes the job harder. The National Academy of Sciences recently stated: "Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gases will make the job much harder in the future - both in terms of stabilizing their atmospheric abundances and in terms of experiencing more significant

a slow start means a crash finish - the longer emissions growth continues, the steeper and more disruptive the cuts required later.
impacts." In short,
The Enhanced Energy Security Act focuses appropriately on measures that would simultaneously reduce oil dependence and global warming pollution. The National Coal Council and others, by contrast, have proposed launching a massive program to replace oil with a synthetic liquid fuel produced from coal using a process known as Fischer-Tropsch. Such a step would have devastating environmental consequences: potentially doubling carbon dioxide emissions per gallon of gasoline replaced, and increasing the devastating effects of coal mining felt by communities and ecosystems stretching from Appalachia to the Rocky Mountains. Fortunately, we have better, less controversial options that can reduce our oil dependence more quickly, more cheaply, and more cleanly than coal-to-liquids To assess the global warming implications of alternative fuels we need to examine the total life-cycle or "well-to-wheel" emissions. Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing almost double the amount of carbon per unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 20 percent more than petroleum. When coal is converted to liquid fuels, two streams of CO2 are produced: one at the coal-toliquids production plant and the second from the exhausts of the vehicles that burn the fuel. With the technology in hand today and on the horizon it is difficult to see how a large coal-to-liquids program can be compatible with the low-CO2-emitting transportation system we need to design to prevent global warming. Well-to-Wheels CO2 Emissions from Alternative Fuels FT (Coal)GasolineGasoline (Tar Sands)FT (Coal CCD)Ethanol (Corn Coal)Ethanol (Today)Ethanol (Corn NG)BiodieselEthanol (Corn Biomass)Ethanol (Cellulose)Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD)Ethanol (Cellulose CCD)-1001020304050601lbs CO2/gal gasoline equivalentFT (Coal)Gasoline (Tar Sands)FT (Coal CCD)GasolineEthanol (Corn Coal)Ethanol (Today)Ethanol (Corn NG)BiodieselEthanol (Corn Biomass)Ethanol (Cellulose)Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD)Ethanol (Cellulose CCD) Today, our system of refining crude oil to produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other transportation fuels, results in a total well-to-wheels emissions rate of about 27.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. Based on available information about coal-to- liquids plants being proposed, the total well-to-wheels CO2 emissions from such plants would be about 49.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon -- twice as high as conventional petroleum based fuels. Even if the CO2 from coal-to-liquids plants is captured, well-to- wheels CO2 emissions would still be higher than emissions from today's crude oil system. Capturing 90 percent of the emissions from coal-to-liquid plants would lower plant emissions to levels close to petroleum production and refining, while vehicle emissions would be equivalent to those from gasoline. However, even with CO2 capture, the well-to-wheels emissions would be 8 percent higher than from petroleum. This comparison indicates that using coal to produce a significant amount of liquids for transportation fuel would not be compatible with the need to develop a low-CO2 emitting transportation sector. Liquid fuel from coal contains the same amount of carbon as gasoline or diesel made from crude, so the potential for achieving significant CO2 emission reductions compared to crude is inherently limited. Biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, offer much greater potential to reduce oil dependence and cut CO2 emissions. We already use ethanol in our fuel supply and significant

Renewable biofuels are a cheaper, cleaner and more readily available alternative that could displace imported oil, help revitalize the rural economy, and lower CO2 emissions.
investments are pouring into the biofuels industry to help it grow.

Transforming our transportation sector by mobilizing the use of efficient technologies, diversifying fuel choices at the pump to include clean, renewable fuels, and offering mass transit options for commuters, such as light rail, is essential to ensuring that our pursuit of energy security also enables us to tackle the urgent challenge of global warming.

Fortunately, technology is available today that can give us a robust and effective program to reduce oil dependence. To cut our dependence on oil we should follow a simple rule: start with the measures that will produce the quickest, cleanest and least expensive reductions in oil use; measures that will put us on track to achieve the reductions in global warming emissions we need to protect the climate. As we describe in the attached report, a combination of more efficient transportation, biofuels, "smart growth" policies and oil savings measures in other sectors, could reduce our oil demand by as much as 40 percent by 2025 (see "oil savings toolbox" below). 8

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
CONTINUED GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE DIE-OFF OF CORAL REEFS – WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE BIODIVERSITY LOSS, ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE, AND STARVATION FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS HAWORTH 07-11-2008 [Jenny, staff writer, “Corals at risk and we are to blame”, THE SCOTSMAN, Lexis / Nam] A THIRD of the world's reef corals are at risk because of climate change and other human activities, scientists have warned. Carbon dioxide levels, coastal development, sewage discharge and overfishing are all putting coral species at the threat of extinction. Scientists said urgent conservation measures were needed or there could be mass biodiversity loss, and an impact on the hundreds of millions of people who rely on reef fish for food. The authors of a
study published in the journal Science assessed 845 tropical reef-building species and found that, of the 704 for which sufficient information existed to judge the risks they faced, 231 or 33 per cent, were under threat of extinction. When this was broadened out to include species that were "near threatened", 407 species - more than half of those assessed by the scientists - were at risk. The report's authors warned: "Our results emphasise the widespread plight of coral reefs and the urgent need to enact conservation measures." They said the results showed the extinction risks for corals had increased dramatically over the past decade and now exceeded those for all terrestrial animal groups, apart from amphibians. The Caribbean has the largest proportion of species in the high extinction risk categories, the study said, while the Coral Triangle in the

threats were the result of rising levels associated with climate change, as well as local human impacts. The raised levels of had increased sea surface temperatures, leading to the "bleaching" of corals, and made the oceans more acidic, which harms the coral's ability to build its skeleton. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted increased acidification of the oceans by the end of the century, and Dr Alex Rogers, one of the study's authors, said this presented "disastrous scenarios" for corals. The research warned destructive
western Pacific has the highest proportion of species in all categories of extinction risk. The scientists said the fishing, sewage, coastal development and the use of agricultural chemicals were all reducing the ability of corals to withstand the threats caused by climate change and to rebuild reefs. Dr Rogers, a senior research fellow at the Zoological Society of London's Institute of Zoology, said: "The resilience of corals to bleaching and ability to recover is heavily influenced by other stresses the corals are under, such as overfishing or destructive fishing, declining water quality and nutrient loading from agrochemicals." While coral reefs cover no more than 0.2 per cent of the earth's surface, they host to up to two million species, with a quarter of all marine fish species

"In terms of humans, they are massively important as a source of food, and globally it is estimated they deliver ecosystem services of GBP 15.2 billion," Dr Rogers said. "They also have major effects on coastal protection from storms and flooding." The study concluded that whether corals become extinct this century will depend on the severity of climate change, the extent of other environmental disturbances and the ability of corals to adapt. "If corals cannot adapt, the cascading effects of the functional loss of reef ecosystems will threaten the geologic structure of reefs and their coastal protection function, and have huge effects on food security for hundreds of millions of people dependent on reef fish," it warned.
found there.

9

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY – LEADS TO FOOD SHORTAGES, STATE FAILURE, RACISM, AND NATURAL DISASTERS LOVELL 2007 [Jeremy, staff writer, “Global Warming Impact Like ‘Nuclear War’, September 13,
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/2186/36 / ttate] The IISS report said the effects would cause a host

of problems including rising sea levels, forced migration, freak storms, droughts, floods, extinctions, wildfires, disease epidemics, crop failures and famines.
The impact was already being felt — particularly in conflicts in Kenya and Sudan — and more was expected in places from Asia to Latin America as dwindling resources led to competition between haves and have nots. “We can all see that climate change is a threat to global security, and you can judge some of the more obvious causes and areas,” said IISS transnational threat specialist Nigel Inkster. “What is much harder to do is see how to cope with them.” The report, an annual survey of the impact of world events on global security, said conflicts and state collapses due

to climate change would reduce the world’s ability to tackle the causes and to reduce the effects of global warming. State failures would increase the gap between rich and poor and heighten racial and ethnic tensions which in turn would produce fertile breeding grounds for more conflict. Urban areas would not be exempt from the fallout as falling crop yields due to reduced water and rising temperatures would push food prices higher, IISS said. Overall, it said 65 countries were likely to lose over 15 percent of their agricultural output by 2100 at a time when the world’s population was expected to head from six billion now to nine billion people. “Fundamental environmental issues of food, water and energy security ultimately lie behind many present security concerns, and climate change will magnify all three,” it added.

10

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, A RISE IN TEMPERATURES MEANS GLOBAL WARMING WILL PUSH NUCLEAR NATIONS TO THE BRINK OF ANARCHY – PUTTING TERRORIST ATTACKS TO SHAME Meacher 2004 [“Apocalypse Soon” Michael, former environment secretary and MP for Oldham, 4/24/04 http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,,1201866,00.html / ttate] Even the Pentagon has noticed, and if there are two groups the Bush administration listens to, they are the oil lobby and the Pentagon. Climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", it says, predicting that climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop nuclear arsenals to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. It recognises that this threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism. This is no rhetorical exaggeration. About 2,900 died in the Twin Towers on September 11 2001, and just over 200 died in Madrid. But the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has estimated that 160,000 people are dying each year from the consequences of climate change malaria, dysentery and malnutrition. And even that excludes some of the most extreme storm disasters plausibly linked to climate change, notably the tropical cyclone in Bangladesh in 1991, which killed 138,000, as well as Hurricanes Mitch and Andrew in the Caribbean, both hyper-intense category-five typhoons. What is really chilling about the catastrophes occurring with increasing frequency across the globe is that they have happened, as the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists confidently believe, after a warming of only 0.6C over the past century. Imagine the consequences if, as predicted by the inter-governmental panel of the top 3,000 scientists on climate change, global temperatures rise by 1.4C-5.8C over this century.

AND, A NATIONAL RPS WOULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2007 [“Renewable Energy--Mitigating Global Warming”, August 27, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/RES-climate-strategy.html, Zhang] While many states are making important strides in reducing CO2 emissions with renewable electricity standards, substantially greater benefits could be achieved if Congress adopted a national standard. A 2004 UCS analysis examined the costs and benefits of a 20 percent by 2020 renewable standard, and found that America would increase its total renewable power to 180,000 MW in 2020—nearly 11 times more than current levels.[3] The 20 percent national standard would reduce the projected growth in power plant CO2 emissions under a business-as-usual scenario by more than half, or 434 MMT per year by 2020. This level of reductions is equivalent to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road or planting 104 million acres of trees—an area approximately the size of Oregon and Washington combined. Even a 10 percent standard would deliver substantial climate benefits, reducing annual CO2 emissions by 166 MMT by 2020. Studies by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration have shown similar results.

11

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: POLLUTION CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES LEAD TO MASSIVE, SYSTEMIC DEATH DUE TO AIR POLLUTION, MASS WATER CONSUMPTION AND SEEPAGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO WATER SUPPLIES - CONTINUED MASSIVE EMISSIONS USE WILL COLLAPSE THE ECOSYSTEM – A FEDERAL RPS SAVES US Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 97, Liu]
If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors, America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace

electricity generation that is extremely water-intensive. The nation’s oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day. In 2006, they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water source), roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. A conventional 500 MW coal plant, for instance, consumes around 7,000 gallons of water per minute, or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. Older, less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia, the 3,400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9,913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water. Conventional
power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel, and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. Newer technologies, while they withdraw less water, actually consume more. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating, closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. Thus, while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10

Nuclear reactors, in particular, require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. Because much of the water is turned to steam, substantial amounts are lost
percent, they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity. to the local water table entirely. One nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River, but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply, enough to service more than 196,000 Georgia homes. With electricity

continuing to rely on fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030, to 7.3 billion gallons per day, if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995.
demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years,
Water Shortages The electric utility industry’s vast appetite for water has serious consequences, both for human consumption and the environment. Assuming the latest Census Bureau projections, the U.S. population is expected to grow by about 70 million people in the next 25 years. Such

population growth is already threatening to

overwhelm existing supplies of fresh and potable water.

Few new reservoirs have been built since 1980 and some regions have seen

Most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years, according to a recent survey, even under “normal”
groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years as aquifers extract water faster than the natural rate of replenishment. conditions. In fact, 47 states in the country reported drought conditions during the summer of 2002. Water shortages risk becoming more acute in the coming years as climate change alters precipitation patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, global warming is expected to induce a dramatic loss of snow-pack as more precipitation falls as rain. As a result, numerous studies have suggested that the hydrology of the region will be fundamentally altered with increased flood risks in the spring and reductions of snow in the winter. Consequently, power retailers in the region have expressed concern that large hydroelectric and nuclear facilities will have to be shut down due to lack of adequate water for electricity generation and cooling. During the steamy August of 2006, the record heat sparked unplanned reactor shutdowns in Michigan and Minnesota as nuclear plant operators scrambled to find enough water to cool radioactive fuel cores. Xcel energy had to similarly cancel a $1.2 billion coal facility in Pueblo, Colorado, because of water concerns.

[CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE – NO TEXT DELETED]

12

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE – NO TEXT DELETED]
Thermal Pollution

power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each day for cooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of “once-through” cooling
The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how
presents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the surrounding surface

Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of cooling towers, ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments. In some cases, the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophication—a process where the warmer temperature alters the chemical composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Rather than improving the ecosystem, such alterations usually promote excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over others and severely reducing water quality. In riparian environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse entire ecosystems. This form of thermal pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking water treatment.
waters.

INDEPENDENTLY, CONVENTIONAL ENERGY LEADS TO ACCIDENTS, WHICH FURTHERS EXACERBATES THE CRISIS SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben, “The Costs of Major Energy Accidents, 1907 to 2007”, SCITIZEN,
http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/04/The-Costs-of-Major-Energy-Accidents-1907-to-2007/ keehun]

Conventional energy technologies-- namely nuclear, coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric power generators-- may kill more people than you think. From 1907 to 2007, a new study finds that 279 major energy accidents in the coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear sectors have been responsible for $41 billion in damages and 182,156 deaths. The claim that humans are imperfect needs no further citation. It is unsurprising, then, that major energy accidents occur.
But what counts as an energy “accident,” especially a “major” one? The study attempted to answer this question by searching historical archives, newspaper and magazine articles, and press wire reports from 1907 to 2007. The words “energy,” “electricity,” “oil,” “coal,” “natural gas,” “nuclear,” “renewable,” and “hydroelectric” were searched in the same sentence as the words “accident,” “disaster,” “incident,” “failure,” “meltdown,” “explosion,” “spill,” and “leak.” The study then narrowed results according to five criteria: The accident must have involved an energy system at the production/generation, transmission, and distribution phase. This means it must have occurred at an oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, or hydroelectric plant, its associated infrastructure, or within its fuel cycle (mine, refinery, pipeline, enrichment facility, etc.); It must have resulted in at least one death or property damage above $50,000 (in constant dollars that has not been normalized for growth in capital stock); It had to be unintentional and in the civilian sector, meaning that military accidents and events during war and conflict are not covered, nor are intentional attacks. The study only counted documented cases of accident and failure; It had to occur between August, 1907 and August, 2007; It had to be verified by a published source; The study adjusted all damages—including destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and court claims—to 2006 U.S. dollars using the Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Unsurprisingly, the data concerning major energy accidents is inhomogeneous. While responsible for less than 1 percent of total energy accidents, hydroelectric facilities claimed 94 percent of reported fatalities. Looking at the gathered data, the total results on fatalities are highly dominated one accident in which the Shimantan Dam failed in 1975 and 171,000 people perished. Only three of the listed 279 accidents resulted in more than 1,000 deaths, and each of these varied in almost every aspect. One involved the structural failure of a dam more than 30 years ago in China; one involved a nuclear meltdown in the Ukraine two decades ago; and one involved the rupture of a petroleum pipeline in Nigeria around ten years ago. The study found that only a small amount of accidents caused property damages greater than $1 billion, with most accidents below the $100 million mark. The second largest source of fatalities, nuclear reactors, is also the second most capital intense, supporting the notion that the larger a facility the more grave (albeit rare) the consequences of its failure. The inverse seems true for

oil, natural gas,

and coal systems: they fail far more frequently, but have comparatively fewer deaths and damage per each instance of failure. While hydroelectric plants were
responsible for the most fatalities, nuclear plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all property damage. Oil and hydroelectric come next at around 25 percent each, followed by natural gas at 9 percent and coal at 2 percent. By energy source, the most frequent energy system to fail is natural gas, followed by oil, nuclear, coal, and then hydroelectric. Ninety-one accidents occurred at natural gas facilities, accounting for 33 percent of the total; oil, 71 accidents at 25 percent; nuclear, 63 accidents at 23 percent; coal, 51 accidents at 18 percent;

energy accidents exact a significant toll on human health and welfare, the natural environment, and society. Such accidents are now part of our daily routines, a somewhat intractable feature of our energy-intensive lifestyles. They are an often-ignored negative externality associated with energy conversion and use. This conclusion may seem quite banal to some, given
hydroelectric, 3 accidents at 1 percent. Therefore, how fully integrated energy technologies are into modern society. Yet energy systems continue to fail despite drastic improvements in design, construction, operation, and maintenance, as well as

one striking difference between energy accidents and other “normal” risks facing society concerns the involuntary aspects of energy accidents. Alcoholics, rock climbers, construction workers, soldiers, and gigolos
the best of intentions among policymakers and operators. Perhaps

all take a somewhat active and voluntary role in their risky behavior. Those suffering from nuclear meltdowns, exploding gas clouds, and petroleum-contaminated water do

The death and destruction associated with large-scale energy technologies is significant. Tallied as a whole, the 182,156 energy-related deaths total more than twice the number that died in the Vietnam War. Indeed, if averaged out for each year, energy technologies have been responsible for the equivalent of a September 11, 2001 happening every 1.65 years, year after year. The fact that such deaths are systemic means that they can be predicted to occur, with certainty, well into the future. Therein also lies hope, for recurring events can be anticipated and responded to. Their “high probability” means that they can be more easily predicted, planned for, and minimized than unforeseen and catastrophic events.
not.

13

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, A LARGE DISRUPTION OF THE ECOSYSTEM MEANS EXTINCTION COYNE AND HOEKSTRA, professor of ecology @ University of Chicago and associate professor of evolutionary biology @ Harvard, 2003[Jerry and Hopi, “The Greatest Dying”, TRUTHOUT, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying/ keehun]
Two hundred fifty million years ago, a monumental catastrophe devastated life on Earth. We don't know the cause - perhaps glaciers, volcanoes, or even the impact of a giant meteorite - but whatever happened drove more than 90 percent of the planet's species to extinction. After the Great Dying, as the end-Permian extinction is called, Earth's biodiversity - its panoply of species -

. Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled
didn't bounce back for more than ten million years

calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity.
Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only

polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from

Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn
unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with

increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the
most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And

Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the
that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly

assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we

ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

14

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: THE ECONOMY THE FINITE NATURE AND SUPPLY INSTABILITY OF FOSSIL FUELS GUARANTEES PRICE VOLATILITY – DELAYING ACTION INCREASES THE COST OF TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 2008 [“Statement on Energy Science and Technology”,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1890&use_sec=false&sec _url_var=region1/ ttate]

Plentiful, accessible, inexpensive energy is the underpinning of modern society. It is the basis for meeting numerous national and global needs such as increased demands for electricity and transportation, affordable food and water, and adequate resources for manufacturing. In the U.S., reliable, affordable energy is crucial to the economic well-being and security of our nation. The time has come for us to confront future energy options. The ACS and AIChE believe a comprehensive national energy strategy must address S&T opportunities thoroughly to make the best near-term decisions and develop new options for a more sustainable future. The most important reason to address this issue now is the growing, global dependence on oil and natural gas, which experts agree are available in limited and rapidly declining quantities. Demand for oil will continue to grow as countries raise standards of living—especially populous, developing nations like China and India. As we move beyond the world’s maximum oil production point and demands continue to rise, prices and instability will certainly increase. Estimates vary on total oil resources, but it would be a mistake to assume that fossil fuel would remain at current prices, given the inherently unstable nature of commodity markets, geopolitics, and policy changes. We believe a targeted allocation of funds and timely change in energy policy would postpone the inevitable date that oil production would begin to decline. Thus, investment in increasing energy options is paramount. Market forces will play an important, but not sufficient, role in meeting future energy needs. A sudden increase in energy prices or long periods of energy-price instability would result in energy shortfalls, which in turn would significantly impact global economic growth. Sufficient investment in energy innovations to increase availability and allow profound
infrastructure changes (e.g., converting gasoline vehicles to hydrogen or increasing the use of public transportation) would require an ongoing, commitment over several decades. Given the investment of time and the technology needed, it is imperative to take immediate steps toward solving this problem. According to the Energy Information Agency, U.S. domestic energy utilization in 2003 was roughly 85 percent fossil fuel, 8 percent nuclear power, and 6 percent renewable energy—including hydroelectricity. Clearly, America is overly dependent on fossil fuel, much of which comes from unstable regions of the world. Energy-use patterns—22 percent residential, 52 percent industrial, and 27 percent transportation—must also be considered in developing a comprehensive U.S. energy policy. Energy efficiency and conservation must be encouraged across the board. At present, the S&T required to move beyond fossil-energy dependence and provide safely produced, sustainable power to meet growing, global needs, is simply not available. The ACS and AIChE recommend developing a dual-track, comprehensive R&D strategy that would simultaneously implement a near-term advancement of energy technologies (including fossil, solar, wind, nuclear, and efficient utilization) and a comprehensive S&T policy for developing sustainable sources to replace dwindling fossil supplies in the long term.

Finding solutions to meet advancing world needs for sustainable energy is one of the biggest challenges mankind will ever face. Burning fossil fuels places humanity at risk environmentally, and the potential consequences are dramatic. We must call upon universities, the private sector, and national laboratories to provide the best minds and teams to develop creative solutions through energy
R&D.

15

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AN OIL SHOCK WILL LEAD TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, NUMEROUS NUCLEAR WARS AND GLOBAL STARVATION RIDDOCH 2004 [Malcolm, PhD and prof of communications @ Edith Cowan University, June 19, http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/72000_comment.php / ttate]
There are lots of recent 2004 reports speculating about the Saudi's ability to increase production suggesting that the peak plateau may already have arrived with midpoint by 2008. OPEC is apparently pumping at its full rate, while everyone else from the Russians, US, North Sea to our own oil fields are apparently depleting already.

The first major oil shock could be as early as the fourth quarter of this year and some analysts suggest that the Saudi's are on the verge of a collapse in their
major Gawar oil field, the largest in the world. The oil Beyond the current oil wars and the short term economic effects of unstable oil supply and prices over the next 5

peak oil threatens an irreversible global economic decline that will force a massive, radical and sustained change in our way of life as we transition to alternative energy sources and the economic/political order they support. The cost of everything will rise and rise with the poorest of us the first to start suffering. A terminal economic decline will begin with a recession in Australia the size of the one that occurred in WW2, and this possibility is already being discussed in our mainstream media. Think an end to public welfare
years, across the board, food stamps and eventually food riots, massive rising unemployment, the collapse of Medicare and public hospitals, a severe crisis in the cost and delivery

peak oil could mean a complete global economic collapse sometime after 2010, middle class poverty and the breakdown of law and order, truly gigantic starvation in the third world and the unrestrained outbreak of global warfare with the risk of numerous 'limited' nuclear conflagrations. It could ultimately mean the extinction of the human species through global nuclear war and its companions famine and pestilence.
of water ... but at least the roads will be less congested, more room for the ultra wealthy and their gas guzzling limousines. At worst

16

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, A NATIONAL RPS IS KEY TO CHECKING BACK FUTURE ENERGY PRICE SHOCKS AND VOLATILITY - SAVE CONSUMERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Both the UCS and EIA analyses show that a national RPS can save consumers money in several ways. First, by reducing the demand for fossil fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewable energy helps reduce the price of fossil fuels and restrain the ability of fossil fuel prices to increase in the future. Natural gas therefore costs less for electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, benefiting both electricity consumers and other natural gas consumers. Second, some renewable resources, especially wind energy at good sites, are now less expensive than building new natural gas- or coal-fired power plants over the expected lifetimes of the plants, and reduce projected generation costs. And third, a national RPS reduces the cost of renewable energy technologies, by creating competition among renewable sources and projects to meet the requirements, and by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations, and maintenance. Most importantly, projected savings are robust enough to be found in all of the recent RPS scenarios, at both the 10
percent and 20 percent levels, and despite large differences in projected renewable energy costs and performance in the EIA and UCS assumptions.

average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5 percent. In addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast, with an average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (Figure 1).19 All sectors of the economy would benefit, with commercial, industrial, and residential customers' total savings reaching $19.1 billion, $17.4 billion, and $12.6 billion, respectively.
Using UCS assumptions for renewable energy technologies, With UCS running NEMS using EIA's assumptions unmodified, the results showed that a 20 percent RPS would still reduce gas and electricity prices. Cumulative savings to electricity customers under a 20 percent RPS totaled $15.4 billion by 2020, with cumulative savings to gas consumers of an additional $11.6 billion, for a total savings of more than $27 billion. A 10 percent renewable standard would save less money than the 20 percent scenario. In the UCS scenario, consumers would save almost $28.2 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020, with the savings continuing to grow to $37.7 billion by 2025. EIA's own analysis found that the 10 percent RPS would save consumers $22.6 billion by 2025.20

energy bills would be reduced in every region of the country, including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy potential (Table 1). This is primarily due to the lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas consumers that all regions would see. In addition, all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in using local resources for generation that
National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that would often displace the need for importing fossil fuel. Furthermore, the national credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions to purchase RECs for the same price, providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators. The strong relationship between renewable energy generation, and natural gas demand and prices is further supported by a 2005 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) study, which reviewed 13 analyses using different computer models and assumptions. The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and energy efficiency) could reduce gas demand and put downward pressure on natural gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. The report also found that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced. Furthermore, LBL's study shows how these results are broadly consistent with economic theory, with results from other energy models, and with limited empirical evidence.21

As gas price forecasts have increased, analyses have shown that a national RPS is more cost-effective. For example, a 2001 EIA analysis-using wellhead
Because of this relationship, long-term natural gas prices have a significant effect on the impact of a national RPS. natural gas prices that averaged $3.28 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period-projected that a 20 percent national RPS would result in cumulative consumer energy bill costs of $14 billion by 2020.22 By comparison, the 20 percent RPS scenario (EIA assumptions) from 2004, which showed consumer savings of $27 billion, used a natural gas price forecast that averaged $3.97 per Mcf (2002$). While EIA changed a number of the assumptions used in NEMS between 2001 and 2004, most of the difference in energy bill impacts is due to the increase in natural gas prices. EIA has consistently increased its long-term natural gas price projection each year since 1997 to conform to new data. In the recently released AEO 2007, wellhead gas prices average $5.06 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period.23

17

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
INDEPENDENTLY, OUR CURRENT CONVENTIONAL UTILITY ELECTRIC GRID WILL INEVITABLY BREAKDOWN – BLACK-OUTS WILL COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY GARDNER 2007 [Timothy, staff writer, “Business Books: Strain on US grid to make blackouts common”, REUTERS, July 16, http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0718520720070616?
pageNumber=2&sp=true / ttate]
Most people in the United States only think about where electricity comes from when the lights go out suddenly.

unless the antiquated transmission grid is fixed, expensive blackouts that bring modern life to a grinding halt will become ever more common, according to "Lights Out" (Wiley, $27.95), a new book by Jason Makansi. Before the 1980s, power generating companies were responsible for the entire chain of supply, from securing fuel to transmitting power to homes. Deregulation, meant to increase competition, has busted that chain apart and left the wires and substations that deliver electricity as a "neglected stepchild," Makansi writes. As demand for electricity rises, especially in the hot summer months when air conditioners are humming, the result is an overstretched grid, exploding transformers, brownouts and blackouts.
But Transmission only accounts for about 10 percent of the industry's assets, and for decades utilities and regulators have focused on more expensive parts of the system.

Now, even electricity generated in ultramodern plants is dependent on the brittle transmission grid. "Imagine driving a Maserati over a road littered with potholes," Makansi writes.

AND, A NATIONAL RPS WILL LEAD TO VAST TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR ENERGY GRID Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS
%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]

3. Transmission: A National RPS Speeds Infrastructure Investment Some utilities object to aggressive RPS mandates on the grounds that greater penetration of renewables will require costly transmission system upgrades. New wind projects, for example, will need to be located in windy areas that are often far from the cities where the most electricity is consumed.116 Mandating that utilities invest in new renewable generation, therefore, is also mandating investment in new and expensive transmission upgrades. Creating incentives for utilities to invest in much needed transmission system upgrades actually may be one of the hidden benefits of a national RPS. Utilities can overcome public opposition to new transmission infrastructure by arguing for the need to access renewable resources. While public reaction to renewable energy is far from uniform, using access to renewable resources as a justification for new transmission wins local support for projects and speeds their development. In addition, because renewable energy technologies have much shorter lead-times than conventional power plants, utilities can start getting use out of new power lines even as they wait to bring large conventional projects online. Quicker use of new transmission capacity benefits ratepayers because new rules allow utilities to start recovering the full cost of transmission investments even before utilities have built new capacity to fill them.

18

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, THE ENERGY GRID IS VULNERABLE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, LEADING TO BLACKOUTS ACROSS THE US, GUTTING THE US ECONOMY – A NATIONAL RPS PREVENTS THIS Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS
%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]

larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental power outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues
Second, facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible. For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the and San Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National Liberation Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24

it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26 Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their
Some caution that all operational efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27

Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in incremental and modular amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have
tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A

national RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.

AND, A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 1992 [Walter, senior fellow for US foreign policy @ Council on Foreign Relations, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

19

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE _____: NATURAL GAS THE UTILITY SECTOR CONTINUES TO INCREASE THEIR DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS IN THE STATUS QUO – CAUSING FUTURE PRICE SPIKES Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]
Natural Gas Prices Will Increase “There is a risk in investment in nuclear and coal. Coal has got the carbon unknown mostly in terms of draconian impositions by the Feds. Nuclear has got safety and liability concerns. So I think people will still go gas because they have less money invested in it, with the idea they can pass it on to retail customers, particularly in market-oriented areas.” - Respondent #15, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006

Many of the electricity generating units used for intermediate and “peaking” purposes (for example, to meet increased demand for air conditioning on hot, summer days) use natural gas for fuel. This is because natural gas generating units usually require a lower capital investment than nuclear or coal-fired plants,
have shorter construction and lead-times, and tend to produce lower emissions than coal plants. Natural gas-fired units also can be turned on or off quickly, giving them operational flexibility to meet short-term peak electricity demands.

The electricity sector’s demand for natural gas has increased from 24 percent of total natural gas consumption in 2000 to 29 percent in 2005.59 And consumption of natural gas is likely to increase even further for two reasons:
Lower Reserve Margins

First, increased electricity demand in many areas has shrunk reserve margins to historically low levels. By 2005, reserve
margins across the contiguous United States had dropped to 15 percent and, in some large states (like Texas and Florida), as low as 9 percent. Shrinking reserve margins coupled with increased electricity demands have forced many utilities to restart “mothballed” natural gas-fired generating units. And plans for new peaking units in large consumer states like Texas and Florida rely overwhelmingly on natural gas.60 Prospects for New Sources

Second, because U.S. utilities have over-invested in gas-fired generating units, they hunger for new supplies of natural gas. Congress responded recently by authorizing greater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and has hinted at granting greater access to federal lands where natural gas drilling is
currently off-limits.61 Whether new drilling rights are granted or not, the tantalizing prospect of vast new sources of natural gas may lead utilities to believe that gas-fired units are safer investments than they really are. Future Carbon Controls

Third, as pressure builds for the United States to adopt some form of binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, more generators will turn to natural gas because its carbon intensity is about half that of coal.62
Roger Garrett, Director of Puget Sound Energy’s Resource Acquisition Group, for example, recently told industry executives that PSE had plans to invest in a significant number of new natural-gas fired combined cycle facilities partly because the company anticipates future binding carbon constraints.63 In its most recent energy outlook (AEO 2007), EIA projects natural gas wellhead prices to average $5.06 per million cubic feet (2002$) from 2007 to 2030. If there are delays in the construction of the nearly 45,000 miles of new gas pipelines that industry analysts say are required to ensure adequate supply, the base-case price grows to $6.43 per million cubic feet.64 Since 1997, however, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has had to increase its projections for natural gas prices each year to conform to new data showing that the price was higher than expected.65 The year 2007 was no exception. In its report on short-term energy and summer 2007 fuels outlook, the DOE said it expected natural gas prices over the summer season to be 18 percent above its predictions a year earlier.66

While natural gas has enjoyed a recent period of depressed prices, substantial long-term price increases are virtually inevitable.
Recent evidence suggests that EIA’s long-term projections – as in its short-term forecasts – make optimistic assumptions about growth in domestic natural gas production. In October 2006, for example, Chesapeake Energy stunned the gas industry by announcing that it would shut off 100,000 cubic feet per day of unhedged gas production until natural gas prices rebounded. A week later, Questar Exploration & Production curtailed its output for the same reason.67 These unusual moves repudiated government (and industry) optimism about domestic natural gas output and reminded analysts that the gas market can be far more volatile and easily manipulated than forecasts predict.

Greenspan predicted continued strain in the long-term market for natural gas: Today’s tight natural gas markets have been a long time in coming, and futures prices suggest that we are not apt to return to earlier periods of relative abundance and low prices anytime soon.68 // pg. 38-40
As early as 2003, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan

20

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, HIGH NATURAL GAS PRICES COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR – LEADING TO RECESSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLATION, AND HIGH INTEREST RATES Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder) The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated the harmful impact on jobs and the economy that natural gas shortages can have. The U.S. economy suffered through recessions, widespread unemployment, inflation, and record-high interest rates. In the winter of 1975-76, unemployment resulting from gas curtailments in hard-hit regions ran as high as 100,000 for periods
lasting from 20 to 90 days. n14 These effects were especially serious for the poor and for the nation's minorities. n15 More recently, the winter of 2002-2003 brought higher natural gas bills to many consumers, and low-income families were especially hard hit.

"The economic welfare of our economy, the competitiveness of our industries, the affordability of natural gas for all consumers are at risk. We cannot afford another natural gas crisis. Every U.S. energy crisis in the last 30 years has been followed by an economic recession, and the 2000-2001 price spike was no exception. The energy crisis devastated industrial consumers. When natural gas prices reached $ 4/MMBtu, manufacturing began to reduce production and shift production to locations outside the U.S. At even higher prices, they shut down production, laying off employees, and damaging communities. We have arrived at this price threshold." n16
As Paul Cicio, director of the Industrial Energy Consumers Association, notes: Moreover, two articles last year in Public Utilities Fortnightly that addressed natural gas supply, demand, and price issues seemed to confuse the solution with the

high gas prices would lead to "demand destruction" in the industrial sector, which would, in part, counterbalance increasing power sector demand. n17 He further stated, "This price-induced demand destruction can be added to the
problem. Robert Linden noted that other causes of reduced gas demand, including the closure of industrial facilities using natural gas as a feedstock." n18 Similarly, John Herbert, after noting that high natural gas prices have forced U.S. fertilizer plants to shut down, stated, "As fertilizer and other chemical plants continue to shut down, this will reduce demand for natural gas and increase overall supplies." n19

that high natural gas prices will tend to reduce industrial natural gas demand as industrial plants shut down, and that this will temper future natural gas price increases. However, the "destruction" of the nation's industrial sector is an extremely serious problem for the United States; it is not a "solution" to the natural-gas pricing problem. We should be very concerned with the strongly negative impact high natural gas prices are having on the U.S. industrial sector and the potential implications of this for the U.S. economy.
Both authors are correct in pointing out

AND, A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 1992 [Walter, senior fellow for US foreign policy @ Council on Foreign Relations, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

21

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, EXPANDING RENEWABLES THROUGH RPS DECREASES DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] A national RPS can save consumers money especially by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by offsetting the combustion of natural gas. [48] Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity during periods of peak demand, they can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking” or reserve generation units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads. Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an excellent correlation between available solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for
that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of naturalgas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity. [49]

The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas increases (or supply decreases), its price increases and so does the value of the renewable resources used to displace it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that, given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the price of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term. [50] This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices
was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected effect of 20 different RPS scenarios on future natural gas prices: Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting more aggressive reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce residential, commercial, and industrial gas bills. [51] LBNL researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved and the more

Nine of fifteen studies specifically evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found that consumers would save anywhere from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.
gas prices are reduced.

22

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE _____: FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE OUR FOSSIL FUEL RELIANCE HAS US INCREASINGLY DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN MARKETS – WE ARE FACING A DANGEROUS INTERSECTION OF ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENT, AND SECURITY CRISES NADLER, senior metals market analyst, 07-09-2008 [Jon Nadler, “I Have A Boone To Pick With Oil”,
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080709/i-have-a-boone-to-pick-with-oil_1.htm, July 9, 2008, Nalepka]

The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil it's extreme, it's dangerous, and it threatens the future of our nation. Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil. This is a staggering number, particularly for a country that consumes oil the way we do. The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq. In fact, if we don't do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history. Why do I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is such a danger to our country? Put simply, our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. Foreign oil is at the intersection of America's three most important issues: the economy, the environment and our national security. We need an energy plan that maps out how we're going to work our way out of this mess. I think I have such a plan.
Consider this: The world produces about 85 million barrels of oil a day, but global demand now tops 86 million barrels a day. And despite three years of record price increases,

world oil production has declined every year since 2005. Meanwhile, the demand for oil will only increase as growing economies in countries like India and China gear up for enhanced oil consumption. AND, A NATIONAL RPS ELIMINATES OUR FOREIGN OIL ADDICTION Renewable Energy Today, 2004
[Renewable Energy Today, “Groups Say Renewables Will Help Solve U.S. Oil Dependency”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2004_Oct_27/ai_n6272431/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1, Oct 27, 2004, Nalepka]

According to SEC, the organizations, all member groups of the coalition, suggested that "the nation's short-term goal should be to begin reducing overall consumption of oil," while its mid-term goal "should be to further reduce demand for domestic sources of oil and dramatically curtail, if not eliminate, most oil imports," and its long-term goal "should be to discontinue its use of oil for all but a few high-priority purposes...." "...[S]olar thermal systems and geothermal heat-pumps as well as direct geothermal heating technologies coupled with the cross-section of renewable electric technologies could displace much of the oil and natural gas consumed in residential and smaller commercial space heating," said the groups in the letter. "...[W]hat little oil used for electricity that cannot be displaced through energy efficiency measures can be eliminated through expanded use of biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind technologies achieved through a national Renewable Portfolio/Energy Standard of 20 percent or higher by 2020." WE OUTLINE SEVERAL SCENARIOS -23

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
A. OIL PRICE INSTABILITY AS OUR ADDICTION TO OIL GROWS, SO DOES OUR DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL – THIS WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE ESCALATING OIL PRICES – PLAN BREAKS THE ADDICTION AND SAVES THE US FROM ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LASHOFF, senior scientist @ Natural Resources Defense Council, 2006 [Dan, “Energy Efficiency and Conservation”, June 22, lexis/nalepka] The central challenge to America's energy security is our dependence on oil and the web of geo-political and economic forces that now govern access to and control of this increasingly costly and strategic global commodity. As we describe in our 2005 report "Securing America: Solving Oil Dependence through Innovation" (attached for the record), our intense rate of oil consumption already poses a clear and direct threat to America's national and economic security, as well as our environment. With only 3 percent of global oil reserves, America's greatest leverage is reducing our demand for oil through innovation, efficiency gains and clean,
renewable alternatives. To enhance our energy security we must stop enabling the addiction and begin to move America beyond oil. "America is addicted to oil" the President said in his State of the Union. He was right. We consume nearly 21 million barrels of oil per day -

a quarter of the world's oil production and more than China, India, Japan and all of South and Central America use combined - and rely on foreign suppliers for 60 percent of our daily oil needs. The U.S. also has by far the highest per capita oil consumption of all major countries.4 If
we continue with business as usual, by 2025 we will import over 70 percent of the oil we need to power our economy. With limited domestic supply, the country that leaves itself most vulnerable is the one that is most dependent on the volatile global market for its basic energy needs - and that country is the U.S.
First, our appetite for oil is unsustainable and it is shifting the balance of power toward oil rich suppliers (see figure above). The U.S. has just 3 percent of the global oil reserves, while the Middle East is home to two thirds of the world's oil. Today we have the luxury of importing large amounts of

oil from friendlier nations such as Mexico and Canada but this luxury is fleeting. At current consumption rates, non-Organization of the
Petroleum-Exporting Countries (non-OPEC)

production is expected to peak and begin declining as early as 2015, which means that oil rich nations, especially those in the Middle East, will take even tighter control of the reins of the global oil market. Second, there is growing evidence that higher oil prices are here to stay. Most analysts agree that market fundamentals of high demand and limited supply, and not speculation or market hysteria, are the primary reason for today's high oil prices. These prices can be explained, in part, by continued growth in oil demand in the United States and explosive
Oil demand has grown a robust 5 percent since 2003, despite a doubling of oil prices during that period. It appears likely that global oil demand and tight global oil supplies will keep fuel prices high for the foreseeable future. There is also little spare oil production capacity to cushion a sudden loss in supply and the mix of easily extractable crude oil is moving away from "light, sweet" toward more "sour" grades that fewer refineries can handle. Considering these factors, oil prices
growth in Asia, especially China. may abruptly jump even higher, as happened during the first two oil crises of 1973-75 and 1979-81. Oil prices could also decline for short periods, but unlike during the last two oil crises, important oil market fundamentals now favor higher prices lasting for much longer--and perhaps becoming a

permanent feature of the market.
Moreover, oil suppliers are also less able to adequately cushion the market in the face of rising demand. Historically, producers were accused of holding back supplies when prices rose. But most industry experts agree that OPEC and other suppliers are now pumping at or near the upper limits of their capability. Indeed, there are concerns that rapid exploitation degrades the long term viability of some oil fields. Spare capacity, often used to cushion oil price spikes, is essentially gone. Another reason to worry is that America's economy is already feeling the pinch of persistently higher oil prices. The run-up in oil prices, including the cost of the new "fear premium", exerts an inflationary impact on everyday goods and services, consumers are left with less disposable income after their trips to the pump, and businesses of all sizes (except the oil companies) are seeing shrinking profits in the face of pricier fuel. Oil imports now account for a quarter of the ballooning trade deficit. At an average cost of $70 per barrel,

we spend nearly $1.5

billion every day on oil and over $300 billion annually just for oil imports. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has called the
cost of oil a "hidden tax" on consumers and despite the economy's resilience to rising energy costs, the economy remains extremely vulnerable to supply disruptions and oil prices shocks in the global market, as we experienced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Finally, above and beyond the direct cost of oil dependence, we

invest billions of dollars annually to acquire and protect access to oil resources. According to recent estimates by the National Defense Council Foundation, the hidden military and economic cost of oil dependence is in the range of $800
billion annually and oil supply disruptions like those we experienced in the 1970's could cost the economy as much as $8 trillion. Moreover, our oil dependence has enormous environmental costs, including emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, air and water pollution, and the despoiling of pristine public lands.

24

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, AND, A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 1992 [Walter, senior fellow for US foreign policy @ Council on Foreign Relations, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE] Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

25

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
B. MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY OUR CONTINUED RELIANCE ON MIDDLE EASTERN OIL CREATES A HOTBED OF TENSION – CONTINUED RELIANCE GUARANTEES HEIGHTENED INSTABILITY AND CONFLICT IN THE REGION COHEN, PhD and senior research fellow @ Heritage Foundation, 2007
[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “IMPLICATION OF OIL DEPENDENCE”, Lexis Nexis Academic, March 22, 2007, Nalepka]
The Middle East and the Persian Gulf is the richest and most important oil province in the world. 40 percent of the daily shipment of oil passes through the Gulf. Approximately 20 percent of U.S. oil comes from the Gulf.

Currently, the security and stability of Middle East oil is threatened by ongoing conflicts in Iraq; an aggressive and nuclear Iran; and radical Islamist movements, with their terrorist arms, whose goals include toppling regimes throughout the Gulf,
including the swing producer of oil, Saudi Arabia.

Jihadi movements, nurtured to a great extent by oil revenues from Gulf states, aim to eventually create a global Islamic empire - the Caliphate. These movements ultimately strive to subjugate and convert non-Islamic countries to their brand of Islam. This is a very long term project, and ultimately, it is hopefully a futile one. However, in the meantime, the existence and the goals of these movements pose an immediate threat to the security of some of the most crucial sectors of the world oil supply.
Sellers' Market. Today's global oil market is operating without the benefit of additional production capacity or significant strategic petroleum reserves beyond the U.S. reserves. The Saudi spare capacity has deteriorated over the past decade and a half from 3-4 million barrels per day (mbd) to 1.0-1.5 mbd. To make matters worse, some experts question reserve estimates provided by national oil companies in the Gulf and elsewhere, as these numbers are not independently audited. Without a clear understanding of how much oil is available, the world may be up for more nasty surprises.

Terror attacks that have been carried out to date on the oil infrastructure have clearly caught oil producers unprepared. For example, al-Qaeda's February 24, 2005, attack on the Aramco facility in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, sent shock waves through the world's financial
markets. On the same day, the price of oil on international markets jumped nearly $2, despite the attack's complete failure (the terrorists and two security guards were killed.)[3] Most analysts agree that the February attack and an attempt on March 28, 2005, which was successfully averted, were merely trial runs in a much longer campaign designed to disrupt the global economy in general, and the oil and gas industry in particular.[4]

As the September 2001 World Trade Center attacks demonstrated, al-Qaeda tends to return to the scene of the crime, so another strike on Abqaiq and other oil targets is likely. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have repeatedly called for attacks on key Western economic targets, especially energy sources.[5] In a tape aired by Al Jazeera in February 2006, Zawahiri said:
I call on the mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims' stolen oil, most of the revenues of which go to the enemies of Islam while most of what they leave is seized by the thieves who rule our countries.[6]

The unfortunate reality is that the Middle East remains the strategic center of gravity of the global oil market a position that is not likely to change in the medium term. As long as radical Islamists, China, Russia, India, and Europe continue the struggle for the world's limited oil supply, the region will remain unstable. If the U.S. is to protect itself from these economic and political threats, it must use all the tools at its disposal to protect energy assets around the globe, while decreasing the world's dependence on Middle Eastern oil as quickly and efficiently as possible.

26

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, HEIGHTENED INSTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST COULD LEAD TO NUCLEAR WAR STEINBACH 2003 [“Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace, http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm ] Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

27

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
C. TERRORISM OUR ADDICTION TO OIL ARE FEEDING GLOBAL TERRORIST NETWORKS – OUR FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE BREEDS WESTERN RESENTMENT AND FEEDS DOLLARS INTO TERRORIST COFFERS SANDALOW, senior fellow in foreign policy @ Brookings Institute, 2008 [David, “Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/ 0522_oil_sandalow.aspx/ ttate] First, oil dependence strengthens Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists.
The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will

Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a central role in the struggle. For more than 50 years, the need to protect oil flows has shaped U.S. policy and relationships in the Persian Gulf.
last for generations. During the Cold War, we supported the Shah of Iran in part to keep oil flowing from the region. In 1980, President Carter declared that attempts by outside forces to gain control of the Persian Gulf would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In 1991, with Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush told Congress that war was necessary because “[v]ital economic interests are at risk…Iraq itself controls some 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment.

These steps to secure oil flows have come at a cost. By making us central players in a region torn by ancient rivalries, oil dependence has exposed us to resentment, vulnerability and attack. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled
“Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”

Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment tool for Islamic fundamentalists. Yet the United States faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil and the world’s only spare production capacity, the Persian Gulf will remain an indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To
protect oil flows, the U.S. policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel Islamic terrorists.

Compounding these problems, the huge money flows into the Persian Gulf from oil purchases help finance terrorist networks. Al Qaeda raises funds from an extensive global network, with Islamic charities and NGOs playing an important role. Saudi money provides critical support
for madrassas with virulent anti-American views.

The sharp increase in oil prices in recent months deepens these problems, further enriching those who fund terrorists committed to our destruction. AND, EXTINCTION PACOTTI 2003 [SALON.COM, March 31, http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/knowledge/index.html/ ttate]
Advances in biotech, chemistry, and other fields are expanding the power of individuals to cause harm, and this has many people worried. Glenn E. Schweitzer and Carole C. Dorsch, writing for The Futurist, gave this warning in 1999: "Technological advances threaten to outdo anything terrorists have done before; superterrorism has the potential to eradicate civilization as we know it." Schweitzer and Dorsch are so alarmed that they go on to say, "Civil liberties are important for a democratic society; the time has arrived,
A similar trend has appeared in proposed solutions to high-tech terrorist threats.
however, to reconfigure some aspects of democracy, given the violence that is on the doorstep." The Sept. 11 attacks have obviously added credence to their opinions. In 1999, they recommended an expanded role for the CIA, "greater government intervention" in Americans' lives, and the "honorable deed" of "whistle-blowing" -- proposals that went from fringe ideas to policy options and talk-show banter in less than a year. Taken together, their proposals aim to gather information from companies and individuals and feed that information into government agencies. A network of cameras positioned on street corners would nicely complement their vision of America during the 21st century. If

after Sept. 11 and the anthrax scare these still sound like wacky Orwellian ideas to you, imagine how they will sound the day a terrorist opens a jar of Ebola-AIDS spores on Capitol Hill. As Sun Microsystems' chief scientist, Bill Joy, warned: "We have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies -- robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology -- pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and
nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once -- but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control." Joy calls the new threats "knowledge-enabled mass destruction." To cause great harm to millions of people, an extreme person will need only

dangerous knowledge, which itself will move through the biosphere, encoded as matter, and flit from place to place as easily as dangerous ideas now travel between our minds. In the
information age, dangerous knowledge can be copied and disseminated at light speed, and it threatens everyone. Therefore, Joy's perfectly reasonable conclusion is that we should relinquish "certain kinds of knowledge." He says that it is time to reconsider the open, unrestrained pursuit of knowledge that has been the foundation of science for 300 years. " Despite the strong historical precedents, if open access to and

unlimited development of knowledge henceforth puts us all in clear danger of extinction, then common sense

demands that we reexamine even these basic, long-held beliefs."

28

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS THE US IS SITTING ON THE SIDELINES AS THE GLOBAL RENEWABLES MARKET CONTINUES TO EXPAND – THE US WILL GET BYPASSED IN THIS MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR TRANSITION WITHOUT A CONSISTENT AND COMPREHENSIVE POLICY TO JUMPSTART A TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES SAWIN, research associate @ Worldwatch Institute, 2002 [Janet, “Losing the Clean Energy Race”, CLIMATE WISE, March 26, www.greenbiz.com/news/ columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066 / ttate] The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the dominant global role
in wind and solar PV development and deployment.

But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies that continue to favor dirty, conventional fuels and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders. We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy generating capacity, share of the global market, and ownership of manufacturers. U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace. If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential investment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that come with clean, safe,
domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future.

Germany has more than double the U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines,
With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of global PV shipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001.

Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in Germany. The rising demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for renewable energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for renewable energy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many times that
for renewable energy technologies.

Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy economy to address
global climate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide. Perhaps most importantly, the American public wants clean energy. In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their preference for investment in renewable energy technologies over conventional energy. According to a Gallup poll taken November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans favor investments in new sources of energy, such as solar and wind. Top level advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance renewable energy in order to advance America's energy security. "They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be brought, full force, into service…. Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory and tax

conditions for these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential." David
who has held top positions at the New York Power Authority and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and now heads the California Power Authority, notes that "our whole system of electric power supply is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear." Sir Mark Moody Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month called on governments of northern countries "to expand renewable energy targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and switching some to renewable energy to provide a level playing field in the energy sector." Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's hard to talk about [a] competitive economy. And for renewable energy technologies we do too little…."

Freeman,

Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy, ocean power, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's greatest wind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity each year , 37 percent of total U.S. electricity
consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's surface with more energy than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any industrialized country.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment for current and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE – NO TEXT DELETED] 29

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
[TEXT CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…NO DELETIONS] of fuel supply, improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and innovation. In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional energy technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested than coal or nuclear power. A
recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs.

The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing
energy source worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules have increased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996. During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime, while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants. Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than ten thousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most important industries." Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in developing countries and advances in renewable

nations around the world are setting targets for renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have
energy technologies, 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by 2040.

Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly unlimited market potential. The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and consistent domestic market for their products.

30

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, A FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO EXPANDING OUR RENEWABLES MARKET IS KEY TO OUR GLOBAL TECHNOLOGICAL DOMINANCE RAVECHE, President of Stevens Institute of Technology, 2007 [Hal, "Technology innovation; America needs a new
strategy now" Washington Times January 26, Lexis, Ricardo Saenz ]

While there is some validity to both sides of the argument, the growing prevalence of a risk-averse mindset is stifling the American entrepreneurial spirit that fuels the national economic engine. Government may have been among the first to corner the risk-aversion market. The operating mantra for the bureaucracy was, and remains, that the punishment for taking a risk and making a mistake to be ridiculed, disciplined or fired was far more severe than the potential reward for thinking beyond the norm and dreaming up with a better idea, program or policy. The result is to discourage innovation by many of the people who know best how to fix the broken programs that they deal with every day. Elected leaders, as well as CEOs, who embark on radically different paths are often lambasted by the protectors of the status quo and likely to find themselves with the label "former" attached to their titles simply for traveling down the path of innovation. Risk aversion has had a devastating impact on America's leadership in technology. The fact is, no president, Republican or Democrat, and no previous Congress has ever developed a meaningful national technological strategy for the United States. Certainly, there were fits and starts the Kennedy Space Program, the Carter Shale Oil Program, the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative and the Clinton/Gore Human Genome Initiative but never has a comprehensive and consistent strategy been employed. The failure may be directly linked to the potential backlash that could result from a president or Congress being accused of "picking the winners and losers" for future business growth. Unfortunately, this kind of government thinking has reached the private sector. The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, whose purpose was improving accountability and transparency in corporate governance, has also chased innovative thinkers from corporate boardrooms. Choosing to serve on a corporate board or deciding to take a small private company public may now not be worth the risk. Risk aversion in the private marketplace has had a paralyzing effect on high-tech growth. In 2000, there were an estimated 170 initial public offerings for high-tech companies; by 2006 the number of such IPOs dwindled to 35. Economic competition from Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, India, China and Japan reminds us of the atrophy in the domestic auto industry. The burgeoning presence of nail and tanning salons on Main Street USA stands in stark contrast to Singapore's stem-cell "research city," Taiwan's science parks and the new R&D labs in Bangalore, India. To be remembered for rebuilding America, our president must commit to re-establishing the global technological leadership of the United States and take a risk on some technologies that meet our national needs, such as alternative energy, for decades to come. If the new Congress really wants to improve the future for America's working families, it will leave the selfcongratulatory echo chamber about enhancements to the minimum wage and get down to the hard work of implementing a national strategy for technological innovation, even if this threatens the defenders of the status quo. The 110th Congress can be inspired by the bipartisan 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, enabling universities to own intellectual property from federally sponsored research. Prior to this transformational legislation, the annual number of university patents fluctuated below 500. By 1990 it doubled and, by 2003 it exceeded 3,000, with a threefold increase in the number of participating universities, which furthered high tech economic growth. We need such visionary initiatives now from Congress and the president. 31

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ALSO, THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS CREATES CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY FOR ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS – THIS ALSO UNDERMINES US COMPETITIVENESS UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL 2007 [Rosalie, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS”, June 08, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/ tate]
WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- A national renewable energy portfolio standard could decrease greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously shrink electric bills, some experts say. The mandate would require electric utility companies to generate a specific percentage of their power from renewable energy sources or buy renewable energy credits from others. Almost half of the states already have renewable Oregon and New Hampshire, the two most recent to pass RPS legislation. However, this

portfolio standards in place -- 23 plus the District of Columbia, and including

medley of standards has created confusion among electricity providers, many of whom operate in multiple states, said Marilyn Brown, a commissioner for the National Commission on Energy Policy. "Many large companies now ... face this hodgepodge of different rules," she told United Press International. "Different renewable resources qualify in one state and not the other, so it really is a competitiveness issue. How can the U.S. compete and be effective if the regulations aren't uniform?" A federal RPS would attempt to reconcile the current patchwork of standards and distribute the burden of renewable-energy development among the states, eliminating so-called "free-rider" states that benefit from the efforts of their
neighbors but impose no mandates within their own borders.

32

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, US TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS IS KEY TO OUR HEGEMONY KHALILZAD, research fellow at RAND, 1995 [Zalmay, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War?”, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring/ ttate] The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.

AND, THIS PREVENTS NUCLEAR WAR KHALILZAD 1995 [Zalmay, current ambassador to Iraq, “Losing the Moment?”, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, p. 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.

33

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE _____: US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS <<<<THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE ADVANTAGE – WILL PUT OUT IN A SUPPLEMENTAL WAVE>>>> AND, A National RPS is key to prevent US/Europe trade wars Fontaine, Co-Chair, Energy, Environmental & Public Utility at Cozen O’Connor, 2004 Peter, “Global Warming: The Gathering Storm” Public Utilities Fortnightly, August http://www.fortnightly.com/result.cfm?i=/4419.cfm By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global warming, the United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U.S. goods. The EIA analysis points out one fundamental conclusion.
The reduction of global warming gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will increase electricity prices and therefore the cost of goods. Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain Lieberman bill, electricity prices will increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and trade system.

The risk of trade sanctions by America's largest trading partners due to the failure of the United States to control CO2 emissions should be a real concern to U.S. policy-makers. If the United States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions, it will largely cede control over how the rules implementing Kyoto are written and risk trade sanctions by trading partners seeking to reduce the disparity in production costs. To avoid this negative outcome, the United States should pursue a more pragmatic middle path that confronts the problem of global warming by laying out the necessary domestic framework and economic incentives to create a domestic CO2 emissions market that produces efficient CO2 reductions, much like the Acid Rain Trading Program. In this way, America can develop new technologies, regain its credibility in the global deliberations over how to combat global warming, and avoid the risk of a damaging trade war with the EU.

34

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
ADVANTAGE ______: ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP THE US’ GLOBAL CREDIBILITY IS REBOUNDING BUT SIGNIFICANT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE IS NEEDED TO RESTORE INTERNATIONAL CREDIBILITY NEW YORK TIMES 06-13-2008 [“Global Image of US Improves Slightly”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/13pew.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin / ttate]
PARIS — There is good news and bad news for President Bush as he pursues his valedictory tour of Europe this week, according to a new worldwide study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The

image of the United States has improved slightly in many countries over the past year, the poll results show. But the new optimism appears to be driven largely by the fact that Mr. Bush will soon be leaving office. Meanwhile, the survey showed that many across the globe blamed the United States at least in part for slumping economies and global warming. “There has been no sea change in worldviews of the United States,” Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said of the results, which were released
Thursday. “Europeans are still much more negative than they were at the beginning of the decade, and highly negative views prevail in the Muslim world. But there are some indications that the world sees the possibility of change with the prospect of a new president.” The 24-nation survey, conducted in March and April, shows that many people who have been following the presidential race have greater confidence in Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, than in his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, “to do the right thing regarding world affairs.” This feeling is strongest in Europe, Australia, Japan and Tanzania, which borders Kenya, the homeland of Mr. Obama’s father. Meanwhile, the survey found perceptions that China was ascendant in world affairs. Many people — including 3 out of 10 Americans — think that China will eventually replace the United States as the world’s leading superpower. But people are also critical of China, according to the poll, which was conducted shortly after civil unrest broke out in Tibet this spring. China’s overall favorability ratings have slipped over the past year, and China is seen by many as ignoring the interests of other countries and is faulted on matters related to the environment and human rights. Anxiety about the economy was reported as widespread. “In three-quarters of the countries Pew surveyed (18), a majority now say that their national economic conditions are bad — far more than just one year ago,” the report said. Notable exceptions are India, Australia and China, where 82 percent see the current economic situation as good. Over all, majorities in 18 of the 24 survey countries are generally dissatisfied with the way things are going at home. The big exception is again China, where 86 percent express satisfaction, up from 83 percent last year. In the United States, where 70 percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going, pessimism extends beyond the economy to the country’s chief foreign policy challenge: only a minority of Americans (40 percent) now think efforts to establish a democratic government in Iraq will definitely or probably succeed. In 2006, a majority (54 percent) still believed that success was likely.

Concern about global warming has increased since last year in 11 of the 20 countries for which trends are available, Pew found. “When asked which country is ‘hurting the environment the most,’ majorities or pluralities in most countries surveyed cite the United States,” the Pew report said. “But people are increasingly pointing fingers at China.” The United States and China are among the 10 countries where majorities do not define global warming as a very serious problem.
The survey of 24,717 people is the seventh major study conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project since 2002. Although opinions of the United States had been in steady decline since the invasion of Iraq, there was a significant increase in positive views this year in 10 of the 21 countries for which comparative data was available, including Poland and Indonesia. Despite the upward trend, there are still just eight survey countries where majorities now have a favorable view of the United States: Britain, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and Tanzania.

in one-third of the survey countries, more respondents see the United States more as an enemy than as a partner. This view is especially strong in Turkey, a NATO ally, and in Pakistan, a partner in Washington’s efforts to fight terrorism.
In fact,

35

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, IT IS VITAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE CONCESSIONS TO INTERNATIONAL DEMANDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE TO SHORE UP OUR INTERNATIONAL CREDIBILITY – WE MUST SEND THE SIGNAL OF ROBUST CHANGE – IT IS KEY TO USEUROPEAN COOPERATION ON ANTI-TERROR BUSBY, asst prof of public affairs at UT-Austin, 2007 [Joshua, “Who Cares About the Weather? Climate Change and US National Security”, Paper presented at the International Studies Association annual conference, March 01-03, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/6/4/pages152646/p1526464.php / ttate]
Climate change and soft power One such semi-pragmatic reason might be related to soft power, what Joe Nye defined as the “ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.”62 Engaging in successful humanitarian operations could potentially create positive feelings of association, as occurred in Indonesia after the tsunami. Failure to respond to calls for intervention may leave deep resentments against Western governments for being hypocritical, racist, anti-Muslim, or anti-African. Of course, overzealous use of military power (as in Somalia or Iraq) can have the opposite effect. States thus need to be judicious about their use of force for humanitarian ends and have multiple tools to address disasters, foremost among them early warning systems and rapid reaction capability. While response to climate-related disasters may enhance U.S. soft power,

a broader response to climate change writ large could also serve American interests. The reputation of the United States in the world has not been this bad since the Vietnam War. One likely reason U.S. popularity has suffered is because of the Bush Administration’s cavalier treatment of its allies on issues of importance to them like climate change. The U.S.’s highhanded withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol at the start of the Bush tenure in
2001 confirmed Europe’s fears that Bush was a unilateral cowboy in the thrall of oil companies. While we cannot know for sure if a different stance on climate change

the rejectionist pose of the Bush Administration on climate has been part of the mix that soured European publics on American leadership and likely made it costlier for the U.S. to get what it wants in the international arena.63 Multilateralism, self-restraint, and giving one’s allies a voice in decision-making
would have had any appreciable impact on America’s allies’ disposition towards the Iraq war, may be part of a sensible grand strategy for great powers. As John Ikenberry wrote in After Victory, the U.S. construction of institutions in the post-World War II environment enshrined its influence and legitimated its rule in the West among its allies, making the system easier to manage and more durable over the longer-term.64 It is this kind of pragmatism that led Ikenberry and Kupchan to call this approach “liberal realism.”65

It may make sense for the United States to cooperate on issues the Europeans care more about (climate change) so that they are more willing and able to cooperate on issues the United States cares more about (terrorism).66 This could under certain circumstances, as diagrammed in Figure 3, lead to reputational benefits for the United States, making it easier to achieve its core security objectives.
There are better and worse ways of going about rehabilitating the U.S. image. The U.S. pursuit of a climate strategy for reputational reasons could do little for the climate and little to improve its international standing or might be successful but resented. Even when the U.S. proposes sound climate policies, these may be resisted. At the heart of the Kyoto negotiations were flexibility mechanisms like emissions trading. At the time, these were fiercely resisted by the Europeans and yet now form the core part of Europe’s approach to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Similarly, the Bush Administration has championed the idea of reducing the economy’s carbon intensity. This is a sensible metric and should have great relevance to China and India where absolute emissions are likely to rise but concerted efforts to introduce cleaner energy technology should lead to lower emissions per unit of output. Convincing the Chinese and Indians to accept an intensity target would be difficult but not impossible. However, because the Bush Administration’s own target mirrored the natural rate of efficiency gains, the idea may have been sullied. If promoted by the United States, there are likely to be significant quarters of the environmental community unwilling to recognize anything but a significant short-term emissions reduction target as a step forward. In the scheme of things, where net greenhouse gas emissions need to fall on the order of 45-60% below 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change, they are right.67 The hardest part for the U.S. however may be getting started and sending a reasonably strong signal to the private sector that governments are serious and committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions over the long haul. In any case, the U.S. needs to evaluate what price it is willing to pay for reputational advantages. Some policy choices may prove to be expensive ways of purchasing good will. For example, the U.S. pledged at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period. Given that U.S. emissions grew more than 15% in the 1990s, meeting that target would effectively require more than a 20% reduction in emissions.68 Different estimates of the costs of implementation of Kyoto were calculated and ranged anywhere from 0.42% to 1.96% of GDP.69 While these may overestimate the costs of implementation, any administration that is not

There may be other issues and ways to curry favor at lower cost, namely being nice (i.e. diplomatic) and acting like you are listening to your allies. Such was the nature of the early visits to Europe by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush in 2005. At some point, however, America’s allies will demand more substantive action on climate. If the U.S. government decides that for reputational reasons it would like to embrace climate change, then for its actions to be credible, it might have to incur some reasonably significant costs. These need not be purely material; they could entail political costs of standing up to core constituencies. To get credit from skeptical allies, the U.S. might have to do something unexpected
wedded to climate protection goals for their own sake must evaluate different strategies for re-gaining others’ good will. or against type, such as a carbon tax, a Patriot tax on gasoline as Thomas Friedman has suggested, or embrace of a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.70As a consequence, the

U.S. could find its allies were in a better position to support the country on issues of more central concern. Such 36

SDI 2008 KMT Lab RPS - Aff a move would also make it more difficult for critics to use the symbolism of U.S. obstructionism on climate for their own domestic grandstanding or to engage in quasi-balancing behavior.71

37

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, Soft power is critical to US leadership Fried 06 (Eli, “The Soft Power of Multilateralism,” The Jerusalem Report, Oct 16, proquest/)
If there is one big lesson to be learned from the war in Lebanon and Iraq, it is that both Israel and the United States can gain as much, if not more, from international cooperation as from the unilateral

use of naked power. America's experience in Iraq has demonstrated that no amount of military power can make up for a lack of vital international support. Indeed, as a result of its
aggressive and unilateralist post- September 11 policies, Washington found itself unable to play the role of regional broker early on in the Lebanon fighting. However, it went on to pursue a sustainable cease-fire through a process of multilateral engagement, and, with the passing of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, significantly enhanced its persuasive capacity - or "soft power" - in the region. Its pursuit of an agreed- upon policy enabled the United States to co-opt the international community without sacrificing President Bush's paradigmatic division between the forces of good and evil. In other words, it is not the U.S.'s moral partitioning that the world opposes, but rather its perceived neo-colonialist policies and

unilateralist tendencies.

AND, US leadership solves global nuclear conflict Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay, Program director for strategy, doctrine, and force structure of RAND's Project AIR FORCE, Washington
Quarterly, Vol 18 No 2, Spring 1995, p.84)

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.

38

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
CONTENTION 2: SOLVENCY A FEDERAL RPS IS UNIQUELY KEY TO A TRANSITION TO MORE RENEWABLES – STATE BASED RPS SYSTEMS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH MANDATES AND COMPLIANCE AND FAIL TO ATTRACT INVESTORS – STATE RPS ALSO HAVE HIGHER COSTS SINCE STATES HAVE FEWER RESOURCES SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] Perhaps most important, the country needs federal action to harmonize inconsistent state definitions concerning eligible resources, purchase requirements, and obligations. Each state defines “renewable” resources differently, creating confusion among investors and utilities that must operate in multiple states at once.
For instance, Maine’s standard includes fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration, Pennsylvania’s coal gasification and distributed generation, and Hawaii’s energy efficiency practices. Photovoltaic (solar) panels do not count in Minnesota; solar thermal does not count in Iowa; methane does not count in Maine; small hydroelectric does not count in New Jersey, and nothing except solar thermal and photovoltaics count in Arizona. In Massachusetts, only new systems in operation after 1997 meet the standard, in Texas it is 1999, and in Iowa, it does not matter. Maine sets an upper limit of 100 megawatts (MW) while other states limit eligible resources to between 5 and 20 MW. Wisconsin set a 2.2 percent standard by 2011; New York 25 percent by 2013, Delaware 10 percent by 2019; Rhode Island 16 percent by 2020; and Washington, DC 11 percent by 2022. [6] Pennsylvania and Connecticut exempt some suppliers—such as publicly owned utilities or large utilities that offer default service—from their RPS requirements, and the duration of the standards in Arizona and Maine are unclear and may expire. Furthermore, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland divide eligible resources into separate tiers and offer credit multipliers for different technologies. New Jersey’s standard features a carve-out that mandates at least 90 MW and 1,500 MW must come from solar by 2008 and 2020, respectively. [7] Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas base their purchase requirements on installed capacity, whereas other states base theirs on electricity sales. Colorado sets a cost cap that electricity costs cannot increase more than 50 cents per month in a customer’s bill, yet New Mexico and Nevada have no “safety valve.” Arizona and Hawaii offer no REC trading systems, California and Colorado have a REC system under development, Maine and Rhode Island trade credits under the New England Power Pool, and Montana and New York offer REC trading only as long as electricity is delivered directly to the state. [8]

As if this was not enough complexity,

RPS compliance in California and New Mexico is at the discretion of the public utility commission, whereas Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have RPS where compliance is voluntary, vague, or unspecified. [9] Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania levy compliance fees on power marketers and utilities not meeting state RPS requirements by charging them $45-55/MWh; Connecticut 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for every
month a provider fails to comply; Delaware 2.5 cents per kWh; and Texas has a non-compliance penalty equal to $50 per megawatt hour (MWh) (with annual adjustment for inflation) or 200 percent the average market value of credits for the compliance period. [10]

Inconsistencies over what counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where electricity must be delivered, and whether cost caps, REC trading, and noncompliance penalties exist create additional transaction costs that must be borne by investors and utilities. The state-by-state approach to RPS artificially inflates the cost of renewable energy by forcing some utilities to rely on sub-optimal in-state resources and induce development of renewable energy generators where they may not be most cost effective.
Consider the situation in Washington and Arizona. Because Washington’s RPS statute excludes hydropower as a “renewable energy” but other state RPS mandates include it, Washington’s low-cost hydropower is sold to ratepayers in neighboring states, while Washington consumers are forced to buy higher-cost renewable energy from generators outside the state. [11] Arizona’s RPS mandate excludes geothermal power while Nevada and New Mexico include it. This inconsistency gives rise to a scenario in which Arizona’s geothermal generation is exported to neighboring states, while Arizona’s regulated utilities must either purchase more expensive solar, wind and biomass to meet the state’s mandate or accept non-attainment of the RPS goal. [12]

The differing state RPS targets and expiration dates of state policies can confuse investors, who are then not able to obtain long term sales contracts, further hampering efforts to deploy renewable energy technologies. As Ole Langniss and Ryan Wiser put it, “experience in several U.S. states ... shows that inadequate purchase obligations, overly broad renewable energy eligibility guidelines, unclear regulatory rules, insufficient enforcement, and wavering political support can all doom an RPS to certain failure.”[13] The confusion caused by differing state RPS requirements suggests that policymakers did not explicitly deliberate or agree upon their goals. State inconsistency has engendered a situation where different interpretations create very different outcomes, ultimately increasing costs for implementing agencies and stakeholders. Why does such disparity exist? In most states, RPS reflect more a political compromise needed to get them passed instead of an optimal policy mechanism to promote renewable energy. Some
state standards were hastily drafted provisions that formed part of political battles over electric utility industry restructuring. Others were tossed to politically weak environmental and renewables lobbies to dress up larger financial benefits bestowed on utilities. In other cases, RPS were watered down by opposing political interests. [14] Regardless, current renewable energy policymakers are forced to expend resources grappling with inconsistent or vague terminology, and the cumulative result is a situation liable to court challenge and litigation. [15] Abrupt changes in renewable energy policy has deterred investors, led companies into bankruptcy, complicated compliance

Federal harmonization is needed to standardize varying state definitions of renewable energy, a prerequisite for any national renewable energy trading market, and to send a clear signal to investors that they can invest in those technologies meeting the definition.
measures, and made interstate cooperation virtually impossible. [16]

39

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
AND, A CONTINUED RELIANCE ON THE STATUS QUO SYSTEM OF STATE RPS WILL FAIL TO LEAD TO A RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSITION – PLAN NECESSARY TO INCREASE RELIABILITY AND SECURITY OF ENERGY SECTOR AS WELL AS STAVING OFF CLIMATE CHANGE SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] There are three reasons, however, why continued reliance on state-based efforts such as SBCs and RPSs will be insufficient to promote renewable energy technologies in the United States on the scale needed to fight climate change.
IMPROVING RELIABILITY

First, federal intervention is needed to improve electricity reliability. Contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the variability of renewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. Electrical and power systems engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes, the less reserve capacity it needs. Demand variations between individual consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity consumer, for example, starts drawing more
electricity than the system allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are drawing from the grid that it is entirely likely another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This "averaging" works in a similar fashion on the supply side of the grid. Individual wind turbines average out each other in electricity supply. n18 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through another. Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliability because it is unlikely that all turbines would be down at the same time. Furthermore, when turbines do malfunction, they take far less time to recover than massive conventional power plants or nuclear reactors that have literally millions of individual components, arranged in complex circuits prone to mechanical failure. n19 Analysts already confirmed the benefit of wind power's greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in Minnesota [*7] concluded that "wind generation does make a calculable contribution to system reliability" by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages. n20

Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American economy. The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes, they cost consumers an average of $
150 to 400 billion every year. n21 The Electric Power Research Institute projects the annual costs of poor power reliability at $ 119 billion, or forty-four percent of all electricity sales in 1995. n22

However, to capture such benefits, renewable energy technologies must be spatially deployed in every state and must have national penetration rates above ten percent. Penetration rates of renewable energy technologies nationwide are still low--around three
percent of overall installed electricity capacity in 2007. Collective state efforts are expected to increase this amount to only around four percent by 2015 and five percent by

Federal intervention in the form of a nation-wide SBC or RPS aiming for targets of ten to twenty percent by 2020 would expand the diversity of technologies used to access renewable resources.
2030, but the environmental benefits of renewable energy only really start to accrue at penetration rates well above this rate. IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY

Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental power outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible.
For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the and San Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National Liberation Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24 Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated

A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time
people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25 would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26

[CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE – NO TEXT DELETED] 40

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AC
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE – NO TEXT DELETED]
Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their operational efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27

Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in incremental and modular
amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel

A national RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.
cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 PROVIDING CLIMATE BENEFITS

Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize "freeriding" 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." n30 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. Equally important, but often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the United States. [*8] 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. n31 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. n32 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. n33

By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, only large-scale renewable energy penetration rates would avoid many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion, and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. By promoting technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, federal promotion of renewable energy would substantially decrease air pollution in the United States. A single one MW wind turbine running at only thirty percent of capacity for one year displaces more than 1,500 tons of
carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury emissions. n34 One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. n35 The study estimated that the wind farm would displace more than twenty-four billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide over the course of its twenty-year lifetime--enough to cover the entire city of Oakland, California in a pile of toxic pollution forty-stories high. n36

Renewable energy technologies possess an even greater ability to mitigate climate change. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon emissions are included, coal plants are around ten times more carbon intensive than solar technologies and more than forty times more carbon intensive than wind technologies. Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as solar and twenty times as carbon intensive as wind. n37 The Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable energy technologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per every MWh of generation. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a twenty percent RPS would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020--a reduction of fifteen percent below "business as usual" levels, or the equivalent to taking nearly seventy-one million automobiles off the road. n38
FIGURE 2: DIRECT AND INDIRECT CARBON EMISSIONS BY ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGY (EQUIVALENT GRAMS OF CO[2]/KWH) n39

These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the Netherlands reduced that country's annual emissions of CO[2] between 4.4 million and 6.7 million tons. Renewable technologies were so successful at displacing greenhouse gas emissions that Europe now views renewable energy as "the major tool of distribution utilities in meeting industry CO[2] reduction targets." n40 41

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

INHERENCY EXTS – NO FEDERAL RPS
A Federal National RPS has not been signed—Most of the changes happen within state boundaries Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose, Energy researchers, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2008 [“Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, April 2008, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf , Liu] Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have proliferated at the state level in the United States since the late 1990s. In combination with Federal tax incentives, state RPS requirements have emerged as one of the most important drivers of renewable energy capacity additions. The focus of most RPS activity in the U.S. has been within the states. Nonetheless, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have, at different times, each passed versions of a Federal RPS; a Federal RPS, however, has not yet been signed into law.

CONGRESS CONTINUALLY FAILS TO ENACT FEDERAL RPS SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] We seem to have reached a similar situation in the U.S. concerning renewable energy and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or laws stipulating that suppliers provide a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable resources by a particular date. Confronted with an almost infinite number of different RPS configurations, federal policymakers seem to remain in a state of continual inaction. Congressional bills promoting a national RPS have failed to pass the American Congress at least 18 times in the past ten years. [1] Investors and citizens remain equally confused, as none of the existing state RPS programs (including the District of Columbia) is alike, and several other states are considering their own proposals that would further add to the complexity. MORE EVIDENCE – HOUSE KEEPS REJECTING FEDERAL RPS Union of Concerned Scientists, November 2, 2007 [“Cashing In on Clean Energy”, November 2, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/cashing-in.html, Zhang] America’s current energy system is dominated by fossil fuels, which pose serious threats to our health and environment and leave us vulnerable to price spikes and supply shortages. With the threat of global warming becoming increasingly urgent, we must make responsible energy choices today that ensure a safe, reliable power supply and a healthy environment for future generations. Fortunately, there are practical and affordable ways to achieve this goal. Homegrown renewable energy resources —such as wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal—can help reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuels. These clean energy sources can also help stabilize energy prices, stimulate the development of innovative new technology, and create high-quality jobs and other economic benefits. Strong national policies can ensure these benefits are fully realized. The policy that has proven most effective and popular at the state level is the renewable electricity standard (also known as the renewable portfolio standard or RPS), which requires electricity providers to supply a minimum percentage of their power from clean energy sources. As of June 2007, renewable electricity standards have been adopted in 23 states and Washington, DC. At the national level, the U.S. Senate has passed a 10 percent by 2020 national renewable electricity standard three times since 2002—most recently in June 2005—only to be rejected by the House conferees each time. 42

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS
ADOPTING A NATIONAL RPS KEY TO STAVING OFF GLOBAL WARMING CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 2007 [“States taking the lead in cutting carbon emissions”, April 27, lexis/ttate] Already, states have trimmed an estimated 20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions through renewable-energy portfolio standards (RPS), which require that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. "Renewable standards are one of the biggest steps we can take to cut global-warming pollution in the next 10 years," says Alison Cassady, author of a new US Public Interest Research Group report released earlier this month. Nationwide, the rate of growth of CO2 emissions has slowed, according to her analysis. Emissions from power plants and transportation rose 18 percent between 1990 and 2004. Between 2000 and 2005, they grew only 2 percent, mostly due to a shift to less-carbon-intensive natural-gas power plants. But with the price of natural gas surging and a phalanx of coal-fired power plants in development, lower emissions growth may be ending at about the same time Congress is entering the global-warming debate in earnest. Bills call for more energy from renewables Several bills pending in Congress would require 20 percent of US energy to come from renewables by 2020. That standard would be tougher than many state requirements and could cut the growth of US emissions 60 percent by 2020, the UCS analysis shows. At that level, state RPS would produce 180,000 megawatts of power, 11 times current levels. Most important, it would prevent 434 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere. That still leaves CO2 emissions growing in the future. But it shows RPS can eliminate a substantial portion of greenhouse gas emissions, paving the way perhaps for a broader national push for energy efficiency with tougher standards for appliances and lighting, for instance. If Congress were to mandate a new national standard that caps CO2 emissions and permits the trading of emissions allowances – a so-called cap-and-trade approach - state programs might still play a key role in accelerating the transition to less carbon-intensive energy production. "I think [renewable energy standards] would still find a home in a world with a federal cap-and-trade system," says Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton scientist and a lead author in the most recent report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "These programs could be useful if for no other reason than that they provide extra incentives for bringing on renewable energy rapidly."

43

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS
ADOPTING A DIVERSE PORTFOLIO OF RENEWABLES  DECLINE OF GHG EMISSIONS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 2004 [“Stabilizing the global greenhouse may not be so hard”, August 13, lexis/ttate] Humanity has the hardware in hand to halt the rise in heat-trapping greenhouse gases it pumps into the atmosphere and forestall the worst effects of global warming projected for the end of this century. The goal could be achieved within the next 50 years by more widespread use of a portfolio of at least 15 approaches – from energy efficiency, solar energy, and wind power to nuclear energy and the preservation or enhancement of "natural" sinks for carbon dioxide such as rain forests, or the conservation tillage techniques on farms worldwide, say two Princeton University researchers in a study published Friday. The list of technologies has been around for years, the researchers acknowledge. But past studies, such as one conducted by five US national laboratories four years ago, tended to focus on whether these approaches could be used to reach the emissions goals and deadlines in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol without trashing the economy, as some critics of the pact have warned. Holding out for more research, Bush administration officials have argued that "we need a solution comparable to the discovery of electricity before we can get on with the carbon problem," says Robert Socolow, an engineering professor at Princeton University and codirector of the school's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. "But there isn't a [Michael] Faraday in every generation. If you don't get started, you'll waive an opportunity" to use what's available. The study, published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, is short on policy recommendations. "How do you get these [technologies] into the system?" asks Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Strategies for the Global Environment in Arlington, Va. The problem, she says, is more one of politics and cost than whether key technologies currently exist at industrial scales. Yet by adopting a more scientifically defensible target and a longer time scale to achieve it, Stephen Pacala and Dr. Socolow hope the study helps break a logjam - at least in the United States - over when to begin efforts to stabilize and ultimately reduce the carbon-dioxide emissions that most atmospheric scientists say are contributing to a warming world climate.

44

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS
RPS works—states have cut 20 million tons of CO2 already Clayton, staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, 2007 [Mark, “States Take Lead in Cutting Carbon Emissions”, Christian Science Monitor, April 27, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p03s03-wogi.html?page=1, Zhang] "These new state standards are kicking in right now," says Jeff Deyette, an energy analyst with the UCS, based in Cambridge, Mass. "We're seeing states like Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that are meeting or exceeding their goals to build clean energy sources rather than dirty" ones. Already, states have trimmed an estimated 20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions through renewable-energy portfolio standards (RPS), which require that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. "Renewable standards are one of the biggest steps we can take to cut global-warming pollution in the next 10 years," says Alison Cassady, author of a new US Public Interest Research Group report released earlier this month.

RPS solves for greenhouse gases—would reduce emissions by 60% Clayton, staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, 2007 [Mark, “States Take Lead in Cutting Carbon Emissions”, Christian Science Monitor, April 27, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p03s03-wogi.html?page=2, Zhang] Several bills pending in Congress would require 20 percent of US energy to come from renewables by 2020. That standard would be tougher than many state requirements and could cut the growth of US emissions 60 percent by 2020, the UCS analysis shows. At that level, state RPS would produce 180,000 megawatts of power, 11 times current levels. Most important, it would prevent 434 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere. That still leaves CO2 emissions growing in the future. But it shows RPS can eliminate a substantial portion of greenhouse-gas emissions, paving the way perhaps for a broader national push for energy efficiency with tougher standards for appliances and lighting, for instance.

45

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS
AN RPS SYSTEM  REDUCTION OF CO2 EMISSIONS DAILY YOMIURI 2007 [“Increased cost of power must be shared evenly”, February 11, lexis/ttate] How can the emission of carbon dioxides from power generation be reduced? How should the increased cost of such a reduction be shared? Issues on power generation, which is linked to global warming, must be resolved. (RPS) system, which obliges utility companies to utilize a certain amount of new energy sources, such as wind and solar power, the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry has decided to increase the obligatory use of new
Under the renewable portfolio standard energy sources to 16 billion kilowatt-hours in fiscal 2014, about a three-fold increase on the current use of renewable energy sources. The new requirement will bring about a 30 percent increase on the current obligatory utilization of 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours, which will end in fiscal 2010. With the new obligatory amount, power generation from new energy sources would account for 1.63 percent of total electricity sales, compared to the previous target of 1.35 percent.

Under the new RPS utilization rules, solar power--the most costly renewable energy source--will be considered to be worth twice as much as other new energy sources as an incentive designed to appease the power industry, which opposes the increase of the obligatory standard. The RPS system requires that a certain proportion of utility companies' power supply must come from new energy sources. If a company fails to meet the target, it will be obliged to purchase electric power generated by wind or other new sources from other
companies to cover the shortfall. Under this system, the ministry aims to increase the value of new energy, as well as its attractiveness, to promote the development of power generation from new sources. Energy security

Expanding the use of wind and solar power, which do not emit CO2, would help tackle global warming and, as such energy can be produced domestically, improve the nation's energy security. 20% RPS  SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Increased renewable energy use would reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. Using UCS assumptions, the 20 percent national RPS is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 434 million metric tons (MMT) per year by 2020-15 percent below business as usual levels or a 59 percent reduction in the projected growth in emissions. This reduction is equivalent to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road. Using EIA assumptions, a 20 percent RPS would produce slightly greater CO2 reductions of 468 MMT by 2020, as the increased use of biomass sources displaces higher amounts of coal generation.

46

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – UTILITY INDUSTRY KEY
UTILITY INDUSTRY KEY EMITTER OF POLLUTANTS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] Conventional electricity generation is by far the largest source of air pollutants that harm human health and contribute to global warming. For instance, emissions from just nine conventional power plants in Illinois directly contributed to 300 premature deaths, 14,000 asthma attacks, and more than 400 thousand daily incidents of upper respiratory symptoms per year among the 33 million people living within 250 miles of the plants. n1 Moreover, fossil-fueled power plants in the United States emitted 2.25 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide ("CO[2]") in 2003, more than ten times the amount of CO[2] compared to the next-largest emitter, iron and steel production. n2 Of all American industries, electricity generation is--by substantial margins--the single largest contributor of the pollutants responsible for global warming.

UTILITY SECTOR KEY EMITTER OF CARBON DIOXIDE Simeone, environmental consultant, 07[Christina Simeone, environmental consultant, “Understanding federal renewable portfolio standards;
Reducing Energy”, Lexis Nexis Academic, March 22, 2007, pg. 22, Nalepka]

Combining all sources of energy available in the US (electricity, petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, renewables, etc), the industrial sector consumes the greatest share of energy, followed by the transportation, residential and commercial sectors [1]. Just to make electricity, which is only one energy source, enormous amounts of energy inputs are required. The act of simply creatingelectrical power in the United States uses about 38.9% of primary energy consumption [2]. In 2004, this electrical power was
derived from about 50% coal, 20% nuclear power, 18% natural gas, 7% hydroelectric power and 6% other (petroleum, wood, waste, geothermal, other gases, wind, solar and others) [3].

[4]. Of all energy sources available in the US, the electricity sector releases the largest proportion (39%) of carbon dioxide emissions [5]. In 2004 energy consumption for electricity production released 2,444,443 thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide, 10,307 thousand metric tons of sulfur dioxide, and 3,951 thousand metric tons of nitrogen oxides and significant amounts of mercury and particulate matter [6]. These electrical power plant pollutants significantly contribute to environmental problems such as global warming, acid rain production, and ozone layer depletion. These pollutants also pose negative health risks to the human population.
With respect to electrical power, the residential sector has become the largest consumer, followed by commercial, industrial and transportation sectors

47

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY
REDUCING INDUSTRIAL CARBON EMISSIONS KEY TO STAVING OFF GLOBAL WARMING Caldeira et al, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, 03 (Ken Caldeira, Atul K. Jain, Martin I. Hoffert “Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO2 Emission” Science, 3/03, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5615/2052, Yoder) Here, we investigated uncertainties in allowable CO2 emissions and carbon emissions-free power requirements introduced by uncertainties in climate sensitivity, for a specific set of temperature stabilization pathways. However, time-varying allowable emission rates are sensitive to the details of the stabilization pathway; mean or cumulative emissions are less sensitive (12). Figure 3 shows the rate at which carbon emissions-free energy sources must be added to the power generating capacity to achieve CO2 stabilization. To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we would need to install ~900 ± 500 MW of carbon emissions-free power generating capacity each day over the next 50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming functional somewhere in the world every day. In many scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. If climate sensitivity is in the middle of the IPCC range, under IS92a assumptions, even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy capacity each day. Uncertainty in climate sensitivity could perhaps be reduced by a well-designed program of climate model evaluation and improvement and by observationally narrowing uncertainties in non-CO2 sources of radiative forcing (e.g., aerosols, solar variation), changes in heat storage among various components of Earth's climate system, top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes, and changes in Earth's surface temperature. But, uncertainty in climate sensitivity is only one factor affecting uncertainty in allowable CO2 emissions. Uncertainty is introduced when determining (i) acceptable amounts and rates of climate change, (ii) greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations consistent with those amounts and rates of climate change, and (iii) greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions consistent with those concentrations. Predicting future carbon emissions-free energy requirements incorporates further uncertainties in projection of future economic conditions, energy-use efficiency, demographics, and other factors. Nevertheless, climate stabilization will require new energy technologies and structural changes in our economy (14, 24).

48

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY
WE ARE THE KEY INTERNAL LINK – ELECTRICITY IS THE KEY OUTPUT OF CO2 EMISSIONS, WHICH IS THE KEY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING POWER SCORECARD 2000 [“Climate Change”, http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?
issue_id=1/ ttate\]

The generation of electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States. The combustion of fossil fuels such as coal is the primary source of these air emissions. Coal supplies 57 percent of the total energy harnessed to generate electricity (and approximately 86 percent of all coal consumed in the United States is used for electricity generation). Burning coal produces far more CO2 than oil or natural gas. Reducing reliance upon coal combustion has to be the cornerstone of any credible global climate change prevention plan. Some methods of electricity production produce no or few CO2 emissions - solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear systems particularly. Power plants fueled by wood, agricultural crop wastes, livestock wastes, and methane collected from municipal landfills release CO2 emissions but may contribute little to global climate change since they also can prevent even greater releases of both CO2 and methane.

49

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – POLAR BEAR KEYSTONE
Polar Bear is keystone species Norris et al, WWF International Arctic Programme, 02 (Stefan Norris, Lynn Rosentrater, Pal Eid, “Polar Bears at Risk” WWF, 5/02, http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/polar_bears_at_risk_report.pdf Yoder) A key element of WWF’s mission is to preserve biodiversity for future generations. To achieve this, large tracts comprising entire intact ecosystems must be managed on a sustainable long-term basis, and global trends threatening these ecosystems, such as human-induced climate change and the emission of POPs and heavy metals, must also be halted or reversed. As the polar bear is a keystone species at the top of the food web in the arctic seas, which include some of the world’s most productive marine ecosystems, it is a good indicator of the overall status of these ecosystems (Eisenberg 1980). Successful conservation of polar bears and their habitats can thus have positive effects on many other species, in several key ecoregions, as well as on local human communities within the Arctic. Addressing the conservation of such keystone species therefore has a high priority within WWF. Through its work in priority ecoregions, WWF is a driving force in the protection of large expanses of unfragmented land and marine areas to ensure that space-demanding species, such as the polar bear, can continue to roam undisturbed in intact ecosystems.

50

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – CLIMATE CHANGE OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR
Climate change outweighs nuclear war SPIEGEL Magazine 7 (Marco Evers, 2/2/07, “Environmental Guru Lovelock Urges Expansion of Nuclear Energy”, http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463367,00.html) Lovelock's current prognoses for the earth's inhabitants are as gloomy as they are provocative. He is convinced that the 21st century will not be a good one. He claims that climate change caused by human activity will devastate large swaths of the earth, and by the year 2100 there will only be about a billion people left -- and possibly only half as many. Lovelock is now 87 years old and happy that he will be able to avoid this future -- although he has nine grandchildren. Sometimes he feels like a Roman citizen living around the year 480, watching as an empire meant for eternity fades away, or like a doctor delivering a fatal diagnosis. And at times he probably relishes how he distresses his audiences (he is in demand worldwide as a speaker) in his role as a prophet of doom. "Even a nuclear war," says Lovelock, "would not lead to the level of devastation worldwide that global overheating will cause." No world power, no scientist, no politician, no consumer forsaking his or her familiar comforts, and neither emissions trading nor wind energy nor biofuels will be capable of preventing the earth's demise, he says. According to Lovelock, it will at best be possible to delay the catastrophe for a while -- primarily through the massive expansion of nuclear energy. C02 release outweighs nuclear incidents – Chernobyl proves SPIEGEL Magazine 7 (Marco Evers, 2/2/07, “Environmental Guru Lovelock Urges Expansion of Nuclear Energy”, http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463367,00.html) A reliable supply of electricity, says Lovelock, is the key issue when it comes to survival on a warmer planet. He loses no sleep over the risks of nuclear power. "Show me the mass graves of Chernobyl," he demands provocatively. No more than a few thousand people died after the 1986 meltdown -- a small price to pay, he says, compared to the millions who could fall victim to CO2. He adds that compact nuclear waste is vastly easier to control than the close to 30 billion tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by the burning of fossil fuels.

51

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST
Global warming causes natural disasters, resource scarcity, poverty, disease, nuclear war, and extinction The Tyee 5 (Mark Hertsgaard, 2/16/07, “Kyoto Protocol Is Not Enough”, http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/02/16/KyotoProtocolNotEnough/) The IPCC scientists predict that because of global warming the future will bring more and deadlier extreme weather of all kinds: more hurricanes, tornadoes, downpours, heat waves, droughts and blizzards. Then there’s the matter of all that comes in their wake: more flooding, landslides, power outages, crop failures, property damage, disease, hunger, poverty and loss of life. In California, torrential rains induced a mudslide on Jan. 11 that killed 10 people, buried children alive and crushed dozens of houses. In 2003, a record summer heat wave left 35,000 – mainly elderly people – dead across Western Europe. Insurance companies sound alarm And this is just the beginning. Scientists are careful to say that no single weather event can be definitively linked to global warming. But the trend is unmistakable to the insurance companies that end up paying the bill. “Man-made climate change will bring us increasingly extreme natural events and consequently increasingly large catastrophe losses,” an official of Munich Re, the world’s large reinsurance company in the field of natural disaster mitigation, said recently. Swiss Re expects losses to reach $150 billion a year within this decade. British Prime Minister Tony Blair regards climate change as “the single biggest long-term problem” of any kind facing his country. His government’s top scientist, Sir David King, goes further, calling climate change “the biggest danger humanity has faced in 5,000 years of civilization.” Though the Bush White House continues to downplay the urgency of global warming, some parts of the Bush administration have recognized the gravity of the situation. A report released last April by the Pentagon’s internal think-tank, the Office of Net Assessments, said that, by 2020, climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes. This could include mega-droughts, mass starvation and even nuclear war, as countries like China and India battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water. All of this underlines the urgency of revising the world’s response to climate change. To be sure, it remains essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strengthening the Kyoto Protocol and augmenting it with other measures; otherwise, the amount of future warming civilization eventually will have to endure will prove too great to survive. But in the meantime, it is imperative to prepare against the climate change already on its way.

