ChrisCooper’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  States?

  Adam, did you really mean to say "allowing states" to meet up to 4% with efficiency.  You mean regulated utilities, right?  As far as I know, no STATE is obligated under the RPS mandate. (In fact, the amendment exempts publicly owned utilities).On What's happening with the House energy bill? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  RPS Likelihood

  Just an FYI - I give the likelihood of passage of HR 969 no more than a 10% chance.   As it is, it's not a particularly good FORM of federal RPS as it duplicates some of the fatal flaws in state-based RPS that we outline in the NNEC report.  But, more importantly, I'm not sure the Democrats want to take this issue off the table prior to the 2008 elections.  So, I'd expect a lot of talk, but little action before the next congress.  

  HOWEVER, should the '08 elections go swimmingly for the Democrats...I would expect rapid movement on a federal RPS early in 2009.  (That's my reading of the tea leaves...and probably just as accurate...).  :-)On The energy policy that kicks ass and gets too little support posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  RPS - Call in the Feds

  JMG - Limiting states that want to go beyond the federal RPS mandate is, of course, a concern.  But it is easily addressed with a "Savings clause" that makes the federal mandate a floor, not a ceiling.

  Sean - I think you are getting lost in the assumption that a path-based RPS is intended as solely (or even substantially) a carbon-reduction mechanism.  Frankly, I don't even think that is the main purpose of an RPS.  It's a side-benefit.  But, obviously, lawmakers would need to pursue other, more direct (and aggressive) emissions reductions efforts.  In my view, the primary purpose of an RPS is to provide a larger, more predictable pool of investment capital for emerging technologies and to help diversify the nation's electricity fuels.  Carbon is secondary. On The energy policy that kicks ass and gets too little support posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Casten's Confusion

  First, thank you Dave for the accolades on our report.  Believe me...we ran into the same "friggin hard" problem of boiling these issues down to a report that anyone would have the time to read (we could have written 1500 pages!).

  Second, Sean Casten...you should follow Dave's advice and READ THE REPORT.  Every single one of your objections is answered in detail.

  YES, implementing an RPS stupidly results in a stupid RPS.  That's why Dr. Sovacool and I spend an entire chapter discussing how the lessons learned from the states show us how to design a proper federal RPS statute.

  In any event, the short and sweet answers to your rant are:

  • States are already choosing winners.  Most state RPS mandates list eligible technologies.  So whatever damage that "choosing winners" causes is already being done.

  • A federal statute can actually SOLVE this problem by adopting a fuel-based, not a technology-based definition of renewable energy.  The statute shouldn't determine the winners.  The market should (and can).

  • The "fine" for non-compliance is that regulated utilities would have to buy renewable credits from suppliers developing renewable resources where they are most cost-competitive.  By creating a national REC trading market, utilities actually SAVE money ($14 billion, actually) over complying with conflicting state mandates with their own set of irrational non-compliance mechanisms.

  If you care about these issues as much as your passion here indicates, then READ THE REPORT.  You might just find you're a closet RPS advocate.  ;)

   On The energy policy that kicks ass and gets too little support posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses