US renewables standard unachievable, say legislators
New York, 23 April: Several US states would find it impossible to meet a proposed federal standard on renewable energy generation, legislators complained during hearings this week.

States such as Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Missouri and Tennessee could not generate sufficient electricity from wind and solar to meet the 25% by 2025 mandate featured in a proposal on climate change by Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, currently being debated in the US House of Representatives.

“It simply cannot be done, yet this legislation will provide a penalty for those utilities that are unable to do so,” said Kentucky Congressman Ed Whitfield.

Even utilities in California, often cited as an environmental leader, are out of compliance with state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) targets and it will be difficult for them to meet tightening requirements, said Robert Michaels, professor of economics for California State University.

But the federal mandate could be modified by lowering the minimum standard to 15%, authorising a greater mix of renewable sources, including nuclear power or an expanded use of biomass, or granting special consideration for states that would have trouble meeting the targets, said North Carolina Congressman G. K. Butterfield. “Not only is [a 25% mandate] impractical, it is impossible,” he said.

Investing in innovative technologies can help the US meet the RPS targets featured in the proposal, said energy secretary. “Although it might seem like an ambitious goal, I think with the proper incentives we can get there,” he said. “I believe nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix.”

But environmentalists have concerns about the inclusion of nuclear power or clean coal in RPS requirements. “I like the definition that is in the bill now,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The share of low- or zero-carbon energy rises to 18% of primary energy by 2020, 26% by 2030 and to 46% by 2050 under the Waxman-Markey proposal compared to remaining steady at 14% without the policy, according to a preliminary analysis conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

A federal RPS of 15% should be in place only until a cap-and-trade system is operational because having both programmes will increase compliance costs, said American Public Power Association CEO Mark Crisson.

Under a cap-and-trade programme, 40% of allowances should be allocated to the electricity sector, equal to its share of emissions, until critical technologies such as carbon capture and storage are commercially available, with that percentage declining over time, said Jeff Sterba, chairman of PMN Resources and the Edison Electric Institute.

But regulators in many states have no way to ensure that consumers will receive the benefits of free allowances allocated to utilities, creating risk of the windfall profits seen in the European system, said Richard Morgan, commissioner of the District of Columbia Public Service Commission.

The Waxman-Markey proposal, which includes a far-reaching greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, did not outline allowance distribution mechanisms. In his budget proposal, US President Barack Obama’s stated his preference for 100% auctioning at the start of the programme, although he has indicated flexibility on allowance distribution. Several members of the US Climate Action Partnership vowed not to support the proposal if it includes 100% auctioning from the start of the programme.