52

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – NUCLEAR WARS
WARMING  ESCALATORY NUCLEAR WARS HARRIS 2004 [Paul, THE OBSERVER, Feb 22, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver / ttate] Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

53

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – ECONOMY
WARMING  ECONOMIC COLLAPSE EILPERIN 2006 [Juliet, staff writer, “Warming Called Threat to Global Economy”, WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000269.html / ttate] Failing to curb the impact of climate change could damage the global economy on the scale of the Great Depression or the world wars by spawning environmental devastation that could cost 5 to 20 percent of the world's annual gross domestic product, according to a report issued yesterday by the British government. The report by Nicholas Stern, who heads Britain's Government Economic Service and formerly served as the World Bank's chief economist, calls for a new round of international collaboration to cut greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. "There's still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally," Stern said in a statement. "But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close."

54

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – MARINE BIODIVERSITY KEY
MARINE ENVIRONMENT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT IN BIODIVERSITY Ardia, David S., Michigan Journal of International Law, “Does the Emperor Have No Clothes? Enforcement of International Laws Protecting the Marine Environment, Winter, 1998. The acute need for an effective monitoring and enforcement regime is particularly compelling in the context of the marine environment. The world's oceans are important to many nations for purposes as diverse as commerce, transportation, minerals, food, survival, and, more recently, as a repository for human pollution and waste. Recent research [*506] suggests that the oceans contain animal life that rivals tropical forests in its diversity of species. As Professor G. Carlton Ray of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia writes, "the coastal zone may be the single most important portion of our planet. The loss of its biodiversity may have repercussions far beyond our worst fears."
36 37 38

55

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRONMENT EXTS – CONVENTIONAL ENERGY  POLLUTANTS
Conventional power plants dump a hundred million tons of poisonous sludge -- pollutes groundwater and increase the risk of cancer, miscarriages, and birth defects Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu] America’s 600 coal and oil-fired power plants produce more than one hundred million tons of sludge waste every year. Seventy six million tons of these wastes are primarily disposed on-site at each power plant in unlined wastewater lagoons and landfills that are seldom fully monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. These wastes are highly toxic, containing concentrated levels of poisons such as arsenic, mercury, and cadmium that can severely damage the human nervous system. Nuclear facilities may be even worse. To produce fuel for nuclear reactors, uranium is often “leached” out of the ground by pumping a water solution through wells to dissolve the uranium in the ore. The uranium is then pumped to the surface in a liquid solution. About 20 such in-site leach facilities operate in the United States. At the reactor site, electricity generation using nuclear technology creates waste water contaminated with radioactive tritium and other toxic substances that can leak into nearby groundwater sources. In December 2005, for example, Exelon Corporation reported to
authorities that its Braidwood reactor in Illinois had since 1996 released millions of gallons of tritium-contaminated waste water into the local watershed, prompting the company to distribute bottled water to surrounding communities while local drinking water wells were tested for the pollutant. The incident led to a lawsuit by the Illinois Attorney General and the State Attorney for Will County who claimed that “Exelon was well aware that tritium

increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects and yet they made a conscious decision not to notify the public of their risk of exposure.”

56

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SYSTEMIC DEATH IMPACTS
Without the implementation of cleaner electricity generation, 70,000 will die each year from excessive air pollution Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 102, Liu] Conventional electricity generation is by far the largest source of air pollutants that harm human health and contribute to global warming. In 2003, for example, fossil fuel use (for all energy sectors, not just electricity) was responsible for 99 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 93 percent of its sulfur dioxide (SOx) emissions, and 96 percent of its nitrous oxides emissions (NOx). Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that the air pollution from conventional energy sources kills between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans every year. These researchers found that the
emissions from just 9 power plants in Illinois directly contributed to an annual risk of 300 premature deaths, 14,000 asthma attacks, and more than 400,000 daily incidents of upper respiratory symptoms among the 33 million people living within 250 miles of the plants. Compiling data from the American Cancer Society, Harvard School of Public Health, and Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean the Air Grassroots Network estimated that

residents in every single U.S. state were at risk to premature death from air pollution. Children are particularly vulnerable to the pollution from fossil fuels. Because children spend more time outside and have smaller airways that necessitate more rapid breathing, they are much more vulnerable to develop illnesses associated with air pollution. By promoting technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, a national RPS would substantially decrease air pollution in the U.S. A single 1 MW wind turbine running at only 30 percent of capacity for one year displaces more than 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury (Hg) emissions. One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont
Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. The study estimated that the wind farm would displace more than 24 billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter and carbon dioxide over the course of its 20-year lifetime — enough to cover the entire city of Oakland in a pile of toxic pollution 40 stories high.

PARTICULATE MATTER  THOUSANDS OF DEATHS EACH YEAR Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 111, Liu] Because its make-up is often complex, PM is by far the most difficult pollutant to detect and monitor. Roughly half of the nation’s 250,000 tons of PM emissions come indirectly from the NOx and Sox emitted from power plants, which react in the atmosphere to form dangerous PM particles.291 When both these primary and secondary conditions are included in estimates, individual power plants release between 100 and 400 tons of PM every year.292 Inhalation of PM is strongly associated with heart disease and chronic lung disease. 293 Since microscopic solids or liquid droplets are so small, they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Numerous scientific studies have linked PM exposure to: Irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma development of chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Roughly 80 million Americans live in areas where PM emissions are considered dangerous. Particulate matter emissions from power plants alone are responsible for more than 23,000 premature deaths each year, as well as nearly 22,000 hospital admissions, more than a half-million asthma attacks (resulting in 26,000 hospital emergency room visits), more than 38,000 heart attacks, and over 16,000 cases of chronic bronchitis.296 These health affects have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and are estimated to have cost the U.S. workforce over three million lost work days. 57

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRONMENT EXTS – POLLUTION  HEALTH HARMS
AIR POLLUTION LEADS TO HARMFUL SMOG AND ACID RAIN – DIRTIES OUR WATER SUPPLY NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Electricity use has a significant impact on the environment and public health. Electricity accounts for less than 3 percent of U.S. economic activity, yet the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power currently accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO2 emissions. Increased renewable energy use can help reduce these harmful emissions, or reduce the cost of complying with pollutant reduction requirements. And by reducing the need to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels, a national RPS would limit the damage done to our water and land and conserve natural resources for future generations.

COAL EMISSIONS  FATAL AIR POLLUTION UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2005 [“Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution”, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html / keehun] Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 37 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs. 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness. 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease. 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone. 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25- acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion. 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

58

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRONMENT EXTS – POLLUTION COSTLY
POLLUTION FROM FOSSIL FUELS COSTS US ECONOMY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY IN HEALTH CARE EXPENSES SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] Respiratory illness, cancer, neurological disorders, and birth defects caused by fossil fuels cost the country billions of dollars a year.9 These billions of dollars, public health entitlements notwithstanding, represent a mass siphoning of capital that would otherwise, in the form of commerce or workforce participation, contribute to the domestic economy.10 The federal government is clearly complicit in allowing the status quo, for which individual policymakers ought to be ashamed. But more constructive is the fact that the solution is cognizable and can be implemented in a way that solves the mutually reinforcing crises of electricity demand,11 infrastructural antiquation,12 rising energy costs,13 and soaring public and private health care expenses,14 not to mention going a long way toward providing the environment an overdue respite.15 MORE EVIDENCE – EXTERNAL COSTS OF FOSSIL FUELS EXPENSIVE SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] Environmentally, the externality costs of air pollution, acid rain, and global warming are also significant.88 For instance, according to one set of estimates, the "annual marginal cost of air pollution and acid deposition" is between $10.39 and $11.02 per short ton of coal; for climate change, the marginal cost is between $0 and $4.50 per million Btu.89 Absent any consideration of climate change, the approximate "social costs of coal as a percentage of private costs range from about 40% to 275%."90 The range for natural gas is 12% to 95%, 112% to 123% for petroleum, and 14% to 17% for nuclear. 91 Another set of estimates emphasizes that "coal is by far the most under-priced energy resource,"92 and that at a price of $30 per ton would carry with it external costs of almost $160 without including climate change risks which would bring costs to $190 per ton.93 While monetizing the total social and environmental costs to society of fossil fuel use is an inexact science, the causal link between polluting fuels and resulting externalities is undeniable.94

59

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SMALL THRESHOLD TO SPECIES LOSS
EVEN A SMALL HUMAN DISRUPTION ON ECOSYSTEMS CAN CAUSE MASSIVE ECOSYSTEM LOSS GASTON AND FULLER 2007 [Kevin and Richard, Royal Society-Wolfson research scholar, “Biodiversity and Extinction: Losing the Commonand the Widespread”, PROGRESS IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY, http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/2/213 / yoder] The lessons of recent and more distant history teach that initially common and widespread species can be massively depleted by human activities, even when those species are not themselves being directly exploited. Projected levels and patterns of global environmental change suggest that this will continue to be the case, with many of the pressures that these species have faced being predicted to increase rather than ease in their intensity (Cardillo et al., 2004; Scholze et al., 2006; Lewis, 2006; Thuiller et al., 2006). Under the four scenarios used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), agricultural land is predicted by 2050 to extend over 107– 124% of its 2000 coverage, forest/woodland over 97–106%, steppe/ savanna/grassland over 84–92%, scrubland over 60–88%, and tundra/hot desert/ice desert over 96–97%. Projected future loss of, for example, grasslands in Alaska may threaten the integrity of migration routes between calving and wintering areas for the caribou Rangifer tarandus population of an estimated one million animals (Ricketts et al., 1999). Formerly abundant grassland birds such as bobolink Polichonyx oryzivorus and lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys are undergoing consistent long-term declines across much of North America, predicted to continue as a result of agricultural intensification (Sauer et al., 1997; White et al., 2000). The ability of previously common and widespread species to respond to future changes in land cover as a direct consequence of human activities will be further complicated by changes engendered by systematic alterations in climate, and the rate at which they can track changing conditions (Hill et al., 2002; Menendez et al., 2006). Evidence is growing that changes in land cover are likely to be accompanied by the ongoing homogenization of biotas, and processes in which native species are replaced by a relatively small set of alien species (McKinney and Lockwood, 1999; Olden and Poff, 2003; Clergeau et al., 2006; Olden and Rooney, 2006). Attention has thus focused on how some common and widespread species will become yet more common and widespread (eg, the global geographic range of the house sparrow Passer domesticus has continued to spread in recent years; Summers-Smith, 1988; 1990). However, perhaps more significant will be the declines and extirpations of many naturally previously common and widespread species, with attendant repercussions for numerous ecosystem functions and services, and potentially for many other species.

60

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRONMENT EXTS – RPS PREVENTS WATER SHORTAGE
NATIONAL RPS PREVENTS OVERCONSUMPTION OF WATER Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 101, Liu] By promoting wind, solar, and other renewable resources that do not consume or withdraw water, a national RPS can help conserve this dwindling essential resource. In a 2006 report, the Department of Energy acknowledged wind power and solar photovoltaics could play a key role in averting a “business-as-usual scenario” where “consumption of water in the electric sector could grow substantially.” A recent DOE report noted that “greater additions of wind to offset fossil, hydropower, and nuclear assets in a generation portfolio will result in a technology that uses no water, offsetting water-dependent technologies.” Ed Brown, director of Environmental Programs at the University of Northern Iowa, estimated that a 100-watt solar panel would save approximately 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of water over the course of its lifetime. Similarly, Dr. Brown concluded that “billions of gallons of water can be saved every day” through the greater use of renewable energy technologies. The American Wind Energy Association conducted one of the most comprehensive assessments of renewable energy and water consumption. Their study estimated that wind power uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear, 1/500 as much as coal, and 1/250 as much as natural gas (small amounts of water are used to clean wind and solar systems). In short, by displacing centralized fossil fuel and nuclear generation, a national RPS conserves substantial amounts of water that would otherwise be withdrawn and consumed for the production of electricity.

61

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – JOBS MODULE
AND, JOBS THE LATEST JOB GROWTH REPORT IS DISMAL – IT HAS GUTTED CONSUMER CONFIDENCE AND WILL CAUSE THE ECONOMY TO CONTINUE TO DECLINE REUTERS 2008 [“Weak Confidence, Prices Stroke U.S. Stagflation Fears; Housing Worsens. Collapse in Home Prices Accelerates to Record Pace”, February 27, lexis/ ttate] U.S. consumer confidence slumped to its worst in five years this month as a tough job market helped produce the grimmest future outlook in 17 years, while soaring inflation among producers at the year's start stoked fears of stagflation.
Bad news also poured in from the beleaguered housing market, other data showed yesterday. The collapse in U.S. home prices accelerated to a record pace in the fourth quarter of 2007, with prices plunging 8.9 per cent last year, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index. A government report showed U.S. producer prices jumped one per cent in January on rising energy costs and posted the biggest 12-month gain in more than 26 years, which was the last time the U.S. was emerging from a stagflationary period of low growth and high inflation. The Conference Board said its index of consumer sentiment fell to 75.0 in February, significantly worse than economists' forecasts and its lowest in five years. The Conference Board's expectations index fell to 57.9 - its lowest in 17 years. "It looks like there is no confidence in an economy where inflation is getting out of control," said Andrew Brenner, market analyst at MF Global in New York. "This is a classic stagflation scenario."

It was the biggest monthly drop in the consumer confidence and expectations indexes since September 2005, following Hurricane Katrina. The present situation index saw its biggest tumble since October 2001, the last time the United States was in recession. Sentiment suffered amid a worsening view of the jobs market. The measure of "jobs hard to get" rose to 23.8 in February - its highest since
October 2005 - from 20.6 in January. The measure of "jobs plentiful" fell to 20.6 - its lowest since April 2005 - from 23.8.

The proportion of respondents identifying jobs as plentiful fell by 3.2 percentage points, the biggest drop in a year and a half. The jobs hard to get response shot up by the most in nearly five years.

A NATIONAL RPS WOULD DRASTICALLY EXPAND JOB AVAILABILITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK 2007 [“Federal RPS is needed now, group says, point to problems with state plans”, PLATTS ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK, June 11, lexis/ Nam] On the other hand, a national RPS would lower construction costs for renewable facilities, trim natural gas demand and lower natural gas prices, provide utilities with a "hedge" against fossil fuel and environmental compliance costs and add manufacturing jobs in areas of the country that are losing such jobs, NNEC said. A national RPS of 20% would create as many as 240,000 jobs in manufacturing, construction, shipping and finance, versus 75,000 jobs if the power were provided by fossil fuels. Although transmission enhancements to
support new renewable projects would require about 26,600 miles of new transmission in the next decade, quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011, case studies show that opposition to power lines turns into support when they are justified by connecting with renewable generation, NNEC said. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat-New Mexico, has proposed legislation calling for the

the lack of uniformity among the state RPS rules creates problems, NNEC said. Some states enjoy low utility rates by generating power from coal while ratepayers in RPS states "pick up the tab for cleaning the air and water and diversifying the nation's electricity generation," the report said. In
country to have 15% of its generation from renewable resources by 2020 without preempting any existing state RPS efforts. But

addition, some states ? including Washington state ? exclude hydropower from resources that can be used to meet RPS requirements. That means that ratepayers there are forced to buy higher-cost renewable energy credits from generators outside the state, NNEC said.

Existing state RPS rules are not fostering enough investment in renewable facilities compared with the growth in electricity demand, and they are unlikely to make an improvement in the
percentage of generation from renewable resources, NNEC said.

62

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – FOSSIL FUELS  HIGH ENERGY PRICES
CONTINUED RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS GUARANTEES INCREASING ENERGY PRICES INSIDE FERC 2007 ["High Power Prices may become the norm for the electric industry, says EPSA report", http://construction.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0249-262121/High-powerprices-may-become.html / ttate] Relatively high power prices are likely to become the new norm for the electric industry, according to a new Electric Power Supply Association report. Global conditions, rising fuel costs, increasing demand, environmental concerns and the need for additional infrastructure and power will continue to put upward pressure on electricity prices, the report said. "It is simply unrealistic to expect that electricity prices are going to drop any time soon." Electricity is not cheap to produce, transmit or deliver, said the report prepared by Susan Tierney of the Analysis Group. It's too easy to assign the blame for high electricity rates on regulation or competition as prices have increased in every region, the report found. Data suggests that restructuring has "not had an easily discernable and consistent impact on prices across the various states." Retail prices in states with restructured markets increased only slightly more than rates in states that retained traditional regulation from 1995 through April 2007, the report found. Variations in prices can be attributed to market structure, availability of diverse resources for generating power, fuel and construction material costs, the types of customers served, the size of utilities, economic growth rates and the need for new generation and transmission, it said. Other factors include environmental requirements and state regulations and taxes.

PEAK OIL MEANS HIGHER AND UNSTABLE PRICES INEVITABLE HARRIS, head of energy and emissions @ Bank of Ireland Global Markets, 2006 [Paul, “Fossil fuel addicts beware, we’ll soon be past our peak”, THE IRISH INDEPENDENT, April 14, ttate] These factors are only part of the story of rising oil prices. Focus on the issue of 'peak oil' has begun to filter through to the business and political worlds. This theory addresses the data suggesting that oil in the established fields is running out and the rate of discovery of new fields is falling. Combine these facts with a global economy with an insatiable thirst for oil and it is easy to see why many observers are forecasting the end of oil.
Prediction With the latest prediction for peak oil production from the French government being 2013, complacency cannot be an option. Since Ireland imports up to 90pc of its energy, the critical importance of the peak oil debate to the future prosperity of the country is alarmingly clear.

Already, the impact of rising energy prices has arrived at the door of every household in Ireland in the form of higher heating, electricity and gas bills - and if we want to avoid the economic hardship that further energy price rises will bring, we need to quickly address our addiction to fossil fuels.
Ireland has a wealth of natural energy resources which have only partially been explored. Studies show that we have the best wind resources anywhere in Europe and, far from congratulating ourselves that we receive around 8pc of our electricity from wind power, we should be asking why we haven't achieved the 20pc enjoyed by our Danish counterparts. Wave power potential along the west coast of Ireland represents another enormous resource which remains, as yet, untapped. Critics will cite prohibitive capital costs as a barrier to development of the infrastructure necessary to tap these renewable sources, yet at the same time applaud the development of a road system at enormous cost. The wisdom of providing roads that people won't be able to use because of soaring fuel costs will undoubtedly be questioned in the months ahead.

in the near future we will need to formulate a coherent strategy to address the impending demise of the oil supply in a way that embraces both our natural and agricultural resources to ensure continued growth and prosperity.
Clearly,

63

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – OIL PRICES HIGH NOW
Oil Prices high now—thicker oil requires more refinement and investment Wagner, writer The Market Oracle, 7/11/08 (Hans Wagner, “High Gas Prices Investment Opportunities”, The Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5406 Yoder) Oil does not come out of the ground in the same form everywhere. The price for oil that is widely quoted is for light/sweet crude. This oil is easier to refine into useful end products by refineries. Since it is easier to refine this type of oil is in high demand. As oil gets thicker, or what is called heavy, it requires more processing to ship and refine into end products. Add in impurities such as sulfur and it requires additional refining. This heavy/sour crude is widely available in Canada and Venezuela. The problem there is not sufficient refining capacity to process this heavy/sour crude, since it requires more expensive capital investment. Much of the additional oil Saudi Arabia is making available is heavy/sour, however, since there isn't sufficient refining capacity to process this oil is either not being sold or is going for much lower prices. This is one of the reasons the Saudis say there is sufficient oil available on the market.

Oil prices high now—supply and demand Wagner, writer The Market Oracle, 7/11/08 (Hans Wagner, “High Gas Prices Investment Opportunities”, The Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5406 Yoder) Demand for oil has been growing at an annualized compound rate slightly more than 2 percent in recent years. As
expected this growth is highest in the developing world, particularly in China and India (each with a population in excess of 1 billion) and to a lesser extent in Africa and South America. This growth is primarily due to rapidly The United States consumes about 21 million barrels of oil each day.

rising consumer demand for transportation via cars and trucks.

The growth in demand is coming from the new economic growth of China and India with their growing middle class. According to the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association, China's consumption of oil rose 17% in the first quarter of 2008 alone, According to some
estimates China's oil consumption will increase by 62% over the next decade. This would mean they would be using at least 12 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 compared to the 21 million barrels currently consumed each day by the U.S. China is building 42,000 miles of new interstate highways over the next twenty years to accommodate the all the new car sales in China. The U.S. has about 86,000 miles of interstate highways. China expects to have 10 million new cars in 2008. Their sales of cars are expected to grow between 15 to 20% per year. In comparison the U.S. is expected to sell 14 – 15 million cars in 2008. India has plans to construct another 25,000 miles of expressways. Cars driving on those highways are going to consume more gasoline.

Prices help to allocate scarce goods. Although demand for gasoline is more elastic in the long-run, in the short run, small disparities in supply and demand (in either direction) will have a large impact on prices. This inelasticity means that if prices go up, demand goes down, but not by very much. The problem is people are locked into their existing life patterns for the near term. While they can change their fuel consumption by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, or move closer to work, these things take time. They can also take public transit where it is available. The point is rapid price increases tend to have only a small impact on the demand for fuel over the short run. Longer term they change patterns of behavior and the investing opportunities that are available

64

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS
A NATIONAL RPS WOULD LOWER ENERGY RATES BY RAPIDLY INCREASING SUPPLY SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] The second criticism is that a national mandate would increase electricity rates. However, in most states, renewable [*9] energy mandates have not significantly increased rates and a consensus of economic models predict that a national policy would generate substantial consumer savings over the existing patchwork of state programs. By expanding the amount of energy that would offset gas-fired generation, a federal intervention would reduce demand on a strained and volatile natural gas market. Renewable energy units with markedly faster lead-times than conventional and nuclear reactors speeds the cost recovery of critical transmission investments and reduces the rate increases needed to pay for new transmission.

NATIONAL RPS LOWERS PRICES OF ENERGY RATES – LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] A reduction in the use of natural gas would also, by many accounts, lead to lower prices for consumers. A recent study by Woods Mackenzie, an energyindustry consultancy, indicated that a 15% national RPS would "drive down" the demand for, and price of, natural gas and "lower the overall price of power."58 The company found that regardless of whether a national RPS is implemented, the "United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over the next twenty years to replace aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity." 9 A national RPS would create incentives ensuring, essentially requiring, that some of that new generation be fueled by renewable sources. This switch, according to the Woods MacKenzie study, to renewable generation sources would lower fuel costs and reduce fossil fuel consumption, leading to lower electricity costs, amounting to approximately $100 billion in savings.60

65

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS
A NATIONAL RPS LOWERS COSTS FOR UTILITY COMPANIES BY CREATING STABILITY– A ROBUST DOMESTIC ENERGY SECTOR MEANS NO MORE COSTS FROM UNFAVORABLE EXCHANGE RATES ON FOREIGN MATERIALS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] Another common criticism is that a federal mandate would harm the utilities sector in the form of future profits they will not be able to recover from consumers through higher electricity rates. For policymakers, balancing utility profits with electricity prices is one of the hard decisions we elect them to make. However, elected officials should consider that utility claims of lost profit are short-sited and strategically unsound. In reality, a more predictable regulatory environment decreases utility litigation and compliance costs relative to a growing tangle of vague and unstable state mandates. Expanding the universe of eligible renewable resources and establishing clear, uniform trading rules creates far more flexibility for regulated utilities and rewards utility investments on the basis of smart market strategy. By promoting a robust domestic renewable energy manufacturing sector, a national mandate reduces the costs utilities pay in unfavorable exchange rates for foreign parts and labor and redirects those investments to the U.S. labor market.

66

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS –RPS - PRICE STABILITY
STATUS QUO LEADS TO PRICE VOLATILITY – ELECTRICITY MARKET INEFFICIENT – RPS STABILIZES Boyce et al, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 03 (Hillary Boyce, Ann Cavanaugh, Mark
Hildebrand, Adam Teepe, Tatiana Winter, “Analysis of Command and Control Versus Tradable Renewable Energy Credits: What Is the Best Policy Option for California to Achieve Its Renewable Portfolio Standard Goals?”, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 5/03, http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~electricity/Documents/Deliverables/Project_Proposal.pdf, Yoder)
With a legislative goal of 20 percent renewable procurement for IOUs from eligible sources such as photovoltaics, wind power, landfill gas generation, geothermal

it remains unclear what degree of flexibility will be built into the regulatory design of the RPS. This is a significant decision as it will directly impact how and if the IOUs meet the statutory mandates. It also begs the question: Will market mechanisms, government mandates or a combination of the two set at a predetermined level best attain the legislative goal and effectively foster the development of renewable energy resources? Many economists would agree that
generation, and biomass generation by 2017, flexible mechanisms are often desirable but can be a challenge to implement either administratively or politically [8]. To answer this question, policymakers are generally interested in the current market equilibrium, the point at which market price equals demand, and whether this equilibrium results in the maximum welfare to society as a whole. It could be argued that the California electricity market is inefficient because the cost to society exceeds the private cost to electricity producers. This social cost indicates the presence of negative externalities that may include air pollution from fossil fuel combustion, price volatility, and dependence on foreign oil sources. A public policy such as the RPS could potentially internalize some of these externalities and thus increase market efficiency. Reducing air pollution by switching to low or zero CO2 emissions technologies, diversifying the energy portfolio to stabilize electricity prices, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil could alleviate some of these social costs.

California is just one of a handful of states to respond to electricity market externalities with the RPS as a means for changing the state’s energy mix by fostering the development of renewable resources [9]. Since electricity that has been produced with renewable technology often has a higher kWh unit price than that of fossil fuel, the RPS mandate is expected to shift the marginal cost of procurement for utilities. While this specific cost should be offset by state SEPs, there are some indirect costs associated with the
purchase of eligible renewable energy resources that are not eligible for SEPs. These include imbalance energy charges, sale of excess energy, decreased generation from existing resources, and transmission upgrades [1]. It is very possible that these indirect costs will differ among the three state utilities, therefore the Project expects that there will be regional differences in how the RPS will impacts electricity rates.

Renewable diversification key to reliable energy market Boyce et al, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 03 (Hillary Boyce, Ann Cavanaugh, Mark
Hildebrand, Adam Teepe, Tatiana Winter, “Analysis of Command and Control Versus Tradable Renewable Energy Credits: What Is the Best Policy Option for California to Achieve Its Renewable Portfolio Standard Goals?”, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 5/03, http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~electricity/Documents/Deliverables/Project_Proposal.pdf, Yoder)

SB 1078 was passed partially in the interest of promoting energy source diversification. It is unclear whether this diversification is meant to solely decrease California’s dependence on conventional energy or if the diversification amongst the renewable energy sources is also desired. Without government intervention in the market, the latter form of diversification is prone to remain limited since the cost variability of specific renewable energy technologies affects their rate of market entry. As a result, some renewable technologies are bound to have greater market penetration than other, less cost-competitive technologies[15]. The Group believes that renewable diversification is an essential component to a reliable renewable energy market primarily because of the imperfect nature of the supply of some renewables, such as the intermittency of wind and solar energy. Developing a diverse renewable energy resource base and using supplies that are not vulnerable to periodic shortages or supply interruptions could increase the reliability of the overall system[8]. Based on the importance of this outcome, the Group will attempt to apply models to quantify how the RPS will impact the diversification of renewable energy resources in the long-term. 67

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – CLIMATE LEGISLATION KEY TO ECONOMY
CONVENTIONAL ENERGY PRICES WILL CONTINUE TO RISE – OUR ECONOMY IS HEADED FOR COLLAPSE WITHOUT A SHIFT AWAY FROM CARBON INTENSE ENERGY ROBERTS 07-02-2008 [David, staff writer and PhD candidate, “Sane Climate Policy Will Save the Economy”, THE HUFFINGTON POST, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/sane-climate-policy-will_b_110480.html, Hayes] This is properly the subject of a very long post that I don't have time to write right now. For now I'll just point out that even the pessimistic economic models shaping debate in D.C. show a very small hit to the economy from a cap-and-trade system. And those models make a number of absurd theoretical assumptions that are woefully disconnected from reality. So-called "bottom-up" studies -- the ones that look at what actually happens in the world -- consistently find that a push to renewables and efficiency generates economic growth and jobs. (Distributional effects are another matter, but this is about the general case.) And this becomes more and more true as energy costs rise. Oil, natural gas, and coal are all going up and are almost certain to continue rising in the mid- to long-term, no matter the short-term volatility. As those prices rise we're shoveling money out of our country into the pockets of oil regimes and paying to blow up our own mountains. Every dollar that shifts from fossil spending to R&E spending generates comparatively more jobs, keeps comparatively more money in the economy, and has comparatively more positive multiplier effects. Every dollar that is saved by end-use efficiency moves investment from an extraordinarily low labor intensity sector (fossil fuels) to a higher one (virtually anything else, but particularly renewables). It is long past time to stop acceding to the absurd notion that money spent to avoid high fuel prices is just sunk inflationary cost. It's not. It is investment in other things, and those other things will generate economic activity and jobs. The economy is headed for serious, serious trouble. Reducing our carbon intensity will reduce both energy demand and energy prices and spur a wave of productive investment. Sane climate policy is not a burden to bear or castor oil to choke down -- it's going to save our f*cking hides.

68

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES  ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
HIGH OIL PRICES LEAD TO A GLOBAL DEPRESSION

KOREA TIMES 06-15-2005

[“Rising Oil Prices Cast Shadow Over Economy”, lexis/ttate] Higher oil prices have added upward pressure on consumer prices and dampen otherwise gradually improving consumer and business confidence. The price of Dubai crude, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the nations oil imports, has risen above $50 per barrel.The price of Dubai crude hovered between $44 and $46 in May, but jumped to $49.26 per barrel at the end of last month to $50.01 on June 6 and $50.08 last Friday. West Texas Intermediate crude oil jumped to $55.62 per barrel to a record $54.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange last Friday, while Brent crude oil has climbed to $54.78 a barrel. This years Dubai crude averaged $43.9 per barrel as of the end of May, which is 19 percent higher than an average price of $35 per barrel for this year projected by the government. The Korea Energy Economics Institute said that for the nation, the worlds fourthlargest oil importer, a $5-a-barrel rise in oil prices would likely reduce the country's current account surplus by $5.91 billion. The institute also says that a 10 percent gain in oil prices will cut the nations growth rate by 0.13 to 0.14 percentage point, while adding 0.09 to .0.1 percentage point to consumer prices. A rise in oil prices weighs heavily on domestic demand and the current account balance as it has the same effect as tax increase on the economy. ''Oil supply may fall short of demand in the second half of this year, keeping oil prices at high levels, the institute said. It forecast that Dubai crude would rise to as much as $46.50 a barrel this year, up more than $5 from the previous year. The problem is that oil prices are expected to continue in an upward trend. ''Usually, oil prices are stabilized in the second quarter due to low demand, but this year, all kinds of oil, including gasoline and diesel, are on the sharp rise, an official at the Korea National Oil Corp. said. ''Dubai crude price is expected to stay around $50 throughout the year due to an imbalance in the supply and demand situation in the Middle East region, he added. Analysts said that if oil prices continue to remain at these high levels, the nation may fail to get back on track for a full recovery. Samsung Economic Research Institute managing director Cheong Mun-kun said that oil is now the biggest threat to economic recovery. ''The real reason behind the Great Depression in the U.S. was high oil prices, and the government should take this more seriously and take effective measures to weather high oil prices, he said

69

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES  ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
PEAK FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTIONAND CONSUMPTION  SOARING ENERGY COSTS – LEADS TO AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS NETWORK 2008 [“Emissions Cap-and-Share”, June 12,
http://www.enn.com/business/article/37372 / ttaet]

Growing energy demand and peaking fossil fuel production may lead to worldwide economic depression and disastrous climate warming as oil and fossil fuel production peaks and energy demand continues to increase, cautions Feasta, the Foundation for Economics of Sustainability. Seeing parallels between economic developments today and the disastrous effects of petrodollar recycling seen in the 1970s — stagflation, a massive debt crisis and a 20-year-long slump in oil prices - the trillion or so dollars a year over and above anticipated revenues being funneled to oil exporters and the governments of oil exporting nations taking place today not only is the largest and fastest transfer of wealth yet seen in economic history, it is driving dislocations in savings, investment, economic growth and capital allocation that threaten the prevailing global economic system, Feasta argues. HIGH ENERGY PRICES  ECONOMIC CRISIS WASHINGTON TIMES 2001 [“West sees dim hope for energy aid”, March 07, lexis/ttate] Legislators from Seattle to San Diego called for temporary price controls to force down the tenfold jump in wholesale electricity prices that is creating hardship for businesses and consumers and threatens to re-create crisis conditions in California this summer. Testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's energy subcommittee, Rep. Jay Inslee, Washington Democrat, contrasted the Bush administration's "pathetic" hands-off response to the energy crisis with its quick offer of emergency aid after Seattle's major earthquake last week. "We're having an energy price disaster and the federal government is refusing to come to the aid of the West," he said, noting that electricity rates have doubled in his state and have "shocked" consumers. "These obscene price hikes have the potential to drive the economy into recession." Mr. Inslee said he discussed with President Bush a Western state proposal to temporarily impose price caps that are based on the cost of generating electricity. The proposal would exempt new power generators from the price cap to encourage companies to build plants needed to ease the West Coast crisis. Mr. Inslee said the president told him to present the idea to the administration's energy task force, headed by Vice President Richard B. Cheney, but the task force so far has shut out the proposal. The administration insists California is largely responsible for solving the energy problems it created. "The federal government is the only government right now that can care for my constituents," said Mr. Inslee, arguing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has neglected its responsibility to protect consumers from "unjust and unreasonable" electricity rates.

70

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES  CONFLICT
High oil prices leads to price volatility and oil wars Campbell, Ph.D at Oxford, 97 (C.J. Campbell, “Synthesis—What it all amounts to” The Coming Oil Crisis, http://dieoff.org/page131.htm, Yoder) It will therefore be left to the Middle East producers to alert the World to its predicament. They wont do so for an altruistic purpose, but simply to raise their revenues. Motive apart, their action will carry an important message. I don't think that their message will be delivered in small doses, nor can it be, given the efficiency of the new oil commodity markets. It will be the marginal barrel that sets the price. Quite a small shortfall could trigger a strong reaction. There will be nothing to counter it: oil will suddenly be in strong demand and the traders will hourly mark up its price as more buyers than sellers appear in the bullpen. Probably, as prices rise the buyers would at first hold back, but since their physical stocks are now so low, they could not do so for long. The market would move into contango whereby the futures would be above the present. That itself would deliver a message, which the sellers would pick up, holding back on physical delivery. It would spiral upwards as a crisis feeding on itself. Where would it end? The epoch immediately following the shock will likely see great volatility. There will be no shortage of comment, informed or otherwise, and it will be a field day for radio and television panel discussions. Mr Clinton may launch a few more missiles at someone. He might send in the marines to occupy Saudi Arabia. But it would all be posturing and gesture. If Exxon, backed by the marines, found itself controlling the world's oil supply, what would it do? Put up the price.

71

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – 2AC/1AR MUST READ
NEW REPORT CONCLUDES THAT NATIONAL GRID IS EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO MASSIVE BLACK-OUT AND TERRORIST ATTACK – INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLES WOULD LEAD TO AN OVERHAUL IN THE TRANSMISSION WEAKNESSES ENERGY WASHINGTON WEEK 07-08-2008 [“NAS sees aging grid crisis a threat to US even without terrorism”, lexis/ttate] A draft National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on the electricity grid and the threat posed by terrorism reportedly shows that the nation's aging electricity grid is so weak that it is a threat to the U.S. even without a terrorist attack, according to a key contributor to the report. The report has been delayed a year by the Department of Homeland Security, which is examining the grid
study under a security review. The report could complicate movement by lawmakers to legislatively bolster grid security as a national priority, the source suggests, because it may expose a need to fundamentally rebuild the grid as well as address vulnerabilities. Grid stakeholders continue to believe new investment in the grid is crucial and needed, highlighted by the 2003 blackout, and are expected to argue reinvestment is a matter of national security as well. Recently, FERC has suggested to Congress the need for increased authority to enhance its regulatory mission to defend against cyber security threats alongside the Department of Homeland Security. FERC has already approved critical infrastructure protection (CIP) reliability standards, which has utilities scrambling to develop cyber-security compliance measures, according to industry sources. A report that says the grid is even weaker than believed could help arguments for delaying mandatory CIP compliance until more basic grid improvements are made. It would spur arguments to use the time and funds meant for CIP compliance for grid development, industry observers and others suggest. Industry, for the most part, says there is need for both cyber defense and grid investment. Still, consultants are advising that grid development should be the

Bringing new, cleaner energy generation resources onto the grid will require a bolstered electricity transmission and distribution system, say these sources. According to the report's
priority, especially as the nation moves toward carbon regulations. contributor, the study would help reexamine core vulnerabilities to the power grid, notably its lack of resiliency, disrepair and need for investment. Some lobbying Congress on energy matters suggest that grid issues could spark new debate in the fall as the federal infrastructure bill is debated. But many also believe a reinvigorated energy/climate debate next year would stoke new interest in addressing grid concerns. The NAS Board on Energy and Environmental Systems has overseen the drafting of the grid report since the summer of 2005. The study was originally called: "Enhancing the Robustness and Resilience of Future Electric Transmission and Distribution in the United States to Terrorist Attack." NAS sources say the title has since been shortened to "Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System." The report was meant for release last June, but has been delayed due to a "security review" being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, according to a NAS spokesperson. The spokesperson could give no specific details on why it has taken a year to vet the report, and could offer no information on when to expect the study's release. The report was being examined to make sure no sensitive information was included that could be used to harm the power grid, the spokesperson said.

National security proponents, including former CIA director Jim Woolsey, have in recent weeks cited a National Journal article that said Chinese hackers were behind the 2003 blackout to bolster the debate for protecting the power grid from cyber attacks. The story is being discredited by the administration, with former White House officials in charge of critical infrastructure
lashing out at the article. The departments of energy and homeland security did an investigation that concluded no attack took place. As national security proponents wrangle over cyber security protections in Washington, security system vendors are carving out market share using ailing grid infrastructure to their advantage.

older legacy systems are of major concern for electricity generators and providers. Older systems offer unique difficulties in linking vulnerable systems to one console for simultaneous monitoring, according to vendors. Once the link is centralized, the second hurdle, say these
Security vendors, looking to sell their products to utilities and others to meet CIP compliance demands, say sources, is securing the connection in order to relay information and documents to regulators, i.e. the FERC-designated North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Based on what these sources consider hurdles in CIP compliance, aging grid infrastructure could be considered part of the problem in creating a more secure grid. New hardware to better incorporate so-called SCADA, or control system electronics, networks would improve cyber security, but would also mean improved reliability through incorporation of advanced smart grid systems and new distribution and transmission networks, according to stakeholders.

72

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – THEY ARE COMING
CONTINUED CLIMATE CHANGE MAKES US MORE VULNERABLE TO BLACKOUTS AND OUTAGES ASCRIBE NEWSWIRE 07-10-2008 [“Projected California Warming Promises Cycle of More Heat Waves, Energy Use for Next Century”, lexis/ttate] As the 21st century progresses, major cities in heavily air-conditioned California can expect more frequent extreme-heat events because of climate change. This could mean increased electricity demand for the densely populated state, raising the risk of power shortages during heat waves, said Norman Miller, an earth scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and geography professor at the
University of California, Berkeley, and Katharine Hayhoe, a climate researcher at Texas Tech University. If the electricity were generated using fossil fuels, this could also mean even more emissions of heat-trapping gases that cause climate change. Their results were published in the online version of the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. Co-authors included Maximilian Auffhammer, of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Department at UC Berkeley, and Jiming Jin, formerly of the Earth Sciences Division at Berkeley Lab and now at Utah State University. "Electricity demand for industrial and home cooling increases near linearly with temperature," said lead author Miller, a climate scientist and a principal

"In the future, widespread climate warming across the western U.S. could further strain the electricity grid, making brownouts or even rolling blackouts more frequent."
investigator with the Energy Biosciences Institute in Berkeley. When projected future changes in extreme heat and observed relationships between high temperature and electricity demand for California are mapped onto current

the researchers discovered a potential for electricity deficits as high as 17 percent during peak electricity demand periods.
availability, Climate projections from three atmosphere-ocean general circulation models were used to assess projected increases in temperature extremes and day-to-day variability, said Hayhoe. Increases range from approximately twice the present-day number of extreme heat days for inland California cities such as Sacramento and Fresno, to up to four times the number of extreme heat days for previously temperate coastal cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego before the end of the century. This year, California experienced an unusually early heat wave in May and is currently in the midst of its second major heat wave of the summer, one that has already broken high temperature records for several more California cities and increased fire and health risks. One hundred and nineteen new daily high temperature records were set during the May heat wave, including the earliest day in the year in which Death Valley temperatures reached 120 degrees F (on May 19, beating the old record of May 25 set in 1913). In the future, the authors say, the state should brace for summers dominated by heat wave conditions such as those experienced this year. Extreme heat and heat wave events have already triggered major electricity shortages, most notably in the summer of 2006. Given past events, the results of this study suggest that

future increases in peak electricity demand may challenge current and future electricity supply and transmission capacities. Similar increases in extreme-heat days are likely for other U.S. urban centers across the Southwest, including Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas, as well as for large cities in developing nations with rapidly increasing electricity demands.

73

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – THEY ARE COMING
STRESS ON THE GRID LEADS TO INEVITABLE BLACKOUTS KAPLAN 2007 [Eben, associated editor @ Council on Foreign Relations, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid”, April 27, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html / ttate The U.S. electrical grid—the system that carries electricity from producers to consumers—is in dire straits. Electricity generation and consumption have steadily risen, placing an increased burden on a transmission system that was not designed to carry such a large load. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, paltry investment in the aging infrastructure caused transmission capacity to drop 19 percent annually for the decade between 1992 and 2002. Since then, utility companies have begun sinking more money into transmission capacity, currently spending $3 billion to $4 billion a year. As a result of recent deregulation, some utilities own transmission lines and others do not, but the law requires transmission capacity to be shared, leaving companies unsure about major investment in transmission assets. Unfortunately, these new investments will not alleviate the stress on the transmission grid: While transmission capacity is projected to increase 7 percent in the next decade, demand will rise some 19 percent. As a result, consumers will incur higher costs and blackouts could become more frequent.

MORE EVIDENCE – THE GRID IS WEAK – EVEN VULNERABLE TO A FALLEN TREE KAPLAN 2007 [Eben, associated editor @ Council on Foreign Relations, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid”, April 27, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html / ttate On August 14, 2003, fifty million people in the Northeastern United States and Canada suddenly found themselves without electricity, some for more than twenty-four hours. In addition to eight lives, the largest blackout in U.S. history cost an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion. Contrary to initial fears, the outage was not the result of a terrorist attack or some other form of sabotage. Rather, untrimmed trees in Ohio set off a chain reaction that cast 9,300 square miles into darkness. Sadly, this was no isolated incident. In July 2006, a nine-day power outage in Queens, New York affected one hundred thousand people. The apparent cause of that disruption was deterioration of the thirty- to sixty-year-old cables servicing the area. The same month, a violent thunderstorm in St. Louis, Missouri knocked out power leaving some seven hundred thousand people to brave a weeklong heat wave without electricity. Current stresses on the U.S. energy grid presents cause for concern. With an aging infrastructure and growing energy consumption, major outages may become an increasing phenomenon. The specter of terrorism also looms large: Experts say jihadis in Iraq have proven adept at disrupting the electrical grid in that country and could easily apply that same skill set in the United States.

74

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – BRINKS
AS ENERGY CONSUMPTION CONTINUES TO INCREASE, THE CHANCES OF A MASSIVE BLACKOUT INCREASES FOX NEWS 06-06-2008 [“Project Hydra: Keeping Power Out of the Hands of Terrorists”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364104,00.html / ttate] The NYC electrical grid already is being strained by the escalating power demands from plasma TVs, and the coming wave of hybrid and electric plug-in cars will only add to demands on the city. 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.

75

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – TRANSMISSION KEY
TRANSMISSION IS THE KEY WEAKNESS OF NATIONAL GRID – STATUS QUO NOT SOLVING WASHINGTON POST 2004 [“Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable”, August 10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52858-2004Aug9.html / ttate] Most fundamentally, they said, power companies have not solved complications associated with deregulation of the industry over the past decade. Before deregulation, electricity was typically generated closer to where it was used. With deregulation, electricity is increasingly being shipped on high-voltage transmission lines from power plants in one part of the country to consumers who live hundreds of miles away. In addition, there still has not been significant investment in new transmission lines that specialists say are needed to allow electricity to flow freely from one part of the country to another and provide a route for backup electricity that could limit the scope of a blackout. "The sorts of things that you need to do to make sure that we're not going to have a blackout are not coming into place," said Michael W. Golay, a professor of nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The blackout reports and actions that have been taken have really been, in my view, exercises in damage control to try to deflect criticism. We'll see if I'm right when we see if we have more blackouts, which I'm expecting we will." MORE EVIDENCE – DEMAND INCREASES EXPOSE TRANSMISSION WEAKNESSES WASHINGTON POST 2004 [“Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable”, August 10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52858-2004Aug9.html / ttate] The problem is not a lack of power plants generating electricity -- it is a lack of lines to transmit the power to areas where electricity is needed, according to utility officials. Demand for electricity has been increasing far more quickly than the grid has expanded. When electricity was generated closer to where it was distributed, that was not as much of a problem. Bottlenecks in transmission capacity exist around the country, and power ends up flowing in unplanned directions.

TRANSMISSION IS THE ACHILLES’ HEEL FOR THE GRID TUCKER 2007 [William, staff writer, “Electrical Storm”, WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 21, http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118497036898073460.html / ttate] Mr. Makansi identifies the aging and neglected long- distance transmission lines as the grid's Achilles' heel. Much of the jury-rigged system has not been upgraded since the black-and-white television era, even as it struggles to accommodate the growing demands of air conditioning and the information economy. Yet Mr. Makansi doesn't quite diagnose the problem correctly. Like many engineers, he is nostalgic for the days of regulated monopoly, when the utilities built what the state approved at a guaranteed profit. The 1990s deregulation, he charges, is at fault. But it is precisely because transmission lines are still not privatized -- serving instead as "common carriers" -- that this tragedy of the commons is occurring.

76

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – HARMS ECONOMY
AN ATTACK ON THE NATION’S POWER GRID WOULD COLLAPSE OUR ECONOMY – WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION CNN 2007 [Jeanne, “Mouse click and plunge city into darkness, experts say, September 27, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText / ttate]
Researchers who launched an experimental cyber attack caused a generator to self-destruct, alarming the government and electrical industry about what might happen if

the same attack scenario could be used against huge generators that produce the country's electric power. Some experts fear bigger, coordinated attacks could cause widespread damage to electric infrastructure that could take months to fix. CNN has honored a request from the
such an attack were carried out on a larger scale, CNN has learned. Sources familiar with the experiment said Department of Homeland Security not to divulge certain details about the experiment, dubbed "Aurora," and conducted in March at the Department of Energy's Idaho lab. In a previously classified video of the test CNN obtained, the generator shakes and smokes, and then stops. DHS acknowledged the experiment involved controlled into a replica of a power plant's control system. Sources familiar with the test said researchers changed the operating cycle of the generator, sending it out of control. Watch the generator shake and start to smoke » The White House was briefed on the experiment, and DHS officials said they have since been working with the electric industry to devise a way to thwart such an attack. "I can't say it [the vulnerability] has been eliminated. But I can say a lot of risk has been taken off the table," said Robert Jamison, acting undersecretary of DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate. Government sources said changes are being made to both computer software and physical hardware to protect power generating equipment. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is conducting inspections to ensure all nuclear plants have made the fix. Industry experts also said the experiment shows large electric systems are vulnerable in ways not previously demonstrated. "What people had assumed in the past is the worst thing you can do is shut things down. And that's not necessarily the case. A lot of times the worst thing you can do, for example, is open a valve -- have bad things spew out of a valve," said Joe Weiss of Applied Control Solutions. "The

point is, it allows you to take control of these very large, very critical pieces of equipment and you can have them do what you want them to do," he said. Adding to the vulnerability of control systems, many of them are manufactured and used overseas. Persons at manufacturing plants overseas have access to control system schematics and even software program passwords, industry experts say. Weiss and others hypothesize that multiple, simultaneous cyber-attacks on key electric facilities could knock out power to a large geographic area for months, harming the nation's economy. See how America's power grid works » "For about
$5 million and between three to five years of preparation, an organization, whether it be transnational terrorist groups or nation states, could mount a strategic attack against the United States," said O. Sami Saydjari of the nonprofit Professionals for Cyber Defense. Economist

Scott Borg, who produces security-related data for the federal government, projects that if a third of the country lost power for three months, the economic price tag would be $700 billion. "It's equivalent to 40 to 50 large hurricanes striking all at once," Borg said. "It's greater economic damage than any modern economy ever suffered. ... It's greater then the Great Depression. It's greater than the damage we did with strategic bombing on Germany in World War II." Computer experts have long warned of
the vulnerability of cyber attacks, and many say the government is not devoting enough money or attention to the matter. "We need to get on it, and get on it quickly," said former CIA Director James Woolsey on Tuesday. Woolsey, along with other prominent computer and security experts, signed a 2002 letter to President Bush urging a massive cyber-defense program. "Fast and resolute mitigating action is needed to avoid a national disaster," the letter said.

