clean energy solutions - amazon web services · energy efficiency and renewable energy in new...

Clean EnergySolutions

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in New Mexico

NMPIRG Education FundMarch 2002

Clean EnergySolutions

Marianne ZugelBrad Heavner

NMPIRG Education FundMarch 2002

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in New Mexico

The New Mexico PIRG Education Fund gratefully acknowledges Phil Radford (Power Shift),Ron Larson (National Renewable Energy Lab, retired), Karl Gawell (Geothermal EnergyAssociation), John Thorton (National Renewable Energy Lab), Jennifer Lane (Altair En-ergy, LLC), Dave Rib (KJC Operating Company), and the many other analysts who pro-vided information for this report. Thanks to Ben Luce (New Mexico Solar EnergyAssociation) for technical review. Special thanks to Jeanne Bassett and Rob Sargent forassistance in the development, drafting, and production of this report. Thanks also to KatherineMorrison, Anna Aurilio, Rebecca Stanfield, and Susan Rakov for editorial assistance. Thanksto Chris Chatto for layout design.

Cover photographs courtesy of DOE/NREL.

This report was made possible by the generous support of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations arethose of the New Mexico PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report arethose of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.

© 2002 New Mexico PIRG Education Fund

The New Mexico PIRG Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization working on environ-mental protection, consumer rights, and good government in New Mexico.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:

NMPIRGP.O. Box 40173Albuquerque, NM 87196

For more information about the New Mexico PIRG Education Fund, please visit the NMPIRGweb site at www.nmpirg.org.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6PART I: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONVENTIONAL ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

IMPACTS OF FOSSIL FUEL BURNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Soot and Sulfur Dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Smog and Nitrogen Oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Acid Rain, Sulfur Dioxide, and Nitrogen Oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Nitrogen Loading and Nitrogen Oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11The Toxic Food Chain and Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

OTHER IMPACTS OF ENERGY PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Coal Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Natural Gas and Coalbed Methane Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PART II: THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTION . . . . . . . . 15RENEWABLE ENERGY AND EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL IN NEW MEXICO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Wind Energy Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Solar Energy Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Geothermal Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Biomass Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Energy Savings Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY AND EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Wind Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Solar Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Geothermal Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Energy Savings Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

POLLUTION REDUCTION REALIZED WITH CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Pollution Reduction in New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Pollution Reduction Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Energy-Efficient Technologies and their Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Renewable Energy Technologies and their Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Economic Development Benefits of Clean Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Conventional Sources of Electricity Generation and their Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

JOB GAINS FROM CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Net Job Gains in New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Net Job Gains Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41STATE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41FEDERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS4

As energy markets struggle for stabil-ity, state officials have the opportu-nity for a fundamental reassessment

of long-term energy policy. We can nowchoose alternative fuel sources and new tech-nologies to clean up our future. Ample clean,renewable resources and energy efficiencytechnologies can provide us with stable, re-liable, and cost-effective electricity whilereducing pollution.

Traditional Power Production PromotesGlobal Warming and Damages PublicHealth

Today’s electric power industry is the mostpolluting industry in the nation. The electricpower industry alone is responsible for 53%of New Mexico’s carbon dioxide (CO

2) emis-

sions, the principle cause of global warm-ing. Power plants are also the largestindustrial source of pollution that causes se-vere public health damage. New Mexicopower plants are responsible for 45% of thestate’s emissions of sulfur dioxide, 47% ofits emissions of nitrogen oxide, and 64% ofits emissions of mercury. The New Mexicoelectric industry emits 11 tons of CO

2 more

per person each year than the U.S. average.

Clean Energy Can Grow Rapidly in theNext Decade

Renewables have advanced technologicallyand commercially to the point where theyare now ready for wide-scale development,and there are still many opportunities for ef-ficiency improvements. Huge untapped po-tential exists at both the state and nationallevels. Economic analysis and technologicalconsiderations suggest that the following tar-gets are both reasonable and desirable.• Renewable energy sources could provide

15% of the total electricity for the stateby 2010. Nearly all of this potential re-mains untapped today, with coal andnuclear power meeting 89% of NewMexico’s power needs.

� Wind power is the renewable technol-ogy the state could develop the quick-est. 1,340 peak MW of New Mexico’s166,000 MW potential could comeonline by 2010.

� New Mexico has the resources to be-come the solar powerhouse for thenation. As a first step, it could develop100 MW of solar thermal power, in-creasing the contribution of solar ther-mal power in the U.S. by 28%.

� The U.S. Geological Survey rankedNew Mexico second among the statesfor geothermal potential. By 2010,137 MW of its 2,700 MW potentialcould come online.

• If the entire state were to emulate the per-formance of state agencies investing incost-effective energy efficiency measures,New Mexico could reduce anticipated to-tal electricity demand by 7.7% within ayear.

• By 2010, 125,000 MW of renewable en-ergy capacity could be operational nation-ally, enough to replace 80 large fossil fuelpower plants.

• Policies promoting energy efficiencycould cut the nation’s electricity demandby 15%, saving 72,000 average MW an-nually.

Renewable Energy and Energy EfficiencyReduce Pollution

If these 2010 goals were to be achieved, NewMexico would reduce annual CO

2 emissions

by as much as 25%, or 8 million tons, com-pared to projections for the current path. Thiswould also reduce health-damaging pollu-tion by 26%.

Nationally by 2010, energy efficiency andrenewable energy development at the levelsdescribed above would enable the U.S. toreduce CO

2 emissions by as much as 37% –

one billion tons annually – compared to the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS 5

current path. Health-damaging pollutionwould be reduced by as much as 43%.

Clean Energy Is the Best Economic Choice

Policies encouraging renewables and energyefficiency would grow the economy morethan a business-as-usual scenario.• Electricity generation from renewable

energy involves a higher proportion of itscosts for labor as compared to fossil fuelelectricity generation, in which much ofthe cost goes to fuel. Wind and solar pho-tovoltaic operations each provide 40%more jobs per dollar of investment thando coal operations. Meeting stricter en-ergy efficiency goals would also requireincreases in employment.

• Policies encouraging clean energy wouldlead to net increases in employment in theU.S. and in each individual state. NewMexico would see a net gain of 4,200 jobs,while the U.S. as a whole would gain morethan 700,000 jobs by 2010.

• The best wind, solar, and geothermalprojects can produce electricity at a lowercost than fossil fuels when external life-cycle costs of electricity generation aretaken into account.

• Energy efficiency programs of the pastfive years have avoided the need for25,000-30,000 MW of generating capac-ity – the equivalent of 100 power plants –at a cost that is less than that of energyfrom most new power plants.

Comprehensive Energy Policies Are Needed

Two specific policies in particular would besthelp New Mexico and the U.S. realize itsclean energy potential:• A renewable energy standard requiring all

retail electricity suppliers to obtain a setpercentage of their electricity from renew-able sources. New Mexico should enact astandard calling for its energy mix to in-clude 12% renewables by 2010 and 20%by 2020, while the national goal shouldbe set at 20% renewables by 2020.

• A utility clean energy fund using a set per-centage of revenues to finance programspromoting energy efficiency and renew-able energy.


New Mexico is blessed with abundantresources. In addition to the beauti-ful vistas, the state has more than

enough wind, sunshine, and geothermal re-sources to power every home, business, andfactory. Yet we are using almost none of thesevaluable resources. Instead, we are generat-ing electricity almost entirely from fossilfuels, which pollute New Mexico’s air andprecious water supplies, damage the healthof New Mexicans, and contribute to globalwarming.

Current plans are to continue down thisdirty and dangerous path. Peabody Coalwants to expand coal-mining operations andbuild a new coal power plant in northwestNew Mexico. The Public Service Companyof New Mexico just announced thegroundbreaking for a new natural gas powerplant outside of Las Cruces. Plans are beingdeveloped or permits pending for thirteenother natural gas power plants.1

Since New Mexico exports about half ofthe electricity it generates, New Mexicansalready suffer a gross imbalance in thetradeoff of pollution impacts and electricitybenefits.2 Carbon dioxide (CO2), a principalglobal warming gas, is a telling example. TheNew Mexico electric industry emits 11 moretons of CO2 per New Mexican each year thanthe U.S. electric industry does on averageper American.3

Damages from global climate change aresteadily increasing in frequency and sever-ity. We are approaching a threshold beyondwhich the warming trend will be outside ofhuman control. The number of worldwideweather disasters in the 1990s, for example,was more than five times the number for the1950s, and damages were more than tentimes as high.4

Here in New Mexico, increases in insect-and rodent-borne diseases and other ripplingeffects of longer droughts punctuated byheavier rains are examples of potentially

devastating results of climate change. Al-ready, New Mexico saw the emergence ofhantavirus pulmonary syndrome with theupsurge of rodent populations that accom-pany extreme weather. The population ofdeer mice, the primary carrier of the disease,could proliferate again under a longerdrought scenario that would kill off many ofits predators.

Water supplies in the state are already ofmajor concern as groundwater levels are fall-ing in response to ever-increasing withdraw-als to satisfy irrigation needs, sprawlingcities, and other competing interests. TheGila River is the only U.S. river basin to haveall 47 of its native freshwater fish speciesextinct, listed as endangered or threatened,or under consideration to be listed.5 Furtherstresses to water supplies resulting from in-creased evaporation in higher temperaturesand changes in the amounts and timing ofprecipitation could prove to be disastrous forcommunities, livestock, and wildlife.

As a nation, events of the past year, in-cluding market-based energy shortages onthe West Coast, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, andwar in the Middle East and Central Asia, haveled us to the brink of a crucial decision. Dowe stay on the same old unreliable and pol-luting path? Or do we shift to a new cleanenergy path, meeting the nation’s ever-grow-ing power needs with sustainable, domesticenergy sources that enhance national secu-rity and mitigate against further warming ofour atmosphere? This report shows how weare now able to choose the clean energy pathand why it is environmentally and economi-cally the better choice. We can simulta-neously meet our growing electricity needs,reduce pollution contributing to globalwarming, and grow the nation’s economy.

New Mexico has the resources to becomea leader in the nation’s new clean energy fu-ture. Now is the time to employ the 21st cen-tury technology that will enable New Mexico

INTRODUCTION


to establish itself as an enduring leader. Wehave capitalized on our fossil fuel resourcesduring their 40-year peak, but now we mustrecognize that it is time to change and capi-talize on our nearly unlimited clean energyresources. Now is the time to implementclean energy solutions.


Impacts of FossilFuel BurningIn New Mexico, electricity generation is re-sponsible for:• 53% of emissions of carbon dioxide, a

principal global warming gas.6

• 45% of emissions of sulfur dioxide, a pre-cursor of fine particulate matter, acid rain,and regional haze.7

• 47% of emissions of nitrogen oxides, aprecursor of ground-level ozone (smog),particulate matter, acid rain, global warm-ing, nitrogen overloading in waterwaysand forests, and regional haze.8

• 64% of emissions of man-made mercury,a toxic metal that bioaccumulates in ani-mals and spreads through the food chainto humans.9

Electricity generation in the U.S. is respon-sible for:• 40 percent of emissions of carbon diox-

ide.10

• 67 percent of emissions of sulfur dioxide.11

• 23 percent of emissions of nitrogen ox-ide.12

• 33 percent of emissions of man-mademercury.13

All fossil fuel-burning power plants pol-lute the air to varying degrees. Coal-firedpower plants are by far the dirtiest. Oil-burn-ing power plants emit less pollution thanthose using coal, but more than natural gas-fired plants. Natural gas produces cleaneremissions than other fossil fuels, but U.S.power plants burn enough of it to producehundreds of millions of tons of CO2 eachyear.

Although coal is the energy source used togenerate 52% of electricity in the U.S., coal-burning power plants account for 87.5% of

PART I: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

OF CONVENTIONAL ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

the CO2, 95.2% of the SO2, and 90.9% ofthe NOx emitted collectively by all electricpower plants.15

In New Mexico, coal is used for most(89%) of the state’s electricity needs. Its twolargest power plants are among the dirtiestin the U.S. Four Corners Power Plant andSan Juan Generating Station are responsiblefor 88% of all power plant CO

2 emissions in

the state.16

Global Warmingand Carbon DioxideGlobal warming is perhaps the most seriousenvironmental challenge of our time. The

Figure 1: CO 2 EmissionRates of Power Plants Burning

Fossil Fuels 14

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Coal Oil Gas

Emissi

onRat

e(lbs

/MWh)

Figure 2: SO 2 and NOx EmissionRates of Power PlantsBurning Fossil Fuels

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Coal Oil Gas

Emissi

onRat

e(lbs

/MWh)

SO2

NOx


world’s leading climate scientists, econo-mists, and other experts formed the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)in 1988 to verify the recent dramatic increasein the earth’s temperature and to identify itscauses and consequences. What they havefound is alarming.• The average daytime global surface tem-

perature rose 0.6°C (1.08°F) over the 20thcentury. The average nighttime minimumsurface temperature over land, the moreindicative measurement of global tem-perature change, rose an average of 0.2°Cper decade since 1950.17

• The 1990s were warmer than the 1980s,previously the warmest decade on record.The warmest year on record was 1998.18

The IPCC predicts that if greenhouse gasemissions are not stabilized, the average glo-bal surface temperature will increase by 1.4-5.8°C between 1990 and 2100.19 This levelof increase is put into perspective by the factthat during the last ice age (about 18,000years ago), the earth’s average surface tem-perature was only 9°C cooler than it is now.20

The impacts of warmer global tempera-tures are predicted to include many seriousand broad-ranging effects, some of whichhave already begun:• Increased frequency and intensity of heat

waves, fires, droughts, rainfall, and flood-ing.

• Rising sea levels that overtake islands andcoastal areas.

• Disruption and loss of ecosystems, push-ing species to extinction and renderinghistorically fertile farmland unproductive.

• Increased geographic range and virulenceof infectious and tropical diseases.Although natural variations in the output

of the sun can contribute to climate change,the IPCC has found that natural contributionsare minimal compared to the effects of hu-man activities. By burning fossil fuels in ourpower plants, we are releasing pollution that

is altering the atmosphere at a rapid pace.Normally the atmosphere allows excess heatto leave the earth, but air pollution referredto as greenhouse gases, such as CO2, worklike a blanket that traps heat near the earth’ssurface. As concentrations of greenhousegases increase, more heat gets trapped andglobal temperatures rise. Carbon dioxide(CO2) is by far the most abundant green-house gas. The atmospheric concentration ofcarbon dioxide has increased by 31% since1750.21

In its latest update on climate change, theIPCC concluded, “There is new and stron-ger evidence that most of the warming ob-served over the last 50 years is attributableto human activities.”22 Fossil fuel burningaccounts for three-quarters of the CO2 emis-sions associated with human activities. TheU.S. electric industry alone, which accountsfor 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions, emitsmore CO2 than the total CO2 emissions fromany other nation.

Soot and Sulfur DioxidePower plants are by far the largest source ofsulfur dioxide (SO2).23 More than 12,000of the nearly 19,000 tons of SO2 the nationemits annually comes from electric powerplants. SO2 is a large component of fine par-ticulate matter, or “soot.”24 Particulate mat-ter is the type of air pollution that is visiblein the air – ash, dust, and acid aerosols.

When inhaled, these tiny particles becomedeeply embedded in the lungs. The particlescannot be expelled by coughing, swallow-ing, or sneezing. As they sit in lung tissuethey cause varying degrees of irritation,which can lead to loss of heart and lung func-tion. Health consequences range from bron-chitis and chronic cough to death.25 Fineparticulate matter is of most concern to vul-nerable populations, including young chil-dren, the elderly, and those with asthma orother respiratory diseases. A study conductedby the Harvard School of Public Health esti-mates that more than 60,000 lives are cut


short each year in the U.S. due to fine par-ticulate pollution.26

Particulate air pollution can travel far fromits source. The visual effect of particulate airpollution is referred to as haze. Haze hasspread so far as to infiltrate some ofAmerica’s most pristine national parks,blocking vistas and posing health risks forthose who use the parks for recreation.

