Counterplan Practice Speech.

You are giving a negative block speech extending a states counterplan. The debate thus far is below.

1AC
Aff: RPS aff in starter packet

Plan: The United States federal government should require that twenty percent of the electricity produced in
the United States come from renewable energy resources by the year 2020, and establish renewable energy
credits to facilitate this goal.

Advg: Fossil Fuels, Competitiveness, Pg 3-17 in packet

1NC
Topicality: Incentives exclude regulations
Obama Da
Clean Coal Da
States CP—Text and 1NC evidence below

2AC
responses to the counterplan are below the 1NC.

2NC
Understand that this practice speech is not very realistic because you are not working from a completed states
counterplan file. You will need to prepare theory blocks.

You may use any cards from the starter pack that you think are responsive. There are a few cards from our
lab’s file below the 2AC block.

You have a maxium of 4min to give your speech.

 1NC: RPS States Counterplan
Text: The governments of each of the fifty states in the United States should:
• require that twenty percent of the electricity produced in its respective state come from renewable
energy resources by the year 2020, and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal

• adopt a business energy tax credit for solar power to cover 50% of a company's investments up to $40
million.

The tax credit immediately makes the solar industry viable on a national scale
Jacklet, Associate Editor for the Oregon Business, 08 (Ben, June, “Boosted by new state incentives and
betting on the future, Oregon’s solar industry is soaring.”,
http://www.solaroregon.org/about/news_folder/sun-sun-sun-here-it-comes)

Schumacher developed a revolutionary idea to lower the cost of solar power during the last oil crisis 33 years
John
ago. Answering a call from the U.S. government for solar innovations, he invented a closed-loop, low-energy system to produce high-
quality polysilicon for solar cells. He was certain his process would improve efficiency throughout the solar industry,
but he never got to find out. Support from the government faded as oil prices returned to earth, and investors didn't fill the gap. Schumacher
reluctantly dropped his plans and proceeded with a successful career that saw him earn over 40 patents and create hundreds of high-paying R&D
jobs through the various technology companies he created in California. Three decades later, Schumacher is getting another chance to
make his solar system a reality - in Oregon. His company, Peak Sun Silicon, has broken ground on a polysilicon manufacturing plant in
Millersburg, north of Albany, with ambitious plans to raise $718 million and create 500 jobs by the end of 2011, generating
raw materials for a solar manufacturing industry that is growing robustly both globally and in Oregon. State officials
predict that by this time next year Oregon will reach $1.4 billion in committed capital for solar manufacturing. And that
figure doesn't include the earnings of a growing legion of system installers, distributors, marketers, electricians, researchers, financial consultants,
lawyers and architects who plan to be soaking up rays and revenues as the push to solar intensifies. Oregon is betting big on all forms of
renewable energy, but none has drawn more investment and business interest than the burgeoning solar industry.
At the world's largest solar trade show in Munich, Germany, in April there was one U.S. state with its own booth:
Oregon. Solar entrepreneurs enticed by lucrative incentives, most notably the German powerhouse SolarWorld, are pouring
into the Oregon market, and more are being recruited, making the state's goal of a "self reinforcing cluster" in the solar industry seem less
like wishful thinking and more like concrete reality. Residential solar installations are up 35%, commercial projects are on track to quadruple from
2007 to 2008, and the market looks even sunnier to the south, where California has launched a $3.35 billion solar initiative that will further boost
demand for solar equipment that is more and more likely to be made in Oregon.

