RPS Aff

1 Index

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

1AC Action Index..............................................................................................................................................................................................1 This Page is Blank.........................................................................................................................................................................6 RPS 1AC – Contention 1...............................................................................................................................................................7 RPS 1AC – Plan............................................................................................................................................................................8 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.........................................................................................................................................................9 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.......................................................................................................................................................10 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.......................................................................................................................................................11 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.......................................................................................................................................................12 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................13 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................14 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................15 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................16 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................17 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................18 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................19 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................20 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................21 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv..........................................................................................................................................................22 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................23 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................24 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................25 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................26 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................27 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................28 RPS 1AC – China Adv................................................................................................................................................................29 RPS 1AC – China Adv................................................................................................................................................................30 RPS 1AC – China Adv................................................................................................................................................................31 RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv..........................................................................................................................................32 RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv..........................................................................................................................................33 RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................34 RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................35 RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................36 RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................37 RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................38 RPS 1AC – Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................39 Environment Ext – Coal Consumption Increasing......................................................................................................................40 Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use................................................................................................................................41 Environment Ext – Renewables Conserve Water........................................................................................................................42 Environment Ext – Conventional Energies Pollute Water..........................................................................................................43 Environment Ext – Fossil Fuel Production Destorys Environment............................................................................................44 Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Land Use.....................................................................................................................45 Environment Ext – Air Pollution – 2AC.....................................................................................................................................46 Environment Ext – Coal Casues Acid Rain.................................................................................................................................47 Environment Ext – SO2 and NOxAcid Rain...........................................................................................................................48 Environment Ext – Acid Rain Impacts........................................................................................................................................49 Environment Ext – RPS Solves Acid Rain..................................................................................................................................50 Environment Ext – Health Impact...............................................................................................................................................51 Environment Ext – Global Warming – 2AC................................................................................................................................52 Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals............................................................................................................................53 Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals............................................................................................................................54 Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals............................................................................................................................55 Environment Ext – Global Warming Solvency...........................................................................................................................56 Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Pollution & Greenhouse.............................................................................................57 Environment Ext – U.S. Environmental Leadership Solves Globally........................................................................................58 Economy Ext – RPS Reduces FF Transportation Costs..............................................................................................................59 Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link........................................................................................................................................60

RPS Aff

2

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link........................................................................................................................................61 Natural Gas Ext – Steel Industry Addon – 2AC..........................................................................................................................62 Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing............................................................................................................................................63 Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing............................................................................................................................................64 Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry..................................................................................................65 Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry..................................................................................................66 Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Food Impacts..................................................................................................................................67 Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Pakistan Impact..............................................................................................................................68 Natural Gas Ext – Renewables Reduce LNG Imports................................................................................................................69 Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices.............................................................................................................70 Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices.............................................................................................................71 Natural Gas Ext – RPS Solves Price Spikes / AE Helps Chemical Industry..............................................................................72 Natural Gas Ext – Alternative Energy Helps Chemical Industry................................................................................................73 Blackouts Ext – Investment in Transmission Needed.................................................................................................................74 Blackouts Ext – Utilities Intentionally Promote Congestion......................................................................................................75 Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now....................................................................................................................................76 Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now....................................................................................................................................77 Blackouts Ext – A2: Blackouts Don’t Happen............................................................................................................................78 Blackouts Ext – A2: 2005 Energy Act Fixed Problem................................................................................................................79 Blackouts Ext – Minor Failures Snowball...................................................................................................................................80 Blackouts Ext – Impacts..............................................................................................................................................................81 Blackouts Ext – Impacts..............................................................................................................................................................82 Blackouts Ext – Impacts..............................................................................................................................................................83 Blackouts Ext – Renewables Solves............................................................................................................................................84 Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves........................................................................................................................................................85 Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves........................................................................................................................................................86 Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves........................................................................................................................................................87 Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now..................................................................................................................................88 Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now..................................................................................................................................89 Grid Security Ext – Impacts........................................................................................................................................................90 Grid Security Ext – Impacts........................................................................................................................................................91 Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation....................................................................................92 Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation....................................................................................93 Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation....................................................................................94 Grid Security Ext – A2: Wind Turbines Will be Attacked...........................................................................................................95 Unemployment Ext – Economy Internals...................................................................................................................................96 Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs...............................................................................................................................................97 Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs...............................................................................................................................................98 Unemployment Ext – RPS Increases Manufacturing..................................................................................................................99 Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs in Midwest / Rural Areas....................................................................................................100 Competitiveness Ext – RPS Will Boost Competitiveness.........................................................................................................101 Competitiveness Ext – RPS = Export Capabilities....................................................................................................................102 Competitiveness Ext – Increased Renewables Key to Exports Markets...................................................................................103 Competitiveness Ext – Solar Key to Tech Leadership..............................................................................................................104 Competitiveness Ext – RPS Key to Create Demand For RE....................................................................................................105 Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership........................................................................................106 Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership........................................................................................107 Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact..........................................................................................108 Competitiveness Ext – RE has Huge Market Potential.............................................................................................................109 Competitiveness Ext – U.S. Falling Behind / Small Threshold for Adv...................................................................................110 Competitiveness Ext – A2: Renewables Manufactured Abroad................................................................................................111 China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [1/2]...................................................................................................................112 China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [2/2]...................................................................................................................113 China Ext – Energy Consumption / Pollution Increasing..........................................................................................................114 China Ext – China Not Solving Now........................................................................................................................................115 China Ext – Death Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................116 China Ext – Agriculture Impact.................................................................................................................................................117 China Ext – Economy Impact....................................................................................................................................................118 China Ext – Economy Impact....................................................................................................................................................119 China Ext – Pollution Impacts...................................................................................................................................................120

RPS Aff

3

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab China Ext – Warming / Biodiversity Impacts............................................................................................................................121 China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency............................................................................................................................................122 China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency............................................................................................................................................123 China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations...................................................................................................................124 China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations...................................................................................................................125 Terrorism Ext – Cooperation ....................................................................................................................................................126 Terrorism Ext – Impacts............................................................................................................................................................127 Hegemony – Energy Policy Key to Global Leadership............................................................................................................128 Hegemony – Renewables / Market Key to Leadership.............................................................................................................129 Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg......................................................................................................130 Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg......................................................................................................131 No Renewables Now.................................................................................................................................................................132 No Renewables Now.................................................................................................................................................................133 State RPSs Undermines Renewables.........................................................................................................................................134 A2: States Solving Now............................................................................................................................................................135 A2: States Solving Now............................................................................................................................................................136 Federal RPS Good – Laundry List............................................................................................................................................137 Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables...................................................................................................................................138 Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables...................................................................................................................................139 Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables...................................................................................................................................140 Renewables Good – Laundry List.............................................................................................................................................141 Renewables Good – Laundry List.............................................................................................................................................142 Federal RPS Good – National REC Market..............................................................................................................................143 Federal RPS Good – National REC Market..............................................................................................................................144 RECs = Transition to Renewables.............................................................................................................................................145 RECs = Transition to Renewables.............................................................................................................................................146 A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***....................................................................................................................................................147 A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***....................................................................................................................................................148 A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable .........................................................................................................................149 A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable .........................................................................................................................150 A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable .........................................................................................................................151 A2: RPS Only Increases Wind Power.......................................................................................................................................152 A2: No Interconnection / A2: RPS Causes Electricity Restructuring.......................................................................................153 A2: Long Timeframe for Renewables.......................................................................................................................................154 A2: Meet Targets.......................................................................................................................................................................155 A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions ...................................................................................................................................156 A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions ...................................................................................................................................157 A2: Southeastern Region Can’t Meet RPS................................................................................................................................158 A2: No Enforcement..................................................................................................................................................................159 A2: No Enforcement / Coordination with State RECs..............................................................................................................160 A2: No Materials for Renewables.............................................................................................................................................161 Wind Solves Pollution / CO2....................................................................................................................................................162 Wind Solves Pollution / CO2....................................................................................................................................................163 Wind Helps Environment..........................................................................................................................................................164 Wind Key to Competitiveness...................................................................................................................................................165 Wind Increases Jobs..................................................................................................................................................................166 Wind Solves Rural Economy....................................................................................................................................................167 Wind Increases Tourism ...........................................................................................................................................................168 Wind Can Meet All Energy Needs............................................................................................................................................169 Wind Has Larget Potential in Electiricty Market......................................................................................................................170 Wind Solves Natural Gas Price Shocks.....................................................................................................................................171 Wind Solves Terrorist Attacks...................................................................................................................................................172 Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen ....................................................................................................................................173 Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen ....................................................................................................................................174 Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen ....................................................................................................................................175 A2: Wind Kills Birds.................................................................................................................................................................176 A2: Wind Kills Bats...................................................................................................................................................................177 A2: Wind Kills Animals ...........................................................................................................................................................178 A2: Wind Hurts Soil / Environment / Causes Emissions..........................................................................................................179 A2: Wind Disrupts Radar..........................................................................................................................................................180

RPS Aff

4

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Wind Disrupts Radar..........................................................................................................................................................181 A2: Wind Disrupts Radar..........................................................................................................................................................182 A2: Wind is Expensive..............................................................................................................................................................183 A2: Wind Still Needs to Be Backed Up....................................................................................................................................184 Wind Power Popular With Public..............................................................................................................................................185 Bush Supports Wind Power.......................................................................................................................................................186 A2: States CP – Permutation.....................................................................................................................................................187 A2: States CP – Empowers / Gives States Flexibility...............................................................................................................188 A2: States CP – States More Expensive....................................................................................................................................189 A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment............................................................................................................................190 A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment............................................................................................................................191 A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment............................................................................................................................192 A2: States CP – Industry Wants Federal RPS............................................................................................................................193 A2: States CP – Uncertainty & Cost.........................................................................................................................................194 A2: States CP – Uncertainty & Cost.........................................................................................................................................195 A2: States CP – Key to Effective REC......................................................................................................................................196 A2: States CP – Key to Effective REC......................................................................................................................................197 A2: States CP – Federal Key to Clarify Renewables................................................................................................................198 A2: States CP – Natural Gas Prices...........................................................................................................................................199 A2: States CP – Can’t Solve Environmental Leadership..........................................................................................................200 A2: States CP – Uniformity Answers........................................................................................................................................201 A2: States CP – No Federal Modeling......................................................................................................................................202 A2: States CP – Lawsuits – 2AC...............................................................................................................................................203 A2: States CP – Lawsuits – 1AR...............................................................................................................................................204 A2: States CP – Lawsuits Will Collapse Energy Policy ...........................................................................................................205 A2: States CP – Implemenation = Dormant Commerce Clause Problems................................................................................206 A2: States CP – Texas & Pennsylvania Face Constitutional Challenge....................................................................................207 A2: States CP – Constitutional Challenges Inevitable..............................................................................................................208 A2: States CP – Constitutional Challenges Inevitable..............................................................................................................209 A2: States CP – Litigation Risk Discourages Investment.........................................................................................................210 A2: States CP – Can’t Fiat Out of Commerce Clause Argument..............................................................................................211 A2: States CP – A2: In-State Consumption Avoids Legal Challenge.......................................................................................212 A2: States CP – National RPS Prevents Lawsuits.....................................................................................................................213 A2: Any PIC..............................................................................................................................................................................214 A2: CPs that Stipulate Additional Regulations.........................................................................................................................215 A2: Exclude “X” Power Plant CP.............................................................................................................................................216 A2: Exclude “X” State Counterplan..........................................................................................................................................217 A2: Safety Valve CP..................................................................................................................................................................218 A2: CP to Favor One Type of a Renewable...............................................................................................................................219 A2: Expand Beyond 20% CP....................................................................................................................................................220 A2: Smaller Percentage (15%, etc) CPs....................................................................................................................................221 A2: Smaller Percentage (15%, etc) CPs....................................................................................................................................222 A2: Include Clean Coal / Energy Efficiency in RPS.................................................................................................................223 A2: Include Nuclear or Clean Coal Technology in RPS...........................................................................................................224 A2: CPs to Expand Renewables................................................................................................................................................225 A2: Energy Efficiency or Transportation CPs...........................................................................................................................226 A2: Cap-and-Trade CP..............................................................................................................................................................227 A2: Cap-and-Trade CP / A2: Carbon Tax CP............................................................................................................................228 A2: Production Tax Credit CP...................................................................................................................................................229 A2: Production Tax Credit CP – Unpopular in Congress..........................................................................................................230 A2: Production Tax Credit CP – Unpopular in Congress..........................................................................................................231 A2: Free Market CP / Coercion.................................................................................................................................................232 A2: Free Market CP / Coercion.................................................................................................................................................233 A2: Education CP......................................................................................................................................................................234 A2: Education CP......................................................................................................................................................................235 A2: Education CP......................................................................................................................................................................236 A2: Nuclear Power CP..............................................................................................................................................................237 A2: Nuclear Power CP..............................................................................................................................................................238 A2: Nuclear Power CP – Permutation Evidence.......................................................................................................................239 A2: Clean Coal CP....................................................................................................................................................................240

RPS Aff

5

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab A2: Clean Coal CP....................................................................................................................................................................241 A2: Coal DA ***.......................................................................................................................................................................242 A2: Industry / Business DAs ....................................................................................................................................................243 A2: Industry / Business DAs ....................................................................................................................................................244 A2: Industry / Business DAs ....................................................................................................................................................245 A2: Nuclear Power DA .............................................................................................................................................................246 A2: Nuclear Power DA.............................................................................................................................................................247 A2: Energy Prices DA...............................................................................................................................................................248 A2: Energy Prices DA...............................................................................................................................................................249 A2: Federalism DA...................................................................................................................................................................250 A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................251 A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................252 A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................253 A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................254 A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................255 A2: Federalism DA....................................................................................................................................................................256 A2: Kritiks.................................................................................................................................................................................257 A2: Kritiks.................................................................................................................................................................................258 A2: Topicality – RPS is an Incentive ........................................................................................................................................259

RPS Aff

6 This Page is Blank

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS Aff

7 RPS 1AC – Contention 1

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Contention 1 is the Status Quo Individuals States are adopting renewable portfolio standards – creating an uncertain regulatory environment for investors and fueling market distortions. Only a federal RPS can create a diverse, predictable and stable national renewable market Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP State-based renewable portfolio standards (RPS) create regulatory uncertainty for investors and inherent inequities among ratepayers. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, diverse and predictable national market for renewable resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices. "There are times when we are 50 states and there are times when we're one country and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Florida did not fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights." - (the fictional) President Josiah Bartlett, The West Wing Arguably, we face no greater national priority than crafting a coherent national energy strategy. Americans face energy challenges over the next several decades - growing dependence on foreign sources of fuel, continued exposure to the threat of terrorist sabotage,1 increasing vulnerability to impending climate change, and environmental threats - that demand progressive federal leadership. Yet federal legislation to establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) has failed no less than 17 times in the past 10 years. While supporting state-based RPS efforts, the Bush Administration has officially opposed a national RPS on the grounds that it would create "winners" and "losers" among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewable resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.2 In the meantime, 21 states (and the District of Columbia) have adopted their own RPS mandates, and eight others - Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia - are considering some form of RPS. With so much state-level action, one might be tempted to agree with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) that "activities on a number of fronts supplant the need for a federal RPS."3 But looks can be deceiving. Because the accumulated demand for electricity is expected to accelerate over the next several decades, the penetration of renewable energy technologies in individual states, while noteworthy, is not likely to substantially alter the national fuel mix nor materially address the energy risks we all face. 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 ignore the unique drawbacks associated with a complex web of state-based mandates.4 Indeed, 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.

RPS Aff

8 RPS 1AC – Plan

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Plan #1 The Unites States federal government should require that retail power providers meet at least 20 percent of electricity demand with renewable energy by 2020 and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal. Plan #2 The Unites States federal government should require that by 2020 regulated utilities meet 20 percent of net electricity demand from electricity generated by qualified renewable sources (generators harnessing electricity from sunlight, wind, falling water, sustainable biomass, waste, and geothermal sources) and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal.

RPS Aff

9 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Contention _____ is Conventional Energy Conventional energy sources results in thousands of systemic deaths – outweighs the one-shot risk of their disad Dr. Sovacool, 8 – Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA (Benjamin K., also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, “The Costs of Major Energy Accidents, 1907 to 2007,” 4-29-2008, www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/04/The-Costs-of-Major-Energy-Accidents-1907-to-2007/) // JMP 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; hydroelectric, 3 accidents at 1 percent. Therefore, 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 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 the best of intentions among policymakers and operators. Perhaps 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 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 not.

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.

RPS Aff

10 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

In particular, a federal RPS is key to prevent water shortages and thermal pollution that will collapse ecosystems Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
B. Water Conservation 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.244 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.245

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.246 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. 247 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 percent, they contribute even more to the nation’s

water scarcity.248
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 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,.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, 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 1995.250 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.251 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 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.252 Most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years, according to a recent survey, even under “normal” conditions.253 In fact, 47 states in the country reported drought conditions during the summer of 2002.254 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. 255 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.256 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.257 Thermal Pollution The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how

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
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 waters.259 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 phosphorous. 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.260 // pg. 97-100

RPS Aff

11 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

This causes extinction Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND ** Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatestdying)
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,

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.
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. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than 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 unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. 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 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 single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these

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
developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, 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 that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber.

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 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.

RPS Aff

12 RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS will displace natural gas and coal facilities – preventing environmental harms Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
6. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water, Air & Land A. A National RPS Displaces Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has already determined that that “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.”236 Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding. The New York
State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA), for example, looked at load profiles for 2001 and concluded that 65 percent of the energy displaced by wind turbines in New York would have otherwise come from natural gas facilities, 15 percent from coal-fired plants, 10 percent from oil-based generation, and 10 percent from out of state imports of electricity.237 A

more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would otherwise be generated with a mix of 87 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil.238 In Texas, the Union of Concerned
Scientists also confirmed that renewable energy technologies primarily displace natural gas and coal facilities.239 Often overlooked, is how RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S. Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a statewide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.240 In Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every 50 MW of renewable energy would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.241 Environment Michigan estimates that a 20 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.242 Utilities in Ontario, Canada, are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace all coal and nuclear electricity generation in the region entirely.243

By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, a national RPS avoids many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. // pg. 97

RPS Aff

13 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Contention _____ is the Economy The impact is global global nuclear war Mead, 92 – Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russel, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Summer 1992, p. 28.) 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 theirbillions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s. We will isolate several internal links to this First is pollution – particulate matter from power plants kills tens of thousands and has a devastating impact on the U.S. economy Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Particulate Matter (PM) Particulate matter is not a specific pollutant itself, but instead refers to a mixture of fine particles of harmful pollutants such as soot, acid droplets, and metals. Particulate matter (PM) is the generic term for the mixture of these microscopic solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. 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 • Premature death in people with heart or lung disease.294 Roughly 80 million Americans live in areas where PM emissions are considered dangerous.295 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 over16,000 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.297 // pg. 111-112

RPS Aff

14 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Second is Natural Gas The electricity sector demand for natural gas is increasing – making future price spikes inevitable Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
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 coalfired 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. As early as 2003, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 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

RPS Aff

15 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

These natural gas price shocks are increasing electricity rates and devastating the U.S. economy Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
Rising Natural Gas Costs Will Increase Electricity Rates Short-term deflation in natural gas prices obfuscates the costs associated with natural gas price volatility. In hearings before the House Committee on Natural Resources in 2003, the CEO of one large chemical company told Congress, “the recent history of natural gas prices is a study in commodity price volatility.”69 For example, the price of natural gas jumped from $6.20 per million BTUs (MMBtu) in 1998 to $14.50 per MMBtu in 2001, then dropped precipitously for almost a year and then rebounded steadily from around $2.10 per MMBtu in 2002 to more than $14.00 per MMBtu near the end of 2005.70

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
When natural gas prices swing wildly, utilities find it difficult to plan prudent investments or contract for bulk supplies. 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. 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

Natural gas supply shocks were mentioned repeatedly as a justification for significant rate increases:

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

RPS Aff

16 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Also, high gas prices will destroy overall U.S. manufacturing – this will crush the economy, and specifically destroy the chemical and fertilizer industries Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, “The Case Against Gas Dependence”, April, lexis)
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 problem. Robert

Linden noted that 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 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
Both authors are correct in pointing out 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; 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. 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,
it is not a "solution" to the natural-gas pricing problem. We 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. The case against natural gas for electricity generation is quite clear. Specifically: . The use of gas for electricity generation is forecast to more than double by 2025, and, according to both EIA and industry analysts, this demand increase may not be achievable. Natural gas imports are forecast to increase dramatically over the next two decades and, at a time when we are concerned about the nation's increasing dependence on imported oil, America is becoming increasingly dependent on imported natural gas from the same politically unstable regions that contain most of the world's oil supplies. . The increasing use of gas for electric power generation is placing strains on natural gas supplies and the gas transmission and distribution infrastructure, and this will further hinder the provision of adequate gas supplies. . This increasing use is causing the price of natural gas to increase and to become more volatile. Increased prices and price volatility are having adverse consequences for natural gas consumers and are resulting in market disruptions. Gas price volatility will likely increase in the future, thus causing further market disruptions . Natural gas shortages and price volatility can have adverse economic and employment effects, and they can increase U.S. dependence on imported oil. . High natural gas prices are having a devastating impact on U.S. manufacturing industries, and this should be viewed as the most serious effect of the current (and future) gas crisis.

The chemical industry is a keystone industry in the U.S. economy – critical to global competitiveness The Technology Administration 7 ("The Chemical Industry: Executive Summary", Unknown date in 07, http://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htm) AMK The U.S. chemical industry is vital to the U.S. economy. It produces 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). It is the nation's number one exporter. It supplies more than $1 out of every $10 of U.S. exports and consistently runs large international trade surpluses. It is a high-tech, research and development (R&D) oriented industry that is awarded about one out of every eight U.S. patents. It employs over one million people at wages well above the U.S. manufacturing average, and it produces over 70,000 different products. Most importantly, chemicals is a "keystone" industry -- one critical to the global competitiveness of other U.S. industries. Because so many modern products depend on chemicals, the international competitiveness of other U.S. industries requires a hightech, globally competitive U.S. chemical industry that can supply new products at prices that give U.S. producers an edge.

RPS Aff

17 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Independently, the chemical industry is key to solving everything from disease to environmental collapse – prevents extinction Baum 99 – editor-in-chief of the American Chemical Society's Chemical and Engineering News [Rudy M. Baum, C&E News, “Millennium Special Report,” 12-6-99, http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html] // LDK
The pace of change in today's world is truly incomprehensible. Science

is advancing on all fronts, particularly chemistry and biology working together as they never have before to understand life in general and human beings in particular at a breathtaking pace.
Technology ranging from computers and the Internet to medical devices to genetic engineering to nanotechnology is transforming our world and our existence in it. It is, in fact, a fool's mission to predict where science and technology will take us in the coming decade, let alone the coming century. We can say with finality only this: We don't know. We do know, however, that we

face enormous challenges, we 6 billion humans who now inhabit Earth. In its 1998 revision of world population estimates and

projections, the United Nations anticipates a world population in 2050 of 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion, with a "medium-fertility projection," considered the most likely, indicating a world population of 8.9 billion people in 2050. According to the UN, fertility now stands at 2.7 births per woman, down from 5 births per woman in the early 1950s. And fertility rates are declining in all regions of the world. That's good news. But people are living a lot longer. That is certainly good news for the individuals who are living longer, but it also poses challenges for health care and social services the world over. The 1998 UN report estimates for the first time the number of octogenarians, nonagenarians, and centenarians living today and projected for 2050. The numbers are startling. In 1998, 66 million people were aged 80 or older, about one of every 100 persons. That number is expected to increase sixfold by 2050 to reach 370 million people, or one in every 24 persons. By 2050, more than 2.2 million people will be 100 years old or older!

Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of industrialization of
the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us, we must learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological optimists either. There

are environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fear may overcome us and our Earth before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry—what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise— will play central roles in addressing these challenges. The first section of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry
to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general public, the

chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero. Industry giants DuPont and Dow Chemical are taking major strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the
environmental "footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and Chief Executive Officer William S. Stavropolous: "We must integrate elements that historically have been seen as at odds with one another: the triple bottom line of sustainability—economic and social and environmental needs." DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles (Chad) O. Holliday envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable resources as feedstocks, use solar energy to drive growth, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less toxic." But sustainability is more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont initiatives that are making sustainability a reality at Dow facilities in

Another manifestation of the chemical industry's evolution is its embrace of life sciences. Genetic engineering is a revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of DNA. While it had
Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site near Richmond, Va. always been clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other chemicals—clipped precisely, altered, stitched back together again into a functioning molecule. Recombinant DNA techniques began the transformation of DNA into just such a chemical, and the reverberations of that change are likely to be felt well into the next century. Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and technology. It is one of the basic tools chemists and biologists use to understand life at the molecular level. It

provides new avenues to pharmaceuticals and new approaches to treat disease. It expands enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability seized on by numerous chemical companies. There is
no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in feeding the world's population in the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second essay, Editor-at-Large Michael Heylin examines how the promise of agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of genetic manipulation and corporate control over food.

RPS Aff

18 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Also, importing liquefied natural gas risks a terrorist attack that would have the force of a nuclear explosion Providence Journal 4 (Mark Reynolds, staffwriter, “Lloyd's executive likens LNG attack to nuclear explosion” 9-21-2004, www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040921_ma21lng.134600.html) AMK A terrorist attack on an LNG tanker "would have the force of a small nuclear explosion," according to the chairman of Lloyd's, a British insurer of natural gas port facilities like the ones being proposed in Fall River and Providence. The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to business leaders in Houston. Levene described Texas as a "state at risk" and said that securing its remote oil facilities is a "particular challenge." "Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion." Levene did not name the specialists in his remarks, although a text of his speech contains a footnote. The footnote attributes the observation to the author of an article posted, in an abbreviated form, on the Web site of Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor in July. The same abstract, apparently authored by the same person, Dr. J.C.K. Daly, was also posted on the Internet weblog Talk Show American. Levene also did not specify Texas LNG port facilities and tanker ships that might be at risk. Records kept by federal regulators show that several LNG port facilities have been proposed in Texas. They do not show any existing facilities. Levene's company, Lloyd's, is the world's second-largest commercial insurer. The chairman could not be reached for comment yesterday. Some critics of the proposal in Fall River have spoken in apocalyptic terms of potential LNG disasters. But to date, no official reports by government regulators have made comparisons between the various LNG catastrophes that experts have hypothesized and destruction from an atomic bomb. One report does describe hypothetical fires that might erupt if gas leaks from a tanker in its liquid form changes into a gaseous form and ignites when it comes into contact with a flame. In one instance, the blaze, in less than a minute, would be capable of inflicting third-degree burns a little less than a mile away. Expanding renewables solves – provides a hedge against natural gas price volatility and reduces harmful LNG imports Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK In 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. B. Reduced exposure to natural gas price risk 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.

RPS Aff

19 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Third is Blackouts The archaic transmission grid will inevitably breakdown – causing blackouts that grind the economy to a halt Reuters, ‘7 (Timothy Gardner, “Business Books: Strain on U.S. grid to make blackouts common,” 7-16-2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0718520720070616?pageNumber=2&sp=true) Most people in the United States only think about where electricity comes from when the lights go out suddenly. But 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. 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. Even without blackouts, power outages cause a continual and significant drag on the economy IEEE, 7 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, “Reliability and Blackouts,” 4-25-2007+, http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp) // SM 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]. A national RPS solves by spurring critical transmission upgrades Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM 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. // pg. 59

RPS Aff

20 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Also, the energy grid is susceptible to a terrorist attack that would create a cascade of power failures across the country – a national RPS is critical to prevent this Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, “State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the Cart?” Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

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 Ku Klux Klan 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 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 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.

RPS Aff

21 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Terrorist attack on the power grid will cause an economic crisis greater than the Great Depression CNN, 7 (Jeanne Meserve, “Mouse click could plunge city into darkness, experts say,” 9-27-2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText) Researchers who launched an experimental cyber attack caused a generator to self-destruct, alarming the government and electrical industry about what might happen if such an attack were carried out on a larger scale, CNN has learned. Sources familiar with the experiment said 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 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 hacking 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.

RPS Aff

22 RPS 1AC – Economy Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The fourth internal link is Unemployment The latest job market report has crushed consumer confidence and set the stage for a more serious decline in the economy Reuters in 8 (“Weak Confidence, Prices Stroke U.S. Stagflation Fears; Housing Worsens. Collapse in Home Prices Accelerates to Record Pace”, 2-27-08, Lexis-Nexus Academic) 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. In particular, the manufacturing sector is being hit especially hard Kennedy and Richter in 7—Bloomberg News Staff Writers (*Simon and **Joe, “Rising Oil Prices May Tip U.S. Into a Recession”, 11-12-07, Bloomberg News, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/11/bloomberg/bxecon.php) Manufacturers are among the first to feel the pinch: Rising energy prices are increasing their costs, while drooping consumer and business confidence erodes demand.
In the United States, the manufacturing index of the Institute for Supply Management fell to a seven-month low in October as gauges of orders and production declined. Caterpillar, based in Illinois, the

biggest maker of bulldozers and excavators, cut its profit forecast last month and said the U.S. economy would be "near to, or even in, recession" in 2008. A federal RPS will generate thousands of new jobs in manufacturing States that have suffered the most recent job losses 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
Perhaps the

most important, if not the most obvious, potential benefit of a national RPS is economic development and job creation. In 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 ... ." n61 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." n62 Although premised on a national RPS
projecting the impact of a 20% national RPS, the Union of Concerned Scientists determined that, by 2020, such an percentage higher than that in the Proposed RPS, these numbers nonetheless indicate that a national RPS could provide significant economic benefits. 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. n63 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." n64 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. n65 Again, while this report is an estimate based on a [*59] 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. n66

RPS Aff

23 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Contention _____ is Competitiveness The global renewable market is rapidly expanding – the U.S. will miss out on this multi-billion dollar energy revolution without strong and consistent government support for domestic renewable energy production Sawin, 2 – Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute
(Janet, Climate Wise, “Losing the Clean Energy Race,” 3-26- 2002, www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066) // JMP

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. With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, 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 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 Freeman, 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…." 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.

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS Aff

24 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

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 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, cleanenergy 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 energy technologies, 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 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.

RPS Aff

25 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The lack of a federal RPS is robbing domestic industries of valuable export opportunities and locking in U.S. inferiority in this critical market Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University (Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP 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.

RPS Aff

26 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Dominance by Europe and Japan in global renewable markets will collapse the U.S. economy – a transition to renewables is critical to prevent this Rynn, June 20th – frequent contributor to the Grist environmental blog and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (Jonathon, Asia Times, “Guns Blight US Energy Choices,” 6-20-2008, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html)-CMM
When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in US history in the late 1990s, more than US$3 billion worth, the only companies that were able to bid on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States.

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 high-speed 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 nonfinancial sectors. The

decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the onagain/off-again 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.
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. That 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.

RPS Aff

27 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

In addition, the proliferation of individual state renewable portfolio standards is creating confusion for electricity providers that undermines U.S. competitiveness UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP
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 portfolio standards in place -- 23 plus the District of Columbia, and including Oregon and New
Hampshire, the two most recent to pass RPS legislation. However, this medley of standards has created confusion among said Marilyn Brown, a commissioner for the National Commission on Energy Policy.

electricity providers, many of whom operate in multiple states,

"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.

U.S. technological leadership is crucial to America’s global primacy and economic prosperity Segal, 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html) // JMP 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. The result is global nuclear exchange Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation (Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a

world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

RPS Aff

28 RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Creating a stable domestic market for renewable will allow U.S. industries to capture large shares of the global market and overtake competitors in Europe and Japan Walsh & White, 8 – * national policy director for Green For All and ** senior policy associate with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (Jason Walsh and Sarah White, Asia Times, “Jobs up for grabs in cleaner economy,” 5-20-2008, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html) // JMP
Employment opportunity In the United States, green-collar jobs offer new opportunities for low-income and working class people who have been at the short end of persistent and increasing inequality in this country. Despite significant boosts in worker productivity over recent decades, median wages remain stagnant. The decline in manufacturing jobs over the past decade gathered steam with an 18% national job loss after the 2001 recession, plummeting with particularly devastating consequences in the industrial heartland, which bore up to a third of the national job loss recorded between 2000 and 2005. Nationally, median family income has not recovered to the pre-recession levels of 2000, and job insecurity threatens workers at all levels. This trend toward greater inequality, wage stagnation, job loss and insecurity stems from many factors, not least economic and trade policies that have encouraged offshoring, real and threatened, and wage triage on a global scale. The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy insecurity. But it can

contribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental ethos. By expanding existing industries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create significant numbers of domestic jobs.
What are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the primary sectors of a cleanenergy economy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many ways to count them, none perfect. One respected source, using a broad set of parameters, estimates that the renewable and efficiency sectors may account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection includes both the full range of jobs in these industries - from accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of such approximations, even the most modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural revitalization. A large part of this promise is based on the reality that green-collar jobs are community-based: because they focus on transforming the immediate natural and built environment, they are harder, in some cases impossible, to offshore. No one will ship a building from Chicago to be retrofitted in China. The energy efficiency industry provides perhaps the most exciting opportunity. Substantially reducing energy waste through systematic retrofitting and upgrading of residential and commercial buildings is a key area where environmental and equity agendas can come together to create good jobs in plentiful numbers. The work requires a multi-skilled, local workforce, and it feeds a building-materials industry that is still largely domestic. Make no mistake: we are talking about a lot of jobs here. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that for every gigawatt hour saved, the agency's programs create or retain 1.5 jobs. A recent report for the American Solar Energy society counts eight million jobs created in the US energy efficiency industry in 2006 alone (3.7 million directly in efficiency). Building-trades jobs are not the only green-collar occupations resistant to offshoring. The manufacturing sector, which has borne the brunt of job losses in this country could receive a marked job creation boost from a substantial shift to renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Policy Project has published a series of reports identifying the potential for states with existing industrial infrastructure and skilled labor to become component manufacturing leaders for the wind industry. If the country can muster the US$62 billion investment required to expand wind capacity by 125,000MW over the next 10 years - the amount needed to stabilize US carbon emissions - the wind energy sector could create nearly 400,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. And the top 20 states that stand to benefit are some of the most populous and hardest hit by recent manufacturing job loss. California and Texas lead the list, followed by the Great Lakes states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Industrial capacity and transportation networks are key assets to turbine production. Wind turbines are massive and extremely heavy machines. The towers alone are up to 250 feet tall, 16 feet in diameter and weigh more than 100 tons. An assembled nacelle - the fiberglass case that sits on top of the tower and houses the gearbox and generator - weighs around 70 tons, and the rotor assembly with blades, each of which can be up to 200 feet long, weighs in at around 40. It is no surprise that most new facilities in the US are sited close to water and rail, like the Gamesa plant on the Delaware River in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, or the Siemens factory on the Mississippi in Fort Madison, Iowa. The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily in developing the expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and a foundering dollar) are already driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas (Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce turbines locally. The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers to be the

links in a supply chain for the wind industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional promise that USbased green industries hold to be globally competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based renewable energy and energy efficiency industries can capture large shares of these rapidly expanding global markets and export their products, from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to consumers around the world.
Sound national policy

The possible future, then, is compelling, as long as we demonstrate the policy smarts and political will to achieve it. This means crafting sound national policy to create stable domestic markets for renewable energy and using related energy standards as green job creation tools.

RPS Aff

29 RPS 1AC – China Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Contention _____ is China China has set itself on a course of environmental destruction by increasing reliance on coal. A strong commitment from the U.S. – including technology transfers and cooperation – is essential to solve China’s growing greenhouse crises. Richardson, 8 – former US Secretary of Energy (Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 86-88)
At last, a headline carrying a hint of hope and optimism!

China is both the greatest hope for serious new global progress on energy and climate and potentially the greatest threat to such progress.
Along with ten other major national academies of science (including those of Brazil, 5ndia, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and Russia), the Chinese science community has signed on to international statements acknowledging the incredible risk of climate change. The Chinese know that drought, famine, sea-level rise, severe weather, and other impacts of climate change would hit China as hard as anywhere else on Earth. In fact, global warming impacts would hit them harder than most, because the Chinese population is the world’s largest, and the country is only beginning to build the economic strength and wealth to respond when global warming starts causing major damage and disruption. China’s is a new economy, an economy that is growing fast but struggles to keep up with the understandable demands of its energy-starved people. With more than four times as many people as the United States, China

could demand that it should grow to have the same per capita energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions as the United States. What a horrible situation that would create for people all around the world.
There are few areas in which communism is more efficient than capitalism, but one is running the environment. It took the United States’ capitalist, free-market economy hundreds of years to achieve the same levels of environmental destruction that China, at its current pace, will achieve in about twenty.

China’s economic officials predict that china will build another large coal-based electric-generating unit every week for the next decade. (India is in a similar situation, trying to provide basic electrical service for its own huge population and fast-growing economy.) Why would china decide, on its own, to use more expensive climate-friendly, carbon-clean coal technologies? Especially when it sees the United States refusing to adopt carbon limits and expanding its own carbon emissions every year, even though its economy is relatively mature? Obviously, the answer is that China won’t make a unilateral commitment to the more expensive approach of doing it right. It needs international encouragement, financial assistance, and a commitment that it can grow and provide its people with basic services and resources to build the nation’s economy and quality of life. They are 1.3 billion people who are striving to achieve basic human
comforts and conveniences of life (which we can sell them, if we get on it). We are 300 million people living in a more mature economy with much higher energy use per capita.

Conservatives in the United States who decry any U.S. commitment to cut global warming emissions without a concomitant commitment by the Chinese are demagogues who don’t want to solve the problem. The Chinese will likely need to increase, not reduce. While
we bring our emissions down, China’s emissions will rise. Our goal should be to keep those increases to a bare minimum in a way that helps China join the international economy. That kind of stabilization will be good for the world economy and the world climate.

We absolutely must find a way not only to agree with China and India (and other large, fast-growing nations) on the technologies, energy investments, and emissions limits that will create some future security or our climate, but also to cooperatively make sure that they will have the energy they need. The only way to get developing nations the power they need, with or without tremendous environmental destruction, is to implement new technologies. We need to expand our energy-producing options, and we need a revolution in energy-saving options. We can help China with energy productivity. “China wastes a lot,” said the Economist’s World Review 2007. “Take energy consumption. China
required 4.3 times as much energy as America in 2005 to produce one unit of GDP (gross domestic product), up from 3.4 times in 2002…. India, also a rapidly expanding

Are China and India following the same fossil energy path to prosperity that the U.S. followed? It appears so. We need to help such nations forge a better path that doesn’t threaten the world’s basic environmental health.
economy, consumes only 61% as much energy as China per unit of GDP.”

The impacts of this environmental and agricultural destruction are sure to intensify as China accelerates its economic growth BBC 7 [“Pollution 'hits China's farmland,” 4-27-07, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6582571.stm] Rapid economic growth has had a damaging impact on China's environment. Its cities, countryside, waterways and coastlines are among the most polluted in the world. The Ministry of Land and Resources said agricultural land in China fell to 121.8 million hectares (300 million acres) by the end of October 2006 - a loss of 306,800 hectares since the start of the year. Heavy metals alone contaminate 12m tonnes of grain each year, causing annual losses of 20bn yuan ($2.6bn), China's Xinhua news agency quoted the ministry as saying.
Land and Resources Minister Sun Wensheng said agricultural land in China must not be allowed to fall below 120 million hectares. "This is not only related he was quoted as saying.

to social and economic development, but is also vital to the long-term interests of the country,"

China's government has promised to spend heavily to clean up the country's heavily polluted environment.
But clean-up efforts are often thwarted by lax enforcement of laws and administrative activity at a local level, correspondents say.

RPS Aff

30 RPS 1AC – China Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China’s pollution problem spreads globally and causes hundreds and thousands of systemic deaths. Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK No country in history has emerged as a major industrial power without creating a legacy of environmental damage that can take decades and big dollops of public wealth to undo. But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut. Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water. Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics. Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life. China is choking on its own success. The economy is on a historic run, posting a succession of double-digit growth rates. But the growth derives, now more than at any time in the recent past, from a staggering expansion of heavy industry and urbanization that requires colossal inputs of energy, almost all from coal, the most readily available, and dirtiest, source. “It is a very awkward situation for the country because our greatest achievement is also our biggest burden,” says Wang Jinnan, one of China’s leading environmental researchers. “There is pressure for change, but many people refuse to accept that we need a new approach so soon.” China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

RPS Aff

31 RPS 1AC – China Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

In particular, China’s greenhouse emissions are devastating its agriculture sector – only greater renewable exports from the U.S. can help China make the transition to a green society and save its economy 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/CPUCnew/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP Build Jobs Across Socioeconomic Groups – the Green Jobs Program in the U. S. and Overseas Green jobs can accrue across the entire economy, from laboratory research and development positions, to traditionally unionized work in plumbing, electrical wiring, and civil engineering. Following the critically important Green Jobs initiative Senator Sanders spearheaded in the Senate, the House Green Jobs Act (initially sponsored by Solis and Tierny, HR 2847, now part of the HR 3221, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007) invests in worker training and career opportunities for low-income Americans. These efforts are to be applauded, and could be the model for expanded job access and development efforts in a wide range of energy related industries. In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel cell and wind technologies, where European nations and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Some of those orders are for U. S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for both domestic installation and overseas export. Technology exports have impacts well beyond domestic job creation. In fact, if properly managed, the development of a thriving ‘cleantech’ sector can address a vital global issues, namely the emissions trajectories of major developing nations. China and India are often singled out for attention as major, emerging global emitters. China, in fact, will become the world’s largest greenhouse emitter in the near future, if it has not already. This fact, is often used – mistakenly in my view – to argue against unilateral climate protection efforts by nations such as the United States. This view is shortsighted in two vital respects. First, China is demonstrably already suffering from the impacts of fossil fuel use. Crop yields in many parts of China are significantly lower than they would be without the significant sulfur and particulate burden that results from domestic coal combustion. (In fact, coal combustions emissions from China have significant air quality impacts on Japan, and can be measured in the U. S. as well.) Crop losses of over 20% have been reported in part of China, with the decrease unambiguously linked to air pollution. China also experiences significant human health impacts from this pollution burden as well. Second, China has committed, on paper, to a ‘circular economy’ where waste is reduced and overall productivity is enhanced. If the United States were to become a major exporter, or even a partner, in the production of low-emissions technologies – from truly carbon-capture coal-fired power plants, to increased numbers of solar, wind, and biofuel technologies – China would be an eager trading partner, so that they could install increasing numbers of low-emissions technologies. This would directly help the Chinese economy and their environmental and public health situation. On both of these grounds, U. S. domestic expansion of the clean energy sector will likely positively impact the ability and the actions of a number of emerging economies to ‘go green’. Strong Chinese growth is key to prevent World War 3 Plate, 3 – Professor at UCLA (Tom, The Straights Times, “Neo-cons a bigger risk to Bush than Chin,” 6-28-2003) But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright military invasion because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don’t’ want them and cant handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of World War II revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send Singapore and Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That’s why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth – the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.

RPS Aff

32 RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Contention _____ is Anti-Terrorism Cooperation Federal government concessions on climate policy are critical to long-term U.S.-E.U. cooperation on the war on terror Busby, 3 – doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University (Joshua, Current History, “Climate change blues: Why the United States and Europe just can't get along,” March 2003, vol. 102, no. 662, p.113, from EBSCO) // JMP
But rhetorical objections to hegemonic leadership may net political gains at home. A state may seek to differentiate itself from the most powerful state in the way that France has had an onagain/ off-again ambivalent relationship with NATO. In the current climate, secondary powers may serve as the moral guardians of the Western order in a division of labor. With the United States providing the security umbrella and demonstrating (until recently) overwhelming economic strength, European countries may see defense of social democratic gains and humanitarian internationalism as their distinctive contribution to the Western order. Although this may have advantages when courting the developing world, the primary gains may be for domestic audiences, anxious in the face of regional integration and globalization to have a cover of legitimacy for activities that bind them internationally to their peers. This may explain why the United States and Europe differ in so many areas, both in terms of substantive disagreements over policies as well as conflicts over unilateralist and multilateralist decision-making processes.

Do the significant differences on both substance and process signify that the consequences of the clash are potentially serious for United States interests on matters the administration really cares about, such as terrorism? If the issue of global warming were considered in isolation, the answer is no; the fallout from the dispute is not significant. Environmental issues in the United States tend not to win or lose elections. Instead, the dispute
between the United States and Europe on global warming may be preferable for both parties since the conflict can be blamed on the other’s intransigence, with neither side having to make the hard choices required to actually deal with the problem.

However, as mass publics become increasingly convinced that global warming is a real phenomenon that demands attention, efforts to blame other actors will incur political costs, as Bush discovered early in his administration. Moreover, since the issue of global warming is a proxy battle over the way in which the United States exercises its power, significant domestic difficulties may prevent European partners from contributing meaningfully when the United States desires. Indeed, barring a major terrorist event on European soil, Europe is likely to lack the same sense of vulnerability and threat that has motivated America’s vigorous prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and beyond. Such domestic opposition is clearly true with respect to Iraq. While empathy was significant in the days following September 11, the long-run commitment by Europeans to the project depends on the sense of shared norms, which must mean something other than the fight against terrorism. A positive set of values not merely reducible to democracy must motivate the collective sense of mission.
In a recent volume on American hegemony, a number of prominent scholars—Stephen Walt and Joseph Joffe among them—see the European and United States conflict over global warming as indicative of a

8With European cooperation on the war on terrorism needed, Walt counsels that the Bush administration would be wise to make policy concessions on climate change to reward allies on issues over which they have quarreled. Again, concessions on other issues Europeans care about— global warming, chemical weapons—are seen as the price of hegemony.
larger disconnect between the two parties. As policy prescription, this scenario fails to give guidance on when such policy concessions are more costly than nonagreement. Cooperation may not always be a good thing. As Amity Shlaes, a columnist for the Financial Times, recently noted, there is a danger that the process will become an end in itself: “The trouble with multilateralism is that it has become a game—a game for its own sake. Multilateral institutions are, after all, only as good as the goal they serve.”9 SELF-ENCIRCLEMENT In terms of global warming, there is obviously room for disagreement between those who see ratification as the point of finally getting to implementation and those who view it as a reprieve from a death sentence. If global warming were merely one issue over which the United States and Europe were in conflict, it might be reasonable for the United States to wait for Europe to make the first move in the same way Britain has watched the euro unfold. Although it may be inevitable that the United States will join the effort (and Britain the euro), that will happen only when its domestic politics are in order and the illconceived aspects of the framework are discarded. Global warming never was completely isolated from other aspects of foreign policy, and its significance becomes clearer as ties between the United States and Europe are strained. Although it may make sense

Even if balancing is no longer the primary worry, noncooperation or foot-dragging in an area where European support is needed could render ineffective efforts such as tracking terrorists and their sources of financing. American noncooperation will most likely generate domestic constraints in Europe that contribute to a division over the sense of shared values—and mutual threat. Thus, even where elite leaders in Europe may want to cooperate fully with the United States, they may feel vulnerable to domestic polities increasingly upset with their governments for allying with the United States yet receiving no apparent reciprocity. The net result of United States noncooperation may be self-encirclement.10
for the United States to oppose particular agreements on substantive grounds, blanket rejection of all multilateral initiatives does not.

European nations support a 20% mandatory target for renewables Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP IN EUROPE this past February, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the United Kingdom would support a 20 percent mandatory target for renewable power as a share of European generation capacity. (1) His announcement complements the policies of 17 other European Union countries that have also set some type of national, mandatory target for promoting renewable energy. And in terms of climate policy in Europe, the European Union Green-house Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) calls for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and allows countries to trade carbon credits. In the past five years, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Israel, Nicaragua, Norway, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and Turkey have adopted mandatory renewable energy of climate change targets. (2) These countries have frequently linked action on renewable energy and climate change together because they realize that the combustion of fossil fuels greatly contributes to climate change, and they do not like fouling their own nests.

RPS Aff

33 RPS 1AC – U.S.-E.U. Relations Adv

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Anti-terror cooperation is critical to prevent extinction Jerusalem Post, 4 (David Rudge, “Terror expert: Worst is yet to come; [Daily Edition],” 5-12-2004, p.06, Proquest) // JMP Global terrorism is on the rise and is likely to continue unabated for the next 100 years, according to Prof. Yonah Alexander, one of the world's
leading analysts on the subject. Alexander, director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies, also believes it

is only a matter of time before groups like al-Qaida use noncoventional weapons as part of attempts to promulgate their ideology and undermine western society. In this respect, he anticipates that al-Qaida's next theater of operations will be Europe, where the organization has established a widespread base and network.
"If you ask me whether the worst is yet to come, the answer is definitely yes," Alexander told The Jerusalem Post prior to giving a lecture as guest speaker at the University of Haifa's National Security Studies Center.

"We can expect to see an escalation in terrorism on a global scale with a continuation of conventional acts of terror, such as suicide bombings and
shooting, as well as mega-terror like September 11 in the US and March 11 in Spain.

"There will also be a move towards the use of non- conventional weapons: biological, chemical, nuclear as in dirty bombs, and cyberterrorism, whereby perpetrators will try to disrupt power supplies and air traffic, for example, at the touch of a button."
Alexander, who is based in the US and Israel, has studied the subject of terrorism in the Middle East and the global arena for over 40 years and has published over 100 books on the issue. The center he heads is a consortium of universities and think-tanks in some 30 countries. He said there had already been indications of future trends by terrorist organizations such as the anthrax attacks in the US after September 11, 2001, reports that al-Qaida was trying to produce ricin and, in Israel, the abortive attempt to blow up the Pi Glilot fuel and gas storage depot. "According to the studies we have conducted, we can expect a continuation of bus bombings like the ones that have occurred in Israel, as well as attempts to strike at chemical plants and infrastructure targets and super- terrorism with non-conventional weapons," said Alexander. The supposition that international terrorism will expand and escalate is based, according to Alexander, on factors such as the spread of radical theological ideology, racial intolerance, ethnic and religious differences and, especially in Africa, tribal rivalries, as well as extremist nationalism and separatism. Furthermore, he cited the numerous disputes and conflicts throughout the world, such as those in Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and South America, as well as the gap between developed nations and poorer countries. "Other important factors include the intensification of the link between terrorism and organized crime, and the education of hatred, including anti-Semitism, that we see all the time on various Internet sites," said Alexander. "The problem here is that children are being brought up to hate and they will pass this on to their children and so forth, which is why we don't see an end to terrorism in the next 100 years. "Should we be concerned about the future? Yes, we should, because of the motivation of terrorists, their ideologies, the availability of funds, the proliferation of conventional and non- conventional weapons, the intrinsic vulnerability of democratic societies and the high cost of trying to counter terror. "What concerns many is the expansion of international networks as seen after the Madrid bombings, when links were discovered between Spanish citizens and people in North Africa, Asia, and with various other groups like Hamas. "It would be a grave mistake, however, to say that Islam is generating this terror. In fact, Islam has been hijacked and taken hostage by extremists who are using it to serve their own interests." Alexander, in his lecture, posed the questions of whether nations should submit to terrorism and whether civilization would survive in the event of the use of non- conventional weapons. In the first case, he maintained that submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, while survival would depend on nations taking all necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation.

"Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have quality intelligence, as well as law enforcement, the military, and the means to counter technological and cyber-terrorism," said
Alexander. "We also need an educational response because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements and their propaganda, the measures won't work. "We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it is necessary to deal with the terror leadership. "To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this

is war and to fight it nations have to pool their resources. No nation

can deal with the problem unilaterally.
"In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than a strategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations. "In fact," said Alexander, "it

represents the most threatening challenge to civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival will depend to a great extent on how civilized society tackles this threat." Terrorism outweighs on timeframe and probability Bremmer, 8 – president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy (Ian, 1/18, A Political-Risk Outlook for 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/a_politicalrisk_outlook_for_20.html, AG) Most worrying is a pre-election attack in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security raised its threat warning over the summer, not based on direct intelligence on a suspected attack in the works (the previous modus operandi), but rather because of concerns over increasing terrorist capacity and chatter over a change in strategy to accept smaller attacks in the United States - given increased al-Qaida resources and the long time since a successful attack has been perpetrated. It's impossible to put a useful quantified prediction on these sorts of concerns, but all of those factors make the likelihood of a small to medium-scale U.S. attack in 2008 higher than at any other point since 9/11.

RPS Aff

34 RPS 1AC – Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

We conclude with Solvency Federal leadership is the only way to provide sufficient investor confidence to develop a renewables market that boosts U.S. competitiveness Flavin & Podesta, 6 – *president of the Worldwatch Institute and **president of theCenter for American Progress, (Christopher and John, American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/AmericanEnergy.pdf) Americans today are no less clever or ambitious than their great-grandparents were. A new and better energy future is possible if the country can forge a compelling vision of where it wants to be. Recent developments in the global marketplace show the potential: • Global wind energy generation has more than tripled since 2000, providing enough electricity to power the homes of about 30 million Americans. The United States led the world in wind energy installations in 2005. • Production of electricity-generating solar cells is one of the world’s fastest growing industries, up 45 percent in 2005 to six times the level in 2000. • Production of fuel ethanol from crops more than doubled between 2000 and 2005, and biodiesel from vegetable oil and waste expanded nearly four-fold over this period. Global investment in renewable energy (excluding large hydropower) in 2005 is estimated at $38 billion—equivalent to nearly 20 percent of total annual investment in the electric power sector. Renewable energy investments have nearly doubled over the past three years, and have increased six-fold since 1995. Next to the Internet, new energy technology has become one of the hottest investment fields for venture capitalists. These dynamic growth rates are driving down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies. They are also creating new economic opportunities for people around the globe. Today, renewable energy manufacturing, operations, and maintenance provide approximately two million jobs worldwide. The United States will need a much stronger commitment to renewable energy if it is to take advantage of these opportunities. As President Bush has said, America is “addicted to oil,” and dependence on fossil fuels is rising, even in the face of high oil prices and growing concern about global warming. Of particular concern is the well over 100 coal-fired power plants now on the drawing boards of the U.S. electricity industry—most of which lack the latest pollution controls and could still be pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a halfcentury from now. In order to break the national addiction to outdated fuels and technologies, America will need a world-class energy policy. The prominent positions that Germany and Spain hold in wind power, for example, and that Japan and Germany enjoy in solar energy, were achieved thanks to strong and enduring policies that their legislatures adopted in the 1990s. These policies created steadily growing markets for renewable energy technologies, fueling the development of robust new manufacturing industries. By contrast, U.S. renewable energy policies over the past two decades have been an ever changing patchwork. Abrupt changes in direction at both the state and federal levels have deterred investors and led dozens of companies into bankruptcy. If America is to join the world leaders and achieve the nation’s full potential for renewable energy, it will need world-class energy policies based on a sustained and consistent policy framework at the local, state, and national levels. Across the country, the tide has begun to turn. All but four U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote renewable energy. More than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in the past few years, and four states strengthened their targets in 2005, signaling fresh political momentum. If such policies continue to proliferate, and are joined by federal leadership, rapid progress is possible.

RPS Aff

35 RPS 1AC – Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Problems with a national RPS are all exaggerated and much more likely with the network of State RPSs Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
Given such obvious and overwhelming advantages, it is hard to believe that many utilities and policymakers diligently oppose a federal RPS mandate, repeating myths that have long since been debunked. Largely, the remaining objections to federal intervention constitute a (diminishing) series of canards that mischaracterize a national RPS policy as an unnecessary federal intervention in a relatively free market. Forgetting

that a majority of states are well on their way to imposing their own clunky, overlapping, inconsistent, competing and sometimes irrational mess of mandates, opponents of a national RPS wheel out these war-torn myths every time the issue is considered:
Myth #1: A national RPS would create “winners and losers” Truth: All

states have renewable resources they can affordably develop. However, under the current system of state mandates, some RPS states are “losers” by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in non-RPS states. Other RPS 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 to other states in exchange for more expensive electricity or renewable energy credits. A national Myth #2: A national RPS would increase electricity rates Truth: In

mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform rules and by allowing utilities to purchase RECs or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive. most states, RPS mandates have not significantly increased rates and a consensus of economic models predict that a national policy would generate substantial consumer savings over even the existing patchwork of state programs. By expanding the amount of energy that would offset gas-fired generation, a national RPS 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. Myth #3: A national RPS would cost the electricity sector Truth: When utilities say a national RPS “costs” the sector, they are usually assuming 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 RPS regulatory environment decreases utility litigation and compliance costs relative to a growing web of vague and unstable state mandates. Expanding the universe of eligible renewable resource
and establishing clear, uniform trading rules creates far more flexibility for regulated utilities and rewards utility investments on the basis of smart market strategy and not geography. By

promoting a robust domestic manufacturing sector, a national RPS reduces the costs utilities pay in unfavorable exchange rates and foreign parts and labor (and redirects those investments to the U.S. labor market).
Myth #4: A national RPS would only benefit one technology – large wind installations Truth: Experience

from existing state RPS programs proves that mandates with broad eligibility actually have led to the development of many different renewable resources. Utilities have already demonstrated that they can meet state RPS requirements by deploying a diverse portfolio of renewable resources that best match their service areas.
A meta-analysis of 25 different RPS studies revealed that each of the states that have already responded to their own mandates by deploying a diverse array of renewable energy technologies. By expanding (geographically and monetarily) the market for renewable resources, a

national RPS is likely to diversify the deployment of renewable energy technologies even further. In Nevada, geothermal energy may be cheaper to develop than wind. In the Pacific Northwest, incremental hydro 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

uniform 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.
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 take look to the states as laboratories for policy innovation. Now is the time to model the best state RPS policies and craft a coherent national policy that protects the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers. Now is the time for federal leadership. // pg. 151-153

RPS Aff

36 RPS 1AC – Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS is key to create a robust manufacturing base for renewables – overcomes inevitable bottlenecks created by State programs Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP C. A National RPS Improves Manufacturing Efficiency Because the U.S. does not currently have a national RPS, it also lacks a relatively robust manufacturing base for most renewable energy technologies. Renewable energy developers in the U.S. largely rely on European or other overseas manufacturers for the requisite materials (and sometimes expertise and labor) to install renewable energy systems. This reliance on foreign materials and labor increases construction lead-times as well as shipping costs. It also increases the likelihood of unexpected delays and shortages. The fragmented nature of state-based RPS policies actually compounds this problem by creating artificial bottlenecks in the distribution of materials necessary to deploy renewable energy systems. New state mandates can create unexpected surges in demand for renewable energy projects, driving up the price of components and labor. Roger Garratt, Director of Resource Acquisition for Puget Sound Energy, recently remarked that the quick and somewhat unanticipated passage of Washington’s initiative-driven RPS mandate “created a seller’s market caused by increasing competition for projects and a shortage of turbine supplies” among wind manufacturers.351 A national RPS would instigate market-based solutions to unexpected material bottlenecks in at least three ways: First, by providing a stable investment stream and a predictable regulatory environment, investors would have a greater incentive to establish domestic manufacturing facilities and to rely on local materials and labor. Second, under a national RPS, American developers would no longer suffer unfavorable exchange rates (given the recent weakening of the dollar) when purchasing materials. One wind company (Nordex) even estimated that changes in the exchange rate between Euros and dollars alone cost some American developers as much as $152,000 per project.352 Third, given the certainty of a national market for renewable energy, investors would likely develop better economies of scale in manufacturing in order to ensure that a sufficient number of materials would exist to satisfy the resulting demand for renewable energy projects. // pg. 133-134

RPS Aff

37 RPS 1AC – Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS will effectively displace harmful conventional energy sources and eliminate free-riding and externalities that are caused by individual state efforts. This evidence answers all of their objections a national RPS. Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, “State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the Cart?” Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Third, renewable energy generation is subject to a free rider problem. Since everyone benefits from the environmental advantages of renewable energy, private companies that invest millions of dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies are often unable to recover the full profit of their investments. Inevitably,

the market allows some consumers to be free riders, benefiting from the investments of others without paying for them.
STATE GOVERNMENT MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING RENEWABLE ENERGY State policy interventions intend to stimulate a market for renewable resources and spur additional research, development, and implementation of renewable energy technologies. So far, state governments in the United States have relied predominately on RPSs and SBCs to level the playing field by neutralizing a legacy of unequal federal subsidies and directly requiring renewable energy. While

state policies are innovative and well intentioned, the time has come to shift to federal regulation and intervention. Continued reliance on state-based activity alone will ironically promote more market externalities and "free riding" than harmonized federal action.
SYSTEM BENEFIT CHARGES Systems benefit charges (also called public benefit funds, system benefit funds, and clean energy funds) originated in the 1990s at a time when state policy makers were considering electric utility restructuring legislation. Afraid that gains made in pursuing research, development, and implementation of environmentally-preferable renewable energy technologies would end after markets were deregulated, advocates of the novel [*6] technologies won concessions in some states for a new funding mechanism for high-risk or long-term projects. A SBC places a small tax on every kilowatt hour ("kWh") of electricity generated and utilizes those funds to pursue socially-beneficial energy projects. n5 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that SBCs have been responsible for promoting 1,117 megawatts ("MW") of renewable energy capacity. n6 SBCs were first implemented in Washington State in 1994 and were endorsed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1995 as a way to fund services that had previously been included in customers' bills from regulated utility companies. n7 As part of the negotiations for California's restructuring law, environmental advocates won a provision for a public benefit fund that would expend at least $ 872 million on energy-efficiency work from 1998 to the end of 2001 and would allocate $ 540 million on renewable energy projects. n8 To develop renewable energy technologies and other programs expected to struggle after deregulation, the California Energy Commission created its Public Interest Energy Research program, which initially drew about $ 62 million annually from the state's SBC. n9 By 2006, fifteen states created SBCs. The seventeen organizations that administer the funds, which are scheduled to total $ 4 billion by 2017, collaborate through a nonprofit organization called the Clean Energy States Alliance. The organization sponsors original research, collects information and analyses, and seeks to expand the use of clean energy technologies with a special emphasis on solar, wind, and fuel cells. Moreover, the group seeks to increase the efficiency of state research by eliminating duplication of efforts and by providing forums for the states to share knowledge and insights. n10 RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS An RPS is a legislative mandate requiring electricity suppliers (often referred to as "load serving entities") in a given geographical area to employ renewable resources to produce a certain percentage of power by a fixed date. An RPS program transfers the risk of renewable energy investments from regulators to investors. n11 RPS uses the market as a mechanism to determine the efficacy of any given technology; as a result, higher costs, if they occur, are distributed evenly throughout society to those that benefit from them, and are blended with the lower costs of existing conventional generation. n12 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 one-time 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 THE CASE FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION

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

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS Aff

38 RPS 1AC – Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

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 2030, but the environmental benefits of renewable energy only really start to accrue at penetration rates well above this rate. Federal

intervention in the form of a nationwide SBC or RPS aiming for targets of ten to twenty percent by 2020 would expand the diversity of technologies used to access renewable resources.
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 Ku Klux Klan 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 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 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.
PROVIDING CLIMATE BENEFITS

Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize "free-riding" going on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity, instead of promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined that only "the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities." 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 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

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS Aff

39 RPS 1AC – Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

CONCLUSION Given such obvious and overwhelming advantages, it is hard to believe that many utilities and policymakers diligently oppose national promotion on renewable energy, repeating myths that have long since been debunked. Largely, the remaining objections to federal intervention constitute a diminishing series of canards that mischaracterize a national SBC or RPS as an unnecessary federal intervention in a relatively free market. Forgetting that a

majority of states are well on their way to imposing their own clunky, overlapping, inconsistent, competing, and sometimes irrational mess of mandates, opponents churn out four war-torn myths every
time the issue is considered: 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. 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.
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.
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.
Ultimately, by establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national SBC or RPS can create a more just and 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 federal action would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while protecting human health and the environment at a scale and magnitude not possible with state programs.