EVEN CONTINUAL POWER OUTAGES DAMAGES THE US ECONOMY INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL ANED ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS 2007 [“Reliability and Blackouts”, April 25, http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp / ttate] Preventing outages and blackouts is of utmost concern to the nation and the world. Some estimates claim that the costs of electric power outages are $26 billion each year in the US alone and have been increasing as the electric power industry is restructured [2]. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates that power outages and insufficient power quality cost the US economy over $119 billion per year [2, 5]. Not enough effort is put towards ensuring reliability; some argue that US electric reliability improvements have lagged behind other improvements, such as efficiency and conservation, and this lagging has compounded the occurrence of blackouts [6].

77

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – ECONOMY
OUR NATIONAL GRID IS A KEY TARGET FOR POTENTIAL TERRORISM – WOULD COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY – EVEN SMALLER POWER OUTAGES FROM THE WEAK GRID ARE ECONOMICALLY DAMAGING FOX NEWS 06-06-2008 [“Project Hydra: Keeping Power Out of the Hands of Terrorists”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364104,00.html / ttate] Stories of Chinese hackers causing blackouts in Florida and the Northeast have had the blogosphere on fire for days. False alarm: The real threat comes from physical terrorist attacks on the world’s largest machine — the U.S. power grid. The Northeast blackout of 2003 began in Eastlake, Ohio, but didn’t just take out power to that one small town. Due to the structure of our power grid, a problem in that one local station cascaded down, cutting power to 20 million people. The blackout, which covered almost 10,000 square miles, resulted in economic losses estimated at over $6 billion. Eastlake was chalked up to human error, but a deliberate terrorist attack on the electric grid could be devastating to American security and the economy — making the grid a very attractive target to terrorists. Sound far-fetched? If we lost power on Wall Street, it would disrupt more than $100 billion a day in Federal Funds trading and billions more in private transactions. The only thing that prevented that catastrophe five years ago were emergency generators that kept Wall Street running in the days following the blackout — and they almost ran out of time. Even without a terrorist attack on the grid, $100 billion is lost annually in the United States from power outages. That means that nearly 50 cents for every dollar we spend on electricity goes toward dealing with outages.

78

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – AT: STATUS QUO SOLVES
STATUS QUO NOT ADDRESSED TRANSMISSION ISSUES – KEY WEAKNESS OF NATIONAL GRID SCIENCE DAILY 2006 [“Transmission congestion threatens to clog nation’s power grid”, July 27, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727162612.htm / ttate] ScienceDaily (July 27, 2006) — Inadequate investment in the power grid transmission network remains the Achilles heel of the nation's electric system, an engineer who specializes in utility policy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says. The electric industry and government regulators have addressed the immediate problems that led to the nation's worst power failure three years ago on Aug. 14, 2003, said George Gross, a U. of I. professor of electrical and computer engineering. This includes mandatory reliability standards for the industry, which were passed by Congress as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. But the broader problems of transmission congestion and bottlenecks continue to threaten the reliability of the grid, particularly during periods of peak demand. "The August 2003 blackout was a wake-up call for the country to upgrade its transmission grid system," Gross said. "But the truth is that very few major transmission projects have been constructed and, as a result, transmission capacity has failed to keep pace with the expansion of power demand." In the period between 1988 and 1998, for example, growth in electric demand grew by 30 percent, but growth in transmission capacity was just 15 percent, Gross said.

79

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – AT: SQUO SOLVES
STATUS QUO ATTEMPTS ARE FOCUSED ON MINOR OUTAGES – WILL NOT SOLVE MASSIVE BLACKOUT – NEW REGULATIONS ARE VOLUNTARY WASHINGTON POST 2004 [“Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable”, August 10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52858-2004Aug9.html / ttate] In the year since the largest blackout in American history, utilities have fixed many of the problems that contributed to the breakdown but still have not resolved larger issues that could lead to future outages, according to industry officials, regulators and specialists. Utilities and operators of the nation's electrical grid said they have done what a post-blackout report suggested to diminish the possibility of a recurrence: cut more trees to prevent them from interfering with lines, upgraded computer systems to give a better view of how electricity is flowing in other regions and provided more training to control-room employees. The cascading power failure that spread across eight states and into Canada, affecting 50 million people, highlighted that some of the operators running the nation's power grid were not following voluntary rules designed to promote electrical reliability. Jolted by the failures of Aug. 14 -- which disrupted traffic lights, travel and phone service in the Northeast, Midwest and Canada -- utilities and electrical grid operators have been following the rules much more closely, according to the industry and its overseers. "At least for the short term, we're at a much better state than we were last summer," said Patrick H. Wood III, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees wholesale power. But Wood and some utility executives remain concerned that operators of the grid could again stray from the rules as memories of the blackout fade -- unless Congress makes the rules mandatory and approves fines for violators. Even though mandatory rules are supported by the industry and its harshest critics, Congress has not enacted the legislation, which is part of a larger, controversial energy bill.

80

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – RPS  JOB GROWTH
20% RPS  BALLOONING OF HIGH-PAYING JOBS – RENEWABLES MORE LABOR-INTENSIVE THAN FOSSIL FUEL MARKET NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Investment in renewable energy can create high-paying jobs in the U.S. For example, direct jobs are created in manufacturing renewable energy technologies, as well as in installing and operating them. Jobs are also created when renewable energy workers spend their additional income on other goods and services and when consumer energy bill savings are spent in the economy. by 2020 the 20 percent RPS would generate more than 355,000 jobs in manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance, and other industries-nearly twice as many as fossil fuels, representing a net increase of 157,480 jobs (Figure 4). Renewable energy would also provide an additional $8.2 billion in income and $10.2 billion in gross domestic product in the U.S. economy in 2020.
Using UCS assumptions, we project that A 10 percent national RPS would create significant, but fewer jobs. Under the 10 percent scenario using UCS assumptions, more than 190,000 jobs would be created by 2020-a net increase of 91,220 jobs when compared with fossil fuels. In addition, $5.1 billion in income and $5.9 billion in gross domestic product would be pumped into the U.S. economy in 2020.

Renewable energy technologies tend to create more jobs than fossil fuel technologies because they are more labor-intensive. A large share of the expenditures for renewable energy is spent on manufacturing equipment, and installing and maintaining it. With
biomass, money is also spent on fuel, but usually from sources that are within 50miles of a biomass plant, because it is too expensive to transport it for long

renewable energy facilities avoid the need to export cash to import fuel from other states, regions, or countries-keeping money circulating in the local economy, and creating more local jobs.
distances. Therefore,

Many of the new jobs would be located in rural areas where the renewable energy generating facilities would be sited. However, a national RPS can also benefit manufacturing states, even those with less abundant renewable resources, by providing them the opportunity to manufacture and assemble components for renewable energy facilities. Developing a strong manufacturing base can also create enormous export opportunities, given the rapidly growing commitment of the rest of the world to expand use of renewable energy.

81

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – RPS  JOB GROWTH
NATIONAL RPS  MASSIVE JOB GROWTH FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] Perhaps the most important, if not the most obvious, potential benefit of a national RPS is economic development and job creation. In projecting the impact of a 20% national RPS, the Union of Concerned Scientists determined that, by 2020, such an RPS "would generate more than 355,000 jobs in manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance, and other industries-nearly twice as many as fossil fuels, representing a net increase of 157,480 jobs ... ."61 Further, it was determined that renewable energy would "provide an additional $8.2 billion in income and $10.2 billion in gross domestic product in the U.S. economy in 2020."62 Although premised on a national RPS percentage higher than that in the Proposed RPS, these numbers nonetheless indicate that a national RPS could provide significant economic benefits.

PLAN MASSIVELY INCREASES JOBS IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] The most compelling job creation claims come from a report developed by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP). The group determined that more than 16,000 firms in all fifty states have the technical potential to enter the growing wind turbine manufacturing sector.63 The twenty states that would potentially benefit the most, receiving 80% of the job creation, are the same states that account for "76% of the manufacturing jobs lost in the [U.S. over the] last 3 1/2 years."64 The report considered the impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs if there were eight times more wind energy installations, which would mean a capital investment of $50 billion.65 Again, while this report is an estimate based on a number of major assumptions, the conclusions are still compelling, especially in states that have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the past six years.66

EXPANDING RENEWABLES KEY TO INCREASE OF HIGH-PAYING JOB SECTOR Romm, acting principal deputy assistant secretary office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, 96(Joesph, Capitol Hill Hearing
Testimony FDCH, March 14th,, Ricardo saenz )

A decade's worth of little-heralded technological advances funded by the Department of Energy have helped to bring such a renewables revolution within our grasp. Yet budget cuts already proposed by Congress would ensure that when renewable energy becomes a source of hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of new high-wage jobs in the next century, America will have lost its leadership in the relevant technologies and will once again be importing products originally developed by U.S. scientists. Moreover, Congress's present and planned cuts in advanced transportation and fossil-fuel research
and development impede efforts to maximize the nation's conventional-energy resource base.

82

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS - RPS  JOB GROWTH
A ROBUST FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD SYSTEM  MASSIVE JOB GROWTH SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] New power facilities also mean new jobs. The Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA"), in an assessment of how it would meet a 10% federal RPS by 2020, indicates it would need to generate a total of 19.7 billion kilowatt-hours from renewables.343 Of that total, approximately 2.3 billion kilowatt-hours would come from wind power and 10.9 billion from biomass. With the inclusion of solar, hydro-power, landfill gas, and wastewater gas, the total becomes 15.25 billion kilowatt-hours generated within the TVA's boundaries.344 To make up the difference, 4.45 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy credits would have to be purchased.345 The generation of that much renewable energy by the TVA is projected to create almost 45,000 new jobs, mostly in rural areas of the American Southeast.346 Per 1,000 megawatt-hours of renewable energy produced, 1.09 jobs are created on the "operating" side, whereas 1.86 new jobs are created on the investment side, with more than 3,000 jobs attributed to solar technologies and more than 23,000 jobs for wind technologies throughout North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and Mississippi.347 RPS would improve the economy by creating new jobs-Colorado proves Union of Concerned Scientists, June 19, 2008 [“The Colorado Renewable Energy Standard Ballot Initiative: Impacts on Jobs and the Economy”, June 19, 2008, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-colorado-renewable-energy-standard-ballotinitiative.html, Zhang] By 2020, the 10 percent standard would create 2,000 new jobs in manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance, and other industries. In fact, the amount of renewable energy need to meet the requirement would create 2.8 times more jobs than fossil fuels—a net increase of nearly 1,300 jobs by 2020 (Figure ES2). It would also generate an additional $70 million in income and $50 million in gross state product in Colorado’s economy. Rural economies across Colorado would also receive a tremendous boost from the renewable energy standard. Many of the jobs identified above would be created in rural areas where the most of the facilities would be located. By 2025, the 10 percent standard would provide: • $709 million in new capital investment. • $107 million in new property tax revenues for local communities. • $15 million in income to rural landowners from wind power land leases. Renewable energy development has already demonstrated that it can create new high-paying jobs and other economic benefits in Colorado. During its construction phase, the Lamar wind facility employed nearly 400 people, and provided an economic boost to Prowers County. Today, the project provides 15-20 permanent jobs and nearly $2 million each year in funding for the county, local school district, and medical center. The farmers and ranchers leasing the land where the 108 turbines are located earn between $3,000 and $6,000 per turbine per year.

83

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS - ↓ FOSSIL FUEL TRANSPORTATION COSTS
INCREASING INDIGENOUES RENEWABLES ELIMINATES HIGH COST OF FOSSIL FUEL TRANSPORTATION SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] By developing indigenous renewable resources, all regions also can enjoy substantial cost savings from decreased fossil fuel transportation costs. The University of Wyoming estimates that up to 80 percent of the cost of coal for ratepayers in Illinois is to cover railway costs. Coal at the mouth of a mine in Wyoming, for example, costs about $5 per ton. By the time it reaches a power plant outside of Chicago, that same coal costs about $30.

AND, MORE EVIDENCE – NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] The cumulative costs to transport natural gas may be even higher. Natural gas transportation and distribution already account for 41 percent of the residential price of natural gas. Since the construction of natural gas pipelines can cost as much as $420,000 per mile [53], fully constructing the natural gas infrastructure recommended by the Administration’s National Energy Plan (which calls for over 301,000 miles of new natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines) could cost ratepayers as much as $126.4 billion. [54]

84

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – RPS HELPS RURAL ECONOMIES
NATIONAL RPS INFUSES DOLLARS IN RURAL AREAS NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] A national RPS can help improve the U.S. economy in other ways. Renewable energy can greatly benefit struggling rural economies, by providing new income for farmers, ranchers, and landowners from biomass energy production, wind power lease payments, and local ownership. Property tax revenues from renewable energy facilities can also help local communities pay for schools and vital public services. Table 3 compares the economic development benefits of the 20 percent by 2020 and 10 percent by 2020 national RPS scenarios analyzed using UCS assumptions.

85

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – US ECONOMY KEY TO WORLD ECONOMY
US decline dooms the world economy BUSINESS WEEK 2001 [“Worldwide, Hope for Recovery Dims”, September 24, lexis/ttate] A U.S. downturn will have repercussions all around the world. With Japan imploding economically, Asia in trouble, and Europe struggling, a recession in the U.S. would remove the last remaining source of demand from the global economy. ''It's like throwing cold water on any prospects for a recovery,'' says Chang Il Hyung, senior vicepresident of South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co., the world's largest memory chipmaker. With people around the globe watching the carnage in New York, consumer confidence and business investment could be hit everywhere. ''Since the global economy is interwoven through trade and investment, all of us will be worse off,'' says Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo & Co.

(__) US ECONOMY DRIVES THE WORLD ECONOMY BROOKES 2006 [Peter, senior fellow @ Heritage Foundation, July 04, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070406a.cfm] The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine. We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries.

86

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS
US ECONOMIC COLLAPSE KILLS HEGEMONY AND CAUSES WMD WAR WITH CHINA MEAD 04 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, America’s Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, March/April)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as

foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse.
Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a

collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance.
THE SUM OF ALL POWERS? The United States' global economic might is therefore not simply, to use Nye's formulations, hard power that compels others or soft power that attracts the rest of the world. Certainly, the

U.S. economic system provides the United States with the prosperity needed to underwrite its security strategy, but it also encourages other countries to accept U.S. leadership. U.S. economic might is sticky power.
How will sticky power help the United States address today's challenges? One pressing need is to ensure that Iraq's economic reconstruction integrates the nation more firmly in the global economy. Countries with open economies develop powerful trade-oriented businesses; the leaders of these businesses can promote economic policies that respect property rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Such leaders also lobby governments to avoid the isolation that characterized Iraq and Libya under economic sanctions. And looking beyond Iraq, the allure of access to Western capital and global markets is one of the few forces protecting the rule of law from even further erosion in Russia.

China's rise to global prominence will offer a key test case for sticky power. As China develops economically, it should gain wealth that could support a military rivaling that of the United States; China is also gaining political influence in the world. Some analysts in both China and the United States believe that the laws of history mean that Chinese power will someday clash with the reigning U.S. power. Sticky power offers a way out. China benefits from participating in the U.S. economic system and integrating itself into the global economy. Between 1970 and 2003, China's gross domestic product grew from an estimated $106 billion to more than $1.3 trillion. By 2003, an estimated $450 billion of foreign money had flowed into the Chinese economy. Moreover, China is becoming increasingly dependent on both imports and exports to keep its economy (and its military machine) going. Hostilities between the United States and China would cripple China's industry, and cut off supplies of oil and other key commodities.
Sticky power works both ways, though. If China cannot afford war with the United States, the United States will have an increasingly hard time breaking off commercial relations with China. In

an era of weapons of mass destruction, this mutual dependence is probably good for both sides. Sticky power did not prevent World War I, but economic interdependence runs deeper now; as a result, the "inevitable" U.S.-Chinese conflict is less likely to occur. Sticky power, then, is important to U.S. hegemony for two reasons: It helps prevent war, and, if war comes, it helps the United States win. But to exercise power in the real world, the pieces must go back together. Sharp, sticky, and soft power work together to sustain U.S.
hegemony. Today, even as the United States' sharp and sticky power reach unprecedented levels, the rise of anti-Americanism reflects a crisis in U.S. soft power that challenges fundamental assumptions and relationships in the U.S. system. Resolving the tension so that the different forms of power reinforce one another is one of the principal challenges facing U.S. foreign policy in 2004 and beyond.

87

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS
Economic collapse will spawn regional wars around the globe, fuel weapons proliferation, and ensure US intervention in numerous foreign conflicts
Lopez 98, Freelance Journalist and Frequent Author on International Economic Issues
[Beranrdo

V., “Global Recession phase two” Catastrophic”, BusinessWorld, September 10, p. 12, LN]

What would it be like if global recession becomes full bloom? The results will be catastrophic. Certainly, global

recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots
and the breakdown of law and order are possibilities. Global recession will see the deferment of globalization, the shrinking of international trade - especially of hightechnology commodities such as in the computer, telecommunications, electronic and automotive industries. There will be a return to basics with food security being a prime concern of all governments, over industrialization and trade expansions. Protectionism will reemerge and trade liberalization will suffer a big setback. The WTOGATT may have to redefine its provisions to adjust to the changing times. Even the World Bank-IMF consortium will experience continued crisis in dealing with financial hemorrhages. There will not be enough funds to rescue ailing economies. A few will get a windfall from the disaster with the erratic movement in world prices of basic goods. But the majority, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), will suffer serious shrinkage. Mega-mergers and acquisitions will rock the corporate landscape. Capital markets will shrink and credit crisis and spiralling interest rates will spread internationally. And environmental advocacy will be shelved in the name of survival. Domestic markets will flourish but only on basic commodities. The focus of enterprise will shift into basic goods in the medium term. Agrarian economies are at an advantage since they are the food producers. Highly industrialized nations will be more affected by the recession. Technologies will concentrate on servicing domestic markets and the agrarian economy will be the first to regrow. The setback on research and development and high-end technologies will be compensated in its eventual focus on agrarian activity. A return to the rural areas will decongest the big cities and the ensuing real estate glut will send prices tumbling down. Tourism and travel will regress by a decade and airlines worldwide will need rescue. Among the indigenous communities and agrarian peasantry, many will shift back to prehistoric subsistence economy. But there will be a more crowded upland situation as lowlanders seek more lands for production. The current crisis for land of indigenous communities will worsen. Land conflicts will increase with the indigenous communities who have nowhere else to go either being massacred in armed conflicts or dying of starvation. Backyard gardens will be precious and home-based food production will flourish. As unemployment expands, labor will shift to self-reliant microenterprises if the little capital available can be sourced. In the past, the US could afford amnesty for millions of illegal migrants because of its resilient economy. But with unemployment increasing, the US will be forced to clamp down on a reemerging illegal migration which will increase rapidly. Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-wide brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities. Such looting in this most affluent nation is not impossible. The

weapons industry may also grow rapidly because of the ensuing wars. Arms escalation will have primacy over food production if wars escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse its economy back to health. This will further induce wars and conflicts which will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US may depend more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get its ways internationally.

88

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS
(__) ECONOMIC DECLINE CRUSHES HEGEMONY AND CAUSES TERRORISM

89

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ECONOMY EXTS – PEAK OIL IMPACTS – EXTINCTION
Unmitigated peak oil causes extinction. Dr. Malcolm Riddoch, Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries, Edith Cowan University, June 19, 2004, http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/72000_comment.php There are lots of recent 2004 reports speculating about the Saudi's ability to increase production suggesting that the peak plateau may already have arrived with midpoint by 2008. OPEC is apparently pumping at its full rate, while everyone else from the Russians, US, North Sea to our own oil fields are apparently depleting already. The first major oil shock could be as early as the fourth quarter of this year and some analysts suggest that the Saudi's are on the verge of a collapse in their major Gawar oil field, the largest in the world. The oil Beyond the current oil wars and the short term economic effects of unstable oil supply and prices over the next 5 years, peak oil threatens an irreversible global economic decline that will force a massive, radical and sustained change in our way of life as we transition to alternative energy sources and the economic/political order they support. The cost of everything will rise and rise with the poorest of us the first to start suffering. A terminal economic decline will begin with a recession in Australia the size of the one that occurred in WW2, and this possibility is already being discussed in our mainstream media. Think an end to public welfare across the board, food stamps and eventually food riots, massive rising unemployment, the collapse of Medicare and public hospitals, a severe crisis in the cost and delivery of water ... but at least the roads will be less congested, more room for the ultra wealthy and their gas guzzling limousines. At worst peak oil could mean a complete global economic collapse sometime after 2010, middle class poverty and the breakdown of law and order, truly gigantic starvation in the third world and the unrestrained outbreak of global warfare with the risk of numerous 'limited' nuclear conflagrations. It could ultimately mean the extinction of the human species through global nuclear war and its companions famine and pestilence.

90

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS PRICES HIGH NOW
Natural gas prices high now IBT Commodities & Futures, 7/10/08 (“Natural Gas Weekly Update—Jul 10”, IBT Commodities & Futures, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080710/natural-gas-weekly-update-jul-10.htm, Yoder) Natural gas prices continue to surpass historical norms for this time of year, exceeding $11 per MMBtu at trading locations throughout the Lower 48 States, with the exception of Rocky Mountain market centers. Nonetheless, price decreases during the report week were significant and appeared to represent at least a temporary shift in sentiment toward natural gas market conditions. Before the Independence Day weekend, spot prices at the Henry Hub had breached $13 per MMBtu for the first time since December 2005 in the aftermath of the hurricane season that year. With temperatures relatively moderate this report week for the country as a whole and a decline in the price of crude oil, the net change in the Henry Hub spot price this report week (after 4 consecutive days of price declines) was a decrease of $1.22 per MMBtu, or 9 percent. On a regional basis, spot markets along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and East Texas registered an average price decrease of $1.19 and $1.16 per MMBtu, respectively. The average regional price yesterday was $12.79 in Louisiana and $12.53 in East Texas.

91

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – PRICES VOLATILE
Natural gas prices volatile Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder)
In addition to concerns about future supplies, price volatility is a major problem with using gas to generate electricity. Annual average prices of natural gas to electric utilities have been extremely volatile, and price fluctuations of 50 to 100 percent have been common. Monthly gas price variations to electric utilities have been even more extreme. In recent years, the monthly price of natural gas has varied by more than 300 percent. Natural gas prices are likely to remain extremely volatile during the next two decades. This volatility likely will worsen, given the increased demand for natural gas (especially for electricity generation) and tightening supplies. Even more seriously, this volatility will be occurring along a trend line of increasing gas prices. EIA forecasts that natural gas prices will increase as technology fails to offset resource depletion and increased demand, and prices to electricity generators are projected to reach $ 4.40/mcf by 2015 (2001 dollars)--equivalent to more than $ 6.00/mcf in nominal dollars.

92

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS HURTS MANUFACTURING SECTOR
Manufacturing critical to US economy and will be destroyed by high gas prices—solution to replace gas Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder) Despite all of the hype in recent years about the new economy, the information economy, the service economy, etc., manufacturing is, by far, the most critical sector of the U.S. economy, and it creates the broad foundation upon which the rest of the economy grows. n20 Manufacturing drives the rest of the economy, provides a disproportionate share of the nation's tax base, generates innovation, and disseminates new technology throughout the economy. The average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs directly and indirectly throughout the economy, whereas the average service and retail job generates about one other job, directly and indirectly. The manufacturing sector uses 40 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States, and virtually every manufacturing industry is heavily dependent on natural gas as a fuel, feedstock, and, increasingly, as a source of electricity generation. Price spikes in the cost of natural gas and electricity in the fall of 2000 precipitated the current manufacturing recession. During the past three years, this sector has been severely affected, losing more than 2.5 million jobs. n21 The current manufacturing recovery is slower than the first year of any recovery in 40 years. n22 Manufacturing is suffering from intense global competition and cannot pass though increased energy costs via product price increases. Reliance on low-cost natural gas has been an often-unrecognized factor in the U.S. manufacturing sector's global competitiveness, and an ample supply of reasonably priced natural gas is critical to its competitiveness. This sector is bearing the brunt of the energy impacts of the natural gas crisis and is suffering from a triple whammy: High natural gas prices are causing industrial electricity prices to increase, the cost of natural gas as a feedstock and fuel is greatly increasing manufacturing costs, and industrial operations are the first to be cut off from natural gas supplies when winter emergencies occur. The natural gas crisis has become a matter of exporting profits and jobs to countries with cheaper natural gas. Thus, the impact of high natural gas prices is, indeed, to destroy the U.S. industrial sector. However, instead of viewing this as an effect that will serve to moderate future natural gas price increases, this must be viewed as a very serious problem resulting from high natural gas prices. To the extent natural gas demand and prices are being driven by the increasing use of gas for electric power generation, the solution should be to substitute other fuels, such as nuclear and coal in this sector, and not to accept demand destruction in the nation's industrial sector.

93

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS PRICES – HIGH PRICES  RECESSION
AND, CONTINUED INCREASES OF NATURAL GAS PRICES LEAD TO AN ECONOMIC RECESSION PARKINSON, financial news writer, 2001 [David, “Electricity markets are changing rapidly”, THE GLOBE AND MAIL, February 17, page lexis / yoder] The energy crunch that has hit North America in the past several months can best be viewed as a cautionary tale of the folly of shortsightedness, of bad planning, of the volatility inherent in even the most efficient open markets.
Experts tell us there's no need to panic, that the markets have a way of correcting themselves, of bringing supply and demand back into balance and bringing prices for oil, natural gas and electricity back down to more affordable levels.

energy markets, not just in Canada and the United States, but throughout the world, are undergoing radical changes that are fundamentally altering the flows and economics of our energy supplies.
However, underneath these assurances lies the inescapable reality that

Increasing reliance on natural gas to fuel electrical generation. The rapid expansion of the technology-intensive New Economy, with its heavy demand for electrical power. Robust economic growth in the developed and the developing world. Globalization, trade liberalization and the deregulation of energy markets to promote increased competition. Untimely energy policies in North America and abroad that discouraged development of new energy sources. The convergence of these factors contributed to the current crunch, which caused California to be nearly crippled by high electricity prices and dangerously low supplies, consumers to be pummeled by skyrocketing home heating costs, and angry motorists to protest prices. High energy prices are jamming the brakes on the U.S. economy, threatening to trigger a recession that could spread globally. An economic slowdown should take the pressure off energy demand and ease prices over the next year. Nevertheless, the mess in the energy markets should serve as a distant early-warning to policy makers that energy issues will demand a lot of attention in the first part of the new millennium. the next decade will see a showdown between a continued surge in energy demand on the one hand, and financial constraints, infrastructure limitations, domestic politics and environmental pressures on the other.
Experts say

94

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – HIGH PRICES  RECESSION
NATURAL GAS PRICE SHOCKS INCREASE UTILITY COSTS – DEVASTATES ECONOMY Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 13, Liu] When natural gas prices swing wildly, utilities find it difficult to plan prudent investments or contract for bulk supplies. The enormous price spikes for natural gas seen over the last few years have made natural-gas fired plants uneconomic to operate, and have resulted in significant increases in electricity prices in several areas, much to the consternation of utility executives.72
From April through June of 2006, Platts conducted surveys of utility executives to analyze perceptions of important issues facing the electricity industry and to identify issues that may cause concern in the future. Natural

gas supply shocks were mentioned repeatedly as a justification for significant

rate increases:
The issue for utility executives is how best to deal with the increases and volatility in natural gas prices. The added costs to produce electricity or provide natural gas cannot be absorbed by local distribution companies (LDCs) and many are facing the need to file for rate relief and pass those costs through to end-users. The added issue for many is timing. Rising natural gas prices are occurring simultaneously with the end of rate caps, causing end-users to potentially see rate increases of more than 70 percent in some regions. Managing these rate shocks and the backlash, which is often directed towards deregulation, is a serious issue.73 Indeed, in fall of 2006 ratepayers in Illinois waged a modern-day version of the Boston Tea Party, sending teabags to the state’s utilities in protest of projected rate increases of 22 percent to 55 percent in 2007. In Boston, homeowners and small businesses have seen electricity prices rise by 78 percent since 2002, from 6.4 cents a kilowatt hour to 11.4 cents a kilowatt hour.74

Across the U.S., average retail electricity prices rose by 9.2 percent in 2006 alone, a trend likely to continue for the next several years.75 Natural-gas induced price spikes have been devastating to the U.S. economy. Because natural gas accounts for nearly 90 percent of the cost of fertilizer, escalating natural gas prices in 2005 created significant economic hardships for U.S. farmers. As well, some manufacturing and industrial consumers that relied heavily on natural gas moved their facilities overseas. The U.S. petrochemical industry, for example, relies on natural gas as a primary feedstock as well as for fuel. On February 17, 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported that the petrochemical sector had lost approximately 78,000 jobs to
foreign plants where natural gas was much cheaper.76 // pg. 40-42

95

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES
RPS reduces consumers’ energy bills-lowers natural gas prices Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007 [“Real Energy Solutions: The Renewable Electricity Standard”, August 27, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/real-energy-solutions-the-renewable-energystandard.html, Zhang] Benefits of the Renewable Portfolio Standard • Saves Consumers and Businesses Money Diversifying the power supply by developing America’s homegrown renewable energy resources creates a more competitive market, which can reduce natural gas prices and save consumers money on their energy bills. Renewable energy is not subject to the price volatility that plagues natural gas power plants. Two recent studies by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)1, using high renewable energy cost estimates, found that a national RES to provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2020 would lower natural gas prices, have virtually no impact on electricity prices, and could save energy consumers as much as $13.2 billion.2

A 2002 UCS report, Renewing Where We Live, also found that a 10 percent by 2020 national RES could significantly reduce consumer energy bills. In addition, the UCS report looked at what would happen if the national RES were doubled to 20 percent by 2020. In this case, the RES would achieve greater diversity, economic development, and environmental benefits, while still saving consumers $4.5 billion on their energy bills between 2002 and 2020.

EXPANDING RENEWABLES THROUGH RPS DECREASES DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] A national RPS can save consumers money especially by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by offsetting the combustion of natural gas. [48] Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity during periods of peak demand, they can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking” or reserve generation units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads. Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an excellent correlation between available solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for
that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of naturalgas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity. [49]

The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas increases (or supply decreases), its price increases and so does the value of the renewable resources used to displace it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that, given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the price of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term. [50] This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices
was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected effect of 20 different RPS scenarios on future natural gas prices: Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting more aggressive reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce residential, commercial, and industrial gas bills. [51] LBNL researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved and the more

Nine of fifteen studies specifically evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found that consumers would save anywhere from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices
gas prices are reduced.

96

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES
RPS reduces consumers’ energy bills-lowers natural gas prices Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007 [“Real Energy Solutions: The Renewable Electricity Standard”, August 27, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/real-energy-solutions-the-renewable-energystandard.html, Zhang] Benefits of the Renewable Portfolio Standard • Saves Consumers and Businesses Money Diversifying the power supply by developing America’s homegrown renewable energy resources creates a more competitive market, which can reduce natural gas prices and save consumers money on their energy bills. Renewable energy is not subject to the price volatility that plagues natural gas power plants. Two recent studies by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)1, using high renewable energy cost estimates, found that a national RES to provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2020 would lower natural gas prices, have virtually no impact on electricity prices, and could save energy consumers as much as $13.2 billion.2

A 2002 UCS report, Renewing Where We Live, also found that a 10 percent by 2020 national RES could significantly reduce consumer energy bills. In addition, the UCS report looked at what would happen if the national RES were doubled to 20 percent by 2020. In this case, the RES would achieve greater diversity, economic development, and environmental benefits, while still saving consumers $4.5 billion on their energy bills between 2002 and 2020.

97

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES
RPS lowers gas prices and electricity bills 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, Yoder) National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that energy bills would be reduced in every region of the country, including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy potential (Table 1). This is primarily due to the lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas consumers that all regions would see. In addition, all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in using local resources for generation that would often displace the need for importing fossil fuel. Furthermore, the national credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions to purchase RECs for the same price, providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators. The strong relationship between renewable energy generation, and natural gas demand and prices is further supported by a 2005 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) study, which reviewed 13 analyses using different computer models and assumptions. The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and energy efficiency) could reduce gas demand and put downward pressure on natural gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. The report also found that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced. Furthermore, LBL's study shows how these results are broadly consistent with economic theory, with results from other energy models, and with limited empirical evidence.21 Because of this relationship, long-term natural gas prices have a significant effect on the impact of a national RPS. As gas price forecasts have increased, analyses have shown that a national RPS is more cost-effective. For example, a 2001 EIA analysis—using wellhead natural gas prices that averaged $3.28 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period—projected that a 20 percent national RPS would result in cumulative consumer energy bill costs of $14 billion by 2020.22 By comparison, the 20 percent RPS scenario (EIA assumptions) from 2004, which showed consumer savings of $27 billion, used a natural gas price forecast that averaged $3.97 per Mcf (2002$). While EIA changed a number of the assumptions used in NEMS between 2001 and 2004, most of the difference in energy bill impacts is due to the increase in natural gas prices. EIA has consistently increased its long-term natural gas price projection each year since 1997 to conform to new data. In the recently released AEO 2007, wellhead gas prices average $5.06 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period.

98

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS  SHIFT FROM NATURAL GAS
Renewable energy systems lessen impact of gas price volatility 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) Typically, contracts for natural gas generation are variably priced, which leaves utilities and their customers exposed to periods of price volatility such as that which has plagued the U.S. gas industry since 2000. By contrast, generation from renewable energy systems is normally sold under fixed-price contracts. Increasing the amount of renewable energy included in a utilities’ energy portfolio can provide an important hedge against this gas price risk. Furthermore, the value of this reduced exposure is often underestimated. LBL analyzed the cost of hedging natural gas price risk through traditional methods (e.g., futures, swaps) compared with forecasts of spot natural gas prices. They found that, at least from 2001–05, forward gas prices (two to 10 years) have been considerably higher than most natural gas spot price forecasts, including EIA's baseline forecasts used in NEMS. Therefore, resource portfolio planning or other policy evaluations based on these forecasts have been biased in favor of natural gas generation. To more accurately capture the value of long-term price stability provided by renewable energy technologies, LBL recommends a comparison of the cost of fixed-price renewable generation to the guaranteed cost of new natural gas-fired generation that have been locked in through forward markets.

99

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – RPS KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN ENERGY DEPENDENCE
RPS  REDUCTION OF DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY DEPENDENCE FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] From a national security perspective, the primary benefit would come from a reduced dependence on foreign energy supplies, because renewable resources such as wind, sun, and biomass, tend to come from domestic sources.54 In the electricity sector, the most significant source would be reduced need for natural gas, which is increasingly coming (in liquefied form)55 from overseas.56 Enormous amounts of natural gas are used for electric generation, including as much as 90% or more of new electric generation.57

STRONG RENEWABLES MARKET KEY TO US ECONOMIC SECURITY – RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL LEAVES US VULNERABLE Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 07[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, “The National Security Consequences of Oil Dependency”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl1021.cfm, May 14, 2007, Nalepka]

The security and availability of global energy resources directly affects the U.S. economy. U.S. policies should enhance the security, stability, and economic development and the rule of law in oil-producing countries to ensure that energy resources remain readily available, ample, affordable, and safe--for everyone's benefit. In his 2006 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said, "[W]e have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world."[2] Recognizing the problem is laudable; however, relatively little has been done to solve it. There is a broad consensus in America, from the President to the man on the street, that the current situation is detrimental to the country's economic health. The world, both developed and developing, is dependent on unstable or otherwise inhospitable regions for its oil supply. This social and political instability characterizes all of the major oil provinces: the Middle East, Venezuela, and Africa. Russia presents a separate set of issues which will be dealt with below. Dealing with security and political factors limiting the development of oil and gas production needs to be a high priority for any Administration--Republican or Democrat. This is particularly challenging because there are so many moving parts in this complex system. One of the most important avenues for dealing with the oil shortage is through conservation. Another is developing substitute and alternative fuels, such as ethanol, methanol, and gas-to-liquid. Higher oil prices are likely to dictate new engine and car designs that will work more efficiently and/ or run on different fuels. The plug-in hybrids and other technological breakthroughs may eventually wean the world from the internal combustion engine and oil dependence. However, such technological and structural transformations are, like many things, likely to take longer than many expect, are certain to require massive investments, and are beyond the scope of this testimony.

100

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS - RPS KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE
RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY TO DECREASING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE KAMMEN, ET AL 2001 [Daniel, professor of energy at UCal-Berkeley, “Renewable Energy: A Vital Choice”, December, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G180932983.html/ Nam] Renewable energy systems—notably solar, wind, and biomass—are poised to play a major role in the energy economy and in improving the environmental quality of the United States. California’s energy crisis focused attention on and raised fundamental questions about regional and national energy strategies. Prior to the crisis in California, there had been too little attention given to appropriate power plant siting issues and to bottlenecks in transmission and distribution. A strong national energy policy is now needed. Renewable technologies have become both economically viable and environmentally preferable alternatives to fossil fuels. Last year the United States spent more than $600 billion on energy, with U.S. oil imports climbing to $120 billion, or nearly $440 of imported oil for every American. In the long term, even a natural gas- based strategy will not be adequate to prevent a buildup of unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Third Assessment Report and the National Academy of Sciences’ recent analysis of climate change science concluded that climate change is real and must be addressed immediately—and that U.S. policy needs to be directed toward implementing clean energy solutions.

101

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – RENEWABLES KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE
WE ARE ADDICTED TO FOREIGN OIL THAT PROPS UP TERRORIST REGIMES - PLAN IS KEY TO CHOKING OFF THE FUNDING SUPPLY LASHOFF, senior scientist @ Natural Resources Defense Council, 2006 [Dan, “Energy Efficiency and Conservation”, June 22, lexis/nalepka] On a global stage of energy winners and losers, America's over- dependence on oil is now a liability that comes with costly consequences. One that is particularly dangerous is the connection between oil and terror. As we describe in the joint report with the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (see attached), terror networks have clearly identified oil as the Achilles' heel of our economy and continue to carry out numerous attacks on oil infrastructure around the globe. The billions of dollars we export every year facilitates a massive transfer of wealth to oil suppliers that help finance terrorism and support the spread of hostile ideology. According to defense and national security experts, because of our oil dollars, America helps "fund both sides of the war on terror". Oil has become a strategic commodity that can easily be used against us. To answer this multifaceted challenge of energy security we must pursue solutions that will tackle the core of the problem - our demand for oil - and make new policy commitments, such as the Enhanced Energy Security Act (S.2747), that will offer lasting relief to consumers and clean, renewable energy alternatives. Scaling back our appetite for oil is essential to safeguarding our national security, economy and environment.

102

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – WE ARE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL
CONTINUED RELIANCE ON OIL  CONTINUED RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 08[USNEWS.COM, “Foreign Oil Dependence by Choice?”, Lexis Nexis Academic, April 3, 2008, Nalepka] "We've chosen by our policy to be dependent on oil from overseas. That's our choice. We chose not to develop our own resources in this country. That was our choice."
And this, from John Hofmeister, president of Shell

U.S. oil and gas production has fallen steadily for the last 35 years. Why? Because government policies place domestic oil and gas resources off limits. The U.S. government restricts supply to U.S. consumers."
New message: We're dependent on foreign oil because we don't develop the oil on the outer continental shelf or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Old message: It's a hard truth that as long as we're dependent on oil, the U.S. will always be dependent on other parts of the globe--not by choice--but because they have more oil than we do.
Here are the relevant figures, the most recent estimates from Oil and Gas Journal, as compiled by the Energy Information Administration. Proved reserves, in billion barrels: [image omitted] We'll set aside, for the time being, the fact that many people believe these numbers are overstated and the entire world (particularly Saudi Arabia) has much less in reserves than we think. The oil executives are now implying that the U.S. reserves could be much greater, and our foreign dependence Congress would only allow them to drill off both the East and West coasts of the United States and in ANWR.

on oil could be much less, if

WE ARE CURRENTLY VERY RELIANT ON FOREIGN OIL – THIS DEPENDENCE WILL CONTINUE TO GET WORSE Burns, Republican of Montana, 03
[Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana,“Beyond the Middle East: In Search of Energy Security”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl780.cfm, March 28, 2003, Nalepka]

Our nation currently relies on foreign oil for 55 percent of our energy requirements, and this dependence is expected to rise to 65 percent by 2020. Indeed, during the next 20 years, our energy demand is expected to increase more than 50 percent. The United States uses oil to supply about 40 percent of our energy needs. No one could question the fact that energy is absolutely indispensable to maintain our national security and our way of life. America has become increasingly dependent on petroleum from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. With about 250 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia has more proven oil reserves than any other country; that is, one-fourth of the world's oil reserves. Iran and Iraq each control about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, with large amounts of unexplored resource. The expectation is that the Persian Gulf must expand oil production by almost 80 percent during the next two decades to supply the world market. That region has the natural resources and technical capability to achieve that production, but what will it cost us? Our country is already too dependent upon foreign oil imports from the Middle East and this dependence is getting worse, not better.

103

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENT ON LNG
OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN LNG WILL CONTINUE TO GROW NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] In response to high gas prices, and the declining productivity of North American gas wells, EIA projects imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to increase more than seven-fold over the next 20 years.26 This trend threatens to push the U.S. down the same troubled road of rising dependence on imported gas that has been followed for oil. By reducing the demand for natural gas, renewable energy can reduce imports. Lacking long fuel supply chains, renewable energy facilities are also not vulnerable to supply shortages or disruptions, price spikes, price increases, or price manipulation. And because they do not use volatile fuel or produce dangerous wastes, renewable energy facilities (except large hydropower dams) do not present inviting targets for sabotage or attack.

104

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL HIGH
US DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL IS HIGH AND WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE – HOT SPOT FOR TENSIONS Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 07[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage
Foundation “State of the Union 2007: Recognizing the Threat of Strategic Oil Dependency”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1324.cfm, January 24, 2007, Nalepka]

Bush called a spade a shovel. Building on his earlier statement that America is “addicted to oil”, he said: For too long, our Nation has been dependent on oil. America’s dependence leaves more vulnerable to hostile regimes and to terrorists, who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.
In the State of the Union address, President The President called on Congress to double the capacity of the strategic petroleum reserve and for America to provide global leadership to encourage our friends and allies to consider policies to enhance their energy security.

To improve the global energy balance, America’s friends and allies should increase their production of oil, natural gas, and substitute fuels; diversify their supplies as much as possible away from unstable regions;
make fuel consumption more efficient through technological innovation; and increase their Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs).

The United States, said the President, must oppose “foreign actions that undermine free, open and competitive markets for trade and investment in energy supply”—a not-so-veiled reference to the policies of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) and its individual member states. A Strategic Threat

The United States is the largest oil importer in the world, importing 13.5 million barrels per day (mbd), which accounts for 63.5 percent of total U.S. daily consumption. Oil from the Middle East—specifically, the Persian Gulf —accounts for 17 percent of U.S. oil imports, and this dependence is growing. The U.S. government predicts that by 2025, the country will import 68 percent of its oil.The measures of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 will slow the growth rate of U.S. dependence only slightly. Recognizing the threat of strategic oil dependency, President Bush has suggested a number of measures, including increasing domestic drilling. The President is right about this threat. Today, the U.S. faces a dire geopolitical challenge. Two-thirds

of the world’s oil reserves are concentrated in the increasingly unstable Middle East. The Persian Gulf will remain the largest and most important oil producer on the planet. Today, the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran is launching a bid to acquire both conventional and nuclear capabilities that will threaten its oil-producing neighbors, as well as America’s allies, such as Egypt, Turkey, and Israel. Iranian dominance of the oil fields of the Gulf countries, some of which are populated by Shi’a Muslims, is an escalating strategic threat.

105

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS
CONTINUED RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL LEAVES US VULNERABLE TO MARKET VOLATILITY DUE TO DEMAND DISRUPTION SCIRE, adjunct prof of political science @ University of Nevada-Reno, 2008 [Dr. John, “Oil Dependency, National Security”, THE APPEAL, February 10, http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244 / ttate] The economic costs include net capital outflows, loss of competitiveness in world markets and the costs of supply and demand disruptions. In 2007, estimated net capital outflows from the U.S. to oil exporters exceeded $150 billion. The money used to purchase oil today is not repatriated in purchases of U.S. goods and services by oil exporting states as it was in the 1970s. As a result, the American economy loses $150 billion every year and that money only increases other countries' competitiveness. Supply disruptions are another economic cost of dependency. In a 2003 report, the National Defense Council Foundation (NDCF) estimated total costs to the American economy from supply disruptions in 1973, 1979, and 1990 at $2.3 to $2.5 trillion. A new term, demand disruption, has recently emerged in the financial press to explain the current high price of oil. Demand disruptions occur when demand exceeds supply. While supply disruptions tend to be shortterm and fairly easily resolved, demand disruptions are longer-term and much more difficult to resolve. Other than paying up for oil and suffering the economic consequences, our only solution during extended demand disruptions would be to be capable of rapidly switching to alternative motor fuels or other means of transportation.

106

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS
Reliance on Mid-East oil ensures economic collapse from volatility James Woolsey, CIA Director from 93-95, 7/7/2004, "Implications of U.S. Dependence on Middle East Oil," http://www.ciaonet.org/pbei-2/winep/policy_2004/2004_882/index.html The subject of energy and oil dependence should be at the top of the U.S. national security agenda. There are several reasons for concern. First, the world demand for oil is growing rapidly. Chinese and Indian development alone will push oil consumption up in the near future. The middle class in India, for instance, although not yet reaching the American standard of living, is approximately the size of the population of the United States and will be in the market for cars in the next five to ten years. Second, many of the world's oil fields have reached their halfway exploitation points, leading to a substantial increase in production costs. Although this issue might not be so important in Saudi Arabia because of the low cost of production there, it is a substantial problem in other fields with inherently high costs, such as the field in Russia, where factors such as weather, environment, and transportation limitations come into play, and that in Alberta, because of environmental costs. Thus, producers that control low-cost production -- namely, those in the Middle East -- will have the steering power for a number of years. Third, security and political developments in Saudi Arabia raise concerns about the stability of the oil market. Saudi Arabia holds about a quarter of the proven oil reserves of the world, and it has used this advantage to manipulate oil prices in the past. Moreover, not only is al-Qaeda operating quite vigorously in the kingdom, but also more "oil-guarding" positions are potentially opening up for al-Qaeda operatives or sympathizers. Those problems add to increased security threats on oil production facilities in the form of sea and air attacks that can take millions of barrels per day out of production for a number of months and can devastate the world's economy. Politically, there is the issue of natural succession to consider. Crown Prince Abdullah is, as Saudi Arabian rulers go, a reformer. He has taken some aspects of religious education of girls away from the muttawa (religious police) and has tried to get local elections started, but he is eighty years old. One of the potential heirs to the crown is the interior minister, Prince Nayef. Prince Nayef regularly imprisons reformers and fires newspaper editors who call for reform. The last time Prince Nayef, who is in charge of the kingdom's counterterrorism efforts, spoke publicly on the issue of September 11, he blamed Jews for being the masterminds behind the attack. Cooperative efforts with a King Nayef seem unlikely. The world faces an oil problem of growing concern. Obstacles include burgeoning demand, supply that is hitting peaks in much of the rest of the world, increasing dependence on the Gulf and the Middle East, several types of terrorism threats, and the prospect of a next Saudi ruler whose views have closer similarity to those of Osama bin Laden than to those of the United States. This situation is not strategically sound.