The timing is serendipitous. The weak dollar is boosting exports and sending oil prices to all-time highs. New concerns and laws regarding climate
change are strengthening a market that is firmly established in Europe and growing everywhere else. Venture capital investments in solar energy
topped $1 billion in the U.S. last year, and two of the hottest stocks on Wall Street have been First Solar in Phoenix and Sun Power in San Jose. With
a strong Silicon Forest workforce familiar with the basic technology used in solar manufacturing and some of the most generous subsidies
offered by any state, Oregon has positioned itself to capitalize mightily on what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
recently labeled "the next great global industry - clean power." But for all of the investor exuberance regarding
solar, the fact remains that solar energy is not even close to eclipsing wind power, much less coal, hydro and even
nuclear energy. For solar to compete without exorbitant subsidies, costs must come down. That is the goal of the solar
companies expanding in Oregon, and the industry as a whole. Joseph Reinhart, executive director of the Oregon Solar Energy Industry Association,
says solar's future is rooted not in idealism but in "continued and sustained profitability." A veteran of the semiconductor
industry, Reinhart doesn't see any reason why mass production and innovation can't bring down costs quickly. "Just think about the $800 laptop you
can buy today" he says. "Less than 10 years ago it was $2,500, and you can't even compare the functionality. I see the same thing happening with
solar."For the past 30 years Oregon's solar sector has been dominated by early adopters with plenty of ideas and innovation but limited access to
capital. That has changed dramatically. According to the Portland-based research firm Clean Edge, capital investment in renewable energy companies
in the United States has ballooned from $599 million in 2000 to $2.7 billion in 2007. VC investment in solar topped $1 billion in the nation in more
than 700 financing rounds last year, according to the Prometheus Institute, a sustainable technology research firm based in Cambridge, Mass. Global
powerhouses such as General Electric, Google and Applied Materials also are wagering aggressively on the future of solar as a hedge against rising
energy prices and concerns about the true costs of pollution and climate change. Oregon saw the light in the legislative session of
2007, approving sizable subsidies to companies willing to invest in solar. The biggest incentive is an aggressive
business energy tax credit or BETC (pronounced "Betsy") that was expanded by the state Legislature in January to
cover an enticing 50% of a company's investments up to $40 million. This super-sized incentive has had an
immediate impact, enabling companies to leverage significant capital to set up, expand and drive up production
in Oregon. Four companies - SolarWorld, Peak Sun Silicon, Solaicx and PV Powered - have received state approval for a combined
$46 million in tax credits from this one subsidy alone.
 2AC States Counterplan

1. Federal signal key -- to investor confidence. CP cannot solve the competitiveness advg. Extend Flavin 06
that says the federal government must join

2. Dispositionality is a voting issue –

Strategy skew – removing the option of a perm hamstrings the aff
Multiple worlds bad – cut the affs time in ½ skewing aff time

3. Perm do the plan and the counterplan – solves best

Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created
by Global Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007,
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP
Moving to Federal Action – A Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Portfolio
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have now enacted Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, which each call for a specific percentage of electricity generated to come
Federal legislation should, at minimum, solidify state action with federal support. A great deal
from renewable energy.
would be achieved if Congress took the logical step and instituted a federal standard. A 20% federal RPS
enacted today and required by 2020 is reasonable and achievable, and should be a focal point of congressional action.

4. Solar energy porition of the counterplan irrelevant – our Sovokal evidence indicates that an RPS is
necessary to spur a transition to renewable energy

5. Fifty state fiat is a voting issue

Education- implausible nature of the counterplan makes it non-education
Ground- impossible for the aff to beat a this utopian counterplan that is not grounded in the literature
 2AC States Counterplan

6. States have no money

Johnson 07
Pretend there is a card that says many states across the country are facing budget deficits

7. Federal RPS key to renewable transition – three reasons are provided in our Sovokal and Cooper -7 ev.
Regulatory Uncertainty- state regulations create a patch work of inconsistent regulations deterring
investment in the renewables markey
Free Riders- some states free ride on the renewable progress of others creating inequalities between rate
payers
Bottle necks- inconsistency prevents trade between states

8. Only federal law is uniform ---- state policies are necessarily fragmented and ineffective
Morgan and Zietlow, 5 – *Professor of Law at NYU and ** Professor at the University of Toledo Law School
(Denise, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Summer, Lexis)

The limitations that the Supreme Court has placed on Congress's powers in the name of states' rights have severely weakened the one institution that has a constitutional mandate to create a nationally uniform baseline of
rights of belonging and the ability to do so. Although state legislatures have played--and should continue to play--an important role in more fully developing our national understanding of what rights are necessary to

belong to America, state legislation is simply not an adequate substitute for federal legislation
because it must necessarily be piecemeal and varied. In contrast, Congress has greater institutional competence to determine when there
is a need for rights of belonging than individual state legislatures have, only Congress can create a nationally uniform baseline of

rights, and a shared understanding of rights of belonging reinforces those rights and strengthens our political community. Accordingly, the Supreme Court
should not attempt to delegate Congress's role in protecting rights of belonging to
state governments based on the assumption that there is parity between the
institutions.
 2AC States Counterplan
9. A federal RPS is comparatively better than State policies for consumers and rate increases would be
mild