RPS Aff

40 Environment Ext – Coal Consumption Increasing

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Demand and consumption of coal continues to increase Hall & Kirkham, 7 – natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP (Richard R. Hall and John S. Kirkham, The Enterprise Newspaper, “Coal: Like It or Not, It's Here to Stay,” 6-1-2007, www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484) // JMP Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sources were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions, the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with electrical generation. The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with the environmental impacts and risks of climate change. Despite the environmental concerns and promising advances in the development of alternative energy sources, coal will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation for decades to come. Attempts to abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent and jeopardize the availability, reliability and security of a country’s overall energy supply. To ensure future energy needs are affordable, support for the development of new energy technologies should include research and development for clean coal technologies as well as improving competitiveness of alternative energy sources.

RPS Aff

41 Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land • A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas. In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like Michigan, New York, Virginia, and Texas. // pg. 11 Renewables are key to reduce harmful environmental impacts of coal use and production Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK D. Environmental and public health benefits 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.

RPS Aff

42 Environment Ext – Renewables Conserve Water

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPs will conserve and protect water resources Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Renewables Save Water 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.”264 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.”265 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.266 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).267 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. // pg. 101-102 Renewables will dramatically decrease water use Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP • Renewable energy offsets nuclear power. Studies from Michigan, North Carolina, and Oregon found that renewable generation displaces new nuclear reactors and decreases the mining of uranium. • A national RPS saves billions of gallons of water. Conventional and nuclear power plants will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than America’s farmers use for all the irrigated agriculture in the entire nation (over 3.3 billion gallons each day). A nuclear reactor requires 600 times as much water to generate the same amount of electricity as a wind farm. A coal-fired plant uses 500 times as much water as a wind farm; A gas-fired plant uses 250 times as much. A single 100-watt solar panel saves up to 3,000 gallons of water over its lifetime. // pg. 12

RPS Aff

43 Environment Ext – Conventional Energies Pollute Water

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Conventional energies produce toxic sludge that pollutes water source Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Toxic Waste Water 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.261 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-situ leach facilities operate in the United States.262 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.”263 // pg. 100-101

RPS Aff

44

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Fossil Fuel Production Destorys Environment
Independently, the production of fossil fuels destroys the environment in several different ways Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
D. Fuel Production Impacts In addition to the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel combustion, the

production of fossil fuels and uranium – the drilling, mining, processing and transportation – produces a substantial amount of pollution and toxic waste. In the United States, there are more than 150 refineries, 4,000 offshore platforms, 410 underground gas storage fields, 125 nuclear waste storage facilities, 160,000 miles of oil pipelines, and1.4 million miles of natural gas pipelines. Each can degrade their surrounding environment and negatively impact the health and safety of Americans.308
Oil and Gas Drilling The United States Geological Survey estimated that there are more than two million oil and natural gas wells in the domestic U.S. The most intense areas of oil and gas production are off the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and along the northern coast of Alaska. Offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico chronically exposes aquatic and marine wildlife to low-level releases of many chemicals through the discharge and seafloor accumulation of drilling muds and cuttings, as well as the continual release of low-levels of hydrocarbons around production platforms. These chronic environmental perturbations and the biological exposures continue to threaten marine biodiversity over wide areas of the Gulf.310 Independent studies undertaken by three groups of ecologists and the National Academies of Science have concluded that arctic oil and gas production on the North Slope in Alaska disrupts tundra surfaces and alters the hydrological processes of wetland ecosystems responsible for the spawning and development of wildlife. North Slope oil production also undermines nutrient availability for tundra plants necessary for food, habitats, and land integrity, and prematurely thaws the ice and permafrost.311 Coal Mining

Coal extraction, processing, and transportation have a direct affect on water and land resources. Of the more than 1 billion tons of coal
mined in the United States annually, roughly 70 percent comes from surface mines.312

Mountaintop removal—a newer technique for mining coal that uses heavy explosives to blast away the tops of mountains—in the Appalachians has destroyed streams, blighted landscapes, and diminished the water quality of rural communities.
Failing coal slurry impoundments, acid mine drainage, aquifer disruption, saline pollution from coal-bed methane recovery, and occupational safety and health hazards (including mine-related deaths) are among the impacts of continued reliance on coal-fired electricity production.314 Coal Transportation Most coal is transported an average distance of 500 miles before it is combusted in power plants.315 The safety of coal trucks is not a minor concern. Roadway fatalities are twice as high on coal-hauling roads. Safety advocates in Kentucky have expressed concern with the operation of coal trucks within the state, which in one four-year period witnessed more than 1 person killed each month by coal-hauling trucks. Between 2000 and 2004, Kentucky documented 704 accidents involving coal trucks, resulting in the deaths of 53 people and the injury of more than 535.316 Natural Gas Storage During the summer months, domestic natural gas production and imported natural gas far exceed demand, so excess supply is placed in large underground storage facilities.317 Around 400 natural gas storage facilities have been constructed in the United States, storing an estimated 8.25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The three principal types of underground storage sites used are depleted oil and gas reservoirs, aquifers, and salt cavern formations.318 The DOE and energy companies spent an estimated $4 billion (in 2000 dollars) to create artificial caverns and salt domes below the surface to store oil.

Oil and natural gas storage facilities, in addition to significantly adding to the cost of natural gas and oil infrastructure, are susceptible to serious accidents that can pollute the air and water of local communities. One report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory noted that leaks can
occur due to improper well design, construction, maintenance, operation.320 The report cautioned that leakage from natural gas storage structures can be especially hazardous when they cause natural gas to migrate into drinking-water aquifers or escape to the surface, creating a “significant safety risk.” Leaked natural gas can significantly endanger life and property, water resources, vegetation, and crops.321 Indeed, In January, 2001, hundreds of explosions rocked the Yaggy field—a natural gas salt formation storage site in Hutchinson, Kansas—when natural gas escaped from one of the storage wells and erupted into a seven mile wall of fire (burning an estimated 143 million cubic feet of natural gas). Clean up for the disaster necessitated the construction of 57 new vent wells, extending a distance of more than 9 miles and devastating the local ecology. Overpressurization (needed to enlarge gas bubbles and obtain higher delivery rates) is another main cause of leakage, as many underground natural gas storage projects tend to be operated at pressures exceeding their original designs. Such leaks can become excessively costly: The Gulf South Pipeline Company’s Magnolia facility—a $234 million saltcavern facility—opened in 2003 only to permanently close a few months later after a well collapsed.323 Nuclear Waste Storage The safety

and security of spent nuclear fuel remains a serious problem in the U.S. Nuclear reactor facilities are running out of space to store nuclear waste, and Yucca Mountain—a federally funded permanent storage facility being built in Nevada—has only enough space for 63,000 tons.324
The Department of Energy has relied upon on-site storage as a stop-gap remedy until Yucca Mountain is finalized or the U.S. finds a long-term solution to nuclear waste. As a result, by 2004, more than 49,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel was scattered in dry casks and storage pools in seventy different locations in the U.S. That amount is expected to more than double to 105,000 tons by 2039. 325 // pg. 116-122

RPS Aff

45 Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Land Use

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewables use extensively less land Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
E. Land Use Wind and Solar Uses Less Land

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.327 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.329 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 34% 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.330
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.”331 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.332 // pg. 123-125

Renewables reduce land use Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP • Renewable energies require less land then conventional power plants. Including the land used for mining, transportation and generation, conventional coal-fired power plants use as much as 100 square kilometers of land for every GW of electricity generated. Wind farms use up to 75% less land. Over 95% of the land used for wind farms remains free for other uses like ranching and farming. Less than 40 square miles could support 38,000 wind turbines producing up to 4% of the nation’s electricity demand each year. Solar PV uses up to 90% less land. America’s entire current electricity demand could be generated by installing PV panels on only 7% of the country’s available roofs, parking lots, and highway retaining walls. // pg. 12

RPS Aff

46 Environment Ext – Air Pollution – 2AC

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Conventional energy sources are the largest source of air pollution that kills 70,000 each year – a national RPS solves Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP C. Air Quality 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).269 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.271 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. 272 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.273 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.274 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. 275 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.276 // pg. 102-105 This terminally results in extinction Driesen ’03 - Prof Law – Syracuse, (David, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, Fall, 2002/Spring ’03, “Sustainable Development and Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies with Cleaner Alternatives” lexis) Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs [*27] that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." n3 While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. n4 Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns. n5

RPS Aff

47 Environment Ext – Coal Casues Acid Rain

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Coal emits the most SO2 and NOx EPA, 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, “What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?” 8-6-2002, http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml) -CMM Almost all of the electricity that powers modern life comes from burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and oil. acid deposition is caused by two pollutants that are released into the atmosphere, or emitted, when these fuels are burned: sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Coal accounts for most US sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and a large portion of NOx emissions. Sulfur is present in coal as an impurity, and it reacts with air when the coal is burned to form SO2. In contrast, NOx is formed when any fossil fuel is burned. Coal releases major amounts of CO2, SO2, NOx, and CO UCS, 5 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution,” 8-18-05, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html) -CMM Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 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.

RPS Aff

48 Environment Ext – SO2 and NOxAcid Rain

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Acid rain is caused by the release of SO2 and NOx EPA, 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, “What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?” 8-6-2002, http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml) –CMM "Acid rain" is a broad term used to describe several ways that acids fall out of the atmosphere. A more precise term is acid deposition, which has two parts: wet and dry. Wet deposition refers to acidic rain, fog, and snow. As this acidic water flows over and through the ground, it affects a variety of plants and animals. The strength of the effects depend on many factors, including how acidic the water is, the chemistry and buffering capacity of the soils involved, and the types of fish, trees, and other living things that rely on the water. Dry deposition refers to acidic gases and particles. About half of the acidity in the atmosphere falls back to earth through dry deposition. The wind blows these acidic particles and gases onto buildings, cars, homes, and trees. Dry deposited gases and particles can also be washed from trees and other surfaces by rainstorms. When that happens, the runoff water adds those acids to the acid rain, making the combination more acidic than the falling rain alone. Prevailing winds blow the compounds that cause both wet and dry acid deposition across state and national borders, and sometimes over hundreds of miles. Scientists discovered, and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In the US, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal.

RPS Aff

49 Environment Ext – Acid Rain Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Acid rain damages lakes, forests, and buildings EPA, 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, “What is Acid Rain and What Causes It?” 8-6-2002, http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml) -CMM Effects of Acid Rain: Acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation's cultural heritage. Prior to falling to the earth, SO2 and NOx gases and their particulate matter derivatives, sulfates and nitrates, contribute to visibility degradation and harm public health. Acid rain hurts sugar maples which are the most economically and environmentally valuable trees in the Eastern US NSF, 6 (National Science Foundation, “Acid Rain Causing Decline In Sugar Maples, Say Researchers,” 6/5/06, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060605081212.htm) –CMM Acid rain, the environmental consequence of burning fossil fuels, running factories and driving cars, has altered soils and reduced the number of sugar maple trees growing in the Northeast, according to a new study led by Cornell University researchers. The sugar maple is the most economically valuable tree species in the eastern United States because of its highpriced lumber, syrup and tourist-attracting fall colors. The study, whose lead author, Stephanie Juice '04, was an undergraduate when the research was conducted, suggests that because acid rain makes the soil more acidic, unfavorable conditions are created for sugar maples. In acidic soils, sugar maples produce fewer seedlings that survive and mature, and more adult trees die, the researchers found. They drew these conclusions after adding nutrients to soil in a test plot and reproducing the favorable soil conditions that existed prior to 20th century industrial pollution. The result: Sugar maples on the plot rebounded dramatically. The study provides "the most conclusive evidence to date" that the decline of sugar maples is linked to the effects of acid rain produced by human activity, said Timothy Fahey, professor of forest ecology at Cornell and co-author of the study, which is published in the May issue of Ecology. Juice wrote the main part of the paper as part of her senior thesis. "The research addresses how a long-term, human-caused change in the environment is affecting sugar maples, which are valuable both ecologically and economically as one of the dominant species in our region," said Juice, who now works for the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Milbrook, N.Y., as a project assistant and is applying to the Peace Corps for next year. The research was conducted at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF), a 3,160-hectare reserve near North Woodstock, N.H., where scientists have measured soil composition for the past 50 years. The scientists added nutrients in a test plot to replicate soil conditions that existed prior to the loss of sugar maples over the past 25 years. Nitric and sulphuric acid in acid rain leaches calcium from the soil. Calcium is the second most abundant plant nutrient (after nitrogen). In addition, the loss of calcium leads directly to more acidic soils. When soils become too acidic, such trees as sugar maples become stressed and have a harder time growing or producing seeds and seedlings. "Because of the detailed measurements for the last 50 years, we know almost exactly how much calcium was removed by acid rain," said Fahey. "Our treatment was designed to replace just that amount of calcium to bring the system to what it was like prior to the acid rain era." The study used two 10-hectare (25-acre) watersheds. On one 25-acre site, a calcium-rich mineral called wollastonite was spread in pellet form by helicopter in October 1999. The other site served as a control. While the pellets dissolve slowly over five to 10 years, the researchers were surprised to find that by summer 2002, the soil acidity in both the top and lower layers of the test plot neutralized from being highly acidic to more acceptable levels for sugar maples. The researchers also found that by the second year, calcium levels in the maples' leaves had risen. Acid rain also increases levels of the trace nutrient manganese in the soil, which can be toxic to trees in higher doses. By year four and five, manganese in the leaves had declined to healthier levels. In addition, seed production and the density and size of sugar maple seedlings all increased in the few years following treatment, compared with the untreated neighboring plot.

RPS Aff

50 Environment Ext – RPS Solves Acid Rain

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS is key to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions that destroy streams, lakes and kill fish Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) and Nitrous Oxide (NOx) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a pollutant responsible for lake- and forest-damaging acid precipitation and a precursor to healthdamaging particulates. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that roughly 40 million Americans lived in areas with unhealthy levels of SO2. 277 Nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions react with volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere (gasoline vapors or solvents, for example) and produce compounds that can result in severe lung damage, asthma, and emphysema, if inhaled.278 NOx is also a major source of ground-level ozone (smog) and contributed to acid rain, and pollution of surface water.279 In 2003, the EPA estimated that more than 70 million Americans lived in areas with unhealthy deposits of NOx. Emissions of SO2 and NOx create further problems when they react together in the atmosphere to form compounds that are transported long distances and induce acidification of lakes, streams, rivers, and soils.280 Many parts of the country (especially the Ohio Valley and mid-Atlantic states) have hazardous concentrations of sulfur and nitrogen deposits. 281 Acid rain from SO2 and NOx compounds can render many bodies of water unfit for certain fishand wildlife species. Acidic deposition can also mobilize toxic amounts of aluminum, increasing its availability for uptake by plants and fish that are then ingested by humans. Concern over the significant environmental impacts of SO2 and NOx led the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a “cap-and-trade” system that limits the aggregate emissions of SO2 and NOx and distributing allowances to regulated entities. Companies that reduce their emissions beyond the caps can sell allowances to other companies that have not reduced their emissions enough under the existing caps. The EPA periodically reduces the emissions caps to ensure that the total amount of pollution decreases over time. While stricter environmental controls like the SO2 and NOx cap-and-trade system have helped to decrease power plant emissions, in 2004 fossil fuel-fired plants in the U.S. still emitted nearly 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) (roughly two-thirds of the nation’s entire output) and 4 million tons of nitrous oxides (NOx). Despite the immense progress made under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA noted in 2003 that surface water sulfate concentrations have actually increased in the Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces of Virginia and that some parts of the Northern Appalachian Plateau region continue to experience dangerously high levels of stream acidification.284 By mandating a higher penetration of renewable generation, a national RPS should empower regulators to expedite SO2 and NOx cap reductions while still maintaining the market-based capand- trade system that has proved marginally successful at reducing power plant emissions over the past 15 years. Mercury (Hg) A comprehensive EPA study on mercury noted that epidemics of mercury poisoning following high-doses in Japan and Iraq have demonstrated that neurotoxicity is of greatest concern when mercury exposure occurs to the developing fetus. Dietary mercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the brain; it also readily passes through the placenta to the fetus and fetal brain.285 Most Americans do not ingest mercury directly, but accumulate small amounts of the poisonous metal through the consumption of fish. In 2003, 43 states had to issue mercury advisories to warn the public to avoid consuming contaminated fish from in-state water sources.286 The EPA estimates that as many as 3 percent of women of child-bearing age eat sufficient amounts of fish to be at risk from mercury exposure. Conventional power plants are responsible for nearly one third of all U.S. emissions of mercury.287 In 2004, for example, U.S. coal-fired power plants alone released about 100,000 lbs. of mercury into the nation’s air. The greatest concentrations of these emissions were found in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio River valley, the Northeast and scattered areas in the South. However, the most elevated concentrations were found in the Miami and Tampa areas. 289 // pg. 105-110

RPS Aff

51 Environment Ext – Health Impact

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Coal causes massive pollution leading to global warming, environmental damage, public health crises, and fetal death. Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis academic., lexis academic.] The 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 twentyfive-year increase of about 30%.66 Nor is a financial charge indexed to other consequences of fossil fuel burning. Increases in the emission of sulfur, methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds, 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 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 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 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

RPS Aff

52 Environment Ext – Global Warming – 2AC

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

CO2 emissions from electricity generation is the single largest contributor to global warming – a national RPS is key to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Other Greenhouse Gases (GHG) In its most recent report released on April, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a forum made up of thousands of the world’s top climate scientists —concluded that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will contribute directly to global: • Changes in the distribution, availability, and precipitation of water, resulting in severe water shortages for millions of people. • Destruction of ecosystems, especially the bleaching of coral reefs and widespread deaths of migratory species. • Complex, crop productivity and fishing impacts. • Damage from floods and severe storms, especially among coastal areas. • Deaths arising from changes in disease vectors and an increase in the number of heat waves, floods, and droughts.298 Policymakers should not underestimate the impacts of global warming for the United States. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change estimates that, in the Southeast and southern Great Plains, the financial costs of climate change could reach as high as $138 billion by 2100. Indeed, Pew researchers warn that “waiting until the future” to address global climate change might bankrupt the U.S. economy.299 Yet carbon-intensive

fuels continue to dominate electricity generation in the United States. By 2005, almost 90 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions were energy-related, with the electric utility industry outpacing all other sectors (including transportation) with 38 percent of national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. emitted 2.25 billion metric tons of C02 in 2003, more than 10 times the amount of C02 compared to the next-largest emitter, iron and steel production.301 Put simply, of all U.S. industries, electricity generation is—by substantial margins—the single largest contributor of the pollutants responsible for global warming.
In 2004, almost every state in country was home to at least one power plant with significant C02 emissions. Nuclear energy is not much of an improvement, despite recent claims by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) that nuclear power is “the Clean Air Energy.” Reprocessing and enriching uranium requires a substantial amount of electricity, often generated from fossil fuel-fired power plants. Data collected from one uranium enrichment company alone revealed that it takes a 100- megawatt power plant running for 550 hours to produce the amount of enriched uranium needed to fuel a 1,000 megawatt reactor (of the most efficient design currently available) for one year.302 According to the Washington Post, two of the nation’s most polluting coal plants (in Ohio and Indiana) produce electricity exclusively for the enrichment of uranium.303 Because

uranium enrichment consumes so much electricity derived from fossil fuels, many nuclear power plants contribute indirectly, but substantially, to global climate change and do virtually nothing to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon emissions are included, coal plants are around 10 times more carbon intensive than solar and more than 40 times more carbon intensive than wind. Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as
solar and 20 times as carbon intensive as wind.304 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

20 percent RPS would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020—a reduction of 15 percent below “business as usual” levels, or the equivalent to taking nearly 71 million automobiles off the road.305
These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the Netherlands reduced that country’s annual emissions of CO2 by 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 CO2 reduction targets”.307 // pg. 112-116

*** Insert Warming Bad Impact ***

RPS Aff

53 Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Conventional energy sources cause global warming and systemic deaths Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

[*5] INTRODUCTION 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. Emissions are rising and electricity generation is the primary source Butler, 8- founder and editor of Mongabay.com, a comprehensive environmental science website (Rhett, “U.S. carbon dioxide emissions reach record high in 2007,” 5-21-08, http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html0) –CMM Electricity generation continues to be the largest source of emissions in terms of primary energy consumption, followed by transportation, and industrial, residential, and commercial use. Transportation emissions have grown at about the same rate as electric power emissions since 1990, while direct-use emissions in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors have remained relatively flat since 1990. In a hopeful sign, energy CO2 intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of economic output) fell by about 0.5 percent as the economy expanded by 2.2 percent but emissions grew only 1.6 percent. Between 1990 and 2006, total greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP declined by 27.7 percent. Despite the gains in carbon intensity, power generation became less efficient in 2007 due to a decline in the proportion of energy generated from hydroelectric dams. Drier-than-normal conditions meant that power companies had to make up the shortfall by burning more natural gas and coal. Overall emissions from the power sector rose 3 percent, while electricity generation rose 2.5 percent. Electricity generation emits the most greenhouse gasses EPA, 8 (Environmental Protection Agency, “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory,” 6-24-8, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html) –CMM
The figure above illustrates the relative contribution of the direct greenhouse gases to total U.S. emissions for the period 1990-2006. The

primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States was carbon dioxide (CO2), representing approximately 85 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source of CO2 was from the combustion of fossil fuels. Methane emissions, which have steadily declined since 1990, resulted
primarily from decomposition of wastes in landfills, natural gas systems and activities associated with domestic livestock. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion were the major sources of nitrous oxide emissions. The emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, which are substitutes for ozone depleting substances, were the primary component of fluorinated gas emissions. To compare and combine emissions of different greenhouse gases into a national total, EPA uses global warming potentials (GWPs).

The U.S. greenhouse gas inventory also presents emissions by more commonly used economic categories: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industry, residential and transportation. Using this categorization, emissions from electricity generation accounted for the largest portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. Transportation activities accounted for the second largest portion and emissions from industry comprised the third largest
GWPs compare the radiative forcing or ability to trap heat of one metric ton of a greenhouse gas to a metric ton of CO2. portion. The agriculture, commercial and residential economic sectors, listed in descending order of their contribution, together account for the remaining U.S. greenhouse gas

Electricity, though produced at power plants, is ultimately consumed in the other economic sectors. When emissions from electricity are distributed among these sectors, the industrial sector accounts for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation remains the second largest contributor to emissions. Emissions from the residential and commercial sectors increase substantially due to their
emissions. relatively large share of electricity consumption (e.g., lighting, appliances, etc.), with agriculture consuming little electricity.

RPS Aff

54 Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The electricity sector emits the most CO2 and would be the easiest sector to transition away from fossil fuels Komanoff, 8 – director of the consulting firm Komanoff Energy Associates (Charles, “Whither Wind?” February/March 2007, http://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable-energy/2007-02-01/whither-wind.aspx) –CMM Why Wind Farms? Fighting fossil fuels, and machines powered by them, has been my life’s work. As an energy analyst, I can tell you that the science on global warming is terrifyingly clear: To have even a shot at fending off climate catastrophe, the world must reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by at least 50 percent within the next few decades. If poor countries are to have any room to develop, the United States — the biggest emitter by far — needs to cut back by 75 percent Although automobiles, with their appetite for petroleum, may seem like the main culprit, the No. 1 climate change agent in the United States is actually electricity. The most recent inventory of U.S. greenhouse gases found that power generation was responsible for a whopping 38 percent of CO2 emissions. Yet the electricity sector may also be the least complicated to make carbon free. Approximately three-fourths of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, oil or natural gas. Accordingly, switching that same portion of U.S. electricity generation to nonpolluting sources such as wind turbines, while simultaneously ensuring that our everexpanding arrays of lights, computers and appliances are increasingly energy efficient, would eliminate 38 percent of the country’s CO2 emissions and bring us halfway to the goal of cutting emissions by 75 percent. Electricity generation produces the most greenhouse gasses Casten, 8 – President & CEO of Recycled Energy Development, a company dedicated to the profitable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Past President/CEO of Turbosteam Corporation, and 2007 Chair of the US Combined Heat & Power Association (Sean, “Beyond coal,” 6/5/08, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/4/123223/5089) –CMM The Electric Sector's Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions In the United States, coal is primarily a power plant fuel, and the electricity sector is our single biggest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result, any discussion of greenhouse gas reduction must confront coal-based electricity. Figure 1 shows total US greenhouse gas emissions by sector, and Figure 2 shows how the electric sector has steadily increased its share thereof. The trends seen in Figure 2 reflect our nation's steady and inexorable electrification -- first as we switched from candles to electric light, then as we shifted away from mechanical power, then later as waves of computerization and air conditioning enabled great leaps in our national standard of living. As we now shift from a manufacturing- to a serviceintensive economy, this trend will undoubtedly continue -- and so we will increasingly find that efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions must focus on our electric sector. For rather perverse reasons, this is good news. The electric sector today is only half as fuel efficient as it was in 1910, implying that we could cut CO2 emission from the electric sector in half and lower electricity costs simply by deploying century-old technologies and regulatory models.

RPS Aff

55 Environment Ext – Global Warming Internals

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

CO2 emissions are increasing rapidly—coal is a primary source USA Today, 7 (Dan Verango, “Study: Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions soar,” 5/22/07, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-21-carbon-dioxide-emissions_N.htm) –CMM Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough, according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Fueled by rapid growth in coal-reliant China, rates of carbon dioxide emission from industrial sources increased from 2000 to 2004 "at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s," says a report released by the journal Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences. Carbon dioxide, released when coal, oil and natural gas burn, is a major "greenhouse gas," so named because it absorbs the sun's heat in the atmosphere. "We have had rapid economic growth worldwide powered on traditional carbon-emitting sources," says study author Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution of Washington's branch in Stanford, Calif. The study compared Energy Department carbon dioxide emissions numbers with economic growth figures from the International Monetary Fund and United Nations. The figures show that "carbon intensity," roughly the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to produce something in an economy, dropped worldwide after 1980. It shot up after 2000 in high-growth China and stalled elsewhere. "The report is saying that if you wonder what side of global warming's effects — droughts, warming and others — we are going to get, a little or a lot, we are going to get a lot," says Angela Anderson of the Washington, D.C.-based National Environmental Trust. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a 7.2-degree rise in surface temperatures by 2100 if the world pursues growth reliant on fossil fuels, producing more severe droughts, floods and heat waves. The study's real-world carbon dioxide emissions rate exceeds the panel's assumptions. Carbon dioxide is responsible for about half of the 1-degree increase in average surface temperatures attributable to human activities in the past century, the climate change panel says. Countries are using more energy, and "no region is decarbonising its energy supply," the study says. "This should serve as a notice to the global community that renewed and stronger efforts are necessary in this political, economic and scientific milieu," says Robert Andres of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory, who was not part of the study. The results show that the world is burning more coal than ever. "Coal is abundant and cheap but much dirtier than other fossil fuels," Field says. The U.S. is the largest source of warming NRDC, 7 (National Resources Defense Council, “Global Warming Basics,” 2-9-07, http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp) –CMM What country is the largest source of global warming pollution? The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

RPS Aff

56 Environment Ext – Global Warming Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The U.S. must take the lead in promoting climate change by utilizing clean energy resources Kammen, 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley (Daniel M., San Francisco Chronicle, “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future,” 5-18-2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.DTL) // JMP Over the next five decades, progress to meaningfully address the risk of significant climate change will require an estimated 80 percent - or greater - reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The United States and China together account for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions, so the work needs to begin here. At the same time, no nation is better positioned to adopt a low-carbon energy diet than we are. The United States not only has tremendous clean energy resources, but it has major companies looking to take advantage of a change in federal policy to compete in the global clean energy economy. The United States must mobilize the world's largest R&D if we are to address climate change. RPS would make a significant impact on CO2 levels. Durbin, 07 – head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie (William, E&E News PM May 14, “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions reduction”, lexis, AG) Monica Trauzzi: The study shows that a federal RPS would slow the rate of CO2 emissions growth in the power sector over 20 years. William Durbin: That's correct. Monica Trauzzi: But an RPS wouldn't significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. So does it make sense to put so much focus on something that's not going to have a significant impact on emissions? William Durbin: It is actually. I mean when we looked at the renewable portfolio standard we saw an overall decline in CO2 emissions of about 10 percent in 2020. That's an important number. That shows that renewables can deliver in helping to bring down CO2 emissions. But what it also showed is renewables is not the only answer,that we're going to need a portfolio approach and that's another key piece of information that comes out of this study. There is no one solution. Gas isn't going to do it. Renewables isn't going to do it. It's going to take a whole slate of options to bring down CO2 emissions. Monica Trauzzi: And the report does say that an RPS should be part of a large and complicated puzzle. William Durbin: Yes.

RPS Aff

57

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – Renewables Reduce Pollution & Greenhouse
RPS will reduce air pollution and greenhouse emissions Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP • A national RPS reduces air pollution. Air pollution from conventional power plants kills between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans each year. A single 1 MW wind turbine (operating at only 30% capacity) displaces 96 tons of nitrous oxides, 69 tons of sulfur dioxide and 1800 pounds of toxic mercury during its 30-year lifespan. • A national RPS reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energies could offset almost ½ ton of carbon dioxide for every MW generated. A 20% by 2020 national RPS could reduce as much carbon dioxide as taking 71 million cars off the nation’s roads. // pg. 12 Renewable energy reduces air pollution, acid rain and greenhouse gases Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at Cal Berkeley (Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman – postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP Renewable Energy Technologies Conventional energy sources based on oil, coal, and natural gas have proven to be highly effective drivers of economic progress, but at the same time, they are highly damaging to the environment and human health. These traditional energy sources are facing increasing pressure on a host of environmental fronts, with perhaps the most serious being the looming threat of climate change and a needed reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, It is now clear that efforts to maintain atmospheric [CO.sub.2] concentrations below even double the pre-industrial levels cannot be accomplished in an oil- and coal-dominated global economy. Theoretically, renewable energy sources can meet many times the world's energy demand. More important, renewable energy technologies can now be considered major components of local and regional energy systems. Solar, biomass, and wind energy resources, combined with new efficiency measures available for deployment in California today, could supply half of the state's total energy needs. As an alternative to centralized power plants, renewable energy systems are ideally suited to provide a decentralized power supply that could help to lower capital infrastructure costs. Renewable systems based on photovoltaic arrays, windmills, biomass, or small hydropower can serve as mass-produced "energy appliances" that can be manufactured at low cost and tailored to meet specific energy loads and service conditions. These systems have less of an impact on the environment, and the impact they do have is more widely dispersed than that of centralized power plants, which in some cases contribute significantly to ambient air pollution and acid rain.

RPS Aff

58

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Environment Ext – U.S. Environmental Leadership Solves Globally
The plan solves the environmental harms internationally by expanding U.S. environmental leadership Nye and Armitage, 07 – *dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government AND ** president, Armitage International (Joseph and Richard, A SMARTER, MORE SECURE AMERICA, Report of the CSIS Commission on Smart Power http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf) In response, American states and cities as well as countries around the world and a growing portion of the private sector are taking action to re-duce their respective greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) while simultaneously calling for greater commitments on the part of the U.S. government and other major rising emitters like China and India. Both the U.S. government and industry are increasingly responding to these trends. In the past year, there has been increasing awareness of how countries and companies view their own energy production and use, as well as their environmental footprint. For instance, a July 2007 study by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), which represents the major oil and gas industry perspective, was entitled Hard Truths: Facing the Hard Truths about Energy and stressed the importance of energy efficiency and the development of alternative fuels as part of a multi-component approach. New innovation on energy and climate is being spurred by state and local regulations and company anticipation of government regulation on a national level. Many companies are delaying investment in a variety of energy infrastructure projects, however, particularly in the power generation sector. This is because of uncertainty over the sustained traction of climate policies emerging at the state and local level and questions of whether and how soon affordable technology for providing low-carbon alternatives will come online. Companies also are uncertain over the cost and regulatory approach associated with implementing carbon constraints, as well as the risk of the emergence of future constraints. This delay in investment in infrastructure undermines the reliability of our current energy supply. A world operating on differing sets of rules or costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions could have disruptive implications for trade, energy security, competitiveness, and economic growth. A world, however, that establishes a global consensus on the cost of carbon could breathe life into new and emerging sectors of the economy, provide new avenues for U.S. economic growth, and provide a platform for U.S. global leadership on a major issue of concern to the global economy. U.S. leadership to shape a new energy frame-work in a carbon-constrained world offers a unique opportunity to alter the geopolitics of energy, improve energy security, reinvigorate the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurialism, and engage disenfranchised portions of the developing world.

RPS Aff

59 Economy Ext – RPS Reduces FF Transportation Costs

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

National RPS will reduce fossil fuel transportation costs Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP A National RPS Reduces Fuel Transportation Costs 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 a ton.84 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 mile85, 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. 86 // pg. 44

RPS Aff

60 Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

(

) RPS will decrease regulatory compliance costs

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP A National RPS Benefits Regulated Utilities A national RPS decreases regulatory compliance costs by: • Reducing the need for costly litigation to clarify vague and competing state regulations • Lowering the administrative costs associated with inconsistent state standards • Making regulations more predictable to ease planning of resource investments • Creating economies of scale that decrease the cost of renewable energy technologies • Giving utilities greater flexibility in meeting RPS mandates by expanding the market of eligible renewable resources. • Decreasing the cost of RECs by creating a uniform national market • Encouraging the tracking of greenhouse gas emissions reductions before the implementation of a national carbon cap-andtrade program // pg. 149 ( ) RPS will reduce regulatory compliance costs

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 If the claimed benefits are accurate (and, as noted below, there are many who believe they are not), there are several ways in which these benefits would be achieved. Probably the most obvious would be the potential environmental benefits. n49 Although electricity accounts for less than 3% of U.S. economic activity, "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 SO<2> [*57] emissions." n50 One expert has asserted that if "20 percent of our electricity in 2020 were to be provided by renewables, then we would be displacing the equivalent of 71 million cars from the nation's highway." n51 Others have noted that the increased use of renewable energy would reduce harmful emissions or reduce the cost of compliance with requirements to reduce pollution. n52 "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." n53 A federal RPS is critical to reduce the compliance costs of coming cap and trade legislation 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, AG) Congressional leaders have expressed a strong interest in adopting a mandatory carbon reduction policy, and even most utility executives believe that they will have to implement carbon reductions. Yet in response to higher natural gas prices and increasing energy demand in recent years, more than 150 new coal-fired power plants have been proposed throughout the U.S.-none of which include plans to capture and store their carbon emissions. As a result, these plants will expose their owners, power purchasers, and customers to the risk of future price increases from CO2 regulation or installing equipment to reduce emissions that could be avoided by investing in renewable energy instead. Indeed, under an economy-wide cap-andtrade approach, the carbon reductions from increasing renewable energy could save money. A 2001 analysis by EIA of a bill proposing to cap four power plant pollutants, including CO2, found that the addition of a 20 percent RPS to the cap-and-trade scenario reduced cumulative compliance costs $72 billion by 2020.

RPS Aff

61 Economy Ext – Biz Con Internal Link

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Regulations on businesses increase the cost of goods, undermine businesses and the economy, and kill competitiveness. SBAC, 6 (Small Business Action Committee, “Reforming Regulations,” 12/24/06, http://www.sbaction.org/issues/issue.php?id=ja5gmj_pii1s, AG) Regulations placed on the business community as a whole and individual businesses lead to increased costs on goods and services and can help to undermine certain businesses and the economy. That is not to say that some regulation is necessary. However, excessive regulation is costly and can hurt competitiveness. Regulations on businesses increase the cost of goods, undermine businesses and the economy, and kill competitiveness. SBAC, 6 (Small Business Action Committee, “Reforming Regulations,” 12/24/06, http://www.sbaction.org/issues/issue.php?id=ja5gmj_pii1s, AG) No study on small business regulatory costs has been conducted in California. The U.S. Small Business Administration has been analyzing costs of federal regulations since 1995. The update issued on September 19, 2005, found that "small businesses continue to bear a disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden." The report noted that the costs of federal regulations on firms with fewer than 20 employees is $7,647. For small manufacturers this figure is at least double the compliance cost for medium-sized and large firms. SBAC has set regulatory reform as a high priority and will monitor and assist in the study and its recommendations.

RPS Aff

62 Natural Gas Ext – Steel Industry Addon – 2AC

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural gas prices will collapse the steel industry Peterson, 4 – Pennsylvania 5th District Representative
[John Peterson, Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises, Agriculture, and Technology, “The Impact of High Natural Gas Prices on Small Farmers and Manufacturers,” September 22, http://republicans.smbiz.house.gov/hearings/databaseDrivenHearingsSystem/displayTestimony.asp?hearingIdDateFormat=040922&testimo nyId=233] // LDK

you can't mention higher natural gas prices without thinking of its impact on the steel industry. The dumping of foreign steel into our markets has put American steel makers in a very precarious situation - and high natural gas prices only make things more difficult. For example, despite the Jersey Shore Steel Company's efforts to modernize their manufacturing process, natural gas prices that have increased as much as 168% over the previous years have resulted in price increases that resulted in major losses in business for
And Mr. Chairman, this small company. Within the last year, Jersey Shore Steel has had to lay off 70 employees due to business conditions - employees who were once making $18 per hour.

The steel industry is key to US hegemony and economic primacy. AISI 4 [American Iron and Steel Institute, “A Strong U.S. Steel Industry: Critical to Protecting U.S. Infrastructure, Homeland Security and Economic
Security,” 9-2-4, www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Trade2&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=18271] // LDK

Steel is an important jobs issue; it is also an important national security issue. I am here to trumpet one of the great values of America. That's the enterprise of the American worker, the hardworking American citizens who make this economy go. And those are the steelworkers of America. I appreciate what you do for our
" country." President George W. Bush, August 26, 2001

steel and national security go hand in hand. The North American Security and Prosperity Partnership Given the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent global war on terror, the importance of a strong and viable American steel industry to U.S. national infrastructure, homeland security and economic security cannot be overstated. It is vital to U.S. national economic security and to our homeland security that America does not become dangerously dependent on offshore sources of supply for: The steel that goes into our energy infrastructure such as petroleum refineries, oil and gas pipelines, storage tanks, electricity power generating plants, electric power transmission towers and utility distribution poles; The steel that goes into our transportation security infrastructure such as highways, bridges, railroads, mass transit systems, airports, seaports and navigation systems;
The President and many other U.S. government leaders recognize that (SPP), in the first Ministerial “Report to Leaders” (June 2005), identifies steel as a “strategic” industry. The steel that goes into our health and public safety infrastructure such as dams and reservoirs, waste and sewage treatment facilities, the public water supply system and, increasingly, residential construction; The steel that goes into our commercial, industrial and institutional complexes such as manufacturing plants, schools, commercial buildings, chemical processing plants, hospitals, retail stores, hotels, houses of worship and government buildings. In the above context, this paper provides a summary and enhancement of a December 2001 report prepared by America’s steel-producing community, entitled “A Strong U.S. Steel Industry: Critical to National Defense and Economic Security.” It is submitted here in connection with the revised draft National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). This paper covers: the role played by steel in all its forms in homeland security and economic security; the nation’s increased need for steel to bolster our homeland security and economic security; and the role that domestically produced steel must play to meet our overall security objectives.

we are justifiably concerned about the security of the physical underpinnings of our society, especially its essential infrastructure. Virtually all elements of this infrastructure -- energy, transportation, health, public safety and buildings -- are dependent upon steel for their construction and security. The importance of a strong and viable domestic steel industry to U.S. national economic security and to our homeland security is clear.
In the wake of September 11, The September 11 attacks on the United States illustrate that (1) steel will be needed to “harden” existing U.S. infrastructure and installations and (2) a strong and viable domestic steel industry will be needed to provide immediate steel deliveries when and where required. We need only consider the potential difficulties that the U.S. would face in defending, maintaining and rebuilding vital infrastructure in an environment where our nation is largely dependent upon offshore sources for steel. If the U.S. were to become even more dangerously dependent upon offshore sources of steel, we would experience sharply reduced security preparedness in the face of: Highly variable, and certainly higher, costs; Uncertain supply, impacted by unsettled foreign economies; Quality, design and performance problems; Inventory problems, long lead times and extended construction schedules. In this submission, we will examine U.S. infrastructure, segment by segment, all of which are highly steel-intensive. We will cite specific examples of our infrastructure need, the importance of steel as a material to this need and the importance of a strong and viable domestic steel industry to meet this need. Even prior to September 11, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that $1.3 trillion would be needed through 2005 alone for major infrastructure improvements in The United States. The situation has likely worsened since publication of the figures below. According to authoritative government and consuming industry studies: 25 percent of U.S. bridges are currently either structural deficient or obsolete, so roughly 150,000 of our nation’s bridges will need to be modernized and rebuilt; 27 percent of America’s highways are judged to be poor-to-mediocre, so more than a quarter of the U.S. highway system will need to be rebuilt and upgraded; 21 percent of U.S. rail track is rated as “less than good,” so more than a fifth of our nation’s railway system will need to be better maintained or rebuilt; 30 percent of U.S. airport runways are classified as “needing repair,” so nearly a third of our nation’s airport runways will require upgrading. Our country depends upon a healthy American steel industry to meet these and other growing U.S. demands for steel-intensive infrastructure. Engineers and contractors on sophisticated infrastructure projects

U.S. national economic security requires a strong and viable domestic steel industry to meet all these criteria on a consistent plate steel in wide and very heavy gauges. Prompt and effective maintenance and restoration of pipelines are vital to our national energy security infrastructure and to our national economy Electric power generation is an engine for our economy. Steel is not only present in the structures, but in the huge generators, which use large quantities of sophisticated electrical lamination steel sheet, and in the boilers, pressure vessels and pipe that is needed to produce basis. >>
require an uninterrupted supply of quality steel that they can trust to meet the performance characteristics of their project’s design, delivered on time and at a competitive cost.

RPS Aff

63 Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas prices are high and will continue to rise The Durango Herald 8 [Katie Buford, “Report foresees natural-gas decline,” 4-29-08, http://durangoherald.com/aspbin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/08/news080629_1.htm] // LDK In 2008, natural-gas prices are on the rise again. In June, Atmos Energy, which secures its supplies of natural gas from producers months in advance, increased the price it charges customers by 25 percent. Kevin Kerrigan, a spokesman for the company, said that normally the price it pays for gas declines after winter, but this year has been an exception. The market price of natural gas in June was 72 percent higher than the same month a year before, he said. This winter could be worse. "It is not forecasted to come down," he said. Atmos shops around for its gas, which may or may not come from the San Juan Basin. Natural gas prices will continue to rise FMNN 8 [Free Market Network Corporation, “Natural Gas Prices Set to Jump 52%,” 6-25-8, http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=58260] // LDK The government released a short-term energy outlook last week, revising projections for natural-gas prices upward. According to a report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas will cost a whopping 52% more this year than last year. Two months ago, the same forecast projected a 16.5% hike in the price of natural gas from last year, and last month, the projection was a 35% increase. Natural gas spot prices averaged $7.17 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in 2007 and are now expected to average more than $11 per Mcf in 2008 and 2009. Coal and natural gas prices are on the rise AP, 8 (“Why are electric rates rising?” 6-24-08, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=6225366) –CMM Coal prices are rising because of growing demand and supply disruptions overseas. Natural gas prices are also on the upswing due to concerns about supplies, which are below last year's levels, and declining production in the Gulf of Mexico, according to analysts at Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Many power companies are passing these higher fuel costs directly through to consumers. "The cost of most fuels used in generating electricity has risen significantly since the beginning of the year," the Energy Department said in a recent report in which it predicted electricity prices will rise by 3.7 percent this year and 3.6 percent next year. Many analysts expect prices to rise more than that. Global Insight, an energy research firm, thinks rising coal costs will boost electricity rates by 5.7 percent nationally this year, while Barry Bannister, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, says electric rates could jump as much as 69 percent by 2015.

RPS Aff

64 Natural Gas Ext – Prices Increasing

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural gas prices are at record highs – heat causing increased demand EIA, 8 (Energy Information Administration, “Natural Gas Weekly Update,” 6/26/08, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp) –CMM Exceeding $12 per MMBtu in most parts of country, natural gas prices far surpass historical records for this time of year. Along with the official start of the summer occurring this week, spot prices at the Henry Hub breached $13 per MMBtu for the first time since December 2005 in the aftermath of the hurricane season that year. Increases in demand from electric generators meeting air-conditioning demand have already occurred in the Southwest and part of the East Coast earlier this month and are expected to expand as the summer proceeds. In addition to the increasing demand from hot temperatures around the country, the elevated price level for natural gas currently appears related to growing financial investment in many commodities, including metals, agricultural products and crude oil, resulting in steep prices increases. Since the beginning of 2008, the spot price at the Henry Hub has increased $4.93 per MMBtu, or 63 percent, to yesterday’s average of $12.76. Nonetheless, with temperatures relatively moderate this 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 was a decrease of 17 cents per MMBtu. Other spot markets along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and East Texas registered regional price decreases of $0.12 and $0.15 per MMBtu, respectively. The average regional price yesterday was $12.79 and $12.53 in East Texas and Louisiana. Although temperatures across the country have not yet reached summer peaks, rising temperatures in the Northeast likely supported price increases in the region during the report week. The average price in the Northeast region yesterday was $13.65 per MMBtu, which was 23 cents higher than the previous Wednesday. The Northeast has experienced the highest prices in the country (outside Florida), owing in part to pipeline transportation costs for deliveries from the Gulf of Mexico region. Of the 18 trading days in June to date, the average price in the Northeast has fallen below $13 per MMBtu only twice. For the week, the average spot price for delivery in New York off Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line (Transco Zone 6-NY) increased by $0.35 per MMBtu to $13.98, a premium of $1.22 per MMBtu to the price at the Henry Hub. In the Rockies region, the average price yesterday was $10.35 per MMBtu, the lowest average regional price in the Lower 48 States as the region continues to experience shut-in supplies caused by maintenance of infrastructure and related activities. Maintenance related to pipelines serving the Opal processing plant in Wyoming has reduced pipeline capacity eastbound. The reduced supplies from this maintenance, as well as other projects, lowered upstream prices in the Rockies, while increasing the value of Midcontinent supplies during the week. The average price in the Midcontinent, which is located downstream of the Rockies producing region as a result of the new Rockies Express Pipeline, increased 38 cents per MMBtu to $11.48. The pace of deliveries of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports remains considerably below last year’s volumes and now appears to have been less than 200 Bcf for the first half of the year, which is less than half of the approximately 460 Bcf received last year during the same time period. LNG imports in June have averaged about 0.9 Bcf per day (based on sendout data from LNG import terminals), which is significantly less than the average of 2.8 Bcf per day in June 2007. Most flexible LNG cargoes are heading to Europe and Asia, where buyers continue to purchase LNG at prices higher than those that have prevailed in U.S. markets. At the NYMEX, the price of the near-month contract (for July delivery) decreased 45.7 cents per MMBtu during the report week to $12.753 as prices for competing products decreased and the weather outlook appeared to limit demand by electric power generators in the near-term. The largest price movement of the week for the near-term contract occurred yesterday (June 25) as the July contract lost approximately 26 cents per MMBtu. The downward price pressure appeared related to the crude oil price, which decreased by $2.57 per barrel following the release of a market report by the Energy Information Administration. Recent high natural gas prices extend throughout the forward curve, suggesting prices are expected to remain elevated through at least the next winter heating season. At the end of trading yesterday, the 12-month strip, which is the average for futures contracts over the next 12 months, was priced at $12.804 per MMBtu, a decrease of about 31 cents since last Wednesday. Beginning with the July 2008 contract, futures prices increase steadily through the beginning of 2009. The highest-priced contract in the futures strip is the January 2009 contract, which closed at $13.84 per MMBtu on June 25.

RPS Aff

65

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry
High gas prices are throttling the chemical industry—major companies are collapsing AP 8 [Associated Press, James Prichard, “Dow Chemical raising prices by another 25 percent,” 6-25-8, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j06I8ZwwKqhAGklV0SAQAP8N8fjAD91GLKN01] // LDK Shares of several chemical companies fell Tuesday after industry leader Dow Chemical Co. announced its second set of wide-ranging price hikes in less than a month, again trying to offset record costs for energy and raw materials. Midland-based Dow said it will raise the prices of its products by as much as 25 percent in July after implementing acrossthe-board price increases of up to 20 percent on June 1. The company makes everything from the propylene glycols used in antifreeze, coolants, solvents, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, to acrylic acid-based products used in detergents, wastewater-treatment and disposable diapers. Its products are sold in 160 countries. When Dow raises prices, the increase is felt across dozens of industries that buy its chemicals and plastics to manufacture products ranging from diapers to automobiles. Dow says it is trying to survive. Competitors such as Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Co. and Dallas-based Celanese Corp. also have recently raised prices for their customers. "We have to get them back to reinvestment levels where we can continue to build our business and to be there for the future," said Dow spokesman Chris Huntley. The chemical maker's profit margins shrank from 9.8 percent in 2005 to 7.6 percent in 2006, and to 5.4 percent last year. During the 12-month period that ended March 31, the margin narrowed to 5.1 percent, according to Capital IQ. Dow said it's also adding a freight surcharge for North American customers of $300 per shipment by truck and $600 per shipment by rail effective Aug. 1. Those surcharges will spread to other regions later this year. Meanwhile, the company is idling or reducing production at some manufacturing plants and taking unspecified cost-cutting measures at its automotive plants that have been hurt by a dreadful year for U.S. automakers. The company had not yet worked out the details of its cost-cutting plan, Huntley said, "but it will certainly involve some people reductions, it will involve looking at how we can reduce costs around facilities, overhead and the external spending component." Dow has automotive facilities in Michigan and throughout the United States, as well as overseas. Chairman and Chief Executive Andrew Liveris said in a statement the steps are "extremely unwelcome but entirely unavoidable" as global energy costs surge. "The price increases we announced May 28 helped, but they were not enough to fully cover the additional costs we are now facing," he said. "Even since our last announcement, the cost of hydrocarbons has continued to rise, and that trajectory shows no sign of changing." The chemical industry is collapsing now Bloomberg 8 [Eric Martin, “U.S. Stocks Retreat on Economic Concern; UPS, Dow Chemical Drop,” 6-24-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ayaDSf13B7FA&refer=news] // LDK U.S. stocks retreated to a three- month low after consumer confidence weakened and United Parcel Service Inc. said rising fuel costs will reduce profit. UPS, the biggest package shipment company, tumbled the most in almost two years after predicting second-quarter earnings below analyst estimates. Dow Chemical Co., the largest U.S. chemical producer, slumped to the lowest since March as Deutsche Bank AG cut profit estimates. Prospects that the worsening outlook for the economy may forestall interest-rate increases helped financial shares rebound from the lowest level since 2003

RPS Aff

66

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – High Prices Destroy the Chemical Industry
High natural gas prices crush the petrochemical industry Markey 8 – Director of Natural Gas Marketing at the Apache Corporation – [Michele Markey, Apache Corporation, “Topic Report: U.S. Industrial Natural Gas Consumption,” 4-24-8 http://www.apachecorp.com/explore/explore_features/browse_archives/View_Article/?docdoc=698] // LDK The consumption of natural gas in the industrial sector is sensitive to changes in overall economic activity in the U.S. This topic
report reviews the industrial sectors that consume the largest amounts of natural gas. Federal Reserve Industrial Capacity Report:

industrial utilization, production and capacity indicates that industrial activity has slowed in February. The capacity-utilization rate for total industry in fell 0.6 percent to 80.9, the lowest rate since November 2005. Manufacturing (i.e., manufacturing, logging and periodical industries) production
The Federal Reserve’s monthly report on decreased 0.2 percent in February after having been unchanged in January. The factory-operating (i.e., made-in-factory facilities) rate fell 0.3 percent in February, to 79.3 percent, which is 0.5 percent below its 1972-2007 average. The production of durable goods moved down 0.4 percent. Large production declines were recorded in industrial sectors that consume large amounts of natural gas: wood products, primary metals, motor vehicles and parts, furniture and related products. Petrochemicals Sector:

As one of the largest consumers of natural gas in the industrial sector, the petrochemical sector has been a major beneficiary of relatively flat natural-gas prices in 2007. There has been strong demand for agricultural chemicals and fertilizers due to the growing world market for biofuels. Fertilizer prices have shot up by as much as 40 percent in the past year. Demand for fertilizer products has come not only from the U.S., but also from countries such as India and China. However, commodity prices, including corn, dropped sharply last week. A longer-term correction in agricultural commodity prices could curb farmers' profits and demand for fertilizers. A reduction in fertilizer consumption could dampen demand for natural gas. Natural gas prices are destroying the chemical industry NYT 8 [Abha Bhattarai, “Dow Chemical Raises Prices for Second Time in a Month,” 6-25-8, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25dow.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214676643jmXFycd3OzMHdjyZexWkYQ] // LDK The Dow Chemical Company said Tuesday that it was raising prices for the second time in a month to offset a “relentless rise” in energy costs, a sign that companies may increasingly have to pass on price increases to their customers. The increase of as much as 25 percent — the largest in the company’s history — comes after a 20 percent rise last month that the company said did not go far enough given the continuing surge in energy prices.
Dow, which makes products ranging from pesticides to plastic wraps, also said it would impose freight surcharges of $300 for each truck shipment and $600 for each rail shipment beginning Aug. 1 in the United States. In addition, it will scale back production in plants across North America and Europe. Andrew N. Liveris, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said the changes were “extremely unwelcome but entirely unavoidable” as oil and natural gas continue to set records. Oil prices are up more than 40 percent this year and have risen $9 a barrel since Dow’s earlier price increase. Nat “There came a point where the surge became so ridiculous that we had to raise prices,” Chris Huntley, a company spokesman, said, adding that the latest price increase would affect everything from fabric and cushions to CD cases, Styrofoam and car parts.

ural gas is up more than 70 percent this year.

When Dow announced last month’s increases, it spurred a series of similar increases by other chemical manufacturers, including DuPont and BASF. Dow’s announcement is the latest indication that companies are beginning to pass along the burden of high energy prices to consumers. Until now, those prices had largely been absorbed by company profits because market competition prevented retailers from increasing prices at their stores even as skyrocketing costs continued to strain earnings. But extreme pressure is building in the production chain. For example, Lowe’s, the home improvement company, has been receiving “unprecedented requests” for price increases from its suppliers, Robert F.
Analysts said they expected other companies to follow suit. Hull Jr., the chief financial officer, said at a conference. Mr. Hull added that the company had been absorbing price increases itself “to maintain the supply of product,” which has put a strain on gross margins, but he forecast that some of that increase would be passed along later this year.In addition to soaring energy costs, companies are also having to deal with the increase in the cost of raw materials.Posco of South Korea, one of the world’s largest steel producers, said Tuesday that it was raising prices by more than 20 percent. That followed an agreement Monday between the global mining company Rio Tinto Group and the biggest steel maker in China, Baosteel, to raise the price Baosteel pays for Australian iron ore by as much as 97 percent.“It’s clearly a global trend that the higher costs of raw materials are being passed on along the production chain,” said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at the London office of Bank of America. “Companies have no alternative but to pass that along to their customers.” , while comparable euro zone prices rose 6.1 percent in April, the latest month for which data were available. Chinese producer prices are rising at nearly a 12 percent annual rate. The rise in prices also partly reflects the weakness of the dollar, as producers outside the United States demand more of the currency for their goods as its buying power declines. In addition, a ripple effect has been created in which the rise in crude oil costs has carried over into other sectors.

Producer prices in the United States rose 7.2 percent in May from a year earlier

Economists say the $664 billion chemical industry has been among the hardest hit by soaring energy prices. Every $1 increase in crude oil prices costs the industry $660 million a year, said Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council. For Dow Chemical, its feedstock and energy costs, which are up more than 40 percent since last year, have increased fourfold in the last five years, to more than $32 billion this year. Dow, whose shares fell nearly 3 percent on Tuesday, has been steadily increasing prices for the last several years, but it is only in the last month that consumers have been directly hit.
“These costs have surged so much that the middle guys say they can’t absorb any more,” Mr. Liveris said in an interview this month. “There is no reason the middle of the supply chain should have to absorb it.”

RPS Aff

67 Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Food Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

High fertilizer prices drives up food prices—Brazil proves. Dow Jones Newswires in 8 (“Brazil Vale Speeds Up Projects Linked to Fertilizers”, 6-25-08, http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djhighlights/200806251919DOWJONESDJONLINE000804.htm)
SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- Brazilian mining giant Companhia Vale do Rio Doce ( RIO), or Vale, is speeding up existing projects related to supplying raw materials for the fertilizer industry, a Vale press officer confirmed on Wednesday. However, the company said that this wasn't due to political pressure from the Brazilian government, which is worried that the high

costs of fertilizer is contributing

to rising food prices.
"These projects have been under way for a long time," the press officer told Dow Jones Newswires, without giving details of the acceleration program. According to the Vale press officer, the mining company has already committed $479 million to complete an open cast phosphate mine in Peru, with a capacity of 3.9 million metric tons. Vale also pumped $223 million into its Taquari-Vassouras potassium mine in the northeastern state of Sergipe. The mine has a capacity to produce 850,000 tons of potassium. Moreover, Vale is undertaking a feasibility study to mine potassium in the Neuquen province in Argentina. Other companies such as Fosfertil, Bunge, Yara, Copebras and Galvani, have announced some $4 billion in investments over the next four years, Valor said.

Brazil's fertilizer prices have risen between 100% and 150% in the last 12 months, depending on the location, the National Association of
Fertilizer Distributors, or Anda, said recently.

High fertilizer prices have become a major concern for the agricultural lobby, with the National Confederation of Agriculture, or CNA, complaining that high costs are eating into farmers' profits. Increased food prices will cause a billion to starve. Bloomberg News in 8 (Shamin Adam, “Rising Food Prices Hurting 1 Billion Asians, ADB’s Kuroda Says”, 5-6-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&refer=India&sid=at3LhdZJFQJE)
May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Surging

food prices are hurting 1 billion Asians as the region's poor struggle to cope with rising food and energy costs that are stoking inflation, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda said. ``Soaring food prices are hitting the poor very hard,'' Kuroda told delegates attending the ADB's annual meeting in Madrid yesterday. ``Their purchasing power has been eroded, placing them at a greater risk of hunger and malnutrition.''
Global food prices surged 57 percent in March from a year earlier, according to the United Nations. Asia's poorest countries including Bangladesh and Tajikistan have borne the brunt of the increases, Kuroda said on May 3, even as the price gains stoked social tensions in other parts of the world. ``Reduced supplies, increased demands, record high energy prices, the steep depreciation of the U.S. dollar and trade restrictions imposed by some countries have all combined to cause the price surge in recent months,'' Kuroda said. Vietnam and other rice-producing nations have curtailed exports to maintain supplies and damp local inflation, pushing up prices for buyers such as the Philippines, the world's biggest importer of the grain.

