The Renewable Portfolio Standard will return to Congress.
Multiple Dems have vowed that the RPS will return as a separate bill when Congress is back in session. I believe them exactly 87 percent.
Despite the recent energy bill debacle, the RPS is not entirely political poison. Some 29 states have adopted one (a confusing patchwork!) and a 10 percent RPS actually passed in the Senate in 2005, only to be rejected by the House (the inverse of what happened this year).
The "one size fits all" complaint is largely baseless; a well-designed RPS would be an economic boon for every state in the union, and nothing attracts votes like an economic boon. Also, the politics of renewable energy have shifted considerably. The public is aware and engaged, and this is, after all, an election year.
There are plenty of legislators in the pocket of big coal-heavy utilities like Southern -- they're probably out of reach for good. But a savvy strategy could pick off enough outliers to get this through. Sadly, savvy strategies are little in evidence thus far in the Dem Congress.
My cynical-and-thus-probably-true prediction: The RPS will be introduced as a separate bill; Republicans will threaten veto; a cloture vote will fail; rather than force a veto, Reid will let the bill die. Yippee.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:06 am
05 Jan 2008
So pretty much like ya said, it may be introduced, but it'll most likely die at this time.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:07 pm
06 Jan 2008
Why do we need "one-size fits all" regulations from the Fed? Justify the position. If the States can do a better job with its portfolio of energy resources, why intervene? Have you read the 10th Amendment lately?
I suppose one could get some stray States on the prospect that only US Congress (not the President) can regulate Interstate Commerce. Have fun with that one, since you'll find electric wires connected to most all States and even Mexico and Canada - seems like a contrived argument. I like local options better. If you like Federalism better, run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salures, I suppose. sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:57 pm
06 Jan 2008
Because Flordia is a state without much available land left, and because it prides itself on tourism and it's image, they've been reluctant to install wind-powered turbines (either on or off-shore). They do have good solar potential, and it is bein' used on a small scale, but once again lack of large tracts of available, non-environmentally sensitive (and also preferably dry and cheap) land prevents many large operations from being established.
Luckily, it's a great candidate for up-and-coming wave power! And the state also has at least some geothermal potential.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:32 pm
06 Jan 2008
Florida, like all of Earth, has terrible solar-power potential. The least-bad solar-power potential of the United States is in the Mohave Desert.
theoildrum.com/uploads/2305/Solar_Insolation_map.gif
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:11 am
09 Jan 2008
Accordin' to that map link, most of Florida falls into the 4,000 to 4,500 watts/meter range. That seems like alotta potential energy to me. Especially when used on a local scale for individual consumption.
Permalink
KELLIB Posted 9:43 am
11 Jan 2008
Permalink