rps affirmative

8/14/2019 RPS Affirmative

1/32

RPS GeorgiaAff novice packet

Index

Index ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................1Explanation ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...21ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................31ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

1ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................51ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................61ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................71ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................81ac ................................................................................................................................................................................................................91ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....101ac ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................111ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....121ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....131ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....141ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....151ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....161ac .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ....17

Inh No renewable now ............................................................................................................................................................................18Inh A2 states solving now .......................................................................................................................................................................19Environment RPS decreases coal use .....................................................................................................................................................20Environment Renewables conserve water ..............................................................................................................................................21Environment Fossil Fuels hurt the Environment ....................................................................................................................................22Environment Air Pollution Ext ...................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...23Environment Acid rain Ext .....................................................................................................................................................................24Environment Renewables solve ..............................................................................................................................................................25Cmptvns US falling behind .....................................................................................................................................................................26Cmptvns RPS boosts competitiveness ................................................................................................................................................ ....27Cmptvns Renewables key to exports ......................................................................................................................................................28Cmptvns Key to US heg .........................................................................................................................................................................29Cmptvns A2 other countries producing ......................................................................................................................................... ...... ...30Solvency RPS awesome ..........................................................................................................................................................................31

Solvency RPS awesome ..........................................................................................................................................................................32

1


2/32


Explanation

An RPS is a renewable portfolio standard. The aff requires that all electricity producers produce at least 20% of their energy fromalternative energy sources by 2020. So, for example, in the status quo there is no requirement so Georgia Power [the major powerprovider in the US] can sell 1million kilowatts of energy and all 1 millions can be produced from coal. However, post plan of the1 million kilowatts that Georgia power sells at least 200,000 [or 20%] must come from an alternative energy source.

The plan also allows for a renewable energy credit. A credit means that a company that produces more than 20% from alternativeenergy can sell their excess to another company in order to help them meet their goal. So, if Georgia Power [in the scenarioabove] produces 500,000 kilowatts from alternative energy then they can sell a credit to Alabama Power for 300,000 kilowattsallowing them to also meet their goal. This provides an incentive for companies to make innovations very early within thetimeframe allowed.

The first advantage is just a basic environment advantage based off of the reasons why fossil fuels are bad for the environment.The claim is that the plan causes a shift to renewable which undermines all of the environmental harm being done by fossil fuels inthe status quo.

The second advantage is a competitiveness advantage. The claim is that the US is falling behind the rest of the world because wedont have renewable energy technologies to sell to others and this is a major new market emerging around the world. There is

also the underlying belief that US products are less attractive because they are believed to be worse for the environment since theywere not produced with alternative energy. The plan by shifting to alternative energy and making technology production moreprofitable allows the US economy to keep up with other markets around the world and sustain the US economy. The impact isthat a global economic decline would cause wars that would destroy the planet.

Lots of literature on this affirmative and it is an excellent choice for a team that expects to get better throughout the year becausethe advantages can be fully developed and expanded easily with some more research.

Thoughts on new advantages 1. US/European relations2. US technological leadership3. independent reasons why fossil fuels are bad for the environment or other things.4. US/Chinese cooperation over energy sources.

2


3/32


1ac

CONTENTION ONE - INHERENCY

Individuals States are adopting renewable portfolio standards creating an uncertain regulatory environment for investor

and fueling market distortions. Only a federal RPS can create a diverse, predictable and stable national renewable market

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and AdjunctAssistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of theNetwork for New Energy Choices(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of PublicPolicy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National RenewablePortfolio Standard, May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

State-based renewable portfolio standards (RPS) create regulatory uncertainty for investors and inherent inequities amongratepayers. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, diverse and predictable national market for renewableresources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices."There are times when we are 50 states and there are times when we're one country and have national needs. And the way I knowthis is that Florida did not fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights." - (the fictional) President Josiah Bartlett, The

West WingArguably, we face no greater national priority than crafting a coherent national energy strategy. Americans face energy challengesover the next several decades - growing dependence on foreign sources of fuel, continued exposure to the threat of terroristsabotage,1 increasing vulnerability to impending climate change, and environmental threats - that demand progressive federalleadership. Yet federal legislation to establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) has failed no less than 17 times in thepast 10 years.While supporting state-based RPS efforts, the Bush Administration has officially opposed a national RPS on the grounds that itwould create "winners" and "losers" among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewableresources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.2 In the meantime, 21 states (and the District of Columbia) have adopted theirown RPS mandates, and eight others - Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia - areconsidering some form of RPS.With so much state-level action, one might be tempted to agree with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association(NRECA) that "activities on a number of fronts supplant the need for a federal RPS."3 But looks can be deceiving. Because theaccumulated demand for electricity is expected to accelerate over the next several decades, the penetration of renewable energytechnologies in individual states, while noteworthy, is not likely to substantially alter the national fuel mix nor materially addressthe energy risks we all face.Framing the debate as a choice between a perfectly functioning, undistorted energy market and a clunky, artificial federalintervention, opponents of a national RPS tend to ignore the unique drawbacks associated with a complex web of state-basedmandates.4 Indeed, the most compelling argument for federal action is that a national RPS may help correct many of the marketdistortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions. Not only does reliance on state-based action make for anuncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in some states that arepaying for "free riders" in others. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, more diverse and more predictablenational market for renewable resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices. A national RPS may helpcorrect many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions.