107

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS
DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL LEADS TO ECONOMY VULNERABILITY – COUNTRIES WILL USE OIL AS AN ECONOMIC WEAPON AGAINST THE US Coon, policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, 02[Charli Coon, policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation,” Strengthening National
Security Through Energy Security,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM94.cfm, April 9, 2002, Nalepka]

The terrorist attacks on September 11 have renewed concerns about the link between energy security and national security.As evidenced by the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, anabrupt and prolonged loss of oil from the Persian Gulf region wreaks havoc on the U.S. economy, increases unemployment, and boosts inflation. In 1979, President Carter called this situation “a clear and present danger to our national security.”[1] Twenty years later, in a response to a bi-partisan request from eleven U.S. Senators, the U.S. Department of Commerce conducted an investigation into the nation’s increasing oil imports.That study, released in November 1999, concluded “that petroleum imports threaten to impair the national security.”[2] More recently as violence has intensified in the Middle East, Iraq has threatened to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. by cutting oil exports for 30 days to show support of the Palestinians.[3] This is not the first time Iraq has used exports as a political weapon against the United States.[4] Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, responded by saying that it will not allow a shortage of crude oil. Clearly, however, the instability in this region increases U.S. vulnerability to a supply disruption from the oil rich Persian Gulf. The oil and gasoline price shocks of the 1970’s serve as a stark reminder of the impact of Middle East oil on the economy.Economic times were tough during this period: oil peaked at $39 a barrel in 1981, interest rates were double-digit, inflation was at 9 percent, and unemployment was close to 8 percent.[5] Government actions made things even worse: gas rationing, price controls, and a heavy hand of regulation, interferedc with energy markets. [6] Further, recessions in the 1970s, the early 1980sand the early 1990s were all preceded by a rise in oil prices. DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL LEADS US TO DEPENDENT ON VOLATILE MARKETS SANDALOW, senior fellow of foreign policy @ Brookings, 2007 [David, “Ending Oil Dependence: Protecting National Security, the Environment, and the Economy”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_Energy_Sandalow.p df/ ttate] Oil dependence exposes the U.S. economy to the volatility of world oil markets. Price increases can occur suddenly and, because there are no widely available substitutes for oil, consumers and businesses may be unable to respond by changing consumption patterns. At the national level, the climb in oil prices during the past few years has imposed considerable costs. Between summer 2003 and summer 2006, world oil prices rose from roughly $25 per barrel to more than $78 per barrel. Each $10 increase requires roughly $50 billion of additional foreign payments (approximately 0.4 percent of GDP) per year. In 2006, U.S. foreign payments for oil were more than $250 billion.

108

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS
DISRUPTION IN MIDDLE EAST OIL SUPPLIES WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD GLOBAL ECONOMIC PANIC Stanislav Lunev, Soviet Military Intelligence Officer, Colonel, 6/12/2002, "Caspian Oil Could Reduce Our Dependence on Arab Oil," http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/12/174411.shtml Recent events in the Middle East once more underscore our heavy reliance on Persian Gulf oil, which is subject to political influence and disruption and is a special weapon in the hands of our foes and our alleged "friends." The Gulf has an output capacity of 22.7 billion barrels per day, 27 percent of the world's oil supply, and contains about 679 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, about 66 percent of world oil reserves. The region also holds 91 percent of the world's excess oil capacity and can compensate for oil unavailable during disruptions of trade. If there were any long-term disruption in oil deliveries from the Persian Gulf, it would cause serious energy shortages, rising prices and general economic panic for the world's economy. As a result of this, many states dependent on Gulf oil are hoping to find new sources of energy in the Caspian Sea region, a source believed to be more reliable and less subject to political disruption. Gulf instability wreaks economic havoc - reserves do not solve Richard D. Sokolsky, National Defense University Senior Research Fellow ,February 2003, "The United States and the Persian Gulf," http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books_2003/Persian_Gulf/Persian.pdf It is frequently argued that despite the West's dependence on oil from the Gulf, supplies are not really at risk because no supplier in the region has any choice but to pump and sell its oil$B!=(Bafter all, as the saying goes, they cannot drink it. Even if there were a temporary disruption, the United States could ride it out with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and similar stockpiles throughout the oil-importing world. There are, however, four serious flaws in this analysis: $B"#(B It assumes that governments will behave according to our ideas of economic rationality, as though the material welfare of their constituents (whether all the people or a small group) is uppermost on their agendas. This has not always been the case in the past, and it will not necessarily be so in the future. $B"#(B It ignores the potential effects of military aggression$B!=(Bnot only attacks on oil facilities and transportation routes themselves but also the disruptions in the production process that are inevitable in a wartime situation. This risk is even more salient with the growing threat from weapons of mass destruction. It also assumes that a country such as Iraq would view the economic needs of an occupied country$B!=(Blike Kuwait$B!=(Bthe same way it views its own. Had the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait been allowed to stand, Saddam could have taken Kuwaiti oil production to zero and still have realized a windfall for his own treasury from skyrocketing market prices. $B"#(B It overlooks the consequences for oil production of disruptive regime changes. The Iranian revolution is a case in point. Iranian oil production dropped from about 5.7 MBD in 1978 to 1.8 MBD in 1980, a reduction of 68 percent. A comparable cut in current Saudi production would take some five million barrels a day off the market. True, emergency stockpiles could cover the shortfall$B!=(Bfor perhaps 3 months. The Iranian oil industry has yet to recover fully from the effects of the revolution 23 years later. $B"#(B It neglects the importance of price. Even if supplies were only withdrawn for a short period, the ripple effect of highly unstable prices for the key commodity in the global economy could be heavily damaging and long lasting. In summary, then, Persian Gulf petroleum resources are, and will be for the foreseeable future, a vital factor in the economic health of the United States and the world. That alone would give the Gulf region particular salience in how the U.S. Government and its armed forces shape their global strategy. 109

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – OIL DEPENDENCE  MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY
CONTINUED US NEED FOR MIDDLE EAST OIL HEIGHTENS RISK OF ATTACK ON ENERGY SOURCES IN THE REGION Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 07
[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “IMPLICATION OF OIL DEPENDENCE”, Lexis Nexis Academic, March 22, 2007, Nalepka]

Oil as a Weapon. Many Arab leaders understand the dynamic of the world's oil dependence. For example, as early as 1990, the late Yassir Arafat said: When the North Sea oil dries up in 1991, the United States will want to buy Arab petroleum. And when the American oil fields themselves run dry and oil consumption in the United States increases, the American need for the Arabs will grow greater and greater.[7] This observation has not been lost on the current generation of politicians and terrorist leaders. However, bin Laden and Al- Zawahiri are not satisfied with the unwieldy weapons of oil boycotts and buying political influence in the West. Instead, they are clearly zeroing in on the oil-rich kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf as their principal targets. They also appear increasingly interested in attacking the entire global oil industry, from wells to wheels. The failed February 2005 strike and the prevented March 2005 attack on Abqaiq, mentioned earlier, were not the first times that al-Qaeda has targeted energy assets in the region. In October 2002, al-Qaeda attacked the Limbourg, a French oil tanker, off the coast of Yemen with a suicide boat filled with explosives. In 2002, American and Saudi intelligence agencies uncovered a plot by al-Qaeda sympathizers inside Saudi Aramco to destroy key Saudi oil facilities. In 2003-2004, al-Qaeda attacked the Saudi port of Yanbu and murdered five Western engineers working there.[8] Some analysts have warned that a carefully targeted terrorist attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia could reduce Saudi oil production to 4 million barrels per day or less for up to three months, which would have disastrous results for the global economy. CONTINUED OIL DEPENDENCE ENSURES US INVOLVEMENT IN MIDDLE EAST CONFLICTS NEWSWEEK 08-16-2004 [“Quinn: Gas Guzzlers’ Shock Theraphy”, lexis/ ttate]

He has blinders on. Conservation, in the form of superefficient energy use, is the fastest-growing and cheapest "source" of energy in the United States. When California's energy prices soared in 2002, the state cut its usage by 14 percent (adjusted for economic growth)--avoiding the need for hundreds of new power plants. Some 40 percent of the nation's energy needs since 1975 have been met purely through using energy more intelligently, says Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which tackles sustainable-energy projects. Bush has spectacularly backed off efficiency programs, says the ACEEE. He tried to reduce the new energyconservation standards for air conditioners. His proposed 2004 budget all but wiped out spending to improve efficiency (Congress restored some of the cuts). The 2005 budget chops again. Required new-appliance standards haven't been issued. Tying our future to oil is a dangerous game. Dependency on crude is one of the things that enmeshes us in the explosive conflict of the Middle East at a cost, so far, of 1, 051 lives. I wish that Iraq's only export were nuts and dates. We'll be engaged in that part of the world until oil doesn't matter anyway.

110

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS IRAN
CONTINUED FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE EMBOLDENS IRAN – US IS FEARFUL OF RESPONDING TO IRANIAN THREAT BECAUSE OF THEIR “OIL CARD” SANDALOW, senior fellow in foreign policy @ Brookings Institute, 2008 [David, “Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/ 0522_oil_sandalow.aspx/ ttate] Several leading oil exporters pursue policies that threaten the United States. Today, the most serious threat comes from Iran, whose nuclear ambitions could put terrifying new weapons into the hands of terrorists. Yet efforts to respond to this threat with multilateral sanctions have often foundered on fears that Iran would retaliate by withholding oil from world markets. Indeed Iran does not even need to withhold oil from world markets to play its “oil card.” The mere fear it might do so can cause oil prices to climb, as traders build a “risk premium” into the cost of every barrel. This puts pressure on governments around the world to minimize “saber-rattling” against Iran, in order to help control oil prices. The result – an emboldened Iran, more confident in its ability to pursue policies that threaten U.S. national security. In short, three decades after the first oil shocks -- and a quarter-century after the humiliating capture of U.S. diplomats in Tehran – we remain hostage to the world’s continuing dependence on oil.

111

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – HARMS DEMOCRACY PROMOTION
OIL WEALTH IMPEDES DEMOCRACY PROMOTION SANDALOW, senior fellow in foreign policy @ Brookings Institute, 2008 [David, “Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/ 0522_oil_sandalow.aspx/ ttate] Oil wealth corrodes democratic institutions. This dynamic is not inevitable, but it is widespread. A growing body of scholarly work explores this topic, concluding that oil wealth is strongly associated with corruption and authoritarian rule. New York Times Foreign Affairs columnist Tom Friedman has written about the “First Law of Petropolitics” -- that the price of oil and pace of freedom move in opposite directions. A few examples underscore these trends. Bahrain, the Persian Gulf country with the smallest oil reserves, was also the first to hold free elections. As oil prices climbed in recent years, both Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez moved away from democratic institutions and toward more authoritarian rule. In Nigeria, oil abundance contributes to widespread corruption.

112

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY IMPACTS
AND, MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT SPREADS AND ESCALATE TO NUCLEAR WARS ACROSS ASIA MORGAN, labor political analyst, 2007 [Stephen, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakinstan!?”, June 03 / ttate] Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world situation, the country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalist coup d'état. Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was "Osama" (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d'état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could not be ruled out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a "Pandora's box" for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda.

113

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM
FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE ONLY ENRICHES OUR STAUNCHEST ENEMIES CORNYN 2008 [John, US Sen, TX (R), “Cornyn: Dependence on Foreign Oil a Threat to National Security”, STATES NEWS SERVICE, June 17, http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ForPress. NewsReleases&ContentRecord _id=97b4986b-802a-23ad-402f8b6c8cf3e121&Region_ id=&Issue_id= / NALEPKA] "When the United States imports roughly 60 percent of the oil that it consumes, then the real profiteers of our dependence are foreign nations from which we import....Unfortunately, we send American dollars to foreign nations and energy cartels like Venezuela and Iran -- nations that openly condemn the United States and the principles for which we stand and seek to undermine our national interests at every turn. Last year in Venezuela alone, U.S. consumers spent an estimated $30 billion on oil imports....And we know, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran is enjoying all the money that America is sending to him and other countries when they purchase oil, now running in the $135-a-barrel price range. We canat afford to forget that oil is a global commodity used by every country throughout the world, so that money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or anywhere benefit Iran.... The money we continue to send to the Middle East and to Venezuela does nothing but enrich our enemies. "Why in the world then would we deny ourselves access to the natural resources that allow us to become less dependent? Congress needs to get out of way and allow America to do what it does best. That is, to maintain or at least try to achieve less dependence on imported oil from our enemies.... The longer we sit idle and do nothing to increase our domestic energy production the more money we ship overseas and the more likely it is to empower the threatening actions of some of America' staunchest enemies.

U.S. increasing oil dependence in the Middle East can trigger more extremists’ attacks like 9/11. Burns, Republican of Montana, 03
[Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana,“Beyond the Middle East: In Search of Energy Security”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl780.cfm, March 28, 2003, Nalepka]

In spite of these improvements, there is one area on which our country has neglected to take a strong stand: energy security. Many have not realized the incredibly big impact that our oil dependency has on the security of our country. The attack on 9/11 by Islamic extremists should have been a wake-up call to the nation that our vital security interests are threatened by our increasing dependence on Middle East oil imports. I am sorry to say that our nation still slumbers. We should see the danger that lies in buying up to a quarter of our imported oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We should see the dangers of paying billions of dollars to a man committed to amassing weapons of mass destruction. We should see and understand that every time America buys a barrel of rogue oil we are in part funding unseen radicals. And we should see that our national security is at risk, our foreign policy is shackled, and our diplomatic credibility in the Middle East undermined, so long as we buy from regimes that deny democracy and freedom. America should not allow these regimes to maintain such a strong influence over our economy.

114

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM
OUR OIL POLICIES BREED TERRORISM – OUR GEOPOLITICAL RELATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST BREEDS RESENTMENT AND OUR OIL DOLLARS FEED TERRORIST CELLS SANDALOW, senior fellow of foreign policy @ Brookings, 2007 [David, “Ending Oil Dependence: Protecting National Security, the Environment, and the Economy”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_Energy_Sandalow.p df/ ttate] The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Oil dependence is an important cause of this threat. For example, according to Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser at the time of the first
Gulf War, “…what gave enormous urgency to [Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait] was the issue of oil.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”

Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf is a powerful jihadist recruitment tool. Resentment grows not just from the war in Iraq, but also from our relationship with the House of Saud, the presence of our forces throughout the region, and more. Yet the United States cannot easily extricate itself from this contentious region. The Persian Gulf has half the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil, and its only spare production capacity. So long as modern vehicles run only on oil, the Persian Gulf will remain an indispensable region for the global economy. Furthermore, the huge flow of oil money into the region helps finance terrorist networks. Saudi money provides critical support for madrassas promulgating virulent anti-American views. Still worse, diplomatic efforts to enlist Saudi government
help in choking off such funding, or even to investigate terrorist attacks, are hampered by the priority we attach to preserving Saudi cooperation in managing world oil markets.

FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE FUNDS TERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST ROANOKE TIMES AND WORLD NEWS 2002 [“No stomach for sound energy policy”, April 30, lexis/ttate]
Amid the congressional posturing to further extend the nation's voracious energy appetite, a critical fact is being ignored: the cost of prosecuting the war on terrorists. For decades, significant funding has been devoted to securing the Middle East and its vast oil reserves. Yet the international terrorist networks have derived substantial underwriting for their heinous operations through the petrodollars channeled from oil -rich Middle East financiers, especially Saudi financiers. Because of the direct link between those terrorists and their money supply, the rational implementation of a comprehensive carbon tax would be the most logical and direct source Americans should tap for their self-defense. The long-term benefit also would be the lessening of U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and market-induced development
of cleaner, more efficient technologies. In the wake of Sept. 11, President Bush avoided the unique opportunity to ask of Americans a common sacrifice in the national interest. Congress seems poised to ratify the squandering of that opportunity.

115

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM
LOWERING OIL PRICES AND DEPENDENCE CUTS OFF FUNDS FOR TERRORIST CELLS IN THE MIDDLE EAST BARNES, JAFFE, AND MORSE 2004 [Joe – research fellow @ Institute for Public Policy @ Rice, Amy – fellow for energy studies @ Institute for Public Policy @ Rice, Edward – exec adviser @ Hess Energy Trading Company, NATIONAL INTEREST, Winter 2003/2004, lexis/ttate] Neoconservative concerns (and increasingly left of center commentators as well) center on a belief that oil revenues permit countries like Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia to sustain authoritarian regimes and promote anti-American policies. Collusion on production levels through OPEC, in turn, sustains those rents at a high level. Saudi Arabia, though nominally an ally of the United States, plays a particularly pernicious role under neoconservative ideology, by using its immense oil revenues and leadership in OPEC to promote the Kingdom's own brand of fundamentalist Islam -- Wahhabism -- in the Middle East and Central Asia. At one level, the neoconservative argument is logical: low oil prices-in addition to providing substantial economic benefits for the United States and global economies -- will reduce the revenue available to oil states, which sponsor terrorism or pursue the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

116

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS - FUELS ANTI-WEST SENTIMENT
OUR ATTEMPTS TO SECURE OIL INTERESTS FUELS ANTI-WEST BACKLASH MAUGERI, senior fellow @ World Economic Laboratory @ MIT, 2003 [Leonardo, OIL AND GAS JOURNAL, December 15, lexis/ttate] Indeed, the Western search for oil security through control of oil resources would perpetuate the Arab and Islamic perception of a looming threat to their future, thereby increasing their anti-Western sentiments and allowing them to avoid confronting their own problems. Western countries have been historically unable to sustain a long-term foreign policy designed around energy objectives, which vanish once prices drop and often conflict with broader diplomatic goals. Moreover, history has proven -- even without taking ethics into account -- that it is impossible to exert long-lasting control over Middle Eastern oil countries because of the unmanageable chain reactions set in motion by exerting foreign influence in such a sensitive environment.

FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE  US MILITARY PRESENCE IN MIDDLE EAST – FUELS RESENTMENT SCIRE, adjunct prof of political science @ University of Nevada-Reno, 2008 [Dr. John, “Oil Dependency, National Security”, THE APPEAL, February 10, http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244 / ttate] Oil dependency forces the U.S. to support oil regimes that oppress their citizens. As a result, other states and the citizens of oppressive oil regimes see the U.S. as their real enemy. It isn't surprising that Osama bin Laden's first Fatwah was against the U.S. for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oppressive Saudi Royal Family. U.S. oil dependency also strengthens worldwide Islamist terror campaigns as funding for these groups comes primarily from Middle Eastern Islamic charities, located primarily in Saudi Arabia. Because of oil dependency, we both motivate the terrorists and provide the money to fund their attacks on us.

117

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – TERRORISM IMPACTS
NUCLEAR TERROR ATTACK CAUSES MISCALCULATION AND FULL ESCALATION TO NUCLEAR WAR SPEICE, 2K6
(Patrick, J.D. Candidate 2006, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary, “NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,” William & Mary Law Review, Feb, l/n)
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A

terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by
terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation hostile states, 52 as nuclear weapons. 53

will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of

118

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY
Oil dependency destroys US global influence, causes regional hegemony, and erodes leadership. Matt Piotrowski, Energy Intelligence Group, “Experts Say US Losing Global Clout Due to Oil Dependence”, 3/14/07, l/n Energy independence is a "myth" but there are ways of managing the consequences of oil dependency, said a group of experts gathered on Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Policy in Washington , DC . One major consequence of the US ' dependence on oil is the shift of power to producer countries. High prices have emboldened many unstable regimes and limited US influence in all regions abroad. But it is not only US dependence on oil, but also China 's, India 's and Western Europe's dependence that has given producer countries like Russia , Venezuela and Iran the upper hand in the geopolitical spectrum ( OD Mar.9 ,p1 ). "At $25 oil, [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez wouldn't be a strong regional influence and Iran can't thumb its nose at the world," said David Goldwyn, the president of Goldwyn International Strategies, a consultancy that has advised clients such as the World Bank and the federal government of Nigeria . "This is not an economic problem. We can afford the price [of oil]. It is a security problem." One major concern is that national oil companies (NOC), which control some 80% of the world's oil reserves but are slow on investment, are not giving upstream access to international oil companies (IOC). As a result, the industry cannot develop excess capacity to provide a significant supply cushion -- which was prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, keeping prices low. Supermajors have voiced their frustration with growing resource nationalism worldwide ( OD Feb.14 ,p1 ). Not only has the tighter market given more clout to large NOCs , but marginal producers -Ecuador, for example -- have also gained more political power ( OD Feb.16,p5 ). "We're not running out of oil, but we are running out of oil production capacity," said Robin West of PFC Energy, who noted that oil windfalls in producer countries have fostered significant corruption, with billions of dollars flowing into personal bank accounts.

119

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL ERODES US POWER ROBERTS 2004 [Paul, finalist for the National Magazine Award, “The End of Oil: A Perilous New World”, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, lexis/ttate]
What is so alarming about this more intense push for energy security is that it must ultimately fail. No matter how successful the United States is at building a military presence in West Africa, the fact remains that West Africa’s known oil reserves of sixty-six billion barrels are around a tenth of those in the Arab Middle East — and can thus only temporarily delay the day when the United States and other big importers must return to the Middle East and all its instabilities. Similarly, no matter who wins the bidding war between China and Japan for Russian oil, the victor earns only a reprieve from energy insecurity. Fast-growing China, in particular, will eventually need more oil than even Russia can provide and will, sooner or later, have to look somewhere else for it — an eventuality that must give rise to other, perhaps less diplomatic, conflicts. Of course, the United States, with its vast economic and military power, would be likely to win an overt battle for resources, including oil. But U.S. officials do worry that a growing rivalry among other big consumers will create conflicts that will both require U.S. intervention and destabilize the world economy upon which American power ultimately rests. As John Holdren, a Harvard energy economist and former energy adviser to the Clinton administration, told Congress recently, “a plausible argument can be made that the security of the United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of the next century by the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to the world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S.

weapons systems.”

US SECURING OF FOREIGN OIL INTERESTS  COUNTERBALANCING – RISKS NUCLEAR WAR HEINBERG, professor @ New College of California, 2003 [Richard, THE PARTY’S OVER: OIL, WAR AND THE FATE OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES, p. 230/ttate] Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. Even citizens of nations that export oil – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita. The Carter Doctrine, declared in 1980, made it plain that US military might would be applied to the project of dominating the world’s oil wealth:
henceforth, any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States” and would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In the past 60 years, the US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope, power, and durability. While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of others. During the Cold War, the US military apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. Rather, their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy, foreign or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its agents, or its allies. This policy puts the US on a

collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is pursued with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization, but of humanity and most of the biosphere.

120

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENCE  BW ATTACKS
OVER-RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL  MILITARY INTERVENTIONS - BIOLOGICAL WARFARE COULD ENSUE PFEIFFER 2002 [Dale Allen, ALEXANDER’S GAS AND OIL CONNECTIONS, May 16, http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex22007.htm, accessed 8/2/04/ ttate] How will the oil coup hope to hold this ship together? Based on the analysis presented above, we believe that the most likely targets in the "War on Terrorism" will be Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, and possibly (though hopefully not) Russia. That there will be actions in other theatres is certain. It is very likely that Somalia will be targeted soon. And, as they hold the world's richest deposit of uranium, Somalia is not without valuable resources. Other Middle Eastern or Central Asian nations not mentioned here could also be targeted for a number of reasons, energy resources among them. Likewise Indonesia, if that country became too unstable. Then there are actions which could be
strictly political, or which could be viewed as vendettas. North Korea, the Philippines, and Cuba could fall into this category. Yet, it is FTW's belief that the main targets for military action in the years to come will be those stated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Will the oil coup be successful? That is to be doubted. Just as the Middle Eastern countries can expect problems because their population will surpass their ability to care for them, so will the rest of the world.

The entire

civilization is apt to break down chaotically, in ways that no one can foresee. Possibly the greatest single problem resulting from
all this will be the failure of modern agriculture. Without petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, experts predict that world agriculture will only be able to comfortably support a population of 2 bn. The current world population is over 6 bn.

What will the members of the oil coup do when they

realize they are losing control? If faced with starving, angry masses throughout the world-in the first world as well as the third world -- what would be
the response of the oil coup? Would they roll over and die, or would they strike back with everything available? It is truly to be hoped that they do not foresee this contingency, or

they may decide to unleash biological warfare on the population of the entire world.

121

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

DEPENDENCE EXTS -  MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE FORCES US MILITARY INTERVENTIONS – LEADS TO VIOLENT CONFLICTS KLARE, professor of peace and World Security Studies @ Hampshire College, 2004 [Michael, FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0113-01.htm/ ttate] The Cheney report will have a profound impact on future U.S. foreign and military policy. Officials will have to negotiate for these overseas supplies and arrange for investments that will increase production and exports. They must also take steps to ensure that wars, revolutions or civil disorder do not impede foreign deliveries to the United States. These
imperatives will be especially significant for policy toward the Persian Gulf area, the Caspian Sea basin, Africa, and Latin America. Applying the Cheney energy plan will have major implications for U.S. security and military policy. Countries

expected to supply petroleum in the years ahead are torn by internal conflicts, harbor strong anti-American sentiments, or both. Efforts to procure additional oil from foreign sources are almost certain to lead to violent disorder and resistance in many key producing areas. While U.S. officials might prefer to avoid the use of force in such situations, they may conclude that the only way to guarantee the continued flow of energy is to guard the oil fields and pipelines with soldiers. To add to Washington’s dilemma, troop deployments in the oil-producing areas are likely to cause resentment from inhabitants who fear the revival of colonialism or who object to particular U.S. political positions, such as U.S. support for Israel. Efforts to safeguard the flow of oil could be counter-productive, intensifying rather than diminishing local disorder and violence.

122

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RPS KEY
STATUS QUO IS PREVENTING US INDUSTRIES FROM CASHING IN ON VALUABLE EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES OF RENEWABLES – A FEDERAL RPS BRINGS US INDUSTRY INTO THIS KEY MARKET FITZGERALD, director of the Law Policy and Society program @ Northeastern University, 2006 Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University [Joan, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs – if America will seize the opportunity”, December 17, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green / ttate] There are good jobs to be had in environmentally friendly development, and construction jobs are just the beginning. Thousands of jobs are in products that go into green buildings. The job potential in renewable energy production is even more impressive. The Renewable Energy Policy Project estimates that producing 10 percent of the nation's electricity with renewable sources would create 381,000 jobs producing the component parts of the systems. Already, renewable energy (biomass, solar, wind, geothermal) employ more than 115,000 people directly. These new jobs more than compensate for ongoing job loss in the coal and oil industries as clean forms of energy replace polluting ones. Renewable energy is labor-intensive. It generates more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and installation per megawatt of power than coal and natural gas. These jobs start with research and development. They produce an array of goods and services from renewable energy itself to products made from high-tech or recycled materials. The majority of the jobs created would be in manufacturing, although there are many in operations and maintenance and in system installation. These jobs, often called greentech or cleantech, could provide middle-class wages for hundreds of thousands of Americans while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving the environment. Producing for export could improve the balance of trade. That's the potential. The reality is that we're falling behind other countries. Solar power was invented in the United States, but Japan and Germany moved ahead of us in production in the late 1990s and China is not far behind. In wind power capacity, we're behind Germany and Spain. We're also behind on enacting policies to spur the growth of cleantech industries -- and it is public policy that drives research and development, as well as the employment that follows. Forty-three countries have renewable portfolio standards that require a specified percentage of energy be from renewable sources by a given year. But the U.S. Congress has failed to enact such a standard for our country. Instead, states and cities in the United States are trying to fill the policy vacuum.

123

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RPS KEY
LACK OF A FEDERAL RPS  US FALLING BEHIND IN GREEN TECH Simeone, environmental consultant, 07[Christina Simeone, environmental consultant, “Understanding federal renewable portfolio standards;
Reducing Energy”, Lexis Nexis Academic, March 22, 2007, pg. 22, Nalepka]

Currently the US does not have a federal level RPS in place. This is perhaps why the US has failed to dominate the solar and wind markets. Even though the US was the first to commercialize solar PV and wind power, countries like Japan, Denmark and Germany have become the world leaders in these technologies [12]. This phenomenon is probably due to the relative lack of demand for renewable electricity in the US compared to these other countries, who all are participants in the Kyoto Protocol and have nationwide RPSs in place. Instituting a federal level RPS with tradable credits could increase the demand for renewable energy in America. If every state in the US required utility companies to incorporate renewable energies into their sales mix via a federal RPS, the renewable energy market would grow exponentially. A cohesive national plan to integrate and developrenewable energy use and capacity would be far more effective than a piecemeal, state-by-state approach. NATIONAL RPS CAN POSITION US AS A GLOBAL LEADER IN THE GREEN TECH MARKET Sierra Club, 2008 [“Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard”, Sierra Club, 2008, http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp, Zhang] Claim: A 20% RPS will hurt consumers and reduce economic growth and employment. Reality: : A national RES would have substantial economic benefits. Both EIA and UCS analyses found that under a 20% RES, total consumer energy bills would be lower in 2020 than business-as-usual because the RES would reduce natural gas prices. Lower energy bills will make the American economy more competitive and increase economic growth and employment. A 20% RES would create 80,000 new, high quality jobs in the wind industry alone; spur $80 billion in new capital investment; and provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers, ranchers and rural landowners and $5 billion in property tax revenues for communities. Furthermore, creating a healthy renewable electricity industry would position U.S. renewable energy firms to compete successfully with European and Japanese companies for a multi-billion international market in renewable energy.

124

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
DEVELOPING RENEWABLE ENERGIES KEY TO OUR TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP ROMM, acting principal deputy asst sec @ Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1996 [Joseph, FDCH, March 14, lexis / ttate] This is only a scenario, it probably won't occur exactly as described. However, our actions today can have an impact, both positive and negative. Fay notes that "new technologies cannot leap from laboratory to mass market over night. They
must first be tested in niche markets, where some succeed but many fail. Costs fall as they progress down the 'learning curve with increasing applications The long term nature of the research, and the real potential for failure, is why many options must be pursued at once and why private sector companies are reluctant to invest. Fay observes that "renewables

will have to progress quickly if they are to supply a major proportion of the world's energy in the first half of the next century... They can only emerge through the process of widespread commercial experimentation and competitive optimization."
Federal investments clearly make a difference in technology development and global market share. Consider the case of photovoltaics. In 1955, Bell Laboratories invented the first practical PV cell. Through the 1960s and 1970s, investments and purchases by NASA for space use helped sustain the PV industry and gave America leadership in world sales. In 1982, federal support for renewable energy was cut deeply, and within three years Japan became the world leader in PV sales. The Bush Administration began to increase funding for solar energy and, in 1990, launched a voluntary collaborative with the American PV industry to improve manufacturing technology; three years later, the United States
regained the lead in PV sales in this rapidly growing industry. The Clinton Administration has further accelerated funding for PVs. Sadly, however, the deep cuts of the 1980s have taken their toll:

in the past decade, German and Japanese companies snapped up several major American PV companies that accounted for 63% of the PVs manufactured in the United States. Such purchases represent a huge savings for our foreign competition. They don't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to see which technologies succeed. They need- only let the United States do the basic research and early development and then spend a few tens of millions of dollars plucking
the winners when the federal government abandons funding for applied research. demonstration, and deployment. While some argue that the cuts in federal R&D will be

When the government pulls out of a promising long-term technology area, it sends a signal to the industrial and financial community that the area has no long-term promise and that the
made up for by the private sector, historically this hasn't happened. federal government is not a reliable- partner. Finally, while low U.S. electricity prices are a boost to us economically, they create one disadvantage. Renewable

energy will be cost-effective in foreign countries before it is in America. Countries like Germany and Japan not only have far larger government financial incentives for the use and export of renewable energy, they typically pay far more for electricity: In
1991, the price for electricity in Germany's industrial sector was 8.8 cents per kilowatt- hour, whereas in the United States it was 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The primary competitive advantage the United States has had in renewables is technological leadership driven by federal research and development support. That advantage is being taken away by current and proposed Congressional budget cuts.
These cuts will have two effects.

First, the transition to low-cost renewables that Shell envisions will likely be slowed, since America remains the leader in most
relevant renewable technologies, and U.S. government funding remains a sizable fraction of total world R&D funding. The transition, however, even if slowed, seems

when the transition occurs, the United States will miss what could be a very large new source of jobs in the next century. Using Shell's numbers, annual sales in renewable-energy technologies may hit $50 billion in 2020, and almost $400 billion in 2040. In the later year such an industry would support several million jobs. Moreover, as noted above, the United States will be importing $100 billion worth of Oil annually 10 to 15 from now. With prudent the peak, followed by a gradual decline as U.S made technology and domestic fuels, including home-grown biomass with its implications for rural economic development, substitute for imported oil. With proposed Congressional cuts, however, we could end up only augmenting our debilitating trade deficit in oil with a dollop of oil-replacing technologies. We cannot know today which technologies will deliver the lowest cost energy in the future, which is why the DOE pursues a variety of approaches. Indeed, a widely held view, which I share, is that diversity of supply itself minimizes overall cost. That way, the nation is protected from global shocks that only affect some of its sources of energy, such as an oil crisis, or an unanticipated national or global environmental crisis. [CARD CONTINUES…NO TEXT DELETED]
inevitable at some point in the middle of the next century. Second,

125

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
[CARD CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…NO TEXT DELETED]
Low-cost Environmental
What is so remarkable about the renewable scenario is that federal energy R&D might ultimately demonstrate that the lowest cost form of power is also the one that generates the least pollution. The key national goal of improving the environment would then be an automatic by-product of our.effort to achieve a low cost, diversified, and secure energy portfolio. In this sense, renewable energy may do in the future what energy efficiency does today cost-effectively lower the energy bills of businesses and consumers while avoiding pollution. Energy R&D reduces both the economic cost of energy and many of 22 the societal costs too. The environmental goal is an essential one for energy R&D because pollution and energy use are inextricably linked. Most urban air quality problems in this nation and around the world are linked to the production and consumption of energy. Some 54 million Americans live in areas that regularly violate air quality standards. The American Lung Association estimates that Americans spend $50 billion each year on health care needs that result directly from air pollution alone. As much as 80% of urban air pollution is caused by transportation energy use. Energy efficient transportation and alternative fuel technologies can substantially cut these emissions-improving local environmental quality, and cutting health care costs as well. Energy efficient technologies in homes, offices, and industry reduce emissions from power plants, further improving local and regional air quality and further cutting health care costs. And the global market potential for clean technologies in the next century is tremendous, exceeding $400 billion. The half-dozen most energy-intensive industries in the country are responsible for the vast majority of the industrial pollution: steel, aluminum, petroleum refining, chemicals, pulp and paper products, glass, and metal casting. These industries account for about 80% of the energy consumed in U.S. manufacturing and more than 90% of U.S. manufacturing hazardous waste. They represent the biggest opportunities to increase energy and resource efficiency while reducing pollution. That's why the DOE has been forming partnerships with these industries to develop clean technologies. Funding for pollution prevention is the best opportunity for the nation to avoid the need for costly environmental regulations. The government has a role in advancing pollution prevention for several reasons. First, pollution prevention technologies often benefit many companies only a small amount, so no one company has the incentive to spend the money by itself Second, prevention has so many public benefits not fully captured in the marketplace: reduced resource consumption, improved environment, reduced energy consumption, and increased jobs and competitiveness. Thus the private sector will inevitably under invest in R&D'on clean technologies. Third, while it is certainly possible that the 120 governments represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were wrong in December when they concluded, "the balance of evidence ... suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," it seems imprudent to base federal energy R&D policy on that hope. Fortunately, the same investments that prevent industrial pollution and urban air pollution while lowering the nation's energy bills,,- also minimize greenhouse gas emissions. World-Class R&D

maintaining America's leadership in science and technology, since that is the engine of productivity and job growth essential to our economic well- being in the next century. Here the Department of
The final goal of national energy R&D policy is

Energy has demonstrated unique success by winning more R&D 100 awards (given annually to the most innovative and important technologies) than any other organization since 1963. The DOE has won 386 R&D 100 awards, more than all other federal agencies combined and General Electric, Westinghouse, Dow Chemical, Dupont, and Hewlett-Packard more than combined. In the past five years, projects supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy have won 31 R&D 100 awards representing more than 6% of the total number of awards given during that time, which is especially remarkable given that the Energy Efficiency R&D budget represents under one half of one percent of the nation's total R&D funding. In the past two years, the Department has achieved major breakthroughs in high-efficiency lighting, super-insulating material, photovoltaic energy conversion, high-temperature superconductivity, and conversion of biomass to ethanol. As industry scales back its longer term, higher risk R&D in response to increased domestic and foreign competition and low energy prices, the federal government must redouble its efforts if we are to ensure a steady stream of technologies that enhance productivity, create jobs, avoid pollution, lower energy costs, and reduce dependence on imported oil. Such basic and applied R&D delivers so many societal benefits that it cannot in any respect whatsoever be considered c,corporate welfare," a term implying a giveaway with no societal benefits.

We must invest in a spectrum of technologies because we cannot know which investments will pay off in the future. For example, when the original government-funded research was done on jet engines, who could have guessed that decades later it would lead
to the turbine technology that is today generating electricity and helping to keep down electricity rates?

126

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
LACK OF RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO JAPAN AND EUROPEAN DOMINANCE OF THE GLOBAL MARKET – WILL CRUSH THE US ECONOMY RYNN 06-20-2008 [Jonathan, frequent contributor to Grist environmental blog and contributor to FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, “Guns Blight US Energy Choices”, ASIA TIMES, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html/ttate] The US has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11 companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the global market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more
competent producers for these markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves. Take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, Germany has put up 88% of the photovoltaics for solar power in Europe. Partly, this was the result of a feed-in tariff; that is, Germany guarantees that it will pay about 0.10 euro (15 US cents) per kilowatt/hour of electricity to whoever produces wind or solar electricity. The average for electricity that is paid for nonrenewable sources is about 0.05 euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a successful effort to encourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually compete on its own, having gotten over the hump of introducing new technology.

Germany's other advantage is that it is a world leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment - 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers in the world are located in Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German.
In Denmark we can see the advantages of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to the Earth Policy Institute, "Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20% of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country." The Danes have created a fascinating experiment in democracy by building most of their wind turbines through the agency of wind cooperatives, which may be joined by individuals and families. Spain has undertaken one of the most ambitious programs in wind, solar, and high-speed trains. The Gamesa Corporation is the second-largest wind turbine manufacturer, and Acciona Energy is the largest wind-park developer. The Spanish government has very ambitious plans for wind production, and occasionally wind power provides as much as 30% of the country's electrical power. Spain is also the world's fourth-largest producer of solar energy equipment and is a leader in the development of concentrated solar power - a form of solar power obtained by using a very large quantity of mirrors, typically, to concentrate solar rays onto a tower that produces steam, which then turns a turbine, generating electricity. They are often built in deserts and can spread over several acres. These new solar technologies will probably result in lower-cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics.

Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006, Japan produced about 39% of the solar
cells in the world and has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research budgets. Japan's Shinkansen highspeed rail network covers much of the country. China is set to take off as one of the world’s biggest producers of solar and wind equipment owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation.
Europe sets the pace

But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence. They dominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing industries in general (often referred to as the mechanical engineering sector).
The European Union produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States, according to data compiled by the EU, Japan produces almost as much as the US, with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively.

A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe. Think of the industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a modern economic ecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology that creates the goods and services that people consume.
The different niches of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a self-reinforcing web of engineers, high-skill production workers, operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's manufacturing sector made up 32% of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States comprised only 13% of its

The decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-again/offagain nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the United States in the transition to a more sustainable economy.
nonfinancial sectors. And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly half of the world's military spending. For decades, as the late Professor Seymour Melman showed in many books (such as After Capitalism) and in numerous articles, the Pentagon has been draining not just money but also the engineering, scientific and business talent that Europe and Japan have been using for civilian production. As Melman often pointed out, the US military budget is a capital fund, and American citizens can use that fund to help finance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and other green technologies that will help us to avoid economic and environmental collapse.

economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the decline of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and Japan are showing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the generation of renewable electricity.
That

127

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
DEVELOPING A RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET KEY TO INCREASING US TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP HERZOG, ET AL, post-doctoral researcher @ Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, 2001 [Antonia, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice, ENVIRONMENT, December, lexis/ttate] RENEWABLE energy systems—notably solar, wind, and biomass—are poised to play a major role in the energy economy and in improving the environmental quality of the United States. California's energy crisis focused attention on and raised
fundamental questions about regional and national energy strategies. Prior to the crisis in California, there had been too little attention given to appropriate power plant

A strong national energy policy is now needed. Renewable technologies have become both economically viable and environmentally preferable alternatives to fossil fuels. Last year the United
siting issues and to bottlenecks in transmission and distribution. States spent more than $600 billion on energy, with U.S. oil imports climbing to $120 billion, or nearly $440 of imported oil for every American. In the long term, even a natural gas-based strategy will not be adequate to prevent a buildup of unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) recent Third Assessment Report and the National Academy of Sciences' recent analysis of climate change science concluded that climate change is real and must be addressed immediately—and that U.S. policy needs to be directed toward implementing clean energy solutions.[ 1]

Renewable energy technologies have made important and dramatic technical, economic, and operational advances during the past decade. A national energy policy and climate change strategy should be formulated around these advances. Despite dramatic technical and economic advances in clean energy systems, the United States has seen far too little research and development (R&D) and too few incentives and sustained programs to build markets for renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs.[ 2] Not since the late 1970s has there been a more compelling and conducive
environment for an integrated, large-scale approach to renewable energy innovation and market expansion.[ 3] Clean, low-carbon energy choices now make both economic and environmental sense, and they provide the domestic basis for our energy supply that will provide security, not dependence on unpredictable overseas fossil fuels.

Energy issues in the United States have created “quick fix” solutions that, while politically expedient, will ultimately do the country more harm than good. It is critical to examine all energy options, and never before have so many technological solutions
been available to address energy needs. In the near term, some expansion of the nation's fossil fuel (particularly natural gas) supply is warranted to keep pace with rising demand, but that expansion should be balanced with measures to develop cleaner energy solutions for the future. The best short-term options for the United States are energy efficiency, conservation, and expanded markets for renewable energy. For many years, renewables were seen as energy options that—while environmentally and socially attractive—occupied niche markets at best, due to barriers of cost and

In the last decade, however, the case for renewable energy has become economically compelling as well. There has been a tree revolution in technological innovation, cost improvements, and our understanding and analysis of appropriate applications of renewable energy resources and technologies—notably solar, wind, small-scale hydro, and biomass-based energy, as well as advanced energy conversion devices such as fuel cells.[ 4] There are now a number of
available infrastructure. energy sources, conversion technologies, and applications that make renewable energy options either equal or better in price and services provided than the prevailing fossil fuel technologies. For example, in a growing number of settings in industrialized nations, wind energy is now the least expensive option among all energy technologies— with the added benefit of being modular and quick to install and bring on-line. In fact, some farmers, notably in the U.S. Midwest, have found that they can generate more income per hectare from the electricity generated by a wind turbine than from their crop or ranching proceeds.[ 5] Also, photovoltaic (solar) panels and solar hot water heaters placed on buildings across the United States can help reduce energy costs, dramatically shave peak-power demands, produce a healthier living environment, and

The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are related to the energy sector.[ 6] The United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic systems, behind Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems. Developing these industries within the United States is vital to the country's international competitiveness, commercial strength, and ability to provide for its own energy needs.
increase the overall energy supply.

128

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
WE CAN DEVELOP RENEWABLE TECH QUICKLY – KEY TO INCREASING INNOVATION HERZOG, ET AL, post-doctoral researcher @ Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, 2001 [Antonia, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice, ENVIRONMENT, December, lexis/ttate] Recent analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists focused on the costs and environmental impacts of a package of clean energy polices and how fossil fuel prices and consumer energy bills would be affected. They found that using energy more efficiently and switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will save consumers money by decreasing energy use.[ 41] A whole-economy analysis carried out by the International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths has also shown that Kyoto-type targets can easily be met, with a net increase of 1 percent in the nation's 2020 GDP, by implementing the right policies.[ 42] One of the greatest advantages that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources offer over new power plants. transmission lines, and pipelines is the ability to deploy these technologies very quickly. They can be installed— and benefits can be reaped—immediately.[ 43] In addition, reductions in CO&sub2; emissions will have a “clean cascade” effect on the economy because many other pollutants are emitted during fossil fuel combustion. The renewable and energy-efficient technologies and policies described here have already proven successful and cost-effective at the national and state levels. Supporting them would allow the United States to cost-effectively meet GHG emission targets while providing a sustainable, clean energy future.[ 44] We stand at a critical point in the energy, economic, and environmental evolution of the United States. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are now not only affordable, but their expanded use will also open new areas of innovation. Creating opportunities and a fair marketplace for a clean energy economy requires leadership and vision. The tools to implement this evolution are now well known. We must recognize and overcome the current roadblocks and create the opportunities needed to put these renewable and energy-efficient measures into effect.

129

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
US FALLING BEHING IN GLOBAL MARKET – DEVELOPING A BROAD RENEWABLES SCHEME INCREASES OUR COMPETITIVENESS KAMMEN, ET AL 2001 [Daniel, professor of energy at UCal-Berkeley, “Renewable Energy: A Vital Choice”, December, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G180932983.html/ Nam] The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are related to the energy sector. The United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic systems, behind Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems. Developing these industries within the United States is vital to the country’s international competitiveness, commercial strength, and ability to provide for its own energy needs.

PLAN SPURS ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND JOB GROWTH Kammen, Director of Renewable and Appropriate Energy Lab (RAEL), 2007 (Daniel, Testimony before Senate Environment &
Public Works Committee, US Fed News September 25, Ricardo Saenz )

In this testimony I highlight the key finding that while a continuation of business as usual energy choices will result in socially, politically, and environmentally costly and destructive climate change, the motivation to invest in solutions to climate change can be simply that a green economy can also be exceedingly vibrant. In fact, an economy built around a suite of lowcarbon technologies can be resistant to price shocks as well as secure against supply disruptions as well as inclusive of diverse socioeconomic groups. A new wave of job growth – both ‘high technology’ and ones that transform ‘blue collar labor’ into ‘green collar’ opportunities. The combination of economic competitiveness and environmental protection is a clear result from a systematic approach to investing in climate solutions. Clean energy systems and energy efficiency investments also contribute directly to energy security and to domestic job growth versus off-shore migration. Renewable energy systems are more often local than imported due to the weight of biomass resources and the need for operations and maintenance. FAILURE TO ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE GUTS US ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS ASCRIBE 2001 [“World leaves Bush behind”, CLIMATEARK, http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=69624&keybold=pollution%20policy %20failure/ ttate] I am convinced that the United States will eventually join the rest of the world in ratifying and implementing the Kyoto treaty. By rejecting Kyoto, President Bush has refused to meaningfully participate in the fight against global warming. The economic and geopolitical consequences of this irresponsible stance have become much clearer in light of today's negotiating breakthrough. U.S. companies will not long accept being left on the sidelines, as their competitors in Europe and Japan take advantage of the market opportunities for clean technology exports created by the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush must now come to understand that his failure to act on global warming jeopardizes not only the environment, but also future U.S. economic competitiveness.

130

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – GOVERNMENT ACTION NEEDED
LACK OF POLICY ACTION BY WASHINGTON HAS US SITTING ON THE SIDELINES – A CLEAR SIGNAL COULD JUMPSTART US COMPETITIVENESS IN THE GLOBAL RENEWABLES MARKET ZAKARIA, PhD in political science from Harvard, 2008 [“US Energy Policy is Seriously Behind the Rest of the World: What President Bush Should Do To Catch Up”, NEWSWEEK, July 07,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/144824/ Nam]

Washington's inaction also stands in contrast to intense activity in the private sector,
fascinatingly described in Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn's new book, "Earth: The Sequel." Krupp heads the Environmental Defense Fund, but this is not a gloomy global warming tirade. It's an optimistic account of the progress being made by American industry in renewable energy. The authors explore every new technology, from solar to wind to geothermal, and introduce the men and women who are inventing the future.

even though American research labs are rising to the challenge, government action remains vital. The idea that government should "stay out" is meaningless. It is in knee-deep already; energy is a highly regulated industry. In fact, it's notable that we have low productivity and runaway inflation in two crucial areas these days—food and fuel. Both have
But they would be the first to point out that, been nationalized, protected or subsidized by governments around the world for decades. A host of regulatory and legal barriers make renewable and small-scale energy production less attractive, profitable and manageable than it could be. But Krupp and Horn focus on the central policy change that the United States needs to make—enacting a cap on carbon.