Smog and Nitrogen OxidesPower plants are the largest industrial sourceof nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution, whichcauses formation of ground-level ozone (alsoknown as smog). Ozone is our nation’s mostprevalent and well-understood air contami-nant. Despite reductions in smog levels sincethe passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970,today an estimated 117 million people livein areas where the air is unsafe to breathedue to ozone.27 In 1999, the ozone healthstandard adopted by the EPA in 1997 wasexceeded 7,200 times.28

Ozone is an invisible, odorless gas, whichis formed when nitrogen oxides mix withvolatile organic compounds (reactive man-made chemical air pollutants) in the presenceof sunlight. Public health is most at risk dur-ing “ozone season,” from mid-May to mid-September in most places, when there isplenty of sunlight.

When inhaled, ozone at high concentra-tions can oxidize or “burn through” lung tis-sue. Breathing ozone at high concentrationscan cause airways to the lungs to becomeswollen and inflamed. Eventually, this causesscarring and decreases the amount of oxy-gen that is delivered to the body with eachbreath. The corrosive effect of exposure toozone in the respiratory system increasessusceptibility to infections. Outdoor exerciseon days when ozone concentrations are highincreases the impact on the respiratory sys-tem.

As is the case with soot, ozone poses amore serious health threat to vulnerablepopulations, including children, the elderly,

and people with asthma or chronic pulmo-nary disorders (including chronic bronchitisand emphysema). A number of studies havelinked ozone pollution with increased fre-quency of emergency room visits, includingone study of 25 hospitals that found highozone levels were associated with at least a21% increase in emergency room visits forpeople aged 64 and older.29

Ozone has also been linked to increasedfrequency of asthma attacks. On high-smogdays, children with asthma are 40% morelikely to suffer asthma attacks compared todays with average pollution levels.30 A 1999Abt Associates study estimated that morethan six million asthma attacks nationwidewere triggered by smog during the ozonesmog season of 1997.31 In New Mexico, 600asthma attacks were triggered by smog in1999.32

New research has also shown that highsmog levels can not only exacerbate exist-ing asthma, but can cause the disease as well.A five-year study conducted at the Univer-sity of Southern California found that activechildren growing up in high smog areas aremore likely to develop asthma than inactivechildren, while no such relation exists amongchildren living in low smog areas.33

Acid Rain, Sulfur Dioxide,and Nitrogen OxidesSulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides do theirdamage not only via airborne ozone and par-ticulates, but also by causing acid rain, whichthreatens entire forest and aquatic ecosys-tems. Once emitted into the air, sulfur andnitrogen oxides form sulfates and nitratesrespectively, which are the principal com-ponents that change the pH of rainwater fromneutral to dangerously acidic.

Acid in rain, clouds, and fog damages treesin two primary ways:1. Directly damaging the needles and foli-

age, making them unusually vulnerable toadverse conditions, including cold tem-perature.


2. Depleting nutrients from the soils in whichthe trees grow.Acid clouds and fog generally have even

higher concentrations of damaging sulfatesand nitrates than acid rain. Thus, acid depo-sition is linked to the decline of red sprucegrowing at high elevations and in coastalareas, both of which are immersed in acidclouds and fog for long time periods.34

Lake and stream ecosystems are also vul-nerable to the effects of acid rain. As the acid-ity of the lakes and streams increases, thenumber of species that can live there de-clines.35

Nitrogen Loadingand Nitrogen OxidesNitrogen oxide emissions from power plantsare a major contributing factor to nitrogenloading in water bodies across the UnitedStates. Too much nitrogen causes algaeblooms, which deplete the oxygen and killmarine life as they decay. Algae blooms alsoblock sunlight that fish, shellfish, and aquaticvegetation need to survive. Nitrogen oxidesreleased into the air can be carried hundredsof miles by the wind and fall into lakes andrivers.

The effects of nitrogen loading can be dev-astating for plant and animal life in thesewater bodies, as well as for people who de-pend on these waters for tourism, subsistencefishing, commercial fishing, and recreation.

The Toxic FoodChain and MercuryMercury is a toxic heavy metal that persistsin the environment once it is released. Wheningested in its methylated form, mercury cancause serious neurological damage, particu-larly to developing fetuses, infants, and chil-dren.36 The neurotoxic effects of low-levelexposure to methylmercury are similar to theeffects of lead toxicity in children, and in-clude delayed development and deficits incognition, language, motor function, atten-

tion, and memory.37 Other studies havelinked a history of mercury exposure withneurological problems, heart disease, andAlzheimer’s disease in adults.38

Numerous species of fish in thousands ofbodies of water across 41 of the 50 statescontain such high levels of toxic methylm-ercury that health agencies have warnedagainst eating them. The number of con-sumption advisories due to mercury poison-ing increased 149% from 1993 to 2000.39

People most at risk include women ofchild-bearing age, pregnant women and theirfetuses, nursing mothers and children, andsubsistence fishers. Large predator fish suchas largemouth bass, walleye, shark, tuna, andswordfish have higher levels of methylmer-cury in them than smaller species lower inthe food web.40 People who frequently androutinely consume fish (i.e., several servingsa week), those who eat fish with higher lev-els of methylmercury, and those who eat alarge amount of fish over a short period oftime (e.g., anglers on vacation) are morelikely to be exposed to higher levels of mer-cury.41

Mercury’s primary entrance into the hu-man diet occurs when mercury is emitted intothe air and undergoes photochemical oxida-tion, forming oxidized mercury. Oxidizedmercury is water-soluble and is deposited toland, lakes, and streams by rain and snow,where it reacts with bacteria to form meth-ylmercury, the form most toxic to humans.42

Methylmercury bioaccumulates to the great-est extent in the tissue of fish and otheraquatic organisms and persists forever in theenvironment, magnifying its public healthimpacts.

Based on national emissions estimates for1994-95, coal and oil-burning power plantsare the largest stationary sources of mercuryemissions (32.8%), followed by municipalwaste incinerators (18.7%), commercial andindustrial boilers powered by coal or oil(17.9%), medical waste incinerators (10.1%),and hazardous waste incinerators (4.4%).43


Other Impactsof Energy Production

Coal ExcavationMining for coal is a dirty, dangerous, anddestructive process. It contaminates the land,surface water, groundwater, and air. To getto the coal, enormous chunks of earth are dugup from the surface or displaced by remov-ing mountaintops (surface mining), or areexcavated from beneath the ground (under-ground mining) and discarded into wastepiles. Wildlife habitat, agricultural crops,forests, rangeland, and deserts are destroyedand replaced by pits, quarries, and tailingpiles. Reclaiming a coal mine (replacing veg-etation and restoring the landscape) helpsreduce permanent disruption, but in spite ofrestoration efforts, original ecosystems maybe replaced by completely different ecosys-tems, and hundreds of thousands of acres ofmines have been abandoned rather than re-stored.

Water pollution is an enormous problemof coal mining. Waste piles of excavated dirtdeposit toxic heavy metals and sediment thatpollute and alter the course of local water-ways. More waste from the washing of minedcoal is added to these piles that grow on theorder of tens of millions of tons per year.44

Underground mining can contaminate andphysically dislocate entire underground res-ervoirs that serve as drinking water suppliesfor many Americans.

The Western Pennsylvania Coalition forAbandoned Mine Reclamation calculated thecost of cleaning up pollution from old coalmines in Pennsylvania to be $15 billion, al-though they believe it’s likely that estimateis low.45 The U.S. Bureau of Mines estimatesthat the U.S. spends over $1 million each dayto treat acidic mine water.46 The cost ofcleaning up abandoned lands that had beenused for mining coal is $10,000 per acre.47

“Clean coal” has been touted as the solu-tion to the horrendous environmental legacy

of coal, claiming energy can be harnessedfrom coal without causing environmentaldamage. Although clean coal measures in-volve more responsible management of coal-generated pollution, the actual pollutionreduction is marginal and air pollution miti-gation strategies ultimately redirect the tox-ins and emit them into the environmentthrough different routes (like the land orwater). “Clean coal” techniques also encour-age increased coal use in the long term. TheGeneral Accounting Office concluded thatfederal spending on “clean coal” technologyhas been a waste of money.48 $2 billion hasbeen spent so far, and current proposalswould double that amount.49

Natural Gas and CoalbedMethane ExcavationWhen natural gas is retrieved from reservoirs,the construction of roads and gas pipelinesdestroys huge amounts of wildlife habitat.Transporting the gas, which is explosive bynature, is increasingly dangerous as the U.S.pipeline infrastructure ages. One quarter ofthe nation’s natural gas pipelines are morethan fifty years old.50 Over the past decade,the number of serious accidents has steadilyincreased.51

Natural gas is often found in associationwith oil. The damage occurring from oil drill-ing and transport is probably the best knownof the environmental impacts of fossil fuelexcavation, due to the regularity of oil spillsand the duration of their scathing effects.Less known is the fact that leaks commonlygo undetected, accounting for hundreds ofthousands of gallons of spilled petroleum liq-uids each year.52

The most destructive process used to ac-cess natural gas from oil-free reservoirs iscoalbed methane excavation. Coalbed meth-ane differs from natural gas only slightly inits chemical makeup. Natural gas is mostlymethane with some other hydrocarbon gasesin its mixture. Coalbed methane is almostalways pure methane.


Coalbed methane is found trapped in sub-surface coal beds. To release the gas fromthe porous coal, coal seams are fractured withtoxic fluids. Massive volumes of water mustbe pumped from underground aquifers,which often serve as the only drinking watersource for local communities. The water,often containing high levels of sodium, ar-senic, and other contaminants, is dumped onthe surface and into rivers.

In the San Juan Basin of southwesternColorado and northern New Mexico, thecostly consequences of coalbed methanedevelopment are clear. The excavation pro-cess, along with the construction of roads andpipelines to transport the gas, has destroyedwildlife habitat and contaminated drinkingwater. Methane and hydrogen sulfide seepshave forced some families from theirhomes.53 Underground coal fires have causedthe ground to collapse in one area, and it isuncertain whether the gas industry can pre-vent the underground fires from spreading.54

Development in the Powder River Basinin Wyoming is more advanced than the SanJuan region. If the gas industry develops theregion according to current plans, the esti-mated cost to the state to address the waterloss and contamination will be $320 milliondollars, after accounting for severance taxcredits the state will receive from the gasindustry.55

New Mexico’s already stressed water ba-sins could see similar adverse economic ef-fects if its coalbed methane reserves arefurther developed, as current trends suggestthey will be. Coalbed methane’s contribu-tion to the nation’s natural gas consumptionrose from 3% in 1993 to 7% in 1999. NewMexico ranked as the third largest naturalgas producer in the nation in 1998, and thetop coalbed methane producer in 1999.56

Nuclear WasteNuclear fission, the reaction used to createenergy in nuclear power plants, puts our livesat risk from potentially disastrous accidents

and creates the most harmful substanceknown, for which there is no safe disposalprocess. Direct exposure to irradiated fuelfrom nuclear reactors delivers a lethal doseof radiation within seconds. According to theDepartment of Energy, 95% of the radioac-tive waste in this country (measured by ra-dioactivity) is from commercial nuclearreactors. The storage of this waste poses athreat to water supplies throughout the na-tion. At the Hanford Nuclear Reservation inWashington, 67 of 177 underground tankshave leaked more than one million gallonsof waste, contaminating groundwater andthreatening the Columbia River.57

Presently more than 42,000 metric tons ofspent fuel are in temporary storage in theU.S., with that number increasing by fivemetric tons every day.58 This waste materialwill remain hazardous for the next 250,000years.59 The potential risk to human healthis staggering. The total radioactivity of ourspent fuel at this point is 30.6 billion curies.One single curie generates a radiation fieldintensity at a distance of one foot of about11 rem per hour; the exposure limit set byfederal regulation for an individual is 5 remper year.60 If a person were to stand within ayard from a 10-year old nuclear fuel assem-bly, within 30 seconds he would significantlyincrease his risk of genetic damage or can-cer and in less than 3 minutes he would re-ceive a lethal dose of radioactivity.61

The risks of both catastrophic events andleakage of radioactive material into our en-vironment pose great threats to our publichealth. Even low-level radiation has beenlinked to cancer, genetic and chromosomalinstabilities, developmental deficiencies inthe fetus, hereditary disease, accelerated ag-ing, and loss of immune response compe-tence.

The risk of accidents at reactors is alsoever-present. Because many nuclear plantsin the U.S. are aging, the risk of accidents isgreater now than it ever has been.

Further risk may come from transportinghigh-level nuclear waste. The nuclear indus-


try has been trying for years to establish asingle national nuclear waste repository atYucca Mountain, Nevada. If such a facilitywere to be established, the risk of accidentsand leakage would be immense. The NevadaAgency for Nuclear Projects recently calcu-lated the risks of transporting nuclear wasteusing analyses by the Department of Energyand independent consultants. They con-cluded, “Accidents are inevitable and wide-spread contamination possible.”62


PART II: THE RENEWABLE ENERGY

AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTION

Renewable Energy andEfficiency Potential inNew MexicoNew Mexico is one of the top ten states forrenewable energy potential, but virtuallynone of this potential is being tapped cur-rently for electricity generation. New Mexicouses fossil fuels to generate more than 99%of its electricity, with coal providing the vastmajority (88.7%). Natural gas is used to gen-erate 10.4% of the state’s electricity, whilehydropower and oil contribute minimally.63

For the majority of the past 100 years, NewMexico had no other real alternatives forelectricity generation. Now clean and afford-able options are finally available. NewMexico’s renewable resources are so plenti-ful that the state can maintain its status asone of the largest energy exporters in thenation while replacing conventional, dirtyfossil fuels with clean, sustainable electric-ity production. Since New Mexico exports

Pollution is not an inevitable result ofpower production. Our energy futureneed not incorporate the same mas-

sive threats to the environment and publichealth that we face today. Clean energysources in the form of renewables and en-ergy efficiency have advanced technologi-cally and commercially to the point wherethey are now ready for wide-scale develop-ment. Huge untapped potential exists at boththe state and national levels. Economicanalysis and technological considerationssuggest that New Mexico could replace 15%of its current coal-generated electricity withrenewable resources and energy efficiencydeveloped between now and 2010. Nation-ally, renewable energy resources could meet11% of U.S. electricity demand comparedto projections for the current path by 2010.

about half of the electricity it generates, itbears more than its share of pollution im-pacts.64 Phasing in the use of clean energysources would dramatically reduce powerplant pollution in the state.

Wind Energy PotentialNew Mexico is the twelfth richest state forwind potential. The twelve top-ranking states

Investing in the development of clean en-ergy sources will grow the economy morethan will further investments in conventionalfossil fuels. Today’s best renewable energyprojects produce power that costs less thanfossil fuel-generated electricity, when the lifecycle of the power production is considered.The cheapest and quickest way to meet ur-gent power demand is through energy effi-ciency.

Developing the small portion of the totalrenewable energy and energy efficiency po-tential outlined below will reduce pollutiondramatically by 2010. New Mexico wouldcut its power plant pollution by as much as25% by 2010 compared to projections forthe current path, while the nation as a wholewould reduce power plant pollution by 37%.