PLAN

The Unites States federal government should require that retail power providers meet at least 20 percent of electricity

demand with alternative energy by 2020 and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal.

3


4/32


1ac

CONTENTION TWO HARMS

ADVANTAGE ONE the environment

Conventional energy sources results in thousands of systemic deaths outweighs the one-shot risk of their disad

Dr. Sovacool, 8 Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professorat the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA(Benjamin K., also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, TheCosts of Major Energy Accidents, 1907 to 2007, 4-29-2008,www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/04/The-Costs-of-Major-Energy-Accidents-1907-to-2007/) // JMP

Conventional energy technologies-- namely nuclear, coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric power generators-- may kill more people thanyou think.From 1907 to 2007, a new study finds that 279 major energy accidents in the coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclearsectors have been responsible for $41 billion in damages and 182,156 deaths.The claim that humans are imperfect needs no further citation. It is unsurprising, then, that major energy accidents occur. But what counts as an energy accident,especially a major one?

The study attempted to answer this question by searching historical archives, newspaper and magazine articles, and press wire reports from 1907 to 2007. Thewords energy, electricity, oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, and hydroelectric were searched in the same sentence as the words accident,disaster, incident, failure, meltdown, explosion, spill, and leak. The study then narrowed results according to five criteria:The accident must have involved an energy system at the production/generation, transmission, and distribution phase. This means it must have occurred at an oil,coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, or hydroelectric plant, its associated infrastructure, or within its fuel cycle (mine, refinery, pipeline, enrichment facility, etc.);It must have resulted in at least one death or property damage above $50,000 (in constant dollars that has not been normalized for growth in capital stock);It had to be unintentional and in the civilian sector, meaning that military accidents and events during war and conflict are not covered, nor are intentional attacks.The study only counted documented cases of accident and failure;It had to occur between August, 1907 and August, 2007;It had to be verified by a published source;The study adjusted all damagesincluding destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and courtclaimsto 2006 U.S. dollars using the Statistical Abstracts of the United States.Unsurprisingly, the data concerning major energy accidents is inhomogeneous. While responsible for less than 1 percent of total energy accidents, hydroelectricfacilities claimed 94 percent of reported fatalities. Looking at the gathered data, the total results on fatalities are highly dominated one accident in which theShimantan Dam failed in 1975 and 171,000 people perished.Only three of the listed 279 accidents resulted in more than 1,000 deaths, and each of these varied in almost every aspect. One involved the structural failure of a

dam more than 30 years ago in China; one involved a nuclear meltdown in the Ukraine two decades ago; and one involved the rupture of a petroleum pipeline inNigeria around ten years ago.The study found that only a small amount of accidents caused property damages greater than $1 billion, with most accidents below the $100 million mark. Thesecond largest source of fatalities, nuclear reactors, is also the second most capital intense, supporting the notion that the larger a facility the more grave (albeitrare) the consequences of its failure. The inverse seems true for oil, natural gas, and coal systems: they fail far more frequently, but have comparatively fewerdeaths and damage per each instance of failure.While hydroelectric plants were responsible for the most fatalities, nuclear plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all

property damage. Oil and hydroelectric come next at around 25 percent each, followed by natural gas at 9 percent and coal at 2 percent.By energy source, the most frequent energy system to fail is natural gas, followed by oil, nuclear, coal, and then hydroelectric. Ninety-one accidents occurred atnatural gas facilities, accounting for 33 percent of the total; oil, 71 accidents at 25 percent; nuclear, 63 accidents at 23 percent; coal, 51 accidents at 18 percent;hydroelectric, 3 accidents at 1 percent.

Therefore, energy accidents exact a significant toll on human health and welfare, the natural environment, and society. Such accidentsare now part of our daily routines, a somewhat intractable feature of our energy-intensive lifestyles. They are an often-ignored negative externality associated with

energy conversion and use. This conclusion may seem quite banal to some, given how fully integrated energy technologies are into modern society. Yet energysystems continue to fail despite drastic improvements in design, construction, operation, and maintenance, as well as the best ofintentions among policymakers and operators.

Perhaps one striking difference between energy accidents and other normal risks facing society concerns the involuntary aspectsof energy accidents. Alcoholics, rock climbers, construction workers, soldiers, and gigolos all take a somewhat active and voluntary role in their risky

behavior. Those suffering from nuclear meltdowns, exploding gas clouds, and petroleum-contaminated water do not.

The death and destruction associated with large-scale energy technologies is significant. Tallied as a whole, the 182,156 energy-related deaths total more than twice the number that died in the Vietnam War. Indeed, if averaged out for each year, energytechnologies have been responsible for the equivalent of a September 11, 2001 happening every 1.65 years, year after year.The fact that such deaths are systemic means that they can be predicted to occur, with certainty, well into the future. Therein alsolies hope, for recurring events can be anticipated and responded to. Their high probability means that they can be more easilypredicted, planned for, and minimized than unforeseen and catastrophic events.

4


5/32


1ac

In particular, a federal RPS is key to prevent water shortages and thermal pollution that will collapse ecosystems

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and AdjunctAssistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the

Network for New Energy Choices(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of PublicPolicy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard(RPS), Network for New Energy Choices Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

B. Water ConservationIf projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors, America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for

farming. Perhaps the most importantand least discussedadvantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that isextremely water-intensive. The nations oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day.244 In 2006, they accounted for almost40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water source), roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture inthe entire United States.245

A conventional 500 MW coal plant, for instance, consumes around 7,000 gallons of water per minute, or the equivalent of 17Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.246 Older, less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia, the 3,400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9,913gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. 247 Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power plant consumes

and withdraws vast amounts of water. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal plants also use water toclean and process fuel, and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss.

Newer technologies, while they withdraw less water, actually consume more. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating, closed-loop cooling technologyconvert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source.

Thus, while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent, they contribute even more to the nations water scarcity.248Nuclear reactors, in particular, require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. Because much of the water is turned to steam, substantial amounts arelost to the local water table entirely. One nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River, but actually consumes(primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply, enough to service more than 196,000 Georgia homes,.249

With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, continuing to rely on fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generators couldspark a water scarcity crisis. In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030, to 7.3 billiongallons per day, if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. This staggering amount is equal to the entire countrys water consumption in 1995.250Water Shortages

The electric utility industrys vast appetite for water has serious consequences, both forhuman consumption and the environment. Assuming thelatest Census Bureau projections, the U.S. population is expected to grow by about 70 million people in the next 25 years.251 Such population growth is already threatening to overwhelmexisting supplies of fresh and potable water.Few new reservoirs have been built since 1980 and some regions have seen groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years as aquifers extract water faster thanthe natural rate of replenishment.252 Most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years, according to a recent survey, even under

normal conditions.253 In fact, 47 states in the country reported drought conditions during the summer of 2002.254Water shortages risk becoming more acute in the coming years as climate change alters precipitation patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, global warming is expected to inducea dramatic loss of snow-pack as more precipitation falls as rain. As a result, numerous studies have suggested that the hydrology of the region will be fundamentally altered with increasedflood risks in the spring and reductions of snow in the winter. 255 Consequently, power retailers in the region have expressed concern that large hydroelectric and nuclear facilitieswill have to be shut down due to lack of adequate water for electricity generation and cooling.256 During the steamy August of 2006, the record heat sparked unplanned reactor shutdownin Michigan and Minnesota as nuclear plant operators scrambled to find enough water to cool radioactive fuel cores.257Thermal Pollution

The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each day forcooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of once-through coolingpresents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the surrounding

surface waters.259 Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of cooling towers,ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments.In some cases, the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophicationa process where the warmertemperature alters the chemical composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Rather than improvingthe ecosystem, such alterations usually promote excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over others andseverely reducing water quality. In riparian environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse entireecosystems. This form of thermal pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking watertreatment.260 // pg. 97-100

5


6/32


1ac

This causes extinction

Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND **Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New

Republic, The Greatest Dying, 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is

different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, un like earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens.We are relentlessly taking over the planet,laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions thatcame before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone . At this rate, we could lose half of Earth'sspecies in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover , since the cause ofthe decimation - us - is here to stay.

To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, whilethe increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to bedescribed? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramifyunpredictably.

But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the greaapes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild.

And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhousegas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarcticanimals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction.

Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest

habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped speciesboundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility.

But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal,nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intentionand accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America'sGreat Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will

erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reducedforest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster.

In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted andwarming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will bea fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from landplants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlinesagainst erosion.

In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year,

roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible ifecosystems collapsed . Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.

Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of arare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of wormIts wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant).

Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than aquarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 u seful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug thasaved the life of one of our friends.

Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it'sestimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years.

Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in AmericansThat is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely,simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we aresurrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all go t here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and commonorigin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul.

But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creatinga world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates whilefood sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility thatwe ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubbyexistence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces theconsequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

6


7/32


1ac

RPS will displace natural gas and coal facilities preventing environmental harms

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and AdjunctAssistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the

Network for New Energy Choices(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of PublicPolicy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard(RPS), Network for New Energy Choices Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP

6. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water, Air & LandA. A National RPS Displaces Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.

