The United States is currently in the midst of a growing energy crisis that threatens all parts of the American lifestyle. Our economy depends on coal for energy, but our lungs require fresh, unpolluted air.
Since coal is cheap, investors and companies are not willing to put money towards research and development of methods of alternative energy generation. Without monetary support, technologies for generating renewable energy have plateaued in their infancy. America, position where renewable energy is our last best hope, yet remains too costly and underdeveloped to be of any real help.
Back in 1983, Iowa enacted the Alternative Energy Production Law, which mandated that MidAmerican Energy and Alliant Energy Interstate Power and Light, the state’s two investor-owned utility companies, use renewable-energy sources to generate 105 megawatts of their energy. Thus the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was born. The RPS is a mandate that utility companies must supply a certain percentage of their energy from renewable resources, usually with a target percentage and target year. energy by 2020 would require utility companies to derive 20 percent of their energy from wind by 2020.
Today, over half of the states have their own RPS programs, some of which have been established for more than a decade. In theory, RPS programs can stimulate economic growth and the development of renewable energy technologies. The requirement that companies supply a percentage of their energy through renewable sources puts incentive and pressure to invest in new technology onto utility companies themselves. RPSs allow the free market to decide which technologies are most worthy to invest in and develop. It places the burden of compliance on utilities, not states, which allows for more effective governance.
Although some proclaim that utility companies only offload these costs on consumers by raising energy prices, Professor Benjamin K. Sovacool, Senior Researcher for Energy Security and Justice at the Institute for Energy and the Environment, argues otherwise. In The Politic’s interview with Professor Sovacool, he said, “[RPS] costs the average dollars per month, equivalent to the price far surpass those costs, including cleaner air, and local jobs and tax revenue.”
Almost every state’s RPS programs is different, each offering a different definition of “renewable,” different target percentages, different target years, and different types of enforcement. According to Sovacool, it is in this mishmash of policies that the problems of state-based RPS programs arise. The many inconsistencies and contradictions between state-level RPS policies cause confusion among energy companies, and also and ambiguities in RPS programs. This ultimately discourages long-term invest- ments in renewable energy generation, nullifying the intent of the renewable portfolio standard.
Nevertheless, the difficulties with state-by-state approach to RPS do not necessarily mean that RPS should be abandoned altogether. Scholars such as Sovacool believe the current situation brings to attention the need for a com- prehensive, national RPS.
A national RPS would unify the nation under a baseline RPS and eliminate loopholes and contradictions between state-level RPSs, thereby removing barriers to investment and innovation. A ditionally, a national RPS would result in the rapid development of the green energy sector. According to Sovacool, American manufacturing and investment in green energy would soar. The most obvious benefits would be to the environment, with significant reductions in fossil fuel usage. Experts contend that Americans would be able to enjoy cleaner air and a better environment, and the U.S. might emerge as a new world leader in renewable energies.
“By far the biggest [barrier to a national RPS] is a reluctance of politicians at the national level – think Congress – to promote renewable energy in a current environment where the economy is struggling,” said Sovacool. “Congress misses the point that renewables would provide more local manufacturing jobs and enhance US competitiveness in precisely the areas where jobs have been lost and growth is stagnant.”
Sovacool continued, “In the current environment, where our energy policy is focused on appeasing as many lobbies and interests as possible, [the likelihood of a national RPS passing in the United States is] slim. The only RPS to be passed would be one watered down almost be- yond recognition.”
Yet without an undiluted national renewable portfolio standard, future generations may be forced to face the consequences of a weakened economy and a more toxic environment.
Austin Long is a sophomore in Calhoun College