| April 26, 2007 To Fuel the Future Alaska's Need For Sound Renewable Energy Policies Part Two of a Two-Part Series by Brian Yanity, insurgent49  Part one
of this article described some renewable energy policies practical for
Alaska in short to medium term: state-level renewable energy funds,
renewable energy certificates, net metering, and tax credits. Here in
part two, we will explore some renewable energy policies that Alaskans
should know about for the longer-term. Like different renewable energy
sources themselves, some policies are more developed, or
‘mature’, than others.Renewable Portfolio Standards Twenty-two U.S. states and the District of Columbia now have a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which is a timetable for electric utilities to switch a specified portion of their power production to renewable sources. Under such a standard, utilities are typically given interim milestones, and must pay a fine if they do not meet them. For an RPS program to be successful, the specification of “renewable energy” needs to be clearly defined. For example, the state of California does not consider large-scale hydropower as renewable energy for its RPS policies. Large-scale hydropower, which usually involves the damming of rivers and creating artificial reservoirs that can flood large tracts of land, often carries significant environmental impacts. Also, the vast majority of the big hydroelectric dams in industrialized countries were installed years ago, and virtually no such facilities are planned in the United States. The inclusion of large hydropower into an RPS is also criticized by many policymakers as being “too easy”, especially if it includes existing power plants and thus does less to encourage the development of new power sources. For example, the RPS goals of the states of New York (25% by 2013) and Maine (30%) include existing large-scale hydroelectric facilities. By contrast, the state RPS programs of New Mexico (25% by 2025), New Jersey (22.5% by 2021), Nevada (20% by 2015), Hawaii (20% by 2020), Montana (15% by 2015), and Colorado (10% by 2015) do not include existing hydroelectric plants. Some members of the U.S. Congress are now proposing a national RPS at the federal level, proposing 10% of the entire nation’s electricity comes from renewable sources (not including existing hydro) by 2020, though it may take years for such a law to pass. The more ambitious “25 by ’25” initiative (www.25x25.org) proposes that 25% of the USA’s total energy demand be met by bioenergy sources by the year 2025. Supported mainly by the agriculture and forestry industries, this plan will push for ethanol, biodiesel, bio-methane, wood-fired generation, and farm-based wind/solar installations. On the international level, Germany plans to generate 20% of it electricity from non-hydro renewable sources by the year 2020, while Sweden plans to eliminate fossil-fueled power generation entirely by the same year. The European Union (EU) as a whole has an RPS for 12% of its electric power, well as 5.75% of all transport fuels, by the year 2010. The European Commission recently expanded this goal to 20% of all electric power, and 10% of transport fuels, by the year 2020. While the federal government drags its feet on renewable energy policy, governors and voters nationwide are taking the initiative at the state and municipal level. The nation’s most ambitious state-level renewable energy program is that of California. In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that accelerates the timetable for 20% of the Golden State’s electricity to be renewable by 2010, seven years earlier than previously required. At present, renewable energy (excluding large hydro) makes up about 11% of the state’s electric power. Over the next 11 years, the state of California’s Million Solar Roof program will pay $2.9 billion in rebates to households and businesses that install solar panels. In addition, the state government’s massive employee pension system, CalPERS, is to invest just under one billion dollars in renewable energy developments. The Pacific Northwest region is also a leader for renewable energy policy. In Alaska’s next-door neighbor, British Columbia, the provincial utility BC Hydro purchases green energy from independent power producers to encourage renewable development, and offers RECs to businesses. In Washington, voters on November 7th approved a ballot measure mandating that 15% of the state’s electricity be generated by renewable sources by 2015, not including hydroelectric. In 2004, Washington generated 70% of its power from hydroelectric, 9% from nuclear, 8% from natural gas, and slightly more than 2% from non-hydro renewable sources (mostly wind). So the new RPS initiative will aim to phase out Washington’s use of fossil generation sources of coal and natural gas within the next decade. In Oregon, which does not yet have an RPS, Governor Ted Kulongoski is developing a legislative package requiring a 25% RPS by the year 2025. Similar to Washington, Oregon generates 64% of its electricity from hydroelectric, 26% from natural gas, about 7% from coal, and slightly more than 2% from non-hydro renewables. Thus the 25% RPS would aim to displace coal and natural gas in the years ahead. Along with $20 million worth of state tax credits, Gov. Kulongoski wants to channel $5.2 million of state money into wave energy research alone. An RPS works best in a large grid system, such as those found in the European Union and most of the contiguous United States. For the short to medium-term, a state-level RPS is not the best renewable