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

A more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would otherwise be generated with amix of 87 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil.238 In Texas, the Union of Concerned Scientists also confirmed that renewableenergy technologies primarily displace natural gas and coal facilities.239

Often overlooked, is how RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S. Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that astatewide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.240 InOregon, the Governors Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every 50 MW of renewable energy would displaceapproximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power.241 Environment Michigan estimates that a 20 percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.242 Utilities in Ontario, Canada, are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace allcoal and nuclear electricity generation in the region entirely.243

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

7


8/32


1acADVANTAGE TWO Competitiveness

The global renewable market is rapidly expanding the U.S. will miss out on this multi-billion dollar energy revolution

without strong and consistent government support for domestic renewable energy production

Sawin, 2 Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute(Janet, Climate Wise, Losing the Clean Energy Race, 3-26- 2002, www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066) // JMP

The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the dominantglobal role in wind and solar PV development and deployment.But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies thatcontinue to favor dirty, conventional fuels and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders.We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy generatingcapacity, share of the global market, and ownership of manufacturers.U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace.If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potentialinvestment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that comewith clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global warming,improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future.With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than doublethe U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading manufacturerof wind turbines, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of global PVshipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001.Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that inGermany.The rising demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand forrenewable energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for renewableenergy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many times that forrenewable energy technologies.Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy economy to address globalclimate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide. Perhaps most importantly, the Americanpublic wants clean energy.

In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their preference for investment in renewable energy technologies over conventionalenergy. According to a Gallup poll taken November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans favor investments in new sources of energy,such as solar and wind.Top level advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance renewableenergy in order to advance America's energy security. "They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be brought, fullforce, into service. Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory and taxconditions for these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential."David Freeman, who has held top positions at the New York Power Authority and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and nowheads the California Power Authority, notes that "our whole system of electricpower supply is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear."Sir Mark Moody Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month called on governments of northern countries "to expandrenewable energy targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and switching some to renewable energy to provide a level playingfield in the energy sector."

Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's hard to talk about [a]competitive economy. And for renewable energy technologies we do too little."Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy, oceanpower, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's greatestwind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity each year , 37percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's surface with moreenergy than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any industrialized country.

Evidence continues on the next page no text deleted

8


9/32


1ac

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar energyon a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment for currentand future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply, improved energy andnational security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and innovation.

In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional energytechnologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested thancoal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an energycapacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs.The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing energysource worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules haveincreased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996.During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind powertechnologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime, whileachieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full life-cyclecosts below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants.Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than tenthousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy markets

will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most important industries."Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in developingcountries and advances in renewable energy technologies, nations around the world are setting targets for renewable energy. TheEuropean Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the European Wind EnergyAssociation projects that Europe will have 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the year 2020, wind energycould generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The European PV Industry Associationprojects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by 2040.Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a ministryfor advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have more than twobillion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly unlimited marketpotential.The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of activity inthis industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming decades. But

without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To competesuccessfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and consistent domesticmarket for their products.

9


10/32


1ac

The lack of a federal RPS is robbing domestic industries of valuable export opportunities and locking in U.S. inferiority in

this critical market

Fitzgerald, 6 directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University

(Joan, The American Prospect, Help Wanted Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if America willseize the opportunity, 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP

There are good jobs to be had in environmentally friendly development, and construction jobs are just the beginning. Thousands ofjobs are in products that go into green buildings. The job potential in renewable energy production is even more impressive. TheRenewable Energy Policy Project estimates that producing 10 percent of the nation's electricity with renewable sources wouldcreate 381,000 jobs producing the component parts of the systems. Already, renewable energy (biomass, solar, wind, geothermal)employ more than 115,000 people directly. These new jobs more than compensate for ongoing job loss in the coal and oilindustries as clean forms of energy replace polluting ones.Renewable energy is labor-intensive. It generates more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and installation per megawatt ofpower than coal and natural gas. These jobs start with research and development. They produce an array of goods and servicesfrom renewable energy itself to products made from high-tech or recycled materials. The majority of the jobs created would be inmanufacturing, although there are many in operations and maintenance and in system installation.

These jobs, often called greentech or cleantech, could provide middle-class wages for hundreds of thousands of Americans whilereducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving the environment. Producing for export could improve the balance of trade.That's the potential. The reality is that we're falling behind other countries. Solar power was invented in the United States, butJapan and Germany moved ahead of us in production in the late 1990s and China is not far behind. In wind power capacity, we'rebehind Germany and Spain. We're also behind on enacting policies to spur the growth of cleantech industries -- and it is publicpolicy that drives research and development, as well as the employment that follows.Forty-three countries have renewable portfolio standards that require a specified percentage of energy be from renewable sourcesby a given year. But the U.S. Congress has failed to enact such a standard for our country. Instead, states and cities in the UnitedStates are trying to fill the policy vacuum.

