Earlier today, I was fortunate enough to attend a panel discussion on environmental issues and energy policy, as part of Roosevelt|Energy (brought to us by the Roosevelt Institution). Oftentimes, in discussion of renewable energy production and development, those arguing in favor of policies most-beneficial to ecological preservation and energy independence find themselves somehow in competition with the primacy of economic development. The University's "Conservation, not Convenience" slogan immediately comes to mind.
Patrick Murphy, a UW alumnus, began the discussion with a short presentation regarding his suggested Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, a system modeled on Texas's program of renewable energy requirements. He addressed this economic issue, pointing out that his research suggests the eventual creation of 185,000 new jobs, and generation of $67B in investments pertaining to renewable energy, with enactment of his or a similar policy. Such developments would do much to help American energy producers compete in a world energy increasingly infiltrated by non-traditional energy sources.
The system Murphy proposes would require that twenty percent of each energy consumer's energy generation to come from renewable sources by 2020 (an increase of one percent annually), while also mandating specific levels of generation required to come from each firm (they can purchase up to 75% from others). Such a policy would enable the multitude of renewable energy technologies to compete among each other, driving prices down in the long run for all such production methods.
Moving to the inevitable controversy among panel members, technological favorability became thie largest political concern, with State Sen. Mark Miller recommending the promotion of specific technologies that may benefit certain communities at the local level. Nevada, for example, offers larger credits for solar power investment. Murphy was explicit in recommending a policy of not favoring any particular technology, advocating for a market-based environment that allows the "best" technologies to succeed. At the state level, Miller's policy likely makes the most political sense, but I would hope that potential national policy makes its best attempt toward market neutrality, recognizing that a renewable energy portfolio as a whole is worth more than the sum of its sources.
Specific subsidies and existing monetary incentives also become a point of issue in the discussion. Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen pointed out that only eight percent of federal energy subsidies pertain to renewable energy, and around sixteen percent focus on increased energy efficiency. Shifting federal dollars away from traditional energy technology is a key step toward the widespread adoption of clean energy, and increased investment in efficiency incentives would do a great deal to ensure that our current technology works as well as possible. Bill Libro of Minnesota Power pointed out that current technology, after all, will not simply disappear.
Naturally, another significant issue was the immediate consequences of removing subsidies and support from older technology, which may still remain more cost-effective that currently-developing renewable energy. Slocum pointed out the fact that elasticity of electricity demand may make the costs experienced by consumers rise in the near-term absent a decline in usage. However, there seemed to be a consensus that technological innovation, streamlined regulation (at the federal level), and reformed subsidies would do a great deal to alleviate these stresses. Libro praised the idea of unified federal standards for this proposed program, and pointed out that costs will decrease in the absence of a patchwork of state regulations that complicate producers' compliance efforts.
In the long run, innovative energy policies such as this have the potential to truly reform our environmental landscape, and put our nation back into the driver's seat of innovation in energy technology. Slocum pointed out that "energy independence" is about more than the oil we purchase from the Middle East. Independence comes from challenging the technological inertia and political clout of energy producers, in an effort to build a new energy industry that taps the best local and regional sources for the clean, efficient, and affordable energy that will one day light our grandchildren's homes.
Patrick Murphy, a UW alumnus, began the discussion with a short presentation regarding his suggested Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, a system modeled on Texas's program of renewable energy requirements. He addressed this economic issue, pointing out that his research suggests the eventual creation of 185,000 new jobs, and generation of $67B in investments pertaining to renewable energy, with enactment of his or a similar policy. Such developments would do much to help American energy producers compete in a world energy increasingly infiltrated by non-traditional energy sources.
The system Murphy proposes would require that twenty percent of each energy consumer's energy generation to come from renewable sources by 2020 (an increase of one percent annually), while also mandating specific levels of generation required to come from each firm (they can purchase up to 75% from others). Such a policy would enable the multitude of renewable energy technologies to compete among each other, driving prices down in the long run for all such production methods.
Moving to the inevitable controversy among panel members, technological favorability became thie largest political concern, with State Sen. Mark Miller recommending the promotion of specific technologies that may benefit certain communities at the local level. Nevada, for example, offers larger credits for solar power investment. Murphy was explicit in recommending a policy of not favoring any particular technology, advocating for a market-based environment that allows the "best" technologies to succeed. At the state level, Miller's policy likely makes the most political sense, but I would hope that potential national policy makes its best attempt toward market neutrality, recognizing that a renewable energy portfolio as a whole is worth more than the sum of its sources.
Specific subsidies and existing monetary incentives also become a point of issue in the discussion. Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen pointed out that only eight percent of federal energy subsidies pertain to renewable energy, and around sixteen percent focus on increased energy efficiency. Shifting federal dollars away from traditional energy technology is a key step toward the widespread adoption of clean energy, and increased investment in efficiency incentives would do a great deal to ensure that our current technology works as well as possible. Bill Libro of Minnesota Power pointed out that current technology, after all, will not simply disappear.
Naturally, another significant issue was the immediate consequences of removing subsidies and support from older technology, which may still remain more cost-effective that currently-developing renewable energy. Slocum pointed out the fact that elasticity of electricity demand may make the costs experienced by consumers rise in the near-term absent a decline in usage. However, there seemed to be a consensus that technological innovation, streamlined regulation (at the federal level), and reformed subsidies would do a great deal to alleviate these stresses. Libro praised the idea of unified federal standards for this proposed program, and pointed out that costs will decrease in the absence of a patchwork of state regulations that complicate producers' compliance efforts.
In the long run, innovative energy policies such as this have the potential to truly reform our environmental landscape, and put our nation back into the driver's seat of innovation in energy technology. Slocum pointed out that "energy independence" is about more than the oil we purchase from the Middle East. Independence comes from challenging the technological inertia and political clout of energy producers, in an effort to build a new energy industry that taps the best local and regional sources for the clean, efficient, and affordable energy that will one day light our grandchildren's homes.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home