Figure 3. 1998 Energy Mix

Coal88.7%

Oil0.1%

Gas10.4%

Hydro0.8%


together have 90% of the total wind poten-tial in the contiguous United States. The Pa-cific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) estimatesthat New Mexico could generate over435,000 gigawatt hours per year (GWh/yr)of electricity from wind – nearly fourteentimes the total amount of electricity the stategenerated in 1999. The National RenewableEnergy Laboratory (NREL) made more con-servative estimates, measuring wind poten-tial only in areas that met stricter windclassifications that were located within tenmiles of existing transmission lines. Underthese criteria, NREL estimated New Mexicocould generate over 116,000 GWh/yr of elec-tricity annually, over three times the amountthe state generated in 1999.65

The current operating wind power capac-ity in the state is 0.66 MW, generating 1.7GWh/yr of electricity and representing

0.01% of the state’s energy mix.66 ClearlyNew Mexico has not begun to tap its windresources. However, the state has researchedthe potential and is in the second phase ofassessing the best wind sites. The easternplains show the greatest promise, with thebest sites located on the mesas and ridgesnear Tucumcari.

Wind power is the fastest growing energysource worldwide, with current generationcosts competitive with those of fossil fuelseven when life cycle costs are excluded. To-tal U.S. wind capacity grew by 60% in2001.67

New Mexico could easily follow suit andbegin increasing its wind power capacity bysimilar rates. If the state developed a singletypically-sized wind farm (30 MW) by theend of 2002 and continued to increase ca-pacity by 60% – a very feasible rate giventhe absolute numbers involved – NewMexico would be generating more than 3,500GWh/yr of electricity emission-free by 2010.

Solar Energy PotentialNew Mexico has been called a solar SaudiArabia. There is phenomenal solar potentialacross the entire state for both solar thermaland photovoltaic electricity generation. With3,200 hours of sunshine a year, New Mexicohas some of the best sites in the world for

Note on Units

Megawatts (MW) is a unit of measurement in-dicating how fast a plant can put out energy.This is the standard measure of the generatingcapacity of a power plant. It is also used to de-termine if the total generating capacity on thegrid is enough to satisfy demand at any onetime.

MW denotes peak megawatts, as opposed toaverage megawatts (MWa). MWa is used toemphasize the intermittency of electricity gen-eration from some sources. Wind power capac-ity, for instance, is often reported as MWa. 1MWa is enough to power roughly 1,000 homes.

Megawatt-hours (MWh) is a unit measuring thetotal amount of energy produced over sometime frame. A 50 MW power plant operating atfull capacity for one hour produces 50 MWh ofelectricity. This is the appropriate unit for talk-ing about how much of the state’s electricitywas produced by various sources in a giventime frame. To measure how much such a plantcould produce in one year at full capacity, sim-ply multiply the capacity by the number of hoursin a year (50 MW x 8,760 hrs/yr = 438,000 MWh/yr). 1,000 MWh equals one gigawatt-hour(GWh).

Table 1. Potential Growthof Wind Power

2001 0.6 22002 31 822003 50 1322004 80 2112005 128 3372006 205 5392007 328 8632008 525 1,3802009 840 2,2082010 1,344 3,533


solar thermal power plants. The question inNew Mexico, therefore, is not whether amplesolar resources exist, but how soon solar en-ergy projects can cost-effectively contributeto the state’s electricity generation.

Solar Thermal PowerAccording to the Department of Energy, asolar thermal power plant covering a 150-acre site in the western portion of the state

would generate more than 60 GWh/yr ofelectricity, enough to power more than 6,000homes.69

This amount of land use is less than whatis needed to produce electricity from coal.Theoretically, New Mexico could produceenough electricity to satisfy the needs of theentire U.S. with a solar thermal plant cover-ing 6,500 square miles.70 In comparison, toproduce enough electrical power for the na-

There are two differenttypes of technology forharnessing the sun’s en-ergy to generate electric-ity: solar thermal electricpower plants and photo-voltaics.

Solar thermal powerplants use reflectors toconcentrate sunlight on areceiver that uses thesun’s heat to drive a tur-bine and generate elec-tricity. Parabolic troughs,power towers, and dish/engines are the threetechnologies either in useor in development for so-lar thermal power plants,differing mainly in theshape and configurationof the reflectors.

Photovoltaics are verydifferent from any othermethod ever used to gen-erate electricity. All othermethods require at leasta two-step conversion ofenergy from its naturalstate into mechanicalpower and then to elec-trical power. Photovoltaic(PV) panels convert sun-light directly into electric-ity without the use of agenerator or any movingparts.

The basic building blockof this technology is thephotovoltaic cell, which ismade of semiconductormaterials. Cells can beconnected together toform modules, and mod-ules can be connected toform arrays. In this way,PV systems can matchpower output to powerneeds. A few PV cells willpower a hand-held calcu-lator or wristwatch, whileinterconnected arrayscan provide electricity fora remote village.

PV systems can operateeither remotely or in con-nection with the utilitygrid. Their reliability evenin adverse environmentshas been proven over de-cades by their perfor-mance poweringsatellites, which have tooperate long term with nomaintenance. The Fed-eral Emergency Manage-ment Agency now usessolar electricity systemsfor prevention, response,and recovery in emer-gency situations. FEMAlearned the value of PVfor this purpose after Hur-ricane Andrew, when

some Miami suburbswere without grid powerfor as much as twoweeks. The PV systemsthat had previously beeninstalled in that regionsurvived and were able tohelp in the relief efforts.84

With PV’s long life, mini-mal operation and main-tenance requirements,versatility (remote or grid-connected operation), re-liability, and sustainablenature, the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy has con-cluded that, “it is easy toforesee PV’s 21st centurypreeminence.”85

Solar thermal collectorsthat use the sun’s heatwithout converting it toelectricity can also havean enormous impact onefforts to reduce demandfor natural gas and elec-tricity. These collectorsare increasingly popularfor heating swimmingpools. When heating wa-ter in a residence, usuallythey serve as pre-heatersused in conjunction withanother heating system,most commonly fueled bynatural gas.

Solar Energy


tion using coal, we would need to mine 413new square miles each year.71 In fifty years,we would have had to mine a total of 20,670square miles and would still have to look formore land to mine for fuel for future years.

As a start, the state could feasibly build asolar thermal power plant with a capacity of100 MW by 2010. This would generate 175GWh/yr of electricity annually. A solar ther-mal plant of this size could generate elec-tricity more cheaply than coal when externalcosts are included.

Solar PhotovoltaicsSolar PV technology is an excellent matchfor New Mexico’s electricity needs. In addi-tion to creating electricity, widespread ap-plication of PV systems would alleviatedemand on the state’s transmission network,which is currently operating at its upper lim-its. The more power needs that could be meton-site with PV systems, the more transmis-sion capacity that would be free for both in-trastate and interstate electricity distribution.The relief to the transmission network wouldbe enhanced during summertime peak powerdemands, since PV power output peaks si-multaneously with summer peak demands.

Current PV capacity in the state is only 76kW, according to the U.S. Department of En-ergy.72 With the abundance of sunshine thestate sees year round, it’s stunning that totalcapacity is so low. This amount is far belowany of New Mexico’s neighboring states.

With effective policies, New Mexico coulddramatically increase this amount. Within ayear, the state could install enough solar PVcapacity (300kW) to match that of its nextlowest ranking neighbor state, Colorado. Ifcumulative installed PV capacity increasedfrom there at the same rate as the 1999-2000national growth rate (18.5%), PV capacitywould reach 1,460 kW by 2010. If, however,the state’s capacity were to grow at the glo-bal rate experienced from 1997-2000 (31%)or at the 1999-2000 global rate (37%), PVcapacity would reach 3,260 kW to 4,660 kWby 2010.73

A more likely progression under favorablepolicies would see capacity added evenfaster. In California, where capital cost re-duction programs have been in place for sev-eral years, capacity has begun to accumulatein larger increments. Alameda County’sSanta Rita Jail recently installed a 500 kWPV system, and San Francisco is now plan-ning to add 10-12 MW within three years.74

Similar aggregate purchases of PV by NewMexico state government or municipalitieswould reduce the overall costs of PV sys-tems and add capacity more quickly. A co-operative like Washington State’s WesternSun Coop, which purchases packaged solarelectric systems in bulk and sells them tolocal utilities, would also reduce system costsand encourage faster PV capacity growth.

Geothermal PotentialNew Mexico ranked second among the statesfor geothermal potential, according to the lastnational assessment of U.S. geothermal re-sources conducted by the United States Geo-logical Survey, yet it is using none of thisresource for electricity generation. The statehas an estimated potential of 2,700 MW.75

Much of the state has high-temperature re-sources suitable for electricity generation,while the entire state has excellent resourcesfor direct-use or heat pumps.

With such great potential, the state couldbuild just three medium-sized geothermal

Figure 4. Solar PV capacity inthe Southwest

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

AZ CO NM TX

kW


power plants (30 MW each) by the end of2004 and increase its capacity annually atthe 7.2% national rate estimated by the En-ergy Information Administration. Typically,a 10 MW geothermal plant can be built insix months, while larger facilities require twoyears.76

Biomass PotentialBecause mixing biomass materials with coalcan reduce the cost of coal-generated elec-tricity, it is likely that biomass use will grow.Where co-firing with biomass fuels replacesthe use of coal, it will have a net benefit forthe state, although co-firing carries the riskof prolonging the viability of coal plants.

Current biomass power capacity in NewMexico is 2.2 MW.77 The Department ofEnergy estimates that New Mexico couldgenerate 1,600 GWh/yr of electricity usingbiomass. However, the state will need to as-sess the various types of biomass includedin the DOE estimate to determine the envi-ronmental impacts and choose those that pro-vide a net benefit for the state.

Energy Savings PotentialInvestments in energy efficiency can helpNew Mexico achieve the goals of supply/demand balance and pollution reduction.

In 1998, New Mexico spent 0.11% of util-ity revenues, $1.3 million, on energy effi-ciency programs. The resulting savings were0.08% of electricity sales, or 14.4 GWh/yr.78

2004 90 7492005 97 8032006 103 8612007 111 9232008 119 9892009 127 1,0602010 137 1,137

Table 2. Potential Growth ofGeothermal Power

Biomass EnergyMany types of “waste-to-energy” technologies andenergy crops used togenerate electricity fallunder the banner of “bio-mass.” Some are unac-ceptably harmful to theenvironment, while oth-ers provide a net benefitto the environment.

Any material that re-leases air pollutants ortoxins into the air uponcombustion at a greaterrate than the fossil fuel itis replacing should notqualify as a renewablefuel. Included in thisgroup are municipal solidwaste (garbage) and con-struction debris, whichcan release dangeroustoxins from the combus-tion of plastics andchemicals.

Burning timber wastesand agricultural wastesis also heavily polluting.Agricultural waste caneither be turned backinto the soil to maintainthe long-term vitality ofthe topsoil or it can beused as biomass fuel fora biogas digester.Biogas digesters utilizebacteria to transformlivestock manure andother organic matter intofertilizer and biogas,which consists mainly ofmethane (the main com-ponent in natural gas).Biogas can be used forheating and providingmechanical power andelectricity. Normally,biogas digesters are pri-marily employed for

Geothermal EnergyGeothermal energy is theheat that flows constantlyfrom the center of theearth, where tempera-tures are believed toreach 4000ºC. Certainregions in the subsurfacecontain pockets wherethis thermal energy isconcentrated. These re-gions can be tapped witha well to access thesteam or hot water. Theheat from the steam andhot water is then used todrive turbines that gener-ate electricity.

Although most of thehigh-temperature geo-thermal resources ca-pable of producingelectricity in the U.S. arefound in the westernstates, mid- and low-temperature resourcesare more abundant andwidespread. Direct useof geothermal energyand geothermal heatpumps transfer heatfrom the hot water ac-cessed by a well to build-ings and districts in orderto heat water and air.Use of these resourcescan significantly reduceelectricity demand.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


Biomass Energy

waste (sewage) treat-ment and fertilizer pro-duction, andbiogas-generated elec-tricity is a secondary ben-efit.

In most cases, landfill gasused as a renewable fuelhas a net benefit for theenvironment. When largeamounts of methane areemitted from landfills, op-erators are required toflare it; when emissionsfall below limits requiringflaring, methane andother toxins escape intothe atmosphere. There-fore, burning the methaneto generate electricity ismore desirable.

Various types of energycrops (i.e. willow,sweetgum, sycamore,switchgrass, woodycrops) hold the potentialfor cleaner electricity pro-duction compared to tra-ditional fossil fuels,

especially coal, but theirlife-cycle impacts on theenvironment likely out-weigh any benefits. Im-portant considerationsinclude:

• Land use that will bereplaced – produc-tive farmland, for-ests, andecologically sensi-tive areas should notbe sacrificed for en-ergy crops.

• Effects on nutrientcycling and soil pro-ductivity.

• Use of herbicidesand fertilizers com-pared to previousland use.

• Erosion potentialand related waterquality effects.

• Effects on biodiver-sity.

• Indirect promotion ofunsustainable or

ecologically harmfulland practices (i.e.genetic engineeringand deforestation).

• Effects on localeconomies.

In general, much re-search is still needed todetermine how the life-cycles of the varioustypes of biomass used forelectricity production af-fect pollution emissionsand local ecosystems.Until such research isavailable, individual situ-ations must be evaluatedon a case-by-case basis.Until sustainable biom-ass technologies are de-veloped and proven, thegeneral definition of “re-newable energy” shouldbe reserved for wind,geothermal, and solarpower. However, this re-port includes discussionsof biomass potential be-cause of its growingpopularity.

FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

This is far below the national average sav-ings of 1.74% of electricity sales. The topfive states, whose savings ranged from 5%to 9% of their electricity sales, had each in-vested more than 1% of utility revenues inenergy efficiency programs.79

New Mexico had planned a utility energyefficiency program (Systems Benefit Fund)that would collect 0.03¢/kWh from all utili-ties starting January 1, 2002, but it was sus-pended until 2007 with the decision tosuspend deregulation in the state. The $5.4million per year that would have been col-lected would have supported a variety of pro-grams, but there was no minimum spendingrequirement for either energy efficiency or

renewables development. At this rate, evenif all funds were allocated for energy effi-ciency improvements, results would likelyhave come far short of potential savings.

Under the same suspended restructuringplan, the state had scheduled an increase inthe collection rate to 0.07¢/kWh starting2007. At this higher rate, the state wouldcollect $12.6 million annually. This amount,if it were to be spent solely on energy effi-ciency measures, would be approaching thatof other states with successful programs. Thestate-by-state analysis referred to above re-veals that the best returns on investment oc-cur when utilities earmark amounts in therange of 1% or more of their revenues. For


New Mexico, 1% of utility revenues is $11.8million per year.

Past energy efficiency programs havesaved New Mexico energy and money. Whenthe governor ordered state agencies to reducetheir consumption by 4%, nine state agen-cies reported an average 7.7% reduction inenergy consumption and a savings of nearly$558,000 within one year.80 If the utilitiesacross the state could emulate the state agen-cies’ performance and average an annual7.7% reduction through energy efficiency

programs, electricity generation could bereduced by 2,400 GWh/yr.81

Individual households can also see signifi-cant savings in their electricity bills by imple-menting simple energy efficiency measures.Replacing incandescent light bulbs withcompact fluorescent bulbs would save theaverage household $35-$60 annually. Weath-erizing a home would reduce the household’senergy expenditures by $200-$400 annu-ally.82


Coal52%

Oil3%

Gas15%

Nuclear20%

Hydroelectric8%

Other2%

Figure 5: 1999 U.S.Electricity Sources 83

Wind 2,970 116,300 119,300 313,500 8.7%Geothermal 2,800 5,600 8,400 70,000 1.9%Solar PV 194 2,900 3,100 5,400 0.2%Solar Thermal 354 1,000 1,300 2,400 0.1%Total 6,318 125,800 132,100 391,300 10.9%Energy Efficiency 630,000 17.5%

Table 3: Potential Growth of Clean Energy by 2010 88

NationalRenewable Energy andEfficiency PotentialThe nation’s enormous renewable energy andenergy efficiency potential remains largelyundeveloped today. Despite the proven ef-fectiveness and cost savings of energy effi-ciency and the evolution of affordable, cleantechnologies to produce electricity, the elec-tric power industry continues to use coal formore than half (52%) of its electricity-gen-erating needs. Other major sources includenuclear power, providing 20%, and gas, pro-viding 15% of electricity. Smaller contribu-tions come from hydropower (8%), oil (3%),and other varied sources including non-hy-dro renewables (2%). Together fossil fuelsmake up 70% of the electricity-generatingsources in the U.S.