10


11/32


1ac

Dominance by Europe and Japan in global renewable markets will collapse the U.S. economy a transition to renewables

is critical to prevent this

Rynn, June 20th frequent contributor to the Grist environmental blog and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus

(Jonathon, Asia Times, Guns Blight US Energy Choices, 6-20-2008,www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html)-CMM

When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in US history in the late 1990s, more than US$3 billion worth, the only companies that were able to bid on thecontract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States.

The US has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range ofothersustainable technologies. For instance, 11companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in theUnited States, with a 16% share of the globalmarket. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more competent producers for these markets, and theirgovernments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves.Take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, Germany has put up 88% of the photovoltaics for solar power in Europe. Partly, this was theresult of a feed-in tariff; that is, Germany guarantees that it will pay about 0.10 euro (15 US cents) per kilowatt/hour of electricity to whoever produces wind or solar electricity. Theaverage for electricity that is paid for nonrenewable sources is about 0.05 euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a successful effort toencourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually compete on its own, having gotten over the hump of introducing newtechnology.

Germany's other advantage is that it is a world leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment - 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers inthe world are located in Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German.

In Denmark we can see the advantages of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to the EarthPolicy Institute, "Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20% of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country." The Danes have created a fascinating experiment indemocracy by building most of their wind turbines through the agency of wind cooperatives, which may be joined by individuals and families.Spain has undertaken one of the most ambitious programs in wind, solar, and high-speed trains. The Gamesa Corporation is the second-largest wind turbine manufacturer, and AccionaEnergy is the largest wind-park developer. The Spanish government has very ambitious plans for wind production, and occasionally wind power provides as much as 30% of the country'selectrical power.Spain is also the world's fourth-largest producer of solar energy equipment and is a leader in the development of concentrated solar power - a form of solar power obtained by using a verylarge quantity of mirrors, typically, to concentrate solar rays onto a tower that produces steam, which then turns a turbine, generating electricity. They are often built in deserts and canspread over several acres. These new solar technologies will probably result in lower-cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics.

Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006, Japan produced about 39% of the solar cells in the worldand has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research budgets. Japan's Shinkansen high-speed rail network covers much ofthe country. China is set to take off as one of the worlds biggest producers of solar and wind equipment owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation.Europe sets the pace

But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence.Theydominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing industries ingeneral (often referred to as the mechanical engineering sector).The European Union produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States, according to data compiled by the EU, Japan produces almost as much as the US,

with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively.A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe. Think ofthe industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a modern economicecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology that creates the goods and services that peopleconsume.The different niches of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a self-reinforcing web of engineers, high-skill production workers,operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's manufacturing sector made up 32% of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States comprised

only 13% of its nonfinancial sectors. The decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-again/off-again nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of theUnited States in thetransition to a more sustainable economy.And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly half of the world's military spending. For decades, as the late Professor SeymourMelman showed in many books (such as After Capitalism) and in numerous articles, the Pentagon has been draining not just money but also the engineering, scientific and business talentthat Europe and Japan have been using for civilian production. As Melman often pointed out, the US military budget is a capital fund, and American citizens can use that fund to helpfinance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and other green technologies that will help us to avoid economic and environmental collapse.

That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end ofthe era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the decline of the

manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and Japan areshowing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the generation ofrenewable electricity.

11


12/32


1ac

Creating a stable domestic market for renewable will allow U.S. industries to capture large shares of the global market and

overtake competitors in Europe and Japan

Walsh & White, 8 * national policy director for Green For All and ** senior policy associate with the Center on Wisconsin

Strategy(Jason Walsh and Sarah White, Asia Times, Jobs up for grabs in cleaner economy, 5-20-2008,www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html) // JMP

Employment opportunityIn the United States, green-collar jobs offer new opportunities for low-income and working class people who have been at the short end of persistent and increasinginequality in this country. Despite significant boosts in worker productivity over recent decades, median wages remain stagnant. The decline in manufacturing jobsover the past decade gathered steam with an 18% national job loss after the 2001 recession, plummeting with particularly devastating consequences in the industrialheartland, which bore up to a third of the national job loss recorded between 2000 and 2005.

Nationally, median family income has not recovered to the pre-recession levels of 2000, and job insecurity threatens workers at all levels. This trend toward greaterinequality, wage stagnation, job loss and insecurity stems from many factors, not least economic and trade policies that have encouraged offshoring, real andthreatened, and wage triage on a global scale.

The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy insecurity. But it cancontribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental ethos. By expanding existingindustries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create significant numbers of domestic jobs.

What are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the primary sectors of a clean-energyeconomy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many ways to count them, none perfect. One respected source, using a broadset of parameters, estimates that the renewable and efficiency sectors may account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection includes both the fullrange of jobs in these industries - from accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of such approximations, eventhe most modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural revitalization.A large part of this promise is based on the reality that green-collar jobs are community-based: because they focus on transforming the immediate natural and builtenvironment, they are harder, in some cases impossible, to offshore. No one will ship a building from Chicago to be retrofitted in China. The energy efficiencyindustry provides perhaps the most exciting opportunity. Substantially reducing energy waste through systematic retrofitting and upgrading of residential andcommercial buildings is a key area where environmental and equity agendas can come together to create good jobs in plentiful numbers. The work requires a multi-skilled, local workforce, and it feeds a building-materials industry that is still largely domestic.Make no mistake: we are talking about a lot of jobs here. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that for every gigawatt hoursaved, the agency's programs create or retain 1.5 jobs. A recent report for the American Solar Energy society counts eight million jobs created in the US energyefficiency industry in 2006 alone (3.7 million directly in efficiency).

Building-trades jobs are not the only green-collar occupations resistant to offshoring. The manufacturing sector, which has borne the brunt of joblosses in this country could receive a marked job creation boost from a substantial shift to renewable energy. The Renewable EnergyPolicy Project has published a series of reports identifying the potential for states with existing industrial infrastructure and skilled labor to become component

manufacturing leaders for the wind industry.If the country can muster the US$62 billion investment required to expand wind capacity by 125,000MW over the next 10 years - the amount needed to stabilize

US carbon emissions - the wind energy sector could create nearly 400,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. And the top 20 states that stand tobenefit are some of the most populous and hardest hit by recent manufacturing job loss. California and Texas lead the list, followed by the Great Lakes states: NewYork, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.Industrial capacity and transportation networks are key assets to turbine production. Wind turbines are massive and extremely heavy machines. The towers aloneare up to 250 feet tall, 16 feet in diameter and weigh more than 100 tons. An assembled nacelle - the fiberglass case that sits on top of the tower and houses thegearbox and generator - weighs around 70 tons, and the rotor assembly with blades, each of which can be up to 200 feet long, weighs in at around 40. It is nosurprise that most new facilities in the US are sited close to water and rail, like the Gamesa plant on the Delaware River in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, or theSiemens factory on the Mississippi in Fort Madison, Iowa.

TheUnited States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily in developing theexpertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines overseas isunsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and a founderingdollar) are already driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas (Denmark), Siemens(Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce turbines locally.

The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in theUnited States, and the potential of US manufacturers to be the

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

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

12


13/32


1ac

Economic collapse will cause extinction

Bearden 00, Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists[T. E., The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly, Space Energy Access Systems, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased theintensity and number of theirconflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, arealmost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starvingNorth Korea launchesnuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, includingU.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutualtreaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflictescalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launchedadversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is thiside of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediatefull-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs

Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon wildestroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

13


14/32


1ac

CONTENTION THREE Solvency

Federal leadership is the only way to provide sufficient investor confidence to develop a renewables market that boosts U.S

competitiveness

Flavin & Podesta, 6 *president of the Worldwatch Institute and **president of theCenter for American Progress, (Christopherand John, American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Securityhttp://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/AmericanEnergy.pdf)

Americans today are no less clever or ambitious than their great-grandparents were. A new and better energy future is possible ifthe country can forge a compelling vision of where it wants to be. Recent developments in the global marketplace show thepotential: Global wind energy generation has more than tripled since 2000, providing enough electricity to power the homes of about 30million Americans. The United States led the world in wind energy installations in 2005. Production of electricity-generating solar cells is one of the worlds fastest growing industries, up 45 percent in 2005 to six timesthe level in 2000. Production of fuel ethanol from crops more than doubled between 2000 and 2005, and biodiesel from vegetable oil and waste