The rising prices have led to wider fiscal deficits as governments in the region subsidize food and energy costs for their people. The ADB last week said it will make ``sizeable'' loans to help countries in Asia and the Pacific meet the cost of higher food prices. The lender was formed in 1966 to improve the welfare of people in the Asia and the Pacific. Two-thirds of the world's poor reside in the region, and about 600 million Asians survive on less than $1 a day. High oil and food prices destroy confidence and tank the economy Gieve in 8—Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (Sir John, “Global Economy Affected By Two Cycles,” 6-28-08, Commodity Online, http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/Global-economy-affected-by-two-cycles-100163.html) As of yesterday, oil was trading at around $130 per barrel. Relative to the rise in the prices of consumer goods and services, oil prices (in US dollars) are now higher than they were in the 1970s. The rise in oil prices has pushed up on fuel, retail gas and electricity prices. Similarly, the rising cost of agricultural commodities has driven up food prices . Taken together energy and food components can account for 1.1 percentage points of the 1.2 percentage points increase in CPI inflation from 2.1% in December last year to 3.3% in May. There is no doubt that the emergence of China, India and other Asian economies in recent years is a permanent change in the structure and balance of the world economy. But there are signs too that an element of their recent growth may be cyclical. The growing inflationary pressures and the scale of the booms in investment are typical of economies reaching the top of the cycle. The huge increase in oil and food prices will itself have a dampening effect on consumers in those countries – as it will in the West. So we may well see the balance of supply and demand shift at some point.

RPS Aff

68 Natural Gas Ext – Fertilizer Pakistan Impact

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

High fertilizer costs exacerbate Pakistani food shortages and destroy the economy—government subsidies can’t solve. Deutsche Presse-Agentur in 8 (“Pakistan’s Food Crisis to Worsen on Rising Fertilizer Cost”, 6-19-08, http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1412121.php/ANALYSIS_Pakistans_food_crisis_to_worsen _on_rising_fertilizer_cost) Karachi - Rising fertilizer prices are contributing to the global food crisis that is hitting world's poor, and the sixth mostpopulous country Pakistan is no exception. Global price increases of nearly 400 per cent for phosphoric acid in the last 3 months have increased the cost to farmers for even the heavily subsidized DAP fertilizer by more than 150 per cent. In some parts of Pakistan, the price of DAP has increased as much as 300 per cent, according to farmer Bilal Soomro in Jamshoro, an agricultural town in southern Sindh province. The phosphoric acid market, which is controlled by a handful of producers, was trading at around 576 dollars a ton during the first quarter of the year, but is now hovering at around 2,100 dollars a ton. 'This is a massive and phenomenal increase in cost in just three months,' said Zohair Abbasi, an analyst at Capital One Equities. DAP, a by-product of phosphoric acid, is considered worldwide as an elixir for agriculture growth. An average 20-kilogram bag of DAP that cost around 1,200 rupees (20 dollars) one year ago, now costs between 2,800 and 3,000 rupees (45-48 dollars), putting further strain on framers already in crisis due to water shortages and higher electricity prices. For majority of Pakistan's grain growers, the options are limited: either to cut down the essential fertilizer use, or switch to other less lucrative vegetable crops which require less fertilizer. Pakistan produces some of the world's largest crops of wheat, cotton, rice and sugar to feed the growing nation of 170 million people, most of whom survive on about 1 dollar a day. 'Without fertilizers we can not produce any bumper crop,' Abbasi said. Pakistan has witnessed a severe food shortage in recent months as flour prices rose by over 200 percent and food riots erupted in several cities. The situation may reach crisis levels if the country again fails to produce enough wheat in fiscal 2008-2009 (July-June), according to food economist Hari Ram Lohano of the Social Policy and Development Center. Agriculture is the linchpin of Pakistan's economy and a dominant force in the gross domestic product (GDP), representing 60 per cent of the economy and employing 68 per cent of the total labor force. Any shortfall in the agriculture output also severely jolts the country's growth rate. The World Bank forecasts relatively low GDP growth of 3.5 per cent for the next fiscal year of 2008-2009, starting from July 1. The country had enjoyed average GDP growth of 7 to 8 per cent during the last eight years, thanks to healthy crops and massive inflows of US aid money lavished in exchange for Pakistan's cooperation in Washington's wars on Islamic extremists. The Ministry of Finance also painted a bleak picture, showing agriculture growth of 1.49 per cent in the current fiscal year that ends June 30, against the budget target of 4.8 per cent. Pakistan's total fertilizer demand is 6.6 million tons, of which 5.4 million tones is urea produced from domestically available abundant natural gas, and 1.2 million tons is DAP fertilizer. The country has only one DAP plant, the army-owned Fauji Fertilizer, which produces around 465,000 tons. The rest is imported. But rising demand for bio-fuels is making availability of phosphoric acid scarce. According to farmers, an ideal mix is two bags each for urea and DAP but in Pakistan, due to high DAP prices, the customary usage is just one bag of DAP and three bags of urea. 'This gap will now widen further and may have severe impacts in our agriculture growth in future,' said Abbasi. Although the government has increased subsidy from 400 rupees to 1,000 rupees per bag of DAP, the net impact for farmers is still 150 per cent higher than last year. 'DAP is still going to be beyond the reach of many farmers,' Soomro said.

RPS Aff

69 Natural Gas Ext – Renewables Reduce LNG Imports

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

New renewable energy policies will displace Liquefied Natural gas UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6) AMK How would the RES affect national energy security? Much of the U.S. energy system—power plants, dams, refineries, pipelines, tankers, and the electricity transmission grid— presents significant safety and security risks. Renewable energy facilities are small, geographically dispersed, and do not require transporting or storing radioactive or combustible materials. Increasing renewable energy would reduce the number of vulnerable facilities over time. Renewable energy can also reduce the need to expand imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG imports from non-NAFTA countries, including some OPEC members—Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, and Qatar— are projected to grow from less than 1 percent of gas supply today to up to 12 percent by 2010. Renewable fuels can also displace oil. Among the experts calling for a federal RES to increase energy security are James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, Robert McFarland, former national security advisor to President Reagan, and Admiral Thomas Moorer, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. An RPS would significantly drop dependence on liquefied natural gas Sterzinger 2 – Executive Director, Renewable Energy Policy Project (George, “Energy: Maximizing Resources; Meeting Our Needs; Retaining Jobs” June 17, 2002 http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/repp_testimony_boston.pdf) AMK The specific EIA analysis, which was conservative in the technology assumptions and a number of other features, nevertheless showed overall energy bill declining as a result of the renewable development. With a 10% RPS, renewable energy will displace natural; gas and lower the cost of natural gas for all users. Although the EIA analysis does not go into detail, REPP believes that a renewable led decline in natural gas usage will lead to a reduction in the use of high cost imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). A program to accelerate the penetration of renewable energy will be lower in cost, provide obvious environmental benefits, and increase security.

RPS Aff

70 Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS reduces demand and price of natural gas Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
A National RPS Reduces Natural Gas Prices

A national RPS can save consumers money 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.77 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 natural-gas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity.78 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.79 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 affect 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.80

In ay 2007 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists assessed the cumulative affect of a 20 percent national RPS on average annual electricity prices and found that an RPS would save consumers more than $49 billion largely by depressing the price of natural gas used for electricity production and home heating:
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 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 2020.81 UCS is not alone in their findings. 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 gas prices are reduced.
Nine of fifteen studies evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found that consumers would save from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.82 Some studies have also begun to document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. In Pennsylvania, for example, where more than 90 percent of electricity comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by Black & Veatch concluded an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel consumption, lowering the price of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil fuel prices would lead to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel expenditures for the state.83 // pg. 42-44

Federal RPS would significantly reduce gas prices due to lower power demand. Durbin, 07 – head of Global Gas and Power Research for Wood Mackenzie (William, E&E News PM May 14, “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions reduction”, lexis, AG) Monica Trauzzi: What does a renewable portfolio standard do for energy costs for the consumer? That's a concern. William Durbin: It is. It's a big concern, and that's where we were a bit surprised to be able to see such an impact on gas use. And the reason I keep coming back to the gas issue is that in many of the power markets in the United States we've gone to competitive markets. And so their gas sets the price of power in many of these markets. So if gas prices go up, power prices will go up with it. If gas prices go down, the same happens, power prices will go down. So when we saw that the renewables standard would reduce gas demand and ease pressures out of the gas market, because we have a relatively tight gas supply and demand balance, it was interesting to be able to see that we saw a softening in the gas price that then translated into a lower power price as well. So consumers should be happy.

RPS Aff

71 Natural Gas Ext – RPS Reduces Gas Demand & Prices

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

20% RPS will reduce the price of natural gas Cooper, 7 – Senior Policy Director, Network for New Energy Choices (Chris, NNEC, “New Study Reveals Flaws in Congressional
Energy Debate,” 6-13-07, http://www.newenergychoices.org/index.php?blog_entry_id=168&page=fullstory&rd=pages&sd=df, AG)
Reducing the Percentage Actually Increases Costs to Utilities and Consumers

More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that an RPS saves utilities money by offsetting significant amounts of expensive natural gas. Renewable resources (with stable fuel prices) can take pressure off of the tight natural gas market and serve as a “hedge” against volatile natural gas prices, saving consumers as much as $49 Billion by 2020. However, this potential “hedge” value is realized only when the RPS mandate is high enough (15%-20%) to offset a significant amount of natural gas. At lower levels, renewable resources simply do not offset enough gas to generate a cost savings. A 20% RPS will drive down natural gas demand and price UPU 7 (Utah Public Utilities, “Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Will Reduce Power and Natural Gas Costs, But Not Have a
Significant Impact on GHG Emission Levels” (May 2007), http://publicutilities.utah.gov/archive/federalrenewableenergyportfoliostandard.pdf.) AMK

A 15-percent Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) will drive down natural gas demand and price, lower the overall price of power, but only lead to a slowing in the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), not an absolute reduction from current levels according to the new Wood Mackenzie
report, "The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard." The United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over the next 20 years to replace aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity. Mounting concerns over US dependence on fossil fuels and the need to address global warming are helping to drive efforts in the US Congress to pass legislation establishing a federal standard to mandate the use of renewable energy. Recent RPS proposals call for an average of 15 percent of power generation to come from renewable sources within the next two decades, up from 6 percent today. While the US Congress contemplates a federal standard, 24 states have already adopted legislation mandating targets for renewables. Renewable energy in this case is defined as wind, solar, landfill gas, biomass, and small hydro power. "Renewable energy alone will not be enough to result in the large GHG reduction targets being proposed," said Joe Sannicandro, VP - North American Power and Michael Pickens, Senior Analyst - North American Power for Wood Mackenzie. "Currently, the US power sector produces 39 percent of the country's total CO2 emissions. Our study shows that a Federal RPS would only be one small piece in a large and complicated puzzle to halt the growth of or reduce the absolute level of CO2 emissions. The study shows that implementing the Federal RPS would reduce total domestic CO2 levels in 2025 by only 10% from the Wood Mackenzie base case. Equally important is that the growth rate in CO2 production is still a positive 0.8% per year under a Federal RPS compared with a growth rate of 1.2% per year in Wood Mackenzie's base case outlook. Clearly, a reduction in total CO2 levels will require other options to be implemented including nuclear power, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon sequestration and demand-side approaches to reduce the growth rate of electricity consumption." According to the report, the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of new wind and other renewable projects well beyond current proposed projects, leading to a 500percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. This increase translates into an incremental construction cost of $134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and 2026. The

report also shows the switch to renewable energy will drive down demand and price of natural gas. "The lower fuel costs and the next 20 years, the Federal RPS case leads to a savings of $240 billion (2006 dollars) in wholesale power costs, outweighing the higher capital investment to build the additional capacity." The lower natural gas prices also reduce the total value of other generation technologies, particularly coal and nuclear capacity, potentially impacting the value of transactions involving existing generating assets. Despite the benefits of renewable energy,
fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower electricity costs," continued Sannicandro. "Over there are still several significant challenges confronting the renewables industry that need to be resolved before such a large-scale national renewable program can be achieved, including uncertainty surrounding tax incentives, the ever-present NIMBY concerns, and land requirements for the additional build out of renewable facilities.

An RPS would reduce the price of electricity and decrease natural gas use Glick 7 - Director, Government Affairs, PPM Energy (Richard , ”Can a National Renewable Portfolio Standard Increase Energy Security, Reduce Emissions and Lower Costs?” (July 17, \2007), http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/647) AMK
.

EIA, in the 2005 study of our 10 percent portfolio standard, determined that the price of natural gas would go down enough, from the portfolio standards, think about it, you just reduced the demand for natural gas by substituting something else for generation from natural gas. You reduced the price enough that you've saved money on both natural gas, for customers who use natural gas, and the price of electricity. Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Ryan Weiser did a study in 2005 where he had 15 different modeling exercises of different
portfolio standards, every one of them came to the same conclusion, that the price of natural gas goes down. Sometimes it goes down to where the price of electricity only increases by an extremely minimal amount. And often the price of natural gas goes down enough that it lowers the price of electricity. Wood Mackenzie, a natural gas consultancy, they've got no stake in this thing. They don't have an ax to grind. They're not advocating for a renewable portfolio standard. They're trying to inform the gas industry. They did a report a couple of months ago that indicated that a

15 percent renewable portfolio standard would lower the price of natural gas from 16 to 23 percent between now and 2026, save over $100 billion, even after you net out the capital costs.
Now, does the economics work? Now, think back once more to that interregional debate. The claim is that there's a cash transfer, a wealth transfer from the Southeast, on the part of Southeasterners to the upper Midwest where all the wind is. Well, even if it were true, even if that were true aren't you still seeing the lower price of natural gas in the Southeast? And you're not paying for it. You're not doing the things to accomplish it. Where is the wealth transfer in that case? It's headed in the other direction. This is a fair program. It will work. It has economic benefits. We need to do it. We're going to put a price on carbon, when we do that this will make even more economic sense. There's nothing that we can do to reduce the price of carbon, that saves money, except do this. Now, if we can accomplish those goals, energy security, 10 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, that's what Wood Mackenzie said, by 2025, and save customers money, wouldn't we be foolish not to?

RPS Aff

72

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – RPS Solves Price Spikes / AE Helps Chemical Industry
RPS is key to lock in the production cost of electricity – insulating industry from price spikes Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) A greater reliance on renewable energy technologies would also help insulate the electric utility industry from fuel interruptions and shortages. Unlike coal, natural gas, uranium, and oil, renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass are available in every state.43 One-thousand-times more solar energy reaches the surface of the earth each hour than the energy generated by all fossil fuels combined. The Midwest has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of wind, since it contains enough usable wind resources to produce all of the electricity used by the nation.44 Many industrial and agricultural processes produce significant amounts of combustible byproducts, including tobacco residue, chicken carcasses, coffeegrounds, peach pits, sawdust, scrap wood, and rice-hulls that can be used in dedicated bioelectricity facilities. And, in contrast to fossil-fueled generators, renewables lock in the production cost of electricity since they need not rely on volatile supplies of fuel. In the current era of restructuring, natural disasters, and price spikes, many manufacturers and utilities regard certainty as the most important factor in determining whether to invest in certain energy technologies. The more uncertainty there is about future fuel costs, the higher the risk premiums placed on investment returns. The capital intensity and long-term nature of such investments-generators are typically considered capital investments with decades-long lifetimes-only compounds the risk. Renewables enable power providers to offer more stable electricity rates since their levelized costs of electricity remain consistent to a greater degree. An RPS will insulate the U.S. from energy price shocks UCS, 1 (Union of Concerned Scientists, San Diego Earth Times, “Federal renewable energy standard would help prevent energy price shocks,” December 2001, http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1201/et1201s6.html) // JMP Adoption of a federal renewable energy standard would help insulate the United States from energy price shocks by diversifying energy supply, according to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report, Clean Energy Blueprint, found that America could achieve at least 20 percent
of its electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy sources by 2020 and save consumers money, when combined with policies to save energy. “This report shows that there author Alan Nogee, Director of Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Adopting

are alternative solutions to the erratic prices and supply of commodities like natural gas,” said report a renewable energy standard would diversify

electricity generation, as well as reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It's time for Congress to follow twelve states and adopt this standard.”
The report outlines a series of policies to increase US energy efficiency and renewable energy use, including a renewable portfolio standard that would require electric utilities to increase non-hydropower renewable energy from about two percent today to 20 percent of overall electricity generation by 2020. More than 100 organizations praised the policies outlined in the report and called on the US Senate to include them in national energy legislation. “The UCS report provides the sort of well-reasoned and documented analysis of all energy options, not simply those favored by the existing fossil-fuel industry, that are needed to promote energy security and favorable economics through supply diversity,” said Daniel M. Kammen, Professor of Energy and Society and Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (REAL) at the University of California, Berkeley. “A renewable energy portfolio standard provides the sort of sound, economically driven basis for a diverse and clean energy economy that should be embraced by free-market economists and environmentalists alike.” Renewable energy standards have already been adopted in twelve states: Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. “Renewable portfolio standards have been a tremendous success in several states, including in President Bush's home state of Texas,” said Nogee. “If there truly is commitment to creating energy security in the US, enacting federal renewable standards will reduce the vulnerability of our energy system to disruption. It is the smart, affordable and effective option.” The study found that consumers would save more than $440 billion over the period 2002 to 2020, if a series of energy-efficiency and renewable energy policies recommended in the report were to become law. Energy-efficiency policies are a major component of the Clean Energy Blueprint, including new minimum efficiency standards on appliances and other equipment, tax incentives for advanced energy-saving products and matching funds for state-based energy-efficiency programs. “Energy-efficiency is a key foundation for achieving energy and economic savings for consumers and for increasing the energy independence of the US,” said Steven Nadel, Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and a collaborator on the report. “When fully in place, the policies advocated in the report will save a typical American family $350 a year in energy costs.” In addition to stabilizing energy prices and supply, the policies of Clean Energy Blueprint would: Reduce US use of natural gas by 31 percent and coal by nearly 60 percent and save more oil by 2020 than can be economically recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 60 years. Avoid the need for 975 new power plants, retire 180 old coal plants, retire 14 existing nuclear plants and reduce the need for hundreds of thousands of miles of new gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines. Affordably reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by two-thirds, while also reducing harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 55 percent. Enact federal energy-efficiency standards to cut energy waste and save oil and other fuels. “This study makes it clear that on both economic and environmental grounds, the renewable portfolio standard makes sense,” Nogee said. “And now, in our postSeptember 11th world, we recognize that diversifying electricity supply, as a renewable energy standard would also help reduce the security risk to our electricity generation infrastructure.”

RPS Aff

73

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Natural Gas Ext – Alternative Energy Helps Chemical Industry
Natural gas prices are destroying the chemical industry—alternative energy is key PBT 7 [Pittsburg Business Times, Kim Lyons, “Chemical summit to address rail, natural gas price concerns,” 11-2-7, http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2007/11/05/story13.html] // LDK Energy supply is a another big concern. Greg Wilkinson, vice president of public and government affairs for NOVA Chemicals, said the rising price of natural gas, a feedstock for chemical companies, has hit the industry hard. The government has encouraged natural gas use without increasing supply, he said. "It's caused problems for us because we turn it into products like plastics," Wilkinson said. "We add value to natural gas for end-use products." Schmidt said exploring alternative energy supplies like wind, solar and nuclear power is one goal. "Every dollar increase in natural gas prices costs PPG Industries $60 million," she said. But even as they wrestle with these issues, several of the chemical companies that will be involved in the summit have seen big earnings increases in recent months.

RPS Aff

74 Blackouts Ext – Investment in Transmission Needed

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Increases in transmission capacity now are key to ensuring future power supplies Reutter , 6 – Business and law editor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Mark, University of Illinois Press, “Transmission congestion threatens to clog nation's power grid,” 7-27-06, http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0727power.html) // SM 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. The 2003 blackout prompted calls for spending of up to $100 billion to reduce bottlenecks and increase capacity of the transmission lines that carry electricity from power plants to homes and businesses. Instead, investment has lagged behind both power-plant generation and growth in demand for electricity. “Demand growth is forecasted to be 20 percent between 1998-2008, but the increase in transmission capacity is still below 5 percent,” Gross said. “The need to strengthen the existing transmission infrastructure, to expand it and to effectively harness advances in technology constitutes the single most pressing challenge for the country’s electricity system.” An immediate investment in transmission capacity is needed to prevent a breakdown in the power grid Ried, 8 – Senior Senator from Nevada and Senate Majority Leader (Harry, Congressional Testimony, “Reid Statement on Bill to Build Renewable Energy Transmission Lines in Nevada,” 6-17-08, http://www.politickernv.com/jkcooper/1875/reidstatement-bill-build-renewable-energy-transmission-lines-nevada) // SM "Despite 25 States with an RPS, the Federal government has been very slow to embrace renewable energy, instead preferring the older, dirtier or more expensive sources. Neither the Federal government, nor the utility industry have invested enough to integrate the growing renewable generation assets into the grid. "And, overall, the sluggish pace of transmission investment by utilities has left us with a brittle and insecure power grid. Even the Department of Defense is concerned about grid security now. "Unfortunately, nationwide investment in transmission declined for over two decades - by 1998, companies spent less than half of what they did in 1975. At the same time, electricity sales have nearly doubled, prices have risen, and consumer demand continues to grow. Recently, utilities have begun to increase their transmission investment, but they're far behind the curve. "A new and significant amount of investment must occur. This will not be easy, given the incredible backlog. It will not be cheap either, because instead of making gradual improvements over the years, the industry has waited until now. The Brattle Group estimates the nation will need $900 billion for distribution and transmission by 2030. "But, that investment must be smart. And by smart, I don't mean simply linking existing and highly inefficient coal plants by Federal energy corridors.

RPS Aff

75

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Blackouts Ext – Utilities Intentionally Promote Congestion
Currently utilities are intentionally congesting the transmission grid Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM B. Utilities Benefit from Congestion Like prisons, transmission lines would almost certainly be inadequately funded if left to individual market participants. Under normal market conditions, some utilities benefit from limited transmission resources. When the transmission system is saturated, less supply is available to meet existing demand, and prices increase. Market forces create perverse incentives for some utilities to delay transmission upgrades unless or until they risk catastrophic system failure. Even FERC has observed: Market participants also complain that companies that own both transmission and generation under-invest in transmission because the resulting competitive entry often decreases the value of their generation assets.125 Market dynamics can create situations where congestion prices benefit some electricity generators at the expense of customers, who not only pay higher prices, but suffer costs from the increased risk of blackouts. 126 The current structure of the U.S. transmission system also encourages some utilities to intentionally flood limited transmission lines to crowd out other generators. In a 2007 letter to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas, for example, Florida Power & Light (FPL) accused TXU of intentionally flooding West Texas transmission lines with high-cost power to prevent FPL’s wind power from reaching customers across the state. While TXU has denied the allegations, the state’s independent electricity market monitor found TXU guilty of similar market manipulations during the summer of 2005 and the PUC recommended that TXU be fined $210 million for that offense.127 // pg. 61

RPS Aff

76 Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The stress on the grid will cause blackouts if not fixed fast Kaplan, 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid,” 4-27-2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html) // SM Pushed to the Limit 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 blackouts are on the way – investment in new transmission is critical to prevent this Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A528582004Aug9?language=printer) // SM 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." Industry executives and outside specialists are divided about why there has not been another major outage in the past year. Utility officials credit the improvements they have made and the increased adherence to the voluntary rules. But academics who study the nation's aging power grid, a 200,000-mile network of high-voltage transmission lines, said the reason may actually be a combination of moderate temperatures and good luck. The grid is weak – it’s susceptible to anything from broken trees to terrorists Kaplan, 7 – Associated Editor at the Council of Foreign Relations (Eben, “America’s Vulnerable Energy Grid,” 4-27-2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/americas_vulnerable_energy_grid.html) // SM Introduction 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.

RPS Aff

77 Blackouts Ext – Blackouts Coming Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Electricity transmission capacity is at the breaking point – its coming collapse will destroy our information based society Trivella, 8 - Executive Vice President, The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Anthony J., IndustryWeek, “Mitigating Equipment Breakdown Risks,” 6-4-2008, http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=16446&SectionID=2) // SM
Aging Infrastructure Meets the Data Explosion The U.S. infrastructure, including the power grid and the equipment that distributes electricity inside commercial buildings, is being strained by aging equipment and the proliferation of power-hungry new technology. Much of the transmission grid system was developed more than a half century ago. The electrical systems in many buildings were not designed to carry the loads that are necessary today. Consider these facts: U.S. electricity consumption at peak demand times is growing at twice the pace that committed power generation capacity is being added.

A recent North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) survey of utility industry professionals ranked aging infrastructure and limited new construction as the number one challenge to electric reliability -- both in likelihood of occurrence and potential severity. The electric transmission system is increasingly operating close to its capacity margin and many areas of the grid are regularly under stress. Construction of new transmission facilities is still slow and continues to face obstacles. The average age of transformers used within the utility industry is over 30 years old and many units are nearing the end of their expected life.
Electrical systems within buildings are often overlooked and under-maintained. Too many building owners don't realize that electrical equipment requires preventive maintenance.

Estimates on the annual costs to industry from power surges and other related anomalies have ranged from $30 billion to $200 billion.
Despite reliance on sensitive digital technology, equipment owners too often neglect to install adequate electrical surge protection, placing equipment and business activity at risk. These trends increase the risk for more frequent and severe blackouts and brownouts, electrical system breakdowns, equipment damage, business interruption and structure fires. In fact, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reports electrical distribution failures each year are responsible for about 9 percent of fires in commercial buildings. The loss of power or poor power quality presents other exposures. In

our information-based society with its explosive data growth, any power interruption can result in a commercial disaster. Data can be lost due to equipment breakdown and it can be expensive, and sometimes impossible, to restore the information due to rapid changes in technology. We are vulnerable at every moment – a tree falling could lead to massive blackouts WSJ, 7 (William Tucker, “Electrical Storm - With demand skyrocketing, wires fraying and political resolve flickering, how long will the lights stay on?,” 7-21-2007, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118497036898073460.html) *The books reviewed are “The Grid” by Phillip F. Schewe, who has a doctorate in particle physics and is the chief science writer at the American Institute of Physics , and “Lights Out” by Jason Makansi, previous editor-in-chief of Power and Electric Power International magazines and as a contributing editor of Electrical World magazine. With summer heat blazing over much of the U.S. and millions of air conditioners set on high, the country is having its annual flirtation with a massive brownout or blackout. A major power failure, of course, would inspire much public hand-wringing over the electricity supply. But then most folks would go back to ignoring the subject until the next time the lights go out. Even without a dramatic accident, however, electricity is at the center of every discussion about a carbon tax, renewable energy or the energy producers' interest in building nuclear reactors. There is much at stake. As Phillip Schewe writes in "The Grid," the nation's electric infrastructure is "the most complex machine ever made." Tying together hydroelectric dams and 1,000-megawatt coal plants, wending its way across thousands of miles of transmission lines, carrying electricity at hundreds of thousands of volts through substations that step it up and down until it is finally brought across the last mile into your home at a tame 120 volts -- the electrical grid is an astonishing balancing act that must match supply and demand minute by minute, hour by hour, year by year. As Jason Makansi, the author of "Lights Out," puts it: "Very few people on this planet truly appreciate how difficult it is to control the flow of electricity." Of course, it doesn't always work. When a couple of trees brush against a transmission wire in Ohio, for instance, most of the East Coast may go dark -- as it did in the summer of 2003. Experts agree that the long-distance transmission system has been stretched to the breaking point. Mr. Makansi asks: "How did a First World country end up with a Third World grid?" There is no one answer, however, nor is there a consensus on how to go about solving the problem.

RPS Aff

78 Blackouts Ext – A2: Blackouts Don’t Happen

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The only reason massive blackouts haven’t happened is only due to luck Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A528582004Aug9?language=printer) // SM 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." Industry executives and outside specialists are divided about why there has not been another major outage in the past year. Utility officials credit the improvements they have made and the increased adherence to the voluntary rules. But academics who study the nation's aging power grid, a 200,000-mile network of high-voltage transmission lines, said the reason may actually be a combination of moderate temperatures and good luck. Lengthy blackouts in past show what could happen Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program (Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p.165-6 ) // SM America's electrical power grid has experienced serious power failures on a number of occasions over the past thirty-seven years, each one creating panic and a taste of what might happen if blackouts were to become more frequent and lengthy in duration. The first major blackout occurred on November 9, 1965. A single malfunctioning relay in Canada resulted in a cascading power failure that quickly enveloped most of the northeastern United States, plunging the region into darkness. More than thirty million Americans lost all electric power for more than twelve hours. The states of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine were all affected. In New York City, people were stuck in elevators and traffic was snarled to near-gridlock as traffic lights went out throughout the metropolitan area. Power, light, and telephone services were knocked out everywhere. An eerie silence hung over New York City and the rest of the Northeast. In a moment of time, millions of people, so accustomed to a world mediated by electricity, suddenly found themselves vulnerable and without recourse. The many conveniences they had come to rely on to sustain their lives went dead. A kind of village life returned to the hardened streets of New York for several hours as residents descended onto the sidewalks seeking information and comfort from strangers-turnedneighbors. This first time, the police reported an actual drop in crime in the city of New York. Nine months later, New York health authorities announced, in a somewhat humorous vein, a surge in IICW
births. Apparently, the loss of television reception turned more than a few New Yorkers to more traditional forms of entertainment.

the public was enraged by the outage. Investigations were launched, recommendations were made, and changes were implemented to guarantee that a blackout would never happen again. But it did happen again, despite all the public assurances. On the evening of July 13, 1977, lightning struck a tower in Westchester County north of New York City, and short-circuited two high-voltage power lines, triggering a cascade of events that shut down the electrical grid in and around New York City. The blackout affected nine million people. Electricity remained out of service for more than fifteen hours. Unlike the 1965 blackout, which occurred on a cool November evening, this second occurrence struck at 9:34 P.M, on a hot, humid night, shutting off air conditioning and sending human emotions to the boiling point. In poorer
Still, neighborhoods of the city, mobs of people went on a rampage, burning buildings and looting stores. More than 4,000 people were arrested in the blackout, and seventy-eight policemen were injured in the melee. The chairman of the board of Consolidated Edison, the electric utility company that managed the power grid for New York City and its suburbs, called the blackout “act of God." Surveying the damage done by looters in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn, a Roman Catholic priest gave the event a different spin, proclaiming, "We are without God now."

The western coast of the United States has experienced similar power failures and massive blackouts. The first major outage occurred at 3:45 P.M. on August 10, 1996, and extended from Oregon to the Mexican border. Nine states in all were affected by the blackout, which occurred on one of the hottest days of the year with temperatures reaching 113°F. Five million California residents lost all power. The blackout was traced to power lines in Oregon that were sagging due to the excessive summer heat. The power lines touched some overgrown trees, triggering the outage. The event created a chain reaction that rippled across the West Coast, shutting off power in region after region.

RPS Aff

79 Blackouts Ext – A2: 2005 Energy Act Fixed Problem

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The mandatory rules are not enough – the largest problems haven’t been fixed Washington Post, 4 (Justin Blum, “Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable - 2003 Blackout Shed Light on Weaknesses, But Power System Fixes Fall Short of Need ,” 8-10-2004, p. E01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A528582004Aug9?language=printer) // SM 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. Some industry specialists said that even if everyone were to follow the rules, problems would remain that could lead to more blackouts.

RPS Aff

80 Blackouts Ext – Minor Failures Snowball

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Even minor failures in the electric grid will result in cascading blackouts IEEE, 7 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, “Reliability and Blackouts,” 4-25-2007+, http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp) // SM Blackouts The US electrical power grid has experienced serious power failures on a number of occasions over the past forty years, each one creating panic and a warning of what may happen if blackouts become more frequent [1]. Interruptions in the supply of electricity to customers have been caused by disturbances to or malfunctions of the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electricity [2]. Most power outages are cause by weather-related events, minor disturbances to the local distribution system (such as a car striking a distribution pole), or may be planned controlled or rotating outages to compensate for insufficient generation resources [2, 8]. On other occasions, massive power outages – or blackouts – can be caused by reliability issues. Even minor occurrences in the electric power grid can sometimes lead to catastrophic “cascading” blackouts. The loss of a single generator can result in an imbalance between load and generation, altering many flows in the electricity network. If there is a loss of generation within an area and there is not enough internal generation then the area transmission lines need to have enough capacity to transfer energy to supply the load and maintain acceptable system parameters. If the transmission ties do not have enough capacity, then the system reliability and security are at risk [9]. A "cascade" can occur on a power system if the balance between load, generation and transmission system flows is disrupted when one or more elements of the electrical grid (generator or transmission line) fails or trips out of service. When an element trips, existing power flows are instantaneously redistributed onto other elements of the grid according to the laws of physics, irrespective of state boundaries or ownership of the transmission facilities [9]. Many experts argue that technical issues are not the only player; that part of the reliability problem is energy deregulation itself, coupled with the end of guaranteed return on investment (ROI) [6]. In short, simple desire to make a profit may be fueling the occurrences of electric blackouts. Cascading blackouts are particularly damaging in today’s networked world; they seriously disrupt the nation’s information superhighway [1]. To compound the dilemma, in recent years, the increased deployment of personal computers has had the effect of putting additional stresses on the power grid in the US and other countries, making electricity shortages more likely in the future. The overall demand for digital power is increasing even faster than the greater efficiencies that are coming on line [1]. Major blackouts are more common than the US electricity industry would like to admit. Major North American blackouts occurred in 1965 and 1977; the interconnected electric grid covering nine western states collapsed twice in the summer of 1996; in 1999, the northeast experiences outages stemming from a heat wave and equipment failures; California experienced rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001; and in 2003, the nation experienced the largest blackout in its history [6].

RPS Aff

81 Blackouts Ext – Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Effective electricity transmission is essential to maintain the economy DOE, 2 (Department of Energy, “National Transmission Grid Study,” May 2002, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/transmission-grid.pdf) // SM Much work is needed to address transmission bottlenecks and modernize our nation’s transmission systems. As a percentage of total energy use, electricity use is growing. This reflects the transformation of our economy to an increasingly sophisticated, information-based economy, one that relies on electricity. Electricity, though, is not a commodity that can be stored easily. Our transmission infrastructure is at the heart of our economic well-being. Imagine an interstate highway system without storage depots or warehouses, where traffic congestion would mean not just a loss of time in delivering a commodity, but a loss of the commodity itself. This is the nature of the transmission infrastructure. That is why bottlenecks are so important to remove and why an efficient transmission infrastructure is so important to maintain and develop. Growing demands on transmission capacity will lead to greater energy costs and economic decline – federal leadership is needed Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM A. Transmission Congestion Raises Prices Ever since the blackout of 2003, analysts have engaged in heated discussion about the underinvestment in the U.S. transmission grid relative to the increased demand placed on the system. From 1975 to 1998, for example, transmission investment in the U.S. actually declined by about 1.5 percent per year, even while electricity demand more than doubled.117 The 2003 blackout prompted calls for up to $100 billion in new transmission investments to prevent bottlenecks and relieve strained power lines. But investment continues to lag woefully. While electricity demand is forecast to grow by 20 percent between 1998 and 2008, transmission capacity is set to grow by only 5 percent.118 As a result, congestion expenses in some areas costs more than $1 billion each year. 119 Some analysts estimate that just to maintain the current ratio of available transmission capacity per MW of electricity demand will require the construction of 26,600 miles of new transmission over the next decade. Compare this staggering figure with estimated planned construction of only 6,200 miles and the investment shortfall becomes almost stupefying.120 According to an informal association of electric utilities in 35 states, maintaining transmission adequacy at year 2000 levels will require quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011 (in 2004 dollars).121 Ensuring increased reliability will require even more investment. As consumers demand more electricity than the system can deliver, U.S. ratepayers could soon face serious congestiondriven rate increases. The National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) warns that grid congestion will continue to increase and in some situations “lead to supply shortages and involuntary customer interruptions.”122 There is a growing consensus that federal leadership is needed to address an impending electricity transmission crisis. Citing NERC concerns that increased volumes of power flowing across the transmission system could overwhelm bulk transmission capacity, FERC proposed transmission pricing reforms in 2006 designed to encourage utility investments in the nation’s transmission infrastructure.123 In testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, FERC Chairman Pat Wood defended the proposed federal intervention, noting that market driven transmission investment “was not keeping up with load growth, and that “in every area of the country” FERC needed to “accelerate investment in transmission infrastructure.”124 // pg. 59-61

RPS Aff

82 Blackouts Ext – Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The collapse of the electricity grid will send us back to the stone age – the economy would be destroyed Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program (Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p.163-164 ) // SM It is understandable that we would be unmindful of the critical role that oil plays in feeding our families, because the process of growing food is so removed in time and place from our urban lives. The same holds true for the electricity that we have come to rely on to maintain our daily routines. The electrical grid is the central nervous system that coordinates a densely populated urban existence. Without electrical power, urban life would cease to exist, the information age would become a faded memory, and industrial production would grind to a halt. The fastest way to ensure the collapse of the modern era would be to pull the plug and turn off the flow of electricity. Light, heat, and power would all stop. Civilization as we know it would come to an end. It is hard to imagine what life would be like without electricity, although it has only been utilized as a source of energy for less than a century. Most of our great-grandparents were born into a world with electricity. Today, we take electricity for granted. That is because, food, it is abundantly available. We rarely think about where it comes from or how it gets to us. It is a kind of stealth force, tucked away inside wires overhead, buried in the ground, or hidden inside our walls. Colorless and odorless, it is an invisible but indispensable' presence in our lives. Terrorist attacks on our grid are both likely to happen and will destroy the economy Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program (Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p.164 ) // SM How likely is it that the electricity might go off, not just for a brief moment but for extended periods of time? Unfortunately, the nation's electrical power grid is increasingly vulnerable to disruption, both by terrorists and energy shortages. Even before the September attacks, government officials worried that American power plants, transmission lines, and the telecommunications infrastructure could be targets for terrorists. In 1997, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection issued a warning that cyber-terrorist’ next target might be the computer programs at the powerswitching centers that move electricity around the country. Disrupting the electrical grid could wreak havoc on the nation's economic and social infrastructures. Richard A. Clarke, who heads the cyber-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration, warns of an "Electronic Pearl Harbor." A report issued by the Institute for Security Technology Studies shortly after the September 11th attacks cautioned that the American military reprisal against the al Qaeda network and the Taliban in Afghanistan could be met by a counter-retaliatory strike by terrorists against the American electronic infrastructure. Jeffrey A. Hunker, dean of the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University and formerly senior director for Protection of Critical Infrastructure at the National Security Council, believes that the nation is "sitting on a cyber time bomb.”

RPS Aff

83 Blackouts Ext – Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Modern technology has made blackouts both more likely and more destructive Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program (Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p.166-7 ) // SM Rolling blackouts hit California again in March 2001, affecting 800,000 people from Oregon to Orange County in Southern California. This time, the reason was that not enough electricity was being generated by power plants to handle a spike in energy demands caused by unusually warm spring weather. Unlike the earlier blackouts that hit the Northeast, the ones on the West Coast shut down computer systems in businesses throughout the region, and this had a serious effect on commerce. In the interim quarter century, the nation had become increasingly dependent on computers and the Internet and intranets for information exchange, data storage, commercial transactions, banking and credit flows, and a host of other basic and vital services. The ripple effect of a blackout of even a few minutes in duration is now far more serious than it was in the past, when computers and software connections played a smaller role in day-to-day life. It's worth noting that, while blackouts seriously disrupt the nation's information superhighway, the surge in computer use has also had the effect of putting additional strains on the power grid in the U.S. and other countries, making electricity shortages more likely in the future. Although it is true that microprocessors are becoming more efficient and able to process greater stores of information in shorter time periods using less electrical load, the overall demand for digital power is increasing even faster than the greater efficiencies that are coming on line. One pound of coal is needed to "create, package, store, and move two megabytes of data," notes cyberspace analyst Peter W. Huber. The result is that the demand for horse-power to power personal computers is doubling every few years. Huber says that not enough attention is being paid to the fact that chips are running hotter, fans are whirring faster, and the power consumption of our disk drives and screens is rising. The centralized grid is vulnerable to attack from anyone who has a PC, making attacks inevitable Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program (Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World-Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p. 164-5) // SM The U.S. government has recently established a national Infrastructure Protection Center, a collaborative effort between lawenforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels to protect against computer crime aimed at disrupting America's electronic infrastructure, but, privately, many experts in the field of electronic security are not confident about the possibility of defending the nation’s electricity grid. The President's Commission's own report noted that, by the year 2001, more than 19 million people around the world would have the requisite computer skills to create minor disruptions to the nation's electric power structure, and 1.3 million people would have the kind of sophisticated knowledge of how the nation's electrical power grid and telecommunications network operate to create significant damage.

RPS Aff

84 Blackouts Ext – Renewables Solves

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewable energy boosts reliability – preventing blackouts that will crush the economy Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM Greater Technical Availability Any given hour there is a 10 percent risk that electricity from conventional power plants will be unavailable or limited due to forced outages and mechanical failures. 143 A national RPS can help respond to such failures by promoting technologies that have a higher rated technical reliability. Modern wind turbines, for example, have technical reliability above 97.5 percent, compared to coal and natural gas power plants with technical reliabilities that rarely exceed 85 to 90 percent.144 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). And even 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 all arranged in complex circuits prone to mechanical failure.145 In fact, the International Energy Agency recently concluded that: Bigger units of power plants bring with them the need for both greater operational and capacity reserve since outages cause greater disturbances to the system. The higher the technical availability, the lower the probability of unexpected outages and thus the lower the requirements of short-term operational reserve. Wind power plants actually score favorable against both criteria, since they normally employ small individual units (currently up to 5 MW) and have a record of high technical availability.146 In Europe, utilities and system operators have heavily promoted renewable energy for precisely this reason. The American Wind Energy Association, for example, estimates that by 2005 Europe had installed almost three times as much wind energy as the U.S.—48,500 MW of installed capacity, 9,000 MW of which had been installed in 2005 alone.147 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.148 The U.S. government has already acknowledged the ability of renewable energy systems to deter major power outages and provide consistent power supply. A recent assessment from the U.S. Department of Defense, for instance, found that increased deployment of renewable energy resources significantly improved overall system reliability.149 The study, which focused on the deployment of wind, solar, and geothermal electricity generators on and near military installations, found that: 1. Renewable energy facilities contribute to energy security by enabling military facilities to operate during simulated outages 2. Renewable energy generators enable the possibility of storing excess energy when power output is high 3. Renewable energy resources help “segregate” a service area from outside influences, creating “self-sustaining regional islands” that can provide “critical installation functions” 4. Renewable power may be more reliable during routine or prolonged power outages than conventional generators, which may have restricted hours of operation Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American economy. The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes, they cost consumers an average of $150 to 400 billion every year.150 The Electric Power Research Institute projects the annual costs of poor power reliability at $119 billion, or 44 percent of all electricity sales in 1995.151 // pg. 66-68

RPS Aff

85 Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS will accelerate infrastructure investments to accommodate new renewable development Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP 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. // pg. 59 RPS will boost investment in transmission and improve system reliability Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM
F. A National RPS Improves Reliability

New studies reveal that a national RPS would contribute to overall transmission system reliability substantially more than a state-by-state RPS approach. 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.
Greater Geographical Dispersion 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.139 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through another.
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 shut-down 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.140 • According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the greater geographical distribution of wind turbines in Europe is already reducing the volatility of renewable energy output. IEA has concluded, therefore, that the extent to which intermittency of renewable resources will become a
barrier to even greater renewable energy generation is, “mainly a question of economics and market organization,” not technology. 141 A study assessing the wind portfolios of all major European power providers concluded the same way, noting that:

A large contribution from wind energy … is technically and economically feasible, in the same order of magnitude as the individual contributions from the conventional technologies developed over the past century. These large shares can be realized while maintaining a high degree of system security.142 // pg. 65-66

RPS Aff

86 Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Increased profits under an RPS will bring investment into transmission – costs can be recovered even before projects are completed Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM E. A National RPS Speeds Cost Recovery “Cash flow is critical to determination of a project’s expected return…What would investors like to see? A national RPS – projects that are competitive across the board.” John Ravis, TD Banknorth, 2007135 Under FERC’s new rules, utilities may begin to recover the costs of transmission projects before the projects are completed and new generating capacity is available to use the infrastructure. In theory, this policy change decreases the cost to ratepayers by allowing utilities to begin paying down the financing of a project sooner rather than later. However, such an arrangement raises the obvious question: how do utilities know what a transmission project will cost prior to the project’s completion? FERC allows utilities to calculate a rate of return based on a hypothetical case that may be different from the actual capitalization of the project.136 This “hypothetical capital structure” estimates how much debt a project will incur relative to its equity. In theory, this calculation would require utilities to assess future revenues derived from the transmission costs of electricity that runs through the new infrastructure. • However, FERC’s rules create an incentive for utilities to craft a hypothetical structure with the goal of achieving excessive rates of return on transmission investments. While such gaming may benefit investors, it is consumers who pay.137 Indeed, the American Public Power Association warns that hypothetical capital structures “can result in an investor windfall that could substantially increase actual levels to far in excess of the Commission’s allowed return on equity.”138 The only check against such abuse is FERC’s review of rate structures on a case-bycase basis. Because renewable energy projects have construction lead-times that are years (or even decades) faster than the lead-times for conventional or nuclear facilities, they can start generating electricity to be sold over new transmission lines much faster. Renewable energy systems, therefore, can start providing revenue to help pay down debt on transmission investments while conventional plants are waiting to come online. If this expedited debt repayment is calculated in hypothetical capital structures, it may depress the projected capital costs of transmission expansions and provide a natural check to excessive rate increases. A national RPS mandate may therefore have the added benefit of decreasing the financing costs of new transmission and protecting ratepayers from excessive price increases. // pg. 64-65 Plan solves blackouts UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6) AMK Would an RES affect the reliability of the energy system? The electric system is designed to handle unexpected swings in energy supply and demand, such as significant changes in consumer demand or even the failure of a large power plant or transmission line. There are several areas in Europe, including Spain, Germany, and Denmark, where wind power already supplies over 20 percent of the electricity with no adverse effects on the reliability of the system. Several important renewable energy sources, such as geothermal, bioenergy, and landfill gas systems can operate around the clock. Studies by the EIA8 and the Union of Concerned Scientists9 show these renewable energy facilities would generate over half of the nation’s non-hydro renewable energy under a 20 percent RES in 2020. Renewable energy can increase the reliability of the overall system, by diversifying our resource base and using supplies that are not vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions. Solar energy is also generally most plentiful when it is most needed—in the afternoon when air-conditioners are causing high electricity demand.

RPS Aff

87 Blackouts Ext – RPS Solves

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS will encourage and help utilities invest in transmission upgrades Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM D. Renewables Overcome Objections to Renewables A national RPS may not only compel some utilities to invest in transmission upgrades sooner rather than later, it may actually help them to do so. Often, utilities face public opposition when trying to win regulatory approval for new transmission lines. Environmental groups may argue that the utility is overbuilding the system or that alternative solutions were overlooked. Local landowners may object to transmission line rights-of-way or oppose substations located too close to their property. In Faquier County, Virginia, one county Supervisor recently rallied local opposition to Dominion Power’s preferred route for a 500 kV line, declaring, “This is a fight to the death!”130 “Transmission is the most difficult infrastructure project to site and more so than generation,” according to Ron Poff of American Electric Power (AEP). “You can get support from politicians. But when the not-in-my-backyard factor weighs in, the politicians will pull the rip cord.”131 Poff should know. In 1990 AEP sought permission to build an 89-mile transmission line through parts of West Virginia and Virginia. After major concessions to objectors (including rerouting the line to avoid the area’s rivers and wildlife), the project finally began transmitting power some 16 years later. Delays in transmission siting and development add substantially to the cost of infrastructure projects. To site transmission, utilities often incur significant pre-certification expenses and risk stranded costs should a permit be denied or public opposition halt the project. In most cases the costs of project delays are capitalized as the project moves forward, creating investor uncertainty and adding to construction costs which are eventually passed on to ratepayers.132 The longer a transmission project is delayed, the more it costs to finance and the more utilities must raise rates to recover those costs. Recent experiences suggest that opposition to transmission projects turns to broad public support if it is justified by the need to interconnect new renewable generation. In 2003, for example, Xcel Energy received approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to site 178 miles of new transmission lines and four new substations to facilitate a tripling in size of its Buffalo Ridge wind farm. Early in the process, Xcel justified the new transmission as critical to expanding wind power generation at Buffalo Ridge, whose transmission lines were already fully subscribed. In a remarkable reversal of norms, local stakeholders accused the company of not proposing an adequate amount of new transmission and not working to build it fast enough. One senior environmental consultant noted how local landowners and advocates perceived environmental and economic benefits from renewable energy and that perception translated into overwhelming support for Xcel’s transmission upgrades: The combination of expanded use of renewable energy and the associated influx of potential economic gain in rural, primarily agricultural, regions have led to unprecedented support of the transmission line projects. Environmental groups view the increased use of a renewable energy source as a positive step and recognize the need for additional transmission capacity to support siting of renewable generation facilities.133 Xcel’s experience with Buffalo Ridge is a case study for how other utilities can win public approval for network upgrades that ultimately benefit all generators. By justifying transmission expansions through RPS-induced renewable generation, utilities can overcome opposition that would delay or stop transmission upgrades under normal circumstances. The costsavings associated with quicker project approvals result in lower rates for consumers who would otherwise pay for the delays. And because modern transmission systems are required to respect FERC’s Open Access requirements, line owners are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of generation source in the distribution of transmission resources. Therefore, transmission built initially to access renewable resources can facilitate infrastructure expansions that benefit the entire portfolio of generation sources. Transmission upgrades justified by substantial new renewable generation can buy time for zero-emissions coal and carbon sequestration technologies to become commercially viable.134 // pg. 62-64

RPS Aff

88 Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Terrorists are motivated to attack the energy grid because they know it is vulnerable Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 330-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) The U.S. electric power system is a tempting target because electric energy is a large part of the U. S. economy and an important ingredient for our culture and way of life. Although our electric energy production, storage, and transportation facilities are dispersed across the United States, the interconnectedness, openness, and centralized locations make our system vulnerable to various forms of terrorist attack. During electrical power outages of any length of time, homes and businesses currently stand to lose not only idle time, but money as well. Today people and businesses have built their worlds around, and are in need of, reliable and uninterruptible sources of electrical energy. In
1978 explosives left by an unknown source left a hole in the Trans Alaskan pipeline which caused a spill of approximately 670,000 gallons of oil. In 2001 Al Qaeda operatives destroyed the World Trade Center and have designs for more attacks against the U. S. economy.

As the World Trade Center was a central, large, local target, our nation’s electrical power generation network presents many of the same vulnerabilities. In 2001 a man with a high powered rifle shot a hole in the Trans Alaskan pipeline, causing a spill of over 285,600 gallons and $8 million
dollars in lost royalty revenue and taxes and $20 million dollars in clean up costs.8 In 2003 a single downed power line caused 21 electric power plants to shut down leaving approximately 50 million people in the Northeastern United States without electricity for over 30 hours.9 In 2006 Hewlett-Packard estimated that a 15-minute electricity outage at only one of their chip manufacturing plants would cost the company $30 million in lost production and recovery services, all while costing the electrical power company little at all.10 These kinds of losses can devastate a region, not just the company. The 2003 U. S. blackout lucidly demonstrates the vulnerability to our electrical power grid and the rapidly ensuing negative effects of electrical power loss. It demonstrates that a tightly interconnected electric grid, as in our current system, can be not only its greatest strength but also its biggest weakness. When

there is a problem with even a seemingly minor subsystem, in this case a broken power line, the interconnected grid itself becomes a very large vulnerability.11
“The Great Blackout of 2003 will go down in history as one more wake-up call for a nation grown weary of them, a vivid demonstration that the most critical technology of modern life – the electricity that powers virtually every aspect of it – is vulnerable to severe disruption, and growing more so by the day.”12 The loss of any major electrical power plant could leave large regions of the country without electricity.13 Even an imbalance of electrical power on the grid can cause the “fail safe” system to fail, resulting in the loss of electricity to tens of millions of people at once or, even more disrupting, an electrical power plant could burn out.

Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda have expressed an interest exploiting vulnerabilities and sensitivities at nuclear sites, and Al Qaeda still has operatives at large in the UnitedStates.14 In 2002 Representative Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, was quoted as saying “the nation’s 103 nuclear power reactors are vulnerable to a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack but have taken few safety countermeasures since September 11, 2001 even though they have been targeted by Al Qaeda…” Rep. Markey also said “the nation’s commercially operated reactors are at risk from a wide variety of assaults, including sabotage from foreign workers who were not adequately screened…and are also vulnerable to the same kind of suicide hijackings that leveled the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon…”15 There are currently twenty-one nuclear facilities located within a five-mile radius of an airport. Additionally, most nuclear facilities store significant amounts of spent nuclear fuel in non-hardened structures. Rep. Markey also contends that the guards at these facilities are under trained and in some cases incapable of combating an attack on the site from terrorists who want to gain entry.16 The impact of an attack to a nuclear facility could be devastating to the area. Since the mid 1990s, security

experts have shown concern about attacks on the electrical power gird. In a war game called “Eligible Receiver” in movements all over the world have made a specialty of blowing up electrical power pylons. A single isolated bomb on a vital transmission corridor is an easily recoverable event, but coordinated bombs could have a much larger effect.18 “Security experts have also been saying the electrical grid is vulnerable to deliberate attack, most likely with bombs but also possible through a cyber-assault by hackers, terrorists or enemy nations.”19 Additionally, the Department of Energy states on their website that “Today, we can anticipate facing an adversary with more resources and enhanced capabilities,
1997, government hackers showed they could gain access to internal networks at electrical power plants in many of America’s cities.17 Guerrilla and who routinely plans to use suicidal tactics as a portion of their overall tactical plan.”

More than just the electric generation plants, there are other vulnerabilities, such as major transmission lines, large gas pipelines, the increasing number of larger scale electric plants, and the nation’s gradually declining number of oil refineries that need to be considered and discussed.21 Much attention since September 11, 2001 has been turned toward nuclear power plant security, but virtually little has
been done to protect the remaining plants and infrastructure that keeps them running.22 In 1999 there was a natural gas pipeline explosion in Washington State which spilled 230,000 gallons of natural gas and killed three people and more than 100,000 fish and aquatic life. The explosion destroyed one home, twenty-six acres of trees, and 2.5 miles of vegetation.23 Strategic pipelines represent one of our largest vulnerabilities, as more than 90 percent of the United States’ new electrical power plants burn natural gas as their fuel.24 A disruption in the natural gas supply, such as one that could occur through a pipeline problem such as a rupture, could result in millions of homes without heat or electricity and thousands of factories and businesses not operating. This would cause major economic problems for the affected region in addition to the environmental problems of rupture

RPS Aff

89 Grid Security Ext – Grid Vulnerable Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The current form of energy transmission is extremely vulnerable to attack – this energy is vital to our society Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 330-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Electrical energy is a staple of the American way of life. Nearly every

activity we perform every day requires some application of electrical energy, even the task of generating electrical energy. Americans rightly expect that electric power will be there when they need it, and have adapted their lives to the plethora of cheap, available, and dependable electric power. Our way of life is sustained by electric power plants and the infrastructure
needed to move the electricity from the point of origin to the point of use. This system of tightly coupled, integrated and interdependent systems, however, also is a key vulnerability to our way of life. Our

nation’s centralized electrical power generation system and its distribution network includes fragilities and vulnerabilities that can be exploited by hostile or even natural acts. A more modern decentralized and distributed electrical power generation model based upon distributed generation of electrical energy is our best defense. Our country relies heavily upon centralized electrical power generation plants connected to a networked grid to supply our needs. Those needs are high and growing; the typical home uses approximately 24 Kilowatts (kW) and the average McDonald’s uses about 500 kW of electricity
daily.1 Our need for electricity is constantly increasing, requiring the United States to import more electricity or build more plants to generate for its generation. In 2005 total electric power consumption in the United States was 29,404,894 megawatts (MW) while total domestic electric production was only 20,365,258 MW, of which 18,532,836 MW was generated using conventional methods and fuels such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear and another 1,832,422 MW by using renewable energy such as wind, solar, hydro electric, and geo thermal.2 The remaining 9,039,636 MW, or roughly 31 percent, was imported. In our current electrical generation and distribution system, electric power moves from large central generating stations to the end consumers via a transmission grid. There

are many opportunities for disruption within each of these subsystems, the first being the points of generation where raw materials, such as coal, oil, natural gas, etc., are converted into electric power. Secondly, there are the receiving stations and substations, which are the mechanisms that distribute the electricity to the consumers, such as hospitals, factories, homes, military bases, and schools, to name a few. Lastly, and usually the least obvious but equally critical infrastructures in the process, are the high-tension electrical power lines that transmit the electricity between the generation point and the receiving stations and the pipelines, rail lines, and roadways that brought the fuel to the generation points3.
The major source of raw material for electricity generation is coal, which provides 49.7 percent of the total fuel used. The remaining raw material total is made up of Nuclear at 19.3 2 percent, natural gas at 18.7 percent, petroleum at 3 percent, hydroelectric at 6.5 percent, renewable (solar, wind, etc.) at 2.3 percent, other gases and fuels at 0.5 percent.4 Most of this material is brought to the generation point using railways, pipelines, or ships – creating a transportation extension to the electrical power grid itself. The nation’s electrical power system includes 158,000 miles of primary electric transmission lines, 5,000 electrical power plants (totaling 800,000 MW) including 103 nuclear power reactors, 2 million miles of oil pipelines, 1.3 million miles of gas pipelines, 2,000 petroleum terminals, one million gas and oil wells, and 150 oil refineries.5 The electrical energy industry is a large tightly interconnected web that reaches every corner of the country.6

Current efforts to address electric grid vulnerabilities are inadequate CNN, 7 (Jeanne Meserve, “Mouse click could plunge city into darkness, experts say,” 9-27-2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText) But five years later, there is no such program. Federal spending on electronic security is projected to increase slightly in the coming fiscal year, but spending in the Department of Homeland Security is projected to decrease to less than $100 million, with only $12 million spent to secure power control systems. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has adopted cyber security standards for the electric utility industry, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has regulations in the offing. Some outside experts say neither go far enough to protect the industry from cyber attack. Groups representing the electric utility industry declined to comment for this report. Despite all the warnings and worry, there has not been any publicly known successful cyber-attack against a power plant's control system. And electric utilities have paid more attention to electronic risks than many other industries, adopting voluntary cyber-standards. "Of all our industries, there are only a couple -- perhaps banking and finance and telecommunications -- that have better cyber-security or better security in general then electric power," Borg said. And DHS notes that it uncovered the vulnerability discovered in March, and is taking steps with industry to address it. While acknowledging some vulnerability, DHS's Jamison said "several conditions have to be in place. ... You first have to gain access to that individual control system. [It] has to be a control system that is vulnerable to this type of attack." "You have to have overcome or have not enacted basic security protocols that are inherent on many of those systems. And you have to have some basic understanding of what you're doing. How the control system works and what, how the equipment works in order to do damage. But it is, it is a concern we take seriously." "It is a serious concern. But I want to point out that there is no threat, there is no indication that anybody is trying to take advantage of this individual vulnerability," Jamison said. Borg notes that industry will have to remain forever vigilant at protecting control systems. "It will always be an ongoing problem. It's something we will have to be dealing with [for] lots of years to come," he said.