The Energy Information Administration(EIA) predicts fossil fuel contributions willincrease to 75% of total sources used to gen-erate electricity by 2010.86

The U.S. has another choice. Renewableprojects utilizing wind, geothermal, and so-lar energy are already operating throughoutthe country, proving the technology is readyto economically harness these resources. In2000, wind energy contributed 3,000 MW,solar energy 548 MW, and geothermal en-ergy 2,800 MW of power to the nation’s en-ergy system.87 Together these resources

generate about 32,000 GWh/yr of electric-ity, enough energy for 3.2 million Americanhomes.

This amount merely scratches the surfaceof remaining untapped potential. By 2010,the U.S. could be cost-effectively generat-ing 391,000 GWh/yr of emission-free elec-tricity – more than eleven times the currentamount of electricity it generates from re-newable resources. With the projected elec-tricity demand of 4,140,000 GWh/yr reducedby 15% through energy efficiency measures,non-hydro renewable energy sources couldsatisfy 11% of the nation’s electricity demandby 2010.

Given the potentially catastrophic effectsof global warming, it is very much in the best


interests of New Mexico citizens to encour-age the federal government to facilitate thegrowth of renewable energy and energy ef-ficiency across the country.

Wind PotentialThe U.S. has enough windy spots to cost-effectively install more than a million MWaof wind power capacity, according to thePacific Northwest Laboratory, a public/pri-vate research arm of the U.S. Department ofEnergy.89 This would generate three timesthe amount of electricity the country used in2000.90

The National Renewable Energy Labora-tory made more conservative estimates in1994, measuring wind-generating capabilityonly in areas that met stricter wind classifi-cations, that avoided environmentally sensi-tive areas, and that were located within tenmiles of existing transmission lines. They es-timated that the U.S. could generate 734,000MWa of electricity from turbines in such lo-cations – nearly twice as much as the U.S.currently uses.91

Wind power is the fastest growing energysource worldwide. New wind power capac-ity grew by 24% annually throughout the1990s, with a growth rate of 37% in 1999and 28% in 2000.92 Last year, the industryinstalled enough turbines to generate an av-erage of 798 MW in the U.S.93 If new instal-lations were to increase by 30% annuallyhereafter – a rapid but feasible rate – thecountry could generate more than 7% of itselectricity from wind power by 2010, asshown in Table 3. This scenario would taponly 35,000 MWa of the 734,000 MWa po-tential, but it would displace the need for 80fossil fuel power plants.

Solar PotentialThere is theoretically enough sunlight in a100-mile square patch of desert in the south-western U.S. to generate enough electricityfor the entire country.94 Solar thermal plantscould replace 100% of current fossil fuel-

based electricity production using only 1%of the earth’s desert area.95

Although transmission distances maymake generating all of our electricity in thedeserts unfeasible, much development cantake place before this presents a barrier. As afirst step, we could easily hope to encouragethe construction of 1,000 MW of solar ther-mal capacity with just five power plants inthe Mojave Desert by 2010. As fuel cell tech-nology develops, there will likely be oppor-tunities to produce hydrogen from solarenergy in the deserts for shipment elsewhere.

Solar power can generate electricity di-rectly using photovoltaics (PV) as well. PVelectricity production is all around us, fromsatellites to road signs to watches to roof-tops. Total U.S. PV capacity of 194 MW isquite small compared to other energysources, but growth of PV use has beensteady and is expected to continue at an in-creasing rate. Both the domestic and world-wide growth rates for cumulative installedPV capacity have been increasing. The do-mestic PV capacity growth rate increased to18.3% in 1999 from an average of 15.6%through most of the 1990s. Worldwide, thecumulative PV capacity growth rate in-creased from an average of 27% (1993-1999)

2000 891 7,8052001 798 1,689 14,7962002 1,037 2,726 23,8832003 1,349 4,075 35,6972004 1,753 5,828 51,0552005 2,279 8,107 71,0212006 2,963 11,070 96,9762007 3,852 14,922 130,7182008 5,007 19,929 174,5822009 6,510 26,439 231,6052010 8,462 34,901 305,736

Table 4: Future U.S. Wind PowerGeneration with 30% Annual Growth


to an average of 31% (1997-1999) andpeaked at 37% in the last recorded year,1999.96

If the cumulative U.S. PV capacity con-tinues at the current domestic growth rate of18%, it will increase from its current capac-ity of 194 MW to 1,000 MW by 2010.97 Ifthe U.S. strongly encourages the growth ofsolar energy, capacity could be added muchmore quickly. Growing at the 1997-99 world-wide rate of 31% annually, U.S. capacitycould reach nearly 3,000 MW by 2010.

Geothermal PotentialThe U.S. has tremendous geothermal re-sources. The DOE estimates high-tempera-ture (electricity-generating quality)geothermal potential in the U.S. to be morethan 4,000 quads (quadrillion Btus), morethan forty times our current energy use.98

The last nationwide assessment of geother-mal resources was published in 1978. It esti-mated a high-temperature potential ofapproximately 22,000 MW in nine westernstates from known reserves.99 Estimates ofundiscovered reserves ranged from 72,000to 127,000 MW.100 Since knowledge aboutgeothermal resources has advanced dramati-cally since 1978, there is need for reassess-ment of these resources.

The DOE Office of Power Technologiesproject entitled “Geopowering the West” hasa goal for geothermal energy to provide 10%,or 10,000 MW, of the electricity needs ofthe Western states by 2020.

The Energy Information Administrationestimates the growth rate for geothermal ca-pacity to be 7.2% through 2010.101 Given thisgrowth rate, U.S. geothermal capacity wouldreach over 5,600 MW by 2010, as shown inTable 5.

Figure 7: U.S. Solar PV Capacity Growth

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MW

31% Growth18% Growth

2000 2,800 23,3022001 202 3,002 24,9792002 216 3,218 26,7782003 232 3,450 28,7062004 248 3,698 30,7732005 266 3,964 32,9882006 285 4,249 35,3632007 306 4,555 37,9102008 328 4,883 40,6392009 352 5,235 43,5652010 377 5,612 46,702

Table 5: Future GeothermalGeneration

with 7.2% Annual Growth

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-2000

Annual

Growth

Rateo

fCumu

lative

PVCap

acity

(%

Figure 6: Increasing Growth Rate ofWorldwide Cumulative PV Capacity


Energy Savings PotentialThe U.S. could save energy and significantlyreduce pollution by implementing effectivepolicies encouraging energy efficiency. TheAmerican Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy (ACEEE) studied the impacts ofseveral “smart energy” policies on U.S. en-ergy consumption, economics, and emis-sions.102 Under the “smart energy” policyscenario, the U.S. would reduce its total pri-mary energy consumption103 by nearly 11%by 2010 compared to the business-as-usual,or base-case, scenario lacking new policies.Looking at the electricity production portionof this,104 annual energy use for electricitywould be reduced by 15% in the policy caseby the year 2010 as compared to business asusual. A 15% reduction in electricity use in2010 translates to more than 630,000 GWh/yr saved and 700 million tons of carbon di-oxide emissions avoided per year.

The set of policies analyzed in the studyincludes eight electricity-saving actions:• Utility energy efficiency program to set

aside funds for investment in energy effi-ciency.

• New and strengthened equipment effi-ciency standards.

• Tax incentives for energy-efficient homes,commercial buildings, and other products.

• Expanded federal energy efficiency re-search, development, and deploymentprograms.

• Promotion of clean, high-efficiency com-bined heat and power systems.

• Voluntary agreements and incentives to re-duce industrial energy use.

• Improvements in efficiency and emissionsfrom existing power plants.

• Greater adoption of current model build-ing energy codes and development andimplementation of more advanced codes.


Pollution ReductionRealized with CleanEnergy SolutionsTapping the renewable energy and energyefficiency potential ready for developmentnow in New Mexico and the nation woulddramatically reduce power plant air pollu-tion at both the state and national levels. By2010, New Mexico would reduce its CO

2

emissions by 8.5 million tons per year bydeveloping clean energy solutions in placeof coal, while the U.S. would reduce emis-sions by 11 billion tons per year.

Pollution Reductionin New MexicoNew Mexico utilities pump 35 million tonsof CO

2, 81,000 tons of SO

2, 84,000 tons of

NOx, and 1,400 pounds of mercury into theair annually, along with deadly particulatepollutants and a host of other toxins.105

Since New Mexico exports about half ofthe electricity it generates, it is not in des-perate need of additional capacity to serveits own communities.106 Therefore, the stateshould be extremely selective about any po-tential increases in electricity generation inthe state. The most effective starting pointfor New Mexico to begin reducing powerplant pollution would be to replace its oldest

coal-fired power plants with renewable en-ergy sources. New Mexico has sixgrandfathered power plants – plants that haveescaped requirements to meet current airpollution standards due to their old age.Three of these plants are coal-fired powerplants. Two of the three, Four Corners andSan Juan, are the largest power plants in thestate, accounting for 70% of the state’s elec-tricity generation, and are among the 100dirtiest power plants in the U.S. They rank14th and 30th for CO

2 emissions, respectively,

and 12th and 37th for NOx emissions, respec-tively.107

The Four Corners power plant, by itself,was responsible for 48% of the state’s totalCO

2 emissions from power plants, 49% of

the state’s SO2, 54% of the state’s NOx, and

41% of the state’s mercury emissions frompower plants in 1998.108 Reducing electric-ity generation from the Four Corners coalplant by replacing it with renewable electric-ity generation and energy efficiency wouldsignificantly cut the state’s power plant emis-sions.

By developing renewable energy sourcesand energy efficiency technologies ratherthan adding coal capacity, New Mexico couldcut statewide emissions of CO

2, SO

2, NOx,

and mercury by one quarter from their 1999levels.

Table 6. Pollution Avoided with Clean Energy Development

Wind 3,532 4,180 10,350 10,280 178Solar 175 210 510 510 9Geothermal 1,137 1,350 3,330 3,310 57Energy Efficiency 2,400 2,840 7,030 6,980 121Clean Energy Total 7,244 8,580 21,220 21,080 365New Mexico Utilities Total 31,654 34,920 80,750 84,040 1385

Pct of Pollution Avoidedwith Clean Energy Development 25% 26% 25% 26%


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Thousa

ndTon

s

Business as usual

Renewables and EnergyEfficiency Development

Figure 8: CO 2 Emissionswith Renewables and

Energy EfficiencyReplacing Coal

Figure 9: SO 2 Emissionswith Renewables and


Figure 11: NOx Emissionswith Renewables and


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Millio

nTons

Business as usual

Renewable energy and energyefficiency development

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Thousa

ndTon

s

Business as usual

Renewables and energyefficiency development

2000 Current Generation 3,430,700 2,406,780 12,870 6,040 84,8502010 Projected Generation 4,224,200 2,994,100 14,600 7,300 98,4002010 Projected Generation with

Clean Energy Development: 3,590,600 1,880,100 8,000 4,400 54,300Renewables Developable 359,250 404,000 2,400 1,000 16,100Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency 630,000 710,000 4,200 1,900 28,000Total Clean Energy Development 1,114,000 6,600 2,900 44,100

Table 7: U.S. Power Plant Emissions Comparison 111

In addition to air pollution reduction, re-placing the use of coal for electricity gen-eration with renewable energy and energyefficiency would save enormous amounts ofwater. Coal plants consume 0.49 gallons ofwater/kWh through evaporation, not includ-ing water that is recaptured and treated forfurther use. Wind uses 0.001 gallons/kWh,and solar PV uses 0.03 gallons/kWh.110

Pollution ReductionNationwideThe U.S. potential growth of wind, geother-mal, and solar power outlined above wouldgenerate 359,250 GWh/yr of electricity by2010. This represents 8.4% of U.S. electric-ity demand projected by the EIA for 2010,not including current renewable energy gen-eration and before any reductions in demand

through energy efficiency measures are con-sidered.

If these renewables were to replace coalpower plants, CO

2 would be reduced by more

than 400 million tons, SO2 would be reduced

by more than 2 million tons, NOx reducedby more than 1 million tons, and power plantmercury emissions would decrease by nearly16,000 pounds by 2010.

Energy efficiency measures resulting in a15% reduction in electricity demand wouldeliminate the pollution associated with630,000 GWh/yr of electricity production:710 million tons of CO

2 emissions, 4 mil-

lion tons of SO2 emissions, 1.9 million tons

of NOx emissions, and 28,000 pounds ofmercury at the rate coal-fired plants emitpollution.


The combined impact of renewable energyand energy efficiency developed to replacecoal-fired electricity generation would cutpower plant CO

2 emissions by 37%, SO

2

emissions by 45%, NOx emissions by 40%,and mercury emissions by 45% compared toprojections for continuing on the currentpath.


Economic Feasibility ofClean Energy Solutions Not only are clean energy resources abun-dantly available, they are also economicallyviable today. Both energy efficiency mea-sures and renewable energy technologies aremore cost-effective in the long term than thecurrent fossil fuel-dominated energy system.This was not the case a few decades agowhen renewable energy resources were firstpresented as alternatives to oil and coal. Buttoday any truly sound financial investmentin the nation’s energy future must involveaggressive and timely development of theseresources.• Energy efficiency measures have been

proven on both the local and national lev-els to be the best response to immediatepower needs. They reduce pollution andenergy demand at a cost that is less thanmost new power plants.

• Renewable energy technologies providestable and declining electricity costs be-cause their “fuel” is free, in contrast toongoing purchases of fossil fuel at vola-tile prices. Renewable energy projectshave the added economic benefit of cre-ating more jobs than traditional fossil fuelelectricity generation since renewable en-ergy costs are more tied to skilled laborthan to fuel.

• Clean energy solutions are even more at-tractive compared to fossil fuels when ex-ternalized environmental costs areaccounted for.Clean energy policies resulting in the in-

creased use of both renewable energy andenergy efficiency provide the best overallstrategy for America’s energy future. Sev-eral recent studies examining the economicimpact of efficiency and renewables stimu-lus programs found that the nation’seconomy would experience greater growthwith policies encouraging renewables andenergy efficiency than under a business-as-usual scenario.

Fossil fuel-generated electricity, on theother hand, is not a good long-term financialinvestment. Much of its costs are tied to lim-ited fuel resources. Although the upfrontcapital costs of constructing a new fossil fuelpower plant may be less than the upfrontcosts of a renewable energy power plant, theprice of fossil fuel-generated electricity willforever carry a fuel cost. As changes occurin the supply and demand of the limited fuel,the cost will oscillate in response and even-tually increase as the resource is depleted.

Fossil fuel-generated electricity also hassignificant externalized costs. Expenses re-lated to the environmental and public healthdamages associated with fossil fuel extrac-tion and power plant emissions do not ap-pear on electricity bills, yet they are very realcosts to society.

Even though hydropower does not emit airpollutants, dams have major negative envi-ronmental impacts. Energy planners are notconsidering hydropower as a significantsource to meet future electricity needs.