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) //
JMP
V. Impact on Consumers
The impact on consumers of a national RPS is one of the most hotly contested issues surrounding possible legislation. As one might expect, varying proposals provide widely varying projected impacts. Even small
changes can lead to significant differences. For example, the EIA determined that under a 15% national RPS, "retail electricity prices [would] rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS
case," as compared to the reference case, and RECs would cost 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour between 2020 and 2030. n186 In contrast, under a proposed 25% national RPS, the EIA determined that the average retail
electricity price is 6.2% higher in 2030 and the REC prices would vary between 3.8 cents and 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour from 2025 to 2030. n187 This is not an apples-to-apples comparison because there are a

significant number of variables in each study, n188 beyond just the RPS percentage. Nonetheless, this helps underscore the point that measuring the specific impact of a
national RPS is complex and difficult. On a more general level, however, it is clear that there are some consistent issues consumers will face, regardless of the specific national RPS
put in place.

From a practical perspective,consumer impacts of a national RPS would be limited, although not insignificant. Important in considering the likely consumer impact
many consumers (indeed, roughly half of the country) are already subject to some form of RPS. As such, the
of a national RPS is that

question is not a decision between a national RPS and no RPS; instead, the question is whether all consumers will be subject to an RPS or just some. n189
For those consumers not currently buying electricity under an RPS, a state RPS may be pending. n190 Further, as one
study advocating a federal RPS stated, "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." n191 The study explained that renewable energy generation has a free-rider problem because [*74] "everyone benefits from the environmental
advantages of renewable energy." n192 As such, private companies might invest millions of dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies, yet be unable to recover the full profit of their investments.
n193 To the extent this is accurate, consumers not under an RPS, even those with less renewable generation resources in their state, would reap the benefits of technologies developed under state RPS programs, without
paying their fair share.

consumers throughout the country would face a relatively mild

In the short term, direct consumer impacts are limited to cost concerns. By most accounts,

increase or mild decrease in the cost of electricity. One report that reviewed the RPS program analysis of both the Union of Concerned
Scientists and the EIA found cumulative energy bill savings throughout the country in each of the four
scenarios considered. n194 The savings by region varied significantly, though. For example, in the review of EIA assumptions if there were a 20% RPS, savings, by Census region, ranging from as
high as 8.1% in the West South Central to 0.1% in the South Atlantic were reported. n195 All of the review studies showed a significant variance by region, which explains some of the resistance to an RPS from regions,
like the South Atlantic, with less renewable energy resources. Potential savings are far more limited under an RPS for the region, and if costs were to increase, those regions would likely face a greater share of the cost
increase.
 2NC Extra Cards
BETC solves global competitiveness
Jacklet, Associate Editor for the Oregon Business, 08 (Ben, June, “Boosted by new state incentives and
betting on the future, Oregon’s solar industry is soaring.”,
http://www.solaroregon.org/about/news_folder/sun-sun-sun-here-it-comes)
The company has hired more than 50 people and is accepting applications for crystal growers and wire saw operators. Ford predicts the number of
jobs will double by the end of the year as the company works out the kinks in its new process and gears up to meet demand. "The solar industry is a
locomotive that has already left the station," he proclaims, "and it is accelerating." Solaicx and PV Powered are growing quickly and may one day
raise further capital by going public. But for now their combined market share is minuscule compared to that of SolarWorld, the vertically integrated
German giant that is building the nation's largest solar factory plant in Hillsboro. SolarWorld vice president Bob Beisner says his company
considered the option of building in Asia to save on labor costs and rejected it. "We made a decision to manufacture in
the U.S. because we feel the U.S. will become one of the biggest marketplaces for solar in the world over the next
five to 10 years. For us to be here makes perfect sense. It will help us to diversify our risks, and the euro exchange
rate makes it very favorable to be manufacturing in the U.S. We were also dissuaded by intellectual property rights
laws in China."