RPS Aff

90 Grid Security Ext – Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A terrorist attack on the electric grid would devastate the economy – models and empirics prove ICF Consulting, 3 (The Economic Cost of the Blackout: An issue paper on the Northeastern Blackout, August 14, 2003, http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Energy/doc_files/blackout-economic-costs.pdf) A coordinated attack on a power grid could lead to even more significant economic damages, both as a direct consequence of the attack, as well as through the ripple effects resulting from the strong inter-linkages between industry sectors.
The recent power blackout in the northeast has revived the discussion on the need to upgrade the transmission infrastructure. While that debate has its own merit, a related and a potentially more threatening issue to be addressed is the vulnerability of our electrical grid to terrorist attacks. ICF Consulting recently raised similar concerns in a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on the transmission grid in California. In the simulation, we found a coordinated attack in California could lead to significant economic damages, both as a direct consequence of the attack, as well as through the ripple effects due to the strong inter-linkages between industry sectors. In this issue paper, we use some of the insights gained from the California simulation to measure the economic costs of the recent blackout and reiterate some of the lessons learned from the exercise. What was the cost of the Northeast Blackout of 2003? One way to estimate the economic costs of a power outage is to calculate consumer’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid such outages. This gives a measure of the “cost of reliability” of electrical services measured in terms of the valuation of the service placed by its customers. Several studies provide survey-based estimates of this WTP for different groups of electric customers. To estimate the total economic cost of this blackout, we multiply the average value of electricity for the affected customers (including residential, commercial, industrial, and others), by the preliminary data on the magnitude and duration of this blackout. Based on previous analyses by ICF Consulting, we can assume that the value of electricity to consumers (measured as their WTP to avoid outages) is approximately 100 times the retail price of electricity. For example, an analysis done on the 1977 outage in New York City that resulted in a loss of more than 5,000 MW and lasted for 25 hours estimated that the direct cost was about $0.66/kWh (for example, losses due to spoilage, and lost production and wages), and an indirect cost of $3.45/kWh (due to the secondary effects of the direct costs).1 Thus the total unit cost of that blackout was $4.11/kWh or over $4,000/MWh in 1977. The national average retail price of electricity in 1977 for all customers was about $34/MWh.2 Similar ratios were identified during the simulation scenario on the California grid. Though the data for the August 2003 outage is preliminary and further refinements will be necessary, we calculate initial estimates of the economic costs of this outage based on these ratios above. Instead of providing only a point estimate for the total cost, we define a range that is 80 times and 120 times the appropriate retail electricity price for the lower and upper bounds, respectively. Also, since there is considerable seasonal and regional variation in electricity prices, we use the August 2002 average electricity price of $93/MWh for the affected region (provided by the Energy Information Administration) to calculate the value of electricity to the customers affected by this outage. Details on the exact extent and duration for different blackout stages are sketchy. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) the initial blackout that started around 4:00 p.m. (EST) on August 14, 2003, resulted in a loss of 61,800 MW and affected more than 50 million people. NERC also reports that by 11:00 a.m. (EST) on August 15, about 48,600 MW of lost power was restored, leaving a residual loss of about 13,200 MW. Finally, at 11:00 a.m. (EST) on August 16, NERC announced that “virtually all customers have been returned to electricity service”.3 The precision of the cost estimate is directly correlated to the accuracy of the unconfirmed reports on the extent and duration of the outage. Since much of the data is still being collected, ICF Consulting made reasonable assumptions regarding the “recovery path” from this outage to give an overall picture consistent with the information reported by NERC. Specifically, for this analysis, we assume that the initial outage of 61,800 MW lasted for 4 hours and then half of that was restored, with the other half (30,900 MW) being the shortfall for another 10 hours. Given that the next announcement from NERC was issued approximately 18 hours after the start of the outage, we assume that another one-half of the unserved 30,900 MW was restored after 14 hours and the remaining loss of 15,450 MW lasted for the subsequent 4 hours. This gives a total of 18 hours for the first phase of the blackout. Using similar arguments for the remaining period of the blackout, we assume more than 13,000 MW of customer load was lost for another 14 hours after which 6,600 MW was the shortfall for another 10 hours. Finally, on the third day of this blackout, 2,000 MW was the loss for 20 hours and another 1,000 MW was the shortfall for the final 10 hours of this blackout. This gives a total outage period of 72 hours.

the economic cost of this outage is estimated to be between $7 and $10 billion for the national economy. Further refinements to these estimates are likely as new details about the outage pattern are released.
Using this scenario and the average electricity price for the affected region from August 2002, How could terrorism complicate matters?

a terror-induced blackout could prove significantly more costly and have potentially debilitating impacts on the affected region as well as the entire country. As the economy tries to recover from recession, a sabotage-related shock that could affect such a huge area of the country could significantly increase the cost burden and prove fatal for the recovery.4 Some of the added costs from a terrorism-related transmission grid attack would be: Damage to equipment – a terrorist attack could not only lead to a transmission grid malfunction, but also could lead to significant damage to the equipment, resulting in higher costs and more time required for repair and replacement. Hangover effect –In the simulation referenced above, the most significant economic burden was borne by the tourism industry as people became
Although the cost of the August 2003 blackout is not expected to prove devastating for our $10 trillion economy, it is important to keep in mind that nervous and avoided travel even after electricity was fully restored. A similar blackout caused by a terrorist attack would lead to substantially higher costs to the hotel, airline, and other service industries that are directly impacted by tourism. It is important to remember that the economic costs of the blackout would have been significantly higher had it been caused by a terrorist attack. The need is even greater now to think about the critical infrastructure asset—electric transmission grid—and ways to improve its security and reliability. Here are some of the areas of critical infrastructure protection (supported by a White House report) that need further study: Understand the level of dependencies between different parts of the transmission grid so that we can establish protection priorities and strategies. Study the need for increased redundancy in our transmission infrastructure and build it making greater investment in reserve equipment. Increased generation will improve the reliability of the whole network and reduce its vulnerabilities. Identify critical equipment stockpiles so there is minimum delay in recovery and restoration and analyze ways to standardize equipment and increase component interchangeability. Increase distributed generation such as through promoting combined heat and power technologies (commonly called cogeneration technologies) to relieve transmission bottlenecks. Analyze the risks faced by these critical facilities, as well as the steps we can take for the actual physical protection of our nation’s assets, so that we are better prepared to guard against such events. Another important component of a successful critical infrastructure protection strategy is to have adequate economic policies in place that harden the economy against such disruptions. This component assumes

A terrorist attack on vital infrastructures will also do serious harm to the tourism industry, resulting in significant unemployment as well as substantial costs for the insurance industry. According to reports in
increased significance as the economy recovers from an economic recession. The New York Times, preliminary estimates of the insurance industry burden of this recent blackout put the figure at $3 billion.

The impact is economic shutdown – unless the grid is decentralized, “a few bombs” can shut down the entire country WSJ, 7 (William Tucker, “Electrical Storm - With demand skyrocketing, wires fraying and political resolve flickering, how long will the lights stay on?,”
7-21-2007, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118497036898073460.html) *The books reviewed are “The Grid” by Phillip F. Schewe, who has a doctorate in particle physics and is the chief science writer at the American Institute of Physics , and “Lights Out” by Jason Makansi, previous editor-in-chief of Power and Electric Power International magazines and as a contributing editor of Electrical World magazine.

The sites most vulnerable to attack on the grid are not nuclear reactors -- their 4-foot-thick concrete containment structures can withstand the impact of a The real vulnerability, says Mr. Makansi, is the handful of substations around the country where the Northeast, Western, Canadian and Texas grids interlink. These isolated facilities, whose locations remain undisclosed for obvious reasons, are protected by little more than barbed wire. Taking them out -- which might be done with a few well-placed bombs -- could shut down the entire country. Mr. Makansi identifies the aging and neglected long- distance transmission lines as the grid's Achilles' heel. Much of the juryrigged 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
Try this. jetliner while sustaining little more than a dent. 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..

RPS Aff

91 Grid Security Ext – Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A single EMP attack would destroy the electricity grid of the United States – this will cause cascading collapses in critical infrastructure that we can’t recover from Wood, 5 – Acting Chairman Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (Dr. Lowell, Opening Statement, Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 3-8-2005, http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_wood.pdf) What is particularly significant about EMP is that a single high-altitude nuclear detonation can produce EMP effects that can potentially disrupt or damage electronic and electrical systems over much of the United States, virtually simultaneously, at a time determined by an adversary. Thus, EMP is one of a small number of threat-types that has the potential to hold American society seriously at risk and that might result in the defeat of our military forces. The electromagnetic field pulses produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon which any reasonably advanced society – including our own – depends vitally. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the Nation. Depending on the specific characteristics of the EMP attack, unprecedented cascading failures of our major infrastructures could result, in which failure of one infrastructure could ‘pull down’ others dependent on its functioning, and the failure of these, in turn, could seriously impede recovery of the first infrastructure-to-fail. In such events, a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult, and would seriously degrade the overall viability of our Nation and the safety, even the lives, of very large numbers of U.S. citizens. The primary avenues for EMP imposition of catastrophic damage to the Nation are through our electric power infrastructure and thence into our telecommunications, energy, and other key infrastructures. These, in turn, can seriously impact other vital aspects of our Nation’s life, including the financial system; means of getting food, water, and health care to the citizenry; trade; and production of goods and services. The recovery of any one of these key National infrastructures is dependent on others working. The longer the basic outage, the more problematic and uncertain the recovery of any of them will be. It is possible – indeed, seemingly likely -- for sufficiently-severe functional outages to become mutually reinforcing, until a point at which the degradation of the set of infrastructures could have irreversible effects on the country’s ability to support any large fraction of its present human population. The electricity grid is critical – making it more resilient will help the US recover from other attacks and natural disasters Wood, 5 – Acting Chairman Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (Dr. Lowell, Opening Statement, Commission to Assess the Threat to the US From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 3-8-2005, http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_wood.pdf) Specific recommendations are provided in the EMP Commission’s report with respect to both the particulars for securing each of the most critical National infrastructures against EMP threats and the governing principles for addressing these issues of national survival and recovery in the aftermath of an EMP attack. Much of the problem can be addressed very economically, without major capital investments, but by developing effective plans to meet the challenges posed by EMP threats. For example, one major Commission finding is that the electric power grid is the “keystone” infrastructure, upon which all other infrastructures depend. Yet today, there is no plan for “black-starting” the power grid in the event of a Nation-wide collapse of the system. If the electric power grid can be quickly recovered, the other infrastructures can also be recovered adequately in the aftermath of an EMP attack. Making the key aspects of the Nation’s infrastructures more robust against EMP attack will also pay dividends in protecting against other types of large-scale problems with them, such as natural disasters.

RPS Aff

92

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation
Expanding renewable is key to create an energy grid that is resilient against terrorist attacks Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) a larger use of renewable energy systems could provide the nation with enhanced energy security. When distributed, such generators are far more resilient against terrorist attacks and severe weather events. Deploying small-scale renewable energy systems in targeted areas can create a more secure transmission and distribution grid by strengthening transformers,
In addition, local taps, feeders, and switchgears, especially in congested areas or regions where the permitting of new transmission networks is difficult. A 1992 Pacific Gas and Electric Analysis comparing 50 1-MW distributed photovoltaic plants versus one 50-MW central PV plant in Carissa Plains, Calif., found that the grid advantages (in forms of load savings and congestion) more than offset their generation

A similar study conducted in New York concluded that modern wind plants with reactive power compensation can actually improve system stability following a major power system disturbance.50
disadvantages (in terms of high capital cost and interconnection).49

RPS is key to promoting distributed renewable energy technology that reduces grid vulnerability Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, "State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the Cart?" Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 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.[28]In contrast to the security risks of large centralized

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.[29] 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.
generators,

The plan solves – renewable energy technology will be adopted and replace outdated grid technology Asmus, 1 – AHC Group Senior Associate (Peter, “The War against Terrorism Helps Build the Case for Distributed Renewables,” Electricity Journal, 12-21-2001, from Science Direct Database)
III. A New Smarter and Cleaner Distributed Model

The huge potential costs and liabilities linked to large-scale fossil and nuclear generating sources are avoided entirely with solar PV and other distributed, renewable energy systems. One lesson the horrible tragedy of Sept. 11 may teach us is that our energy supply is far too dependent on security and military interventions. We now have the tools and technologies necessary to propel a revolution in energy that mimics, to a large extent, the evolution in scale evident in the telecommunications and computer industries. These new technologies — solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and wind turbines — are the equivalent to the wireless cell phones and portable laptops that replaced traditional grid-connected phones and huge mainframe computers, respectively. Just how valuable can these distributed renewable energy systems be? With solar PV and small wind turbines, there are no fuel costs and associated military expenditures, no vulnerable pipelines that require security surveillance, no need for miles upon miles of gigantic transmission lines that could also be terrorist targets. Indeed, these distributed micro-generators can operate independently from the existing grid or be gridconnected. With the advent of electricity deregulation and the corresponding launch of the California Energy Commission's Emerging Renewable Energy Buy-Down Rebate program, more and more Californians across the state who are connected to the grid are now installing the latest generation of small-scale renewable energy systems. Under this program, the state pays half of the installation costs of grid-connected systems, whose owners sell back to the grid the electricity they can't use to help stabilize the grid. At today's volatile prices, these systems will be paid off in less than 10 years and then provide literally free electricity to the lucky consumers that purchased them. According to the Energy Commission, buy-down rebate applications for solar and wind systems have been averaging roughly 250 per month in 2001.

RPS Aff

93

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation
Plan is key to solving – federal RPS removes barriers to distributed generation technologies Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // DNB Limits on Distributed Generation (DG) The current state-by-state approach to RPS is also inhibiting the expansion of distributed generation technologies by forcing unusually prohibitive operational procedures. Inconsistent tariff structures and interconnection requirements, for example, add complexity (and therefore cost) to distributed generation projects. In fact, the Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric generating and electric distribution companies committed to responsible environmental stewardship, forecasts that fuel cells and community-scale wind energy projects are unlikely to play a meaningful role in state RPS markets until policymakers adopt a more comprehensive and uniform approach.31 Renewable technology development is key to distributed generation Nerad, 7 – United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel (Anton H. II, “Distributed Generation to Counter Grid Vulnerability,” US Army War College, Strategy Research Project, 330-2007, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) Not all renewable energy projects have to be as large scale as these. I mention them to demonstrate that the technologies are maturing and are gaining investment for large-scale adaptation and conventional use by power companies. There are new technologies that are allowing solar and wind sources to be optimized for small scale, single building use. A company called XsunX has created a transparent solar cell film
technology for use in commercial buildings. Buyers can apply this film to the typical glass of commercial buildings and generate electricity. This makes all of the exterior windows of the building solar panels

A very promising technology and application that does not only provide power for the building, but, adds electric power to the grid. Biomass, or farm waste, is a fuel that made from the conversion of waste through anaerobic digesters that break down waste into methane, which, when burned, create electricity. This application has very specific uses in the farming industry, however most farmers view
capable of producing electrical energy for the entire building. this technology as a solution to their waste management problem and not as a solution to an energy problem, but it can be both.56 Currently, the trends point that in the next few years thousands of dairies, feedlots, hog farms, and poultry operations will install this technology.

Renewables are key to creating distributed generation – this prevents an attack on the electricity grid that brings us back to the Stone Age UPI, 6 (Meredith Mackenzie, United Press International, “Minimizing Risk of Attack on Electric Grid,” 3-09-2006, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Minimizing_Risk_Of_Attack_On_Electric_Grid.html)
But Joel Gordes, a former Air Force navigator and head of Environmental Energy Solutions, warned Tuesday at the Northeast Sustainable Energy annual conference that this fancy of director Stephen

a very real terrorist attack on America's centralized power system. "You can get a relatively low-cost ($400) weapons system called a flux-compression generator that can make an electromagnetic pulse," Gordes said. "We used to talk about how every time you blow up a nuclear devise you get an electromagnetic pulse that will wipe out your semiconductors. Basically, it would take us pretty much back to the stone age ... anything with a computer chip in it would not work." Gordes said that the centralized power grid has long been seen as vulnerable and recently a terrorist target.
Soderberg's imagination could become Richard Clark, a former White House counter-terrorism adviser, has warned as much. "The owners and operators of electric power grids, banks and railroads; they're the ones who have to defend our

Gordes offered a solution in his Tuesday workshop -- distributed generation. The Department of Energy defines distributed generation as "a variety of small, modular power-generating technologies that used to improve the operation of the local electricity delivery system. These systems can be combined with energy storage and power management and are usually, but not always, connected to an electricity distribution grid." This means smaller power generation plants, including nuclear, solar, and biodiesel, that are located closer to the homes and businesses where the power is meant to be used. This reduces energy lost in transmission and creates what Gordes calls "microgrids." Not only is distributed generation an excellent opportunity to integrate renewable technologies, said Gordes, but a redundant, separately administered, power system would lesson the effect of a terrorist attack on the system by decentralizing power. The concept is as old as the stock market: diversify in order to reduce risk. Distributed generation, Gordes writes in NESEA's publication "Northeast Sun," offers multiple benefits. "(Placement of diverse
infrastructure. The government doesn't own it, the government doesn't operate it, the government can't defend it." fuel generators) avoids costly vulnerable, ugly, and inefficient transmission systems and increases energy security in two ways. First, it reduces our dependence upon foreign oil and the increasing need for foreign liquefied natural gas. Second, it provides resiliency when used with the existing power grid, providing high reliability and power quality demands in a digital society." Dave Sjoding manages the Northwest Combined Heat and Power Application Center in Olympia, Washington, where six states collaborate on distributed generation projects that serve to provide both heat and power. He said that despite transitional costs, utility companies benefit because a great degree of stability is added to the existing grid through the integration of alternative energy sources. "Distributed generation reduces transmission and distribution issues," he said. "Now the power is produced locally and used locally and you're not having to move it a huge distance." And as far as national security goes, Sjoding said that the benefit is obvious, "

As you bring distributed power into the system, you ensure that all the eggs are not in one basket."

RPS Aff

94

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Grid Security Ext – Renewable Solves / Key to Distributed Generation
Distributed generation is possible – new solar energy technology will help us get off of the energy grid Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2003 (“Taking A Load Off The National Power Grid: New Solar-powered Window System Heats, Cools, Lights, And Shades Commercial Buildings,” 8-27-2003, ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2003/08/030826065552.htm) solar-powered, integrated window system that could significantly reduce dependency on the same energy grid that caused the biggest power outage in U.S. history. Designed to function as a shading system, the Dynamic Shading Window System (DSWS) uses a
A team of researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has developed the first of its kind newly developed solar-energy technology to convert the sun's light and diverted heat into storable energy that can be used to also efficiently heat, cool, and artificially light the same office building. Developed primarily for commercial buildings, the DSWS blocks the harshest rays while allowing the most pleasing daylight to stay in a building's interior.

"Our system, which can be incorporated into existing commercial buildings as well as new ones, could become a significant part in the development of an overall energy plan to reduce dependence on the national power grid. This could save businesses -- the biggest consumers of energy -- untold utility costs and significantly reduce U.S. need for fossil fuels," says Anna
Dyson, assistant professor of architecture who co-developed the DSWS. How It Works The DSWS system is made of clear plastic panels that fit in between two panes of glass. On each panel are dozens of small, pyramid-shaped units, or "modules," made from semi- translucent focusing plastic lenses, that track the motion of the sun. Sensors, embedded in the walls or the roof, ensure that the units are always facing the sun to capture all incoming rays while at the same time deflecting harsh, unwanted rays from a building's interior. Each unit holds a miniaturized photovoltaic (PV), or solar-cell, device used to collect light and heat that is then transferred into useable energy to run the motors, also embedded in the building's interior walls. The remaining energy is used for heat, air conditioning, and artificial lighting. The surplus energy can be directly and automatically distributed through wires inside a building's walls, or can be stored in a group of batteries, for later use. "This solar-powered technology will provide the typical business office the most superior lighting available--natural daylight. It will allow for better views outside your window that are no longer hidden by a standard shade or obscured by penetrating glare," says Dyson.

Distributed generation uses renewable technology – best suited for the job Kendall, No Date – CLP Research Institute Managing Director (Gail, “Renewable Energy and Distributed Resources: A Competitive Combination?” https://www.clpgroup.com/Abt/Res/TechPpr/Documents/01efacdcdc264f06bb0df29278062e00repapermay05.pdf) Renewable electric power generation includes hydropower, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar and ocean energy. These also find applications in a wide range of sizes, including the full spectrum of distributed resource applications. But some forms of renewable energy are better suited to distributed generation than others. Biomass, wind and solar energy are particularly wellsuited to distributed generation. The performance of distributed wind power, and particularly of solar electricity, can be enhanced by combination with other generation and/or energy storage devices. Many distributed renewable systems are hybrids. Status quo provides multiple barriers to development of DE technology – a federal RPS would solve all of them CAEM, 2 ("The Role of the Federal Government in Distributed Energy: A Report of the Distributed Energy Task Force," Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets, January, http://www.caem.org/website/pdf/DE_Federal_Role_Final.pdf) Environmental Regulations. Environmental regulations are driven by federal and state laws, but administered at the state level and through regional boards. The states have some discretion regarding environmental regulation, which results in significant variations in policies and procedures from state to state. This variation adds significant complication to the manufacturing of DE equipment and systems on a mass scale, and to the adoption of DE by national companies, which must deal with widely varying regulations in each state in which they operate. It also adds complications for DE developers, which must be positioned to assist customers in dealing with a wide range of environmental regulations. There are also issues of fairness which are not unique to DE. Environmental requirements are onerous for new sources, while old power plants are grandfathered. Past decisions award pollution "rights" to incumbents, and this represents a large hurdle for new technologies to overcome.

RPS Aff

95 Grid Security Ext – A2: Wind Turbines Will be Attacked

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind turbines won’t be attacked Trainer, 7 (Ted, “Aha! Offshore Wind’s Fatal Flaw,” Transition Culture, 12-13-2007, http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/13/aha-offshore-winds-fatal-flaw/) I picked up a copy of the free paper Metro yesterday. In the light of the recent announcement that the Government plans to expand the amount of offshore wind as part of its half-hearted attempt to assure everyone that business as usual is still possible, the usual tired old rubbish wheeled out against wind power has been aired once again on the radio and in the papers. A letter in Metro however, raised an argument against wind power that I have never come across before. A letter from David Hill of the World Innovation Foundation, ran thus; Government business secretary John Hutton’s announcement that Britain could have one wind turbine every half mile along the nation’s coastline by 2020 is a terrorist’s dream come true. For, if we are to become so reliant upon this isolated energy generation, there is no way to protect them. I have since been wracking my brain as to how a terrorist cell might actually set about making any meaningful impact of thousands of wind turbines situated out at sea. They might hijack an airplane and crash it into, at most, 4 turbines, a somewhat pointless exercise. They might attempt to haul a large amount of welding equipment out to sea, with a generator, in order to try and fell a turbine, a pretty momentous task, and one that would presumably be spotted remotely pretty quickly. They could sail out with a boat full of semtex and then sail from turbine to turbine setting explosive charges. Beyond that I am pretty non-plussed as to how even the most dedicated and maniacal terrorist could have any significant impact on thousands of wind turbines located off shore. I have heard some daft arguments against wind turbines in my time, but I think this is by far the silliest. It is if a terrorist cell decides to target a nuclear power station, or even a coal-fired power station that we need to be extremely worried, as the results could be catastrophic. Surely the terrorist threat is a reason to support wind, not reject it. Or have I missed something here?! I wonder if the same logic, that decentralised energy systems are somehow an inherent magnet for terrorists, extends to other technologies? Does putting solar panels on the roof make you more or a target for terrorists? Would a wood pellet boiler mean that you could be targetted? If Mr Hill has any specific information, I think we should be told.

RPS Aff

96 Unemployment Ext – Economy Internals

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment triggers a rise in food and oil prices and a weak dollar and increases the risk of recession Nilsson in 8 (Hans, FX Strategist at CMS Forex, “Dollar Drops on Surging Unemployment Rate”, 6-6-08, http://www.fxstreet.com/technical/forex-strategy/daily-forex-strategy-briefing/2008-06-08.v02.html) The dollar dropped against its rivals except the Canadian dollar Friday after the May US jobless rate posted its sharpest one-month increase in 22 years and employment fell for the fifth consecutive month. The surge in the unemployment rate is worrisome. The yen and Swiss franc rose on increased risk aversion as US stocks declined the most in 15 months and crude oil and gold rallied. The EUR/USD had its largest weekly rally since the end of March on further signs of a deepening US economic contraction. The worsening US labor market situation is increasing both the euro’s interest and growth advantage as the higher US recession risk is diminishing the chances of any Federal Reserve interestrate hikes. The EUR/USD’s failure to break the 1.54 support and the possibility for a European Central Bank rate hike
in July also contributed to this week’s gain. The EUR/USD is in a well-defined uptrend; however, having been in a sideways pattern since March on optimism the US economy would stabilize and the Fed would reverse its super-easy monetary policy stance. Resistances exist in the 1.58-area and at the 1.6018 alltime high. A penetration of these resistances would be bullish for the EUR/USD, while a break of support would be bearish. Financial and Economic News and Comments US & Canada US nonfarm payrolls fell a less-than-expected 49,000 in May, a fifth-straight drop, after April’s revised larger drop 28,000 and March’s revised larger drop 88,000, data from the Labor Department showed. Private (nongovernment) payrolls fell 66,000. The weakest sectors were temporary employment (down 30,000), retail (down 27,000), manufacturing (down 26,000), and home construction (down 25,000). The strongest sector was health care (up 42,000). The unemployment rate jumped more than forecast to 5.5% in May, its highest level since October 2004, from 5.0% in April. The half-point rise was the biggest since February 1986. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours. Average hourly earnings increased a slightly more-thanexpected 0.3% m/m, to $17.94, and rose 3.5% y/y. The

overall figures show US consumers already facing a housing slump and rising oil and food prices confront more pressure from a weakening labor market; thus, reducing expectations of Federal Reserve interest-rates hikes. Unemployment kills confidence, weakens dollar, prevents rate cuts that curb inflation, and heightens oil prices. Agence-France Presse in 8 (“Dollar weakens on downbeat economic news”, 6-25-08, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6qzNTW3dlXAAtf6AZnz7PuMR22w)
NEW YORK (AFP) — The

dollar weakened against other major currencies Tuesday in the face of downbeat economic news on US consumer confidence and the housing market, and as the US central bank was expected to keep interest rates unchanged. The subdued economic readings weighed on the dollar as analysts said they lessened the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would hike interest rates anytime soon despite mounting inflation concerns tied to soaring crude oil prices.
The European single currency rose to 1.5565 dollars around 2100 GMT, up from 1.5513 dollars in New York late Monday. Against the Japanese currency, the dollar was changing hands at 107.83 yen, down from 107.87 yen a day earlier.

The dollar endured fresh declines as an index tracking US consumer confidence plunged in June amid growing concerns about jobs and the economy. The index is watched closely by the markets because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of all US economic growth.
The Conference Board, a business research firm, said its monthly index of consumer confidence, which has slid all year, tumbled to 50.4 points in June from 58.1 points in May.

The June consumer confidence reading was the fifth weakest since the launch of the index in 1967. The decline in confidence was steeper than the expected 57.0 point reading forecast by most analysts. Unemployment, especially in the manufacturing sector, kills confidence and prevents rate hike. Forex Street in 8 (“Dollar Weakens As Consumer Confidence Falls to a 16-Year Low”, 6-25-08, http://www.commodityonline.com/futures-trading/forex/Dollar-weakens-as-consumer-confidence-falls-to-16-year-low573.html) According to the data released by US Labor Department last week, the initial jobless claims filed in the week ending June 14 fell by 5,000 to 381,000; but the four-week moving average for initial claims increased by 3,250 to 375,250. An unexpectedly large contraction in New York State manufacturing in May also added pressure on the green back. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's "Empire State" index showed manufacturing in the state shrunk in June for the fourth time in five months, increasing doubts on the health of the US economy. The data diminished expectations of a Fed rate hike. But as per data from Labor Department, US consumer prices rose at the fastest pace in six months, strengthening the growing expectations for a Federal Reserve interest-rate hike. As per the data, US consumer price index climbed 0.6% in May. The combination of rising inflation and struggling economies is making it difficult for markets to gauge the interest rate outlook and is confusing the traders.

RPS Aff

97 Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewable technologies create 10 times as many jobs as similar investments in conventional energy would. Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)
F. More Manufacturing Jobs

Renewable technologies create far more jobs than fossil fuel or nuclear generation facilities. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) assessed the employment impact of various electricity generation technologies and found that renewable energy technologies renewable energy technologies generate three times as many jobs per megawatt of installed capacity as fossil fuel-based generation.
The wind industry demonstrates the disparity quite clearly. According to a survey by Danish wind energy manufacturers, 17 worker-years are created for every megawatt of wind energy manufactured, and five worker-years for every megawatt installed:

Renewable energy technologies are up to three times more employment-intensive than fossil fuel power options: 188 workeryears are created locally for every megawatt of small solar electric systems. In Germany, wind power accounted for 1.2 percent of electricity
generation in 1998 and the industry employed 15,000 people, compared to nuclear with 33 percent share and about 40,000 jobs, and coal with a 26 percent share and 80,000 jobs.

Based on a market share comparison, the potential to create jobs is far greater for wind then for coal and nuclear options. In the year 2000, the wind energy industry provided more than 85,000 jobs worldwide and UNEP projects that the sector could provide up to 1.8 million jobs by 2020.
Job creation potential is not limited to the wind industry alone. The U.N. reviewed several studies demonstrating that up to 188 worker-years are created locally for every megawatt of small solar electric systems installed (these jobs come primarily from local retailing, installation and maintenance). UNEP also found that local production of solar modules can contribute substantially to a country’s manufacturing infrastructure.98 Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found an even larger job creation ratio in the United States. In 2004, Professor Daniel Kammen, head of UC Berkeley’s Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), directed a team that reviewed 13

reports all confirming that investments in renewable energy technologies would produce as much as 10 times as many American jobs than comparable investments in fossil fuel or nuclear technologies.99 Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per average megawatt of power installed, and per unit of
energy produced, than the fossil fuel-based energy sector. All states of the Union stand to gain in terms of net employment from the implementation of a portfolio of clean energy policies at the federal level.100

The UC Berkeley team calculated that a national RPS of 20 percent by 2020 could create as many as 240,000 new jobs versus only 75,000 jobs if the same energy were provided by fossil fuels. Kammen suggested that the large disparity partly lies in the fact that the employment rate in fossil fuel-related industries in the U.S. has been declining steadily for several years, while the renewable energy sector enjoys the potential of vast expansions in manufacturing, delivery, construction, installation and maintenance. A 20% RPS by 2020 jumpstarts the economy by massively increasing jobs and boosting investment. Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) Renewables generate 80% more jobs than equal investment in fossil fuels. A 20% RPS by 2020 would create as many as 240,000 new jobs – in manufacturing, construction, operations, maintenance, shipping, sales and finance – versus 75,000 jobs if the energy were provided by fossil fuels. A national RPS creates new jobs in states with the greatest manufacturing losses. The 20 states that would gain the most manufacturing jobs from a national investment in wind energy, for example, represent more than 2/3 of the manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. between 2001 and 2004. Quicker lead times minimize expensive construction cost overruns. Renewable technologies have quicker lead times (2 to 5 years) than conventional or nuclear plants (10 to 15 years), decreasing the financial risk associated with borrowing millions of dollars to finance generators that take10 to 15 years before they start producing a single kilowatt of electricity.

RPS Aff

98 Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

An RPS will revitalize the economy in several ways – creates five times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry Lacey, 7 (Stephen, Renewable Energy World, “The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy,” 4-20-2007, www.renewableenergyworld.net/rea/news/story?id=48201) // JMP
LaidLaw Energy Group, a New York-based developer of independent renewable power plants, has proposed turning the Fraser Paper Mill into a 50 megawatt (MW) capacity biomass electrical generation facility that will utilize woodchips. Because the mill's infrastructure is well suited for developing a power plant, it will be easier and cheaper for the company to construct the facility. If completed in 2008 as planned, the biomass facility will create approximately 500 indirect and 40 direct jobs in timber-rich Coos County where Berlin is located. While a power plant will require much less labor than the old paper mill, 540 jobs are a welcome addition to the area. "Clearly this project would help the local economy and many of the folks who have relied on the paper industry over the years," said Berlin City Manager Patrick MacQueen. "This project will be great for job creation and actually maintaining the jobs that get built." A University of New Hampshire study released this February titled, "Economic Impact of a New Hampshire Renewable Portfolio Standard,"

concluded that an adoption of 20 percent renewable energy will create thousands of jobs with wages much higher than the current state average, generate over $1 million in state revenue, and provide a "newfound opportunity for NH residents to start businesses."
Former New Hampshire Congressman Charlie Bass, who recently joined Laidlaw Energy Group as Special Advisor to company President and CEO Michael Bartoszek, said that renewable energy projects like the Berlin biomass plant are important for economic growth and stability in the state. "I've always been active in supporting alternative energy sources, so I'm excited to be involved with [the Berlin] project. Developments like this will truly benefit the state of New Hampshire and the rest of our country," Bass said.

Additional studies released over the last decade have indicated that a large-scale transition by the U.S. into a clean energy economy would significantly benefit the country by creating hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs, generate tens of billions of dollars in federal and state tax revenues, and help revitalize struggling communities.
According to a 2004 meta-analysis from of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at the University of California, Berkeley, which examined 13 studies on the economic benefits of renewable energy, approximately 240,000 jobs could be created and maintained if the country passed a 20 percent by 2020 RPS. If the U.S. relied solely on fossil fuels, the country would only maintain around 75,000 jobs. "We found that you get three to five times the amount of jobs in the renewables area than you do in fossil fuels," said Dan Kammen, director of RAEL and co-author of the meta-analysis. "The finding was not that there's some incredibly intrinsic, wonderful feature about renewables, even though I might think there is. It was that these benefits go to the first victors." That means local communities and states must act now in order to be part of the expected job growth. The employment opportunities created by the renewable energy sector will be diverse -- ranging from indirect manufacturing and construction jobs to direct facility design, operation and maintenance jobs. States like California, Texas, and others in the Midwest that have been most aggressive in supporting the solar, wind and biofuel industries are going to see the largest growth in those employment areas noted Kammen. For example, communities in the Midwestern Corn Belt are seeing a considerable economic boom because of the rapid growth of the biofuel industries. A report released this February found that the ethanol industry created over 163,000 direct and indirect jobs, generated $4.9 billion in federal, state and local taxes and reduced the federal trade deficit by $11.2 billion in 2006. "The renewable fuels industry is creating economic activity, it's creating jobs, it's generating income, it's generating tax revenue and it's paying for itself," said John Urbanchuk, Director of LECG LLC and author of the ethanol report. "And since most of these plants are located in rural areas, they are a significant impetus to rural economic development and economic growth."

Renewables generate more jobs than the fossil fuel industry – jobs will just shift to the new industry and help solve unemployment Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP
Overall, the renewable energy industry generates more jobs per MWa than the fossil fuelbased industries (mining, refining and utilities)

Our analysis in the previous section demonstrates that for a variety of feasible scenarios, the renewables industry consistently generates more jobs per MWa in construction, manufacturing and installation, and in O&M and fuel processing, than the fossil fuel industries. Investment in renewables also generates more jobs per dollar invested than the fossil fuel energy sector. The REPP study6 calculates
that the solar PV industry generates 5.65 person-yrs of employment per million dollars in investment (over 10 years) and the wind energy industry generates 5.7 person-yrs of employment per million dollars in investment (over 10 years). In contrast, every million dollars invested in the coal industry generates only 3.96 person-yrs of employment, over the same time period. Supporting the renewable energy industry will benefit sectors of the economy and states that currently suffer from high unemployment The renewable energy industry creates comparatively more jobs in manufacturing than in services and O&M, which will provide a boost to US manufacturing. The results of our model indicate that as

we build a clean energy future, jobs in the energy sector are likely to shift from mining and related services to manufacturing, construction and agriculture (if biomass energy forms a large part of the renewables mix). This shift would benefit sectors of the economy suffering from very high unemployment. As Table 4 demonstrates, while unemployment rates in manufacturing and mining are somewhat on
par, unemployment rates in construction and agriculture are currently extremely high.

RPS Aff

99 Unemployment Ext – RPS Increases Manufacturing

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A National RPS jumpstarts the U.S. materials and manufacturing sectors. Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) A National RPS will jump-start U.S. materials and manufacturing sectors American companies have enough materials for major expansions in wind energy. American composite manufacturers say they can provide enough fiberglass at competitive prices in the next three years to power 100,000 MW of new wind energy (nearly 6 percent of the country’s entire electricity supply). Increased demand for wind components creates new American industries. Increased demand for wind turbine materials and components will allow more than 16,000 companies (with over 1 million employees) to enter the turbine manufacturing market. A national RPS will improve manufacturing efficiency. More domestic renewable energy manufacturing facilities will save utilities money by decreasing reliance on overseas shipments of materials, which suffer from unfavorable exchange rates. A national RPS will create over 100,000 net new high-paying jobs in America – manufacturing states will benefit Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK
E. Jobs, income, and other economic benefits

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.

Using UCS assumptions, we project that 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. 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 50 miles of a biomass plant, because it is too expensive to transport it for long distances. Therefore, 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.

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. 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. By UCS estimates, the

difference in the number of jobs created compared to fossil fuels (157,480 net jobs created by a national RPS) would generate an additional $8.2 billion in income and $10.2 billion in gross domestic product ($2002).105

RPS Aff

100

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Unemployment Ext – RPS = Jobs in Midwest / Rural Areas
An RPS will expand employment in the Midwest Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP It is not just states suffering from high unemployment in manufacturing that stand to benefit. The Midwest, for instance, is particularly well suited for wind energy development, with the best wind power resources in the United States. According to Greenpeace-USA, North Dakota alone has enough wind power to produce 1.2 million gigawatt-hours of electricity each year9, which amounts to 32 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 2002. The Environmental Law and Policy Center estimates that a renewable energy portfolio standard of 22 percent can generate 36,800 jobs by 2020 in the ten mid-western states, of which over 52 percent will be in the wind energy industry. Renewables will expand jobs and growth in inner-cities and rural communities 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/CPUCnew/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP Expanding the use of renewable energy is not only good for our energy self-sufficiency and the environment; it also has a significant positive impact on employment. My students and I have examined the observed job growth in a number of technology sectors (Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp, 2004).
We reviewed 13 independent reports and studies that analyzed the economic and employment impacts of the clean energy industry in the United States and Europe. These studies employ a wide range of methods, which adds credence to the findings. In addition to reviewing and comparing these studies, we have examined the assumptions used in each case, and developed a job creation model which shows their implications for employment under several future energy scenarios. A key result emerges from our work, and can be seen in Table 1. Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs than the fossil fuel-based energy sector per unit of energy delivered (i.e., per average megawatt). In addition, we find that supporting renewables within a comprehensive and coordinated energy policy that also supports energy efficiency and sustainable transportation will yield far greater employment benefits than supporting one or two of these sectors separately. Further,

generating local employment – including that in inner-cities, rural communities, and in areas in need of economic stimulus -- through the deployment of local and sustainable energy technologies is an important and underutilized way to enhance national security and international stability. Conversely, we find that the employment rate in fossil fuel-related industries has been declining steadily for
reasons that have little to do with environmental regulation. The U. S. Government Accounting Office conducted its own study of the job creation potential of a clean energy economy (GAO, 2004). In an important assessment of rural employment and income opportunities, they found that: … a farmer who leases land for a wind project can expect to receive $2,000 to $5,000 per turbine per year in lease payments. In addition, large wind power projects in some of the nation’s poorest rural counties have added much needed tax revenues and employment opportunities.

Clean technologies will spur a new wave of job growth that is inclusive of diverse socioeconomic groups 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/CPUCnew/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP 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.

RPS Aff

101 Competitiveness Ext – RPS Will Boost Competitiveness

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS is key to boost U.S. competitiveness Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
Conclusion Now is the Time for Federal RPS 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. // pg. 13 Federal RPS would push the renewable industry in a world leadership position. Haynes, 4 - Policy Analyst, N.C. Solar Center, N.C. State University (Rusty, “Systematic Support for Renewable Energy in the United States and Beyond: A Selection of Policy Options and Recommendations,” 2004, http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/PolicyPublications/Haynes_KIER_Keynote.pdf, AG) Government programs implemented by Germany and Japan during the 1990s have proven that committed, long-term (but adaptable) federal policies can catapult a country’s industry into a world leadership position within a decade. Given the tremendous success of these policies, federal governments in a position to support renewable energy should also seriously consider adopting programs modeled on Germany’s and Japan’s. When designing a financial incentive or regulatory policy to promote renewable energy, it is usually advisable for governments, when possible, to involve all stakeholders who will be affected. 20% RPS would significantly boost economic competitiveness. Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard, http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp) Reality: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently completed a study, Renewing Where We Live, which shows that the U.S. has more than sufficient potential to produce 20% of our electricity from renewable sources. Adopting a 20% standard will put the U.S. on track to be competitive with other countries-many of which have poorer resources and less land area-that have adopted similar or more aggressive standards. The United Kingdom plans to increase renewable energy from 2.8% of electricity use today to 10% by 2010, and a recent government report proposed increasing to 20% renewable energy by 2020.2 Denmark and Finland are planning for 30% renewable energy by 2010. The European Union goal is 22% by 2010. Regions in Denmark, Spain, and Germany already get nearly 20% of their electricity just from wind turbines.(3)

RPS Aff

102 Competitiveness Ext – RPS = Export Capabilities

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A RPS will create a predictable and broad market for renewable energy in the U.S. – allowing businesses to participate in the global renewable energy market Kammen, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society Director at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy and Resources Group (Daniel, FDCH Congressional Testimony, “Energy Tax Incentives,” 7-11-2001, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
4) A federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to help build renewable energy markets The RPS is a renewable energy content standard, akin to efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances that have proven successful in the past. A

gradually increasing RPS provides the most economically efficient way of ensuring that a growing proportion of electricity sales are provided by renewable energy, and is designed to integrate renewables into the marketplace in the most cost-effective fashion. In this manner, the market picks the winning and losing technologies and projects, not administrators. With all the discussion and hype about
market forces, a RPS provides the one true means to use market forces most effectively. I recommend a 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. A number of studies indicate that this 20% in 2020 level of an RPS is broadly good for business and can readily be achieved 24,25 . This standard is similar to the one proposed by Senators Jeffords and Lieberman in the 106th congress (S. 1369). This bill has not been reintroduced nor has any other RPS legislation been introduced in this Congress yet. States that decide to pursue more aggressive goals - many of which make economic and environmental sense - could be rewarded through an additional federal incentive program. To achieve compliance a federal RPS should use market dynamics to stimulate innovation

through an active trading program of renewable energy credits.
Renewable credit trading is analogous to the sulfur allowance trading system established in the Clean Air Act. Like emissions trading, it is designed to be administratively simple and to increase flexibility and decrease the cost of compliance with the standard. Electricity suppliers can generate renewable electricity themselves, purchase renewable electricity and credits from generators, or buy credits in a secondary trading market. The coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power industries are mature; yet continue to receive considerable government subsidies. Moreover, the market price of fossil and nuclear energy does not include the cost of the damage they cause to the environment and human health. Conversely, the market does not give a value to the environmental and social benefits of renewables. Without the RPS or a similar mechanism, many renewables will not be able to compete in an increasingly competitive electricity market focused on producing power at the lowest direct cost. The RPS is designed to deliver renewables that are most ready for the market. Additional policies are still needed to support emerging renewable technologies, like photovoltaics, that have enormous potential to eventually become commercially competitive through targeted investment incentives. Smart investors typically acquire a portfolio of stocks and bonds to reduce risk. Including renewables in America's power supply portfolio would do the same by protecting consumers from fossil fuel price shocks and supply shortages. A properly designed RPS will also establish a viable market for the long-

term development of America's renewable energy industries, creating jobs at home and export opportunities abroad. The RPS is the surest market based approach for securing the public benefits of renewables while supplying the greatest amount of clean power for the lowest price. It creates an ongoing incentive to drive down costs by providing a dependable and predictable market, which has been lacking in this country. The RPS will reduce renewable energy costs by:
- Providing a revenue stream that will enable manufacturers and developers to obtain reasonable cost financing and make investments in expanding capacity to meet an expanding renewable energy market. - Allowing economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy facilities. - Promoting vigorous competition among renewable energy developers and technologies to meet the standard at the lowest cost. - Inducing development of renewables in the regions of the country where they are the most cost-effective, while avoiding expensive long-distance transmission, by allowing national renewable energy credit trading. - Reducing transaction costs, by enabling suppliers to buy credits and avoid having to negotiate many small contracts with individual renewable energy projects.

Analysis by several groups of the effects of ramping up to the 20 percent RPS target in 2020 would result in renewable energy development in every region of the country with most coming from wind, biomass, and geothermal sources. In
particular, the Plains, Western, and Mid-Atlantic States would generate more than 20 percent of their electricity as shown in Figure 6. Electricity prices are projected to fall 13 percent between 1997 and 2020 under this RPS (see Figure 7) . This increase in renewable energy usage would also reduce some of the projected rise in natural gas prices for all gas consumers, providing an added savings for households who heat with gas. Texas has been a leader in developing and implementing a successful RPS that then Governor Bush signed into law in 1999. The Texas law requires electricity companies to supply 2,000 MW of new renewable resources by 2009. The state may meet this goal by the end of 2002, seven years early. The RPS has also been signed into law in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Minnesota and Iowa also have minimum renewables requirements similar to an RPS. Bills with the RPS are also

pending in several states. Variations in the details of these programs have kept them from being overly successful. A clear and properly constructed federal standard would correct these problems, and set a clear target for industry research, development, and market growth 27 .

RPS Aff

103

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Increased Renewables Key to Exports Markets
The U.S. must boost renewable energy production to create export markets – we are currently losing out to Germany and Japan Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University (Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP
Renewable Europe

the European Union, which requires 12 percent renewable electricity production by 2010, in addition to standards in place in all 25 countries. Germany's standard sets a goal of 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The German Electricity Feed Law requires that most utilities pay 90 percent of the retail residential price for electricity produced from renewable sources. And the government provides subsidies for wind production based on electricity output or capital costs.
Compare this to German national banks offer loans at 1 percent to 2 percent below market for the first 70 percent of project costs for renewable production initiatives. These programs were fine-tuned in the early 1990s because

Germany has been the world's largest producer of wind energy in the world since 1997, producing three times the wind energy as the United States with less wind capacity than North Dakota alone. It's the same story in solar. Germany and Japan's solar “feed-in” initiatives require utility grids to buy excess solar power from individual producers. The two countries now have a 70 percent share of global production and are industry leaders in solar electricity equipment. Japan produces about 45 percent of global solar PV production, the EU 24 percent, and the United States only 21 percent (2003 figures). The Joint Global Change Research
concentration of wind energy in the northern part of the country (with higher winds) overburdened utilities there. Institute reports that from a base of a few thousand jobs in the early 1990s, German employment in renewable energy jumped to 50,000 in 1998 and then more than doubled to its current level of about 120,000. Germany will have to move into export markets to maintain, let alone expand, employment. It's not that the United States has no production incentive policies in place. The problem is that no single program is

. the United States is way behind in renewable energy production. If we want to create export markets for production equipment, we will need to develop capacity quickly. Kammen notes
funded at a level to have the kind of impact needed to dramatically increase production, and thus employment So, that only one of the world's top ten solar PV module producers is a U.S. company.

Creating a strong domestic demand for renewable allows the industry to develop an export market Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP
Our model also does not include jobs that may be generated if the US develops a renewable energy industry for export. The study by the Research and Policy Center of Environment California8 shows that for

California alone, a renewable energy industry servicing the export market can generate up to 16 times more employment than an industry that only manufactures for domestic consumption (see Table 5). Of course, manufacturing for export means producing at an internationally competitive cost, which can be achieved all the easier if the domestic market creates sufficient demand to bring renewables rapidly down the cost curve. US incentives will expand renewable domestically and create export opportunities Shugar and Suarez 5 – *President of the PowerLights Corporation ** Senior NewsHour correspondant – [Dan Shugar and Ray Suarez, NewsHour, “Widening the Trade Gap,” 4-12-05, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june05/trade_412.html]
DAN SHUGAR (President of PowerLights Corporation): Yeah, Ray, I agree that there

are a lot of things that we could do to really help drive both exports as well as drive a manufacturing base here in North America. For example, on the clean energy side of things, in Europe and in Asia, especially Japan, there are incentives for manufacturers to be able to increase their manufacturing capacity, create more local jobs to serve those local markets. One of the reasons we looked abroad to export our technologies is that we had, you know, continued to grow to a point where we were, together with our local company, saturating the North American market. What we've seen in Japan and Europe is that they've made incentives available to help alternative energy companies like solar power technology companies, build capacity there to serve the local market. So it would be very productive, I believe, to put smart incentives in place as well as energy policies that promote renewable power so we can manufacture our own power solutions right here with American jobs and put them en route, both to solidify the domestic market and help us with export opportunities.
RAY SUAREZ: Terrence Straub mentioned that that deficit is being run, not just with China, which is a quarter of the entire number, but with every industrialized country in the world. Is it making those countries richer and better customers for you? DAN SHUGAR(President of PowerLights Corporation): Well, I feel that these

countries are doing what they need to do to meet their energy needs and both by improving the efficiency as well as importing a lot of renewable energy and solar power technologies. I feel that we're missing a great opportunity here to use American ingenuity, know-how to harvest our technology and know-how to create our energy solutions right here at home.

RPS Aff

104 Competitiveness Ext – Solar Key to Tech Leadership

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Solar power is key to America’s technological leadership "What's so exciting about solar energy is that it creates an elegant solution to three of the largest challenges that ... face our country today," says Giffords. The first, she says, is US dependence on foreign energy. The second is global warming, and the third is advances in technology. Those advances in technology, she argues, could help America lead the world in this field. "I'm very concerned that America is falling behind. Pursuing solar energy, cleaner-burning energy, renewable energy can absolutely lead to economic prosperity," says Gifford. [Note – Gabrielle Giffords (D) is a US Rep. from Arizona] U.S. must expand solar PV production to catch up to Japan and Europe Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP It is also worth noting that there are energy companies based today largely on fossil-fuels which are well prepared to make a substantial shift in their energy business. Both British Petroleum (BP) and Shell, for instance, own two of the world’s three largest solar energy companies. In 2002, BP Solar supplied 14 percent of global PV shipments, and Shell Solar 10 percent. The United States has a lot of catching up to do. For instance, in 2003, total US production of solar PV modules amounted to 121 MWp (21 percent of global solar PV production). This was less than half of Japan’s 251 MWp (45 percent of global production) and also less than Europe’s 135 MWp (24 percent of global production) that same year16. Of the top ten solar PV module producers in 2002, only one was an American company (Astropower), although some of the others manufacture (and thus generate jobs) in the United States (for example, BP Solar and Shell Solar both have manufacturing plants in the US). The U.S. market share for solar power is slipping Friedman, 8 (Thomas L., NYT, “Dumb as We Wanna Be,” 4-30-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) // JMP While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not. In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

RPS Aff

105

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – RPS Key to Create Demand For RE
A federal RPS will create a demand for renewable energy and stimulate technologies, products and jobs Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University (Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP The missing feds What's needed, of course, is a federal renewable portfolio standard and a huge increase of public funds. A standard of 20 percent by 2020 based on wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas would create extensive new demand for renewable energy and stimulate new technologies, products, and jobs. If ever passed, the Clean EDGE Act introduced in Congress in May 2006 would require half of new vehicles be gas-ethanol capable by 2020 and that 10 percent of the nation's electricity be produced from renewable sources by 2020. Further, it requires reducing national petroleum consumption by 40 percent by 2020. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the associated $49 billion investment to achieve these goals would create about 530,000 jobs. Most of these would be manufacturing jobs, about half in wind energy. The Apollo Alliance advocates a $300 billion federal investment over 10 years in energy conservation and renewable energy to create 459,000 jobs in renewable energy and 3.3 million in all related jobs. Instead, Daniel Kammen at the University of California, Berkeley, reports in Scientific American that all U.S. energy research-and-development spending declined from its peak of 10 percent in 1980 to 2 percent by 2005. “Annual public R&D funding for energy sank from $8 to $3 billion (in 2002 dollars); private R&D plummeted from $4 billion to $1 billion.” This compares to public R&D spending of $70 billion for military purposes, $11 billion for the space program, and $2 billion for agricultural purposes. The federal government does provide production tax credits and ethanol tax credits, and funding for some research into renewable energy. But the tax credits have been offered inconsistently, and haven't created the secure environment needed to spur private investment in research and innovation. The U.S. must create a guarantee a demand for renewable to spur their domestic development and enhance U.S. competitiveness Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University (Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP States of green Twenty-three states now have energy portfolio standards. Seventeen states and 61 municipalities have legislation requiring that buildings funded at a given level from capital budgets and/or over a certain square footage meet LEED or other green building standards. These policies drive demand and bring down the unit cost of production. Manufacturing the inputs to green buildings could help revive the economies of many states that have lost manufacturing employment, particularly if companies establish an export market. But producers have to know that demand is shifting to green products before they'll commit investments. If building products manufacturers are making such advanced products as fiber-optic day-lighting, pollution-removing systems, and goods made from pre- and post-consumer recycled content, the United States could actually lose jobs as contractors look to European and Asian suppliers, which are way ahead of America.

RPS Aff

106

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership
The failure to compete in the renewable market will cripple U.S. economic and technological leadership Hendricks, 4 – Executive Director of the Apollo Alliance (Bracken, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on House Resources, “Rising Price of Natural Gas,” 2-12-2004, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
A New Apollo Project: A Bold Challenge for America's Future Americans have always pulled together in tough times. Using ingenuity, hard work, and can-do spirit, we created the strongest industrial base the world had ever seen during and after War World II. In the sixties, we rose to President Kennedy's challenge and achieved a goal that seemed beyond our reach: We put a man on the moon in less than a decade. It's time to roll up our shirt sleeves again.

Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And America's future prospects will depend upon the secure supply of affordable and sustainable energy that can fuel our continued growth and prosperity. But growing dependence on foreign oil, unprecedented energy failures, and mounting evidence of environmental crises are clear warning signs that America's current policies cannot be sustained. It is time for a bold initiative - with the vision and the scope of the original Apollo program - to end America's dependence on foreign oil and create millions of good jobs building the sustainable energy system of the next century.
While the Apollo project is about changing our future, it is built on an honest assessment of our past and the recognition that public leadership and meaningful public investment have historically been essential for economic development and promoting new technology. In the past, government investment in the railroads, in the national highway system, in the space program, in the research and development of the micro chip and other technologies elevated our economy and quality of life to new levels. We cannot sit on the sidelines now if America is to move forward. The American economy will not grow its way out of problems thirty years in the making without real political leadership. Too often we are told to think small, that we have to choose between good jobs and environmental quality. This is a false choice and we can do better. Working families should not have to decide whether to put food on the table for our children today or protect the health and economic security of our children tomorrow. We must do both. Ensuring

a diverse, efficient, and clean energy supply is essential for preserving good jobs, protecting our environment, and sustaining American global economic and technological leadership. Ultimately, the renewable market is key to U.S. economic and technological leadership Kammen, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society Director at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy and Resources Group (Daniel, FDCH Congressional Testimony, “Energy Tax Incentives,” 7-11-2001, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP As a nation we are ignoring the importance of maintaining leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are related to the energy sector.3 This includes keeping pace with Japan and Germany in the production of solar photovoltaic systems, catching up with Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and with Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel cell systems. The development of these industries within the U.S. is vital to both our international competitiveness and commercial strength, and to our national security in providing for our own energy needs. Renewable and distributed energy systems and energy efficiency are areas experiencing tremendous market growth internationally. These systems combine the latest advances in energy conversion and storage, with improvements in computer and other advanced technologies, and are therefore natural areas for U. S. business interests and for U.S. strategic leadership. The U. S. must improve the financial and political climate for clean energy systems in order to reassert our leadership in this vital area. The plan will make the U.S. the international technological leader Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley (Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP Transitioning from a fossil fuel–based economy to a renewably powered one will spur economic growth and provide considerable employment. A review of 13 studies and our own analysis concur with this conclusion. The national and international security implications of spurring employment through local, sustainable energy generation are compelling. The United States needs to regain its international position as a technology leader, and the technologies of the future are in clean energy. The time is ripe to move beyond studies to action.

RPS Aff

107

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Renewable Market Key to Tech Leadership
Expanding renewable energy is key to U.S. international competitiveness Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at Cal Berkeley (Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman – postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP 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 ([CO.sub.2]) in the atmosphere. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli mate 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 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. (4) 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. (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 increase the overall energy supply.

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.

RPS Aff

108

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact
U.S. competitiveness is key to hegemony; a loss of our edge will cause isolationism Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation (Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis) 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. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology. In the long run the economic future of the United States will also be affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance between government revenues and government expenditure. As a society the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it wishes the government to control and adjust expenditures and taxation accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S. economic wall-being over the long run, may be the overall rate of investment. Although their government cannot endow Americans with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use tax policy to raise the savings rate. This causes several scenarios for nuclear war Ferguson, 4 – History Professor, Harvard (Niall, A World Without Power, Foreign Policy) The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing transAtlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power.

RPS Aff

109 Competitiveness Ext – RE has Huge Market Potential

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewable energy has enormous market and profit potential Hodge, 7 (Nick, “Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?” 12-11-2007, www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard/187) // JMP According to David Abel, Chairman of VerdiXchange and host of the conference, "We need to shift how we connect the green dots. The solutions are in the marketplace, we just need to scale them up." That's exactly what Yaniv Tepper of the Angeleno Group, a California-based private equity firm with over $200 million tied up in clean-tech companies, thinks is going to happen. His firm, which used to never even look at renewable energy companies, now believes there is windfall profit potential due to: High oil and gas prices Aging electric infrastructure Increased environmental restrictions and corporate mandates, and A push toward energy independence A litany of others in the venture capital and private equity world feel the same way. One after another they paraded to the podium using phrases like "high growth rates", "increased initial public offerings (IPOs) and mergers and acquisitions" and, my favorite, "We finally figured out how to make money off this stuff." If there were any remaining doubt about the financial viability or profit potential of the kind of companies Green Chip recommends, it should all now be abated. These are, after all, the same men who made fortunes in oil and gas companies and the dot-com boom of the 1990s. And I couldn't get any greater pleasure than when I saw lists of some of the companies these fund managers are investing in pop up on their PowerPoint slides. Many were companies we've already recommended to our Green Chip Stocks subscribers. Companies like Ormat Technologies Inc. (NYSE: ORA), which has climbed well over 225% since late 2004, and which we've been in since early 2005. Take a look at a chart for Ormat Technologies: And there others that are still too nascent to mention here, but that I imagine will have similar charts in a similar timespan. So unless you have millions of dollars in disposable income that you are willing to invest in endowment funds, hedge funds, public-private partnerships or venture capital start-ups, I suggest you consider joining Green Chip Stocks. Because, let's face it, national renewable portfolio standard or not, there is money being made hand over fist. And not just here in the States, but around the globe as well. In fact, British Energy Secretary John Hutton said this week that England could be entirely powered by offshore wind turbines by 2020. If you don't want to miss another minute of this action, click here. Renewable energy has big time market potential – it could become a world leading industry with active U.S. support Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at Cal Berkeley (Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman – postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP The push to develop renewable and other clean energy technologies is no longer being driven solely by environmental concerns; these technologies are becoming economically competitive. According to Merrill Lynch's Robin Batchelor, the traditional energy sector has lacked appeal to investors in recent years because of heavy regulation, low growth, and a tendency to be cyclical. (10) The United States' lack of support for innovative new companies sends a signal that U.S. energy markets are biased against new entrants. The clean energy industry could, however, become a world-leading industry akin to that of U.S. semi-conductors and computer systems.

RPS Aff

110

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – U.S. Falling Behind / Small Threshold for Adv
The U.S. is falling behind on renewable energy technology—national policy is key to solve. Obama in 8— Senator of Illinois and Presidential Candidate (Barack, “Obama: McCain Has Failed Us On Energy ‘For Decades’”, 6-24-08, Talking Points Memo Election Central, http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_mccain_has_failed_us_on.php) It isn't because the resources and technology aren't there. We know this because countries like Spain, Germany, and Japan have already leapt ahead of us when it comes to renewable energy technology. Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that. What Washington has done is what Washington always does - it's peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won't lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we're paying the price. Now we've fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we're forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we're facing gas prices over $4 a gallon - gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That's how badly folks are hurting. That's how badly Washington has failed. Other countries are developing clean technologies and expanding their export opportunities 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/CPUCnew/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP A growing number of state, regional, and national economies are assuming leadership positions for a clean, low carbon, energy economy. These ‘early actors’ are reaping the economic benefits of their actions. Among the global leaders are Brazil, Denmark, Iceland Germany, Japan, Spain, all of which have made significant commitments to a green economy, and all are seeing job growth and rapidly expanding export opportunities. In the United States several states have embarked on significant climate protection efforts, and half of U. S. states have taken the vital step of adopting minimum levels of renewable energy requirements. The threshold for the advantage is super small Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues
(Keith, “Any Given Wednesday: Green Jobs on the Hill,” 2-5-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/05/) // JMP

“Competitiveness is a game of inches,” Daniel Seligman says, echoing Al Pacino. The Washington director for the Apollo Alliance, a clean-energy lobby, says the U.S. can’t risk losing ground to foreign countries with vibrant alternative-energy sectors. Renewing renewable tax credits—even just for a year—is one small step on that transformation, argue some proponents. And they say it fits perfectly well into the stimulus package. “Opposition [to the credits] is symbolic of old thinking, that this isn’t a core issue to the economy,” says Bracken Hendricks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank. “But greening the economy is core economic strategy,” he says.

RPS Aff

111

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Competitiveness Ext – A2: Renewables Manufactured Abroad
Imported renewable must be paid for from export proceeds Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP n41. Absent special circumstances, the Worldwatch Institute has little reason to be alarmed over a drop in the U.S. share of world solar collector production from 44% in 1996 to below 9% in 2005. The U.S. can only import renewables if it pays for them with the proceeds from exports or foreign investments. Worldwatch Inst. and Ctr. for Am. Progress, supra note 4, at 11. A national RPS will boost the domestic steel and manufacturing sectors Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
7. Industry: A National RPS Supports a Domestic Materials and Manufacturing Sector A. Wind Turbines

Three primary components constitute the bulk of a wind turbine’s cost and weight: fiberglass for its blades, and steel and cement for its tower. Industry projections for each of these components look exceptionally positive, suggesting lower prices for future projects.
Around 81 percent of wind turbines currently in operation utilize fiberglass blades (the first models tended to use wood epoxy). Fiberglass blades are the only wind turbine component designed and manufactured uniquely for wind energy applications. The U.S. composites and reinforced plastics industry shipped a record volume of 4.5 billion pounds of finished composites products to domestic customers in 2006. To put this figure in perspective, while U.S. consumption of steel has doubled since 1960 and use of aluminum has almost quadrupled, composites shipments have multiplied 18 fold—and industry representatives says they could easily expand much more. The American Composites Manufacturing Association (ACMA) projects that composite manufacturers would be able to provide enough fiberglass at competitive prices in the next three years to power 100,000 MW of wind energy (or 6 percent of the country’s entire electricity supply).333

The availability of steel and concrete looks just as positive. The global steel industry outperformed all other basic-material sectors in 2006, achieving a total shareholder return of 37 percent. Such sustained profits are helping to stabilize steel prices and is encouraging significant investment in the
industry, which is expected to grow 4 percent every year reaching a production level of 1.7 billion tons by 2015.334 Industry consolidation, as well as growing demand in India and China, has made producers much more “cost efficient and sensitive to changes in global consumption patterns.”335 The global concrete industry—an $8.6 billion industry in the United States—continues to operate in an environment of similar guaranteed profits, as at least one segment of the construction industry is always in demand for their products.336 Cement companies have announced plans to invest more than $3.6 billion dollars to expand domestic capacity totaling more than 11 million tons between now and 2010—enough to keep prices low even with the added demand of wind turbine installations.337

The DOE projects the costs for all other components of wind turbines to remain stable or even decline, especially as greater bulk purchases drive costs down.338
One DOE report noted that “low cost of materials and reliability” will continue to be the “primary drivers” fueling expansion of wind energy.339 Costs will continue to decline as developers diversify some of the materials used to make wind turbines. New manufacturing techniques, such as resin infusion and vacuum bagging, as well as material innovations (such as carbon and glass epoxies, improved resin systems, and better exploitation of traditional fiberglass reinforcement with engineered fabrics) have enabled turbine manufacturers to optimize weight in modern turbine designs.340 The next generation of turbines will have longer, thinner, and more durable blades.341 In 2004, the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) found that demand

for wind turbine materials and components would allow more than 16,000 companies (with approximately 1 million employees) to enter the turbine manufacturing market. The REPP report concluded that sustained demand for wind turbine materials and components would encourage these sectors to invest more around $50 billion in 50,000 MW of wind capacity should demand for wind turbines required it. 343 // pg. 130-132

RPS Aff

112 China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [1/2]

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Climate change will devastate agriculture in China and India – China will model U.S. action Economist, 8 (“China, India and climate change; Melting Asia,” 6-5-2008, www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11488548) // JMP
China and India are increasingly keen to be seen to be tackling climate change; though it is dirtier, China is making a more convincing show of action SINCE 2006 the railway line across the Tibetan plateau (above) has been carrying passengers and freight across a landscape of snow-covered peaks and tundra, antelopes and wolves. China celebrates it as one of the nation's greatest technological feats. But some experts worry that global warming may render it useless. The impact of warming can be seen on a road that runs parallel to the line for much of its length. Trucks bump along its cracked and undulating surface, which is being ravaged by the freezing and thawing of the tundra beneath. Since the highway was built in the 1950s, the permafrost area has been shrinking and the layer above it, which is subject to seasonal thaw, has been getting deeper. The railway is vulnerable to the same process. The vast and sparsely populated Tibetan plateau is the origin of the great river systems of China, South-East and South Asia: the Yangzi and Yellow Rivers, the Brahmaputra, the Indus, the Mekong and the Salween. The Ganges rises on the Indian side of the plateau's Himalayan rim. These rivers, fed by thousands of Himalayan glaciers, are an ecological miracle. They support some 1.3 billion people. But the

glaciers are retreating. Chinese experts predict that by 2050 the icy area on their side of the Himalayas will have shrunk by more than a quarter since 1950. Predictions for the Indian side are gloomier still. In April a leading Indian glaciologist, Professor Syed Iqbal Hasnain,
measured the East Rathong glacier in lofty Sikkim state. It appeared to have shrunk by 2.5km, or half its length, in a decade. The average global temperature increase of 0.6°C in a century seems an insufficient explanation; but that may combine with a 3km-thick fug of pollution, known as Asian Brown Cloud, that hangs over northern India. Scientists think this haze, which is created by power stations and cooking-fires, may be radiating heat into the lower troposphere, at altitudes in which glaciers are found. Mr Hasnain estimates that Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 20-30 years. That would leave many great rivers depending on seasonal rainfall. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this may be the fate of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra by 2035. Making matters worse, changes to the weather may meanwhile make the rains less reliable. North India has two main weather systems. In the summer, south-westerly monsoonal winds reach northern India, in an explosion of heat-busting rain, in late June. During the winter, westerly winds blow rain-clouds across Pakistan and northern India, watering the plains and dumping snow onto the tops of the Hindu Kush, Karakorams and western Himalayas. These systems are liable to change with the climate; some scientists think the Westerlies have been disrupted already. This might explain why India's winter rains were poor this year; but May delivered a drenching. With 168mm of rainfall, Delhi had its wettest May on record. In Uttar Pradesh state, two storms killed 120 people. With

seasonal rivers and sporadic rains, India's ecological miracle would become an ecological calamity. Now that the American presidential race is down to two candidates who are both committed to cutting emissions, China and India, the world's most populous nations, are
seen by many as the world's biggest climate-change problems. Russia's economy is more profligate with energy, but China is widely believed to be the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, and India is rapidly moving up. Their exploding emissions are America's main excuse for failing to take action itself; and their intransigence exasperates those trying to negotiate a global agreement on climate-change mitigation to replace the Kyoto protocol. Meanwhile, both countries are

awakening to the problems that climate change will cause them. In the past couple of years, Chinese officials have begun sounding like converts to the climate-change cause. In late 2006 12 ministries helped produce a 415-page report on the impact of global warming. It foresees a 5-10% reduction in agricultural output by 2030 (a shift from previous thinking on this among Chinese academics which held that global warming might benefit agriculture overall); more droughts, floods, typhoons and sandstorms; a 40% increase in the population threatened by plague. The report also admits the possibility of damage to the Tibetan railway. Last year
China published its first policy document on climate change, admitting that coping with global warming presented “severe challenges”. China also now admits its own contribution to the problem. Officials reacted frostily last year when the International Energy Agency, a rich-country think-tank, said China would overtake America as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2007 or 2008. But the Chinese commerce ministry's website now carries, without negative comment, an article from April this year quoting University of California researchers saying China is already number one.

The impact of climate change on India, a hotter and poorer country, is likely to be worse. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, India's agriculture will suffer more than any other country's. Assuming a global temperature increase of 4.4°C over cultivated areas by 2080, India's agricultural output is projected to fall by 30-40%. Yet India's response to this doomful scenario has been, at best, haphazard. For example, it has made only occasional studies of 11 Himalayan glaciers. It has also
shown little concern for the regional political crisis that climate change threatens. As sea-levels rise, for example, the IPCC warns that 35m refugees could flee Bangladesh's flooded delta by 2050. Yet even in India, attitudes are changing. Manmohan Singh, its sagacious prime minister, has formed a powerful council of ministers, bureaucrats, scientists and businessmen to co-operate on the issue. It has rarely met; yet it is part of a broader push that has sparked a flurry of climate-related initiatives: to boost energy efficiency, improve seed types, encourage forestation and so on. Given India's historic problems with flooding and drought, many of these are built upon existing policies. Indeed, the government claims that 2% of GDP is being spent on coping with climateinduced problems. To display these efforts, and manage them better, India is due this month to unveil a vaunted policy, the National Action Plan on Climate Change. It will be welcome; because many consider that India is expending even greater effort on justifying its refusal to control its emissions. In particular it argues that its total emissions are relatively low (see chart above) and that it is relatively energy-efficient (see chart below). China uses far more energy than it does per unit of GDP; Russia, vastly more. The reasons for India's frugality are not all that creditable. Almost half the population has no access to electricity. Also, India cross-subsidises power and petroleum products: farmers get cheap electricity, for instance, while industry pays more for it. This is one of many government-imposed hardships that have forced Indian firms to use power and other resources efficiently. As a result, India is one of the world's lowest-cost producers of aluminium and steel. During the past four years both China's GDP and its energy consumption have grown at an average of 11% a year. India's GDP, meanwhile, has grown at an annual average of 9% while its energy consumption has risen by 4%. And yet, to

achieve its target of long-term 8% growth, India will have to boost its powergeneration capacity at least sixfold by 2030. Over the period, its emissions are expected to increase over fourfold.
India defends this on moral grounds: its people have the same right to wealth as anyone. Indeed, given their special vulnerability to climate problems, they have a particularly urgent need for economic development. After all, a factory worker with an air-conditioner will feel global warming less than a subsistence farmer will. This position is also consistent with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which launched the Kyoto process, and recognised that economic development and poverty eradication were the “overriding priorities” for developing countries. The Bush administration's bid to override this principle by refusing to undertake targeted emissions cuts unless India and China accept comparable cuts has therefore caused fury in India. A senior official in the foreign ministry characterises America's line as: “Guys with gross obesity telling guys just emerging from emaciation to go on a major diet.”

Evidence continues on the next page… (no text deleted)

RPS Aff

113 China Ext – Climate Impact / U.S. Solvency [2/2]

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

India has entered negotiations to replace the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012, in the same spirit. Indeed, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta of the Energy and Resources Institute, who was involved in negotiating the Framework Convention and also the blue-print for the current negotiations, which is known as the Bali Action Plan, says it is a “mischievous mis-statement” even to speak of the protocol expiring. Indian officials consider that the negotiations are to refresh, not replace, the protocol, mainly by imposing more ambitious reduction targets on rich countries. This would make an IPCC target of reducing global emissions by 25-40% by 2020 unrealisable, which is why India's negotiators insisted that the target be removed from a draft of the Bali Action Plan. Supported by other developing countries, they also watered down the draft's most radical feature: a pledge by developing countries to undertake “measurable, reportable and verifiable” efforts to cut their emissions. At India's instigation, the paragraph in which this phrase appeared was reshuffled, leaving its meaning unclear. With such tough tactics, India has acquired an ugly reputation on the global front against climate change. Among big countries, perhaps only America and Russia are considered more obdurate. Although China has shown no inclination to commit to specific emissions-cutting targets in the post-Kyoto discussions, some Chinese academics familiar with the process say that after China reaches a certain per head emissions level it might agree to cut emissions. It is anxious not to be cast as a global-warming villain, particularly given pressures mounting on it over issues ranging from trade to Tibet. China

is looking to America for its cue. If America commits itself to carbon cuts, China will feel obliged to make some kind of promise too.
Many see India as unhelpful by comparison. Almost nothing could annoy India more. Partly in response, perhaps, Mr Singh has shown some flexibility. At a G8 summit in June last year, he pledged that India's carbon-dioxide emissions per head would never exceed developed countries'. In effect a challenge to the industrialised world to cap India's emissions by curbing their own, this was more imaginative than has been widely recognised. And yet China is perceived to be taking the problem more seriously than India. This is partly because China is doing a lot to try to curb its energy use—but for reasons that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Jia Feng of the Ministry of Environmental Protection says the country's chief concern driving energy policy is security. Imports supply only 10% of China's total energy demand (70% of which is met by coal), but oil is essential for transport. Lacking the military power to protect far-flung sea lanes, China feels vulnerable. Next on its list of worries is local pollution caused by sulphur dioxide, atmospheric particulate matter and wastewater. Acid rain affects a third of China's land and hundreds of thousands of people die from pollution-related cancer every year. Industrial filth has sparked protests. A slogan for the planet The government is trying to curb the use of fossil fuels and promote renewable energy. In 2006 it announced plans to cut the amount of energy consumed for each unit of GDP. The goal is to reduce energy intensity by 20% by the end of the decade. “Save energy, cut emissions” is now one of the party's favourite slogans. Boosting energy-efficiency and the use of renewables not only helps secure energy supplies and cuts local pollution, but also helps keep carbon emissions in check too. Amid the recent global upsurge of climate-related anxiety, China's leaders have spun its energy-efficiency drive as greenery. In its first published policy paper on energy, which came out last year, the government said it aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and the Beijing Olympic games are to be a showcase for China's newfound greenery. The first “carbon neutral” summer games involve solar power aplenty, tree-planting, banning many cars from the streets and “reducing emissions from enterprises” (temporarily shutting many of them down, presumably). The games, say officials, will produce 1.18m tonnes of CO2 and the countermeasures will save 1.03-1.30m tonnes. The energy-efficiency drive is spreading out from Beijing. Provincial leaders are required to meet “save energy, cut emissions” targets in order to gain promotion. Of 800 countylevel party chiefs questioned in an official survey published in May, a surprising 40% said meeting environmental protection goals should be a critical determinant of their careers. Fewer than 2% said meeting economic growth targets should be given such a priority.

Still, the goal of achieving a 20% reduction in energy intensity by 2010 seems a long way off. In 2006, the first year of the campaign, it fell
by only 1.3% and last year by around 3.3%. To meet the target it would need reductions averaging 5% for each of the next three years. It will be hard to do this while holding down energy prices. Academics at the Development Research Centre, an official think-tank, recently said a 15% increase in energy prices by 2010 would promote “conspicuous energy savings”. But the party's political will has its limits. For all its eagerness to save energy, it fears higher prices could stoke inflation and regime-threatening protests. But China is making considerable efforts to boost the amount of energy produced by non-fossil fuels. By about $10 billion, was second only to Germany's. Still, even if China meets this target, carbon emissions will continue growing rapidly too. The

2020 the aim is to generate 15% of energy from renewable sources, up from around 7% in 2005. This is a big step up from the previous goal of 10% by 2020. China's investment in renewable energy last year, biggest concern among climate-change activists around the world is the impact of Chinese coal—and also Indian coal. China and India have the world's third and fourth biggest coal reserves; though much of India's is currently out-of-bounds, under protected forests and human settlements. Both countries are meanwhile trying to develop their renewables sectors. For example, India is the world's fourth-biggest producer of wind power. Its solar yield is also bigger than any country except America. Still, in the coming decades, both countries will remain heavily dependent on coal.
Which is why rich-world climate activists are placing their faith in two factors that appeal to India's and China's self-interest. The first is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a scheme whereby companies in rich countries outsource their obligation to cut carbon emissions, by sponsoring carbon-cutting schemes in poor countries. The CDM both allows emissions to be cut efficiently, because reductions take place where they can be made most cheaply, and offers developing countries an incentive to clean up. China, which has put a lot of government effort into it, has done far better than India out of the scheme. Last year China made more money than any other country out of richworld polluters—$5.4 billion, or 73% of the total. India, which, along with Brazil, came second, made $445m, 6% of the total. There are, however, question marks over the future of the scheme, because some rich-world businesses and politicians are beginning to argue against handing over such large sums of money to Asia. China, meanwhile, says that it needs not just money but also clean technology, and accuses rich-countries of being tight-fisted with their intellectual property.

The second factor that may encourage China and India to become greener is the growth of indigenous alternative-energy companies. There, both China and India can claim some remarkable successes.
China's Suntech, which was founded in 2001, is the third-largest manufacturer of solar cells in the world. India's Suzlon Energy is one of the world's five biggest makers of wind turbines; 15 years ago it was a modest Gujarati textiles firm. Both countries have innovative companies hungry to make money abroad and in growing local markets. As

such

firms grow, so will the volume of calls for more climate-friendly policies in China and India.
This is good. And yet, at a time of fast-melting glaciers and strange rains, of spreading deserts and rising seas, it is a frail and distant promise. As China and India awaken to climate change, few of their leaders and thinkers seem to expect a more solid solution: an ambitious replacement, or refreshment, of the Kyoto protocol. Such an accord would have to involve more specific commitments from China, India and other developing countries. But it would depend, first of all, upon binding action by the developed world.

RPS Aff

114 China Ext – Energy Consumption / Pollution Increasing

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China’s energy consumption is booming—it will surpass the US by 2010. Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK In the last quarter century, China's breakneck economic growth has lifted over 50 million people out of poverty and tripled energy demand. Experts predict that China will surpass the United States to become the world's largest consumer of energy and fossil fuels soon after 2010. And because of its heavy reliance on coal, China already emits more carbon dioxide than any country on earth. The rate and path of this energy growth is of enormous consequence for both China and the world. At stake are issues of global importance, including climate change and competition over dwindling oil resources. Perhaps more important for China, however, are domestic concerns such as severe urban air pollution, energy security, and sustained economic growth. China is the largest contributor of CO2 emissions—alternative energy is necessary to prevent devastating climate change Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK At the global level, China's rapid growth in coal and oil consumption is widely recognized for its contribution to climate change. The International Energy Agency estimates that in late 2007, China bypassed the U.S. to become the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide and predicts that if the current policy scenario remains unchanged, China will account for 40 percent of the total growth in CO2 emissions worldwide between 2005 and 2030. Within the Kyoto Protocol Framework, China is not an Annex 1 Country and thus has not had any international commitments to control CO2 emissions. However, in June 2007 the Chinese government issued its first climate change strategy, and domestic Chinese policy emphasizes energy efficiency, increased use of renewable energy and robust reforestation. China is becoming the world’s largest polluter. It’s energy policy will determine the environment of the planet Bader 6 – Director, John L. Thornton China Center – [Jeffrey A., Brookings Institute, The Energy Future: China and the U.S. - What the United States ought to Do,” 2-6-08, http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2006/0208china_bader.aspx] Pollution: China will be the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. It already is a major contributor to pollution in Hong Kong and Japan. As its economy grows, its energy choices will affect not only the health of its own citizens, but the environment of the planet.

RPS Aff

115 China Ext – China Not Solving Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China is committed to resolving its pollution crisis but will fail without assistance Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK China’s leaders recognize that they must change course. They are vowing to overhaul the growth-first philosophy of the Deng Xiaoping era and embrace a new model that allows for steady growth while protecting the environment. In his equivalent of a State of the Union address this year, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made 48 references to “environment,” “pollution” or “environmental protection.” The government has numerical targets for reducing emissions and conserving energy. Export subsidies for polluting industries have been phased out. Different campaigns have been started to close illegal coal mines and shutter some heavily polluting factories. Major initiatives are under way to develop clean energy sources like solar and wind power. And environmental regulation in Beijing, Shanghai and other leading cities has been tightened ahead of the 2008 Olympics. Yet most of the government’s targets for energy efficiency, as well as improving air and water quality, have gone unmet. And there are ample signs that the leadership is either unwilling or unable to make fundamental changes. Land, water, electricity, oil and bank loans remain relatively inexpensive, even for heavy polluters. Beijing has declined to use the kind of tax policies and market-oriented incentives for conservation that have worked well in Japan and many European countries. China’s current approach to expand renewable energy will fail – it relies too much on environmentally destructive hydroelectric power Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK Even with improved energy efficiency, demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow unless alternative energy sources are pursued. China has set a preliminary goal to increase the share of renewable energy in total energy use to 16 percent by 2020. Much of this growth will be achieved via hydroelectric power, although wind power is also becoming cost competitive in some areas and contains enormous potential. The controversial Three Gorges Dam, which displaced nearly two million people, will become the largest hydroelectric facility in the world upon completion in 2009. However, building new dams is also environmentally problematic, especially considering escalating water scarcity throughout the country. For the foreseeable future, China will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Technologies exist, however, to mitigate some of the worst effects of fossil fuels, and introducing taxes or incentives will facilitate the adoption of such technologies. For example, in 2006, Beijing raised the sulfur pollution tax on power plants and introduced a market incentive to help offset the cost of installing flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment, which removes SO2 from a plant's emissions stream. Virtually all of coal power plants built since then have installed FGD systems. This instance reveals the potential of market-based incentives in regulating other pollutants, including NOx and CO2.

RPS Aff

116 China Ext – Death Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

We control systemic impact calculus—over 400,000 people die every year from pollution in China. Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] //LDK The toll this pollution has taken on human health remains a delicate topic in China. The leadership has banned publication of data on the subject for fear of inciting social unrest, said scholars involved in the research. But the results of some research provide alarming evidence that the environment has become one of the biggest causes of death. An internal, unpublicized report by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning in 2003 estimated that 300,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution, mostly of heart disease and lung cancer. An additional 110,000 deaths could be attributed to indoor air pollution caused by poorly ventilated coal and wood stoves or toxic fumes from shoddy construction materials, said a person involved in that study. Another report, prepared in 2005 by Chinese environmental experts, estimated that annual premature deaths attributable to outdoor air pollution were likely to reach 380,000 in 2010 and 550,000 in 2020.

RPS Aff

117 China Ext – Agriculture Impact

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Fossil fuels cause black carbon particulates in China—they destroy agriculture and are responsible for rampant global warming. McKibbin 5 – Non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and economics expert at Australian National University and the Lowry Institute for International Policy – [Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Institute, “Environmental Consequences of Rising Energy Use in China,” 8-22-05, Revised 12-10-05, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2005/12globaleconomics_mckibbin/200512.pdf] // LDK A more recent and potentially more important problem identified by Streets (2000, 2004) and others is the emission of black carbon. Black carbon is the fine particulates that are released from imperfect combustion of carbonaceous materials. Any visitors to Chinese cities are familiar with the thick haze that frequently envelopes many areas. Current work suggests that direct action to reduce the emissions of black carbon from household energy use and burning of forests and agricultural waste is an important issue that needs urgent attention in China. Understanding of black carbon emissions is only fairly recent due to the work of Hamilton and Mansfield (1991), Hansen et al (1998) and Streets (2004). Black carbon is classified as an aerosol and is therefore not included in the Kyoto Protocol. However, studies by Streets and others suggest it is a critical issue for China. The consequences of black carbon are wide ranging: reduced visibility; serious health problems; damage to buildings. Estimates suggest that agriculture crop productivity might be reduced significantly (by up to 30% for rise and wheat)16. Streets (2004 p.3) argues that black carbon is the second most important warming agent behind carbon dioxide. Using circulation models, Menon (2002) et al estimate that black carbon is responsible for local climaste problems in China such as increased drought in northern China and summer floods in southern China. The time lag between reducing black carbon emissions and significant local climate effects is estimated to be around five years – a far quicker effect on climate than the implications of tackling carbon dioxide emissions which are measured in many decades. The estimated sources of black carbon are contained in Figure 6. Surprisingly a vast majority of emissions are from residential energy use rather than electricity generation or transportation. Residential burning of coal accounted for 83% of emissions in 1995. This is due to the fact that 80% of Chinese households use solid/biomass fuels for cooking and heating (WHO (2004)). Thus black carbon is likely to be an important issue that authorities are yet to tackle. Part of the reason is that is a relatively recently understood problem and partly because the solution doesn’t lie in the energy generation sectors but in the use of energy by households. There are a number of significant environmental problems associated with energy use in China. These have had large economic costs in the past. With the enormous expected rise in energy use in China over coming decades outlined in Section 2, the environmental problems associated with rising Chinese energy use is going to accentuate these problems. Policies aimed at these problems will need to broaden in scale and scope. While existing problems are beginning to be tackled, new problems such as global climate change are emerging and China due to its size and speed of economic growth is a major player at the global level. Pollution collapses Chinese agriculture by turning farmland into desert Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK But pollution poses its own threat. Officials blame fetid air and water for thousands of episodes of social unrest. Health care costs have climbed sharply. Severe water shortages could turn more farmland into desert. And the unconstrained expansion of energy-intensive industries creates greater dependence on imported oil and dirty coal, meaning that environmental problems get harder and more expensive to address the longer they are unresolved.

RPS Aff

118 China Ext – Economy Impact

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Air pollution in China causes massive environmental and health costs that damage its economy. Reduction in carbon emissions would cause a boost in GDP McKibbin 5 – Non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and economics expert at Australian National University and the Lowry Institute for International Policy – [Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Institute, “Environmental Consequences of Rising Energy Use in China,” 8-22-05, Revised 12-10-05, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2005/12globaleconomics_mckibbin/200512.pdf] // LDK The environmental and health impacts of energy use cover a range of issues from local particulate emissions which have important impacts within China; to acid rain which has both local and regional impacts; and as well to carbon dioxide emissions which have global implications. At the local level, a number of studies have explored air pollution caused by energy use in China. The term “air pollution” covers a wide range of problems including emissions of particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide. The estimated costs of air pollution, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels vary in size. A study by the World Bank (1997) valued health damages from air pollution at 5% of GDP in 1995 although other studies such as Yang and Schreifels (2003) suggest this is closer to 2% of GDP.. A study by Garbaccio, Ho and Jorgenson (1999) found that for a reduction in carbon emissions of 5% every year would reduce local health costs by 0.2% of GDP annually. A recent report by the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)10 on the environment notes that air quality in cities across China has generally improved but this is from a base of significant problems in most major Chinese cities. The World Health Organization (WHO (2004)) notes that only 31% of Chinese cities met the WHO standards for air quality in 2004. A large part of these air quality problems are directly related to energy use. Whether the projection of rising energy use over the coming decade directly lead to projections of increased environmental problems is a critical issue facing policymakers in China. This is well understood in China. Premier Wen Jiabao in his March 5th 2005 report to the National Peoples Congress argued that improved energy conservation was necessary to reconcile rapid economic growth with limited energy resources – he also called for stronger pollution controls. The State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) 11 originally established in 1988 as the National Environmental Protection Agency has also been implementing more stringent monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation. Particulate emissions cause serious health problems with identifiable economic costs as well as human costs. A recent study by Ho and Jorgenson (2003) finds the largest sources of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) are the largest users of coal – electricity, nonmetal mineral products and metals smelting as well as transportation. One of the worst pollutants from burning fossil fuels is sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. This has local (health and acid rain) as well as regional (acid rain) implications. The WHO estimates that more than 600 million people are exposed to SO2 levels above the WHO standards12. SO2 mixing with nitrogen oxides (NOX) causes acid rain. The WHO (2004)13 estimates that acid rain seriously affects 30% of China. However this is not just a problem for China. Streets (1997) estimates that China accounted for 81% of SO2 emissions in North East Asia in 1990. China is the major source of acid rain across north East Asia. Without any control policies, Streets estimated in 1997 that this share would change little by 2010 except that the quantity of emissions is expected to grow by 213% from 1990 to 2010 by 273% by 2020. Assuming installation of state of the art flue-gas desulphurization systems Streets estimated that this scenario could be transformed so that SO2 emissions fall to 31% of 1990 emissions by 2020. China has begun to address this problem with pilot Sulphur Dioxide emission trading systems in a number of control zones and closing of high sulphur coal mines as well as other direct controls. In fact sulphur dioxide emissions have fallen gradually since from1995 to 2002 but rose again in 2003. The decline was a result of direct controls and other policies, although acid rain problems have not fallen because of a substitution of emission towards high stack sources which spread SO2 over greater areas14. Direct policy to deal with sulphur dioxide emissions would seem to have a significant benefit for China and across the region and the Chinese authorities are acting on this15. Experimentation with price based charging and emissions trading systems have yielded encouraging results and should be used more extensively to reduce the emission of sulphur from the projected increasing use of coal for generating energy in the coming decade.

RPS Aff

119 China Ext – Economy Impact

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China economic contraction causes global depression, Taiwanese invasion, and backsliding into authoritarianism. Lewis 7 – Director of the Economic Research Council – [Dan, “The Nightmare of a Chinese Economic Collapse,” World Finance, 4-19-07, http://www.worldfinance.com/news/137/ARTICLE/1144/2007-04-19.html] // LDK According to Professor David B. Smith, one of the City’s most accurate and respected economists in recent years, potentially far more serious though is the impact that Chinese monetary policy could have on many Western nations such as the UK. Quite simply, China’s undervalued currency has enabled Western governments to maintain artificially strong currencies, reduce inflation and keep interest rates lower than they might otherwise be. We should therefore be very worried about how vulnerable Western economic growth is to an upward revaluation of the Chinese yen. Should that revaluation happen to appease China’s rural poor, at a stroke, the dollar, sterling and the euro would quickly depreciate, rates in those currencies would have to rise substantially and the yield on government bonds would follow suit. This would add greatly to the debt servicing cost of budget deficits in the USA, the UK and much of Euro land. A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a decline in China’s economic growth rate. That is alarming. It has been calculated that to keep China’s society stable – ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban society without devastating unemployment - the minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than that and unemployment will rise and the massive shift in population from the country to the cities becomes unsustainable. This is when real discontent with communist party rule becomes vocal and hard to ignore. It doesn’t end there. That will at best bring a global recession. The crucial point is that communist authoritarian states have at least had some success in keeping a lid on ethnic tensions – so far. But when multi-ethnic communist countries fall apart from economic stress and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they don’t become successful democracies overnight. Far from it. There’s a very real chance that China might go the way of Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union – chaos, civil unrest and internecine war. In the very worst case scenario, a Chinese government might seek to maintain national cohesion by going to war with Taiwan – whom America is pledged to defend. Today, people are looking at Chang’s book again. Contrary to popular belief, foreign investment has actually deferred political reform in the world’s oldest nation. China today is now far further from democracy than at any time since the Tianneman Square massacres in 1989. Chang’s pessimistic forecast for China was probably wrong. But my fear is there is at least a chance he was just early. Chinese economic prosperity is key to its political stability Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK For the Communist Party, the political calculus is daunting. Reining in economic growth to alleviate pollution may seem logical, but the country’s authoritarian system is addicted to fast growth. Delivering prosperity placates the public, provides spoils for well-connected officials and forestalls demands for political change. A major slowdown could incite social unrest, alienate business interests and threaten the party’s rule.

RPS Aff

120 China Ext – Pollution Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

China’s reliance on fossil fuels causes rampant air pollution and economic contraction—thousands die as a result Earth Trends 8 [“December 2008 Monthly Update: China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World,” World Resources Institute, 1-12-1008, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/274] // LDK China's current energy mix is strongly influenced by resource availability. With 13 percent of global coal reserves--compared to only one percent for oil and natural gas--China meets over two-thirds of its domestic energy needs with coal (BP p.I.c 2007). As the dirtiest of fossil fuels, coal combustion accounts for the vast majority of domestic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). As a result, China has many of the world's most polluted cities: urban air pollution accounted for 3.4 percent of all deaths in 2001 (DCP2 2006). When burned in homes, coal and other solid fuels create indoor air pollution responsible for even more deaths (five percent in 2001). In addition, acid rain caused by SO2 pollution has affected one-third of China's land, rendering some soils uncultivable (BBC News 2006). In 2005 alone, there were $60 billion in direct economic damages from SO2 (Rosen & Houser 2007). Some of this pollution is also carried by the wind into neighboring countries and as far as the west coasts of the United States and Canada. Excessive coal usage is the primary cause of Chinese pollution Kahn & Yardley 7 – *Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times and ** Senior Correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times – [Joseph Kahn and Jim Yarley, New York Times, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=1] // LDK For air quality, a major culprit is coal, on which China relies for about two-thirds of its energy needs. It has abundant supplies of coal and already burns more of it than the United States, Europe and Japan combined. But even many of its newest coalfired power plants and industrial furnaces operate inefficiently and use pollution controls considered inadequate in the West. Expanding car ownership, heavy traffic and low-grade gasoline have made autos the leading source of air pollution in major Chinese cities. Only 1 percent of China’s urban population of 560 million now breathes air considered safe by the European Union, according to a World Bank study of Chinese pollution published this year. One major pollutant contributing to China’s bad air is particulate matter, which includes concentrations of fine dust, soot and aerosol particles less than 10 microns in diameter (known as PM 10). The level of such particulates is measured in micrograms per cubic meter of air. The European Union stipulates that any reading above 40 micrograms is unsafe. The United States allows 50. In 2006, Beijing’s average PM 10 level was 141, according to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. Only Cairo, among world capitals, had worse air quality as measured by particulates, according to the World Bank. Emissions of sulfur dioxide from coal and fuel oil, which can cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as acid rain, are increasing even faster than China’s economic growth. In 2005, China became the leading source of sulfur dioxide pollution globally, the State Environmental Protection Administration, or SEPA, reported last year. Other major air pollutants, including ozone, an important component of smog, and smaller particulate matter, called PM 2.5, emitted when gasoline is burned, are not widely monitored in China. Medical experts in China and in the West have argued that PM 2.5 causes more chronic diseases of the lung and heart than the more widely watched PM 10.

RPS Aff

121 China Ext – Warming / Biodiversity Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Chinese coal usage causes devastating global warming and biodiversity loss CSM 8 (Christian Science Monitor, Jacques Leslie, “China’s Pollution Nightmare Is now Everyone’s pollution nightmare,” March 19, 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html?page=2] // LDK The emergence of China as a dominant economic power is an epochal event, occasioning the most massive and rapid redistribution of the earth's resources in human history. The country has also become a ravenous consumer. Its appetite for raw materials drives up international commodity prices and shipping rates while its middle class, projected to jump to 700 million by 2020, is learning the gratifications of consumerism. The catch is that China has become not just the world's manufacturer but its despoiler, on a scale as monumental as its economic expansion. A fourth of the country is now desert. More than three-fourths of its forests have disappeared. Each year, uncontrollable underground fires, sometimes triggered by lightning or mining accidents, consume 200 million tons of coal, contributing massively to global warming. A miasma of lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other elements of coal-burning and car exhaust hovers over most Chinese cities. Meanwhile, roughly 70 percent of the world's discarded computers and electronic equipment ends up in China, where it is scavenged for usable parts and then abandoned, polluting soil and groundwater with toxic metals. If unchecked, such devastation will not just put an abrupt end to China's economic growth, but, in concert with other environmentally heedless nations (in particular, the US, India, and Brazil), will cause mortal havoc in societies and ecosystems throughout the world. Chinese acid rain collapses biodiversity CSM 8 (Christian Science Monitor, Jacques Leslie, “China’s Pollution Nightmare Is now Everyone’s pollution nightmare,” March 19, 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html?page=2] // LDK The process is already under way. Acid rain caused by China's sulfur-dioxide emissions severely damages forests and watersheds in Korea and Japan and impairs air quality in the US. Every major river system flowing out of China is threatened with one sort of cataclysm or another. The surge in untreated waste and agricultural runoff pouring into the Yellow and China Seas has caused frequent fish die-offs, and overfishing is endangering many ocean species. The growing Chinese taste for furs and exotic foods and pets is devastating neighboring countries' populations of everything from gazelles to wolves, and turtles to parrots, while its appetite for shark fin soup is causing drastic declines in shark populations throughout the oceans. According to a study published in Science in March 2007, the absence of the oceans' top predators is causing a resurgence of skates and rays, which are in turn destroying scallop fisheries along America's Eastern Seaboard. Enthusiasm for traditional Chinese medicine is causing huge declines in populations of hundreds of animals – including tigers, pangolins, and sea horses. Seeking oil, timber, and other natural resources, China is building massive roads, bridges, and dams throughout Africa, often disregarding international environmental and social standards. China has also depended on imports of illegally cut wood in becoming the world's wood workshop, supplying oblivious consumers in the US and Europe with furniture, flooring, and plywood. Chinese wood manufacturers have already consumed the natural forests of Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines, and at current rates will swallow the forests of Indonesia, Burma, Papua New Guinea, and the vast Russian Far East within two decades. Most of these forests are formally protected by law or regulation, but corruption and ineffectual enforcement have fostered a flourishing illegal trade. China has probably already overtaken the US as the world's leading emitter of CO2, and the country's ecosystems are displaying climate change's consequences: Arid northern China is drying out, the wet south is seeing more and more flooding, and, according to a June 2007 Greenpeace report, 80 percent of the Himalayan glaciers that feed Asia's mightiest rivers could disappear by 2035. Such a development would jeopardize hundreds of millions of people who depend on the rivers for their livelihood.

RPS Aff

122 China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

If the US commits to alternative energy resulting exports to China will solve climate change and strengthen US competitiveness McDonough & Ogden 7 -- *Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. ** Program coordinator for National Security and International Policy. [Denis Mcdonough and Peter Ogden, Center for American Progress, “Cleaning up China: Opportunities Beckon for U.S. Businesses,” January 30, 2007, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/green_china.html] // LDK U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson goes before the Senate Banking Committee on January 31 to detail the state of his recently launched U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue between key government officials in Washington and Beijing. The committee members should be sure to ask Paulson about his plans for promoting business opportunities for U.S. green technology companies in China. Back in December, when Paulson made his first trip to China for the Strategic Economic Dialogue, we noted in a column in the Washington Post that U.S. businesses could profit handsomely from a country that increasingly realizes it must go green —if only the Bush administration would see the wisdom of promoting the products and services of U.S. green technology companies to China. Well, very little has changed since then except this: Paulson’s boss has since then embraced the fact that global warming is a serious threat to humanity. That, in turn, means that President Bush, Paulson, Congress and America’s green technology companies can now all row in the same direction when it comes to helping China help itself and the planet combat climate change. If the Bush administration is serious about finding innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy—and if it is serious about its intentions to help reverse the mammoth U.S. trade deficit with China— then the Strategic Economic Dialogue is a promising place to begin. The U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue counts energy and the environment among its planks, which is a good launching pad for a new export promotion initiative. Paulson could pave the way for green technology to become as successful a U.S. export to China as airplanes and software by striking an agreement with his Chinese counterpart to facilitate such transactions. The US must seize the opportunity to export alternative energy to China—it solves global warming and economic contraction McDonough & Ogden 7 -- *Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. ** Program coordinator for National Security and International Policy. [Denis Mcdonough and Peter Ogden, Center for American Progress, “Cleaning up China: Opportunities Beckon for U.S. Businesses,” January 30, 2007, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/green_china.html] // LDK China, like the United States, is not bound by any international commitment to reduce its carbon emissions, but there are signs that Beijing has begun to recognize the dangers of fossil fuel dependence and the resulting environmental damage. China’s latest Five Year Plan on national priorities and goals places unprecedented emphasis on environmental sustainability. Moreover, there is growing awareness that its energy security will be enhanced by diversifying away from fossil fuels. China’s interest in clean energy presents an enormous business opportunity as well as an environmental one. Unfortunately, it is an opportunity that the United States has not yet fully seized. A study released in October by former World Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern on the economic impact of climate change calculated that the markets for low-carbon energy projects will be worth at least $500 billion by 2050. In other words, combating global warming is not only an environmental necessity, but a vast economic opportunity. Some U.S. investment companies are beginning to take notice. Morgan Stanley recently announced that it plans to invest some $3 billion in the carbon trading market and other clean energy related projects. But if the United States does not do more to promote the development of our domestic clean energy sector industry, it will find that its international competitors will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this new market.

RPS Aff

123 China Ext – U.S. Export Solvency

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Only a US energy policy that disseminates its technology to China can solve global warming. Brown 5 – Program manager of Citizens for Global Solutions – [Rebecca, The Lugar Energy Initiative, “The Case for a Comprehensive, Globally-Focused Energy Policy,” 2005, http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/links/commentary/05Brown.cfm] // LDK The United States needs a comprehensive, globally focused energy policy to deal with the challenges to security, development and the environment posed by the world’s fossil fuel dependence. Recognizing that the United States is embedded in a complex web of energy interdependence, such a plan would seek: To reduce domestic consumption of fossil fuels, whether produced abroad or domestically To achieve a global transition away from fossil fuel technology and towards diverse, sustainable energy sources, including: Support for the creation and dissemination of alternative energy technologies at an affordable price An adoption of these alternatives and a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel consumption by major consumers – in particular the United States, India and China Working with developing countries to ensure access to the clean and safe energy tools they need to meet their growing energy needs and lift themselves out of poverty without contributing to global warming
Providing alternatives to nuclear power for countries that wish to diversify their energy sources To ensure that the world’s energy resources are not used as political bargaining tools. Focus on Developing Countries

An effective energy plan must recognize developing countries’ significant role in today’s energy market, and place special emphasis on working with these countries to meet their energy needs without contributing to global warming or undermining international security. Over the next twenty years, 70% of energy demand growth will occur in developing countries, with China alone accounting for 30% of that growth. China is expected to surpass the United States as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010; developing countries are predicted to account for more than three-quarters of increases in CO2 emissions between 2004 and 2030. Helping developing countries gain access to the alternative energy technologies they need to meet their growing energy needs without significantly increasing their greenhouse gas emissions is essential in order to halt global warming. It will also prevent conflict and instability by reducing competition over fossil fuel resources. Developing and disseminating alternative energy technologies on a global scale is key to accomplishing a successful transition away from fossil fuel consumption. Although it has its
limitations, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol is one example of an international financing device designed to stimulate private sector investment in new energy technologies

building more effective mechanisms to support the development and dissemination of new energy technologies will require the US to re-engage internationally on energy and climate issues.
while enhancing developing countries’ access to those technologies. However,

China is committed to stronger cooperation over alternative energy with the US Xinhau News 8 [“Chinese vice-premier: China-U.S. energy cooperation would produce win-win results” 6-17-8 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/17/content_8381904.htm] // LDK Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan has called for stronger cooperation between China and the United States in energy, the environment and other related areas, saying that bilateral cooperation in these areas would lead to win-win results. "The Chinese government gives high priority to energy and resources conservation and the protection of the environment. It is committed to building a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society," Vice Premier Wang wrote in an article published by The Financial Times on Monday in its North American edition. "However, China is a big and populous developing country at a stage of accelerated industrialization and urbanization. This has led to heavy consumption of energy and resources and made the task of protecting the environment a daunting one," he said. US cooperation is crucial to successful energy policy in China Xinhau News 8 [“Chinese vice-premier: China-U.S. energy cooperation would produce win-win results” 6-17-8 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/17/content_8381904.htm] // LDK
To meet the challenges brought about by the pressures of growing demand, Wang said China has endeavored to achieve the following goals: intensifying energy and resource conservation, developing renewable energy, and actively adapting to global climate change.

"There is a broad scope for cooperation between China and the U.S. in energy and environment," he wrote. "Stronger cooperation between the two countries in energy and the environment will enable China to respond better to energy and environmental issues and also bring about tremendous business opportunities and handsome returns for American business." According to the intent of the 10-year cooperation between China and the U.S. in energy and environmental protection, Wang said the two countries should, on the basis of the principles of mutual complementarity and win-win progress, focus their cooperation in energy, pollution reduction and protection of natural resources. [Note – Wang Qishan is the Chinese Vice Premier]

RPS Aff

124 China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Exporting renewables provides a mechanism to enhance U.S.-Sino energy cooperation Zhao 7 – President China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations – [Hongtu Zhao, Anna Lindh Programme on Conflict Prevention, 2007 Edition, “Energy and Conflict Prevention,” http://www.ewi.info/pdf/AnnaLindhProgrammeonConflictPrevention.pdf] // LDK
Because China and the U.S. are two big oil consumers and importers, it is undeniable that there are collisions of interest and competition between them in their attempts to diversify energy supplies, explore and tap the overseas energy resources, but their competition and conflicts do not cancel out the need for cooperation. If there is more competition in tapping and exploiting the external resources, there is a bright outlook for cooperation in many fields such as stabilizing the world market, developing new energy, saving energy, enhancing efficiency and protecting the environment. From

a perspective of “mega-energy” or “megasecurity,” which encompasses oil, gas, coal, electricity and renewable resources, China and the United States find more cooperation than competition. In essence, China’s
energy strategy is not incompatible with that of the U.S. Just as Dr Fiona Hill, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution and an expert on international energy issues, points out, China’s oil strategy will not conflict with that of the U.S. whether at present or in the long term.9 The

two countries are interdependent on energy issues, sharing many common interests. The main target of U.S. energy security policy is to ensure that there is enough oil in the world market, so that the U.S. and other big
western oil consumers can always have access to sufficient oil supply. Because the world oil market is highly integrated, a cut-off of oil supply anywhere will impact the whole market, menace global oil security and affect world economic growth. Against a backdrop of globalization, the U.S. can hardly go it alone on energy issues. As fast growing economies and big oil consumers and importers, both China and the U.S. need a stable and reliable energy supply, and they desire a steady oil price. As the trend of economic globalization further develops and their interdependence in trade, investment and other fields increasingly deepens, China and America become a fate community. China’s energy demand will fuel global economic growth, thus consolidating the prosperity of U.S. economy. Meanwhile, China spends most of its trade surplus on U.S. government bonds. If the money is quickly withdrawn, American interest rate may be pushed up and its economic growth hampered. Some Americans have already recognized the fact that China’s economic growth now serves as an engine for the economic prosperity of the whole world, in which the U.S. is a member. For some Americans, dread of China’s economic rise has been replaced by worries about deceleration of China’s economic growth. They fear that any shortage of energy supply will hinder China’s economic growth, thus darkening American and even the whole world’s economic out- look. Therefore, both conflicts in the oil field and China’s economic recession resulting from energy shortage will in the end harm the interests of both sides. Furthermore, China

and the U.S. need to grapple with many identical problems and challenges in the fields of energy and environment. As the world’s two largest energy consumers, they are also the two biggest coal users and carbon dioxide emitters, facing ever-increasing pressure from the international society to reduce greenhouse gas emission. In recent
years, the risk of international energy transportation has markedly increased because of large expansion of the volume of international trade, extension of the supply chain and increase of regional conflicts, terrorist attacks and organized crimes. Being two big marine transporters of oil, both countries have stakes in safe sea-lanes and have an urgent need

China and the U.S. complement each other in the energy field and there is ample space for cooperation. The U.S. possesses advanced management experience in the fields of developing new and renewable energy, saving energy, raising energy efficiency and protecting the environment, and enjoys advantages in technology, capital and manpower. Meanwhile, China’s energy and environmental industries ranging from electricity production, oil and natural gas tapping, coal belt methane exploitation, energy saving, new energy developing, to atmosphere purification, are facing an unprecedented opportunity, thus creating a huge market demand for technologies and managing experience in many fields such as developing new and renewable energy, raising energy efficiency and protecting the environment.
to strengthen their cooperation in fighting terrorism and piracy on the sea.

Energy cooperation is crucial to prevent Sino-US war Hu 8 – Visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies – [Richard Weixing Hu, “Advancing Sino-US Cooperation Amid Oil Price Hikes,” Brookings Institute, March 18, 2008, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/03_energy_hu.aspx] The United States and China are the largest and second largest energy consumers in the world, respectively. Last year China was a net-importer of 159.28 million tons of crude oil, about 46% of its total consumption. The size of U.S. petroleum imports was 3.2 times larger than those of China, and Americans depend on foreign sources for over 60% of the energy they consume. With that in mind, Beijing and Washington have similar concerns in their energy policies and face the same set of challenges: high dependency on foreign sources of energy, rising energy-related environmental impacts, and energy conservation and efficiency, in addition to the effect on their economies of energy price spikes. Although China and the United States do not rely on each other for energy supplies, as the two largest oil consuming countries they are natural “energy bedfellows” in coping with similar challenges. They must cooperate, through joint or parallel action, to keep global energy supplies open, secure, and at an affordable price level. Neither country can hope to achieve much without the support of the other. Both would win if they choose to cooperate rather than confront each other in their pursuit of energy security.

RPS Aff

125 China Ext – Energy Cooperation Key to Relations

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Sino-US cooperation on alternative causes global transition China Daily News 8 [“China, US benefit from clean energy,” January 10, http://www.10thnpc.org.cn/english/environment/238798.htm] // LDK Sino-US collaboration on clean energy technology will set a good example for other countries, US Commerce Assistant Secretary David Bohigian said yesterday. The two countries have much to gain by working together on knocking down trade barriers and working jointly in such fields as alternative energy, he said. "If China and the United States are not working together, the problems will only get worse when it comes to air pollution, water pollution and climate change," Bohigian, whose job mainly concerns international economic policy, said. The assistant secretary this week led the Second Clean-Energy Trade Mission to China. It consists of 17 US companies with advanced technology ranging from solar power to clean coal. The continuing rapid growth of the Chinese economy presents unparalleled opportunities and challenges, he said. "US cleanenergy companies can help China meet its enormous energy demands while deploying technology that benefits the environment." Sustainable energy in China is crucial to global economic growth and Sino-US relations Hu 8 – Visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies – [Richard Weixing Hu, “Advancing Sino-US Cooperation Amid Oil Price Hikes,” Brookings Institute, March 18, 2008, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/03_energy_hu.aspx] // LDK Chinese economic growth and the U.S. economy have become highly interdependent with each other, with a bilateral trade volume of $386.7 billion in 2007. The U.S. economy has enjoyed an average 3.5% growth since 1992 with relatively low inflation. On the whole the United States has benefited greatly from a steady inflow of low-priced “Made in China” products, which has helped to keep the overall price of consumer goods low and consumer confidence high. On the other side of the linkage, Chinese economic growth has also benefited from its strong exports to the American market over the years. In assessing this interdependent economic relationship, it should not be forgotten that a sufficient and affordable energy supply and an abundant supply of cheap labor in China have been the key ingredients to this successful story. China’s economic miracle is based on labor-intensive, low-wage manufacturing and robust exports. Without a sufficient and affordable energy supply, this path of export-driven growth would encounter serious problems, and so would the Sino-U.S economic relationship, in its current form.

RPS Aff

126 Terrorism Ext – Cooperation

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A good international reputation is key to deeper collaboration and lower transaction costs Busby, 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin (Josh, “Memo on Reputation,” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations Theory' at Princeton, April 2006, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP Does it Matter if States are Unreliable? Even if we accept that reputations are relevant for political interactions, how significant are the costs of failure to make or keep promises, particularly to one’s friends? The basic argument of reputation theory is that failure to keep promises will lead to some form of punishment by the other side. This may take the form of punitive sanctions, or more likely, a loss of a stream of benefits over time as would-be collaborators make fewer and more shallow cooperative agreements. States with better reputations will be able to get better terms for the agreements they make. Countries with a bad reputation will incur higher transactions costs to get other actors to update their expectations of what the state is likely to do (Larson 1997, Tomz 1998, Guzman 2002, Miller 2003). Terrorists will use Europe as a platform for attacks – cooperation is critical to solving BBC News, 8 (“US fears Europe-based terrorism,” 1-16-2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7190788.stm) // DNB One of the biggest threats to US security may now come from within Europe, US Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff has told the BBC. He said militant attacks and plots in Europe over recent years had made the US aware of the "real risk that Europe will become a platform for terrorists". Mr Chertoff said it was likely security checks on travellers from Europe would be increased. But he said steps would be taken to ensure travel and trade were not hit. In the interview on the BBC's World News America, Mr Chertoff said he had seen "home-grown terrorism begin to rise in Europe". I have to say the biggest threat comes from overseas, and one of the places we are increasingly worried about is Europe.” He cited deadly bomb attacks on Madrid and London, and a terror alert affecting UK-US flights in August 2006, as well as "people travelling from South Asia and the Middle East into Europe and carrying out attacks there". He said it was important to increase security checks on passengers from Europe - most of whom are currently able to enter the United States without being screened first because of a visa waiver programme. But Mr Chertoff added that immigration checks should not affect travel and trade - an important part of the US economy.

RPS Aff

127 Terrorism Ext – Impacts

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

U.S. lashout will kill hundreds of millions Easterbrook, 1 – Fellow at the Brookings Institute
(Greg, CNN, “America's New War: Nuclear Threats,” 11-1-2001, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html)

EASTERBROOK: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they were rational. They knew that if they struck, they would be struck in turn. Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries. And that -- it is very much in the interest the Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, in addition to being in our interests. Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

RPS Aff

128 Hegemony – Energy Policy Key to Global Leadership

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

U.S. international credibility is at an all-time low – an ambitious energy policy is the single best way to restore U.S. global leadership. We solve all of your alternate causalities Richardson, 8 - former US Secretary of Energy (Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 72-75) 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 overfishing 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 participate constructively in world affairs. 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 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.

RPS Aff

129 Hegemony – Renewables / Market Key to Leadership

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Promoting renewables is key to restoring U.S. global leadership – federal government must follow the lead of Western states Richardson, 8 – former US Secretary of Energy (Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 58) 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. Market based policies are key to U.S. leadership Richardson, 8 - former US Secretary of Energy (Bill, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, p. 186-187) The power of markets is immense. That is one of the great lessons – besides democracy and human rights – that the United States has taught the world over the past two centuries. The market has the power not only to create individual prosperity and growth, as conceived by that great first-ever modern economist, Adam Smith, but also to achieve big things for society as a whole. If we manage the carbon markets sensibly, with strict limits, smart incentives, and practical oversight – as we manage the monetary supply via the Federal Reserve – we can foresee a market-based economy that actually works toward reducing pollution rather than increasing it. We can use the market to provide consumers with new choices, while we also reduce threats to the global climate. We should embrace these market opportunities enthusiastically and optimistically. We don’t need to create large federal slush funds by raising carbon taxes and allowing federal agencies to choose new research and technology options for study and deployment. We can set an overall standard, auction pollution rights, and let the markets move toward protecting the climate. We can give Detroit and other automakers some support for new technologies, and they will reverse their decades-long decline. It’s a positive, market-based way of addressing the twin threats to our national security: global warming and oil dependence. It’s a new, integrated, comprehensive way of solving the biggest threats to our prosperity and our world leadership since World War II. It’s the first step toward leading by example.

RPS Aff

130 Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Concessions by federal government on climate policy are necessary restore America’s international reputation, engender important anti-terror cooperation with Europe and stop balancing against the U.S. Busby, 7 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin (Joshua, “Who Cares about the Weather? Climate Change and U.S. National Security,” Paper prepared for presentation at the International Studies Association annual conference in Chicago, Illinois, March 1-3, 2007, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP
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 would have had any appreciable impact on America’s allies’ disposition towards the Iraq war, 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 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 wedded to climate protection goals for their own sake must evaluate different strategies for re-gaining others’ good will. 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 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 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

RPS Aff

131 Hegemony – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Lack of action on warming is a key issue that galvanizing negative perceptions of the U.S. NYT, 8 (Meg Bortin, “Global Image of U.S. Improves Slightly,” 6-13-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/13pew.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin) // JMP
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.

RPS Aff

132 No Renewables Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Oil, coal and natural gas will continue to dominate Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP In an early release of its 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, EIA's updated analysis reflects the same general trend for renewables: Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources ... oil, coal, and natural gas still are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share of the total U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005.13 Significantly, EIA expects base-load fossil fuel generation to continue to have low operating costs compared to current renewable technologies, making it harder for renewables to compete in state-based electricity markets without some form of regulatory intervention.14 Investment in energy technology is declining – lack of a federal lead 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/CPUCnew/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP The larger issue, however, is that as a nation we invest less in energy research, development, and deployment than do a few large biotechnology firms in their own, private R&D budgets. This is unacceptable on many fronts. The least of which is that we know that investments in energy research pay off at both the national and private sector levels. In a series of papers (Margolis and Kammen, 1999; Kammen and Nemet, 2005; Nemet and Kammen, 2007) my students and I have documented a disturbing trend away from investment in energy technology—both by the federal government and the private sector, which largely follows the federal lead. The U.S. invests about $1 billion less in energy R&D today than it did a decade ago. This trend is remarkable, first because the levels in the mid-1990s had already been identified as dangerously low, and second because, as our analysis indicates, the decline is pervasive—across almost every energy technology category, in both the public and private sectors, and at multiple stages in the innovation process. In each of these areas investment has been either been stagnant or declining. Moreover, the decline in investment in energy has occurred while overall U.S. R&D has grown by 6% per year, and federal R&D investments in health and defense have grown by 10 to 15% per year, respectively. One of the clearest findings from tracking actual investment histories, is that there is a direct and strong correlation between investment in innovation and demonstrated changes in performance and cost of technologies available in the market. The U.S. under invests in clean energy development 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/CPUCnew/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP
Raise Clean Energy Research, Development, and Deployment Spending to Reasonable Levels

The U. S. has under-invested in energy research, development, and deployment for decades (Kammen and Nemet, 2005), and sadly the
FY2008 budget request is no exception. Federal energy research and development investment is today back at pre-OPEC levels – despite a panoply of reasons why energy dependence and in-security, and climatic impact from our energy economy are dominating local economics, geopolitics, and environmental degradation At $2.7 billion, the overall energy RD&D FY08 request is $685 million higher than the FY06 appropriated budget. Half of that increased request is accounted for by increases in fission, and the rest is in moderate increases in funding for biofuels, solar, FutureGen, and $147 million increase for fusion research. However, the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) budget is to be cut precisely at a time when concerns over energy security and climate change are at their highest level, and level of need. The fact that a plan exists to cut assistance to lowincome families by 41% from FY06 levels for weatherization to
improve the energy efficiency of their homes is startling.

RPS Aff

133 No Renewables Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewables make up a very small percentage of U.S. generation Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton (Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP B. Sources of Electricity Figure 1 shows the remarkably small share of renewables in U.S. generation. n8 Between 1991 and 2005, total power production grew by 1.95% annually. Figures 2a and 2b show that renewables grew more slowly, falling from 2.21 to 2.15% of the total. Coal-fired generation increased by 26.6% and despite regulatory concerns over emissions and GHGs, its share of production fell by only 2% points. No new nuclear plants were opened during the period, but improved operating procedures kept their share of production nearly constant. Hydropower's share fell as sites available for larger plants grew scarce and environmental intervenors succeeded in blocking projects. Gas-fired power grew, much of it produced in small and efficient generators built by competitive producers rather than utilities. Generation fueled by oil was a minor presence at the start and became less important over the period. As a group, renewables have made little headway despite more stringent environmental regulations and increased public concern over fossil-fuel generation. n9 Figure 3 shows generation by type of renewable from 1991 through 2005. Production from wood and waste biomass remained roughly unchanged, as did output from geothermal plants. Figures 4a and 4b show that the total of these three sources fell from 95.3% to 78.9%, while solar power maintained its 0.6% share. Had wind generation not risen rapidly, renewable power would be below 2 percent of today's total. The fact that wind is the only renewable on a growth trend will have important consequences for a national RPS.

RPS Aff

134 State RPSs Undermines Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The patchwork of conflicting State RPSs is undermining the development of a stable renewable market and driving up costs Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
State Inconsistencies Discourage Investment “When people understand what rules are made, life just gets better.” - Respondent #5, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006

If America’s interstate highway system were structured like our renewable energy market, drivers would have to change engines, tire pressure, and fuel mixture every time they crossed state lines. None of the existing state RPS mandates are alike. Wisconsin, for example, has set its RPS target at 2.2 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island is shooting for
16 percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration count as “renewable”, while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and non-renewable distributed generation. Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set purchase requirements based on installed capacity, while many other states make it a function of electricity sales. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntary standards, while Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees.25 States vary in their targets, definitions of eligible resources, purchase requirements, renewable energy credit (REC) trading schemes, and compliance mechanisms, among other things. Conflicts over Statutes

Amid this complex morass of regulations, stakeholders and investors must not only grapple with inconsistencies, they are forced to decipher vague and often contradictory state statutes.26 In Connecticut, for example, the state’s Department of Public Utility Control originally
exempted two of the state’s largest utilities from RPS obligations because the description of “electric suppliers” in the statute was unclear. These exemptions created uncertainty over whether the statute would be enforced against any utilities at all.27 Hawaii’s standard contained so much “wiggle room” that it was unclear even to its own advocates whether it applied to most of the state’s utilities.28 Such ambiguity

has lead to “wide disagreements among parties in regulatory proceedings” about

how to enforce some state RPS mandates. 29
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Don Furman, a senior VP 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.”30 Limits on Distributed Generation (DG)

The current state-by-state approach to RPS is also inhibiting the expansion of distributed generation technologies by forcing unusually prohibitive operational procedures. Inconsistent tariff structures and interconnection requirements, for example, add complexity (and therefore cost)
to distributed generation projects. In fact, the Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric generating and electric distribution companies committed to responsible environmental stewardship, forecasts that fuel cells and community-scale wind energy projects Uncertain Policy Duration

are unlikely to play a meaningful role in state RPS markets until policymakers adopt a more comprehensive and uniform approach.31 The complexity of state-based RPS statutes is compounded by uncertainty over the duration of many state RPS programs.
Stakeholders trying to plan investments in state renewable energy markets are tormented with unknowns. 32 New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, for example, will review and potentially modify their RPS schemes in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Hawaii’s standard expressly allows for its requirements to be waived if they prove to be “too costly” for retail electric providers and consumers.33 Arizona, New Mexico, and Maine may terminate their RPS programs entirely. 34 The market disruptions created by complex and often conflicting state RPS mandates are not merely “academic” concerns voiced only by staunch renewable energy advocates. In comments to the New York State Public Service Commission, Executives from Constellation Energy – a utility serving 1.2 million customers in Baltimore and more than 10,000 commercial and industrial customers in 34 states – complained that many are ‘impractical’ given the inability to track electrons.”35 Risks Increase Costs

state RPS programs “unnecessarily burden interstate commerce, raise the cost of compliance, invite retaliatory discrimination, potentially violate the Commerce Clause, reduce the availability of imports, and When renewable energy policy is predictable and stable, long-term project financing follows. Potential investors are less likely to assume persistent risks where legislative or regulatory commitments are weak or constantly changing. Regulatory uncertainty creates substantial direct and opportunity costs for the nation’s renewable energy market. Ten years ago, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that the uncertainties generated by inconsistent and unpredictable energy policies may
increase the costs of renewable energy projects up to 50 percent compared to the probable costs under stable regulatory environments.36 It is not an exaggeration, therefore, to suggest that the

instability inherent in a state-based approach to RPS is dramatically distorting private investments in renewable energy generation nationally and prohibiting the expansion of a robust renewable energy sector in the United States. A federal mandate is critical to correcting these market distortions and signaling a national commitment to renewable energy generation. A federal policy would promote a national renewable energy technology sector that contributes to the U.S. economy, weans the nation from foreign and polluting
sources of energy and decreases the real and social costs of electricity for American consumers. // pg. 25-27

RPS Aff

135 A2: States Solving Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Existing State RPS systems have not effectively expanded renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
I The Seven Deadly Sins of State-Based RPS A First sin: Failing to diversify fuels Even though some state RPS programs are decades old (Iowa's Alternative Energy Production law passed in 1985 and Minnesota mandated utilities purchase renewable energy in 1994), state

standards have failed to substantially increase the deployment of renewable energy technologies on a national scale.7 For the past 15 years, non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources have provided around 2 percent of the country's electricity supply.8 Even with the contribution of the
existing 21 state RPS mandates, projections show that this percentage is unlikely to improve considerably.9 The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses one of the most rigorous methodological tools to estimate future renewable energy deployment: the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). NEMS tracks the geographical differences in regional energy markets at sub-state levels, including census divisions and North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) sub-regions. NEMS also is used as a benchmark for models employed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Tellus Institute in their own projections of renewable energy production. In its 2006 Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA used NEMS to estimate the contribution of renewable fuels to U.S. electricity supply given existing state-based RPS mandates. According to NEMS, electricity generation from biomass is expected to increase from 0.9 percent of total generation in 2004 to 1.7 percent in 2030. Wind is forecast to increase from 0.4 percent to just 1.1 percent of total generation. Geothermal power is projected to increase from 0.4 percent to 0.9 percent. Grid-connected solar is anticipated to remain at less than 0.1 percent of total generation.10 Nationally, EIA's projection means that non-hydroelectric

renewable energy deployment is expected to rise to no more than about 3 percent by 2015 and 4 percent by 2030. Of the capacity stimulated by state RPS programs, more than 93 percent is estimated to result from large wind farms.11
When broken down by state, the EIA projects that 3.7GW of central-station renewable energy capacity will be added in Texas, 3.4GW in California, 0.9GW in Nevada, and 0.5GW in Minnesota. In Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin, small projects are projected to increase the production of renewable energy by only 100 to 200MW in each state.12

Existing States RPSs won’t effectively expand renewables Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP Taken together, state action on RPS is insufficient in significantly promoting national renewable energy capacity. Despite the progress made by state RPS, the deployment of renewable resources has stayed relatively the same. Almost 10 years ago, renewable
energy technologies constituted approximately 2 percent of the country's electricity supply (when excluding large hydroelectric facilities). (26) In 2006, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that non-hydroelectric renewables still provided about 2 percent of America's electricity supply. Even

when all state RPS are included in projections, EIA estimates that the contribution of renewable resources is unlikely to exceed 3 percent of total electricity supply by 2017 or 4 percent by 2030. (27) Inconsistencies in State regulations are inevitable for 3 reasons - Differences in wealth, knowledge and interest group politics Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP
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 refused to create a nationwide trading system for carbon credits. As a result of 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.

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)

RPS Aff

136 A2: States Solving Now

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Current State policies cause “free-riding” – utilities exploit gaps and build coal power plants in States without protections Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP In addition, as mentioned above, state-by-state action on climate change is prone to what is known as the "free rider" phenomenon. For example, utilities operating in a region that includes those states with mandatory emissions regulations and those without has an extra incentive to build new power plants only in those without. PacifiCorp, a utility serving customers in the Pacific Northwest, has repeatedly attempted to build coal-fired power plants in Wyoming and Utah--states without mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets--but not in Oregon (which has mandated a stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010) or Washington (which has mandated 1990 levels by 2020). (32) The state-by-state patchwork of climate change policies, in other words, allows stakeholders to manipulate the existing market to their advantage. Current State RPSs lower the price of carbon – fueling its use in other States Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP Localized climate action also sends distorted price signals. By lowering demand for carbon-intense products, state standards reduce the regional (and even global) price for carbon-intense fuels. But in doing so, they provide further incentives for nearby states without climate regulation to do nothing because of lowered prices. (33) Put another way, states acting on climate change depress the cost of fossil fuels and other carbon-intense commodities by lowering demand for them and thus their price. Yet reduced prices encourage overconsumption in areas without carbon caps, decrease the incentive to enact energy efficiency and conservation measures, and discourage the adoption of alternative fuels for vehicles and renewable energy technologies. State climate control policies won’t effectively reduce carbon emissions Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP Finally, even the most aggressive climate statutes (aimed at cutting emissions by 2010) will make only a negligible contribution to offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. With the exception of New York and New Jersey (which rank ninth and seventeenth among states in greenhouse gas emissions), the rest of all of the states with mandatory 2010 greenhouse gas reduction targets all rank relatively low in terms of their emissions. According to EIA, by 2030, total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will equal approximately 8.1 billion metric tons (equating to a 62 percent increase from 1990 levels with an average increase of 1.2 percent per year). Yet those states that have committed to achieving time-bounded, quantitative reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions accounted for only around 20 percent of nationwide emissions in 2001. (34) Even if all states with mandatory 2010 climate plans attained their targets, their policies would result in a reduction of approximately just 460 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2020--a 6.38 percent reduction compared to EIA's reference case. The other 36 states do not just offset these gains; the overall growth rate still increases at 1.06 percent every year. As a result, according to EIA, state-by-state reductions "are nowhere near the magnitude of reductions needed to bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol's call for reductions of 5 percent below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012--much less the reductions needed to avert dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." (35)

RPS Aff

137 Federal RPS Good – Laundry List

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS is superior to state-led programs – produces a national market to expand renewable, protect the environment and drive down natural gas prices 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 2. The Goals: The Case for a National RPS Congressional proponents of the Proposed RPS (and most versions of an RPS) cite several goals, including: reduced pollution, improved national [*56] security, job creation, and lower consumer prices. n44 Additionally, a national program, rather than a state-by-state program, is more likely to provide a strong national market, thus leading to more renewable energy projects. n45 In May 2007, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to more than forty "interested parties" from varying constituent groups inviting responses to several questions regarding a possible renewable energy portfolio standard. n46 Not surprisingly, the constituent groups supporting an RPS emphasized these key areas in their responses. n47 One of the broader descriptions of the potential benefits of a national RPS can be found in the Union of Concerned Scientists' response, which stated that a national RPS "standard can provide many benefits for the nation, including increasing energy security, fuel diversity, price stability, jobs, farm and ranch income, tax revenues, technology development, customer choices, and reduced environmental impacts, water consumption, and resource depletion, as well as reduced compliance costs with current and future environmental regulations." n48 If the claimed benefits are accurate (and, as noted below, there are many who believe they are not), there are several ways in which these benefits would be achieved. Probably the most obvious would be the potential environmental benefits. n49 Although electricity accounts for less than 3% of U.S. economic activity, "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 SO<2> [*57] emissions." n50 One expert has asserted that if "20 percent of our electricity in 2020 were to be provided by renewables, then we would be displacing the equivalent of 71 million cars from the nation's highway." n51 Others have noted that the increased use of renewable energy would reduce harmful emissions or reduce the cost of compliance with requirements to reduce pollution. n52 "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." n53 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. n54 In the electricity sector, the most significant source would be reduced need for natural gas, which is increasingly coming (in liquefied form) n55 from overseas. n56 Enormous amounts of natural gas are used for electric generation, including as much as 90% or more of new electric generation. n57 [*58] 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 energy-industry 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." n58 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." n59 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. n60

RPS Aff

138 Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS is the only way to promote an efficient transition to renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) V The Profuse Benefits of a National RPS A closer examination of the evidence suggests that a properly designed national RPS would induce a number of wide ranging and positive changes in the electric utility sector: lower levelized costs of electricity resulting in cheaper bills to consumers; a depression of natural gas prices; a more distributed, modular, and efficient transmission and distribution grid; widely abundant fuel available in every state; drastically lower levels of pollution and emissions; and a host of other social benefits. For instance, technological improvements in thermal efficiency (the amount of raw energy converted to electricity), reductions in manufacturing cost, improved architectural designs, refined installation techniques, and better construction methods have coalesced to substantially reduce the cost of renewable energy over the past 30 years.34 Photovoltaic electrical systems cost more than $60 per watt in 1976, but cost only around $3 per watt in 2004-a decline of 95 percent.35 In 2005, the California Energy Commission (CEC) estimated that the average levelized cost (the total cost over the life of a generator divided by the numbers of kilowatt hours produced) of wind energy for the state was 3.5 cents per kWh, less than one-eighth the 1980s average price of 39 cents per kWh.36 A similar study conducted by the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research concluded that renewable generators fueled by wind and landfill gases offered the cheapest forms of electricity-2.8 and 3.0 cents per kWh, respectively-when compared to all other generators including advanced coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants.37 Indeed, while every report is laden with its own assumptions, in 2001 the EIA estimated that a national RPS requiring 20 percent of renewable supply by 2020 would save consumers $580 million (in 1999 dollars); and a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that average electricity prices would likely decline between 13 and 17 percent under five different national RPS proposals.38 Given the mounting external costs associated with fossil fuel, utilities and system operators have come to rely on "cleaner" natural gas combined cycle generators because they are believed to be cheaper and faster to build than conventional coal plants. The result of this trend has been the addition of over 150 GW of gas-fired power generation between 1999 and 2004. The resulting surge in demand for natural gas comes at a time when domestic natural gas production has begun to plateau, driving prices skyward.39,40 To cite two examples, the price of natural gas jumped from $0.62 per million cubic feet (mcf) in 1998 to $1.45 per mcf in 2001, and spiked again from around $2.10 per mcf in 2002 to more than $14 per mcf near the end of 2005. Deployment of renewable energy technologies can reduce natural gas demand and thus put downward pressure on natural gas prices. A greater reliance on renewable resources would hedge against the price volatilities of natural gas by displacing gasfired generators and provide wiggle room in a very tight natural gas market. A study undertaken by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that increasing the amount of deployed renewable resources by only a small amount could depress wellhead natural gas prices between 0.8 and 2.0 percent. These numbers may not sound like much, but if renewable generation was implemented more widely, the study noted the net present value of natural gas savings could be as high as $74 billion between 2003 and 2020.41 Renewables could also help displace costly liquefied natural gas-fired "peaking" facilities that come online only during times of heavy demand. Distributed renewable resources offer policymakers a peak demand reduction strategy since, surreptitiously, many renewable sources-such as solar panels, for example-generate the most electricity at precisely the time demand is greatest. When distributed, renewable resources can operate more efficiently than centralized fossil fuel generators since they tend to possess greater modularity, and can be installed in smaller increments with quicker construction times that enable forecasters to more accurately match projected supply and demand. Moreover, distributed generators, by producing power closer to the consumer, help avoid transmission losses and displace electricity normally produced by a large coal- or natural-gas-fired turbine, backed up by a spinning reserve, and delivered through the power grid to the same location. And, lastly, because distributed technologies can be produced at smaller scale, they can be located almost anywhere and used for a variety of applications, enhancing the performance of centralized plants, distribution sub-stations, and transmission infrastructure.42

RPS Aff

139 Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

National RPS will improve the efficiency of renewables and reduce their costs Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM National RPS Improves the Efficiency of Renewables A capacity factor is the ratio of a generating facilities’ actual output over time compared to its theoretical output if it were operating at maximum efficiency. In 2000, the EIA estimated that the average capacity factor for all power plants in the U.S. was approximately 55 percent.159 (That is, over a long period of time, an average power plant actually contributes to the electricity grid only 55 percent of its theoretical maximum output.) Nuclear and hydroelectric generators have boasted the highest capacity factors, occasionally exceeding 90 percent. Coal ranks near the middle, with a capacity factor of around 60 percent.160 Less reliable natural gas generators have much lower capacity factors of around 29 percent. (This low percentage is, in part, because gas-fired unites are generally used as “peaking” units). Citing capacity factors for technologies that have been around for decades obscures the historical fact that nuclear, hydro, and other conventional generators did not start out with such high capacity factors. Historically, all forms of electricity generation have followed the same general trend: the more the technologies get deployed, the higher their capacity factor and the lower their costs. When coal and steam boilers were generating just a few GW of electricity in the early 1930s, they had capacity factors in the low 20s. But by 1997, when the deployment of coal-fired units reached thousands of GWs of capacity, their capacity factor had jumped to 61 percent.161 The relative maturity of a technology does not appear to affect the tendency for capacity factors to improve the more the technology is deployed. System operators and utilities, for example, have announced plans to build more than 150 coalburning electricity plants in 42 states (representing 85 GW of capacity) by 2025. During the same period, the National Energy Technology Laboratory expects the capacity factor for coal generators to grow to above 80 percent.162 Nuclear reactors also prove the concept. The World Nuclear Association notes that nuclear generators had a capacity factor of around 10 percent when just 22 GW were deployed. Yet their capacity factor rose to 30 percent with the deployment of 53 GW and close to 90 percent once installed capacity reached 97 GW. 163 // pg. 69-70 A Federal RPS would spur job growth and cause the most effective transition to renewables Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis academic., lexis academic.] 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>> 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.354

RPS Aff

140 Federal RPS key to Expand Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS solves renewable transition most effectively Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis academic., lexis academic.] The RPS is a tool that can act directly on any or all of the following market entities: the power producer, retailer, or consumer.455 The aim is to promote renewable energy and thereby in a once-removed fashion enable the growth of the business of renewable power production while allowing for reductions in fossil fuel use and all that entails.456 If renewables become more prevalent, costs might go down, the renewables industry could take off, the environment might improve, or health concerns could dissipate, et cetera.457 In short, the RPS is a catch-all remedy that is increasingly seen as an energy policy panacea. Given that nearly half the states have adopted some form of a portfolio standard, it is not surprising that speculation exists regarding the eventuality and design of a national RPS.459 The AWEA is one such organization seeking the enactment of a national RPS.460 Their proposal, not surprisingly, is perfectly suited for the long-term commercial health and growth of renewable power producers.461 Using the Clean Air Act's sulfur dioxide regulation as a model,462 the AWEA sets forth a plan that, while light on specific figures, completely encapsulates the industry perspective in its underlying enforcement mechanism.463 If a national RPS is indeed on the horizon, a two-tiered approach that satisfactorily accounts for both the industry and social perspectives is warranted.464 The AWEA proposal falls short from an industry standpoint in that it fails to appropriately set the means by which the standard comes to fruition. It falls short from the social standpoint in that it fails to account for the likely concentration of the burdens of fossil fuels in specific geographic areas.465 An RPS-especially a national one-in addition to the fundamental structure of any quota466 must set bars that are realistically attainable but ambitious enough to change the energy industry in the desired way.467 To comprehensively meet the concerns of both perspectives, the national RPS approach will have to account for market forces,468 federalism,469 and hidden energy costs.470 If done correctly, a balance can be wrought between each of these. The Industry RPS must be managed as a federal regulatory scheme.471 Congress, after setting a production standard, would have to pass an enabling statute that allows an agency (likely the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to certify and administer "renewable energy credits."472 These credits represent one kilowatt hour of electricity each, and for each power generator and distributor, the RPS determines how many credits they must hold at the end of each fiscal year.473 If the RPS for a given year is 10%, each power retailer must have renewable source energy account for 10% of their total kilowatt hour sales for the year. 474 The credits are proof of these sales.475 The credits would be tradable between industry actors as a parallel "commodity" to the electricity itself.476 The credits, while not per se indicative of sales, instead signify that renewable energy has been supported in the amount of one kilowatt hour per credit.477 Thus, a non-utility-owned wind farm (a power generator as opposed to a power retailer)478 in North Dakota that produces and sells only renewable energy would have 90% ofthat year's credits to sell on the open market to power producers and distributors in any other part of the country that do not sell enough on their own.479 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.

RPS Aff

141 Renewables Good – Laundry List

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewables solves innovation, job shortage, deforestation, and developing countries’ economies – decentralization is key Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo (Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG) The rapidly growing renewable energy industries and service sectors in many countries show clear evidence that the systematic promotion of such new technologies offers great opportunities for innovation, for the development of energy markets with locally or regionally oriented value chains and thereby, for the creation of new jobs with very different qualification requirements. While the development and deployment of new state-of-the art renewable energy technologies, such as wind or photovoltaic energy, require highly skilled, knowledge intensive work-forces in industrialized countries, developing countries can, for instance, benefit economically from an increased use of improved biomass-based energy generation, both in terms of better availability of energy for productive use and through the provision of energy services as such. Examples are the widespread use of improved wood and charcoal cooking stoves in Kenya and other African countries as well as the production of ethanol – an excellent substitute of gasoline in Otto-cycle engines – from sugarcane in Brazil. Generally speaking, renewable energies are important for local employment and income generation which results from manufacturing, project development, servicing and in the case of biomass, rural jobs for the biomass production. Usually renewable energy devices are decentralized, modular in size and have low operating costs in addition of involving short construction times which give much greater flexibility in energy planning and investment. The Table 3 provides an idea of the number of jobs per unit of energy generated from different sources. These numbers were obtained from a variety of sources and include jobs involved in operating the generating stations as well as the jobs involved in producing and maintaining the equipment. Photovoltaic energy is usually generated (and used) in small modules of 100 watts and the generation of 1 TWh would require typically 10 million modules to be installed and maintained. This is the reason for the creation of a large number of jobs. Ethanol production involves large plantations of sugarcane, which explains the number of generated jobs. The main beneficiaries of the adoption of renewable sources of energy will be the developing countries, where biomass, and particularly fuelwood, are used widely with very inefficient and wasteful technologies for cooking and heating. In such countries the modernization of the use of biomass could bring – among others – great benefits, including a reduction in deforestation. Increasing renewables increases energy security through diversification. Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo (Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG) The cost of maintaining energy security in today’s industrialized countries comes at high, but usually hidden, costs that find expression in military and security spending. The volatile world market prices for conventional energy sources, in particular oil, pose great risks for large parts of the world’s economic and political stability, with sometimes dramatic effects on energyimporting developing countries. In this context, renewable energies can help to diversify energy supply and to increase energy security. It should increase the economic benefits that result from transformations in energy trading patterns. Additionally, in the mid-and long-term perspective renewable energies prolong the availability of most fossil fuels for the satisfaction of both energy needs and numerous other non-energy needs.

RPS Aff

142 Renewables Good – Laundry List

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Enhancing renewables solves poverty, global hunger, patriarchy, education, economic development Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo (Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG) The enhanced use of renewables is closely linked to poverty reduction and elimination, since energy services can: (a) improve access to pumped drinking water – clean water and cooked food to reduce hunger (95% of food needs cooking); (b) reduce the time spent by women and children on basic survival activities (gathering firewood, fetching water, cooking, etc.) and; (c) provide lighting that permits home study, increases security and enables the use of educational media and communication in school and reduce deforestation. More than two billion people cannot access affordable energy services, based on the efficient use of gaseous and liquid fuels, and electricity and are dependent on gathering fuelwood, fetching water, cooking, etc. This constrains their opportunities for economic development and improved living standards. Women, the elderly and children suffer disproportionately because of their relative dependence on traditional fuels and exposure to emissions from cooking which is the main cause of respiratory diseases. Access to electricity through transmission distribution lines is unlikely to be possible in many parts of the world for a long time, so access to modern decentralised small-scale energy technologies particularly renewables are an important element to successful poverty alleviation. The revenues from exported biofuels are another important element to alleviate poverty in developing countries. Increasing renewables solves hundreds of thousands of systemic deaths per year, ecosystems, and the ozone levels because there is no pollution Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo (Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG) The main pollutants emitted in the combustion of fossil fuels are sulphur and nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter. Ozone is formed in the troposphere from interaction among hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides and sunlight. The environmental impacts of a host of energy-linked emissions — including suspended fine particles and precursors of ozone and acid deposition — contribute to local and regional air pollution and ecosystem degradation. Human health is threatened by high levels of pollution from fossil fuel combustion. At the local level energy-related emissions from fossil fuel combustion, including in the transport sector, are major contributors to urban air pollution, which is thought to be responsible for about hundreds of thousands deaths annually around the world. At the regional level precursors of acid deposition from fuel combustion can be precipitated thousands of kilometres from their point of origin – often crossing national boundaries. The resulting acidification is causing significant damage to natural systems, crops, and human-made structures, and can, over time, alter the composition and function of entire ecosystems. Table 4 shows some of the consequences of the use of fossil fuels. Needless to say renewables contribute far less to these emissions.

RPS Aff

143 Federal RPS Good – National REC Market

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS will create a national market for RECs 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 A national RPS would create a national market for renewable energy credits (RECs), n8 which are earned by generating electricity from qualified renewable generators, such as those using wind, solar, and biomass as their energy source. n9 Covered electricity retailers would be required to hold RECs in the specified proportion to the amount of retail energy they sold. n10 These RECs could be self-generated or purchased from other qualifying renewable generators. n11 Only a federal credit system can promote using renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) Furthermore, we propose that FERC be given the authority to issue national renewable energy certificates (RECs) and develop a national REC tracking system. Unbundling the renewable nature of generation from the actual electricity generated provides critical flexibility for regulated utilities and ensures that market forces dictate renewable investment. For mixed-fuel facilities, we believe that allowing only the electricity generated from qualified renewable sources to count toward the value of a REC promotes efficient fuel combinations while protecting against fraud. A tracking system would also help certify that RECs represent actual renewable generation, facilitate the transfer of RECs between holders, and ensure that certificates are not double-counted. State RPS mandates (and some voluntary initiatives) have encouraged the development of robust interstate and regional REC tracking systems.26 For example, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), an operational REC tracking program, comprises six states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Regional tracking systems are also under development in the mid-Atlantic and western U.S. By early 2006, the non-profit Center for Resource Solutions formed the North American Association of Issuing Bodies (NAAIB) to issue recommended "best practices" for certificate tracking and promote harmonization among the various tracking systems in North America.27 The emergence of the NAAIB suggests that a national REC tracking system may be inevitable. Moreover, just as the federal government ultimately intervened to regulate interstate electricity transmission,28 such a REC tracking system will likely be subject to eventual federal oversight. It makes far more sense that such a system be the result of federal design earlier rather than circumstance later. Transparent and predictable rules established by a democratic body would likely avoid the fits and starts sure to plague a system that pieces together inconsistent and overlapping regional REC tracking systems. Early adoption of a uniform REC tracking system would allow both regulators and the regulated community to focus on the important work of exploring new ways to harness greater amounts of renewable energy, instead of wading through a mire of constantly evolving trading schemes. For example, some state RPS mandates have created uncertainty over who owns the RECs that result from power purchases mandated under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).29 Under section 210 of PURPA, Congress required local utilities to purchase power from co-generators and small, renewable power producers (known as "qualifying facilities") at a price set by state public utility commissioners. The price was not to exceed the utility's avoided costs, which the statute defined clumsily as "the cost to the electric utility of the electric energy which, but for the purchase from such co-generator or small power producer, such utility would generate or purchase from another source."30 Some PURPA-regulated utilities have argued that the renewable or environmental aspects of renewable generation are inseparable from the power purchase because they are the reason utilities are mandated to contract for the output in the first place. Therefore, ownership of the RECs that derive from PURPA-mandated power purchases should transfer to the regulated facility purchasing the power. Many co-generators and renewable energy producers argue, on the other hand, that state RPS programs create certificates as commodities unbundled from the electricity produced, so it cannot be argued that ownership of RECs is automatically transferred with the sale of electricity, mandated or otherwise.

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS Aff

144 Federal RPS Good – National REC Market

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

In 2003, to answer petitions brought by several PURPA qualifying facilities, FERC declared that avoided cost payments mandated by PURPA did not convey ownership of the RECs that may result from the renewable attributes of the electricity.31 FERC ruled that it is up to the states to decide who own RECs, but that the avoided cost payments mandated by PURPA pay only for the capacity produced and do not convey the renewable aspects of its generation. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to review the decision, leading to speculation that future suits may be pursued. A national RPS program could resolve the issue in a particularly novel way by declaring that regulated utilities own RECs for renewable energy purchased from PURPA qualifying facilities or net metered generators only if the electricity is purchased at the retail rate, not the avoided cost. In their crudest form, RECs put a dollar amount on the value that the nation places in the generation of renewable energy. Their market value is largely dependent on the ability of regulated utilities to comply with RPS goals. Ideally, a national REC trading system would create a more sophisticated market in which the value of renewable energy generation is more realistically pegged to the retail value of electricity. National RECs could further drive the cost of renewable resources down. Brent M. Haddad and Paul Jefferiss suggest that establishing a national RPS creates both a secondary commodity and a secondary market. That is, under a federal RPS, utilities would sell their renewable power at a market rate to their customers, but they would also sell their renewable energy credits nationally to retail suppliers anywhere. Haddad and Jefferiss predict that, after the creation of a national RPS, a "vibrant market" for renewable energy credits is "likely to arise, driving their cost down, making renewable resource generators more competitive, and lowering the cost of our national commitment to renewable energy."32 Under the system we have proposed, players in the renewable energy market would have to compare the market value of RECs with the difference between the retail rate of electricity and the avoided cost as required under PURPA. Renewable generators would decide whether to sell their energy (along with ownership of the REC) at the retail rate or sell it at avoided cost (and retain REC ownership). Such a national REC trading program would create downward pressure on the retail market for electricity as well as providing added economic incentives for energy services companies to invest in their own renewable capacity. Regulated utilities that choose to purchase ownership of RECs by paying the retail rate for renewable generation would be subject to rate fluctuations themselves. If retail prices increase, so would the cost of purchasing renewable energy bundled with the adherent RECs. Therefore, mandating the option of purchasing REC ownership by paying the retail rate has the added benefit of increasing the likelihood that the electricity market will benefit ratepayers either by significantly decreasing the price of electricity (and, as a result, making renewables more cost-competitive) or by ensuring that regulated utilities invest in substantial new sources of renewable generation. Lastly, economist David Berry has noted that a national market for renewable energy credits would provide the country with manifold advantages beyond state RPS programs. In jurisdictions where retail providers may not own renewable assets, credits enable providers to meet their portfolio requirements. Credits would give utilities the opportunity to still meet requirements if their supply of renewable energy unexpectedly falls short due to equipment failure, unexpected increases in demand, etc. RECs would also give utilities time to determine how best to meet RPS requirements and potentially defer investment decisions. The gains from trading credits would make renewable energy systems more cost-competitive for suppliers, and could also minimize transmission costs, since they obviate the need for additional transmission when resources are located near population centers. Lastly, RECs would allow forms of renewable energy physically unable to be transmitted over the power grid-like solar thermal systems-to still contribute to meeting RPS targets.33

RPS Aff

145 RECs = Transition to Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Renewable energy credit borrowing will help fuel the transition to renewable 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 Other options exist for those unable to meet the RPS requirement in a given year. That is, retail electric suppliers that are not able to obtain a sufficient number of RECs are not automatically going to be assessed civil penalties. As a means of compliance, the Proposed RPS also provides for a "Renewable Energy Credit Borrowing." n179 Under this provision, a retail electric supplier can submit a compliance plan to the Secretary of Energy demonstrating that sufficient federal RECs would be earned "within the next 3 calendar years which, when taken into account, will enable the retail electric supplier to meet the [RPS] requirements ... for calendar year 2012 and the subsequent calendar years involved." n180 Once the plan is approved, the federal RECs that will be earned under the plan can be applied to meet the RPS requirements each calendar year involved. n181 Failure to repay any borrowed RECs would subject the retail electric supplier to civil penalties. n182 Oversight and enforcement of the RECs borrowing program, and any resulting proceedings to assess civil penalties, would also add administrative burdens. Most of these burdens appear minimal at the federal and state levels. On the federal level, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded "that transactions associated with the proposed federal permits would have no impact [*73] on the federal budget." n183 On the state level, the CBO observed that state "regulatory entities would not be allowed to prohibit utilities from recovering prudent costs associated with meeting the portfolio standard." n184 However, the CBO estimated that the administrative costs related to that restriction, "if any, would be minimal." n185 Renewable credits expand investment for renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP • Federal REC trading rules create a uniform price for renewable energy credits (RECs) A national REC trading market would allow generators to sell their RECs at a uniform price to retail suppliers anywhere in the nation. An expanded REC market generates more investment capital for renewable technologies by guaranteeing a more stable and predictable rate of return. // pg. 11

RPS Aff

146 RECs = Transition to Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS energy credits creates energy competitiveness that promotes alternative energy production Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis academic., lexis academic.] D. The Social Perspective RPS: Because the World Does Need Saving 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 The Industry RPS only acts on businesses, not individuals and not geographic entities.510 While the aggregate nation-wide market share of renewables would certainly increase under this standard, its positive social benefits like lower emissions are not evenly spread out either geographically or throughout the population.511 Therefore, the Social RPS will seek to accomplish the overall reduction of fossil fuel emissions across the board, not for the sake of the renewable energy industry, but for the sake of health of its people and environment. To do so, it will have to act on the states by mandating end-use consumption or purchase rates, rather than production or sales rates. While matters relating to the consumption of energy could constitutionally be justified as within the realm of the Commerce Clause,512 this Note finds that the most effective way to avoid legal challenge513 and ensure the successful reduction of fossil fuel externalities is to condition certain federal funding to the states on the timely compliance with the standard. Just as Congress conditioned a percentage of federal highway aid for each state on the raising of its drinking age to 21 during the 1980s,514 Congress would declare that it will release funding packages for highway, education, homeland security, and all other necessary state aid only upon the certification of the required number of renewable energy credits for that fiscal year. As with the Industry RPS, the Social version will be implemented using a rate-compounding formula to ensure that state legislatures have the opportunity to weigh their own options and adjust over time. Certainly, states could seek to carry the brunt of the purchasing and consumption requirement on themselves through mandating renewable energy use on government property.515 A state could choose instead to regulate municipal utilities,516 enact their own RPS if they haven't done so already, or draft incentives for renewable energy producers to move to their state.517 In light of the disparate nature of states, their relative geographic advantages, and populations, the Social RPS would necessarily have to be a lower standard, enacted more slowly than its commercially-oriented counterpart. States which already have their own version of an RPS are not restricted in any way from enforcing it, as long as the state does not drop below the mandates consumption/purchase floor set by the federal Social RPS.518 Like the Industry RPS, renewable energy credits would be tradable commodities under the Social tier, but in order to marginalize the trading so as not to defeat the purpose of ameliorating externalities, a substantial percentage surcharge akin to a sales tax will be added to the purchase price of each credit. A smaller surcharge will be added to the Industry RPS, and the proceeds of both surcharges will go into the national system benefits fund. The percentage of the fund's non-investment revenue attributable to these surcharges should be earmarked to fund infrastructural projects like the "wind pipeline" that improve overall transmission access and energy efficiency so as to broaden the interConnectivity of the national power grid.519 In so doing, it will help control for output variations while directly encouraging the proliferation of renewable power.

RPS Aff

147 A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The upsides of a federal RPS outweigh – success is likely and even one that fails will only lead to minor price increases and highlight important problems to tackle 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 Although this Article has attempted to raise a number of questions that should be resolved, or at least considered, before imposing a national RPS, an element of uncertainty is bound to remain. There are those who believe that a national RPS is only a valid option once all scenarios are considered, and, in essence, all potential problems solved. This would, certainly, be ideal, but it is not feasible. Legislation designed to tackle difficult issues requires making, hopefully, educated decisions, but is inherently uncertain. In fact, the vast majority of current studies indicate that results from a national RPS would range between either: (1) a fundamental change in how electricity markets operate; or (2) a moderate price increase for consumers, with moderate changes to the current system. Any major policy decision imposes risks; but, despite the histrionics, a national RPS actually appears to present limited downside, along with significant upside. That is, a national RPS, along the lines of those recently proposed, that fails (or is moderately successful) would likely lead to minor increases in consumer rates. A major success could reduce natural gas consumption and lower rates by a significant margin. The reality is that, without major advances in technologies, a national RPS is likely only to have moderate success. However, the implementation of an RPS could be the catalyst needed to trigger major advances in technologies. No major policy change should be implemented without careful consideration. But, while more study and analysis will help the debate, the potential upside to a national RPS appears to outweigh the downside, at least from a nationwide perspective. [*77] Risk is a part of all major policy changes, and the downside in this situation is far lower than in many other cases. If nothing else, a national RPS would further highlight the lack of necessary transmission in the United States. It is likely that the local nature of renewable energy generation would provide an awareness of infrastructure issues at a more local level than exists today, and that could help address the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) problem that has long plagued transmission projects. n209 Although it is unlikely anyone would welcome transmission lines in their backyard, local jobs created from both renewable generation and transmission projects may make siting more palatable than it has been in the recent past. Renewable energy has great potential for expanded economic development, improved national security, lower electricity prices, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And, while a national RPS is one way to help realize this potential, it should also be clear that for a national RPS to lead to more than moderate change, a comprehensive national energy policy is necessary. That is not to say that all questions must be answered before moving forward. In fact, without a national RPS in place, it may be impossible to determine the potential of renewable energy because even a moderately increased market for renewable energy could lead to significant technological advancements. All the planning in the world will not necessarily translate into effectiveness in the marketplace. At some point, an idea must be tested to find out if it will actually work. Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains: Is Congress?

RPS Aff

148 A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Even with problems, a national RPS should be adopted to promote renewable – the search for perfection will derail effective energy policy Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) VI Conclusion To be fair, a national RPS may not be a panacea to the country's renewable energy problems. Texas-which features the largest installed capacity of small-scale renewable energy (1,186 MW) in the country-had to implement a wide range of aggressive policies to achieve their market penetration of renewables. These included measures forcing electric companies to unbundle transmission, power generation, and retail sales; eliminating the ability for utilities to levy stranded costs and other discriminatory practices against renewable technologies; forming interconnection rules that did not require extensive preinterconnection studies; and mandating the use of real time pricing and net metering.54 California-which has more installed renewable capacity than any other state-had to remove excessive utility tariffs, increase tax credits for renewable energy systems, and institute a large consumer awareness program before renewables were widely used.55 In Europe-where production of wind capacity grew 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, and Austria, Finland, Norway, and Sweden all receive more than 20 percent of their electricity from renewable resources-aggressive tax incentives and rebates for consumers, ratebased incentives for utilities such as feed-in tariffs, and environmental taxes on carbon and other pollutants were needed to promote renewable energy technologies.56 Yet, for too long, the pursuit of a "silver bullet" national renewable energy strategy, embraced by all and burdensome to none, has kept the capacity of renewable generation ludicrously below its potential. The debate over a national RPS remains contentious even though many of the issues have been resolved by empirical data or can be avoided by structuring the program in a smart way. While many states have pursued aggressive strategies to expand renewable energy generation, the United States lacks a coherent and unified national renewable energy strategy. Current policies offer a ladder for those wishing to promote renewable energy, but the ladder is without rungs. The program that we have proposed overcomes many of the objections that have prevented the adoption of similar programs in the past. It is not a perfect program. But it does not have to be. A national RPS program is not like finding a life partner; it's okay to settle on less than perfection. Policymakers need not love every aspect of the program to acknowledge that its adoption would benefit our nation's electricity markets and make substantial progress toward a more coherent and secure national energy strategy.

RPS Aff

149 A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Peak load shaving solves intermittent problems Madrigal, 8 (Alexis, “DOE Report Says More Wind Than Coal Planned for US Grid,” 6-2-2008, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/new-doe-report.html) // JMP 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. Conventional sources suffer from variability and uncertainty – renewable are comparatively better Dr. Sovacool, 8 – Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA
(Benjamin K., also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, “Renewable Energy Technologies Just as Reliable as Fossil Fuel Plants,” 1-24-2008, www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/01/Renewable-Energy-Technologies-Just-as-Reliable-as-Fossil-Fuel-Plants/) // JMP
The "intermittency" of wind and solar is not a reason to reject renewables

All electricity systems, since they must respond (sometimes immediately) to complex interplay of constantly changing supply and demand, are highly variable. They are subject to unexpected failures and outages, and influenced by a large number of planned and unplanned factors. Renewables are merely variable in a different way than conventional sources, and in many cases their unique type of variability can help, rather than hurt, the electric utility system.
While it is certainly true that the output from conventional power plants can be measured quite accurately, virtually every other aspect of planning for and implementing that resource is riddled with uncertainty.

Three types of uncertainty are most common: variance in construction costs, variance in short-term demand forecasts, and variance in long-term demand forecasts.
First, a large variance exists between the projected costs and actual costs of conventional power plant construction. Experience has shown that there can be project delays and other unforeseen problems that can lead to considerable cost overruns and even project cancellations. Generally, the larger the project (in terms of installed capacity and thus cost), the longer it takes to complete and the more it is at risk to unforeseen changes (such as interest rates, labor costs, environmental regulations, etc.). The very fact that large power plants take many years to construct and complete dates are imprecise, adds uncertainty to the electric system. Second, once large projects get built, their output is often subject to rapidly changing patterns in consumer demand (and thus required load). Weather events such as sudden thunderstorms can persuade customers to switch on lights, just as unexpected hours of sunshine can convince them to turn them off. Millions of people are constantly switching on and off equipment—televisions, lights, computers—that demand instant power. In the modern, restructured electricity market, system operators typically employ complicated forecasting techniques to minimize such uncertainty. New York, New England, and PJM independent system operators determine load imbalance on five-minute intervals and use supply curves to dispatch the load-following units participating in the real-time market. System operators employ an automatic generation control (AGC) system to manage minute-to-minute load imbalances (a service known as “regulation”). Units participating in the AGC are equipped with governors that sense a change in frequency and automatically adjust output. Intra-hour dispatch every few minutes allows the units providing regulation to return to their nominal set points. To enhance system reliability, AGC units operate at lower power output than would be dictated by optimal economic dispatch without the requirement to following changing loads. Thus the entire electric utility system is already built to address variability, just of a different type. Third, utility resource acquisition decisions are based on forecasts of future customer demand, which can be ridiculously uncertain. We have a hard enough time predicting the weather or political elections; imagine the difficulty in projecting how an entire industry will be 10 to 20 years down the road. Changes in industry structure and long-term climatic conditions such as drought or unpredicted heat can particularly impact large hydroelectric and nuclear facilities. Uncertainty in long-term forecasting was widely encountered in the utility industry in the 1970s and 1980s, when excessively high forecasts of growth in demand for electricity led to overbuilding of electric generating plants and massive electric system cost over-runs in many states. A somewhat infamous example of this was in Washington State, where the Washington Public Power System (WPPS) began a construction program for as many as seven new nuclear power plants in the early 1970s. After large cost overruns and collapsing electricity demand growth in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the power system faced financial disaster and all but one of those plants was cancelled, leading to, at the time, the country’s largest municipal bond default. The entire experience came to be called the “WHOOPS” fiasco (as a play off of the WPPS acronym) and experts have called it “an enduring illustration of the risk associated with large electric system supply-side investments.”

Renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar minimize each of these sources of variability by deploying technologies that are smaller, more modular, and less capital intense. Classic grid systems are typically “lumpy systems” in the sense that additions to capacity are
made in primarily large lumps (gargantuan power plants, new transmission lines). These plants have long lead times and uncertainties, making planning and construction difficult, especially when the balance of supply and demand can change rapidly within a short period of time.

renewable energy technologies tend to have a quicker lead time than conventional coal and nuclear plants that can take 5 to 15 Quicker lead times enable a more accurate response to load growth, and minimize the financial risk associated with borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars while plants are built. Florida Power and Light says it can take as little as 3-6 months from groundbreaking to commercial operation of new
In contrast, years to plan, permit, and construct. wind farms.

renewable energy technologies can be produced at smaller scale, they can be located (or situated) almost anywhere, enhancing their ability to match smaller increments of demand. In the case of unexpected changes, renewable energy technologies limit financial risk and capital exposure. Modular plants can be cancelled
Because easier, so that stopping a project is not a complete loss (and the portability of most renewable energy systems means value can still be recovered if the technologies would need to be resold as commodities in a secondary market). Smaller units with shorter lead times reduce the risk of purchasing a technology that becomes obsolete before it is installed, and quick installations can better exploit rapid learning, as many generations of product development can be compressed into the time it would take to build one giant plant.

Conventional power plants operating on coal, natural gas, and uranium are subject to an immense amount of variability. The issue, therefore, is not one of variability or intermittency per se, but how such variability and intermittency can best be managed, predicted, and mitigated. And the advantages of renewables—in addition to being theorized for the past three decades—have been empirically proven in large parts of the world in the past few
years.

RPS Aff

150 A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Coal plants also have reliability problems Sargent, 8 (Sara Sargent, “Duke Energy Corp.’s new plant will allow coal to remain king in Indiana but keep emissions low,” 6-3-2008, http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=92169) // JMP “There are times when the wind doesn’t blow and there are times when the sun doesn’t shine and there are times when the coal plants don’t work when they need maintenance,” Nilles said. “The U.S. Department of Energy said you can meet 20 percent of your energy needs with wind power and
Indiana is at 1 percent. What does Indiana know that the government does not?”

[Note – Bruce Nilles is director of the Sierra Club’s national coal campaign] Wind power won’t cause unexpected outages and doesn’t require back-up power sources Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM
No Need for Back-up Power

Researchers also continue to improve upon the technical performance of renewable energy generators every day. New wind technologies operating at lower wind speeds and employing stronger materials and solar technologies utilizing plastics, nanostructured materials, and thinner modules have greatly improved efficiency, lowered cost, and enhanced performance.152 In Germany, for instance, the Wind Power Management Systems are so
accurate that they predict hourly wind capacity within a 2 percent margin of error.153 According to the German Energy Agency (DENA), the improved quality of forecasting tools has eliminated the need for construction of additional conventional power stations to balance increasing amounts of wind power on the nation’s transmission grid.154

Evidence from recent history also proves false the accusation that large wind systems risk power outages from the abrupt loss of wind. In an analysis of the effects of integrating wind power in New York State, for example, researchers for General Electric analyzed the actual output records of wind farms in use for over 5 years and found no evidence that wind power output changed so abruptly as to require contingency plans and back-up generation: Analysis of historical statewide wind data indicates that loss of wind generation due to abrupt loss of wind is not a credible contingency. Short-term changes in wind are stochastic (as are short-term changes in load). A review of wind plant data revealed no sudden change in wind output in three
years that would be sufficiently rapid to qualify as a loss-of-generation contingency for the purpose of stability analysis. While the wind can vary rapidly at a given location, turbines are spread out in a project, and the projects are spread throughout the state, making such an abrupt drop in total output an extremely unlikely event.155 Pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage systems can also be coupled to renewable energy technologies to smooth out intermittency. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a large federal utility in the Pacific Northwest, for example, uses its existing 7,000 MW hydroelectric and pumped hydro storage network to store renewable energy. Starting in 2005, BPA offered a new business service to “soak up” any amount of intermittent renewable output, and sell it as firm output from its hydropower network one week later.156 Such storage technologies can have greater than 1,000 MW of capacity (depending on location), and operate according to fast response times and relatively low operating costs. Storage systems like BPA’s are already commercially available and provide a combined 22.1 GW of installed capacity in the U.S.157 // pg. 68-69

RPS will expand intermittent generators and reduce reliance on one source of energy and improve reliability Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // SM Technological Diversity 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. G. A // pg. 69

RPS Aff

151 A2: Renewables are Intermittent / Unreliable

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Intermittency has been empirically disprove by other countries Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) 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 Varied renewable energy sources solve intermittency. Lovins et. al, 8 – veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich, “Forget Nuclear,” Spring 08, http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php, AG) The sun doesn’t always shine on a given solar panel, nor does the wind always spin a given turbine. Yet if properly firmed, both windpower, whose global potential is 35 times world electricity use, and solar energy, as much of which falls on the earth’s surface every ~70 minutes as humankind uses each year, can deliver reliable power without significant cost for backup or storage. These variable renewable resources become collectively reliable when diversified in type and location and when integrated with three types of resources: steady renewables (geothermal, small hydro, biomass, etc.), existing fuelled plants, and customer demand response. Such integration uses weather forecasting to predict the output of variable renewable resources, just as utilities now forecast demand patterns and hydropower output. In general, keeping power supplies reliable despite large wind and solar fractions will require less backup or storage capacity than utilities have already bought to manage big thermal stations’ intermittence. The myth of renewable energy’s unreliability has been debunked both by theory and by practical experience. For example, three north German states in 2007 got upwards of 30% of their electricity from windpower-39% in Schleswig-Holstein, whose goal is 100% by 2020. Intermittency can be solved through a multitude of energy storage methods. Goldemberg, 4 – President of the Energy Company of the State of São Paulo (CESP), Minister for Science and Technology and Minister of Education of the Federal Government of Brazil, Secretary for the Environment of the State of São Paulo (Jose, “The Case for Renewable Energy,” February 04, http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf, AG) One of the problems with renewables is the fact that some of them are intermittent. This is indeed the case for PV, which requires sunshine, which tends to be erratic in some locations. However geothermal, small hydro and specially biomass do not suffer from such shortcomings. In the case of PV which is eminently suited for decentralized use in rural remote areas that cannot be reached by the electricity grid, the use of automobile batteries for storage has proved to be a sensible and practical solution supplying electricity for lighting in the evenings when it is most needed, and the same applies to other uses such as radio, TV communications and refrigeration. In the case of wind, the problem of intermittency can be solved by feeding the electricity generated in large grids, as it is done in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Another solution is to use electricity to compress air which can be stored and generate electricity when needed.

RPS Aff

152 A2: RPS Only Increases Wind Power

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A 20% RPS will also significantly expand biomass resources Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK C. Renewable energy development Table 2 illustrates that the mix of renewable energy generation under various national RPS scenarios is much more sensitive to the difference in assumptions between UCS and EIA than the projected consumer benefits. Using UCS assumptions, wind power provides the majority of renewable energy generation under the 20 percent RPS, with significant contributions also coming from biomass and geothermal resources. Under this scenario, total U.S. non-hydro renewable power capacity increases from about 20,000 MW in 2005 to 180,000 MW by 2020. Using EIA assumptions, however, results in significantly more generation from biomass energy. This is primarily due to the more pessimistic cost and performance assumptions that EIA uses for wind power. Because wind power is more expensive under EIA's assumptions, generation from biomass integrated gasification combined cycle plants becomes cost-competitive more quickly, and is deployed by the model to meet a larger portion of the annual targets. Greater generation from biomass, which has a higher capacity factor than wind power, also results in less total renewable energy capacity being developed. Under EIA assumptions, total non-hydro renewable power capacity increases to 150,000 MW by 2020. The difference in renewable energy generation mix between scenarios that use UCS and EIA assumptions also holds true under a 10 percent national RPS. The UCS scenario found that wind power would account for the majority of the generation resulting from the 109,000 MW of renewable eneergy capacity developed by 2020. Biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and solar resources continue to play important, but lesser roles. Under EIA's 10 percent RPS analysis, biomass actually accounts for a majority of the renewable energy mix by 2020. Ultimately, the competition between renewable energy resources that is stimulated by a national RPS will pressure developers to reduce costs and determine the technology winners.

RPS Aff

153

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: No Interconnection / A2: RPS Causes Electricity Restructuring
Interconnection standards have been developed for renewable generators Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) Regarding the technical complexity of renewable energy systems, engineers and operators have made noteworthy progress overcoming barriers previously thought "insurmountable." The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers are all in the process of finalizing or have finalized interconnection standards for renewable generators.

A2: RPS Causes Restructuring of Electricity Industry
RPS Won’t Force a Restructuring of the Electricity Industry UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6) AMK Would we have to restructure the electricity industry in order to adopt an RES? No. An RES is compatible with both a regulated or restructured industry. California, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin adopted renewable energy requirements outside of restructuring. Nevada and New Mexico adopted small standards during restructuring, but greatly expanded them later. Seven other states, including Texas, have enacted an RES during restructuring.

RPS Aff

154 A2: Long Timeframe for Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Most renewable energy investment will occur in the initial phase of an RPS – later in time investments stand to make less so the incentive is lower 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) C. RECs: Where Will They Come From and How to Decide? Early in the life of a national RPS, the income received from REC sales will provide an incentive for investment in qualifying renewable technologies even if they involve higher costs than other non-qualifying generating technologies. n117 However, as the end date for the RPS program grows near (2030 in the EIA study), n118 the lesser amount of time remaining where REC payments can be expected will reduce the expected benefit of the investment in qualifying renewable generation. n119 As such, any new later-in-time investor will seek higher REC prices to compensate the shorter time horizon under which they can recoup their investment. n120 This puts retail electricity suppliers in a difficult position under plans such as the Proposed RPS. As the amount of energy that must come from qualifying renewable resources is increasing, the incentive for building qualifying generation facilities is decreasing. Renewables can be deployed quickly Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at Cal Berkeley (Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman – postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP 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.sub.2] emissions will have a "clean cascade" effect on the economy because many other pollutants are emitted during fossil fuel combustion.

RPS Aff

155 A2: Meet Targets

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A 20% RPS can be implemented—opposing evidence is biased towards electric utilities. Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard, http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp) Electric utilities are opposing a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) amendment to the Senate Energy Bill, S. 517. The energy bill currently includes a provision that would require utilities to sell 10% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Senator Jeffords plans to introduce an amendment that will raise that requirement to 20% by 2020. Utilities say they can't do it, but here is the truth about their false claims. 20% RPS can solve despite current lack of alternative energy. Sierra Club no date cited (Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard, http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp) Claim: It is unrealistic to expect utilities to sell 20% of their power from renewable sources in 20 years when we are currently at only 2%. Reality: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently completed a study, Renewing Where We Live, which shows that the U.S. has more than sufficient potential to produce 20% of our electricity from renewable sources. Adopting a 20% standard will put the U.S. on track to be competitive with other countries-many of which have poorer resources and less land area-that have adopted similar or more aggressive standards. The United Kingdom plans to increase renewable energy from 2.8% of electricity use today to 10% by 2010, and a recent government report proposed increasing to 20% renewable energy by 2020.2 Denmark and Finland are planning for 30% renewable energy by 2010. The European Union goal is 22% by 2010. Regions in Denmark, Spain, and Germany already get nearly 20% of their electricity just from wind turbines.(3) State governments are also adopting renewable electricity standards. Nevada's standard requires that 15% of its electricity will come from renewable energy by 2013. Connecticut and Massachusetts both have standards that ramp up to 1% annual increases in renewable energy. The Western Regional Air Partnership-a coalition comprising the Governors of eight western states as well as regional Tribal leaders-recommend both state and national level renewable energy standards of 20% by 2015 as a means to reduce regional air pollution.(4)

RPS Aff

156 A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS would not force all states to develop renewables – states won’t be benefited over others Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) The argument that a national RPS would be unfair to some states appears based on the assumption that a 20 percent RPS by 2020 would force each state to build a massive amount of renewable resources. Such thinking is rightfully ridiculous: it would be akin to forcing Alaska to derive 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, asking Nevada to derive 20 percent of its resources from hydropower, or attempting to make mayonnaise without milk and eggs. Instead, a national RPS would only require that the entire nation achieve 20 percent of its supply from renewable resources by 2020. Some states already possess competitive advantages over others in terms of coal, uranium, and oil. It is unlikely that requirements to harness renewable resources, which are far more diverse and plentiful, would unduly benefit some states over others. A national RPS would not detract from some states while benefiting others—the elimination of PUCHA removed the geographical limitations that would create those conditions Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) III Promising Possibilities Post-PUCHA However, the revocation of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)-a law that essentially created the vertically integrated public utility in which supply, generation, transmission, and distribution services are provided by a single entity for a specified franchise area-makes the call for a federally mandated RPS all the more timely.14 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a successor statute (PUHCA 2005) that essentially lifted the regulatory safeguards of the original act and replaced them with cursory oversight authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and, to a lesser extent, state public utility commissioners. The elimination of PUCHA removed the geographical restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single, integrated systems.15 Without PUHCA's requirements, an electricity company anywhere in the U.S. can acquire another electricity company anywhere else, effectively replacing state-based utility franchises with a network of interstate power players.16 In May 2006, for example, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (with operations in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota) announced that it had purchased PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of ScottishPower servicing customers in Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and California.17 Constellation Energy also merged with FLP Group in December 2005, creating the country's largest energy supplier-valued at $28 billion-serving almost 7 million natural gas and electricity customers throughout Maryland and Florida.18 EPACT further accelerated the nationalization of the industry by establishing regional advisory bodies to promote interstate planning and cooperation, authorizing a greater number of interstate compacts, and permitting federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority to join regional transmission entities.19 Thus, the interstate electricity market created in the wake of PUHCA's repeal renders as nonsense the argument that a national RPS program would benefit some states at the cost of others. Deregulation of the utility holdings sector means that renewable electricity generated in one state benefits the same utility operating in another. Since a properly designed national RPS statute would make utilities, not individual states, subject to RPS goals, the burdens and benefits of a national program are likely to reflect the interstate nature of the emerging utility holdings sector. Establishing a national RPS could help fix inconsistencies caused by the current patchwork of state RPS mandates.

RPS Aff

157 A2: RPS Hurts Certain States / Regions

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

An RPS will benefit all states – several reasons Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
C A national RPS benefits all states In 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists used the NEMS model and EIA's own projections of natural gas prices to assess the economic impact of a 20 percent federal RPS by 2020. UCS found that consumers in the West South Central region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) would save the most ($13.3 billion). Consumers in New England would save the least (a mere $1.4 billion). Even the states of the East South Central region (Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi) would realize savings of up to $1.6 billion as a result of lower natural gas prices and improved reliability.55 Indeed, every

state would benefit from a national RPS because:

* All regions would see lower fossil fuel prices. Several studies have documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease demand on tight supplies of natural gas and coal.56 Resources for the Future found that a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce its price from up to 2.5 percent in the long term.57 In Pennsylvania, where more than 90 percent of electricity comes from coal and uranium, a study conducted by Black & Veatch determined that a statewide RPS of 10 percent by 2015 would lower both the consumption and price of coal. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil fuel prices would save the state $140 million per year by 2015.58 * All

regions have renewable resources. 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 * A national market creates economies of scale that reduce the cost of renewable technologies. The cost of renewable energy, particularly wind, has consistently decreased as the technology has been deployed.63 In their analysis of federal renewable energy programs, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) projects significant continued improvements in the competitiveness of wind technology over the next decade. EERE forecasts cost reductions due to discounts for large-volume purchases of materials, parts and components as well as from the "learning effects" that flow from deploying the technology to meet greater cumulative volume levels.64 * A national REC trading market means that all regions can buy credits at the same price. By providing a common definition of eligible resources and establishing uniform trading rules, a national RPS would allow renewable generators to sell their RECs to retail suppliers anywhere. Regulated utilities have the option of investing in their own renewable generation or purchasing RECs from suppliers that are able to generate renewable energy for the most competitive cost.65 Such an expanded market would drive down the costs of RECs since supply would be pegged to demand organically rather than resulting from conflicting, artificial geographical restrictions. * A national market more accurately values renewable generation. NRECA has noted that state-RPS mandates are likely to raise electricity rates where renewable energy substitutes for lower-cost products, as in Washington State, where a new mandate may force some forms of expensive renewable energy to replace lower-cost hydropower.66 Not only would a national RPS prevent such a tradeoff, it would allow renewable energy to compete with higher-cost electricity wherever its generation is most expensive. By

expanding the market, a national RPS would increase competition so that the value of wind energy from farms in Texas can be determined by its ability to compete with coal-fired power plants in Missouri or nuclear reactors in Georgia. Price signals would flow unencumbered by the barricades erected by a state-based system. All states have renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP • All states have renewable resources The Southeast has the potential to add 2,941 MW of electricity from additions to existing hydroelectric facilities. The Tennessee Valley Authority has documented nearly 900 MW of “cost competitive” renewable energy from wind, biomass, solar and incremental hydropower just in TVA’s service territory. And researchers at the University of Georgia have found commercially significant wind resources off the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. • A national RPS allows utilities to develop resources anywhere A national renewable energy market allows regulated utilities to invest in renewable resources wherever their development is most cost competitive. // pg. 10

RPS Aff

158 A2: Southeastern Region Can’t Meet RPS

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS would reduce energy costs in the Southeast too – all regions have sufficient renewable energy Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK 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. Southeastern U.S. can meet an RPS by expanding biomass CongressNow, 7 (Kelly Shaw, CongressNow Staff, “Experts Cite Biomass' Potential for Southeast to Meet House Renewable Energy Mandate,” 11-1-2007, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP 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. Dr. Marie Walsh, an adjunct professor of agricultural economics at the University of Tennessee, supported Lowery's statements. Her studies found that if the Southeast would begin using biomass resources such as switchgrass, they could rely on more than 110 million tons in 2020. "The potential in the next decade is extremely high for a dedicated energy crop," Walsh said. Other studies presented at the hearing from the Energy Information Administration and the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy also supported the argument that the Southeast could use biomass for renewable energy.

RPS Aff

159 A2: No Enforcement

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS is enforceable through civil penalties 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 [*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 undercompliance with the [renewable energy] standards." n173 Existing organizations can help facilitate compliance 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 The implications of a national RPS may not be quite as burdensome as they initially appear, however, because, many states have RPS programs already, and, as explained below, even those operating in non-RPS states are often served by organizations, e.g., Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), n112 with the expertise necessary to facilitate compliance. Nonetheless, it is retail electricity suppliers that would bear the greatest burden of a nationally imposed RPS, because they would need to participate in facilitating compliance, as well as facilitating the renewable generation market. State and federal regulators would enforce a national RPS 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 IV. Impact on State and Federal Regulators A national RPS would require new or expanded activity by state and federal regulators. The first order of business for state and federal regulators would be the implementation or expansion of a REC tracking program. Second, state and federal regulators would each have a role in enforcing the national RPS.

RPS Aff

160 A2: No Enforcement / Coordination with State RECs

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Administrative burden will be low – oversight and enforcement of RECs can be done electronically 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 An effective national RPS would require oversight and enforcement of the program. The additional burden created by tracking federal RECs should be manageable because monitoring compliance largely requires only that the regulator review the number of approved federal RECs submitted by the covered utility, much of which can be done electronically. n167 As long as the technological solution is trusted, such monitoring should be achieved largely via electronic RECs tracking mechanisms, n168 thus easing the administrative burden. n169 Complying with State RECs will make it easier to deal with additional federal requirements 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 For covered utilities operating only in non-RPS states, a federal mandate would mean initiating a new program for tracking and reporting RECs. As such, it does appear that it would be more burdensome for such facilities because it would require setting up a process to deal with RECs in the first place. For those utilities that already track RECs for state compliance, the adaptability of many of the RECs tracking systems should make compliance with the additional federal requirement less burdensome and more straightforward than it would be otherwise. Existing framework can be built upon to track RECs and enforce the RPS 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
A. Development of REC Tracking Program Under the Proposed RPS, the

federal government within one year of enactment, must establish by rule "a program to verify and issue Federal renewable energy credits to generators of renewable energy, track their sale, exchange and retirement and to enforce" the RPS. n145 To the extent possible, such a program "shall rely upon existing and emerging State or regional tracking systems that issue and track non-Federal renewable energy credits." n146 Given that, in some form, twenty-five states already have an RPS, there is a substantial framework for implementing the program.
[*69] It is not as though the federal program can simply parallel an existing state program, however. Each state program is unique in some manner, n147 and not all state laws are consistent with the Proposed RPS. n148 For instance, in Connecticut, the definition of renewable energy includes "hydropower that meets the low-impact standards of the LowImpact Hydropower Institute." n149 Connecticut, thus, permits all hydropower meeting the prescribed standards, n150 but the Proposed RPS only permits "incremental hydropower." n151 Thus, under the federal program, related state RECs could not be used for federal compliance. Similarly, it is possible that an activity that would not satisfy a state RPS, and thus not be eligible for a state REC, could still satisfy the federal RPS. n152 Ultimately, although

such issues will require effort and coordination, the process should be manageable because independent efforts are already underway to "create a common currency for renewables, prevent double counting, and support existing and emerging markets for renewables." n153 Regional programs, such as PJM's n154 Generation Attributes Tracking System (GATS), already track RECs in a way that should be transferable to a federal program because it already handles multiple state programs. n155 GATS "tracks generation attributes and the ownership of the attributes
as they are traded or used to meet government standards." n156 Further, GATS creates generator-specific electronic certificates that list the attributes electricity suppliers need to satisfy state policies and document renewable generation. n157 "Data in the GATS include megawatt-hours produced, emissions data, fuel source, location, state program qualification and ownership of attributes for each [*70] megawatt-hour tracked." n158 Similar REC tracking programs - including those affiliated with ERCOT, n159 ISO New England, n160 and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) n161 - exist, or are in development, throughout the country.