America is the only developed

country that does not put a price on carbon. Imagine if President Bush were to announce at the G-8 summit that the United States would institute a cap on emissions. We would instantly have the world's largest carbon market and it would, instantly, change the price of clean energy. It would unleash a tsunami of economic activity in renewables that could, over time, give American productivity the next big boost it needs. It would, of course, also quickly send a signal to the market about future
demand for oil, which would in turn affect the price. But somehow I don't think that's what Bush is going to say in Hokkaido this week.

FAILURE TO ACT LEAVES US ON SIDELINES IN GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEW GREEN TECH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY 2007 [Spring, page 1/ttate] Climate change is recognized as an international issue necessitating action from the global community. However, energy issues must be examined at the forefront of any effective climate agenda. For example, within the United States, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion make up approximately 82 percent of our anthropogenic greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and 25 percent of all global emissions. As the legal community tackles global warming, a reevaluation of energy consumption and production must occur because these activities are the largest contributor of GHG and the resultant climate problem. In short, our energy dependencies have resulted in the need to increase regulation and decrease consumption. As one of the few industrialized nations left without comprehensive GHG regulations, the United States is loathe to be left out of the race in the development of new, clean, and efficient technologies to sustain our consumptive energy needs. The United States' global competitiveness and international credibility to support sound energy policies has been dim. However, the recent Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA results in a glimmer of hope that change is on the horizon. This decision allows the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and pushes the federal government towards curbing GHG emissions from automobiles. This also strengthens the position of individual states leading the way with progressive energy regulations and GHG reductions. The future of energy policy in the United States is unknown, but as the greatest contributor of GHG gases, change must occur. 131

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY
U.S. economic competiveness is critical to its global leadership Rocco Leonard Martino, internet & software entrepreneur, ORBIS, Winter 2007, p. 267-70
Much of the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the dilemma posed by the Iraq War and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. These problems are, of course, both immediate and important. However, America also faces other challenges to its physical security and economic prosperity, and these are more long-term and probably more profound. There is, first, the threat posed by our declining competitiveness in the global economy, a threat most obviously represented by such rising economic powers as China and India. There is, second, the threat posed by our increasing dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Moreover, these two threats are increasingly connected, as China and India themselves are greatly increasing their demand for Middle East oil. 2The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence. The computer is the first machine in history that was invented as an adjunct of the mind. All prior machines were adjuncts of physical strength and capabilities, such as movement. Hence it is no surprise that, since the invention of the computer, the generation of wealth has shifted from physical labor and associated industries to mental pursuits and related inventions and industries. Where in the 1960s the United States was concerned that the Soviet Union might overtake it in essential industries such as steel and chemicals, today it is Ireland, India, and China that are building economies based on mental pursuits reflected and augmented by electronic devices and applications, including instant information and instant communication. The Soviet Union's passage into history left the United States the world's only superpower. Will the United States, too, be eclipsed in a new world order, where ideas and innovations are of paramount importance in economic growth and national economic security? U.S. prosperity and security depends on new inventions that will create the new industries and new jobs the new world order needs. The United States is eminently positioned for this role.

132

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY
COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO ECONOMIC GROWTH AND HEGEMONY. SEGAL 2004 (Adam, Senior Fellow in China Studies at Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Nov / Dec) The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge--so long taken for granted--may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home. At the moment, it would be premature to declare a crisis in the United States' scientific or technological competitiveness. The United States is still the envy of the world for reasons ranging from its ability to fund basic scientific research to the speed with which its companies commercialize new breakthroughs.

133

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP KEY
ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY KEY TO US LEADERSHIP POSEN, political science professor @ MIT, 2003 [Barry, “Command of the Commons”, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, Summer, page lexis/ ttate] What are the sources of U.S. command of the commons? One obvious source is the general U.S. superiority in economic resources. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States produces 23 percent of gross world product (GWP); it has more than twice as many resources under the control of a single political authority as either of the next two most potent economic powers -- Japan with 7 percent of GWP and China with 10 percent. n14 With 3.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product devoted to defense (nearly 1 percent of GWP), the U.S. military can undertake larger projects than any other military in the world. The specific weapons and platforms needed to secure and exploit command of the commons are expensive. They depend on a huge scientific and industrial base for their design and production. In 2001 the U.S. Department of Defense budgeted nearly as much money for military research and development as Germany and France together budgeted for their entire military efforts. n15 The military exploitation of information technology, a field where the U.S. military excels, is a key element. The systems needed to command the commons require significant skills in systems integration and the management of large-scale industrial projects, where the U.S. defense industry excels. The development of new weapons and tactics depends on decades of expensively accumulated technological and tactical experience embodied in the institutional memory of public and private military research and development organizations. n16 Finally, the military personnel needed to run these systems are among the most highly skilled and highly trained in the world. The barriers to entry to a state seeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are very high.

134

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS ADV – HEGEMONY IMPACTS
The collapse of U.S. leadership will unleash conflicts – resulting in great power wars Thayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis)
A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that . Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.

countries want to align themselves with the United States

U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free
Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.

You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do
not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.

Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may
China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.

Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is
important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world.

U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan,
During the Cold War, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but

a Pax Americana does reduce war's

likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism.
Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American

once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership.
worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the

With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United
world has been the growth of the global economy. States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides.

the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought,
Fourth and finally, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.

American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the
tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on

As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified
Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.

135

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO ECONOMY
(___) STRONG US COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO WORLD ECONOMIC GROWTH – INVESTING IN EDUCATION IS KEY TO THAT COMPETITIVENESS ELECTRONIC NEWS 02-14 Ruiz explained that America's future competitiveness is directly intertwined with the success of other nations. He said the United States should encourage other nations in their efforts to grow their economies and enhance their own competitiveness, because more competition will benefit all in the end. “Education is the single most important factor for U.S. citizens in terms of job creation and life success. I know this from personal experience,” concluded Ruiz. (___) COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO ECONOMIC GROWTH EIRAS 01-04-2006 [Ana Isabel, senior policy analyst @ Heritage, “The Fiscal Burden of Government is Undercutting US Competitiveness”, Heritage Backgrounder #1906, www.heritage.org] A competitive economy is at the heart of a country’s prosperity. Only by producing products or services at or below world prices can countries create wealth. The freedom to access a variety of capital instruments, to hire and fire labor, and to keep the profits of efforts and innovation enhances the economy’s potential for growth and wealth creation. For many decades, the United States has exemplified this truth, and millions of American families have benefited from America’s economic freedom. However, this may change soon. The growing fiscal burden of America’s government could hold back the U.S. economy’s future by undercutting U.S. competitiveness.

Innovation is critical to the U.S. economy Nina Hachigian & Mona Stuphen, Stanford Graduate School and former Service Officer in the Clinton administration, 2008, The Next American Century p. 116-7 There are myriad factors influencing the U.S. economy, but innova tion ultimately drives the U.S. standard of living. Here is why: economists agree that economic growth is the key ingredient to improving standards of living. Even slight improvements in economic growth, when compounded over time, can make enormous differences in per capita income. The linchpin to U.S. economic growth is productivity growth. Productivity growth allows companies to make more with less—less money, fewer workers, fewer machines. The money left over can be passed to consumers, workers, or leveraged and reinvested. Each of these uses ultimately translates into better jobs and greater wealth for Americans. (Of course, there is no guarantee that wealth will be distributed evenly.) What spurs productivity growth? As the McKinsey Global Institute's Diana Farrell says, "[T]he key to productivity growth is innovation," and many have argued it will be the most important factor driving American economic success this century. Technological improvements have accounted for up to 50 percent of U.S. GDP growth, and some 65 percent of productivity growth since World War II.

136

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
US INTERNATIONAL CREDIBILITY HAS BOTTOMED OUT – A ROBUST ENERGY INITIATIVE IS THE ONLY HOPE OF REVIVING IT – WE SOLVE BACK YOUR ALTERNATE CAUSALITIES RICHARDSON, former secretary of energy, 2008 [Bill, LEADING BY EXAMPLE: HOW WE CAN INSPIRE AN ENERGY AND SECURITY REVOLUTION, pages 72-75/ ttate] Further, other nations remember the Bush administration walking away from the Kyoto Protocol. Message: before the richest country, the country that most pollutes the climate, will take on the financial burden of lowering its emissions, the rest of the world, especially the poor, must do it first.
The Law of the Sea treaty, still not accepted by the United States, is another example. More than half the world’s population lives near coastlines, and billions of people can tell that our oceans are suffering, that they reflect the pollution and over-fishing at the hands of larger populations and more sophisticated technology over the decades. Yet the United States has refused to participate in this needed international effort to protect the oceans. It is a further indication, in the minds of those who doubt us, that we are in it for our own good at the expense of others, and that we live by double standards. In these cases, in just a few short years, the United States went off on its own. There were problems with some of these international agreements. But instead of withdrawing, it is our responsibility – and the world’s expectation of us as the world’s leading proponent of markets and freedom – to work toward acceptable international arrangements. While most of the world has reacted in anger and dismay to our new isolation and self-certainty, the right wing and neoconservatives praised the president, saying we were leading the world into a new future. Even a lot of Republicans thought it was crazy. Like most people, they realize that you’re not a leader if no one follows you. I was born in the United States and spent much of my youth growing up in Mexico. I have traveled the world for decades. I studied foreign policy in college and graduate school. I speak three languages (my French surprised my staff and a group of visiting French scientists a couple of years ago), and I have worked and met face-to-face with many world leaders. Because of my experience in Washington and at the United Nations, people from every imaginable country keep in touch with me, even though I am the governor of a small, somewhat isolated state. In fact, as I write these lines, I am returning from North Korea after my sixth trip to negotiate with that nation’s leaders on issues that separate the United States and North Korea. Given my background, my interests, and my experience, I don’t make the following statement lightly.

I have never seen the United States as isolated, as alone, as it finds itself today. World leaders are no longer our daily courtiers and contacts. The polls from most nations, including some of our closest allies, show that approval and trust of the United States is at an all-time low – often in the single digits. It’s not just that the United States has abdicated its
leadership role as the leader of the free world. It’s also unsettlingly true that our leaders have alienated people around the world. Polls show that even our longest-standing and closest allies look on us with suspicion.

Still, with the right leadership, this is a situation that shouldn’t take long to correct. The American people are full of optimism and
ingenuity. The people of the world want to believe that we are responsible and compassionate, that we are committed to freedom and basic rights, and that we want to

Visionary leadership, and visionary action to implement a new role for the United States, will turn the situation around quickly, and America will find itself surrounded by friends and allies once again. The key to regaining our leadership role will not be the war on terror, although it is very important, and we must guard vigilantly against enemies who would perpetrate terror against us while we also work with other nations to root out terrorists wherever they are. Nor will the key to new international leadership be trade agreements and economic prosperity, although these are crucial. In this new, uncertain international age, the primary threat and opportunity is the creation of a new energy future that provides hope and prosperity for the United States and other nations while protecting our global atmosphere. In other words, the way back to world leadership – the necessary and unavoidable way back to world leadership – is for America to combine the issues of energy security and climate protection, to set ambitious goals, and to make their accomplishment the shared priority of leaders in Congress, in industry, and throughout the states. This will, in turn, help spread participation, opportunity, and prosperity across the globe while preventing climate catastrophe. Some say we’re a nation that use more than its share of resources and gives nothing back. But in fact we are a nation poised to take the lead in conserving resources and in bringing needed technology to the world. Further, some say
participate constructively in world affairs. we’re a nation with an agenda that doesn’t take the interests of other nations into account. That contradicts our proud history of building peaceful institutions. We know that it’s the “big idea” – freedom, or civil government, or fair trade and commerce – that matters, not just at home but around the world.

New leadership will show the world what America is about. We can work our way back to an international polity that considers challenges and needs, and finds hopeful, promising, affordable solutions. We aren’t the nation that critics suspect we are, and there may be no better forum than the international energy and climate dialogue to prove it.

137

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
ACTION TOWARDS A RENEWABLES TRANSITION IS KEY TO REVIVING US LEADERSHIP RICHARDSON, former secretary of energy, 2008 [Bill, LEADING BY EXAMPLE: HOW WE CAN INSPIRE AN ENERGY AND SECURITY REVOLUTION, page 58/ ttate] I have been excited to see how some of that fundamentally conservative philosophy has come back to the surface in the West in recent years in the face of the Bush administration’s no-holds-barred assault on Western public lands and resources. And I think the fact that Westerners have called for more balance, including alternative energy policies that bring renewable energy into the marketplace in a significant way, is more support for my belief that America has the right stuff to reclaim its place in the world by adopting balanced energy and climate policies both at home and abroad. In other words, with policy and leadership like what we have had across the West in recent years, the United States does not need to be, and will not be, alone in the world for very long. Let me give you an example of the new Western leadership. In 2004, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and I successfully proposed some new energy goals for the eighteen states that were then members of the Western Governors’ Association. “Arnold,” as everyone on Earth knows him, had just been elected governor and agreed with me during a phone conversation that we should work together to change the direction of energy policy in the Western states, where so much of America’s energy is produced. Mostly, it’s from traditional fossil energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. But the region has enormous renewable energy potential in the form of wind, geothermal, and solar energy. And because energy has been relatively cheap in the West, it also has great potential for energy efficiency.

138

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN IS A MODEL
A NATIONAL RPS SENDS A SIGNAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP RENEWALS Los Angeles Times 2008 [“A year to remember?; Though the lamest of ducks, President Bush could still change the world in the next 365 days”, January 20, 2008, lexis, Zhang] Renewable energy. As greenhouse gases reach the tipping point, this nation faces a stark choice: lead or suffer horrendous climactic consequences. With the Bush administration as obstructionist in chief, the Bali climate change conference in December accomplished little. But this is one time when the U.S. should act unilaterally and inspire other nations to follow. Last year, Congress failed to include provisions in its energy law that would have established a federal standard for how much of the nation's electricity must come from renewable sources. Congressional leaders should reintroduce that renewable portfolio standard legislation and pass it by July. That would give Bush time to sign the bill before the Beijing Olympics and challenge China (and the rest of the world) to make a similar commitment.

139

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOFT POWER ADVANTAGE – IMPACTS
Soft power credibility averts multipolarity and nuclear war Nye, 03 [Joseph, Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and previously served as dean there, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone] America's power—hard and soft—is only part of the story. How others react to American power is equally important to the question of stability and governance in this global information age. Many realists extol the virtues of the classic nineteenth-century European balance of
power, in which constantly shifting coalitions contained the ambitions of any especially aggressive power. They urge the United States to rediscover the virtues of a balance of power at the global level today. Already in the 1970s, Richard Nixon argued that “the only time in the history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been a balance of power. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitors that the danger of war arises.” 34 But whether such multipolarity would be good or bad for the United States and for the world is debatable. I am skeptical. -12- War

was the constant

companion and crucial instrument of the multipolar balance of power. The classic European balance provided stability in the sense of maintaining the independence of most countries, but there were wars among the great powers for 60 percent of the years since 1500. 35 Rote adherence to the balance of power and multipolarity may prove to be a dangerous approach to global governance in a world where war could turn nuclear. Pg 13

Soft power is essential to lock-in hegemony---animosity to US foreign policy undermines US preponderance Sankar Sen, Former Director, Indian National Police Academy, 4/5/05 (Statesman, l/n) It has been aptly said that American soft power looms larger than its economy and military assets and radiates with an intensity last seen in the days of the
Roman empire. Globalisation wears a "made in USA" model. There are some scholars and thinkers who feel that this American predominance will be ephemeral and this unipolar moment will be brief. In international relations, if one nation becomes too strong, others will join hands to balance its power. There is also an opposite school holding the view that the present

American pre-eminence will last well into the 21st

century, is able to display strategic restraint and Predicting the rise and fall of nations is a hazardous guess. When Britain lost its American colonies in the 18th century, Horace Walpole visualised Britain's reduction to a little island as insignificant as Denmark or Sardinia. He failed to foresee the coming industrial revolution that would give Britain another century with greater power.

only if the US

uses its power wisely.

[continues] Spreading disenchantment American hegemonic power is of course generating animosity. The imperial power always looks like a bully. The claim of a superpower to act in the interest of others is always taken with a grain of salt. It always creates fears and anxieties among other powers. The First World War had its genesis in Germany's rise to power and the fear it caused in Great Britain. Similarly in this century China's growth will create fear in the US and may generate conflict. Indeed antiAmerican sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, antiAmericanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests will be served by working
with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete

It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon. Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create disenchantment and may gradually affect American pre-eminence.
progress. There is also another disquieting development.

140

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS  RENEWABLES
PLAN LEADS TO A RENEWABLES TRANSITION – UTILITIES INDUSTRY WOULD BE A KEY PLATFORM Union of Concerned Scientists, June 19, 2008 [“Experts Agree: Renewable Electricity Standards are a Key Driver of New Renewable Energy Development”, June 19, 2008, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/experts-agree-renewable-electricitystandards-are-a-key-driver-of-new-renewable-energy.html, Zhang] More and more renewable energy experts are recognizing that renewable electricity standards are a key driver of new renewable energy in the United States. A renewable electricity standard—also known as a renewable portfolio standard or RPS—is a cost-effective, market-based policy that requires electric utilities to gradually increase their use of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and bioenergy. Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted renewable standards, which UCS projects will result in the development of more than 46,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy by 2020. If our country's leaders implemented a national 20 percent by 2020 renewable standard, then we could increase our total renewable energy capacity to 180,000 MW, while providing significant economic and environmental benefits.

TEXAS RPS PROVES THAT SYSTEM CAN LEAD TO RENEWABLES
Wiser and Langniss, Berkeley National Lab, 01 (Ryan Wiser and Ole Langniss “The Renewables Portfolio Standard in Texas: An Early Assessment”, Energy Citatations Database,11/01,http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/7900299pmNCT/native/, Yoder) Though the RPS has been hailed as the leading, “market-based” approach to supporting renewable generation – and several countries have opted to replace traditional policy mechanisms with this new approach – little experience exists on RPS implementation. What is becoming clear from the little experience that does exist is that, like any renewable energy policy, an RPS can be designed well or it can be designed poorly. Experience in several U.S. states and European countries shows that inadequate purchase obligations, overly broad renewable energy eligibility guidelines, unclear regulatory rules, insufficient enforcement, and wavering political support can all doom an RPS to certain failure. And yet the Texas policy shows that an RPS, if properly designed and carefully implemented, can deliver on its promise of offering a low-cost, flexible, and effective support mechanism for renewable energy. The Texas wind rush is likely to drive half of all wind development in the United States in 2001, and there is some evidence that this rapid development path will continue for some years to come. To be sure, this wind power boom is not solely an outgrowth of an effective RPS policy. A developing customer-driven market for green power and the wind power plans of electricity utilities not subject to RPS requirements have also driven some of the development. The federal PTC for wind, favorable transmission rules, and an outstanding wind resource have additionally played important roles. Such complementary policy and market mechanisms are nearly always essential for effective renewable energy deployment. In fact, it should be re-emphasized that the Texas RPS is largely supporting the development of the lowest cost renewable energy technology – wind power. Other U.S. states have developed additional policies to ensure a diversity of renewable energy supply options. Nonetheless, it can be said with near certainty that, given previous development plans, the major driver in the resurgence of wind energy development in Texas has been the state’s aggressive RPS. Other countries and U.S. states would be well served to study carefully the successful efforts of RPS design in Texas. Perhaps the most intriguing element of the Texas RPS is that it obliged electricity suppliers to deal with wind power and other renewable energy sources on a large scale and in a proactive fashion. Growing industry confidence in these technologies seems unavoidable, and electricity suppliers are beginning to realize that sizable wind projects in Texas, with the PTC, are sometimes able to compete on an equal footing with other, more traditional generating sources. While the 2000 MW purchase obligation established by the RPS will provide a good footing for initial development, a maturing wind industry able to compete at or near the cost of natural gas will surely offer more substantial market opportunities over the long term.

141

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

142

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS  RENEWABLES
A NATIONAL RPS WILL CREATE A PREDICTIVE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT – LEADS TO A ROBUST RENEWABLE TRANSITION ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK 2007 [“Federal RPS is needed now, group says, point to problems with state plans”, PLATTS ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK, June 11, lexis/ Nam] A national renewable portfolio standard would be better than the current patchwork of state-based standards because it would save consumers money, increase the country's manufacturing base, avoid expensive litigation at the state level and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report from a nonprofit group. By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules for renewable energy certificates, a federal RPS "can create a more just and more predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector," said the Network for New Energy Choices. Opponents of a national RPS argue that a federal mandate would increase utility rates, and the Bush administration has rejected the mandate idea on the grounds that it would create "winners and losers" among regions of the country and hardships for areas where renewable resources are not as prevalent, NNEC said. But it argued that a national RPS calling for 20% of generation from renewable resources by 2020 would decrease consumer energy bills by an average of 1.5% per year and save consumers billions of dollars. A NATIONAL RPS WOULD SPUR TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Federal action would create a truly national market. The more renewable energy technologies that get developed, the lower their costs and the more economically competitive manufacturers become. New goods and services often require that a minimum market share be achieved before there is general acceptance among consumers. With a national RPS placed on all power retailers, many financial institutions, businesses, municipalities, and individuals will all be exposed to renewable power for the first time. Over time, willingness to invest or purchase certificates will grow. [25] A study sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers found that a national RPS would bring large-scale development of renewable energy and nationwide standards that would lower costs. Such a “learning by doing” approach was estimated to reduce the expense of producing, installing, and maintaining renewable energy technologies. [26] A 20% STANDARD LEADS TO EXPLOSION OF RENEWABLES MARKET NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Interest in elevating the RPS to a national policy has also been driven by several other factors. For example, the size of the new renewable energy market created under existing state RPS policies would be far outweighed by a national RPS. UCS estimates that state standards, if entirely successful, would support more than 46,000MW of new renewable power-equal to about 6 percent of total U.S. electric sales-by 2020. By contrast, a 20 percent by 2020 national RPS would support as much as four times the development of renewable energy capacity (see Section V). Because all national RPS proposals to date have established a national floor, with states allowed to continue to set higher standards, a combination of state and federal standards would create the most development.
5

143

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS  RENEWABLES
RPS significantly increases renewable resource development Wiser and Barbose, Berkeley National Lab, 08 (Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose, “Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007”, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 4/08, http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/927151-UbxeVG/, Yoder) Though experience remains somewhat limited, state RPS policies are already beginning to have a sizable impact on the amount and location of renewable project development. These policies are one of a number of drivers for renewable energy. Other significant factors include Federal tax incentives, state renewable energy funds, voluntary green power markets, the specter of future greenhouse gas regulations, and the economic fundamentals of certain forms of renewable energy relative to conventional generation. Disentangling these various drivers is – to put it mildly – challenging. As one indicator of the role of state RPS programs in renewable resource development, over 50% of non-hydro renewable capacity additions in the U.S. from 1998 through 2007 occurred in states with active, mandatory RPS policies, totaling roughly 8,900 MW (see Figure 5). Since 2002, this percentage rises to over 60%. In 2007 alone, approximately 76% of all non-hydro renewable capacity additions came from states with active RPS programs. By this metric at least, it appears that state RPS policies are already playing a major role in renewable resource development in the United States.

RPS reduces fossil fuel use and lowers renewable energy costs 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, Yoder) Both the UCS and EIA analyses show that a national RPS can save consumers money in several ways. First, by reducing the demand for fossil fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewable energy helps reduce the price of fossil fuels and restrain the ability of fossil fuel prices to increase in the future. Natural gas therefore costs less for electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, benefiting both electricity consumers and other natural gas consumers. Second, some renewable resources, especially wind energy at good sites, are now less expensive than building new natural gas- or coal-fired power plants over the expected lifetimes of the plants, and reduce projected generation costs. And third, a national RPS reduces the cost of renewable energy technologies, by creating competition among renewable sources and projects to meet the requirements, and by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations, and maintenance. Most importantly, projected savings are robust enough to be found in all of the recent RPS scenarios, at both the 10 percent and 20 percent levels, and despite large differences in projected renewable energy costs and performance in the EIA and UCS assumptions. Using UCS assumptions for renewable energy technologies, average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5 percent. In addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast, with an average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (Figure 1).19 All sectors of the economy would benefit, with commercial, industrial, and residential customers’ total savings reaching $19.1 billion, $17.4 billion, and $12.6 billion, respectively.

144

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY – EQUITY
A FEDERAL APPROACH IS VITAL TO A SUCCESSFUL RPS – IT ENSURES AN EQUITABE DISTRIBTUION OF ENERGY SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] Though the RPS shifts the demand curve vis-à-vis electricity retailers by artificially setting a market floor for what they have to sell,348 it naturally boosts supply for end-use consumers.349 This effect is so significant that the policy could easily be deemed primarily supply-side.350 The unusual nature of the potential impact of the RPS is that depending on how it is structured, both the demand curve (electricity delivered to users) and the supply curve (renewable power project construction and electricity production) can be shifted.351 The policy question going forward asks how the RPS can be structured to maximize both the necessary commercial benefits to the renewable energy industry and still ensure mitigation of the enormous costs to society attributable to fossil fuels.352 The best organ to ensure the equitable distribution of renewable power while most effectively meeting the needs of the emerging renewable power industry is Congress.353 Despite several attempts to do so, the federal government has yet to implement such a standard.

145

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- NATIONAL GRID
A NATIONAL ELECTRICITY GRID KEY TO SOLVE INTERMITTENCY CONCERNS – ONLY A NATIONAL GRID CAN STOCK ENOUGH RESERVES SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] Unlike fossil fuel energy, renewable power is intermittent in nature, wind among them.355 Electricity can be produced from wind only when it is blowing at a sufficient rate and in a sufficient volume, which is not always regular and not always predictable.356 Power grids, designed for the constant and predictable output of fossil fuels,357 require a reserve capacity in order to control for outages caused by a system fault.358 This security standard for the overall reliability of the grid is called the "loss of load probability"-the "probability that the load will exceed the available generation."359 Power production facilities must schedule time on the grid in advance in order to transmit electricity to the consumer.360 A degree of uncertainty is factored into the transmission system by integrating intermittent electricity production into a grid.361 The grid operator must balance the uncertain supply with the predicted demand for power.362 This is the point at which supply-side policy deviates from incentivizing production and moves toward infrastructural necessities.363 The question becomes a matter of whether the grid has the flexibility to withstand these kinds of output fluctuations.364 The International Energy Agency argues that basic electrical engineering principles suggest that enlarging and integrating the grid on a national or international scale will control for variations.365 Furthermore, the larger the integrated grid becomes the less of a need exists to keep fossil fuel generation running constantly, even at a low scale.366 With improved weather forecasting, geographic dispersal of wind or other renewable energy sources can actually broaden their potential market infiltration by reducing the reliance of the grid on one source of power.367 In the event that large scale climactic occurrences severely depress wind energy output, several options exist to compensate for intermittent output.368

AND, AN INTERCONNECTED STATE GRID WOULD FAIL SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] The problem with improving infrastructure is that the electricity market does not operate in a unified manner as part of one large integrated grid, but as a community of smaller regionally managed electricity administrators.388 Several regional and state transmission organizations, who determine which producers are permitted time on the grid, have gradually instituted discriminatory pricing schemes that essentially punish wind power generators for output variations. Their rationale is that lower-than-expected production requires them to keep backup generators running, regardless of whether it costs the system.389 The recent granting of regulatory authority to FERC is a step toward reigning in the disparate interests playing out on the grid.390

146

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
CONGRESS NEEDS TO ENACT A NATIONAL RPS – FEDERAL ACTION KEY TO NECESSARY LEADERSHIP FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL RPS GLOBAL POWER REPORT 2007 [May 31, ttate] About 200 trade associations, businesses, utilities and environmental groups are urging the Senate to pass this year a marketbased national renewable portfolio standard that would require electric utilities to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from low-emission domestic resources. In a letter to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, the companies and advocates said that substantially increasing renewable energy generation would enhance national security, help stabilize energy prices and reduce pollution. Bingaman's office released a copy of the letter May 25. The letter, which was signed by Google, GE, United Steelworkers, BP America, Alliant Energy, Sempra Energy, and Wisconsin Power and Light, among others, was also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senator Pete Domenici, the senior Republican on the energy committee. "We believe the time has come for Congress to move quickly to enact national RPS legislation," the letter said. "The costs of inaction for our environment, national security and economy are too high." The advocates in the letter describe an RPS where electric utilities can buy renewable energy credits to help meet the mandate for a portion of their generation. Bingaman last week said he would offer RPS legislation as an amendment to a massive energy efficiency bill Reid plans to bring before the full Senate in early June. Bingaman's proposal would call for utilities to generate at least 15% of their electricity sold at the retail level from renewable sources by 2020. In 2005, a 10% RPS cleared the Senate but failed in the House. The Bush administration opposes a national RPS. Already 22 states have adopted their own renewable energy standards to require electric utilities to generate a specific amount of power from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal resources. But the group told lawmakers that the US "will not realize the full potential for renewable electricity without the adoption of a federal program to enhance the states' efforts.

147

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY – POST-PUCHA COMPLIANCE
A FEDERAL RPS IS MORE EFFECTIVE – BRINGS UTILITIES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH POSTPUCHA – ALLOWS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ENERGY SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] A federal RPS better matches the post-PUCHA interstate power landscape. The elimination of PUCHA in 2005 removed the geographical restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single, integrated systems. [19] More utilities operate across state lines, and many have begun to merge and consolidate to maximize profits and deal with the perceived challenges of restructuring. While they are still pending approval, the proposed mergers of MidAmerican Energy Holdings with Pacificorp and Constellation Energy with FLP serve as prominent examples of this trend. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also accelerated the regionalization of the industry by authorizing more interstate compacts and promoting interstate planning and cooperation. Using individual states as a crucible for innovations in electricity generation and marketing may have made sense when PUHCA limited the size and geographic scope of utility holding companies, but makes little sense now. Using the states alone to promote renewable energy technologies endorses action at the improper scale since electricity flows across state lines.

148

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – LAUNDRY LIST
NOW IS THE TIME FOR A CONSISTENT, NATIONAL RPS – IT WOULD JUMPSTART A TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES AND CREATE PREDICTABILITY FOR INVESTORS Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 13, Liu] It is time that federal policymakers engage in an informed, comprehensive and rational debate about the few remaining objections to a federal RPS mandate. America faces serious and mounting energy problems: - Continued dependence on dwindling foreign sources of fossil fuels and uranium - An undiversified electricity fuel mixture that leaves the nation vulnerable to serious national security threats - Reliance on an ancient and overwhelmed transmission grid that risks more common, more pronounced, and more expensive catastrophic system failures - An impending climate crisis that will require massive and expensive emissions controls costing billions of dollars and substantially reducing U.S. GDP - Loss of American economic competitiveness as Europe and Japan become the major manufacturing center for new clean energy technologies It is time to decide. By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national RPS can create a more just and more predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector. By offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with conventional and nuclear power, a national RPS would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while protecting human health and the environment. There is a time for accepting the quirks and foibles of state experimentation in national energy policy; and there is a time to look to the states as laboratories for policy innovation. Now is the time to model the best state RPS programs and craft a coherent national policy that protects the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers. Now is the time for federal leadership.

149

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION
LACK OF NATIONAL COORDINATION DOOMS SOLVENCY SOVACOOL AND BARKENBUS, senior research associate @ Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and senior research fellow @ Network for New Energy Sources, 2007 [Ben and Jack, “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Where Science and Policy meets Environment”, August, proquest/hayes] While the considerable state-based RPS activity, just described, can be lauded as better than no action at all, it is not necessarily superior to national legislation. Important issues such as geographic scope, eligible technologies or industries, inclusion of existing versus new technologies, and the specifics of credit trading have been decided differently in every state. Consequently, the resulting state-based market may create confusion, complexity, and inconsistency for policymakers, investors, and businesses. Contrary to enabling a well-lubricated national renewable energy market, inconsistencies between states-over what counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where it must be delivered, and how it may be traded-clog the renewable energy market like coffee grounds in a drain. Implementing agencies and stakeholders must grapple with inconsistent state RPS goals, and investors must interpret competing and often arbitrary statutes.19 To pick just a few prominent examples, Massachusetts set its target at 4 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island chose 15 percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration units count as "renewables," while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and small-scale fossil fuel power plants. Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set their purchase requirements based on installed capacity, whereas other states set them relative to electricity sales. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island trade renewable energy credits (RECs) under the New England Power Pool, whereas Texas has its own REC trading system. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntary standards with no penalties, whereas Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees.20 The result is a renewable energy market that deters investment, complicates compliance, discourages interstate cooperation, and encourages tedious and expensive litigation.21

150

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION
NATIONAL RPS NEEDED TO COORDINATE CONTRADICTORY STATE MANDATES SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Perhaps most important, the country needs federal action to harmonize inconsistent state definitions concerning eligible resources, purchase requirements, and obligations. Each state defines “renewable” resources differently, creating confusion among investors and utilities that must operate in multiple states at once. For instance, Maine’s standard includes fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration, Pennsylvania’s coal gasification and distributed generation, and Hawaii’s energy efficiency practices. Photovoltaic (solar) panels do not count in
Minnesota; solar thermal does not count in Iowa; methane does not count in Maine; small hydroelectric does not count in New Jersey, and nothing except solar thermal and photovoltaics count in Arizona. In Massachusetts, only new systems in operation after 1997 meet the standard, in Texas it is 1999, and in Iowa, it does not matter. Maine sets an upper limit of 100 megawatts (MW) while other states limit eligible resources to between 5 and 20 MW. Wisconsin set a 2.2 percent standard by 2011; New York 25 percent by 2013, Delaware 10 percent by 2019; Rhode Island 16 percent by 2020; and Washington, DC 11 percent by 2022. [6] Pennsylvania and Connecticut exempt some suppliers—such as publicly owned utilities or large utilities that offer default service—from their RPS requirements, and the duration of the standards in Arizona and Maine are unclear and may expire.

Furthermore, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland divide eligible resources into separate tiers and offer credit multipliers for different technologies. New Jersey’s standard features a carve-out that mandates at least 90 MW and 1,500 MW must come from solar by
2008 and 2020, respectively. [7] Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas base their purchase requirements on installed capacity, whereas other states base theirs on electricity sales. Colorado sets a cost cap that electricity costs cannot increase more than 50 cents per month in a customer’s bill, yet New Mexico and Nevada have no “safety valve.”

Arizona and Hawaii offer no REC trading systems, California and Colorado have a REC system under development, Maine and Rhode Island trade credits under the New England Power Pool, and Montana and New York offer REC trading only as long as electricity is delivered directly to the state. [8]
As if this was not enough complexity, RPS compliance in California and New Mexico is at the discretion of the public utility commission, whereas Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have RPS where compliance is voluntary, vague, or unspecified. [9] Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania levy compliance fees on power marketers and utilities not meeting state RPS requirements by charging them $45-55/MWh; Connecticut 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for every month a provider fails to comply; Delaware 2.5 cents per kWh; and Texas has a non-compliance penalty equal to $50 per megawatt hour (MWh) (with annual adjustment for inflation) or 200 percent the average market value of credits for the compliance period. [10]

Inconsistencies over what counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where electricity must be delivered, and whether cost caps, REC trading, and noncompliance penalties exist create additional transaction costs that must be borne by investors and utilities. The state-by-state approach to RPS artificially inflates the cost of renewable energy by forcing some utilities to rely on sub-optimal in-state resources and induce development of renewable energy generators where they may not be most cost effective. LACK OF COORDINATION UNDERMINES INVESTMENT – DOOMS RPS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] The differing state RPS targets and expiration dates of state policies can confuse investors, who are then not able to obtain long term sales contracts, further hampering efforts to deploy renewable energy technologies. As Ole Langniss and Ryan Wiser put it, “experience in several U.S. states ... shows that inadequate purchase obligations, overly broad renewable energy eligibility guidelines, unclear regulatory rules, insufficient enforcement, and wavering political support can all doom an RPS to certain failure.”[13]

151

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION
NATIONAL RPS KEY TO COORDINATION OF EFFECTIVE CREDIT TRADING NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Finally, a national RPS would establish uniform rules for the most efficient trading of renewable energy credits (RECs). This uniformity could further reduce renewable energy technology costs by creating economies of scale and a national market for the most cost-effective resources; inducing renewable energy development in the regions of the country where they are the most cost-effective; and reducing transaction costs, by enabling suppliers to buy credits and avoid having to negotiate many small contracts with individual renewable energy projects. FEDERAL ACTION KEY – PREVENTS STATE INCONSISTENCY SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] Perhaps most important, the country needs federal action to harmonize inconsistent state definitions concerning eligible resources, purchase requirements, and obligations. Each state defines “renewable” resources differently, creating confusion among investors and utilities that must operate in multiple states at once. For instance, Maine’s standard includes fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration, Pennsylvania’s coal gasification and distributed generation, and Hawaii’s energy efficiency practices. Photovoltaic (solar) panels do not count in Minnesota; solar thermal does not count in Iowa; methane does not count in Maine; small hydroelectric does not count in New Jersey, and nothing except solar thermal and photovoltaics count in Arizona. In Massachusetts, only new systems in operation after 1997 meet the standard, in Texas it is 1999, and in Iowa, it does not matter. Maine sets an upper limit of 100 megawatts (MW) while other states limit eligible resources to between 5 and 20 MW. Wisconsin set a 2.2 percent standard by 2011; New York 25 percent by 2013, Delaware 10 percent by 2019; Rhode Island 16 percent by 2020; and Washington, DC 11 percent by 2022. [6] Pennsylvania and Connecticut exempt some suppliers—such as publicly owned utilities or large utilities that offer default service—from their RPS requirements, and the duration of the standards in Arizona and Maine are unclear and may expire. STATES FAIL – INCONSISTENT EXEMPTIONS
Wiser et al, scientist at Berkeley National Lab, 04 (Ryan Wiser, Kevin Porter, Robert Grace, “Evaluating Experience With Renewables Portfolio Standards In The United States” Migration and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1/04, http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53920r96726341q/fulltext.pdf Yoder) • Narrow Applicability: State RPS policies typically apply to investor-owned electric utilities and (if they are allowed in the state) competitive energy service providers. Many states have provided partial exemptions in meeting RPS requirements, the most common of which is to exempt publicly owned electric utilities from meeting the standards (most, but not all, states provide this exemption). Such minor exemptions (publicly owned utilities typically serve less than 30% of electricity load), while not ideal and certainly not competitively neutral, will not generally do major damage to an RPS. More comprehensive exemptions, however, can destroy the potential impact of RPS requirements. In fact, such broad exemptions are the key reason that both Pennsylvania and

152

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

Connecticut rated so poorly on the outcome-based criteria, described earlier. In Connecticut, the legislature originally exempted providers of last resort from meeting the RPS. These providers serve the customers that have chosen not to switch to a competitive provider, and account for well over 95% of the total load in the state. As such, until recently (the legislature enacted changes to the policy in 2003), the RPS applied to less than 5% of electricity load in the state, eviscerating the impact of the RPS. Furthermore, when an RPS requirement does not apply to every potential supplier, it is not competitively neutral and creates barriers to entry to competitive electricity suppliers. Though Connecticut recently expanded the applicability of their policy to ‘fix’ this problem, Pennsylvania’s policy still exempts most major LSEs in the state and, in part as a result, the policy is not expected to benefit the renewable energy industry.

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION
STATES FAIL – DIFFERENT RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Wiser et al, scientist at Berkeley National Lab, 04 (Ryan Wiser, Kevin Porter, Robert Grace, “Evaluating Experience With Renewables Portfolio Standards In The United States” Migration and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1/04, http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53920r96726341q/fulltext.pdf Yoder) • Poorly Balanced Supply-Demand Conditions: Another key design pitfall relates to supplydemand imbalances for renewable energy. Maine provides the quintessential example for this pitfall, and this is the critical reason for Maine’s poor showing on the outcome-based criteria. Even with a nominally high RPS obligation of 30%, resource eligibility rules are so expansive in Maine that eligible supply far exceeds demand; in Maine, existing renewable generation is eligible, as is existing fossil-based cogeneration. The policy has therefore had no effect on new renewable generation in the region because existing eligible generation far exceeds the RPS obligation (in state renewable energy supply alone exceeds 30%). Other states that have had similar, yet less severe, problems include Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Still other states have left insufficient time between finalizing the implementation rules of their RPS and the incidence of the first standard, with early non-compliance or shortages of renewable energy generation a likely result. Nevada and perhaps Massachusetts appear likely to fall in this camp.

Federal is better than state-needs coordination and leadership Lynch, Wall Street analyst, July 2, 2008 [J. Peter, “What American Needs Now-2008”, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, July 2, 2008, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52929, Zhang] Twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia currently have RPS's, but each of them is different. This is confusing and needs to be coordinated on a national level. What is needed is a National RPS with the federal government taking on a leadership role to set the standard and move forward. I see no societal or technical reason for not starting out with a national RPS goal of 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050.

153

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COST
A NATIONAL RPS INCREASES COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RENEWABLES MARKET – LOWER ELECTRICITY COSTS FOR CONSUMERS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Increasingly sophisticated studies conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) confirm that a federal RPS would lower electricity costs for consumers at both the wholesale and retail levels. Even these estimates substantially underestimate potential savings because none compares a national RPS to the expanding universe of state-based policies. None assumes the cost-savings associated with passing a federal statute that is more precise, more consistent, and more predictable than complying with an ever-changing patchwork of inconsistent and often competing state RPS mandates. The most recent economic analysis by UCS compared a range of potential economic impacts of a national RPS by examining four RPS scenarios matching proposals expected for consideration in the 110th Congress. Using more conservative estimates even than the Department of Energy uses to forecast the market potential for wind, geothermal and biomass resources, UCS found that a federal RPS mandate would lower consumer energy bills in all four cases. UCS determined that a 20 percent by 2020 federal RPS would decrease consumer energy bills by an average of 1.5 percent per year and save consumers a total of $49.1 billion (in 2002 dollars) on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020. [45] According to UCS, a 20 percent RPS by 2020 would lead to substantial cost-savings for four reasons: 1. A national RPS would reduce competition for fossil fuels and lower future prices of coal and natural gas. 2. Many renewable energy technologies are now less expensive than new fossil fuel plants that generate the same amount of energy. 3. A national RPS would reduce the cost of renewable energy by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations and maintenance. 4. Increased reliance on renewable energy would offset expensive natural gas-fired generation, and “hedge” against volatile natural gas prices.

20% NATIONAL RPS YIELDS NO NEW COSTS TO CONSUMERS Sierra Club, 2008 [“Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard”, Sierra Club, 2008, http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp, Zhang] Claim: A 20% requirement would dramatically raise consumer electricity prices. Reality: A 20% renewable electricity standard by 2020 would cost consumers almost nothing. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), in a report completed at the request of Senator Murkowski (RAK), found that consumer prices for electricity under a 20% standard would be largely the same as business-asusual (if there were no renewable energy standards at all). BAU would result in a retail electricity cost of 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2020, and a 20% standard would result in 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour: only a 3% increase from BAU, and no more than electricity prices in 1999. The chart below is taken from the EIA report and shows how little effect a 10% or 20% RPS would have on consumers' electricity bills in 2010 and 2020.(1)

154

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY - DIVERSE PORTFOLIOS
A NATIONAL RPS - DIVERSITY IN RENEWABLES – EMPIRICALLY PROVEN BY STATE-BASED DEVELOPMENT SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] A final criticism is that a national RPS or SBC would promote only least-cost options such as wind turbines and landfill gas generators (and not solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, small-scale hydroelectric, and geothermal plants). Existing state programs, however, reveal that mandates with broad qualifying resource eligibility actually have led to the development of many different renewable resources. Utilities have already demonstrated that they can meet state requirements by deploying a diverse portfolio of renewable resources that best match their service areas. By geographically and monetarily expanding the market for renewable resources, a national RPS is likely to further diversify the deployment of renewable energy technologies. In Nevada, geothermal energy may be cheaper to develop than wind. In the Pacific Northwest, incremental hydroelectric power may be cheaper than solar. In the Southeast, biomass may be the most affordable. A national RPS mandate with a fuel-based definition of eligible renewable resources ensures that free market principles, rather than regulatory set-asides or political patronage, determine which technologies will be most cost competitive in certain areas of the country. An added bonus is that a national RPS decreases compliance costs for regulated utilities, since a technology-neutral mandate allows utilities to meet RPS obligations using the technology that is most cost competitive for the fuels available.

ALL REGIONS HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE RENEWABLES SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate] Even in the Southeast, where regulated utilities often claim there is a dearth of available renewable resources, recent research has found commercially significant wind resources offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.59 According to the National Hydro Association, the Southeast also has the potential to add 2,941MW of incremental hydropower at existing dams, an amount second only to the Northwest/Rocky Mountain region.60 A preliminary study undertaken by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) also found approximately 900MW of energy available in from wind, biomass, solar, and incremental hydroelectric that could be "cost competitively" developed by in the Southeast.61 And a study by the University of Tennessee suggests that forest and agricultural by-products alone could generate up to 22.2 billion kWh of electricity in TVA's service area at competitive prices.62

155

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NO GEOGRAPHICAL EXCLUSIONS
NEW ENGLAND DISPROVES YOUR GEOGRAPHICAL INEQUITY ARGUMENTS Kelly Shaw, CongressNow Staff, 11/1/07 [“Experts Cite Biomass' Potential for Southeast to Meet House Renewable Energy Mandate,” CongressNow, November 2007, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/, Liu] Energy and environment experts at a forum today suggested that one of the major obstacles to meeting a proposed 15 percent national renewable portfolio standard - namely, the shortage of wind, solar and geothermal resources in the southeastern U.S. - could be overcome by increasing the use of biomass-based fuels. The House energy bill (H.R. 3221) now pending in Congress mandates that 15 percent of electricity be generated from renewable energy by 2020. The Senate has passed a similar bill in three previous years while the House has never passed one. This year the Senate was not able to pass it, but the House did. The key argument against a national RPS is the regional inequality for renewable resources. Specifically, southeastern states claim they don't have enough access to renewable energy. Leon Lowery, majority staff on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told a forum sponsored by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, said that studies show New England actually has lowest renewable resource base in the country, and many of those states already have an RPS in place. National RPS will not disadvantage South—they have plenty of biomass fuel Sissine, Specialist in Energy Policy at the Congressional Research Service, 2007 [Fred, “Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS):Background and Debate Over a National Requirement”, National Council for Science and the Environment, September 6, 2007, http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL34116.pdf, Zhang] Proponents counter-argued that a national system of tradable credits would enable retail suppliers in states with less abundant resources to comply at the least cost by purchasing credits from organizations in states with a surplus of low-cost production. Also, supporters pointed out that S. Amdt 1537 provided that funds collected from payments for alternative compliance and penalties would be used to
provide grants: ... to states in regions which have a disproportionately small share of economically sustainable renewable energy generation capacity ... The proponents also noted that in addition to many environmental and public interest groups, the RPS proposal was supported by some electric and natural gas utility companies as well as several corporations, including BP America and General Electric. Perhaps most importantly, RPS proponents countered by citing a study prepared by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The report examined the potential impacts of the 15% RPS proposed in S.Amdt. 1537.

Regarding resource availability, the report found that:

Biomass generation, both from dedicated biomass plants and existing coal plants co-firing with biomass fuel, grows the most by 2030, more than tripling from 102 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) in the reference case to 318 billion kwh with the RPS policy. “the South has significant biomass potential. Compared with other regions of the country, EIA found that the South would not be “unusually reliant on purchases of allowances from other regions or the federal allowance window....” Further, EIA found that the net requirement for the core region of the South defined by the Southern Electric Reliability
In a follow-up fact sheet to that study, EIA noted that Corporation (SERC) — after subtracting exemptions for small retailers and adjusting the baseline generation for pre-existing hydropower and municipal solid waste facilities — was “below the national average requirement across all regions.”