Nuclear power, the only other option forelectricity generation, is expensive, highlypolluting, and unacceptably dangerous.

Energy-EfficientTechnologies and their CostsHistory has proven that adopting energy ef-ficiency measures is the cheapest, as well asthe easiest, quickest, and cleanest way toaddress urgent power needs. Nationally, en-ergy efficiency programs of the past fiveyears have avoided the need for 25,000-30,000 MW of generating capacity – theequivalent of 100 large power plants. Theseprograms averaged 2.8 ¢/kWh, a cost that isless than that of most new power plants.112

In addition to cost savings, energy efficiencymeasures have avoided the logistics and timeinvolved with the siting of 100 large powerplants, the acquisition of the rights of wayfor power lines and gas pipelines, and theemission of 190 million tons of CO

2.113

California is often considered a leader inenergy efficiency efforts. Over the past


twenty years, California has reduced its peakdemand by 10,000 MW through utility en-ergy efficiency programs and energy effi-ciency standards for buildings andappliances, yet there is still potential for in-creased savings.114 In the face of its energycrisis last year, a concerted effort resulted ina reduction of electricity demand in the stateby 6 percent from the same seven-month timeperiod a year earlier, and a peak reduction of11 percent over the previous year, with con-tinued growth in the state economy. As a re-sult, California avoided the National ElectricReliability Council’s grim prediction of 250hours of rolling blackouts this past summerthat would have cut power to over 2 millionhouseholds per blackout.115

Several recent studies have shown that theU.S. would continue to save energy andmoney in the future by implementing moreenergy efficiency programs and settingstricter efficiency standards.116 The ACEEEstudy that determined the U.S. could reduceits electricity demand by 15% by 2010, forexample, also revealed that a net savings of$152 billion dollars would accompany theenergy savings by 2010 under their smartenergy policy scenario.117

A variety of measures fall under the en-ergy efficiency umbrella. Examples of util-ity energy efficiency measures includereplacing older, less-efficient equipment withnewer, more-efficient equipment. This equip-ment can include:• High-efficiency pumps and motor retro-

fits for large oil and gas producers andpipelines.

• Redesigned electricity generators withcombined heat and power systems that re-cycle and reuse waste heat, which signifi-cantly increases their efficiency.

• Smaller onsite efficient electricity genera-tors (rather than large central powerplants) that match the power needs of thedistrict or building and bypass the needfor long-distance transmission of electric-

ity where significant losses of energy oc-cur.Examples of consumer energy efficiency

measures include:• Weatherizing homes.

• Replacing old appliances with newer,more efficient ones.

• Installing electricity, heat, and air-condi-tioning systems that are responsive to real-time energy demand.

Renewable EnergyTechnologies and their CostsBecause renewable energy has no fuel costs,its total costs are predictable and stable. Oncethe plants are built, producers only have topay the regular operating and maintenancecosts to keep the power flowing. The fluctu-ating fuel costs of fossil fuel-based powerplants are not a factor for renewable energyproducers.

The fact that more of the costs are upfrontrather than spread out in the form of ongo-ing fuel costs constitutes a challenge in thedevelopment of renewable energy projects,since investors need to undertake more fi-nancing at the start of the project. However,since this also results in greater certainty ofthe total costs over the full lifetime of theplants, hesitation over high initial invest-ments can be eased through market certainty.When a state enters into long-term contractswith renewable producers, guaranteeing astable price for much of the lifetimes of theirplants, the initial investment hurdle is greatlyreduced.

The combination of advanced technologyand market growth in renewable energy in-dustries over the past decades has loweredcosts markedly. The average prices of windand solar energy have plummeted over thelast twenty years and are predicted to con-tinue to decline. Geothermal energy costs,which currently range from slightly higherto lower than conventional fossil fuel power,have also declined historically and are pre-


dicted to remain roughly the same over thenext ten years.

WindThe cost of producing electricity from windenergy has declined by more than 80% inthe past twenty years, from about 38 centsper kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) in the early 1980sto a current range of 3 to 8 ¢/kWh (levelizedover a plant’s lifetime). This does not includethe federal wind energy Production TaxCredit which reduced the cost of wind-gen-erated electricity production by about 0.7 ¢/kWh over the lifetime of the plant until thecredit expired at the end of 2001.

The cost of electricity from wind plantsvaries based on their size and the averagewind speed. A large plant (50 MW and up)at an excellent site (20 mph average) candeliver power for 3 ¢/kWh. Electricity froma small plant (3 MW) at a moderate site (16mph) may cost up to 8 ¢/kWh, which is stilllower than retail cost in many areas. Ana-lysts believe that wind energy costs couldfall to 2.5 ¢/kWh in the near future, makingwind power more competitive than most con-ventional energy sources.118

SolarSolar Thermal Power PlantsThe first Solar Electricity Generating Sys-tem (SEGS) plant was installed inCalifornia’s Mojave Desert in 1984 and gen-erated electricity for 25 ¢/kWh (1999 dol-lars). The California SEGS plants now havea collective capacity of 354 MW and gener-ate electricity for 8-10 ¢/kWh. A new solarthermal plant with a capacity of 100 MW ormore installed today could generate electric-ity for 7 ¢/kWh.119

Solar energy has the unique advantage ofpeaking when the electricity grid experiencessome of its highest demands – in the heat ofsummer afternoons. In contrast, when tradi-tional fossil fuel plants attempt to addresspeak needs, they often must operate for farlonger periods than the true peak load pe-riod due to long start-up and shut-down pro-

cedures. The wasted fuel and added pollu-tion increases the cost of generating electric-ity during peak times. For this reason, solarpower plants are cost-competitive in the peakpower market today.

PhotovoltaicsPV can generate electricity for 12-25 ¢/kWhtoday.120 This is more economical than fos-sil fuel-generated electricity right now forsome situations, such as remote applicationsin the U.S. and vast areas of the developingworld that have no grid/power plant infra-structure in place. However, without subsi-dies, it is not competitive with the lowestrates from gas and coal-fired power plantstoday in the grid-connected developed world.

An important consideration in cost com-parisons of traditional power plants and PVis that when a PV system is installed in ahome or business, there are no mark-up coststo middlemen and no distribution costs.Therefore, the comparisons must take placeat the retail cost of electricity rather than thewholesale cost of the fuel or the power plantgenerating cost. The average U.S. residen-tial retail cost of electricity is 8.5 ¢/kWh,though it can cost over 14 ¢/kWh in somestates.121 In 1996, the cost of installing a PVsystem represented either no net cost or profitover remaining completely dependent ongrid-connected power in only five states. Justthree years later, this was true in fifteenstates.122 Residential rates, along with taxcredits and/or capital cost reduction policies,were the most influential factors renderingPV cost-effective in these states.Economies of ScaleAlthough technological breakthroughs maylower PV prices significantly, the biggestprice reductions are expected from econo-mies of scale due to increased PV panelmanufacturing volume.

The current cost of PV modules is quotedat about $3.50-$3.75 per watt wholesale and$6-$7 per watt for an installed system.123

This is a dramatic reduction in cost from $20per watt ten years ago and a hundred-fold


drop in cost since 1972.124 The cost will con-tinue to decline as PV manufacturers reacheconomies of scale. Since nearly all of thecosts for PV-generated electricity lie in theequipment, the more equipment manufac-tured on a mass scale, the cheaper the elec-tricity becomes.

Figure 11: Annual PV Manufacturing Volume 129

0

50

100

150

200

250

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

MW

U.S. ShipmentsTotal World Shipments

Figure 12: PV Market Growth Rates 130

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

MW

52% Cumulative PV Growth31% Cumulative PV Growth

The relationship between increased vol-ume and decreased price is called the expe-rience curve. For PV, it is estimated to be82%. That is, for every doubling of cumula-tive production volume, the price of PV isexpected to decline by 18%.125

In 1999, total worldwide installed PV ca-pacity was 1,034 MW.126 The next fourdoublings of this amount will each reducethe price of installed systems by about onedollar per watt.

To compete on equal footing with tradi-tional power sources in a short-term eco-nomic view, PV prices will need to be around$1/watt for an installed system.127 Accord-ing to this experience curve, that price willbe reached once total PV installations sur-pass 500,000 MW.

The PV industry clearly has a fair distanceto go, but it is steadily progressing towardits goal. PV module shipments in the U.S.and worldwide have steadily increased overthe past twenty years. Furthermore, the rateby which shipments have increased has risen.

From 1989-99, the growth rate of world-wide PV module shipments averaged 18%.For the same time period, the U.S. growthrate was 21%. Recently the growth rate hasbeen much higher. The average growth ratein 1997-99 in the U.S. and worldwide was

0 1,034 $3.50 $6.501 2,068 $2.87 $5.332 4,136 $2.35 $4.373 8,272 $1.93 $3.584 16,544 $1.58 $2.935 33,088 $1.30 $2.406 66,176 $1.06 $1.977 132,352 $0.87 $1.628 264,704 $0.72 $1.329 529,408 $0.59 $1.0810 1,058,816 $0.48 $0.89

Table 8: Experience Curve for PVModule Price


31%. In 1999, the U.S. growth rate of PVmodule shipments was 52%, the highest ever,while the worldwide growth rate of ship-ments remained at a healthy 30%.128

If the growth rate in PV manufacturingactivity continues at the 52% level it reachedin the U.S. in the past year, cumulative world-wide PV capacity will have reached 500,000MW by 2013. If growth in manufacturingonly grows at the 1997-99 average rate of31%, the industry will have reached thismilestone in 2022.

GeothermalGeothermal energy provides the U.S. with2,700 MW of generating capacity. Currentlygeothermal fields are generating electricityfor 1.5-8 ¢/kWh.131

The Geysers in California are a good ex-ample of how renewable energy, with thebulk of its costs upfront, can provide elec-tricity at stable and declining costs. Theplants were built in the 1960s and are stilloperating today with much of the originalinfrastructure, including the wells. Since thecapital costs of the original construction havebeen paid off and the resource continues tofuel the plant at no cost, the only expensesare ongoing operation and maintenancecosts. They are now producing electricity for3 ¢/kWh.132

BiomassA power plant burning 100% biomass canproduce electricity for about 9 ¢/kWh,though advances in technology are expectedto bring the cost down to 5 ¢/kWh in the fu-ture.133

Economic DevelopmentBenefits of Clean EnergyThe 1997 Kyoto protocol, an internationaltreaty to reduce global-warming greenhousegases, prompted analyses of the feasibilityand impacts of carbon reduction strategiesin the U.S. Given that power plants accountfor 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions,

power plants were featured prominently inthese strategies. Each of these reports pro-duced concurring results:• A 1997 study by five national laborato-

ries concluded that a vigorous nationalcommitment to developing and deployingenergy-efficient, low-carbon, and renew-able technologies can reduce pollution, re-duce energy consumption, and produceenergy savings that equal or exceed thecosts of the endeavor.134

• Another 1997 study by five environmen-tal and public policy organizations foundthat policies encouraging energy effi-ciency, renewable energy, and other ad-vanced clean technologies would result inlower energy consumption, lower CO

2

emissions, billions of dollars in consumerenergy bill savings, and a net employmentboost of nearly 800,000 jobs in the U.S.by 2010.135

• In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency analyzed policy and programscenarios with help from the LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory. The analy-sis identified a relationship between car-bon emissions mitigation (throughdevelopment of energy-efficient, low-car-bon, and renewable technologies) and eco-nomic activity. In their model, carbonmitigation resulted in increased gross do-mestic product and economic savings by2010 larger than the business-as-usualprojections.136

• In 2000, the Interlaboratory WorkingGroup on Energy-Efficient and CleanEnergy Technologies examined the poten-tial for public policies and programs toaddress current energy-related challenges.Their study concluded that public policiespromoting energy efficiency and clean en-ergy production can significantly reducepower plant air pollution with economicbenefits that are comparable to overallprogram implementation costs.137


All of these studies address the problemof pollution with a comprehensive and long-term approach, and all of these studies dis-prove the long-held misconception that wemust choose between cleaner energy produc-tion and economic growth. Their solutionsare similar in that each multifaceted scenarioinvolves using energy more efficiently anddiversifying our energy mix by adding cleanrenewable technologies to our portfolio.

Conventional Sources ofElectricity Generationand their CostsCoal, natural gas, and nuclear power serveas the major sources for America’s electric-ity generation. Current trends are pointingus in the direction of increased dependenceon these unsustainable resources. A closerlook into to the life-cycles of each of theseresources reveals why they are unsustainableand more costly than clean energy solutionsin the long term.

Fossil FuelsFossil fuels are a limited resource. Clearlywe cannot continue to rely on them forever.Some people fear that we will run out andhave no place to go, while others feel thatwe will keep finding new deposits and donot need to worry about it. Both of theseviews miss the point. We should be con-cerned about the limited nature of fossil fu-els because of escalating environmentalcosts, volatile fuel costs and supply insta-bilities, and because deepening our depen-dence on them is money and effort poorlyspent when we will unavoidably need to tran-sition to renewable fuels.Natural GasNatural gas is currently the world’s favoredfossil fuel because it is the cleanest burningfossil fuel. Energy companies have re-sponded to concerns about the health andglobal warming effects of burning coal byproposing that nearly all future electricity-generating power plants be fueled by natu-ral gas.

Because its emissions are cleaner and be-cause we are not yet geared up to rely com-pletely on sustainable fuels, gas is extremelyvaluable and should be treated as a precious,limited, transitional resource to aid us as weshift our reliance onto sustainable energysources. Instead it is being regarded as anunlimited commodity whose availability willbe appropriately managed by market forcesalone.

Market forces would eventually treat natu-ral gas as a limited resource, but this wouldhappen very slowly and only after wastingunnecessary amounts. Most energy expertsagree that the average price of natural gaswill gradually rise over the coming years anddecades. Even the unflinchingly optimisticEnergy Information Administration (EIA)predicts that natural gas prices will rise be-tween 1.2% and 2.8% per year in constantdollars through 2020.138 Energy experts ofall backgrounds agree that energy produc-tion will shift from natural gas and other fos-sil fuels to renewable technologies as theprice of fossil fuels goes up and the price ofrenewables declines. To make this shift be-fore supplies are squandered too extensivelyand to correct for historical manipulationsof the market favoring fossil fuels, renew-able energy development should be encour-aged now.

Natural gas prices are also subject to dra-matic volatility, as was clearly seen in the“energy crisis” in California over the pastyear. According to the Department of En-ergy, the cost of generating electricity usingnatural gas was 3.7 ¢/kWh in 2000, but thecost reached as high as 43 ¢/kWh in Febru-ary 2001 in California.139

The price of fossil fuel-generated electric-ity is dominated by the ongoing cost of thefuel. Several factors directly affect the costof fossil fuels:• Supply and demand.

• Accessibility of reserves.

• Infrastructure requirements for transpor-tation and distribution.


Supply and DemandThe U.S. does not have enough domestic re-serves of natural gas to satisfy our growingdemand. The U.S. Geological Survey esti-mates that the U.S. has 1,049 trillion cubicfeet of gas remaining, of which only 16%are proved reserves. If demand were to growby 2.3% through 2020 as predicted by theDepartment of Energy and stay constantthereafter, and imports from foreign nationsremain around 16% of demand, this amountof gas only constitutes a 38-year supply.