In fact, most U.S.-based RECs are tracked by technology created by a single company: "APX technology is now the system of choice for every major renewable energy market in North America, including the PJM (GATS), ISO New England (NEPOOL GIS), WECC
(WREGIS), MISO (M-RETS) and ERCOT (Texas REC) markets." n162 The various state and regional REC tracking programs were developed by state regulators who watched and learned from other states, then implemented programs to meet the requirements of their own state. n163 "As a result, today

a well proven, richly functional infrastructure is in place to create, track and manage RECs and related environmental commodities across the nation's largest regional markets." n164 Already, data indicates that a significant number of "regional stake holders have cross regional interests" in the three fully operating major regional markets. n165 Given that the predominant technology for tracking RECs is already working across regions with significant differences, a national solution should be feasible, if not simple. n166

RPS Aff

161 A2: No Materials for Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

RPS will jumpstart massive expansion of manufacturing for renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Industry A National RPS will jump-start U.S. materials and manufacturing sectors • American companies have enough materials for major expansions in wind energy. American composite manufacturers say they can provide enough fiberglass at competitive prices in the next three years to power 100,000 MW of new wind energy (nearly 6 percent of the country’s entire electricity supply). • Increased demand for wind components creates new American industries. Increased demand for wind turbine materials and components will allow more than 16,000 companies (with over 1 million employees) to enter the turbine manufacturing market. • A national RPS will improve manufacturing efficiency. More domestic renewable energy manufacturing facilities will save utilities money by decreasing reliance on overseas shipments of materials, which suffer from unfavorable exchange rates. // pg. 9 Enough materials exist to massively expand solar energy Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP B. Solar Photovoltaics A typical, solar photovoltaic (PV) panel consists of five “layers” of materials: a glass or plastic cover, a plastic anti-reflective layer made of plastic, a front contact to allow electrons to enter a circuit, the semiconductor layers that directly convert sunlight into electricity, and a back contact to allow electrons to complete the circuit. Most solar cells are manufactured using crystalline silicon as the primary raw material (the same material used to produce integrated circuits for computers). More than 90 percent of PV manufacturers use traditional mono- or polycrystalline silicon wafers in their modules (which represent the bulk of the total cost of the solar cell).344 While the industry experienced a shortage of silicon for PV production a few years ago (the price for silicone doubled from $30 per kilogram in 2003 to $60 per kilogram in 2005), the crisis helped spur rapid investment in PV manufacturing. Most companies now have extensive stockpiles of silicon needed to guarantee PV production, and many have signed fixedprice contracts guaranteeing a supply of silicon.345 The CFO of one large international PV manufacturer recently boasted that, “at this time we have 100 percent of our silicon wafer supply contractually secured.”346 The sale of Shell Solar’s crystalline solar business to SolarWorld in 2006 is expected to secure even more access to silicon and promote more efficient production processes with higher yields.347 Since the high demand for PV modules has enabled manufactures to pre-pay for supply, many silicon companies have massively expanded their production processes: Tokuyama is building a 200-ton half commercial vapor to liquid distillation pilot plant in Japan. Wacker already has a 100-ton fluidized bed reactor pilot plant in Germany. The company REC is looking to build a 200-ton pilot plant in Moses Lake, WA. These expansions ensure that an additional silicon production capacity of 5,900 tons per year dedicated exclusively for PV arrays will come online in 2008.348 Annual revenues for the solar industry are expected to increase more than fourfold from $20 billion 2006 to $90 billion in 2010. At the same time, production costs are projected to fall dramatically.349 In April, 2007, the managing director of Australia’s largest PV manufacturer, noted that the industry was seeing “incremental changes in innovation which are pushing down costs and helping the sector's expansion.” He concluded that falling costs will make the solar power industry increasingly competitive.350 // pg. 132-133

RPS Aff

162 Wind Solves Pollution / CO2

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power is the most efficient way to lower CO2 emissions and limit pollution AWEA 07 (American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) Wind energy system operations do not generate air or water emissions and do not produce hazardous waste. Nor do they deplete natural resources such as coal, oil, or gas, or cause environmental damage through resource extraction and transportation, or require significant amounts of water during operation. Wind's pollution-free electricity can help reduce the environmental damage caused by power generation in the U.S. and worldwide. In 1997, U.S. power plants emitted 70% of the sulfur dioxide, 34% of carbon dioxide, 33% of nitrogen oxides, 28% of particulate matter and 23% of toxic heavy metals released into our nation's environment, mostly the air. These figures are currently increasing in spite of efforts to roll back air pollution through the federal Clean Air Act. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides cause acid rain. Acid rain harms forests and the wildlife they support. Many lakes in the U.S. Northeast have become biologically dead because of this form of pollution. Acid rain also corrodes buildings and economic infrastructure such as bridges. Nitrogen oxides (which are released by otherwise clean-burning natural gas) are also a primary component of smog. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a global warming pollutant --its buildup in the atmosphere contributes to global warming by trapping the sun's rays on the earth as in a greenhouse. The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, emits 23% of the world's CO2. The build-up of global warming pollution is not only causing a gradual rise in average temperatures, but also seems to be increasing fluctuations in weather patterns and causing more frequent and severe droughts and floods. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warned in July, 2003, that extreme weather events appear to be increasing in number due to climate change. Particulate matter is of growing concern because of its impacts on health. Its presence in the air along with other pollutants has contributed to make asthma one of the fastest growing childhood ailments in industrial and developing countries alike, and it has also recently been linked to lung cancer. Similarly, urban smog has been linked to low birth weight, premature births, stillbirths and infant deaths. In the United States, the research has documented ill effects on infants even in cities with modern pollution controls. Toxic heavy metals accumulate in the environment and up the biological food chain. A number of states have banned or limited the eating of fish from fresh-water lakes because of concerns about mercury, a toxic heavy metal, accumulating in their tissue. Development of just 10% of the wind potential in the 10 windiest U.S. states would provide more than enough energy to displace emissions from the nation's coal-fired power plants and eliminate the nation's major source of acid rain; reduce total U.S. emissions of CO2 by almost a third; and help contain the spread of asthma and other respiratory diseases aggravated or caused by air pollution in this country. If wind energy were to provide 20% of the nation's electricity -- a very realistic and achievable goal with the current technology -- it could displace more than a third of the emissions from coalfired power plants. In 2006, the American Wind Energy Association estimates that wind plants in the U.S. will generate 24 billion kilowatt-hours. If instead the average utility fuel mix were used to generate that much electricity, 30 billion pounds (15 million tons) of carbon dioxide, 76,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (208 tons per day), and 36,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (100 tons per day) would be released into the atmosphere. The comparative environmental impacts of various options for producing electricity have been extensively studied by the European Union in a 10-year effort called the "ExternE" ("external" or non-economic costs of energy). The results of that study are available at http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf and http://www.externe.info. As with every other study of non-economic costs that has been conducted, the Externe study found wind energy's costs to be among the lowest, far below those of fossil fuels. The highest non-economic cost for wind in any European country, for example, was 0.25 Euro cents per kilowatt-hour, while the lowest cost for coal was 2-4 Euro cents/kWh (eight to 16 times as much). Wind power is the best way to solve CO2 emissions and stop rapid climate change AWEA 07 (American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) Yes! Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important of the global warming pollutants which are changing our climate. According to experts, if we are to avoid dangerous levels of warming, we must cut our CO2 emissions by 80-90 per cent by 2050. That means switching to forms of energy generation that do not produce CO2. Wind power is a clean, renewable form of energy, which during operation produces no carbon dioxide. While some emissions of these gases will take place during the design, manufacture, transport and erection of wind turbines, enough electricity is generated from a wind farm within a few months to totally compensate for these emissions. When wind farms are dismantled (usually after 20-25 years of operation) they leave no legacy of pollution for future generation. Given the scale of the CO2 cuts needed, wind power--as the least expensive, most developed renewable energy technology and the fastest to build--is the best placed renewable technology to deliver carbon emissions reductions on a large scale, quickly.

RPS Aff

163 Wind Solves Pollution / CO2

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Expanding wind power is critical to address air pollution – linking wind farms will ensure a stable supply of energy Stanford Report, 3 (Dawn Levy, “Harnessing the wind: One-quarter of United States is suited for wind power production, researchers find,” 5-21-3 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may21/wind-521.html) // JMP Can we light up the world and fuel our vehicles without polluting the environment? The answer may be blowing in the wind. It's not enough to set up hundreds of turbines at a blustery site to create a "wind farm" and hope that consistent gusts will generate electricity. It's necessary to know where fast winds blow and how best to harness them since the amount of power generated increases with wind speed and turbine blade diameter. In the first study to clock winds at the hub height of newer turbines (262 feet versus 164 feet for older turbines), Stanford researchers found that 24 percent of U.S. wind monitoring sites experience gusts fast enough to generate power as cheaply as coal or natural gas plants. Co-authors Cristina L. Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson report their findings in the May 13 online issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres). Since the wind isn't always blowing, its reliability has been a barrier to its exploitation as an energy source. But wind's intermittence would no longer be a problem if wind farms were networked to reduce the effect of unproductive days at individual sites, the researchers say. Linking at least eight wind farms virtually eliminates the chance of a windless hour during the year. "If we want to address global warming, urban air pollution, acid deposition, health and mortality problems, and the resulting public health costs associated with fossil fuel sources, we need to reduce substantially the burning of fossil fuels," says Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Global warming, which is already occurring according to the short- and long-term climate record, cannot be reversed during our lifetimes unless large reductions in carbon emissions occur immediately. The large expansion of wind energy is the most practical method at this time of addressing this issue." Finding that one-quarter of the nation is suitable for wind power production is extremely important, says Archer, who is Jacobson's graduate student. "It's like finding that 24 percent of the nation has a free, safe and pollution-free oil that is just waiting to be extracted for use. If wind power is used to generate hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles, this country could reduce its dependence on foreign oil."

RPS Aff

164 Wind Helps Environment

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power is the best alternative energy to solve the environment Windustry 7 (Windustry promotes progressive renewable energy solutions and empowers communities to develop wind energy as an environmentally sustainable, community-owned asset. Through member supported outreach, education and advocacy we work to remove the barriers to broad community ownership of wind energy., “Why Wind Energy?” http://www.windustry.com/wind-basics/learn-about-wind-energy/wind-basics-why-wind-energy/why-wind-energy, AM) Environmental Advantages Clean Water: Turbines produce no particulate emissions that contribute to mercury contamination in our lakes and streams. Wind energy also conserves water resources. For example, producing the same amount of electricity can take about 600 times more water with nuclear power than wind, and about 500 times more water with coal than wind. Clean Air: Other sources of electricity produce harmful particulate emissions which contribute to global climate change and acid rain. Wind energy is pollution free. Mining & Transportation: Harvesting the wind preserves our resources because there no need for destructive resource mining or fuel transportation to a processing facility. Land Preservation: Wind farms are spaced over a large geographic area, but their actual "footprint" covers only a small portion of the land resulting in a minimum impact on crop production or livestock grazing. Large buildings cannot be built near the turbine, thus wind farms preserve open space. Renewable energy is key to solve environmental degredation which is causing massive suffering Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) And-if one considers a broader sense of equity-renewable energy resources create a more just society by minimizing the environmental consequences from fossil fuels. Such pollutants have long been noted as unjust because their impacts tend to be unevenly distributed geographically among the states, and socially among the young, poor, and elderly. Many studies have documented that almost every step in the process of converting fossil fuel into electricity-including mining, cooling, waste stream management, and emissions-damages human health and the environment.45 As a result, Americans are experiencing a rise in respiratory illnesses (especially childhood asthma which has reached record highs) and the country's ecosystems continue to degrade. Particularly in the nation's "non-attainment" regions-locations so polluted that no pollution-emitting technologies can be used to generate power-renewable energy systems that emit no nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, mercury, ozone, or carbon dioxide can be instrumental in preventing undercapacity.

RPS Aff

165 Wind Key to Competitiveness

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind is key to competitiveness – the U.S. must expand the industry to take advantage of a growing global market AWEA, 4 (American Wind Energy Association, “Wind Energy and the Economy,” 10-26-2004, www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_economy.html) // JMP What does the U.S. wind industry contribute to the economy? Wind power supplies affordable, inexhaustible energy to the economy. It also provides jobs and other sources of income. Best of all, wind powers the economy without causing pollution, generating hazardous wastes, or depleting natural resources—it has no "hidden costs." Finally, wind energy depends on a free fuel source—the wind—and so it is relatively immune to inflation. What are America's current sources of electricity? Coal, the most polluting fuel and the largest source of the leading greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is currently used to generate more than half of all of the electricity (52%) used in the United States. Other sources of electricity are: natural gas (16%), oil (3%), nuclear (20%), and hydropower (7%). How many people work in the U.S. wind industry? The U.S. wind industry currently directly employs more than 2,000 people. The wind industry contributes directly to the economies of 46 states, with power plants and manufacturing facilities that produce wind turbines, blades, electronic components, gearboxes, generators, and a wide range of other equipment. The Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) estimates that every megawatt of installed wind capacity creates about 4.8 jobyears of employment, both direct (manufacturing, construction, operations) and indirect (advertising, office support, etc.). This means that a 50-MW wind farm creates 240 job-years of employment. Wind and solar energy are likely to furnish one of the largest sources of new manufacturing jobs worldwide during the 21st Century. What is the value of export markets for wind? Export markets are growing rapidly. Overseas markets account for about half of the business of U.S. manufacturers of small wind turbines and wind energy developers. Small wind turbine markets are diverse and include many applications, both ongrid (connected to a utility system) and off-grid (stand-alone). A recent market study predicts that small wind turbine sales will increase fivefold by 2005. The potential economic benefits from wind are enormous. At a time when U.S. manufacturing employment is generally on the decline, the production of wind equipment is one of the few potentially large sources of new manufacturing jobs on the horizon. AWEA estimates that wind installations worldwide will total more than 75,000 megawatts over the next decade, or more than $75 billion worth of business. If the U.S. industry could capture a 25% share of the global wind market through the year 2013, many thousands of new jobs would be created. Wind creates key export markets – huge opportunities exist AWEA 7 (American Wind Energy Association http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_economy.html, AM) Export markets are growing rapidly. Overseas markets account for about half of the business of U.S. manufacturers of small wind turbines and wind energy developers. Small wind turbine markets are diverse and include many applications, both ongrid (connected to a utility system) and off-grid (stand-alone). The potential economic benefits from wind are enormous. At a time when U.S. manufacturing employment is generally on the decline, the production of wind equipment is one of the few potentially large sources of new manufacturing jobs on the horizon. AWEA estimates that wind installations worldwide will total more than 100,000 megawatts over the next decade, or more than $100 billion worth of business. If the U.S. industry could capture a 25% share of the global wind market through the year 2015, many thousands of new jobs would be created.

RPS Aff

166 Wind Increases Jobs

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power would massively increase employment AWEA 7 (American Wind Energy Association http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_economy.html, AM) The U.S. wind industry currently directly employs more than 2,000 people. The wind industry contributes directly to the economies of 46 states, with power plants and manufacturing facilities that produce wind turbines, blades, electronic components, gearboxes, generators, and a wide range of other equipment. The Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) estimates that every megawatt of installed wind capacity creates about 4.8 job-years of employment, both direct (manufacturing, construction, operations) and indirect (advertising, office support, etc.). This means that a 50-MW wind farm creates 240 job-years of employment. According to a REPP study released in October 2004, boosting U.S. wind energy installations to approximately eight times today's levels could create 150,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide, with most jobs being added in the 20 states that have lost the most in recent years. According to REPP, some 90 companies in 25 states currently manufacture wind turbine components, and over 16,000 companies in all 50 states have the technical potential to enter the wind turbine market. The full report is available on the REPP Web site at: http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/WindLocator.pdf Wind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest sources of new manufacturing jobs worldwide during the 21st Century. What is the value of export markets for wind? Export markets are growing rapidly. Overseas markets account for about half of the business of U.S. manufacturers of small wind turbines and wind energy developers. Small wind turbine markets are diverse and include many applications, both on-grid (connected to a utility system) and off-grid (stand-alone). The potential economic benefits from wind are enormous. At a time when U.S. manufacturing employment is generally on the decline, the production of wind equipment is one of the few potentially large sources of new manufacturing jobs on the horizon. AWEA estimates that wind installations worldwide will total more than 100,000 megawatts over the next decade, or more than $100 billion worth of business. If the U.S. industry could capture a 25% share of the global wind market through the year 2015, many thousands of new jobs would be created. Wind power creates more jobs than fossil fuels US Department of Energy 4 (“Wind Energy For Rural Economic Development”, August (No Date) 4, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33590.pdf, AM) Wind energy projects create new jobs in rural communities in manufacturing, transportation, and project construction. New projects in the Great Plains prompted Denmark’s LM Glasfiber to open a rotor blade manufacturing plant in North Dakota. Wind turbine tower and component manufacturing plants have created new jobs in several states, including Washington, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Local labor is often used for project construction, like building roads and erecting turbines. Once the projects are complete, jobs are created in the operation and maintenance of the projects. The wind power plant in Lake Benton, Minnesota, is now the second largest employer in town. Construction on Iowa’s major wind farms provided 200 six-month construction jobs and 40 permanent operations and maintenance jobs at an average wage of $16 per hour. Wind energy projects generate more new jobs than conventional fossil fuel projects. According to a study by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, wind energy produces 27% more jobs per kilowatthour than coal plants and 66% more jobs than natural gas plants.

RPS Aff

167 Wind Solves Rural Economy

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Utilizing wind power improves the economy of rural communities and the farming sector AWEA 7 (American Wind Energy Association http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_economy.html, AM) Wind farms can revitalize the economy of rural communities, providing steady income through lease or royalty payments to farmers and other landowners. Although leasing arrangements vary widely, a reasonable estimate for income to a landowner from a single utility-scale turbine is about $3,000 a year. For a 250-acre farm, with income from wind at about $55 an acre, the annual income from a wind lease could be $14,000, with no more than 2-3 acres removed from production. Such a sum can significantly increase the net income from farming. Farmers can grow crops or raise cattle next to the towers. Wind farms may extend over a large geographical area, but their actual "footprint" covers only a very small portion of the land, making wind development an ideal way for farmers to earn additional income. In west Texas, for example, farmers are welcoming wind, as lease payments from this new clean energy source replace declining payments from oil wells that have been depleted. Farmers are not the only ones in rural communities to find that wind power can bring in income. In Spirit Lake, Iowa, the local school is earning savings and income from the electricity generated by a turbine. In the district of Forest City, Iowa, a turbine recently erected as a school project is expected to save $1.6 million in electricity costs over its lifetime. Additional income is generated from one-time payments to construction contractors and suppliers during installation, and from payments to turbine maintenance personnel on a long-term basis. Wind farms also expand the local tax base, and keep energy dollars in the local community instead of spending them to pay for coal or gas produced elsewhere. Finally, wind also benefits the economy by reducing "hidden costs" resulting from air pollution and health care. Several studies have estimated that 50,000 Americans die prematurely each year because of air pollution. Rural economies are on the decline, only a transition to wind power can solve. DOE 4 (US Department of Energy, “Wind Energy For Rural Economic Development”, August (No Date) 4, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33590.pdf, AM) It’s tough to make a living on the family farm. In recent years, net farm income decreased as dry conditions in much of the country reduced the forecasted yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Lower commodity prices combined with higher fertilizer and natural gas prices forced farmers and ranchers to pursue income from off-farm sources—as much as 94% of their total income in 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. High unemployment rates also affected rural families forced to work off the farm. Bankers foreclosed on farm loans in record numbers—for example, Colorado’s foreclosure rate on farm loans was 30% in 2002. As young people move to the city to pursue an alternative way to make a living, the traditional rural American way of life is disappearing. But there is a bright spot on the rural economic development horizon: wind energy. The wind industry contributes to the economies of 46 states, and the outlook for regional economic growth from wind energy is positive. Wind energy projects provide new jobs, a new source of revenue for farmers and ranchers, and an increased local tax base for rural communities. And wind energy is homegrown energy that helps secure our energy future during uncertain times while reducing pollution and conserving our precious water resources. In fact, achieving the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America program during the next 20 years will create $60 billion in capital investment in rural America, provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural landowners, and create 80,000 new jobs. Wind energy is the fastestgrowing energy source in the world, and your rural community may be able to reap the benefits. Wind power revitalizes rural economies Windustry 7 (Windustry promotes progressive renewable energy solutions and empowers communities to develop wind energy as an environmentally sustainable, community-owned asset. Through member supported outreach, education and advocacy we work to remove the barriers to broad community ownership of wind energy., “Why Wind Energy?” http://www.windustry.com/wind-basics/learn-about-wind-energy/wind-basics-why-wind-energy/why-wind-energy, AM) Economic Advantages Revitalizes Rural Economies: Wind energy can diversify the economies of rural communities, adding to the tax base and providing new types of income. Wind turbines can add a new source of property taxes in rural areas that otherwise have a hard time attracting new industry. Each 100 MW of wind development in southwest Minnesota has generated about $1 million per year in property tax revenue and about $250,000 per year in direct lease payments to landowners.

RPS Aff

168 Wind Increases Tourism

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Turbines increase tourism AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) People who would rather not live near wind plants (sometimes referred to as "NIMBYs," short for "Not In My Back Yard") often raise this concern with respect to new wind project proposals. There is no evidence that wind farms reduce tourism, and considerable evidence to the contrary. For example, in late 2002, a survey of 300 tourists in the Argyll region of Scotland, noted for its scenic beauty, found that 91% said the presence of new wind farms "would make no difference in whether they would return." Similar surveys of tourists in Vermont and Australia have produced similar results. Many rural areas in the U.S. have noted increases in tourism after wind farms have been installed, as have scenic areas in Denmark, the world's leader in percentage of national electricity supplied by wind. Other telling indicators: local governments frequently decide to install information stands and signs near wind farms for tourists; wind farms are regularly featured on post cards, magazine covers, and Web pages.

RPS Aff

169 Wind Can Meet All Energy Needs

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power is critical to an effective energy policy – it is capable of meeting all U.S. energy needs Motavalli, 5 (Jim, Editor of E, E: the Environmental Magazine, “Catching the Wind,” January/February, vol. 16, no. 1, p.26) // JMP
An Unlimited Future

As the fastest-growing source of energy in the world, with the fewest long-term drawbacks, wind power would seem to have an unlimited future. Lester Brown describes wind power as "the missing link in the Bush energy plan." Bush has called for the addition of
393,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity by 2020, and he's proposed financial aid to businesses that construct new nuclear power plants, as well as streamlined plant licensing. But no nuclear plant has been ordered in 30 years, and mammoth financial incentives may not be enough to offset the huge waste and liability questions.

But Bush's generating goals could be reached with wind power alone. Just three Great Plains states-North Dakota, Kansas and Texas-have enough wind potential to meet America's entire energy needs. Farmers and ranchers support wind projects because of the financial boon that
conies with leasing their land. Wind projects completed just in 2003 will generate $5 million annually in payments. Wind energy designers are starting to think big. A project called Rolling Thunder, in South Dakota near the Iowa border, would generate 3,000 megawatts when it comes online in 2006, making it five times larger than any previous wind farm and one of the largest energy developments in the world today. At the same time, the federal Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) says it will buy 830 megawatts of wind power from seven plants-five to be built in Washington and two in Oregon. Already the nation's biggest supplier of hydroelectric power, BPA will be the largest wind energy supplier.

The pieces are in place for a massive expansion of wind resources worldwide at a time when concern about oil supply and location is proving to be massively troubling. All the signs are positive, but will wind power achieve its true potential? The answer, of course, is blowing in the wind. Recent study proves that wind power can meet all U.S. electricity and energy needs The Electricity Forum, 3 (“Wind energy could fuel future power needs,” August 2003 www.electricityforum.com/news/aug03/windenergy.html) // JMP In 1991, a national wind resource inventory taken by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) startled the world when it reported that the three most wind-rich states of the United States--North Dakota, Kansas and Texas--had enough harnessable wind energy to satisfy national electricity needs. Now a new study by a team of engineers at Stanford University reports that the wind energy potential is actually substantially greater than that estimated in 1991. Advances in wind turbine design since 1991 enable turbines to operate at lower wind speeds, to harness more of the wind's energy, and to harvest it at greater heights--dramatically expanding the harnessable wind resource. Add to this the recent bullish assessments of offshore wind potential, and the enormity of the wind resource becomes apparent. Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but all U.S. energy needs.
In a joint assessment of global wind resources called Wind Force 12, the European Wind Energy Association and Greenpeace concluded that the world's wind-generating potential--assuming that only 10 percent of the earth's land area would be available for development--is double the projected world electricity demand in 2020. A far larger share of the land area could be used for wind generation in sparsely populated, wind-rich regions, such as the Great Plains of North America, northwest China, eastern Siberia, and the Patagonian region of Argentina. If the huge offshore potential is added to this, wind power could satisfy not only the world's electricity needs, but perhaps even total energy needs.

Over the past decade, wind has been the world's fastest-growing energy source. Rising from 4,800 megawatts of generating capacity in 1995 to 31,100
megawatts in 2002, it increased a staggering sixfold. Worldwide, wind turbines now supply enough electricity to satisfy the residential needs of 40 million Europeans.

Wind is popular because it is abundant, cheap, inexhaustible, widely distributed, climate-benign, and clean--attributes that no other energy source can match. The cost of wind-generated electricity has dropped from 38 cents a kilowatt-hour in the early 1980s to about 4 cents a kilowatt-hour today on prime wind sites. Some recently signed British and U.S. long-term supply contracts are providing electricity at 3
cents a kilowatt-hour. Wind Force 12 projected that the average cost per kilowatt-hour of wind-generated electricity would drop to 2.6 cents by 2010 and to 2.1 cents by 2020. U.S. energy consultant Harry Braun says that if wind turbines are mass-produced on assembly lines like automobiles, the cost of wind-generated electricity could drop to 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Although wind-generated electricity already is cheap, its cost continues to fall. In contrast with oil, there is no Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to set prices for wind. And in contrast to natural gas prices, which are highly volatile and can double in a matter of months, wind prices are declining.

Another great appeal of wind is its wide distribution. In the U.S., for example, about 28 states now have utility-scale wind farms feeding electricity into the local grid. While a small handful of countries control the world's oil, nearly all countries can tap wind energy.
Denmark leads the world in the share of its electricity from wind--20 percent. Germany leads with 12,000 megawatts. By the end of 2003, it already will have surpassed its 2010 goal of 12,500 megawatts of generating capacity. For Germany, this rapid growth in wind power is central to reaching its goal of reducing carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020.

Rapid worldwide growth is projected to continue as more countries turn to wind. In addition to the early leaders--Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the U.S.-many other countries have ambitious plans, including Britain, Brazil, China and France. In dense Europe, the offshore potential for developing wind also is being exploited. Denmark is now building its second offshore wind farm, this one with 160 megawatts of generating capacity. Germany has about 12,000 megawatts of offshore generating capacity under consideration.

RPS Aff

170 Wind Has Larget Potential in Electiricty Market

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind has the largest potential in the electricity market – it empirically grows exponentially when incentivized Shoock 7 – J. D., expected, Fordham University School of Law, 2008 – [Corey Stephen Shoock, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES,” Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 1011-1078, lexis academic., lexis academic.] The electric power sector consumption numbers bear out the fact that wind power, though still a minor factor in terms of overall market share, grew considerably faster than the electric power sector as a whole since its statistics were first accurately recorded.183 Total electric power sector energy consumption (all consumption figures for this section in trillion Btu) in 2006 was 29.4% higher than it was in 1990.184 That 29.4% increase is the standard by which this Note evaluates the relative growth, decline, or stagnation of selected energy sources. Coal consumption in the electric power sector was 26.2% higher in 2006 than it was in 1990,185 maintaining a slightly declining majority share of the market during that period.186 Natural gas consumption, which is nearly wholly reliant on the electric power sector,187 was 92.7% higher.188 Petroleum, the weakest of the fossil fuels in electricity production,189 fell 49.9% in electric power sector consumption from its 1990 totals,190 while nuclear power, neither a fossil fuel nor renewable, was 33.2% higher.191 Electricity production represents the major use of renewable energy generally,192 and the only use for wind,193 whose market share in the electric power sector was slightly less than 0.1% in 1990, or 29 trillion Btu.194 In terms of vindicating government policy, however, 1990 was a proper departure point. Iowa passed the first renewable portfolio standard in 1991,195 and the first federal production tax credit was passed in 1992.196 In 1997, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada passed production standards as well.197 From 1999 to 2005, eighteen more states including Texas, California and New York, as well as the District of Columbia, followed suit.198 Although wind power consumption only once actually decreased between any two years,199 hiccups in the acceleration of wind power's growth are widely attributed to the lapses of the production tax credit.200 The credit was renewed in 2005,201 and has not lapsed since.202 By 2006, though wind power's market share was still only 0.65%, it had grown in consumption from 29 trillion Btu to 258 trillion Btu, an increase of about 790%.203 Between 1990 and 2006, electric power sector consumption, if wind were not included, averaged an annual increase of slightly less than 1.7%.204 Wind power consumption on the other hand-with an average annual increase of about 46.5%-grew 26-times faster than the rest of the field.205 While a 20% market share is not in the picture presently, it is clear that wind energy does enjoy a market. If access to the power grid, which is maintained by utilities, is assured for renewable energy producers, their input of electricity into the marketplace (both of them) would necessarily increase.206

RPS Aff

171 Wind Solves Natural Gas Price Shocks

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power can serve as a hedge against natural gas price shocks and volatility Berry, 5 (David, Energy Project, Western Resource Advocates, Energy Policy, “Renewable Energy as a Natural Gas Price Hedge: The Case of Wind,” April, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 799-807) // JMP 3. Renewable energy as a price hedge Renewable energy with low and stable prices can serve as a hedge against natural gas price volatility and against natural gas price increases. Table 1 shows the major non-hydro renewable energy technologies in the United States as of early 2003. Biomass technologies comprise the most generating capacity and much of that capacity is located at industrial or agricultural sites, using timber residue or agricultural waste as fuel. Wind is second in terms of generating capacity. About 60% of the US wind generating capacity in early 2003 was located in California and Texas. Other states with over 100 MW of wind capacity on line in mid-2003 are: Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Kansas. Geothermal energy is currently concentrated in California, Nevada, Utah, and Hawaii. Nearly all of the solar electric generation is found at one solar thermal project in California, with the rest consisting mostly of photovoltaic generating capacity, the majority of which is located in Arizona and California. Table 1. Generating capacity of US non-hydro renewable energy projects Of these major non-hydro renewable energy resources, wind energy is among the lowest cost per kWh generated in 2003, assuming continuation of the production tax credit, and it is expected to be the largest component of growth of renewable energy in the next few years (Navigant Consulting, Inc., 2003, p. 11, 17). Other low cost technologies include landfill gas (included in biomass in Table 1), and biomass co-firing with coal ( Navigant Consulting, Inc., 2003, p. 11). Any low cost renewable energy technology with stable prices that displaces significant volumes of natural gas could be used as a price hedge. Because wind energy is expected to grow rapidly in the next few years, it is reasonable to evaluate wind energy as a price hedge. A hedge is a mechanism to reduce the risk of paying high prices for natural gas in the future. However, wind is not a perfect substitute for gas-fired energy. Wind does not blow on demand and is available only intermittently. Thus, wind energy can only be used when it is available and cannot reliably displace all gas generation. The hedge provided by wind is similar to a financial swap (Bolinger et al., 2002) in that a resource with a stable price is substituted for a resource with a highly volatile price. If a utility uses wind as a hedge against volatile natural gas prices, it foregoes savings when gas prices are low but avoids paying high prices when gas prices are high. A wind hedge, as it has developed so far, does not provide the utility with the option of taking wind energy only when gas prices are high. As discussed further below, utilities typically take all the energy output from a wind facility regardless of gas prices Wind power provides price stability – it is a hedge against natural gas price volatility Berry, 5 (David, Energy Project, Western Resource Advocates, Energy Policy, “Renewable Energy as a Natural Gas Price Hedge: The Case of Wind,” April, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 799-807) // JMP Annual wind energy costs are constant while the avoided costs of conventional generation vary with natural gas prices. Given the recent pattern of gas prices shown in Fig. 2, wind energy will be less costly than electricity produced with fossil fuels at marginal generating units in about 70% of years when the environmental benefits of wind energy are considered and in about 32% of years if environmental benefits of wind energy are not considered. If gas prices continue their historical upward trend, the probability that wind energy is cheaper than conventional energy would increase. With a long-term commitment to a wind energy hedge, there may be years when wind energy is less costly than conventional energy and years when wind energy is more expensive. But, under the base case assumptions, wind energy would be cheaper (including environmental benefits) most of the time. The hedging ability of wind resource commitments provides price stability, not the lowest possible price that could be obtained with perfect forecasting and complete flexibility in resource choices.

RPS Aff

172 Wind Solves Terrorist Attacks

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind improves national security – can’t be easily targeted by terrorists Stanford Report 3 (Dawn Levy, “Harnessing the wind: One-quarter of United States is suited for wind power production, researchers find,” 5-21-3 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may21/wind-521.html, Downloaded on 11-1-2004) In addition to being clean and plentiful, wind also may bolster national security, since it's a distributed energy source. "It's not like a nuclear or coal power plant where you can target a single location," Jacobson says. "Turbines are distributed. You'd essentially have to destroy individual turbines separately." [Note – Mark Z. Jacobsen is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford] Wind power improves homeland security and reduces the risk of a terrorist attack against existing power plants LaDuke, 3 – member of the Mississippi Band of Anishinabe and Green Party's candidate for vice president in 2000 (Winona, Cultural Survival Quarterly, “Wind Powering Native America,” Summer vol. 27, no. 2, p.73) // JMP Tribal wind power needs some help in new federal energy bills. Tribes heed to have access to the same financing mechanisms and incentives available to private developers and municipalities. Tribes need to have access to put wind power on the federal grid system built to provide hydropower to most of the western United States. With the extended drought, our water resources are diminishing. Tribal wind power could make up for the lost hydropower cheaply, quickly, and cleanly. Tribes also need to have access to the federal green power market. By 2005, the U.S. federal government is scheduled to make two and a half percent of its total energy consumption "green," and the Great Plains tribes could provide the renewable power to green the federal government through sales of wind power to the Western Area Power Administration. Besides that, the Intertribal COUP plan for homegrown energy generation has an important homeland security aspect to it. As Bob Gough aptly points out, when compared to the many vulnerable nuclear power plants located in the more densely populated parts of America, "no one's looking to run an airplane into a wind turbine."

RPS Aff

173 Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power is critical to create a transition to hydrogen Brown, 1 – Founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Alert 14, “Wind Power: The Missing Link in the Bush Energy Plan,” 5-31-1, www.earthpolicy.org/Alerts/Alert14.htm) // JMP The eagerly awaited Bush energy plan released on May 17, 2001, disappointed many people because it largely overlooked the potential contribution of raising energy efficiency. It also overlooked the enormous potential of wind power, which is likely to add more to U.S. generating capacity over the next 20 years than coal. In short, the authors of the plan appear to be out of touch with what is happening in the world energy economy, fashioning an energy plan more appropriate for the early twentieth century rather than the early twenty-first century. They emphasized the role of coal, but
world coal use peaked in 1996 and has declined some 11 percent since then as countries have turned away from this climate-disrupting fuel. Even China, which rivals the United States as a coal burning country, has reduced its coal use by 24 percent since 1996.

world wind power use has multiplied nearly fourfold over the last five years, a growth rate matched only by the computer industry. In the United States, the American Wind Energy Association projects a staggering 60 percent growth in wind-generating capacity this year.
Meanwhile, Wind power was once confined to California, but during the last three years, wind farms coming online in Minnesota, Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have boosted U.S. capacity by half from 1,680 megawatts to 2,550 megawatts. The 1,500 or more megawatts to be added this year will be located in a dozen states. A 300-megawatt wind farm under construction on the Oregon/Washington border is currently the world's largest. But this is only the beginning. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) indicated in February that it wanted to buy 1,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity and requested proposals. Much to its surprise, it received enough to build 2,600 megawatts of capacity in five states, with the potential of expanding these sites to over 4,000 megawatts. BPA, which may accept most of these proposals, expects to have at least one site online by the end of this year. A 3,000-megawatt wind farm in the early planning stages in South Dakota, near the Iowa border, is 10 times the size of the Oregon/Washington wind farm. Named Rolling Thunder, this project, initiated by Dehlsen Associates and drawing on the leadership of Jim Dehlsen, a wind energy pioneer in California, is designed to feed power to the midwestern region around Chicago. This proposed project is not only large by wind power standards, it is one of the largest energy projects of any kind in the world today.

Advances in wind turbine technology, drawing heavily from the aerospace industry, have lowered the cost of wind power from 38 cents per kilowatt hour in the early 1980s to 3 to 6 cents today depending on the wind site. Wind, now competitive with fossil fuels, is already cheaper in some locations than oil or gas-fired power. With major corporations, such as ABB, Shell International, and Enron plowing resources into this field, further cost cuts are in prospect. Wind is a vast, worldwide source of energy. The U.S. Great Plains are the Saudi Arabia of wind power. Three wind-rich U.S. states — North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas — have enough harnessable wind to meet national electricity needs. China can double its existing generating capacity
from wind alone. Densely populated Western Europe can supply all of its electricity needs from offshore wind power. Today Denmark, the world leader in wind turbine technology and manufacture, is getting 15 percent of its electricity from wind power. For Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost state of Germany, it is 19 percent and, for some parts of the state, 75 percent. Spain’s industrial state of Navarra, starting from scratch six years ago, now gets 24 percent of its electricity from wind. As wind generating costs fall and as concern about climate change escalates, more and more countries are climbing onto the wind energy bandwagon. In December, France announced it will develop 5,000 megawatts of wind power by 2010. Also in December, Argentina announced a plan to develop 3,000 megawatts of wind power in Patagonia by 2010. In April, the United Kingdom accepted offshore bids for 1,500 megawatts of wind power. In May, a report from Beijing indicated that China plans to develop some 2,500 megawatts of wind power by 2005. The growth in wind power is consistently outrunning earlier estimates. The European Wind Energy Association, which in 1996 had set a target of 40,000 megawatts for Europe in 2010, recently upped it to 60,000 megawatts. The Bush plan to add 393,000 megawatts of electricity nationwide by 2020 could be satisfied from wind alone. Money spent on wind-generated electricity tends to remain in the community, providing income, jobs, and tax revenue, bolstering local economies. One large advanced design wind turbine, occupying a quarter acre of land, can easily yield a farmer or rancher $2,000 in royalties per year while providing the community with $100,000 of electricity. U.S. farmers and ranchers, who own most of the wind rights in the country, are now joining environmentalists to lobby for development of this abundant alternative to fossil fuel.

Once we get cheap electricity from wind, we can use it to electrolyze water, producing hydrogen. Hydrogen is the fuel of choice for the new, highly efficient, fuel cell engine that every major automobile manufacturer is now working on. DaimlerChrysler
plans to be on the market with fuel cell-powered cars in 2003. Ford, Toyota, and Honda will probably not be far behind. William Ford, Chairman of Ford Motor Company, says he expects to preside over the demise of the internal combustion engine.

Surplus wind power can be stored as hydrogen and used in fuel cells or gas turbines to generate electricity, leveling supply when winds are variable. Wind, once seen as a cornerstone of the new energy economy, may turn out to be its foundation. The
wind meteorologist who analyzes wind regimes and identifies the best sites for wind farms will play a role in the new energy economy comparable to that of the petroleum geologist in the old energy economy.

With the advancing technologies for harnessing wind and powering motor vehicles with hydrogen, we can now see a future where farmers and ranchers can supply not only much of the country’s electricity, but much of the hydrogen to fuel its fleet of automobiles as well. For the first time, the United States has the technology and resources to divorce itself from Middle Eastern oil.
In addition to neglecting the potential of wind, the Bush energy strategy pays only lip service to climate stabilization. This is a high-risk strategy. With business as usual, the International Panel on Climate Change recently projected a global temperature rise during this century of up to 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit). If this rise occurs, the rest of the world may hold the United States, the leading CO2 emitter, responsible. What the United States needs now is an energy plan for this century, one that takes into account not only recent technological advances in wind power, fuel cells, and hydrogen generators, but also the need to stabilize climate. Perhaps Congress will bring the energy plan into the twenty-first century and restore U.S. leadership in the fast-changing world energy economy.

RPS Aff

174 Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind can be used to power hydrogen fuel cells – which can replace many uses of fossil fuels The Electricity Forum, 3 (“Wind energy could fuel future power needs,” August 2003 www.electricityforum.com/news/aug03/windenergy.html) // JMP Wind power is now a viable, robust and fast-growing industry. Cheap electricity from wind makes it economical to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is the fuel of choice for the highly efficient fuel cells that will be used widely in the future to power motor vehicles and to supply electricity, heating and cooling for buildings. Hydrogen also offers a way of storing wind energy and of transporting it efficiently by pipeline or in liquefied form by ship. With the wind industry's engineering know-how and manufacturing experience, it would be relatively easy to scale up the size of the industry, even doubling it annually for several years, if the need arose. If, for example, crop-shrinking heat waves raise food prices and generate public pressure to quickly reduce carbon emissions by replacing coal and oil with wind and hydrogen, it would be possible to do so. If the need arises to shift quickly to hydrogen-fueled automobiles, this can be done by converting gasoline-burning internal combustion engines to hydrogen with inexpensive conversion kits. For energy investors, future growth lies with wind and the hydrogen produced with cheap wind-generated electricity. Solar cell sales are growing at more than 30 percent a year and likely will supply much of the electricity for the 1.7 billion people who are still without electricity, most of them living in developing country villages. But solar cells are still too costly to supply the vast amounts of energy required to power a modern economy. World coal burning peaked in 1996 and has fallen 2 percent since then. It is a fading industry. Nor is oil particularly promising, since world production is not likely to expand far beyond current levels. Production of natural gas, the cleanest and least climate-disruptive of the fossil fuels, likely will continue expanding for a few more decades, fortuitously developing an infrastructure that can be adapted for hydrogen. Nuclear-power generation is expected to peak soon, when the large number of aging plants that will be closing down will exceed the small number of plants that are under construction. The energy future belongs to wind. The world energy economy became progressively more global during the 20th century as the world turned to oil. It promises to reverse direction and become more local during the 21st century as the world turns to wind, wind-generated hydrogen and solar cells. Wind and wind-generated hydrogen will shape not only the energy sector of the global economy, but the global economy itself. Wind can be used to power the emerging hydrogen economy Stanford Report, 3 (Dawn Levy, “Harnessing the wind: One-quarter of United States is suited for wind power production, researchers find,” 5-21-3 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may21/wind-521.html) // JMP Whither, wind power? Ultimately, Jacobson envisions, wind may help power an emerging "hydrogen economy." Wind would generate electricity that would be fed into the power grid. That electricity would be transmitted to hydrogen-generation plants to split water into oxygen and hydrogen via electrolysis. The generated hydrogen could power motor vehicles at hydrogen filling stations or in hydrogen batteries. "If you use wind to generate hydrogen, then wind, in the limit, could theoretically replace all oil, coal and natural gas combustion, solving many problems," he says. "Because hydrogen stores the energy generated by wind, wind intermittency is no longer a barrier to its widespread implementation." [Note – Mark Z. Jacobsen is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford]

RPS Aff

175 Wind is Key to Transition to Hydrogen

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power is necessary for a transition to a new hydrogen economy Motavalli, 5 (Jim, Editor of E, E: the Environmental Magazine, “Catching the Wind,” January/February, vol. 16, no. 1, p.26) // JMP
Wind-Generated Hydrogen?

Can zero-emission wind power be used to produce hydrogen for fuel cells as part of a completely clean energy loop? There's some evidence that it can. According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the Bush administration's plans to use nuclear power to generate hydrogen are off base, and wind power presents a better option. "Electricity from wind is currently four cents per kilowatt-hour," the group says. "This is a verifiable, experienced cost. Wind energy and photovoltaic systems coupled to electrolyzers used for hydrogen separation are perhaps the most versatile of the approaches and are likely to be the major hydrogen producers of the future." Princeton researcher Joan Ogden, a booster of solar and
wind-based hydrogen, adds that nuclear hydrogen is dependent on "difficult technology that is much further from commercialization than many other hydrogen-production options." There are, however, certainly realistic obstacles to overcome before wind-based hydrogen can become a reality. A report by Science for Democratic Action concluded that "there are no real cost advantages to integrating fuel cells into the electricity system on a large scale." Bill Leighty, director of the Leighty Foundation in Juneau, Alaska, has some sobering second thoughts on the idea of transmitting large amounts of wind-generated electricity via a hydrogen pipeline from North Dakota, for example, to Chicago, a possibility examined in a study underwritten by his foundation. "Hydrogen transmission does not appear to offer an economically attractive alternative to gigawatt-scale transmission of Great Plains wind energy via high-voltage [electric lines] because of the extra costs of conversion from electric to hydrogen energy at the Great Plains source," said a key sentence in Leighty's paper. "Capital, operations and maintenance, and energy conversion loss costs are significant, though energy storage as compressed hydrogen gas in the pipeline is a valuable benefit." Leighty says wind-generated hydrogen is dependent on , what the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter describes as "the emergence of a large market for pure hydrogen... for [fuel-cell-based] transportation and for distributed generation."

Moller of the Danish Wind Energy Association says that the concept of hydrogen from wind is being actively pursued in Denmark, with small-scale demonstration projects and longterm feasibility studies underway in research institutes. If economics of scale come into play to dramatically reduce the cost of wind-powered hydrogen electrolyzers, reports a paper by Harry Braun of the Hydrogen Political Action Committee posted on EV World, then electricity could be generated at a cost of one cent per kilowatt-hour, resulting in liquid hydrogen produced for the same cost as gasoline at $1.95 a gallon. Braun calls for 12 million wind systems to be mass-produced and installed within 24 months and coupled to an interstate hydrogen pipeline. "It is possible for the U.S. to be energy independent, with a pollution-free and inexhaustible energy resource within five to 10 years," he says. The Earth Policy Institute's Lester Brown offers a plausible scenario for wind-based hydrogen. "Surplus wind power can be stored as hydrogen and used in fuel cells or gas turbines to generate electricity, leveling supply when winds are variable," says Brown. "Wind, once seen as a cornerstone of the new energy economy, may turn out to be its foundation. The wind meteorologist who analyzes
But what if that market does develop? Claus wind regimes and identifies the best sites for wind farms will play a role in the new energy economy comparable to that of the petroleum geologist in the old energy economy.

"With the advancing technologies for harnessing wind and powering motor vehicles with hydrogen, we can now see a future where farmers and ranchers can supply not only much of the country's electricity, but much of the hydrogen to fuel its fleet of automobiles as well. For the first time, the United States has the technology and resources to divorce itself from Middle Eastern oil." Fuel cells are critical to a transition to a renewable energy economy – the provide a reliable source of energy Learner, 1 – President and Executive Director, Environmental Law and Policy Center (Howard A., Tulane Environmental Law Journal, “Cleaning, Greening and Modernizing the Electric Power Sector in the Twenty-First Century,” Summer, 14 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 277) // JMP Fuel cells combine hydrogen (from the fuel source) and oxygen (from the air) in the presence of a catalyst to generate electricity, heat, and water. They have great promise as an efficient, modular, combustion-free power technology. Over the next two decades, fuel cells can be used for central power plants or as on-site generators providing reliable distributed generation. Fuel cells are an especially strong option for high-quality power users, such as hospitals, financial institutions, data processing and other computer centers, museums, police and fire stations, and research labs that have little tolerance for utility outages and interruptions. The superb reliability of fuel cells compensates for the added expense because outages can cause severe economic costs for those consumers and, in some cases, catastrophes. For this reason, the First National Bank in Omaha, Nebraska, recently installed four 200-kilowatt fuel cells to run its computer system, which processes $ 6 million each hour in transactions. This high-reliability system is down less than four seconds per year. In the longer term, fuel cells are a key component in a transition to a renewable energy economy.

RPS Aff

176 A2: Wind Kills Birds

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Bird deaths from turbines are exaggerated and inevitable because turbines are just a drop in the bucket AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) Birds occasionally collide with wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures such as buildings. Avian deaths have become a concern at Altamont Pass in California, which is an area of extensive wind development and also high year-round raptor use. Detailed studies, and monitoring following construction, at other wind development areas indicate that this is a site-specific issue that will not be a problem at most potential wind sites. Also, wind's overall impact on birds is low compared with other human-related sources of avian mortality—see "Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines," for more information. The following graph is based on data from the studies described in that report: No matter how extensively wind is developed in the future, bird deaths from wind energy are unlikely to ever reach as high as 1% of those from other human-related sources such as hunters, house cats, buildings, and autos. (House cats, for example, are believed to kill 1 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.) Wind is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket. Still, areas that are commonly used by threatened or endangered bird species should be regarded as unsuitable for wind development. The wind industry is working with environmental groups, federal regulators, and other interested parties to develop methods of measuring and mitigating wind energy's effect on birds. Wind energy can also negatively impact birds and other wildlife by fragmenting habitat, both through installation and operation of wind turbines themselves and through the roads and power lines that may be needed. This has been raised as an issue in areas with unbroken stretches of prairie grasslands or of forests. More research is needed to better understand these impacts. A turbine kills 1 bird a year and global warming makes species extinctions inevitable—plan key to solve Yes 2 Wind 7 ( “Myth 2: Wind Turbines kills lots of birds,” 7/16/7, http://www.yes2wind.com/birds_debunk.html, AM) Monitoring of existing wind farms suggests that with sensitive siting there is no adverse effect on bird populations. Applications for consent for wind farms submitted to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and local councils must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that includes details of the likely impact of the project in question on the environment and wildlife, among other things. In considering an application, the Department consults with a range of stakeholders, including the statutory advisers on nature conservation, as well as others with an interest in the project. This ensures that decisions on whether to grant consent for a wind farm are considered in the light of the best available information about its likely impacts. According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. The RSPB supports the sustainable development of renewable energy such as wind power because it helps mitigate climate change, which they believe "poses the most significant long-term threat to the environment...The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds." The RSPB's conclusion is supported by a report last year for the Swedish State Energy Authority, which found that only 14 of the total 1.5 million migrating seabirds that each year passes two wind farms at Kalmarsund in south east Sweden are at risk of being killed. Developers should contact specialists such as the RSPB and conduct a thorough analysis of the risk to birdlife as part of the environmental impact assessment of their wind farm proposal. With rigorous EIAs and thorough monitoring wind power can be deployed without significant detriment to birds (and other wildlife). For example, the 9 harbour-wall turbines at Blyth are in a busy bird area. Of the bird flights through the wind farm, only 1 in 10,000 have resulted in a collision. This translates to 1-2 collisions per year per turbine. To put the issue into perspective, every year more than 10 million birds are killed by cars in the UK. Projects like the Black Law windfarm demonstrate that, if properly sited, such developments not only produce zero emissions, but can also have a positive impact on the environment. The RSPB make clear that the Black Law windfarm, on the site of an abandoned opencast coalmine, represents an exciting opportunity to deliver real biodiversity benefits through habitat management. In any case, the likely impact on wildlife must be kept in context. A paper in Nature, by a large group of scientists including one from the RSPB, indicated that in sample regions covering about 20 per cent of the Earth's land surface - 15 per cent to 37 per cent of species (not just birds) will be committed to extinction as a result of mid-range climate warming scenarios by 2050.

RPS Aff

177 A2: Wind Kills Bats

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power doesn’t hurt bats and their deaths are inevitable Sagrillo 3 (Mick, “Bats and Wind Turbines” http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/ms_bats_0302.html, AM) Last month's Small Turbine Column examined both the perceived and real problems that wind turbines pose to bird populations. There is, however, another group of animals that, like birds, might be impacted by wind turbines: bats. Creatures of the night, bats occupy the same ecological niche as birds do, only twelve hours later. While birds forage for insects, fruits, and seeds during the day, North American bats are sound asleep. Bats come awake for the night shift, when the birds are no longer out and about. Bat populations are endangered by human activities in general. Disturbing or awakening hibernating bats disrupts their metabolism, often leading to starvation over winter. Pesticides in the insects that bats prey upon can accumulate in the fats that bats depend upon for over-wintering or migration, resulting in massive bat die-offs. Finally, loss of habitat threatens bats similarly to the way that bird species are endangered. But do wind turbines in particular threaten bats? The interaction of bats with wind turbines is, like many other behaviors that bats exhibit, not well understood. While there have been numerous studies centered around birds and wind turbines, relative few of these studies have included bats. The ones that have been done, however, suggest that wind turbines do not pose a significant threat to bat populations. One of these studies, "Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting, and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments," by WEST, Inc., released December, 2002, concludes that "bat collision mortality during the breeding season is virtually non-existent, despite the fact that relatively large numbers of bat species have been documented in close proximity to wind plants. These data suggest that wind plants do not currently impact resident breeding populations where they have been studied in the U.S." The study goes on to say that "All available evidence indicates that most of the bat mortality at U.S. wind plants involves migrant or dispersing bats in the late summer and fall." It is theorized that migrant bats, since they are not searching for insects or feeding, turn off their echolocation in order to conserve their energy resources. Results from studies done at Buffalo Ridge ("Interim Report: Bat Interactions with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, Wind Resource Area: 2001 Field Season") and at the Kewaunee County (Wisconsin) Wind Farms (Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin" by Dr. Robert Howe, et al, November, 2002) agree with the "Synthesis and Comparison" findings. For example, the Minnesota Interim Report comes to the following conclusions: The wind plant probably does not impact bat breeding populations in the project area; All available evidence indicates that most of the mortality involves migrant or dispersing bats in the fall; and Preliminary data indicate that the population of bats susceptible to turbine collisions is large enough that the observed mortality is not sufficient to cause population declines. The Buffalo Ridge study concludes by putting a number on the bat mortality at from 2.45 to 3.21 bat fatalities per turbine, depending on location of the wind farm. The Kewaunee County report came up with similar results. Over the two-year span of that study, researchers documented 1.16 bat fatalities per turbine per year. Adjusting for possible sampling error could bring this number as high as 4.26 bat fatalities per turbine per year. Like the other studies, the Kewaunee County study found that the bulk of those killed by the wind turbines, over 90%, were migrating bats, not resident breeding populations. We do know that many bats, like birds, die due to collisions with "lighthouses, communications towers, tall buildings, power lines, and fences" (Buffalo Ridge report). But, as with birds, the number of fatalities due to wind turbines is extremely low compared to collisions with other man-made structures. Finally, no reports have been registered about bat fatalities resulting from their living and foraging for insects in the neighborhood of a home-sized wind turbine. One can only conclude that, as with birds, home-sized turbines pose no significant threat to the night shift: bats. Turbines don’t kill endangered bat species and wind industry is solving the problem AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) Bat collisions at wind plants generally tend to be low in number and to involve common species which are quite numerous. Human disturbance of hibernating bats in caves is a far greater threat to species of concern. Still, a surprisingly high number of bat kills at a new wind plant in West Virginia in the fall of 2003 has raised concerns, and research at that plant and another in Pennsylvania in 2004 suggests that the problem may be a regional one. The wind industry has joined with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Bat Conservation International to form the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC), which funded the 2004 research program and is continuing to explore ways to avoid or reduce bat kills.

RPS Aff

178 A2: Wind Kills Animals

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Normal means licensing and cooperation with the wildlife foundation solves all of their animal death arguments Windustry 7 (“Community Wind Toolbox Chapter 6: Permitting Basics”, Windustry promotes progressive renewable energy solutions and empowers communities to develop wind energy as an environmentally sustainable, community-owned asset. Through member supported outreach, education and advocacy we work to remove the barriers to broad community ownership of wind energy. http://www.windustry.com/your-wind-project/community-wind/community-wind-toolbox/chapter6-permitting-basics/community-wind-t, AM) If the project poses potential impacts on wildlife habitat or species protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, or the Migratory Bird TreatyAct, wind project permitting will most likely involve coordination and consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

RPS Aff

179 A2: Wind Hurts Soil / Environment / Causes Emissions

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Erosion is easily solved and doesn’t happen in most locations AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) Erosion which can be prevented through proper installation and landscaping techniques. Erosion can be a concern in certain habitats such as the desert, where a hard-packed soil surface must be disturbed to install wind turbines. Erosion has also been raised as a concern in the eastern U.S., where wind farms typically must be installed on mountain ridgelines. However, standard engineering practices used by ski areas on the same kind of terrain are adequate to deal with any erosion issues that might be raised by construction of a wind farm and its service road. Turbines don’t hurt the farm land US Department of Energy 4 (“Wind Energy For Rural Economic Development”, August (No Date) 4, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33590.pdf, AM) Wind turbines have a minimal effect on farming and ranching operations. The turbines have a small footprint, so crops can be grown and livestock can be grazed right up to the base of the turbine. As Leroy Ratzlaff, a third-generation landowner and farmer in Hyde County, South Dakota, said, “It’s almost like renting out my farm and still having it. And the cows don’t seem to mind a bit.” Wind power has little impact on habitat UPI, 8 (Megan Harris, United Press International, “Analysis: U.S. wind market's mixed signals,” 5-6-2008,
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/) // JMP

A non-carbon-emitting energy source, wind uses no water in contrast to nuclear and coal power and has little impact on habitat, according to the AWEA. It is also a source of economic revitalization in areas of industrial decline and in rural communities and provides a stable source of revenue to farmers who lease land to host wind turbines. Studies prove building turbines doesn’t cause large emissions AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) The claim is sometimes made that manufacturing wind turbines and building wind plants creates large emissions of carbon dioxide. This is false. Studies have found that even when these operations are included, wind energy's CO2 emissions are quite small — on the order of 1% of coal or 2% of natural gas per unit of electricity generated. Or in other words, using wind instead of coal reduces CO2 emissions by 99%, using wind instead of gas by 98%.

RPS Aff

180 A2: Wind Disrupts Radar

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Radar interference is rare and easily solved Windustry 7 (Windustry promotes progressive renewable energy solutions and empowers communities to develop wind energy as an environmentally sustainable, community-owned asset. Through member supported outreach, education and advocacy we work to remove the barriers to broad community ownership of wind energy., “Why Wind Energy?” http://www.windustry.com/wind-basics/learn-about-wind-energy/wind-basics-why-wind-energy/why-wind-energy, AM) Radar: Radar interference by wind turbines is rare and easily avoided through technological improvements and proper siting of turbines that are close to sensitive areas. A number of U.S. government installations have both wind turbines and functional radar, and the British military has a track record of successfully addressing these challenges. Normal means consultation with the FCC solves radar interference Windustry 7 (“Community Wind Toolbox Chapter 6: Permitting Basics”, Windustry promotes progressive renewable energy solutions and empowers communities to develop wind energy as an environmentally sustainable, community-owned asset. Through member supported outreach, education and advocacy we work to remove the barriers to broad community ownership of wind energy. http://www.windustry.com/your-wind-project/community-wind/community-wind-toolbox/chapter6-permitting-basics/community-wind-t, AM) Wind projects have the potential to create problems with microwave beam communications that are used by emergency response agencies, the Department of Transportation and AM radio signals. The fiberglass blades can partially or completely block these signals, interfering with communication abilities. Before acquiring local and state building permits, it will be necessary to perform a radar beam path study. You can contact the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to perform a communications tower search, which can identify potential interference from your wind turbines. Negative results from this study generally will not stop a project from moving forward. However, the study may dictate that you move some of the turbines in your project so that they are not within a beam’s path. There are also professionals who specialize in performing these studies. Hiring a consultant to perform the study will ensure that it is performed up to the standards
required by state and local permitting agencies.