expanded nearly four-fold over this period.Global investment in renewable energy (excluding large hydropower) in 2005 is estimated at $38 billionequivalent to nearly 20percent of total annual investment in the electric power sector. Renewable energy investments have nearly doubled over the pastthree years, and have increased six-fold since 1995. Next to the Internet, new energy technology has become one of the hottestinvestment fields for venture capitalists.These dynamic growth rates are driving down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies. They are also creating neweconomic opportunities for people around the globe. Today, renewable energy manufacturing, operations, and maintenanceprovide approximately two million jobs worldwide.The United States will need a much stronger commitment to renewable energy if it is to take advantage of these opportunities . AsPresident Bush has said, America is addicted to oil, and dependence on fossil fuels is rising, even in the face of high oil pricesand growing concern about global warming. Of particular concern is the well over 100 coal-fired power plants now on the drawingboards of the U.S. electricity industry most of which lack the latest pollution controls and could still be pumping carbon dioxideinto the atmosphere a halfcentury from now.In order to break the national addiction to outdated fuels and technologies, America will need a world-class energy policy. Theprominent positions that Germany and Spain hold in wind power , for example, and that Japan and Germany enjoy in solar energy,were achieved thanks to strong and enduring policies that their legislatures adopted in the 1990s. These policies created steadilygrowing markets for renewable energy technologies, fueling the development of robust new manufacturing industries.By contrast, U.S. renewable energy policies over the past two decades have been an ever changing patchwork. Abrupt changes indirection at both the state and federal levels have deterred investors and led dozens of companies into bankruptcy. If America is tojoin the world leaders and achieve the nations full potential for renewable energy, it will need world-class energy policies basedon a sustained and consistent policy framework at the local, state, and national levels.Across the country, the tide has begun to turn. All but four U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote renewableenergy. More than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in the past few years, and four states strengthened their targetsin 2005, signaling fresh political momentum. If such policies continue to proliferate, and are joined by federal leadership, rapidprogress is possible.

14


15/32


1ac

A federal RPS will effectively displace harmful conventional energy sources and eliminate free-riding and externalities tha

are caused by individual state efforts. This evidence answers all of their objections a national RPS.

Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct

Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of theNetwork for New Energy Choices(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy andChristopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the Cart?Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP

Third, renewable energy generation is subject to a free rider problem. Since everyone benefits from the environmental advantages of renewable energy, privatecompanies that invest millions of dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies are often unable to recover the full profit of their investments. Inevitably, the marketallows some consumers to be free riders, benefiting from the investments of others without paying for them.STATE GOVERNMENT MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING RENEWABLE ENERGYState policy interventions intend to stimulate a market for renewable resources and spur additional research, development, and implementation of renewable energy technologies. So far,state governments in the United States have relied predominately on RPSs and SBCs to level the playing field by neutralizing a legacy of unequal federal subsidies and directly requiring

renewable energy. While state policies are innovative and well intentioned, the time has come to shift to federal regulation andintervention. Continued reliance on state-based activity alone will ironically promote more market externalities and "free riding"than harmonized federal action.SYSTEM BENEFIT CHARGESSystems benefit charges (also called public benefit funds, system benefit funds, and clean energy funds) originated in the 1990s at a time when state policy makers were consideringelectric utility restructuring legislation. Afraid that gains made in pursuing research, development, and implementation of environmentally-preferable renewable energy technologies wouldend after markets were deregulated, advocates of the novel [*6] technologies won concessions in some states for a new funding mechanism for high-risk or long-term projects. A SBCplaces a small tax on every kilowatt hour ("kWh") of electricity generated and utilizes those funds to pursue socially-beneficial energy projects. n5 Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory estimates that SBCs have been responsible for promoting 1,117 megawatts ("MW") of renewable energy capacity. n6SBCs were first implemented in Washington State in 1994 and were endorsed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1995 as a way to fund services that had previously beenincluded in customers' bills from regulated utility companies. n7 As part of the negotiations for California's restructuring law, environmental advocates won a provision for a public benefifund that would expend at least $ 872 million on energy-efficiency work from 1998 to the end of 2001 and would allocate $ 540 million on renewable energy projects. n8 To developrenewable energy technologies and other programs expected to struggle after deregulation, the California Energy Commission created its Public Interest Energy Research program, whichinitially drew about $ 62 million annually from the state's SBC. n9By 2006, fifteen states created SBCs. The seventeen organizations that administer the funds, which are scheduled to total $ 4 billion by 2017, collaborate through a nonprofit organizationcalled the Clean Energy States Alliance. The organization sponsors original research, collects information and analyses, and seeks to expand the use of clean energy technologies with aspecial emphasis on solar, wind, and fuel cells. Moreover, the group seeks to increase the efficiency of state research by eliminating duplication of efforts and by providing forums for thestates to share knowledge and insights. n10RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDSAn RPS is a legislative mandate requiring electricity suppliers (often referred to as "load serving entities") in a given geographical area to employ renewable resources to produce a certainpercentage of power by a fixed date.An RPS program transfers the risk of renewable energy investments from regulators to investors. n11 RPS uses the market as a mechanism to determine the efficacy of any given

technology; as a result, higher costs, if they occur, are distributed evenly throughout society to those that benefit from them, and are blended with the lower costs of existing conventionalgeneration. n12Unlike instruments developed by public utility commissions with long and complex procedures, often followed by litigation, RPSs are bureaucratically simple. n13 RPSs enable customerto pay producers directly for renewable energy, obviating the need for the administration of funds by government agencies. And, unlike a one-time award for funds, no project isguaranteed a place in the market. n14First implemented by Iowa and Minnesota in the 1980s, twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already passed RPS laws requiring utilities to use renewable resources as aportion of their overall provision of electricity. n15 Four other states have nonbinding renewable energy goals. n16 Five more states--Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Utah--areconsidering mandating some form of RPS. Of the approximate 9,000 MW of wind energy in the United States, roughly fifty percent, or 4,500 MW, have been promoted directly by RPSpolicies, whereas ten percent, or 900 MW, have been promoted by SBCs from 2001 to 2006. n17THE CASE FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION

There are three reasons, however, why continued reliance on state-based efforts such as SBCs and RPSs will be insufficient to promote renewableenergy technologies in theUnited States on the scale needed to fight climate change.IMPROVING RELIABILITY

First, federal intervention is needed to improve electricity reliability. Contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the variability ofrenewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. Electrical and power systems engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes, the lessreserve capacity it needs. Demand variations between individual consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity consumer, for example,starts drawing more electricity than the system allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are drawing from the grid that it is entirel

likely another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This "averaging" works in a similar fashion on the supply side of the grid. Individual wind turbines average outeach other in electricity supply. n18 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through another.Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliabilitybecause it is unlikely that all turbines would be down at the same time. Furthermore, when turbines do malfunction, they take far less time to recover than massive conventional powerplants or nuclear reactors that have literally millions of individual components, arranged in complex circuits prone to mechanical failure. n19 Analysts already confirmed the benefit ofwind power's greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in Minnesota [*7] concluded that "windgeneration does make a calculable contribution to system reliability" by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages. n20

Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American economy. The U.S.Department of Energy ("DOE") estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes, they cost consumers an average of $ 150 to 400 billion every year. n21 TheElectric Power Research Institute projects the annual costs of poor power reliability at $ 119 billion, or forty-four percent of all electricity sales in 1995. n22


15


16/32


1ac

However, to capture such benefits, renewable energy technologies must be spatially deployed in every state and must have nationalpenetration rates above ten percent. Penetration rates of renewable energy technologies nationwide are still low--around three percent of overall installed electricity capacityin 2007. Collective state efforts are expected to increase this amount to only around four percent by 2015 and five percent by 2030, but the environmental benefits of renewable energy

only really start to accrue at penetration rates well above this rate. Federal intervention in the form of a nation-wide SBC orRPS aiming for targets of tento twenty percent by 2020 would expand the diversity of technologies used to access renewable resources.IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY

Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of generators not onlyimproves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental power outages and failure, orintentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's powergrid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible.For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the Ku Klux Klan and San JoaquinMilitia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National Liberation Front were ableto interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people withminivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on theelectric power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26

Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their operationalefficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged industryconsolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts inventories havebeen reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27

Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing electricity

generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in incremental and modular amounts makes it much moredifficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism because attacking a few

facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing energy facilities andproviding power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does notrequire transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells

and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A national RPS or SBCpromoting renewablescould greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolioof all American utilities.PROVIDING CLIMATE BENEFITS

Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize "free-riding" going on instates that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity, instead of promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined that only"the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities." n30 Examinations of fuel generationin several states confirm this finding, as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation, which is still a significant source of electricity in Florida, New York, andHawaii. Equally important, but often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the United States.[*8] Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated

with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors. n31 In Oregon, the Governor's Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five percent statewide RPS by 2025 andprojected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power. n32 Environment Michigan estimates that atwenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities. n33

By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, only large-scale renewable energy penetration rates wouldavoid many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion, and clean-upof fossil and nuclear fuels. By promoting technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, federal promotion of renewable energy would substantiallydecrease air pollution in the United States. A single one MW wind turbine running at only thirty percent of capacity for one year displaces more than 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 2.5 tonsof sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury emissions. n34One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced hundreds ofthousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. n35 The study estimated that the wind farm would displace more than twentyfour billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide over the course of its twenty-year lifetime--enough to cover the entire city of Oakland,California in a pile of toxic pollution forty-stories high. n36Renewable energy technologies possess an even greater ability to mitigate climate change. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbonemissions are included, coal plants are around ten times more carbon intensive than solar technologies and more than forty times more carbon intensive than wind technologies. Naturalgas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as solar and twenty times as carbon intensive as wind. n37 The Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable energytechnologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per every MWh of generation. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a twentypercent RPS would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020--a reduction of fifteen percent below "business as usual" levels, or the equivalent to taking nearlyseventy-one million automobiles off the road. n38These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the Netherlands reduced that country's annual emissions of CO[2] between 4.4

million and 6.7 million tons. Renewable technologies were so successful at displacing greenhouse gas emissions that Europe now viewsrenewable energy as "the major tool of distribution utilities in meeting industry CO[2] reduction targets." n40


16


17/32


1ac

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

unnecessary federal inte

rps affirmative

Documents