energy policy for Alaska, because the state’s electrical systems are rather ‘islanded’ and not connected to anywhere outside of the state. For example, the Railbelt grid, which extends from Homer to Fairbanks and serves the majority of the state’s population, has a total generation capacity of about 1340 MW and a peak demand around 800 MW. While this is by far the largest power grid in Alaska, by national standards this is still considered a relatively small power system. Under these circumstances, an RPS could even limit renewable energy development along Alaska’s Railbelt. For example, by only calling for an amount of new generation capacity which could be met by one project (such as the proposed 100 MW Fire Island wind farm), an RPS law could shut out other viable renewable projects by making them less financially attractive. In addition to the Railbelt grid, there are over 180 smaller power grid systems across the state that could all be considered ‘electrical islands’. Carbon Taxes and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Schemes The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the US and other industrialized nations must be greatly reduced. Taxes on carbon emissions have the potential to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels, and the revenues generated from such taxes could pay for renewable energy development. Several executives of large U.S. utilities, sensing that some form of carbon tax is inevitable, are actually petitioning the federal government for the creation of a carbon-taxing scheme to help with long-term planning. In April 2006, the U.S. Senate called on the nation’s top energy companies to testify about new legislation to regulate emissions. According to the August 27, 2006 Anchorage Daily News, six of the leading U.S. energy corporations who testified went on record supporting mandatory limits on carbon emissions: Shell, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, Exelon, General Electric, Sempra Energy and the New Mexico utility PNM Resources. Even Wal-Mart Corp. expressed support for new limits on carbon and other GHGs. Only two companies who testified went on record as opposed: the large, investor-owned utilities American Electric Power and the Southern Company. A coalition of 12 states, led by Massachusetts and California, recently won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [05-0120]. The case regards the authority of the federal government to regulate GHGs. California alone, if it were its own country, would rank among all nations as the 12th largest emitter of CO2 in the world. In September 2006, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aiming to cut the state’s overall GHG emissions 25% by the year 2020, and 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. In addition, California utilities were recently prohibited from buying electricity from coal-fired power plants located outside of the state. The governors of both Illinois and New Jersey have called for similar reductions in GHG emissions in their states. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997, signed by 163 nations, mandates that governments set limits on carbon emissions, although in 2001 President Bush withdrew the U.S. from this treaty almost as soon as he took office. In January 2007, chief executives of nine of the largest corporations in the US urged that the president mandate the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions be cut 60% (compared to the present level) by 2050. Calling themselves the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (www.us-cap.org), the group includes the chief executives of Alcoa, BP America, General Electric, DuPont, Caterpillar, Lehman Brothers and the electric utilities FPL Group and PG&E Corporation. At the municipal level, Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle led the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2005 to unanimously support local efforts to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. A U.S. city with a particularly forward-thinking energy policy is Albuquerque, which has set aside 3% of all city bond revenues for energy conservation and renewables, and 15% of the city’s overall power consumption is now generated from wind. The city government of Austin, Texas has set a goal of having 100% of its municipal facilities powered by renewable energy by 2012, and its entire vehicle fleet ‘carbon neutral’ by 2020. Recently, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage has signed on to the U.S Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The best ‘cap’ of greenhouse gases would involve the progressive tightening of standards with time, and the phase-in of energy sources that never emit GHGs in the first place. Cap-and-trade schemes allow companies to rights ‘on the market’ to exceed their limits on greenhouse gases from other companies prepared to reduce emissions at lower cost. The United Nations Clean Development Mechanism allows businesses in relatively wealthy nations to buy RECs which fund pollution-reduction in poorer countries. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), started in 2003, is North America’s only voluntary, yet legally binding, greenhouse gas reduction and trading system. The CCX involves emission sources and offset (clean energy) projects in North America and Brazil, involves independent verification of six different GHGs. The CCX’s sister organization is the European Climate Exchange (ECX), which is part of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EUETS). Environmentally-minded opponents of GHG ‘cap and trade’ schemes say such ‘carbon offsets’ give people the false impression that they can keep on polluting (e.g. “business as usual”), or that just efforts by individuals will solve global warming when more fundamental, and collective, changes are needed. Renewable Energy Policies for Alaska’s Future Here in Alaska, the Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) (www.alaskarenewableenergy.org) is pushing renewable energy policy initiatives at the state and local levels. The REAP board of directors recently established that an REF is the best renewable energy policy for Alaska today. A state-wide REF has also been endorsed by the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the Alaska Municipal League, the Alaska Power Association, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference and the Alaska Federation of Natives. A bill to establish a state renewable energy fund (REF) was introduced on February 26, 2007 in both the senate (SB96) and the house (HB152) of the Alaska State Legislature. To be administered by the Alaska Energy Authority, the proposed REF would support clean energy development with production incentives, loans and matching grants financed by general appropriations. Of the total money to be disbursed by the REF, 90% is allotted for the actual design and construction of energy projects, while 10% is to pay for reconnaissance and feasibility studies needed to launch new renewable energy projects. In addition, pre-filed bills up for consideration by the 25th Alaska State Legislature carried over from the 24th legislature include both a house (HB 73) and senate bill (SB 44) to support development of the Fire Island wind project, and a house bill establishing a hydrogen energy program (HB 56). The Alaska Rural Energy Action Plan of 2005, which was supported by state and federal government agencies, recommend that the state government “adopt an aggressive position supporting alternatives” to conventional diesel generation. It also recommended that “$30 million over the next five years” be spent on wind energy in communities in rural Alaska. The two leaders in wind energy among Alaska’s rural electric utilities are Kotzebue Electric Association and the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Another utility leader is the Fairbanks-based Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), which in 2005 adopted a green power pledge stating that 10% of the cooperative’s peak power is to come from renewable sources by 2007, and 20% by 2014. For the 110th U.S. Congress, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), has introduced a bill named the Renewable Energy, Fuel Reduction, and Economic Stabilization and Enhancement (REFRESH) Act of 2007 (S 198). This legislation is designed to provide more federal incentives for renewable energy production and energy efficiency, as well as to strengthen fuel economy standards for vehicles. Senator Murkowski said that “it only makes sense that we take common sense steps now to improve fuel efficiency, to promote the development of alternative energy technologies and to encourage Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.” Contact your elected representatives, and tell them to support the proposed state and federal bills described above. The status quo of Alaska energy production and consumption won’t cut it for the 21st century. More renewable energy development in Alaska is inevitable, but with the right policies it we can realize its benefits sooner rather than later. Links about renewable energy policies and programs both in Alaska and beyond: www.akenergyauthority.org/programsalternative(2).html www.dsireusa.org www.acore.org www.apolloalliance.org www.crest.org www.ef.org www.wcre.de/en/index.php Brian Yanity is a graduate student at UAA, activist and freelance writer. He resides in an undisclosed location in Southcentral Alaska, and can be reached at byanity@insurgent49.com. |
-
Columnists -
-
also by this
writer -
To Fuel the Future, part one Alaska's Megaproject Mentality, part two American Money, Israeli Apartheid, part two Alaska's Megaproject Mentality, part one American Money, Israeli Apartheid, part one The Price of Fire: An Interview With Benjamin Dangl A Letter To Governor Palin From A Concerned UAA Graduate Student The Power of the Sun 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Help George Bush Bioenergy Potential, From Brazil to Alaska An Introduction To Geothermal Energy Going Nuclear, part two Going Nuclear, part one A Sea of Potential A Letter to Mayor Begich On Renewable Energy In Anchorage Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold, Part2 Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold, Part 1 A Letter To BP From a Concerned Alaskan White Gold A Town Without Cars The Myth Of Outside Balto and Togo The Alaska Gas Pipeline: A Critical Analysis, Part Two The Alaska Gas Pipeline: A Critical Analysis, Part One Dispatches From New York City Alaska's Radical Labor History: 1905-1920 Anchorage In the Year 2030 All Aboard City Assembly Resists Change, Democracy Public Power: An Alaskan Tradition Alaska Oil and the Middle East A Fuel tax To Fund People Mover Interview With Rich Seifert Dear Mayor Begich ... Another Alaska Is Possible Avoiding Left Wing Cliches Remember The Knik Arm Ferry? A Million Trips A Day The Rest Of America Upside Down World Alaskan In Palestine North To The Future Ten Reasons To Stop The Knik Arm Bridge Missing The Bus Interview With Evon Peter |
||||||||
| Copyright
2005-2007
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||||