Status quo solutions fix the radar problem AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM)
Yes. Radar is basically designed to filter out stationary objects and display moving ones, and moving

wind turbine blades create radar echoes. It is possible to modify a radar installation to eliminate this problem, according to a consulting firm that has studied it for the British government-see http://www.bwea.com/aviation/ams_report.html. According to the study: "This study concludes that radars can be modified to ensure that air safety is maintained in the presence of wind turbine farms. Individual circumstances will dictate the degree and cost of modification required, some installations may require no change at all whilst others may require significant modification." If a wind project is
proposed near an airport or military airfield, this issue will likely require further technical investigation. The interference is generally limited to objects (airplanes) that are physically shadowed by the turbines (that is, very low-flying aircraft), so

the further the turbines are from an airfield and the lower their altitude,

the less interference should occur. Military is using wind power—your DA is non unique Space Daily 8 (May 2, “Mass Megawatts Wind Power Reports US Army Sale” http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mass_Megawatts_Wind_Power_Reports_US_Army_Sale_999.html, AM) Mass Megawatts Wind Power has announced the sale of a wind power plant to be used by the United States Army. The 50 kilowatt wind power project will be constructed at U.S. Army Intelligence Headquarters located in Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Construction will begin this spring as part of the Army's ongoing efforts to expand into renewable energy. Future energy needs at the army base could be met with the installation of additional wind power plants that are capable of generating over ten
megawatt/hours of electricity per year. There are over 50 army base installations in the United States alone. The wind power plant also known as the Multiaxis Turbosystem (MAT) at Fort Huachuca will be constructed with the newly developed, adjustable augmenter that was recently announced by the company. The new augmenter technology reduces in a major way the cost for heavy and expensive components needed by an augmenter to increase the harnessed wind velocity by up to 70%, translating into an increase of over five times the power output. The recently announced new augmenter reduces the electric generation cost below traditional wind turbine technologies, and is directly competitive with fossil fuel power plants such as coal and natural gas. The MAT structure provides several key advantages over traditional turbine designs. This includes a reduction in capital, operational, and maintenance costs, along with, the ability to operate profitably in lower wind speed locations. In the United States alone, suitable wind power locations currently

The U.S. Army and Fort Huachuca is highly aggressive in their efforts to pursue the use of renewable energy and American energy independence.
exist to potentially supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

RPS Aff

181 A2: Wind Disrupts Radar

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Turbines don’t interfere with radars and any problems with interference are easily fixed AWEA 6 (American Wind Energy Association, “Wind Turbines and Radar: An Information Source,” 6/2/6, www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/060602_Wind_Turbines_and%20_Radar_Fact_Sheet.pdf -, AM)
The wind industry is in a confusing and uncertain position because it is unclear how many projects will be affected. The

broad-brush approach being taken by some in the U.S. government that stops all development over a multi-state region pending outcome of a study ignores industry and military operational experience. A number of U.S. government installations have both wind turbines and functional radar, and the British military has a track record of successfully addressing this challenge.
Any study and accompanying policy on wind turbine impacts to radar must therefore also explore the solutions used elsewhere in the world and look at ways of mitigating the problem, rather than just prohibiting wind development in large areas. Wind

turbines are installed at U.S. Air Force bases and near airports in the U.S. and elsewhere, and experience at those sites demonstrates this is a solvable challenge. These military and civilian installations have wind turbines and functional radar: • F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming – two 660-kW turbines
http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/ms/msp/center/Vol11No3/10.asp • U.S. Navy at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – four 950-kW turbines http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/20050329_342.html

• U.S. Air Force Space Command on Ascension Island – four 225-kW and two 900-kW turbines
http://www.inl.gov/powersystems/ascension_island.shtml

• U.S. Navy at San Clemente Island Base – three 225-kW
http://www.nelp.navy.mil/pdf_cases/Conservation_Wind_Power_SCI.pdf

Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts – near Hull, MA turbines
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/AWEA_Hull_2003.pdf Wind projects are relatively close to Long Range Radar facilities in: • Mt. Laguna, California (twenty-five 2 MW turbines) • McCamey, Texas (322 turbines totaling 356 MW) British solutions to wind turbines and radar

Studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere show that while wind turbines can cause “clutter” on radars, there are engineering solutions that can be implemented or should be explored further. In the UK, the Ministry of Defense registered concerns on many wind projects, but in November 2005, Wing Commander Nicky Loveday said, “We have been learning about things that we thought were a major problem for us. We have had to step away and say: actually it really isn’t a problem for the air defence community”
(Windpower Monthly, November 2005). A June 2003 study from the British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) concluded that there

are hardware and software mitigation efforts that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate the effects of wind turbines on radars. These solutions include adding radars, adding filters to the radar software, or altering the layout of a wind project. These solutions vary in cost based on the site-specific situation.
Conclusion The industry is strongly supportive of responsible, effective actions designed to identify and address any problems with radar caused by wind turbines. Overly broad restrictions

We look forward to working with the U.S. government to address this issue so that the wind industry can get back to work for the benefit of America’s economy, environment and energy security.
that shut down the industry, threatening jobs, local economic revenue and the growth of clean, renewable, domestic wind energy are neither productive nor appropriate.

Military consults with fed on plan Edwards 7 (John, Las Vegas Review Journal “No Military Objection Will Blow in the Wind”, 11-7-7, http://www.lvrj.com/business/11077331.html, AM) Gates has informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the military will not object to wind farms in an area of eastern Nevada, moving a The Defense Department's agreement is "another step forward" to developing what would be Nevada's first utility-size wind farm, Carlson said.
Defense Secretary Robert $1 billion project closer to reality. Tim Carlson, a renewable energy developer, plans to build a 450-megawatt wind farm in the Wilson Creek Range area 40 miles north of Pioche. Carlson's company, Nevada Wind, is in talks with a partner for the project. He declined to identify the partner. Hill Air Force Base in Utah has been concerned about wind-power projects in the area because wind turbines can interfere with radar. But in the Wilson Creek area, spokesman Jon Summers said Tuesday. Reid has been arguing that Nevada should cancel plans for coal-fired power projects that emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. This announcement shows that Reid also is working to support renewable energy projects, Carlson said. Carlson, a former head of the Nevada Development Authority and long-time friend of Reid, previously

Reid received assurances from Gates that the department will not object to wind farms

The developer said he enjoyed working with Air Force representatives on concerns about the Wilson Creek project and noted that the Air Force uses more renewable energy than any other part of the federal government. Carlson said the project could provide the Air Force with information about flying in areas where wind turbines interfere with radar signals. While the Defense Department said it would not oppose wind turbines at Wilson Creek,
tried to develop a $130 million wind farm on the Nevada Test Site, but Nellis Air Force Base objected and the project died in 2002. Gates is believed to oppose wind projects near Goldfield. "The Department of Defense plays a very important role in this state," Carlson said. "You've got to work with them. You can't fight them." Reid, D-

met with area base commanders and members of the Nevada Renewable Energy Task Force about finding ways to build wind farms that do not cause problem for Navy and Air Force pilots.
Nev., has been talking with military officials in an effort to find ways that the state can tap wind power, a form of renewable energy. In February, for example, Reid

RPS Aff

182 A2: Wind Disrupts Radar

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Impacts of turbines on radar are declining now due to improvements and normal means communication with the aviation administration solves AWEA 6 (American Wind Energy Association, Statement of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) on the September 27 Report by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) on the Effect of Wind Farms on Military Radar, 9/28/6, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_statement_on_DOD_study_092806.html, AM) “The U.S. wind energy industry is disappointed that, in spite of the U.S. Department of Defense’s recognition of the importance of wind energy development for the country and in spite of specific instructions by Congress, the report remains incomplete and only cursorily mentions existing and emerging ways to mitigate wind turbine radar interactions,” said AWEA executive director Randall Swisher. Some wind turbines can affect radar systems, but thousands of wind turbines generating electricity nationwide demonstrate that impacts can be, and have been, mitigated through measures such as relocating turbines or upgrading radar systems. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) also advocates exploring additional technical options that can either be used today or developed in the future to address this issue. “Decades of experience tell us that wind and radar can coexist,” said Swisher. “The American wind energy industry will continue to work collaboratively with government and others on efforts to constructively address challenges and refine solutions. We need to further develop clean, renewable energy sources like wind to reduce dependence on imports and increase our energy security.” Projects Moving Ahead After FAA Review In the meantime, some projects recently held up by radar concerns are moving ahead. AWEA welcomes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals for a number of projects in the Midwest. The FAA recently approved 614 applications for individual wind turbines that total more than 1,000 megawatts of new wind power (enough to power approximately 250,000 homes) worth $1.5 billion in economic development across Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. “Approval of these projects means more jobs and economic development in the Midwest and additional clean, renewable wind power added to the electric utility system in a part of the country that really needs it,” said Swisher. “The wind power industry continues to support efforts to address issues of concern such as radar interactions with military and civilian radar and land-use policies. We are strongly encouraged by the FAA’s actions to address these concerns and move forward with approvals of these important projects.” Review bill of radars solves the impact AWEA 5 (American Wind Energy Association, “AWEA Statement on “here we go again,” Anti-wind Amendments in Coast Guard and Defense Legislation,” 11/28/5, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_statement_here_we_go_again_antiwind_112805.html, AM) As high demand for natural gas causes electricity prices to soar, wind farms in 30 states will supply clean, home-grown electricity to 2.5 million households this winter, reducing the need for gas-fired generation and giving consumers modest but badly needed price relief. Unfortunately, anti-wind energy provisions in two pending bills in Congress would create unnecessary and costly hurdles for wind development at the very time our country urgently needs to diversify its energy mix. Both provisions offer harmful bureaucratic “solutions” for nonexistent problems: Military radar study of wind turbine impacts: An amendment inserted by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) into H.R. 1815, the Defense Authorization Bill, calls for a study of how wind energy projects might affect military radar systems, even though previous studies have already shown that radar interference is not a problem. As justification for his unilateral action, Sen. Warner cites concerns in the United Kingdom about possible impacts on military radars, but, ironically, the British Ministry of Defense (MOD) recently announced that “actually it really isn’t a problem for the air defense community.” And here in the U.S., as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for a wind farm proposed off Nantucket Island, the U.S. Air Force has found that the proposed project would not negatively affect the force's Cape Cod radar installation.

RPS Aff

183 A2: Wind is Expensive

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The potential of wind power is greater than originally thought – it is cost competitive with coal and natural gas Stanford Report, 3 (Dawn Levy, “Harnessing the wind: One-quarter of United States is suited for wind power production, researchers find,” 5-21-3 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may21/wind-521.html) // JMP Power without pollution While wind's potential appears enormous, a lot of fast wind had never been mapped. So its potential is even greater than previously realized. The researchers discovered fast winds in the United States along the southeastern and southern coasts. Offshore and nearshore, where there's less friction to slow winds, 37 percent of sites experienced speedy gusts. Since more than half of the U.S. population resides along coasts, coastal wind farms could reduce transmission costs -- a concern when electricity is generated far from where it will be used. Many wind farms are located in the sparsely populated Great Plains, for example. North Dakota alone is theoretically capable of producing enough wind power to meet more than one-third of U.S. electricity demand, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The direct cost per kilowatt-hour of power generated by winds of at least 14 miles per hour is 2.9 to 3.9 cents, according to a 2001 article in Science by Jacobson and Gilbert Masters, an emeritus professor (teaching) of civil and environmental engineering. That cost competes with that of power produced at new plants utilizing coal (3.5 to 4 cents) or natural gas (3.3 to 3.6 cents). Mighty winds might breathe clean, renewable power into the grid, which in 1999 relied on coal (51 percent) and natural gas (15 percent) to generate 66 percent of U.S. electric power. Although wind power might be initially expensive it pays for itself in 3 months Yes 2 Wind 7 (“Wind Energy and Environmental Impact,” 7/16/7, http://www.yes2wind.com/5_faq.html, AM) The comparison of energy used in manufacture with the energy produced by a power station is known as the 'energy balance'. It can be expressed in terms of energy 'pay back' time, i.e. as the time needed to generate the equivalent amount of energy used in manufacturing the wind turbine or power station. The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within three to five months, and over its lifetime a wind turbine will produce over 30 times more energy than was used in its manufacture. This is quicker than coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. When the energy used to supply the fuel for nuclear and coal power plants is included, the energy balance for those conventional source is even poorer still. This year the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) calculated that onshore wind farms recover around 80 times the input energy required. Wind is not expensive and is cheaper than the alternatives because of cost of repairing the environment Yes 2 Wind 7 (“Wind Energy and Economics,” 7/16/7, http://www.yes2wind.com/25_faq.html, AM) Isn't wind power really expensive? No. The cost of generating electricity from the wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Wind power can now produce electricity at a cheaper price than nuclear power in the UK. Energy from the wind will become even cheaper in the future as greater experience is gained in manufacturing and developing this relatively new technology. When the full costs of the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power are taken into account, wind power is an even better buy. For example, it has been estimated that if the cost of environmental damage were included, the price of electricity from coal would be three times higher than electricity from the wind. The full costs of nuclear power, including dealing with highly-radioactive waste and decommissioning of old plants, are still not included in the price of electricity. The Government's own report on energy policy (the PIU report) predicted that by 2020, the cost of generating electricity from nuclear power would be 3-4p per kWh, whereas the cost of production from offshore wind costs would be 2-3p per kWh. Onshore wind is set to be the cheapest form of electricity generation of all by 2020, and is already competitive with fossil fuels at an average price of 2.88p/kWh.

RPS Aff

184 A2: Wind Still Needs to Be Backed Up

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Their backup argument is wrong – wind reduces overall emissions despite necessity of backup Yes 2 Wind 7 (“Wind energy and environmental impact,” 7/16/7, http://www.yes2wind.com/44_faq.html, AM) This rather bizarre claim is increasingly common among anti-wind campaigners. Their argument runs like this: Because wind power is intermittent (it varies with the weather) it needs dedicated back-up for when the wind doesn’t blow. This back up will be coal powered stations that have to be kept ‘spinning’ (ie burning) at low level so they are ready to go immediately that the wind drops. Burning like this is inefficient so the emissions they make are roughly the same as if they were actually generating electricity. Therefore wind power saves no carbon because the back-up emits the same as if there were no wind turbines in the first place. This argument is quite simply wrong. The national grid has back-up on it regardless of wind power. Back-up is needed for all forms of energy generation because of unexpected increases in demand (a cold snap for example, or when England play soccer on television). In fact one of the biggest back-up requirements on the system today is due to Sizewell B nuclear power station - because when it fails (as it does - and has done recently for safety concerns) it knocks out a huge amount of capacity in an instant - unlike wind where any variation is both gentle and very predictable. Only when there is a very large capacity of wind on the system (above 10%) does the variation of the wind even become noticeable over the ‘normal’ variation on the system. Only then is any of the back-up specifically due to wind power. And only at this point could any carbon emissions from back-up plant be counted against wind power. It is widely accepted that only very minor levels of back-up are needed for wind up to about 20% wind on the system (much higher levels of wind power are possible, but require a little more backup). Under current government policies this level of wind power is not likely until after 2020. In terms of emissions - even if the back-up was the dirtiest option - coal power - at 10% wind power on the system only 1% of the CO2 saved by the wind would be emitted from the back-up - and 99% is saved. Coal is not the only option for back-up. Gas is about half as dirty and both hydro power and biomass are renewable forms of energy that can play the same role. In the future a wide range of renewable energy technologies would compliment one another and offer the chance for completely secure and completely clean energy system - including both primary generation and back-up.

RPS Aff

185 Wind Power Popular With Public

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Wind power is popular AWEA 07(American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html, AM) Wind energy is one of the most popular energy technologies. Opinion surveys regularly show that just over eight out of 10 people (80%) are in favor of wind energy, and less than one in ten (around 5%) are against it. The rest are undecided. Public opinion in support of wind power tends to become even more strongly in favor once the wind turbines are installed and operating, a finding from several surveys carried out in the UK and in Spain. Some people who live near proposed wind projects may be apprehensive about them. But when accurate information and knowledge is made available, experience shows that initial concerns are reduced and support for wind farms increases. Permitting solves public opposition Windustry 7 (“Community Wind Toolbox Chapter 6: Permitting Basics”, Windustry promotes progressive renewable energy solutions and empowers communities to develop wind energy as an environmentally sustainable, community-owned asset. Through member supported outreach, education and advocacy we work to remove the barriers to broad community ownership of wind energy. http://www.windustry.com/your-wind-project/community-wind/community-wind-toolbox/chapter6-permitting-basics/community-wind-t, AM) Involving the General Public As wind energy grows in the U.S., permitting of wind turbines has become a highly controversial and emotionally charged issue in some areas. Community wind developers can help assure a timely permit decision and reduce the possibility of protracted litigation by actively promoting general public involvement early in the permitting process. The general public includes residents and members of communities near the wind development and community officials and representatives of various interests, including economic development, conservation and environmental groups.

RPS Aff

186 Bush Supports Wind Power

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Bush backs the plan—proves he would get credit AWEA 6 (American Wind Energy Association, “FIRST QUARTER MARKET REPORT: WIND ENERGY ON TRACK FOR ANOTHER RECORD YEAR,” 4/3/6, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/First_Quarter_Market_Report_Energy_On_Track_050306.html, AM) President Bush recently recognized the importance of wind energy for the nation's security, noting that wind energy could contribute 20% of U.S. electricity supply (approximately the share that nuclear power provides today). A state-by-state listing of existing and proposed wind energy projects is available on AWEA's Web site at http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html . The full list of projects installed in 2005 is available on the AWEA newsroom site at http://www.awea.org/newsroom/2005_projects.pdf .

RPS Aff

187 A2: States CP – Permutation

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Perm solves best – expands renewable more than the plan alone Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK 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. Permutation solves best – solidifies state action 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/CPUCnew/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 from renewable energy. Federal legislation should, at minimum, solidify state action with federal support. A great deal 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. A federal RPS compliments existing State efforts 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 Finally, the Proposed RPS expressly preserved the validity of state programs, including those that exceeded the national RPS. n40 In recommending reliance upon state and regional systems that track "non-Federal renewable energy credits" in the development of a federal REC tracking system, House Bill 3221 contemplated the coexistence of such state programs. n41 Further, the proposal stated, all retail electricity supplier payments made, "directly or indirectly, to a State for compliance with a State renewable portfolio standard program, or for an alternative compliance mechanism, shall be valued ... based on the amount of electric energy generation from renewable resources and electricity savings that results from those payments." n42 The Proposed RPS thus would have kept intact state RPS programs and allowed for the issuance of both federal RECs and state RECs where the renewable energy source satisfied both the federal and state requirements. This does not mean that there would not have been lawsuits claiming some sort of preemption, but the Proposed RPS made the intent quite clear. n43

RPS Aff

188 A2: States CP – Empowers / Gives States Flexibility

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS is necessary to lower prices and empowers states Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper 6 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Green Means 'Go?'-A Colorful Approach to a U.S. National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” August-September 6, Vol. 19 No. 7, lexis) 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. A federal RPS will create a harmonized system that still allows States to experiment and be flexible Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP The RPS and greenhouse gas caps are excellent policy mechanisms: unlike other policy incentives such as tax credits and subsidies, these tools minimize government intervention and rely on the efficiency of the market--instead of continual monetary disbursements or political salience--to dictate how utilities, industries, and consumers promote renewable energy and fight climate change. (43) They also have the tendency to be self-expiring (or "self-sunsetting"). When utilizing RECs and tradable permits, for example, the value of such commodities will automatically reach zero once the RPS and greenhouse gas target levels have been met. The impressive growth in state-based RPS and climate change initiatives utilizing these policy mechanisms is testimony, most of all, to woeful inaction at the federal level. Perhaps new Democratic control of Congress will overcome objectives at the federal level, but that remains to be seen. (44) A multi-jurisdictional approach to these issues would create a national system for the first time requiring all states to participate in a harmonized system that would include the trading of RECs and nationally certified carbon offsets. A consensus-based federal system would produce a meaningful and achievable regime eliminating the "free rider" phenomenon that now exists. Under a multi-jurisdictional framework, however, states wanting to do more than what the federal program entails would be permitted to do so. Federal preemption would not be permitted to snuff out these "laboratories of democracy" that wish to go forward with bold, aggressive, and experimental programs. If these state programs are successful over time, one would expect to see their results gradually incorporated into the federal program. Ultimately, however, state experience will yield profuse results only if it inspires a national standard that motivates the country to truly promote renewable energy and fight climate change.

RPS Aff

189 A2: States CP – States More Expensive

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State RPSs are more expensive because it creates complexity for investors Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP Why State-Based Action on Climate Change Is Not Enough Local and regional efforts to combat climate change suffer from analogous difficulties relating to design, complexity, fairness, and sufficiency. Like RPS programs, state climate change policies lack consistency and harmony. Most attempt to promote research, ensure economic stability, and encourage public-private cooperation. However, they tend to place very little emphasis on mandatory standards and fail to create predictable regulatory environments. In other words, state policies "provide lots of carrots but without any sticks." (28) Having a multitude of state greenhouse gas policies is also more costly than a single federal standard because it creates complexity for investors. State-by-state standards significantly increase costs for those attempting to conduct business in multi-state jurisdictions. (29) Statewide programs also require separate inventory, monitoring, and implementation mechanisms to check progress against goals and provide feedback, adding to their costs. (30) In addition, state programs provide incentives for local and regional actors to duplicate their research and development efforts on carbon-saving building technologies and energy systems, compromising a degree of efficiency. (31)

RPS Aff

190 A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS is key to the renewable industry – creates long-term predictability and attracts more investment Peterson, 7 – partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups. (David J., Sustainability Law Blog, “Why We Need a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard,” 12-3-2007, http://www.sustainabilitylawblog.com/2007/12/why_we_need_a_federal_renewabl.html) // JMP
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. States RPSs vary along several different lines – creating headaches and inefficiencies for stakeholders and investors Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
B Second sin: Discouraging investment If America's interstate highway system were structured like our renewable energy market, drivers would be forced to change engines, tire pressure, and fuel mixture every time they crossed state lines. None of the 21 existing state RPS mandates are alike. Wisconsin, for example, has set its RPS target at 2.2 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island is shooting for 16 percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high-efficiency cogeneration count as "renewable," while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and non-renewable distributed generation. Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set purchase requirements based on installed capacity, while many other states make it a function of electricity sales. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntary standards, while Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees.15 States

vary in their targets, definitions of eligible resources, purchase requirements, renewable energy credit (REC) trading schemes, and compliance mechanisms, among other things. 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 multistate basis confusing and contradictory."18

The current state-by-state approach to RPS is also creating unanticipated difficulties to the expansion of distributed generation technologies by forcing unusually prohibitive operational procedures. Inconsistent tariff structures and interconnection requirements
add complexity (and therefore cost) to distributed generation projects. In fact, the Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric generating and electric distribution companies committed to responsible environmental stewardship, forecasts that fuel

cells and community-scale wind energy projects are unlikely to play a meaningful role in state RPS markets until policymakers adopt a more comprehensive and uniform approach.19

RPS Aff

191 A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State RPSs are not adequate – important issues are decided differently by every state – creating confusion, complexity for investors and businesses Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP The piecemeal approach to renewables and climate change represented by state action, while laudable as an alternative to federal inaction and consistent with the way many issues are brought to the federal agenda (such as was the case for energy appliance standards and the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990), is ultimately an inadequate response to the magnitude of the challenges the country faces in energy and climate change.
A Brief Taxonomy of State Actions To be fair, state-based environmental regulation does bring with it some advantages. The states are generally believed to act as classic "laboratories of democracy," a concept Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis promulgated in a dissenting opinion 75 years ago. (14) State policymakers have access to knowledge of local problems and conditions and are often more accountable to their constituents. Because they are closer to environmental problems and the regulated community, the states can devise more manageable and appropriate policies capable of catering to individual needs and exploiting opportunities peculiar to regions. State action can provide opportunities for experimentation in designing policy, as the existence of many states acting at once promotes diversification and innovation. (15) There is no denying that the states have certainly taken the lead in terms of experimenting with RPS and climate change policies. In 1985, Iowa became the first state to mandate utilities to purchase renewable energy (with a goal of 105 megawatts (MW) of installed renewable capacity by 1997). Minnesota followed in 1994. (16) Since then, no fewer than 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, have developed some form of RPS. (17) These states have collectively launched hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy projects, the most aggressive being California (20 percent by 2010), New York (24 percent by 2013), and Nevada (20 percent by 2015) (18) (see Figure 1 on page 24). Similarly, the states have taken the initiative in addressing climate change, implementing comprehensive and crosscutting programs to those narrowly focused on agriculture, transportation, education, and energy. Forty-one states have developed comprehensive greenhouse gas inventories, 28 have completed climate change action plans, and 14 have mandated greenhouse gas emissions targets. The most aggressive is New York, aiming for 5 percent below 1990 carbon dioxide emissions levels by 2010, followed by Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont (aiming for 1990 levels by 2010). California has set a target of returning to 1990 emission levels by 2020 and reaching levels 80 percent below that benchmark by 2050. Motivated to encompass a broader geographic area, eliminate duplication of work, and create more uniform regulatory environments, many states have also established regional initiatives to fight climate change such as the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative (WGA) on the West Coast and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) on the East Coast (see Figure 2 on page 25 and Table 1 on page 27). Why State-Based Renewable Portfolio Standards Are Not Enough

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)
While the considerable 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)

The electricity utility industry is also transitioning away from a state-by-state energy market, making a state-by-state 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.

A national RPS is key to ensure sustained investment necessary to expand renewable energy use Sebelius, ‘8 – Governor of Kansas (Kathleen, Kansas City Star, “Sebelius outlines wind energy gains, needs, 6-10-2008, http://www.kansascity.com/news/neighborhood/leawood/story/657283.html) // SM
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.

RPS Aff

192 A2: States CP – Predictability & Investment

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Instability inherent in State RPSs discourages long-term, stable investment in renewables Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP E Fifth sin: Creating uncertainty The complexity of state-based RPS statutes is compounded by uncertainty over the duration of many state RPS programs. Stakeholders trying to plan investments in state renewable energy markets are tormented with unknowns.27 New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, for example, will review and potentially modify their RPS schemes in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Hawaii's standard expressly allows for its requirements to be waived if they prove to be "too costly" for retail electric providers and consumers.28 Arizona, New Mexico, and Maine may terminate their RPS programs entirely.29 When policy stability is assured, long-term project financing follows. But potential investors are less likely to assume risks where legislative or regulatory commitments are weak or constantly changing. Ten years ago, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that these uncertainties may increase the costs of renewable energy projects up to 50 percent compared with the probable costs under stable regulatory environments.30 It is not hyperbole to suggest, therefore, that the instability inherent in a state-based approach to RPS is dramatically distorting private investments in renewable energy generation nationally. State RPSs vary along several different lines Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April 2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
II Renewable Portfolio Standards

State RPS vary along dimensions that include (1) target percentages and dates for their attainment, (2) types of generation that qualify as renewable, (3) crediting provisions in lieu of local renewables, (4) penalties for noncompliance, and (5) price caps on renewables purchased by utilities.4 State studies comparing the costs and benefits of different target percentages and dates are rare or nonexistent, but round
numbers are oddly popular. Some require annual showings of progress. All existing state RPS classify solar, biomass, wind, and geothermal power as renewables, after which politics steps in.5 Some disallow certain types of biomass, at least nine disqualify trash burning, and admissible fuel cell technologies vary widely. Pennsylvania accepts coal mine waste, while efficient non-utility gas generators qualify in Maine. Rain renews all hydroelectric sources, but maximum allowable RPS hydro capacities range from 5 to 60MW. Some states have set-asides like Nevada's requirement of 5 percent solar power by 2015, and some credit existing facilities while others only count new ones. Possible constitutional problems aside, some by politics as they are by technology.

states allow only in-state resources.6 Backers of a federal RPS should prepare to accept renewables that are defined as much

State RPSs vary considerably Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April 2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
C Some lessons from the states It is costless for state legislators to pick daring RPS numbers, and Congress can certainly do likewise. Enforcement is someone else's responsibility and legislators can safely assume that the general public has little interest in monitoring compliance. A national standard will surely include the usual renewables but politics will also determine those that qualify. State

RPS provisions vary considerably, but a national program must reach agreement on targets and definitions of compliance that account for with few renewable opportunities and states with low-cost conventional power will have few reasons to compromise with their opposites. Renewable generators and those who must buy from them will have differing attitudes about compliance and penalties. (Questions about the uses of penalty revenue must also be addressed.) State price cap regulations also take differing forms, and their amounts reflect both resource costs and local politics. Compromise on a national cap will be difficult, but the alternative is a group of caps set on the basis of regional costs that will entail interminable regulatory proceedings. Environmentalists will be at best ambivalent about allowing states to determine their own caps in light of experience with
differences in regional renewable capabilities. States PURPA.

RPS Aff

193 A2: States CP – Industry Wants Federal RPS

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Industry wants a federal RPS – they believe it is key to creating a level of certainty in renewable markets UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP 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." A federal RPS benefits utilities – comparatively better than state-based approaches Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
B A national RPS benefits utilities

The U.S. electricity market has evolved into a national commodities market increasingly at odds with the anachronism of state-based regulation. In 1935, Congress passed the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUCHA), which made utility holding companies subject to Security and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and mandated that any entity owning more than 10 percent of a utility had to divest all of its non-utility assets. PUCHA also placed geographical restrictions on the integration of electricity markets. Holding companies were restricted from owning utilities in non-contiguous service areas without meeting a number of additional regulatory burdens. Because of PUCHA, the U.S. electricity market was constrained to vertically integrated public utilities where supply, generation, transmission, and distribution was provided by a single entity overseen by state regulators and servicing a specified franchise area.50 The world of electricity has changed dramatically since 1935. Investor-owned

utilities have faced increased pressure from stockholders to produce per-share profit beyond what they have been able to wring from organic growth alone. In turn, these utilities have pressured lawmakers to allow greater industry consolidation in order to tap economies of scale.
The pressure paid off. In 2005, Congress finally repealed PUCHA. With its demise came a flurry of announced mergers, including the consolidation of Duke Power in the Carolinas, Cincinnati Gas & Electric in Ohio, Union Light Heat & Power in Kentucky and PSI Energy in Indiana. In the Pacific Northwest, MidAmerican Holding Company (with operations in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota) merged with PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of ScottishPower servicing customers in Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and California.51 By eliminating PUCHA, Congress opened the door to "area hopping." Adam Wenner noted that, "If you can't merge with your neighbors because of market-power issues, you can hop over them ... a utility's possible map is no longer just three states; it's the whole country."52 However, many state utility commissions are loath to see their authority eroded and will fight to retain it, if provoked. State PUCs have already responded to federal repeal of PUCHA by increasing their scrutiny of proposed utility mergers. In 2006, Maryland's Public Service Commission rejected the merger of Constellation Energy with Florida Power and Light and New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities scuttled attempts by Chicago-based Exelon Corporation to acquire PSE&G. While the failure of these transactions may slow the wave of mergers sparked by PUHCA's repeal, they risk engendering a type of "forum shopping" where utility holding companies flock to states more likely to allow their consolidation. In fact, some analysts have warned of a possible "balkanization of industry standards that increase the costs of maintaining a holding company or, even worse, subject a holding company to conflicting standards."53 PUHCA's repeal may have an even more profound affect on the secondary market for wholesale power and natural gas. The elimination of PUHCA's restrictions on asset ownership may spur more utilities to acquire independent power plants and gas pipelines outside their service territories or encourage large oil and gas companies to purchase integrated electric companies. London-based National Grid announced in 2006, for instance, that it would acquire Keyspan, the largest distributor of natural gas in New England and New York State's largest electricity generator. The consolidation of a national electricity holdings market renders as nonsense the argument that a national RPS would benefit some states at the cost of others. Since a properly designed national RPS would require all load-serving entities (including publicly owned utilities, municipal utilities, and electric cooperatives) - not individual states - to meet RPS mandates, the burdens and benefits of a national program are likely to reflect the emerging interstate nature of the U.S. electricity market. Moreover, with increased consolidation of the electricity market, a federal mandate is far less likely to create inequities than requiring companies to be subject to competing regulations of any state in which they have holdings. One recent incident illustrates how utilities are becoming caught in the middle of these emerging state conflicts. In January 2007, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission rejected plans by PacifiCorp to build a coal-fired power plant in Utah by 2012 and another in Wyoming by 2013. Oregon regulators claimed that the utility had exaggerated projected demand and had not properly considered conservation efforts and renewable resources. The decision was heralded by Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, a ratepayer group arguing that Oregon should not pay for Utah's dirty power.54 But in Utah, where 95 percent of the state's electricity is already generated by coal, the state's largest electricity consumers strongly supported the new plants. So much so that Utah's regulators have accused PacifiCorp of not moving fast enough and have warned that delaying the construction of new coal-fired plants could leave Utah ratepayers exposed to high prices for short-term purchases to make up for demand shortfalls. The specter of Oregon regulators deciding the fate of electricity generation in Utah highlights an emerging disconnect between the structure of the U.S. electricity market and the regulations to which it is subject.

In the absence of federal action, U.S. utilities must answer to the whims of state regulators with multiple, often contradictory perspectives on how and where companies should invest in new generation. A national market subject to federal mandates expands the universe of available renewable resources and ensures that competition - not artificial geographical restrictions determines the price of those resources.

RPS Aff

194 A2: States CP – Uncertainty & Cost

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

States can’t solve – a national commitment is essential to spur a robust renewable market and reduce electricity costs Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP III Conclusion: Call in the Feds For a brief time in the late 1950s, Minnesotans could not agree on whether to adopt daylight savings time. State legislators passed a bill that allowed some counties to adopt their own rules. An alliance of movie theater owners sued and convinced the state's Supreme Court to issue a ruling that barred the counties from adopting a different time from the rest of the state. Then, Attorney General Miles Lord declared that the high court's action had no effect on the counties. The result was that some parts of the state were on a different time than others - including within the state Capitol, where the Governor's office adopted daylight savings time while the Legislature and Supreme Court remained on standard time. Tired of the hodgepodge of time zones dividing the nation, in 1966 Congress passed a law that pre-empted the states and made daylight savings time uniform across the country. While the value of renewable portfolio standards may not be as uniformly recognized as daylight savings time, it should be. There exists widespread consensus on the financial, environmental, and security benefits that stem from diversifying the nation's electricity fuels by investing in clean, renewable energy - so much so that 21 states have already mandated that utilities use more of these fuels. The real debate is over how best to do it. There is a time for tolerating the quirks and foibles of state experimentation and there is a time - as with the daylight savings time dispute - for federal intervention. The tangle of inconsistent state RPS mandates is deterring significant investments in renewable energy generation and hampering the development of a coherent national renewable energy strategy. Ambiguous and conflicting standards are wasting policymakers' time and stakeholders' money. Uncertainties over the stability and longevity of state policies is delaying progress and inflating the cost of renewable energy projects. These arguments are not merely "academic," nor are they voiced only by staunch renewable energy advocates. Even executives from Constellation Energy - a utility serving 1.2 million customers in Baltimore and more than 10,000 commercial and industrial customers in 34 states - told the State of New York Public Service Commission that many state RPS programs "unnecessarily burden interstate commerce, raise the cost of compliance, invite retaliatory discrimination, potentially violate the Commerce Clause, reduce the availability of imports, and are 'impractical' given the inability to track electrons."67 The real debate is whether a federal standard is more advantageous than a medley of competing state statutes. Federal legislation establishing a clear and uniform national RPS would not only resolve many of the discrepancies that have arisen from the confusing disorder of state-based RPS policies, it would also signal a national commitment to renewable energy generation that is certain to help stimulate a more robust market for renewable energy technologies. By allowing renewable energy to compete directly with older technologies, a national RPS would decrease the cost of electricity and distribute the benefits of renewable generation more justly. Rather than relying on a handful of states to shoulder the burdens of all, a national RPS would expand competition in ways that benefit consumers in all states. There are times when we are 50 small states and there are times when we are one big country. In this case, the answer is clear: big is truly beautiful.

RPS Aff

195 A2: States CP – Uncertainty & Cost

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Federal action is key – it is necessary to alleviate uncertainties and reduce the cost of renewables Kozloff, 4 – senior associate at the World Resources Institute (Keith Lee, Environment, “Renewable energy technology: An urgent need, a hard sell,” November 2004, vol. 36, no. 9, OCLC First Search) // JMP
Other policy initiatives and reforms need to be evaluated in light of changing electricity markets. For example, utilities--which can often integrate intermittent capacity by changing how other generating units are dispatched or exploiting portfolio effects--have less incentive to do so when they are not investing in the capacity themselves. Independent developers cannot take advantage of the systemwide opportunities for integrating intermittent renewables that would be available to the purchasing utility. Regulatory changes may be needed to help independent developers offer firm capacity by bundling projects in a range of locations to sell power to one or more utilities, or by using renewables with fossil fuel or other back-up capacity located elsewhere. Such options would allow them to compete with nonrenewable power producers for utility solicitations limited to dispatchable power.(26) In addition to prohibiting dispatchability requirements in power purchases, regulators should require utility planners to fully evaluate measures for integrating intermittent renewables from independent developers. A critical task for a national strategy is to reduce the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity

from renewable technologies to enhance their competitiveness. To address the chicken-or-egg dilemma in marketing renewables, one must alleviate the uncertainties facing renewable equipment producers regarding future demand. Costs for several technologies would fall if the federal government coordinated regional and national programs to aggregate renewable equipment needs of individual utilities into a predictable stream of orders (see Table 1 on this page). (Table 1 omitted)
Need for a National Strategy

Restructuring trends underscore the urgency of developing a national strategy for advancing renewable energy that coordinates public and private efforts and targets the barriers facing certain technologies. The strategy must be national because some of renewable energy's benefits--such as the creation of jobs--accrue to states, whereas others--such as slowing climate change and reducing air pollution--affect much larger areas and groups of people. A national strategy could help balance the costs and benefits of commercializing and deploying renewable energy technologies at different geographic scales. Visible and consistent national leadership would guide the development of states' electricity industry policies. Without federal leadership, state policies on electric utility competition, rate design environmental protection, and demand management are less likely to benefit the nation as a whole.
In this era of fiscal austerity, the old axiom that there is no free lunch must be taken seriously. The chronic federal budget crisis makes new initiatives that cost money a hard sell. Many policies recommended here entail only minor government spending, but others can be costly. The need for cost-effectiveness should underpin all program decisions. Even if one utility engages in a successful collaborative demonstration project with the renewable energy industry, for example, other utilities in the region may not be interested. The federal government should therefore sponsor such cost-shared projects only in states where the market and policy environment is conducive to replication--for instance, where the PUC requires utilities to fully account for the attributes of renewables in resource planning and acquisition. Policy tools should be designed and implemented to push renewables toward commercial maturity. Accordingly, the implementation period should be ample and predictable, and any necessary subsidies designed to buffer emerging technologies from extreme market swings without insulating them from all competition. At the same time, the performance of various strategies must be tracked so that future policymakers and program managers are not in the dark. With relatively low fossil fuel prices, market forces in the United States are less auspicious for renewable energy development now than they were during the 1970s, Only with a concerted push from high-ranking officials in state and federal government and under the aegis of a

national strategy can the nation ever fully harness the enormous potential of renewable energy.

A Federal RPS is needed to set a clear target for industry research, development and market growth Kammen, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society Director at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy and Resources Group (Daniel, FDCH Congressional Testimony, “Energy Tax Incentives,” 7-11-2001, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP Energy Policy and Financial Recommendations (continued) A Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to Help Build Renewable Energy Markets I support a 20 percent RPS by 2020. A number of studies indicate that this would result in renewable energy development in every region of the country with most coming from wind, biomass, and geothermal sources. A clear and properly constructed federal standard is needed to set a clear target for industry research, development, and market growth. I recommend a 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. This standard is similar to the one proposed by Senators Jeffords and Lieberman in the 106th congress (S. 1369).

RPS Aff

196 A2: States CP – Key to Effective REC

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A national RPS is key to the most efficient trading of renewables Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK 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. National RPS key to effective and efficient REC trading systems Endrud, 8 – J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, Class of ‘08 (Nathan E., Harvard Journal of Legislation, “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION,” Winter 2008, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259) // JMP
As Congress considers calls for federal legislation on climate change, one

benefit of a national RPS program that it should recognize, besides an increase in the the overall efficiency gains that could be provided by the adoption of a federal program that included a national REC trading system. Such a system would reduce the entry barriers states considering the implementation of new RPS programs that make use of RECs currently face, reduce the collective overall costs of state RPS programs through economies of scale, and improve the integrity of REC trading systems by reducing or eliminating the possibility of intentional or inadvertent double-counting of credits. n148 In fact, given the benefits of consolidation and the
environmental and energy security benefits that state programs already provide, is number of states that have already adopted their own RPS programs with tradable credits, n149 Congress should consider establishing a national REC trading system even if it never establishes federal RPS obligations. Along the same lines, as long as such a federal system seems far off, states should seriously consider developing regional credit trading systems; existing environmental regional programs, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI") cap- [*283] and-trade program for carbon emissions that ten northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states recently adopted, could provide suitable models. n150

Federal action is critical to enhance the efficiency of State renewable energy credit trading programs Endrud, 8 – J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, Class of ‘08 (Nathan E., Harvard Journal of Legislation, “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION,” Winter 2008, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259) // JMP
However, state RPS programs would still provide states with a significant means of providing local environmental benefits beyond the amelioration of global warming. States can improve the chances of their RPS programs surviving preemption if they tailor them to highlight the provision of such benefits. Congress

should consider explicit authorization of the existence of state RPS programs alongside any federal RPS program or GHG cap that it enacts. In addition, Congress [*286] should consider establishing a national REC trading system, either as part of a federal RPS program or as an adjunct to a GHG cap-and-trade system, that could accommodate trading of RECs for state programs' purposes and thus enhance those programs' efficiencies.

RPS Aff

197 A2: States CP – Key to Effective REC

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Different State definitions of “renewable energy” will prevent an effective interstate renewable energy credit trading regime Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
C Third sin: Hampering interstate trade

Contradictory and imprecise definitions of "renewable energy" in state RPS mandates make deciding what qualifies as a "renewable energy credit" exceedingly difficult. State-by-state differences and restrictions have splintered the national renewable energy market into regional and state markets with conflicting rules on the treatment and value of RECs. The state-bystate approach to RPS is also creating unanticipated difficulties to the expansion of distributed generation technologies. In just the Northeast, for example, the electricity wholesale market is controlled by three independent system operators - ISO-NE (New England), NYISO (New York), and PJM (13

mid-Atlantic states). In August 2005, PJM launched its Generation Attribute Tracking System (GATS) to monitor RECs between PJM member-states. While GATS will help facilitate a robust REC trading market between PJM members, its convoluted rules hamper REC trading outside of its geographically defined service area.
Generators external to PJM, for instance, are allowed to trade RECs in the GATS market, but must qualify for one of the RPS policies of a PJM member state and must be physically located adjacent to PJM geographical boundaries. However, some PJM member states (Delaware, Maryland, and DC) impose an additional requirement that the electricity from renewable generators outside of PJM be imported into the territory in order for external generators to freely trade RECs within their states.20 PJM member states also differ conspicuously in their treatment of RECs from generators within the service area. In Maryland and Pennsylvania, generators are allowed to bank their RECs for up to two years after the year of generation. But in Rhode Island, generators may only bank up to 30 percent of their compliance total (and then only if the banked RECs are in excess of the compliance total in the year of generation). Contributing to the complexity, ISO-NE has its own REC trading market supported by the Generation Information System (GIS). GIS sets stringent limits on who can trade within the ISO-NE region, regardless of the individual state RPS policies. GIS also requires that generators operate in control areas that are directly adjacent to ISO-NE, further distorting the REC trading market. Generators in NYISO, for example, can trade RECs in Massachusetts, but generators in PJM cannot. Connecticut further restricts REC trading to generators actually within ISO-NE, but, to complicate matters even more, that restriction may expire in 2010.

RPS Aff

198 A2: States CP – Federal Key to Clarify Renewables

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS is necessary to clarify what constitutes a renewable and which utilities are impacted Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP II Federal Action Is Clearer, Fairer, and Cheaper A A national RPS provides clarity It should be apparent that a federal RPS would provide more clarity than a mishmash of state laws simply by preempting poorly conceptualized state statutes and providing a consistent regulatory framework. A federal mandate, for example, could clearly establish which utilities are subject to the regulation and could adopt a precise but flexible definition of eligible renewable resources. The best approach would refrain from mandating specific renewable energy technologies, adopting instead a requirement that eligible electricity be derived from renewable fuels. For example, a federal RPS could define as "renewable" any electricity derived from solar, wind, geothermal, sustainable biomass, or water energy, without specifying the technology required to harness that energy.

RPS Aff

199 A2: States CP – Natural Gas Prices

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A federal RPS is necessary to limit natural gas prices UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP 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.

RPS Aff

200 A2: States CP – Can’t Solve Environmental Leadership

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State and local action can’t achieve global environmental leadership Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP
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 refused to create a nationwide trading system for carbon credits. As a result of 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.
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 retail level. Most compelling, 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)

RPS Aff

201 A2: States CP – Uniformity Answers

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State implementation varied – no uniformity Bryner, 2 – Dept Political Science @ Brigham Young (Gary, Environs 26 Environs Envtl. L. & Pol'y J. 1, Fall) Federal agencies are believed to be insulated enough from resource-depleting communities to ensure preservationist values are pursued. When agencies fail to protect resources or reduce pollution, the solution is to replace them with more ambitious regulators and to strengthen the regulatory authority of federal officials. 2 A number of studies have compared states according to their commitment to environmental protection and found significant variation in expenditures, legal authority, methodologies to determine environmental quality, reporting [*3] requirements, enforcement actions, and in the environmental standards they are authorized to set under federal law. 3 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. Even is they win this, uniform fiat takes out their competition and experimentation arguments Kansas Law Review ‘99 (November, p. 1322) If all of the states pursued identical regulatory strategies, or were prevented from instituting meaningful agendas altogether, these values, as a logical matter, could not be promoted. Obviously there would be no regulatory diversity, because all of the states would structure the lives of their citizens in the same way. Moreover, this uniformity would prevent state competition and experimentation: people would have no incentive to "vote with their feet" if each state provided the same package of public goods, and experimentation by definition requires that different states attempt different solutions to the same social problems.

RPS Aff

202 A2: States CP – No Federal Modeling

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The modeling argument is empirically denied Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. (12) In addition, 102 legislative proposals dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. (13) All have been beaten back by Republican-dominated Congresses. It is safe to say, therefore, that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that statebased action is optimal or preferable but rather because of the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. A federal-scale political philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and environmental policy dates back at least as far as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it has been reinforced by the political power of Washington, DC-based interest groups and trade associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. However, this philosophy and political structure is not mirrored throughout much of the country, and hence many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change arena. And, similarly, many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive. Federal RPS has failed in congress every time it has been considered Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis) // AMK In Congress, lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have introduced numerous national RPS proposals since 1997. Championed in large part by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.), the Senate has passed a national RPS as part of comprehensive energy legislation three times since 2002, most recently in 2005. However, each time it has failed to become law.

RPS Aff

203 A2: States CP – Lawsuits – 2AC

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State RPSs can be struck down by the Court on commerce clause grounds and even without it the possibility of it creates and risky and unpredictable regulatory environment Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
State & Federal Brinksmanship A Commerce Clause challenge may also be imminent because of a growing tension between state and federal electricity regulators. While the legality of state RPS geographical 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”. 233 As recently as 2006, for example, Constellation Energy threatened to sue Maryland’s Public Utility Commission on Commerce Clause grounds for rejecting its merger with Baltimore Gas and Electric. 234
A June 2006 report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change speculates that recent changes on the U.S. Supreme Court also call into question how long state restrictions can avoid Constitutional challenge: But it is conceivable that policies that are in some way designed to minimize the role of out-of-state renewables in meeting RPS targets could face a constitutional challenge. Examples of such policies include those that confine acceptable imports to those that arrive via a dedicated transmission line, most notably Nevada and Texas. The constitutional boundaries are not at all clear in this area, especially given the recent departure from the Supreme Court of Justices William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor, who held strong views on the power of the states in relation to the federal government.235

If a state RPS were found to violate the Commerce Clause, the practical affect 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 piggy-back 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. // pg. 94-95 A federal RPS is necessary to protect States from costly lawsuits that will collapse our energy policy UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP 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."

RPS Aff

204 A2: States CP – Lawsuits – 1AR

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The mere threat of litigation guarantees market uncertainties for decades Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
5. Litigation: A National RPS Avoids Costly Legal Battles “You have well intended public utility commissioners. Unfortunately, they generally tend to be under-funded and so there is no way they can compete with the resources of a large, vertically integrated utility, and so they get overwhelmed. They may be trying to do the right thing but at the end of the day, they can’t do it because the political will is not there and the economic rules are not there to support them. So you literally have a patchwork across the country whose markets are operating openly and fluently.” - Respondent #28, Platt Survey of Utility Executives, 2006 In many states, ambiguities within RPS statutes and unclear expiration targets have created confusion among regulated utilities, resulting in protracted and expensive lawsuits. In Massachusetts, a vague definition of “renewable resources” precipitated legal battles over whether hydroelectric facilities were included in the standard or not.214 In New Mexico, ambiguity over whether the state’s RPS applied to existing or new renewable energy technologies prompted a law suit from El Paso Electric that went all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court.215 A particularly ugly legal battle arose from one utility’s claim that Iowa’s RPS mandate was inconsistent with existing federal statute. In 1984, MidAmerican

Energy Company, the largest investor-owned utility in the state, challenged the legality of Iowa’s RPS mandate on the grounds that it obligated the utility to purchase power from renewable energy facilities at rates in excess of the avoided cost set by the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).216 MidAmerican and the state of Iowa spent 15 years and countless dollars locked in a heated legal battle before the issue was
settled in 1999 (in the utility’s favor).217

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 568 MW of new wind energy. Similarly, PacifiCorp held back on investments in nearly 1,400 MW of renewable capacity throughout the nation until the situation in Iowa was resolved.218

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.219 // pg. 91 Costly lawsuits and Supreme Court intervention that will destroy the renewable energy market Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
A National RPS Avoids Costly Court Battles • Ambiguous state mandates invite law suits.

Utilities have gone to court over vague state RPS laws in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and New Mexico. New legal battles could be waged in Oregon and Washington. • State RPS laws are vulnerable to Constitutional challenge.
California, Washington, DC, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas have all adopted restrictions on out-of-state renewable energy that many scholars agree violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. • A Constitutional challenge is inevitable.

Growing tension between state and federal utility regulators has engendered a kind of “Commerce Clause brinksmanship,” that invites interstate utilities to challenge the constitutionality of state RPS mandates.
• The Supreme Court has already given FERC the authority to intervene. The practical affect of the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in New York v. FERC is that “the federal government could assert jurisdiction all the way to the consumer’s toaster if it so chose.” • A successful federal lawsuit could destroy state RPS programs.

One successful Commerce Clause challenge risks a cascade of copy-cat litigation, collapsing the entire state-based RPS structure and destroying the emerging interstate renewable energy market. // pg. 11

RPS Aff

205 A2: States CP – Lawsuits Will Collapse Energy Policy

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

Utilities will inevitably use the Court to strike down States RPSs on commerce clause grounds – causing the repeal of the RPS and the collapse of energy policy Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP G Seventh sin: Inviting constitutional challenge 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 out-of-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. Not surprisingly, utilities have demonstrated a natural proclivity for successfully challenging state regulations on Commerce Clause grounds.39 In 1982, New England Power Company successfully invalidated a New Hampshire statute prohibiting a hydroelectric company from exporting electricity out of the state without the utility's approval. In 1992, utilities in Wyoming convinced the Supreme Court to overturn an Oklahoma statute requiring the state's regulated utilities to consume a certain percentage of Oklahoma-mined coal.40 But the Supreme Court's 2002 decision upholding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction over the transmission component of retail sales may be the starkest signal yet that regulated utilities can call upon the federal government to intervene when they feel unfairly compromised by state regulations.41 Indeed, Eisen argues that the practical implication of the Court's decision in New York v. FERC is that, "the federal government could assert jurisdiction all the way to the consumer's toaster if it so chose." Thus, it is only a matter of time before utilities and lawmakers challenge the constitutionality of certain state RPS mandates.42 Nevada, New Jersey, and Texas have all adopted restrictions that only count in-state renewable resources toward their respective RPS mandates. Similarly, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the District of Columbia stipulate that RPS-eligible renewable resources must come from within PJM's territory.43 Some states have gone so far as to devalue RECs from other states. California's RPS, for example, requires RECs to be bundled with the electricity generated from renewable resources (which has the practical effect of restricting unbundled RECs from other states).44 Even the California Public Utilities Commission has warned state policymakers that their position on out-of-state RECs may be constitutionally questionable.45 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.

RPS Aff

206

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: States CP – Implemenation = Dormant Commerce Clause Problems
Implementation of State RPSs raises dormant Commerce Clause problems Endrud, 8 – J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, Class of ‘08 (Nathan E., Harvard Journal of Legislation, “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION,” Winter 2008, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259) // JMP States have considered and pursued a number of regulatory strategies to keep the economic benefits of RPS programs within their borders. n28 Most of these strategies involve limitations on which renewable energy sources are eligible to satisfy the states' RPS obligations. In-state and in-region location requirements limit the eligibility of qualifying renewable energy to that which is generated within the state n29 or within the surrounding region, n30 respectively. In-state consumption, metering, and sales requirements limit the eligibility of renewable energy to that which, respectively, is either physically consumed, n31 or quantitatively verified n32 (metered) within the state, or sold into the state. n33 Regional delivery requirements require that qualifying renewable energy be delivered into the regional power pool or independent system operator ("ISO") control area serving the state. n34 In-state benefits requirements require that qualifying renewable energy provide sufficient [*265] specific (named) n35 or generic (unnamed) benefits to the state. n36 Finally, an alternative strategy to energy eligibility restrictions is to lower the costs of in-state renewable power generation through subsidies, which can be financed by system benefits charges on the energy sector at large or by general tax revenues. n37 All of these strategies can be used to retain the economic benefits of state RPS programs within state borders. However, implementation of any of these strategies can place burdens on interstate commerce and therefore raise dormant Commerce Clause problems. State RPSs that try to retain the economic benefits will be struck down Endrud, 8 – J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, Class of ‘08 (Nathan E., Harvard Journal of Legislation, “STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS: THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, AND POSSIBLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION,” Winter 2008, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259) // JMP III. Analysis of State RPS Programs Under the Dormant Commerce Clause A. The Validity of General RPS Energy Eligibility Restrictions Under the Supreme Court's current dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, a requirement that the renewable energy used to meet a state's RPS obligation be generated within the state itself, which is the most direct means for a state to retain the economic benefits of its RPS program for itself, n76 would almost certainly be struck down. n77 Such an in-state location requirement would be even more facially discriminatory against interstate commerce than Illinois's 1991 Coal Act, which was invalidated in Alliance for Clean Coal even though it did not facially compel the use of Illinois coal or forbid the use of outof-state coal. n78 Because of this patent discrimination, an in-state location requirement would likely be struck down under the dormant Commerce Clause unless the state could "demonstrate, under rigorous scrutiny, that it [had] no other means to advance a legitimate local interest." n79 An in-state location requirement would be unlikely to fit into that "narrow class of cases," of which Maine v. Taylor, wherein a Maine statute banning the import of out-of-state baitfish was upheld because the state had no other way to prevent the spread of parasites and the adulteration of its native fish [*271] species, is a rare example. n80 Thus, because they are easily severable, as opposed to being integrated components essential for realizing the environmental benefits of RPS programs, in-state location requirements would almost certainly be struck down as provisions serving no purpose other than economic protectionism. n81 Finally, in-region location requirements, while not discriminatory towards certain neighboring states, would still be facially discriminatory against the remainder of states and would therefore also be invalidated. n82

RPS Aff

207

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

A2: States CP – Texas & Pennsylvania Face Constitutional Challenge
Texas’s discriminatory renewable credit trading barrier violates the commerce clause Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Texas In Texas, which recently surpassed California to become the nation’s leading producer of wind energy, state lawmakers are proposing legislation that could spark a constitutional challenge from the state’s wind generators, many of whom are profiting from selling excess wind generation to neighboring RPS states. The new law would require that RECs generated instate apply toward Texas’ RPS goals: Commission shall ensure that all renewable capacity installed in this state and all renewable energy credits awarded, produced, procured, or sold from renewable capacity in this state are counted toward the goal232. Texas’ proposed legislation effectively would ban the out-of-state sale of RECs generated from in-state renewable capacity since any certified REC tracking system would mark the RECs as having been already counted. Texas wind generators, who can sell wind credits for much higher prices in other markets, could argue that the law is a clear violation of the constitutional right to interstate commerce. // pg. 94 A constitutional challenge could be raised in Pennsylvania Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Pennsylvania Under Pennsylvania’s relatively new “Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard” (Act 213): Energy derived only from alternative energy sources inside the geographical boundaries of this Commonwealth or within the service territory of any regional transmission organization that manages the transmission system in any part of this Commonwealth shall be eligible to meet the compliance requirements under this act. Virtually all of Pennsylvania is serviced by the PJM (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland) regional transmission organization. However, a tiny sliver along the state’s Western border is serviced under the Midwest ISO (MISO, a regional transmission organization that controls electricity as far West as Minnesota, including one Canadian province). And another small area in Pike County does not fall into the service area of any regional transmission organization at all. Even though the wording of the statute is unambiguous, in a 3-2 decision, Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Commission decided that energy from MISO could only be used to meet the demand in the tiny area of the state that is on the MISO grid. This tortured interpretation invites a Commerce Clause challenge from generators anywhere within the MISO territory who may want to sell their energy to regulated utilities in Pennsylvania. The Pike County electric distribution company may also be in a unique position to bring a Commerce Clause case since it appears to be the only area of the state barred from using out-of state power sources to meet Act 213 mandates.231 // pg. 9394

RPS Aff

208 A2: States CP – Constitutional Challenges Inevitable

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State RPSs could face constitutional challenge at any time – a national RPS is key to prevent utilities from initiating lawsuits Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
A. Risking Constitutional Challenge Professor Joel B. Eisen, Director of the Center of Environmental Law and the University of Richmond, 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.220 Yet, state RPS mandates remain perpetually unprotected from constitutional legal challenges. In many ways, the conflict created by having state RPS policies regulate an interstate electricity market sits precariously atop 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.221 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. States
are permitted to promote in-state business, but they are not permitted to protect those businesses from out of 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.”222 State RPS statutes that set geographic restrictions or otherwise limit the interstate trade of RECs may be accused of violating this central tenant of the U.S. Constitution. Not surprisingly, utilities

have demonstrated a natural proclivity for successfully challenging state regulations on Commerce Clause grounds.223 In 1982, New England Power Company successfully challenged a New Hampshire statute prohibiting a hydroelectric company from exporting
electricity out of the state without the utility’s approval. In 1992, utilities in Wyoming convinced the Supreme Court to overturn an Oklahoma statute requiring the state’s regulated utilities to consume a certain percentage of Oklahoma-mined coal.224

But the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision upholding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) jurisdiction over the transmission component of retail sales may be the starkest signal yet that regulated utilities can call upon the federal government to intervene when they feel unfairly compromised by state regulations. 225 Indeed, Eisen argues that the practical implication of
the Court’s decision in New York v. FERC is that, “the federal government could assert jurisdiction all the way to the consumer’s toaster if it so chose.” // pg. 91-92

Constitutional challenges are inevitable Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP B. The Coming Commerce Clause Battle It is only a matter of time before utilities and lawmakers challenge the constitutionality of certain state RPS mandates. 226 Nevada, New Jersey, and Texas have all adopted restrictions that only count in-state renewable resources toward their respective RPS mandates. Similarly, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the District of Columbia stipulate that RPS-eligible renewable resources must come from within the PJM service territory.227 In the Pacific Northwest, RECs can be sold only among the 14 members of the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System.228 Some states have gone so far as to devalue RECs from other states. California’s RPS, for example, requires RECs to be bundled with the electricity generated from renewable resources (which has the practical affect of restricting unbundled RECs from other states).229 Even the California Public Utilities Commission has warned state policymakers that their position on out of- state RECs may be constitutionally questionable.230 // pg. 92-93

RPS Aff

209 A2: States CP – Constitutional Challenges Inevitable

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

The Court will use the dormant commerce clause to strike down State RPSs Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP 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. Two potential conflicts exist between state RPS policies and the dormant commerce clause: geographic restrictions on eligible renewable resources and the different ways states assign value to RECs. Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, and Texas have all adopted restrictions that only count in-state renewable resources toward their respective RPS mandates. Some states that have implemented their own RPS mandates have adopted policies that devalue RECs from other states. California's RPS, for example, requires RECs to be bundled (thus disallowing unbundled RECs from other states). While no one has yet challenged the legality of these restrictions, several legal precedents suggest that a legal case against these restrictions could prevail. (25)

RPS Aff

210 A2: States CP – Litigation Risk Discourages Investment

7 Week Juniors – CPHS Lab

State RPSs are plagued by legal battles that discourage renewable energy investments Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
D Fourth sin: Instigating litigation

In many states, ambiguities within the statutes and unclear expiration targets have created confusion among regulated utilities, resulting in protracted and expensive lawsuits. In Massachusetts, a vague definition of "renewable resources" precipitated legal battles over whether hydroelectric facilities were included in the standard or not.21 In New Mexico, ambiguity over
whether the state's RPS applied to existing or new renewable energy technologies prompted a lawsuit from El Paso Electric that went all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court.22 A particularly ugly legal battle arose from one utility's claim that Iowa's RPS mandate was inconsistent with existing federal statute. In 1984, MidAmerican Energy Company, the largest investor-owned utility in the state, challenged the legality of Iowa's RPS mandate on the grounds that it obligated the utility to purchase power from renewable energy facilities at rates in excess of the avoided cos