Since 1986 the U.S. has not producedenough natural gas to meet its demand, andthe gap continues to widen.140

AccessibilityMany of the new gas wells needed in the nexttwenty years will be tapping reserves that aremore difficult to reach than those we havealready tapped. As the EIA has stated in ex-planation of its forecast of increasing natu-ral gas prices, “increases reflect the risingdemand projected for natural gas and its ex-pected impact on the natural progression ofthe discovery process from larger and moreprofitable fields to smaller, less economicalones.”141

Energy companies have had to drill a vastlyincreasing number of wells each year to pro-vide a marginally increasing supply of gas.If they are to increase production dramati-cally over the next twenty years as projected,they will have to increase drilling far beyondcurrent and previous rates. Due to decliningwell productivity, meeting those projectionsmay not even be possible.Well ProductivityThe productivity of gas wells peaked in 1973and has steadily declined since then. The124,000 wells in the U.S. in 1973 producedan average of 182 million cubic feet (MMcf)of natural gas. This productivity fell sharplyin the following years, then continued on agradual decline. From 1984-2000, the aver-age annual gas production per well declinedby 21 percent. In 1999, the country had two

and a half times as many wells as in 1973,but each well was producing less than a thirdas much gas – 307,000 wells produced anaverage of 55 MMcf/yr each.

The natural gas industry has evidence thatthe rate per well of natural gas productionwill continue to decline. William Wise,Chairman and CEO of the world’s largestnatural gas company, El Paso Corp., recentlystated plainly that gas production in NorthAmerica is flat despite a recent surge in drill-ing. Receipts from his company’s expansivepipeline systems have stayed roughly con-stant for the past three years. “Our field ser-vices are in all of the basins where all of thedrilling in the United States is taking placeand we are not seeing a production response.We’re just kind of treading water, holdingour own,” Wise told an annual energy con-ference in March 2001. Decline rates – thereduction in well output over the previousyear – have increased from 17% per year in1970 to nearly 50% today. “What not every-body realizes is the same thing is happeningin Canada,” Wise said. Decline rates therewent from 20% per year in 1990 to 40% peryear in 1998.142

0

5

10

15

20

25

1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000

Trilli

onCub

icFee

t

U.S. ConsumptionU.S. Production

Figure 13: U.S. Natural Gas Consumption vs.Production


If the productivity per well stays constantat the current rate of 55 MMcf/yr, 529,000production wells will be needed to meet theU.S. projected demand of 29.1 tcf of gas in2020. This is 72% more than the 307,000wells in operation in 1999. With the gener-ous assumption that all current wells will stillbe producing gas in twenty years, the U.S.would need an additional 221,600 produc-ing wells. Since only one out of two wellsdrilled actually produces gas, 443,200 wellswould need to be drilled, an average of23,300 per year. This is just slightly morethan the number of wells that were actuallydrilled in 2000.143

However, since the productivity per wellhas declined continually since 1973, it wouldbe more realistic to assume that the produc-tivity rate will continue to decline. Between1984 and 2000, productivity declined by21%. If productivity declines another 20%over the next twenty years, 707,800 newwells will need to be drilled, an average of37,000 per year. Since drilling will be sig-nificantly less than that in the next few yearsas the industry gradually expands, drillingin the latter part of the twenty-year period

will need to be well over 40,000 wells peryear, a truly unprecedented amount.

ImportsSince domestic supplies are limited, if wecontinue to increase our dependence on natu-ral gas, we will have to turn to expensiveoversees shipments.

Gas imported from Canada can be shippedby pipeline, but as Canada experiences de-clining production rates like the U.S., we willbe forced to look to other continents for im-ports. To import natural gas from overseas,the gas must first be turned into a liquid bycooling it to -256 degrees Fahrenheit. It isthen shipped in tankers, turned back into agas at receiving facilities, and sent by pipe-line to its final destination. The process willcertainly increase natural gas prices.InfrastructureThe U.S. gas pipeline and electricity powerline network is in desperate need of atten-tion. In most parts of the country, the net-work is operating at its upper limits. Newinfrastructure needed to feed the multitudesof new gas plants planned for the U.S. willaffect the cost of natural gas.

Vice President Cheney has called for theconstruction of more than one power plantper week for the next twenty years, with mostof them fueled by natural gas. He recentlystated that the Bush energy plan would re-quire 38,000 miles of new gas pipelines.144

At a rough estimate of $700,000 to build amile-long stretch of pipeline in anunpopulated area and $2 million per mile inpopulated areas, this one piece of the VicePresident’s plan would cost $27-76 billion.145

Along with the cost of finding and extract-ing natural gas, this will be a tremendousinvestment for a relatively short-term solu-tion.

At an average power plant lifetime of fortyyears, domestic production of natural gas willpeak well before those plants are used fortheir full lifetimes. In recent years, “strandedcosts” from bad investments in nuclear powerplants have been an issue. Twenty-five years

Figure 14: U.S. Production Wells vs. Total DryGas Production

020

406080

100120

140160180

200220240

260280

300320340

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Producing Wells (thousands)

Total Dry Gas Production(trillion cubic feet)


from now, we may face stranded costs fromgas-fired power plants that are no longer eco-nomically viable due to limited resources.

CoalCoal is used for electricity generation in theU.S. more than any other resource for twobasic reasons: it is a domestic resource and,by ignoring the externalized costs, coal ap-pears to be the cheapest of all energy re-sources.

As downstream effects of burning coal arebeing recognized, studies have begun to re-veal the truer costs of coal-burning powerplants. Without externalized costs included,coal-fired electricity generation costs about2.3 ¢/kWh.146 When external costs are ac-counted for, the cost rises to more than 8 ¢/kWh.147 This is more expensive than manyemission-free renewable energy projects.

Fossil Fuel/RenewableEnergy Cost ComparisonWhen the true costs of the life-cycles of“cheap” fossil fuels are revealed, renewabletechnologies often prove to be less expen-sive. In 1994, the U.S. Office of TechnologyAssessment reviewed previous studies of theenvironmental costs of electricity produc-tion. The studies mostly measure the costsof compliance with air quality regulations,transportation costs associated with energyproduction, land use impacts, and some pub-

lic health costs. Only one study, a more re-cent analysis by the European Union and theU.S. Department of Energy published in2001, attempted a comprehensive set of costsincluding the costs of climate change, hu-man death and illness from disease and acci-dents, reduced production of crops andfisheries, degraded structures, lost recre-ational and tourism opportunities, degradedvisibility, loss of habitat and biodiversity, anduse of land, water, and minerals. The otherstudies each contain some subset of theseimpacts.

Coal has the greatest external costs. Natu-ral gas, though its air emissions are cleanerthan coal, also has significant external costsdue to its environmental impacts. Once someexternal costs are included in the generationcosts, renewable energy sources are far morecompetitive, with costs of some renewablesless than that of fossil fuels.

New Mexico, in particular, ought to com-pare external costs. It is the nation’s topcoalbed methane producer, third largest natu-ral gas producer, and 12th largest coal pro-ducer. Although water is perhaps the mostvaluable of all New Mexico resources, thestate depends heavily on water-intensiveenergy production.151 Without consideringthe coal excavation process, a typical coal-fired power plant consumes 0.49 gallons ofwater per kWh through evaporative loss, notincluding water that is treated for reuse.152

Table 9: Studies of External Costs of Electricity Generation (¢/kWh) 148

1990 Pace University 3.91-9.58 1.5 0.0-0.5 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.91991 Tellus Institute 6.03-13.45 2.271989 PLC Consulting 4.7-8.4 2.81999 Fraunhofer Institute 0.4 0.0091986 Bonneville Power 0.0-0.0291982 NRDC 4.05-6.75 0.0-0.272001 U.S. DOE/European Union 5.8 1.8 0.6 0.15 1.1Average 6.6 2.1 0.4 0.09 0.01 0.8


Table 10: Electricity Generating Costs with Some External Costs (¢/kWh) 149

Basic Generating Cost 2.3 3.9 18.5 5.5 4.8 9External Costs 6.6 2.1 0.4 0.09 0.01 0.82001 Cost 8.9 6 18.9 5.6 4.8 9.8

2001 costs for renewables in this table are the national average of today’s range of costs for each resource.Solar PV costs must be compared to retail electricity costs, which range from 5-14.8 ¢/kWh for residentialrates.150

New Mexico’s Four Corners Power Plant andSan Juan Generating Station, with a com-bined capacity of about 4,000 MW, togetherrequire 13 billion gallons of water each yearfor operation.153 Renewable energy sourcescould enable New Mexico to remain a topenergy producer while significantly reduc-ing pressure on the state’s already stressedwater basins and aquifers. Solar PV requiresonly 6% of the water needed by conventionalcoal plants and wind turbines only use0.2%.154

Nuclear PowerNuclear power is not the answer to cleaningup our electric power industry-related pol-lution. It is not cheap and it is not safe.

Nuclear power would not exist in thiscountry today were it not for enormous sub-sidies paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers.Taxpayer-financed federal R&D moneyalone has totaled $66 billion.155 On top ofthat, the nuclear industry has received a spe-cial taxpayer-backed insurance policy knownas the Price Anderson Act, taxpayer-fundedcleanup of uranium enrichment sites, thecostly privatization of the previously gov-ernment-owned Uranium Enrichment Cor-poration, and unjustifiably high electricityrates from state regulators. Add to this theenormous bailouts in state deregulation plansthat began a few years ago and will continuein the coming years. “Stranded costs” in justeleven key states may total more than $132billion.156


Job Gains from CleanEnergy SolutionsA clean energy strategy involving renewableenergy projects and energy efficiency mea-sures would provide a net increase in jobsfor Americans. Both renewable energy andenergy efficiency projects would employpeople for manufacturing, installing, andservicing equipment.

While much of the generating costs of elec-tricity production from fossil fuels goes tofuel, electricity generation from renewableenergy involves a higher proportion of itscosts for skilled labor. A recent report by theRenewable Energy Policy Project estimatedlabor requirements for coal, wind, solar PV,and biomass co-firing. According to REPP,wind and solar PV would provide 40% morejobs per dollar of cost (including capital,construction, and generating costs), com-pared to coal employment.157 A 37.5 MWwind project would require 9,500 hours oflabor per megawatt of power installed andoperating for one year. This translates to 4person-years per megawatt, assuming a 10-year operation period. The operations in-volved in producing electricity from a 2 kWsolar PV system would require 35.5 person-years per megawatt of power output.

The California Energy Commission (CEC)conducted its own analysis of job impacts

associated with different electricity generat-ing technologies. Unlike the REPP analysis,the CEC separated temporary constructionjobs from long-term operating employment.

The CEC analysis also found that renew-able energy technologies employ far morepeople than natural gas power plants. Com-paring jobs created by a new 300 MW powerplant operating for 30 years, renewable en-ergy technologies create at least five timesas many jobs as new combined cycle plants(for solar PV) and as much as 25 times asmany jobs (for geothermal).

Net Job Gains in New MexicoNew Mexico would experience a net job gainwith renewables development even after con-sidering the employment losses in the con-ventional fossil fuel industry.

A study conducted by the Tellus Institutefound that implementing climate protectionpolicies would result in net job gains acrossthe country. The suite of policies in the cli-mate protection scenario included policiesaddressing the buildings and industry sectorand the transportation sector along with arenewable portfolio standard and caps onCO

2, SO

2, and NOx emissions to directly

address the electricity sector. Under this cli-mate protection policy scenario, the studyestimated New Mexico would net 4,200 ad-ditional jobs by 2010.159

Table 11: Job Impacts of ElectricityGenerating Technologies 158

Natural Gas Plants 0.60 0.04 630 1Wind 2.57 0.29 3,381 5.4Solar PV 7.14 0.12 3,222 5.1Solar Thermal 5.71 0.22 3,693 5.9Geothermal 4.00 1.67 16,230 25.8


Net Job Gains NationwideThe National Center for Photovoltaics esti-mates that the PV industry alone currentlyemploys some 20,000 American workers inhigh-value, high-tech jobs. By 2020, the in-dustry expects the workforce to reach150,000. Several years beyond 2020, the PVindustry estimates it will double this employ-ment level, with jobs at the same level cur-rently supported by General Motors or theU.S. steel industry.160

Even considering the job losses that wouldoccur in the fossil fuel energy industry, theTellus Institute study mentioned above foundthat a net gain of more than 700,000 jobs inthe U.S. would be created by 2010 under theirclimate protection scenario.161 Although thenumber of jobs gained varies from state tostate, all states would see a net gain in thenumber of jobs, even those that produce sig-nificant amounts of fossil fuels, like Texas.


POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

A comprehensive energy plan on a lo-cal, state, or national level must ad-dress four major priorities:

1. Energy conservation and efficiency.

2. Promotion of clean, renewable energysources.

3. Termination of wasteful subsidies for fu-els and technologies that are neither cleannor sustainable.

4. Promotion of more local control anddemocratic governance over energy.

State PolicyRecommendations

1) Energy conservationand efficiencyNew Mexico should implement policies thathave been proven effective elsewhere:

Utility Energy Efficiency ProgramA Utility Energy Efficiency Program (oftenreferred to as a public or systems benefitscharge) establishes a uniform charge issuedby the electric utilities to all customers. Therevenues received are set aside for a widerange of energy efficiency programs. Thishas proven to be very successful in otherstates, saving money, reducing electricitydemand, and reducing pollution. Althoughthe state has plans to initiate a systems ben-efit charge in 2007, the people of NewMexico would benefit more if the measurewere effective sooner.

State Tax IncentivesTaxation has long been a proven method forencouraging or discouraging targeted busi-ness practices. Tax incentives should be setfor energy efficiency measures to encourageindividuals and businesses to incorporateenergy efficiency improvements and tech-nologies.

State Agency Requirement forEnergy Efficiency InvestmentState agencies in New Mexico proved theycould reduce consumption. The Governorshould encourage state agencies to continuetheir energy efficiency efforts. State-ownedbuildings should be constructed or retrofit-ted with high efficiency lighting, heating,venting, air conditioning, and appliances inorder to reduce energy consumption.

2) Promotion of clean,renewable energyNew Mexico currently has some renewableenergy-promoting programs:• Solar Rights Act (property owners’ pro-

tection of access to sunlight).

• Line Extension (requirement for utilitiesto provide PV information to remote cus-tomers).

• Net Metering (renewable energy intercon-nection rule).These programs are a good start for a com-

prehensive energy policy for the state, butNew Mexico also needs to add some essen-tial statewide policies in order to realize itsrenewable energy potential:

Utility Renewable EnergyDevelopment ProgramThis program is identical to the Utility En-ergy Efficiency Program, with revenues re-ceived set aside for a wide range of renewableenergy programs.

Renewable Energy StandardA renewable energy standard would requireall retail electricity suppliers to include apercentage of renewable resources in theirgeneration mix. New Mexico should enact astandard calling for its energy mix to include12% renewables by 2010 and 20% by 2020.


State Agency Requirement forRenewable Energy PurchasesThe state could have a significant effect onthe renewable energy industry by requiringits agencies to purchase a percentage of theirpower from renewable sources. This wouldprovide a dependable market for local renew-able energy companies as well as reducingpollution and helping to stabilize utilityprices.

Net MeteringFor those electric utility customers with theirown on-site electricity generating systems,net metering allows electricity to flow bothto and from the customer. When excess elec-tricity is generated by the customer’s ownsystem, the excess is fed back into the gridand the customer is compensated for it.

Wind and solar power, two popular on-sitegenerating systems, produce electricity in-termittently according to the availability oftheir sources. Often they generate morepower during peak times than the immedi-ate site requires. Net metering allows moreefficient use of electricity by capturing allelectricity generated from these on-site sys-tems and distributing it to other users. In turn,the centralized power plant provides electric-ity to net-metering customers during timeswhen the sun is not shining or the wind isnot blowing.

Since December 1998, New Mexico utili-ties have offered net metering for grid-con-nected renewable energy systems, butindividual systems are limited to 10 kW. ThePublic Utilities Commission should increasethe limit per system from 10 kW to 1 MW.Increasing the limit would encourage busi-nesses with greater demand to invest in moreefficient on-site electricity generation sys-tems.

