The debate about Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) continues
to rage throughout the United States. This post provides updates on legislative
proposals to modify RPSs in several states and provides information on how
fossil fuel interests have backed the efforts to weaken or repeal these
policies.
Hawaii
Hawaii is poised to become the first state in the nation to
have a goal of becoming 100% powered by renewable energy. A bill
to ramp up the state’s RPS from 40% by 2030 to 100% by 2050 has recently
cleared committees in both the state House and Senate. The bill enjoys
Democratic sponsorship, and since Democrats
control both chambers and the governor’s seat, it may stand a real chance
at becoming law. A law targeting 100% renewable energy would make a great deal
of sense in Hawaii. Currently, the state spends between $3 billion and $5
billion annually on importing fossil fuels, according
to the bill’s sponsor, Senator Mike Gabbard. Spending so much on costly
imported fossil fuels leads Hawaii to have the highest electricity rates in the
nation. Renewable energy would very likely save Hawaii money and reduce energy
bills. Moreover, the goal seems attainable. As
Senator Gabbard put it, “[e]ven our utility is saying we can hit 65 percent
by 2030, so 100 percent by 2050 is definitely doable.” Hopefully, Hawaii will
make this bill into law and show other states how to achieve a 100% renewable
power grid.
Michigan
I blogged
last week about competing proposals in the Michigan legislature from
Republicans, who hope to weaken or repeal that state’s RPS, and Democrats, who
aim to double it. Those proposals came out shortly before Republican Governor
Rick Snyder announced his own energy plan. Governor
Snyder’s energy plan bucks the partisan trend of Republican opposition to
renewable energy by proposing that renewables play an increasing role in
meeting the state’s energy demands. In fact, Governor Snyder’s proposal is even
stronger than the Democrats’, although it falls short of formally increasing
the RPS itself.
Governor Snyder’s energy proposal lays out two options for
renewables in the state. If renewables remain more costly than natural gas, the
Governor envisions renewables and efficiency supplying a total of 30% of the
state’s energy by 2025. On the other hand, if renewables beat natural gas on
cost (a good bet, given the steadily declining price of wind and solar power
and the volatility of gas prices), then the Governor’s plan would call for
renewables and efficiency to supply 40% of the state’s energy by 2025. In
contrast, the state’s Democrats merely proposed an RPS expansion to 20% by
2022.
Governor Snyder was unusually candid about his goal of
weaning Michigan off its reliance on coal. Michigan has “a big problem,” he stated,
“and to be blunt, it’s coal.” Noting that Michigan is among the states most
reliant on coal power, he noted
that “[t]he long-term future will be moving away from coal.”
Governor Snyder’s energy plan is a good step forward for
Michigan. Not only would it improve the state’s renewable energy target of 10%
by 2015 (which is among the weakest of
any state with an RPS policy), but it would also improve the state’s
environment and economy, allowing Michigan to continue attracting good,
green-collar jobs. Michigan’s legislature should act quickly to make Governor
Snyder’s plan into law.
New Mexico
The New Mexico House of Representatives recently passed a bill
that would freeze the RPS in that state at 15%, if passed into law. The current
RPS rate is 15%, but it is scheduled to increase to 20% by 2020. The bill would
eliminate that increase, freezing the RPS. However, on March 17, the measure
stalled in the New Mexico Senate Conservation Committee by a 6 to 2 vote. Thus,
New Mexico’s RPS appears safe, for the moment.
Kansas
Kansas, however, is considering a
similar bill that would repeal upcoming increases in that state’s RPS. Currently,
Kansas’s RPS requires 10% renewable energy for 2011-2015, 15% for 2016-2019,
and 20% from 2020 onward. The bill currently under consideration would
eliminate the latter two requirements, effectively freezing the requirement at
the current level of 10%. The bill is currently in
committee.
Koch Brothers Funding
for RPS Reductions
Much of the backing for the efforts to weaken or repeal RPSs
seems to come from the Koch Brothers, whose $50 billion net worth derives largely
from investments in fossil fuels. For example, the Koch Brothers funded
the successful effort to freeze Ohio’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, a law that
will likely prove costly
to the state. Similarly, the Koch-backed
American Legislative Exchange Council funded
the unsuccessful recent effort to roll back Colorado’s RPS.
The Koch brothers’ influence is especially stark in Kansas,
which makes sense given the fact that Koch Industries has its
headquarters in Wichita. An editorial
in the Garden City Telegram discusses how the Koch brothers have funded the
RPS repeal effort in that state, noting that “Koch involvement in the run on
the RPS has been significant, and a matter of contention.” For example, the
Koch brothers funded
a study from Utah State Professors Ryan Yonk and Randy Simmons (the “Charles G.
Koch Professor of Political Economy”), which concluded that the RPS has harmed
the state’s economy. However, when a Democratic lawmaker asked about the
funding for the study, Republican Senator Rob Olson cut
off the question, ending that line of inquiry. (Koch Industries is among the
largest contributors to Senator Olson’s candidacy.)
That pattern of funding studies and advocacy against
renewables and for fossil fuels is typical of the Koch brothers. In fact, the
Koch brothers have used their $50 billion net worth to fund a network of
advocacy organizations so complex that its critics have dubbed it “the Kochtopus.” That network has
its tentacles in many states and works through many shell organizations, such
as Americans
for Prosperity and the American
Legislative Exchange Council (recently lampooned by John Oliver).
But neither citizens nor states should be fooled by the Koch
brothers’ relentless advocacy for fossil fuels and against renewables. In
truth, Renewable Portfolio Standards are sound policies. They have succeeded in
dramatically expanding the share of renewable energy in many states and have
done so without significant costs to ratepayers. Most states with RPSs are well on their way to
meeting targets, and rate impacts have so far been generally under 3%. States
should follow the lead of Hawaii and California, which are seeing positive
returns from their investments in renewable energy. RPSs work. They do not
break the bank. They are sound policy, and states should continue to expand
them.
No comments:
Post a Comment