156

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NO FREE RIDERS
NATIONAL RPS SOLVES THE “FREE RIDERS” ARGUMENT – NATIONAL RPS LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD – LOSERS NOW IN STATE MISMATCH OF RPS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] The first criticism is that a national SBC or RPS would create "winners and losers." In reality, all states have renewable resources they can affordably develop. However, under the current system of state mandates, some states are "losers" by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in other states. Other states are victims to inconsistencies between state mandates that produce perverse predatory trade-offs and require them to export their cheap in-state renewable electricity in exchange for more expensive electricity or renewable energy credits. A national mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform rules and by allowing utilities to purchase renewable energy credits or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive. STATUS QUO CREATES FREE RIDERS – STATES WITHOUT RPS ENJOYING BENEFITS FROM NEIGHBORS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] The Bush Administration officially rejects a national RPS on the grounds that it would create inequities between states. But the irony is that, under the current system of state-based RPS mandates, some states are paying for the improved environmental and security situation enjoyed by all. While RPS states pick up the tab for cleaning the air and water and diversifying the nation's electricity generation, other states enjoy artificially deflated electricity prices as they tap cheap sources of energy that pollute the environment of their neighbors. Employing a decentralized, state-by-state approach to address pollution that does not respect state borders is remarkably challenging because upwind and upstream states do not suffer the full burdens of their pollution and may have little incentive to act.34 Historically, some states have rejected environmental protections when they believe that such policies would raise compliance costs and encourage industries to flee to less stringent states. Meanwhile, cleaner air and more reliable power from renewable resources are enjoyed by all states, even though their costs are borne by only the few generators who have invested in renewable energy by choice or mandate.35 As long as policymakers try to combat national problems using a state-by-state approach, state lawmakers can use parochial interests to perpetuate the disparity.

157

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NO FREE RIDERS
A NATIONAL RPS SOLVES YOUR “FREE RIDERS” ARGUMENT SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Federal action is needed to avoid free riders. Renewable energy technologies offer positive externalities, such as cleaner air (by displacing dirtier power plants locally) and more secure power, which would not normally be provided by the market. Additional people cannot be prevented from enjoying such benefits by those who buy them, and the extra cost of providing the benefit to other people is zero. Markets do not provide such “public goods” on their own since individuals will not volunteer to pay for benefits that accrue to everyone. In the electric utility industry, producers do not have sufficient incentives to diversify adequately and provide cleaner air because their profits depend on their diversity relative to other producers, and because the costs of pollution reverberate throughout the entire economy rather than being concentrated among electricity generators. Thus, electricity producers manage risks to ensure their own exposure is limited relative to that of their competitors, a vast majority of which still depend on fossil fuels. Risk mitigation measures center on controlling price fluctuation to appease investors. Private actors are less concerned with price disruption, since their likelihood is unknown, and since such disruptions will affect all actors in the market and will not change their own relative standing. [17] The result is an electric utility system where stakeholders levy for comparative advantage, rather than improvement in any absolute sense. Analogously, the current system of state RPS is riddled with leakages. A solitary state’s effort to deploy more renewable energy technologies and improve the environment through the market may result in benefits to other states that have not paid for them. As long as adjacent or regional states support renewable power, residents nearby receive the benefit at no cost. Economically rational state politicians therefore prefer to “free-ride” and instead spend money on measures guaranteed to bring benefits to constituents.[18] The current patchwork of state based RPS thus provides an incentive for the numbers of states that have not passed RPS to free ride on those that have. Only a national RPS evens the playing field and brings the benefits of renewable energy to all states.

158

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NO BUREAUCRACY
LITTLE RISK OF BUREAUCRATIC MISMANAGEMENT WITH RPS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] Unlike instruments developed by public utility commissions with long and complex procedures, often followed by litigation, RPSs are bureaucratically simple. n13 RPSs enable customers to pay producers directly for renewable energy, obviating the need for the administration of funds by government agencies. And, unlike a onetime award for funds, no project is guaranteed a place in the market. n14 First implemented by Iowa and Minnesota in the 1980s, twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already passed RPS laws requiring utilities to use renewable resources as a portion of their overall provision of electricity. n15 Four other states have nonbinding renewable energy goals. n16 Five more states--Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Utah--are considering mandating some form of RPS. Of the approximate 9,000 MW of wind energy in the United States, roughly fifty percent, or 4,500 MW, have been promoted directly by RPS policies, whereas ten percent, or 900 MW, have been promoted by SBCs from 2001 to 2006. n17

159

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NO WINNERS/LOSERS
NON-UNIQUE – CURRENT STATE RPS CREATES WINNERS/LOSERS JOSTEN 2007 [R. Bruce, exec vp of Government Affairs @ Chamber of Commerce, June 15, http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf/ TTATE] The question of exemption is a highly disturbing one, because it highlights the major flaw in an RPS: the choice of winners and losers. Regardless, the lack of federal involvement has essentially led to a very similar result as an exemption-based mandatory system: states with the capabilities to institute an RPS have taken it upon themselves to do so, while those incapable of supporting an RPS have not. The latter states, many of which suffer from impossibility of attainment, would be the same states seeking exemptions under a federal system.

160

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – NO RACE TO THE BOTTOM
YOUR ARGUMENT IS EMPIRICALLY DENIED – STATES RPS SHOW LARGE DIVERSIFICATION SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Finally, opponents of a national RPS often argue that since a federal RPS would induce least cost compliance, most utilities would only select the least cost renewable energy technology. Since the renewable energy technology with the lowest levelized cost tends to be wind, this had led some to conclude that a federal RPS would create less diversification because it would only advance large-scale wind projects. While this argument makes sense, the historical record seems to disprove it. State RPS programs have already promoted significant diversification of electrical generators. Power retailers have installed 555 MW of wind, landfill gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and photovoltaic systems to meet RPS requirements in California, but rely on around 30 MW of wind in New York, 3 MW of landfill gas in Illinois, and 1 MW of photovoltaics in Montana. [63] In Pennsylvania, it is estimated that by 2015 their RPS will be met by a diverse least-cost portfolio comprised of wind, biomass, hydroelectric, digester gas, and landfill gas projects. [64] And in their projections of a national RPS, the Tellus Institute argued that wind would fulfill only around half the national requirement, with the remaining majority coming from geothermal, biomass and solar resources. [65]

161

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS NOT COST-PROHIBITIVE
TEXAS PROVES RPS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY Wiser and Langniss, Berkeley National Lab, 01 (Ryan Wiser and Ole Langniss “The Renewables Portfolio Standard in Texas: An Early Assessment”, Energy Citatations Database,11/01,http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/790029-9pmNCT/native/, Yoder) The RPS has been recognized by some as perhaps the ideal way to encourage renewable energy development in competitive markets: the RPS aims to ensure that renewable energy targets are met at least cost and with a minimum of ongoing administrative involvement by the government (Rader and Norgaard 1996, Haddad and Jefferiss 1999, Berry and Jaccard 2001, Morthorst 2000). Detailed recommendations for the proper design of an RPS have been provided (Rader and Hempling 2001, Timpe et al. 2001, Mitchell and Anderson 2000, Price Waterhouse Coopers 1999, Schaeffer et al. 2000, Wiser and Hamrin 2000, Schaeffer and Sonnemans 2000, Espey 2001). Others have sought to project the costs and impacts of RPS requirements (e.g., Clemmer et al. 1999). Most of these recommendations and cost estimates have had to rely on theoretical principles, however, as practical experience in the application of the RPS has been limited. RPS policies have been established by legislation in 10 U.S. states, and in the countries of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Italy, and the United Kingdom, but little experience has been gained with the actual operation of the policy.2 Replacing existing renewable energy policies with an as-of-yet untested approach in the RPS is risky business. Some countries – including Germany, Spain, and Denmark – have had particularly good success in driving clean energy development with attractive “feed-in” tariffs. And experience in several U.S. states shows that a poorly designed RPS does little to increase renewable generation (Rader 2000). Nonetheless, emerging experience from the state of Texas demonstrates that a well-crafted and implemented RPS can deliver on its promise of strong and cost-effective support for renewable energy with a minimum of ongoing administrative intervention by the government. While experience even in Texas is limited, the Texas RPS has already fostered substantial renewable energy development, surpassing the achievements of any other RPS developed to date. This article describes the design of the Texas RPS and offers an early assessment.

162

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY
INCORPORATING CREDITS IS NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE SOLVENCY – NECESSARY FOR COMPLIANCE FOR REGION OUTLIERS SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate]
Renewable energy is more than simply a business. For that reason, this Note proposes an end-user-oriented, demand-side Social RPS to go along with the industry version. Fossil fuels are responsible for millions of dollars in health care costs,503 a host of environmental and economic catastrophes,504 and even national security vulnerabilities.505 The push for a renewable portfolio standard given this set of concerns necessarily requires a different mode of implementation from the businesscentered standard. The Industry RPS, its tailored execution structure notwithstanding, simply uses energy credits as a means to act on those who sell power.506 The Social RPS makes use of renewable energy credits as well, but the relevant actors here are not utilities or independent power producers, but American states.

Through the commodification of energy credits, even in a scheme that backloads implementation, power retailers that lack renewable assets will more often than those holding such assets choose to purchase credits on the market.507 The risk that the social costs of fossil fuel production will be increasingly concentrated in certain regions is significant.508 Given that renewable energy sources have geographic restraints, their production and distribution hubs will initially, in all likelihood, be sited at a greater distance from end-users than their larger-market-share fossil fuel competitors.509

RECs NECESSARY FOR COMPLIANCE AND TO PREVENT CHEATERS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] A federal RPS must also establish a national REC trading scheme that does not set geographic restrictions or limitations on renewable generators, avoiding artificial winners and losers. Tradable credits are needed to function as a simple accounting system to prevent cheating and ensure compliance. They also provide considerable flexibility to utilities, retailers, and generators. Utilities can rely on credits to reduce risks, since credits can be purchased to make up any shortfall or take care of any excess. Utilities located in areas with poor renewable resources are not “punished” because they have the ability to invest in energy generation in resource-rich areas. Another advantage of particular importance to intermittent technologies such as wind and solar is that credits can be sold at any time, regardless of when power was generated. [31] Similar credit trading schemes are becoming more popular and palatable among businesses. Four-fifths of utility executives polled in 2007 expected mandatory emissions caps within a decade, and ten companies, including Alcoa, Caterpillar, and DuPont, recently called on Congress to set up a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases. [32]

163

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY
ZERO COMPLIANCE WITHOUT CREDITS SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Absent RECs, verifying compliance would be next to impossible, and would require tracking all renewable energy transactions within an entire trading region, an enormously complicated task. The efficacy of geographic restrictions is uncertain because key facets of RPS policy, such as electricity flow, pollution reduction, economic development, and technological development, have externalities that do not honor political boundaries. [33] Moreover, such limitations do not match the delivery of power, since most states share electricity infrastructure, and cannot ensure that all of the renewable electricity they use will be generated indigenously. RECs would also ensure that a federal RPS would not need any formal expiration, as a “self-sunset” would take place once the market value of renewable energy credits has stabilized at or near zero, signifying that renewables have successfully entered the market.

164

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY
RECs more cost-effective than command and control Boyce et al, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 03 (Hillary Boyce, Ann Cavanaugh, Mark
Hildebrand, Adam Teepe, Tatiana Winter, “Analysis of Command and Control Versus Tradable Renewable Energy Credits: What Is the Best Policy Option for California to Achieve Its Renewable Portfolio Standard Goals?”, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 5/03, http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~electricity/Documents/Deliverables/Project_Proposal.pdf, Yoder)
In determining regulatory flexibility, the Collaborative Staff will decide whether eligible renewable electricity will be ‘bundled’ or ‘unbundled’ with renewable

An unbundled transaction is one where the renewable certificates may be sold separately from the associated commodity electricity [10]. An
certificates. A bundled transaction is one where the renewable certificates and electricity are sold together as bundled product. inflexible command-and-control approach would ‘bundle’ renewable certificates with the electricity, thereby requiring utilities to purchase both certificate and renewable energy directly from the generator. A

tradable permitting scheme, on the other hand, would allow the sale of ‘unbundled’ renewable certificates. The significance of the latter scheme is that in allowing utilities to purchase energy credits separate from the generation the CS would be
leaving the door open for eventually allowing these credits to be traded between utilities and other market players. The chosen policy mechanism will inevitably shape the development of the renewable energy market in the state of California and impact the marginal costs of

A bundled electricity requirement will force IOUs to procure and transmit renewable energy to their own region, introducing new relative cost differences among IOUs (see Appendix C for map). For example, if the most abundant
renewable energy to each IOU. source of renewable energy for SDG&E is solar power while the most abundant for PG&E is wind power, but the cost of solar energy production exceeds the cost facing

Therefore, this command-andcontrol approach does not appear to cost-effectively implement the RPS because the marginal benefits for each utility would not be equal.
PG&E for wind energy production, SDG&E is faced with an inherently greater cost in meeting the RPS target than PG&E. Depending upon bundling requirements, tradable permitting schemes could allow the utilities to meet RPS procurement targets by either: 1) generating their own renewable energy from eligible resources and selling it to customers; 2) purchasing renewable energy from a third party who generated it from eligible resources and then transmitted it into the IOUs region; or 3) purchase unbundled credits from eligible resource generators without necessarily transmitting the electricity to the IOUs region [9].

A flexible, unbundled system will encourage the production of the cheapest forms of renewable energy since credits can be sold to areas where generation is more expensive. Most likely, the market price of the tradable renewable energy credits (TRECs) will be established at the point in which the supply of credits equals the demand for credits, and these credits will be traded until all utilities share the same marginal cost of attaining the RPS procurement target. Because the cost of achieving the RPS targets will be determined by the market price of renewable generation within the entire state of California, a tradable permitting scheme would be a more costeffective means of implementing the RPS. However, there are a number of social equity concerns with the effects of tradable permitting which can be examined in the following summary of the sulfur dioxide market.

165

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – MARKET-BASED APPROACH SOLVES
MARKET-ORIENTED APPROACH EFFECTIVE AT SPURRING RENEWABLES JACCARD, professor in School of Resource and Environmental Management @ Simon Fraser University, 2005 [Mark, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND ENDURING ENERGY, page 285/ ttate] The ECTP controls emissions, but the principles of market-oriented regulation have also been applied to regulating market outcomes at a technology or energy level. The purpose is to establish artificial niche markers for critical new technologies that might not otherwise gain a foothold in the economy, a foothold that helps launch the typical cycle of initial product diffusion, production cost reductions through learning and economies-of-scale, initial consumer feedback and product improvement. Once new technologies have reached this market-recognition stage, policy-makers should find it easier to intensify environmental taxes or ECTP because businesses and consumers would have available alternatives to their conventional high-emission technologies. Noteworthy applications of niche market regulations involve the energy sources for electricity generation and the emission levels for automobiles. The renewable portfolio standard (RPS) emerged in the 1990s as an instrument to force greater generation of electricity from renewables. Electricity providers (or consumers in some jurisdictions) are required to ensure that a minimum percentage of electricity in their portfolio is generated by renewables. Each provider must comply or take advantage of flexibility provisions that allow for purchasing of credits (called green certificates in Europe) from those whose renewables generation exceeds the minimum requirement; non-compliance results in exclusion from the market or substantial penalties. Thus, the RPS forms an aggregate market outcome, but supports economic efficiency by encouraging only those with the lowest generation costs to provide electricity from renewables to the market.

166

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – MANDATE ON SALES KEY
MANDATE ON SALES OF RENEWABLES PREFERABLE TO CAPACITY MANDATE – ENSURES DELIVERY OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] Rather than mandate a fixed amount of renewable capacity, a national RPS should require utilities to meet a percentage of electricity sales through renewable resources. A mandate based on sales rather than installed capacity ensures that suppliers are concerned more with the actual delivery of electricity than the construction of renewable energy systems that may never produce a watt of energy actually sent to consumers. Setting the RPS as a function of electricity demand also provides utilities with an incentive to pursue cost effective demand-side management and energy efficiency strategies as a way of reducing electricity demand and, therefore, the total compliance level of the RPS. For instance, if a utility had to meet 20 percent of its electricity sales with eligible renewable resources and worried that it could not affordably generate enough renewable electricity or purchase enough credits, it could first pursue aggressive energy efficiency and demand-side management strategies to lower sales and reduce the total amount of renewable generation needed to comply with the standard. A demand-based RPS is an elegant way of including energy conservation in the mandate while adding a level of flexibility in meeting RPS targets.

167

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO LAND SPACE
Alternative energy technologies use up much less space than conventional power plants AND only takes up a small fraction of that land, keeping it available for other uses Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 123, Liu] Recent advances in renewable energy technologies have made them much less land-intensive. In fact, the Worldwatch Institute recently estimated that harnessing renewable energy for electricity production requires less land than conventional systems. The study noted that solar power plants that concentrate sunlight in desert areas, for instance, require 2,540 acres per billion kWh. On a lifecycle basis, this is less land than a comparable coal or hydropower plant generating the same amount of electricity. Similar projections from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrate that solar and wind technologies use extensively less land than conventional systems when their complete fuel cycles are considered. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that in open and flat terrain a largescale wind plant will require about 60 acres per MW of installed capacity (this drops to as little as 2 acres per MW for hilly terrain). However, AWEA emphasizes that only 5 percent (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment—95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. At
the High Winds Project in Solano, California, 8 different landowners host 90 separate 1.8 MW wind turbines that total 162 MW of electricity capacity, but are still able to use almost all of the farmland around and between the turbines. Using a conservative figure of 26 acres for each wind turbine, researchers from Oberlin College estimated that 40 square miles could support roughly 38,000 turbines producing 3-4% of

total US electric demand each year. The actual footprint of these turbines would be roughly 10,000 acres, leaving the surrounding 990,000 acres of land either untouched or available for other uses. This figure beats both coal and natural gas in terms of total land use. NREL estimates that solar PV could supply every kilowatt-hour of our nation’s current electricity requirements with modules on only 7% of the country’s available roofs, parking lots, highway walls, and buildings without substantially altering appearances. Solar PV requires even less new land. A PV system at the California Exposition Center in
Sacramento, California, for example, fully integrates 450 kW of PV into a parking lot. Indeed, NREL concluded that, “a world relying on PV would offer a landscape almost indistinguishable from the landscape we know today.” For example, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center at the University Of San Diego School Of Law recently estimated that the City of San Diego could construct 1,726 MW of solar PV relying only on available roof area downtown.

168

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: INTERMITTENCY
AN RPS WILL INCREASE INTERMITTENT GENERATORS – IT WIL DIVERSIFY SOURCES OF ENERGY AND IMPROVE RELIABILITY Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 97, Liu] Under a national RPS, intermittent generators are not only likely to be geographically dispersed, but also technologically dispersed. That is, a national RPS would expand the diversity of technologies used to access renewable resources. Technological dispersion increases system reliability by decreasing dependence on any one intermittent source of energy. Utilities can harness wind on windy days, sun on sunny days, hydropower on rainy days, etc. In one study, assessing the impact of renewable technologies at large penetration rates (for example, above 20 percent) in the United Kingdom, researchers found that “intermittent generation need not compromise electricity system reliability at any level of penetration foreseeable in Britain over the next 20 years … overall [any negative costs] are much smaller than the savings in fuel and emissions that renewables can deliver.158 Put simply, the benefits of renewable energy technologies, in technological diversification, grid stability and system reliability more than outweigh their costs. AND, EMPIRICALLY DISPROVEN BY OTHER NATIONS SOVACOOL AND COOPER, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and senior research fellow for Network for New Energy Choices and adjunct asst prof at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2006 [Dr. Ben and Chris, “Green Means ‘Go?’ A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, August/September, lexis / ttate] Problems with intermittent renewable energy technologies long predicted by its detractors have failed to materialize in Denmark, Spain, and Germany, where aggressive renewable energy programs have been adopted. In these locations, system operators have overcome intermittence problems in four novel ways: diversifying locations, diversifying technologies, integrating with existing hydropower and demand response, and predicting wind patterns just as utilities already predict electricity demand and rainfall.46 Utilities-especially those in the West such as Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric-have become much better at integrating renewable resources into their sophisticated integrated resource planning processes.47 And system operators are becoming much better at day-ahead forecasting for intermittent renewable technologies like wind, where state-of-the-art forecasting capabilities are already in use throughout California and New York.48 PEAK LOAD CHECKS BACK MADRIGAL 2008 [Alexis, “DOE Report says more wind than coal planned for US grid”, June 02, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/new-doe-report.html / ttate] But it is important to remember that unlike coal, natural, gas, hydro, or nuclear, wind is intermittent. That means that as the amount of wind on the nation's (passive, outdated) electric grid, it could create problems when demand is high and the wind isn't blowing. One solution is the peak load shaving provided by companies like Consumer Powerline, which contracts with large companies to shut down unnecessary facilities when the grid is running close to capacity.

169

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: LONG TIMEFRAME FOR RENEWABLES
INITIAL PHASE OF RPS WILL JUMPSTART MOST RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT – INVESTORS THAT WAIT KNOW THEY WILL MAKE LESS SINCE THE INCENTIVE IS LOWER FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] 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.

170

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO ENFORCEMENT
PLAN IS ENFORCED THROUGH CIVIL PENALTIES FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] [*71] For covered utilities that fail to meet the RPS requirements, the enforcement provisions of the Proposed RPS would require additional review and possible adjudication. The Proposed RPS provides that a retail electric supplier that does not comply with the RPS requirements "shall be liable for the payment of a civil penalty," n170 meaning that the Department of Energy would need to review filings from, and assess penalties upon, those failing to report compliance with the national RPS. n171 This enforcement, while adding an additional administrative burden, is necessary for an effective RPS. State RPS programs with ineffective or under-enforced penalties have been less effective than those with strong enforcement policies. n172 In Arizona, for instance, the "lack of enforcement and non-compliance penalties has resulted in significant under-compliance with the [renewable energy] standards." n173

171

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: HAMPERS STATE ACTION
NATIONAL RPS EMPOWERS THE STATES SOVACOOL AND COOPER, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and senior research fellow for Network for New Energy Choices and adjunct asst prof at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2006 [Dr. Ben and Chris, “Green Means ‘Go?’ A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, August/September, lexis / ttate] Opponents of renewable energy often suggest that mandating a national RPS would be technically impossible, costly, unfair to those states without renewable resources, and difficult to enforce. Contrary to these claims, the authors suggest that a properly designed RPS would actually lower electricity prices, empower states and local actors, and provide a host of important ancillary services to the electric utility industry and society at large.

172

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD
STATE RPS SYSTEMS HAVE SPURRED EFFECTIVE WIND POWER – IT IS COST-EFFECTIVE Wiser and Langniss, Berkeley National Lab, 01 (Ryan Wiser and Ole Langniss “The Renewables Portfolio Standard in Texas: An Early Assessment”, Energy Citations Database,11/01,http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/790029-9pmNCT/native/, Yoder) Wind power projects are the most competitive of all RPS-eligible renewable energy technologies in Texas at the moment, as untapped landfill gas resource opportunities are limited and hydro resources are nearly fully exploited. Solar generation as well as traditional forms of biomass energy are too costly in Texas to compete with wind power at this time. Most of the planned wind power plants are located in West Texas, where average annual wind speeds of 8 m/s are common and capacity factors can exceed 40%. The sizable purchase obligation under the RPS also allows wind projects to gain the economies of scale necessary for deep cost reductions. Combine this factor with the outstanding wind power resource and with the federal 1.7(US)cent/kWh production tax credit (PTC), and wind power projects in Texas are able to deliver power to the grid for less than 3(US)¢/kWh. That the initial RPS targets are to be exceeded may therefore come as little surprise: wind power in Texas, with the PTC, is close to competing on purely economic grounds against new natural gas facilities, even with relatively low natural gas prices. With early over-compliance with the purchase standard and compliance costs that are at low levels given the competitive pricing offered by renewable generators, there are beginning to be calls for increasing the policy’s renewable electric capacity goals.

WIND POWER EMPIRICALLY THE PRIMARY RESOURCE FROM STATE RPS SYSTEMS Wiser and Barbose, Berkeley National Lab, 08 (Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose, “Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007”, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 4/08, http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/927151-UbxeVG/, Yoder) Of the more than 8,900 MW of new non-hydro renewable energy capacity that has come on line in RPS states from 1998 through 2007, roughly 93% has come from wind power, with biomass (4%), solar (2%), and geothermal (1%) playing lesser roles (see Figure 6). Though renewable resource diversity has so far been limited, there is some evidence that diversity may increase over time as RPS policies expand, at least in some states. In California, for example, of the more than 7,000 MW of contracts for new or repowered renewable energy projects signed from 2002 through 2007 by the state’s IOUs and POUs, 58% of the total capacity is wind, 23% solar, 12% geothermal, 7% biomass/MSW, and less than 1% is small hydro and ocean energy, demonstrating a greater level of diversity than historical trends, both nationally and in California.15 Additionally, largely because of technology tiers that exist in a number of states, a growing amount of solar energy is being motivated by RPS obligations, as discussed further in a later section of this report.

173

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD
WIND POWER ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP KAMMEN, ET AL 2001 [Daniel, professor of energy at UCal-Berkeley, “Renewable Energy: A Vital Choice”, December, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G180932983.html/ Nam] For many years, renewables were seen as energy options that—while environmentally and socially attractive— occupied niche markets at best, due to barriers of cost and available infrastructure. In the last decade, however, the case for renewable energy has become economically compelling as well. There has been a true revolution in technological innovation, cost improvements, and our understanding and analysis of appropriate applications of renewable energy resources and technologies—notably solar, wind, small-scale hydro, and biomass-based energy, as well as advanced energy conversion devices such as fuel cells. There are now a number of energy sources, conversion technologies, and applications that make renewable energy options either equal or better in price and services provided than the prevailing fossil-fuel technologies. For example, in a growing number of settings in industrialized nations, wind energy is now the least expensive option among all energy technologies—with the added benefit of being modular and quick to install and bring on-line. In fact, some farmers, notably in the U.S. Midwest, have found that they can generate more income per hectare from the electricity generated by a wind turbine than from their crop or ranching proceeds. Also, photovoltaic (solar) panels and solar hot water heaters placed on buildings across America can help reduce energy costs, dramatically shave peak-power demands, produce a healthier living environment, and increase the overall energy supply.

WIND POWER IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION 2007 [“The benefits of wind energy”, February, http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/The_Difference_Wind_Makes.pdf/ andy w] Wind energy offsets other, more polluting sources of energy. That is important because electricity generation is the largest industrial source of air pollution in the U.S. When wind projects generate electricity, fuel at other power plants is not consumed. To generate the same amount of electricity as today’s U.S. wind turbine fleet (16,818 MW) would require burning 23 million tons of coal (a line of 10-ton trucks over 9,000 miles long) or 75 million barrels of oil each year In 2007, the clean generation provided by wind prevented the emissions of approximately 28 million tons of carbon dioxide. A 2007 report estimates that wind power alone could lower emissions by 150 million tons of carbon dioxide in the year 2020, avoiding nearly 33% of expected emission increases in the electric sector.3 Wind power requires no mining, drilling, transportation of fuel, or water usage, and does not generate radioactive or other hazardous or polluting waste. Emissions from the manufacture and installation of wind turbines are negligible. The “energy payback time” (a measure of how long a power plant must operate to generate the amount of electricity required for its manufacture and construction) of a wind project is 3 to 8 months, depending on the wind speed at the site – one of the shortest of any generation technology. A study by the Midwest Independent System Operator (ISO) showed that 16,000 MW of additional wind capacity would avoid 43 million tons of CO2, or approximately 1,300 pounds of CO2 for every megawatt-hour of wind generation

174

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD
WIND CAN PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ENERGY AND CAN CREATE JOBS AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION 2007 [“The benefits of wind energy”, February, http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/The_Difference_Wind_Makes.pdf/ andy w] At growth rates like that, experts said, wind power could eventually make an important contribution to the nation’s electrical supply. It already supplies about 1 percent of American electricity, powering the equivalent of 4.5 million homes. Environmental advocates contend it could eventually hit 20 percent, as has already happened in Denmark. Energy consultants say that 5 to 7 percent is a more realistic goal in this country. The United States recently overtook Spain as the world’s second-largest wind power market, after Germany, with $9 billion invested last year. A recent study by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., projected $65 billion in investment from 2007 to 2015. In 2007, new tower, blade, turbine and assembly plants opened in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. In the same year, seven other facilities were announced in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, New York, and Oklahoma. Altogether, the new and announced facilities are expected to create some 6,000 jobs.
Investment in manufacturing capability signals confidence in the market and lays the groundwork for expanded growth.

New York’s 322-MW Maple Ridge Wind Farm, which began operating in September 2006, provides $8 million annually in local property tax revenue, pays landowners $1.65 million each year in lease payments, and created 163 new local long-term jobs. In Washington State, 1,000 MW of installed wind capacity is estimated to create 2,650 new local jobs during construction, an additional 400 new local long-term jobs during the operational years of the wind farms, and a $1.1 billion total economic benefit over the lifetime of the wind projects. One large (108-turbine, 162-MW) project in rural Prowers County, Colorado, increased the county’s tax base by 29%, adding annual payments of about $917,000 to the general school fund, $203,000 to the school bond fund, $189,000 to a county medical center, and $764,000 in new county revenues, as well as 15-20 permanent and wellpaying full-time jobs at the wind farm.1

In 2007, an analysis from global energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie found that providing 15% electricity from renewable energy resources by 2020 [through a Federal renewable electric standard] could lower consumer expenditures by nearly $100 billion, reducing both natural gas prices and electricity prices.2

175

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

SOLVENCY EXTS – SOLAR POWER GOOD
Solar Power is Renewable, Clean, and Becoming More Cost-Effective: They Generate Electricity at the Same Cost as Conventional Power Plants Kanellos Editor-At-Large for CNET News 2007 Michael Shrinking the Cost for Solar Power CNET News May 2007 http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html?hhTest=1 Fu One of the big problems with solar power has been that it costs more than electricity generated by conventional means. But some experts think that, under certain circumstances, the premium for solar power can be erased, without subsidies or dramatic technical breakthroughs. A sufficiently large solar thermal power plant (also called concentrated solar power, or CSP) could potentially generate electricity at about the same cost as electricity from a conventional gas-burning power plant, experts say.

Solar Power is in High Demand and Boosts the Economy by Creating Jobs Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer 2006 Steven A Sunnier Forecast for Solar Energy Washington Post November 20 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900688.html Fu "The demand for solar energy is so strong, not only in the United States but around the world, that we have to keep up," Lee Edwards, chief executive of BP Solar, said at a ceremony attended by Maryland politicians, congressional aides, BP employees and a group of local elementary-school pupils. Many boosters of solar, wind and biofuels have tried to sell them as pieces of a new American economy, but these nascent industries rely on many of the same skills and materials as the old American economy-- and that's good for people looking for jobs.

176

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE
WE ARE THE INCENTIVE – RPS IS A SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES FOR UTILITY INDUSTRY TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES Frost & Sullivan, research service: North American Renewable Energy Market, 07[Frost & Sullivan, research service:
North American Renewable Energy Market, Government Initiatives Heighten Focus on Renewable Energy inside North America, Lexis Nexis Academic, Business Wire, July 12, 2007] / NALEPKA

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are likely to be a key factor in the United States renewable energy market, helping ensure steady and predictable growth. RPS is a flexible market-driven policy formulated to ensure that a growing percent of electricity is produced from renewable energy sources, and states provide financial incentives in the form of tax cuts, rebates, grants, and loans to drive producers and consumers of renewable energy to attain the mandates. RPS is in force in nearly 21 states in the United States and California, for example, has set a target of 12 percent of its total electricity to be generated
from wind and geothermal energy. New York State is paving the way for its clean energy portfolio standards, making efforts to increase its total electricity generated from renewable energy sources from 19 percent in 2006 to 25 percent by 2013.

RPS is an incentive – the state level RPS proved that growing renewable energy utilities were due to state incentives. Rubens, contributor earth2tech/GigaOM, 2K7 (Craig, "States will Continue to Drive Renewable Portfolios in 2008" Dec 28,
http://earth2tech.com/2007/12/28/states-will-continue-to-drive-renewable-portfolios-in-2008/, accessed 06/22/2008) NALEPKA

Can the states do it on their own? They have so far. And state level RPS will increasingly drive large utilities to switch to renewable energy sources and allow for new energy players to take advantage of state incentives. Greening the economy increasingly is becoming the states’ responsibility and states rights are being fought over when it comes to environmental standards. In 2008 the race to see which state will lead the green economy will continue to heat up and a strong RPS program will be a big incentive for renewable power companies.

RPS IS A SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Westenskow, UPI Correspondent, 08[ROSALIE WESTENSKOW, “Analysis: Renewable energy's potential”, Lexis Nexis Academic, THE DALLES,
January 21, 2008] NALEPKA

"With increased incentives from the federal government and growing state action, we think the market for solar will continue to grow," Lynch
said.

More than 23 states and the District of Columbia have passed Renewable Portfolio Standards, mandates that require utility companies to generate a certain amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. In addition, the federal government provides incentives or subsidies for a variety of these technologies as well as research funding.

177

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVES
RPS IS A SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES TO DECREASE COST OF ENERGY BY FACILITATING COMPETITION Parvanyan, Program Consultant, 05 (Tigran Parvanayan, “Renewable portfolio standard: an analysis of design and implementation issues”, RIT Digital Media Library, 11/05, https://ritdml.rit.edu/dspace/bitstream/1850/1139/8/TParvanyanThesis092005.pdf, Yoder) The popularity of RPS is increasing due to three main reasons (Berry, 2001): RPS provides incentives for renewable energy generators to decrease the cost of energy as a result of cost competition among producers for their share in the RPS; RPS target is being established by the government, thus it ensures that the implementation of the policy will lead to specific environmental and economic benefits; In the same time the RPS minimizes government involvement into the process, as the main forces that affect the implementation of the policy after it being adopted are the market forces.

RPS IS AN INCENTIVE JACCARD, professor in School of Resource and Environmental Management @ Simon Fraser University, 2005 [Mark, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND ENDURING ENERGY, page 286/ ttate] Four characteristics help explain the emerging interest in the RPS. First, ongoing competition for the renewable market share maintains an incentive for renewables producers to reduce costs, thereby enhancing economic efficiency. Second, because the supply portfolio blends a small share of high-cost renewables with a large share of low-cost conventional electricity, the policy's impact on consumer prices is small (as long as bidding and price setting in the two markets are segmented), which helps with political feasibility. Third, the policy can be directly linked to environmental targets given that renewable: have zero emissions (except for local air emissions from combusting biomass). Fourth, the policy minimizes government budgetary involvement because customers pay producers directly for the extra financial cost of renewables, and the selection of renewables can be left to market forces through a competitive bidding process. In contrast, the Danish government paid over 100 million Euros in 1998 alone in annual subsidies to wind generators.

178

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE
RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS = INCENTIVE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PUTT DEL PINO, researcher at World Resources Institute, 2006 [Samantha, “Switching to Green: A Renewable Energy Guide for Office and Retail Companies”, October, page 7/ttate] Renewable energy certificates (RECs), also known as “green tags,” “green certificates,” and “renewable energy credits,” are a relatively new but increasingly popular method of supporting green power. Renewable energy generates two products: electricity and the technology and environmental benefits associated with renewable energy generation (see Figure 4). These benefits are generally referred to as environmental “attributes” and may include a reduction in the air pollution and particulate matter that would have been generated by burning fossil fuels as well as a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The electricity and attributes can be sold together, in retail green power programs, or they can be sold separately. RECs represent the technology and environmental attributes of renewable energy and allow customers greater flexibility in “greening” their electricity. That is, customers can continue to purchase their electricity from the existing suppliers and “green” it by supporting a renewable energy source of their choosing.

179

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
FIRST, YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO THE 1AC – FEW REASONS WHY CP DOES NOT SOLVE: RELIABILITY – LACK OF A NATIONAL TOP-DOWN SYSTEM MEANS NO COORDINATION ON COORDINATED GEOGRAPHICAL SPATIALITY OF THE RENEWABLES – ONE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO PLOT THE LOCATIONS TO INCREASE RELIABILITY AND SECURITY – THAT IS SOVACOOL AND COOPER B) Insert advantage specific reasons here

AND, PERM: DO BOTH ______________________________________________ AND, PERM SOLVES BEST NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Interest in elevating the RPS to a national policy has also been driven by several other factors. For example, the size of the new renewable energy market created under existing state RPS policies would be far outweighed by a national RPS. UCS estimates that state standards, if entirely successful, would support more than 46,000 MW of new renewable power—equal to about 6 percent of total U.S. electric sales—by 2020.5 By contrast, a 20 percent by 2020 national RPS would support as much as four times the development of renewable energy capacity (see Section V). Because all national RPS proposals to date have established a national floor, with states allowed to continue to set higher standards, a combination of state and federal standards would create the most development. AND, CP CAN’T SOLVE – UTILITY MARKET IS INTERSTATE SOVACOOL AND BARKENBUS, senior research associate @ Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and senior research fellow @ Network for New Energy Sources, 2007 [Ben and Jack, “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Where Science and Policy meets Environment”, August, proquest/hayes] The electricity utility industry is also transitioning away from a state-by-state energy market, making a state-bystate RPS approach anachronistic. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed the geographic restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single, integrated systems.22 More utilities operate across state lines, and many have begun to merge and consolidate to maximize profits and deal with the perceived challenges of restructuring. Using individual states as a crucible for innovations in electricity generation and marketing may have made sense when limits were placed on the size and geographic scope of utility holding companies, but it makes little sense now.

180

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
AND, THE COUNTERPLAN WOULD BE ROLLED-BACK – COMMERCE CLAUSE SOVACOOL AND BARKENBUS, senior research associate @ Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and senior research fellow @ Network for New Energy Sources, 2007 [Ben and Jack, “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Where Science and Policy meets Environment”, August, proquest/hayes] Finally, state-based renewable portfolio standards risk challenges on legal grounds. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes."23 In the many years since ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently used the converse of this part of the commerce clause (hence its description as the "dormant commerce clause") to strike down state legislation that it has determined might hinder or prohibit interstate trade. In 1986, the Court defined this to mean that a state cannot "needlessly obstruct interstate trade or attempt to 'place itself in a position of economic isolation.'"24 The smooth functioning of the national market requires the federal government to prevent states from adopting protectionist or autarkic policies that would attribute a product's market share to its geographic origins rather than to market mechanisms. AND, LITIGATION FEARS MEANS NO INVESTORS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007[Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate]
Framing the debate as a choice between a perfectly functioning, undistorted energy market and a clunky, artificial federal intervention, opponents of a national RPS tend to

the most compelling argument for federal action is that a national RPS may help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions. Not only does reliance on state-based action make for an uncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in some states that are paying for "free riders" in others. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, more diverse and more predictable national market for renewable resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices. A national RPS may help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions.
ignore the unique drawbacks associated with a complex web of state-based mandates.4 Indeed,

AND, COUNTERPLAN CREATES AN ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE – DOOMS SOLVENCY SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] A federal RPS would maximize administrative efficiency. Since an RPS lets the market decide where best to deploy renewable energy technologies, it removes the need for market distortions in the form of subsidies and tax credits. For instance, subsidy levels in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island range from 0.59 to 1.95 cents per kWh for wind and hydroelectric projects
and 0.11 to 0.57 for landfill gas projects. [27] In contrast, an RPS minimizes government involvement and encourages customers to pay producers directly for RPS benefits.

The selection of winning technologies and bids is left to market forces and competition, rather than government evaluation. [28] A national RPS consequently avoids direct funding by multiple state agencies that can become administratively burdensome, time consuming, and inefficient. Under a federal RPS, renewable energy projects must continually compete to ensure an adequate volume of power and credits, creating a continuous incentive for utilities to seek cost reductions in the price of their renewable systems. Such competition is lacking with current state mandates that dispense one time monetary awards to individual renewable generators. [29] Moreover, it is much more effective and efficient to have one centralized RPS program instead of dozens of separate, inconsistent state programs. [30] 181

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
AND, POOR ENFORCEMENT BY STATES
Wiser et al, scientist at Berkeley National Lab, 04 (Ryan Wiser, Kevin Porter, Robert Grace, “Evaluating Experience With Renewables Portfolio Standards In The United States” Migration and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1/04, http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53920r96726341q/fulltext.pdf Yoder) • Insufficient Enforcement: We find that some states have inadequate enforcement of their RPS policies. Arizona perhaps provides the best example. With no penalties for non-compliance, and with specified ratepayer surcharges being collected to help fund the RPS, the utilities appear to have largely opted to comply with the policy only up to the amount of funds that have specifically been collected for that purpose; full compliance has not been achieved. In other cases, the implications of non-compliance are left vague or unspecified: this is the case in Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. In electricity markets that remain tightly regulated, such as Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin, we find that such vague enforcement standards may be sufficient: as long as obligated utilities know that the regulator is serious, they will comply. In restructured markets, however, a more clear non-compliance penalty such as that used in Texas may be preferred (Texas applies a penalty of as much as 5 cents/kWh for any shortfall in compliance).

182

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP EXTS – UNIFORMITY FIAT NOT REAL WORLD
AND, THERE IS SPECIFIC LITERATURE TO SUPPORT OUR INTERPRETATION – NO STATE RPS IS ALIKE SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are a relatively novel way to promote renewable energy projects in the United States. Though more than half the states and the District of Columbia have taken the lead in mandating some form of RPS, none of the existing state programs are alike. The author proposes federal action to fix many of the problems plaguing individual state RPS programs and to persuade national policymakers, industries, and consumers to make a long-term commitment to renewable energy. If implemented properly, a nation-wide RPS could lower electricity rates for many consumers and utilities and may even induce more diversification in the electric utility industry.

183

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP EXTS – PERMUTATION
FEDERAL RPS ENHANCES STATE EFFORTS FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] 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

184

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP EXTS – INTERSTATE COMMERCE
(___) CP DOES NOT SOLVE IN A WORLD OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN UTILITY INDUSTRY SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] A federal RPS better matches the post-PUCHA interstate power landscape. The elimination of PUCHA in 2005 removed the geographical restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single, integrated systems. [19] More utilities operate across state lines, and many have begun to merge and consolidate to maximize profits and deal with the perceived challenges of restructuring. While they are still pending approval, the proposed mergers of MidAmerican Energy Holdings with Pacificorp and Constellation Energy with FLP serve as prominent examples of this trend. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also accelerated the regionalization of the industry by authorizing more interstate compacts and promoting interstate planning and cooperation. Using individual states as a crucible for innovations in electricity generation and marketing may have made sense when PUHCA limited the size and geographic scope of utility holding companies, but makes little sense now. Using the states alone to promote renewable energy technologies endorses action at the improper scale since electricity flows across state lines.

185

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE
EVEN ONE RULING AGAINST A STATE RPS WOULD DOOM THE COUNTERPLAN ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK 2007 [“Federal RPS is needed now, group says, point to problems with state plans”, PLATTS ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK, June 11, lexis/ Nam] The nonprofit group has called for federal action before, when it released its report ranking state net metering plans and suggesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission be put in charge on national net metering rules (EUW, 27 Nov '06, 9). Legal battles are being waged over state RPS plans and a handful of states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas, have adopted restrictions on out-of-state renewable resources that many scholars believe violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, NNEC said. Growing tensions between federal and state regulators has brought about a type of "Commerce Clause brinksmanship" that invites utilities to challenge the constitutionality of state RPS mandates. One successful legal challenge could cascade into more litigation, "collapsing the entire state-based RPS structure and destroying the emerging interstate renewable energy market," NNEC said. CP VIOLATES COMMERCE CLAUSE SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] Only federal action would avoid constitutional challenges relating to the dormant commerce clause. The U.S. Supreme Court consistently strikes down state legislation that attempts to tax or prohibit interstate trade. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. constitution grants affirmative powers to Congress to regulate a variety of areas. The “Dormant Commerce Clause” limits state powers that impede interstate trade. States are permitted to promote in state business, but they are not permitted to protect those businesses from out of state competition. The Dormant Commerce Clause means that a state cannot “needlessly obstruct interstate trade or attempt to place itself in a position of economic isolation.” [20] The rule is believed to be necessary for the smooth functioning of the national market, and is intended to ensure that a product’s market share is attributable solely to the workings of that market and not the product’s geographic origins. AND, RPS STATUTES WOULD BE REPEALED IF THEY ARE FOUND TO VIOLATE BY THE COURT SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate] While the legality of these restrictions has yet to be challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, Eisen warns that state and federal regulators are starting to engage in a kind of "Commerce Clause brinksmanship."46 As recently as 2006, Constellation Energy threatened to sue Maryland's Public Utility Commission on Commerce Clause grounds for rejecting its merger with Baltimore Gas and Electric.47 If a state RPS were found to violate the Commerce Clause, the practical effect would be its immediate repeal. While state legislatures could try to craft an RPS that would pass Constitutional muster or appeal to a higher court, one successful challenge would be enough to risk a cascade of copy-cat litigation as regulated entities piggyback on judicial precedent. In any event, the result is a risky and unpredictable regulatory environment threatening the longevity of state-based RPS mandates and the long-term stability of the nation's renewable energy market 186

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE
CP VULNERABLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE GROUNDS SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate] Joel B. Eisen doesn't mince words in declaring his belief that the retail electricity market represents the essence of interstate commerce: Electricity involves a national marketplace that reaches every American and cannot be carved into neatly defined or clearly distinct markets and regulatory jurisdictions. It is perhaps the clearest case of unfettered Commerce Clause jurisdiction extant today.36 Yet, state RPS mandates remain at perpetual risk from constitutional legal challenges. In many ways, the tension of state RPS policies regulating an interstate electricity market is founded on a legal house of cards that could collapse at any time. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes." In the many years since ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and other lower courts have consistently repealed state legislation that may hinder or prohibit interstate trade.37 States are permitted to promote in-state business, but they are not permitted to protect those businesses from outof-state competition. The courts have ruled that this "dormant Commerce Clause" means that a state cannot "needlessly obstruct interstate trade or attempt to
place itself in a position of economic isolation."38 The smooth functioning of the national market requires the federal government to prevent states from adopting protectionist or autarkic policies that would attribute a product's market share to its geographic origins rather to market mechanisms.

State RPS statutes that set geographic restrictions on renewable generation or otherwise limit the interstate trade of RECs may be accused of violating this central tenet of the U.S. Constitution. PLAN IS BETTER THAN THE CP – PLAN AVOIDS LITIGATION CONCERNS FROM THE COMMERCE CLAUSE Rosalie Westenskow, UPI Correspondent, 8/6/07 [“Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” UPI Energy, June 2008, http://mridan.com/analysis-nation-ripe-for-afederal-rps/ , Liu] "Many large companies now ... face this hodgepodge of different rules," Marilyn Brown, a commissioner for the National Commission on Energy Policy, told United Press International. "Different renewable resources qualify in one state and not the other, so it really is a competitiveness issue. How can the U.S. compete and be effective if the regulations aren't uniform?" A federal RPS would attempt to reconcile the current patchwork of standards and distribute the burden of renewable-energy development among the states, eliminating so-called "free-rider" states that benefit from the efforts of their neighbors but impose no mandates within their own borders. Adopting a federal RPS isn't a new
idea. Various U.S. policymakers have proposed a national standard 17 times since 1996, but none has passed into law. This year, the legislation comes from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., requiring that 15 percent of electricity come from renewables by 2020 and allowing states to create higher standards if they chose to do so. Although not incorporated in any bill at the moment, Bingaman plans to propose an amendment creating a federal RPS to the Senate's main energy bill -- the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 -- when it comes to the floor sometime next week. 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." And it looks like more states will join their ranks this year, namely Michigan, North Carolina and Illinois, where legislators are considering making the current voluntary standard mandatory. Passing a federal RPS soon may

be necessary to avoid costly lawsuits brought by frustrated utility companies against the states they operate in, said Chris Cooper, co-author of "Renewing America," a report scheduled for release next week that advocates a national standard. Utility companies that initiate litigation have a good chance of winning because many RPSs erect barriers to the trade of goods with other states -- a power denied the states in the Constitution. "Some states won't recognize renewable energy from other states," said Cooper, executive director of Network for New Energy Choices. For instance, Pennsylvania's legislature recognizes energy generated from clean coal as renewable, but New Jersey's does not, creating confusion for utilities in both states over whether imported electricity from the other can be used to meet their state requirements. "Because that question is open, it could be taken to court by the regulated utilities who could say, 'Look this is a violation of interstate commerce,'" Cooper told UPI. "Now, should one 187

SDI 2008 KMT Lab RPS - Aff of those court cases be successful, the practical effect is that it would nullify the state's RPS mandate ... (then) you'd have all of this copycat legislation that would collapse what is our national energy strategy at the moment."