State Tax Incentivesfor Renewable EnergyTax incentives for the purchase and installa-tion of on-site renewable energy technolo-

gies helps even the playing field for renew-able technologies as they compete with tra-ditional sources of energy for electricitygeneration. Since nearly all of the costs ofrenewable energy technologies are upfrontrather than spread out in the form of ongo-ing fuel costs, tax incentives for these upfrontcosts are one way to help individuals andbusinesses handle the challenge of theupfront investment.

Taxing central station energy producers onpower output rather than capital assets isanother way to level the playing field be-tween renewable and traditional energysources. Assessing taxes solely on capitalassets gives an advantage to traditional powerproducers, since renewable power produc-ers invest more in capital rather than fuel.

3) Policies Ending WastefulSubsidies for Fuels andTechnologies that Are NeitherClean Nor SustainableNew Mexico should not subsidize coal andgas production, both of which cost us dearlyin environmental and public health conse-quences. In New Mexico in particular, whererenewable energy potential is so great, sub-sidies to polluting energy sources are a wasteof money and a threat to valuable water re-sources.

4) Policies Promoting MoreLocal Control and DemocraticGovernance Over EnergyIn a democratic society, public preferencesmust be represented during the process ofenergy policy development. To ensure thatthe voices of New Mexico citizens are heardthe state should:• Include public participation in energy

policy decisions.

• Support efforts for the public to buy elec-tricity through their local governments.

• Support Citizen Utility Boards to give thepublic greater representation in the regu-


latory process.

• Guarantee that communities are notifiedof policy decisions that could affect theirfuture.

Deliberative PollingDeliberative polling combines formal con-sultation in small group discussions with sci-entific random sampling to incorporatepublic opinion in the decision-making pro-cess for public policy. Deliberative pollinghas been used in Texas, which is now a leaderin renewable energy and energy efficiencypolicy.

Federal PolicyRecommendationsA clean energy policy on the national levelmust include policies that address the samemajor areas. The two most important poli-cies needed on a federal level to achieve thegoal of a clean and sustainable energy fu-ture for America are a renewable energy stan-dard and a utility energy efficiency andrenewable energy development program(Public Benefits Fund).

Renewable Energy StandardA renewable energy standard, as describedabove in the state policy recommendationsection, should also be implemented on thefederal level. The potential power output ofwind, solar, and geothermal resources in theU.S. is many times greater than our total elec-tricity consumption. A national renewablestandard requiring all retail electricity sup-pliers to generate or obtain 10% of theirpower from renewable resources by 2010 and20% by 2020 would benefit the country’seconomy and environment.

Utility Energy Efficiencyand Renewable EnergyDevelopment ProgramAs described under the state policy recom-mendation section, the revenues received

from the uniform utility charge are set asidefor a wide range of energy efficiency andrenewable energy programs. On the federallevel, however, revenues collected would bedistributed by matching funds collected byindividual state utility energy efficiency andrenewable energy development programs.

In addition to these priorities, other fed-eral measures should be continued or cre-ated to ensure a viable national energy policy.

Incentives for Energy-EfficientProducts, Buildings, and PowerSystemsEfficient use of energy is critical to a sus-tainable energy system. Multiple incentivestargeted at different consumers and usesshould:• Provide consumers with energy efficiency

incentives such as rebates for energy-ef-ficient home appliances and construction.

• Provide incentives to industrial users ofpower to become more energy-efficient.

• Require real-time pricing structures forlarge industrial power users.

• Provide incentives to power plants thatadopt combined heat and power systemsto use waste heat and increase efficiency.

Efficiency Standardsand Building CodesEfficiency standards and building construc-tion codes need to be updated in order to takeadvantage of technology advancements. Ag-gressive but achievable standards should beestablished for the construction industry andfor appliances, transformers, industrial mo-tors, air conditioners, lighting, and otherproducts that consume significant amountsof electricity.

Renewable EnergyProduction IncentiveThis program provides financial incentivepayments for electricity produced and sold


by new qualifying renewable energy genera-tion facilities. Qualifying facilities are eli-gible for annual incentive payments of 1.7¢/kWh for the first ten-year period of theiroperation. Qualifying facilities must use so-lar, wind, geothermal, or biomass generationtechnologies.162 This program ended on De-cember 31, 2001 and has not been renewed.

Wind energy projects have proven to bevery successful, and energy suppliers are justbeginning to understand how to integratewind power into their energy mix. Severallarge Washington State wind projects backedby the Bonneville Power Administration andthe largest wind energy project to date inColorado, however, are currently on holdawaiting the decision on the extension of thisprogram. Although wind is currently the leastexpensive renewable energy source, incen-tive is needed to pave the way for its rapidand widespread utilization.

Interconnection Standardsand Net Metering RegulationsRenewable energy sources have a new ca-pability that no traditional energy source todate ever had. Not only can they operate liketraditional power plants, dispatching theirpower through the infrastructure of powerlines, but they can also generate electricityonsite. Onsite electricity generation savesenergy and money in several ways: 1) It canmatch the power needs of the onsite home,building, or district accurately; 2) It elimi-nates the losses of energy that occur in long-distance transmission; and 3) Excess powergenerated at onsite locations can be sent tothe grid for distribution elsewhere, reducingthe number of new central power plantsneeded. However, current interconnectionpenalties and barriers limit our ability to ef-fectively harness electricity generated from

these sources. Setting uniform and consumer-friendly interconnection standards wouldaddress the inconsistencies that now exist.Net metering standards, as described in thestate policy section above, should be set witha 1 MW cap to encourage onsite clean elec-tricity generation.

Expansion of Federal EnergyEfficiency and Renewable EnergyResearch and Development FundingEnergy efficiency offers the fastest, cleanest,cheapest solution to the nation’s powerneeds, and renewable energy technologiesare essential for the U.S. to develop andmaintain a sustainable energy system. Con-gress should increase funding for researchand development of these technologies.

Carbon TaxCurrently, the costs of environmental andpublic health damage caused by CO

2 emis-

sions from fossil fuel combustion are notaccounted for by the electricity generationindustry. A carbon tax would assign respon-sibility of these costs to the appropriatesources, instead of passing them on to othersectors of society.

Retirement Plan forGrandfathered Coal PlantsThe Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in1977 and 1990, exempts coal-burning powerplants from new source standards, allowingthem to emit four to ten times the amount ofpollution that new plants may emit under theClean Air Act. These grandfathered coalpower plants should be required to meet thesame air pollution standards as new powerplants. Otherwise these plants should be re-tired and replaced by renewable energy tech-nologies, low-carbon technologies, or energyefficiency.


NOTES

1. Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy, Many NewFossil Powered Plants Slated for New Mexico, down-loaded from www.cfcae.org/Conventional_Generation/ New_Plants.htm, 1 March 2002.

2. New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Re-sources Department, Secondary Energy Resources,downloaded from www.emnrd.state.nm.us/Mining/99ResRpt/5Second.pdf, 3 December 2001.

3. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SupplementarySurvey, 2000; CO

2 emissions calculated using U.S.

Energy Information Administration data (State Elec-tricity Summary Information downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/colorado/co.html) and U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s emission rates (The Emissions and Genera-tion Resource Integrated Database 2000, Version 2.0,September 2001).

4. U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Flirting withDisaster: Global Warming and the Rising Cost of Ex-treme Weather, 17 April 2001.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Cli-mate Change and New Mexico (EPA 236-F-98-007p),September 1998.

6. U.S. EPA, State Energy CO2 Inventories, down-

loaded from yosemite.epa.gov/globalwarming/ghg.nsf/emissions/state, 21 January 2002.

7. U.S. EPA, AIRData – NET SIC Report, down-loaded from http://www.epa.gov/air/data/netsic.html,20 December 2001.

8. Ibid.

9. U.S. EPA, AIRData – NTI MACT Report, down-loaded from http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ntimact.html,20 December 2001.

10. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration (EIA), Emissions of Greenhouse Gasesin the United States 2000, EIA/DOE 0573 (2000),November 2000.

11. U.S. EPA, National Pollutant Emission Estimatesfor 1999, 13 June 2001.

12. Ibid.

13. U.S. EPA, Utility Air Toxics Report to Congress(fact sheet), 24 February 1998. Although electric powerplants emit many other pollutants, this report will limitdiscussions to these major contaminants.

14. U.S. EPA, The Emissions and Generation Re-source Integrated Database 2000, (Egrid 2000), Ver-sion 2.0, September 2001. All pollution emission fig-ures in this report not otherwise accounted for are fromEgrid.

15. Egrid calculation using U.S. data for 1999.

16. Egrid calculation using U.S. EIA data for NewMexico electricity generation in 1999. See PollutionReduction section for more detail on the Four Cornersand San Juan power plants.

17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001,January 2001.

18. Ibid.; Goddard Institute of Space Studies.


20. Clean Air Network, Poisoned Power: HowAmerica’s Outdated Electric Plants Harm Our Healthand Environment, September 1997.


22. Ibid.

23. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality and Standards,National Air Quality Trends Report, 1999, Table A8,downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/,2 October 2001.

24. Natural Resources Defense Council, Breathtak-ing: Premature Mortality Due to Particulate Air Pol-lution in 239 American Cities, May 1996.

25. See Dockery et al., “An Association Between AirPollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities,” New En-gland Journal of Medicine 329(24), 1993, 1753-9.

26. Ibid.; Natural Resources Defense Council, Breath-taking: Premature Mortality Due to Particulate AirPollution in 239 American Cities, May 1996.

27. American Lung Association, Lungs at Risk, De-cember 1997.

28. Clean Air Network, U.S. Public Interest ResearchGroup, Danger in the Air, January 2000. Based ondata from state air pollution officials.

29. R.J. Defino et al., “Effects of Air Pollution onEmergency Room Visits for Respiratory Illnesses inMontreal, Quebec,” American Journal of Respiratoryand Critical Care Medicine (155), 1997, 568-576.

30. American Lung Association, American Journalof Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, February2000.

31. Abt Associates, Clear the Air, Out of Breath:Health Effects from Ozone in the Eastern United States,October 1999.


32. Clean Air Task Force, Death, Disease & DirtyPower: Mortality and Health Damage Due to AirPollution from Power Plants, October 2000.

33. Rob McConnell et al, “Asthma in Exercising Chil-dren Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study,” The Lan-cet, 2 February 2002.

34. A.H. Johnson et al., “Synthesis and Conclusionsfrom Epidemiological and Mechanistic Studies of RedSpruce in Decline,” Ecology and Decline of Red Sprucein the Eastern United States (C. Eater and M.B.Adams, eds.), 1992.

35. The U.S. National Acid Precipitation AssessmentProgram, 1990 Integrated Assessment Report 48, 1991.

36. U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress,1997.

37. Ibid.

38. National Academy of Sciences, National ResearchCouncil, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, 2000;B. Weiss, “Long Ago and Far Away: A Retrospectiveon the Implications of Minamata, Neurotoxicology17(1), 1996, 257-264; C.C.W. Leong, N.L. Syed, andF.L. Lorscheider, “Retrograde Degeneration of Neu-rite Membrane Structural Integrity of Nerve GrowthCones Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury,”NeuroReport 12(4), 2001, 733-737.

39. U.S. EPA, Update: National Listing of Fish andWildlife Advisories (EPA-823-F-01-010), April 2001.

40. U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress,1997.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. W. Rossman, Western Pennsylvania Coalition forAbandoned Mine Reclamation, E. Wytovich, EasternPennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Recla-mation, and J.M. Seif, Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Abandoned Mines – Pennsylvania’s SingleBiggest Water Pollution Problem, 21 January 1997.

45. Ibid.

46. T.D. Pearse Resource Consulting, Mining and theEnvironment, March 1996, 14.

47. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources,Geofacts #15: Coal Mining and Reclamation, July1997.

48. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), CleanCoal Technology (RCED-00-86R), March 2000; GAO,Fossil Fuels: Outlook for Utilities’ Potential Use ofClean Coal Technologies (RCED-90-165), May 1990;GAO, Fossil Fuels: Status of DOE-Funded Clean CoalTechnology Projects as of March 15, 1989 (RCED-

89-166FS), June 1989; Friends of the Earth, Taxpay-ers for Common Sense, U.S. PIRG, Green Scissors2001: Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally HarmfulSpending, January 2001; The Economist, The LeakyBucket, 12 April 2001.

49. Friends of the Earth et al., Running on Empty:How Environmentally Harmful Energy Subsidies Si-phon Billions from Taxpayers, January 2002.

50. J. Nesmith and R. Haurwitz, “Pipelines: The In-visible Danger,” Austin American-Statesman, 22 July2001.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. San Juan Citizen’s Alliance, Oil and Gas Account-ability Project, Western Coalbed Methane Project,downloaded from www.ogap.org, 18 November 2001.

54. Western Organization of Resource Councils, Citi-zens Caught in Crossfire as High Oil Prices SpurDomestic Alternative Fuels Production, downloadedfrom www.worc.org/pr_crossfire.html, 28 March2000.

55. Powder River Basin Resource Council, The NowUnhidden Costs of Coal Bed Methane Gas Develop-ment, downloaded from www.powderriverbasin.org/costs.htm, 18 November 2001.

56. New Mexico Economic Development Depart-ment, New Mexico Factbook, downloaded fromwww.edd.state.nm.us/FACTBOOK/energy.htm, 3December 2001; Colorado Geologic Survey, Rock Talk3(3), July 2000.

57. Linda Ashton, “State Warns of Suit over HanfordCleanup,” Seattle Times, 24 March 2001.

58. Nuclear Information and Resource Service, U.S.Nuclear Debt Clock, using information from the U.S.Department of Energy, downloaded fromwww.nirs.org/dontwasteamerica/Nukedeb1.htm, 28April 2001.

59. Ibid.

60. Electric Power Research Institute, Electric PowerResearch Institute Journal, Nov/Dec 1995, 29.

61. Public Citizen, Commercial High-Level NuclearWaste: A Problem for the Next 1000 Millennia, down-loaded from www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_waste/hi-level/yucca,5 October 2001.

62. Public Citizen, Impacts of Nuclear Waste Trans-portation, downloaded from www.citizen.org/cmep/RAGE/radwaste/factsheets/45-trans.htm, 2 September2001.

63. U.S. EIA, State Electricity Profiles 2000 – NewMexico, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/


electricity/st_profiles/new_mexico/nm.html, 30 Octo-ber 2001.


65. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. WindResources Accessible to Transmission Lines, 5 August1994; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, An As-sessment of the Available Windy Land Area and WindEnergy Potential in the Contiguous United States,1991; U.S. DOE, EIA, Electric Utility Retail Sales ofElectricity to Ultimate Consumers, 2000.

66. American Wind Energy Association, Wind ProjectData Base, downloaded from www.awea.org/projects/index.html, 20 December 2001.

67. The United States Mission to the European Union,U.S. Experts Cite Rapid Growth in Wind Power, down-loaded from http://www.useu.be/Categories/Environ-ment/EnvWindPower09July01.html, 31 October 2001.

68. Electricity generation is calculated using a capac-ity factor of 30% for wind power.

69. U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable En-ergy Network, New Mexico Solar Resources, down-loaded from http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/tech_solar.cfm?state=NM, 1 November 2001.

70. New Mexico Solar Energy Association, Explorethe Solar Resource, downloaded from http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Listing.htm, 30 October2001; calculations assume national electricity demandis one-third total energy demand and the capacity fac-tor for solar thermal power is 20%.

71. New Mexico Solar Energy Association, Explorethe Solar Resource, downloaded from http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Listing.htm, 30 October2001.