State subsidies will massively boost the solar industry – profit is the critical internal link
Jacklet, Associate Editor for the Oregon Business, 08 (Ben, June, “Boosted by new state incentives and
betting on the future, Oregon’s solar industry is soaring.”,
http://www.solaroregon.org/about/news_folder/sun-sun-sun-here-it-comes)

PGE and the Energy Trust of Oregon are also working with ProLogis,
the largest owner of warehouses in the world, to convert 17
Portland-area roofs into the equivalent of a 3.4-megawatt solar power plant. "So far we've done about 750 rooftops
in Oregon," says Peter West, the trust's director of renewable energy. "Just think about all the roofs in Oregon. We've
barely touched the possibilities."That's a common theme throughout the industry. For all of the renewed excitement about solar energy, it
holds less than one-tenth of 1% of the world's energy market. The possibilities for growth and innovation seem endless, but it remains to be seen
whether the industry will succeed where it failed during the previous oil crisis in lowering costs to compete without subsidies. Eventually, it will come
down to results. Until then, Oregon's new crop of solar innovators will be humming along to meet demand, scrambling to prove that the state's
incentives have been money well spent.

Schumacher is confident that the red-hot market for solar is no passing phase this time, and the main reason
behind that is money. "Nobody ever made any money in this business before now," he says. "Now the timing is
right," says Schumacher. "There is money to be made. People are willing to invest and take risks because they see
there is no other way out. We have to get rid of our oil dependence.

There's no other way. It's got to be done."

 2NC Extra Cards

States solve climate change best 4 reasons:

history, innovation, federal government models, precise enforcement
McKinstry, and , Dernbauch 08 (Robert B. McKinstry partner at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, John C. Dernbach professor of
law at Widener University, “Federal Climate Change Legislation as If the States Matter”, Nat. Resources & Env't., Downloaded from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031552)

There are also concrete advantages to giving state and local government a significant role in implementation of
environmental policies. These are evident from consideration of the progress of climate change initiatives in the
United States to date. As noted by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), states
have greater flexibility that allows them to innovate with less severe consequences and provide models for future
federal legislation. State and local government programs can allow bottom-up decision-making with greater
stakeholder involvement. This allows the development of more precisely focused targets and strategies that are
tailored to local conditions and are more likely to succeed.

“Race to the bottom” arguments in the environmental area have no theoretical foundation
David Schoenbrod, professor of law at New York Law School and former-senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Cato
Institute, “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html, 2001.

Professor Wiebe’s description of the national class is not the same as how the national class defines itself, for such aristocratic pretensions are hardly
compatible with its self-image of reasoned tolerance. So each one of its institutional innovations for blunting popular control of policy issues comes
with a set of less-aristocraticsounding rationales.
In the case of the national takeover of environmental policy, the
rationale was that states would not make good decisions on intrastate pollution because, in competing
to lure employers, each state would set ever lower environmental standards, so all states would end up
with the poorest possible environmental standards—a "race-to-the-bottom" argument. It is true that a state is
likely to set lower environmental standards than it otherwise might in order to attract industry from other states. But sellers of goods set prices lower
than they otherwise might to attract customers. The question is, why isn’t such competition between states, as with sellers, a good thing? In the
early days of the New Deal, many policymakers believed that competition among sellers was inherently disastrous because sellers would engage in a
race-to-the-bottom price that would lead most of them to bankruptcy. This thinking resulted in the New Dealers’ attempts to control all prices. Soon,
however,economists showed that price competition does not lead to a race to the bottom, except in rare
circumstances. The proponents of a national takeover of environmental regulation never thought much
about what conditions would be necessary to produce a race to the bottom among states regulating
pollution. They knew that there was a race to the bottom because they wanted more stringent
regulations, and they knew themselves to be reasonable. Professor Richard Revesz of the New York
University School of Law concluded that "race-to-the-bottom arguments in the environmental area have
been made for the last two decades with essentially no theoretical foundation." Revesz has not proven
that there never could be a race to the bottom, but he has shown that it was not the real reason for the
national takeover. The clincher is that the national government has taken control of many environmental issues for which a race to the
bottom is impossible because the facility in question is not portable—for example, abandoned waste sites.