STATES CP EXTS – FEDERAL  INVESTMENT
A FEDERAL RPS IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY FOR INVESTORS – CREATES LONG TERM PREDICTABILITY PETERSON, partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups, 2007 [David, “Why we need a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard”, SUSTAINABILITY LAW BLOG, December 03, http://www.sustainabilitylawblog.com/2007/12/why_we_need_a_federal_renewabl.html/ ttate] In the past year, Oregon and Washington joined the District of Columbia and 22 states that have enacted state renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Oregon’s Renewable Energy Act (SB 838), signed by Gov. Ted Kulongoski June 6, 2007, requires Oregon’s largest utilities
to acquire 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, with more modest targets for smaller utilities. Washington’s voters passed Initiative 937 in November 2006, making theirs the second state after Colorado to enact an RPS by initiative. The initiative requires Washington’s 17 largest utilities to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates Washington’s Initiative 937 will create $2.9 billion in new capital investment, nearly $167 million in new property tax revenues, $30 million in lease and royalty payments to landowners, 2,000 new jobs and a $148 million increase in the gross state product in Washington alone. Oregon’s SB 838 is expected to stimulate development of 1,500 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy in the state, according to the Renewable Northwest Project. Against the backdrop of increasing state support for renewable portfolio standards, Congress is debating HR 969, which would create a national renewable portfolio standard that compels utilities nationwide to generate or buy 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

A federal RPS would be good for the renewable energy industry as a whole, providing long-term predictability, attracting more investment capital and allowing manufacturing of renewable energy technologies to achieve economies of scale. Contrary to claims of anti-RPS industry groups, most legal observers and HR 969’s sponsors in Congress are confident a federal RPS would not pre-empt more stringent state standards, such as those of Oregon and Washington. In fact, Oregon and Washington are poised to take particular advantage of the benefits of a federal standard. Both states can quickly capitalize on increased market demand for renewable energy. This robust growth is based on simply serving increased demand from Washington and Oregon utilities for renewable energy. If a federal standard is enacted, utilities in states not subject to a state RPS will clamor for even more renewable resources. Many will look out of state, especially utilities in states that do not have abundant renewable energy resources or an established renewable energy industry of their own. HR 969 would establish a tradable, national renewable energy credit to facilitate this new
national marketplace.

NATIONAL RPS KEY TO SUSTAINED INVESTMENT SEBELIUS, governor of Kansas, 2008 [Kathleen, “Sebelius outlines wind energy gains, needs”, KANSAS CITY STAR, June 10, http://www.kansascity.com/news/neighborhood/leawood/story/657283.html / ttate] Congress must renew the Production Tax Credits and make it clear to investors that this incentive will last for several years. The market will work effectively and competitively as long as investors know their long-term investments are prudent. Transmission lines and wind farms take years to develop, and single-year credits send the wrong signal about our commitment to diversifying America’s long-term energy portfolio. A national RPS would help to give clear policy guidelines to the financial community, allowing investments to flourish. Creating a patchwork of regulatory interventions on a state-by-state basis is not a good approach to the national challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
To reduce pollution and increase wind energy, we need clear federal rules about the cost of CO2. And, we need to make sure that any charge for CO2 emissions is invested in research and production of cleaner alternative energy sources, like wind.

While states have made great strides, we need clear leadership at the federal level.
This is a case where consumers are well ahead of Congress as the demand for cleaner energy alternatives is growing across the country. Moving toward renewable energy provides great opportunities for more good-paying jobs, while helping to address global warming concerns.

188

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP EXTS – FEDERAL  INVESTMENT
LITIGATION RISKS CREATED BY INTERSTATE DISPUTES BY THE CP GUTS INVESTMENT SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate] The legal morass generated by state-based RPS strategies also can discourage renewable energy investments by creating risky and unpredictable markets. While MidAmerican was busy fighting Iowa's RPS statute in court, it was not installing new renewable capacity. Upon settlement of the dispute, however, the company invested roughly 10 percent of its entire portfolio in 568MW of new wind energy. Similarly, PacifiCorp held back on investments in nearly 1,400MW of renewable capacity throughout the nation until the situation in Iowa was resolved.25 Similar delays in renewable energy investments will occur with the continued emphasis on a state-by-state approach to RPS. Indeed, MidAmerican has signaled that it is prepared to litigate against new RPS statutes in Oregon and Washington, risking uncertainties in renewable energy investments in the Pacific Northwest for years, possibly decades.26 UNCERTAINTY IN STATE-BASED RPS DOOMS INVESTMENT SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate] Amid this complex tangle of regulations, stakeholders and investors must not only grapple with inconsistencies, they are forced to decipher vague and often competing state statutes.16 In Connecticut, an unclear description of "electric suppliers" enabled the state's Department of Public Utility Control to exempt two of the state's largest utilities from RPS obligations. These exemptions created uncertainty over whether the statute would be enforced against any utilities at all.17 In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Don Furman, a senior vice president at PacifiCorp, lamented how "for multi-state utilities, a series of inconsistent requirements and regulatory frameworks will make planning, building, and acquiring generating capacity on a multi-state basis confusing and contradictory."18

(__) Federal RPS good—long-term predictability, attracts more investment, more technology TONKEN AND TORP, Attorneys LLP, 2007 [“Why We Need a Federal Portfolio Standard”, Sustainability Law Blog, December 3, 2007, http://www.sustainabilitylawblog.com/2007/12/why_we_need_a_federal_renewabl.html, Zhang] A federal RPS would be good for the renewable energy industry as a whole, providing long-term predictability, attracting more investment capital and allowing manufacturing of renewable energy technologies to achieve economies of scale. Contrary to claims of anti-RPS industry groups, most legal observers and HR 969’s sponsors in Congress are confident a federal RPS would not pre-empt more stringent state standards, such as those of Oregon and Washington. In fact, Oregon and Washington are poised to take particular advantage of the benefits of a federal standard. Both states can quickly capitalize on increased market demand for renewable energy.

189

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP ANS – INVESTMENT KEY
INVESTMENT KEY TO EFFECTIVE RPS FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate] 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.127 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. 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 not available).129 Furthermore, to provide renewable energy at that level, major investments in the transmission grid would need to occur.130 Infrastructure changes at such a high level would fundamentally change how electricity is delivered, and thus how utilities operate.

190

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP ANS – CAN’T SOLVE ENVIRO LEADERSHIP
ONLY FEDERAL ACTION ON RPS CAN SPUR ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP IMAGE SOVACOOL AND BARKENBUS, senior research associate @ Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and senior research fellow @ Network for New Energy Sources, 2007 [Ben and Jack, “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Where Science and Policy meets Environment”, August, proquest/hayes]
Meanwhile, in the United States, the federal government has set no national target for renewable energy, established no national cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and

the administration's unwillingness to take forceful actions commensurate with the nation's leadership and responsibilities, the country remains unprepared to face the unprecedented energy and environmental challenges that loom in the future.
refused to create a nationwide trading system for carbon credits. As a result of Prior to the 1970s, the country faced a similar situation. U.S. regulation consisted of a medley of state laws, local ordinances, and common law nuisance protections that left significant gaps in the scope and duration of environmental protection. However, it was generally believed that significant inconsistencies were present in state regulation based on their relative differences in wealth, knowledge, and interest group pressure. A significant disparity also occurred concerning the rate at which states adopted environmental regulation--a disparity influenced by trends in population growth, the extent that environmental services were perceived to have a value in a state's economy, and the revenue that individual states received from recreational activities such as hunting and fishing. (3) Congress responded with an array of environmental statutes--most notably the Clean Air Act (PL 91-604) in 1970 and the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) in 1972--to reorient the federal-state relationship in environmental law. Its efforts were largely inspired by the unappealing prospect of having to live with 50 different state air and water statutes. It was generally agreed that clean air and water necessitated federal preemption--that is, federal laws needed to trump state laws to provide regulatory clarity in addressing problems of national magnitude. Of course, the discussion of federal versus state governance dates back to the country's founding, and debates about federalism became especially pronounced during the era of the New Deal in the 1930s. The Supreme Court has long fought to maintain a balancing act, towing the line to create "dual federalism," where the federal government regulates issues of national import, and the states respond to issues of local import. This balance was believed to help achieve responsive governance, governmental competition, innovation, participatory democracy, and resistance to tyranny. (4) Fast-forward to today, and such roles have oddly been reversed. In what Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler termed a "jurisdictional mismatch," the state and federal governments have seemingly subverted each other's traditional roles. (5) In a "poaching of state and local government territory," national policymakers have preempted state action concerning drinking water contamination, solid waste disposal, land restoration, and educational standards for teacher qualification and student performance. (6) Congruously, in what Adler termed "letting fifty flowers bloom," (7) state and local governments have effectively shut down the national market on bromated flame retardants, adopted international treaties on human rights, promoted smoking bans in bars and restaurants, and attempted to protect public health by regulating obesity and red meat. (8) Free market advocates have occasionally derided the case for national action on renewable portfolio standards (RPS)--laws mandating that electricity suppliers use a certain percentage of renewable energy by a particular date. But proponents point out that these regulations are needed to correct three major market failures in the electric utility industry. First, they argue that electricity prices do not reflect the social costs of generating power; second, that energy subsidies have created an unfair market advantage for fossil fuel and nuclear technologies; and third, that renewable energy generation is subject to a "free rider" phenomenon. (9) To

gain the transparent and multiple benefits from renewable energy at a larger scale, bold federal action is essential. It is true that some states and regions of the nation are
better positioned to exploit renewable resources, but all regions can exploit some form of renewables, and RPS proposals have been crafted to allow for a large portfolio of choices at the electricity

under the current state initiatives, renewables will still only account for 4 percent of national capacity by 2030. Climate change has been described as a "textbook example of an environmental issue best addressed at the national and international levels." (10) Greenhouse gas emissions are produced around the globe and accumulate in the atmosphere such that the impacts are not restricted to states, regions, or even countries. When problems are national or international in scale, the "matching principle" in environmental law suggests that the level of jurisdictional authority should best match the geographic scale of that very problem. In the case of climate change, this principle calls for national and international action, not solely local or regional intervention. (11)
retail level. Most compelling,

191

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

STATES CP ANS – INDUSTRY PREFERS PLAN
INDUSTRY PREFERS FEDERAL RPS – THEY BELIEVE IT SOLIDIFIES CERTAINITY IN RENEWABLES UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL 2007 [“Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS, June 08, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/ ttate] Large-scale production of renewable energy induced by a federal RPS could also decrease costs, according to the
"Renewable America" report, which points to wind power as an example. When the Department of Energy installed its first commercial wind turbines in 1980, wind energy cost about 81 cents per kilowatt-hour. By 2004, when the wind turbine capacity had increased from a few megawatts to 6,000, the cost fell to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Some utility companies are pushing for a federal RPS precisely because of this rationale, including Alliant Energy, a power
company with its headquarters in Wisconsin.

"We believe that a national RPS would help to create a floor for renewables and give us and the wind turbine industry a greater level of certainty," said Scott Smith, spokesman for Alliant, which just received approval to build its first wind farm. "Instead of a boom-and-bust cycle, it will help to solidify the demand which will create a robust market."

192

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC ENERGY EFFICIENCY COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS
PERM: DO BOTH ______________________________________ AND, THE PERM SOLVES BEST KAMMEN, ET AL, researcher in the Energy and Resources Group @ UCal-Berkeley, 2006 [Daniel, “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html / ttate] Placing support for renewables in a broader context of support for clean energy measures, including energy efficiency and sustainable transportation will greatly augment economic and employment benefits Renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transportation are complementary sectors that support and enhance each other. For example, using a solar PV system in the most economic way possible requires that all the appliances being used are energy efficient. Measures that make it easy for an electricity customer to install a solar PV system and retrofit his or her building to be energy efficient will enhance the likelihood of that customer doing both. Consider the market for biomass energy fuels: bio-fuels like ethanol or bio-diesel require that bio-fuel powered cars are easily available, supported by an infrastructure of fuelling stations. In other words, the growth of a particular segment of the clean energy family – be it renewable energy, energy efficiency or sustainable transportation – is often partly dependent on growth in other parts of the energy industry. This is not to say that a certain sector cannot grow by itself (for instance, a renewable portfolio standard is a good idea irrespective of the presence of other complementary policies). However, it is likely that the renewables sector, and jobs in it, will grow much more quickly if complementary policy measures are in place. This is partly why some of the studies reviewed model an array of policies in all clean energy sectors together. For example, the Apollo Jobs study18 models a comprehensive scenario of policy and program support in which federal investment of $300 billion is made over 10 years in four categories: increasing energy diversity, investing in industries of the future, promoting high performance buildings, and rebuilding public infrastructure. In this scenario, supporting renewables alone is projected to create 459,189 jobs, while the total investment is projected to yield over 3.3 million jobs.

193

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC COMMAND-AND-CONTROL CP ANS
MARKET-BASED APPROACHES, LIKE RPS, SPUR MARKET COMPETITION – KEY TO DEVELOPING RENEWABLES Cory and Swezey, National Renewable Energy Lab, 07 ( K.S. Cory and B.G. Swezey, “Renewable Portfolio Standards in the States: Balances and Implementation Strategies”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 12/07, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41409.pdf, Yoder) Regarding resource-specific provisions, one important principle of an RPS is to introduce competition into the renewable electricity supply. Some states, however, have established set-asides for certain renewable energy resources, particularly for solar energy. Because of their smaller scale and more distributed applications, solar technologies present some unique challenges for RPS compliance, particularly for output measurement and verification. Both political and regulatory consistency are important. Market confidence can be negatively affected if RPS compliance rules change over time or enforcement is lax. Such factors can include compliance waivers, vague eligibility definitions, low cost impact thresholds, and weak enforcement penalties. Any of these factors can create uncertainty about the stability and longevity of a given RPS policy and undermine investor confidence. In the end, RPS rules and conditions must allow new projects to be financed and built. Market structure can be important in this regard, particularly whether the market is regulated with a single electricity provider, or restructured for market competition. In either case, the existence of a creditworthy purchasing entity is key.

194

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC ENERGY SUBSIDIES CP ANSWERS
ENERGY SUBSIDIES FAIL – CREATES UNFAIR ADVANTAGES FOR CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe: State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY, Fall, lexis/ ttate] Second, energy subsidies create an unfair market advantage for conventional energy technologies. A majority of the federal budget for energy research and development over the past fifty years has gone to conventional fossil fuel and nuclear industries and not toward renewable energy technologies. From 1948 to 1998, for instance, roughly eighty percent of U.S. Department of Energy appropriations for research and development ("R&D") have gone to nuclear and fossil fuel technologies. n3 Even though coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy industries are relatively mature sectors, federal R&D expenditures continue to favor these industries. In fiscal year ("FY") 2006, for example, the federal government allotted $ 580 million in R&D funds to fossil fuels and $ 221 million to the nuclear industry. The wind industry, in contrast, received only $ 38.3 million. n4

195

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC “EXCLUDE A UTILITY” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS
COUNTERPLAN = MASSIVE SOLVENCY DEFICIT – ALL POWER RETAILERS HAVE TO BE INCLDUED IN ORDER FOR MARKET TO SUCCEED SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] To bring the benefits of renewable energy to most consumers, a federal RPS must set a target large enough to achieve economies of scale in manufacturing. This target should be placed on all power retailers and load-serving entities. Such uniformity provides an equal playing field and avoids creating perceived inconsistencies in regulation. Since federal law is moving away from an energy services sector that limits holdings to state-based utility franchises, an RPS mandate should facilitate interstate purchase of renewable generation. EXCLUSIONS  UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 97, Liu] Lesson 4: A national RPS should apply equally to all retail power providers Some state-based RPS statutes initially excluded some power providers in an attempt to protect certain types of utilities. In practice, the attempt to carve out exemptions through imprecise statutory language created confusion and uncertainty for regulated entities. In Connecticut, for example, the state’s RPS exempted default service providers, creating speculation among all of the state’s regulated utilities that the law would not be enforced at all.362 And in Washington, utilities with no load growth are exempted from the state’s RPS mandate, if parts of the stateexperience decreased population growth or diminished electricity demand, load serving entities would be absolved from their regulatory burden entirely.363 Applying the standard to all retail power providers—including investor owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, municipalities, and rural electric cooperatives—creates an equal playing field and avoids creating inconsistencies in regulation. Requiring all retail providers to meet the mandate reduces opportunities for “free riders” within the electricity sector. Regulated utilities, which pay to clean the air and conserve the water, would not be required to subsidize the generation of dirty, low-cost non-renewable electricity from exempt generators. A standard applying to all providers also creates better economies of scale and ultimately helps drive down the cost of renewable generation for all suppliers. By applying the mandate uniformly and without exemption, a national RPS avoids the kind of regulatory unpredictability that initially plagued Connecticut’s program.

196

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC “EXCLUDE AN ENERGY” PIC ANSWERS
EXCLUDING SPECIFIC ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES WILL GUT SOLVENCY Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/2007 [“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 97, Liu] As a second example, consider Arizona, which created a “carve out” for solar photovoltaic technologies by mandating that at least 50 percent of the state’s RPS must be met by solar technologies. To meet the non-solar part of the RPS, utilities bought approximately 10 MW landfill gas and several additional MW of biomass energy. However, utilities have been unable to fully comply with the solar mandate because of the sizeable financial commitment needed to purchase more expensive solar technology.378
Arizona has created even more incentives for the solar market by offering $4 per watt of utility-scale installed photovoltaics. However, utilities pass the higher cost of solar onto ratepayers. Tucson Electric Power is scheduled to complete a 64 MW thermal solar plant in Boulder City, Arizona, by the end of 2007, costing ratepayers an estimated $106 million,379 even though solar photovoltaic is still by far the most expensive renewable energy technology in the state (See Table 1).380

Allowing the market to dictate deployment does not mean utilities will not invest in solar and other more expensive renewable energy technologies. It does, however, mean that utilities will not invest in them first. Instead, power providers will maximize all of their least-cost options before moving to more expensive technologies. The Renewable Energy Policy Project put it this way: The RPS will tend to support those renewables that are cheapest at the margin. In California’s case, wind power would likely benefit
the most, with geothermal and biomass also benefiting as the size of the requirement increases. Distributed renewable generation technologies such as PV and small wind turbines are unlikely to benefit as much from the RPS in the near term, due to their higher cost and greater barriers to installation.381

The long term stability of an RPS ensures that investors and manufacturers will have time to develop more cost effective methods of utilizing renewable resources. In the long run, manufacturers may benefit from waiting until renewable energy technologies are ready for the market instead of forcing deployment of inferior technology to meet unrealistic state targets. In the end, the point of an RPS is not to set restrictions on when and where renewables can be deployed. Like “natural selection”, it is the market—not the regulators or politicians—that should decide which technologies investors should develop to meet a national RPS mandate. 382

197

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC “LOWER THE PERCENTAGE” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS
A HIGHER PERCENTAGE  MORE EFFECTIVE TRANSITION – IT IS EASIER FOR A MARKET TO MOVE WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF RENEWABLES GENERATED SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] A national RPS must ensure that the ultimate penetration of renewable energy technologies is sufficient by setting a target above 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025. This is because, contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the variability of renewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. For instance, electrical and power systems engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes, the less reserve capacity it needs. Demand variations between individual consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity consumer, for example, starts drawing more electricity than the system has allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are drawing from the grid that it is entirely likely another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This “averaging” works in a similar fashion on the supply side of the grid. Individual wind turbines average out each other in electricity supply. [34] So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through another. AND, THE EUROPEAN WIND MARKET PROVES THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION SOLVENCY DEFICIT SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] The European Wind Energy Association explains how the smaller unit size and larger geographical dispersion of wind turbines
actually turns the variability of wind power into an advantage over large, conventional systems:

Variations in wind energy are smoother, because there are hundreds or thousands of units rather than a few large power stations, making it easier for the system operator to predict and manage changes in supply as they appear within the overall system. The system will not notice the shutdown of a 2 MW wind turbine. It will have to respond to the shutdown of a 500 MW coal fired
plant or a 1,000 MW nuclear plant instantly. [35]

The catch is that penetration of renewable energy technologies has to be large enough to achieve these benefits of diversification, generally above 20 percent. [36] Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliability (since it is very unlikely that all turbines would be down at the same time). [37] Analysts have already confirmed the benefit of wind power’s greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in Minnesota concluded that “wind generation does make a calculable contribution to system reliability” by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages, but only if renewable energy penetration is substantial. [38] AND, THERE IS A TECHNOLOGICAL DISPERSION SOLVENCY DEFICIT SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] Moreover, increasing the penetration of renewable energy above 20 percent improves the diversification of the electric utility grid in another dimension. Under a national RPS, intermittent generators are not only likely to be geographically dispersed but also technologically dispersed. That is, a national RPS would expand the diversity of technologies used to access renewable resources. Technological dispersion increases system reliability by decreasing dependence on any one intermittent source of energy. Utilities can harness wind on windy days, sun on sunny days, hydropower
on rainy days, and so on.

198

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC “LOWER THE PERCENTAGE” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS
20% STANDARD SOLVES EMISSIONS OUTPUT FAR MORE THAN 10% STANDARD NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] Increased renewable energy use would reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. Using UCS assumptions, the 20 percent national RPS is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 434 million metric tons (MMT) per year by 2020— 15 percent below business as usual levels or a 59 percent reduction in the projected growth in emissions. This reduction is equivalent to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road. Using EIA assumptions, a 20 percent RPS would produce slightly greater CO2 reductions of 468 MMT by 2020, as the increased use of biomass sources displaces higher amounts of coal generation. Under a 10 percent RPS, UCS and EIA analyses show that CO2 emissions would be reduced 166 MMT to 215 MMT nationally by 2020—a reduction of up to 7.2 percent below business as usual levels. As with the 20 percent scenarios, the use of EIA's assumptions results in greater emission reductions due to higher levels of biomass energy production.

199

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC SUNSET PROVISIONS CP FRONTLINE
ADDING A SUNSET PROVISION GUTS COMPLIANCE AND INCREASES COSTS NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate] 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.

200

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

POLITICS DA – NON-UNIQUE
CONGRESS WILL DEBATE ENERGY THIS SUMMER – STATUS QUO WILL START THE DIVISIVE DEBATE HULSE and HERSZENHORN 07-09-2008 [Carl, David M., Congress Feeling Pressure for Action on Oil Prices, New York Times, 07/09/08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washington/09cong.html? _r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin, Hayes] After spending a week in their states and districts with angry and frightened consumers, many lawmakers have returned to Capitol Hill convinced that Congress cannot afford a prolonged stalemate over energy policy. “This is the No. 1 issue on people’s minds, very clearly,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of a bipartisan group of 10 senators who met Tuesday morning to pursue ideas on a compromise energy plan that could be enacted this year. With Republicans pushing for more domestic oil and gas production and many Democrats focusing on alternative energy sources, finding consensus will not be easy, Congressional leaders acknowledge. Democratic leaders in the Senate also are not ready to embrace the idea of a bipartisan compromise on energy legislation, in part out of concern about adopting a position at odds with their expected presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

201

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, THE PLAN CREATES A FLOOR FOR STATES, NOT A CEILING – STATES CAN STILL BE LABORATORIES ENDRUD, JD Candidate @ Harvard Law, 2008 [Nathan, “State Renewable Portfolio Standards: Their continued validity and relevance in light of the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and possible federal legislation”, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259, Winter, lexis/ ttate]
It is generally recognized that federal law can preempt state laws in three different ways: "by express language in a congressional enactment, by implication from the depth and breadth of a congressional scheme that occupies the legislative field, [and] by implication because of a conflict with a congressional enactment." n139 These forms of

Under the doctrine of express preemption, it is elementary that all state RPS programs would be invalidated by a congressional RPS statute that explicitly provided for preemption. In the absence of such express language, however, the relevant question would be whether "conflict" preemption existed due to conflicts between the state and federal standards. In general, state environmental standards that are more stringent than their federal counterparts have been upheld by the courts, either
preemption are commonly referred [*281] to as "express," "field," and "conflict" preemption. because Congress has explicitly reserved authority in its otherwise-conflicting statute for the states to adopt such controls n140 or because of the Supreme Court's longstanding presumption against implied preemption. n141 Meanwhile, state standards that are less stringent than federal ones might be allowed to stand, but, as a practical matter, the state standards would become largely irrelevant because the necessary compliance with the more stringent federal standards would effectively guarantee compliance with the state standards. n142

In order to remove any possible ambiguity regarding more stringent state RPSs, Congress should put an explicit savings clause into any federal RPS statute to confirm the validity of such standards. n143 Such authorization [*282] would permit states to serve as policy laboratories n144 in environmental regulation and would restore to states some of their traditional authority over regulating their local environments. n145 Further, unlike the case of vehicle emissions regulation, where Congress has explicitly preempted most state standards, n146 RPS obligations that are more stringent than their federal counterparts are unlikely to create economic inefficiency attributable to non-uniform manufacturing requirements on industry. n147

AND, TURN – ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAN SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008 [Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate] While the states have a significant history and authority as regulators of electric utilities, only the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate wholesale electric power and interstate commerce (in the form of RECs). While the states have historically set prices for retail electricity sales, approved the permitting of electric generators, regulated the environmental effects of electricity sales, and developed integrated resource plans for utilities, only the federal government has the power to regulate the national wholesale power market under the Federal Power Act of 1935. This Act gives The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority over the sale of electric power at wholesale rates and the transmission of electric power on a national scale.

202

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL
TURN – FEDERAL RPS SPURS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOB GROWTH FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE 2007 [“Gov. Culver Challenges 2008 Presidential Candidates, Congress To Support National Renewable PortfolioStandard, 11/06/07, proquest/hayes ] Governor Chet Culver and American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) President Bob Gates challenged the 2008 presidential candidates and Congressional Leadership to support a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in the 2007 Energy Bill currently before congress. "First, I encourage the U.S. Congress to pass a comprehensive Energy Bill - and to ensure a strong Renewable Portfolio is part of it," said Governor Culver "Second, today I issue a challenge. I call on each of the 2008 presidential candidates of both parties to commit to a National Renewable Portfolio Standard calling for at least 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020." The national effort would create thousands of high-quality manufacturing jobs, save consumers approximately $100 billion in energy costs, create billions of dollars in economic development and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. "By committing to a renewable energy economy, our next president could address American energy security, job security and environmental security all at the same time," said Governor Culver. "I call on all of the 2008 presidential candidates of both parties, as well as our leaders in congress, to support the new American renewable energy economy and a clean, more secure future for our children. If we are to effectively address energy security, job creation and climate change issues in the United States, a national approach with federal leadership is critical." A national RPS goal would spur economic development, especially in rural areas. It is estimated that approximately $1.5 million in economic activity is generated for every utility-scale wind turbine installed. This includes roughly $100,000 in lease payments to each landowner, per turbine, over a 20-year period. Many of the beneficiaries of these lease payments are farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners. Embracing a new wind energy economy could also create thousands of jobs. In just the past 24 months, three major wind energy manufacturers have chosen Iowa as the place to establish their North American production facilities - Acciona, Siemens, and Clipper, and a fourth company - Hendricks - will soon begin construction of a plant in the city of Keokuk. Combined, these wind energy manufacturing plants will create almost 900 high-quality jobs. A recent report by the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers Union showed that Iowa has the potential to create 5,193 new wind energy manufacturing jobs in the state. A study by Wood MacKenzie, a nationally-respected energy research firm, concludes that American consumers could save approximately $100 billion in energy costs, due to decreased demand and costs for natural gas and coal. .

203

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL
RPS systems encourage market-based renewables at low prices Lipman et al, Research Engineer Institute Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley, 01 (Timothy E. Lipman, Antonia V. Hartzog, Jennifer L. Edwards, Daniel M. Kammen, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice”, Environment Vol. 43, No. 10, 12/01, http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/2001/Herzog-Lipman-EdwardsKammen-RenewableEnergy-2001.pdf Yoder) A number of studies indicate that a national renewable energy component of 2 percent in 2002, growing to 10 percent in 2010 and 20 percent by 2020, that would include wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, and landfill gas, is broadly good for business and can readily be achieved. States that decide to pursue more aggressive goals could be rewarded through an additional federal incentive program. In the past, federal RPS legislation has been introduced in Congress and was proposed by the Clinton administration, but it has yet to be re-introduced by either this Congress or the Bush administration. Including renewables in the United States’ power supply portfolio would protect consumers from fossil fuel price shocks and supply shortages by diversifying the energy options. A properly designed RPS will also create jobs at home and export opportunities abroad. To achieve compliance, a federal RPS should use market dynamics to stimulate innovation through a trading system. National renewable energy credit trading will encourage development of renewables in the regions of the country where they are the most cost-effective, while avoiding expensive long-distance transmission. The coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power industries continue to receive considerable government subsidies, even though they are already well established in the marketplace. Without the RPS or a similar mechanism, many renewables will not be able to survive in an increasingly competitive electricity market focused on producing power at the lowest direct cost. And while the RPS is designed to deliver renewables that are most ready for the market, additional policies will still be needed to support emerging renewable technologies, like photovoltaics, that have enormous potential to become commercially competitive. The RPS is the surest market-based approach for securing the public benefits of renewables while supplying the greatest amount of clean power at the lowest price. It creates an ongoing incentive to drive down costs by providing a dependable and predictable market. An RPS will promote vigorous competition among renewable energy developers and technologies to meet the standard at the lowest cost.

204

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL
RPS IS COST-EFFECTIVE – MOST EFFECTIVE RENEWABLES PATH TO SPUR INVESTMENT Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007 [“Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”, August 27, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6, Zhang] The RES is the best policy to ensure we meet resource diversity and environmental goals at the lowest cost. By stimulating a long-term market for renewable energy, the RES reduces the investment risk associated with building renewable facilities. Lower investment risk promotes cost-effective financing of new projects. Increasing the deployment of renewable technologies reduces manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and other costs over the long term. At the same time, competition among a variety of renewable sources to meet the RES also helps drive renewable energy prices down. Using renewable energy credits (see below) creates additional savings.

205

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC BUSINESS CONFIDENCE FRONTLINE
NON-UNIQUE – COSTS FOR UTILIZING FOSSIL FUELS CONTINUES TO INCREASE SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate] The economics for renewable energy have become so favorable in recent years because operation and maintenance expenses for utilities utilizing fossil fuels rose by nearly $26 billion from 2002 to 2006. Ninety-six percent of this increase was driven by rising fossil fuel prices, not because parts or labor had gotten more expensive. [46] Aggregate fossil fuel costs nearly doubled in the four years between 2000 and 2004, from $0.023 per kWh, to $0.0437 per kWh.

AND, TURN – UTILITIES WANT A FEDERAL RPS – REDUCES COSTS Rosalie Westenskow, UPI Correspondent, 8/6/07 [“Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” UPI Energy, June 2008, http://mridan.com/analysis-nation-ripe-for-afederal-rps/ , Liu] Most importantly, some proponents of a federal standard say it will cut costs for consumers. One of the key ways an RPS could save money is by decreasing the use of natural gas to generate electricity. "The reason why that's important is because the natural gas market has been extremely volatile, and there are lots of indications it's only going to go up," said Benjamin Sovacool, co-author of the "Renewable America" report. Investments in renewable resources will reduce the use of natural gas, driving down demand and, therefore, price for natural gas, Sovacool said. This yields net savings. "So the utilities save money and they can pass on those savings to rate payers," he said. Large-scale production of renewable energy induced by a federal RPS could also decrease costs, according to the "Renewable America" report, which points to wind power as an example. When the Department of Energy installed its first commercial wind turbines in 1980, wind energy cost about 81 cents per kilowatt-hour. By 2004, when the wind turbine capacity had increased from a few megawatts to 6,000, the cost fell to 5 cents per kilowatthour. Some utility companies are pushing for a federal RPS precisely because of this rationale, including Alliant Energy, a power company with its headquarters in Wisconsin. "We believe that a national RPS would help to create a floor for renewables and give us and the wind turbine industry a greater level of certainty," said Scott Smith, spokesman for Alliant, which just received approval to build its first wind farm. "Instead of a boom-andbust cycle, it will help to solidify the demand which will create a robust market."

206

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AR BIZ CON EXTS – UTILITIES SUPPORT RPS
Utilities support RPS-saves them money and reduces confusion Westenskow, 2007, UPI Correspondent [Rosalie, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS”, United Press International, Reprinted in The Earth Times, June 8, 2007, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/70819.html, Zhang]
"Many large companies now ... face this hodgepodge of different rules," she told UPI. "Different renewable resources qualify in one state and not the other, so it really is a competitiveness issue. How can the U.S. compete and be effective if the regulations aren't uniform?" A federal RPS would attempt to reconcile the current patchwork of standards and distribute the burden of renewable-energy development among the states, eliminating so-called "free-rider" states that benefit from the efforts of their neighbors but impose no mandates within their own borders. Adopting a federal RPS isn't a new idea. Various U.S. policymakers have proposed a national standard 17 times since 1996, but none has passed into law. This year, the legislation comes from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., requiring that 15 percent of electricity come from renewables by 2020 and allowing states to create higher standards if they chose to do so. Although not incorporated in any bill at the moment, Bingaman plans to propose an amendment creating a federal RPS to the Senate's main energy bill -- the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 -- when it comes to the floor sometime next week. 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." And it looks like more states will join their ranks this year, namely Michigan, North Carolina and Illinois, where legislators are considering making the current voluntary standard mandatory. Passing a federal RPS soon may be necessary to avoid costly lawsuits brought by frustrated utility companies against the states they operate in, said Chris Cooper, co-author of "Renewing America," a report scheduled for release next week that advocates a national standard. Utility companies that initiate litigation have a good chance of winning because many RPSs erect barriers to the trade of goods with other states -- a power denied the states in the Constitution. "Some states won't recognize renewable energy from other states," said Cooper, executive director of Network for New Energy Choices. For instance, Pennsylvania's legislature recognizes energy generated from clean coal as renewable, but New Jersey's does not, creating confusion for utilities in both states over whether imported electricity from the other can be used to meet their state requirements. "Because that question is open, it could be taken to court by the regulated utilities who could say, 'Look this is a violation of interstate commerce,'" Cooper told UPI. "Now, should one of those court cases be successful, the practical effect is that it would nullify the state's RPS mandate ... (then) you'd have all of this copycat legislation that would collapse what is our national energy strategy at the moment." Most importantly, some proponents of a federal standard say it will cut costs for consumers. One of the key ways an RPS could save money is by decreasing the use of natural gas to generate electricity. "The reason why that's important is because the natural gas market has been extremely volatile, and there are lots of indications it's only going to go up," said Benjamin Sovacool, co-author of the "Renewable America" report. Investments in renewable resources will reduce the use of natural gas, driving down demand and, therefore, price for natural gas, Sovacool said. This yields net savings. "So the utilities save money and they can pass on those savings to rate payers," he said. Large-scale production of renewable energy induced by a federal RPS could also decrease costs, according to the "Renewable America" report, which points to wind power as an example. When the Department of Energy installed its first commercial wind turbines in 1980, wind energy cost about 81 cents per kilowatt-hour. By 2004, when the wind turbine capacity had increased from a few megawatts to 6,000, the cost fell to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Some utility companies are pushing for a federal RPS precisely because of this rationale, including Alliant Energy, a power company with its headquarters in Wisconsin.

207

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC SPENDING DA FRONTLINE
AND, NO LINK – LITTLE TO NO GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS NEEDED SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate] Credits would not be allowed to be carried over from year to year, and the market price would depend on how ambitious the annual increase in the RPS would be.480 In this way, every power retailer (like a utility) would have to determine whether it would be more expensive to produce their own renewable energy or directly subsidize the production of it elsewhere.481 Industry actors that fail to meet the standard would be subjected to steep fines that substantially outpace the fair market value of the energy credit, making the RPS effectively self-enforcing.482 Another advantage is that unlike direct government subsidies, no public funding is necessary.483 Furthermore, it is effective in both regulated and competitive wholesale energy markets.484 The overseeing agency would merely be required to certify the annual ownership of the credits themselves, administer penalties for noncompliance, and adjudicate disputes over credit transactions.485 The formula for setting fine rates would be set statutorily along with the RPS to avoid costly and time-consuming bureaucratic rule-making procedures. The AWEA also notes that in an energy credit-based RPS scheme, the market value of credits will ultimately determine when the standard "self-sunsets."486 Once a credit becomes worthless, the RPS will have accomplished its goal for at least the year.487 To ensure long-term growth of the renewable energy industry, the RPS will have to start high enough, accelerate fast enough, over a long enough period of time to set off the diminishing rate of return for the credits.488

208

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC COAL DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, RPS WILL NOT UPSET THE COAL INDUSTRY – IT PRIMARILY WILL TARGET OIL AND NATURAL GAS USE HALL AND KIRKHAM, environmental/energy attorneys, 2007
[“Coal: Like It or Not, It’s Here to Stay, Stoel Rives”, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484, Sui]

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.

209

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC COAL DA FRONTLINE
AND, Coal causes massive pollution leading to global warming, environmental damage, public health crises, and fetal death. SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE AND LAW, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_ 1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate]
The casus belli for such outside action is the fact that the government's pricing figures neglect to factor in the full costs of fossil fuel production, including environmental and health costs that are not passed onto consumers directly in their utility bill.65 For example, utility companies do not have to account for the consequences of approximately six billion metric tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions, a total that will increase to nearly eight billion metric tons per year by 2030, a twenty-five-year

Increases in the emission of sulfur, methane, and other particulate matter wreak havoc on human and natural habitats alike by causing things like acid rain, urban ozone (caused primarily by nitrous oxide emissions, resulting in respiratory problems in humans), and global climate change.67 Among fuels used for electricity generation, coal is by far the largest producer of these emissions, producing far beyond its proportional market share.68 While coal-based power is seen to be the least expensive source of electricity on the market today,69
increase of about 30%.66 Nor is a financial charge indexed to other consequences of fossil fuel burning. carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds, the market dynamics that favor coal are substantially flawed.70 The indirect costs associated with the production of electricity from coal are simply staggering.71 During

the mining stage land is permanently damaged, air and water sources are contaminated, ground subsidence causes surface collapses, and workers can be injured or killed.72 During processing and utilization, heavy metal and acid is given off, and particulate matter, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere, causing seemingly immeasurable damage and destruction to public and private property, wildlife, and public health.73 Every year, the more than 600 coal-burning plants in the United States74 emit more than 98,000 pounds of mercury into the air75 while creating another 81,000 pounds of mercury pollution from fly ash and scrubber sludge76, all after 20,000
pounds of mercury is released in preburning "cleaning" procedures-totaling 200,000 pounds.77 That mercury, along with arsenic, cadmium, and other heavy metals, seeps out during the coal-burning process and travels either directly through ground water and airborne particles, or indirectly through the food chain (often through fish), to humans.78 Mercury,

even in small doses, is converted easily through human metabolism into the neurotoxin methylmercury.79 The result of the contamination is that one out of every six women of childbearing age may have enough of a concentration of mercury to permanently damage a developing fetus, meaning 630,000 babies a year born in the United States (out of 4 million) are at risk for severe neurological consequences as a result of gestational mercury poisoning.80 Coal also causes nearly 554,000 asthma attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year.81 Not surprisingly, proximity to coal-burning facilities increases the likelihood that a person becomes one of the 23,600 deaths every year attributed to power plant pollution,82 each death taking an average of fourteen years off normal life expectancy.83 All told, the health care costs caused by plant emissions total an estimated $160 billion annually. 84 Other grisly consequences from living near coal burning include a high rate of stomach cancer,85 autism in children (for every 1,000 pounds of mercury
released in a Texas county, autism rates rose 17%),86 and pneumoconiosis in coal miners (also known as "black lung disease").87

the externality costs of air pollution, acid rain, and global warming are also significant.88 For instance, according to one set of estimates, the "annual marginal cost of air pollution and acid deposition" is between $10.39 and $11.02 per short ton of coal; for climate change, the marginal cost is between $0 and $4.50 per million Btu.89 Absent any consideration of climate
Environmentally, change, the approximate "social costs of coal as a percentage of private costs range from about 40% to 275%."90 The range for natural gas is 12% to 95%, 112% to 123% for petroleum, and 14% to 17% for nuclear. 91 Another set of estimates emphasizes that "coal is by far the most under-priced energy resource,"92 and that at a price of $30 per ton would carry with it external costs of almost $160 without including climate change risks which would bring costs to $190 per ton.93 While monetizing the total social and environmental costs to society of fossil fuel use is an inexact science, the causal link between polluting fuels and resulting externalities is undeniable.94 Despite arguments and economic models that show wide-ranging and heavy social costs to fossil fuel burning, and in particular coal consumption, unless and until the industries themselves are compelled to account for these costs, investment will remain high in traditional energy sources.95 Alternatives,

still too underdeveloped as a whole to compete with the infrastructure96 and reliability of fossil fuels,97 will need time and money to make up the difference.98 With technological advances in turbine design reducing the levelized cost of output," and not reliant on fossil fuel
burning like biomass power,100 wind energy has the best chance of all truly clean energy sources to make the most immediate and long-lasting impact on the electricity market.101

210

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, PLAN DOES NOT TRADE-OFF WITH THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 2007 [“Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard”, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, June 07, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html/ ttate] Under the proposed RPS program, generation from renewable resources increases relative to the reference case
(Figure 3). Biomass generation, both from dedicated biomass plants and existing coal plants co-firing with biomass fuel, grows the most by 2030, more than tripling from

102 billion kilowatthours in the reference case to 318 billion kilowatthours with the RPS policy (Table 2). Wind generation increases by almost 50 percent by 2030, from 52 billion kilowatthours in the reference case to 76 billion kilowatthours with the RPS. Although total solar generation does not reach the level of wind or biomass, it has a higher absolute increase than wind and a higher percentage increase than either wind or biomass by 2030, when compared to the reference case. Solar generation, including utility-owned solar thermal and PV and customer-sited PV, increases from 7 billion kilowatthours in 2030 in the reference case to almost 38 billion kilowatthours with the RPS, a five-fold increase. Because customer-sited PV earns 3 credits for every kilowatthour generated, this generation counts as approximately 110 billion kilowatthours for RPS compliance purposes in 2030. This is twice the compliance share accounted for by wind and about half of the biomass compliance share. Geothermal and landfill gas facilities also show a slight increase in generation compared to the reference case.

The increase in renewable generation stimulated by the RPS primarily displaces coal fired generation. By 2030, coal generation is 3,086 billion kilowatthours with the RPS compared with 3,330 billion kilowatthours in the reference case, a reduction of about 7 percent. Coal generation is still expected to grow significantly from 2,000 billion kilowatthours in 2005. Nuclear generation is reduced by less than 5 percent, to 856 billion kilowatthours with the RPS from 896 billion kilowatthours in the reference case. As with coal, this still represents significant growth relative to 2005 generation levels. Natural gas generation is about 2 percent less than the 2030 reference case level of 932 billion kilowatthours.

211

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE
Increased reliance on nuclear power causes climate change, terrorism, proliferation, and nuclear war Tammilehto 2 (Olli, author, free lance writer and researcher, editor, January, “Nuclear Energy and Global Risks”, http://www.tammilehto.info/nuclearglobal.htm)
Nuclear power industry is international business, and this is enough to make the risks of any individual NPP global. The industry is currently going downhill and most European and North-American companies have given up constructing NPPs. An order for a new plant in any country would be a significant boost for the remaining companies. This would improve their possibilities to sell NPPs to countries where technological knowhow and safety culture are at a level far worse than in the country in question. This means that any new NPP would increase the probability of a major nuclear accident in many countries. Usually in nuclear power discussion only NPPs are considered. This is no more reasonable than to think of a wall socket as a primary source of electricity. In addition to the NPP at least uranium mines, uranium mills, conversion plants, enrichment plants, fuel factories and various nuclear waste storages are needed. With the exception of some nuclear waste storages these are usually located around the world, outside the country where the NPP is located. All these cause local and divisible risks that threaten, for instance, indigenous peoples, who have lived near the site for ages. They cause global and indivisible risks, too. One of these is the radon gas released from the piles of "tailings" in the vicinity of mines and mills. These releases cause thousands of extra cancers around the world. Another global and indivisible risk is that these plants are typically run with

fossil fuels that cause climate change. Anyway the most important global and indivisible risk is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increase of the chance of a nuclear war caused by the nuclear energy production of any country.
The peaceful and military use of nuclear power are indistinguishable simply because they are based on the same technology. Uranium mines and mills, conversion and enrichment plants serve both the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity. Weapons grade uranium can be produced simply by continuing the concentration process of uranium further than normally, to a level where the U-235 content is somewhat higher. NPPs produce the other raw material of nuclear bombs: plutonium. When the fuel rods are taken out from the reactor earlier than normally, they contain weapons grade plutonium. On the other hand, nuclear weapons can be made from the reactor grade plutonium, too. United States exploded this kind of atom bomb in Nevada in 1977.

The more nuclear power is being used around the world, the easier it is for any terrorist group to acquire nuclear weapons and the easier any state can disguise its nuclear weapons program with peaceful nuclear activities. India
produced the plutonium for its first A-bombs in "peaceful" experimental reactors supplied by Canada. The connection between nuclear power in a peaceful country and nuclear weapons is usually denied on the grounds that nobody would imagine of the country trying to achieve an A-bomb. This denial is based on the common conception in the upper echelons of society that global and indivisible risks need not to be considered. Now that the global and indivisible risk of climate change is being

taken seriously with fossil fuels, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation has to be taken equally seriously if we want to consider different sources of energy impartially. The influence of the civil nuclear program of a country on the chances
of nuclear war may be impossible to determine, as impossible as the influence an individual coal power plant on climate change. However, as a country can contribute to the prevention climate change by joining the Kyoto protocol, it can contribute to the prevention of a nuclear war by refraining from nuclear power – like the majority of all countries have done

212

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

1AR EXTS – NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF – RPS NOT AFFECT

RPS PRIMARILY TRADES-OFF WITH COAL – WON’T AFFECT NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 2007 [“Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard”, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, June 07, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html/ ttate] The RPS causes a dramatic shift away from coal and natural gas to renewable fuels, particularly biomass and wind. * Coal-fired electricity generation in the Policy Case is 938 billion kilowatthours (28 percent) lower in 2030 than in the Reference Case. Natural-gas-fired generation is 99 billion kilowatthours (11 percent) lower in 2030. Generation from nuclear power is 80 billion kilowatthours (9 percent) lower in 2030.

213

SDI 2008 RPS - Aff

KMT Lab

ENVIRO K ANSWERS – HUMAN INTERVENTION NECESSARY
Human intervention key to ecosystem recovery Novacek and Cleland, Dept. Biological Sciences, Stanford, 01 (Michael Novacek and Elsa Cleland, “The Current Biodiversity Extinction Event: Scenarios for Mitigation and Recovery”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 5/01, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid=33235, Yoder) At a more general level, the most effective argument that human activities should safeguard biodiversity is the need to secure the basic ecosystem services dependent on that diversity. Ecosystem process and function effected by a critical number of interacting species secures the quality of the environment on the broadest front and, thus, has direct impact on human health and well-being (45). This is not an easy argument to make to highly competitive and heavily consuming populations in industrialized countries or to impoverished, marginalized populations in developing countries. But the argument, nonetheless, must be made, through demonstration of the services the natural world provides and the benefits of living compatibly with biodiversity. In the world of uncertainty surrounding the nature of global biodiversity, the nature of its destruction, and the most effective steps for mitigating that destruction, scenarios for recovery are far from clear. Nonetheless, our review and discussion of many aspects treated in this colloquium do permit several general impressions and recommendations. Although major extinction events of the past underscore the reality and the possibility of such catastrophes today and in the future, they provide limited insight on the current biodiversity crisis. Such past extinction events do, however, suggest that if recovery is left to natural processes, the rebound of global ecosystems to some state beneficial to many of its species, including humans, is measured in unacceptably long timescales—on the order of millions or even tens of millions of years. Intervention on the part of the source of these current traumas, namely humans, is required for any possibility of recovery or even maintenance of the biota in any condition that approaches its present state.

214

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->