109 GT RPS Case Neg

8/12/2019 109 GT RPS Case Neg

1/38

DDI 08 1Ciborowski RPS Neg

Index

Index................................................................................................................................................................................11NC States CP Solvency.................................................................................................................................................States solve......................................................................................................................................................................!States solve ....................................................................................................................................................................."

States solve......................................................................................................................................................................#States solve......................................................................................................................................................................$%&' (ederal RPS )ey ....................................................................................................................................................*%&' Cant Solve R+C.....................................................................................................................................................8%&' Cant solve R+C......................................................................................................................................................,RPS Po- lar .................................................................................................................................................................10RPS /i-art.....................................................................................................................................................................11RPS /i-art.....................................................................................................................................................................1+nv lobbies like RPS.....................................................................................................................................................1!/o c er ates RPS........................................................................................................................................................1"RPS n-o- lar..............................................................................................................................................................1#RPS n-o- lar.............................................................................................................................................................1$Plan n-o- lar2 Coal lobby..........................................................................................................................................1*

RPS Inevitable a3ter t e election...................................................................................................................................184ba5a does RPS ..........................................................................................................................................................1,6cCain does RPS......................................................................................................................................................... 0Clean Coal &radeo33 link............................................................................................................................................... 1Clean Coal &radeo33 7ink.............................................................................................................................................+nergy Price 7ink......................................................................................................................................................... !+nergy Price 7ink......................................................................................................................................................... "Co5-etitiveness 3rontline ............................................................................................................................................ #

obs t rn +xt.................................................................................................................................................................. *RPS 9 rts Co5-etitiveness.......................................................................................................................................... 8RPS Doesnt solve co5-etitiveness.............................................................................................................................. ,:ar5ing (rontline........................................................................................................................................................!0C ina o33sets gains .......................................................................................................................................................!1C ina and India o33set gains..........................................................................................................................................!;rid (ronline.................................................................................................................................................................!"States solve /lacko ts...................................................................................................................................................!#

No co5-liance................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ......... ...... ...... ...... ..!$RPS Doesnt el- t e environ5ent...............................................................................................................................!*RPS Doesnt el- t e environ5ent...............................................................................................................................!8


2/38


1NC States CP Solvency

States empirically solve RPS better than the national government because they can customize the RPSKraneburg 2 !7egal ? Reg latory' 4ne2si@e RPS does not 3it allA= an 008

tt-'BB3indarticles.co5B-BarticlesB5i a#!, Bis 00801Bai n 1!0 11*E FCiborowskiG

States are moving "or#ard #ith their o#n programs to promote rene#able energy sources$ %s o3Se-te5ber 00*= " states and t e District o3 Col 5bia ad establis ed an RPS. (o r ot er states adnonbinding goals 3or ado-ting renewables= and "8 states now s --ort -rogra5s t at o33er cons 5ersincentives= grants= loans= or rebates to se renewable energy reso rces. %ach state&s RPS plan includescare"ully considered timetables and targets based upon its o#n uni'ue circumstances and availableenergy sources$ ( "ederal RPS that imposes di""erent targets and timetables could undercut orpreempt those e""orts$ )his #ould create uncertainty and drive up the cost o" meeting rene#ablemandates even "urther "or electricity suppliers and consumers in those states$ %ven among states thathave an RPS* all have chosen to add energy sources uni'ue to their areas* such as geothermal po#er*#hich are not included in the broad+s#eeping "ederal RPS proposals$ 6any state -rogra5s also incl detec nologies s c as 3 el cells= as well as alternative 5eans o3 co5-liance s c as energy2e33iciency

-rogra5s= w ic are not recogni@ed in t e 3ederal -lans.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5392/is_200801/ai_n21302117http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5392/is_200801/ai_n21302117http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5392/is_200801/ai_n21302117


3/38

DDI 08 ,Ciborowski RPS Neg

States solve

States have empirically solved RPSRic-erson et al$ 2 !

(eed2in &ari33s and Renewable +nergy in t e S% H aPolicy -dateA= 6ay 008= tt-'BBwww.eesi.orgBbrie3ingsB 008B0$1808 boell re-B(eed2in 0&ari33s 0and

0Renewable 0+nergy 0in 0t e 0 S% 02 0a 0Policy 0 -date.-d3 E FCiborowskiG

.uring the past decade* there has been remar-able progress in rene#able energy policy develo-5ent int e S= particularly at the state level$ %s can be seen in 3ig re 1 below= there are currently 2/ states #ithmandatory rene#able port"olio standards


4/38

DDI 08Ciborowski RPS Neg

States solve

States have had a long success"ul policy o" eed+ins.avenport 2 3Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=

tt-'BBwww.c -olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens eets200000 #1,*"* E FCiborowskiG

)he 4hite 5ouse contends that no national standard is needed* and that states can create their o#nrene#able regulations$ 4n :ednesday= an +nergy De-art5ent s-okeswo5an= lie R ggiero= wrote in an e25ail= >)raditionally* #e have opposed a national rene#able port"olio standard due to the "act that eachstate has very di""erent rene#able resources and can utilize rene#able energy in di""erent #ays$ ( one+size+"its+all approach #ill not allo# us to best maximize each state6s resources$7
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747


5/38


States solve

States can implement RPS better than the "ederal governmentershee 2 !

< os a = +nergy 7aw o rnal= %ssistant Pro3essor o3 7aw at t e niversity o3 Nort Dakota Sc ool o3 7aw=>C anging Reso rces= C anging 6arket' & e I5-act o3 a National Renewable Port3olio Standard on t e .S.+nergy Ind stryAE FCiborowskiG

(inally= many opponents o" a national RPS argue that it is unnecessary n8! to have a national planbecause state and regional initiatives are already handling the issue in regions #here it is appropriateand the states* individually or regionally* are better situated to implement plans that account "orregional di""erences$ n8" (or exa5-le= in t e case o3 t e Pro-osed RPS= a ma9or complaint is that a :one+size+"its+all ederal mandate does not ta-e into account the speci"ic energy and economic needs o"individual States by re iring t at 1# -ercent o3 retail electricity sales be generated 3ro5 s-eci3ic renewablereso rces w ic are not -revalent in all regions. n8# %lt o g t ere are arg ably bene3its t at a national

-lan can ac ieve t at individ al state -lans cannot= n8$ as disc ssed in Part II./= 5any state -lans are alreadywell establis ed and e33ective.


6/38

DDI 08 /Ciborowski RPS Neg

States solve

Individual states prove the Counterplan solves5odge 2 3Renewable Port3olio Standard 9owOs # So nd to o LA 00*= sta33 writer=

www.greenc i-stocks.co5BarticlesBrenewable2-ort3olio2standardB18*E FCiborowskiG

( rene#able port"olio standard


7/38


()< ederal RPS Key

Strict compliance -ills "lexibility -illing solvency on a national level+ only states solveRalls 2 /Congress ;ot it Rig t' & eres No Need to 6andate Renewable Port3olio

Standards=A 7ex sE FCiborowskiG

Congressional e""orts to impose a mandated RPS contained little opportunity "or local variances* or "orthe "lexibility or reconsideration that are essential components in "urthering rene#able goals w ile5eeting t e co ntryOs -ower s --ly needs in a cost2e33ective and reliable 5anner. %s disc ssed s -ra at PartII= t e debates s rro nding S. %5dt. *,1 ig lig ted t is s ortco5ing in t at RPS -ro-osal. (ort nately= t ea5end5ents Congress enacted to &itle I o3 P RP% res-ecting 3 el diversity did not s 33er 3ro5 t e sa5e

-roble5.8 (lexibility 5eans t at ele5ents o3 a renewable -rogra5 can be revised i3 necessary. Renewable -rogra5s s o ld be designed to be 3lexible in order to balance conservation and environ5ental bene3itsagainst associated costs and reliability concerns $ lexibility is important because programs o"tentimesneed to be revised to maintain this balance and o""er #or-able solutions "or consumers$ % RPS or anyrenewable -rogra5 s o ld -ro5ote energy e33iciency and conservation in t e context o3 obtaining a33ordableand reliable -ower. (lexibility at t e state= local= and tility levels is essential in establis ing RPSs or

renewable -rogra5s t at 3oster t ese sa5e goals. )hose #ho are implementing the programs must be ableto revie# or reconsider elements as a means o" "ul"illing the purpose o" rene#ables #hile sa"eguardingthe need "or sa"e* reliable* and a""ordable po#er$ Rene#able advocates have been urging "lexibility indesigning rene#able programs "or years$


8/38

DDI 08 !Ciborowski RPS Neg

()< Can6t Solve R%C

State programs are more e""icient at R%CRalls 2 /Congress ;ot it Rig t' & eres No Need to 6andate Renewable Port3olio

Standards=A 7ex sE FCiborowskiG

.uring the consideration o" "ederal energy legislation* more and more states* electric utilities* and local 9urisdictions established RPSs* rene#able goals or other programs* any o" #hich include R%Cs that in someinstances can be traded on an interstate basis$ 7ikewise= regional consorti 5s are s --orting renewable e33orts andgoals. Iowa enacted t e 3irst renewable -rogra5 back in 1,8!= 3ollowed by 6innesota in 1,," and %ri@ona in 1,,$."$ C rrently= t ere aretwenty2eig t renewable -rogra5s in -lace in t e nited States' twenty2two states and t e District o3 Col 5bia ave enacted or i5-le5ented aRPS or renewable goal -rogra5


9/38

DDI 08 =Ciborowski RPS Neg

()< Can6t solve R%C

States solve bene"its o" a R%C better than the national government>ichaels 2 ! National Renewable Port3olio Standard' S5art Policy or

6isg ided ;est reLA= -ro estE FCiborowskiG

In reality ? 1 billion is the di""erence bet#een t#o nonexistent situations< one that assumes absolutelyno R%C trading and one that assumes uni"orm mar-et rules "or all then+existing RPS states$ )his isnot a :nation#ide: system that imposes a single RPS on all states$ In "act a national RPS #oulddiminish these bene"its$ Resources in non+RPS states that utilities in RPS states currently purchase "orcredits #ould be o"" the mar-et and used to satis"y their utilities& o#n national RPS re'uirements$


10/38


RPS Popular

RPS is popular in congress.avenport 2 3Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=

tt-'BBwww.c -olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens eets200000 #1,*"* E FCiborowskiG

Supporters say a national @rene#able port"olio standard7 re iring 10 -ercent to 0 -ercent o3 electricityto be -rod ced 3ro5 renewables could go "ar to#ard lessening 0$S$ "ossil "uel dependence . 7ess t an #

-ercent o3 t e nations electricity now co5es 3ro5 renewable so rces ot er t an ydroelectricity. &wenty2two states ave enacted renewable standards. 4n & rsday * a diverse group o" 1!/ signatories A includingsome o" the biggest names in industry* manu"acturing and electric utilities* along #ith environmentalgroups A sent a letter to congressional leaders urging passage o" a national rene#able port"oliostandard$ @It6s the broadest ever* it6s the biggest ever7 range o" support seen "or pushing therene#able standard = said /inga5an s-okes5an /ill :icker o3 t e s-ectr 5 o3 signatories= w ic incl des;eneral +lectric= /P %5erica= ;oogle and t e +dison +lectric +lectric Instit te= w ic re-resents investor2owned tilities.


11/38


RPS Bipart

RPS en9oys strong bi+partisanship support in congress.avenport 2 3

Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=tt-'BBwww.c -olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens eets200000 #1,*"* E FCiborowskiG

/inga5an wants is renewables -ro-osal to be -assed as an a5end5ent to a 5aJor Senate energy -ackage o-ti5isticA abo t t e -ro-osals c ances on t e 9o se 3loor i3it -asses t e Senate= des-ite t e -otential o--osition 3ro5 /o c er. >%s its never ad a 3 ll airing on t e9o se side= #e6re con"ident as more members learn about the bene"its* support #ill continue to build*and they6ll vote "or passage*7 :icker said.


12/38


RPS Bipart

Par-er 2 3

National RPS to Incl de Coal ? N clearLA=tt-'BBwww.renewableenergyworld.co5BreaBnewsBstoryLidM"8, 1 E FCiborowskiG

)he proposed RPS


13/38

DDI 08 1,Ciborowski RPS Neg

%nv lobbies li-e RPS

>ayer 2 3

/ig 4il= /igIn3l enceA= tt-'BBwww.-bs.orgBnowBs owsB!"*Boil2-olitics. t5lE

%nvironmentalists* w o ad very little in3l ence in Congress w en Re- blicans were in control= are no#seeing the la#ma-ers seriously consider their positions$ )his includes environmentalists& support o" 3 el e33iciency standards=a mandate "or electric utility companies to produce 18 percent o" electricity"rom rene#able sources and t eir o--osition to coal2to2li id 3 el develo-5ent. Now ere is t is c ange intides 5ore evident t an in t e Senate Co55ittee on +nviron5ent and P blic :orks= w ic is eavilyinvolved in energy legislation. Cali3ornia Sen. /arbara /oxer= considered one o3 t e environ5entOs biggestc a5-ions= as c aired t e co55ittee since er -arty ass 5ed control o3 t e Senate in t e 00$ election.


14/38


Boucher hates RPS

.avenport 2 3Senate De5ocrats See 4-ening 3or Renewable StandardA=

tt-'BBwww.c -olitics.co5Bw5s-age.c35LdocIDMgreens eets200000 #1,*"*E

.emocrat Rick Boucher = w o ails 3ro5 coal2ric so t west Tirginia= has consistently opposed arene#able electricity standard$ Boucher also heads the 5ouse %nergy subcommittee charged #ithcra"ting energy and climate change legislation* and he says that right no# he has no intention o"including a rene#able port"olio standard in an energy bill is -anel is -re-aring 3or t e 3loor by early

ly. Boucher traditionally has "ought any measure that could threaten his district6s coal industry orraise electricity prices$ & is 3all= /o c er -lans to introd ce legislation ai5ed at c rbing global war5ingwit a 5andate to c t carbon e5issions U a to g -ill to swallow 3or any ind stry. & at bill will take to-

-riority= and adding t e -ress re o3 renewable energy so rcing on to- o3 it co ld be too 5 c 3or t e tilitiesand rate-ayers to take= /o c er says.


15/38


RPS unpopular

Congress hates the cost o" an RPSPegg 2 8< .R. Pegg= +nviron5ent news service sta33 writer= >Senate %--roves National Renewable +nergy StandardA= J ne

00#= tt-'BBwww.ens2newswire.co5BensBJ n 00#B 00#20$21*210.as-E FCiborowskiG

Critics o" the provision said it is unrealistic and expensive$ )he standard could cost utilities andconsumers some ?1! billion* said ;eorgia Re- blican Saxby C a5bliss. It imposes a one+size "its allmandate on the #hole country #ithout regard "or #hether the re'uirement is technologically oreconomically "easible*: C a5bliss said.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-17-10.asphttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-17-10.asp


16/38

DDI 08 1/Ciborowski RPS Neg

RPS 0npopular

RPS is extremely unpopular in congress

.urbin 2 3

R+N+:%/7+ +N+R; ' :ood 6acken@ieOs :illia5 D rbin says 3ederal RPS Oeasy 3irstste-O 3or e5issions red ctionA= 6ay 1"E FCiborowskiG

6onica &ra @@i'( "ederal RPS "aces 'uite a bit o" opposition both on and o"" the 5ill$ Senator Pete.omenici* #ho&s the ran-ing member o" the Senate %nergy Committee* opposes an RPS$ (nd industrygroups are saying that a "ederal RPS #ould provide a one+size+"its+all approach #hen one size doesn&t"it all$ %nd t eyOre also concerned t at t e govern5ent wo ld be inter3ering wit energy 5arkets i3 a 3ederalRPS was i5-le5ented. %re t ese valid concernsL :illia5 D rbin' :ell= #hat you&re describing here aresome pretty serious political issues and #e try to loo- at this #hole issue outside o" the political debate$So it #ould be hard "or me to say #hether or not they&re valid$ : at we can say is t ere are -ositive

bene3its associated i3 yo Ore looking 3or red ctions in gas de5and= red ctions in C4 = and red ctions in -ower -rices. / t t en again= as we ste- o33 into t e green o se gas and C4 legislation we can r n t e risko3 nder5ining t at i3 we try to r s t at -rocess too 3ast.


17/38


Plan unpopular+ Coal lobby

)he coal lobby hates the plan+ )hey6l do everything they can to bloc- itBoston Dlobe 2 ! ;reen and coal donOt exactly 5ix =A

www.boston.co5Bb sinessBarticlesB 008B0$B08Bcoal gasi3ication is dirty and n-rovenBE FCiborowskiG

I wonder i3 t e legislators w o t ink coal gasi3ication is a green energy so rce also believed Ronald Reaganw en e arg ed t at ketc - s o ld co nt as a vegetable in sc ool l nc -rogra5s. :Coal gasi"ication: and:green energy: don&t belong together in the same sentence = let alone in legislation t atOs s --osed tolessen o r de-endence on dirty 3 els. State subsidies should not be used to tilt the mar-et to#ardtechnologies that tear the tops o"" mountains* dumps the re"use into valleys* and buries toxins in thenation&s shrin-ing "resh #ater supply$ )he coal lobby 2 and t e /ig %g lobby be ind t e bio3 els

boondoggle 2 are already buying up every politician #ithin reachE


18/38

DDI 08 1!Ciborowski RPS Neg

RPS Inevitable a"ter the election

(n RPS is inevitable a"ter the election no matter #ho #ins5odge 2 3Renewable Port3olio Standard 9owOs # So nd to o LA= sta33 writer 3or green 5aga@ine= 00*=

www.greenc i-stocks.co5BarticlesBrenewable2-ort3olio2standard E FCiborowskiG

)he consensus = at least at t is con3erence= is that #e #ill have a national RPS in the next t#o to threeyears* no matter #ho #ins the 4hite 5ouse in 2 !$ )here also seems to be #idespread belie" amongthe "inancial pro"essionals and politicians here that #e&ll have a "ederally mandated cap+and+tradesystem "or carbon emissions in that same time$
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standardhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard


19/38

DDI 08 1=Ciborowski RPS Neg

Fbama does RPS

Fbama #ants an RPSInside rene#able energy 2 !Sen. /arack 4ba5a &o rs PT Powered (acility in 4regonA= news b lletin=

tt-'BBwww.renewableenergyworld.co5BreaBnewsBstoryLidM# "", E FCiborowskiG

9e FSen. >cCainG voted repeatedly against mandates to ensure that #e use more rene#able energy and aRene#able Port"olio Standard HRPS continues to be bloc-ed in part because people li-e John >cCain aren&tinterested in it ...In 5y -ro-osals * I&ve called "or a replication o" #hat&s being done right here in Fregon* a 28;RPS "or the entire nation$ )hat&s #hy I have consistently urged that #e go ahead and pass the , ;investment tax credit that is so important "or ma-ing sure that companies li-e P Po#ered continue toprosper and thrive*: Sen$ Fbama said$

Fbama #ants an RPSKammen 2 !

Dan )a55en' Clean energy and %5ericaOs 3 t re=A 008=tt-'BBwww.s3gate.co5Bcgi2binBarticle.cgiL3MBcBaB 008B0#B1*BIN!R106;S)E FCiborowskiG

)he .emocratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy port"olio o" at least28 percent o" electricity "rom clean energy sources by 2 28* and all three candidates are in "avor o"cap+and+trade systems to build greenhouse gas mar-ets$ It is vital= b t -olitically c allenging= to 5akes re t at all e5issions credits are a ctioned= not given away to large -oll ters. :e are now in a 5o5ent 2

-er a-s a 3irst 2 w ere a growing view exists t at energy and cli5ate co ld be 3ront2b rner iss es 3orcandidates and voters. & e ti5e is rig t to 3oc s on t e energy syste5 we want= not on t e one we ad= andsadly= still ave.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52449http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52449


20/38


>cCain does RPS

>cCain li-es rene#ablesDillam 2 !:ind -ower gains ad erents in nited States=A 008=

www.i t.co5BarticlesB 008B0#B1,Bb sinessBwind.- -E FCiborowskiG

Senator o n >cCain = t e Re- blican PartyOs -res 5-tive no5inee 3or t e Nove5ber -residential election=as also said he supports #ind energy$ >cCain even chose a #ind energy "acility in Portland* Fregon*

as the setting "or a policy speech on global #arming last week.


21/38


Clean Coal )radeo"" lin-

RPS trades o"" #ith clean coal and other technologiesJosten 2 3


22/38


Clean Coal )radeo"" Lin-

RPS -ills clean coal investmentershee 2 !

< os a= +nergy 7aw o rnal= >C anging Reso rces= C anging 6arket' & e I5-act o3 a National Renewable

Port3olio Standard on t e .S. +nergy Ind stry=A JstorE FCiborowskiG

%not er signi3icant iss e 3acing invest5ent decisions is w at a national RPS #ould mean 3or decisionsrelated to other types o" generation that utilities have considered . So5e tilities= 3or exa5-le= ave beenconsidering b ilding new n clear generation 3acilities. n11! ( national RPS #ould seem to ma-e that lessappealing = alt o g it is not entirely clear t at new n clear 3acilities were t at likely= or t e best o-tion=anyway. Nonetheless* a national RPS* at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions& cap*#ould add another hurdle "or nuclear investment$ Clean coal technologies* another ma9or generationsource in development* n11 #ould "ace similar hurdles = nless= o3 co rse= t e national RPS were toincl de clean coal as a renewable so rce. %nd= o3 co rse= w at constit tes clean is never an easy answer.n11#


23/38

DDI 08 2,Ciborowski RPS Neg

%nergy Price Lin-

RPS sends electricity prices s-y highershee 2 !

< os a= +nergy 7aw o rnal= >C anging Reso rces= C anging 6arket' & e I5-act o3 a National Renewable

Port3olio Standard on t e .S. +nergy Ind stry=A JstorE FCiborowskiG

So5e ma9or studies indicate a potential increase in consumer electricity costs i" a national RPS #ereimplemented$ )he +nergy In3or5ation %d5inistration < %I( released a study in June 2 3 o" a proposed18; RPS by 2 , * #hich indicated that :cumulative residential expenditures on electricity "rom 2 8through 2 , are ? 3$2 billion


24/38


%nergy Price Lin-

RPS #ill in"late energy prices>orrison 2 /< ay= +lectricity o rnal= >6andated RPS Ignores +cono5ic= Political Reality=A Dece5ber 00$= storE

FCiborowskiG

Renewable energy 5andates= owever= like t ose s --orted by t e a t ors= will increase electric rates tocons 5ers. & is s o ld be a--arent on its 3ace. (ny mandate creates an arti"icial mar-et "or acommodity$ I" the mar-et demand cannot be met immediately by ne# entry* the basic la#s o" supplyand demand #ill "orce up the price o" the commodity$ (nd* there are probably "e# mar-ets in the0nited States #ith as many barriers to entry as the electric utility industry$


25/38


Competitiveness "rontline

1$ RPS drives #or-ers overseasMeatman et al 2 3;one wit t e :ind' Renewable Port3olio Standard & reatens Cons 5ers and

t e Ind strial 9eartland=A tt-'BBcei.orgB-d3B#,8 .-d3E FCiborowskiG

)he impact o" a "ederal RPS on manu"acturing regions #ith lo# electricity costs and lo# #ind energypotential promises to raise electricity rates considerably$ %ccording to t e Co55erce De-art5ents/ rea o3 +cono5ic %nalysis ind stry s-eciali@ation index= w ic 5eas res states level o3 ind strials-eciali@ation=the 0pper >id#est and the Southeast are more dependent on the manu"acturing sectorthan other regions$ (lthough manu"acturers have moved their "actories "rom states #ith highelectricity costs to these states #ith lo#er electricity costs* a "ederal RPS #ould then tend to drive theseindustries to "oreign countries #ith lo#er electricity rates$

2$ (n RPS #ould "ail at providing economic security+ competition comes "rom other sectors>ichaels 2 !% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=A

storE FCiborowskiG

Both national and international competition #ill exist #ith or #ithout a "ederal RPS$ )he existingrene#ables industry has also had "e# problems accessing the capital mar-ets$ Ne# technologies areattracting venture capital and "irms as large as Deneral %lectric are using their o#n cash* all #ithout anational RPS . & ere are also no i5-ortant econo5ies o3 scale o tside o3 5an 3act ring. +ngineering andconstr ction are wit in t e ex-ertise o3 n 5ero s contractors= 5ost ite s5all relative to t eir 5arkets. %llco5-etitive -rod cers 3ace -ress re to red ce costs= wit or wit o t 5andatory - rc ase re ire5ents likean RPS. Competition to innovate comes "rom both other rene#ables ma-ers and producers o" non+rene#ables that are substitutes "or some buyers$ %n RPS c ts t e degree o3 -ress re t at co5es 3ro5 t elatter by 3oreclosing t e5 3ro5 -art o3 t e 5arket. Prod cers also red ce costs by observing and i5itatings ccess3 l -ractices o3 ot ers= incl ding 3oreigners. % growing 5arket in intellect al -ro-erty allows%5ericans access to new tec nologies wit o t d -licating t e researc o3 ot ers.", Innovations extend

beyond tec nology to new o-erating -ractices and contract -rovisions w ic can also be i5itated. So5e seeRPS as a tactic t at can 5ake t e .S. t e worldOs leading renewables -rod cer= -ossibly in res-onse to t ealleged growt o3 a govern5entally g ided renewables ind stry in a-an.#0 4t ers clai5 t at a large

-ercentage o3 t e Jobs created by an RPS will be in ex-orting renewables.#1 %not er a t or is concernedabo t a dro- in t e .S. s are o3 global solar collector -rod ction 3ro5 "" -ercent in 1,,$ to below , -ercentin 00#.# & e si5-le 3act is t at t e case 3or 3ree trade in renewables is no di33erent 3ro5 t e case 3or 3reetrade in anyt ing else.#! I3 %5ericans are relatively 5ore -rod ctive in renewables t ey will s --ly ot ernations. I3 not= so5eone else will and %5ericans will -rod ce ot er goods and services.#" >orerealistically* the 0$S$ #ill both import and export rene#ables$ ( declining share o" solar productionprobably indicates that others should do the 9ob


26/38

DDI 08 2/Ciborowski RPS Neg

,$ F""icials #on6t be able to en"orce the RPSCarlsen 2 !S?P renewables reality c eck 3inds t e5 too little= costly and O-ain3 lO 3or ratings=A 008= storEFCiborowskiG

No existing RPS has met original goals$&enty2nine states and t e District o3 Col 5bia now ave so5e ty-e o3

RPS= - 3ro5 abo t a do@en 3o r years ago %nd=since 00$= nine o3 t e , states t at ad so5e sort o3 RPS act ally increased t eir renewable targets= notably be3oreany o3 t e5 5et t eir original goals= Selting noted. / t #ith :going green: Hho#ever de"ined having rapidlybecome a corporate virtue* utilities that do not meet RPS ob9ectives can be blamed* even i" the goals #ereunreasonable$ & ese 3easibility risks are -artic larly ac te in states t at ado-t increasingly aggressive targets

be3ore de5onstrating t e viability o3 earlier goals= S?P -ointed o t. %ccording to t e +nergy In3or5ation %gencyOs(ebr ary 008 +lectric Power 6ont ly= excl ding conventional ydroelectric L w ic = Selting said= not all statesconsider green L only abo t .# o3 S generation in t e 3irst 11 5ont s o3 00* was 3ro5 renewable reso rces.43 t at= #" was 3ro5 wood and related waste= !1 3ro5 wind= 1" 3ro5 geot er5al L and 1 3ro5 solar.4n a rolling 1 25ont basis= wind generation !1=*#$ was ;: last year L - 1." 3ro5 00$ and al5ost 1=0003ro5 t e !=000 ;: in 1,,!. / t it still re-resented only 0.8 o3 last yearOs S total= and virt ally no c ange 3ro5

00$Os 0.$ . +I% 3ig res s ow woodBwood waste= at ##=!!$ ;: = was down 1.1 3ro5 1,,!= and geot er5al= at1"=8#1 ;: = was down 11.# . 4ver t ose 1# years solar went 3ro5 "$ ;: to $0$ ;: = S?P noted. & e 00*rolling 1 25ont total was abo t 10 =##0 ;: 3or t ose 3o r renewables categories. +5erging +nergy Researcesti5ates t at to 5eet RPS re ire5ents in t e " states


27/38


Jobs turn %xt

( national RPS #ould drive operating costs up and "orce 9obs over seas -illing our competitivenessMeatman et al 2 3;one wit t e :ind' Renewable Port3olio Standard & reatens Cons 5ers and

t e Ind strial 9eartland=A tt-'BBcei.orgB-d3B#,8 .-d3E FCiborowskiG

Concl sion. De-ending on t e c rrent cost o3 electricity and renewable energy -otential= t e econo5ici5-act o3 a 3ederal renewable -ort3olio standard is 5odest in so5e regions o3 t e co ntry and dire in ot ers.State legislators ave weig ed t e econo5ic costs and bene3its o3 an RPS in t eir states and actedaccordingly. Congress should not impose a "ederal rene#able port"olio standard on those states that

ave correctly J dged t at s c a 5andate #ould raise their consumer electricity prices and destroy 9obsin energy+intensive industries$ : ile 6e5bers o3 Congress 3ro5 so5e regions o3 t e co ntry 5ay bete5-ted to econo5ically disadvantage states in ot er regions by voting 3or a 3ederal RPS= t ey s o ldrecogni@e t at it is not in the nation6s interest to undermine any o" our manu"acturing industries$

( national RPS #ould drive 9obs overseas+ ma-es cost o" operating too highMeatman et al 2 3;one wit t e :ind' Renewable Port3olio Standard & reatens Cons 5ers andt e Ind strial 9eartland=A tt-'BBcei.orgB-d3B#,8 .-d3E FCiborowskiG

& ese RPS states tend to ave a 5 c ig er -otential 3or renewable energy= less energy2intensive5an 3act ring= or bot $ In the RPS states that do have considerable manu"acturing* the e""ect o"adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and push manu"acturing into states or othercountries #ith lo#er electricity prices$ & ere3ore=a "ederal RPS #ould re'uire states #ith lo#electricity prices and proportionately lo#er rene#able energy potential* such as is "ound inour industrial heartland* to raise electricity prices to a level that #ould "orce their industries tomigrate overseas to countries wit c ea-er energy rates and no renewable -ort3olio standards.


28/38

DDI 08 2!Ciborowski RPS Neg

RPS 5urts Competitiveness

RPS hurts the 0$S$ economy>ichaels 2 !% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=A

storE FCiborowskiG

(n RPS is a design standard that restricts the allo#able set o" technologies even i" there are cheaper#ays to reduce the pollutant$ %ven i" an RPS encourages innovation in the allo#able technologies* it#ill probably discourage experimentation #ith technologies


29/38

DDI 08 2=Ciborowski RPS Neg

RPS .oesn6t solve competitiveness

RPS does nothing to icrease competetiveness>ichaels 2 !% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=A

storE FCiborowskiG

Fthers hope that a national RPS can bring 0$S$ domination o" the #orld&s rene#ables mar-ets$ 4neadvocate sees it as a necessary res-onse to renewables2based ex-ort -olicies t at are taking s a-e in a-an. n!, 9e believes %5ericans 5 st e5 late t e coo-eration between a-anOs 5an 3act rers and govern5ent -lanners= a vision o3 invincibility 3ro5 t e 1,*0s

and 1,80s t at died wit t e recession and banking crisis o3 t e 1,,0s. n %xperience gives little reason to expect that suchconcerted policy "ormation can ma-e either nation dominant$ )he 0$S$ #ill continue to export those in#hich it has a cost O=1Gadvantage and import those in #hich it does not$ n 1 International trade inrene#ables raises no security issues* since they are ordinary manu"actures that no nation or group cancredibly monopolize$


30/38


4arming rontline

RPS 4on6t reduce global #arming>ichaels 2 !% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=A

storE FCiborowskiG

Des-ite constant tweaking= N+6SO c 5 lative record is not enco raging. Its 3orecast acc racy as i5-rovedlittle wit ex-erience= -artic larly 3or longer ori@ons like t ose o3 RPS st dies. Some seemingly accurate"orecasts


31/38

DDI 08 ,1Ciborowski RPS Neg

China o""sets gains

China #on6t comply #ith modeling+ means no solvencyBergsten 2 !9ow :as ington S o ld Res-ond to C inaOs

+cono5ic C allengeA= tt-'BBwww.3oreigna33airs.orgB 0080*013aessay8*"0"2-!0Bc23red2bergstenBa2-artners i-2o32e als. t5l E FCiborowskiG

6ore 3ar2reac ing ste-s 5ig t involve t e creation o3 new international nor5s and instit tional arrange5entsto govern iss e areas t at are i5-ortant b t c rrently nreg lated= s c as global war5ing and sovereignwealt 3 nds


32/38


China and India o""set gains

)rend to#ards global decarbonization o" developed countries is increasing ma-ingdeclines in C 2 emissions and a shi"t to alternative energy inevitable

Robert Bryce = 5anaging editor o3 +nergy &rib ne 5aga@ine= 6 != >& e ;ood News %bo t+nergyA= tt-'BBwww.a5erican.co5Barc iveB 008BJ ly2a g st25aga@ine2contentsBt e2good2news2abo t2energy

(mid this torrent o" doom and gloom* there is some good ne#s that has largely beenignored by the media< the trend to#ard consumption o" cleaner "uels that contain lesscarbon$ )his decrease in the carbon intensity o" global energy use* -no#n asdecarbonization* has been ongoing "or more than t#o centuries and appears to begathering speed$ Better still* decarbonization is continuing #ithout governmentmandates or subsidies$ )he reason "or this is clear< consumers are al#ays see-ing thecleanest* densest "uels that they can get$ Diven a choice* most consumers #ould pre"er coo-ing theirdinner over a natural gas stove rather than a #ood "ire$ >ost also pre"er electric lights to -erosene lanterns orcandles "or illuminating their homes$ )he reasons "or these pre"erences are obvious< natural gas and electricity

don6t pollute indoor air #hen they are used$ Lo#er carbon "uels are lighter* more easily transported* and more"lexible than their high+carbon competitors$ Coal is denser* contains more energy* and is easier to handle than#ood$ Fil ta-es up hal" as much space as coal and can be transported easily and cheaply by pipeline$ Natural gascan be used "or many o" the same purposes as oil* including terrestrial transportation* po#er generation* andspace heating* but is no# cheaper than oil Hon a Btu basis $ Plus* gas emits about hal" as much carbon dioxide ascoal and creates "ar "e#er air pollutants than either oil or coal$ %lectricity H#hich o" course must be manu"actured"rom coal* natural gas* oil* or uranium is extremely "lexible* is easily transported via #ires* and can be s#itchedon or o"" #ith the "lic- o" a s#itch$ 0sing carbon+based "uels li-e coal* oil* and natural gas to create cleaner* moreordered "orms o" energy li-e electricity provides opportunities to use evermore sophisticated tools* #ith computersand lasers being prime examples o" this trend$ )he decarbonization o" the #orld6s energy mix has been ongoing"or centuries$ rom prehistory through the 13 s and early 1! s* #ood #as the #orld6s most common "uel$ 4oodhas a carbon+to+hydrogen ratio HC


33/38

DDI 08 ,,Ciborowski RPS Neg

gas. / t w ile bot co ntries are - rs ing coal in t e near ter5= t eir longer2ter5 ex-ansion -lans call 3orincreasing se o3 nat ral gas= bot in t e 3or5 o3 do5estically -rod ced gas and in t e 3or5 o3 i5-ortedli e3ied nat ral gas. %nd as t e two co ntries increase t eir gas cons 5-tion= t e -rocess o3 decarboni@ationwill likely contin e. : ile C ina and India get lots o3 attention= /ra@il a--ears to be t e o tlier wit regard todecarboni@ation. % s bels latest researc s ows t at carbon intensity in /ra@il is act ally going -ward. & is>carboni@ationA o3 /ra@ils econo5y is d e to t e s ccess o3 Petrobras= t e state2owned energy co5-any= w ic over t e

-ast 3ew years as s own re5arkable -rowess at 3inding and develo-ing oil 3ields in t e dee- water o33 t e /ra@iliancoast. & at s ccess was 3 rt ered last Nove5ber w en Petrobras anno nced t at its new o33s ore & -i 3ield 5ay old -to 8 billion barrels o3 oil e ivalentUone o3 t e largest oil discoveries in t e last 0 years. So t e -rocess o3decarboni@ation is not a s5oot one. & ere will be icc -s along t e way as vario s co ntries= -artic larlyt ose in t e develo-ing world= grow t eir econo5ies and se t eir indigeno s energy reso rces.( rt er5ore= decarboni@ation wont - t 5ore oil in t e gro nd= nor will it alt t e 3low o3 carbon dioxideinto t e eart s at5os- ere. / t t e b rgeoning se o3 low2 or no2carbon reso rces s c as nat ral gas andn clear -ower -rovide o-e t at -eak oil will not be t e cala5ito s event t at so5e are -redicting. %nd ast ese cleaner 3 els slowly take 5arket s are away 3ro5 5ore carbon2intensive 3 els= t ey will el- slow t erate o3 growt o3 global carbon dioxide e5issions. 43 co rse= no one knows 3or certain w at concentration o3at5os- eric carbon dioxide is o-ti5al. / t 4dell -redicts t at over t e co5ing cent ry t e increasing se o3 nat ral gas>will restrain t e rate o3 growt in ant ro-ogenic2created e5issionsA o3 carbon dioxide by abo t 1# -ercent w enco5-ared to t e e5issions t at wo ld occ r i3 c rrent2day -ercentages o3 coal and oil cons 5-tion re5ained nc anged.& e res lt o3 t is increasing se o3 nat ral gas= -redicts 4dell= is t at carbon dioxide e5issions >in 100 see5

nlikely to be 5 c 5ore t an twice t eir 000 level.A


34/38


Drid ronline

1$ 4ithout upgrades o" the grid RPS is usless

ershee 2 ! < os a= +nergy 7aw o rnal= >C anging Reso rces= C anging 6arket' & e I5-act o3 a National RenewablePort3olio Standard on t e .S. +nergy Ind stry=A JstorE FCiborowskiG

4hether "rom #ind* solar* biomass* or other rene#able sources* massive amounts o" rene#able energygeneration #ould re'uire tremendous investment in ne# generation "acilities$ n1 8 So5e so rces= likesolar or wind= co ld even re ire additional invest5ent in additional traditional23 el generation to s --ort t einter5ittent energy so rces


35/38


States solve Blac-outs

States are ta-ing the necessary steps to solve "or the grid blac-outs

4hieldon 2 ! tilities 3ind co55on incentives to collaborate on 5aJor trans5ission

-roJects=A storE FCiborowskiG

(or t e 3irst ti5e in decades= utilities in the 4est are 9oining "orces to develop ma9or transmission linesthat #ould cross multiple state and national borders to access areas rich in rene#able resources$

S tilities ave yet to ta- into t e vast -otential o3 renewable generation in /ritis Col 5bia= Canada= andin -arts o3 t e Nort west beca se ntil now= t eyOve ad little to no econo5ic incentives. & e ig level o33inancial risk in erent in develo-ing large2scale 5 lti2J risdictional -ower lines as been eno g to scareaway even t e t ree largest tilities in Cali3ornia. / t t e -olitical cli5ate as beco5e 5ore 3avorable toward5aJor trans5ission -roJects in t e last 3ew years= say econo5ic analysts= inde-endent -ower -rod cers and

tility exec tives. (+RCOs o-en2access trans5ission tari33 re3or5s= state and 3ederal tax incentives and staterene#able port"olio standards HRPS are some o" the -ey motivators bringing utilities and developers

to the table "or grid expansion e""orts$


36/38

DDI 08 ,/Ciborowski RPS Neg

No compliance

F""icials #on6t "orce compliance ma-es the impacts inevitable

>ichaels 2 !% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=A

storE FCiborowskiG

State ex-eriences wit RPS s ggest t at it is less a breakt ro g t an anot er e-isode o3 reg lation2as2 s al. Its -olitical -oint is to s ow concern by instit ting a see5ingly stringent re ire5ent and leaving co5-liance 3orso5eone else to en3orce $ %lected o""icials #ill have little subse'uent interest* both because o" its obscurecomplexity and because serious en"orcement probably means higher bills$ Cali3orniaOs tilities and reg latorsa--ear to nderstand t e interests o3 legislators. Des-ite t e reality o3 al5ost no new o-erating renewables= t eCP COs an ary 00* re-ort to t e legislat re says tilities are closing in on t e 0 -ercent target wit 3o r years o3

-roc re5ent a ead. 8# 4n -age it notes t at t e legal de3inition o3 co5-liance is o-eration= b t all s bse entgra- ics and data re3er to signed contracts. Des-ite t e nenco raging data disc ssed above= t e CP C re-ortOs

-roJections ass 5e t at no new contracts will 3ail and all ex-iring ones will be renewed or re3or5 lated.

Political and economic interests #ill determine the provisions o" a "ederal RPS* and utilities #ill ma-e theirchoices about compliance . Cali3orniaOs a--ear to be treating t eir RPS as a tactical tool to reestablis -ri5acy t atas been di5inis ed by co5-etition and divestit res re ired by restr ct ring. Its RPS as bro g t back IRP andtility2environ5entalist collaboration= wit t e a--roval o3 legislators and reg lators. Its restrictive c rrent -olicies

and ncertain 3 t re ones ave drastically red ced in2state 3ossil generation invest5ents= and its co5ing carbonreg lation will 3 rt er raise -ower costs. Renewables will be delayed i3 t ey are b ilt at all= and de5and5anage5ent -rogra5s are also nder-er3or5ing.8$ & e co5ing cr nc -resents an ideal o--ort nity 3or tilities tovertically reintegrate t e5selves. In 00$ So t ern Cali3ornia +dison received an 4rder 3ro5 t e CP C to install

#06: o3 t rbines and !006: o3 de5and res-onse in antici-ation o3 a ca-acity s ort3all in s 55er 00*.8* & e - rc ase was exe5-ted 3ro5 co5-lex and lengt y co5-etitive -roc re5ent -roced res as a one2ti5e action to dealwit an i5-ending e5ergency= b t t ere are good reasons to ex-ect t at e-isodes like t is one will rec r. 5o#utilities and others #ill game a "ederal RPS #ill depend on its details* but there is little reason to assumeanyone #ill passively comply$


37/38


RPS .oesn6t help the environment

RPS .oesn6t a""ect the environment

>ichaels 2 !% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=A

storE FCiborowskiG

& e tilityOs o-ti5al c oice will de-end on ex-ectations o3 t e 3 t re and on t e legacy generation t e tilityis bringing 3orward. Renewables ave been available as s --ly o-tions 3or so5e ti5e= b t 5ost tilitiesa--ear to ave deter5ined t at t ey can 5eet t eir service obligations and re5ain in environ5entalco5-liance by investing in conventional -lants and de5and 5anage5ent. In states wit RPS= tilities avegenerally c osen to 5ake t e re ired co5-liance invest5ents in renewables= b t not to b ild renewables

beyond t ose a5o nts. % national RPS a33ects bot t ose states wit existing -rogra5s and t ose wit o t. Int e latter it 3orces t e costly 5odi3ication o3 s --ly -lans t at tilities ex-ect will be in co5-liance wit air

ality and ;9; reg lations. & e 3act t at renewables ave lower e5issions cannot by itsel3 J sti3y are ire5ent t at t ey be b ilt in lie o3 conventional generation. +cono5ic e33iciency 5eans -rod ction at

least cost= w ere costs re3lect t e 5arket val es o3 all relevant reso rces. : et er lower allowableconcentrations o3 -oll tants or e5issions o3 ;9; are warranted is -ro-erly t e s bJect o3 r le5akings liket ose t at ave set c rrently standards= rat er t an an ad oc reg lation like RPS.


38/38

DDI 08 ,!Ciborowski RPS Neg

RPS .oesn6t help the environment

National RPS #on6t help environment

% National Renewable Port3olio Standard' Politically Correct= +cono5ically S s-ect=AstorE FCiborowskiG

:e begin wit data on renewables w ic s ggests t at a 3ederal RPS will bring little diversity in generationreso rces and 3ew environ5ental bene3its. & e next sections exa5ine advocatesO clai5s 3or it= 3inding t e5inade ate at best. %s environ5ental -olicy= an RPS is ine33icient by every econo5ic standard. It is a costly5eas re w ose e33ects on e5issions are ncertain= di33ic lt to integrate wit existing environ5entalreg lation= and needlessly disr -tive o3 generation invest5ents intended to co5-ly wit antici-atede5issions r les. 4t er - r-orted conse ences are also estionable. %s 5acroecono5ic or ind strial -olicy=a national RPS cannot -ossibly create net increases in e5-loy5ent and r ral areas t at it will revitali@eseldo5 need t e el-. Clai5s t at it is necessary to sti5 late red ctions in -rod ction cost lose t eir 3orce ina global econo5y= as do ex-ectations t at it will -osition t e .S. to do5inate t e world renewables 5arket.Rat er t an 3acilitating risk 5anage5ent= standard renewables contracts only trans3er it 3ro5 tilities to

ca-tive c sto5ers. National sec rity is better advanced t ro g direct -olicies instead o3 co5- lsoryinvest5ent in renewables.

109 GT RPS Case Neg

Documents

Transcript of 109 GT RPS Case Neg