72. U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable En-ergy Network, Current Renewable Energy Projects inNew Mexico, downloaded from http://w w w . e r e n . d o e . g o v / s t a t e _ e n e r g y /states_currentefforts.cfm?state=NM, 12 October 2001.

73. Solar PV Total Installed Capacity Growth: Inter-national Energy Agency Photovoltaics Power SystemsProgramme, Statistics, downloaded from http://www.euronet.nl/users/oke/PVPS/stats/home.htm, 15November 2001.

74. Nystrom, C., “County Installing Nation’s LargestRooftop Solar Power System”, Globestreet.com, 17June 2001; “San Francisco to Invest $100 Million inRenewable Energy”, SolarAccess.com, downloaded 20November 20, 2001.

75. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 790, 1978.

76. The Center for Renewable Energy and Sustain-able Technology, The Sun’s Joules: Geothermal, down-loaded from solstice.crest.org/renewables/SJ/geother-mal/577.html, 22 June 2001.

77. U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable En-ergy Network, Current Renewable Energy Projects inNew Mexico, downloaded from http://w w w . e r e n . d o e . g o v / s t a t e _ e n e r g y /states_currentefforts.cfm?state=NM, 17 October 2001.

78. American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, State Scorecard on Utility Energy EfficiencyPrograms, April 2000; Dollar amounts for statewideutility revenues and sales were calculated using EIArecords for 1999 (www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esrt17p31.html).

79. American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, State Scorecard on Utility Energy EfficiencyPrograms, April 2000.

80. New Mexico Energy Conservation and Manage-ment Division, State Agencies Continue to Save En-ergy and Tax Dollars, 8 August 1997. The nine stateagencies leading the way are the Office of CulturalAffairs; Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources;Health; General Services; Highway and Transporta-tion; Labor; Public Safety; Taxation and Revenue; andOffice of Military Affairs.

81. Reduction in demand calculated from 1998 totalutility generation: U.S. EIA, State Electricity Profiles2000 – New Mexico, downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/new_mexico/nm.html, 30 October 2001.

82. Alliance to Save Energy, Home Energy Checkup,downloaded from www.ase.org/checkup/home/main.html, 12 December 2001.

83. U.S. EIA, United States Electricity Production,Table 5: Net Generation by Source and Sector, down-loaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav1/elecprod.html, 2 October 2001.

84. U.S. DOE, Why Consider Renewable Energy?,downloaded from www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/why_renewables.cfm, 4 June 2001.

85. U.S. DOE, Office of Utility Technologies, Re-newable Energy Technology Characterizations, De-cember 1997.

86. U.S. EIA, Supplement to the Annual Energy Out-look 2001, Table 72, 22 December 2000.

87. Wind: American Wind Energy Association, WindProject Data Base, 6 November 2000; solar: U.S.DOE, Annual Photovoltaic/Cell Manufacturers Sur-vey (EIA-63B); Louise Guey-Lee, U.S. EIA, personalcommunication, 4 May 2001, KJC Operating Com-pany, Recent Improvements and Performance Experi-


ence, 1996; geothermal: Geothermal Energy Associa-tion, Geothermal Facts and Figures, downloaded fromwww.geo-energy.org/usfacts.htm, 13 April 2001.

88. Capacity Factors used in calculations in this re-port: Geothermal: 95%; Solar: 20%; Wind: Capacityfactor of 30% is already factored into average mega-watts.

89. MWa: see Box: Note on Units in New Jersey WindEnergy Potential section.

90. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, An Assessment ofthe Available Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Po-tential in the Contiguous United States, 1991, as citedby the American Wind Energy Association, WindProject Data Base, 6 November 2000.

91. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. WindResources Accessible to Transmission Lines, 5 August1994, as cited by the U.S. EIA, Renewable EnergyAnnual 1995.

92. Lester Brown et al., State of the World 2001 (NY:W.W. Norton, 2001), 94; American Wind Energy As-sociation, Global Wind Energy Market Report, May2001.

93. American Wind Energy Association, Wind ProjectData Base, 6 November 2000.

94. Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, personal commu-nication, 4 May 2001; John Thorton, National Renew-able Energy Laboratory, personal communication, 11December 2001.

95. Pilkington Solar International, Status Report onSolar Thermal Power Plants, 1996, as cited in SolarEnergy Industries Association, Solar Thermal: Mak-ing Electricity from the Sun’s Heat (factsheet), down-loaded from www.seia.org/solar_energy, 19 April2001.

94. International Energy Agency Photovoltaics PowerSystems Programme, Statistics, downloaded fromwww.euronet.nl/users/oke/PVPS/stats/home.htm, 15November 2001.

97. U.S. DOE, Annual Photovoltaic/CellManufacturer’s Survey (EIA-63B); Louise Guey-Lee,U.S. EIA, personal communication, 4 May 2001

98. U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Re-newable Energy, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Fu-ture, November 2000.

99. Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Ne-vada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah.

100. United States Geological Survey (USGS), State-ment of Suzanne D. Weedman, Energy Resources Pro-gram Coordinator, before the Energy Subcommitteeof the Science Committee, U.S. House of Representa-tive, 3 May 2001.

101. U.S. EIA, Renewable Resources in the U.S. Elec-tricity Supply, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/pub_summaries/renew_es.html, 23October 2001.

102. American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, Smart Energy Policies: Saving Money andReducing Pollutant Emissions through Greater EnergyEfficiency, September 2001.

103. Primary energy includes energy used for trans-portation, heating, electricity, and all other uses.

104. 90% of coal is used for electricity generation,13% of natural gas, and 100% of nuclear, hydro, andrenewables.

105. Pollution is calculated using the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s Emissions and Genera-tion Resource Integrated Database (Egrid 2000), Ver-sion 2.0, September 2001, and includes CO

2, SO

2, and

NOx, from coal, petroleum, and gas plants, and mer-cury from coal plants.


107. U.S. PIRG, Lethal Legacy: The Dirty Truth aboutthe Nation’s Most Polluting Power Plants, April 2000.

108. U.S. EPA, EGRID 2000.

109. U.S. EIA, State Electricity Profiles: New Mexico,downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/newmexico/nm.html, 14 November 2001.

110. American Wind Energy Association, Wind En-ergy FAQ: How Much Water Do Wind Turbines UseCompared with Conventional Power Plants?, down-loaded from www.awea.org/faq/water.html, 5 Decem-ber 2001.

111. Current and projected U.S. electricity genera-tion: U.S. EIA, Supplement Tables to the Annual En-ergy Outlook 2001, Table 72, December 2000; all pol-lution calculations use U.S. EPA, EGRID 2000, Ver-sion 2.0, September 2001.

112. The Energy Foundation, National Energy PolicyFactsheet: Utility Energy Efficiency Programs, down-loaded from www.ef.org/national/FactSheetUtility.cfm, 28 September 2001.

113. Calculated using the average rate of carbon emis-sion from fossil fuel power plants in the U.S. fromU.S. EPA’s Egrid and the average coal capacity factorof 71%.

114. The Energy Foundation, National Energy PolicyFactsheet: Utility Energy Efficiency Programs, down-loaded from www.ef.org/national/FactSheetUtility.cfm, 28 September 2001.


115. Natural Resources Defense Council, Energy Ef-ficiency Leadership in a Crisis: How California IsWinning, August 2001.

116. See especially Amory Lovins and ChrisLotspeich, “Energy Surprises for the 21st Century,”Journal of International Affairs, 1999; T. Kubo, H.Sachs, and S. Nadel, Opportunities for New Applianceand Equipment Efficiency Standards: Energy and Eco-nomic Savings Beyond Current Standards Programs,September 2001; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Smart Energy Policies: SavingMoney and Reducing Pollutant Emissions throughGreater Energy Efficiency, September 2001.

117. American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, Smart Energy Policies: Saving Money andReducing Pollutant Emissions Through Greater En-ergy Efficiency, September 2001.

118. American Wind Energy Association, WindEnergy’s Costs Hit New Low, Position Wind as CleanSolution to Energy Crisis, Trade Group Says, 6 March2001.

119. Dave Rib, KJC Operating Company, personalcommunication, 24 August 2001.

120. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Cus-tomer Sited PV – U.S. Markets Developed from StatePolicies (NREL/CP-520-28426), May 2000; U.S.DOE, “Technology Characterizations”; CALPIRGCharitable Trust, Affordable, Reliable Renewables: ThePathway to California’s Sustainable Energy Future,July 2001.

121. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Cus-tomer Sited PV – U.S. Markets Developed from StatePolicies (NREL/CP-520-28426), May 2000.

122. Ibid.

123. Eric Ingersoll, Renewable Energy Policy Project,Industry Development Strategy for the PV Sector,1998.

124. University of Wisconsin-Madison, The WhyFiles: Science Behind the News, Buying the Sun, down-loaded from whyfiles.org/041solar/main1.html, 18October 2001.

125. Eric Ingersoll, Renewable Energy Policy Project,Industry Development Strategy for the PV Sector,1998.

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid.

128. U.S. EIA, Renewable Energy Annual 2000,March 2001.

129. U.S. data: U.S. EIA, Renewable Energy 2000:Issues and Trends, (Technology, Manufacturing, andMarket Trends in the U.S. and International Photo-

voltaics Industry), February 2001; World data: ByronStafford, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,Renewables for Sustainable Village Power, down-loaded from www.rsvp.nrel.gov, 8 August 2001 andU.S. EIA, Renewable Energy 2000: Issues and Trends,(Technology, Manufacturing, and Market Trends in theU.S. and International Photovoltaics Industry), Feb-ruary 2001.

130. 52%: U.S. EIA, Renewable Energy Annual 2000,March 2001; 31%: Byron Stafford, National Renew-able Energy Laboratory, Renewables for SustainableVillage Power, downloaded from www.rsvp.nrel.gov,8 August 2001, and U.S. EIA, Renewable Energy2000: Issues and Trends, (Technology, Manufactur-ing, and Market Trends in the U.S. and InternationalPhotovoltaics Industry), February 2001.

131. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Geo-thermal Today, May 2000.

132. U.S. DOE, Geothermal Energy Program: Fre-quently Asked Questions, downloaded fromwww.eren.doe.gov/geothermal/geofaq.html, 8 January2002.

133. U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Network, Biopower: Renewable Energy fromPlant Material, downloaded from www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/basics/ba_econ.htm, 23 October 2001.

134. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), National Re-newable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge Na-tional Laboratory (ORNL), and Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory (PNNL), Scenarios of U.S. Car-bon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy-Efficientand Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond,1997.

135. Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), the AmericanCouncil for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), TellusInstitute, and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),Energy Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a CleanEnvironment, 1997.

136. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technologyand Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Integrated Sce-nario Analysis Using the LBNL-NEMS Model (LBNL-42054. EPA 430-R-98-021), September 1998.

137. Interlaboratory Working Group (Oak Ridge Na-tional Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Labo-ratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,Argonne National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Na-tional Laboratory), Scenarios for a Clean Energy Fu-ture, November 2000.

138. U.S. EIA, “Rising Demand Increases Natural GasPrices in All Economic Growth Cases,” Annual En-


ergy Outlook 2001, 22 December 2000.

139. U.S. DOE, Levelized Cost Summary for NEMS(AEO2001/D101600A), 2001; Federal Energy Regu-latory Commission, Order Directing Sellers to Pro-vide Refunds of Excess Amounts Charged, 9 March2001; Mike Madden, “What’s a Fair Wholesale Pricefor a Kilowatt of Electricity?,” Gannett News Service,30 March 2001.

140. U.S. EIA, Annual Energy Review 2000, August2001.

141. U.S. EIA, “Rising Demand Increases Natural GasPrices in All Economic Growth Cases,” Annual En-ergy Outlook 2001, 22 December 2000.

142. C. Bryson Hull, “North American Gas Produc-tion Flat, Despite Drilling Boom,” Reuters, 26 March2001.

143. U.S. EIA, “Oil and Gas Supply,” Annual EnergyOutlook 2001, 22 December 2000.

144. Joseph Kahn, “Cheney Promotes Increasing Sup-ply as Energy Policy,” New York Times, 1 May 2001.

145. California Energy Resources Conservation andDevelopment Commission, Comments of El PasoNatural Gas Company in Response to Workshop Ques-tions Pertaining to Natural Gas Supply ConstraintIssues, 15 February 2001.

146. U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Network, Biopower: The Economics ofBiopower, downloaded from www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/basics/ba_econ.htm, 23 October 2001.

147. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Studiesof the Environmental Costs of Electricity (OTA-BP-ETI-134), September 1994; European Union Commis-sion and U.S. DOE, ExternE Project – Externalitiesof Energy: A Research Project of the European Com-mission, downloaded from externe.jrc.es, 30 October2001.

148. Ibid. Amounts converted to 2001 dollars.

149. Coal: U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renew-able Energy Network, Biopower: The Economics ofBiopower, downloaded from www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/basics/ba_econ.htm, on 23 October 2001;Natural gas: U.S. DOE, Levelized Cost Summary forNEMS (AEO2001/D101600A), 2001; Solar PV: Na-tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, Customer SitedPV – U.S. Markets Developed from State Policies,NREL/CP-520-28426, May 2000; U.S. DOE, “Tech-nology Characterizations”; CALPIRG CharitableTrust, Affordable, Reliable Renewables: The Pathwayto California’s Sustainable Energy Future, July 2001;Wind: American Wind Energy Association, WindEnergy’s Costs Hit New Low, Position Wind as Clean

Solution to Energy Crisis, Trade Group Says, 6 March2001; Geothermal: National Renewable Energy Labo-ratory, Geothermal Today, May 2000; Biomass: U.S.DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Net-work, Biopower: Renewable Energy from Plant Ma-terial, downloaded from www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/basics/ba_econ.htm, on 23 October 2001.

150. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Cus-tomer Sited PV – U.S. Markets Developed from StatePolicies, (NREL/CP-520-28426), May 2000.

151. New Mexico Economic Development Depart-ment, Factbook: Utilities, Energy and Communica-tion Overview, downloaded fromwww.edd.state.nm.us/FACTBOOK/energy.htm, 3December 2001.

152. Union of Concerned Scientists, EnvironmentalImpacts of Coal Power: Water Use, downloaded fromwww.ucusa.org/energy/c02b.html, 1 February 2002.

153. Plant generation figures used in calculation arefrom: U.S. EPA, The Emissions and Generation Re-source Integrated Database 2000, (Egrid 2000), Ver-sion 2.0, September 2001.

154. American Wind Energy Association, Wind En-ergy FAQ: How Much Water Do Wind Turbines UseCompared with Conventional Power Plants?, down-loaded from http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html, 5December 2001.

155. Fred Sissine, Congressional Research Service,Renewable Energy: Key to Sustainable Energy Sup-ply, 27 May 1999.

156. Safe Energy Communications Council, The GreatRatepayer Robbery, Fall 1998.

157. Renewable Energy Policy Project, The Work thatGoes into Renewable Energy, November 2001.

158. Electric Power Research Institute, prepared forthe California Energy Commission, California Renew-able Technology Market and Benefits Assessment,November 2001; calculations are based on 30 yearsof operation.

159. Tellus Institue, Clean Energy: Jobs for America’sFuture, October 2001.

160. Solar Energy Industries Association, Directoryof the U.S. Photovoltaics Industry, 1996; “Energy Al-ternatives and Jobs,” Renewable Energy World 3(6),November/December 2000.

161. The Tellus Institute, Clean Energy: Jobs forAmerica’s Future, October 2001.

162. Municipal solid waste is excluded as a source ofbiomass energy.

clean energy solutions - amazon web services · energy efficiency and renewable energy in new...

Documents